New driver licencing (as suggested by a biker).

[Swoop]

Thank goodness Eric Thompson has the right idea!
Why isn't he the Minister of Transport?


Kiwis expert on how not to drive (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/motoring/news/article.cfm?c_id=9&objectid=10630049).

When listening to the government's big, earth shattering and momentous statement on how they're going to resolve the problem of young driver deaths, an advert came to mind. "Well McCain, you've done it again."

The incumbent rulers of this country had the best chance in lord knows how long to rip up the current driving licence legislation and deliver something really worthwhile. But oh no. All we got was a soggy chip, namby pamby, poke around the edge approach that will achieve nothing.

Yet again, an opportunity to actually fix something has been put in too hard basket. I have now come to the conclusion that to become a politician, not only is there a requirement to have a slightly wonky moral compass, but you also have to be neutered before heading to Wellington. Tinkering with a problem only highlights how inefficient the lawmakers are.

I have been lucky enough to have lived, and driven, in many countries over many years and New Zealanders are by far the very worst of drivers. I'm not singling women, old people or boy racers out - I'm tarring you all with the same brush.

I'm not overly surprised really. Why on worth a 15-year-old would be allowed to be in charge of a tonne of killing machine I have no idea. They can barely string two words together coherently, let alone navigate a road at 100km/h.

Passing a test here is a joke. To be allowed to drive on a public road at 15, all you have to do is pass a multi-guess test and away you go. After a bit you get a restricted licence, which really restricts nothing, and after a drive with an instructor you're handed a full license. If you think that's bad, right from day one the 15-year-old can go out and buy some nutter-bastard, turbochanged rocket ship and be allowed to use it in public.

Before someone comments about how I've got it wrong, I've yet to see Joe Averages' car with dual controls in it for the required learner/restricted driver's fully-licenced passenger to take over when junior stuffs up.

Over the years I have been on two Institute of Advanced Motorists course in Europe, a skid pan course, two defensive driving courses, the AA Driver training course, and a BMW level two driving instructing course.

I'm also an ex-motorcycle racer and have had lessons from V8 Supercar and Porsche GT3 Cup drivers. I still don't think I've totally got the hang of driving yet. I treat all other cars on the road as if they're great white sharks and I'm swimming naked in the ocean with them with a cut on my leg.

Maybe that's why I've never had an accident in 30-plus years -but I've seen some doozies.

I think arrogance and an over-inflated belief in one's driving abilities are to blame through a lack of training.

An example. Recently I had a meeting in Ponsonby and lucked on a parking space just off the main road. I pulled in and as I was getting out, noticed the driver of the car in front was getting into their car.

I offered to reverse back to give her more room. The reply was not to bother as she had been driving in the city for years and could get out of the space easily.

I got out and locked the driver's door but had forgotten to get my brief case out. I went around to passenger door and as I went to put my key in the door, my car moved about three feet backwards and the key ended up scratching the door. The driver in the car in front had fired straight back into my front bumper. After much graunching of the gearbox, the woman found first and roared off without a word, leaving me dumb struck on the pavement.

That attitude to driving just about sums it all up to me - can't drive.

What Stephen Joyce should have tabled was -

• The test before you get in a car is NOT multi guess, it has to have written answers.

• Raising the driving age to 17 for a learner's plate and then only for a car up to 1300cc. And the driver must have had at least three driving lessons from a qualified driving instructor before they are allowed to actually drive the car.

• To get a restricted licence the driver must show proof of at least one defensive driving lessons from an approved training organisation over a minimum 12 months prior.

• If any traffic infringement occurs during that 12 months the driver starts from day one again.

• Full licence granted only after being assessed by a traffic officer sitting in the car during a test.

• Only on gaining a full licence, can the driver buy any car they want.

• Compulsory third party insurance for everyone.

Introduce the above and two things will happen. Boy racers will almost disappear and road deaths will be significantly reduced.

I'll tell you how sad it is that nothing ever changes with New Zealand's inability to look at the bigger picture.

I was listening to a certain radio talkback show and the host, who on occasion has prided himself on looking at the big picture, was banging on about the change to the turning left rule.

Talk about naval gazing and counting the amount of fluff in there.

Who cares about turning rules, they're small change compared to the overall standard of driving skill. What should have been being discussed, was the lost opportunity of improving driving standards for a whole new generation.

By Eric Thompson.

[avgas]

I wonder if the lady who backed into his car had her full. I noticed he did no state.
Just some food for thought. Presumption can be a mother-fucker some times.
I have ridden with few so called 'racers' on some group rides. And sometimes the talk is not worth the walk - other times they have been the nicest people to ride with.
I am safe through my own eyes. I am unsure on others perspectives of me. However I can only guarantee myself. Sounds like Eric (whom I imagine got his license in the age of when they were the an 'option' with a new BSA) is trying to change the world.
I truly hope he succeeds - but human nature doesn't work that way.

[porky]

Nice work Eric. Unlike you i had to kiss the tarmac to knock some sense into me. However i dis agree on one point and that is the turning rule. Yes it is a relatively small issue but highlights a bigger problem. It changed in 1977, so most of us grew up with this rule. If people lack the mental capacity to follow, and understand what is a simple rule, what are they doing behind the wheel????? How many other simple rules do they not understand???? Why do we continue to have issues with filtering/ lane splitting, when if people understood the concept of keeping to the left, this would simply be an overtaking manouvre. I think that maybe we expect to much from a learner driver in that we lump together the skills required to pilot a lethal weapon around in a public place with the "law and rules" to take that said weapon into that enviroment. The big tick is as you said the multi guess sheet, followed by a quick blast round the block. Once obtained it is the licence to create havoc, once youve got it its yours for life. Maybe we need to ask if it should mandatory to upskill prior to the renewal of the "lifetime licence". i too did the advanced rider programme, but for all the wrong reasons. It fast tracked me on to a bigger bike without the other restrictions. Not a smart move. If you are young and stupid, it merely assists in helping you to push those limits further. Any way my thoughts based on my experiences, and i accept others will have a different spin on things. A positive out of this is that at least this Govt is attempting to move forward. Have they got it right? Only time will tell.

[swbarnett]

A positive out of this is that at least this Govt is attempting to move forward.
Movement for movement's sake is a very dangerous thing.

[Genie]

I'm just wondering if you could add on.....

Driver Education in Schools......like you say these young 15 year old get in the car on their own and the ony instruction the majority have had is with mum or dad. Don't think mum or dad would be that qualified (I know I'm not) to be able to equip this ditzy young thing with the right skills to handle everyday situations on the road, let alone if they get into trouble.

[FJRider]

AND ... if was added, that if you lose your licence ... even for 3 months, you have to RESIT it again ... from day ONE ... ATTITUDES MAY CHANGE ...

[davereid]

• Compulsory third party insurance for everyone.

Some good ideas in there, but not that one.

NZ has it pretty good with third party insurance. Id suggest we dont mess with it. Heres why:

1) Our third party insurance rates (the number of people who insure) are as high as countries where it is compulsory.
2) Our third party insurance prices are very very cheap compared to countries where it is compulsory.
3) NZ third party insurance actually gives you first party cover as well. That is to say, if you have an accident, and its the other chaps fault, your insurer will repair your car. (So, as long as you are insured, who gives a toss about the other guy.)
4) Because of (3) NZ third party cover is great. But if we make 3rd party cover compulsory, you can be assured that specialist 3rd party insurance companies will arrive that won't play the knock-for-knock game. You will lose the cover you had under (3) and you will have to fight the other chaps dodgy american third party specialist insurer for a payout.
5) You will need to buy first party cover, just to stand still.
6) Specialist third party insurers will fight every claim. For example, even if the other fellow is convicted of an illegal right turn, they will argue that you should have been able to stop in half the distance of clear road, and that you were therefore responsible for your own crash.
7) Even if the boyracer that knocks you off your bike is licensed, registered, and has a WOF when he knocks you off, specialist insurers will decline cover if they can. They will seek to prove that the boyracer was over the legal driving limit, was outside the terms of his licence because of the time of night, or the passengers in his car etc.

It will be a sad day when we get compulsory third party insurance.

[Spearfish]

Nothing wrong with 15-17 year old riding an Aprilia RS250 is there?

Wobbling round cones at 20kph gives a young rider all the road craft they need to safely navigate Auckland traffic at the 4pm-7pm pub rush on Fridays, anyway as the Green party said, raising the driving age isnt fair on the good kids and because the frontal lobe isn't developed you cant really blame them them for riding/driving badly in fact its probably unfair to charge them at all....
I know sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.....

[Hawkeye]

It should also be compulsary that Motorbike questions are standard for ALL drivers taking tests. Why should car drivers only learn the road rules that apply to them and totally ignore the rules for other road users.

[Ixion]

Same reason as we don't have to learn the rules that are specific to trucks.

[Slyer]

Some good ideas in there, but not that one.

NZ has it pretty good with third party insurance. Id suggest we dont mess with it. Heres why:

1) Our third party insurance rates (the number of people who insure) are as high as countries where it is compulsory.
2) Our third party insurance prices are very very cheap compared to countries where it is compulsory.
3) NZ third party insurance actually gives you first party cover as well. That is to say, if you have an accident, and its the other chaps fault, your insurer will repair your car. (So, as long as you are insured, who gives a toss about the other guy.)
4) Because of (3) NZ third party cover is great. But if we make 3rd party cover compulsory, you can be assured that specialist 3rd party insurance companies will arrive that won't play the knock-for-knock game. You will lose the cover you had under (3) and you will have to fight the other chaps dodgy american third party specialist insurer for a payout.
5) You will need to buy first party cover, just to stand still.
6) Specialist third party insurers will fight every claim. For example, even if the other fellow is convicted of an illegal right turn, they will argue that you should have been able to stop in half the distance of clear road, and that you were therefore responsible for your own crash.
7) Even if the boyracer that knocks you off your bike is licensed, registered, and has a WOF when he knocks you off, specialist insurers will decline cover if they can. They will seek to prove that the boyracer was over the legal driving limit, was outside the terms of his licence because of the time of night, or the passengers in his car etc.

It will be a sad day when we get compulsory third party insurance.
All very good points. You've changed my mind on this issue.

[motor_mayhem]

Thank goodness Eric Thompson has the right idea!
Why isn't he the Minister of Transport?


Kiwis expert on how not to drive (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/motoring/news/article.cfm?c_id=9&objectid=10630049).



Funny thing is I gather the road toll was as bad years ago yet I didn't hear Eric Thompson or any of these politicians crying that the test is too easy and they should raise the standard. Perhaps because when a harsher system is not going to affect them personally well then it's fine to "clamp down on these renegade youngsters". Wow Eric, you've had no crashes, I am sure vehicle population density, how much time you've spent on the roads, and in what circumstances you drove/rode, particularly in your early years are not relevant to a clean record at all which is why you haven't mentioned them. I wonder if Eric Thompson or anyone else would be jumping up and down about this would be willing to have their licence revoked and go through this new system (if it comes in) as a testament to prove how good it is.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for extra driver education, but I think some of the raves I have read recently, about what hoops young drivers should have to jump through, are a bit hypocritical considering how easy the system was when said ravers were getting their licence and the govt then saw fit to allow them to have one then.

[Ixion]

That's a fair point. but there are other considerations. Years ago, cars were slower. A LOT slower. My first car was flat out at 50mph, and you better not keep flogging it like that for more than a few minutes. Not so much ability to end up in a high speed crash

Then again, young people just did not own cars. Out of twenty or so mates when I was a teenager, amybe one owned a car. We had to borrow dad's .

Which had an effect of sort of pushing up the effective driving age. You had to be in your twenties before you could afford your own car (and even then, it would be crazy slow by today's standards)

So, yes, the test was as easy, or easier, back in the day. But the risk factor for young people was a lot lower. Want to own a fast car at 18? Then you need to be a better driver than I was , puttering along at 45 mph in dad's Hillman 10.

[allycatz]

i'd like to see 'R' plates after 'L' plates

[CookMySock]

Ugh, thats just a big angry rant about nothing. After reading the first paragraph, I thought there would be some useful contribution, but all that followed was an angry dump.

Typical fucking media windup bullshit.

Steve

[grusomhat]

i'd like to see 'R' plates after 'L' plates

I really hoping you are kidding.

[motor_mayhem]

That's a fair point. but there are other considerations. Years ago, cars were slower. A LOT slower. My first car was flat out at 50mph, and you better not keep flogging it like that for more than a few minutes. Not so much ability to end up in a high speed crash

Then again, young people just did not own cars. Out of twenty or so mates when I was a teenager, amybe one owned a car. We had to borrow dad's .

Which had an effect of sort of pushing up the effective driving age. You had to be in your twenties before you could afford your own car (and even then, it would be crazy slow by today's standards)

So, yes, the test was as easy, or easier, back in the day. But the risk factor for young people was a lot lower. Want to own a fast car at 18? Then you need to be a better driver than I was , puttering along at 45 mph in dad's Hillman 10.

So given all that, why are we not restricting the types of cars young people can own? It seems to have solved this issue then so why can't it now?

[allycatz]

I really hoping you are kidding.

Actually no Im not....theres a lot of teen fatalities from kids driving passengers while on restricted licences and carrying passengers when they shouldn't be. It would also identify people on the roads after 10.30 who are breaking the terms of there licence.

[Ixion]

So given all that, why are we not restricting the types of cars young people can own? It seems to have solved this issue then so why can't it now?

The proposal has been made on numerous occasions (same sort of deal as bikes). They're considering it again. Don't hold your breath. Yes, it would be a better solution. I doubt that putting the age up one year will do anything . Except of course produce a blip in the one year when there are bugger all new drivers- which will be taken as evidence that it works. Not going to be good to be a driving instructor that year.

[Thaeos]

I agree with the idea of the points made at the end of the op, except for limiting cars by CC rating. There should be a more effective or realistic measure of power that is used.

[Cayman911]

The main thing that is the cause of crashes and road rage is the way you are tested for your licence. restricted&full.

they dont test if you have any skills driving a car, if you can satisfy them you can follow the road rules for 10mins (90% of the time 5 mins) then you have a licence. its all about driving and road law. not skills and confidence.

then you go swerving all over the lanes at 40k's and pull in front of bikers and all sorta things.

and the driver will never get the confidence so i end up with a little hatchback covered in hello kitty stickers going 30km/h swerving in front of me no matter how much i am constantly holding my horn until i am rammed outa my lane!
(sorry, little burst of anger. had to keep it PG rated)

[Swoop]

It would be nice to see ALL drivers re-tested to a new set of rules, not just the new applicants.

[Spearfish]

Imagine if the proposed new power weight ratios applied to mopeds... they would go from from 2kw to 11kw!! and learners could be riding burger 650s or Yamaha Tmax 500 ? (I know they are scooters)

Would some bikes get close to failing the power weight limit if the fairings and extras were taken off or could you get a larger bike approved with extra weight added, for example permanent luggage systems for touring?

[avgas]

Since you lot think the current scheme doesn't work. Lets just scrap it.
I mean its clearly useless, why bother with it.
I would be surprised to see the figures of accidents if we had no law. It may not be as bad as we think - since we are all so much better drivers than the next guy. We are like god on wheels - the light shines out of both our headlights and arses.

Seriously why bother changing the license - there will still be dumb fucks out there driving illegally. It wont change shit.

[biker baz]

Now I carry pen & paper in my pocket & when parking write the car rego before leaving. I also check the rego sticker in the windscreen just in case the mfrs have stolen plates. A compact digital camera is handy too if the mobile dosn't have a camera.
No I am not paranoid or anal. Recently I parked the bike outside a shop. Four spaces, two used so stopped on the space closest to the shop door. Go inside, hear a crash. Spaced out pimple face knocked the bike over & the handlebars hit the car next to the bike right on the seam between the rear panel & the bumper.
The double dipping sob was not insured & did a runner when the insurance coy tried to nail them for the repairs. Mine cost $4000. Hard to believe, but I was sent the invoice by mistake.
Net result was $1000 excess & premium jacked up. The things that happen when you ain't got a gun.
Two other times recently the parked bike has been hit but not knocked over. Recently at Ngatea a yokel in a ute with a farm bike on the back nearly creamed the bike when trying to park.
If I do buy a gun I promise I will not shoot to kill. The plan is to aim at the right knee & the recoil places the bullet in the vicinity of the nasty bits so I am told. Just another way of reducing the population of inbred & feeble minded. Cheaper than road kill or drugs.

[Icemaestro]

Just to put this into perspective, I've talked to a few people here in the states, and here (at least in the states these people are from, california I think?) one is allowed to learn how to drive at 15 and a half after a theory test, which for half a year they can drive with a driver over the age of 21 in their car. At 16 they're then allowed to sit their full licence test, which involves exactly the same things as ours. Though from what these people are telling me, one person here passed without being able to do a U-turn properly.

I personally think some people take a lot longer than others to be able to drive, some never really get it at all. I personally, while not an expert, consider myself a safe driver, with no accidents (so far, knock on wood), and only one speeding ticket (for 61 down a hill). I have driven a manual car all my life, and for the first 4-5 months of my learner period, all I did with my father was work on clutch control, identifying hazards, emergency braking, and driving around the unitec car park (in that order).

Some people I notice, are barely able to drive and notice what is going on at the same time. Even in an automatic. So maybe it's the ability to multitask that affects the ability of some people to drive a car? I know of people who learnt to drive in a rural area who confess to not being confident in driving in auckland motorway traffic because there are simply too many things happening at once. This one person in particular now only drives automatic vehicles because of it, she realised her ability to multitask simply wasn't up to driving a manual vehicle and paying attention to so many things around her...

just my observations.

[davebullet]

Same reason as we don't have to learn the rules that are specific to trucks.

But... if all road users had an appreciation of the things a truck just cannot do (ie. stop on a dime) - we'd give the guys some more room and not cut in front of them "since the dumb trucker left such a gap in peak hour traffic"

I would add...
* Re-test every 5 years. Road rules and practical.

[R-Soul]

Some good ideas in there, but not that one.

NZ has it pretty good with third party insurance. Id suggest we dont mess with it. Heres why:

1) Our third party insurance rates (the number of people who insure) are as high as countries where it is compulsory.
2) Our third party insurance prices are very very cheap compared to countries where it is compulsory.
3) NZ third party insurance actually gives you first party cover as well. That is to say, if you have an accident, and its the other chaps fault, your insurer will repair your car. (So, as long as you are insured, who gives a toss about the other guy.)
4) Because of (3) NZ third party cover is great. But if we make 3rd party cover compulsory, you can be assured that specialist 3rd party insurance companies will arrive that won't play the knock-for-knock game. You will lose the cover you had under (3) and you will have to fight the other chaps dodgy american third party specialist insurer for a payout.
5) You will need to buy first party cover, just to stand still.
6) Specialist third party insurers will fight every claim. For example, even if the other fellow is convicted of an illegal right turn, they will argue that you should have been able to stop in half the distance of clear road, and that you were therefore responsible for your own crash.
7) Even if the boyracer that knocks you off your bike is licensed, registered, and has a WOF when he knocks you off, specialist insurers will decline cover if they can. They will seek to prove that the boyracer was over the legal driving limit, was outside the terms of his licence because of the time of night, or the passengers in his car etc.

It will be a sad day when we get compulsory third party insurance.

Re 1) clearly it is not, because there are people driving around with NO insurance.
Re 2) There will be (slightly) more demand, sure, but there will be more competition for it.
Re 3) that IS actually what third party does- cover the thrid parties car (i.e. not the insurer or the insured)....
Re 4) See three - it IS thrid party insurance
Re 5) WTF is "first party" cover? exactly? No such thing exists. You only get comprehensive, fire and accident, etc. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about...
Re 6) Yes they muight fight every claim -but at least you will have an insurer, with money, that CAN pay you, to deal with, and an insurance ombudsman to keep them honest - much better than dealing witha bludger on the dole with no money, no way to get it, and no insurance.
Re 7) see 6) above.

Compulsory 3rd party is defnitely worthwhile.

[R-Soul]

There would be undue hardships on a poor family that di dnot have a 1300cc car and the learner could only drive up to 130cc.

How about making new drivers/riders do community service for five nights in hospital car/bike accident wards?