Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Review of Driver CPC
FightBack Forums > Discussion > Government Policy
Johnxxx
Notice received from DSA today. Sounds as though "they" are trying to justify the existence / expansion of this nonsense, rather than to make it go away.

QUOTE
DSA seeks your views on CPC training

Send your views on the effectiveness of the Driver Certificate of Professional Competence – or Driver CPC – programme to the Driving Standards Agency by 16 October.

The European Commission has asked a number of questions about this Europe-wide change, and your responses will help to form a strong British response.

The Commission has asked about a number of areas with potentially major implications for Britain, including:

  • the case for standardising Driver CPC across the European Union
  • using Driver CPC to regulate young people driving large vehicles, through more gradual access and stronger and more protracted driver licensing and training.
  • which drivers should be covered by DCPC in the future
Virtually half of all the people killed recently on Britain’s roads were pedestrians, cyclists or motorcyclists. The government is seeking evidence about whether Driver CPC helps to give practical and relevant training that raises awareness of vulnerable road users.



Make your responses online now


roythebus
"Virtually half of all the people killed recently on Britain’s roads were pedestrians, cyclists or motorcyclists. The government is seeking evidence about whether Driver CPC helps to give practical and relevant training that raises awareness of vulnerable road users".

Yet on my driver CPC course, I drove for 10 minutes and during the course absolutely nothing was mentioned about casualty figures or the causes of accidents. Loads of shite about Working Time directive which even the VOSA man on his video couldn't explain except to say that VOSA would not be prosecuting for breaches of the WTD....

Please take time to complete the questionnaire if you've done the DCPC.
Pete P
It would be interesting to know how many voluntary minibus drivers this has affected.
roythebus
Humph, none yet from what I gather; it is meant to include all of them. So much for fair competition...
Johnxxx
QUOTE (roythebus @ Fri, 4 Oct 2013 - 09:48) *
Please take time to complete the questionnaire if you've done the DCPC.

Or even if you haven't (like me). "They" need to know that a number of (older) drivers aren't botheirng because of the extra cost and hassle and the ever decreasing pay rates for drivers. I filled in the questionaire on the basis that DCPC should be scrapped rather than extended (or "improved, harmonised", etc) even though none of their questions had anticipated this suggestion.
My view is that safety stuff should be part of driver testing and licensing and the other stuff should be part of vocational training and qualifications etc organised and paid for by the industry or the drivers, if they choose to.
And don't assume that its only the PCV/LGV drivers who are responsible for causing accidents involving "vulnerable" other road users. Much of the fault lies with vehicle and road design plus the other road users themselves.
Experience of various vehicles, loads, situations (and companies) is far more valuable than the mickey mouse stuff covered in the DCPC classroom or ten minute drive.
We should be like the USA - shut down the government when it runs out of money !!!
roythebus
"Much of the fault lies with vehicle and road design plus the other road users themselves"

Like the novice boy racer near me who killed not only himself but another driver on Thursday, injuring another 3 people and shutting the main A259 while the mess was cleared up. Part of the fault there is the road design, the majority of the fault is the driver. He'd allegedly already written off 2 cars. No amount of training will alleviate that.
Johnxxx
QUOTE (roythebus @ Sun, 6 Oct 2013 - 10:24) *
... Part of the fault there is the road design, the majority of the fault is the driver. He'd allegedly already written off 2 cars. No amount of training will alleviate that.

I agree, but that wasn't really my point. In your example the driver was obviously at fault. I was talking about an "automatic assumption" that LGV/PCV drivers are responsible for accidents involving cyclists, pedestrians, animals and motor-cyclists. In many situations (not always, admittedly) the "victims" themselves have created the hazard through carelessness, recklessness, inattention or ignorance and professional / conscientous / careful LGV/PCV driver didn't stand a chance of predicting or avoiding the accident.

The wording of the DSA statement on the DCPC questionnaire announcement also seemed to indicate (to me) that accidents involving pedestrians, cyclists etc are currently a centre of political and media attention and all central or local government agencies will be inclined to "find" a connection between this and their particular area of responsibility in order to bolster (or justify) their existence or attract / retain levels of funding. So rather than examine the real causes of the increase in accidents involving such road users they just jump on the nearest convenient bandwagon - in this case the possible extension or "improvement" of LGV/PCV DCPC regimes. Why not have compulsory Certificates of Competence for pedestrians, horse riders, cyclists or motor-cyclists (or even car drivers) - renewable on a continuous basis every five years or so ?
roythebus
I couldn't agree with you more! Taxi drivers should be included as well, and that's coming from me who also does private hire taxi driving and have the NVQ as well as the DCP!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.