The Department for Transport (DfT) has launched a new consultation document, entitled Motoring Services Strategy: a Strategic Direction 2016 to 2020.
The document concentrates on the possibilities of changes to the ways that the three motoring agencies, the DVLA, DVSA and VCA, work individually today and, perhaps, could work together in the future. The document was published before the 2015 Spending Review so does not include a formal impact assessment. DfT intends to publish a new motoring services strategy in Spring with an impact assessment.
The consultation asks a number of questions under five headings Digital; Efficiency; Agency Transformation and Deregulation. There are half a dozen questions directly related to road safety and others that are relevant to driver trainers.
It seems the principal new proposal – and the one that grabbed all the media attention – is the introduction of a financial incentive to encourage people to only take their driving test when they are confident that they have a high chance of passing.
The MSA has begun to co-ordinate a response to this and other proposals – see below for more details.
The MSA will publish a draft response on the MSA website at www. msagb.com before the New Year in order to give members the opportunity to comment before the final response is submitted.
I must admit to being a bit taken aback by this consultation. Most Government consultations I have dealt with in the past have tended to put forward fully formed ideas for respondents to comment on. This document, however, does not; rather it is short on concrete proposals and long on ‘kite flying’ ideas and concepts. It appears to have been put together in a great hurry with little attention to detail.
Page 8 is a “Full list of consultation questions”. However, not all the questions included in the consultation are included in the list. In addition to a number of kite-flying exercises there are some which one would have thought were a bit prosaic for an official consultation exercise.
A cynic might conclude that this consultation had been put together hurriedly by officials with no in-depth knowledge of driver training and testing, in order to achieve three things: first, to try and appease those who have waited in vain for the promised young driver Green Paper. Second, to beat the Autumn Spending Review, thus avoiding the need to provide an impact assessment. Third, to give the Minister something to do.
The first question raised in the consultation concerns the current driving test trial and asks: “As we change the test to ensure it reflects the modern driving experience, what views do respondents have about how we can maintain standards and give candidates clear information about the competencies tested in the driving test?”
First, this seems to suggest that the L-test is going to be changed regardless of the result of the trial. Personally I fully support the changes being trialled but phrasing the question in this way suggests the changes are a done deal, so why bother with a trial?
As to the second half of the question I’m not sure we can do much more than is already being done. The question seems to suggest that we are not giving candidates clear information at the moment. That is not true: there is a wealth of information out there but few learner drivers are prepared to read it, and because there are few group learning sessions where competencies can be discussed, few learners absorb the knowledge.
The next question concerns reducing waiting times for car and LGV practical driving tests, by offering a more flexible service. The document states: “This could include greater use of evening and weekend appointments, as well a greater choice in where tests might start.” Sorry, but prior to industrial action was that not happening? Tests conducted on Saturdays, from fire stations, community centres, retail stores, to name a few. The consultation asks “Tests might be offered from a wide range of venues. What factors should be considered in deciding on these?” Is this a serious question? Does the DfT not know what is required? How about appropriate routes, decent access to and from the test centre, a comfy waiting room, toilet facilities, a drinks vending machine?
The next question is also a little strange: “We are interested to hear whether respondents would be willing to pay extra for more flexibility of driving test slots, both in terms of timing and location.” A quick check on the gov.uk ‘Driving test costs’ page shows that for evenings (4:30pm onwards, weekends and Bank Holidays) test candidates do pay more at the moment. In the case of category B tests £13 more; and a quick check with the DVSA reveals that there is demand.
The document then considers ways that the driving test pass rate can be improved, while maintaining high standards. It states that there “is anecdotal evidence that some learner drivers are booking a practical test date well in advance – then taking the test at that time whether or not they are ready.”
They then ask “What could be done to ensure that candidates are better prepared for their practical test? It goes on to state: “A fifth of all those killed and seriously injured on our roads are aged 17-24. A sizeable proportion of those passed their driving test fewer than six months before the collision. A review of international approaches to learning to drive showed that greater and more varied experience pre-test lowered the likelihood of a new driver being in an accident post-test. Around 1.5m tests are conducted each year; under a quarter (21%) result in a first time pass, the remainder are fails (53%) or people who pass on their second or subsequent attempt (26%). Encouraging learner drivers to take more practice before attempting their first test could reduce the total number of attempts taken to pass the driving test and lower the likelihood of their being in an accident post-test.” “We will explore whether a financial incentive to encourage people to take their test when they have a higher chance of passing, rather than having a go in hope of passing, would improve road safety and increase test pass rates. This could be done through a reduced test fee, in the form of a deposit when the test is booked, refundable if the candidate passed.
“The proposal would not lead to a revenue increase to the DVSA as retained deposits would be used to fund a reduction in the basic practical test fee. Would a financial incentive encourage learners to sit the test when they have a better chance of passing? 2.13 At what level should such an incentive be set?”
Is this a bold, exciting new idea – or completely bonkers notion that should rapidly be dropped? In my view there is little doubt that candidates who take plenty of lessons and are able to get plenty of practice do have a better chance of passing their test first time, and there is plenty of evidence that to pass a test takes an average of more than 40 lessons, and 20 hours of private practice. However, I doubt that a cashback figure could be charged that would be substantial enough to persuade learners not to want to “have a go” at the test if they think they are ready.
According to the DVSA, “The cost of learning to drive including test fees, 40 hours of driving lessons and 20 hours of private practice makes the total cost of learning to drive £2,582”. DfT seems keen to persuade more learners to take private practice but the cost is very high: according to the stated figures on their website the average cost of insurance for a provisional driver aged 17 to 19 is £1,422. According to an MSA survey carried out a couple of years ago over 75 per cent of instructors said that fewer than a quarter of their students took any private practice.
There are also survey results that show that those who pass second time make safer drivers. Andrew Hough in The Telegraph wrote: “Researchers found those who pass on their second attempt have fewer points on their licence, are less likely to suffer road rage or be stopped by police. They are also less prone to being cautioned for using their mobile phone behind the wheel, have had the fewest accidents in the last five years, and are unlikely to scare passengers with their driving. The research, was based on 6,200 motorists.”
Perhaps instead of trying to persuade learners to be better prepared for the first test we should encourage them to take the first one for experience with the hope of passing second time. Maybe a scheme could be developed whereby candidates could purchase two tests for the price of one – buy one, get one free (BOGOF).
Click here to read the ‘Motoring services strategy: a strategic direction 2016 to 2020’
Be First to Comment