House of Commons - Transport

Select Committee on Transport Seventh Report

6 The driving test

76. There is some consensus that the current practical driving test is a poor indicator of driver safety and subsequent crash involvement.[117] For example, the pass rate for males is several percentage points higher than that for females; even though males then go on to have a much higher collision rate. Norwich Union stated, "Some excellent drivers find it hard to pass if they take a cautious approach."[118] RoadPeace concurred: "Failure to make progress, i.e. going too slowly, is a leading reason why drivers fail the test yet speeding is a leading contributory factor to novice driver crashes."[119] In addition, research shows that many novice drivers consider that what they have been taught to pass the driving test is irrelevant to how they will drive once qualified.[120]

77. The compressed timeframe of one 40-minute test—in which candidates are required to demonstrate manoeuvres, driving on different road types and speeds, an emergency stop, and vehicle safety checks—in effect gives very little time to assess actual driving ability, decision-making, risk assessment and attitude to safety. Mr Cummins, of BSM, voiced his concern that driving test routes tend to be concentrated around towns, and exclude rural roads where a significant proportion of novice driver collisions actually take place.[121] The driving school explained that because of the time constraints, very little time is spent driving on dual carriageways during the test.

78. BSM stressed the importance of test candidates having experience of "the complete variety of roads" during the supervised learning period.[122] The driving examiners similarly called for more realistic driving tests which included the full range of road types and manoeuvres. Higher risk driving environments for learner drivers and test candidates would require use of dual control vehicles to ensure the safety of the learner driver and the supervising driver. The driving examiners were confident that if such a requirement were made, dual control vehicles would soon become readily available for hire.[123]

79. Changes were made to the practical driving test in 1999 in order to give more time for driving rather than performing set manoeuvres. The Department told us: "The extra time means that, where practicable, candidates are taken on to a high speed road and are expected to drive up to the limit, subject to road conditions."[124] But the evidence from driving instructors was that this remained inadequate. The Motor Schools Association stated:

125

80. Calls were made for the driving test to be extended to one hour. BSM suggested that this would permit driving test routes to include the type of hazards where young drivers are known to be involved in crashes. It argued that, "The double-length test for repeat offenders has shown that candidates subject to longer scrutiny by examiners are more prone to reveal their true risk taking."[126]

81. The Department is considering reforming the driving test as part of its review of the driver training framework. It told us, "Since we recognise that the syllabus needs to be broader, it follows that the testing process may also need to be changed substantially."[127] We agree that the driving test needs to be reformed. The driving instructors and examiners made a powerful case for allowing test candidates onto high speed roads, and if necessary onto motorways—because in some places these are the only high speed roads to be found. But such a measure should only be introduced along with a requirement for candidates to take the test in a dual-control vehicle.

82. A more structured approach to learning to drive should include a requirement for some tuition with an approved driving instructor in a properly equipped dual control vehicle. This would make it possible to devise a driving test which had more real-world validity, through requiring experience of all types of road and manoeuvre, and particularly those which seem to cause novice drivers such difficulty: rural roads, bends on high speed roads, and turning right from a busy major road onto a side road. The driving test content should be kept under review and be guided by research about the causes of novice driver collisions.

83. Candidates are currently permitted to make 15 driving faults in their practical test. Research shows that high-fault candidates tend to be intrinsically less safe than drivers who make fewer faults on the test.[128] The Department told us that this limit had been introduced in 1999 as part of a phased approach to introducing a limit of 12 faults—a level which the evidence showed would screen out the candidates with the highest crash liability.[129] However, based on subsequent evidence which suggested that there would be little further safety benefit in lowering the limit to 12, the Driving Standards Agency did not make further reductions to the threshold.[130] The Cohort Study II, commissioned by the DfT, is due to provide analysis of the driving test in summer 2007. We suggest the score threshold for passing the practical and theory tests should be revised in light of this evidence.

84. We are also concerned about reports of people impersonating candidates in driving tests. Since records began in 2004, there have been 70 convictions for offences arising from driving test impersonations and a further 79 individuals received cautions.[131]A further 96 court cases are currently pending and 502 investigations are ongoing. People who obtain driving licences through such fraudulent means are a danger to themselves and other road users. The Government must investigate the problem of test candidate impersonation as a matter of urgency.

THEORY TEST

85. There was similar doubt that the theory test had achieved its objectives in promoting safer attitudes and behaviour.[132] As explained above (see paragraph 70), there is concern that the hazard perception test was introduced in such a way as to encourage only minimal hazard perception training in preparation, potentially limiting its effectiveness.

86. Driving schools have also criticised the decision to publish the theory test questions and answers in full for the multiple choice aspect of the test, fearing that this encourages candidates to learn by rote, rather than developing a more in-depth understanding of the Highway Code.[133] MSA stated:

134

Brake called for the theory test to include more emphasis on the risks which drivers pose and face and the consequences of bad driving. This could include, for example, understanding how speed affects the survival chances of a pedestrian hit by a car.[135]

87. Despite the theory test being introduced in 1996 and the hazard perception test in 2003, the Department has not yet completed an evaluation of the effectiveness of these measures in improving the safety of novice drivers. The impact of the hazard perception test is due to be reported in summer 2007 as part of the Cohort II study.[136] Although we understand that it takes time to see the full effect of the implementation of new initiatives, we are disappointed by the delay in evaluating the impact of the theory test. If the results of the evaluation cast any doubt on its benefit, the Department should consider reducing the role of this element of the test.

117 Ev 1, 6, 25, 126 Back

118 Ev 25 Back

119 Ev 6 Back

120 Department for Transport (2007) "The Good, the Bad and the Talented: Young Drivers' Perspectives on Good Driving and Learning to Drive" Road Safety Research Report No. 74. Department for Transport: London Back

121 Q195 Back

122 Ev 56 Back

123 Ev 59 Back

124 Ev 85 Back

125 Ev 58 Back

126 Ev 56 Back

127 Ev 109 Back

128 Baughan et al (2005) Novice driver safety and the British practical driving test, TRL Report 652 Back