LOADED
Page 24
Page 25
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
HGV driver training is in a state of flux. The RT1TB has been replaced by the RH1TSC; one-man bands are springing up every day. We set out to ask what the trainers think about their profession.
/1 How tough is the artic driving test? Should provisional LGV licence holders learn to drive on laden trucks? And should the LGV test include a section on loading?
Two-and-a-half years ago Commercial Motor posed these and nine other questions to the 100 HGV training schools on the Road Transport Industry Training Board's list of approved schools. Their response was emphatic. More than 80% said provisional licence holders should learn on laden vehicles. Armed with those statistics we wrote to the Transport Secretary at the time, Cecil Parkinson, calling for changes in the LGV driver training programme.
WORRIES
Three months later we finally got a response from Roads and Traffic Minister Robert Atkins. Out came the old, tired arguments against laden testing, including worries over insurance and who would provide a laden test trailer. "As a result of these difficulties," said Atkins, "I think there are sound reasons to continue to require unladen vehicles for driving test purposes."
CM wasn't convinced. We have always believed that laden training is the only way to prepare learners for the real world — and make them a more attractive employment proposition to hauliers looking for new blood.
Two weeks ago we returned to the fray, surveying 50 of the 115 training schools still listed by the Road Haulage Industry Training Standards Council (formerly RTITB), as "approved" LGV driver training centres_ The results show it's time the DOT thought again about laden training and testing.
The companies we spoke to take their job seriously; many expressed a fear that training standards are under growing attack from one-man "cowboy" companies which are springing up with the demise of many Group Training Associations.
Equally worrying is the claim from RHITSC-approved Carlton Motor School in Kent that most prospective LGV learners don't even care whether a school is approved or not: "Nobody ever seems to ask the question. All our competitors aren't approved and it makes us more expensive." It may not seek re-approval.
Nearly all the training companies in our survey want a proper registration scheme for LGV instructors, similar to the Advanced Driving Instructor (ADI) scheme operated by the DOT.
As one northern instructor explained: "How is it that a man who teaches you to drive a Metro has to be properly registered, yet the same man can pass his artic test on a Friday and be out teaching learners on a Monday without needing any qualification at all?"
Although more than 80% of our respondents felt the current artic test requires a high degree of skill to pass, only 22% believed it adequately prepares a newly qualified driver for work. Several schools described themselves as merely teaching trainees to perform "a set of tricks".
ASPIRING
The typical training rig — a six-speed gearbox tractor with a single-axle flat trailer — does not prepare an aspiring artic driver for a full-length artic with a multi-speed gearbox and box trailer. Some schools, however, are making their training closer to the real world. In-company Driver Training in Northampton says it uses 12m box trailers as "they're much more difficult but more like real operating practice".
When it came to the question of whether provisional LGV Class C and C&E (artic) drivers should learn on laden vehicles, the response was a rerun of three years ago: 84% were in favour of laden training (83% in 1989).
But there were some reservations. Several schools suggested starting on an unladen outfit before going to a laden vehicle, while many said that it should be mandatory for training companies to provide proof of laden training.
Sadly, cost still dictates what training people want, schools we spoke to that offered additional laden training reported a low uptake on those courses. A number of training companies also wanted a special taxation class for training vehicles carrying a noncommercial load.
While 44% of our respondents backed laden testing, the figure was down on last time (63.2% in 1989). This is an anomoly. As most favour laden training — 84% said it would make their pupils more prepared for a professional driving job — why test them on an unladen vehicle?
The answer could be that training companies are generally against anything that could lengthen the duration of a test, as this would reduce the number of tests which could be handled in a day which would push up their costs. Maybe this is why they are not keen on including coupling and uncoupling in the test.
Less than 20% of the schools were in favour of having roping and sheeting included in the test — although nearly 75% said it should include questions on how to load a truck correctly within axle and gross limits. Roping and sheeting is "out of date" according to many: one gives a free HazPak course.
Some 80% of our respondents felt that the high reported failure rates on artic tests was due to too many learners opting for cheaper five-day courses. But the pressure is clearly on those schools which are up against cowboy trainers who promise miracles in a week when a pass would be more likely after 10 days.
There's a slight increase in the number of schools which want LGV licensing to start at 3.5 tonnes. Several said they had seen 7.5-tonners "being driven like minis". However, many reported that getting drivers of 73-tonners through a test would be difficult as experience had shown than many were set in their ways.
Once again CM will be writing to the DOT with details of this latest survey and calling for revisions to the LGV training and test programmes. We'll let you know if they'll listen this time round.
El by Brian Weatherley