Sploom:
I would bring back the 40 mph limit on a roads.I found it more relaxing than trying to maintsin 50.If something goes wrong ,you have a better chance of a good outcome if you are limited to 40.
Also,I would have mobile speed cameras at the roadworks.Too many trucks hurtling through on the limiter only a few feet from the workmen putting cones out.That would have to stop.
Also,regarding maximum speeds,nobody has mentioned the envoiremental impact of trucks.If less co2 is produced at 50 mph,then maybe that should be the limit.
You know you do not have to drive at 50?
TonkaBoy:
Get rid of (and said in fun)
splashing pedestrians, as it used to make everyone chuckle so long as it wasnt them lol…
SERIOUS ONE, reverse the give way to pedistrains at junctions maybe go fully Beijing to make it illegal to actually stop for pedestrians… and put some responsibility back on people to have common sense, and road awareness.
Ban wearing dual headphones whilst driving, get a smart speaker instead just the same, and safer…
Should there be a jaywalking law in the UK?
I believe it is illegal on some countries to cross the road while using a mobil phone, Poland I believe is one. Although still legal to use headphones!
I think bicyles should be fitted with a working bell and lights
I reckon it should be illegal to brandish a mobile phone in public…
“Taken out in private only” like one’s honourable member…
robbo99.:
Abolish the DCPC nonsense. Even if it is reformed it still equates to a money making non entity.
Finally! But not until the third page, what took so long?
Money making? You’d be surprised how little money is actually in it by the time the costs have been met. And for those doing it, it can become soul destroying, not least of all because of the sentiment I’m replying to.
Well there’s a surprise, someone with a vested interest in the nonsense of the DCPC piping up. Has it ever crossed your mind as to why so many drivers have issues with the DCPC? Getting the likes of you to slate the DCPC would be akin to turkeys voting for Christmas.
Further, the TM CPC exam is rated by OFQUAL as a Level 3 standard. The same rating applies to an A level.
Of course you’re against it, you’ve a vested interest in disliking it….
Mmm,I mean,if I was taking a driving test,he would fail me for not doing 50 because Im not making due progress.
But Im not on my test.I dont know.Does the guy behind have a reasonable expectation for you to make progress at the legal limit if the road is clear and straight?
The expectations of the guy behind you are his responsibility, not yours. He can choose to alter his expectations. Fifty is a limit, not a target, so it’s not always possible, advisable, or desirable to acheive that speed and maintain it at all times. I wouldn’t worry about other drivers’ state of mind, that’s their responsibility, they choose to get worked up. Thirty would be unreasonable, but anything between 40 and 50 isn’t.
robbo99.:
Abolish the DCPC nonsense. Even if it is reformed it still equates to a money making non entity.
Finally! But not until the third page, what took so long?
Money making? You’d be surprised how little money is actually in it by the time the costs have been met. And for those doing it, it can become soul destroying, not least of all because of the sentiment I’m replying to.
Well there’s a surprise, someone with a vested interest in the nonsense of the DCPC piping up. Has it ever crossed your mind as to why so many drivers have issues with the DCPC? Getting the likes of you to slate the DCPC would be akin to turkeys voting for Christmas.
Further, the TM CPC exam is rated by OFQUAL as a Level 3 standard. The same rating applies to an A level.
Of course you’re against it, you’ve a vested interest in disliking it….
robbo99.:
Well there’s a surprise, someone with a vested interest in the nonsense of the DCPC piping up. Has it ever crossed your mind as to why so many drivers have issues with the DCPC? Getting the likes of you to slate the DCPC would be akin to turkeys voting for Christmas.
Further, the TM CPC exam is rated by OFQUAL as a Level 3 standard. The same rating applies to an A level.
Whatever it is you think you know about me is wrong: I have not had any “vested interest” in DCPC for quite some time, beyond making sure my ADR candidates get their hours in while doing something I expect them to find far more interesting and useful.
There’s at least one TN member who does have a vested interest in DCPC, I’d be very surprised if he confirmed your belief that it is a giant cash cow.
As for TM-CPC being A-level equivalent It’s a vocational qualification people can obtain after 7 to 10 days in the classroom. Do you think people could pass a genuine A-level such as Chemistry, Maths or French after that period of time? They could not, which is why any comparison to an A-level is at best notional.
m.a.n rules:
so zac all the costs have been covered so whats the problem?? we were all told it was purely for driver education not profit…
You’ll have to be clearer, I genuinely don’t know what you’re trying to say, but if you’re talking about the overall financial situation:
Costs of being on the course are covered most of the time by the operator who sends their drivers on the course.
A smaller number of drivers have to pay for it theirself
“The government” don’t take any of it
DVSA (who don’t receive government money) take £8.75 per driver for their part
DVSA income from DCPC is/was when I last read some facts and figures on it, less than 1% of their total annual income (note, income not profit)
The JAUPT part of DVSA (newly absorbed last year) take their pound of flesh for their setup: £252 per course, per year, just to rubber stamp it, do their admin, host their website, pay their staff, and pay for the EVs to visit Training Providers and critique their set up
The Training Provider has costs to meet: rent, gas, electric, internet & phones, employers contributions, admin and wages staff etc
8 ) The Trainer…
(i) if employed by the TP has to be paid their wage
(ii) if consortium members have their fees to pay to the consortium, I know there are usually “admin fees per candidate” generally between £12 to £22 from my own reading, I’d imagine there is an annual or one-off Consortium membership fee too, because the Consortium has costs too (point 5 for example)
Doesn’t take much to see that when you’ve sliced and diced the points above with a product you’re selling for potentially as low as £35 a pop, more typically more like £50, you’re not likely to be driving around in a brand new Maserati.
robbo99.:
Well there’s a surprise, someone with a vested interest in the nonsense of the DCPC piping up. Has it ever crossed your mind as to why so many drivers have issues with the DCPC? Getting the likes of you to slate the DCPC would be akin to turkeys voting for Christmas.
Further, the TM CPC exam is rated by OFQUAL as a Level 3 standard. The same rating applies to an A level.
Whatever it is you think you know about me is wrong: I have not had any “vested interest” in DCPC for quite some time, beyond making sure my ADR candidates get their hours in while doing something I expect them to find far more interesting and useful.
There’s at least one TN member who does have a vested interest in DCPC, I’d be very surprised if he confirmed your belief that it is a giant cash cow.
As for TM-CPC being A-level equivalent It’s a vocational qualification people can obtain after 7 to 10 days in the classroom. Do you think people could pass a genuine A-level such as Chemistry, Maths or French after that period of time? They could not, which is why any comparison to an A-level is at best notional.
Once a vested interest in the nonsense DCPC, always a vested interest.
Giant cash cow? …Money making non entity.
You are the best at posting government facts and figures to back your posts. How about posting OFQUAL’S (gov.uk) own facts and figures on the rating of a Level 3 qualification. They rate exams for a reason. You have conveniently made mention of A level chemistry, maths & french, what about the lets say lesser mentally challenging A levels, they are still rated a level 3 standard, just like the TM CPC is!
.
robbo99.:
Once a vested interest in the nonsense DCPC, always a vested interest.
So by your reasoning I’m still an experienced time-served Toolmaker, but anyone who let me loose on a CNC Miller would argue otherwise
robbo99.:
You are the best at posting government facts and figures to back your posts. How about posting OFQUAL’S (gov.uk) own facts and figures on the rating of a Level 3 qualification.
How about you post that to back up your post? Because I can’t see anything on the Ofqual site
robbo99.:
You have conveniently made mention of A level chemistry, maths & french, what about the lets say lesser mentally challenging A levels, they are still rated a level 3 standard, just like the TM CPC is!
.
Which lesser mentally-challenging A levels did you have in mind? Drama? Media Studies? Home Economics? Textiles? (That one had a 100% pass rate in 2019 )
I once did a BTEC AET (Award in Education & Training), also rated a Level 3 qualification. What a joke: regurgitate some standard stuff about questioning techniques, pad it out with some waffle about transfer of knowledge, do a couple of presentations, and thats it. Another one that is virtually impossible to fail unless you lose your voice.
If you want to get worked up, why not take up a genuine issue with DCPC, that they refer to it as a “qualification” when there is no testing?
So Zac_A, as I’m sure you will be aware, OFQUAL is the government body which provides levels for differing exams. The TM CPC is a level 3 rating as is an A level, the TM CPC certificate should verify this rating.
What exactly is the national pass rate for the TM CPC first time around? It is certainly by far short of 100%. The TM CPC & A level qualification are both rated at level 3. The old saying of “if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck then it is a duck” applies.
Congratulations on your BTEC AET success.
BTW I don’t get worked up over the nonsense DCPC, and to you and another I have no vested interest myself as the job I am employed as requires no nonsense DCPC.
I did actually contact the nonsense DCPC reform body that you so kindly supplied the contact details of in another thread. Thanks for that!
robbo99.:
I did actually contact the nonsense DCPC reform body that you so kindly supplied the contact details of in another thread. Thanks for that!
No doubt they will be hanging on your every word. What was Zac thinking telling you about a top secret review no one knows about I’ve no idea. Shocking
There is definitely room for review of the DCPC.
4 years ago I took the obligatory …is it 35 hours?
So next year I have to do another 35 hours.
So honestly…Has there really been so many changes in the job and in the rules that merits a full 35 hour repeat?
Surely after your first 35 hours, one session would be more than adequate to catch up with any changes,.and that is me compromising.
I mean if it has to be there 35 hours one off should be enough.
And if anybody breaks the rules or law, part of the punishnent on top of the fine and endorsements, should be re.taking those 35 hours…if that ain’t a deterrent I don’t know what is.
Then again if that was the case there would not be nearly as much money floating around in the mix and we all know the true priority.
You might be surprised at what has changed, I see plenty of TMs who are. For example, virually all the penalties for unsecure loading are an Immediate PG9. See Categorisation of Defects, September 2022 update. gov.uk/government/publicati … of-defects
Even something as simple as having fewer than two straps on a filled IBC; or a >400kg pallet on the top deck - bosh! PG9.
And, as some of the questions on here show, there’s still lots of people who can’t get their heads around basic stuff
Anyway, if the preliminary blurb turns out to be accurate (its all talk right now), you might be able to do a short pass-or-fail test instead (under DVSA supervisory conditions). I’d imagine it to be an MCQ style thing with four options (like ADR is).
Here’s two drivers who might have been financially better off with some decent knowledge, potentially imparted on a DCPC I dare say
Nicolaie-Daniel Candrea, Zoom driving, eight charges of knowingly permitting a false relevant record, and two of failing to make a relevant record, fined a total of £1,638.
But I’d be more interested to know the back story to his colleague, Darius Florin Pop, fined a total of £10,309
