I said i would post up a picture of my Trailer, so here it is 
Total combined weight = 40 tons 
Happy Keith:
hammer:
Happy Keith:
hammer:
āā¦absolute rejection of something so basic, simple and worthwhile continues to baffleā¦āMaybe stifle oneās 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 individualās often find their own argument watertight. It took me thirty seconds in the yard to get accustomed to a loaded wagon ā¦others clearly need an encyclopaedic intimacy - but to test standard?
LOL! Less waffle and answer the questions i asked! Skirting the subject againā¦
If youāre gonna be rude ā¦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 itā¦
So, why not get a job in the clerks office where you can whine about how heavy the mouse it ā¦and how a Government test would help one through the stress of it all. ā ā ā ā ā .
LOL! I suggest your waffling and you start name-calling! 
Still not answering the question though are we?
hammer:
āā¦Still not answering the question though are we?..ā
Seeing random stuff about how āā¦baffledā¦ā he is as he goads āā¦weā¦ā as he claims to āā¦speakā¦ā (on a website?) on behalf of other people who are possibly as bored with a seeming desire to change how others should be tested to drive a wagon is becoming dull.
This is my total point: Those sensing a need to drive a loaded truck should pay for an instructor from a driving school to coax them as they wish in a vehicle paid-for by the individual with it specified with a real or emulated load according to their need either pre or post C+E test. (Note that it is their individual need/fear of a pending reality - not anything desired by either me or, it seems, the state).
Happy Keith:
hammer:
āā¦Still not answering the question though are we?..āSeeing random stuff about how āā¦baffledā¦ā he is as he goads āā¦weā¦ā as he claims to āā¦speakā¦ā (on a website?) on behalf of other people who are possibly as bored with a seeming desire to change how others should be tested to drive a wagon is becoming dull.
This is my total point: Those sensing a need to drive a loaded truck should pay for an instructor from a driving school to coax them as they wish in a vehicle paid-for by the individual with it specified with a real or emulated load according to their need either pre or post C+E test. (Note that it is their individual need/fear of a pending reality - not anything desired by either me or, it seems, the state).
Youāre desire to get the last word is admirable but you still refuse to answer the questions I posed. Iāll reiterate them in case youāve forgotten!
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 āhugely complex, legislated, specified and expensive examination or testā?
Its not about āsensing a needā, its about making the test relevant to the real world and giving people the experience when they are accompanied by an instructor rather than on their own. That is why motorcyclists are restricted to what machines they can ride after their tests and why HGV learners must do Class 2 first, then class 1.
hammer:
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?
YES - that is why the DSA are proposing it - no-one is likely to say otherwise
hammer:
Q . Is a lump of concrete or an IBC full of water a āhugely complex, legislated, specified and expensive examination or testā?
Donāt quite get the question - sorry
If you mean - would using a lump of concrete or an IBC full of water do for the above weight? - then yes, most would probably use that method.
ROG - āhugely complex, legislated, specified and expensive examination or testā is what Happy was suggesting loading a vehicle for learning would be. I asked him this question (and the one you answered) ages ago and he simply refuses to answer either.
My point is clear; loading a learners vehicle is a simple, relevant, cheap and safe way of giving a learner a better idea of what the real world will involve. It seems that because you know something to be true (i.e. trucks heavy) then you donāt need practice or experience in a controlled environment before being chucked in at the deep end and trying it for real. I canāt understand the āantiā stance to this and the blind assertion that this is āHealth and Safety gone madā.
I think I see where you are coming from - if it is low cost and easily possible then the training vehicle should be as close to real life as possible - I agree with that.
There can be downdises though - when the DSA said all rigid tests must be taken in trucks with at least 8 forward gear ratios, the price of those trucks rocketed as they are not that common.
hammer:
āā¦Youāre desireā¦ā
Mine is a reasoned proposal to not fix what isnāt broken (Iāll leave those with āā¦desireā¦ā to do their own thing)
hammer:
Q . Is a lump of concrete or an IBC full of water a āhugely complex, legislated, specified and expensive examination or testā?
Can administrating āā¦a lump of concreteā¦ā nationwide; within Euro regulations, to an identical specification, calibrated correctly, which colour to paint them (ie, can they carry adverts), risk & COSHH assess them and for them all to be legally, fairly, etc coordinated on the same date with effective and fair communication to all agencies concerned,etc, etc, be guaranteed to be cheap? Who is qualified to claim ānoā with any authority? (eg, many of us might be aware that a solicitor shouldnāt charge Ā£300 for half an hours work - but we know that they can and do: Is that expensive, yes or no?)
Just because one might imagine that itās only āā¦a lump of concreteā¦ā does not necessarily make it so to those whose remit of responsibility it would become: Whoād pay for their (cheap?) appeals against the āā¦simpleā¦ā proposal? It is a reasonable indication that your experience of āmaking things happenā within a non-existent budget is relatively limited (er, thereās a recession and the nation is skint, but Iād sooner that ātheyā spent my money to keep my nation secure, etc). Meanwhile:
hammer:
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?
As I indicate above, it is unfair to draw anyone into a black/white or yes/no response to satisfy a pigeon-hole of an un-reality. Why? Because being āā¦cheapā¦ā or otherwise is a relative term - especially if subject matter experts within the separate fields (and all of them qualified to post-graduate status plus) of learning/testing/training/examining donāt currently consider that there is a generic need to examine candidates presenting for C+E test in a laden vehicle - whether it reflects your āā¦real worldā¦ā or otherwise. Individuals might benefit, but thatās been my previous suggestion whereby they are liberty to buy themselves that privilege.
Incidentally, despite being graduate qualified in both engineering and management allied to other ongoing advanced undergraduate nonsense - at which I am proficient, I hate the expensive nausea that admin heaps onto society probably more than anyone I know. Iāve published accurate & sought after reports costing ten of thousands of pounds yet I maintain that they were full of expensive rubbish. Thus so, I am able to guarantee you that strapping lumps of āā¦concreteā¦ā onto the arse-end of a wagon is fraught with hurdles - and suggest that others give it consideration too. So, why am I a wagon driver (- and not a newbie either)? Itās because itās a doddle, I enjoy it & it fulfils an identified purpose - but Iām also aware of the reality that it is managed by policies, strategies and myriad other expensive stuff like examining criteria, etc. I donāt mind countering (over-simplistic?) notions from well-meaning idealists with ideas to benefit mankind - but in this reality the solution that I identify is already catered for within the abundant private marketplace of training provision - not within compulsory examination criteria.
hammer:
āā¦ why HGV learners must do Class 2 first, then class 1ā¦ā
If by that time a presenting C+E test candidate (ie, the current term) doesnāt know that a larger vehicle with its increased mass & volume wonāt handle the same as a Mazda MX5 then he can buy his own lessons to have the message massaged into the space between his listeners at his expense and not mine or newbies coming through who might not need the additional examining criteria that any āā ā ā ā ā ā ā ā some concreteā suggestion proposesā¦
Happy, lets hope they donāt apply youāre principles to other things - like training paramedics for example.
āOk trainee paramedics, when you find a person with their heart stopped just pump the chest with your hands and blow in its mouth. As you now understand what to do, there is no need to practice or pretend its a real world situation. Congratulations, no further training needed, youāre now a paramedic!!ā
After sifting through your answer, I take your point about a lump of concrete, it would be difficult to find a universal standard. However, a certain number of full IBCs , strapped with standard rachet straps wouldnāt be that hard to put into place. I think youāre looking for problems where there arenāt any by bringing colour and risk assessments etc into it. Everything these days needs a risk assessment, it stinks but its a fact.
If youāre principles on this were applied to everything in life, nothing would ever change. Just because it might cause a few problems initially doesnāt make it a bad idea.
hammer:
Happy, lets hope they donāt apply youāre principles to other things - like training paramedics for exampleā¦ā
Theyāre not my principles ā¦they are societyās - Iām simply an observer, matey.
hammer:
If youāre principles on this were applied to everything in life, nothing would ever change. Just because it might cause a few problems initially doesnāt make it a bad ideaā¦ā
Donāt shoot the messenger!
hammer:
Everything these days needs a risk assessment, it stinks but its a factā¦ā
If they stop people falling off scaffolding or ten-year old kids being abused then I rate them
i was reading this and i think its a good idea but there is one thing that mite knock it on the head
to be tested with a full loaded vehicle you would have to learn in one and you as the driver would IMHO have to state that the load as be loaded properly to the examiner and that the truck be covered by insurance for the said load,
and if there is and LGV instructor reading this would that affect the costs in training also as you are carrying a load on the highway for profit would that not mean you would need a operators licence 
then you got the papers lets look at what the press headlines be
unexperienced driver has accident using full load what would the out cry be
a LGV driver already gets stick from the press where give them more ammunition
delboytwo:
to be tested with a full loaded vehicle you would have to learn in one and you as the driver would IMHO have to state that the load as be loaded properly to the examiner and that the truck be covered by insurance for the said load,
No need to insure the āloadā as it would only be weight ballast
Anything on the truck would need to be properly secured and that is part of the new INITIAL driver CPC.
ROG:
delboytwo:
to be tested with a full loaded vehicle you would have to learn in one and you as the driver would IMHO have to state that the load as be loaded properly to the examiner and that the truck be covered by insurance for the said load,No need to insure the āloadā as it would only be weight ballast
Anything on the truck would need to be properly secured and that is part of the new INITIAL driver CPC.
Rog not on about what the load is on about public liability insurance if the load feel of or if the driver lost the load cos he/she put the truck on the side
delboytwo:
Rog not on about what the load is on about public liability insurance if the load feel of or if the driver lost the load cos he/she put the truck on the side
I would imagine that the PLI does not state that the truck MUST be empty so therefore would be covered
ROG:
delboytwo:
Rog not on about what the load is on about public liability insurance if the load feel of or if the driver lost the load cos he/she put the truck on the sideI would imagine that the PLI does not state that the truck MUST be empty so therefore would be covered
i think there would Rog if an empty truck when over there is no load to lose but if a 21 tons of ballast went all over the road and some of the public were hurt i think the cost of clean up and injuries could be expensive and therefore more cover would be required for PLI
Perhaps the owner of a current training company will be able to inform us
ROG:
Perhaps the owner of a current training company will be able to inform us
yes Rog did ask that in the post 
One of the renewal/new vehicle added questions are "Do any of the vehicles carry goods? and replies are āNoā through our company. I do believe Peter Smythe carries a load at times to give the trainees experience, so he would be an ideal person to ask.
instructorone:
One of the renewal/new vehicle added questions are "Do any of the vehicles carry goods? and replies are āNoā through our company. I do believe Peter Smythe carries a load at times to give the trainees experience, so he would be an ideal person to ask.
GOODS or LOAD ? - there is a difference
ROG:
instructorone:
One of the renewal/new vehicle added questions are "Do any of the vehicles carry goods? and replies are āNoā through our company. I do believe Peter Smythe carries a load at times to give the trainees experience, so he would be an ideal person to ask.GOODS or LOAD ? - there is a difference
Load, i believe, but donāt qoute me on that, i maybe mistaken, whichever one it is was relevent for the taxation purpose of the vehicle, and the insurance. 