Laden testing (report)

NEW AND WANNABE DRIVERS (INTERACTIVE)
1

I thought I would post my experiences on the new laden testing.

On my C truck I am using approximately an extra £7 a day on diesel and about an extra £10 on my CE truck.

I feel a lot happier and safer being part loaded with the recent high winds.

Now start off in a lower gear and make good use of the retarder on downhill gradients. So nothing drastically changed.

My trucks running brilliantly with being part loaded after all they doing what they are designed to do.

I’ve now done 6 training courses and proud to announce 6 first time passes. 100% first time pass rate on laden testing, long may it continue.

So well done to the DSA I think it’s a great move. :smiley:

Merry xmas to you truckers and wannabe truckers

Paul

2

That’s good to hear. I think it makes sense as let’s face it, none of us are intending to just drive about in empty trucks! :slight_smile:

Merry Christmas to you! :smiley:

3

Thanks elmet. Going to do my training in the new year and any info on laden testing is good to get. Totally agree about being loaded, much better to have an idea what it feels like to drive a loaded lorry than learn in an empty then have to take a full load on first day.
I trained for my pcv on an empty volvo b10, first time out on a decker with a full load at rush hour was a real eye-opener, (and a real arse clencher on roundabouts :open_mouth: ) so definately a step in the right direction from DSA

4

It’s a very good idea. My first load in an artic weighed in at 27.5 tonnes. It was fun though!!! Ish!! :smiley: :smiley:

Now, what about them actually teaching candidates to reverse into a proper loading bay instead of the garbage they currently have to do? I must say I found the reversing training I did to pass my LGV was utterly and completely useless to me. I got an old hand to show me how to do it in the real world instead so I was lucky!

It would really help with ability and confidence in the real world. What do the trainers think? :question:

5

Truckulent:
Now, what about them actually teaching candidates to reverse into a proper loading bay

It would really help with ability and confidence in the real world. What do the trainers think? :question:

I believe the reverse exercise thats used for test is fine. You need to show good control as both locks are needed.

To perfect the art off reversing you need hours of practice in different situations.

I think for the last 5 meteres the examiner should be a banksman and direct the candidate into the hatched box instead of the candidate using a marker point on the truck.

Paul :smiley:

6

elmet training:
I think for the last 5 meteres the examiner should be a banksman and direct the candidate into the hatched box instead of the candidate using a marker point on the truck.

Paul :smiley:

I agree for the very last bit - where to stop in the box but for the rest the examiner does act as a banksman - they will say stop if the driver is going outside the area

7

elmet training:
I think for the last 5 meteres the examiner should be a banksman and direct the candidate into the hatched box instead of the candidate using a marker point on the truck.

Apart from the potential ramifications of having an examiner helping the testee on test, how often do drivers have a banks-man in the real world ?

I would see that as dumbing down of the test.

8

tachograph:

elmet training:
I think for the last 5 meteres the examiner should be a banksman and direct the candidate into the hatched box instead of the candidate using a marker point on the truck.

Apart from the potential ramifications of having an examiner helping the testee on test, how often do drivers have a banks-man in the real world ?

I would see that as dumbing down of the test.

I would like to encourage and educate the candidate of the importance of a banksman whilst training.

Before you slate me I know this won’t be possible when out driving for a living.

At the moment we use markers for test which won’t be used in the real world so pointless.

Paul :smiley:

9

I’m not slating you Paul, I’m just expressing an opinion that’s all :wink:

10

elmet training:

Truckulent:
Now, what about them actually teaching candidates to reverse into a proper loading bay

It would really help with ability and confidence in the real world. What do the trainers think? :question:

I believe the reverse exercise thats used for test is fine. You need to show good control as both locks are needed.

To perfect the art off reversing you need hours of practice in different situations.

I think for the last 5 meteres the examiner should be a banksman and direct the candidate into the hatched box instead of the candidate using a marker point on the truck.

Paul :smiley:

Sorry, but I don’t agree Paul. I found that the trainer told me to look out for specific points so I knew when to turn the wheel and it provided me with little or no clue as to the real processes you need to go through when trying to reverse somewhere for the first time. It was simply a ‘painting by numbers’ exercise, rather than something that I could apply practically, on an RDC/in a yard for example.

The current reversing exercise is so blatantly useless in the real world that to me it smacks of a theoretical exercise that is easy to train for/mark, rather than something of genuine use to a candidate. Which I suppose makes sense as that is exactly what it is!

Yes, it takes hours to become competent at reversing. But it would be far better to allow candidates the opportunity to start with some real world stuff, rather than the current exercise. Something that involves a real bay, perhaps a bay with a slope etc. I know this would cause logistical issues for trainers and assessment alike, but the current reverse does little or nothing to help a candidate in the world of trucking!

One glance at the frequent threads about it on here says that most candidates having passed the test, are still scared ■■■■■■■■ of going backwards. I fail to see how you can argue the test does it’s job with this being the case.

You simply don’t spend enough time going backwards on test or training. Drop one of the pointless CPC modules and spend two half days on reversing instead. Onto bays, into spaces. Blindsiding… etc. etc. Get candidates watching the trailer wheels instead of waiting till the cone appears! I have yet to see a cone appear to tell me when to turn the wheel!!!

It would be far more beneficial I feel. I would certainly have welcomed it in the early days! :sunglasses: :smiley:

11

I fail to see how you can practically change the test reverse. Apart from the bit I mentioned about the banksman.

Not every driving job is about reversing into RDC’s bays.

The test reverse does in a way slightly resemble a bay and the procedure needs good control.

But let’s be realistic what more can be done and changed in the test?

Paul :smiley:

12

elmet training:
I fail to see how you can practically change the test reverse. Apart from the bit I mentioned about the banksman.

Not every driving job is about reversing into RDC’s bays.

The test reverse does in a way slightly resemble a bay and the procedure needs good control.

But let’s be realistic what more can be done and changed in the test?

Paul :smiley:

Banksman? Are you serious? I don’t know any driver that would trust a banksman they didn’t know. I certainly wouldn’t. In fact, I’ve had well meaning (at least I think well meaning) warehouse staff act as ‘banksman’. Flapping their arms wildly with not a clue… Teaching a test candidate that you should always follow their instructions is not a good idea in my experience. Another driver helping out, yes possibly. But the majority of folk who try to ‘help’ haven’t a clue.

I don’t doubt you need reasonable control. The problem is candidates are taught to do the reverse according to criteria you don’t get on a ‘real’ lorry reverse. A marker on the rear spray guard (often, if not always) to tell you when to stop and to switch to opposite lock when they can ‘see the cone’. This just doesn’t help at all with the real world. There are no cones to tell you when to switch lock in the real world, whether in an RDC or not.

I agree not every driving job requires a reverse into a bay with steel markers. But many jobs do and this is the type of reverse that can easily cause damage to the trailer as well as the driver’s confidence.

Surely you can see the merits of more realistic practise? I learned more in a hour with an experienced driver/ex-shunter than in umpteen days training. And just in a car park. No bay required.

The test should incorporate several options including bays, up/down a slope onto a bay/ straight line reverse and reversing around a corner, including blind side. The examiner gets to pick which. This would force candidates into much more real world practise rather than just learning to do one exercise as it currently is! :smiley:

13

Open for debate then.

Paul :smiley:

14

So what do you propose Truckulent? Tuition in the four or five reversing situations you describe? That is not feasible, and I imagine that the test as it is exists is just so that candidates know which way to steer to influence trailer direction

To be honest I’ve seen loads of people on about the slope etc and it makes little difference to the reverse, it’s just a case of either raising or lowering the unit suspension to match the bay height on the last six inches.

15

I have written to the DSA on several occasions suggesting an improvement to the reversing situation. I will say they have never replied.

My idea is to split the test into 2 separate parts like they did the theory test.

Leave the road section as it is but make reversing / uncoupling a separate part of the overall test. Devise 5 or 6 different reversing manoeuvres and make the candidate do 2 or 3 of them as chosen by the examiner.

The 30 minute slots for this already exist as in the CPC Mod 4.

To merely change the current reverse would lower the pass rate, costing people more to pass and achieve little.

16

It’s possible to argue that most of the test isn’t representative of “real world”.

My change to the reversing ex would be to replace the barrier with a mock loading dock, probably constructed of concrete. I would expect the candidate to reverse towards it, slow to a crawl approx 3 feet from it and GENTLY touch it. It would need to be a minimum of touching on one side and within, say, 9 inches on the other. That replicated the common loading dock rather more than a yellow box and a flimsy barrier.

The crux of the issue is this IMO: we have a test which is prescribed, on the whole, by the EU. Potential drivers clearly wish to obtain their licence for the smallest outlay. That’s fair. The onus lays with the employer of the new, or any, driver to carry out any specific training that is required for their job. I agree with Paul that the reverse ex, as it stands, demands a reasonable level of control and that the candidate has a fair idea of what will happen when they turn the wheel. TBH, not many of us knew much more when we first set out.

The test has been trimmed of gear ex, steering ex, braking ex and the downhill start isn’t marked as such. This has reduced training time and this is reflected in training fees and better pass rate. To make the reversing more flexible will increase training time/fees; I’m sure this would go down very well with the paying public.

BTW, the loaded vehicles have caused no problem; we were already teaching the style, it’s just a lower move off gear. But it’s an example of fixing something that wasn’t actually broken. There are no statistics demonstrating that new drivers who carried a load early in their career had any problem. Certainly there are no accident statistics to support it. However, I’m perfectly happy to be loaded but dont consider it worth any hoo hah.

Pete :laughing: :laughing:

17

Peter Smythe:
It’s possible to argue that most of the test isn’t representative of “real world”.

My change to the reversing ex would be to replace the barrier with a mock loading dock, probably constructed of concrete. I would expect the candidate to reverse towards it, slow to a crawl approx 3 feet from it and GENTLY touch it. It would need to be a minimum of touching on one side and within, say, 9 inches on the other. That replicated the common loading dock rather more than a yellow box and a flimsy barrier.

The crux of the issue is this IMO: we have a test which is prescribed, on the whole, by the EU. Potential drivers clearly wish to obtain their licence for the smallest outlay. That’s fair. The onus lays with the employer of the new, or any, driver to carry out any specific training that is required for their job. I agree with Paul that the reverse ex, as it stands, demands a reasonable level of control and that the candidate has a fair idea of what will happen when they turn the wheel. TBH, not many of us knew much more when we first set out.

The test has been trimmed of gear ex, steering ex, braking ex and the downhill start isn’t marked as such. This has reduced training time and this is reflected in training fees and better pass rate. To make the reversing more flexible will increase training time/fees; I’m sure this would go down very well with the paying public.

BTW, the loaded vehicles have caused no problem; we were already teaching the style, it’s just a lower move off gear. But it’s an example of fixing something that wasn’t actually broken. There are no statistics demonstrating that new drivers who carried a load early in their career had any problem. Certainly there are no accident statistics to support it. However, I’m perfectly happy to be loaded but dont consider it worth any hoo hah.

Pete :laughing: :laughing:

My point is that the current system does not give candidates the confidence to reverse in a real world situation. Out on the road may not be perfect but they are nevertheless in a situation they may find themselves in when working, i.e out in traffic on the road.

Backing a truck around an obstacle course whilst turning the wheel at the point the instructor has told them to (and by how much), in no way replicates real world reversing. My idea is far from perfect. It’s simply a matter of giving new drivers a bit of experience and a bit of confidence instead of a charade that they will never come across in the real world.

As to the concern for extra cost, this does not hold water. As has been said, other areas of the test have been cut back on and dropping one of the CPC modules (or making the reversing training part of CPC modules) would help the majority of drivers at very little extra cost.

I realise trainers want an easy (and realistic) goal to be set but as it stands you simply do not spend enough time going backwards!

Ah well, at least I don’t need to worry about it anymore!!! :sunglasses:

18

I’m with Truckulent on this, its simply not on to train new drivers in the repetitive and basic by-numbers reverse only, new driver can the day after test be out on their own in the real world of town centre blind side reverses, in the dark piddling down with rain, building sites strewn with rubble, you name it, they haven’t got a hope in hell.

My instructor laid out a series of cones during our manoeuvering time to drive zig zag through forwards, then once you’d mastered that a few times you had to reverse it.
No it wasn’t part of the test but it gave an hours play time almost and a sense of achievement and confidence when you managed it.

19

Have you seen the reverse exercise they have to do in Poland? Its against the clock too!

I can’t remember the last time we had a cat C fail on reversing, for rigid vehicles its too easy. However for C+E vehicles it may not be ‘real life’ but obviously its not easy because many drivers struggle on test with the reverse. For those who are fortunate like myself to have had years of practice before the test its very easy, but a novice with only 3 days, its hard to master it. All it needs to teach, like Paul said is basic principles and accuracy, the rest comes of embarrassing yourself in front of other drivers!

Back on the subject of being laden, we noticed the hill start requires more skill to move off on a steep gradient, bit more use of the rev counter to get the most out of the engine/aux brake and it frankly makes the vehicle perform more like a truck should. Doubling the weight of the vehicle has made a big difference as you would expect but they are designed to operate laden and it feels ‘right’ to those instructors who have driven a truck for a living and craved that little bit of realism. I feel we are now able to relate to our trainees why we are driving to a certain style without having to paint an imaginary picture of being laden, because now it feels how it should feel due to the weight affecting the handling of the truck.

20

I agree with Pete Smythe.

The reverse exercise would be more realistic if the trainee was aiming for a concrete loading bay with buffers. Yes the cost would probably increase, but it would improve the confidence of trainees once they had passed would be able to carry out that task in the real world.

Loading vehicles is another real world simulated experience and therefore can only be a good thing.