TESTING
Page 40
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
MS
To would-be HGV drivers the test is a daunting prospect — but many training and safety specialists want to make the training more effective, and the tests much tougher ... • "Mister B A Driver? Please sign against your name, and then lead me to your vehicle," Few will forget the first nervous moments of their HGV driving test, when they leave their friendly instructor and well-thumbed Highway Code behind to join the threatening figure of the examiner.
Less than two hours later, the candidate has either been advised that a re-test is necessary, or another qualified HGV driver is ready to take to the road. In many cases, someone with only car driving experience is suddenly entitled to pilot a fully-laden 38-tonner.
The HGV1 test currently consists of coupling and uncoupling questions; a reversing manoeuvre; a controlled stop; driving in a variety of road conditions; and questions on vehicle safety and the Highway Code. The vehicle is unladen and typically uses a flatbed trailer.
Critics of the test (and of the one or two-week training course that normally precedes it) identify plenty of points they would like to change. Chief among these is the use of an unladen vehicle throughout, which is hardly an appropriate reflection of the real world.
Other criticisms include:
LI The use of a flat trailer for the reversing exercise Ll The use of easy-to-drive trucks with anchro gearboxes
IU The lack of practical tests on coupling/ uncoupling or loading/sheeting
Lii The lack of emphasis on day-to-day matters like hours and overloading CI The absence of driving on motorways and in other difficult circumstances
Criticising, of course, is easy. More difficult is formulating an improved system of training and testing which is practical and can be run at a reasonable cost. In theory, at least, the opportunity to devise such a system is one side-effect of the move to harmonise driving licences and testing standards across Europe as part of the move to a Single European Market. All of the EC member states are working together to devise a new licence structure, and testing procedure.
EC proposals include: The threshold for HGVs drops from 7.5 to 3.5 tonnes.
LI To obtain an HGV licence for rigids above 3.5 tonnes (called a category C licence) you must hold a car licence. LI To obtain a licence for a combination (category C + E) you must hold a class C licence.
El Drawbars are counted as combination, and require a C + E licence.
Topics such as weights and drivers' hours are included in the theory tests.
So is this what the industry is looking for? The Department of Transport has issued a consultation document entitled Consultation on Implications for Driver Testing, and has asked for interested parties to comment.
For its own part, the DTp seems content. It says: "The Department believes that the basic concept of staging, particularly between rigid lorries and trailer combinations, is sensible." But it acknowledges that the industry will have to stump up £2.1 million simply to put drivers through the extra tests involved.
To ensure that drivers do not take a C + E licence immediately after a C licence, the Dip adds: "It may be appropriate to include an experience requirement (possibly six months or so) for Category C + E candidates."
Neill Graham, chairman of the Transport Section of the National Association of Training Groups, says: "We want a vehicle with a minimum GVW of 16 tonnes for the C licence, and 24 tonnes for the C + E licence." The EC proposals are for 11 and 21 tonnes respectively. The NATG also wants the rules to be tightened up for drawbars; "We believe it's better to have a separate test, because drawbars are more difficult to drive than an artic."
Graham believes that driving a laden vehicle is an essential part of a training course, and dismisses the safety objections raised by opponents of the idea.
He is not confident that any of the NATG's suggestions will be heeded, however, and he is cynical about the consultation process, dismissing it as "merely a cosmetic exercise".
Graham does not expect an improve ment in the role of the training companies "We're not allowed to train drivers — we only train Class One passers."
Another vote for the use of laden vehicles comes from John Miller, the senior instructor for RoSPA: "This is a definite yes. Laden and unladen vehicles handle entirely differently." He finds that some companies already satisfy the DTp's experience recommendation by driving a range of laden vehicles, before entering drivers for a Class One test.
So the ability of drivers passing HGV tests is unlikely to be improved by the new regulations, especially as many companies are reluctant to pay for the more expensive training courses which are designed to provide drivers with a higher level of experience.
The answer seems to be for companies taking on new drivers to realise that training them to be better, safer drivers will save money.
Derek Wright, director of studies at the Cranfield Institute Centre for Transport Studies, is currently undertaking research intended to confirm this.
"Accident costs are rising, and so are insurance costs, so we are looking at which are the best training methods to reduce both," Wright explains. He adds: "Generally one accepts that the test is only there to say 'here is a basic level of vehicle handling'."
Wright's preliminary research has indicated that good training not only instills more professional pride in a driver, but can also cut damage costs to both vehicles and buildings. "You can make major savings just by training people to do reversing manoeuvres for yard work," says Wright.
The lesson is clear: investment in HGV driver training is both necessary and profitable. For the freshly qualified Class One driver, however, it will remain as true as ever that there is no real substitute for eicwrience.
LJ by Peter Watt