Proposition de résolution relative au rétablissement de l'obligation de suivre des cours théoriques de conduite auprès d'une école de conduite agréée pour les personnes qui ont échoué à deux reprises à l'examen de conduite théorique.
General information ¶
- Authors
- VB Annick Ponthier, Bruno Valkeniers, Tanguy Veys
- Submission date
- April 7, 2011
- Official page
- Visit
- Status
- Rejected
- Requirement
- Simple
- Subjects
- resolution of parliament driving instruction road safety
Voting ¶
- Voted to adopt
- Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA LDD MR
- Voted to reject
- VB
Contact form ¶
Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.
Discussion ¶
June 28, 2012 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)
Full source
Tanguy Veys VB ⚙
In some cases, we can convince our group with good arguments. We were not persuaded in the committee not to bring our draft resolution to the plenary session. We would like to ask you to approve our resolution rejected in the committee.
Colleagues, I would like to point out that the reasons why we submitted our resolution date from 2004. The former Minister of Mobility Bert Anciaux then in the 1998 Royal Decree on the driving license abolished, among other things, the provision that: “the person who has failed the theoretical driving exam twice may only pass a new theoretical driving exam after obtaining a certificate of theoretical instruction issued by a driving school.”
In 2004, Minister of Mobility Bert Anciaux decided to abolish this provision. This has been criticized, among others, by the Federation of Belgian Professional Authorship Schools. According to Vlaams Belang, she is very rightly complaining. She notes that for many young people the theoretical exam had turned into a gambling game. If one takes enough part in the electronic examination, one would, in the long run, have understood how it came together, and one would pass his theoretical driving examination without having sufficient knowledge and insight about the traffic regulations.
During the discussion of our resolution in the committee, all sorts of arguments have been cited for not approving them. I would like to take this opportunity to refute some of those arguments.
It is clear that at the moment theory is only taught on the basis of the exam questions and therefore no longer on the basis of the manual. Everyone still knows those two books, before it was with, among other things, commissioner Vervucht and also with a socialist police commissioner. Everybody knows the books of the driving school, which one had to run through. One began by solving the examination questions, and where one did not get out of it or did not understand the solution, one might read it. In this way, however, they tried to pass their theoretical driving exams smoothly.
This has ensured that one is faced with the next. When passing this electronic exam, one must obtain 41 out of 50, but each question has the same weight. So, if one answers five times at the theory exam that one can drive through the red light, one has brilliantly succeeded. That is a bad thing.
I was informed at the examination centre that there are now six sets of 50 questions. These questions are not all different. This means that if one fails six times, one gets the same questions again anyway. There is a shortage in how the exam is taken.
Since we have been faced with this problem for years, one should evolve from a gambling system for the questions of estimation of traffic situations, to risk acceptance and so on. Such questions would lead to a much better outcome and a much better assessment of whether one has the right knowledge of the traffic regulation, rather than simply gambling on A, B or C.
The current database contains approximately 300 questions for the theoretical driving exam. That too is too little.
These are all concerns with the current exam system.
Collega Wollants asks, if one is faced with these problems, whether one would not better adjust the driving exam.
In this regard, there is a problem with the legislature, which apparently allows a particular examination centre, once it has obtained its recognition, to have free play.
In this regard, the State Secretary for Mobility is also assigned a task, to take a number of initiatives.
On the other hand, colleagues, in Belgium, through a multi-choice system, only classic questions about the Road Code are asked. Moreover, in the original exam questions, the text was even too difficult. The text had to be adjusted. The text was made easier and questions that were somewhat ambiguous were simply deleted.
I would recommend the Secretary of State to look abroad. In overseas, more work is done with multiple-choice questions in combination with open questions. For example, in a particular traffic situation, a photo is shown and asked how fast it can be driven. Subsequently, the examiner must fill out an answer with the numerical keyboard and therefore not with a fixed number. With us, we immediately get the opportunity to indicate, for example, 40, 50 or 60 km per hour, which of course makes it very easy to fall back into a gambling system.
To remedy the previous problem, not so much the exam needs to be adjusted, but in the classroom, which we advocate to let people follow the theory, can be worked on the mentality and the choice of mobility. The classroom is the perfect place to work on it and to let young people who have failed twice still work on their problem. This has also proven its usefulness in the past and still proves its usefulness abroad.
Another argument given in the committee is that much is already done in school. When we look at the deadlines, the task package in schools and what teachers already have on their agenda, given the limited time that schools have to spend on traffic lessons, it would be much better to have a separate lesson package from the approved driving schools. Thus, it can be ensured that young people are adequately prepared for traffic and not only through schools.
In the end, it is often the case that what does not happen in the approved driving schools is done in the school within a time frame of eight hours, while the driving schools deal with it over a period of twelve full hours. The educational system now provides about eight hours to do traffic education.
Not only I, but also the driving schools find that this is too little. The twelve hours of theoretical lessons at a certified driving school are more than necessary.
With the current school system one does not reach the entire target group, only those who have ⁇ a good education. Every year there is a large drop of students in high school. Therefore, they did not follow sufficient lessons of traffic education. According to the current regulations, they are allowed to take their theoretical driving exam.
There is a contradiction between the training in school and the obligation imposed upon one if one has failed twice. If one fails in the current system, then it is clear that one does not control the matter. It is unrealistic to think that someone who does not know the Code of the Road today will possess sufficient knowledge tomorrow. Traffic education and the role of driving schools are ⁇ important.
I have always been taught that trial and error, betting on the right answers, is not a good thing. Therefore, a wrong message is being given to young people who want to get into traffic with a car. Now they say, just bet on it, someday you will win the main prize.
We are the requesting party to address this resolution.