CIECA project 2007

Integrating the GDE matrix into category B

driver training and the practical driving test

Status: final report (26-11-07)

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. Background ................................................................................................................................ 3

B. Project aims ................................................................................................................................ 4

C. The GDE matrix in driver training & education ................................................................... 6

C.1. Timing of training / education .............................................................................................. 6

C.2. Content of training / education ............................................................................................. 8

C.3. Methods and trainers .......................................................................................................... 10

D. The GDE matrix and the practical driving test .................................................................... 11

D.1. Self-assessment .................................................................................................................. 12

D.2. Situation awareness questioning ........................................................................................ 13

D.3. Independent driving tasks ................................................................................................... 14

D.4. Eco-driving focus ............................................................................................................... 15

D.5. Implications for Driving Examiners ................................................................................... 16

E. Conclusions............................................................................................................................... 17

Project team .................................................................................................................................. 18

ANNEXES ..................................................................................................................................... 19

1. GDE Matrix and explanation ............................................................................................. 20

2. Great Britain: Safe Driving for Life programme ............................................................... 23

3. Norway’s category B driver training curriculum ............................................................... 27

4. Northern Ireland: GCSE on Motor Vehicles and Road User studies ................................. 31

5. Swiss 2nd phase: Novice driver profile questionnaire ........................................................ 35

6. Higher order training with track-based exercises ............................................................... 38

7. Class-based methods for reaching the higher levels of the GDE matrix ........................... 39

8. “Profiler”, Germany: .......................................................................................................... 40

9. Swiss 2nd phase trainer socio-pedagogical test (SPET ) ................................................... 43

10. Austrian multiphase driver training programme ............................................................ 45

11. Swiss 2nd phase programme .......................................................................................... 47

12. Finnish 2nd phase programme ......................................................................................... 49

13. Novice driver peer assessment form, feedback drives, Swiss 2nd phase ....................... 50

14. Sweden: Self-assessment in the driving test .................................................................. 51

15. Finland: Self-assessment form in the practical driving test ........................................... 53

16. Netherlands: Self-assessment in the practical driving test ............................................. 55

17. Netherlands: Situation awareness questioning in the practical test ................................ 57

18. Sweden: Situation-related questions in the practical driving test .................................. 59

19. Netherlands: Independent driving tasks in the practical driving test ............................. 61

20. Switzerland: renewed emphasis on eco-driving in the practical test ............................. 63

3

A. Background

Over the last 15-20 years various attempts have been made around the world to reduce novice driver

accident risk. These countermeasures are designed to address both the inexperience and immaturity

of (young) novice drivers and have generally been in the form of:

1. changes to the overall structure of pre-test practice, for instance introducing a minimum number

of hours of on-road driving before a learner is allowed to take the practical test

2. improving the quality of driver training and education, in terms of structure, methods and/or

content

3. changes to the driving test, such as longer net driving times in the practical test and the

introduction of hazard perception testing.

4. the introduction of probationary periods, with restrictions and tighter conditions for novice

drivers in the initial solo driving period after passing the test.

In terms of changes to the structure of pre-test practice, the following innovations have been

introduced with a view to encouraging more on-road driving time before solo driving:

- introducing a minimum number of hours of pre-test practice (e.g. Victoria, Australia: 120

hours)

- Introducing a minimum learning period of 3, 6 or even 12 months before the test can be

taken (e.g. various GDL1 countries, Belgium and Ireland).

- Lowering the minimum age for learning to drive (at the same time as maintaining the

licensing age), to encourage, but not oblige, more on-road driving practice (e.g. Sweden)

A further innovation in encouraging more driving practice before solo driving is the post-test

accompanied driving programme in Germany. Learners choosing this option can pass the practical

and theory test a year earlier than usual (17 instead of 18) but must then be accompanied by a

designated person until his/her 18th birthday.

With regard to the quality of driver training and education, research (particularly the GDE matrix2)

has stressed the need for a focus on higher order skills such as self-evaluation, insight into specific

risky novice driver scenarios and an understanding of the influence of attitudes and motivations on

driver behaviour. Various countries have introduced compulsory “2nd phase” training in the first few

months of solo driving, in an attempt to address these issues (Finland, Luxembourg, Austria,

Switzerland and Estonia3). Norway, on the other hand, is an example of a country where these

themes have been integrated into obligatory pre-test training, mostly in the form of class-based

group discussions and interactive group tasks.

Few fundamental changes have been made to the driving test in the last 2 decades. Countries such as

the UK and Australia have introduced PC-based hazard perception testing. Many countries,

particularly in Europe, have lengthened net on-road driving times with a view to gaining a more

realistic insight into the candidate’s driving skills and behaviour. Others have moved towards

competency-oriented testing, rather than assessment based on the number and category of faults.

1 GDL = Graduated Driver Licensing countries, such as Canada, the USA, New Zealand and Australia. 2 GDE matrix = Goals for Driver Education. See annex 1. 3 Slovenia will introduce mandatory 2nd phase training from 2010.

4

It is perhaps in the field of probationary licences (solo driving restrictions and conditions) where the

most innovations can be observed. A wide range of measures have been introduced across the world

in an attempt to reduce the risk of novice drivers finding themselves in high-risk situations. These

include:

- Zero or low BAC4 levels (e.g. Austria, Germany)

- Easier withdrawal of the licence in the event of certain traffic offences, e.g. a lower demerit

point threshold, in addition to extension of the probationary period

- ‘Improvement courses’ for novice driver offenders (e.g. Austria, Germany)

- Speed restrictions (e.g. Lithuania)

- Restrictions on engine power (e.g. Victoria, Australia and Croatia)

- Novice driver display-plates (e.g. France)

- Mandatory accompaniment by an older person during night time hours (e.g. Croatia)

- Prohibition to drive during night time hours or on weekends (several GDL jurisdictions)

- Restrictions on carrying peer-age passengers (many GDL jurisdictions)

- Non-use of mobile phones while driving (e.g. Victoria, Australia)

These measures impose a mixture of restrictions, conditions and deterrents to make the initial period

of solo driving a safer experience.

B. Project aims

Notwithstanding the wide range of countermeasures available to policymakers in this field5, this

project aimed to look at the role of formal driver education and training, and the practical driving

test, and their potential contribution to ‘producing’ safer novice drivers. More specifically, the

project has focused above all on how to integrate the ‘missing areas’ of the GDE matrix into

education, training and the test.

Figure 1 overleaf shows the GDE matrix, the parts or ‘cells’ of the matrix which are traditionally

covered in training, and the parts which are less comprehensively covered, if at all.

Some examples of themes from the missing parts of the GDE matrix include:

- Attitudes towards others, general behaviour in society, and towards high risk driving

(speeding, alcohol/drugs)

- Awareness of typical risky novice driver situations (solo driving on country roads, driving

with peer aged passengers, driving at night in a social context, etc).

- Awareness of personal tendencies which may influence driving behaviour (sensation-

seeking, showing off, personal – emotional - responses to high-pressure situations), and

- Methods to encourage more self-assessment and peer review (strengths and weaknesses with

regard to vehicle manoeuvring, driving in traffic, trip planning and the driving context, and

personality traits and motives for driving).

4 Blood Alcohol Content. 5 See OECD (2006): “Young Drivers: the Road to Safety”, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

5

Figure 1. Extending education, training and the test to address ‘missing’ safe driver competencies.

The project drew on current experience from both:

- countries who have already introduced measures to address the higher levels of the GDE

matrix in training (e.g. Norway, Finland, Austria and Switzerland), and

- countries who are planning to introduce such measures, particularly in the driving test,

following trials in 2007 (e.g. Sweden and the Netherlands).

Furthermore, Great Britain has been carrying out research to develop competency frameworks for

drivers which reflects in many ways the findings of the GDE matrix, for example a lack of attention

in the current training and testing regime with regard to the social aspects of safe driving (see annex

2). Finally, the project also had a brainstorming component, and various CIECA members

(including the above countries, but also Northern Ireland and Germany) spent time developing ideas

for enhancing training and the test according to the GDE matrix.

Naturally, if training and testing are to be changed in any fundamental way, there are implications

for the requirements for driver trainers and examiners. This theme has also been addressed in the

report.

Other significant documents in this area are:

1. Vehicle manoeuvring and

control

2. Mastery of

traffic situations

3. Goals and

context of driving

4. Goals for life and skills for

living

Self-

evaluation

Awareness of risk

increasing factors

Knowledge and skills

to master

(Upper levels control lower levels)

Traditional training

and testing

Hazard

Perception

Theory test

Future training and testing

6

Baughan, C., Gregersen, N.P., Hendrix, M., & Keskinen, E. (2005) EU TEST Project (Towards European Standards for Testing): Final Report6, CIECA: Brussels (pp. 181 + annexes)

M. Peräaho, E. Keskinen, M. Hatakka (2003): Driver competence in a hierarchical perspective:

implications for driver education7, University of Turku, Traffic Research

W. Henriksson, T. Stenlund, A. Sundström & M. Wiberg (2007): The GDE-MODEL as a guide

in driver training and testing8 (Conference proceedings), Umeå, Sweden.

C. The GDE matrix in driver training & education

This section provides ideas, mostly based on existing experience, on how to integrate the missing

areas of the GDE matrix into driver training and education. The ideas relate not just to pre-test

driving school training but also to road safety education in schools and to post-licence 2nd phase

training. The timing, content and methods of these measures are discussed in the following

paragraphs.

C.1. Timing of training / education

Figure 2: Possible timing of GDE measures in driver training and education

The Norwegian category B training curriculum (see annex 3 for more details) requires learner

drivers to attend a series of obligatory class-based group discussion sessions both at the beginning

and end of the pre-test training process. Legislation allows for the group sessions at the beginning of

the programme to take place from the age of 15, and these group sessions can take place in normal

schools as well as driving schools. The ‘Basic Course’ at the beginning of the programme involves

17 (primarily classroom-based) obligatory lessons of 45 minutes each focusing on risk awareness,

social behaviour, night-time driving (demonstrations) and first aid. This basic course must be spread

over at least 3 days and more commonly takes about 5 days.

Towards the end of the training process, prior to taking the theory and practical test, another series

of 5 obligatory group sessions take place, in combination with 8 obligatory on-road sessions. This

part of the programme is designed to focus on high-risk factors for young inexperienced drivers,

shortly before they begin to drive solo. Thus, the basic course sets the general behavioural context

for the training as a whole, and the final group sessions address specific risky scenarios for novice

drivers.

6 See http://www.cieca.be/testdoc_en.pp 7 See members-only section of CIECA website at http://www.cieca.be/memonlygde_en.pp 8 As above.

SCHOOL DRIVING SCHOOL 2ND PHASE

PRACTICAL TEST

7

Northern Ireland’s schools offer 14-16 year olds an optional GCSE9 on Motor Vehicle Studies.

Whilst the current focus of the course is not on the higher levels of the GDE matrix, this subject

could include themes, similar to those in the Norwegian category B curriculum, such as:

Youngsters’ attitudes towards speeding and high risk driving, such as being under the

influence of drugs or alcohol;

The negative or positive influence of parents’ driving habits and their attitude to other road

users - students may not appreciate the extent to which their ‘values’ on the road may be

influenced by their parents;

General responses to pressure situations, e.g. being late or being susceptible to peer pressure

– the impact that these personality traits could have on the future driver;

The existence of, and potential consequence of, over-confidence.

This type of school course may have a future in countries adopting a competency-based approach

for road users and offering academic qualifications to those who meet such competencies (see annex

4 for more details).

A further example of higher order skills training just before the practical driving test is the insight-

based training in Sweden. Learner drivers are required to attend a half-day session at a driving

centre. 8 of the 35 driving centres in Sweden are equipped with ‘Safety Halls’, containing

educational aids designed to encourage a more active and accurate use of in-car safety equipment.

The Safety Hall concept is part of the Swedish insight-based driver education which moves away

from skills-based and instruction-based training, and towards personal experience and risk-insight

training. Both practical track-based exercises (e.g. emotional experiences of physical forces and

driving style demonstrations) and theoretical drills (e.g. group discussions) can be used to

accomplish this objective.

Several countries have now introduced compulsory post-test (2nd phase) training for novice

drivers10. Obviously, such training takes place once the novice driver has already started to drive

solo. The exact timing of the measure depends on the country:

Finland: between 6 and 24 months after the test

Luxembourg: between 3 and 24 months after the test

Austria: within the first 12 months after the test

Switzerland: within the first 3 years after the test

Estonia: within the first 23 months

Slovenia11: as Austria

Not only the content and methods of 2nd phase training but also the timing plays a major role.

Novice drivers should have enough solo driving experience to be able to identify with the themes

being discussed, but should not be allowed to wait for so long before the training intervention that

9 A General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) is a qualification taken by secondary school students for a range

of different subjects between the age of 14-16. 10 See annexes 10, 11 and 12 for summaries of the programmes in Austria, Switzerland and Finland. Further information

on 2nd phase training can be obtained from CIECA’s EU NovEV project report at http://www.cieca.be/novev_en.pp .

Note that Australia will soon launch a large-scale trial on novice driver education (2nd phase), see

http://www.atsb.gov.au/road/novice_driver_safety/index.aspx and Germany also has a nationwide trial programme (for

more information, please see the NovEV project report, pp 86-91). 11 From 2010.

8

the high-risk post-test period is almost or completely behind them. Arguably, some of the existing

2nd phase interventions come too late.

Finally, the EU HERMES project12 will be developing a number of coaching scenarios for driver

trainers to address all of the goals of driver education according to the GDE matrix. Theoretically, a

good coach should be able to encourage the learner to reflect on all levels of the GDE matrix,

throughout the normal driving training process (practical and class-based training). But these

HERMES coaching scenarios have yet to be developed (by end 2008) and only time will tell how

successfully they can be implemented in practice.

C.2. Content of training / education

Some examples of classroom-based themes in the Norwegian category B Basic Course (step 1) and

‘step 4’ (final stage of training) are:

Young drivers’ accident risk

Typical mistakes of inexperienced drivers and countermeasures

Desirable behaviour

Norms and peer pressure / individual choice and decision-making

Self-reflection on own general behaviour and decision-making traits (step 1)

Reflection on own driving behaviour (step 4)

Cooperation with other road-users, how your own mind influences your cooperation and

behaviour in traffic

Examples from Sweden include:

Alcohol and drugs: pros and cons, experimentation, etc.

Social scenarios (e.g. deciding whether or not to accept a lift from a friend at a party who may

have been drinking)

Attitudes towards road safety measures (police roadside controls, alcolocks, etc).

Discussion themes from the 2nd phase countries include:

Why are novice driver accidents often single-vehicle accidents?

What would be my typical accident? What can I do to prevent this accident from occurring?

Accident analyses (case studies): what were the causes and what could have been done to

prevent them?

Incidents and near-misses since I started driving solo: what were the circumstances?

A further area of development with regard to developing the self-evaluation skills of learner and

novice drivers is the use of driver profiling. In Finland, 2nd phase participants must complete the

Traffic Interact computer programme13 which analyses an individual’s behaviour in response to 16

12 HERMES (2007-2010): High impact approach for Enhancing Road safety through More Effective communication

Skills for driving instructors. www.gutefahrt.at/hermes 13 See slides on members-only section of CIECA website at http://www.cieca.be/memonlygde_en.pp

(Finnish 2nd phase Marita Koivukoski). Traffic Interact is used in ~90% of driving schools.

9

different driving scenarios. This is designed to give the novice driver insight into his/her personal

tendencies with regard to the following traits:

- social and flexible

- steering and domineering

- aggressive and defiant

- insecure and submissive

On the 2nd day of the Swiss 2nd phase, novice drivers fill out a paper-based personal driver profile

questionnaire (see annex 5) which can be used in later discussions with other participants. Like the

Finnish Traffic Interact, this questionnaire is designed, on the basis of written statements, to give the

participant an idea of his/her profile along the same lines as the Finnish model.

The optional Profiler programme in Germany (see annex 8) is open to learner drivers before they

start obligatory initial driving school training. The Profiler questionnaire is designed to give the

driving instructor and learner driver a profile of the learner driver in terms of his/her attitudes and

general competencies with regard to risk. The idea is that these results are taken into account during

the training process, in an attempt to pre-identify potential driving-related safety problems in the

future, and to address them. It is a very detailed 60-minute online questionnaire composed of over

200 questions..

Work is also underway in Sweden14 to develop a computerised risk-profiling system which would

also enable driving instructors to tailor the training to the individual type and needs of the learner.

The issue of attitude-testing has been under discussion for some time in Great Britain.

Another interesting feature of 2nd phase programmes, especially in Switzerland (see annex 13), are

on-road ‘feedback drives’ where 3 novice drivers take it in turns to drive and then evaluate each

other’s performance. Apart from gaining feedback from a credible source (i.e. a fellow novice

driver), these sessions also offer the opportunity to discuss the emotional effects of having peer aged

passengers in the car.

Finally, the idea of each learner driver having a training chart or progress card is not a new one. But

the Dutch have developed this idea further15, calling it a learner driver portfolio. At the moment,

this portfolio remains no more than an idea but it may be developed in the future, building on the

(online) portfolios that individual students in schools are increasingly developing in the Netherlands.

The learner driver portfolio would not only trace the learner’s development through training in an

administrative sense; it would also include the results of a personal risk profile similar to those

mentioned above, and it would be structured in a way to oblige the learner to assess his/her own

progress and identify his/her strengths and weaknesses during training. The portfolio would also

have an administrative function, ticking off the various parts of the training which have been

completed (group discussion, track training, individual practical lessons, etc). The driving test

candidate would need to submit his/her portfolio to the driver testing organisation prior to the

practical test.

14 D.A.T.E. – Drivers Attitude Type Evaluator. See http://www.datetestet.se/eng/ , developed by Dr Inger Linderholm,

www.trivector.se 15 See slides on members-only section of CIECA website at http://www.cieca.be/memonlygde_en.pp (Learner driver

portfolio Jan Vissers)

10

C.3. Methods and trainers

Although training on the ‘missing areas of the GDE matrix’ (attitudes, motivations, insight and self-

assessment) can take place in on-road driving lessons and track-based exercises16, such training

more commonly takes place in a classroom setting. The methods used can include:

Brainstorming

Role plays

Case studies

Dilemma games

Witness account

Debates: for and against

Trigger documents

Questionnaires & discussion

See annex 7 for an explanation of these different methods.

The methods needed to transmit much of the training content in the section above are different from

the traditional instruction-based approach given in driver training today. The instructor must actually

become a coach, encouraging reflection and discussion, guiding debates and providing an

environment for open-minded thinking and exchanges of experience. This raises the question of

driving instructor standards and who should provide such training.

In theory, there are various options for the type of trainer which could be used to lead these courses:

a. School teachers

b. Standard driving school instructors

c. Specialised driving school instructors

d. Sociologists / psychologists

e. Teachers from adult training colleges

School teachers are already being used to provide road safety education in many countries17 and the

Basic Course in the Norwegian category B training curriculum can also be given in schools. They

are used to dealing with groups and often to interactive, student-oriented methods. However, the

school curriculum is already overloaded in many countries, so this may constitute a major obstacle

to the introduction of such measures.

Standard driving school instructors already provide basic practical lessons (in most countries) and

theory lessons (in some countries). They are therefore an obvious option for assuming the role of

coach to address higher order skills too. In fact, the EU HERMES project is designed with this

objective in mind. However, coaching is a demanding skill, and one which remains undeveloped

amongst driving instructors at this stage.

16 See annex 6 and examples from annex VI of the HERMES state of the art report on coaching at

www.gutefahrt.at/hermes 17 See EU ROSE_25 project at http://ec.europa.eu/transport/rose25/index_en.htm

11

In terms of specialised driving school instructors, persons wishing to become 2nd phase trainers in

Switzerland are mostly driving school instructors who must follow additional training to qualify.

Trainers have to pass a socio-pedagogical suitability (‘SPET’) test (see annex 9), and to attend a

special training of 19 days (or 10 days if the person is already a qualified driving instructor) and pass

an exam. The training of trainers and the SPET test both focus heavily on the development of

coaching knowledge and practical skills. Detailed criteria have been established for assessing the

trainers’ coaching skills.

Leaders of the group discussion component of the Austrian 2nd phase programme must be qualified

psychologists. Although this qualification does not guarantee an ability to coach and lead groups, it

clearly ensures that the discussion leaders focus heavily on the psychology of driving, thereby

addressing higher order skills.

The Swiss are considering the possibility of encouraging teachers from adult training colleges to act

as 2nd phase trainers too. These teachers will be used to dealing with (young) adults and familiar

with handling groups. Extra training would be needed, and the equivalence of qualifications would

need to be defined, but such teachers are likely to be experienced and effective communicators,

especially with this target group.

D. The GDE matrix and the practical driving test

Why try to include the ‘missing areas’ of the GDE matrix in the practical test18? And to what extent

is it all possible to formally assess such criteria? These were major questions posed during the

CIECA GDE matrix project.

If there is agreement that attitudes, motivations, self-assessment and awareness of specific novice

driver risk factors are important enough to include in the licensing process, there are two possible

ways to achieve this. Either these themes are included in obligatory training and education modules,

or they are incorporated into the theory and practical test in such a way as to encourage the training

process to address such issues (‘formative assessment’) or at least to check the presence of a

‘minimum standard’ in terms of the attitudes, motivations and self-assessment deemed to be

necessary for safe driving (‘summative assessment’).

Some countries have a clearly-defined philosophy on the respective roles of training and education,

on the one hand, and testing on the other. Driving competence in Norway, for example, is seen as a

combination of knowledge, skills, attitudes and motivation. Whereas knowledge and skills can be

assessed in theory and practical driver testing, attitudes and motivation are both less easily assessed

and are therefore deemed to require formal education (obligatory sessions) in which a process of

reflection can take place. In contrast, in the Netherlands, Dutch law guarantees its individual citizens

the right to choose their own training and education path towards gaining qualifications. Obligatory

driving school lessons to address the missing areas of the GDE matrix are therefore not possible

within such a legal framework. Therefore, the only option open to the CBR (Dutch driver testing

organisation) is to guide training through changes to the testing environment.

18 This project only focused on the practical test, rather than the theory test. There will be a CIECA project in 2008 on

the subject of the theory test. This project will include methods and content for assessing the higher levels of the GDE

matrix.

12

Such a ‘test-led’ approach, where the test lays down the standards and the training is expected to

follow, can be found in other countries such as Great Britain and France. It can be used both in

countries where the type of training (accompanied driving, driving school training, etc) is up to the

individual (e.g. GB) or in countries where the test acts as a further quality control of an obligatory

driving school system. It is primarily with these countries in mind that attempts were made during

this project to develop plans and ideas for extending the scope of the practical test in order to assess

a broader range of the candidate’s safe driving competencies. This was by no means an easy task

and was recognised by all the project team members as a genuine challenge. The following sections

summarise the various measures that have been put forward.

D.1. Self-assessment

Finland, Netherlands and Sweden have developed self-assessment questionnaires which candidates

must fill out before the (theory or practical) test. The candidate’s appreciation of his/her own safe

driving skills are then compared to the driving examiner’s own assessment at the end of the practical

driving test. If major differences are observed between the two assessments, a discussion should

take place19. The questionnaire can relate to either all the levels of the GDE matrix (e.g. Swedish

model, see annex 14) or just to the levels being assessed in the practical driving test (e.g. Finland

and Netherlands, see annexes 15 and 16). Either way, this is a means to encourage self-assessment

both around the test period and in training itself.20 The Finnish self-assessment form, for example,

asks the candidate to rate his/her skills according to the following competencies:

1. Car manoeuvring

2. Control of the traffic situations

3. Showing consideration to pedestrians and cyclists

4. Advance planning

5. Recognizing and avoiding risks

6. Economical driving and

7. Communication with other road users.

These competencies, to be assessed by candidate and examiner alike, are presented in the form

below (scale 1-5, where 1 = poor and 5 = excellent):

19 In the case of Finland, a discussion should take place regardless of any discrepancies, if only to confirm that the two

evaluations are similar. 20 Other measures to encourage self-assessment can also be incorporated into the training programme or take the form of

interim testing during training. For instance, the evaluation and guidance modules in the Norwegian driving curriculum

(see annex 3) encourage the learner to consider his/her own strengths and weaknesses and to identify what safe driving

competencies need to be developed in the remaining part of training. Similarly, the interim driving test in the

Netherlands (TTT or Tussentijdse Toets), whilst voluntary, encourages learners who are halfway to two-thirds through

their training to focus on their remaining weaknesses before the actual practical driving test.

13

Figure 3: Self-assessment form for candidates of the Finnish category B practical driving test

Such self-assessment questionnaires are not without their problems. Ideally, the introduction of such

a measure would lead to self-assessment becoming more of an integral part in training too. This

would encourage the development of the learner’s routine self-evaluation over time. If it has no

effect on training, the self-assessment can arguably still play a role in sending an isolated message to

candidates that self-assessment is important. But it will not have contributed to the development of

self-assessment skills, nor to a habit of self-assessment. If such a measure is to affect the candidate’s

preparation for the test, and learner training (e.g. through the driving instructor), then every

examiner must take this questionnaire seriously, and apply the measure systematically and with

enthusiasm in the driving test. However, the existing self-assessment in the practical test in Finland,

and the forthcoming one in the practical test in the Netherlands, is not a formal assessment criteria

for the test, i.e. it has - or will have - no effect on whether the candidate passes or fails. The driving

examiner is exerting more of an formative (educational) role than an assessment role. Therefore, the

question must be asked as to whether driving examiners will take such formative measures seriously

and systematically21.

D.2. Situation awareness questioning

The assessment of a practical test candidate is traditionally based only on what the examiner

observes. Asking the candidate questions about a particular manoeuvre that he/she has just carried

out would allow the examiner to understand the mental decision-making process of the candidate

(leading up to, and during the actual manoeuvre), and if the candidate has missed something or not,

acted deliberately or not, etc. The introduction of situation awareness questioning is designed to

make the examiner’s job easier, by reducing the proportion of practical tests where the examiner is

hesitating between a pass and a fail, and to influence driver training so that the learner gets used to

questioning his awareness and actions during the training process.

21 Experience in Finland has already shown that not all driving examiners apply this measure in the test, let alone

whether or not the measure has any effect on training.

14

Both the Netherlands and Sweden aim to introduce situation awareness questioning in their

respective practical tests in the coming months (see annexes 17 and 18 for further details). Their

approaches differ in the following way:

In Sweden, situation awareness questioning will only be used when the examiner has a query

about something the candidate has just done, although it does not have to be as a result of a

mistake. Therefore, this measure will not be used systematically in every test22.

In the Netherlands, situation awareness questioning will be used systematically in every

(category B) practical test, and the examiner will inform the candidate that a question will be

asked prior to a particular manoeuvre.

Trials in the Netherlands have shown that the new practical test, including situation-awareness

questioning, is a significantly more valid indicator of safe driving competencies than the previous

test format23. However, there are challenges involved in the practical application of this measure:

- if the questions are only asked when there is a ‘query’ (i.e. Sweden), the candidate will know

that his/her performance is being questioned in some way and get tense when the question is

asked. This tension is likely to affect the rest of the candidate’s driving performance during the

test.

- Such questions and responses require significant verbal skills on the part of the candidate (and to

some extent the examiner).

- Even if the results of situation awareness questioning are not supposed to be taken into account

for the pass-fail decision, the examiner may be either tempted to do so (especially if the

candidate said something in response to questioning which would indicate a structural weakness

in his/her driving ability) or simply choose not to apply the measure because it is not considered

important enough to be one of the test’s formal assessment criteria.

- If the results are supposed to be taken into account in the pass-fail decision24, the results may be

highly sensitive to a subjective interpretation by the examiner.

- there is a risk the examiner may use such questions in such a way that it becomes a general ‘oral

test of theoretical knowledge’, which no longer refers to the specific situation.

D.3. Independent driving tasks

Once novice drivers obtain a licence, they will have to drive independently. In other words, they will

no longer be able to rely on a driving instructor, examiner or supervising driver sitting next to them,

ensuring their safety and making decisions on their behalf. It follows therefore that driver training

22 A situation-related question should be used to clarify the candidate’s awareness and motive of his/her way of handling

a specific traffic situation. The question should be formulated in an open-ended way to give the candidate a chance to

expand upon his/her perception of an incident or situation. It is still the driving skills that are to be appraised. A

situation-related question is just a tool intended to give the examiner a better basis on which to judge the candidate’s

ability and be better able to clarify any questions that might have arisen in relation to a specific traffic situation. 23 NL_Independent driving-Situation awareness-Self-assessment.ppt on CIECA members only website at

http://www.cieca.be/memonlygde_en.pp 24 The assessment approach of both Sweden and the Netherlands is a global competency-based approach whereby the

examiner reaches his/her pass-fail decision on the basis of a global appreciation of the candidate’s competencies. The

information that the examiner gains on the basis of the situation awareness questioning will therefore be taken into

account in the overall assessment of the candidate.

15

and the driving test should be designed to encourage a sense of responsibility, awareness and

individual decision-making amongst learner drivers, in order to prepare them for the scenarios they

will be exposed to when driving solo.

With this in mind, the CBR (Dutch driver testing organisation) has tested a range of ‘independent

driving’ tasks which could be used in the practical test. These tasks involve creating circumstances

in which the candidate has to demonstrate his driving skills during a period without instructions

from the examiner. During this period, the candidate has to find his way and make decisions in a

timely and independent manner. The goal of such a measure is not to test the candidate’s

orientational skills, but to determine whether the candidate’s core driving competencies and

independent decision-making skills are sufficiently developed and automatised to function properly

even when the driver’s attention is focused on orientation. Furthermore, removing the constant

stream of instructions from the examiner means that the candidate cannot use these instructions as a

‘cue’ to spur him/her into action (mirror-indication-positioning-speed). The candidate has to decide

on the timing of his/her actions independently and without external support.

The following forms of independent driving will be introduced in the Dutch category B practical test

in 200825. A short analysis of these tasks can be found in annex 19.

a. Driving to or back from a ‘coordination point’ (e.g. railway, hospital, school) without further

instructions from the examiner.

b. Following a ‘series of instructions’ from the examiner to reach a certain destination (the

series will be composed of 3-5 instructions, delivered by the examiner as if the candidate

was receiving instructions from a passer-by).

c. Using a GPS / Satellite Navigation system (inputting and following directions) to reach a

specific destination26. This option will be only be considered if the test vehicle (namely the

driving school vehicle in the Netherlands) is equipped with such a device.

The Dutch are also making the special manoeuvres more realistic in the practical driving test by

giving the candidate more choice regarding the timing and location of the execution of the

manoeuvres.

More information on this theme can be found in a separate independent driving project by CIECA’s

Expert Advisory Group (also 2007).

D.4. Eco-driving focus

A number of countries have introduced eco-driving as an assessment criterion into the practical

driving test and others have plans to do so (see CIECA Eco-driving report 2007). An ability to

employ basic eco-driving techniques (e.g. early gear changing, driving in the highest appropriate

gear at all times) can lead to failure in countries such as Switzerland and Germany, but generally in

combination with other driving faults. An ‘idea’ developed in the course of this project by ASTRA

25 Similar independent driving tasks are already included in the Norwegian and Swedish practical driving tests. 26 Using a GPS system is perhaps not independent driving in the purest sense (to a large extent, the examiner’s oral

instructions are replaced by GPS oral instructions) but it does require multi-tasking, need to look at the screen, listening

skills, etc. The task would include entering the destination into the GPS too.

16

and ASA in Switzerland (see annex 20) is to give still more weight to eco-driving in the practical

test, by:

Making a lack of eco-driving skills a clear reason for failing (in reality, not just on paper)

Describing in greater detail the types of eco-driving errors that examiners should be looking for.

Measuring the fuel consumption of each candidate during the practical test and comparing it

after the test with a benchmark for the test route (for countries using fixed routes).

(Consider in the future even making all cars used in the driving test subject to specific and high

environmental standards).

The rationale behind this move is not just linked to the potential environmental benefits.

ASTRA/ASA feel that eco-driving in the broad sense of the term encourages values and attitudes

which can contribute to safe driving, such as:

- Smooth driving which is comfortable for passengers and earns the driver respect

- Cost savings due to lower fuel consumption

- Safe driving in terms of large safety margins and greater anticipation.

On the other hand, there is a delicate balance to be reached between strengthening the eco-driving

message in the test and maintaining enough emphasis on safe driving at the same time. (Eco-driving

and safe driving are not necessarily the same thing, as concluded in CIECA’s Eco-driving report).

D.5. Implications for Driving Examiners

This section relates to the motivation of driving examiners as well as their competencies. By

introducing such concepts as self-assessment and situation-awareness questioning into the practical

driving test, countries such as Sweden, Netherlands and Finland have arguably extended the

traditional assessment role of the examiner into new competency areas. It is not entirely sure at this

stage whether or not examiners will be sufficiently motivated to systematically apply such new

measures, especially if they do not have a direct influence on the outcome of the test.

These countries argue that the new test content will not substantially change the role of the examiner

in the licensing process and that they will still be motivated and sufficiently skilled to apply the new

measures. Other countries are not so sure. A counter-argument is that the core competencies of

examiners should be maintained and upheld. Adding items of unproven added value, and which

require different skills (e.g. verbal skills) may lead to dissatisfaction, poor application and less time

and motivation to focus on the traditional parts of the test.

Either way, it is self-evident that examiners must be convinced of the added value of new measures

in the test for the measure to be properly applied and enforced. This is a particular challenge with

regard to items added to the test which do not constitute a formal assessment criterion, i.e. which

should not be taken into account by the examiner in reaching the pass/fail decision.

17

E. Conclusions

Aside from various other countermeasures to tackle novice driver accident risk (probationary

periods, quantity training, private practice, etc), this report has looked at ways of addressing the

missing areas of the GDE matrix (attitudes, motivations, personality traits, self-assessment and

specific novice driver risk) into category B driver training and the practical test. The potential

contribution of the theory test will be addressed in a separate CIECA project in 2008.

In initial driver training, the main focus of this report was on the new Norwegian category B training

curriculum which imposes mandatory modules (mostly class-based interactive group sessions) for

developing competencies in the realm of attitudes and motivations which cannot be easily assessed

in the driving test. Driving schools and driving instructors have not had much time to adapt to the

new legal framework (the new curriculum was introduced in 2004) but it is clear that the class-based

sessions impose new requirements on driving instructors, who must now develop coaching skills for

participant-oriented tasks, leading/guiding groups and group discussions, encouraging debate, etc.

Similar challenges are faced by 2nd phase driver trainers in countries such as Austria and

Switzerland where obligatory post-test training is required for all novice drivers. Provided the

timing is right, 2nd phase training also provides an opportunity – in an environment which is clearly

separate from pre-test training – to focus on safe driving rather than just passing the test.

A further potential learning environment is schools, following the idea of DVA, Northern Ireland. If

driving is seen as a set of competencies for which qualifications can be obtained, one possibility

would be to integrate at least part of the licensing process into school curricula (such as the first step

- the Basic Course -of the Norwegian driver training curriculum).

With regard to the practical driving test, innovation in this report has come from Sweden,

Netherlands and Finland with their plans or existing measures to add self-assessment, situation-

awareness questioning and independent driving tasks into the test. Whilst none of them are

watertight on paper, these new measures represent ongoing attempts by forward-thinking

organisations who are continually trying to increase the validity of the driving test. The new

practical test in the Netherlands, involving eco-driving, self-assessment, situation awareness and

independent driving tasks, has already proven to be a more valid instrument for assessing safe

driving skills than the previous test.

Overall, it should not be overlooked that all new countermeasures to novice driver risk are likely to

impose major challenges: probationary restrictions and conditions require major resources in terms

of administration, enforcement and rehabilitation actions. Driver trainers need to have coaching

skills (for groups and individuals) to apply the higher levels of the GDE matrix in training. Finally,

driving examiners must be not only convinced and trained, but also sufficiently skilled to apply new

measures in the test.

18

Project team

1. EFA (European Driving Schools’ Association)

Lars Gunnarson, STR (Sweden)

2. GOCA, Belgium

Jacques Quoirin

3. AKE, Finland

Sami Mynttinen

Marita Koivukoski

4. Ministry of Transport, France

Jean-Pierre Fougère

5. VdTUV, Germany

Bernhard Reiter

6. DSA, Great Britain

John Bridge Peter Ward

Trevor Wedge Jill Lewis

Paul Butler Bob Hannigan

7. CBR, Netherlands

Han Rietman

Peter de Haan

8. DVA, Northern Ireland

Deirdre Walsh

9. SRA, Sweden

Hans Mattsson Inga-Lill Bogefors

Maria Åkerlund P-O Nilsson

10. ASA/ASTRA, Switzerland

Vincent Moreno, ASA

Irene Burch, ASTRA

Thank you also for the contributions of DHV (Netherlands), DVR (Germany), NPRA (Norway), Umea

University (Sweden), University of Fribourg (Switzerland), CAS Solutions (UK) and Institut Gute Fahrt

(Austria).

This project met on 3 occasions: February 8-9 in Nottingham (UK), May 9-10 in Rijswijk (NL) and October

11-12 in Stockholm (Sweden).

A special thanks to the DSA (Great Britain), CBR (Netherlands, France (Ministry of Transport) and DVA

(Northern Ireland) for their financial contributions to this project.

19

ANNEXES

20

1. GDE Matrix and explanation

GDE Matrix: Goals for Driver Education

Hatakka, Keskinen, Glad, Gregersen, Hernetkoski, 2002

Essential elements of driver training

Knowledge and skills Risk-increasing factors Self-evaluation

IV.

Personal

characteristics,

ambitions and

competencies

(General level)

Knowledge and control of

general ambitions in life, values

and norms and personal

tendencies which effect driving

behaviour

lifestyle

peer group norms

motives in life

self-control and other

characteristics

personal values and norms

etc.

Risky tendencies

acceptation of risk

self-value through driving

sensation-seeking

adapting to social pressure

use of alcoholl and drugs

attitude towards society

etc.

Self-awareness regarding.:

impulse control

risky tendencies

personal unsafe motives

personal risky

characteristics

etc.

III.

Trip-related

context and

considerations

(Strategic level)

Knowledge and skills regarding:

choice of route

estimated driving time

effects of social pressure from

passengers

estimating urgency of the trip

etc.

Risks relating to:

physiological condition of

driver

road environment

(urban/rural)

social context and

company in vehicle

other motives (e.g.

competition in traffic)

etc.

Self-awareness regarding.:

personal skills with regard

to planning

typically risky motives

when driving

etc.

II.

Mastery of traffic

situations

(Tactical level)

Knowledge and skills regarding:

traffic rules

observation and use of signals

anticipation

speed adaptation

communication

safety margins

etc.

Risks caused by:

poor decision-making

risky driving style (e.g.

aggressive)

excessive speed

vulnerable road users

breaking traffic rules /

unpredictable behaviour

information overload

difficult (road) conditions

(e.g. darkness, bad

weather)

insufficient automatisation

of basic skills

etc.

Self-awareness regarding:

strengths and weaknesses

regarding driving skills in

traffic

personal driving style

personal safety margins

strengths and weaknesses

in dangerious situations

realistic assessment of

own skill

etc.

Hie

rarc

hic

al le

ve

ls o

f d

rive

r b

eh

avio

ur

I.

Basic vehicle

control

(Operational

level)

Knowledge and skills regarding:

control of direction and

position of car

surface grip, tyre pressure

dimensions of the vehicle

technical aspects of vehicle

Risks related to:

insufficient automatisation

of basic skills

difficult (road) conditions

(e.g. darkness, bad

weather)

improper use of seatbelt,

headrest, sitting position

etc.

Self-awareness concerning

strengths and weaknesses

of basic vehicle control

strengths and weaknesses

manoeuvring in

dangerous situations

realistic assessment of

own skill

etc.

21

A hierarchical approach helps us to structure and to understand more clearly what competencies a

safe driver needs. One of the important outcomes of the EU-project GADGET was a matrix for

defining the goals of driver training. The GDE (Goals for Driver Education) matrix is based on the

assumption that the driving task can be described as a hierarchy. The idea of the hierarchical

approach is that abilities and preconditions on a higher level influence the demands, decisions and

behaviour on a lower level. The hierarchy used here is developed by Keskinen (1996) and shows

many similarities with the Michon hierarchy. The most important difference is the goal-oriented

perspective instead of the behaviour description perspective of Michon. What is also important is the

addition of a fourth level relating to personal preconditions and ambitions in life in general, which

have shown to be of great importance for driving and road safety. The following four levels are

described by Keskinen and were later also applied in the EU-project GADGET (Hatakka et al.

2002):

4. Goals for life and skills for living

3. Goals and context of driving

2. Driving in traffic situations

1. Vehicle control

The fourth and highest level refers to personal motives and tendencies in a broader perspective.

This level is based on knowledge that lifestyles, social background, gender, age and other

individual preconditions have an influence on attitudes, driving behaviour and accident

involvement.

On the third level, the focus is on the goals behind driving and the context in which driving is

performed. The focus is on why, where, when and with whom the driving is carried out. More

detailed examples include the choice between car or bus, day-time or night-time driving, rush-hours

or not, decision to drive under the influence of alcohol, fatigue or stress etc., all in relation to the

purpose of the trip.

The second level is about mastering driving in traffic situations, which are defined as more limited

than the driving context above. A driver must be able to adapt his/her driving in accordance with

the constant changes in traffic, for example in junctions, when overtaking or when encountering

vulnerable road users. The ability to identify potential hazards in traffic is also on this level.

The bottom level emphasises the vehicle, its construction and how it is manoeuvred. Knowing how

to start, change gears, etc. well enough to be able to use the car in traffic belongs to this level as

well as more complex evasive manoeuvres, reducing skids on low friction and understanding the

laws of physical forces. The functioning and benefits of injury preventive systems such as seat belts

and airbags also belong here.

Driver training traditionally focuses on levels 1 and 2.

A safe driver is, however, not only skilled but also aware of risks and of his own abilities and

characteristics as a person. In order to cover these different dimensions the hierarchy was expanded

into a matrix, which - in addition to the four levels – includes the following three dimensions:

- Knowledge and skills

- Risk increasing factors

- Self-evaluation

22

The content of the first column describes the knowledge and skills that a driver needs for driving

under normal circumstances. On the lower hierarchical levels, this equates to how to manoeuvre the

car, how to drive in traffic and what rules must be followed. On the higher levels, the column

relates to how trips should be planned and how personal characteristics may influence behaviour

and safety.

In the second column about risk-increasing factors the focus is on awareness of aspects related to

traffic and life in general that can be associated with higher risk. On the basic level, this may be

worn-out tyres, poor brakes, lack of routine in performing basic manoeuvring, etc. Higher in the

hierarchy the column refers to risky driving in darkness, on low friction, among vulnerable road

users, excessive speeding, mental overload, etc. It also relates to dangerous motives and risk-

increasing aspects of lifestyle and personality.

The third column is about how the driver assesses his/her own situation on the four levels. It relates

to the calibration of one’s skills on the basic levels27 and awareness of one’s personal

characteristics and tendencies, as well as abilities in decision-making about trips and in life in

general on the upper levels.

The cells in the matrix thus define a framework for the definition of detailed competencies needed

to be a safe driver. The matrix can be used for defining educational goals and educational content in

driver training. The suggestion from the designers of the matrix is that driver training strives to

cover as much as possible of the whole matrix, and not only the bottom left cells that are

traditionally focused on.

An important prerequisite for a driving instructor who should teach these matters is that he/she

possesses the same competencies. Thus, the GDE matrix is suggested as a framework for defining

the part of the instructors’ education that applies to road safety and driver behaviour.

Many learner drivers in EU are not well educated on these things. Most countries are still focusing on

traffic rules and managing the vehicle in different traffic situations, which is the historical basis for

driver education all over the world. Some countries have gone much further, but there is no licensing

system that provides all the necessary competencies to all candidates.

27 Good calibration is when the driver’s self-perceived skills correspond to his/her actual skills. Young drivers often tend

to overestimate their skills.

23

2. Great Britain: Safe Driving for Life programme

Bob Hannigan, DSA Summary 1. In response to concerns about the adequacy of the current driver training and testing regime to

address the causes of road casualties, Ministers announced, in early 2007, that a fundamental review of the process of driving licence acquisition would be undertaken.

2. The Minister of State for Transport highlighted the problems around young drivers and of the

need to build training and testing on a modern template consistent with the vocational frameworks established across both the education and industry sectors. In this respect the three main elements are:

a new competency and knowledge framework setting out what a candidate must know and be able to do;

a modern training syllabus setting out what a candidate needs to learn; and

systematic assessment criteria to establish that a candidate has covered the syllabus properly and can demonstrate the required level of competence and understanding.

3. This paper explains how the Competence framework for car and light van drivers, which was

presented to the project group at the meeting in Rijswijk (May 9-10), will eventually be used to underpin developments in the way that drivers are educated and assessed and ensure that their standards are maintained.

The Competence framework 4. The competence framework reviews the existing environment and identifies the knowledge,

skills and attitudes that comprise the competences required for safe and effective driving in modern times. It encompasses those competences related to the knowledge and practical ability to drive a vehicle and also those higher order cognitive processes such as attitude, emotion, attentional processes, motivation, planning and decision-making. It also includes behavioural competences such as propensity towards violations, driving style, emotional reactivity, etc.

5. The framework was developed to be consistent with the requirements and principles of the

National Qualification Framework (NQF)28. The core structure of the framework comprises the following elements: • key purpose. • competence roles. • competence units. • competence elements. • performance criteria.

6. In addition, this framework includes:

• Range statements.

28 The National Qualifications Framework sets out the levels against which a qualification can be recognised in England,

Wales and Northern Ireland. It helps compare the levels of different qualifications for comparison and progression

routes. Qualifications cannot appear on the NQF without having been accredited by the Regulatory Authorities. If two

qualifications share the same NQF level, they are broadly similar in terms of the demand they place on the learner.

However qualifications at the same level can be very different in terms of content and size.

24

• Knowledge requirements. • Attitudes which may present a risk to the demonstration of competence. • Analysis of whether an element is essential or desirable. • Identification of links between the framework and the Goals for Driver Education matrix and

minimum requirements for driving licence acquisition set out in European Commission Directive (2000/56/EC).

7. This framework is now being fully validated, to ensure that it covers the complete set of skills

and attitudes required by drivers, adapts them for the correct conditions and provides a realistic standard. The framework shall be validated in two ways; to ensure it covers all the knowledge, skills and attitudes required to be a safe and effective driver,

and that its content describes in sufficient detail how you can tell whether someone has acquired

the necessary knowledge, skills and attitudes. 8. This validation process will include a review of the available evidence related to the

competencies for safe and effective driving: crash data and crash data analysis research data and findings experience from competency standards and god practice guides in other sectors consultation with subject matter experts. It will also be used to ensure that the framework complies with British Qualifications Authorities’ standards for accreditation.

9. Once complete, the competence framework will be used as a basis on which to develop and implement education programmes and materials, training programmes, testing and assessment protocols, and arrangements for supervising and registering instructors

10. As well as setting the standard to be attained by learner drivers, the competence framework will be developed further to assist other groups of car drivers, such as: people who drive as part of their work people who are supervising learner drivers drivers whose performance has revealed weaknesses.

11. This work will look at whether there is a need for extra content, different range statements or

performance criteria for those groups. 12. The competence framework may also be used to inform decisions by older drivers, perhaps in

conjunction with specialist trainers, about their continued ability to drive safely. 13. A competence framework for professional driving instructors was produced in 2005. This is to

be updated to be consistent with NQF standards. The re-structured framework for driving instructors will also show links to existing good practice competence frameworks in the areas of instruction, performance assessment and verification.

14. In the future, all driver assessment standards will be based on a competence-driven approach.

This will allow the driving licence qualification process to the linked to the broader world of education, work and skills. It will also afford the opportunity to exploit the techniques and technologies developed in those fields in recent years to be applied to driver training.

Addressing driver attitudes

25

15. Adopting a competence-based approach will also allow us to identify and address attitudes that need to accompany driving skills.

16. The current learning to drive process is flawed. Too often it is seen as the acquisition of

practical skills of vehicle control; an approach that has been reinforced by the current training and testing process. But even at this basic level, learners are generally unprepared when they present themselves for test – the current average pass rate for the practical car test is 43%.

17. The testing arrangements have evolved over the past 70 years but do not provide a

comprehensive assessment of driving ability. This has led to some notable weaknesses, particularly when assessing safe attitudes to driving. Attitudes to safe road use are generally not imparted as part of learning to drive.

18. Evidence from research projects and surveys indicate that the attitudes, beliefs and motivations

of some new, young, drivers have a negative effect on the way they see the driving task, the manner they approach learning to drive, and their accident involvement once having passed their practical driving test and they are no longer supervised. This was recognised within Tomorrow’s roads - safer for everyone: The second three-year review (published 26 February 2007), which highlighted the increase in accidents caused by bad driver behaviour and the related increase in accidents and fatalities within the 17-25 years age group.

19. Research29 has identified that young people do not think that the current learning to drive

process provides them with a complete understanding of the driving task. Learners do not properly realise what they need to know in order to be a safe driver, only what they need to do to pass the practical test. They see themselves as “learning to drive” properly once they have acquired a full licence.

20. The same research identifies that young people see good driving having three key aspects:

driving as a physical activity, driving as a social activity and driving as an emotional activity. The current training and testing arrangements do not prepare them well for the social aspects of driving - operating in a shared space in a way that ensures everyone is kept happy, and in a way that builds and maintains a desired image of oneself as a driver. Further research has shown that many younger people (14-16 years) are actually unaware that driving has a social aspect.

21. Younger new drivers’ attitudes are heavily predicated by a series of influences, not all of which

are positive or conducive to developing a safe approach to driving. An assessment of attitudes may provide a useful indication of risks and, therefore, inform education and training needs.

22. Traditionally there has been some scepticism that attitude assessments could operate usefully

and effectively in a licensing environment. DSA has, however, commissioned research that will develop and trial a prototype attitude assessment for new drivers as part of the pre-qualification learning experience. This research aims to develop a formative assessment, to be used in an advisory environment during the learning process and provide remedial guidance for trainees and their trainers. It shall also provide an outcome of increased awareness and understanding of attitudinal and motivational factors, resulting in a reduction in accidents for new drivers.

23. There is also evidence that many people choose to opt out of the current process, with

estimates that there may be as many as 1,000,000 unlicensed drivers, some 600,000 of whom

29 The Good, the bad and the Talented: Young Drivers’ perspectives on good driving and learning to drive. Department

for Transport (London, 2007)

26

may never have sought a licence. The motivations for driving unlicensed are varied; recent research30 identified three categories:

Young people in socio-economic group31 A, B or C1 Members of this group often intend to take the test and have had no contact with the criminal justice system. Their belief is that their unlicensed driving is not a criminal action.

Young people in socio-economic group C2, D or E – Members of this group think that unlicensed driving is socially acceptable. They tend to be badly-off financially and have a lower inclination to take the test. They have records of lower academic achievement, and are often intimidated by the computerised theory test. Frequent contact with the criminal justice system means that members of this group are not intimidated by the fact that unlicensed driving is illegal, and it is widely viewed as a relatively minor offence.

‘Essential’ drivers – Members of this group have been banned from driving but believe that they have no choice but to continue driving for work or to meet family commitments

24. We shall need to ensure that any new driver assessment arrangements are supportive and

inclusive, rather than adding additional burdens and risking further disengagement. Consultation 25. Details of how the driver education, assessment and testing process will be developed using

the competence-based approach will be published for consultation in 2008.

30 “Why people drive without a licence”, Ipsos-MORI report, June 2007 31 Socio-economic status is determined by the occupation of the Chief Income Earner (CIE) in each household.

Additional criteria such the size of the organisation, and the number of people for which the CIE is responsible, are used

to refine the process. The range is from A (upper middle class professionals) to E (those on the lowest levels of

subsistence, e.g. pensioners and others reliant on the State for support.)

27

3. Norway’s category B driver training curriculum

Norway’s new category B curriculum, introduced in 2004, is the first driver training curriculum to

be based on the GDE matrix. It recognises the fact that novice drivers require more competencies

than basic vehicle manoeuvring and traffic interaction skills, and attempts to address the high

accident rate amongst novice drivers in the immediate post-licence period.

I. Competencies required for safe driving

Road traffic competence in Norway is seen as a combination of knowledge, skills, attitudes and

motivation. Whereas knowledge and skills can be assessed in theory and practical driver testing,

attitudes and motivation are both less easily assessed and, in many cases, are deemed to require

formal education in which a process of reflection can take place. For this reason, the current

philosophy of the Norwegian Public Roads Administration (NPRA) is to make anything which is

not easy to assess part of obligatory training modules in the pre-test period.

II. The new curriculum in a nutshell

The new curriculum consists of 4 steps leading to the driving test, with obligatory modules included

where necessary. The process can already start at 15 years old (with the test from 18+), recognising

the need for a long preparation period for safe and competent driving. In addition to the traditional

steps of vehicle manoeuvring and driving in traffic (steps 2 and 3), the course also includes an

obligatory series of classroom-based sessions at the beginning (step 1 = Basic Course) and an

additional step 4 for ‘quantity training’, development of independent driving skills and deeper

understanding of novice driver risk (theory).

III. The curriculum in detail

The steps are called:

1. Course in basic road traffic knowledge (primarily classroom-based)

2. Vehicle manoeuvring

3. Driving in traffic

4. Understanding of risk and the road traffic system

The whole of step 1 and parts of step 3 and 4 are obligatory modules, as follows:

Step 1: Basic course, already possible from 15 years old onwards32 – even in schools – involving 17

(primarily classroom-based) obligatory group sessions33 focusing on risk awareness, social

behaviour, night-time driving (demonstrations) and first aid. This basic course must be spread over

at least 3 days and more commonly takes about 5 days. NOTE: the group sessions are interactive

and discussion-based, not the traditional lecturing approach of theory lessons.

Step 2: vehicle knowledge and technical driving skills. Learners can now start to practise on the

road. There is no obligation to take driving school lessons during this stage – accompanied driving is

32 In practice, it seems that learners are unlikely to start the driver training process before they are 16 years old. 33 Lesson = 45 minutes.

28

also allowed. However, learners are advised to take a few lessons before practising with their

parents. There is an obligatory evaluation & guidance lesson at the end of this stage, taken in a

driving school, which needs to be ‘passed’ to move onto the next stage34. These assessment points

are recorded in a logbook which is specific to each learner. The evaluation & guidance lessons will

address the achievements of the learner so far and may help him/her to develop more insight into his

behaviour, strengths and weaknesses, etc.

Step 3: driving in traffic. Again, much of this stage can be done via accompanied practice, but

learners are recommended to do this in interaction with driving school lessons. Obligatory elements

include a 1-day skid-pan course, consisting 4 lessons with a driving school (of which 2 are practical

and 2 in the classroom)35. Again, this step must be finished off with an evaluation & guidance lesson

in a driving school.

Step 4: Ideally, at this stage, the learner will already be at about ‘test level’ and to be entered at

around 17 yrs old, so one year before the test can be taken36. This stage is designed to allow for

considerable accompanied practice (‘quantity training’) but also includes 13 obligatory lessons in a

driving school. 8 are practical and 5 are classroom-based, focusing on high-risk factors for young

inexperienced drivers.

34 The evaluation and guidance lesson must be taken by all learner drivers but its outcome is only advisory. In other

words, the lesson is designed to advise the learner; it is not a test which needs to be passed in the formal sense. 35 This is an integrated session involving a 1 hour introduction, 2 hours track-based driving with specific tasks and a 1

hour summary discussion (feedback). 36 This step is often cut down to a matter of months or even weeks because the learners are keen to get their licence.

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Test

B

Safety and Skid Pan

Driving Course

4 lessons (incl. 2 practical lessons)

Course in

Safe Road Driving

13 lessons

(incl. 8 practical

lessons)

Theoretical

Practical

= mandatory evaluation &

guidance lesson (driving

school)

Course in

Basic Road

Traffic

Knowledge &

Behaviour

17 lessons

= mandatory education

= voluntary education

Basic Course

Vehicle manoeuvring

Traffic interaction

Quantity training & specific novice driver risk

29

Again, these 13 obligatory practical and theory lessons are fully integrated, with an introduction

before practical driving and summing up/reflection/discussion in groups after driving.

IV. Examples of themes in the basic course and step 4 theory lessons

Levels 3 and 4 of the GDE matrix are addressed in mandatory courses. They are reached through

problem-oriented teaching (group work and discussion) by preparing concrete problems, arguing

(taking a standpoint), activities and summing up according to the goals of the curriculum.

Some examples of classroom-based themes in the basic course and step 4 are:

Identifying risk / Young drivers’ accident risk / Typical mistakes of inexperienced drivers and

countermeasures / desirable behaviour

Norms and peer pressure / individual choice and decision-making

Self-reflection on own general behaviour and decision-making traits (step 1)

Reflection on own driving behaviour (step 4)

Cooperation with other road-users, how your own mind influences your cooperation and

behaviour in traffic

Road conditions and their consequences

V. Trainer skills

Many of the obligatory elements of the new curriculum require a different approach to traditional

lecturing and instruction. Developing awareness and responsibility of novice driver risk and

personal risk factors, related to attitudes and motivation for safe driving, requires more of a coaching

approach from instructors. This is a demanding skill and one which has been included in the latest

curriculum for trainee driving instructors in Norway’s central college for instructor and examiner

training in Trondheim. The Norwegian Public Roads Administration (NPRA) is responsible for the

inspection and supervision of the driving schools. This work will be intensified from now on, and

will include supervision of teaching. However, it is more complicated to supervise pedagogical work

than formal administrative matters, so the NPRA aims to work together with the driving schools

associations to guide and advise driving schools and driving instructors, rather than ‘using the

whip’.

VI. Evaluation

Neither a process or outcome evaluation has been carried yet, because the curriculum is so new.

VII. Key principles:

The key principles of the new curriculum is that it:

recognises the need for a lengthy preparation period for (young) novice drivers (long course

from 15 years old onwards – mostly 16 years old in practice)

30

progresses through a series of logical and pedagogically sound phases, with built-in checkpoints

(modular)

covers all levels of the GDE matrix (comprehensive)

includes obligatory elements in competency areas which cannot be easily assessed in a driving

test (attitudes, motivation, self-assessment)

encourages accompanied driving and quantity training, to accumulate vital driving experience in

safe circumstances

For more information, please contact Jan Edv Isachsen at jan.isachsen@vegvesen.no

31

4. Northern Ireland: GCSE on Motor Vehicles and Road User studies

DEIRDRE WALSH

DRIVER AND VEHICLE AGENCY

October 2007

Aims

1. In line with the GDE project objective, the Driver & Vehicle Agency in Northern Ireland has considered

what can potentially be done to enhance the existing and theoretical driving tests to integrate the higher

levels of GDE into the test. What has emerged from these deliberations is that greater emphasis is

needed (either by testing or training) in the pre-and post test periods and that potentially licence

acquisition may need to become a series of test or training events beginning at an earlier age.

2. A recent report published by the RAC – The RAC report on Motoring 2007, found that young people

acknowledge the need to be better prepared before driving. 58% of the young people surveyed favoured

more education about safe driving at school; 37% felt that there should be more emphasis on ‘teaching to

drive safely’ and 30% felt that there was a need for better preparation for ‘modern driving’;

3. Other project colleagues have covered in some detail measures in place or planned for post licence

acquisition testing or second phase testing. In this paper we have decided to look at the pre-test/training

phase and the role that can be played in schools and in the general education system to test and evaluate

the higher levels of the GDE matrix.

Description

4. In Northern Ireland a recognised General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) examination, the

Motor Vehicle and Road User Studies, can be taken at 16 years old. The examination has been

developed in part by the Department of the Environment’s road safety education officers and is carried

out by the NICCEA (Northern Ireland Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment). The

examination has been in existence for some years. Information about the syllabus and examination can

be found at http://www.class-ni.org.uk/motor/.

5. In 2005, of the 232 secondary and grammar schools in Northern Ireland, approximately 160 were

timetabling Road Traffic Studies and of these 70 were offering GCSE Motor Vehicle and Road User

Studies to examination level. All schools doing the GCSE are provided with a new moped to use in the

school grounds as part of a balanced road safety programme. This is not to encourage pupils to become

motorcyclists but rather to teach them the basic principles of safe driving using a basic vehicle. Pupils

are taught essential safety checks and to negotiate manoeuvres using the look - signal - manoeuvre

system. All training takes place within the school grounds. Moped riding is a compulsory part of the

GCSE Motor Vehicle and Road User Studies course and carries 20% of the overall marks.

6. GCSE pupils must also undertake an in-depth investigative study of a road safety problem near the school

and identify possible solutions. This carries another 20% of the total marks. The remainder of the marks

are awarded for pupils’ knowledge of road safety theory based on:

The Highway Code (Rules of the Road)

Alcohol/drug abuse with relevance to the road user

Legal requirements, documentation and the types of insurance available

Motoring mathematics including buying, owning and selling a vehicle

32

Post collision procedure (first aid)

Theory of Motor vehicle technology (Maintenance and Repair)

Methods

7. The GCSE is studied from the ages of 14-16. The examination is taken at age 16 and currently it is too

young an age for any of the students to have been trained or tested in driving on the road (with the

exception of moped riding within the syllabus). Nevertheless, we feel that there is potential for this

existing examination to be further developed to integrate levels 3&4 of the GDE matrix into the

examination, to encourage self and peer evaluation and to examine attitudes to road safety and how they

may change over time. For example students could consider;

The extent to which social background may influence attitudes (in NI this could include those areas

traditionally associated with conflict);

Their own attitudes to speeding and high risk driving such as being under the influence of drugs or

alcohol;

Negative or positive influence of parents’ driving habits and their attitude to other road users -

students may not appreciate the extent to which their ‘values’ on the road may be influenced by their

parents;

General responses to pressure situations, e.g. being late or being susceptible to peer pressure – the

impact that these personality traits could have on the future driver;

The existence of, and potential consequences of, over-confidence;

8. The investigative study of traffic situations already offers the opportunity for analyses of a traffic

situation and the course offers question and answer sessions. The opportunity is taken in this module to

develop mental models of traffic situations and to allow the student to observe, analyse and criticize.

This strand of the GCSE course could be enhanced and expanded to incorporate elements of self

evaluation and peer critique in order to explore attitudes to road safety, impact of behaviours and

personality traits, and analyse why these may differ from student to student. It could also allow

evaluation of instincts and responses to traffic situations and include group discussion and mentoring.

9. The GCSE might also incorporate some of the very good material that has been produced by the Northern

Ireland Police Service for Northern Ireland (PSNI), e.g. elements of their roadshow – the ‘Roadsafe

Roadshow’ in which a real life fatal accident is re-enacted to very dramatic effect.

10. The 14-16 year age group is an interesting age span in the sense that attitudes to driving may change

during this period and it may be possible to track and analyse these changed attitudes and to explore the

reasons for and potential consequences of them. If we could borrow from Marita Koivukoski’s visual in

her presentation of the Finnish driver training and testing

- emphasis on the 2nd phase below, it could be useful to compare responses to such visuals at the

beginning of study with those responses at the end of the course.

33

1.10.20077

Source: Marita Koivukoski’s - presentation of the Finnish driver training and testing

- emphasis on the 2nd phase

11. The results may illustrate emerging attitudes and behaviours that indicate a potentially reckless and

dangerous attitude to driving and other road users and may afford teachers the opportunity to address this

with individual students.

Role of examiner / Implications for Examiner and Organisation

12. In this scenario, the driving examiner would not have the traditional role of carrying out any practical

statutory testing. However, there is the potential for the examiner and the organisation to become

involved in the setting of the criteria for assessing a student’s work; in working with the teachers to

ensure that correct and appropriate feedback is given for situational exercises, or even to be present in a

classroom or practical situation to comment on the investigative scenarios and contribute to the content of

the syllabus. This would represent a significant change of focus for the organisation to include

education, training and testing.

Implications for Training

13. While practical training in car driving would not be possible with this age group, the moped training in

the school grounds must be of value for giving students a basic understanding of manoeuvres,

observations and hazard perception. There is also potential for approved driving instructors to move their

focus to the classroom for the purpose of tutoring or part tutoring the GCSE pupils and new powers

within the NI legislative framework would allow instructors to do this. This could facilitate the

transition from theoretical to practical study when the time comes.

14. In NI and GB learners need to obtain a provisional driving licence (17 years old +) before they can

practice in-car legally on the road. Were this GCSE to be adapted to integrate the higher levels of GDE

into the syllabus, it could conceivably be a pre-requisite to obtaining a provisional licence to have

attained the necessary pass mark in the GCSE.

System implications for country in question/ Development costs

34

15. The GCSE currently exists and contribution to the devising of the syllabus was provided by DVA’s

parent Department’s Road Safety Education Officers. The examination is delivered by NICCEA. It

would be possible to amend the syllabus subject to the agreement of all parties and the examining

authority. Clearly, developmental work would need to take place, taking account of research and best

practice in other countries but given that this would be building on a system already in place this would

mitigate to some extent the costs involved.

16. Some incentives may be needed to either promote the study of this GCSE such as linking it in some way

to the statutory tests or making it mandatory (which would not be popular and unlikely to receive

support) or providing exemptions to the parts of the theory test or practical test, were the examination to

be taken in a relevantly modular way.

Possible methods to evaluate the idea

17. A range of methods could be employed including:

Student feedback;

Self assessment and peer assessment;

Evaluation of attitudes to road safety at age 14 compared with age 16;

Evaluation of attitudes to road safety before and after certain exercises or events within the

course, e.g. viewing the PSNI roadshow;

Correlation of those passing the GCSE with those who pass the theory test or practical test first

time;

Killed and Seriously Injured (KSI) rates amongst those who passed the GCSE;

Incidence of insurance claims amongst those who passed the GCSE.

Strengths and weaknesses

18. A number of strengths and weaknesses exist as follows:

Strengths

It would build upon an existing system;

Promotion and expansion of the GCSE to include levels 3 & 4 of the GDE matrix would dove tail

well with the PSNI (police) travelling road show, which visits schools in NI and which was

further developed into an on-line road safety course that children can follow in their own time;

It could result in a reduction of KSIs amongst novice drivers.

Weaknesses

Uptake is not currently high;

Not everyone in the 14-16 age group studies to this level even though they may be attending

school and particularly vulnerable groups may be missed;

The GCSE is not linked to any particular career path although the schools curriculum will change

in the next 2 years to make it compulsory that a third of examinations taken at this level be

vocational;

There may not be the political will to make obtaining a provisional licence dependent on passing

a GCSE and their may be equality issues raised.

19. This paper does not represent a proposal or reflect in any way any plans by DVA or the Department of

the Environment in Northern Ireland to make changes to the driving test or to the current GCSE on Motor

Vehicle Studies. It is for discussion purposes only.

35

5. Swiss 2nd phase: Novice driver profile questionnaire

ASA / Swiss Road Safety Council

Questionnaire: Attitudes towards road traffic

On the following pages you will see a series of statements about specific behaviour and attitudes related to

road traffic. Please make a cross in the field which best reflects your opinion (1 = I agree completely, 2 = I

agree more or less, 3= neither nor, 4 = tend not to agree, 5 = completely disagree).

There are no right or wrong answers. Please answer all the questions in a honest way and try not to portray

yourself in an overly positive light. The questionnaire will stay with you. You will evaluate the results in a

later part of the training programme.

I agree/ disagree with the statement as follows:

Completely More or

less

Neither tend to disagree

Completely disagree

agree nor

1 2 3 4 5 a b c d e

1. I think I can react very quickly

in traffic

2. If I have right of way, I insist on

taking it

3. I deliberately get into dicey

situations so I can show how

well I can drive

4. The car gives me the possibility

to realise myself better

5. I have the feeling there are a lot

of traffic rules which actually

tend to interfere with road safety

6. It is quite unbelievable how

many idiots there are driving out

there

7. I feel constrained by all the road

traffic rules and laws

8. I am completely ready to take a

certain amount of risks in traffic

9. I enjoy taking a curve so that the

wheels start screeching

10. I think I can anticipate traffic in

a timely manner, and can see

what’s coming

11. I like driving a car which can

still accelerate when already

travelling at high speed

12. I mostly feel very safe as a

driver in traffic

Sub-total

36

I agree/ disagree with the statement as follows:

Completely More or less

Neither Rather not

Completely disagree

agree nor

1 2 3 4 5 a b c d e

13 I can judge for myself whether

a traffic rule makes sense or

not

14 I think that everyone has to

look after themselves in traffic

15 With a modern car you can

still drive quickly even in bad

weather

16 I don’t think I really need

much more experience to be a

really safe driver

17 I don’t care if my passenger(s)

is seat-belted

18 I think I can brake on time,

even if I am driving pretty

close to the car in front

19 I think it’s important to have a

sporty driving style

20 I reckon that older drivers are

a nuisance in traffic

21 It’s very important to me that

my friends and family rate my

driving highly

22 To be honest, I only stick to

the speed limit when I think I

am being observed

23 My driving is above-average

24 On roads that are wide enough,

I am fine with overtaking even

when there is oncoming traffic

25 I think it is particularly

important to impose myself in

traffic

Sub-total

a b c d e

Sub-total of page 1

Sub-total of page 2

Total

37

Evaluation

Carry over the results of each statement (1-5) to the blank (white) field on the right under a-e. Count

up the total on each page and carry over the result into the sub-total field at the bottom of each page.

To finish, carry over the total for each letter (a-e) into the corresponding fields below (column a into

row A, column b into row B, etc). Then you can read off your personal speed and risk profile.

Extreme

area Normal area Extreme area

Points 5 9 12 15 18 21 25

A Unself-critical Self-critical

B Imposing,

intolerant

Tolerant and flexible

C Refutes traffic

rules

Respect for rules

D Risk-taking Careful

E Sporty attitude to

driving

Functional attitude

to driving

38

6. Higher order training with track-based exercises

Example from ADAC Augsburg (Germany)

The trainer asks the novice drivers37 to complete a driving circuit – which has been set up on a track

away from public roads - as quickly as possible. Each individual is timed around the course. The

exercise entails:

A slalom

A narrow passageway

Two parking exercises (forward and reverse)

A stretch of 100 metres to be covered as quickly as possible

A finish line symbolised by a line and a traffic cone.

Although the goal stated by the trainer is a speed-related one, the actual goal of the exercise is to

make participants aware how difficult it is to drive under pressure. This pressure is manifested in

many forms:

Just before the start, the trainer encourages the driver to increase the volume of his favourite

music in the car; and

asks a technical question, requiring some thought, which the driver must think about when

covering the course before answering the question when he arrives at the finish line

The driver begins the exercise with the slalom. He is penalised for every fault he makes: this

generally involves knocking over traffic cones around the course (on the slalom, in the

parking zones, etc)

He feels the peer pressure due to the onlookers (or, perhaps, his passenger) and to the desire

to complete the course in a respectable time compared to other drivers in the group

He is timed, believing that he will be ranked afterwards.

In fact, there is no ranking and the penalties are noted but never added up. Group discussion,

questioning and feedback afterwards is designed to encourage reflection and to make the individual

drivers realise the effects of pressure – in a variety of forms38 – on their driving behaviour. Ideally,

the reflection period after the actual driving would take place in a calm, cool environment (at best, a

classroom rather than still out on the track).

37 Considering the type of exercise, this is most suitable for 2nd phase training or training shortly before the driving test. 38 Peer pressure, emotional impulses from the music, cerebral pressure from thinking about the response to a technical

question, being in a hurry, etc.

39

7. Class-based methods for reaching the higher levels of the GDE matrix

Method Description

‘Brainstorming’ To start off a discussion theme, starting with a word, a phrase or a

question, everyone expresses themselves based on a trigger such as “What

does this make you think about?” and “everybody says something and

nobody judges”. Remarks are noted on a board.

‘Role plays’ Participants play out roles in (e.g. driving) situations outlined in a written

text, film or witness account. Some participants are the actors, others are

observers. Observers take notes. The results of the game are then

discussed.

‘Case studies’ This type of method allows participants to apply their knowledge to a

particular situation, to analyse it and resolve specific problems.

The case study can be presented in the form of a text or a film or a

combination of the two. It can be accompanied by ‘annexes’ such as

statistics, tables, interviews….).

The case should present the situation to be studied, the problem to be

resolved, the actors in the situation, the event that was at the origin of the

problem (if there is one).

‘Trigger document’ A document (text, song, video) can serve to launch a debate or discussion.

Questions on the document have to be pre-prepared by the trainer.

‘Dilemma games’ A risky driving scenario is told step by step by the trainer. The participants

are told to imagine they are in the car and are asked at each step: “what do

you do now?”. Once finished, the pros and cons of a particular course of

action can then be discussed. See section 7 (Woltring).

‘Debate: for and against’ Split into two groups (one ‘FOR’ and the other ‘AGAINST’, the

participants fight a battle of words with each other to justify their position

on a given theme. Results are written up on the board and used as a basis

for discussion.

Mini-debate (+ aquarium) The group is split into smaller groups and each are given a theme or

question to reflect on. One member of each group acts as rapporteur and

reports back to the whole group. The results are written or posted on the

board and a discussion ensues.

The ‘aquarium’ technique can be used when reporting back the results and

developing a further discussion between rapporteurs. The rapporteurs sit in

a small circle (like fish), surrounded by a wider circle of the whole group.

The rapporteurs further discuss and debate the theme based on any

differences between the mini-group’s results.

‘Questionnaire’ A questionnaire is pre-prepared for the participants. Participants interview

each other and record the responses of the interviewee on the

questionnaire. The results are then discussed in plenary, leading to a more

focused discussion on a specific theme.

‘Witness account’ An external person is invited to give evidence of a specific situation that

he/she has experienced. (See EU Close-to and Module Close-to projects)

40

8. “Profiler”, Germany:

Profiling learner drivers in order to tailor driver training

Contact: kschulte@dvr.de (Kay Schulte, DVR, associate member of CIECA)

The Profiler online questionnaire is designed to give the driving instructor and learner driver a

profile of the learner driver in terms of the attitudes and general competencies with regard to risk.

The idea is that these results are taken into account during the training process, in an attempt to pre-

identify potential driving-related safety problems in the future, and to address them.

It is a 60 minute online questionnaire, designed and managed by the University of Luneburg in

Lower Saxony, and the Profiler initiative overall is led by the DVR (German Road Safety Council).

There are 216 questions related to the person’s life experience (and driving experience, if relevant),

which the learner driver must answer according to a scale. Before the 216 questions, the learner

must fill out his/her basic profile (age, sex, educational level, current educational/professional status,

driving experience, if any, etc). Then there are some questions designed to assess the current stress

level of the learner (any financial, personal, or professional trauma in the last few months). Stress

levels are known to affect responses to the subsequent questions.

Then comes a series of 25 questions designed to see how the person reacts to other people’s

remarks, and how they perceive these persons’ tone in terms of aggression, underlying messages,

etc.

The main part of the questionnaire is then composed of 191 questions to assess the attitudes of the

learner. The questions asked here depend on the basic profile of the person filling out the

questionnaire. For example, the questions listed below are for a person who is already working (i.e.

has left school and is in ‘professional life’). This also applies to the 25 questions mentioned above.

So, in total, the questionnaire looks like this:

1. Basic profile (personal details, education/profession, driving experience)

2. Current stress level (recent trauma)

3. How communication is perceived (25 questions)

4. Attitudes (191 questions)

Examples of the question types are illustrated below.

1. Personal details.

- Name, address, date of birth, etc

2. Education, Vocational Training, Occupation

- Detailed level of education

- Sector of occupation

41

3. Driving experience

- In the last 12 months I have personally driven:

(various options, from under 1000km to above 20000kms)

- During this time I was personally responsible for X number of accidents:

(various options, from none to more than 4)

- My favourite car is:

(Options: Reliable / Cheap / Comfortable and safe / Sporty / Doesn’t matter)

4. Stress level

Experience shows that test responses can be influenced by recent stressful events. Please mark if one

or more of the following events have occurred to you in the last 6 months:

Examples:

o New family member

o Marriage

o Redundancy

o Conflict in family/job

o Death of a relative or close friend

o Intensive pressure at work

o Moving home

o Taking on a large loan

o Change of job

o Accident with major consequences for which

you were personally responsible

o A major financial loss

5. Attitudes

Questions relate to: behaviour with respect to rules and authority, sensation-seeking behaviour, self-

image (confidence and self-esteem), ambitions, planning ability, attitudes towards fate, fear of

failure, reaction to criticism, energy levels, faith and trust in others, concerns about future,

nervousness, etc.

- QUESTIONS: how do you perceive the tone of the following 25 statements?

Message box appears, stating:

Scale is ‘very, medium, somewhat’ for (same scale for all following questions):

Friendly – aggressive

Condescending – obsequious

Functional – hurtful

Confident – afraid

Honest – dishonest

Kind – unkind

Friendly Very Medium somewhat Very Medium somewhat Aggressive

Condescending Very Medium somewhat Very Medium somewhat Obsequious

Functional Very Medium somewhat Very Medium somewhat Hurtful

Confident Very Medium somewhat Very Medium somewhat Afraid

42

Honest Very Medium somewhat Very Medium somewhat Dishonest

Kind Very Medium somewhat Very Medium somewhat Unkind

Examples:

This is the 3rd time you haven’t been able to explain how this mobile phone works. I am going to

have to go to another dealer. Maybe he can do it better.

Whenever I come home, my things are strewn all over the place. Can you at least leave my

things where I put them?

Why are you turning up now, even though our appointment was one hour ago?

I am not sure if you have understood me properly. I will explain it to you again with another

example.

I am not quite sure where the problem is. Can you explain the process again?

STATEMENTS (some examples below)

Answer scale: completely agree, agree, rather disagree, completely disagree

I prefer not having to constantly adapt to others

I don’t like the idea of having to plan my activities for the coming weeks and months

I love going to places where there is lots going on.

I find it difficult to relax in the presence of people I don’t know

I regularly test my physical and mental limits

I am a person who works hard and enjoys life to the full

It’s important for me to be recognised by others

Rules, or things that don’t directly affect me, don’t interest me much.

Driving is not just driving. It’s about experiencing something.

In the presence of authority, I feel insecure.

I always forget incidents very quickly

I sometimes put on an act, a second skin

I need regular little breaks here and there.

Before I act, I think about the consequences

I try to have friendly relations with most people I am involved with.

In difficult situations, I have the feeling I wouldn’t be able to manage anything

I often have a bad mood for no reason at all

I am often totally absorbed in heroes in action films or adventure novels

I like being surprised by unpredictable events

If you want to get somewhere, you often have to quietly ignore rules and regulations

I actively seek confrontation with others

I am a lot more independent in my ideas and activities than other people

I can always accept criticism if I can learn from it.

I really like strong physical sensations

If I had the opportunity, I’d really like to go parachuting or paragliding

I love speeding around a track

I like risky sports

I often find it difficult to express myself

43

9. Swiss 2nd phase trainer socio-pedagogical test (SPET )

SPET: Socio-pedagogical testing for persons wishing to qualify as trainers for the Swiss 2nd

phase (obligatory post-licence driver training) for novice drivers.

System designed and managed by University of Fribourg

Contact: benjamin.spicher@unifr.ch / irene.burch@astra.admin.ch

The overall computer programme includes a lot of personal details which are not used in the overall

assessment of the candidate’s socio-pedagogical skills, and which do not feature below.

The final section of the SPET lists basic scenarios which a trainer would expect to deal with in 2nd

phase training. Different ways of acting and reacting to these scenarios (on the part of the trainer)

are presented. The candidate taking the SPET test must decide to what extent each reaction from the

trainer is very appropriate, quite appropriate, quite inappropriate or very inappropriate. 3-5 possible

reactions are presented for each scenario. There are about 25 scenarios in the test and, in total,

around 110 reactions.

The main theme pervading these questions is ‘coaching’, as opposed to instruction. To what extent

does the trainer-candidate know how to activate the 2nd phase participants and get them to think and

discuss driving behaviour and risk for themselves.

The individual themes focus on methods used by the 2nd phase trainer on the following subjects:

How to best start off a training day

Creating an open atmosphere (to be able to discuss personal weaknesses)

Reflecting on prior driving experience

Focusing on risk awareness

Dealing with disruptive participants

Dealing with lack of focus, low energy levels

Handling participants who express or demonstrate risky behaviour

Addressing participants who don’t agree

How best to transmit information

Discussion, schedules and timekeeping

Dealing with arguments between participants

How to best end the course

Trainer attitudes towards youngsters

General teaching and learning principles

Personal sensitivity (of trainer)

Knowledge of novice driver accident risk

The results of the SPET are collated in a 5-page document which is available to the trainer-candidate

on request. A discussion with a traffic psychologist is also offered, especially if the candidate has

failed the test. The results of the SPET rate the candidate’s socio-pedagogical aptitudes according to

the following characteristics:

44

General emotional frailness

Traffic-specific emotional frailness

General conscientiousness

Traffic-specific conscientiousness

General openness to experiences

Traffic-related openness to experiences

General amicability

Traffic-specific amicability

Open self-description in general

Open self-description with regard to traffic

Reaction to events

Complaints

Irritability through others

Flexibility

Dominance

Independence

Aggressiveness

Social competencies

Ability to control reactions

Attempt to control situations / stress management

Tendency to avoid things (difficult situations)

Socio-pedagogical knowledge

45

10. Austrian multiphase driver training programme

See slides on members-only section of CIECA website at http://www.cieca.be/memonlygde_en.pp

(Austrian multiphase Gregor Bartl)

The mandatory Austrian multiphase driver training programme was introduced in 2003 and involves

an on-road feedback drive, a day of track-based training and psychological group discussion and a

further on-road feedback drive all within the first year of solo driving after the driving test.

Already implemented models (initial driver training):

Driving school education

Theoretical and practical exam

Driving licence on probation for 2 years and 0,1 % BAC-limit

New modules (post-test) 1.Feedback in road traffic within 2 to 4 months

(two driving sessions of 50 Min.)

1. Road safety training and further psychological education within 3 to 9 months (all-day)

2. Feedback in road traffic within 6 to 12 months (two driving sessions at 50 Min.)

3. Probation period finishes after 2 years, provided no serious offences have been committed

In terms of the strengths and weaknesses of the programme:

Customer feedback is positive about the individual new modules of the multiphase programme.

However, some work definitely needs to be done to improve the feedback drives (1 novice driver

+ driving instructor) and the communication skills of the instructors. These drives are supposed

to be coached by the driving instructors and should involve a discussion after the drive. In

reality, the drives are often treated as another driving lesson by the instructors and the discussion

does not feature strongly enough.

At a more general level, quality control is lacking

Another structural problem with the multiphase is that the penalties for not respecting the

timeframe of the post-test modules are not stringent enough. Some 40% of all learner drivers

appear to be following the modules too late, thereby missing the peak accident risk period after

the driving test.

It is important for the group discussion to take place immediately after the track training on the

same day to ensure that none of the participants have left the track training with any sense of self

46

overconfidence. Some track trainings are better than others – meaning that some may still be

poorly designed and executed leaving participants with a false sense of ability/security.

The cost of the multiphase modules is 140 EUR for track training, 30 EUR for group discussion and

50-80 EUR for two lessons at the feedback drives.

In theory, the feedback drivers and the track training are supposed to be coached rather than

instructed. This is often not the case in practice. The psychological group discussion is the primary

arena for raising awareness of risk and developing strategies for coping with risk on levels 3 and 4

of the GDE matrix.

The group discussion:

Should start relaxed with no introductions and get straight to the point – what is the single most

important human accident causation factor when driving?

The focus here is on single-vehicle accidents – this shows the risks are often from within the

person rather than caused by other drivers. These internal risks relate to lack of motivation and

good attitudes for safe driving.

At the beginning the focus should be on accident risk for novice drivers in general

As the discussion moves on, the focus should begin to shift towards risks for individual

participants (what would more typical accident be?)

Then the discussion should progress to developing strategies for avoiding these personal

accidents.

The groups are composed of 6-12 novice drivers who should always be in the active role – they are

thinking, replying to questions, asking themselves questions, etc.

The Austrian multiphase applies to both category A and category B licence holders. There is no

feedback drive for motorcyclists.

The reasons for post-licence training are:

Before licensing, youngsters are only focused on passing the test, not on safe driving

After licensing, you drive as you want to drive – this experience is important because

associations based on personal experience can be developed in the 2nd phase training (important

for effective learning)

Before licensing, there is a very wide range of risks which cannot be effectively taught and

learned due to lack of experience in reality with these types of risks (driving alone, with friends,

to the disco, when tired, with passengers who have been drinking, with distractions such as

mobile phones, loud music, etc).

47

11. Swiss 2nd phase programme

See slides on members-only section of CIECA website at http://www.cieca.be/memonlygde_en.pp

(Swiss 2nd phase Irene Burch)

The compulsory post-test 2nd phase training programme for novice drivers was introduced in

Switzerland in 2006. It consists of 2 days of compulsory training within the 3 year probationary

period for novice drivers. Novices are advised to take the first day within the first 6 months after the

driving test and the second day by the end of the 3rd year period.

The training consists of:

Day 1:

• Accident analysis

• Discussion about effects of drinks and drugs

• Practical Driving Experiences

• Braking Distance

• Safe Distance

• Speed in Curves

The accident analysis can be carried out using images (pictures, photos or video) depicting an

accident with narratives from the offender, victim, emergency services, etc. If one of the participants

was already involved in an accident, this particular accident may be discussed. The whole

programme is highly interactive and the novices are expected to take an active role, as encouraged

by the ‘moderator’ (2nd phase trainer). The practical driving experiences are carried out on certified

tracks and mostly involve demonstrations so as to avoid participants leaving with a sense of self

overconfidence. Hence, the emphasis is on ‘experiences’ rather than ‘training’ or ‘exercises’.

Day 2:

• Driver‘s profile

• Feedback drive

• Ecological and energy-saving driving

The novice drivers fill out a personal driver profile questionnaire which can be used in later

discussions with the other participants (see annex 5). There are two feedback drives, and the second

one has an emphasis on environmentally-aware driving techniques. These feedback drives are

carried out with 2 or 3 novice drivers in the car at the same time (taking in turns to drive) with the

trainer. The idea is for the novice drivers to evaluate each other, with support from the coach/trainer.

The novices have forms to fill out to help to assess each other in a structured way (see annex 13).

In terms of quality assurance, the Swiss have learned from the mistakes of other countries by

developing a strict quality assurance system which requires:

• Training centres for trainers and course providers to fulfil certain criteria and need an official

authorisation

• Trainers to have to pass a socio-pedagogical suitability test, and to attend a special training of 19

days and pass an exam;

48

• Trainers to have to give courses regularly (30 education days within 3 years) and have to attend

further training (2 days within 3 years)

• The training centres for trainers, the trainer test and the course providers to be supervised

regularly

• Overall supervision by a quality assurance committee.

The trainers are mostly all driving instructors although they do not have to be. The trainers are

responsible for all parts of the 2nd phase programme (unlike Austria where separate specialised

trainers are used for each module).

49

12. Finnish 2nd phase programme

See slides on members-only section of CIECA website at http://www.cieca.be/memonlygde_en.pp

(Finnish 2nd phase Marita Koivukoski)

The 2-phase system in Finland is the longest standing 2-phase system in the world, having been

introduced in 1990. (Luxembourg’s 2nd phase was introduced in 1996, followed by Austria, Estonia

and Switzerland). The content of the 2nd phase, which consists of a PC-based driver profile

assessment, feedback drive, track training and group discussion, is organised in the following way:

Individual assessment period:

Duration: 1 lesson and 2 driving sessions

Content:

- PC-based self-assessment of driving and interaction skills (1/2 lesson)

- on-road driving assessment (2 driving sessions)

- feedback discussion with trainer (1/2 lesson)

Group instruction/discussion period:

Duration: 3 lessons and 6 driving sessions

Content:

- demonstrations and exercises on a driving track (6 driving sessions)

- group discussion (3 lessons)

These two main sessions should take place in the first two years after passing the driving test.

Some examples of methods used in the 2nd phase include:

• Driver profiling, e.g. Traffic Interact –programme (used in 90% of driving schools)

• Group discussions

• Group tasks e.g. accident analysis in small groups and relation to own driving

• Group demonstrations and individual exercises on slippery track (e.g. demonstrating the

significance of safety margins between cars, practising how speed influences the vehicle on

bends)

• Social and interaction skills (latest focus in driver training – new material for driving

schools produced)

• EcoDriving -method, Econen-indicator (fuel consumption monitor)

• Self-evaluation forms (e.g. evaluate the weaknesses and strengths of your driving, evaluate

how often you have done the following things while driving)

See the attached slides for more imagery on the above exercises.

In terms of the 2nd phase’s effectiveness, the Finns are keen to point out that the first and second

phase should be fully coordinated in order to send a coherent message to novice drivers. A series of

evaluations since 1990 have shown positive and neutral effects of the 2-phase programme. The

general conclusion is that whilst the 2-phase system has not necessarily led to a decrease in accident

risk amongst novice drivers, it has definitely not increased the accident risk (as seen in Norway in

the 1980s).

50

13. Novice driver peer assessment form, feedback drives, Swiss 2nd phase

(max. 3 novice drivers per car + trainer)

Checklist Feedback drive

Name : V.good Good Average Not so

good

poor

… takes into account other road users

… respects traffic rules

… drives safely

… drives calmly and without stress

… drives in a way that makes me feel comfortable

Name : V.good Good Average Not so

good poor

… takes into account other road users

… respects traffic rules

… drives safely

… drives calmly and without stress

… drives in a way that makes me feel comfortable

Please assess your own drive. I… V.good Good Average Not so

good

poor

… take into account other road users

… respect traffic rules

… drive safely

… drive calmly and without stress

… drive in a way that makes me feel comfortable

51

14. Sweden: Self-assessment in the driving test

UMEÅ UNIVERSITY

Department of Educational

Measurement

Anna Sundström

2014-07-16

Background The Swedish Road Administration conducted an experimental project from May 1st to October 31st 2006. In this project a new model for the Swedish driving license test was tested. This model included a new theory test, a new practical test and a self-assessment that drivers completed before the theory test. After the practical test, the self-assessment was compared to the performance in the practical test and the test-taker received feedback on the accuracy of his/her self-assessment. The purpose of the self-assessment questionnaire was to measure the goals concerning self-assessment in the Swedish curriculum for driver education and also to function as a pedagogical tool in the sense that all drivers had the opportunity to assess their driving skill. We were also hoping that the self-assessment would initiate a process of reflection and that driving instructors would emphasize the importance of life-long learning by giving the test candidates the message that even if they passed the test they still have a lot to learn. Self-assessment questionnaire The items in the self-assessment questionnaire were based on the goals in the curriculum and the strategy was that test candidates should judge how confident they were in completing different tasks in the driving test (since the self-assessment was subsequently compared to the candidate’s performance in the test). The self-assessment questionnaire included 28 items about perceived theoretical and practical driver competence. There were two versions of the instrument that were parallel in content. The test candidates rated their confidence in successfully performing different tasks in the theory/practical tests on a scale from 1 “Not confident at all” to 10 “Completely confident”. A label “quite confident” was also added to the middle of the scale. The items in the questionnaire are presented on the following page. As there were two versions of the instrument, some items differed between the versions. These items are labelled “a” and “b”.

52

How confident are you that you can successfully perform the following tasks in the theory test? 1a. Explain car technologies and their influence on the vehicle’s handling characteristics. 1b. Explain how laws of physical forces affect vehicle movement. 2a. Explain influence of the road conditions on the handling characteristics of the car. 2b. Explain the design and functioning of the car and the impact of this on road safety and the

environment. 3. Explain how to identify risks linked to the functioning and manoeuvring of the car. 4. Explain regulations about the environment. 5. Explain different driving techniques that can be used for eco-driving. 6. Explain the impact of the vehicle on environment. 7. Explain traffic regulations about road signs. 8. Explain traffic regulations about parking. 9. Explain traffic regulations about in-car safety equipment. 10a. Explain how road safety is affected by driving at different times of day. 10b. Explain how the choice of passengers affects road safety. 11a. Explain how the choice of transport mode affects road safety. 11b. Explain how the choice of route affects road safety. 12. Explain how road surface conditions affect driver behaviour and road safety. 13. Explain the importance of using safety equipment. 14a. Explain how to perform first-aid in the event of a car accident. 14b. Explain what courses of actions to take in the event of a car accident. 15a. Explain how car use changes with age and how this can affect driver behaviour and road safety. 15b. Explain how gender, age, personality and lifestyle affects driver behaviour and road safety. 16. Explain how drugs and alcohol consumption affect road safety and driver behaviour. 17a. Explain how stress and fatigue affects driver behaviour and road safety. 17b. Explain how impulsive actions affect driver behaviour and road safety. 18a. Explain how peer pressure arises and how it may affect driver behaviour and road safety. 18b. Explain how to avoid using the car as a means for expressing sensation-seeking behaviour. How confident are you that you can successfully perform the following tasks in the practical test? 19. Perform a security check. 20. Demonstrate routine manoeuvring. 21. Use different braking methods. 22. Identify risks associated with the functioning and manoeuvring of the vehicle. 23. Demonstrate techniques for eco-driving. 24. Apply traffic regulations. 25a. Show good hazard perception in various traffic environments. 25b. Interact with other road users. 26a. Drive with adequate safety margins. 26b. Adapt your driving to the prevailing conditions. 27a. Identify risks in various traffic situations. 27b. Assess the consequences of various courses of events. 28. Anticipate different courses of events in traffic.

53

15. Finland: Self-assessment form in the practical driving test

Sami Mynttinen

21.9.2007

Purpose

The Finnish self-assessment was originally part of an experiment which aimed at increasing

customer satisfaction by adding structured feedback to the end of the practical driving test. The

candidates’ self-assessment was compared to the feedback from the driver examiner. The results of

the experiment (Laapotti et al. 1998) indicated that both examiners and candidates were satisfied

with the procedure, and therefore the self-assessment was introduced into the Finnish driving test

process in the year 2000.

Procedure

The competencies considered in the candidate’s self-assessment and examiner feedback correspond

to the Finnish driving test curriculum that includes 7 aspects of driver competence:

1. Car manoeuvring

2. Control of the traffic situations

3. Showing consideration to pedestrians and cyclists

4. Advance planning

5. Recognizing and avoiding risks

6. Economical driving and

7. Communication with other road users.

Before the practical driving test begins, the FIN candidates assess their own driver competencies,

i.e. their strengths and weaknesses as a driver, with regard to the 7 dimensions mentioned above.

The scale ranges from 1 to 5, where 1 stands for poor and 5 for excellent. The examiners do not look

at the candidate’s ratings until the test result has been given at the end of the test. After the practical

test is completed, and the result is announced, the examiner prepares their own assessment of the

candidate’s driving performance by using the same criteria and scale as the candidate. The

assessments are then compared and used as material for a structured feedback discussion. So, the

self-evaluation procedure does not influence the pass/fail decision.

54

Function in practice

Overall, the procedure has more positive than negative effects. After approximately 10 years of

experience, the +/- list can be presented as follows:

+ it is simple and quick

+ it obliges a novice driver (with/without driving instructor) to think about their own driver

competencies

+ it provides a uniform structure to the driving test feedback, and sets a minimum standard

+ it guides the content of the feedback towards safety-related issues (from the examiner’s

test notes), which makes it an important safety tool

+ it makes it possible to collect information on the novice drivers competencies, which

increases the validity of the test

+ knowledge about the novice drivers’ strengths and weaknesses helps to evaluate and

develop the driver licensing process

- the words used may not be easily understood by the candidates (e.g. observing risks, social

skills) in spite of the obligatory instruction & national curriculum.

- a general challenge to feedback after a driving test is that after the test candidates have

difficulties in concentrating on the discussion, regardless of whether they have passed or not.

both + and – : it is a demanding task to summarize the driving test in terms of competencies

-> this requires expertise on the part of the examiner.

Reference

Laapotti, S; Keskinen, E. Hatakka, M. & Katila, A (1998) To increase feedback and customer

satisfaction in the driving test – An experiment in the driving examination center of Helsinki. In

Keskinen, E. Hatakka, M.; Katila, A.; Laapotti, S.& Peräaho, M. (1998) Psychology in the driving

education – experiences and insights. Painosalama Oy, Turku 1998. In Finnish.

55

16. Netherlands: Self-assessment in the practical driving test

Jan Vissers, DHV

In Finland self-reflection by the candidate is already added to the driving test. Candidates have to fill

out a form and give an assessment of their own driving behaviour using the topics that are assessed

at the driving test by the examiner. The examiner only uses this self-reflection form after the test,

when he gives his final assessment. The self-reflection of the candidate is used to give better

feedback to the candidate about his strong and weak points. This is useful information in the case of

failure (what should be focused on in driver training in order to pass the test the next time) as well as

success (although the candidate passed the test what should have his special attention when he goes

driving in traffic independently, in what way can he cope with his more weak points). The examiner

more or less makes an assessment of the future driving safety of the candidate. This is consistent

with the claim that passing the test is not an ultimate goal but just a starting point for further learning

to become an independent, safe and responsible driver. This approach to self-reflection was not

tested during the pilot studies, but this method was tested during the follow-up study.

To be able to participate in a safe and responsible way in traffic, it is important for car drivers to

adapt their driving behaviour to their own capabilities and that they take into account the influence

of a range of personal characteristics and factors that can affect their driving performance. Whether

or not the candidate can actually do this cannot be seen in the concrete driving behaviour he/she

demonstrates in the practical driving test. The examiner must therefore ask the candidate during the

test. The examiner can evaluate whether or not the candidates have a realistic assessment of their

skills and limitations as a car driver by comparing the official test results with the self-assessment /

self-reflection of the candidate. Self-reflection targets the highest level of the GDE matrix as well as

the lower levels in the third column.

Self-reflection will be integrated into the new Dutch driving test by getting the candidate, prior to

the practical test, to assess him or herself on a number of important aspects of safe and responsible

driving. The candidate’s self-assessment will be discussed by the examiner when giving the test

results. This method is or will be applied in Sweden and Finland.

The self-reflection takes place by asking the candidate before the practical driving test to fill out a

form entitled ‘assessment of own skills’. The candidate fills out the form and gives it directly to the

examiner in a sealed envelope before the practical test begins. One possibility is that the candidate

fills out the form together with his/her driving instructor in the last driving lesson before the test.

The examiner brings the candidate’s self-assessment into the de-briefing at the end of the practical

test. First, the examiner gives the candidate the pass/fail result. He supports his decision with

evidence gathered during the test. This process is the same as in the current test. The examiner then

reads through the candidate’s self-assessment form. He decides in general terms whether or not the

candidate’s self-assessment corresponds with the candidate’s performance during the practical test.

He discusses with the candidate to what extent the latter has an accurate self-image. The examiner

pays particular attention to areas where the candidate has assessed him or herself more positively

than the candidate’s driving performance in the test would suggest.

56

Seven important skills for safe and responsible driving feature on the candidate’s self-assessment

form. The candidate should indicate on a scale of 1-5 (1= poor and 5= excellent) to what extent

he/she considers to have mastered these skills.

The following seven skills are presented on the form:

Vehicle manoeuvring: 1. In normal traffic conditions, I can handle the car correctly and keep it under control.

Safety:

2. I maintain sufficient safety margins in relation to vehicles in front and around me. 3. I recognise possible hazards early and I ensure that things stay as safe as possible.

Traffic flow: 4. I do not hinder other traffic unnecessarily and I allow traffic to flow as much as possible.

Social driving behaviour: 5. When driving a car, I take into account the behaviour of other weaker road users such as

children, the elderly, pedestrians and cyclists. 6. I take into account other road users and I am flexible in dealing with changing traffic

situations.

Environmentally-aware driving: 7. I know how to drive in an environmentally-conscious way and I can apply this knowledge

in practice.

The candidate fills out the form at home or during his/her last driving lesson. The examiner indicates

during the pre-test discussion that the form will be discussed at the end of the test. The examiner

only looks at the candidate’s form once the pass/fail decision has been made and fully explained.

The discussion about the self-assessment form should take place after every practical test, regardless

of the pass/fail decision.

57

17. Netherlands: Situation awareness questioning in the practical test

Jan Vissers, DHV

In the practical driving test the decisions of the examiner are traditionally based on what he sees: the

decisions the candidate makes and the way in which he puts these decisions into action. But whether

he also performs the processes that precede decision making and handling (e.g. perception of

relevant information, making the right predictions and evaluations) in a proper way is not observable

to him. There are two possible ways to include information about the choices a candidate makes:

questioning by the examiner and commentary driving by the candidate. The scope of these methods

in the practical driving test is probably limited because there are difficulties in using verbal reports

as a basis for inferring whether the right choices have been made and whether the behaviour is

controlled by higher-level goals. In addition to this formal pass/ fail criteria may be difficult to

establish. Nevertheless it can be helpful to integrate these methods to assess adequate maximum

performance of the candidate, even though the information will not be used as formal pass/ fail

criteria.

In the pilot studies two approaches for testing hazard perception and hazard management were

tested: commentary driving by the candidate and questioning by the examiner. The method of

commentary driving is very difficult for the candidates to perform. Although learner drivers, driving

instructors and examiners agree on the fact that commentary driving is a good method for driver

training, they all have the opinion that it does not suffice as an assessment instrument. The method

of questioning a critical situation was evaluated somewhat more positively as an assessment

instrument. According to examiners and instructors the questioning by the examiner gives insight

into the way the candidate has solved a problematic traffic situation and makes clear if a candidate

has acted on purpose or not. They add that during questioning by the examiner a great appeal is

made to the verbal skills of candidates. In addition this method is considered sensitive to a

subjective interpretation by the examiner.

Goals of situation-awareness questioning:

The aim of situation questions is to gain insight into the hazard perception skills of the candidate and

his/her reactions to these hazards. With such questions, the examiner can check the

reasons/motivations for specific decisions made by the candidate.

Applying situation-awareness questioning:

- Explanation

The questions which can be raised in situation awareness questioning relate to the 5 driving

competencies on the new self-assessment form used in the Dutch practical test:

Vehicle control and manoeuvring

Safety

Making progress

Social driving behaviour

Environmentally-conscious driving

58

Questions can be asked relating to road and traffic situations, the behaviour of other road users,

traffic signs and vehicle characteristics.

- Formulating the task

When approaching a specific traffic situation, e.g. passing through a roundabout, the examiner will

state that the candidate should stop the car after the situation has occurred for a short discussion. The

candidate is thereby prepared for the forthcoming questions and knows that the questions will relate

to a situation which has not yet occurred and is therefore not linked to his/her performance.

Once the car has stopped, the examiner will choose a maximum of two subjects related to the 5

assessment criteria for which he will ask questions. The questions should then be asked using a fixed

format, such as:

Please tell me how and what you just did

Please tell me what you took into account when doing this.

‘Why’ questions should be avoided.

- Conditions

The candidate should not be unnecessarily affected by the situation awareness questioning. He must

be able to carry out the rest of the test normally. This means that the examiner has to react in a

neutral manner to the explanation and reasoning of the candidate following questioning and

avoiding getting into a discussion with him. Once the candidate has answered the questions, the

examiner should tell him to continue driving.

The questioning should preferably take place as soon as the situation has occurred (regardless

whether it went well or badly). The examiner should let the candidate pull over and stop at the first

safe opportunity.

The candidate is only questioned once during the test.

This method should not impose overly demanding verbal skills or intellectual ability on the part of

the candidate.

- Assessment

There will be no norms set for situation awareness questioning. The result of the situation awareness

questioning is nevertheless to be taken into account in the pass/fail decision and thus in the overall

assessment.

59

18. Sweden: Situation-related questions in the practical driving test

A new driving test for the Category B driving licence will come into force on 3 December 2007. The

test content shall as far as possible be based on the intention of the GDE matrix and the objectives in

the Category B curriculum.

It is primarily the following that will be introduced into the new driving test:

Situation-related questions

Environment/Ecodriving

New driving test report adapted to the curriculum and use of a digital pen

Test presentation (test key) and its use in connection with the test

Statutory amendments (new test regulations).

This autumn, all examiners and customer services administrators will receive the necessary training.

Situation-related questions:

A situation-related question is a tool intended to give the examiner a better basis on which to judge

the candidate’s ability and be better able to straighten out any questions that might have come up in

relation to a specific traffic situation.

The question should be formulated in an open-ended way to give the candidate a chance to expand

upon his/her perception of an incident or situation. Examiners should be careful not to draw hasty

conclusions or add their own appraisal when interpreting the answer, but should be willing to listen,

and in an open and inquisitive way try to understand how the candidate experienced the situation.

A situation-related question does not have to be the result of a mistake made by the candidate. The

question should be used to clarify the candidate’s evaluation of a traffic situation along with their

ability to apply driving theory knowledge in practice. The situation-related questions are not to be

used as an oral test of driving theory knowledge.

The following are a few examples of how a situation-related question could be introduced:

Describe in your own words how you saw ….…….?

I’m a bit curious, tell me more about …….can you expand upon?

Explain to me …….?

What are the risks involved in ………?

How did you interpret ………..?

Prerequisites:

The question has actually been asked.

Must apply to situations that occurred during the test, i.e., not fictitious situations.

60

Implementation: Shall help in the appraisal, used only as needed.

Should occur mostly when the vehicle is standing still, and in connection with the traffic situation in

question.

To be evaluated: The candidate’s application of his/her driving theory knowledge and his/her assessment of the

situation that arose.

61

19. Netherlands: Independent driving tasks in the practical driving test

Jan Vissers, DHV

Once novice drivers have their licenses, they will have to drive independently. Modernization of the

driving test means a lot of emphasis on the higher levels of the GDE-matrix which deal with driver

characteristics and risk awareness. Independent driving appears to be a relatively easy way to

introduce elements from the higher levels into the driving test, especially level III. As part of

independent driving, trip-related planning and decision skills related to both safety and

environmentally friendly driving can be integrated in the practical driving test.

Requiring candidates to demonstrate responsibility and independent decision making in the test,

goes beyond merely learning technical vehicle control and applying traffic rules. In countries where

driver training is not regulated and where there is no obligatory second phase, introducing this type

of driving into the practical driving test means it will be incorporated into the driver training.

Independent driving should be considered as a general ability. It should not be defined as a separate

driving task but as something related to and affecting all driving tasks. It should be seen as a tool to

test other elements, to lead a candidate to situations where he has to make his own choices. The idea

of responsibility and independence should be clear and present in all parts of the curriculum and

consequently in the driving test. Likewise, all the different parts and elements of the driving test

should enhance and encourage independent driving. Examiners will need additional training to be

able to apply and identify independent driving as a tool in the practical driving test.

The driving test is a form of cooperation between an examiner and a candidate. It is important to

determine how much freedom is given to each. There needs to be a balance. The candidate should be

given enough freedom that he feels responsible for his own driving but the examiner needs to

maintain enough control to be able to test all he needs to test. In a driving test, independent driving

involves creating circumstances in which the candidate shows his driving skills over a longer period

without the help or instructions of the examiner. During this period, the candidate has to find his

way and make decisions in an independent way.

Working definition “independent driving”:

Independent driving means that candidates make a responsible choice based on their own abilities

and the requirements of the task. In the driving test, independent driving involves creating

circumstances in which the candidate has to show his driving skills over a longer period without the

help or instructions of the examiner. During this period, candidates have to find their way and make

decisions in an independent way.

The following forms of independent driving were tested in the pilot studies:

Driving towards coordination points:

The candidate is asked to drive towards a certain coordination point (e.g. railway station,

hospital, school).

62

Using a navigation system:

The examiner enters a destination in the navigation system and the candidate then has to

follow the directions given by the system.

Fixed task:

The candidate is instructed to continuously taking the second street on the left followed by

the second street on the right.

Being given a series of instructions:

The examiner gives the candidate a series of instructions comparable to a situation in which

someone asks the right way when he is in unfamiliar surroundings.

On the basis of the results of the pilot studies the ‘fixed task’ method was not integrated in the new

practical driving test that was tested in the follow-up study.

‘Productive’ special manoeuvres

As an alternative for the reproductive performance of the special manoeuvres a more independent

(or productive) way of carrying out the special manoeuvres has been introduced in the driving test.

The ‘productive’ special manoeuvres can be seen as a special form of independent driving in which

the candidate has to make his own decisions about when and how to perform which special

manoeuvre. As alternative approaches to the existing special manoeuvres the following productive

special manoeuvres were tested in the pilot studies:

Turning manoeuvre:

- Independently turning the vehicle around (the candidate has to determine where and how

the vehicle should be turned).

Parking manoeuvre:

- Independently looking for a parking space in a parking lot and parking the car.

- Independently looking for a parking space in a street in a built-up area and parking the car.

Stopping manoeuvre:

- Stopping directly behind another vehicle (in such a way that the candidate can follow his

route without having to drive backwards first).

- Stop & Go: stopping parallel to the drive way and subsequently follow the route.

All the above methods of ‘productive’ special manoeuvres were integrated in the new practical

driving test that was tested in the follow-up study.

63

20. Switzerland: renewed emphasis on eco-driving in the practical test

(IDEA)

Irene Burch/Vincent Moreno

Aim Improve the integration of economic driving into the driving test.

Description The Swiss legislation prescribes that economic driving must be

tested in the theoretical and practical driving test. The practical

experience shows however, that there are only a few questions in

the theoretical test. As this test must be passed to get a learner's

driving licence, the novice drivers have no practical experience yet.

It is therefore difficult to ask questions about economic driving. So

most persons do not really spend a lot of time with this topic before

getting to the practical training.

In the practical test the examiners do not place much emphasis on

this aspect, either, although there are guidelines on how to evaluate

economic driving in the driving test. The aim of our national

meeting therefore was to find solutions how to integrate and

evaluate the aspect of economic driving in a better way.

Methods Theoretical test:

The topic "economic driving" is treated in compulsory "Road Sense

classes" (Verkehrskundeunterricht) which must be attended after

the theoretical test.

Idea: Change the system and put the road sense classes before

the theoretical exam (as it used to be some time ago). Thus you

could ask more and more complex questions about economic

driving. This way, the novice drivers are "compelled" to prepare

this topic more seriously for the test.

Practical test:

1.) As in the theoretical test there are not many questions about

economic driving, you could ask some questions about the

principles of economic driving during the practical driving test

("show me tell me"). You could even add a special module about

economic driving.

2.) In Switzerland errors during the driving test are categorised

according to light, moderate or serious errors. Errors relating to

economic driving can be light or moderate errors. In order to

emphasise economic driving more, these errors could be classified

into a higher category. As a consequence, this topic will be given

more weight during the training.

3.) At the moment these errors are described in a very general

manner. In order to make the assessment easier, the errors should be

described more precisely. Thus the examiner has a better basis to

state errors.

4.) One could measure the fuel consumption during the practical

test and compare it after the test with a bench-mark for the test

route. The difference to a "good" average consumption is taken into

account in the assessment of the test.

"A vision" Another step to economic driving, at the moment more a vision

than a practicable idea:

64

Cars for training and practical tests:

In order to enhance economic driving one could also prescribe

vehicles of a high ecological standard for the driving training and

the practical test. Thus the novice drivers get to know this sort of

car and might appreciate its advantages. Thus they might be

influenced to buy an ecological car themselves.

Role of examiner During the practical test, the examiner must observe not only if the

novice driver drives correctly, but he or she must also note errors in

economic driving.

Implications for the examiner

& organisation

In order to evaluate economic driving during the practical test, it is

very important that the examiners themselves know and apply the

principles of economic driving. They also must be able to evaluate

the economic driving of the novice drivers. A good training which

prepares them for this task is therefore essential. During this

training it might also be necessary to influence the attitudes of the

examiners in such a way that they recognise the importance of

economic driving.

Formative or Summative

Testing?

The testing should be summative. Thus the impact on the training is

stronger: The driving instructors will put more emphasis on this

topic and the novice drivers will take it more seriously when they

know that they can fail the test if they do not apply economic

driving.

Implications for training The topic of economic driving would thus become more important

during training. The principles must be taught and economic

driving must be practised.

There might also be a change regarding the accompanied driving.

According to the legislation it is possible to learn how to drive in

accompanied driving only. If economic driving is assessed more

strictly during the practical test, this method might not be sufficient

anymore to pass the test. Novice drivers might take at least a couple

of driving lessons with a driving instructor in order to learn the

economic driving style properly. A change that could have a good

influence on other aspects of safe driving as well!

System implications (for

country in question)

If you want to put the road sense classes before the theoretical test,

you would have to change the legislation. For the proposed

improvements of the practical test, no changes in the law are

necessary, only the cantonal directive for the practical exam would

have to be modified.

Possible methods to evaluate

the idea

Statistics: How many novice drivers fail the test because of errors in

economic driving?

If there are many, the training has to be adapted and the

significance of economic driving has to be communicated more

clearly.

By means of incentives find novice drivers who agree that during

their 3 year probationary period their fuel consumption is measured.

Thus one gets measurable results to evaluate if the novice drivers

apply economic driving or not. It is important to communicate that

the results are used only for the evaluation and no measures are

taken if the fuel consumption is high.

Development costs

Strengths and weaknesses Strengths:

By emphasising the importance of economic driving in the practical

test the awareness for this topic is raised among novice drivers,

65

driving instructors, examiners and possibly also in a larger public as

this matter will certainly be discussed.

When these different methods are used in the driving test, the

novice drivers are "compelled" to deal with this subject more

intensely in order to be able to pass the test. This heightens the

probability that they will apply economic driving also after the test

(and not only during the exam), because they got more used to it.

Weaknesses:

The change of the system concerning the theoretical test (passing

the theoretical test after the traffic sense classes) cannot be done

easily; other aspects have to be considered: Novice drivers have to

pass the theoretical test in order to get a learner's driving license.

They must prove that they know the traffic rules before they start to

drive. When attending traffic sense classes, practical experience is

important: The novice drivers must have had at least some practical

driving lessons to benefit from the traffic sense classes (it is

difficult to explain the principles of economic driving when no one

has yet driven a car).

By applying all these methods the drivers would be "indoctrinated"

to behave in an ecological way ("those who do not behave properly

are not allowed to drive"). Is this possible in the socio-political

environment of today?

If method 1 is applied, the practical driving test might become too

long and too overloaded. There is also a danger that by adding more

and more topics to the driving test the actual basics (skill of driving,

driving safely, knowing the traffic rules, etc.) lose their

significance.

Changing the test is not enough, some years after the test people

forget things or slip into "bad habits". Others might pretend "good

behaviour" during the test and afterwards drive as they like it. It is

therefore important that different measures are taken to ensure a

certain impact: ecological driving should be part of driving training,

testing and (compulsory) periodic training. In all this ecological

vehicles could play a more important role.