Who Needs Changes?

What the job of a driving test examiner looks like from the inside. The complicated relationships between the learner, the driving school instructor, the examiner, their director, and the voivodeship marshal. Who cares about what. And what the result of these desires is.

For every ordinary road user, changes in traffic regulations provoke considerable resistance. That was the case and still is, because we are simply afraid of anything new. Despite our participation in modern Europe for quite a long time now, we still feel behind us the cold shadow of those who interfere in something we know so well. We know and tolerate everything around us even though we see many irregularities and the need for immediate change. And so it goes on in a vicious circle.

We want change yet fear it, we complain, and at the same time tolerate mediocrity, unverified, harmful statutory provisions, corner-cutting, and the helplessness of our family members, the actions of acquaintances and strangers alike. Much could be written about the complexity of our society and the laws governing it. One can, of course, adopt a passive stance and accept everything imposed on us by our “notables”, offices, customs, and practices rooted in our culture “since time immemorial”.

The Examiner

Let us return, however, to our matters. We are examiners of candidates for drivers. A responsible, difficult, stressful job with high expectations from society. It is a profession / listed in the official register of professions only for several years, requiring immense knowledge and skills, objectivity, and impartiality in assessing candidates. A profession that should enjoy public trust. It should, but it does not. It cannot, because practically nobody cares about that. For colleagues working in this profession, keeping the job is more important than the uncompromising execution of tasks set before them. Bending one’s “backbone” to the recommendations of superiors, the opinions of supervisory bodies, “pseudo-specialists” holding important positions, public opinion, or simply for “peace and quiet” has become standard practice in this work.

The Director

For our superiors—here, primarily identifying these individuals with the role of the examination center director—contrary to what they write and declare, the most important issue is still the company’s financial result. The prestige of the examiner, let alone their independence and professionalism, has no major significance in the face of “daily turnover”. A stance of total submissiveness, avoiding taking any stand on the examiner’s own matters, is preferred. A lack of interest in center management matters is expected, and any interference in the awarding of bonuses and rewards is not tolerated. Principles of uncertainty, understatement, “official” secrecy, the “punishing hand of the marshal’s office”, and ignoring the crew’s voice have been perfected and implemented. All of this under the guise of the worn-out slogan of acting for road traffic safety, with kid gloves, has been going on for years. Our superiors are resolute opponents of any changes in statutory regulations, and only rare exceptions across the country openly admit that things cannot go on like this. Although the primary duty of examination center managers is to maintain them at an adequate level compliant with statutory requirements, they have expanded this “scope of duties” to representing examiners as traffic experts, arbiters of standards, and interpreters of regulations. Yet most of them hold no qualifications as examiners, nor even as driving instructors, or even Category B practical road traffic practitioners. Nevertheless, the media ask “them” for opinions and proposed solutions. Well, whoever holds the power shines on the glass screens. The examiner is merely an “employee” of the company and, according to internal guidelines, “has no right to take a public stand on examination matters”.

WORD Branch Offices

An interesting aspect is the examiner’s work in a branch office of the examination center. The idea of WORD (Provincial Road Traffic Center) branch offices in a given voivodeship is not new, but in recent years the flourish and realization of this concept has reached its climax. By design, they were meant to implement a plan to facilitate public access to driving tests. A noble idea, yet the underlying assumptions are, in our view, rather flawed. Moving driving tests to locations with very poor infrastructure is an exceptionally ill-conceived idea. In terms of executing test tasks in the current framework, it becomes quite a challenge—after all, every task must be completed for the examination to be deemed properly conducted. But how do you do that when, for example, there is no two-way dual-carriageway road in the town? These and other dilemmas affect those who carry out the duties entrusted to them. If one looks at branch offices from a broader perspective, however, we notice that their establishment is tied somewhat to the political goals of ruling parties, but also to an uncompromising fight for customers among individual WORDs. Positioned as close as possible to voivodeship borders, their goal is to lure as many candidates as possible from the “competition”. It is also not difficult to find advertising slogans from some of these units such as: “It is easier to pass here”. And once again we arrive at the conclusion that throughout this entire system, the financial bottom line plays a leading role. Is there any sense or logic in this? For some yes, for others… it is a waste of time to ponder. And yet that is how it has operated since at least 2007.

The Marshal

Supervision over the conduct of state driving license examinations belongs to the voivodeship marshal offices. Theory states that actions on the part of this body should guard the integrity of conducted exams, raise quality, and work for the benefit of road safety (BRD). So much for theory, but practice… As long as the examination center manages financially, meaning it does not request financial support from the office, and what is more, holds “spare” funds in its accounts with which it can support the marshal’s activities, everything is fine. For the sake of “public interest”, most complaints against an exam or an examiner are resolved in favor of the applicant. Nobody considers the consequences suffered by the examiner when their exam is annulled. They are just a WORD employee, so that is the director’s problem. As one of the examination center directors put it: “Since the marshal’s office found an irregularity during the exam, I must punish the examiner, because how would I look before the office?”. It goes without saying that it does not matter whether the annulment was justified or not. Employment dependency… force majeure. Cases of incompetence among officials supervising the work of examiners and examination centers were well-known. To this day, little has changed, although there are already offices with competent people, countable on the fingers of one hand. Even though the examiner recently gained the right to participate in complaint proceedings, they are still “reluctantly” accommodated in their own case. The conversation partner for the marshal’s office is the WORD director and not the examiner—read: employee. It is difficult to count on support for the idea of changes within our area of interest from the marshal’s office.

Change

The legislator who created this specific system that has functioned for nearly 30 years had no motivation for any major changes. Why do so, when there was no such “social” demand, and the few who submitted their demands and petitions bounced right off the “hardened” lower-level ministry officials. Petitions, requests, and postulates systematically landed in wastepaper baskets, and the “changes” introduced and drafted by officials, according to their knowledge, were considered sufficient. Naturally, there was “lamenting” before the cameras when publishing statistics from Polish roads. “Miracle” solutions were promised. And life went on… And so it continued until 2017. That was when the new administration decided to seize the initiative and invited practitioners to the table. The Ministry of Infrastructure appointed a team of practitioners tasked with drafting a new Act on Vehicle Drivers, amendments to other road traffic laws, and relevant regulations. It must be admitted that the scope of these changes fired the imagination, giving a “boost” to all those to whom driver matters are important and who were slowly succumbing to total resignation. The draft was created, the pace of work slowed down, and indeed came to a near halt. And once again politics, electoral matters, etc., took precedence over a problem burning our society for years. But there is hope…

Who then needs changes in the legal regulations concerning vehicle drivers? Young drivers! Even though, like most of our compatriots, they are opponents of changes, deep down they very quickly appreciate actions taken for their safety, efficiency, and even responsibility. Young people are becoming increasingly aware of their rights and duties. They want to be just like Europeans, with the same opportunities and ways of living. They expect more and more. Among other things, this applies to the realm of acquiring driving skills. Much faster than older generations, they identify with new challenges. Modern roads, super-fast cars, ubiquitous technology are just a few elements of their everyday reality. They actively seek opportunities to benefit from professional training and advanced skill development. The system must keep pace with this. For this to happen, the law should enable targeted development in desirable areas of life. The currently applicable Act on Vehicle Drivers, and to a large extent the Road Traffic Act, have fallen far behind the legislation of many European countries.

Trainers and Instructors!

It is thanks to them that we will achieve proper statistics on our roads. The training system used for over 30 years is already so archaic that it is simply not worth dwelling on. Subordinated to the examination system, it delivers teaching solely geared toward passing the test. Pathology, mediocrity, and very low quality of instruction must be eliminated immediately. Rampant minimalism affects practically everyone participating in the training process, resulting in candidates virtually unprepared for independent participation in road traffic. These same candidates, however, manage quite well with examination tasks along the “test routes” predetermined by instructor “specialists”. Proud authors of the current training system to this day fail to see a problem in this regard. Lack of professionalism, lack of dedication to work, lack of desire for professional development—all of these are so critical, yet currently hold practically no significance. Only a few work with true passion.

Those directly involved know all too well about these problems. Politicians know about them, and what next… That is why the entire training sphere must undergo a metamorphosis in a centralized, decisive manner. There can be no compromise here. Modern curricula are emerging, based on which new regulations for training and examination must be drafted. The profession of driving instructor and lecturer must regain at least part of its former respect and esteem. Higher requirements for these professions must also go hand in hand with significantly higher compensation. Consequently, courses will cost a bit more. However, it is definitely worth doing. We must put an end, once and for all, to the assertion that anyone can hold a driving license. Yes, anyone who completes professional training, passes internal exams with a positive result, and ultimately passes the state exam at a good level. Currently rampant “social blackmail” forces the training and examination system to accept everyone, regardless of their level of knowledge, skills, aptitude, and psychophysical fitness. Mr. Gowin’s harmful deregulation reform further ensured that these noble professions became undesirable for the current generation entering the labor market.

Healthcare and Insurance Institutions

Critical voices are also emerging from these sectors. While the healthcare system in Poland currently faces many other challenges, professionals who encounter accident victims point to the very large share of road traffic incident casualties in statistics. They clearly identify the sources of the problems. Inexperience, recklessness, lack of a sense of responsibility, inability to anticipate, educational deficiencies—these are several causes of immense losses to the state budget. It is remarkable that our country can still afford such negative road statistics. Billions of zlotys wasted simply because the training and examination system has functioned very defectively for years, actually doing more harm than fulfilling the proper duties incumbent upon the authorities.

The attitude of insurers is exceedingly interesting. In relation to the number of road users and signed policies, they still tolerate an enormous rate of accidents and collisions. Every such event is after all a financial loss for them, which, taking statistics into account, amounts to further billions of zlotys annually. It follows that these are very wealthy companies that can afford it, or… perhaps some of the senior managers of these firms need to visit an eye specialist and change their glasses. Holding an influential position in the country, they should be particularly invested in legislative changes that would curb their financial losses.

County Offices (Starostwa Powiatowe)

They exercise supervision over candidate training, but they operate under laws that lack executive power. This is an explicit tacit consent to conduct operations at a very low level, without proper infrastructure, often even in violation of applicable law. It is hard to blame the officials for this state of affairs, as they must exercise supervision within the bounds of their regulations. Of course, county representatives report pathologies, point out dead-letter statutory provisions, and… are helpless. And again, the authors of the current training system see no problem. Could the provision stating that in order to carry out a formal inspection at a center one must inform the owner or manager of the training center at least two weeks in advance be a problem?

With a few exceptions across the country, it can be stated that there is no inspection of training conducted in driving schools while it is in progress. Nor is there a problem here with a candidate being handed a textbook and a disc with exam questions to learn by heart. After all, that is deemed enough to learn the rules of the road. It suffices that they sign a box stating they completed theoretical training, even though they did not attend a single hour of such instruction. And so on, and getting worse and worse…

Examiners

I return, of course, to the profession I have come to know quite well over the last 10 years. A person performing this profession of public trust should be independent in their decisions, objective, decisive, and professional in every inch. Knowledge and skills should be beyond reproach, and integrity—that very important word, somewhat forgotten today—should unquestionably be associated with someone like an examiner. Even though the Road Traffic Act and the Act on Vehicle Drivers specify the requirements to be met by someone who examines, those same acts simultaneously make the proper implementation of these provisions impossible. Here, the examiner must demonstrate objectivity and independence of decision, while simultaneously being placed in the role of an employee dependent on superiors: the director, deputy directors, managers, for whom entirely different priorities matter. What chance, then, does an “employee” of an examination center have against the “chastising words and gaze” of their superior? An examiner would like to explain mistakes, discuss the candidate’s driving technique, “be human” to the person who arrived for the test. Oh, no such luck. You must discuss quickly and briefly the errors that led to a negative result, and… onto the next candidate for testing. Time and the number of people examined are what count. More than one examiner colleague has tried to fully fulfill what falls under their duties. In the face of mounting troubles surrounding them, nearly everyone eventually gives in… “Your pass rate is too low”, “You discuss the exam for too long, while in the meantime your colleague is already in the car with the next person”, “Do not talk to the instructor in the hallway, because people see it and there could be corruption”, “An examiner who cannot shorten a test to 25 minutes is of no use to me”—these are just some of the statements from superiors that “discipline” “independent” examiners every working day. Environmental isolation is widely practiced in examination centers. In practice, this means that an examiner working at a WORD has virtually no opportunity to exchange experiences with driving instructors and lecturers, or with county officials supervising the work of training centers. A wall of formalities, bans, and orders standing between examiners and persons taking tests creates a negative image of the “fearsome” examiner. This state of affairs, maintained by both “sides”—namely examination centers and driving schools—and tolerated by the legislature, serves its purpose. The “fearsome” examiner is a handy excuse for all those instructors who train at a very low level and, in case of a candidate’s failure, readily point fingers at the examiner: “You had bad luck and got that one”. On the other hand, this “fearsome” examiner is a great tool for heightening candidate stress. This often results in problems during the test, leading to a repeat visit by the test-taker to the examination center. The circle closes… for everyone except the examiner.

The same Act on Vehicle Drivers and the regulation on examining candidates for drivers indicate how the examination is to proceed. From a formal standpoint, everything is in order. At least for those who drafted these guidelines, which have been in force for almost 30 years. The driving test is meant to check the candidate’s level of knowledge and skills in driving specific vehicles in road traffic. Naturally, it checks artificially memorized maneuvers, definitions of individual road signs, basic rules of driver behavior in traffic. The examiner “ticks off” the completion of consecutive examination tasks. Since the candidate completed them, it means they know how to drive. Unfortunately, it is not that simple. The system concludes that the person knows how to drive, but road traffic practice proves otherwise. Such vital elements as observing road situations in both near and far perspective, analyzing the situation and decision-making, using appropriate vehicle control techniques, and introducing elements of driving tactics are virtually non-existent in the future driver’s training course.

The examiner has no right to demand anything beyond what is required by the examination regulation. There is nothing in there about the aforementioned elements, so they are deemed non-essential for the future road user. The law makes a proper assessment of the competence and readiness of a new driver impossible. The examiner’s freedom is restricted in the name of the company’s financial results, archaic testing rules, and the system authors’ hubris regarding their own infallibility.

What Next?

Perhaps in subsequent articles I will give readers an even closer look into the situation in which examiners have had to work for several years now. There is hope, however, that this state of affairs will change soon. If the current government finishes what it began in late 2016 despite the slowdown in work, transformations in the training and examination systems will, in my view, have very beneficial effects above all for new drivers. The situation of trainers and examiners will improve, and statistics will cease to be terrifying. The systems will become more “compatible” with modern times and the demands placed on them by civilizational and technological development. May those who initiated the reform process not lack courage. Personally, I respect them for taking that first step. We eagerly await further reliable news on these matters.

Fenix