PDA

View Full Version : Restricted licence time frame



awa355
29th January 2011, 08:13
I see the govt are looking at a time limit on restricted licence holders. Get your full licence within a time frame or go back to 'start' Joyce says many motorcyclists have been on their restricted for several years. Apparently, according to our great minister, you remain a 'high risk' driver rider if you dont proceed to a full licence.

Cloggy
29th January 2011, 08:23
It's about time though they did something about it.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10702832

PrincessBandit
29th January 2011, 08:42
I guess that while years of experience (as long as it's positive) of a person still on an L or R would put them way up ahead skill-wise of a 'noob' on their full there needs to be some incentive for people to complete their license levels. If not, then how many people are actually going to voluntarily spend all that dosh when they can get away with one payment (L) and use that for the rest of their lives. Either make the F way harder and make it a one-off license exam with refresher exams (cheaper) every 5 years or so, or keep the graded system (where people at least can save up for each level increment) but ensure that those who begin it complete it.

The only people who would be pissed off are those who have managed to ride/drive on anything less than a full for years and suddenly they're being "caught up with".

racefactory
29th January 2011, 11:04
I can see how this would happen. Been on my learners for several years now and haven't really been aware of any restrictions... no L plate, riding a 996. I've just moved up to my restricted but the fees are astonishing, bit the bullet hard. Lower the fees if they want people to move up the license ladder.

Mully Clown
29th January 2011, 11:41
It could be quite feasible for one to not have the need to step up to a full license. Pick up a GN125 and learners license to save some gas on the daily commute. Why would this person carry on climbing the ladder?

PrincessBandit
29th January 2011, 12:34
It could be quite feasible for one to not have the need to step up to a full license. Pick up a GN125 and learners license to save some gas on the daily commute. Why would this person carry on climbing the ladder?

Because a lot of people who might start off on a GN, thinking they'll be satisfied with it forever and a day, or think "I only want to use it for....", often find that it doesn't take long before they're dissatisfied or want to do more than the original intent on a bike.

Mully Clown
29th January 2011, 13:02
Because a lot of people who might start off on a GN, thinking they'll be satisfied with it forever and a day, or think "I only want to use it for....", often find that it doesn't take long before they're dissatisfied or want to do more than the original intent on a bike.

At which point they carry on and finish it off.

maggot
29th January 2011, 13:03
I've been on my L's for probably over a year now, I should've done my restricted ages ago, but money constraints have held me back, and the fact that I don't really stick to the restrictions means there's nothing to really look forward to (apart from wanting a bigger bike)
I'm still waiting for my next decent round of pay, then I probably will get onto my R, but atm I'm not fussed.
They need to make the system more progressive and offer more incentives per level. For me, the only difference would be being able to legally ride over 70, which I usually ignore, for my own safety.
There's little incentive for your daily inner city commuter to step up to a restricted and then a full.

miloking
29th January 2011, 13:07
What a bullshit...you cant force people do this! If someone wants to stay on learner they need to be allowed to stay on learner until they see THEMSELVES fit to sit the restricted/full....also Mr.Joyce just a quick news flash "magical" green plastic of full licence doesnt mean that there will be less accidents and bad drivers out there!!!

Neon
29th January 2011, 13:34
Apparently, according to our great minister, you remain a 'high risk' driver rider if you dont proceed to a full licence.

This seems inconsistent with the line we have been fed in recent times that riders of larger capacity bikes are the ones having most of the accidents. These riders now pay much higher ACC premiums as a result. So which is it? Learner / restricted riders or riders of large capacity machines? Or those who are both?


Lower the fees if they want people to move up the license ladder.

NZers have to stop looking at driving licenses as some sort of taxpayer subsidised right they become entitled to when they reach 16. Germans and Scandinavians pay thousands and spend hundreds of hours in driver training at their own cost to gain this right. Our fees are low because the tests are easy and our government are not interested in actually educating people to be competent drivers. It is a box-ticking exercise.


Why would this person carry on climbing the ladder?

Correct, there is currently no incentive.

Let's look at the main thrust of the article:

The problem is that 10% of licensed drivers are 'languishing' on restricted licenses for more than 2 years, and oh by the way also 18,000 motorcyclists have had learners for up to 15 years. But yet "The main focus of the Government's strategy is, as Mr Joyce puts it, "a young kid at 2 o'clock in the morning being egged on by his mates at 120 km/h, roaring round the countryside and having an accident".

To establish whether this argument makes sense, ask yourself this:

Is forcing drivers to progress to a full licence going to produce outcomes that minimise accidents? (i.e. produce safer, more competent and more responsible drivers?)

Of course it's not. Not with the current system anyway. :facepalm:

But yet again motorcyclists have been held up as an example of road users that are not getting with the program - despite the article providing no evidence that these riders on learner licenses actually present a greater risk than an 'average' rider.

That said, I do agree with the sentiments of the proposal. The graduated driver licensing system was not designed so that drivers could pick a flavour of license that suited their needs (most of the time) and then just pay for that. No, it is assumed that everyone aspires to gain a full license, despite the system providing 95% of driver freedoms with a restricted license (with learner license being the equivalent for motorcyclists).

yachtie10
29th January 2011, 13:52
What a bullshit...you cant force people do this! If someone wants to stay on learner they need to be allowed to stay on learner until they see THEMSELVES fit to sit the restricted/full....also Mr.Joyce just a quick news flash "magical" green plastic of full licence doesnt mean that there will be less accidents and bad drivers out there!!!

huh??? they can and will

dont see what the issue is
Most people who have been on a learner or restricted would be currently breaking the rules anyway. so theres the incentive (not getting a ticket)

notme
29th January 2011, 14:31
:whocares:Why exactly is this even news worth mentioning? It only affects those high risk riders who can't or won't move on up the ladder, which is fine by me - they are the group who shouldn't be riding anyway!

Neon
29th January 2011, 15:11
:whocares:Why exactly is this even news worth mentioning? It only affects those high risk riders who can't or won't move on up the ladder, which is fine by me - they are the group who shouldn't be riding anyway!

What evidence has been provided to support the argument that drivers who are 'hanging out' on a learner or restricted license present a 'higher risk' than those who graduate through the licensing stages as intended?

Also to consider are those who simply cannot afford to graduate through the license stages. Granted that it is not obscenely costly in its current form, but $100-200 for fees can be a lot to find when you are living hand to mouth. And if you are reliant on having a driving license to get to work, it becomes rather serious when the man threatens to revoke your license on the grounds that you are high risk because your license is coloured blue or yellow.

notme
29th January 2011, 15:23
What evidence has been provided to support the argument that drivers who are 'hanging out' on a learner or restricted license present a 'higher risk' than those who graduate through the licensing stages as intended?

Also to consider are those who simply cannot afford to graduate through the license stages. Granted that it is not obscenely costly in its current form, but $100-200 for fees can be a lot to find when you are living hand to mouth. And if you are reliant on having a driving license to get to work, it becomes rather serious when the man threatens to revoke your license on the grounds that you are high risk because your license is coloured blue or yellow.

Look, there are really only 3 possibilities here, and I defy anyone to provide a convincing argument that proves my logic is wrong:

POSSIBILTY NUMBER ONE: You did not consider all the costs involved in owning and operating a motor vehicle. If you cannot factor in WOF, rego, and licensing costs, that is your problem. The people who are that "hand to mouth" as you put it, are also the types that decide insurance is not on the priority list - again, if you can't afford the costs associated with a vehicle, then you can't afford to be on the road. I'd rather Mr or Mrs possibility number one was not on the road, thanks.

POSSIBILITY NUMBER TWO: You are not skilled enough to pass the requisite tests to move up through the license stages. You may have tried and failed, and thus are sitting on an L or P, or you may never have tried to get past L because you are afraid of failing. I'd rather Mr or Mrs possibility number two was not on the road, thanks.

POSSIBILITY NUMBER THREE: You have not graduated through the stages for some other reason. Assuming it's not one of the above, that means you CAN afford the cost, and you DO have the skill to pass. The only conclusion I can come to is that you have a good quantity of fresh air between your ears. I'd rather Mr or Mrs possibility number three was not on the road, thanks.

If you are going to operate a vehicle, is it really too much to ask that you are

1. Able to afford the associated costs
2. Qualified to operate it
3. Not a complete munter who doesn't get why 1. and 2. are important?
4.
The NZ Drivers License is essentially our National ID Card. I'm sure there's a reasonable proportion of people that don't actually drive at all but have a learners license as it was the first proper usable form of ID they could get.

Screw carrying around a passport or birth certificate just to identify yourself.
THIS IS THE ONLY VALID REASON FOR STAYING ON YOUR L OR R LICENSE. If the change is introduced, the govt needs to rectify this issue at the same time.

notme
29th January 2011, 15:26
What evidence has been provided to support the argument that drivers who are 'hanging out' on a learner or restricted license present a 'higher risk' than those who graduate through the licensing stages as intended?

I'll also provide a direct answer to this in case the points above are not clear enough.

The evidence is that they have not passed through to the full stage.

miloking
29th January 2011, 15:46
Look, there are really only 3 possibilities here, and I defy anyone to provide a convincing argument that proves my logic is wrong:

POSSIBILTY NUMBER ONE: You did not consider all the costs involved in owning and operating a motor vehicle. If you cannot factor in WOF, rego, and licensing costs, that is your problem. The people who are that "hand to mouth" as you put it, are also the types that decide insurance is not on the priority list - again, if you can't afford the costs associated with a vehicle, then you can't afford to be on the road. I'd rather Mr or Mrs possibility number one was not on the road, thanks.

POSSIBILITY NUMBER TWO: You are not skilled enough to pass the requisite tests to move up through the license stages. You may have tried and failed, and thus are sitting on an L or P, or you may never have tried to get past L because you are afraid of failing. I'd rather Mr or Mrs possibility number two was not on the road, thanks.

POSSIBILITY NUMBER THREE: You have not graduated through the stages for some other reason. Assuming it's not one of the above, that means you CAN afford the cost, and you DO have the skill to pass. The only conclusion I can come to is that you have a good quantity of fresh air between your ears. I'd rather Mr or Mrs possibility number three was not on the road, thanks.

If you are going to operate a vehicle, is it really too much to ask that you are

1. Able to afford the associated costs
2. Qualified to operate it
3. Not a complete munter who doesn't get why 1. and 2. are important?


There is so much wrong with your logic that i dont even know where to start, so lets go from top down...

1) What if the person was fully aware of associated costs and was able to afford cost of vehicle and licencing at the time but due to some unforseen events...like sickness or loss of employment they are currently "hand to mouth" taking their licence away is wrong as it will cause further hardship (and shows Mr.Joyce doesnt use his brain at all):
ALSO IT IS NOT UP TO YOU WHETHER THIS PERSON DRIVES OR NOT!

2) You might not be skilled enough to pass R or L but you are skilled enough to be learner...and legally thats all that NZTA required from you when you sat the "scratch and win" so changing the rules half way for the people that are still learning to master the skill of driving or riding is very unfair.
AGAIN...IT IS NOT UP TO YOU WHETHER THIS PERSON DRIVES OR NOT!

3) You are on R or L and are skilled enough to pass the full and have enough money for the licence test...but when you sat your L or R there was no mention of how fast you need to get full, and there definitely wasnt anyone saying that you have to sit full at all (EVER!)....so ITS freedom of choice that was given, and taking it away by forceful legislation is plainly wrong.

And its definitely NOT UP to YOU if this person drives or not either....

Mully Clown
29th January 2011, 16:06
The NZ Drivers License is essentially our National ID Card. I'm sure there's a reasonable proportion of people that don't actually drive at all but have a learners license as it was the first proper usable form of ID they could get.

Screw carrying around a passport or birth certificate just to identify yourself.

notme
29th January 2011, 16:06
There is so much wrong with your logic that i dont even know where to start, so lets go from top down...

Yes, let's.



1) What if the person was fully aware of associated costs and was able to afford cost of vehicle and licencing at the time but due to some unforseen events...like sickness or loss of employment they are currently "hand to mouth" taking their licence away is wrong as it will cause further hardship (and shows Mr.Joyce doesnt use his brain at all):

What if? Well well well my son, there are numerous ways around this one. WINZ will give you a grant for such a situation. Employers (nice ones) will give you a loan or advance on wages. Family and friends could help. Finally, I really don't think that the laws are going to be drafted up without considering this sort of hardship. There will be some appeal method, some avenue to write in and get an exception. For example, you can get an excemption from being restricted to a 250cc bike on your learner's at the moment. You can get an exemption to ride/drive outside the mandated hours of an L or R license.



ALSO IT IS NOT UP TO YOU WHETHER THIS PERSON DRIVES OR NOT!

Correct. It's up to the government. Did you have a point?



2) You might not be skilled enough to pass R or L but you are skilled enough to be learner...and legally thats all that NZTA required from you when you sat the "scratch and win" so changing the rules half way for the people that are still learning to master the skill of driving or riding is very unfair.

Not sure what you are saying here. Say someone went for their learner's today, and the law changed tomorrow. All that the change is proposing, is that you can only stay on your L for a certain period of time. The time is AFAIK undeicded, but naturally it is going to be more than the minimum time that you must be on an L before trying for a R, and less than infinity. I'd suggest that they will do something like make it double the minimum. That means you can be on your L for a year, practicing your riding skills. So if in that time you are unable to master the skills necessary, you should not move on to an R - which is exactly the point of the proposed change!


AGAIN...IT IS NOT UP TO YOU WHETHER THIS PERSON DRIVES OR NOT!

Correct. It's up to the government. Did you have a point?



3) You are on R or L and are skilled enough to pass the full and have enough money for the licence test...but when you sat your L or R there was no mention of how fast you need to get full, and there definitely wasnt anyone saying that you have to sit full at all (EVER!)....so ITS freedom of choice that was given, and taking it away by forceful legislation is plainly wrong.

And its definintely UP to YOU if this person drives or not either....


I think you meant "not". and once again:
Correct. It's up to the government. Did you have a point?

Yes, you are right - currently there is no mention that you must move up the stages at some point. This is the very reason that the change is being proposed, to stop people viewing this omission as an excuse to stay on one rung of the ladder. I imagine that the original drafters of the rules thought that is was not necessary to put ina clause saying you should progress, because they, like myself and most other normal people, probably though "why would anyone NOT move through the stages" (the answer to which is here (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/133904-Restricted-licence-time-frame?p=1129970448#post1129970448))

Seriously - why would you not move up?
- you get better insurance rates/maybe insurance full stop
- you have no time/vehicle restrictions within the class
- full is a requirement for many jobs
- if you have multiple classes on your license and any one is an L or R, your license is a non-full colour and this can cause delays and aggravation when producing it
- when i was at school and uni, people had a bit of pride in achieving something and it was a bit of a race between mates - if you failed one of the stages you were made fun of. The attitude nowadays seems to be of pride in failure - eg. "add it to my tab officer" and "i've been on my learners for 10 years!"

So, what was wrong with my logic?

notme
29th January 2011, 16:07
The NZ Drivers License is essentially our National ID Card. I'm sure there's a reasonable proportion of people that don't actually drive at all but have a learners license as it was the first proper usable form of ID they could get.

Screw carrying around a passport or birth certificate just to identify yourself.


A very valid point, and one I hadn't thought of. I'll add it to my original post :2thumbsup

Neon
29th January 2011, 16:39
Look, there are really only 3 possibilities here, and I defy anyone to provide a convincing argument that proves my logic is wrong:

...

1. Able to afford the associated costs
2. Qualified to operate it
3. Not a complete munter who doesn't get why 1. and 2. are important?
4.
THIS IS THE ONLY VALID REASON FOR STAYING ON YOUR L OR R LICENSE. If the change is introduced, the govt needs to rectify this issue at the same time.

Sure, just to be clear, I don't disagree with anything you have said thus far.

1. Poor
2. Unskilled
3. Lazy / other

However, aside from point 2 which is obvious, points 1 and 3 have absolutely no bearing on whether one presents a higher risk of accident. At least I have not seen or heard of any study which suggests that this is true.

Owl
29th January 2011, 16:48
I'll also provide a direct answer to this in case the points above are not clear enough.

The evidence is that they have not passed.

On the contrary, they have passed any licence they hold, whether that be L,R or full!

notme
29th January 2011, 16:56
... points 1 and 3 have absolutely no bearing on whether one presents a higher risk of accident. ...

Agreed (for point 1 at least) - and it's nice to read your reasoned and well thought out argument above, rather than the alternative "wah wah govt bullshit cops are out to get me" type of thing that usually dominates these threads.

Regarding pont 3 - the munters:


It is indeed an assumption that a full license=safer driver/rider until some stats are revealed by Joyce, however the fact remains that the gubbmint doesn't NEED to prove this fact in order to change the law, because for 90% of the population, 90% of the time, it is going to be true.

******updated - the stats are here (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/133904-Restricted-licence-time-frame?p=1129970840#post1129970840), so it's not an assumption any more.

What you can not prove with crash stats is the mentality of the driver. It's a good indicator of the attitude of the person in charge of a deadly weapon that they can't even be bothered taking a simple test - maybe they can't be bothered maintaining a safe and roadworthy vehicle either? Hell, why even bother sticking to the speed limit or giving way or obeying traffic signals.....I'd deem that person to be at higher risk of causing an accident.

notme
29th January 2011, 17:00
On the contrary, they have passed any licence they hold, whether that be L,R or full!

Thanks for that, original post (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/133904-Restricted-licence-time-frame?p=1129970453#post1129970453) amended so that the exact wording matches the obvious (to most, given the context) intention. :yawn:

PrincessBandit
29th January 2011, 17:02
At which point they carry on and finish it off.
Not necessarily - as evidenced by many of the posts and opinions here.


Look, there are really only 3 possibilities here, and I defy anyone to provide a convincing argument that proves my logic is wrong:

POSSIBILTY NUMBER ONE: I'd rather Mr or Mrs possibility number one was not on the road, thanks.

POSSIBILITY NUMBER TWO: I'd rather Mr or Mrs possibility number two was not on the road, thanks.

POSSIBILITY NUMBER THREE: I'd rather Mr or Mrs possibility number three was not on the road, thanks.

If you are going to operate a vehicle, is it really too much to ask that you are

1. Able to afford the associated costs
2. Qualified to operate it
3. Not a complete munter who doesn't get why 1. and 2. are important?
4.
THIS IS THE ONLY VALID REASON FOR STAYING ON YOUR L OR R LICENSE. If the change is introduced, the govt needs to rectify this issue at the same time.

This will come as no surprise, but I agree with you. What people who are moaning about it want is a return to the old days where you sat your license and the only choice was Full. (As per when I sat my car license back in 1979 - no GDL back then). However the difference is they want to be able to use their L as a full license.

Old Steve
29th January 2011, 17:04
and oh by the way also 18,000 motorcyclists have had learners for more than 15 years.

That doesn't mean that there are 18,000 motorbike riders actually riding around who have had their learners licence for 15 years. It means that there are 18,000 motorbike learners licence holders who have had their L for 15 years, probably most of whom have decided that motorbiking is not for them and have never cancelled their 6L licence.

If there was some time limit on a 6L and 6R licence, then those who have not continued with motorbike riding would have dropped out of this statistic and this figure which worries the Government would be much smaller.

I'd suggest they introduce a default time on 6L and 6R licences, if you don't sit and pass a 6R licence test within 2 years of gaining your 6L then it is cancelled. If you don't sit and pass a 6F licence test within 3 years of gaining your 6R then it is cancelled. Bring in this so the time limit on current licences starts now.

Whatever the problem is, solved!

notme
29th January 2011, 17:07
.... What people who are moaning about it want is a return to the old days where you sat your license and the only choice was Full. (As per when I sat my car license back in 1979 - no GDL back then). However the difference is they want to be able to use their L as a full license.

Ah but you forget, my princess - THEY are good drivers....they should be allowed to be the exception! It's all the other clowns on the road that are the problem.....:lol:

Personal responsibility? wassat?

miloking
29th January 2011, 17:12
Agreed (for point 1 at least) - and it's nice to read your reasoned and well thought out argument above, rather than the alternative "wah wah govt bullshit cops are out to get me" type of thing that usually dominates these threads.

Regarding pont 3 - the munters:
It is indeed an assumption that a full license=safer driver/rider until some stats are revealed by Joyce, however the fact remains that the gubbmint doesn't NEED to prove this fact in order to change the law, because for 90% of the population, 90% of the time, it is going to be true.

What you can not prove with crash stats is the mentality of the driver. It's a good indicator of the attitude of the person in charge of a deadly weapon that they can't even be bothered taking a simple test - maybe they can't be bothered maintaining a safe and roadworthy vehicle either? Hell, why even bother sticking to the speed limit or giving way or obeying traffic signals.....I'd deem that person to be at higher risk of causing an accident.


You are so full of shit its unbelievable, do you actualy listen to what you say? I mean you probably are because you sound like the type that just likes to hear his own voice...(and probably thinks thats pretty funny too with some "neat" programming related puns...)
Your "logical" arguments as you like to call them are nothing then just uneducated guess... do you actualy believe it when you say that someone who is not having full licence because they didnt find the time to sit the test is a "good indicator of drivers mentality" ??? ...and the sad assumption that someone who doesnt have full cant be bothered to stick to speed limit is just... well, sad.

By the way...iam not your "son" and thanks for the tip on how to write let's properly..that was very helpful...

scracha
29th January 2011, 17:50
Your "logical" arguments as you like to call them are nothing then just uneducated guess... do you actualy believe it when you say that someone who is not having full licence because they didnt find the time to sit the test is a "good indicator of drivers mentality" ??? ...and the sad assumption that someone who doesnt have full cant be bothered to stick to speed limit is just... well, sad.


Umm....I think your logic is flawed. If someone is prepared to break the law and ride without the correct license or rego then it wouldn't be illogical to assume they'd flaunt the law in other ways, including speeding.

Me, I sometimes ride dirty and I sometimes speed :lol:

Now bikes aside, surely the most dangerous issue is letting restricted drivers drive cars unsupervised in the first place.

Neon
29th January 2011, 17:51
That doesn't mean that there are 18,000 motorbike riders actually riding around who have had their learners licence for 15 years. It means that there are 18,000 motorbike learners licence holders who have had their L for 15 years, probably most of whom have decided that motorbiking is not for them and have never cancelled their 6L licence.

You are correct, and in fact when I re-read my first post it should read 'up to 15 years' not 'more than 15 years'.

Whatever means must be adopted to get people taking vehicle use more seriously are worth consideration. For the record I'm all for changing the current system provided it does not unfairly disadvantage those of very limited means, and it actually goes some way to reducing the road toll.

So in sum, adopting the time-limit strategy is probably good practice. If nothing else it ensures that beginners do not consider their driver education finished the moment they can drive/ride by themselves. Follow through IS important, and I am even inclined to agree with allun that it perhaps demonstrates the individual's committment to the process and desire to become a competent driver/rider (even though this is an entirely speculative view).

notme
29th January 2011, 17:56
You are so full of shit......rant rant rant, wah wah wah....

Settle down, kiddo - or I'll put you in the naughty corner!

Now I'm happy to continue taking apart your arguments ad infinitum, but you'll have to forgive a delay after this post as I have a family and a life to continue on with before I next show you why you are (still) wrong.

Oh and a tip - if you take ANYTHING you have read on this or any other thread on any forum too seriously and get wound up about it - remember, it's just the internet.

So, to address your post item by item -


You are so full of shit its unbelievable, do you actualy listen to what you say? I mean you probably are because you sound like the type that just likes to hear his own voice...

It's always good to start off with a reasoned and considered approach, politely putting your point across to engender respect for your opinion in your fellow debater, isn't it? Ah well, I'm big enough and ugly enough to move past the juvenile posturing. It's just a shame your first paragraph doesn't actually contain anything useful to this discussion!


(and probably thinks thats pretty funny too with some "neat" programming related puns...)

Well, you've stumped me there - WTF are you talking about? I have read back through my posts and they must have been puns so good that I made them unintentionally and now can't spot them! The only line that i can even slightly think you might mean is "... that a full license=safer driver/rider...", which is not really a programming related pun, it's me being too lazy to write out the word "equals".

Your profile suggests you are in IT - maybe you are seeing programming references where there are none?



Your "logical" arguments as you like to call them are nothing then just uneducated guess...

Look up the definition of logic on WikiFaceTwits or whatever the devil you children are using these days...then please reply to any one of my 4 points above with reasons why they are wrong.


do you actualy believe it when you say that someone who is not having full licence because they didnt find the time to sit the test is a "good indicator of drivers mentality" ??? ...and the sad assumption that someone who doesnt have full cant be bothered to stick to speed limit is just... well, sad.

Of course I believe what I have written - I have the conviction and self confidence to put an opinion out there, then defend it, and what's more to be prepared to be proven wrong by healthy debate!
I have repeatedly made nicely worded, structured arguments for why I believe in what I have written - you are most welcome to reply in kind. Asking if i believe what i have written and calling it sad is unfortunately not really a good counter argument...not really an argument at all in fact.
As to the mentality - which part don't you agree with (see, I'm really trying help you structure a reply here!). My position is that a responsible driver/rider is one who has AT A MINIMUM, whatever legal requirements are necessary, plus maintains the vehicle in a safe condition, and operates it in a safe manner. What I'm saying, is that the type of person who can't be bothered going up the license steps is likely to be the same type who doesn't bother with WOFs, rego, insurance etc. Refer to my points above again, you are either too poor, too unskilled, or too stupid to go up the steps. Until someone provides a plausible alternative(like Mully Clown) did, that's what i believe.


By the way...iam not your "son" and thanks for the tip on how to write let's properly..that was very helpful...

Again you have misread my post - I was not correcting your spelling, I was proposing a course of action. i.e. "Let's go to the park" "yes, let's".

I realise you are not my biological offspring, it was meant as a semi-diminutive form of addressing you. Sorry for any confusion!

Your avatar, your profile, and your past posings oh whoops i mean "postings" suggest that you are, if not young phyiscally, at least young mentally. Your attitude in this discussion reinforces that suggestion.

So, to conclude - you have yet to make an actual point about the topic under discussion. When the insults start flying, it's a good indicator that you are running on empty and the argument is over.

Owl
29th January 2011, 17:58
Agreed (for point 1 at least) - and it's nice to read your reasoned and well thought out argument above, rather than the alternative "wah wah govt bullshit cops are out to get me" type of thing that usually dominates these threads.

Regarding pont 3 - the munters:
It is indeed an assumption that a full license=safer driver/rider until some stats are revealed by Joyce, however the fact remains that the gubbmint doesn't NEED to prove this fact in order to change the law, because for 90% of the population, 90% of the time, it is going to be true.
What you can not prove with crash stats is the mentality of the driver. It's a good indicator of the attitude of the person in charge of a deadly weapon that they can't even be bothered taking a simple test - maybe they can't be bothered maintaining a safe and roadworthy vehicle either? Hell, why even bother sticking to the speed limit or giving way or obeying traffic signals.....I'd deem that person to be at higher risk of causing an accident.


You are so full of shit its unbelievable

What's unbelievable is that I agree with miloking:facepalm:

notme
29th January 2011, 18:02
Y.......I am even inclined to agree with allun that it perhaps demonstrates the individual's committment to the process and desire to become a competent driver/rider (even though this is an entirely speculative view).

This whole discussion is - but it's fun, innit? :cool:

yachtie10
29th January 2011, 18:04
What's unbelievable is that I agree with miloking:facepalm:

seek help :lol:

notme
29th January 2011, 18:05
What's unbelievable is that I agree with miloking:facepalm:

Excellent contribution to the debate - on par with your earlier one!

Given that you agree, could you make some points as to what exactly you agree with and why? miloking has not yet been able to coherently voice any, and I'm burning with the desire to know what wisdom is going to spew forth!

Owl
29th January 2011, 18:25
Excellent contribution to the debate - on par with your earlier one!

The difference is that my earlier post was fact, whereas your posts are plain speculation and have no basis in fact. You are however entitled to your opinion!

notme
29th January 2011, 18:40
The difference is that my earlier post was fact, whereas your posts are plain speculation and have no basis in fact. You are however entitled to your opinion!

Some would say that to the letter of the law, yes - your earlier post was fact in that you were correcting factually incorrect grammer. Some would also argue that it added nothing to the debate.....not me though! I still maintain it was a valuable contribution!

For the third time - I'm politely requesting that you explain the speculation in my posts. The reality, I fear, is that there will be another 100% correct fact with 0% value forthcoming....:weep:

Just pick one - my proposed possibilties 1, 2, or 3 that you have taken issue with, and for the love of underpants that are holey, back up some of your assertions!


..... You are however entitled to your opinion!

Now THAT is the granddaddy of all facts!

Coldrider
30th January 2011, 01:16
Back in the good ol' days, the provisional licence for motorcycles lasted for eight weeks, and had to be renewed after eight weeks, with a limit of renewals.
I don't know of anyone who did not sit their full licence by the eight week period.
That is not to say that some one i didn't know was aloser, but everyone busted their gut to be competent and get rid of the dreaded L coloured rego sticker.
But that is a time when there was pass or fail, not various shades of pass, not ready to pass, passed not yet, in the nanny state.
Man up , be competent and confident, or fuck off to the cages where the same thing is happening.
I bet there is some who do not want their licences popping in the system because they will have warrants for arrest, and/or piles of unpaid fines catching up with them.

Berries
30th January 2011, 01:28
when i was at school and unit...........
Nah. You've got me there. I have understood most of your typos, but WTF is a unit ?

rachprice
30th January 2011, 01:39
:whocares:Why exactly is this even news worth mentioning? It only affects those high risk riders who can't or won't move on up the ladder, which is fine by me - they are the group who shouldn't be riding anyway!

Interesting cos I still have my learners but I would not count myself as high risk
I get my aggression and competitiveness out on the track

Jantar
30th January 2011, 01:44
...Regarding pont 3 - the munters:
It is indeed an assumption that a full license=safer driver/rider until some stats are revealed by Joyce,....

Those facts are available at: http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Documents/Motorcycle-crash-fact-sheet-2010.pdf

Including this statement on page 7:


Learner licence holders make up a greater percentage of motorcyclists involved in crashes (21 percent) than overall drivers, including motorcyclists (7 percent). In 2009, motorcyclist learner licence holders made up 12 percent of all motorcycle licence holders, whereas learner car licence holders made up only 8 percent of all car licence holders. Fifty-seven percent of car learner licence holders were aged under 25 years old, whereas only 16 percent of motorcycle learner licence holders were aged under 25 years.
Despite the rule that learner and restricted licence holders are not permitted to ride motorcycles with an engine capacity greater than 250cc, 15 percent of riders on learner licences, and 26 percent of riders on restricted licences, are riding bikes of over 250cc at the time of their crashes.

It also shows that although 80% of licenced riders have a full licence they are invoved in only 52% of crashes.

rachprice
30th January 2011, 01:45
I'll also provide a direct answer to this in case the points above are not clear enough.

The evidence is that they have not passed through to the full stage.

Maybe cos they haven't tried? The might be the safest riders in the world but because they haven't sat a test the are instantly more dangerous? I don't think so

rachprice
30th January 2011, 01:52
Agreed (for point 1 at least) - and it's nice to read your reasoned and well thought out argument above, rather than the alternative "wah wah govt bullshit cops are out to get me" type of thing that usually dominates these threads.

Regarding pont 3 - the munters:
It is indeed an assumption that a full license=safer driver/rider until some stats are revealed by Joyce, however the fact remains that the gubbmint doesn't NEED to prove this fact in order to change the law, because for 90% of the population, 90% of the time, it is going to be true.
What you can not prove with crash stats is the mentality of the driver. It's a good indicator



of the attitude of the person in charge of a deadly weapon that they can't even be
bothered taking a simple test - maybe they can't be bothered maintaining a safe
and roadworthy vehicle either? Hell, why even bother sticking to the speed limit or
giving way or obeying traffic signals.....I'd deem that person to be at higher risk of
causing an accident.

Well I admit I'm lazy as fuck about my licenses but it's bullshit that im higher risk

Gareth123
30th January 2011, 03:26
I sat on my learner motorcycle license for 8 years. All the bikes I have owned and ridden have been under 250cc. If I want to go anywhere after 10pm I drive my car as I have a full class 1.

When I go for a ride on my bike, I ride to the conditions and my skill level...I'm not sure how this makes me an unsafe rider/driver. Ask the crowd of people I ride with down in chch, I keep up, ride safely and don't cause problems.

Why should I be punished for not getting my full? This whole theory that learner/restricted drivers/riders are unsafe has not been fully thought through.

BTW, I sat my restricted and passed 1 month ago. I did that so I can get my full and ride the cm400 custom that I bought 5 months ago. It's sitting in my parents garage where I can't be tempted by it.

davereid
30th January 2011, 09:12
If a learners or restricted licence meets your needs, I can understand why a driver does not get a full.

I find a car and motorcycle licence meet mine, and I remain untempted to get a bulldozer licence, even though I know it is much safer as no one driving a bulldozer was killed on the roads last year.

notme
30th January 2011, 09:15
Nah. You've got me there. I have understood most of your typos, but WTF is a unit ?

"school and uni". A "t" snuck it's way in there, they do that you know. They are mischevious, those bloody "t"'s!

notme
30th January 2011, 09:56
....everyone busted their gut to be competent and get rid of the dreaded L coloured rego sticker......
.......I bet there is some who do not want their licences popping in the system because they will have warrants for arrest, and/or piles of unpaid fines catching up with them.

Yep, the pride in achievement seems to be lacking these days huh? I can't really understand the idea of not going thru the stages just out of pride in doing it properly, regardless of any penalties that might be imposed.


Interesting cos I still have my learners but I would not count myself as high risk
I get my aggression and competitiveness out on the track


Maybe cos they haven't tried? The might be the safest riders in the world but because they haven't sat a test the are instantly more dangerous? I don't think so


Well I admit I'm lazy as fuck about my licenses but it's bullshit that im higher risk

Unfortunately the bare black and white facts say that you are higher risk, simply because of the class of license you are on. The problem is that rachprice the individual is probably a skilled safe rider, but rachprice the statistic is lumped in with all the other munters.
So why not get yourself out of that group?


I sat on my learner motorcycle license for 8 years. All the bikes I have owned and ridden have been under 250cc. If I want to go anywhere after 10pm I drive my car as I have a full class 1.

When I go for a ride on my bike, I ride to the conditions and my skill level...I'm not sure how this makes me an unsafe rider/driver. Ask the crowd of people I ride with down in chch, I keep up, ride safely and don't cause problems.

Why should I be punished for not getting my full? This whole theory that learner/restricted drivers/riders are unsafe has not been fully thought through.

BTW, I sat my restricted and passed 1 month ago. I did that so I can get my full and ride the cm400 custom that I bought 5 months ago. It's sitting in my parents garage where I can't be tempted by it.

You have good self control! You're probably the exception though - sticking to your license conditions properly as you do.

The theory that less than full licensed drivers are more dangerous comes from the fact that they will have been driving for a shorted period of time, which means less experience dealing with common road hazards and situations. That is why there are restrictions on the license, like driving at night, open road speed etc.

Think about your particular case:Iif you are obeying your license conditions fully as you say you are - you are not getting the experience of night riding, open road speed, passengers etc and so you are missing out on learning those skills, which would make you a better overall rider.

I can see how that directly translates to the govt line that people on a less than full license are going to be more of a risk on the road.

Gareth123
30th January 2011, 12:32
You have good self control! You're probably the exception though - sticking to your license conditions properly as you do.

The theory that less than full licensed drivers are more dangerous comes from the fact that they will have been driving for a shorted period of time, which means less experience dealing with common road hazards and situations. That is why there are restrictions on the license, like driving at night, open road speed etc.

Think about your particular case:Iif you are obeying your license conditions fully as you say you are - you are not getting the experience of night riding, open road speed, passengers etc and so you are missing out on learning those skills, which would make you a better overall rider.

I can see how that directly translates to the govt line that people on a less than full license are going to be more of a risk on the road.

I have always done 100km/h on the motorway, unless conditions don't allow it, any other speed seems stupid to me.

As far as riding at night, it gets dark in winter around 7pm? I ride home from my karate class around 9. That includes a stretch of motorway that has a big dark section in it and another road that has 1 street light in 6km. I've done my fair share of night riding in my 7 years on a motorbike. Obviously not just from karate though.

I do consider myself a well rounded rider.

I can see where you are coming from with regards to people who haven't been on their learners or restricted for very long lacking experience, but this is directly targeting the people who have been on their learners/restricted license for an extended period. Provided they have stuck to the limits of their license, do they not have all the experience they need for commuting to and from work if they have done it for 8 years?

notme
30th January 2011, 12:46
I have always done 100km/h on the motorway, unless conditions don't allow it, any other speed seems stupid to me.

Technically outside the conditions of your license when you were still on your L...
yes everyone does it, yes it's dangerous to have traffic getting aggro behind you if you obey the law in this respect, but also, if you get stopped, you are technically up for a fine/demerits. Isn't it easier just to get off that L as soon as possible? You also get to ditch the oh so fashionable L plate, otherwise known as an aiming point for the cagers.


As far as riding at night, it gets dark in winter around 7pm? I ride home from my karate class around 9. That includes a stretch of motorway that has a big dark section in it and another road that has 1 street light in 6km. I've done my fair share of night riding in my 7 years on a motorbike. Obviously not just from karate though.

Riding in the dark is not necessarily the same as riding at night. Yes it's dark before your 10pm curfew, however if you have never ridden through town at 3am on a sunday morning, you might not have experienced the drunks making their way home, either stumbling across the road or piloting a cage. If you have never ridden at 6am in either the dark OR light due to your curfew, you may not have had the experience of dealing with the fleets of delivery trucks that move around in the early hours. If you have never ridden when your body clock tells you that you should rightfully be asleep, you may never get the experience of knowing when you are losing alertness and how to deal with it.

One of the BRONZ riding instructors imparted this very valid point to me, so I say it again: Riding in the dark is not necessarily the same as riding "at night".

Looks like it won't be an issue for you as you are on your way to a full, but it's something to think about.



I do consider myself a well rounded rider.

I can see where you are coming from with regards to people who haven't been on their learners or restricted for very long lacking experience, but this is directly targeting the people who have been on their learners/restricted license for an extended period. Provided they have stuck to the limits of their license, do they not have all the experience they need for commuting to and from work if they have done it for 8 years?

Unfortunately theres no way to differentiate the 2 groups. It would be a nightmare to introduce some sort of exception system, maybe based on a test (in which case why not just do the normal licensing test) so i can see the point of just limiting the time. You just don't know from the outside if person A who has been on their L for 8 years has been riding for 8 years or has never touched a bike since basic handling test.

MarkH
30th January 2011, 13:23
Let's look at the main thrust of the article:

The problem is that 10% of licensed drivers are 'languishing' on restricted licenses for more than 2 years, and oh by the way also 18,000 motorcyclists have had learners for up to 15 years. But yet "The main focus of the Government's strategy is, as Mr Joyce puts it, "a young kid at 2 o'clock in the morning being egged on by his mates at 120 km/h, roaring round the countryside and having an accident".


It really does worry me that you have these young teenagers that have been riding motorcycles with only an 'L' license for 15+ years who are riding around at 2am with 3 mates on the back at 120kph around the countryside and having accidents. I didn't even realise that such a thing was happening, but now that I have read that article I am shocked and appalled - hopefully Steven Joyce will quickly fix that situation up and we will all finally be safe on the roads. It is good that our politicians are always looking out for our best interests - I'm sure we will have the yearly road toll down to single digits within a couple of years!

release_the_bees
30th January 2011, 13:46
I've had my 1L for 11 years now, simply because I've never had an ongoing need for anything other than a bike. In the odd case where I have had to drive, it has always been with somebody that had their full licence already, so having my L hasn't been an issue.

I guess the proposed changes would probably have worked in getting me onto a 1F license, but whether these changes would make the road a safer place seems pretty debatable. There are enough idiots out there already with full licenses for my liking!

notme
30th January 2011, 13:58
I've had my 1L for 11 years now, simply because I've never had an ongoing need for anything other than a bike. In the odd case where I have had to drive, it has always been with somebody that had their full licence already, so having my L hasn't been an issue...

You'll have to excuse me - I've been on the meths....you're on a car learner license and you ride a bike?


There are enough idiots out there already with full licenses for my liking!

With and without, in fact....

release_the_bees
30th January 2011, 14:18
You'll have to excuse me - I've been on the meths....you're on a car learner license and you ride a bike?

Correct. I have my full bike license and my learner car license.

superman
30th January 2011, 14:20
Well I admit I'm lazy as fuck about my licenses but it's bullshit that im higher risk

I said the same about being an 18 year old male to my insurance company. I mean yes maybe the majority of 18 year old males are higher risk but.. blah blah blah blah.

Same with if learner license holders end up being a higher risk group... then punished they shall get.

They like to do grouping

hellokitty
30th January 2011, 14:20
I have a quick question - how do you insure your motorbike if you don't have the appropriate license?
I had an 800cc bike 1 week before I got my full and could only insure it to sit in the garage.

Or do the people riding more than 250cc bikes on a learners not insure themselves?

superman
30th January 2011, 14:24
I have a quick question - how do you insure your motorbike if you don't have the appropriate license?
I had an 800cc bike 1 week before I got my full and could only insure it to sit in the garage.

Or do the people riding more than 250cc bikes on a learners not insure themselves?

I'm guessing not insured. Just like when I drive post 10pm at night, no insurance because of not sticking to license conditions. Yay.

hellokitty
30th January 2011, 14:26
I'm guessing not insured. Just like when I drive post 10pm at night, no insurance because of not sticking to license conditions. Yay.

So what happens when you cause an accident? I wrote my car and another person's car off last year - entirely my fault - if I had not been insured, I would have ended up in court and facing huge financial cost.

superman
30th January 2011, 14:32
So what happens when you cause an accident? I wrote my car and another person's car off last year - entirely my fault - if I had not been insured, I would have ended up in court and facing huge financial cost.

If I cause an accident after 10pm I'm pretty much screwed if it's anything expensive. I guess the same if you're on your learners and they determine you were going over 70km/h the insurance company wouldn't pay out and you'd be in the shit again. So... I'm just trying to head to my full as quick as possible so that the situations I ride in are actually insurable :2thumbsup

hellokitty
30th January 2011, 14:36
If I cause an accident after 10pm I'm pretty much screwed if it's anything expensive. I guess the same if you're on your learners and they determine you were going over 70km/h the insurance company wouldn't pay out and you'd be in the shit again. So... I'm just trying to head to my full as quick as possible so that the situations I ride in are actually insurable :2thumbsup

Just keep it legal and drive/ride as per your license - it makes things a lot easier. I know it is expensive to sit the tests but they are so easy that there is no way really that you can fail them.
I really can't see why people just don't do it...

Surely you just factor in the extra cost - like we have to with the increased rego costs.

notme
30th January 2011, 14:38
So what happens when you cause an accident? I wrote my car and another person's car off last year - entirely my fault - if I had not been insured, I would have ended up in court and facing huge financial cost.

See my earlier comments about the mentality.....unfortunate, but it seems to be how some people think!

awa355
30th January 2011, 14:41
If a learners or restricted licence meets your needs, I can understand why a driver does not get a full.

I find a car and motorcycle licence meet mine, and I remain untempted to get a bulldozer licence, even though I know it is much safer as no one driving a bulldozer was killed on the roads last year.

I've had my bulldozer licence for over 30 years and haven't killed anybody on the road with it yet. Had one perched on a stump, bogged in a swamp and have winched a tree over onto the said bulldozer. but never cleaned anyone up on a public road. Wonder if a D85 Komatsu can be registered???

PrincessBandit
30th January 2011, 14:42
If I cause an accident after 10pm I'm pretty much screwed if it's anything expensive. I guess the same if you're on your learners and they determine you were going over 70km/h the insurance company wouldn't pay out and you'd be in the shit again. So... I'm just trying to head to my full as quick as possible so that the situations I ride in are actually insurable :2thumbsup


Just keep it legal and drive/ride as per your license - it makes things a lot easier. I know it is expensive to sit the tests but they are so easy that there is no way really that you can fail them.
I really can't see why people just don't do it...

Surely you just factor in the extra cost - like we have to with the increased rego costs.

hellokitty, you are right - it saves a whole lot of everything (except perhaps dosh initially) to keep things above board and legal. Most people who know they're breaking license conditions and flagging insurance obviously consider the risk of getting caught/having an accident, regardless of who is at fault, all part of the 'game'.

notme
30th January 2011, 14:43
If I cause an accident after 10pm I'm pretty much screwed if it's anything expensive. I guess the same if you're on your learners and they determine you were going over 70km/h the insurance company wouldn't pay out and you'd be in the shit again. So... I'm just trying to head to my full as quick as possible so that the situations I ride in are actually insurable :2thumbsup

exactly - there are so many benefits to progressing to full, and no downsides, so why wouldn't you? That's what I fail to understand.

superman
30th January 2011, 14:43
Just keep it legal and drive/ride as per your license - it makes things a lot easier. I know it is expensive to sit the tests but they are so easy that there is no way really that you can fail them.
I really can't see why people just don't do it...

Finishing work at 9:30pm I drive after 10pm. Driving at 70km/h or less on open roads isn't a very nice thought either for another 4 months before I can get my restricted.

And not riding after 10pm for another 16-22months is even less of a nice thought with work. Guess I could always drive my car to work and use a lot more fuel, sit in my car depressed... drifting over to the wrong side of the lane wishing I was on my bike if it wasn't for some awesome laws.

Alas my woes.

Tbh I don't care about the insurance, I want to ride my bike and I would like to be insured. But riding the bike is a much higher priority so it wins, if something does happen I'll deal with it in court/pawn off my assets/put it on my student loan.

superman
30th January 2011, 14:46
exactly - there are so many benefits to progressing to full, and no downsides, so why wouldn't you? That's what I fail to understand.

I have no idea why people wouldn't do it as quick as possible. It lasts forever (till your old) and you can use it overseas. It's totally useful, so I can't work out why people don't either.

hellokitty
30th January 2011, 15:29
hellokitty, you are right - it saves a whole lot of everything (except perhaps dosh initially) to keep things above board and legal. Most people who know they're breaking license conditions and flagging insurance obviously consider the risk of getting caught/having an accident, regardless of who is at fault, all part of the 'game'.

I pay $26 per fortnight for full insurance. It is peanuts - 2 packs of smokes? A few beers?

I had a loser bf when I was 17 who had an accident - he wrote off his expensive car which was newly bought and under finance, and wrote off 2 other flash cars, drove through a fence and into a house demolishing the wall. The car hit a baby's cot in the house (baby was away that night, how lucky huh?) Basically about $80,000 (this was 20 years ago). The fool was drunk and uninsured. I wonder how many years it took him to pay off the various insurances companies that took him to court.



Tbh I don't care about the insurance, I want to ride my bike and I would like to be insured. But riding the bike is a much higher priority so it wins, if something does happen I'll deal with it in court/pawn off my assets/put it on my student loan.

Dude, you better hope that if you cause an accident, the person involved goes easy on you. If some uninsured person wrecked my bike, there would be a problem.

Highlander
30th January 2011, 15:47
Dude, you better hope that if you cause an accident, the person involved goes easy on you. If some uninsured person wrecked my bike, there would be a problem.

Way off the licencing topic, but we had an uninsured driver turn into us (he was doing a U turn and smacked into the side of our van as I decided that was preferable to me driving into on coming traffic). As expected he denied liability. Our insurance company led us through the small claim process and as soon as the referee determined it was his fault they refunded our excess and hit him for the full expense. Don't know if thye ever saw the cash, but as far as I'm concerned that was why I pay insurance. Our van was fixed at no more than the annual cost of the policy.

hellokitty
30th January 2011, 15:51
Way off the licencing topic, but we had an uninsured driver turn into us (he was doing a U turn and smacked into the side of our van as I decided that was preferable to me driving into on coming traffic). As expected he denied liability. Our insurance company led us through the small claim process and as soon as the referee determined it was his fault they refunded our excess and hit him for the full expense. Don't know if thye ever saw the cash, but as far as I'm concerned that was why I pay insurance. Our van was fixed at no more than the annual cost of the policy.

Yep!

And yes, off the original license topic - sorry :scratch: I guess I got onto it because not following the rules set out by your license, you insurance would not be valid. Unless you are dumb enough not to be insured - then it doesn't matter anyway.

superman
30th January 2011, 15:52
Dude, you better hope that if you cause an accident, the person involved goes easy on you. If some uninsured person wrecked my bike, there would be a problem.

Would there be a problem? I mean yeah if someone uninsured wrecked my bike and then didn't have any money to pay me for it then I'd be bloody furious. But unless I create over $10000 of damage then I'll just sell my belongings and pay cash.

I don't feel like I'm living on the verge of causing mass amounts of damage, I mean I know shit happens. But on my bike as I'm sure most people do you focus your absolute self to the ride. I'm much more worried about someone crashing into me than crashing into someone. Plus being such a light, small vehicle the damage compared to crashing into someone with a car would be quite minor.

And if I crash into someone fast and die then I don't think I'll be worried about insurance, though I hope I don't somehow manage to put myself into that kind of situation.

hellokitty
30th January 2011, 15:59
Would there be a problem? I mean yeah if someone uninsured wrecked my bike and then didn't have any money to pay me for it then I'd be bloody furious. But unless I create over $10000 of damage then I'll just sell my belongings and pay cash.

I don't feel like I'm living on the verge of causing mass amounts of damage, I mean I know shit happens. But on my bike as I'm sure most people do you focus your absolute self to the ride. I'm much more worried about someone crashing into me than crashing into someone. Plus being such a light, small vehicle the damage compared to crashing into someone with a car would be quite minor.

Plus if I crash into someone fast and die then I don't think I'll be worried about insurance.

I wonder if you die owing money, does your family pay? Or does the debt get wiped as you are dead and hard luck to those you owe? Yes, even more off topic. (sorry)

Yeah I would be mad if someone crashed into me and couldn't pay for it or wasn't insured. It has happened before.
3rd party insurance is so cheap - why wouldn't everyone have it? My stepson on his restricted license pays $7 a fortnight for 3rd party insurance.

superman
30th January 2011, 16:06
I wonder if you die owing money, does your family pay? Or does the debt get wiped as you are dead and hard luck to those you owe? Yes, even more off topic. (sorry)

Yeah I would be mad if someone crashed into me and couldn't pay for it or wasn't insured. It has happened before.
3rd party insurance is so cheap - why wouldn't everyone have it? My stepson on his restricted license pays $7 a fortnight for 3rd party insurance.

I pay $1.73 per fortnight on my bikes 3rd party! Car is more like $6.50 per fortnight.

So yeah, I always thought 3rd party is definitely a must, just due to silly license conditions that sometimes when I ride I'm not covered. But then there's also the risk of being fined by police for breaching conditions etc.

For where I am the 25minute ride home at night usually only encounters about 3 oncoming cars, so risk feels low enough (hopefully not too deceptively) to make me feel it's ok. Plus I want to practice loads of riding in different environments to improve my riding skills. :cool:

notme
30th January 2011, 16:09
I wonder if you die owing money, does your family pay? Or does the debt get wiped as you are dead and hard luck to those you owe? Yes, even more off topic. (sorry)


Don't apologize - it's sort of on topic since what is being discussed in this thread is the proposed time limit on the beginner stages of a driver's license, and part of that discussion is questioning (as i did in my very first post) WHY people think that's such a big deal.

Some people think it's a big deal because of insurance and so on...so we are still on topic(ish).

davereid
30th January 2011, 16:10
I wonder if you die owing money, does your family pay? Or does the debt get wiped as you are dead and hard luck to those you owe?

If you have money or assets when you die, those to whom you owe money can make a claim to get paid. So the money you intended leaving to your children for example, may be used to pay your debts and your kids would get what is left.

If you have no money, they cannot force your relatives to pay, unless they have already agreed to - as a guarantor for example.

If you arent dead, but you owe a lot of $$ and you have no money and no assets, then you can declare bankruptcy or do a "No asset procedure.", which also means your creditors dont get paid.




3rd party insurance is so cheap - why wouldn't everyone have it? My stepson on his restricted license pays $7 a fortnight for 3rd party insurance.

Yes, and in New Zealand, your third party insurance actually gives you first party cover if the other driver is at fault.

So, for example, if you have third party cover on your motorcycle, and I knock you off, your insurer will pay for the repairs to your bike.

AA appear to be attempting to undermine this as I have seen an advert from AA insurance capping this at $4000. To the best of my knowledge other insurers do not do this. [EDIT AMI have capped at $3k...]

This is why I hate the idea of compulsory third party insurance. RIGHT NOW its cheap, and has lots of benefits. Once it is complusory, it will be expensive, and we will lose this first party cover.

Highlander
30th January 2011, 16:29
Would there be a problem? I mean yeah if someone uninsured wrecked my bike and then didn't have any money to pay me for it then I'd be bloody furious. But unless I create over $10000 of damage then I'll just sell my belongings and pay cash.

I don't feel like I'm living on the verge of causing mass amounts of damage, I mean I know shit happens. But on my bike as I'm sure most people do you focus your absolute self to the ride. I'm much more worried about someone crashing into me than crashing into someone. Plus being such a light, small vehicle the damage compared to crashing into someone with a car would be quite minor.

And if I crash into someone fast and die then I don't think I'll be worried about insurance, though I hope I don't somehow manage to put myself into that kind of situation.

Imagine this:
On a sunny afternoon you are riding along happy and with your only concern being that some moron coming the other way might enter your lane. As you round that left hander you discover that a car has cut it a bit close and had 2 wheels off the seal there by flicking loose stones on the seal. You panic and grab a handfull of front brake. As you go over the stones the physics works against you and you go down in a low side. Suddenly your concern moves from the cars in the opposite lane possibly entering your lane, to the fact that you have just entered theirs. The recent model 4x4 with "L" plates in the windows does a fantastic job of avoiding you and your bike as you slide betwen them and the crash barrier on their left. Unfortunately they do a somwhat less impressive job of keeping their Remuera Tractor on the seal and for the first time since leaving the showroom it goes off road. Through the afore mentioned crash barrier, the ditch your bike ended up in, and into the trees.

Not hard to guess who would be deemed responsible, nor is it hard to envisage $40- 50, 000 of damages. Especially if there was more than one car involved.

It wasn't quite like that scenario, and I wasn't on a bike, but there were 3 cars written off (2 of them less than 5 years old) and ours repaired. Apparently my fault.
Everyone walked away, the rest is only money. Still makes the couple of hundred dollars I give to AMI every year to insure the heap of crap car seam like money well spent.


For what it is worth I'm with the others here that see no problem with imposing a reasonable time restriction for moving through the licence process. Those who have posted here to the contrary appear to have in most cases, also admitted they do't comply and don't intend to comply with the restrictions placed on them by the graduated system any way. As with any law change it will only effect those who choose to comply with the rules, or get caught out not complying with them.

superman
30th January 2011, 17:12
Imagine this:
On a sunny afternoon you are riding along happy and with your only concern being that some moron coming the other way might enter your lane.

Sunny afternoons I am insured :innocent:

Mungatoke Mad
30th January 2011, 21:02
:whocares:Why exactly is this even news worth mentioning? It only affects those high risk riders who can't or won't move on up the ladder, which is fine by me - they are the group who shouldn't be riding anyway!I learnt on numerous safety courses about identifying hazards & to me a graduate system such as we have that says I must not go over 70kph on the open road with 1 to 50 + ton projectiles travelling much faster than me Sucks this must be the only country in the world that rewards scratchie winners with licences to Kill most other country's give cash prizes to there scratchie winners.

notme
30th January 2011, 21:10
I learnt on numerous safety courses about identifying hazards & to me a graduate system such as we have that says I must not go over 70kph on the open road with 1 to 50 + ton projectiles travelling much faster than me Sucks this must be the only country in the world that rewards scratchie winners with licences to Kill most other country's give cash prizes to there scratchie winners.

I agree, it's not easy to obey the conditions of the L or R motorcycle license out in the real world. Good thing you only have to do it for 9 months total isn't it?

Mungatoke Mad
1st February 2011, 19:20
I agree, it's not easy to obey the conditions of the L or R motorcycle license out in the real world. Good thing you only have to do it for 9 months total isn't it?9 months might as well use public transport till the baby's born

Coldrider
2nd February 2011, 17:43
The current generation that seem not to bother completing their licences as they do not believe they need all the privileges entitled by a full licence, are actually confirming they do not need all the said privileges. So in future if some entitlements or privileges are reduced, it would be like taking candy of a baby. :cry: