Speed Awareness Courses - Do they work?

[Devil2575]

Digby said:

Good at which part? Wall of death etc? BMX jumps? You will be able to balance and ride almost always within seconds.

But feel free to name me the plethora of skills we as humans apparently lose after a short period of time. I'm struggling to think

Edited by Digby on Wednesday 25th January 19:47

The basic skill of riding a bike is primarily a motorskill. You do it without having to think. You don't tend to lose things like this although you are not as good at it after a long time out of the saddle. However knowledge and how to apply it is different. You do lose this if you don't regularly use it.

[cmaguire]

Devil2575 said:

The basic skill of riding a bike is primarily a motorskill. You do it without having to think. You don't tend to lose things like this although you are not as good at it after a long time out of the saddle. However knowledge and how to apply it is different. You do lose this if you don't regularly use it.

None of that applies to someone having to take training to do something they are already doing everyday anyway.
I would expect training to be required to do a different job.

[Devil2575]

cmaguire said:

Devil2575 said:

The basic skill of riding a bike is primarily a motorskill. You do it without having to think. You don't tend to lose things like this although you are not as good at it after a long time out of the saddle. However knowledge and how to apply it is different. You do lose this if you don't regularly use it.

None of that applies to someone having to take training to do something they are already doing everyday anyway.
I would expect training to be required to do a different job.

Yes but refresher training is comon place, at least in my industry it is.

[cmaguire]

Devil2575 said:

Yes but refresher training is comon place, at least in my industry it is.

I've learnt over a period (which finished some time ago) that there are two things that matter. Firstly talent, and secondly experience. Rather conveniently it is relatively easy to determine if an individual has talent. If so, they'll do what they do and experience is everything. Refresher training is pointless.
Without the talent (or aptitude if you prefer) we aren't really dealing with refresher training. We're still trying to teach them to do the job properly in the first place.
If you can differentiate and provide the 'training' to only those that need it then fair enough. But enforcing it on all just opens the door to yet another box-ticking waste of time.
And makes some people a lot of money.
And costs others a lot too (in time, money and hassle).

[Mill Wheel]

Devil2575 said:

Yes but refresher training is comon place, at least in my industry it is.

That is because of events like Flixborough and Bhopal and many others.
It is the same in munitions and firework manufacture, but accidents still happen when workers fail to respect the rules and procedures.
They don't forget to respect them, they choose not to in most cases.

A lot of industry training and assessment is to ensure that businesses can cover themselves in the event of an incident... and not get stuck with a fine like KFC did with workers handling hot gravy without gloves, or Northumbria University giving two students potentially lethal doses of caffeine!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-38692014

[Devil2575]

cmaguire said:

Devil2575 said:

Yes but refresher training is comon place, at least in my industry it is.

I've learnt over a period (which finished some time ago) that there are two things that matter. Firstly talent, and secondly experience. Rather conveniently it is relatively easy to determine if an individual has talent. If so, they'll do what they do and experience is everything. Refresher training is pointless.
Without the talent (or aptitude if you prefer) we aren't really dealing with refresher training. We're still trying to teach them to do the job properly in the first place.
If you can differentiate and provide the 'training' to only those that need it then fair enough. But enforcing it on all just opens the door to yet another box-ticking waste of time.
And makes some people a lot of money.
And costs others a lot too (in time, money and hassle).

Refresher training has nothing to do with talent or experience in my opinion. In fact experience can bring problems of it's own that it is ueful to have refresher training to try and address.

[Mill Wheel]

Devil2575 said:

Refresher training has nothing to do with talent or experience in my opinion. In fact experience can bring problems of it's own that it is ueful to have refresher training to try and address.

Experience leads to subjects becoming blasé about procedures.

However, the SAC tutor whose unfortunate lapse triggered this thread would presumably be "refreshed" every time she tutored a course, which I suggested called into question the effectiveness of the teaching offered.

[Devil2575]

Mill Wheel said:

Devil2575 said:

Refresher training has nothing to do with talent or experience in my opinion. In fact experience can bring problems of it's own that it is ueful to have refresher training to try and address.

Experience leads to subjects becoming blasé about procedures.

However, the SAC tutor whose unfortunate lapse triggered this thread would presumably be "refreshed" every time she tutored a course, which I suggested called into question the effectiveness of the teaching offered.

Experience leads people to become normallised to the risks involved in what they do.

The SAC tutor is an individual and this is a single event. It doesn't tell you that the teaching offered is ineffective, it tells you that it is not perfect.

[Mill Wheel]

Devil2575 said:

Mill Wheel said:

Devil2575 said:

Refresher training has nothing to do with talent or experience in my opinion. In fact experience can bring problems of it's own that it is ueful to have refresher training to try and address.

Experience leads to subjects becoming blasé about procedures.

However, the SAC tutor whose unfortunate lapse triggered this thread would presumably be "refreshed" every time she tutored a course, which I suggested called into question the effectiveness of the teaching offered.

Experience leads people to become normallised to the risks involved in what they do.

The SAC tutor is an individual and this is a single event. It doesn't tell you that the teaching offered is ineffective, it tells you that it is not perfect.

Normalised - as in they no longer see the risks in the same light, believing that their routines have reduced the risk?
Isn't that what a SAC is supposed to reduce? The training drivers get while studying to pass their test is revisited in a SAC, in order to remind them of the risks - but one whose job is to conduct the course, who must be constantly reminded of the risk, fails to adapt.

Perhaps the course material is flawed - or is it the attendees who are flawed, and unless they adopt what they are taught, remain flawed?

In any scenario, it seems to me that it is about time the effectiveness of the SAC is assessed, because otherwise it will continue to be viewed as a get out of jail free card, and a means to increase the incomes of the authorities... no matter how insignificant you believe it to be.

[Digby]

Devil2575 said:

However knowledge and how to apply it is different. You do lose this if you don't regularly use it.

Right, so why are people having to pay for courses to be told things they already know because they do them every single day?

If you don't know almost everything they tell you and put it in to practice every day, you wouldn't be in these CPC "classes"

You can't even fail these courses. They take your money, you can then do the same course over and over if you wish and the only things which may mean you have to return to do a module again are if you fail to arrive or fall asleep. That's not a joke, either. We have been told that at the start of every course. You have to arrive and you have to stay awake and you then can keep your licence. That's it. There may be questions, but it doesn't matter if you get them wrong or simply want to mess about and answer them in a stupid way etc. There are no end results.

Von keeps on suggesting you pick better courses etc (so it would appear he agrees with me that the CPC scheme is a farce) but clearly has no answer as to how you keep picking these courses every few years as required by law.

What if they also cost more as he suggests? You do the uber-driving course and the uber-first aid course, pay a lot of money to do so, get your "you are now legal and can keep your licence" box ticked by doing those and three crap courses but then still have to do it all again and again and again until you retire. It's even worse if you are self-employed as you lose money due to not being able to work, too.

Someone, somewhere is no doubt stroking a private jet saying "I can't believe they fell for this"

[vonhosen]

Digby said:

Von keeps on suggesting you pick better courses etc (so it would appear he agrees with me that the CPC scheme is a farce) but clearly has no answer as to how you keep picking these courses every few years as required by law.

Where the system is compromised is in that it assumes that operators/drivers are all professionals who would care about their professional development & that operators/drivers as professionals would always want to do better & harbour self improvement.
It didn't expect that they would attempt to circumvent that by doing the same course (up to 5 times) in a cycle.

As I said, if you care about your development you'll look on it as 5 chances to learn something that will make you better (even if you are currently at or above the minimum standard required) than you currently are. You've got to do it, so you may as well invest in getting something positive out of it rather than bhing, spending money & not getting as much out of it as you could.

You don't legally get a choice over whether you do it or not, but you do get a choice over what courses you do. With a that in mind, if you choose to do the former at least you get something positive from it. If you do the latter you'll get little out of it.
The power of that choice (to choose a course that benefits or not) is with you. So if you choose the option that you get little or nothing from it rather than getting something positive from it then you only have yourself to blame.

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 28th January 16:23

[Digby]

vonhosen said:

You don't legally get a choice over whether you do it or not, but you do get a choice over what courses you do. With a that in mind, if you choose to do the former at least you get something positive from it.

And this is the problem. What can be done over and over and over and over again to gain something from it?

First aid?

[vonhosen]

Digby said:

vonhosen said:

You don't legally get a choice over whether you do it or not, but you do get a choice over what courses you do. With a that in mind, if you choose to do the former at least you get something positive from it.

And this is the problem. What can be done over and over and over and over again to gain something from it?

First aid?

A single first aid refresher every 5 years is no bad thing.
If you book the same course 5 times in a cycle & expect to get valuable learning then you are a plank.
Otherwise (far better) to keep looking for new courses that you can benefit from, after all there's a catalogue of providers & courses.

Here's a thing, you can design your own courses, get JAUPT approval for them & deliver them to your drivers & charge others to do them if you think it's money for old rope.
Or, as I said, you can bh & get little from it (as you appear to), but then you've only got yourself to blame.
I remember reading the latest report from Traffic Commissioners & one of them commented that if those who spent so much energy trying to circumvent rules, instead used that energy to get the most out of things within the rules, they wouldn't have the problems they do.

[Willy Nilly]

vonhosen said:

A single first aid refresher every 5 years is no bad thing.
If you book the same course 5 times in a cycle & expect to get valuable learning then you are a plank.

The system allows you to do this though, all you have to do is turn up, you can it there asleep if you like. That is the calibre of course and system we are talking about.

[vonhosen]

Willy Nilly said:

vonhosen said:

A single first aid refresher every 5 years is no bad thing.
If you book the same course 5 times in a cycle & expect to get valuable learning then you are a plank.

The system allows you to do this though, all you have to do is turn up, you can it there asleep if you like. That is the calibre of course and system we are talking about.

It says more about the people who pick courses that are not of value to them & do that.
As I said they didn't expect 'supposed' professionals to behave like that.

[Digby]

vonhosen said:

It says more about the people who pick courses that are not of value to them & do that.
As I said they didn't expect 'supposed' professionals to behave like that.

I love how you keep saying pick your courses etc. Our company, as an example, employs thousands.

Would you be prepared to do as you say and work out exactly which specific courses work for each individual and which ones do not regarding refresher training and all other required H&S courses?

Let's make you the M.D. Tell me what you would do?

You could save masses of time and probably millions of pounds and get your drivers back to doing what they are all trained to do anyway, or you could do as you suggest and...well, what are you suggesting?

Five intense and far more expensive first aid courses to teach them things they may never use? If not, then what?

I love how you try to blame drivers and employers for the utter shambles that this situation is and not those currently absolutely raping companies and individuals.

Something pointless and expensive has been forced upon said trained individuals, something which is an obvious money making scheme and a laughing stock to almost everyone in the industry, yet your answer is to blame those forced to take it. "Supposed" professionals? What does that make those in charge of training these professionals?

I think your approach to this says a lot about you..

[vonhosen]

Digby said:

vonhosen said:

It says more about the people who pick courses that are not of value to them & do that.
As I said they didn't expect 'supposed' professionals to behave like that.

I love how you keep saying pick your courses etc. Our company, as an example, employs thousands.

Would you be prepared to do as you say and work out exactly which specific courses work for each individual and which ones do not regarding refresher training and all other required H&S courses?

Let's make you the M.D. Tell me what you would do?

You could save masses of time and probably millions of pounds and get your drivers back to doing what they are all trained to do anyway, or you could do as you suggest and...well, what are you suggesting?

Five intense and far more expensive first aid courses to teach them things they may never use? If not, then what?

I love how you try to blame drivers and employers for the utter shambles that this situation is and not those currently absolutely raping companies and individuals.

Something pointless and expensive has been forced upon said trained individuals, something which is an obvious money making scheme and a laughing stock to almost everyone in the industry, yet your answer is to blame those forced to take it. "Supposed" professionals? What does that make those in charge of training these professionals?

I think your approach to this says a lot about you..

How many times?
Professional development is a good thing. Doing better than you currently do is a good thing, even if it's only a bit better & there is always room for improvement.
Whatever the why's & wherefore's of DCPC, you have to do it.
Now you can make the best of that & get the most out of it that you can, or you don't
You sound like you aren't.
If you aren't getting the best out of something you have to do then that is down to you & nobody else, because there was better within the constraints than you are currently achieving & your choice is what's stopping you get the most out of what is available.
If you want to do better still & feel limited by what's available then set up your own courses if you have that many drivers & all these others that you believe think like you will be thrilled too & use your courses.

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 28th January 21:05

[Digby]

vonhosen said:

Professional development is a good thing.

We all know that. Daylight robbery via a system which is designed around taking money and teaching what is already known is utterly pointless, yes? You do agree with that, yes?

Your entire argument is based on getting something better when many either have no choice, no time, no funds or even if they could, no real options as these so called better courses would cover a tiny percentage of what is now required to stop fully trained and experienced drivers becoming illegal.

Pay us again, or get lost are the options.

Your approach and suggestions would put your company under in no time.

I'm not sure you answered, but is training an industry you are involved in?

As a rule, only those who stand to gain financially defend something so tragic as the CPC.

And where do you draw the line? If they do introduce a system which requires us to be trained to used a knife and fork, you would instantly agree with that too, wouldn't you?

Despite what you think, the world does not need regular training for every single aspect of their working day.

And as if by magic...

Yesterday I had to sit another health and safety course re: manual handling!!!!

More money paid, to sit in a room and be told the best way to pick up a box etc.

All of it covered twenty times before, just so our company can comply with some more BS.

Legalised theft. To think of it as anything else is beyond logic.

Edited by Digby on Saturday 28th January 21:59

[Devil2575]

Mill Wheel said:

Normalised - as in they no longer see the risks in the same light, believing that their routines have reduced the risk?

Normalised in that they no longer see the risks because they are exposed to them all the time and nothing bad has happened.

[Willy Nilly]

vonhosen said:

Willy Nilly said:

vonhosen said:

A single first aid refresher every 5 years is no bad thing.
If you book the same course 5 times in a cycle & expect to get valuable learning then you are a plank.

The system allows you to do this though, all you have to do is turn up, you can it there asleep if you like. That is the calibre of course and system we are talking about.

It says more about the people who pick courses that are not of value to them & do that.
As I said they didn't expect 'supposed' professionals to behave like that.

If the objective was to raise the standard of drivers the system would have been set up to do just that. You'd probably have a course on drivers hours and new legislation, one on loading, how to handle various loads including new legislation and working practises, one on road craft, one on first aid and health (lorry drivers are mostly walking heart attacks) and may be one on how the truck works and maintenance. These are just ideas.

Over the course of your CPC you have to do all of the segments. Other courses, such as HIAB could count as a CPC course, but a sort of CPC+.

To start your career as a lorry driver you have to take a legally mandated test. When you have past you then have to take legally mandated training. You are told how many hours you can work and expected to take breaks by law, even though there is no legal responsibility for the state to provide you anywhere to take a rest. At every stage you are legally responsible for the work you are doing, even when put under extreme pressure. If at any time you make a mistake, the law will see you punished and fined all for what amounts to The Living Wage. Can you show me any other career or job that expects so much from its staff and pays so poorly in return?

The CPC system and SAC courses are little more than jobs for the boys.