Privatising the driving licence test is not a good idea. Right now the quality of the test is carefully controlled centrally and has a high standard. Allowing the driving schools to control both the teaching and the assessment of the tests can create a conflict of interest and make the high standards more difficult to control.
As a parallel you can look at the bilprov test we all do every year on our cars. In Sweden this is done centrally by independent professionals and so the standard is very high across the board. In Britain it is done by private certified mechanics, who not only control whether you pass the test, but also provide the services to repair the problems if you fail and so conflicts of interest do occur.
Incidentally, in Britain the driving license test IS done by an independent body.
A sign of life
1 year ago
5 comments:
Most teaching institutes where students take exams are both teaching and testing. Why would learning how to drive a car be different? The same rules apply. If the school wants to maintain a good reputation, they better see to that their graduates meet a high standard. In my opinion, an independent school has an incentive that the state regulated control mechanism is lacking.
Are you saying that the British are worse drivers then the Swedes (well, aside from them driving on the wrong side of the road)?
Even in Sweden, part of the "bilprovning" process can be performed by independent professionals. You can repair your car using an independent car repairer if the "kontrollbesiktning" finds it to be out of order in some way. The car repairer will then send a certificate to Svensk Bilprovning where they certify that the repair has been made so you don't need to go back. The car repairer in this case needs to be accredited.
Same conflict of interest, wouldn't you say?
How do you evaluate the standard of the driving school? Is it by the number of students passing the test or the number of students who don't crash or get stopped by the poice in the fist 12 months?
Also, other institutions like schools and universities have an body to indpenedently control that they are working to the correct standard.
A similar body is required here, but it has to be sufficiently well resourced that it can work effectively.
Why not just hire more examiners?
Why do you trust the objectivity and competence of examiners just because they are employed by the state? In my experience, that vouches for the worst kind of laziness and negligence. They'll keep their jobs even if they perform very badly and nobody is ever held responsible for anything.
Evaluating quality based on driving record is not half bad. Perhaps 12 months is a bit short. And why not introduce some kind of classification of the schools that would reflect on insurance costs for the driver? A school with very good reputation would then be able to charge more. Yet another incentive to do a good job.
Nobody suggests that there should not be any independent control mechanism. On the contrary. All that is suggested is that the actual tests are performed by the schools, not by the state.
Well ok, I take the point that in Sweden incompetence among public servants does not seem to hinder their careers.
In Britain, the culture is a little different as people can be(and are) fired.
I'm not surer I agree with you that schools with the best reputation should be allowed to charge more. Surely the fee should be set by the state so that you don't create a market for 'budget' driving schools.
Young people especially, with limit financial resourses, might see getting the liscence as more important than the quality of the training. Especially since nobody expects to crash as soon as they get their liscences
OK, connecting reputation to insurance is perhaps not such a good idea. Not all drivers have their own car.
Post a Comment