New rules for the driving license exam, introduced from April 1, have reshaped how candidates approach the test, according to Vadim Kuzovkin, director of the Redauto driving school. He explained to a reporter from socialbites.ca that a failed driving test at the State Traffic Safety Inspectorate now means a mandatory six-month wait before a retake, a substantial change from the previous schedule.
Previously, a candidate who did not pass after three attempts could return within roughly a month for further practice before retrying. Under the updated policy, the earliest opportunity to retake after an unsuccessful attempt is six months, and another failed attempt will trigger the same six-month pause. This adjustment has sparked concerns about how long the process can drag on, even though the overall number of failed exams is not expected to rise dramatically, according to Kuzovkin. The longer intervals may, however, stretch the duration of the licensing process for many candidates.
Beyond the changed retake timing, the practical exam is slated to become more challenging. The rules now allow a higher number of penalty points, and corresponding violations that previously fell under broader criteria are being tracked with greater granularity. This shift means examiners will have more detailed grounds for marking mistakes, potentially affecting pass rates and the pace at which candidates can advance to the city streets.
Another notable change concerns examiner positioning during the test. The inspector may decide where to sit, whether in the front seat or the back. If the inspector sits in the back, visibility concerns could complicate the assessment of a candidate’s driving and responses to road conditions. Some candidates may find this arrangement preferable, as the inspector’s proximity can help reduce anxiety for others who prefer a more distant vantage point. Conversely, others may feel more nervous when the inspector is nearby. This procedural tweak is part of a broader emphasis on transparency and precise evaluation during the practical portion of the exam.
Kuzovkin added that while the total number of exam failures might not rise, the length and complexity of the testing process will likely be viewed as a drawback by many applicants. He believes that clearer criteria will help candidates identify and understand their mistakes more readily, enabling more targeted practice and better preparation for retakes.
Another notable update concerns the day of testing itself. The updated regulations allow limited but meaningful leniencies in the scoring. For instance, candidates can be allowed two small errors while navigating city streets, such as timing a turn signal or making a minor stop at an inopportune moment. This change aims to strike a balance between strict safety standards and practical driving competencies that reflect real-world conditions. Additionally, during the exam, the passenger seat behind the dual pedals can be occupied not only by the inspector but also by a driving school representative, though the representative cannot actively assist the student. The car is expected to be equipped with both an in-cabin camera and a system that indicates the effect of any additional pedals on performance. A further restriction tightens eligibility: Russians convicted of drunk driving will no longer be permitted to take the driving test.
Industry observers note that these updates reflect a broader trend toward more precise measurement of driving skill and a greater emphasis on consistent evaluation across examiners. The goal appears to be to reduce ambiguity in scoring and to ensure that successful candidates demonstrate reliable, safe driving behavior under increasingly realistic conditions. As the new policies take effect, candidate preparation programs and driving schools will likely adjust their curricula to align with the revised criteria, focusing on the specific scenarios and error types that are now more explicitly defined in the exam rubric.
In summary, the licensing process for new drivers in the region is undergoing meaningful changes aimed at tightening standards and clarifying expectations. While the six-month retake rule and the expanded list of permissible minor errors during the test introduce new pressures, they are paired with more transparent scoring and better feedback for learners. The net effect should be a more consistent path toward safe, competent driving for future motorists, with examiners equipped to assess real-world readiness more precisely. This evolution in policy highlights the continuing push toward higher safety benchmarks on the roads and a clearer framework for those preparing to earn a driver’s license.
Sources aligned with the State Traffic Safety Inspectorate and related regulatory updates confirm these directions and offer insight into how driving schools are adapting to the new exam structure.