I know this will probably make me pretty unpopular but I disagree with the above although I do agree that the test should be changed.
I personally think it is far too easy.
One hour on the road getting it ‘right’ in an empty training vehicle on familiar roads that the trainee has been practising on, does not prove that this particular driver will be safe in a fully loaded truck on strange roads eight hours a day.
I think the test should consist of two parts. One test run over a period of days assesing the general aptitude, knowledge, skill and attitude of the driver.
The second part being shorter but taken in a fully loaded vehicle that the candidate has never used before on totally different roads.
A bit radical I know and I have no doubt that I wil be shot down in flames over this, but one only has to remember all the crashes on the roads that involve trucks to realise that the current test is obviously not strict enough to be turning out drivers that are as safe as they should be.
I agree it is to easy i will also be un-popular after this post.
Go back a few years the test lasted 2 hours on the road or 26 miles plus the yard procedures.
Back then the national 1 st time pass rate was around 65% and that was from no license to artic or car license to artic .
Now
1/ There is no forward steering procedure around cones.
2/ The test is shorter.
3/ There is no gear exercise
4/ The test routes are easier.
5/ The trucks are easier to drive.
=======================================================
I Agree a 2 part test should be done to include
1/ A fully loaded truck on test ( Max Catogory for class you are taking test in)
2/ Bring back the gear exercise
3/ Make the driving test last 2 hours road driving or 26 miles.
4/ Vehicle lenghts should be Max lenght of the category you take the test in.
Thats my two cents.
If you do not agree does it look like i care ?
The main point as Mothertrucker said it’s to easy.
With that i agree 100% but the only problem is is how it could be changed.
Mothertrucker wrote:-
A bit radical I know and I have no doubt that I wil be shot down in flames over this, but one only has to remember all the crashes on the roads that involve trucks to realise that the current test is obviously not strict enough to be turning out drivers that are as safe as they should be.
Bit of a sweeping statement there MT - wh is to say that the accidents are not caused by drivers who took their test in the ‘good old days’ that 26 refers to.
Whilst I can see that there could be advantages with a longer test, the way the examiner marks todays tests would have to be far more lenient, taking an overall view of the drive, rather than marking every little thing down. IMO it is far too easy to fail a test these days - hence the much lower pass rates. Unless you beleive that todays drivers are not as good as those in the past- which I don’t!
It should also be taken into account the ability to pay, if a test was to be longer, costs would soar, and therefore less and less trainees would consider becomeing professional drivers. This would lead to us having new drivers selected on the ability to pay, rather than on their driving skill and ability.
Yeah, make it longer and more difficult! 
Actually, with the CE, they should really add a load of reversing exercises. (PROPER reversing that is tight spaces / blindside 
).
taking an overall view of the drive, rather than marking every little thing down.
Yes - This is what I feel would be better.
Right now they take that one hours drive and mark each item individually and ‘to the book’
How often have we heard “That was a very good drive but… there was one mistake that was a serious so you have failed!”
Then there are the really iffy drivers who can hold it together for that one hour and pass.
the system needs a big overhaul.
It would be nice if the DSA would trust instructors to mark any sheets fairly, but what is the chance of that. I guess every instructor would have to be registered then, and checked out regularly - more expense for the trainee!
