Forum whore
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.
" Rule books are for the Guidance of the Wise, and the Obedience of Fools"
The Flying Dutchman
It's about time though they did something about it.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10702832
mini meeeeeee
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".
I lahk to moove eet moove eet...
Katman to steveb64
Originally Posted by Katman
FORCE V4
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.
...Full throttle till you see god, then brake.
Highway Biker
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?
mini meeeeeee
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.
I lahk to moove eet moove eet...
Katman to steveb64
Highway Biker
At which point they carry on and finish it off.
O bearded one
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.
Hardcore Biker
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!!!
Any two wheels will do.
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?
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.
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.
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).
Hardcore Biker
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)
--------------------------------------
Knowledge is realizing that the street is one-way, wisdom is looking both directions anyway
Hardcore Biker
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!
Any two wheels will do.
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.
Hardcore Biker
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.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.
Hardcore Biker
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks