A while back, following a consultation exercise, the DSA decided that from October 2010 instructors were going to have to sit in on candidates’ tests whether they (or the candidate) liked it or not.
Now personally, I didn’t want to have to do this, but neither did I have much of a problem with it. But I must say that the logic the DSA had used in order to bring this in was highly questionable.
The consultation it came out of (allegedly) was to do with cutting accidents among new drivers. If you didn’t see the actual consultation, you will undoubtedly have heard the confused echoes via pupils or the press – all the talk of having to wait until people were 18 before being allowed to drive, having to take lessons with a qualified instructor (ADI), having to take a minimum number of lessons, and so on.
In reality, those confused echoes originated from some semi-sensible ideas that had been thrown around. There was talk of having ADIs sign off candidates’ competence at manoeuvres, which would mean the test itself was longer and involved trickier driving skills. This would mean that pupils had to be trained to a higher level (i.e. one of the concerns about current poor road skills and subsequent accidents) by someone who knew what they were doing (an ADI), which would take longer (at least 12 months in most cases). This is partly where the misconception about raising the driving age to 18 came from.
The DSA’s consultation paper didn’t ask people what they thought could be done. It simply told people what was probably going to happen anyway. Worse still, the semi-sensible ideas like the one given above had already been dismissed – in fact, anything other than the most banal and ridiculous ideas had been long gone from the agenda. Cutting a long story short, the only thing which was likely to be implemented in most peoples lifetimes – and it is quite frightening really that such an expensive consultation could have ended up being so limited – was the one about sitting in the back on tests.
Quite where this idea came from isn’t known. Not to me, anyway. But somehow or other, the DSA had decided that road accidents among new drivers were as a direct result of ADIs not sitting in on candidates’ tests!
Because of my background, I could hazard a guess as to where this idea came from. It is so abstract and unjustifiable that it could only come from someone who doesn’t have a clue about driving, driving instruction, and driver attitudes on the roads (or how deep a problem attitude is, and how it goes way beyond just driving). So I suspect the blame must lie initially with one of the DSA’s new graduates a few years ago, and then a chain of people highly trained in Teamworking®, commissioned to praise that new graduate. No doubt, that original new graduate is well on his or her way up the “corporate” (this is a Government department) ladder.
But I digress: to anyone with an ounce of sense, it is obvious that accidents are not down to ADIs not sitting in on tests.
That’s the background. The good news is, though, that from what I have heard this week the idea has now been scrapped – ADIs will NOT have to sit in on tests any more . Candidates will be asked specifically if they want their ADI there, but that’s all.
EDIT 29/09/2009: Reading the various forums you’d be forgiven for thinking that the DSA backed down on this after a major battle involving broadswords and light sabres, during which they were roundly defeated by the Mighty [INSERT NAME OF THE LEADER OF WHICHEVER ORGANISATION OR UNION IS CLAIMING CREDIT], and forced to renounce The Dark Side for ever more. Phrases such as “DSA caves in” and “DSA backs down” are rife.
The reality appears to be as follows:
[those present heard] the DSA explain that they were proposing to trial allowing the pupil the choice to allow their ADI to sit in and observe their test.
Not quite what is being reported by some, and it does leave the way open for the idea to be resurrected in future.
A colleague of mine sent me an email from his franchiser which explains:
There are benefits to all concerned from the introduction of the observer on test, in particular because it introduces a basis for regular dialogue between the driving instructors and the examiners at their local driving test centre. We all recognise that communication could be improved between these parties , and so if as a result there is greater openness, understanding and cooperation between instructors and examiners for the good of the candidates taking the driving test, that will benefit road safety and all concerned.It is a pragmatic compromise on the part of the DSA giving them the opportunity to trial the observer on test more widely before they consider introducing it through regulation at a later stage.