The information and views set out in this study are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein. Improving the education and training of road users in Europe through a range of training, testing and licensing approaches is an important strategic objective of the Commission’s “Policy Orientations on road safety 2011-2020”. Another is the protection of vulnerable road users, especially motorcyclists and also older drivers. The Policy Orientation document outlines the promotion of a wide approach across Member States which views education and training, licensing, testing and medical fitness as part of a road safety strategy which operates across the lifespan. The intention is that measures are in place to ensure that all drivers and riders (whether young or old, novice or experienced) are protected as well as possible. The project described in this report supports the Policy Orientation by providing a review of evidence of key topics, with recommendations based on this evidence, and a consideration of implementation opportunities and barriers. Reviews were undertaken of the evidence of effectiveness for different approaches to training, testing, graduated access to risk for Category B (car) drivers, graduated access to higher motorcycle categories, driving instructor competencies, and requirements on medical fitness to drive (including its relevance for older drivers). These reviews were undertaken using a systematic approach, with defined search criteria and quality assessment of papers to ensure that the findings were based on the best available evidence. The primary focus of the reviews was on road safety outcomes. Current practice across Europe was also outlined, based on the existing literature (covering the majority of Member States) where possible, and also based on responses to a short online survey (with wide participation from 25 countries in Europe). Using the evidence reviewed a series of good practice approaches were defined, and then discussed at a stakeholder workshop in September 2016, in Brussels. The focus of the discussion at the workshop was on identifying barriers and enablers to implementation of the different good practice approaches in European countries. The findings from each of the reviews were as follows: Driver testing: Although the Directive 2006/126/EC has bought some standardisation to the use of theory tests and practical tests across Europe, a number of areas of variability remain. In particular, hazard perception testing (an approach that has shown promise in terms of having safety benefits) across Europe is rare. In addition, the pace of technological advancement is fast, and testing is not keeping up with this. The evidence also shows that age and inexperience are still the dominant factors impacting on the collision risk of young and novice drivers; a higher licensing age is desirable from a safety perspective, and greater and more varied on-road practice (with or without a professional driving instructor) are the key things that a test should seek to stimulate. Good practices suggested from the review covered the inclusion of theory lessons on things that are difficult to test, but which are nonetheless important from a road safety perspective (distraction, peer-pressure, impaired driving), the inclusion of hazard perception testing, a testing system that integrates with any graduated driver licensing system that is in place (for example different tests after different phases), coverage of different road types and times of day during the test, and a test that adapts with technological advancements. Graduated risk exposure for novice drivers in training and licensing (Category B): Although the majority of Member States have some kind of graduated access to risk through a ‘graduated licensing’ system (for example with harsher alcohol limits and stricter penalty points systems for novices), none have what would be termed a ‘strong’ system according to international experience and evidence. The evidence for the effectiveness of strong graduated licensing systems is overwhelmingly positive. The good practices suggested centred on the implementation of restrictions on nighttime driving and passenger carrying in a probationary period post-test, a minimum learning period, and minimum amounts of pre-test on-road practice. Graduated access to higher motorcycle categories: Existing practice across Europe shows that the age at which someone can obtain an A1 licence is 16 in most countries. For an A2 licence the age is typically 18, and for a full A licence it is typically 21. A number of countries offer a ‘direct access’ scheme whereby people are able to move straight to riding an unrestricted power machine (A licence) without first progressing through A1 or A2 licences. The evidence on the impact of restricting access to higher motorcycle categories on road safety is limited, and typically based on very old studies. These studies do show that restricting access does have a safety benefit. The remaining evidence is based largely on international reviews of graduated access systems in the model of those used for car drivers, in which risk factors associated with age and inexperience are targeted through higher licensing ages, and prescribed amounts of on-road practice. Good practice approaches suggested for discussion with stakeholders were that the licensing age should be higher for all motorcycles, that learners should be subject to minimum requirements of on-road practice, that time-discounting schemes (which can reduce time spent in the learner phase) should be avoided, and that age-based exemptions for direct access to higher machine categories should be avoided. Driver training: Existing practice across Europe in terms of training differs widely. Some countries have mandatory training, others do not. Some insist on professional instructors, while others allow practice solely with ‘lay instructors’ (such as parents). The use of a multi-phase training, of national curricula, and post-test courses is again variable. The evidence on training suggests that the key features of a successful system would have little focus on any of this, but would instead focus on encouraging greater training of higher order skills, and on giving learners greater and more varied on-road practice of any kind, with or without training from a professional instructor (since the evidence that professional instructors lead to safer drivers is weak at best). The good practices suggested based on the evidence were that training should be based on a curriculum that includes a minimum number of on-road experiences, training of higher order skills such as avoiding distracted driving, training of hazard perception, new technological developments, and the abolishment of short training programmes aimed at enhancing skills to ‘regain control’ of the vehicle in emergency situations. Driving instructor competences: Again existing practice across Europe (in terms of requirements on age, driving experience, teaching skills and so-on) for driving instructors is hugely variable. The evidence base directly related to instructor competencies and road safety outcomes is almost non-existent. Nonetheless there are good practices which seem sensible, given the role instructors need to play in the training of drivers and riders. Ones discussed at the workshop were having minimum age, education and driving experience requirements for instructors (and an entrance test if required), the need for instructors to have no convictions for serious traffic offences or sexual harassment, standardised training objectives and a minimum training period for instructors (including educational competencies), a practical test and a theory test, and compulsory periodic training and quality checks after an instructor is licensed. Requirements on medical fitness to drive: Understanding the impact of medical fitness is important as the driving population ages, and all countries examined have age based re-testing, including eye tests, and most require medical tests for re-licensing. The legal duty to report health problems, the precise role of medical general practitioners, and the age at which retesting was required were more variable. The evidence base on requirements on medical fitness to drive is substantial. It suggests that age based screening is not effective, and may even have a negative safety (as well as mobility) impact. The frequency with which older drivers need to renew their licence is variable, and along with age limits is not based on current best practice regarding crash risk or incidence of relevant disease. Screening tools also lack an evidence base, and their use is generally shown not to reduce crashes. General medical practitioners often find themselves in a dilemma, needing to balance the (often unfounded) concerns over safety with not wanting to restrict mobility for older people (which can have a major negative impact on health and wellbeing). Good practices discussed covered the need for a consistent and evidence-based screening process, a validated off-road assessment tool, clearer guidelines and education programmes for medical practitioners, materials to aid in decision making for older drivers (regarding the decision to keep driving or give up) and the use of ‘restrictive; licences which permit driving under some circumstances for those known to have some medical issues, which enables such drivers to retain some mobility. Recommendations: During the workshop, stakeholders were given an opportunity to discuss perceived barriers and enablers to implementation of the good practices. On the basis of the evidence, the good practices are seen as desirable end goals from a road-safety perspective. Taking into account the feedback from stakeholders at the workshop in this project, the recommendations below have been tailored to reflect the extent to which Member States appear to be ready (or not) for implementation. In cases in which stakeholders indicated no major obstacles to implementation, recommendations suggest that the EC should take action to facilitate implementation; the key mechanism for achieving this should be (in the absence of updating the main text of the Directive 2006/126/EC) a review and update of the technical annexes in the Directive. Where there are other mechanisms (either in addition to or instead of updates to the annexes) this is noted alongside each recommendation. In cases in which many barriers to implementation were noted, recommendations take a more pragmatic approach in pointing to the next steps necessary to progress policy in a positive direction. (Author/publisher)
Samenvatting