In the national framework there doesn't seem to be any qualifications for driving other than NVQs. This seems quite wrong, surely if you have a licence to drive a truck that should be classed as a proper qualification in the national framework?
Even a standard driving licence should be? I have a degree and passed lots of tests/exams in my life time and to be fair while I found the theory element of the driving test the most easy tests I have done in my life the practical test was by far the hardest.
I think what I am getting at even if a person has no formal qualifications and no GCSEs/O levels etc but has a driving licence surely that should count as a formal qualification?
In Manchester for example 22.1 per cent of adults have no formal qualifications but I bet a good percentage of that have a driving licence so if a GCSE in media studies counts as a formal qualification surely a driving licence should?
|
Well ever since I passed my car test at 17 I've put on my CV that I hold a full driving licence, even before I was driving for a living. I took lessons in it and met the required standard when assessed so I reckon it counts as a qualification.
>> if you have a licence to drive a truck
>> there doesn't seem to be any qualifications for driving other than NVQs
Someone'll be along in about 4 hours who'll put you straight on that! ;)
|
I know there is professional qualifications you take for truck driving other than the driving licence which are proper recognised qualifications and some of them such as diplomas will be included in the national qualifications framework however surely just the passing the HGV driving tests alone should count?
I put my driving licence down too in my CV as far as I am concerned it is a qualification but my point is it would be officially when these statistics are compiled. In the case of professional driving then I guess you would put those licences down as a professional qualification on the census.
The same applies for other qualifications such as Corgi in my field Cisco or Microsoft exams there is nothing in the NQF which lists them.
Of course in the real world it is a qualification and they will get you the jobs, employers recognise them but my point is that the standard test doesn't seem to be count as any formal qualification.
Rereading my first thread I should have worded it better. I know how difficult it is to drive big vehicles, I have done it round the yard and the person who taught me went to university and was a hobbyist programmer.
I have huge respect for people who drive professionally for a living and that should be recognised further.
|
In all my waffle in my hour of a sleeping tablet induced haze is that I think all driving tests should have an official NQF level. E.g GCSEs are level 2, A levels level 3 etc. However there are and lots and lots of professional exams which don't.
I just think driving qualifications should be a lot more highly regarded by government and society than they currently are by some people but then it is their own ignorance :).
I wish I had not bought professional drivers into this as I say most of them will have formal qualifications in relation to their jobs such as NVQs and other qualifications listed on the NQF but the point of this thread is I think all driving tests which people pass should also count towards that.
I hope people get the angle in which I am coming from, my point is driving qualifications are a lot harder to achieve than is sometimes given credit for.
Last edited by: RattleandSmoke on Tue 12 Apr 11 at 01:38
|
My thread title should also really be should a driving licence be a formal qualification :).
I really didn't want to cause offence here, just a couple of badly worded sentences. I just miss some of the old debates I used to have on old forum I used to be a moderator of but I left because of the snobs.
|
Surely driving licences are a formal qualification of sorts and HGV, PSV etc are effectively professional qualifications in a similar vein to whatever electricians or gas fitters have ?
|
A driving licence at least has a clear purpose.
The NQF, and its successor (the QCF) don't do people many favours - they encourage too many colleges to put on courses which lead to blind alleys, according to a recent report by Prof Alison Wolf. She made some recommendations - some of which look likely to be accepted.
|
|
I wouldn't get too hung up on the NQF rattle, no one really pays attention to it! :-)
|
I think I can see what you're getting at Rattle:)
On one hand the driving licence ( both car & HGV) are a formal qualification, but in reality neither are any real indication that you are 'qualified' to drive.
IMO until the driving test becomes far more comprehensive, taking in basic car maintenance, road craft and first aid, and also including compulsory motorway miles, it can't possible be termed as any sort of qualification.
Anyone who passes a driving test ( again car/bike/HGV) has proved only that they can reach a required standard on the day, in the given circumstances.
The real learning starts from that day forward and that is where the encouragement should be for new drivers to achieve a further recognised qualification that would lead to discounts on insurance.
Much like the IAM and other schemes we have now, but it should be compulsory and and time limited for completion. It should also be run by the DSA and not a commercial venture.
In the case of HGV qualification, they have now moved a little bit forward and trainees have to show they can do the basics of load security and undergo ongoing training in other regulations, so it can be done...but there is much more than that needed.
I understand ( I may be wrong) that to obtain a car licence in Germany you have to put in a set number of driving hours as a minimum, and do a lot of comprehensive paperwork. I know that the same applies to an HGV Licence in France and it's a long and hard process.
Has anyone any experience of this?
So in view of the inadequacies of the route from non driver to driver in the UK, I would say no. it isn't a formal qualification.
Pat
|
I know I've said it before, but I find it astonishing that I can pass my test at 17 and never have to do any top-up training again, ever.
As an accountant and engineer I can be fined or struck off if I fail to do appropriate annual top-up training (for both professions) - but I am much more likely to kill when driving the car.
Instead we have this obsession with speed (which isn't even the major cause of most collisions) and we throw the book at people who are unfortunate enough to kill.
|
Its pointless talking about NVQs , they has no reputation, and are universally ignored and derided by most business organisations. Your point about MS and Cisco qualifications show this perfectly, being universally understood and accepted by those who ignore NVQs
As per driving license, its not a qualification, its usually a pre-requisite for a job! Should always go on your CV.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 12 Apr 11 at 08:42
|
I agree with you but it has been used by statisticians which then make for very misleading reports in the media especially by the usual publications.
Any system which doesn't recognise HGV training as an official qualification but recognises a grade G at GCSE is flawed.
|
The only issue with speed is that people lack the skills to know how to use it, hence it kills. It is lack of training which kills rather than speed itself though.
I think a lot of us are hypocrites though when it comes to driving, while we all say there isn't enough training how many of us here have just taken the basic driving test and then had no further driver training? The only extra thing I do is read the highway code every so often.
I still think the driving test itself is very difficult because there are far too many things which can go wrong. It isn't always as simple as just driving well that said examiners are supposed to show a bit of desecration.
I personally thought the theory element in the basic test was too easy but then I have an interest in cars anyway which obviously makes it a lot easier.
I think the NQF should just be scrapped because it puts labels onto things which doesn't work.
|
It certainly should be a privilege and not a right ans should be based on attitude as well as aptitude.
|
Pat I am pretty sure I read there are bringing in new a minimum amount of hours for the new tests but I don't know when or if it will ever come out. I was following it when I was doing driving lessons but it has been a while since I have read up on it.
DO you know what is happening about that?
I think it was something like 25 hours minimum recorded with a driving instructor but there was too many issues as it is open to so much abuse in the same way that pass plus is.
|
I'm completely out o9f touch with car driving tests Rattle but I think we have a driving insructor on here...is it Robin Regal?
In 2009 ongoing training was introduced for HGV drivers which consists of 35 hours per 5 years (or 7 hours per year if you prefer) to keep us all updated but that has caused an absolute outcry among drivers who think they don't need updating.
Yet give them 12 simple Tacho questions and I have yet to get anyone get all 12 right with the average score being 8/12. That tells me that one third are not fully aware of the regulations they are supposed to be working to.
Can you imaging the indignation we'd face if all car drivers were made to do some ongoing training:)
Although it would weed out the truly incapable driver and improve a lot of others.
Pat
|
>> Can you imaging the indignation we'd face if all car drivers were made to do
>> some ongoing training:)
>>
>> Although it would weed out the truly incapable driver and improve a lot of others.
I agree. Judging by the driving I see, very few of them are aware of the two second 'rule' or their braking distance at speed, for example.
|
>> Can you imaging the indignation we'd face if all car drivers were made to do
>> some ongoing training:)
I wouldn't object.
And I would imagine that the most indignant would be those most in need of the ongoing training.
|
>>
>> Although it would weed out the truly incapable driver and improve a lot of others.
>>
I'm not wholly convinced of that. Driver CPC might be useful for putting right misunderstandings on tachograph law, but since it's essentially classroom-based, it doesn't by definition make anyone a better driver.
Those guys who got the tacho questions wrong could probably score 12/12 every time if it came to a practical test on reversing blindside, road positioning or correct use of gears. that is far more useful than knowing the paperwork back to front. There are also, as Pat's fully aware, a fair few documented cases of duff information being given out at Driver CPC training sessions, and a lot of the stuff's an insult to even a rookie driver's intelligence. For instance, I'm a qualified, time-served vehicle mechanic (City & Guilds) but that doesn't exempt me from the maintainence part of the course.
A few years ago, I did a half-day "drive and survive" course which taught me far more new (to me) stuff in four hours on the road than I'd ever learn in 35 hours of classroom clock-watching. Ditto the Thames Valley Police basic motorcycling course which I did in the Army, and which I still credit with saving my life on several occasions.
|
There isn't a way you could be exempt from any part of the course HM
The syllabus is far and wide simply for that purpose.
There are courses available on every aspect of lorry driving including:
First Aid
Fuel Efficient driving
Staying Safe & Legal
ADR
First Response
Safe Loading
Customer care
as well as Tachograph information.
These are just a small example of hundreds of different subjects available for you to choose to take.
The authorities quite rightly assume a lorry driver will choose to take a course that he feels will do him some good in the chosen field that he works.
Surely that is a far more adult way than to try and force everyone to take the same training which may not be relevant to them?
>>Those guys who got the tacho questions wrong could probably score 12/12 every time if it came to a practical test on reversing blindside,<<
Agreed, but being able to reverse accurately on the blind side doesn't stop them getting tachograph infringements, keeping within the law (as we all have to do), and ultimately costing them their licences and a lot of money if they don't comply.
>>> and a lot of the stuff's an insult to even a rookie driver's intelligence.<<
I rest my case:)
Pat
|
I think you're missing my point, Pat. I really couldn't care less if I have to do a compulsory day on the basics of the alphabet (and I do know a few HGV drivers who'd benefit from that!) because I'm being paid for it, the "qualification" itself is being paid for, and it ticks the boxes; which effectively is all the Driver CPC is, a box-ticking exercise.
And since when (unless he's an owner-driver) did anyone have any choice in the matter? Employers will put drivers through the cheapest course possible, and I don't blame them either.
No, if driving is to be a proper qualification, it needs a further element of one-to-one practical tutoring in the package, after the basic test pass. Some classroom work perhaps, but not all of it. Driving is a physical activity which relies on hand/eye co-ordination, and practice is the only way to improve it.
In my schooldays, I studied O-level music; it was perfectly possible (probably still is) to do the syllabus and pass the exam without having to sing or play a single note; in fact you could be tone deaf and still do it. It certainly didn't qualify you as a musician; and the Driver CPC doesn't qualify you as a lorry driver.
|
It certainly isn't meant to qualify you as a lorry driver HM, but tell me what's better than having a lorry driver who can reverse in on the blind side AND keep within the laws of his profession?
If your employer is paying for it then you're very lucky, because around this area it is mostly the driver who pays the cost of this training.
In the cases where employers are paying for it they want a course pertaining to the type of work their operation does, and in most cases just approach the RHA who charge the highest rate of all and have had no practical experience whatsoever of what they are teaching.
HM have you actually taken a course yet and if so, what was the subject?
I have experienced so many objections to the driver CPC, but always from drivers before they have done any training. It's the thought of being 'forced' to do it they actually object to.
Afterwards, they see it quite differently and I can actually see their body language change as we get 90 minutes or so into it.
Once they realise it isn't like school and their not going to be ridiculed, and that I'm there to remind them and not teach them, the whole thing becomes a different matter.....and those same drivers actually do learn stuff they didn't realise they had 'forgotten':)
Lorry drivers have always complained about not being seen as professional and as we've seen stated on this thread accountants, plumbers, heating engineers etc have to have ongoing training, so why shouldn't we?
I have a room full of drivers today, who work for agencies, owner drivers or who have to pay for their own DCPC because their bosses won't pay for it.
They all resent doing it, and I don't know any of them but the biggest challenge for me will be making them feel comfortable and giving them value for money.
I do know a couple have expressed a wish to learn the basics of securing loads and have never used ratchet straps or rope, so we will strap the table to the chairs. We also have a board with hooks on and a length of rope to do dolly knots. We put the coil of strap on top of the computer tower and demonstrate the tricks we use to get a strap over a high load in a taut liner.
It may be classroom based, but for a driver who has never had to do that, and is paying for his own training, it's certainly better than no training at all.
Pat
|
>>
>> HM have you actually taken a course yet and if so, what was the subject?
>>
>> I have experienced so many objections to the driver CPC, but always from drivers before
>> they have done any training. It's the thought of being 'forced' to do it they
>> actually object to.
>>
>> Afterwards, they see it quite differently and I can actually see their body language change
>> as we get 90 minutes or so into it.
>>
Yes, maintenance..... or at least I think it was!
I don't actually object to the principle of the qualification, and I agree with you that in principle it's good for the industry; my objection is simply that it's purely academically based, and worse than that , effectively you can't fail it, which of course means that it doesn't weed out bad drivers; merely proves that they are bad drivers who have sat in a classroom for 35 hours a year. A bit more of the practical stuff you mention (how to tie a dolly) would do wonders for the course, and its reputation with drivers; stuff like that is a necessary rather than preferred skill IMO .
|
>> I think a lot of us are hypocrites though when it comes to driving, while
>> we all say there isn't enough training how many of us here have just taken
>> the basic driving test and then had no further driver training?
I'm pleased to say that I've done additional training in both car and motorbike.
Even without spending any money, there is a technique which is good. Start your journey with a score of ten. Knock off a point any time you make a mistake. Half a point for a minor one. Give yourself back half a point when your driving contributes positively to someone else's safety. I do this now and again and its an easy tool to make you assess your driving.
|
|
I find it ironic that there's an outcry in some of the papers that reducing the frequency of MOTs will increase road deaths. Whereas the vast majority of collisions and deaths are caused by poor driving, not poorly maintained cars.
|
Driving is a bit like karate (anyway karate according to the school I briefly attended).
It is commonly assumed that a black belt, 10th dan, is the badge of a master. It isn't: it means that after much exercise and discipline the holder is at last a beginner. He or she then progresses from first kyu upwards, to 8th or 10th I think. Or are the dans and kyus the other way round? It was a long time ago.
Passing the driving test means that the learner can at last be trusted solo with a car, to start the earnest and prolonged process that may eventually make them a safe, discreet, brisk driver.
The tragedy is that large numbers of people think passing the driving test means they already are such drivers. Very few indeed actually are, and not all that many bother to improve on their beginner status. They remain nervous, jumpy beginners made terrified and indignant by the competent drivers they so often obstruct. Indignant, because they wrongly imagine that they know what they are doing and the competent drivers are arrogant, reckless fools.
(No one will be surprised, I am sure, to be told that I was too lazy and wimpish to keep up the karate for long. More dedicated was an American friend who had a black belt and thought it meant he could at least handle himself a bit. Confronting a London yobbo who had made a remark to his girl friend one late evening, he assumed position No 1. The yobbo stared, then sniggered, then stomped him thoroughly).
|
>> stared, then sniggered, then stomped him thoroughly).
I forgot to add: he said ruefully that the stomping wasn't too bad. What hurt was the snigger...
Later he went to Japan to continue his studies. I hope he is now a human weapon capable of chopping the top off a beer bottle with the side of his hand without knocking it over. But I sometimes wonder. He was a nice, laid-back guy, of Italian extraction judging by his name, and martial arts seem a bit fierce and harsh. Not everyone's cup of tea.
|
A late lady cousin of mine, daughter of my favourite aunt, a childhood near-sibling and herself a person of great charm, was always frivolous and spoilt and more or less incompetent at a lot of things. Her father was a bomber pilot killed before she was born.
But she did two things well: she liked horses and could cope with them, and she was an exceptionally good driver. In fact she drove like a Met or Thames Valley traffic police driver having been taught to drive by one of their instructors, an inspired gift from her nice old grandfather (himself a terrifying driver being almost too small to see over his Rover's wheel, and favouring generous swings of the wheel rather than small corrective movements).
|
>> drove like a Met or Thames Valley traffic police driver
= never put a foot wrong, never hung about... the real thing.
|
|
if i was an employer , and young lad came along with no formal qualifications. but he had passed his therory test ,it would say to me , i can learn something. and if they have a full licence they must be somewhat coordinated
|
The following is what Directgov says about the National Qualifications Framework ............ tinyurl.com/66ftqx
Rattle ........
Because having a driving licence is such a major qualification, I think you should petition the Prime Minister online to have the omission from the Framework rectified. I'd do it myself but I don't have the necessary skill to word the petition as succinctly as you could.
Last edited by: L'escargot on Fri 15 Apr 11 at 18:37
|
Should driving be a proper qualification? - Dave_
