A quick Link to a revised petition, from a previous thread.
epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/34438
This post explains
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=85732&start=150#p1199436
I know your intentions are sincere- and I agree with a lot of it- but mate look at the real world- even if in the event you get 100’000 signaturies no MP is ever going to vote for it…
Look at it from the general public point of view…
All those drivers of big horrible trucks that we all hate are going to have to have 35 hours training every 5 years to stop them killing us with their juggernauts- now show me a MP thats going to vote against that
we all know that the DCPC wont make an iota of difference but no MP is going to vote to remove it
Rikki-UK:
I knmow your intentions are sincere- and I agree with a lot of it- but mate look at the real world- even if in the vent you get 100’000 signaturies no MP is ever going to vote for it…Look at it from the general public point of view…
All those drivers of big horrible trucks that we all hate are going to have to have 35 hours training every 5 years to stop them killing us with their juggernauts- now show me a MP thats going to vote against that
we all know that the DCPC wont make an iota of difference but no MP is going to vote to remove it
The petition isn’t asking for the removal of the DCPC Rikki but suggesting it needs drastically reworked. Petition signed.
Rikki-UK:
I knmow your intentions are sincere- and I agree with a lot of it- but mate look at the real world- even if in the vent you get 100’000 signaturies no MP is ever going to vote for it…Look at it from the general public point of view…
All those drivers of big horrible trucks that we all hate are going to have to have 35 hours training every 5 years to stop them killing us with their juggernauts- now show me a MP thats going to vote against that
we all know that the DCPC wont make an iota of difference but no MP is going to vote to remove it
As I read it, it is not asking to be removed but changed
and
Any MP or the public would vote for change to make beneficial training that will make driving safer over an implementation that will achieve nothing.
give it a chance Rikki there is nothing to lose and possibly much to gain.
I admire the intentions behind it , but in reality it is not going to happen. we are not cuddly kittens, or poor lost children that an MP can use to get relected- face it guys the great British public do not care about us, in fact most dislike us for various reasons (some of our own doing) , No MP is going to support this because it will cost them votes, urinating in the wind comes to mind- sorry guys buts thats the reality
We are not ■■■■, not topical and even not on any agenda- Nice idea I agree with it all, but it wont happen
Rikki-UK:
I admire the intentions behind it , but in reality it is not going to happen. we are not cuddly kittens, or poor lost children that an MP can use to get relected- face it guys the great British public do not care about us, in fact most dislike us for various reasons (some of our own doing) , No MP is going to support this because it will cost them votes, urinating in the wind comes to mind- sorry guys buts thats the realityWe are not ■■■■, not topical and even not on any agenda- Nice idea I agree with it all, but it wont happen
Rikki, you had the courtesy to allow the members to make up thier own minds on this post Abolish/Scrap the CPC Legislation - THE UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUM (INTERACTIVE) - Trucknet UK at least give them a chance to decide if this amended epetition might be more worthwhile signing.
Even if i think as you that it will come to nothing, i will still sign it, you never know, it might just be the grain of sand that tips the scales
Rikki-UK:
I admire the intentions behind it , but in reality it is not going to happen. we are not cuddly kittens, or poor lost children that an MP can use to get relected- face it guys the great British public do not care about us, in fact most dislike us for various reasons (some of our own doing) , No MP is going to support this because it will cost them votes, urinating in the wind comes to mind- sorry guys buts thats the realityI am not ■■■■, not topical and even not on any agenda- Nice idea I agree with it all, but it wont happen
FTFY!
truckerjon:
Rikki-UK:
I admire the intentions behind it , but in reality it is not going to happen. we are not cuddly kittens, or poor lost children that an MP can use to get relected- face it guys the great British public do not care about us, in fact most dislike us for various reasons (some of our own doing) , No MP is going to support this because it will cost them votes, urinating in the wind comes to mind- sorry guys buts thats the realityWe are not ■■■■, not topical and even not on any agenda- Nice idea I agree with it all, but it wont happen
Rikki, you had the courtesy to allow the members to make up thier own minds on this post Abolish/Scrap the CPC Legislation - THE UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUM (INTERACTIVE) - Trucknet UK at least give them a chance to decide if this amended epetition might be more worthwhile signing.
Even if i think as you that it will come to nothing, i will still sign it, you never know, it might just be the grain of sand that tips the scales
Jon, you can sign the petition, I don’t think Rikki is refusing it, he is just echoing my earlier points on the “other” petition. The public do not like us, they like fluffy bunny stories and the fact that Stobarts have promised to save the world.
Rikki UK is a lorry driver, it is RIKKI Admin you have to be scared of!
I like every other person have my own views regarding what influence we could possibly have on government.
UK and EU legislation in every respect influences our lives. Increases in fuel duty, Increases on the price of tobacco, alcohol, even the price of a pasty (although that tax has just been reviewed) etc etc etc
Policy makers are no different to us, mistakes can occur, legislation can be improved upon (nobody is perfect) and it takes somebody to highlight that fact in order for the mistake to be corrected. It is impossible to satisfy everybody, however if opinion is strong enough from a majority group of people regarding a subject, I would hope that at least those views could be listened to by the appropriate people that influence those decisions.
In my opinion if you feel strongly enough about something that affects your life, you do something about it. Instead of just complaining about it and doing nothing. Sometimes you dont get the result or answer you want, thats life, but at least you have tried.
Tony4562:
I like every other person have my own views regarding what influence we could possibly have on government.UK and EU legislation in every respect influences our lives. Increases in fuel duty, Increases on the price of tobacco, alcohol, even the price of a pasty (although that tax has just been reviewed) etc etc etc
Policy makers are no different to us, mistakes can occur, legislation can be improved upon (nobody is perfect) and it takes somebody to highlight that fact in order for the mistake to be corrected. It is impossible to satisfy everybody, however if opinion is strong enough from a majority group of people regarding a subject, I would hope that at least those views could be listened to by the appropriate people that influence those decisions.
In my opinion if you feel strongly enough about something that affects your life, you do something about it. Instead of just complaining about it and doing nothing. Sometimes you dont get the result or answer you want, thats life, but at least you have tried.
+1
I’m surprised this hasnt been made a sticky and given more prominence. Even though Rikki and I dont see eye to eye, I dont believe his dislike of another forum and owner would stop him from pushing an initiative which would benefit drivers and the industry as a whole. The only ones who wouldnt want any amendments to the DCPC as it stands, are the companies and organisations who benefit from the current format with enormous profit.
I signed it, in fact I was one of the first to suggest amending the format rather than abolish it.
I believe that the dcpc has a place in driver education, but not in its current form.
As to any accusations that I am someones lapdog I say this…its now my job to be the pin to puncture egos.
I didn’t change the title, honest gov! 
Signed! No problem! 
i havn’t signed it. if it is reviewed, then it will be done in such a way that it becomes more expensive, with exams at the end of the course. then you will lose your entitlement to drive if you fail.
if drivers were that bothered about it, then they would have said “no i’m not doing it”.
but the job is full of yes men that are ruining the job.
limeyphil:
i havn’t signed it. if it is reviewed, then it will be done in such a way that it becomes more expensive, with exams at the end of the course. then you will lose your entitlement to drive if you fail.if drivers were that bothered about it, then they would have said “no i’m not doing it”.
but the job is full of yes men that are ruining the job.
If the petition is successful and the powers that be agree to consult driver groups, including ALL forums the it wlll be a fantastic victory. If they only take on board part of the proposals, its better than nowt.
It would be great if the vast majority of drivers said ‘no, we wont do the dcpc’ but it’ll never happen. Better a few make a fuss, than everyone keeping quiet.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the scheme, this petition just will not work,
We would like to request that the DfT, DVLA and JAUPT jointly carry out a full review of the current implementation of the Drivers CPC.
“like to request” should be “respectfully request” - “like to request” implies you are asking for permission to request a review.
DSA has a legitimate interest in any review - in fact, they ran the original consultations on the DCPCÂ scheme on behalf of the DfT (see here). The original consultation is neither on the DfT web site nor in the Wayback Machine (you can get as far as here but they didn’t crawl deep enough the capture the consultation itself). The original consultation document and responses should still be available from the DfT on request (using the Freedom of Information Act if necessary - I doubt a FoIA request would be needed to get the old consultation and its responses, though some carefully thought out FoIA requests about periodic DCPC could be very useful to any reform campaign).
It is requested that drivers from all backgrounds be consulted to obtain their opinion, concerns and issues on the implementation presently in place.
There are many parties with legitimate interests in the DCPC scheme other than drivers. Companies with O licences land up paying much of the training costs for periodic DCPC, companies contracting O licence holders to move their goods have an interest because they are indirectly paying these training costs, road safety campaigners have an interest from their viewpoint, any member of the public has the right to offer their input into the consultation.
Any review would have to consult widely, otherwise any changes proposed would be politically unacceptable and any actions taken by ministers on the basis of a flawed consultation could potentially be challenged by an interested party via judicial review proceedings.
I dealt with some of the wider issues about government consultations in a previous post and a later follow=up.
However, there’s a wider problem with the requested action - the government would need a reasoned basis upon which to act. As is clear from previous discussion of the DCPC on Trucknet, there is no consensus as to what is wrong.
The barrier to demonstrating a need to change will be high. An e-petition just isn’t going to work - it’s not a popular enough subject in the public’s consciousness to get 100k signatures. You need to start with consensus from drivers of the broad areas of concern, then get other interested parties (transport managers, haulage company bosses, trainers, campaign groups) to endorse your requests. If you can show some sort of consensus, you give the government a reasoned basis for action. Until that point, you will struggle to defeat the (quite possibly incorrect) belief that this is just a gripe from a small group of drivers who are upset at having to do, in effect, one day of training a year.
Training is beneficial and helps to promote better standards of driving and safety on the road.
Some will accept this statment without complaint, others will object to it. The author of the e-petition has provided no evidence of benefit.
It doesn’t help that having just said “Training is beneficial” (which training? who gets the benefit?), the petition then continues to criticise the current scheme.
Many drivers consider that the implementation has many flaws which makes it unacceptable and will not benefit them or the public in general. This is demonstrated by the very slow take up on the training.
How many drivers?
What flaws precisely?
Unacceptable to whom?
Does it matter if ‘many drivers’ don’t consider there is any public benefit, so long as there is public benefit?
How do you know that slow take up is because of perceived flaws? Could it just be that drivers have yet to realise the scheme applies to them and that they have to do something, or that they were waiting for the DCPC scheme to settle down before getting their first 35 hours in?
The original consultation would have given a cost/benefit analysis for the option chosen. It would be better to make specific comments grounded in that cost/benefit analysis and in any subsequent research on the DCPC scheme. Sweeping statements without supporting evidence form a very weak argument that is easily countered.
There’s quite a few logical fallacies here, including:* question begging language (inviting the reader to conclude the implementation of periodic DCPCÂ is flawed by stating a belief that it is flawed)
- appeal to common opinions (urging acceptance of periodic DCPCÂ being flawed by stating there is a widely held belief it is flawed)
- appeal to self-interest (drivers clearly have an interest in not having to go through periodic training at all, whereas the wider public interest may well support mandatory training)
- insufficient sample (as the questions I pose above show, there is, at most, the evidence of a handful of drivers behind the petition, which is an inadequate sample to support the conclusions held)
- fallacy of popular wisdom (asserting ‘many drivers’ believe something does not make it true; you can never prove anything by assertion)
With a full review and consultation with drivers, changes can be implemented to make it more acceptable, thereby giving better results which will be more beneficial to all road users.
Anything can usefully be reviewed. To succeed in a request for review, it is necessary to show what is broken in the current implementation, why it is in the public interest that government pays the costs of reviewing the scheme now (a high barrier in these times of austerity) and why, if the review suggests reform is necessary, business should shoulder the costs of unexpected reform in the middle of a JAUPT approval cycle (also a high barrier considering the anti-regulation stance of the current government).
Reform cannot now be implemented far enough ahead of September 2014 to make any difference to the first 35 hours of periodic training needed by those LGV licence holders who want to keep driving professionally after September 2014. By that stage, there will be a much wider evidence based upon which to review and draw conclusions on the current periodic DCPC implementation. Any necessary reforms could then be implemented on a rolling basis as JAUPT approval for existing providers and courses becomes due.
A full review is needed before the country loses many long term, highly qualified, experienced, older and part time drivers who help the new drivers entering our profession with help and advice.
Drivers training other drivers was never an aim of the scheme, nor, arguably, is it necessary (though it is always welcome).
This statement shares many of the logical flaws as earlier - in particular, it is not based on evidence (such as an independently conducted survey of LGV licence holders that was big enough to reach statistical significance.
I can only amplify my previous comments. This sort of e-petition on periodic DCPC is a waste of time. A campaign for reform needs to be evidence based and have support from individuals and organisations across the spectrum of interested parties in order to succeed.
Before getting to that stage, any reform campaign has to achieve some consensus on what reforms are being requested - and that has not been achieved. As others have said, it is necessary to be aware of the risk of unintended consequences - though the current periodic DCPC implementation where attendance is the only thing measured can be farcical, do you want mandatory exams, for example?
djw:
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the scheme, this petition just will not work,We would like to request that the DfT, DVLA and JAUPT jointly carry out a full review of the current implementation of the Drivers CPC.
“like to request” should be “respectfully request” - “like to request” implies you are asking for permission to request a review.
DSA has a legitimate interest in any review - in fact, they ran the original consultations on the DCPCÂ scheme on behalf of the DfT (see here). The original consultation is neither on the DfT web site nor in the Wayback Machine (you can get as far as here but they didn’t crawl deep enough the capture the consultation itself). The original consultation document and responses should still be available from the DfT on request (using the Freedom of Information Act if necessary - I doubt a FoIA request would be needed to get the old consultation and its responses, though some carefully thought out FoIA requests about periodic DCPC could be very useful to any reform campaign).
It is requested that drivers from all backgrounds be consulted to obtain their opinion, concerns and issues on the implementation presently in place.
There are many parties with legitimate interests in the DCPC scheme other than drivers. Companies with O licences land up paying much of the training costs for periodic DCPC, companies contracting O licence holders to move their goods have an interest because they are indirectly paying these training costs, road safety campaigners have an interest from their viewpoint, any member of the public has the right to offer their input into the consultation.
Any review would have to consult widely, otherwise any changes proposed would be politically unacceptable and any actions taken by ministers on the basis of a flawed consultation could potentially be challenged by an interested party via judicial review proceedings.
I dealt with some of the wider issues about government consultations in a previous post and a later follow=up.
However, there’s a wider problem with the requested action - the government would need a reasoned basis upon which to act. As is clear from previous discussion of the DCPC on Trucknet, there is no consensus as to what is wrong.
The barrier to demonstrating a need to change will be high. An e-petition just isn’t going to work - it’s not a popular enough subject in the public’s consciousness to get 100k signatures. You need to start with consensus from drivers of the broad areas of concern, then get other interested parties (transport managers, haulage company bosses, trainers, campaign groups) to endorse your requests. If you can show some sort of consensus, you give the government a reasoned basis for action. Until that point, you will struggle to defeat the (quite possibly incorrect) belief that this is just a gripe from a small group of drivers who are upset at having to do, in effect, one day of training a year.
Training is beneficial and helps to promote better standards of driving and safety on the road.
Some will accept this statment without complaint, others will object to it. The author of the e-petition has provided no evidence of benefit.
It doesn’t help that having just said “Training is beneficial” (which training? who gets the benefit?), the petition then continues to criticise the current scheme.
Many drivers consider that the implementation has many flaws which makes it unacceptable and will not benefit them or the public in general. This is demonstrated by the very slow take up on the training.
How many drivers?
What flaws precisely?
Unacceptable to whom?
Does it matter if ‘many drivers’ don’t consider there is any public benefit, so long as there is public benefit?
How do you know that slow take up is because of perceived flaws? Could it just be that drivers have yet to realise the scheme applies to them and that they have to do something, or that they were waiting for the DCPC scheme to settle down before getting their first 35 hours in?
The original consultation would have given a cost/benefit analysis for the option chosen. It would be better to make specific comments grounded in that cost/benefit analysis and in any subsequent research on the DCPC scheme. Sweeping statements without supporting evidence form a very weak argument that is easily countered.
There’s quite a few logical fallacies here, including:* question begging language (inviting the reader to conclude the implementation of periodic DCPCÂ is flawed by stating a belief that it is flawed)
- appeal to common opinions (urging acceptance of periodic DCPCÂ being flawed by stating there is a widely held belief it is flawed)
- appeal to self-interest (drivers clearly have an interest in not having to go through periodic training at all, whereas the wider public interest may well support mandatory training)
- insufficient sample (as the questions I pose above show, there is, at most, the evidence of a handful of drivers behind the petition, which is an inadequate sample to support the conclusions held)
- fallacy of popular wisdom (asserting ‘many drivers’ believe something does not make it true; you can never prove anything by assertion)
With a full review and consultation with drivers, changes can be implemented to make it more acceptable, thereby giving better results which will be more beneficial to all road users.
Anything can usefully be reviewed. To succeed in a request for review, it is necessary to show what is broken in the current implementation, why it is in the public interest that government pays the costs of reviewing the scheme now (a high barrier in these times of austerity) and why, if the review suggests reform is necessary, business should shoulder the costs of unexpected reform in the middle of a JAUPT approval cycle (also a high barrier considering the anti-regulation stance of the current government).
Reform cannot now be implemented far enough ahead of September 2014 to make any difference to the first 35 hours of periodic training needed by those LGV licence holders who want to keep driving professionally after September 2014. By that stage, there will be a much wider evidence based upon which to review and draw conclusions on the current periodic DCPC implementation. Any necessary reforms could then be implemented on a rolling basis as JAUPT approval for existing providers and courses becomes due.
A full review is needed before the country loses many long term, highly qualified, experienced, older and part time drivers who help the new drivers entering our profession with help and advice.
Drivers training other drivers was never an aim of the scheme, nor, arguably, is it necessary (though it is always welcome).
This statement shares many of the logical flaws as earlier - in particular, it is not based on evidence (such as an independently conducted survey of LGV licence holders that was big enough to reach statistical significance.
I can only amplify my previous comments. This sort of e-petition on periodic DCPC is a waste of time. A campaign for reform needs to be evidence based and have support from individuals and organisations across the spectrum of interested parties in order to succeed.
Before getting to that stage, any reform campaign has to achieve some consensus on what reforms are being requested - and that has not been achieved. As others have said, it is necessary to be aware of the risk of unintended consequences - though the current periodic DCPC implementation where attendance is the only thing measured can be farcical, do you want mandatory exams, for example?
The DCPC is already mandatory? The main criticism of it is drivers obtain their CPC purely for attending! If the DCPC is to be beneficial to anyone then mandatory testing seems to me to be crucial as a means of verifying that any training has achieved its’ objectives. Course content is another major bone of contention with some of the stuff on offer being poorly thought out and taught. Driver training = Good idea. DCPC = waste of time and money for all concerned as it will not achieve the aims intended in its’ present form.
This^^^ 
If you have to have Mandatory training! Then let’s have it full on with tests and as some on here say!! “Sort the wheat from the Chaff”
As it stands ATM it’s just a TAX. No increase in pay,T&Cs etc etc
Done my 35, can I have my money back ■■? fat chance…