New License System: Is it Good Bad or Bullshit
“We want to create a new crop of drivers,” and “the graduated licence scheme was applied in countries such as Australia and had contributed to the reduction of road accidents.” said Transport Department spokesman Logan Maistry recently but is he over-optimistic?
The current K53 system and drivers tests are much begrudged, bemoaned and bribes are rife. This much we know. What Logan Maistry now proposes is a brand new graduated driving license plan based on a foreign country’s system that seems to have produced good results in a foreign populace. Although not an altogether misguided idea, Mr. Maistry needs reminding that this is Africa, in particular South Africa.
Why do I make the distinction? It is just a very good idea to look at our local population and their perceptions of what driving is all about. I would say 99% have a McDonalds idea of the start-to-finish licensing process. Many think 10 lessons and a test makes them a driver, or in the very least it should.
Another thing about our population is that we simply do not have the same driving culture of a country like Australia, for instance. There, the exception is speeding where, in stark contrast here, it is the rule. There, like one synchronised unspoken divine intervention, the driving public obeys road rules and reduce speed when it is so indicated. Here it seems, most road rules, traffic signs and symbols are mere suggestions…if you’re in a good mood, not late for that meeting or cool party and the boss or driver anywhere near you didn’t irritate you too much.
It’s not going to be that easy, Mr. Maistry.
So what is all the hype about? Let’s look at what is proposed and I’ll add my views.
YEAR 1 ~
Allow 16-year-olds to apply for a learner driver’s licence, in terms of which you could drive:
Accompanied by a fully licensed driver at a maximum speed of 80km/h
Black ‘L’ sign with a yellow background on the rear windscreen
Log at least 96 hours of driving
Including 24 of driving at night
YEAR 2 ~
Apply for a P1 licence, allowing you to
Drive alone and at a limit of 90km/h
Red ‘L’ sign with a white background
YEAR 3 ~
Apply for a P2 licence
Green ‘L’ sign and would be allowed to drive at a maximum speed of 100km/h
Computerised hazard perception test is mandatory
YEAR 4 ~
A full licence would be issued only after a
Computerised test
I have a number of issues with the proposed new system, as a driving coach, not as a business person that stands to make more or less money.
ISSUE 1 ~
I have seen learner drivers pass driving tests as well-adjusted, well-trained and confident drivers at a consistent and average 35 – 40 hours of training under my wing. Given the range of driving lesson costs out in the market (R100-R250p/h), excluding car hire and accompaniment on a driver’s test, that amounts to anything from R3 500 to R10 000. This doesn’t take silly-priced lessons, license application, and license issue fees into account.
What is now proposed (IF the 24 night hours are inclusive), is a cost of R12 000 to R30 000 for 120 hours at the tariff range as above.
Mr. Maistry you would be well advised to consider that 95% of South Africa’s population learn to drive and apply for a license as a secondary goal. The primary goal is, and in my opinion will remain, finding a job, license without which it is impossible these days. Of the 95% that pass their drivers test and find a job, only a very small percentage will in fact have the means to buy a car, let alone physically drive ever again for a number of years. Some of these delayed-drivers could very possibly be back at square one yet they are legally licensed and once they have bought that car, very few (if any) will take refresher driving lessons before hitting the road.
The cost then, for 95% of the population, will be an almost guarantee of unemployment. This, as if unemployment figures aren’t a grave enough concern already. For the 5% with varied means of affording their license process, I will have you know Mr. Maistry, that R10 000, R12 000 and R30 000 is a shit-load of money in anyone’s book.
What I will suggest is a kind of license sponsoring system or license bursary system, if not government granted, then co-sponsored by employers via their SETA and such contributions that currently the government seems to use for buggerall.
ISSUE 2 ~
Just how will you enforce, regulate and/or ensure that the 120 hour minimum is observed and adhered to, Mr. Maistry? In the United States with their graduated licensing system there is a log that needs to be kept and hours strictly signed off. There is also a great parental influence and responsibility factor involved where kids almost have to adhere to bail bond conditions during their licensing process.
How will you control South African kids, Mr. Maistry? There are the dirt-poor and the surprisingly rich, there are the well-behaved and the free range chickens, there are the law-abiding and the rebels, there are those with dedicated parental involvement and those that are orphaned. All of these kids need a license and all of them need a job Mr. Maistry.
The control then, for the greater part is yet unknown or undefined.
ISSUE 3 ~
When a fully licensed driver accompanies a 16-year-old, you do realise Mr. Maistry, that it not necessarily means it will be someone who has passed through your proposed new system and has 120hours+ experience, but it could be the neighbour’s son who got his licence after the infamous 10 lessons and a test scenario. Not the best candidate, yet fully licensed.
The youth, Mr. Maistry, is impressionable but more so than in your youth. They play horror games on Play Station and Xbox that will make you check the backdoor twice and keep you from your sleep; they share stuff on Mxit that will turn your granny in her grave, and their brain’s Frontal Lobes are no more developed today than yours was at their age, hence to handle responsibility and deal with consequences of errors in judgement remains a challenge.
As a simple example: About two weeks ago, a young man and his friend came tearing down the road, overtaking me, misjudged an old man encroaching at a stop sign where a bush on the pavement hampered his view. The youngster’s car tore off the complete front of the old man’s car, radiator included. The youngster tried to swerve out, misjudged, didn’t break his speed in time and eventually ended up against a tree and his friend narrowly escaped death what with a lamp pole smacking him on the passenger door.
These were estimated to be 18-year-olds, not in a 1952 Beetle Mr. Maistry – it was a mother’s few-hundred-thousand-worth Cadillac trashed in split seconds with the driver reporting he didn’t have his license ‘on him’. They weren’t speeding Mr. Maistry, they were travelling in excess of 150km/h in a 60-zone boomed neighbourhood – they were flying. These, I guess are the exceptions, but they’re no longer that exceptional any more just as much as common sense is not so common any more. In fact, I have last seen both (seemingly) anomalies in abundance when toothpaste was still white.
The risk then, I would suggest minimising, by means of a minimum age of 21 or a better solution for accompaniment of young drivers.
ISSUE 4 ~
At both P1 and P2, you my realise, Mr. Masitry, that aspirant drivers will now be singled out by age, easily identifiable and could be treated as fresh meat on the corruption block. If an adult driver can be intimidated into paying a bribe, then how much more so a 17 and 18-year-old. I have a very uneasy feeling on the pit of my stomach when I think of the probability that the kids are going to be picked on for petty offences, or just plain intimidated, if the current trend is anything to go by at all.
The other aspect is how will the age-specific ‘L’ Sticker Rule be applied to the somewhat older drivers? In all honesty I see a loophole where older drivers may be tempted or be dragged into bribes to skip some of the 4-year-process due to their age. Many of my clients are mid-twenties and the oldest person I taught to drive to date was 52, for instance.
I run an ethical business and have been blessed with extraordinary clients who wouldn’t dream of anything but the above-board route, but what about the easy-peasy driving schools out there, let alone the completely corrupt?
The corruption then, undetermined and disadvantages of loopholes expected.
ISSUE 5 ~
The Hazard Perception Test I fully agree with and welcome its potential driver grading benefits. I would, however, liked to have seen it implemented earlier in the process – at least as a pre-requisite to P1. After all, hazard awareness is a critical part of driving safely and when venturing out alone it proves its benefits over and over again, IF a driver has learned this skill for themselves. That is, opposed to the warnings and co-driver reliance that could possibly develop in the golden hours before solo driving. With every co-driven hour possibly enforcing dependence into a reliance habit, the probability of detecting such a vice could be detected by the test sooner and thereby limiting loss or better yet, saving lives.
The grading then, a measure of improvement IF fatal accident stats are not going to be relied upon to realise that sooner than later was the better implementation.
ISSUE 6 ~
The value of the computerised test is neither here nor there, in my opinion. Although I have no insight as to what it involves, I reckon that at Year 4 when the average driver with the means and free access to a car would have been driving daily and clocked in excess of 200 hours at the wheel. They would have had their little oopsies which they should have learned from, and the test could very well turn out like a doctor’s visit where you tell him what’s as patently obvious as the flu and he simply agrees with you – a costly visit the pharmacist probably could have helped with….but cheaper.
The official release then, possibly costly equipment and taxpayers’ money at stake for doubtful benefits gained at dead-slow or reverse.
ISSUE 7 ~
The ‘new crop of drivers’ Mr. Maistry, you must realise, is the off-spring of your current crop of drivers. The bad driving influence is unmistakeable, the law enforcement bad-seed-element is omni-present, and I’m investing in thermal-anything I can lay my hands on because I have reasonable certainty that Hell is going to freeze over before you can effectively and efficiently deal with the ‘current crop of drivers’ you have… and spoilt thus far.
Parents are busy earning to pay taxes and your salary, Mr. Maistry – they don’t have time for new-fangled crap, least of all mutton-systems dressed as lamb. Give them something of substance, give them figures, give them a pilot-test that proves the viability of your plan. Give parents a look into your planning, your Specific Measurable Attainable Realistic Timely goals for this new system so they can get facts to base informed decisions on.
Please give us instructors, or rather those like me that give a damn, some faith that you’re going to get our act together along the licensing avenue.
The planning then, scant, rollercoaster, and more bureaucracy to be expected.
ISSUE 8 ~
Lastly, Mr. Maistry, I’d love to know how you concluded that you would be able to deal with four times the current corruption, four times the work load, four times the administrative nightmare and four times the propensity to strikes, if not general upheaval and raw mutiny.
I’m sure you’re very well aware that testing stations are not testing to full capacity and very seldom do. Your foundation needs work, Mr. Maistry – you may be surprised to know that your department’s house is not built on the rock you thought it was. The tide is coming in and by the looks of it, you can expect a thundering tsunami where the average raincoat won’t buffet well.
The hope then…I’m undecided if that’s the right word or worth the energy to try and find another.
ISSUE 9 ~
As a General Note I would like to surprise Mr. Maistry in bringing to his attention that there are, and will always be, many quick learners that will clock in excess of 100 driving hours in a very few short months, easily and quickly. These are responsible kids with involved parents and these drivers would have a fully licensed family member to accompany them at a whim.
Very often clients contact me with more than 50 or 100 hours experience, in which case my job boils down to straightening out miniscule misguided efforts of whomever accompanied them and taught them to drive, and then also they really just need to learn the K53 procedures for testing purposes.
These drivers, Mr. Maistry, would be seriously disadvantaged by a 4-year system. Yes, set 18 as a minimum age for obtaining a license, if you really have to. This is what the general public is used to and find acceptable, but there is a suggestion I’d like to make.
If you let a 17-year-old out on the road, driving by himself, given enough required driving hours accrued, are you not really saying that you trust him enough to be a responsible driver? If you can allow this, then what would the disadvantage be if that same driver is fully licensed? NONE!
I would suggest that a Competency Test be made available for those that feel they are ready to be considered a fully licensed driver, possibly subject to a final hazard awareness test. This, I would suggest at any point during the 4-year system.
In my experience, drivers with backgrounds like these fall into that ‘new crop of drivers’ that you long for, M. Maistry. It is a very special breed that are responsible, focused, dedicated and geared for success. These drivers are also the ones that currently pass their K53 Driving Tests first time without a battle and without whining. They just simply fall into a different class.
Would it be a sin to run a pilot project limiting the proposed system to a minimum amount of mandatory driving hours (I suggest 50) and a hazard awareness test…for starters, and then let’s see where that gets us?
We don’t have to get creative here, we need to get practical and serious!
