(by Dieter Fischer, re-written 18/5/06)
The system that let us down
(This article tries to stimulate discussion on the system of teaching and testing learner drivers. In South Australia CBT Training has not brought the desired results.)
In the September 01 Edition of my newsletter "Outside the Square" I have explained the driver licensing system here in South Australia and its shortcomings as I saw them.
On Dec. 10th 01 the Advertiser Newspaper published the latest results of crash statistics by the insurance giant AAMI. Comparing state by state South Australia was sadly still the worst performer in the under 25 age group.
Since the inception of the logbook system in 1993, I have consistently warned of a lowering of standards, if the last training session is not conducted independently, meaning the license must be issued by a separate instructor, not the one that taught the student from the beginning.
Searching the net, I found out that in British Columbia, Canada, where driver testing has also been privatized, one basic rule applies: You can not be an examiner if...
...you are a driving instructor,
...own, or part own, a driving school
... you own shares in a driving school.
How unbelievable that our South Australian system allows a driving instructor to issue a driver's license to his or her own teenager! (A colleague, who lives not far away, did just that).
While the idea of learning by a book is a step in the right direction, one predicament has to be considered. Learners want the license quick and cheap. Any progress scoring system will be closely monitored by learners and parents. The question after a lesson is often: "What did I get signed off today?"
Herein is the instructor’s predicament. He may have to say very often: "Nothing. But you have made progress in this area, we have started a fresh task, we have practiced manoeuvres etc".
Let’s compare learning to drive with building a house. The bricklayer does not go home at night saying, today I finished the bathroom, tomorrow I start in the kitchen.
A beginner learner should not even have a simple task like "stopping at the kerb" signed off in the first lesson. Why? To show that he/she can stop safely at the kerb should not merely be demonstrated in 1st gear, but also at 50 or 60 km/h. But to achieve this, gear changing would have to be taught first.
The tasks of learning to drive are complex and interwoven. Like building a house, one starts at the basics and uses simple tasks to achieve the end result. Teaching skills separately by the Competency Based Training (CBT) method , is impracticable.
A constant source of frustration is the pressure to sign off tasks at a lower standard to help out a client. The reasons are many and varied. CBT training is in my opinion only possible in conjunction with classroom instruction. It should only be conducted with students, who are starting from the beginning and who know exactly how long (how many hours minimum on the road) it will take.
To have no minimum number of lessons set out is one of the most frustrating (forgive me to call a spade a spade), stupid ideas by any Government Department.
As has happened in other areas of privatization, (etc. Old People's Homes) the Government auditing process in our state is very stressful to instructors. Because instructors have the huge responsibility of teaching and issuing the license (to the same client, without any other input), government officers auditing the system are unduly picky and autocratic.
Instructors love their job, because of the freedom and independence it gives. Many fear nothing more than a Government officer, who never gave a driving lesson, look over his shoulder and pick his work to pieces. I used to dread the time, when this happened. It was a most stressful system in an already stressful occupation.
Students are audited at the worst possible time: On the day they are trying to finish their final drive with the instructor, who would be issuing the license at the end. Is it surprising that when an auditor was present most students failed the last session. Without a government officer breathing down his neck, instructors passed students at a far greater rate - it's only natural.
There's a further dilemma in this system. Unlike an apprentice's creation, such as a chair or the installation of a bathroom, what happened during a driving test can not be viewed again later by another expert. Trying to stick up for a student, who may have been unfairly treated, is regarded as high treason, the best way to make an enemy. Instructors are powerless. I felt bullied many times.
We all know, a learner may drive brilliantly today and, for various reasons, falls to pieces the next, especially under test conditions.
A further failure in this rigid system - instructors were briefed to not make any allowance for an aged student. If the student was 71 or 17 years old, was not to be taken into consideration. Obviously, bureaucrats don't live in the real world.
Woe to the instructor that had signed off a task and the pupil was too nervous to perform it to standard. Instructors could lose their license and livelihood.The CBT system has created rigid, unfriendly environment in the driving instruction industry. It has not brought any benefits in terms of road safety. The opposite has happened. Little wonder the system has never taken off in New South Wales, Queensland or Victoria.
What we need is an Australia-wide driver training system, where the safety of new drivers come before puny Government rules and regulation.
Common sense should be the first and basic rule to be building on.