Politics promises a cheaper driver’s license. Driving schools warn of rising costs. At the same time, the transport industry is desperately seeking new recruits, while aspiring professional drivers face training costs they can hardly afford out of their own pockets. And those who rely on state support may first have to prove that they will find a job afterward. Something doesn’t quite add up.
It was actually just a normal phone call with an instructor. We discussed the planned driver’s license reform and the fact that the license is supposed to become cheaper in the future. However, my conversation partner saw things somewhat differently. In his opinion, the training could end up being more expensive. Among other reasons, due to rising taxes and other burdens on driving schools.
That piqued my curiosity. On the one hand, politics is talking about making driver’s license training cheaper. On the other hand, driving schools are naturally under economic pressure. Vehicles must be purchased, maintained, and insured. Energy costs money, employees must be paid, and other operating expenses do not simply disappear with a reform.
But does that automatically mean the driver’s license has to become more expensive? And are there possibly savings potentials that have been discussed too little so far?
Things get even more interesting when shifting the focus from the passenger car driver’s license to training for professional drivers. Because it is not just about a few additional driving lessons here. Anyone who wants to drive trucks commercially usually needs, in addition to the appropriate driving license, also a professional driver qualification.
And exactly here begins a problem that often goes unnoticed in the public discussion about cheaper driver’s licenses.
Cheaper Driver’s License: What Politics Actually Wants to Achieve
Driver’s license training has become expensive in Germany. For a passenger car driver’s license, several thousand euros are now frequently required. How high the bill actually comes to depends, among other things, on the region, the driving school, and the number of driving lessons needed.
Politics therefore wants to modernize and make the training more cost-effective. Among other things, less bureaucratic effort, digital learning options, and increased use of driving simulators are being discussed.
The basic idea behind this is understandable. Not every exercise necessarily has to take place in real road traffic. Anyone who should first learn how to operate a vehicle could also train certain procedures on a simulator.
However, one must distinguish between political announcements and actually applicable law. Not every measure being discussed has already been decided. Above all, a cheaper training for the driving school does not automatically mean that the savings will fully reach the student.
There is no binding guarantee for lower driver’s license prices.
Rising Taxes and Operating Costs: Is the Reform Already Being Braked Before It Starts?
Let’s return to the claim that actually sparked this article in the first place.
It is allegedly rising taxes that are supposed to force driving schools to increase their prices despite the planned reform.
However, one must distinguish at this point. A concrete new tax increase specifically affecting driving schools and inevitably leading to higher driver’s license prices cannot be derived from this claim alone.
Of course, driving schools are businesses. They are subject to tax obligations and must bear numerous ongoing costs. Rising social security contributions, insurance premiums, or energy costs can affect the calculation.
In addition come personnel costs, which vary depending on company size, employment relationships, and regional conditions. That is why I consciously refrain from setting any blanket salaries or personnel costs here.
But when talking about rising operating costs, one should also be allowed to discuss what options companies have to reduce these costs.
Because not every cost increase has to be unavoidable.
Why Not an Electric Car as a Driving School Vehicle?
One point from my conversation with the instructor was the fuel price.
That gasoline and diesel cost money and fluctuating prices make calculations difficult, no one can deny. Especially for vehicles that are on the road several hours a day, fuel costs can add up significantly.
But why must it always be an internal combustion engine?
Electric cars are long no longer exotic vehicles. They are used daily by private individuals, companies, and fleet operators. So why not also use them more intensively in driving schools?
The range should at least not represent an insurmountable problem for many driving schools. A driving school vehicle normally does not drive 800 kilometers non-stop on the highway. It operates mainly within a limited area of operation and regularly returns to the depot.
Of course, the vehicle must be charged. But sensible deployment planning ultimately also belongs to the daily business of a driving school.
It becomes particularly interesting when the driving school has its own charging facility. Then energy costs per kilometer can fall considerably lower than with a comparable gasoline or diesel car.
In addition, there may be savings in maintenance. An electric car does not require regular engine oil changes, for example. Certain wear-prone components of an internal combustion engine are also eliminated.
However, it would be dishonest to list only the advantages.
Electric cars can be more expensive to purchase initially. Charging infrastructure also costs money. Those who charge predominantly at public fast-charging stations may end up paying significantly higher electricity prices. In addition, insurance, depreciation, and potential financing costs must be taken into account.
Driver training itself also has its limits. An electric vehicle typically does not have a manual transmission. Anyone wishing to obtain the corresponding driving license without restrictions to automatic vehicles must comply with the applicable training and examination regulations. The key number B197 offers an option for this under certain conditions.
So, it is not about every driving school having to sell its combustion engines tomorrow.
It is about whether rising fuel prices should really be considered solely as an unavoidable cost factor as long as technical alternatives exist.
Driving Simulators: Why Practice Everything on the Road?
I find the potential use of driving simulators even more exciting.
Anyone who has once watched a novice driver try to pay attention to the clutch, brake, accelerator, steering wheel, and traffic simultaneously for the first time knows that this can be quite a challenge.
Why not teach certain basics initially in a simulated environment?
Starting off, braking, gaze guidance, or recognizing typical hazardous situations can at least partially be practiced on a simulator. Mistakes there have no immediate consequences for other road users.
Of course, a simulator does not replace reality. A real vehicle behaves differently, and road traffic cannot be fully replicated either.
But that is not the point anyway.
The crucial question is which training contents can sensibly be taught via a simulator and which exercises must continue to take place in a real vehicle.
One should not overlook that a driving simulator itself represents an investment. Depending on equipment and functionality, such systems can cost considerable sums. Moreover, they require space, maintenance, and possibly support.
Therefore, the decisive factor is not just the purchase price, but also how intensively the device can be used.
And one more thing is important: As long as the corresponding legal basis is missing, simulator hours cannot simply be credited to prescribed practical driving lessons at will.
The reform could open up new possibilities here. Which of these are actually implemented, however, must first be seen.
A Fictional Example: What Could a Driving School Save Over Five Years?
Let us consider a small driving school with two instructors and one passenger car that we will use for our comparison.
The following example is explicitly not a complete business calculation. I do not intend to explain to any driving school operator how they should run their company. It is merely about making possible differences in energy costs visible.
We assume that the vehicle in question covers 30,000 kilometers annually.
A petrol car consumes an average of seven liters per 100 kilometers. At an assumed petrol price of 1.80 euros per liter, annual fuel costs amount to 3,780 euros.
In contrast, we consider an electric vehicle that requires an average of 20 kilowatt-hours per 100 kilometers, including charging losses. At an assumed electricity price of 30 cents per kilowatt-hour, energy costs amount to 1,800 euros annually.
This results in a calculated difference of 1,980 euros per year solely due to energy consumption.
Over five years, this amounts to 9,900 euros.
That is no small sum.
Of course, this does not mean that the driving school actually makes a profit of 9,900 euros. Purchase prices, depreciation, insurance, maintenance, and charging infrastructure are not taken into account in this consideration.
Nor are personnel costs part of this calculation.
However, the example shows that simply by choosing the drive type, significant differences in ongoing energy costs can arise.
With a driving simulator, a similarly simple calculation cannot be made seriously. To do so, one would first need to know what the device actually costs, how long it is used, and which training hours may be replaced under current law.
Only then can it be assessed whether and when such an investment makes economic sense.
It would therefore be wrong to simply equate five simulator hours with five saved driving lessons.
Nevertheless, this possibility should not be ruled out from the outset.
When talking about the truck driver’s license, we are dealing with entirely different sums
While several thousand euros can already accumulate with a passenger car driver’s license, the financial situation looks quite different for a truck driver’s license.
Anyone wishing to obtain classes C and CE must, in addition to driving school training, also consider mandatory examinations, tests, and administrative fees.
Thus, the matter is by no means resolved for someone who subsequently wishes to transport goods commercially.
Because the driving license alone is generally not sufficient for this purpose.
In addition, proof of professional driver qualification is required.
A common approach is the accelerated basic qualification. It comprises 140 teaching units of 60 minutes each, including ten hours of practical training, as well as a theoretical examination with the Chamber of Industry and Commerce.
Anyone who has to pay for this qualification in addition to driving license classes C and CE themselves will quickly arrive at a total amount that, depending on the provider and individual training needs, can lie in the high four-digit or even five-digit range.
One must imagine what this means for someone who has just left school.
There stands a young person who says: “I want to become a professional driver. I want to work, take on responsibility, and earn my living.”
Perhaps he has even saved some money and could finance his truck driving license with effort.
But then there is also the basic qualification to consider.
And suddenly, what was saved is no longer enough.
We haven’t even mentioned yet that the regular age limits for driver’s license classes and commercial professional practice must also be observed. Exceptions exist for young applicants under certain qualification prerequisites.
How can someone with virtually no income cover such training costs on their own?
Of course, there are people whose parents can financially step in. Others may have already worked and built up savings.
But that cannot be the prerequisite for being allowed to pursue a profession in which, it is claimed, there is an urgent need for new recruits.
When the State Pays for Training – But Wants to See Employment Prospects First
Fortunately, there are options to promote training.
The Federal Employment Agency and the Job Center can finance vocational further education under certain conditions via a training voucher. This can also include measures that prepare for work as a professional driver.
The costs for the required driver’s licenses and qualifications can be part of an appropriately approved educational measure.
This sounds reasonable at first.
After all, it should be in society’s interest to open up career prospects for people, especially when personnel is sought in the relevant industry.
However, there is one point that I know from personal experience.
Before funding is approved, the question may arise regarding employment prospects after completion of the measure.
This is fundamentally understandable. Public funds should ultimately be used sensibly.
It becomes problematic, however, when this assessment practically leads to the expectation that a concrete job offer from a company must already be submitted before training begins.
Such an offer is not generally prescribed as a legal requirement for every training voucher. However, the competent authority must examine whether the further education is necessary and suitable to improve vocational integration.
How such employment prospects are to be demonstrated in individual cases can therefore play a significant role.
And exactly here the contradiction begins.
How Can a Freight Forwarder Guarantee a Job Position That Will Only Be Filled in Six Months?
Let us imagine ourselves into the situation of a small freight forwarding company.
It may have five or ten trucks. The order situation fluctuates, operating costs rise, customers press on freight rates, and the economic development is difficult to predict.
Now a young person comes to him and explains that he would like to work as a professional driver.
However, he still needs the driving license and basic qualification first. The training will take several months.
The applicant therefore asks whether the entrepreneur can give him a job offer so that his further education might possibly be funded.
What should the freight forwarder answer?
Of course, he can generally show interest in a new driver. Perhaps he is even urgently looking for personnel.
But can he guarantee today that he will still need to fill an additional truck in six months?
Can he say with certainty that his order situation will remain unchanged then?
And especially with smaller companies, under difficult economic conditions, the question may even arise how the company as a whole will develop.
A serious commitment for a job position several months hence is therefore not always possible.
But this does not mean at all that the applicant would not find work afterwards.
Perhaps another company hires him. Perhaps the order situation improves. Perhaps new contacts emerge during the training.
If funding is practically made dependent on finding a concrete employer beforehand, an unnecessary hurdle is created.
The applicant needs the qualification to be hired. At the same time, he may have to demonstrate an employment prospect in advance to get the qualification funded at all.
This is quite a contradictory procedure.
And it seems particularly absurd against the background that the transport industry has been complaining for years about difficulties in recruiting new staff.
Of course, labor placement cannot finance expensive qualifications indiscriminately. It must be examined whether a measure is sensible and opens realistic employment chances.
But shouldn’t the general state of the labor market also be taken into account?
If drivers are indeed sought in an industry, why should precisely the lack of a commitment from a single company become the decisive obstacle?
The Three-Year Vocational Training as an Alternative
However, there is another path that must not be forgotten in the discussion: the regular three-year dual vocational training to become a professional driver.
Who chooses this path will not simply be prepared to drive a truck.
The training includes, among other things, safe handling of the vehicle, economical driving, load securing, technical basics, and operational processes.
The required driving licenses can be obtained as part of the training program. The necessary training costs associated with this are generally borne by the training company.
At the same time, trainees receive a training allowance.
This normally eliminates the need for them to finance the truck driver’s license and professional qualification entirely from their own savings.
However, this path presupposes that there is actually a company available that offers corresponding training positions.
And here too, especially smaller logistics companies face economic challenges.
A trainee initially incurs costs and requires supervision. Training is an investment in the future whose economic benefit does not occur immediately.
Nevertheless, it is an important way to secure qualified young talent for the industry in the long term.
In addition, there are companies that finance the acquisition of the driving license and the required qualification for career changers or at least contribute to the costs.
That can also work. However, the conditions vary from company to company. In appropriate agreements, repayment clauses may play a role, whose validity depends on the specific design.
For someone who wants to enter the profession without their own assets, these paths remain frequently the more realistic options.
Complaining about driver shortages while making career entry more difficult?
I have already written multiple times about the driver shortage in Germany.
In my article “The driver shortage is not a talent gap problem, but a symptom of an industry under pressure,” it was about the fact that a lack of young talent cannot simply be viewed in isolation.
Working conditions, economic pressure, and the attractiveness of the profession play a significant role here.
I have also already addressed the question in “New access facilitations for professional drivers – but is that really the solution?” whether political easing of entry into the profession is actually sufficient to solve the industry’s problems.
The current discussion about driving license costs adds another aspect to this question.
Because even if working conditions were ideal and a young person definitely wanted to become a professional driver, they initially face a significant financial hurdle.
They need the driving license. They need the professional qualification. And if they cannot pay for both themselves, they need an employer, a training position, or corresponding support.
That is understandable at first glance.
It becomes difficult, however, when support is tied to expectations that are hardly reliably fulfilled in economic reality.
Then we have an industry that complains about missing drivers, and at the same time people who would like to work in this industry but have difficulties financing the necessary training.
Of course, not every application for a training voucher is rejected. And by no means does every employment agency or job center require a concrete hiring commitment.
But if such requirements are made in practice, one should certainly question whether they serve the actual goal of the support measure.
After all, professional further education should bring people into work and not create additional obstacles.
What good is a cheaper driving license if the path into the profession remains blocked anyway?
The planned driving license reform can indeed be sensible.
If digital learning offers, less bureaucracy, or suitable simulators contribute to reducing training costs, there is initially little against it.
Just as it pays off for driving schools to think about alternative vehicle drives and possible savings in ongoing operations.
In doing so, no one should expect that every driving school operates under the same conditions. What is economically sensible for one company can be completely unsuitable for another.
But economic difficulties alone are not yet proof that a reform must inevitably fail.
With professional drivers’ young talent, it is not enough to discuss only the prices of individual driving lessons.
Here it is about the entire access to a profession.
About training costs, qualification requirements, support possibilities, and the question of whether people who want to work actually get the opportunity to acquire the necessary prerequisites.
Support must of course be tied to sensible conditions. No one demands that public funds be spent without examination.
But a realistic employment perspective should not necessarily be equated with the commitment of a single employer.
Especially in an industry where small companies often cannot reliably predict their own economic situation for the next six months.
Perhaps we should therefore, in the discussion about cheaper driving licenses, not only ask how much a driving lesson will cost in the future.
But also why we make it so difficult for people who want to become professional drivers to enter the profession.
For whoever constantly complains about missing talent should at least ensure that motivated people get a realistic chance to learn this profession at all.
