Bakytbek Jumagulov: Extending Driver Training Periods Does Not Guarantee Safety

According to Zhumagulov, supporters of the reform argue that extending the training period will improve the quality of driver preparation and reduce the number of accidents. However, he emphasizes that research shows no clear correlation between the duration of training and the level of road safety. The main factor is not the time spent in driving school, but the system that regulates access to driving.

Where does the problem of traffic accidents lie? In the director's opinion, Kyrgyzstan has been facing a complex problem for many years:

• driver's licenses are often issued formally;
• exams are perceived as a mere formality;
• corruption undermines the very idea of controlling driver qualifications.

In this situation, extending the training period may seem like an attempt to hide institutional shortcomings at the expense of citizens, increasing their costs and time. Instead, the focus should be on reforming the driving admission system, including control, exams, and accountability.

Experience of other countries In Germany, there are no strict training periods, and candidates can learn as long as they need, however:

• exams are conducted by independent bodies;
• examiners bear personal responsibility;
• practical exams are challenging and have a high failure rate.

It is the difficulty of admission, rather than the duration of training, that shapes driving culture. Germany consistently shows a low mortality rate on its roads.

The Finnish model, according to Zhumagulov, is also one of the most thoughtful, based on a phased approach:

• basic training and exam;
• probation period after obtaining a license;
• additional training for drivers.

Thus, the responsibility for safety is transferred to the stages of practical driving, rather than being concentrated only at the initial stage.

In Japan, the exam serves as the main filter in the system. It is difficult, expensive, and requires the demonstration of real skills in stressful conditions.

“Even with relatively short training, the level of discipline on the roads remains high due to strict admission requirements,” the expert added.

In the USA and Canada, training can be brief, but a system is applied:

• temporary licenses;
• strict penalties and quick license revocation;
• insurance linked to driver behavior.

Countries with low traffic accident rates are united not by the duration of training, but by the following factors:

• independence of examination bodies;
• transparency of procedures;
• inevitability of failure with poor preparation;
• real accountability of drivers after obtaining a license.

The duration of training is secondary in this regard.

Potential risks for Kyrgyzstan
Zhumagulov warns that if institutional mechanisms are not reformed, extending the training period may lead to:

• growth of the shadow market;
• reduced accessibility of obtaining licenses for youth from rural and poor regions;
• formation of dissatisfaction and distrust towards reforms;
• undermining the authority of the very idea of road safety.

History shows that formal tightening of rules without changing control rarely brings long-term results.

Alternative approachA balanced model could include:

• reasonable training periods;
• significant strengthening of exam independence;
• digitalization and video monitoring of examination processes;
• publication of open statistics on exam pass rates;
• clear mechanisms for appealing and holding examiners accountable.

Such an approach aligns with international standards and can reduce social tension.

“Road safety primarily depends on the quality of institutions. If the driving admission system does not become transparent and independent, extending the training period risks becoming merely a symbolic step. What matters is not how many months a person learns to drive, but how strictly and honestly the state decides whom to trust with driving a car,” Zhumagulov concluded.

Photo on the main page is illustrative: https://belkagomel.by.