Licence tests - is this shonky or what

[Ixion]

A couple of recent threads raised some interesting questions about the testing process.

So, being the bolshie sort of bastard that I am, I rang LTSA (or whatever they're calling themselves now). They were polite, and helpful in response to direct questions, but didn't want to volunteer anything.

But,I did find out several interesting things.

I asked what quality control procedures they ahd for checking on the quality of the testers. Response was that LTSA mostly leave it up to the supervisors from NZDL, who actually employ the testers. But LTSA do sometimes send out someone to audit the supervisors and , randomly, but I had the impression, not often, to audit an actual test, by sitting in the car while the test is done.

Now, firstly, this is pretty useless . Because a dodgy tester is obviously going to be on "good behaviour" while being audited. Nor is there apparently any specific qualification for the auditors.

BUT - even more dodgy. THEY DON'T DO IT AT ALL FOR MOTORCYCLE TESTERS. I asked why and he waffled about not being able to actually be on the bike with the rider (I suspect it's just because there aren't so many of them and they can't be bothered).

So there is NO quality control whatsoever for motorcycle licensing testing.

AND - he also said that the tester doing a motorcycle test MUST have a motorcycle license! (Explained that this is because they don't have a warrant , as the MoT used to).

Now my impression is that it seems unlikely that they all do ? I grilled him a bit on this and he wriggled a lot . Does any one know anything about this ?

Interestingly also, the company who is responsible for this (and purportedly supervising all this) is VERY anonymous. They call themselves NZDL , New Zealand Driver Licensing. But they're not in any New Zealnd phone directory. I tracked them down through the companies office, as DRIVER TESTING SERVICES (NZ) LIMITED or NZ DRIVER LICENSING (1998) LIMITED, their legal names. No NZ directory listings that I could find for either. Anyone know how to get in touch with them ?

He also claimed that NZDL were Telarc accredited. But I've just searched the accreditation register for all their various names , and there is no record of any of them being accredited.

They're hardly a big solid company either. Share capital is $6000. Company office was originally in Napier, then moved to Whakatane.

I did find this COMPLAINT FORM (http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/licensing/docs/blank-complaint-form.pdf) , but it still gives the Napier address, so it might not go anywhere if you tried to use it. It was on the LTSA site, NZDL don't have a website, and googling brings nothing up .

I'm going to check a bit further, and call LTSA back about the Telarc thing (VERY naughty to claim that if you're not), and also see if they have a contact .

I do have an address for NZDL.

88 The Strand Whakatane. PO Box 16 Whakatane.

Anyone live in or near Whakatane, can go check up on them ?

Then I think i may be writing a letter to the Minister. And maybe the press ? What d'y'all reckon ?

[vifferman]

Then I think i may be writing a letter to the Minister. And maybe the press ? What d'y'all reckon ?
Reckon.
It sounds very dodgy - I bet someone awarded the contract to them solely on the basis of being the lowest, or because whoever started the company was a "friend of a friend".

[Motu]

PUT THAT ROCK BACK! I see indistinct shapes scurrying sideways under hidden crevases,they don't want to be exposed.....look,what's that shadow behind you,is that an axe in it's hand?

It doesn't take much to look into these things,but no one bothers...keep up the good work,this has so many loose ends you might not be able to trace them back to the appropriate shoe.

[zadok]

Holy Roller lives out Whakatane way. Maybe he could check out that NZDL outfit. Seems a strange place to have a head office! No offence intended to any Whakataneites.

[bugjuice]

you could have found a small hole in the system there..
Isn't the government meant to be keeping tabs on all this? But then, who polices the police? where do you stop, and at the end of it all, who pulls the strings?

[Ixion]

Update: I found a copy of the contract between the Minsiter and LTSA. They are required to conduct 30 audits of driver testers per year. For the whole country, across all classes (LTSA have told me they only audit car testing) .

Measure is that 95% of audits show that tests are being conducted in compliance
with the LTSA’s Driver Testing Officers Manual.

(What is this manual, has anyone seen one, can we get one ?)

Incidentally, here are the LTSA targets for speed compliance (though the contract is up for renewal so they may be reduced. It also says "further work will be required to meet 2010 targets, which is ominous - what are these 2010 targets.)

Speed (open road) Mean Km/h 99
85th percentile Km/h 107
Speed (urban) Mean Km/h 55.2
85th percentile Km/h 61

Why the hell is BRONZ not doing this stuff.

[bugjuice]

Why the hell is BRONZ not doing this stuff.
cos you're doing it.. just make sure the report is in by the end of the day..

[spiller]

hmmm... (06) 8341952

They seem to be NZDL. Have you spoken to them?

[justsomeguy]

Top efforts here Les, I really think a letter to the approriate press person is definitely in line.:yes:

Big Dave you have anything to add to this matter or Lou or one of the cops here?? As you guys sorta know about the legal aspects of the biking world.....???

JSG

[vifferman]

Measure is that 95% of audits show that tests are being conducted in compliance with the LTSA’s Driver Testing Officers Manual.
So, can we infer / extrapolate from that, that maybe 5% of drivers have been improperly tested? Assuming, of course, that the LTSA’s Driver Testing Officers Manual isn't complete and utter crapola.

[Lou Girardin]

NZDL is a kosher, but small company. They initially had the testing contract for all NZ when testing was privatised. They lost the contract for Taupo northwards, to the AA when photo licences were introduced. They are very experienced in driver testing and their initial training was very good. Most of the negative situations came about under the AA's watch. Unfortunately most of their staff are ex-AA now.
A Testing Officer only needs a motorcycle licence if he conducts a test riding a motorcycle, if he follows in a car it's not needed. Because of the objective nature of the full test, the tester does not have to know anything about riding bikes. The applicant is scored on application of the road code and various hazard detection exercises. Equally the audit process relates to application of the testing process.
The auditing process is laughable. It consists of loosely monitoring each Officers pass rate in comparison to the average and occasional ride alongs. I had about 3 each year.
Sorry to disappoint the conspiracy theorists, but these guys aren't shady.
BTW What's the story with requiring a mean open road speed of 99 km/h? This is an admission that they're trying to create a de facto 80 km/h speed limit through fear.

[Ixion]

hmmm... (06) 8341952

They seem to be NZDL. Have you spoken to them?

Good one. Thanks, I'll check them out

[Ixion]

NZDL is a kosher, but small company. They initially had the testing contract for all NZ when testing was privatised. They lost the contract for Taupo northwards, to the AA when photo licences were introduced. They are very experienced in driver testing and their initial training was very good. Most of the negative situations came about under the AA's watch. Unfortunately most of their staff are ex-AA now.
A Testing Officer only needs a motorcycle licence if he conducts a test riding a motorcycle, if he follows in a car it's not needed. Because of the objective nature of the full test, the tester does not have to know anything about riding bikes. The applicant is scored on application of the road code and various hazard detection exercises. Equally the audit process relates to application of the testing process.
The auditing process is laughable. It consists of loosely monitoring each Officers pass rate in comparison to the average and occasional ride alongs. I had about 3 each year.
Sorry to disappoint the conspiracy theorists, but these guys aren't shady.
BTW What's the story with requiring a mean open road speed of 99 km/h? This is an admission that they're trying to create a de facto 80 km/h speed limit through fear.


Do you mean that in the North the testing is done by AA now ? Or did they lose it again? The LTSA contract with the Minister specifies only one Driver testing agent NZDL.

The LTSA guy (Noel) was very emphatic that they expected the tester to have a bike license. I initiated it by commenting that it seemed illogical that the tester should be passing judgement on a persons ability to drive a vehicle when he/she could not do so him/herself. Noel jumped in very quickly and said "No, they must have a motorcycle license". He elaborated that their requirement was that for ALL classes, the tester must have a licence for the class being tested. Perhaps it has changed recently ?

Not suggesting they're shady as in dishonest. But maybe the quality control process is lacking, it certainly seems to be.

Some of the comments from applicants imply they are assessed on more than road code and hazard detection . Eg, "leaning over too far". I don't see how a non motorcyclist can assess that.

[Lou Girardin]

Sorry Ixion, yes they did get the northern sector back after the AA stuffed it up.
When I joined NZDL the requirement was for car and truck/trailer licences only.
The reasoning is that you have to be able to return the vehicle to base if the driver is incapable. Obviously, on a bike test you can't do that anyway.
Don't rely too much on what the LTNZ minions say, these are the people that decided that Taxi applicants could use interpreters.

[Ixion]

So, can we infer / extrapolate from that, that maybe 5% of drivers have been improperly tested? Assuming, of course, that the LTSA’s Driver Testing Officers Manual isn't complete and utter crapola.

Not necessarily. They might be testing the drivers very well, but not in compliance with the manual. The manual may even be crap, and the tester doing a better job than the ones who go by the manual.

And no manual can really take the place of a good driver/rider doing the testing. I think (I may be worngA) that most of the testers are probably not particularly good rivers themselvs. They just know a process of "ticking things off". F'instance, they can tick off "looked in mirror". But did the driver actually SEE anything when he looked in the mirror?

[Ixion]

Sorry Ixion, yes they did get the northern sector back after the AA stuffed it up.
When I joined NZDL the requirement was for car and truck/trailer licences only.
The reasoning is that you have to be able to return the vehicle to base if the driver is incapable. Obviously, on a bike test you can't do that anyway.
Don't rely too much on what the LTNZ minions say, these are the people that decided that Taxi applicants could use interpreters.

Thanks. Though presumably on a bike test, if the rider was really bad, if the tester had a full bike licence he could ride the bike back with the applicant as pillion ?

Interesting point that. If a person is sitting a restricted-> full car test, he is already licensed to drive on the road. Even if he makes a total stuff up of the test, the testing officer can't forbid him to drive. And, as he has already passed the restricted he must be capable at least of basic driving - he can cause the car to move. If it's a learner->restricted, is different cos the learner must have a licensed passenger, and has not yet passed any practical test, so might be totally incapable of driving.

But, a bike is different. The learner has already passed a test , the BHS , that car learners don't have to pass. And accordingly is permitted to drive unaccompanied, and must (should anyway) have the basic skills to do so.

Which I suspect would be the logic behind the "Don't need bike license." In a car, the tester might find that the applicant cannot physically handle the car enough to get back. A bike applicant, in theory, that should never happen cos they've passed the BHS.

[vifferman]

I reckon we should add "I may be worngA" to the official KB lexicon, with those perennial favourites, "gargre", "communte", "sprot" et alia. But do we add the whole phrase, or just the important bit, "worngA" ?

But I think we'll leave "the testers are probably not particularly good rivers" out for the time being.

Oh pharke - it's "carrot o'clock", and I haven't got my headphones on yet. Oh the horror! The humanity! (This is the time of day when NearestAnnoyingDweeboid adopts BunnyMode and crunches on a large carrot. It's all I can do to not tell him it's going in the wrong orofice...)

Yes, I'm a GrumpyOldePharte, but I haven't had any tablets (no, not even those made from dried frog foreskins) since yesterday morning. Or maybe I'm just worngA.

[Ixion]

hmmm... (06) 8341952

They seem to be NZDL. Have you spoken to them?

Good stuff. that is them, They promise a ManWithAnswers will call back.

EDIT UPDATE. The ManWithAnswers called back. A Mr Jeoff Brose or similar. Very concerned that I was not the press - almost paranoid. Assured him I was not. He says :

No, not all their testers that do motorcycles tests have motorcycle licenses. He considers it is not required. I will go back to Noel@LTSA with that. Commented that "many of our testers do have motorcycle licenses"

They randomly audit each TESTER every 3 months. Very vague about whether any of the audits would be on motorycle tests (in fairness, given the ratio of motorcycle to car tests , a random choice would make a motorcycle audit very rare indeed.)

He went on at some length about the two way radio thing they are bringing in.

He claims they ARE ISO900 accredited. I didn't push that at this stage, I'll check a bit further to make sure of my facts before I dispute it. (Trouble is people can SAY "We're ISO9000 " - doesn''t mean they've sat the ISO test - and not sitting doesn't mean they're not good )

(He is in Auckland. but their administrative HQ is in Napier. And the company office is in Whakatane. How odd)

[Lou Girardin]

Thanks. Though presumably on a bike test, if the rider was really bad, if the tester had a full bike licence he could ride the bike back with the applicant as pillion ?

Interesting point that. If a person is sitting a restricted-> full car test, he is already licensed to drive on the road. Even if he makes a total stuff up of the test, the testing officer can't forbid him to drive. And, as he has already passed the restricted he must be capable at least of basic driving - he can cause the car to move. If it's a learner->restricted, is different cos the learner must have a licensed passenger, and has not yet passed any practical test, so might be totally incapable of driving.

But, a bike is different. The learner has already passed a test , the BHS , that car learners don't have to pass. And accordingly is permitted to drive unaccompanied, and must (should anyway) have the basic skills to do so.

Which I suspect would be the logic behind the "Don't need bike license." In a car, the tester might find that the applicant cannot physically handle the car enough to get back. A bike applicant, in theory, that should never happen cos they've passed the BHS.


I wouldn't leave my car to pillion a failure back to base.
The instructor really only takes over when the learners failure was dangerous. I did it maybe 6 times in two years. He can't forbid him to drive. When the cops were testing, they could do all that and issue a ticket. The learner can refuse to let him drive, but that would be very counter-productive in terms of future tests.
With a bike test, there really is nothing the tester can do, except stop the rider, tell him he's failed and it's up to him if he rides away.

[Jantar]

....No, not all their testers that do motorcycles tests have motorcycle licenses. He considers it is not required....

I'm about due to have my BFR for my pilots licence. That's effectively where I have to retake my practical flight test every two years. Now, I wonder if I can find a tester who isn't a licenced pilot to test me. :whistle:

[raster]

Speaking of LTSA:

Went into AA to book License test, can't do without form filled out etc. goto LTSA.

Went to LTSA in Mt wellington, No. can't do it without Form filled out and all things complete!

Hop on the web type in drivers lisence No. book test with a choice of different times and places and pay with credit card.

Is that wanky or not :weird:

[Waylander]

Quik question about the theory test for full lisences.

Are they multiple choice or written answere or a combination?

The answere to that will determin how hard I study for it.

[raster]

Quik question about the theory test for full lisences.

Are they multiple choice or written answere or a combination?

The answere to that will determin how hard I study for it.

When you looking at doing your full.

[Waylander]

When you looking at doing your full.
Monday, only have to take the theory test.

[Ixion]

Quik question about the theory test for full lisences.

Are they multiple choice or written answere or a combination?

The answere to that will determin how hard I study for it.

Multiple choice. The questions (but not the answers) are in the road code

[Waylander]

Multiple choice. The questions (but not the answers) are in the road code
Right then, quik scan of each road code the on sunday to prepare me for monday. Just like I did for my bike lisence back in Dallas.:whistle: Thanks guys.

[raster]

Good on ya mate, they gave me a car theory to do the bike.
One example, How far forward of the drivers seat are you allowed something to stick, I said 3 Metres and got 100%.

I'm sure that's relevent to motorcycle.

[Waylander]

Good on ya mate, they gave me a car theory to do the bike.
One example, How far forward of the drivers seat are you allowed something to stick, I said 3 Metres and got 100%.

I'm sure that's relevent to motorcycle.
How far forward of the drivers seat are you allowed something to stick??

Care to explain that question? Are you talking about like decrative stuff or something different all together?

[raster]

I think it's to do with transporting stuff, I thort i the most stupid question I have ever had.
What is the drivers seat got to do with the front of the vehicle.

[Waylander]

I think it's to do with transporting stuff, I thort i the most stupid question I have ever had.
What is the drivers seat got to do with the front of the vehicle.
Oh as in if you have something strapped to the roof, it can hang over the front of the car by three meters. I know what you mean now. Something I will probably never use even when driving a car but hey they have to cover all the bases don't they.

[raster]

Considering the bonet of my mercedes is about 3 meters long, that doesn't leave much overhang, They gave me the car test instead of the bike test :weird: :weird:

I'm doing my full practical on Friday morning. Please wish me luck as I may have Louise.(the witch) for my practical. :mad:

[Waylander]

Considering the bonet of my mercedes is about 3 meters long, that doesn't leave much overhang, They gave me the car test instead of the bike test :weird: :weird:

I'm doing my full practical on Friday morning. Please wish me luck as I may have Louise.(the witch) for my practical. :mad:

Lol good luck with it. Just ride all nana like and over exadurate (did I spell that right?) everything. Turning your head, stopping, and so on.

[raster]

Yea Thats what I did wrong on my first attempt at restricted, I reakon I could beat old iron maden this time though. I think I 'm pretty gooood. :rofl:

[Waylander]

Yea Thats what I did wrong on my first attempt at restricted, I reakon I could beat old iron maden this time though. I think I 'm pretty gooood. :rofl:
Lol everyone thinks they are pretty good. Doesn't matter what you think though, it matters what the tester thinks. Atleast till the test is over and you have your pass then you can tell the tester to get stuffed lol.

[raster]

Just got to prove it now aye.

[Lou Girardin]

I think it's to do with transporting stuff, I thort i the most stupid question I have ever had.
What is the drivers seat got to do with the front of the vehicle.

When someone with 5 metres of pipe sticks a metre of it through the back of your helmet you may, for a nanosecond, think the rule was a good one.
Can you post a photo of the Merc with a 3 metre bonnet?

[raster]

When someone with 5 metres of pipe sticks a metre of it through the back of your helmet you may, for a nanosecond, think the rule was a good one.
Can you post a photo of the Merc with a 3 metre bonnet?

I'll have to measure it from the drivers seat one day, not tonight.
I don't think I would want to drive a hiace van with 3 metres of pole sticking out the front.

[Ixion]

When someone with 5 metres of pipe sticks a metre of it through the back of your helmet you may, for a nanosecond, think the rule was a good one.
Can you post a photo of the Merc with a 3 metre bonnet?

I've seen that Merc, and paced the distance. At least 2.5 metres, may be three. It's a honking big muvva.

[Lou Girardin]

I've seen that Merc, and paced the distance. At least 2.5 metres, may be three. It's a honking big muvva.

What model? 600 Pullman?

[placidfemme]

Just back to the original topic... You said that the testers have to have a bike license (and then that they didn't have to have one) to test a rider... The lady that took my test didn't have her license... well not that I know of anyway, when checking the bike over she didn't even know where to find the horn...

I think it's important that testers hold a license for the type of tests they do. It's like an English teacher marking a math teachers papers because the math teacher is sick... sure they have the answers but how do they know it's been worked out right... the student might have copied the answers off the kids next to him/her... but because the English teach only has (knows) the answers then they won't pick up on this.

I know a lot of people complain that the license system is a pain in the butt... and yes it is... but at the same time it is still very important as peoples lives are at risk if a driver/rider is given the right to be on the roads (or has thier restrictions taken away) when they are not ready for it...

Also at the same time, if the tester is a cager and they are following a biker they may not be aware of certain dangers and/or techniques used for motorcycling... therefore failing a rider, or passing a rider for the wrong reasons...

This is a standard that should be kept, and if it's not a standard (which it doesn't seem to be) it should be put into place. I would rather pay a slightly higher fee, or have to wait for a slot to fit in with the "few" qualified bike testers, and have an actual biker (or at least someone who holds a bike license) take my test than some arrogant cager who knows nothing about what they are testing me for.

[justsomeguy]

Just back to the original topic... You said that the testers have to have a bike license (and then that they didn't have to have one) to test a rider... The lady that took my test didn't have her license... well not that I know of anyway, when checking the bike over she didn't even know where to find the horn...

I think it's important that testers hold a license for the type of tests they do. It's like an English teacher marking a math teachers papers because the math teacher is sick... sure they have the answers but how do they know it's been worked out right... the student might have copied the answers off the kids next to him/her... but because the English teach only has (knows) the answers then they won't pick up on this.

I know a lot of people complain that the license system is a pain in the butt... and yes it is... but at the same time it is still very important as peoples lives are at risk if a driver/rider is given the right to be on the roads (or has thier restrictions taken away) when they are not ready for it...

Also at the same time, if the tester is a cager and they are following a biker they may not be aware of certain dangers and/or techniques used for motorcycling... therefore failing a rider, or passing a rider for the wrong reasons...

This is a standard that should be kept, and if it's not a standard (which it doesn't seem to be) it should be put into place. I would rather pay a slightly higher fee, or have to wait for a slot to fit in with the "few" qualified bike testers, and have an actual biker (or at least someone who holds a bike license) take my test than some arrogant cager who knows nothing about what they are testing me for.

Next time make sure you ask for a tester who has a bike license.

I believe one of the reasons I failed my restricted was cos that *itch knew nothing about bikes.....

Two days later I had a tester that had a full bike license and passed easily.

[placidfemme]

Next time make sure you ask for a tester who has a bike license.

I believe one of the reasons I failed my restricted was cos that *itch knew nothing about bikes.....

Two days later I had a tester that had a full bike license and passed easily.

Oh don't get me wrong... I had no problems with the lady that took me. She was bubbly and friendly and gave me good directions, and I passed (My Restricted) without any hitches...

But I still think that the tester should at least have a clue what they are on about...

[Ixion]

What model? 600 Pullman?

SE380 I think. It's in my gargre at the moment, I'll measure it tonight.

[raster]

SE380 I think. It's in my gargre at the moment, I'll measure it tonight.

3.8 Litre W126 1986 S class, measuring to front of drivers seat. It's not the limousine version, they are an extra foot longer, that would not fit in our gargre.
wouldn't mind a 600 pullman if I had a barn to store it.

[Lou Girardin]

I saw one being punted around Baypark when there was a track there. It gave a whole new meaning to the word understeer. Went OK though.

[Ixion]

SE380 I think. It's in my gargre at the moment, I'll measure it tonight.

2.6 mtr measured from a line level with the front of the front bumper to a line level with the driver's seat back.

[raster]

Watch out for this in your mirrors :eek:

*first attempt at attachment*

[Ixion]

Next time make sure you ask for a tester who has a bike license.

I believe one of the reasons I failed my restricted was cos that *itch knew nothing about bikes.....

Two days later I had a tester that had a full bike license and passed easily.

OK. I finally got this clarifed.

Original call to LTSA Mr Noel Woodley was insistent that a tester must always have a license for the vehicle being tested. The man from NZDL disagreed. Not so for motorcycles he said.

So today I called Mr Woodley back. He repeated the assertion "must have a license for the class being tested". Told him NZDL disagreed. "Um, ah, I'll check and get back to you".

He did get back, and NZDL are right. The testers have to be licensed for the class being tested for EVERY CLASS EXCEPT MOTORCYCLES.

So the person testing you for a motorcycle license does NOT have to have a motorcycle licence.

I asked him how a person who had never ridden a motorcycle could pass judgment on a motorcylists riding ability (not road code knowledge etc). He waffled and had no answer. He tried to argue that the test was "objective" and tested road code knowledge, which was license independant. I pointed out this was not so, and vehicle control was a part of the test. How can you meaningfully judge vehicle control on a type of vehicle that you have never yourself driven ?

And even if were so, the Road Code for motorcyclists has specific sections which differ from that for cars. If the tester does not hold a motorcycle licence there is no evidence that they know the motorcycle road code bits (ie the motorcycle theory test is different to the car one , and they have never sat the motorcycle theory test.)

So , in summary:

A motorcyclist taking the test may be failed by someone who has never ridden a motorcycle .

There is no effective quality control, on the testers as regards motorcycle tests (LTSA don't audit motorcycle testing, and NZDL cannot ever remember doing one).

Both these seem quite wrong to me. If you're going to tell me I don't know how to ride, I expect you to at least have ridden a bike .Once again, failing for a "road code" error, eg going through a stop sign is another matter. I'm talking about failure for "leaning over too far", "being too confident" and the like . And, from a road safety point of view, a rider could be quite incompetant , but in ways that a non motorcyclist would not notice.

So, when I get a spare moment, I shall send off a letter to the Minister.

(According to Mr Woodley, the tester for the Basic Handling Skills test DOES need to have a motorcycle license)

[Ixion]

By the by, Mr Woodley rambled several times about the CBTA testing program, and implied this was to be the way of the future. I pointed out that this program had a requirement that the person had to have held a cage license for two years first. He went very quiet.

Is this a sneaky scheme to try to prevent anyone getting a motorcycle license if they don't already have a cage license - i.e. they abolish the "normal" test and say everyone has to take the CBTA one. But you have to have a full cage license for two years first ?

I think I will fire a tactical shot across the Minister's bow on this one and see if I flush anything out. Good thing the Freedom of Information Act

[Eurygnomes]

Damn! Tried to give you Rep points Ix, with the comment "well done, Nancy Drew" but I have to spread 'em around a bit more first.

This is incredible. I'd actually liken it to male obstetricians though, "hello? Are you telling me how to have a baby, and what feels 'normal'? I don't think so...do you?"

(that was completely OT and irrelevant since I've never seen ANY obstetrician (medically speaking))

Do those of us on our Loser or Recently graduated plates have the option of asking when booking a test for a tester who DOES hold a class 6 licence (for more than 2 years - if they're going to be pedantic...so the hell am I)?

[Lou Girardin]

Excellent Ixion. With cretins like the denizens of LTNZ running road safety, is there any wonder that we do so poorly as drivers?
Your comment about CBTA mirrors what Monash are suggesting in Victoria, that bikers have to have a car licence first.
This is well worth following up, perhaps a call to TV3. They're hot on licence testing.

[Pixie]

I pointed out this was not so, and vehicle control was a part of the test. How can you meaningfully judge vehicle control on a type of vehicle that you have never yourself driven ?

)
I can see the tester's report....
"The subject showed no control of the vehicle at all,leaning all over the place as he negotiated the course" :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Pancakes]

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Italy have a policy of riding a low power scooter or bike for a few years before getting your car licence? I think a wandering friend might have said something to that effect. Would be a good idea if it's not a rule. I have cycle couriered and ridden (pedaled) for most of my life commuting 2 or 3 hours each day sometimes and you learn pretty quick to keep an eye out. Maybe car drivers would put their necks and mirrors to better use if they had the habit drilled into them from riding on two wheels?

[Damon]

I recently sat my full about a month ago, I’ve had my learners and restricted for about 10 years now and was a little paranoid that I may not be up on the play with recent rule changes and the like, so went out a bought a new road code, it’s all pretty much the same thank god, but I was expecting a theory test and there wasn’t one? Which I thought would have been a good idea, just to check I still knew the rules and all that, but that’s cool, one thing I did notice was in the back it described the practical test that I would have to do:

Part 1: Basic conformation ride test (approx 10 mins)
Part 2: Detecting and responding to riding hazards in built up areas (approx 15 mins)
Part 3: Detecting and responding to riding hazards in higher speed zones (approx 20 mins)

It goes into more detail about what is involved in each part and seems like there is a bit to cover and said as I finished each part the tester will ask me about the hazards and give feed back, all up it should take about an hour.

When I sat my test, the guy checked my licence, indicators and that the foot brake light worked and we were off, we went from Manukau, out to the airport and back, went through a couple sets of lights and around a round a bout and headed back, when we got back he told me I’d passed fine and then said “oh, and I’m meant to ask you about a couple of hazards you noticed along the way”, I fed him merging traffic and traffic from side streets and he signed the paper and I was off.
The test took 30 mins at most and I don’t think he had any idea what was going on, I was on a crappy ZZR that gave me the shits, it was so sketchy around corners it felt like it was going to fall over from under me and I was sure he was going to say I looked to un-easy, but nothing? 3 days later I was ridding a 1000cc VTR, personally, unless he noticed it was the bike or I looked heaps better than I thought, I would have been weary giving out a licence.

I’m no expert, but from someone that’s just done the test, I thought it was way too easy to legally be allowed to ride any bike I want?

[SuperDave]

AND - he also said that the tester doing a motorcycle test MUST have a motorcycle license! (Explained that this is because they don't have a warrant , as the MoT used to).

Now my impression is that it seems unlikely that they all do ? I grilled him a bit on this and he wriggled a lot . Does any one know anything about this ?


I reckon that's bullshit as the woman who followed me and 'tested' me for my restricted didn't know shit about bikes nor does she ride, so thus I have to assume she does not have a class 6 - unless it's possibly just a matter of ticking a box when applying to be a tester.

"If you would like a class 6 licence please tick the box and include and an additional $50 when submitting your application"

Some quality research you are doing into this! Keep it up and keep us posted.