Given that standard driving tests and defences can be filmed at faculties with the prior consent of the faculty, the candidate and the members of the faculty's board - I propose that a candidate taking the main driving test should have the option of installing a camera to record images and sound in the vehicle, in an unobtrusive location.
In the event of the examiner's disagreement with the recording, the recorder shall be positioned in such a way that it does nothing to acquire and store the opponent's so-called personal identifiability data - i.e. by disabling the recording of sound and field of view that physically captures the Commissioner's appearance.
Of course, the footage from this camera can only be used by the candidate in his defence and as a counter-argument to unfounded accusations, as these cannot be proven otherwise to the Commission, and cannot be used by the Commission either, as the reference to the footage is irrelevant to them, since the footage is not their property and the camera was installed at the request of the candidate.
It often happens that the examination board "decides" to give a negative mark for trivial reasons, which are often exaggerated or did not happen at all, and the only reason for rejecting the candidate is the €15 that the candidate will have to pay to re-register if he/she wants to take the test. Some common and absurd untrue reasons used by the Board to sweep unlimited numbers of candidates away unlimited times without any real basis and which cannot otherwise be proven:
- not looking in the rear-view mirror enough
- does not monitor the traffic behind him
- not looking enough before merging onto a priority road
- indicates direction too late/too early
- letting too many pedestrians pass when he could have driven between them (?!)
- forces the right of way even though the oncoming traffic has signalled to give way - if he hadn't, he would have been accused of impeding momentum, etc.
 
There are also other despicable ploys by the Examination Board to distract the candidate, reduce concentration and force a mistake or inappropriate response:
- asking the candidate to move his seat a little because he has too little leg room, for which he is thrown
- unfolds a newspaper and reproaches him/her for not having warned him/her
- comments on the traffic (to the effect of "How's that guy driving over there!") and tries to force a response from the candidate, for which he/she is thrown out
- does not introduce himself/herself to the candidate and reproaches him/her for not asking his/her name and letting a stranger into the vehicle
- criticises the candidate for inappropriate attitude to authority because of his/her opposition to the assessment (albeit quite constructively and well-founded)
- talking unnecessarily while driving and criticising the candidate for not warning him/her to stop talking
I think that the vast majority of candidates are rejected at the driving test quite unnecessarily and with unfounded unrealistic reasons. Many 18-20 year olds, coming from lower income families than good drivers, can barely raise all the money for the driving test to afford transport to college and better employment conditions, despite their good knowledge of road traffic rules, excellent vehicle control and integration into traffic, do not pass the test because they are at the mercy of whether the commissioner is having a good day or a bad day, and as candidates they should be able to prove their driving by the instructor's endorsement and to disprove untrue arguments based on the commissioner's malicious subjective wishes with authentic and irrefutable proof.