I was listening to a discussion in the test centre waiting room last week about the merits – or otherwise – of the Driving Theory Test (introduced in the mid-90s) over the previous method of testing driving knowledge.
For anyone who doesn’t know, in the “olden days” when you took your driving test, the examiner would ask you a couple of questions at the end. I can remember one of mine being the blue “keep left” sign, and vaguely another sign, produced from a ring-bound set of laminated cards. There might have been a question about parking – but it was a long time ago.
If you believe some people, the previous method guaranteed 100% God-like knowledge of the Highway Code for the entire lifespan of every person who passed their driving test back then. The current method, on the other hand, is apparently responsible for every road accident, the global warming problem, and possibly several major natural disasters since its inception. The Hazard Perception Test (introduced in 2002) just added knobs on to this.
It’s worth setting the record straight on this subject.
One of the main reasons the previous method was replaced was that it most definitely did not ensure God-like knowledge. Nor did what little knowledge was gained stick for more than about 5 minutes after someone passed their test. Far from it.
People generally don’t set out to not know the Highway Code (HC). Even for those who have ever bothered to read it all the way through somewhere in the distant past, the memory fades unless there is a valid reason to keep remembering it or updating it. They’ll remember things like what a big “30” in the middle of a red and white circular sign means (whether they choose to obey it or not is a different matter). They see it every day. But ask them how far away from a junction they should park, or what they should or shouldn’t do at a humpbacked bridge, or even how big a gap they should leave between themselves and the car in front, and most will have only the vaguest of ideas at best.
Driving instructors have a better reason to know the HC in detail, but even then not all of them do (it’s arguable that none do – certainly when you start bringing interpretation into things). That’s because anything other than a very basic understanding requires effort – considerable continued effort – in order to maintain knowledge at a current and correct level. Often, the only stimulus to refresh knowledge for an instructor comes as a result of being asked a question by a pupil, followed by thumbing through the HC (and there’s nothing wrong with that).
Knowledge of the HC has always been a problem, though. I suppose the big difference is that 20 or 30 years ago, more people would have considered learning it as something worthwhile than you’re likely to find today. Hell, 30 years ago, more people could actually read, and had attention spans measured in the hours rather than the seconds.
But humour aside, comprehension is a major issue. It always has been for a significant portion of society. I’m not talking about people with special needs; I’m talking about typically-educated, normal people who simply don’t understand what they are reading when they aren’t really interested. Not everyone out there is a Top Gear fanatic, who drools over the latest Audi models and who has wet dreams about being given a Race Day gift voucher at Silverstone.
Put simply, the old method was probably worse than the current test simply because it only asked a few questions. It was certainly no better, for precisely the same reason. People could afford to gamble on not knowing it in detail, and they certainly didn’t need to understand it, because the questions asked were not all that varied – a lot less varied than with the modern-day Theory Test.
Much is made of the suggestion that current learners can memorise the answers, and this is the official reason why the DSA has recently stopped publishing the actual test questions.
I’ve mentioned before that this is total bollocks (not in those words). Anyone who could memorise nearly 1,000 questions with numerous and varied multiple choice answer combinations would have people queuing up to pickle their brains after they died. They would be rather unique.
The typical (note that: I said typical) learner today probably knows more about the HC at the time they sit their test than their counterpart of 20 years ago did when they were asked their handful of questions. The problem is that two weeks later, both of them would probably have forgotten most of it.
The only way of maintaining any kind of knowledge is, as I have said, to have a reason to refresh it. There are only three ways that is going to happen:
- do it purely out of interest
- do it for direct monetary reward (i.e. a bribe)
- do it because you have to
The first one would only catch a small number of people. The second isn’t going to happen. So, if there is genuinely a major problem with HC knowledge, the only one of those things which will catch everyone is the one involving force!
In other words, periodic re-testing.
It still wouldn’t help with the comprehension issues. But then again, what would?