New Test Ideas

NEW AND WANNABE DRIVERS (INTERACTIVE)
1

Hi All

I think the LGV test for both class one and two should be changed !!!

Changed in a way that it becomes broken dowen in to 4 sections as appose to one complete test.

Reversing., Emergency stop, Coupling and Uncoupling, Road Drive…

when he has completed each section, so if he balls up the road drive, thats the only part of the test he needs to do next time.
I think that keep doing the other exercises are a valuable waste of everyones time ■■?

In short once a trainee has passed each section then at the end of it he gets his licence… but must pass every section

2

nice idea but there is a possible drawback

At present, the examiner takes each test as a first test - clean sheet :slight_smile:

If you only had to do certain aspects of the test then the examiner would know that you had failed certain sections previously and may be influenced by that :exclamation:

3

I dont really see any draw back

First test would consist of all 4 sections
Second test would revisit sections failed on the first test.

Currently a trainee has to pass every section in one test to get a pass… so if a trainee balls ups the the uncoupling on his first test, then hes fail.

Then on his second test, he balls up reverse,but completes the uncoupling he fails,

Then on the third test something happens on the road drive, but has completed the two tasks above, he still fails…

So this becomes a continuing cycle until he does pass

Alot of people fail due to nerves, or something that happens or just bad luck, I think this way then the examiners would only pass should the see improvement on previous tests taken

4

i sort of agree with you but there are numerous problems with this.

what if you cant come for a retest for about 2 months and you are only tested on your reversing. by the time you get a licence you could have forgotten all you learnt about coupling(possible) and actual driving(hardly likley but you never know), and as rog has said they would be watching for even the slightest mistake and you are doomed. personaly i would rather do it all in one go and then you prove to the examiner that you are competant at everything, not just studying for the bit you have messed up on before which goes back to my first point

5

Swampey:
Hi All

I think the LGV test for both class one and two should be changed !!!

Changed in a way that it becomes broken dowen in to 4 sections as appose to one complete test.

Reversing., Emergency stop, Coupling and Uncoupling, Road Drive…

when he has completed each section, so if he balls up the road drive, thats the only part of the test he needs to do next time.
I think that keep doing the other exercises are a valuable waste of everyones time ■■?

In short once a trainee has passed each section then at the end of it he gets his licence… but must pass every section

Agreed. I think that something needs to be done too. :grimacing:
Good on yer Swampey, IMHO that’s a common sense approach to something that can potentially cause varying amounts of grief for all concerned… :smiley:

Having said that, let’s not expect too much in one go. What you’ve proposed might be a bit radical, so why not divide the test into two parts since 4 parts might be a bit complicated to administer? Maybe these could be called ‘on-road’ and ‘off-road.’

‘Off-road’ could be the reverse and the emergency stop. Then the un-couple and re-couple (for bendy trucks.)
‘On-road’ would then be ‘the drive.’

Is there any precedent for this radical idea? YES. :smiley:

  1. If you fail any part of ADR, you just resit the failed bit(s.) :wink:
  2. If you fail any part of the operators’ CPC, you just resit the failed bit(s.) :wink:
  3. (Saving the best 'till last :smiley: ) Even the DSA are said to be de-coupling the two-part theory test. :wink:

As issues of this type are normally implemented after a cost/benefit analysis, what might some of those be?

COSTS: Admittedly, there would be more admin and record keeping involved for re-sits, but I’m sure that the fees for the newly decoupled elements of re-tests would reflect that, so no loss to the DSA or candidates so far.

BENEFITS: Both the candidates and the DSA would benefit in that re-tests would be focused more narrowly on the issues which caused the initial ‘fail.’
Less ‘going through the motions’ for both the candidate and the DSA examiners leading to better morale for all concerned.
Freed up time for examiners and shortened/cheaper re-tests for candidates.
Shortened test appointment waiting times would possibly enhance the DSAs KPI stats. :grimacing:
(They might even like it then. :wink: )

It might be that there’s some compelling reason for re-tests to stay as they are, but that’s for the DSA to answer…

What do we reckon guys…■■

6

I’ve taken your points on-board and e-mailed the DSA with the proposal and asking for their input - wonder if I’l get an informative reply…

7

dieseldave wrote:-

It might be that there’s some compelling reason for re-tests to stay as they are, but that’s for the DSA to answer…

Being cynical, but could the compelling reason be that the DSA wouldn’t make as much money! It is also got to be considered that when the new Driver CPC test is introduced that the DSA will have problems with timings of tests anyway, as there will be the second practical test of half an hour and the current test which is about one hour - will they have 8 tests a day or 2 and 2 or 5 and 3 etc. - they dont know how thats going to work yet!

One other solution to the reversing, which in my opinion can be a problem for some trainees, would be to have it at the end of the test, when they are more settled. There has been some talk of the braking excercise being scrapped, however according to my records of trainees, there is no problem with that aspect of the test anyway.

8

ROG:
… wonder if I’l get an informative reply…

Ready for take-off…? whooooosh


9

Smart Mart:
Being cynical, but could the compelling reason be that the DSA wouldn’t make as much money!

:open_mouth: WHAT!! the Gov’t screw us over?? They wouldn’t do that… would they?? :open_mouth: :laughing:

Smart Mart:
It is also got to be considered that when the new Driver CPC test is introduced that the DSA will have problems with timings of tests anyway, as there will be the second practical test of half an hour and the current test which is about one hour - will they have 8 tests a day or 2 and 2 or 5 and 3 etc. - they dont know how thats going to work yet!

That’s a fair point Smart Mart, I’ll own up to not having thought about that aspect. :blush:
However, it might be that with all this ready made extra demand, the DSA could take on more examiners…
Surely, something has to ‘give’ ?

Smart Mart:
One other solution to the reversing, which in my opinion can be a problem for some trainees, would be to have it at the end of the test, when they are more settled. There has been some talk of the braking excercise being scrapped, however according to my records of trainees, there is no problem with that aspect of the test anyway.

I only thought about the concept of de-coupling the re-test into two parts, which I still think might be viable.
An examiner conducting a re-test could then be a little more productive without an increase in working hours, and the DSA might not need so many new examiners.
A question of better utilisation of existing resources IMHO. :wink:

Your idea of doing the ‘off-road’ part second is a separate, but perfectly valid, issue IMHO.
This one also makes me wonder whether there’s a compelling reason for doing the ‘off-road’ first.
I always thought of that as being a bit of an ice-breaker for the candidate, but I’m always prepared to be wrong. :grimacing:

10

I’ll have a GUESS at how the DSA will do the new driver cpc combined with the current test -
8am to 9.45am
10.15am to noon
1pm to 2.45pm
3.15pm to 5pm

11

Smart Mart:

There has been some talk of the braking excercise being scrapped

Is it true that this exercise is more about proving to the examiner that the vehicles brakes work than testing an actual driving skill? (or perhaps this is another myth :smiley: )

12

mrpj:

Smart Mart:

There has been some talk of the braking excercise being scrapped

Is it true that this exercise is more about proving to the examiner that the vehicles brakes work than testing an actual driving skill? (or perhaps this is another myth :smiley: )

It is to show the examiner that the trainee can stop under control whilst out on the road drive in case a situation requires it - that is why it is always done before the road drive - if a trainee cannot pass this, then they do not go out on the road drive or if they do, on the examiners head be it :exclamation: :exclamation:

13

ROG:

mrpj:

Smart Mart:

There has been some talk of the braking excercise being scrapped

Is it true that this exercise is more about proving to the examiner that the vehicles brakes work than testing an actual driving skill? (or perhaps this is another myth :smiley: )

It is to show the examiner that the trainee can stop under control whilst out on the road drive in case a situation requires it - that is why it is always done before the road drive - if a trainee cannot pass this, then they do not go out on the road drive or if they do, on the examiners head be it :exclamation: :exclamation:

And thats also the reason the reversing is done prior to the road drive, the examiner needs to know if a situation arises on the road then the candidate has the skill/know how to reverse safely if its needed.

14

If you want to split the test into sections, how long should be allowed from passing the first section to passing the last section ?

15

tachograph:
If you want to split the test into sections, how long should be allowed from passing the first section to passing the last section ?

IMHO, the test would probably be best left as it is.
IIRC, the point that was made is to do with re-tests and why a person has to do the whole thing again. :grimacing:

16

dieseldave:

tachograph:
If you want to split the test into sections, how long should be allowed from passing the first section to passing the last section ?

IMHO, the test would probably be best left as it is.
IIRC, the point that was made is to do with re-tests and why a person has to do the whole thing again. :grimacing:

I phrased that badly, but the result would be the same, if on the first test you failed one or more of the sections you would be allowed to revisit just those sections, so again how long before completing all sections successfully.
Or am I misunderstanding ?

Btw I also think the test should be left as it is.
When you do this job for real, you’re expected to be safe and competent at the job, that’s the whole job, not just sections that you feel you can do on the day in question, as much as I sympathise with people who fail the test, the test should be about a trainee showing that he/she is safe to carry on learning on their own, the test should never be about simply seeing how easy you can make it for a trainee to pass.

17

I knew what you meant :slight_smile:
Bit like the split in the theory that is due soon - if you fail one part then only that part has to be retaken - cannot find out how long someone has before the first part becomes void if the second failed part has not been retaken & passed :confused:

18

tachograph:
I phrased that badly, but the result would be the same, if on the first test you failed one or more of the sections you would be allowed to revisit just those sections, so again how long before completing all sections successfully.
Or am I misunderstanding ?

I’d say it might work best as it is, ie. a re-test is booked pretty swiftly after the initial fail, say within one month?
I was only thinking of freeing-up some time for all concerned…

tachograph:
Btw I also think the test should be left as it is.
When you do this job for real, you’re expected to be safe and competent at the job, that’s the whole job, not just sections that you feel you can do on the day in question, as much as I sympathise with people who fail the test, the test should be about a trainee showing that he/she is safe to carry on learning on their own, the test should never be about simply seeing how easy you can make it for a trainee to pass.

Agreed, but… :grimacing:
IMHO, the first shot at the test should be left as it is, and if the candidate passes- that’s great and job done… :grimacing:

There are many people who don’t do well under test/exam conditions and it’s those people I had in mind.
If they were allowed to do a split re-test, it might help them out and give the DSA some time ‘back’ so to say.
IMHO, I don’t think that a candidate who needs a split re-test is necessarily a bad/poor driver, because the fail might be purely to do with nervousness.

I just think that the idea ought to be considered by those wiser than myself… :smiley:

19

Rog wrote:-
cannot find out how long someone has before the first part becomes void if the second failed part has not been retaken & passed

I think you wil find each part will only stand for 2 years as the combined does now. So you would have to complete both parts and your practical test within 2 years.

20

Smart Mart:

Rog wrote:-
cannot find out how long someone has before the first part becomes void if the second failed part has not been retaken & passed

I think you wil find each part will only stand for 2 years as the combined does now. So you would have to complete both parts and your practical test within 2 years.

That was my guess but was not certain