HGV Learner to be tested in Loaded Vehicles

UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUMS THE UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUM (INTERACTIVE)
41

hammer:
Its an excellent idea. I passed my (class 2) test on the mid December on an MAN flatbed 18tonner with 360bhp, pulled like a train.

I didnt start work until mid-January on a knackered E-reg Volvo FL6 ( :sunglasses: :unamused: ) 18tonne tipper. The first time I took it out loaded I really stuggled to get used to it. To have loaded, even partially loaded, vehicles for test is far more representative of the real world and therefore a more valid test.

FL6’s are knackered before they even get off the production line. They are a transport managers truck. It’s the glossy brochure that sells them and pretty pictures is what UK managers are most influenced by. FL6’s are crap, couldn’t pull a skin off a rice pudding and are only good for down hill work.

42

hammer:
Its an excellent idea 
 To have loaded, even partially loaded, vehicles for test is far more representative of the real world and therefore a more valid test.

The test is whether one has safely reached the minimum standard for a larger vehicle on the road, whilst a clue is that the candidate is on an LGV test. If a driver is subsequently and suddenly surprised that a full load ‘weighs a lot’ is surely an issue that he/she missed at pre-school


I’ll argue, eg, that skid-pan and advanced training, etc, etc is more valid to learn & be tested upon if they wish, ie, via the IAM - not being nannied through learning that 7.5/18/38/42/44, etc tonnes are heavy masses to haul.

For heavens sake, the Highway Code (for what it’s worth) even tells its readers that large vehicles behave differently. If the nervous amongst us need wet-nursing then let them take lessons post-test whilst not lumbering all test candidates with a ‘hand-holding’ exercise


43

Happy Keith:

hammer:
Its an excellent idea 
 To have loaded, even partially loaded, vehicles for test is far more representative of the real world and therefore a more valid test.

The test is whether one has safely reached the minimum standard for a larger vehicle on the road, whilst a clue is that the candidate is on an LGV test. If a driver is subsequently and suddenly surprised that a full load ‘weighs a lot’ is surely an issue that he/she missed at pre-school


I’ll argue, eg, that skid-pan and advanced training, etc, etc is more valid to learn & be tested upon if they wish, ie, via the IAM - not being nannied through learning that 7.5/18/38/42/44, etc tonnes are heavy masses to haul.

For heavens sake, the Highway Code (for what it’s worth) even tells its readers that large vehicles behave differently. If the nervous amongst us need wet-nursing then let them take lessons post-test whilst not lumbering all test candidates with a ‘hand-holding’ exercise


Keep your hair on Happy


So, your skid pan training? Is that in an empty wagon
or a fully loaded one? :unamused: How much is skid pan training gonna cost? The test is expensive enough. A couple of bits of old concrete to simulate a load is a hell of a lot cheaper and more representative of the real world than an empty one, no argument on that surely?

How is loading a truck for test, ‘nannying’ or ‘hand-holding’? Your argument makes absolutley no sense. Its not lumbering a trainee driver, its giving them a better idea of a the real world.

44

Prob is sensible to have some weight on for learning, infact prob make the ride a bit smoother, if your hard on the brakes in a empty vehicle much more noticable.

Even weight wise, depends what your carrying, a tanker is different from a fridge carrying pallets, which is different from a fully loaded double decker etc
 and when it comes down to it you gotta basically get out there get the experience.

Training companies prob not happy at increased fuel consumption and more wear to the vehicle.

Think teaching people to open curtains etc
 is a bit over the top. The job is so varied you can only teach so much when learning, espec since the priority is to get the licence as quick and cheaply as possible. Again same as above so many different types of job, where do you stop.

45

hammer:
'
 Keep your hair on Happy

So, your skid pan training? Is that in an empty wagon
or a fully loaded one? 
 Your argument makes absolutely no sense 
 its giving them a better idea of a the real world


Hair is on fine, ta, and suggestion was an example of how far nannying is liable to go if we as professionals suggest it.

The ‘
real world
’ surely prepares us to realise that a fully loaded wagon is likely to be heavy before we take one out - and if a ‘
better idea
’ is sought first then the nervous amongst society can buy themselves a hand-holding session with a driving school to carry concrete lumps to their worried heart’s desire rather than make it compulsory for all.

If that doesn’t make sense then I’m off out to work and shall let you worry about it alone


46

Christ the instructors don’t even show them how to do the tacho’s ffs,wot’s the chance of them showing the learner how to open curtains/doors,that would mean getting their hands dirty and doing some work.It won’t happen. :unamused:

How can you possibly say that? Maybe you weren’t shown but most of us do the job properly. :slight_smile:

47

Happy Keith:

hammer:
'
 Keep your hair on Happy

So, your skid pan training? Is that in an empty wagon
or a fully loaded one? 
 Your argument makes absolutely no sense 
 its giving them a better idea of a the real world


Hair is on fine, ta, and suggestion was an example of how far nannying is liable to go if we as professionals suggest it.

The ‘
real world
’ surely prepares us to realise that a fully loaded wagon is likely to be heavy before we take one out - and if a ‘
better idea
’ is sought first then the nervous amongst society can buy themselves a hand-holding session with a driving school to carry concrete lumps to their worried heart’s desire rather than make it compulsory for all.

If that doesn’t make sense then I’m off out to work and shall let you worry about it alone


You seem to completely miss the point. It isn’t about being surprised that the truck is a lot heavier, its about the experience. Every wagon driver, once they pass their test will have to drive a laden vehicle, so taking your test in one is a more realistic idea of what driving a truck is all about. Its nothing to do with the ‘nanny-state’, ‘hand-holding’, ‘worried hearts’ or any other Clarkson-ism you wish to throw in. Its common sense.

Also, you haven’t answered my questions.

  1. Is your skid pan training done in an empty or loaded truck?
  2. Who pays for the skid pan training?
48

I do think a lot more should be taught but it all comes down to the cost.

I do know of one newly qualified driver who was sent by an agency to a company and when they got there no other drivers were on site. The company asked him to undo the curtains and he had never done that before and it was quite lucky that someone in the warehouse had !!

Seems like a simple easy task to us that have done it but for someone who has never done it


Should the instructor have spent time showing him? - what if the school only had box trucks and no curtain siders?

That is just one example but I’m sure there are many others.

49

In the example about the agency guy getting sent to a place and couldn’t open the curtains i think thats more down to the agency and the employer their responsability.

To me its similar to the computer course i did, we were taught the theory if doing certain things like programing and the understanding behind it, because teaching us just to use a certain piece of software was a waste of time because there is lots of other types of software to use to do the same things and there is also the good chance by the time you have gotten your qualification the software you were using has changed and is now different. So instead teach you the theory and background to what you are doing so if you go have to use different software you can adapt to it.

Same with starting to teach people how to work curtainsiders, ok you get your test now you a curtainsider expert, so what happens when you go work for B&Q or use some of the Salveston trailers with the curtainsiders where you put the cable along underneath and you pull the button and it tightens itself up, you don’t know what to do. Where do you stop, teach people how to operate tipper trucks during their lessons and part of the test.

Also a lot of guys will know how to use a curtainsider maybe driven a 7.5tonner curtainsider or have worked in a warehouse where they had to load trailers up and involved opening up the curtains. I would be peed off if i was spending £1000 + to go along waste time getting taught how to open up a curtainsider when i’m desperatly trying to get used to driving the actual vehicle on the road.

50

berewic:

ROG:

berewic:
Built for purpose 1 ton concrete blocks would be safer

Removal for MOT might be an issue if they are the ones attached to the body? - water tanks on palletts might be easier to remove and, if necessary for any reason, can be emptied.

If they’re built for purpose, they will have rings or loops fitted for removal by forklift or Hiyab. They would also give the trainee experience in the use of chains and/or Hiyab. Apart from that they would stack easier and more securely, if shaped right, than water tanks on pallets. They wouldn’t rock around when mobile either, giving false impressions on general load movements. Anyone that has done tanker work knows what it’s like transporting liquids.

I was fortunate enough to go through an in-house training school, where the instructor was a properly trained and very experienced ex-driver. The fortnight’s course included two full days out with a loaded test trailer at top weight - one full day in and around the Lake District, and one full day in and around the Yorkshire Dales - hung on the back of a Mk.2 Atki with a 180 Gardner. The instructor’s philosophy was that his pupils were being taught to drive, not just to pass the test. Hence the Atki and big trailers, not a D Series Ford with a synchro box and a dinky little trailer. This was a while ago, admittedly


But, I knew a lot more afterwards about how a fully-freighted wagon handled, accelerated and braked, and in some really arduous conditions, by the time I took my test.

Anyway, the weights themselves were permanently mounted onto the trailer, held in place by a steel frame and welded to the main chassis members. I’ve also owned an ex-RTITB ballasted trailer - only about 10 tons on it, but the 1T blocks were arranged in pairs, and secured to the chassis, again in the same way.

51

hammer:
‘
You seem to completely miss the point. It isn’t about being surprised that the truck is a lot heavier, its about the experience. Every wagon driver, once they pass their test will have to drive a laden vehicle, so taking your test in one is a more realistic idea of what driving a truck is all about. Its nothing to do with the ‘nanny-state’, ‘hand-holding’, ‘worried hearts’ or any other Clarkson-ism you wish to throw in
’

Please be advised that I didn’t ‘
miss the point
’ - but my response remains: '
‘Experiences 
’ can be anticipated, read about, prepared for, etc, etc in plenty of ways. Not least to take a day with a training dude in a wagon specced to his hearts desire! It is unnecessary to lumber all candidates through a hugely complex, legislated, specified and expensive examination or test. Incidentally, would the EU be sought to legislate such ‘need’ 
cos nothing happens in the UK without their undemocratic fist of authority.

hammer:
'
Its common sense


An unquantifiable value. Nice try, but how does one prove ‘common sense’? How is one ever prepared for night-driving? Why don’t ‘we’ ever ‘test’ for that? How are teenagers ever experienced in carrying umpteen of their beered-up mates in their car, or anyone get experience at driving over 40 mph? 
or motorway, or LHD for Euro-holidays, etc, etc. Surely they could be argued as ‘common’ needs whereby sense might identify a requirement for test. (Social scientists have proven that diversity has eradicated behaviour or values held to be ‘common’).

hammer:
'
Also, you haven’t answered my questions.

  1. Is your skid pan training done in an empty or loaded truck?..’

It was a hypothetical suggestion: Why not test for a million things - although our society would still have those with ‘inexperience’ in something or other amongst us on the carriageway.

hammer:
‘
2. Who pays for the skid pan training?..’

Aha, Clarkson might suggest that you’re perhaps getting the message, Bubbles ol’ mate: It would be the candidate who’d pay - yet all he needed was ‘testing’ on a vehicle ‘category’ - not a Thorpe Park day of ‘experiences’.

52

Your absolute rejection of something so basic, simple and worthwhile continues to baffle. Simple questions for you;

Q . Putting a weight on a training vehicle is a simple, cheap and relevant method of preparing learners for the real world - yes or no?
Q . Is a lump of concrete or an IBC full of water a “hugely complex, legislated, specified and expensive examination or test”?

It is surely a worthwhile addition to the driving test to give a learner a greater idea of what driving an HGV involves. You could include night-driving, skidpan training, driving on the left to go on holiday but none of these things are simple to arrange, cheap or practical in the way that a lump of concrete on a flatbed is.

53

hammer:
It is surely a worthwhile addition to the driving test to give a learner a greater idea of what driving an HGV involves. You could include night-driving, skidpan training, driving on the left to go on holiday but none of these things are simple to arrange, cheap or practical in the way that a lump of concrete on a flatbed is

Apart from the ‘flatbed’ bit, which not allowed any more, you have described what the DSA consultation on this is all about. They deem that it would be more realistic without costing anyone too much to set up.

54

My truck im learning on here in canada is part loaded. One great big huge concrete block, and a huge bag of gravel on the back of a flatbed.
Definitley needed over here, as learning to shift gears empty is completely different to freighted.

55

hammer:
‘
absolute rejection of something so basic, simple and worthwhile continues to baffle
’

Maybe stifle one’s bafflement by asking oneself whether the proposal is essential, desirable or of nugatory benefit generically.

It is perhaps understandable but nonetheless a subjective reality that individual’s often find their own argument watertight. It took me thirty seconds in the yard to get accustomed to a loaded wagon 
others clearly need an encyclopaedic intimacy - but to test standard?

56

Happy Keith:

hammer:
‘
absolute rejection of something so basic, simple and worthwhile continues to baffle
’

Maybe stifle one’s bafflement by asking oneself whether the proposal is essential, desirable or of nugatory benefit generically.

It is perhaps understandable but nonetheless a subjective reality that individual’s often find their own argument watertight. It took me thirty seconds in the yard to get accustomed to a loaded wagon 
others clearly need an encyclopaedic intimacy - but to test standard?

LOL! Less waffle and answer the questions i asked! Skirting the subject again


57

Postponed, surprise surprise to 2013. Waste of time as weight of a CE will be 15 tonnes. How does that prepare a driver for 44 tonnes effectively?

No-one seems to have picked up on the point I made earlier - - how does 15 tonne prepare anyone for 44 tonne? We are being told now that a semi trailer will have 8 tonnes load, a drawbar trailer 2 tonnes with the prime mover carrying 3 tonnes. A Cat C (Class 2 and 3 in old money) will carry 5 tonnes. This is a reasonable way of having a definable load. My argument is that it’s nowhere near heavy enough.

Thoughts?? :laughing:

58

Peter Smythe:

Postponed, surprise surprise to 2013. Waste of time as weight of a CE will be 15 tonnes. How does that prepare a driver for 44 tonnes effectively?

No-one seems to have picked up on the point I made earlier - - how does 15 tonne prepare anyone for 44 tonne? We are being told now that a semi trailer will have 8 tonnes load, a drawbar trailer 2 tonnes with the prime mover carrying 3 tonnes. A Cat C (Class 2 and 3 in old money) will carry 5 tonnes. This is a reasonable way of having a definable load. My argument is that it’s nowhere near heavy enough.

Thoughts?? :laughing:

Each truck should be loaded with half the permissable carrying weight.

59

Spot On ROG, Thats how it works over here in Canada as far as i can tell. Maximum permissible weight is about 80 tonnes. My Rig im learning to drive is 40 tonnes total.

60

hammer:

Happy Keith:

hammer:
‘
absolute rejection of something so basic, simple and worthwhile continues to baffle
’

Maybe stifle one’s bafflement by asking oneself whether the proposal is essential, desirable or of nugatory benefit generically.

It is perhaps understandable but nonetheless a subjective reality that individual’s often find their own argument watertight. It took me thirty seconds in the yard to get accustomed to a loaded wagon 
others clearly need an encyclopaedic intimacy - but to test standard?

LOL! Less waffle and answer the questions i asked! Skirting the subject again


If you’re gonna be rude 
then understand that plenty of folk rate your idea as inviting trouble where none exists other than with some folks not coping with a bit o weight on a wagon.

Those that can cope are out doing it


So, why not get a job in the clerks office where you can whine about how heavy the mouse it 
and how a Government test would help one through the stress of it all. ■■■■■.