Speed Awareness Courses - Do they work?
Discussion
Digby said:
vonhosen said:
Those are a professional/industry qualification & employer's liabilities to ensure that their staff are adequately trained in the tools they use within the work place, what I'm talking about is a course being offered in lieu of prosecution as a result of offending.
Which means for those with no history of incident and despite having qualifications to show they can use their equipment etc, they have to do exactly as you suggest and are forced to do courses for life.Just because that's the way things are, doesn't make it right.
First thing unions etc complain if an employee
up, is that employee hadn't been provided with recent relevant training by employer.vonhosen said:
As I said, difference being professional/employer liability requirement versus offender.
First thing unions etc complain if an employee up, is that employee hadn't been provided with recent relevant training by employer.
So I should be able to say I didn't have enough ongoing training in my car to avoid points / courses?First thing unions etc complain if an employee
up, is that employee hadn't been provided with recent relevant training by employer.Digby said:
vonhosen said:
As I said, difference being professional/employer liability requirement versus offender.
First thing unions etc complain if an employee up, is that employee hadn't been provided with recent relevant training by employer.
So I should be able to say I didn't have enough ongoing training in my car to avoid points / courses?First thing unions etc complain if an employee
up, is that employee hadn't been provided with recent relevant training by employer.When you operate an electric saw at home for yourself, you are liable for yourself.
When you operate an electric saw for your employer as part of your work, your employer also has a liability in respect of you & it's use. The employer mitigates that liability by ensuring that you have sufficient training in respect of it so that you can't sue him when you
up.Oh & the changes are ringing so that you can't do the same DCPC course twice within the same 5 year cycle.
(They've realised that people are actually daft enough to do that & then complain that they can do it
)https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/UKDVSA/bu...
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 12th February 19:16
Digby said:
vonhosen said:
...sufficient training in respect of it so that you can't sue him when you up.
Which all came about due to people f up.king up. Nobody else has a liability for you when you
up as an individual (save the insurer who'll charge you for cover based on how much of a risk they perceive you to be).vonhosen said:
Oh & the changes are ringing so that you can't do the same DCPC course twice within the same 5 year cycle.
(They've realised that people are actually daft enough to do that & then complain that they can do it )
https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/UKDVSA/bu...
No, they realised they screwed up and due to industry complaints, have decided to do something about it.(They've realised that people are actually daft enough to do that & then complain that they can do it
)https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/UKDVSA/bu...
As for people being daft enough to do it, you didn't always know which course you were attending.
Everyone I spoke to who had this happen to them, including instructors who in the end were forced to ask if anyone in the class had already sat that course, had no clue.
All agreed it was utterly ridiculous because even if you hated the courses, why would you want to sit through the same thing over and over?
Only after it carried on this way for so long did rumblings of it being all about the money start to surface.
The whole idea is a joke, the courses are a joke, the initial setup of it all was a joke, how long this continued was a joke and yet, you prefer to blame those forced to do it.
No surprise there.
You can now go on to suggest how we should spend thousands of pounds of our own money to get better CPC training..... yet only be able to name one or two modules and will have no answer for the rest required.
Edited by Digby on Sunday 12th February 19:52
Digby said:
vonhosen said:
Yes & then blaming the employer, so they've become proactive as they have a liability for you when you do.
Which begs the question, how many courses does one need before they are no longer a liability? Digby said:
vonhosen said:
They have a liability for the employee as long as they remain an employee, so they'll require continual professional development as long as they are.
So if I have a company vehicle, I should be able to say I wasn't trained enough to avoid points and courses? 
If you have a company vehicle then your employer still has a liability towards you & your use of it.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 12th February 19:58
Digby said:
Which begs the question, how many courses does one need before they are no longer a liability?
The question is pertinent in the example given in the opening post of this thread, in which a woman who is a course provider and therefore could expect to have covered the course content more than most, failed to put the learning into practice.So the answer to your question of HOW MANY COURSES before you are no longer a liability is there can never be enough courses - or should that be many courses is not enough?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff