Act on Vehicle Drivers – Challenges

In common opinion, people speak of pathology in the process of examining driver candidates. If such a public perception exists, it is worthwhile to attempt an assessment of this situation.

Diagnosis

I will begin diagnosing by briefly analyzing the current evaluation system for the practical driving test of driver candidates (a problem to which I have dedicated many years). We are probably the only country in Europe that uses it. It is a system that, in its underlying assumptions, does not differentiate or weigh committed errors in the context of their impact on road traffic safety. A system that, due to applicable regulations (the double-fault criterion), is burdened with didactic and substantive flaws resulting in a lack of reliability and objectivity in assessing the examinee’s qualifications, while simultaneously being conflict-inducing. A system that significantly restricts the examiner’s sovereignty in decision-making. These are just a few examples disqualifying the currently applicable practical exam evaluation system. It is undeniably one of the root causes of pathology during the exam. Eliminating this source falls within the competence of the Ministry.

In order to achieve a reasonably accurate diagnosis of the aforementioned pathology, I will attempt to analyze the impact of other factors on this phenomenon, including assessing the legal structure of Examination Centers, the genesis of growing irregularities in WORD operations, while also considering the impact on the loss of examiners’ independence (sovereignty), etc. An attempt at such an analysis requires, however, going back to the beginnings of the transformation in our country.

Historical Background

In the 1991 amendment to the Road Traffic Act, changes were made establishing Examination Centers where exams for driver candidates were held. These centers operated as private commercial entities, most often commercial law companies. In the subsequent 1998 version of the act, Provincial Road Traffic Centers (WORD) were established as State Legal Entities, permanently employing examiners and serving the role of Examination Centers. The Director of the “Center” was appointed by the Voivode. Only examiners were appointed as Directors of Provincial Centers at that time. During this period, the main problem for Center Directors was eradicating corruption that occurred among examiners.

In 2000, the Sejm passed an act subordinating Provincial Centers to Voivodeship Marshal Offices. A new “era” began for WORDs. Many Directors were dismissed from their positions. Directors appointed new Supervising Examiners (even those holding only Category B qualifications). Substantive supervision over examiners remained within the purview of the Voivodes.

In 2005, total supervision over WORDs, including over examiners, was taken over by Marshal Offices. Irregularities in the examination process, increasingly noticeable in external perception and beyond, began at that time. Newly appointed Directors were political appointees, whereas Supervising Examiners were most often individuals pliant to directors (to put it mildly). Supervision over WORD was taken over by Marshal Offices that were completely unprepared for these tasks, particularly regarding the interpretation of examination regulations. The Ministry, in the majesty of the rule of law, withdrew from this role. Additionally, cameras appeared in exam vehicles. The next step was the Ministry’s systematic over-specification of examination instructions. Examiners became cornered on all sides—all within the framework of what was termed the correctness of enforcing exam criteria. For their own protection, examiners strictly follow the applicable examination system—they cannot do otherwise. Examiners are well aware that they lost their sovereignty in making examination decisions long ago.

WORD Directors know the flaws of the current examination system all too well. The greater the over-specification, the more candidates fail the exam. The more candidates fail, the greater the inflow into the cash register—so the Directors maintain “clean hands”.

Pathologies in the System

A simplified historical outline has been presented—changes in WORD operations always originated from the political establishment. Before every change, we heard many beautiful slogans and even guarantees of road safety improvement. Today, the consequences of these changes are the aforementioned pathology. The worst part is that no trace remains of the programmatic assumptions that were supposed to guarantee the proper functioning of the system. Here are some examples.

A driver candidate takes a state examination—now in name only.

WORDs were State Legal Entities, now Local Government Legal Entities. WORDs are examination centers, possibly with accents on road safety training; today, non-examination activities often dominate over examining. Directors are people from the industry, currently mostly representatives of political structures. The examiner is a person of public trust, independent in decision-making; currently completely incapacitated both by the demands of the aforementioned examination system and personally—Supervising Examiner, Director, Marshal.

Not Just Examiners

In many publications, the thesis is put forward that all evil in training and testing lies on the side of WORD. While I have serious reservations about such formulated views, it must be acknowledged that there is some truth to it. Examiners, as I presented earlier, have very little leeway to pursue their own policy. That leaves the Directors. Some, and in particular the leadership of the National Association of WORD Directors, in recent years and currently, have felt more like politicians than people responsible for fostering road traffic safety (at least this is how KSE examiners perceive it).

It seems to me that the narrative of discrimination against examiners by certain Directors was also noticed by the Ministry when undertaking work on amending the Act on Vehicle Drivers. The main objective of amending the act is to improve road safety, as well as to eliminate currently occurring pathological elements. The Ministry wishes to achieve this second aspect by excluding examiners from WORD structures.

I ask myself: will this be enough? In my opinion, no. There are many pressing problems that separating examiners from WORD will not solve. Let me list some of them.

Problems

We have very strict evaluation criteria for the practical exam, arguably the world’s most intricate theoretical exam questions, we are the only country in the world where exams are recorded, the only one in the world where exam recordings are routinely reviewed without the examiner’s consent, and yet this does not translate into an improvement in road safety.

Another problem. In Poland, examiners are regarded as trained operatives rather than authorities of knowledge and skill in their profession, for whom the Ministry drafts exam instructions, criteria, how they must examine, how to grade, how to classify mistakes and offenses—simply holding their hand like a child—whereas in countries across the globe, knowledge in this area is taken as an obvious domain of the examiners.

Another dilemma. So many years after introducing new examination rules (1997), there is no authoritative manual (handbook) for examiners, especially critical during the training period of examiner candidates—a handbook (agreed upon with the Ministry) covering driving technique, behavioral assessment, examination methodology, etc. A similar issue also applies to instructors; in the latter case there are many publications, but these works most often fail to account for the core curricula of training.

Diagnosis

Proper answers to most of the raised problems, questions, and ambiguities should constitute the starting point when creating a roadmap of actions aimed at “remedying” or rather “fundamentally overhauling” the Act on Vehicle Drivers.

Subordinating examiners to the Voivode is merely the first step in the right direction, but it is not enough. Without changing the examination system and without reforms addressing many topics raised in this analysis, it will merely be settling an administrative matter rather than solving the real problem.

Władysław Drozd