Having completed mine and done driver hours twice with what I believe to be a good trainer I am astounded at the nonsense I see on here coming from DCPC trainers.
Surely if you’re told the rules by a bloke who is paid to tell you things it would be reasonable to accept what you’re told as true.
So if you’re a newly qualified driver or an inexperienced driver surely being given a whole heap of horse ■■■■ as gospel on driving hours could end you up in all shades of ■■■■.
Or is it just me?
It’s a good idea as long as your trainer is competent and knows their subject.
You see endless posts on here from drivers who don’t know the regs about hours and while I accept this subject is not necessary in the DCPC, it wouldn’t hurt them to listen to someone who does know.
m1cks:
It’s a good idea as long as your trainer is competent and knows their subject.
You see endless posts on here from drivers who don’t know the regs about hours and while I accept this subject is not necessary in the DCPC, it wouldn’t hurt them to listen to someone who does know.
I agree the training is sorely needed but how it’s been implemented and delivered is ■■■■.
Driver hours can form part of DCPC
Tipper Tom:
Having completed mine and done driver hours twice with what I believe to be a good trainer I am astounded at the nonsense I see on here coming from DCPC trainers.Surely if you’re told the rules by a bloke who is paid to tell you things it would be reasonable to accept what you’re told as true.
So if you’re a newly qualified driver or an inexperienced driver surely being given a whole heap of horse [zb] as gospel on driving hours could end you up in all shades of [zb].
Or is it just me?
Yes it would.
I’d suggest that anyone attending a course keep hold of the handouts etc they are given, and if by following them they get into trouble then they produce them as mitigation in court.
The trainers are govt approved, and if you follow their directions in good faith then it’s difficult to see how a court could convict you…even though the prosecution would contend that the offences were ‘absolute’.
If trainers give you informaton that is clearly wrong, then question it…“Are you sure about that because I thought the regulations said?”
If they persist in telling something that’s clearly wrong, write it down and complain to Jaupt asap.
Glad it’s not just me
If you go to a reputable company that is recommended as I did there should not be a problem.I do not see how trainers can get it so wrong.
Are all the main points not on a screen in the classroom as they were when I did it?
You cannot expect every person doing the job to be perfect but if it is genuine training they will have been assessed before being allowed to do the training so I do not see how they can waffle crap and if they do they should be reported.
What crap did they spout on your course as a matter of interest?
The trouble with these trainers as I see it is, even experienced drivers are coming on here questioning themselves about what they have been told in their DCPC. If you are fairly new to the business you are going to believe what you are told by a government approved trainer. As we don’t have any sort of formal training, other than actual driving, then it’s a fair bet that there are plenty drivers going about their business illegally due to these morons giving out incorrect information.
The guys we used only gave us handouts which were direct ‘copy & paste’ jobs from VOSA, Tachodisc, HSE etc. so all from reputable sources, the drivers hours rules & WTD are reasonably straight-forward, there are some parts that are complex but the basic requirements are simple really. However still plenty new drivers (and old drivers) who don’t know the basics even. We come across it all the time on here - that’s why I agree with DCPC - an attempt to get EVERYONE upto a basic standard of knowledge. Especially regarding legislation!!!
Make sure the handouts & resources are from a good source & up to date.
The authorities overlooked quality for an obsession with box-ticking everyone with training by the deadline. Instead they should have focused on instigating quality training as a priority.
In my view courses should only be delivered by genuinely qualified individuals which for me would have been, at least, people that have passed the existing CPC exam at a higher than normally required marks. Also some sort of basic teaching/training ability qualification on top.
There’s all sorts of airy fairy stuff on JAUPT about listing trainers qualifications when appying but I suspect the sole issue just became getting as many centres approved as quickly as possible in fear of missing the deadline.
An expectation by attendees for trainers to deliver accurate pre-arranged information is, in my view, not nearly enough. Trainers should be able to interact and respond accurately to wide-ranging queries and discussions in any way related to the module they’re delivering. If they can’t do this, for the really quite substantial sums being paid, everyone might as well be watching VOSA produced videos on Youtube as at least the information could be considered accurate.
GasGas:
The trainers are govt approved, and if you follow their directions in good faith then it’s difficult to see how a court could convict you…even though the prosecution would contend that the offences were ‘absolute’.
It might provide some mitigation (where applicable) but I’m not convinced a driver would win in court based on even written information provided by one of courses. Someone with more knowledge of the law will no doubt correct me but it sounds a bit optimistic to me.
As I said I never really had a problem with my training.The guy who did the training was initially a coach driver for the company but was trained and assessed to do the job and did it reasonably well.
He obviously knew a lot more about coaches than trucks but he did not bluff his way.If he was asked a truck related question he did not know he said he would find out the correct answer and let us know.
There seem to be some moaning about incorrect information but all they do is moan.Can we have the wrong information you were given and the name of the company and then maybe something can be done to stop it happening■■?
mrpj:
GasGas:
The trainers are govt approved, and if you follow their directions in good faith then it’s difficult to see how a court could convict you…even though the prosecution would contend that the offences were ‘absolute’.It might provide some mitigation (where applicable) but I’m not convinced a driver would win in court based on even written information provided by one of courses. Someone with more knowledge of the law will no doubt correct me but it sounds a bit optimistic to me.
It wouldn’t be any different to a faulty speedo or onboard weigher type scenario. You could certainly sue the training company for damages and possibly JAUPT as they have been negligent in approving them. It would be interesting to see what sort of professional indemnity insurance cover DCPC training operations have furnished themselves with. I’d suspect, in many cases, none.
albion1971:
As I said I never really had a problem with my training.The guy who did the training was initially a coach driver for the company but was trained and assessed to do the job and did it reasonably well.
He obviously knew a lot more about coaches than trucks but he did not bluff his way.If he was asked a truck related question he did not know he said he would find out the correct answer and let us know.There seem to be some moaning about incorrect information but all they do is moan.Can we have the wrong information you were given and the name of the company and then maybe something can be done to stop it happening■■?
Not realistic what you’re asking would lead to potentially libellous comments.
However, if you google, you can find an article where the FTA, who’ve never seemed exactly DCPC averse, admit they’ve had significant numbers of calls from members querying whether their existing operational arrangements are legal and it was found these calls had been provoked by drivers returning from external DCPC courses with incorrect information.
Daz1970:
However still plenty new drivers (and old drivers) who don’t know the basics even. We come across it all the time on here - that’s why I agree with DCPC - an attempt to get EVERYONE upto a basic standard of knowledge. Especially regarding legislation!!!
Make sure the handouts & resources are from a good source & up to date.
But that’s the whole problem with these courses, it’s only an attempt, and judging by the amount of drivers that grace these pages telling of incorrect info being given out, it’s a pretty poor one. I agree that all HGV drivers should have a basic knowledge of the legislation but that’s not being achieved on these courses.
No doubt there are some courses that are worse than others, I’ve been to course run by 2 different companies and the way one was delivered was far better than the other
But I also wonder how many times this misinformation is more the driver not understanding or only hearing what they want to hear, although in that case the instructor might be at fault for not clarifying things.
GasGas:
I’d suggest that anyone attending a course keep hold of the handouts etc they are given, and if by following them they get into trouble then they produce them as mitigation in court.The trainers are govt approved, and if you follow their directions in good faith then it’s difficult to see how a court could convict you…even though the prosecution would contend that the offences were ‘absolute’.
I always use direct extracts from the GV262 or guide to maintaining roadworthiness etc etc etc. If I use a document I produced I always explain that I wrote it and it may be proven to be incorrect (but shouldn’t be).
GasGas:
If trainers give you informaton that is clearly wrong, then question it…“Are you sure about that because I thought the regulations said?”If they persist in telling something that’s clearly wrong, write it down and complain to Jaupt asap.
Couldn’t agree more.
muckles:
No doubt there are some courses that are worse than others, I’ve been to course run by 2 different companies and the way one was delivered was far better than the otherBut I also wonder how many times this misinformation is more the driver not understanding or only hearing what they want to hear, although in that case the instructor might be at fault for not clarifying things.
I saw this today on a DCPC course. People clearly didn’t get something, the trainer asked if there were any questions and was met by silence. He moved on.
Later at break people were questioning each other rather than having questioned the trainer.
On the other hand - I did query the trainer on a few points and realised I was actually embarrasing the guy in front of 15 other people so stopped doing it.
Own Account Driver:
It would be interesting to see what sort of professional indemnity insurance cover DCPC training operations have furnished themselves with. I’d suspect, in many cases, none.
I most definitly made sure I took out professional indemnity cover for this just incase 
Maybe what makes the DCPC dangerous is the fact there isn’t an exam, so nobody really knows if those attending have actually grasped anything.
Comment on this statement in no more than 100 words, marks will be deducted for poor grammar and spelling and any comments that start with “a Freind of mine said” or “one of our drivers” or “mmtm” and you will be failed for writing down anything you heard in an RDC. 
muckles:
Maybe what makes the DCPC dangerous is the fact there isn’t an exam, so nobody really knows if those attending have actually grasped anything.Comment on this statement in no more than 100 words, marks will be deducted for poor grammar and spelling and any comments that start with “a Freind of mine said” or “one of our drivers” or “mmtm” and you will be failed for writing down anything you heard in an RDC.
And that’s mostly why I’m not doing it, the top paragraph not the bottom one.