The national driver improvement scheme

The National Driving Improvement Scheme finds its origins within the Road Traffic Law Review of 1988 known as the North Report after its author Dr Peter North. By and large many of the recommendations of the Road Traffic Law Review were incorporated within the Road Traffic Act 1991. However, Dr North identified that:

"It must be in the public interest to rectify a fault rather than punish the transgressor".

and that:

"The retraining of traffic offenders may lead to an improvement in their driving, particularly if their training is angled towards their failings".

A recommendation in the report was that:

"A pilot study of training in basic driving skills should be undertaken to determine whether such retraining produces a lasting improvement in the driving skills of the offenders undertaking it".

As a result of this recommendation, Devon and Cornwall Constabulary, Devon County Council and the Crown Prosecution Service developed what was known at the time as the Driver Rectification Scheme.

The Scheme was launched in 1991. Devon County Council undertook to offer retraining for those clients who had come to the attention of the police for offences of driving without due care and attention where an accident had occurred.

The Scheme was cited as 'Best Practice' by HM Inspector of Constabulary in 1994, which encouraged more police forces to adopt the scheme which later became known as the 'National Driver Improvement Scheme'.

The National Driver Improvement Scheme won the Prince Michael of Kent Road Safety Award in 1996, received favourable mention in HM Inspector of Constabulary Thematic Inspection of Road Policing and Traffic in 1999 and in the Governments document 'Tomorrows Roads - Safer for Everyone' as part of their Road Safety strategy for casualty reduction to 2010, and is recognised by the Association of British Insurers.

To date approximately 40 police forces have adopted the Driver Improvement Scheme based on the model originated in Devon and Cornwall. It is common practice for clients who have their accident in another Police Authority area to be offered the choice of undertaking the course nearer to their home if their Police Authority is part of the scheme.

The decision to offer a course is made by a police decision-maker who must decide if there is sufficient evidence to prosecute. Default or refusal would ordinarily attract a court appearance.

An example of the criteria for such an offer is:

• The driver must have a full licence.
  
• There must be no other offences at the same time as the due care offence which are prosecutable (i.e. no insurance thereby attracting penalty points).
  
• The offer must not be made within three years of the completion of a previous Driver Improvement Course. To ensure that a client cannot attend a further course within this period, clients are referred to the ‘National Database’ held by the DVLA for clearance prior to a course being offered.

A course is held over one and a half days. The course time consists of classroom based activities and in-car training.

There is a fee payable for the course. This fee amount, which is paid by the client, may vary according to the individual authority.

There is a National Steering Group which makes recommendations on strategic issues affecting all aspects of Driver Improvement Schemes. It includes representatives from the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR), Home Office, Her Majestys Inspectors of Constabulary, The Association of the National Driver Improvement Scheme Providers (ANDISP), Local Authorities of Road Safety Officers Association (LARSOA) and the Parliamentary Advisory Council on Transport Safety (PACTS).

Evidence published from a two year research programme commissioned by DTLR and produced by Exeter University, suggests that attendance on the Driver Improvement Course does have a positive effect on a clients driving behaviour over and above that which can be expected from a court appearance alone. It further suggests that attendance at court for such offences may not, in the long term, improve a person’s driving, and some drivers may be left feeling that the primary cause was not their fault.