Raising driving age?

[slofox]

RNZ news is full of the plan to raise driving age to 16 (or 17) from the current 15.

Good idea or bad idea?

[munster]

My eldest son got his licence at 15 and he's had no issues. We wouldn't let him drive his car till he had insurance and the excess saved up.

If John Key waits till Christmas, like he said on the news tonight, then my daughter will squeeze in too. My youngest son will have to wait.

I didn't get mine till the day I turned 17 (my choice).

It's too subjective. My eldest seems OK, his mate is a loon who's been busted twice for having passengers when on his restricted. and then I know 20+ years olds that shouldn't have a licence.

In NZ we don't teach people how to drive, we teach them how to pass a drivers lecence test.

The 4 weeks I spent in 1989 doing NZ Army Specialist Driver training is still saving my life today.

[CookMySock]

My kids (15,16) show little restraint on the road, especially riding in a group. It's been great teaching them all the bits about riding and driving, but now they have skills, knowledge, and bravery, safety is a real concern.

They'll cut my legs off for saying it, but I think putting the age up is a useful tool for parents keeping things in check.

I do wonder if the govt is trying to keep kids in school longer.

Steve

[YellowDog]

For parents who care about and disciplined their kids, the age is not such an issue.

Many parents I have met with teenage kids don't seem to get involved in their kids lives enough and IMO - 15 or 16 is far too young.

This does raise serious logistical issues for young people in remote locations and I agree that it is unfair to punish such people because some young irresponsible fools abusing their privileages. Maybe there needs to be a way to allow such remotly located people to have restricted driving access due such circumstances.

One subject that does concern me is that allowing a 15 or 16 year old kid on the road in a high powered motor vehicle without the need to have insurance to offer a degree of protection to other road users is complete madness.

[huff3r]

Yep, all raising the driving age will do is raise the bracket of high accidents from "15-21" to "16-22". The fact is they have to learn sometime, and when they are learning they will make mistakes. I doubt many accidents are caused soley by kids being stupid, but rather are because of inexperience, which can only be fixed by more driving! Not by raising the age.

I know for a fact that none of my crashes have been caused by me "being a young hoon", but rather caused by me not knowing how my car was going to react to a situation, and they have all been after i turned 18, even though i've been driving since 2 days after my 15th birthday!

[Headbanger]

Raise it to 20.

[huff3r]

Raise it to 20.

And have the high-crash zone being 20-25 then? All you'll do is kill more older people. No matter what age you make it, they will still have to LEARN sometime, meaning they will still be SHIT drivers sometime.

[Gareth123]

One subject that does concern me is that allowing a 15 or 16 year old kid on the road in a high powered motor vehicle without the need to have insurance to offer a degree of protection to other road users is complete madness.

Compulsory third party would fix that. The more "hotted up" your car, the more you pay. Although I do prefer the American way of sorting insurance, you as a driver are insured to drive anything. The car isn't insured.

[howdamnhard]

It's about time.

[YellowDog]

Compulsory third party would fix that. The more "hotted up" your car, the more you pay. Although I do prefer the American way of sorting insurance, you as a driver are insured to drive anything. The car isn't insured.

Huh ! - What about if someone steals it ?

So far as young accidents go; from what I have seen - the biggest distraction young people face is other young people in their cars with them.

How about: Motorbike only from 15-18 with a multi-level structured training approach. The young transport problem is therefore solved and they have to learn to ride properly before being able to arm themselves with a 4 wheelled deadly weapon at 18.

[Dave Lobster]

How about: Motorbike only from 15-18 with a multi-level structured training approach. The young transport problem is therefore solved and they have to learn to ride properly before being able to arm themselves with a 4 wheelled deadly weapon at 18.

That sounds like the best way to do it to me. But 21, rather than 18. People would then have four or five years' experience on two wheels, and might stick with it, rather than selling their soul and buying a car.

[slofox]

My own feeling is that raising driving age by one year to 16 is useless. I'd make it 18 - to align with right to vote, buy booze, get shot for your country, etc etc

[p.dath]

Yep, all raising the driving age will do is raise the bracket of high accidents from "15-21" to "16-22". The fact is they have to learn sometime, and when they are learning they will make mistakes. I doubt many accidents are caused soley by kids being stupid, but rather are because of inexperience, which can only be fixed by more driving! Not by raising the age.

I know for a fact that none of my crashes have been caused by me "being a young hoon", but rather caused by me not knowing how my car was going to react to a situation, and they have all been after i turned 18, even though i've been driving since 2 days after my 15th birthday!

I supported the increase in the driving age when I made by submission on the issue. I supported an increase to the age of 16 initially, to gauage the effect, and if needed, subsequently an increase to 17.

I don't believe it will simply shift the accident "bump" on the graph to those at the new driving age.

In the studies I have seen, the core issue is to do with the development of the brain, and the ability to asses risk and process threats around. By 17 these areas of the brain have developed significantly more.

This issue has nothing to do with training or experience. It is simply an issue of average brain development.

[p.dath]

Compulsory third party would fix that. The more "hotted up" your car, the more you pay. Although I do prefer the American way of sorting insurance, you as a driver are insured to drive anything. The car isn't insured.

I initially supported compulsory third party insurance in my submission, but have since come to the conclusion that the economic impact is not worth the cost of bringing in the legislation.

The AA showed me a study they did on the issue. I can't remember all the numbers now, but something like 93% of all those involved in an accident already had some form of insurance. Something like just under 7% of the remainder were drivers who could not get insurance because they had no licence, had a suspended licence, stolen vehicle, etc.

So by making insurance compulsory we were only like to see "point something" of a percentage increase in insured accidents. It seems that NZ's as a whole like to have accident insurance for their vehicles.

[p.dath]

That sounds like the best way to do it to me. But 21, rather than 18. People would then have four or five years' experience on two wheels, and might stick with it, rather than selling their soul and buying a car.

FYI, if I recall the numbers correctly, the AA told me they were wanting to see the "Victorian" model introduced, which required learner drivers to have something like 200 hours of "coached" driving time with someone that has a full licence. So the main difference would be that brand new learner drivers couldn't drive on their own just to begin with.

[Dave Lobster]

FYI, if I recall the numbers correctly, the AA told me they were wanting to see the "Victorian" model introduced, which required learner drivers to have something like 200 hours of "coached" driving time with someone that has a full licence. So the main difference would be that brand new learner drivers couldn't drive on their own just to begin with.

That's not a bad idea. It'd keep the poor people (with bag of shit cars) off the road for longer.

[Ixion]

So the main difference would be that brand new learner drivers couldn't drive on their own just to begin with.
Eh?? They can't now. Cage learner must have a licenced supervisor in the car at all times. :scratch:

The AA have an obvious vested interest in such a proposal. It's about revenue (for AA) not safety.

How is such a "coached" scheme going to work with motorbikes? L licence can't take a pillion. Have someone follow on another bike ? " Yeah , my mate's following me, coaching like. He's got a bit left behind should be here soon. Yeah he's coaching these other 20 learners at the same time. It's a group coaching ride. "

"Oh I got my 200 hours easy. I ride to work each day and I always see this other rider on the motorway. So I got him to sgn my log book, after all he was riding on the same road as me".

[huff3r]

I supported the increase in the driving age when I made by submission on the issue. I supported an increase to the age of 16 initially, to gauage the effect, and if needed, subsequently an increase to 17.

I don't believe it will simply shift the accident "bump" on the graph to those at the new driving age.

In the studies I have seen, the core issue is to do with the development of the brain, and the ability to asses risk and process threats around. By 17 these areas of the brain have developed significantly more.

This issue has nothing to do with training or experience. It is simply an issue of average brain development.

I'm sorry, but i was actually a participant in one of those studies, and the "frontal lobe" section of the brain, the one responsible for risk-taking and hazard detection, is not fully developed until a person is at least 25. Raising the age that high would be pure stupidity though. The study i was a participant in was assessing the affect of training risk-management on the development of the frontal lobe, unfortunately for the AADEF (who spent millions on it) many participants didnt complete their logbokks correctly after the event, so they are still working on a valid conclusion. So no, they are definitely no more developed at 17 then they are at 15.

[Headbanger]

Whoa!!!!

a speech at parliament, Mr Joyce confirmed a package of measures to tackle teen drivers. The package will go to Cabinet this month. It includes:

* Raising the driving age from 15 to 16;
* Requiring novice drivers to have 120 hours' supervised practice before driving alone;
* Introducing a zero drink-drive limit for drivers under 20;
* Better education;
* An investigation into vehicle power restrictions.

[PirateJafa]

My own feeling is that raising driving age by one year to 16 is useless. I'd make it 18 - to align with right to vote, buy booze, get shot for your country, etc etc

Pity that those people who see no need to stay in school through to the end of Year 13 (those moving into apprenticeships, etc) will be without any means to get to their training/jobs.

Which is why the current age of 15 was adopted - as at the time you were able to leave school at this age, and out in the countryside there is no public transport every thirty minutes. So they needed transport, else they'd be left walking for days just to get anywhere.

Not everyone lives in a city.


How is such a "coached" scheme going to work with motorbikes? L licence can't take a pillion. Have someone follow on another bike ? " Yeah , my mate's following me, coaching like. He's got a bit left behind should be here soon. Yeah he's coaching these other 20 learners at the same time. It's a group coaching ride. "

"Oh I got my 200 hours easy. I ride to work each day and I always see this other rider on the motorway. So I got him to sgn my log book, after all he was riding on the same road as me".

The coaching idea is far from foolproof. I can see many, many parents simply signing off fake hours simply because they cannot be bothered putting the time and effort into their child. Which is the exact same problem that we already have.

[huff3r]

Here's the study i participated in, with some very clever folks from Waikato Uni. Shame they didn't manage to come up with a decent conclusion, but they were pushing for more, and more specialised training in both hazard awareness and response.

FRONTAL LOBE STUDY (http://waikato.researchgateway.ac.nz/handle/10289/1714)

[dogsnbikes]

Whoa!!!!

a speech at parliament, Mr Joyce confirmed a package of measures to tackle teen drivers. The package will go to Cabinet this month. It includes:

* Raising the driving age from 15 to 16;
* Requiring novice drivers to have 120 hours' supervised practice before driving alone;
* Introducing a zero drink-drive limit for drivers under 20;
* Better education;
* An investigation into vehicle power restrictions.

They have to get the power restrictions right,all very well for them to do everything else.....its an issue thats long over due for revamping,
and the Cars of today have so much more power,than cars we had 25/30 years ago to pick from,but even with the mini's,escorts,viva's or victor's,cortina's and datsun's 1600's or sss fitted with webbers and coby's which we considered cool then,the technogly has changed alot since then......

Most of todays Car's the kids get are made to perform and it does'nt take much for them to go and get the ECU's remapped now to give them a more powerful machine

So with planned restrictions how do they purpose to regulate the mapping as if its like some of the bike mapping if you plug the computer in unless you have the after market programe on your laptop it will only show you the standard factory settings

[Headbanger]

My first car was a 1.6l bright yellow Cortina station wagon.

And I still managed to be ordered off the road within a week, and then told to sell it or the cops would pull me up every time I drove it.

Lmfao.

[CookMySock]

The AA have an obvious vested interest in such a proposal. It's about revenue (for AA) not safety.Organisations such as AA should be reminded(compelled?) to declare the extent of their vested interest.



How is such a "coached" scheme going to work with motorbikes? L licence can't take a pillion. Have someone follow on another bike ? " Yeah , my mate's following me, coaching like. He's got a bit left behind should be here soon. Yeah he's coaching these other 20 learners at the same time. It's a group coaching ride. "

"Oh I got my 200 hours easy. I ride to work each day and I always see this other rider on the motorway. So I got him to sgn my log book, after all he was riding on the same road as me".I think coaches should be fined if the newbie gets fined. Gee watch newbies behave now ay!! Oh yeah, put one foot wrong and someone ELSE gets the bill, and and watch your pissed-off coach drop you like a hot brick. No coach - no ride!

You don't need an enormous amount of training for bikers. Bikes are very simple to operate in comparison to cars. Newbie riders only need a few initial hours of firm handling, and then sternly told to practice what they have been shown until it comes out their ears, and to keep their speed down until it they can track a corner properly (which does take some experience, but not much training.) Perhaps it might help to have a safe off-the-road environment to practice in, but I don't think that is essential.

What is not happening, that needs to happen, is bikers aren't forced to learn to steer properly.


Steve

[Mikkel]

And the best thing yet: The ridiculous give-way rule (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3398471/Give-way-rules-set-to-change-Govt) may be about to be changed.

[SMOKEU]

The government really should teach people how to drive properly instead of raising the minimun driving age. I see far too many idiots in their 40s who can't drive properly. They don't indicate, they do dangerous lane changes, they hold traffic up etc.

[p.dath]

Eh?? They can't now. Cage learner must have a licenced supervisor in the car at all times. :scratch:

The AA have an obvious vested interest in such a proposal. It's about revenue (for AA) not safety.

How is such a "coached" scheme going to work with motorbikes? L licence can't take a pillion. Have someone follow on another bike ? " Yeah , my mate's following me, coaching like. He's got a bit left behind should be here soon. Yeah he's coaching these other 20 learners at the same time. It's a group coaching ride. "

"Oh I got my 200 hours easy. I ride to work each day and I always see this other rider on the motorway. So I got him to sgn my log book, after all he was riding on the same road as me".

This is pushing my recollection, and I haven't read up about the Victorian model; but the 200 hours was only discussed in relation to new car drivers. I don't know what the requirements are for motorcycle riders.
If I recall correctly, the 200 hours was simply recorded in a journal. I recall the word "coaching" being used. Perhaps this was more than someone with a full licence (which would make more sense) - because as you say, learners have to have someone with them now.

The AA driver education foundation is a not for profit association.
http://www.aa.co.nz/about/events/aa-driver-education-foundation/pages/default.aspx
I don't see they have anything to gain by an increase in revenue, but then I do like my world looking rose coloured.


I'm sorry, but i was actually a participant in one of those studies, and the "frontal lobe" section of the brain, the one responsible for risk-taking and hazard detection, is not fully developed until a person is at least 25.

I agree with you about the development age of 25. However, may I suggest that perhaps you don't need a 100% fully developed brain before you can start driving and providing benefit. The question is, how much development does it require ...

[p.dath]

The government really should teach people how to drive properly instead of raising the minimun driving age. I see far too many idiots in their 40s who can't drive properly. They don't indicate, they do dangerous lane changes, they hold traffic up etc.

So you are saying the Police driving standards are too low? :lol:

[Ixion]

I suspect the 120 hours thing will be just a gesture. Mum Dad or older mate signs off the hours. If every new driver had to have 120 hours of paid for instruction (a) the cost would be about $10000, (b) there would be nowhere near enough instructors - for cars let alone motorcycles.

I'm thinking the rationale will be to address the fact that the restricted test is a joke. People can get their learners, hardly drive at all, just wait 6 months, then sit and pass the restricted. With the 120 hours thing , in theory they have to have actually done some practice.

But how can it work in reality if it is juts Mum Dad or mate sign it off? Is the tester going to investigate the signatures in every logbook presented by a candidate? I doubt it.

Once again, an example of law making by people who are themselves law abiding and incapable of grasping that the less law respecting will simply write in whatever is required and sign it with a squiggle.

[slofox]

And the best thing yet: The ridiculous give-way rule (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3398471/Give-way-rules-set-to-change-Govt) may be about to be changed.

Yep - back to what it used to be...

[firefighter]

get shot for your country, etc etc

Actually, that age is 17. Although I think at that age, if you are in that position, you should be allowed to buy booze, ciggies and porn!

[p.dath]

Here is a link to info on the Victorian model:
http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/Home/SafetyAndRules/SaferDrivers/YoungAndNewDrivers/VictoriasNewGraduatedLicensingSystem.htm

It says learners must undergo 120 hours of "supervised" driving, and that means with someone who has a full licence. So I guess they have gone for an honesty system.

Learner drivers under the age of 21 who obtain their learner permit on or after 1 July 2007 must complete a minimum of 120 hours of supervised driving experience (including at least 10 hours at night) before they can take the licence test.

These hours must be recorded in an official Learner Log Book that is signed by the learner driver and the experienced driver. This log book is issued to the learner driver free of charge when they pass the learner permit test.

Learner drivers who do not accumulate 120 hours (including at least 10 hours at night) and have not been exempted from this requirement, will not be permitted to take the licence test and will forfeit their test and appointment fees. Learner drivers will not be permitted to complete the Learner Log Book at the VicRoads Customer Service Centre on the day of their appointment.

There is no requirement for learner drivers 21 years of age or older or learner drivers who obtained their learner permit prior to 1 July 2007 to complete a minimum of 120 hours of supervised driving experience before they can take the licence test.

[SMOKEU]

So you are saying the Police driving standards are too low? :lol:

What I'm saying is that the police are focusing their attention in the wrong direction.

[p.dath]

What I'm saying is that the police are focusing their attention in the wrong direction.

I was teasing you. I was suggesting that you were complaining about those people driving Police cars (aka, the Police drivers had the issue).

[Dave Lobster]

so you are saying the police driving standards are too low? :lol:

yes!

7, 8, 9, 10

[neels]

I did some trawling on the net, and found this graph. It would appear that the most dangerous age to be on the road is 20-24 years old, so rather than raising the driving age we should ban people when they turn 20 and allow them back on the road when they turn 25.

[SPman]

So you are saying the Police driving standards are too low? :lol:
A lot of them are. There are police who are specifically not allowed to drive police vehicles.

I'm sorry, but i was actually a participant in one of those studies, and the "frontal lobe" section of the brain, the one responsible for risk-taking and hazard detection, is not fully developed until a person is at least 25.
Which is why they like to get younger people in the military................
I agree with you about the development age of 25. However, may I suggest that perhaps you don't need a 100% fully developed brain before you can start driving and providing benefit.
I was driving tractors when I was 12, driving (under supervision) on the road when I was 14, and had a full licence 2 weeks after I was 15. By the time I was 16 I had done 10,000km. Most of the people I knew followed a similar path and, although we pushed boundaries, most of us were fully aware of the risks involved. Many of the next generation kids I know also got their licences at 15 and, similarly, were aware of the risks and drove accordingly, with minimal damage to themselves or others.
Because there are a small group of youths, who act as if there is no tomorrow on the road (and there always has been) and due to rising population numbers, even though the percentage is small, the overall numbers are rising, the MSM delight in false Death-Shock-Horror-Tragedy, oh woe is us headlines, every time one of these peabrains takes out a car load of others with him, like ACC, the general public is hoodwinked into beleiving that the answer is to make a license a priviledge of age attainment, as though that will miraculously cure the problem!
Well, it won't, it'll just shift the stats up a notch.

[SPman]

Here is a link to info on the Victorian model:
http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/Home/SafetyAndRules/SaferDrivers/YoungAndNewDrivers/VictoriasNewGraduatedLicensingSystem.htm

It says learners must undergo 120 hours of "supervised" driving, and that means with someone who has a full licence. So I guess they have gone for an honesty system.
They do the same in W.A. as well. Also, restricted bike riders have to be "shadowed" by a qualified rider for 50 hrs (I think) before they can get their full.
Doesn't seem to do much for the general standard - Perth drivers are just as bad as Auckland drivers.....no....I Lie....they're worse!

[Clockwork]

I did some trawling on the net, and found this graph. It would appear that the most dangerous age to be on the road is 20-24 years old, so rather than raising the driving age we should ban people when they turn 20 and allow them back on the road when they turn 25.

Interesting stats but since it includes 0-4 5-9 & 10-14 you'd have to assume this isn't about the age of the drivers.

[YellowDog]

That's a bit scarey. You just couldn't rely on whether the other driver will know/follow the new rules.

One good thing from the UK highway code is that you should not anticipate the actions of other road users.

This means that if they are indicating left, you do not have the automatic right to pull out into their path.

You only pull out when you see they have slowed to make the turn.

I agree that the one year raise in minimum age is pointless. Some of the other stuff is pretty good.

[slofox]

Actually, that age is 17. Although I think at that age, if you are in that position, you should be allowed to buy booze, ciggies and porn!

Well, buggrit! Let's raise that to 18 as well. Keep it tidy y'know...

(I didn't know that actually...)

[p.dath]

I did some trawling on the net, and found this graph. It would appear that the most dangerous age to be on the road is 20-24 years old, so rather than raising the driving age we should ban people when they turn 20 and allow them back on the road when they turn 25.

I think you'll find that includes passengers, and those involved in the accident (such as cyclists and pedestrians). If you rip those out, the graph will start decreasing more quickly from 20 onwards.

[scumdog]

The coaching idea is far from foolproof. I can see many, many parents simply signing off fake hours simply because they cannot be bothered putting the time and effort into their child. Which is the exact same problem that we already have.

Ah well, when little Johnny ploughs into a logging truck due to his inept driving they can bask in the glow that signing off those hours falsly has paid off...:rolleyes::whocares:

[Ixion]

One might have thought that inept driving, prevention of, is why we have a driving test ?

[scumdog]

One might have thought that inept driving, prevention of, is why we have a driving test ?

Like a half hour test when lil' Johnny is twying weelie, weelie hard is ever going to reveal all his ineptness?

But maybe I should have used 'inexperience' rather than inept.

[puddytat]

Well it could be worse....in Germany all your learning is done with a qualified instructor.
Tough shit I reckon you youngsters,we had it easier back in my day,but we were lucky if we had a Morry or an Anglia.....Blame your fellow peers.
I'd put the drinking age back up to 20 too.....but decriminalize dak.

[oldrider]

RNZ news is full of the plan to raise driving age to 16 (or 17) from the current 15.

Good idea or bad idea?

This really pisses me off.

Well, I believe they are crazy! (Why?)

Because it means they are punishing innocents who have not even been given the opportunity to show they can drive and behave!

The ones who (supposedly) have broken all the rules will still be driving anyway!

There are adequate rules and laws in place now, what is missing is the spine and will to make them work and to actually punish the one's who break the laws!

There are miles more compliant kids out there doing everything right, so what are they doing punishing them for the transgressions of the few!

Currently the emphasis is on punishing the good drivers and rewarding the fuckwitts!

There should not be any recidivist drink drivers they should be dealt to conclusively right from the start - 3 strikes and you are out, yeah right!

Age should be a minor consideration in driving, the accent should be on "competence" I.E. either they can or they can't, the next should be attitude and reliability, age is the least consideration. IMHO. :brick:

[huff3r]

This really pisses me off.

Well, I believe they are crazy! (Why?)

Because it means they are punishing innocents who have not even been given the opportunity to show they can drive and behave!

The ones who (supposedly) have broken all the rules will still be driving anyway!

There are adequate rules and laws in place now, what is missing is the spine and will to make them work and to actually punish the one's who break the laws!

There are miles more compliant kids out there doing everything right, so what are they doing punishing them for the transgressions of the few!

Currently the emphasis is on punishing the good drivers and rewarding the fuckwitts!

There should not be any recidivist drink drivers they should be dealt to conclusively right from the start - 3 strikes and you are out, yeah right!

Age should be a minor consideration in driving, the accent should be on "competence" I.E. either they can or they can't, the next should be attitude and reliability, age is the least consideration. IMHO. :brick:

Brilliant post, and i agree completely!!

Also, i do think the attitude towards driver training here is slack. There should be mandatory lessons with an instructor, look at how the Swedish do it. 6 hours of instruction on a skid-pan even!! If i'd had some practice on a skid pan i wouldn't have crashed my car the 1st time (skidded it and didnt know what to do, braked, locked wheels etc).

[Pedrostt500]

the way I see it I would keep the age at 15yrs, but I would increase the lessons and driver training hours. I would also increase the lose of licence period for any new driver who breaks the conditions of their licence in such a way that if they are required to face cort action then they loose their licence for 12months and 1 day, this would require them to re sit their licence from square 1 again, also if they loose their licence through Demerit points they loose it for 12months and 1 day.
At the end of the day Idiots will always be Idiots, punnish the Idiots and reward the Good learner drivers, in fact why not dangle the carrot of a prize of a new car for all the learner drivers that advance to a full licence, with out a blemish on their licence, thier name goes into a draw for the 6 month period that they get their full licence.

[Dave Lobster]

Ah well, when little Johnny ploughs into a logging truck due to his inept driving they can bask in the glow that signing off those hours falsly has paid off...:rolleyes::whocares:

It wont be their fault. It never is.. :angry:

[YellowDog]

One might have thought that inept driving, prevention of, is why we have a driving test ?

Yes that's right.

It just needs to be a tougher test that most will fail until they attain a higher standard.

Maybe existing road users whom are convicted of dangerous driving offences should be made to sit a new and higher standard road test before they are allowed to have their licenses back?

[Dave Lobster]

Yes that's right.

It just needs to be a tougher test that most will fail until they attain a higher standard.

Maybe existing road users whom are convicted of dangerous driving offences should be made to sit a new and higher standard road test before they are allowed to have their licenses back?

Why not get EVERYONE to pass a higher standard of test, without the aid of a mate to help with the interpreting..

[FJRider]

Yes that's right.

It just needs to be a tougher test that most will fail until they attain a higher standard.

Maybe existing road users whom are convicted of dangerous driving offences should be made to sit a new and higher standard road test before they are allowed to have their licenses back?

It is my belief ... that if MOST drivers had to sit the licence test again ... they would fail. This is due to the number of law changes in the last 10 years even ...

A licence RESIT every 5 years would weed out a few ... um ... non performers ...

[peasea]

Why not get EVERYONE to pass a higher standard of test, without the aid of a mate to help with the interpreting..

Speaking the lingo should be part of the test. How on earth can you abuse someone properly in a road rage incident if you can't speak English?

More intense training, longer learner's period and tougher (practical) tests would go a long way to keeping our kids alive. Although I taught my eldest daughter the basics I insisted on professional training so that I didn't pass on my bad habits. (Should I have any, that is.) Professionally run courses should be compulsory along with Defensive Driving etc. The written sections of obtaining a license in NZ appear to be adequate, although not perfect (what is) but the practical aspect is an absolute joke. So it might cost more to obtain a license and/or take longer to get one but when a full license is issued we could all sleep easier knowing that the recipient has had some professional training.

[oldrider]

It was a bit disconcerting watching TV news reporters asking current drivers the road rules!

Hardly any of them knew them now, let alone what the changes would mean to them!! :shit:

[avgas]

We would have this problem if it was just horse and cart.
BAN MOTORS!

[Mikkel]

We would have this problem if it was just horse and cart.
BAN MOTORS!

Pft, we have no time for half-arsed measures. People are the real problem!

BAN HUMANS!

[Coldrider]

Ah well, when little Johnny ploughs into a logging truck due to his inept driving they can bask in the glow that signing off those hours falsly has paid off...:rolleyes::whocares:It sounds like if little johnny is a 'minor', his ineptness can escape the full range of penalties available to mature drivers.

[slofox]

The government really should teach people how to drive properly instead of raising the minimun driving age. I see far too many idiots in their 40s who can't drive properly. They don't indicate, they do dangerous lane changes, they hold traffic up etc.
How 'bout they teach thembloodyselves to drive first? Behold:


Ministerial cars clocked up nearly $40,000 in repairs last year -- $19,928 for self-drive cars and $19,391 for the fleet of limos.

A Department of Internal Affairs spokesman said most of the cost for the 17 self-drive cars was for normal wear and tear, the Dominion Post reported.

"More often than not, this is an accumulation of small parking scrapes and scuffs to paintwork not attributable to a single accident," the spokesman said.

However, the cars allocated to Justice Minister Simon Power and Maori Affairs Minister Pita Sharples were involved in accidents. Both have $889 insurance excess costs recorded against them.

A spokesman for Mr Power said the damage to his Holden Captiva occurred when his wife pulled over to make room for a car coming the other way on a narrow road. Spouses are permitted to use the cars.

Dr Sharples' office did not respond to requests for information.

Six chauffeur-driven cars were involved in accidents.

[allycatz]

Yes that's right.

It just needs to be a tougher test that most will fail until they attain a higher standard.

Maybe existing road users whom are convicted of dangerous driving offences should be made to sit a new and higher standard road test before they are allowed to have their licenses back?


Agreed, silly bitch on restricted that killed my daughter didn't have to resit anything after 9 months licence lost

[YellowDog]

I spoke wth a buddy of mine with 2 teenage sons tonight over a couple of beers.

I asked him what he thought about the raising of the drivign age to 16.

He recons that it should be raised to 21.

I asked him why?

He says that his kids are so hooked on superfast driving and crashing video games that he is terrified what they will not be able to distinguish between fantacy and reality in a real car.

Just anoter point of view that I had not considered.

Hopefully the driving test would prevent such people from passing.

[huff3r]

I spoke wth a buddy of mine with 2 teenage sons tonight over a couple of beers.

I asked him what he thought about the raising of the drivign age to 16.

He recons that it should be raised to 21.

I asked him why?

He says that his kids are so hooked on superfast driving and crashing video games that he is terrified what they will not be able to distinguish between fantacy and reality in a real car.

Just anoter point of view that I had not considered.

Hopefully the driving test would prevent such people from passing.

I'm hooked on those games too, have been for years. Real life is diffirent. I've played GTA, doesnt mean im gonna go round shooting people and starting gang wars :lol:

I think most people can quite easily distinguish between video games and reality!

Driving a real car fast around a racetrack is heaps easier ;) :bleh:

[YellowDog]

I like GTA too :)

[Tink]

Without reading the WHOLE thread.... put them all in cars that have no power... .like a 250cc motorbike,... they should not legally be allowed to own a high powered car till there 40... you know the age when we all want something.... and can afford it, and are going thru a mid life crisis. But in reality .... I am sick of idiots in cars or bikes that can't shave or reach the pedals that overtake me doing 20km plus over the 110km police catchment. Putting the age up is not the answer, but a start. I started driving at 16 on a full licence... in the country... on the motorways, with a english intructor, touch wood no accidents.

[JimO]

Without reading the WHOLE thread.... put them all in cars that have no power... .like a 250cc motorbike,... they should not legally be allowed to own a high powered car till there 40... you know the age when we all want something.... and can afford it, and are going thru a mid life crisis. But in reality .... I am sick of idiots in cars or bikes that can't shave or reach the pedals that overtake me doing 20km plus over the 110km police catchment. Putting the age up is not the answer, but a start. I started driving at 16 on a full licence... in the country... on the motorways, with a english intructor, touch wood no accidents.

well there is 250s then there is 250s

[Ixion]

well there is 250s then there is 250s

Yes, but the only two stroke car is the Trabant !

[Swoop]

... I insisted on professional training so that I didn't pass on my bad habits. (Should I have any, that is.) Professionally run courses should be compulsory along with Defensive Driving etc.
This scares me in some ways. I have seen MANY instances where the driving school car is sitting in the centre lane of the motorway, dawdling along with the student driving.
Do they not teach "Keep left" any more?

It appears as if some driving instructors are passing on their bad habits as well.

[EJK]

18 seems alright. Just in time for teritary education/ apprenticeship/ or internship.

[YellowDog]

18 seems alright. Just in time for teritary education/ apprenticeship/ or internship.

18 is the legal age of full responsibility as an adult in the eyes of the law.

Sort of makes sense!

[peasea]

This scares me in some ways. I have seen MANY instances where the driving school car is sitting in the centre lane of the motorway, dawdling along with the student driving.
Do they not teach "Keep left" any more?

It appears as if some driving instructors are passing on their bad habits as well.

That IS scary. However, from the feedback my daughter gave me about the things she was being taught I thought she must have had a good instructor. Some training is surely better than none though., considering the instructors MUST be at a certain (respectable) level to be in their chosen field.

[Coldrider]

Yes, but the only two stroke car is the Trabant !and the only other is a suzuki fronte

[scumdog]

Yes, but the only two stroke car is the Trabant !

Apart from them 3 cylinder Suzukis....Oops, somebody has mentioned them!

[Dave Lobster]

they should not legally be allowed to own a high powered car till there 40...

They're 40.

[huff3r]

Yes, but the only two stroke car is the Trabant !

Yeah, but then there's those 1300 "wankel (/er?)" engines those queer folk at Mazda produce as well ;)
Not to mention those 600kg cars where it don't matter how big the engine is, they're quick anyway!

[Ixion]

That's easily solved . There aren't any rotary bikes any more so rotary engines can be banned. Sorted