House of Commons - Transport

Select Committee on Transport Seventh Report

4 A minimum learning period

Evidence for a minimum learning period

36. Preliminary analysis of research data suggests that, for drivers of all ages, the reduction in collision liability which they experience between their first and second year of driving post-test may be as high as 42.5% as a result of gaining experience alone.[55] Other research, undertaken in 1997, found that male drivers who took longer to learn to drive had significantly fewer collisions than drivers who completed their training in just a few months. A similar relationship was found for male drivers who drove higher mileages while learning.[56] The Association of British Insurers told us that each year, 50,000 17 year-olds pass the driving test with less than six months driving experience. It notes, "If the learning period takes place during the spring and summer months, many of these drivers may obtain a full licence having never driven in ice or snow, or even in the dark."[57]

37. The challenge, then, is to secure the benefits of this experience before allowing people to drive unaccompanied. The expectation is that a minimum learning period would go some way towards achieving this. The DfT's own consultation document found that a minimum 12-month learning period could each year prevent 800-1,000 deaths and serious injuries and 6,000-7,000 casualties in all.[58] This is a significant casualty reduction to be achieved from just one initiative. It is expected that a six-month minimum learning period would have a much diminished impact, resulting in an estimated 120 deaths and serious injuries being prevented each year.

38. Sweden increased the period of pre-driver training by lowering the age of obtaining a provisional licence while keeping the minimum age for unsupervised driving at 18 years. In 1993 it lowered the age at which people could start to learn to drive from 17 years six months, to 16 years. The results of this initiative showed that with extended supervised practice there was a significant reduction in crashes.[59] Following the change, the average hours of training and practice increased from 47 hours, to 118 hours. Collision rates during the first two years of unsupervised driving fell by 40% for those people that started practising before the age of 17 years and six months, compared to the old system, once adjusted for socio-economic and other factors.[60] The authors of a research report commissioned by DfT in 2002, stated, "Sweden achieved […] substantial improvements in novice driver safety […] so this type of measure merits very serious consideration in Britain. Unfortunately, results from Norway have been less encouraging; the reasons for this need to be better understood."[61]

RAISING THE AGE OF FULL LICENSING

39. Introducing a minimum 12-month learning period in the UK would effectively raise the minimum age at which people can drive unaccompanied from 17 to 18 years. The minimum age for solo driving across Europe was set at 18 years by Council Directive 91/439/EEC in 1991, however the UK (along with only Ireland and Austria) has a derogation for a lower age limit.[62]

40. In 2005-06, just 24.2% of people passing the test were under 18.[63] Although they represent only a relatively small number of drivers (197,425 in 2006),[64] preventing these people from driving unaccompanied would in some cases cause hardship. This would be particularly pronounced for those young people dependent on private vehicle transport for access to employment and education opportunities. It might also impinge on the family and social lives of these young people.

41. In addressing the novice driver casualty problem it is necessary to make an informed choice about the balance to be made between driving entitlement, risk, and costs—both economic and social. As the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development / European Conference of Ministers of Transport report, Young Drivers,[65] states:

The key point is that young driving is not without its risks, and decisions taken with regard to driving ages should factor in this risk. In other words, the need for mobility at a given age should be balanced with the costs of that mobility, in terms of human life and health, as well as economic impact, based on data that is as complete and reliable as possible. Put differently: how much personal mobility should be exchanged for how many deaths and injuries related to young driver risk? At what point does the risk of preventable deaths and injury become excessive?

42. We asked the Department for Transport to provide its assessment of the economic and social costs that would be associated with a 12-month minimum learning period which would in effect raise the solo driving age to 18 years. Despite stating in its original memorandum that: "It would have a significant adverse impact"; the Department subsequently told us that actual cost assessments had yet to be undertaken.[66] The Department did, however, provide data to show the percentage of 17 year-olds taking part in its the Cohort Study who drive to and from a place of work or study, which show that 68.1% of the sample do so on at least four days a week. The research does not provide information about alternative forms of transport available for these journeys.[67]

43. The Department for Transport is in the process of reforming the training and testing regime for learning to drive. It expects to consult "later in the year" on these reforms.[68] Given that work is well underway on reforms to the framework for learning to drive, we are greatly concerned that the Department has not undertaken any objective assessment of the costs and benefits—both economic and social—of changes to driving entitlement, as part of restructuring the process of learning to drive. The Minister has told us that the reforms would be based on evidence, not anecdote, and we seek reassurance that these evaluations will indeed be instrumental in determining the Department's course of action. We are furthermore concerned that the lack of evaluation of these options is indicative of a lack of ambition in the scale of change the Department is contemplating.

SUPPORT FOR A MINIMUM LEARNING PERIOD

44. There was support from many of our witnesses for the introduction of a minimum 12-month learning period.[69] The ABI stated that recent research had found that increasing the length of the learning period and enforcing minimum levels of driving practice had significantly reduced the novice driver collision rate in the United States.[70] RoSPA and the Under 17 Car Club suggested that a 12-month mandatory learning period should be accompanied by lowering the age for obtaining a provisional licence to 16 years and six months.[71] Citing research which found that 12% of drivers who had recently passed the test had never driven in the dark, PACTS argued that the minimum learning period should include a requirement to drive in a wider range of conditions, such as motorway and night driving.[72]

45. The driving schools were not in favour of a minimum learning period. While accepting that the safest drivers are those that have had plenty of driving experience, BSM told us: "There is no reason to suggest that someone who has held a provisional licence for a specific period of time would actively gain practical experience driving the car. We believe pupils would put off starting to learn until nearer the end of the 'learning period'."[73] The Department for Transport reinforced this concern: "Extending the period in which only a provisional licence is available would allow more time for learners to practice, but they would not necessarily do so."[74] The Motor Schools Association suggested that a minimum learning period would be impractical and misleading.[75]

46. We acknowledge these difficulties. But the risk that learners will continue to bunch driving practice in the final few months could possibly be overcome with a combination of a minimum number of hours of tuition, possibly through set periods of the year and a requirement to complete a structured syllabus before applying to take the test, see paragraph 52, below.

MINIMUM NUMBER OF HOURS PRACTICE OR TUITION

47. We heard many suggestions about the level of tuition and practice which should be required. These varied from no mandatory tuition, to 100 hours practice. RoadPeace argued for more driving experience: "we do support a requirement for a minimum of 50 hours driving, but 100 hours should be considered. This should be supervised but not necessarily by a driving instructor."[76] The AA Motoring Trust concurred that in terms of road casualty reduction, it would be beneficial for learner drivers to have 100 hours driving practice, but the organisation also recognised that this would be expensive for those without a voluntary supervisor and that private supervised practice would be difficult to enforce.[77] Brake suggested that learner drivers should undergo a minimum of 10 hours professional tuition in a car with dual controls.[78]

48. Again, the driving schools did not favour these minimum standards, arguing that learners should progress through a syllabus at their own pace.[79] RoadSafe suggested that a minimum learning period could be tailored to each individual according to the outcome of risk assessment based on personality traits.[80] While this would arguably be the most effective approach, there is a danger that the inconsistency would lead to confusion, which would risk bringing the whole system into disrepute.

Proposal for a minimum learning period

49. We consider that the evidence of the consequent prevention of death and serious injury would justify the introduction of a 12-month learning period. We recommend that a 12-month minimum learning period should be introduced as part of the structured approach to learning to drive. This would increase the minimum age at which someone is entitled to a full driving licence, and thereby able to drive unaccompanied, to 18 years, in line with most European countries. Given the risks involved in driving, it seems reasonable that the minimum age for holding a full driving licence should be 18 years.

50. To prevent learners bunching all their tuition into a short space of time, we suggest that they should be required to take a specified number of hours of professional tuition at different points during a 12-month period. This should also ensure that learners have experience of driving in various weather and lighting conditions. Different witnesses had different proposals about the minimum number of hours to be required, from 10 to 100 hours. We think it is reasonable to specify a minimum number of hours of professional tuition, but it should be emphasised that this is an absolute minimum. We do not believe the evidence as to what number this should be is conclusive. The figure should therefore strike a fair and proportionate balance between cost and the anticipated safety gains.

51. Although experience has a larger impact on collision risk than age, age is also a factor which influences risk.[81] We would therefore not be able to recommend a lowering of the minimum age for obtaining a provisional licence without very robust evidence that this would have a beneficial impact on road casualty rates. We have not received such evidence during the course of our inquiry. Therefore, we do not recommend lowering the minimum age of obtaining a provisional licence. In its response to this Report, we invite the Department to detail what research it has undertaken or commissioned into the safety impacts of lowering the minimum provisional licence age, and what the results showed.

52. We are aware that changing the rules surrounding the age of driving entitlement by introducing a 12-month minimum learning period will have a negative effect on some young people's mobility. The impacts of a 12-month minimum learning period should be closely evaluated, with particular regard to changes in novice driver casualty rates, and inclusion in education and employment.

SIGNING-OFF A STRUCTURED SYLLABUS

53. A requirement to learn how to drive according to a structured training programme enjoyed more support among the driving schools.[82] Indeed, many instructors already work from a syllabus and complete a logbook. The Driving Standards Agency launched the Driver Record logbook on a voluntary basis in 2002. According to the Department, its aim is "to ensure that the learner and instructor take a structured approach to learning and gaining experience in each of the competencies which are assessed in the practical driving test."[83] The Department has a research project underway which should report at the end of 2007 on the extent of use of the Driver Record, and the influence it has on the level and nature of pre-test driver training and experience, and on driving test performance.[84]

54. There was a call from within the driving instruction industry to make the logbook scheme mandatory.[85] BSM explained that it had been using its own version of the logbook for many years and that 90% of its instructors use this method. The company stated that it is essential that the scheme becomes mandatory, because "Anything less than mandatory imposition will be self-defeating, as only the better instructors will use a logbook with a willing learner, whilst the less committed instructor will ignore the system, be driven by the learner's desire to pass at the least cost, so making shortcuts."[86] We will be interested to see the results of the Department's research showing what the impact has been of the Driver Record. We recommend that if the results show that it is effective, then the logbook should be made mandatory.

55. It has been suggested that approved driving instructors should be required to sign-off core competencies of the syllabus before candidates are permitted to apply to take the test.[87] This raises some concerns over the objectivity of instructors signing off their own pupils, particularly since instructors would benefit financially from requiring prolonged tuition. Under the existing system instructors are already under some pressure from learner drivers, and often their parents too, to keep the number of lessons to a minimum before applying to take the test. The poor pass rate indicates the scale of this problem. Mr Grigor, of the PCS Union, explained that the driving examiners would not be confident of the impartiality of instructors signing off their own pupils' work or achievement.[88]

56. There are potential difficulties with a signing-off system. However Mr Cunliffe, of Lancashire County Council, made an analogy with MOT tests and the success in professionalizing the vehicle maintenance sector.[89] He called for a change in ethos among the driving instruction industry, accompanied by continuing professional development, to give driving instruction the same status and responsibilities as any other vocational training.[90]

57. It was suggested by RoSPA that once a mandatory log book system was well established, it might be possible to include an assessment of some basic manoeuvres, such as reversing or the three-point turn, which are currently covered in the practical test, in order to free more time on the test to assess candidates' higher level driving abilities, such as risk assessment and hazard perception, in a greater variety of driving situations.[91]

58. The 12-month minimum learning period should be accompanied by the introduction of a structured syllabus, which will spread the development of driving skills and abilities over the year. Instructors should be required to sign-off each module once the learner has consistently achieved the required standard. Learners should not be able to present to take the test until all modules have been successfully completed. This approach should go some way to raising the driving standard of test candidates.

59. We would also like to see clearer communication to all learner drivers (and their parents, where appropriate) that they are embarking on a year-long course, which, like all new skills, will require practice to acquire, and that there are no shortcuts. At the outset, learners should be advised of the content of the syllabus and the time it is likely to take to complete it in full.

55 Ev 85 quoting "Cohort II data" Back

56 Ev 20 Back

57 ibid Back

58 Department for Transport (2002) A More Structured Approach to Learning to Drive: Consultation Back

59 Gregersen, et al 1999 "Evaluation of 16 years age limit for practising in Sweden" TRL Limited. And Gregersen et al 2000 "Sixteen years age limit for learner drivers in Sweden - an evaluation of safety effects" in Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 32 Issue 1 Back

60 C Baughan, H Simpson (2002) Graduated driver licensing - a review of some current systems, TRL Report 529, page 14 Back

61 ibid, page 1 Back

62 Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences sets a minimum age of 18 for cars drivers, but Article 6(2) allows a derogation. Back

63 Ev 85 Back

64 Ev 98 Back

65 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) / European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT) 2006 Young Drivers: The Road to Safety Transport Research Centre, OECD Publishing, page 127 Back

66 Ev 109, para 5.2 Back