The training game

necessitate two entirely parallel qualifications, one for UK-based drivers and another for those who cross borders into Ireland or continental Europe.

Robin Brown, chairman of SP Training, says a GB version of the DCPC is pointless, involving extra cost, duplicate systems and confusion: “The recommended EU DCPC syllabus fully covers UK operations. DVSA would need to create and manage a new register of courses, trainers, licensing protocols … It’s a non-starter for me.”

Mark Taylor, head of training at the RHA, also warns there would be a lack of training provision for the international DCPC.

Another option is to have a test of the driver’s competence and knowledge every five years. However, commentators say this would negate the whole purpose of ‘continued development’ and do little for road safety.

Michelle Gardner, deputy director – policy at Logistics UK, welcomes the idea of training flexibility but is concerned that the options overlook road safety benefits. “The consultation disappointingly focuses on the financial cost element of each option … and the cost difference between periodic training and the periodic test proposals … rather than road safety for logistics businesses,” she says. The business group strongly disagrees with the proposal for a periodic test to remove all requirements for mandatory training.

The UK government is consulting on the future of the Driver CPC. A recent survey for MT’s Asset Alliance Report 2023 probably summed up the majority view of the logistics industry pretty well: “Unproductive … an unnecessary cost … does not achieve what it set out to do.”

To some, it’s a money-making racket without merit, and to those who value training, it’s failing to deliver on its promise of higher standards.

Two crucial questions arise from this: how, if at all, the Driver CPC should be reformed; and, perhaps more controversially, whether training drivers really does improve road safety.

There are many issues with the current DCPC:

 Drivers are often asked to train in their own time;

 Courses are attendance only and there is no requirement for testing;

 Most of it is classroom based;

 Formats are rigid, which limits media, discussion and interaction;

 Courses must be seven hours completed within a 24-hour period.

The government’s review has led to several proposals that formed the basis of the consultation. These include: the acknowledgement that some form of DCPC should be retained; that training requirements should be less rigid in timescale and curriculum and more focused on learning outcomes; and that delivery of training should be improved, including e-learning and other high-quality methods. The consultation has also presented options for faster renewal and possible extensions or exemptions.

Although much of the flexibility and focus on best practice delivery is popular with trainers and operators, it leaves the industry with a problem. Adapting the DCPC for the UK and/or Great Britain means moving away from the EU model. At some point that divergence may

DRIVER ENGAGEMENT: The DCPC has been useful for reiterating key information and maintaining regular face-to-face contact, believes Evan Morris of RED Driver Risk Management

Evan Morris, training and development manager at RED Driver Risk Management, says the DCPC has been useful for repeating key messages and ensuring regular in-person engagement with drivers.

Lynn Brown, vice president of human resources, UK and Ireland at XPO Logistics, agrees: “It should continue and be improved to retain face-to-face contact with drivers to promote engagement – a point we feel is particularly important and which supports the delivery of bespoke messages.”

Overall, given the political and practical issues with diverging from EU standards, the consensus seems to favour the status quo, while negotiating with European partners to increase the flexibility of the courses themselves.

A broader question than the DCPC is the effectiveness of training itself. One key purpose is better road safety from improved driving standards – this can also

There is a question over whether, despite training and technology solutions, UK fleet culture tolerates speeding, even though it has been established as one of the ‘fatal five’ transgressions and there is a clear correlation between higher speed and the risk of serious or fatal injury. Operators seem to set their tolerances for speed based on the likelihood of police action or penalty (ie 3% above) and not actual compliance.

If training is not effective for high-risk drivers, then low-risk recruitment must become a priority. And yet, when MT surveyed operator-placed adverts for HGV drivers, half were prepared to take drivers with no more than six points, and one would accept nine except for IN, CD or DD codes (“for insurance reasons”). That could represent up to three recent infringements for which they were caught –presumably only a proportion of those committed.

The courts also allow high-risk drivers to continue despite accumulated points. There are currently 4,000 drivers with between 13 and 63 points on UK roads for whom disqualification would mean hardship – ironically usually because they have to drive for work.