Forced licence progression

[Scuba_Steve]

Well seems the Govt is going ahead with their money grabbing forced licence progression

"The Government is going to put 5 year time limits on people staying on a learner or restricted licence."

Me, I think it's the most retarded idea ever to try & force people to graduate especially if those people aren't capable (& don't give me no shit about "they'll fail the test then", look at the drivers out there!) This is just a pure money grab from the Govt I can't see any other "reason" for it.

I spent around 8yrs or so on a bike learners because the restricted was such a fucking waste of money it offered nothing but cost alot, I've also been sitting on a truck licence for a couple years, I don't need it for a job it is a personal choice to progress up the truck ladder but at the same time I don't have readily accessible trucks to just go get my licence with, so I just sit until the opportunity presents itself. I don't want to be forced to go hire a truck or lose my licence & have to redo a pointless overpriced multi-choice all over again just because the Govt wants more useless drivers & money :mad:

[nzmikey]

My missus has been sitting on her Restricted car licence for the past 8yrs ... has never needed to get her full & now it is a case of cant afford to get it due to the cost :brick:

[bluninja]

In the UK it's 2 years on the learners or you lose it. FFS if people aren't competent enough to pass their test in 5 years they deserve it taken away for a while. Why let them be allowed to carry on driving, as an accident waiting to happen If they are bucking the system to save some pennies then, boohoo, too bad, they changed the system.

I think it's shite that you can do a multi choice theory test and then be allowed out on the road in charge of a vehicle. Or just sit for 6 months and then sit the restricted test. The graduated system is supposed to allow people to gain experience as they move up, rather than just a series of delays.

I think all drivers, of all vehicels, should have to undergo and pass practical compulsory basic training by qualified instructors before being let loose on the road. I also think that people should have a practical restest periodically to make sure they can still drive 'properly'. Costs more, but I bet it's more effective at keeping everyone alive.

[Coolz]

Five years is a very generous amount of time for people to gain the skills and save the money to progress to their next class of licence. People put themselves through university, appreticeships to gain much higher, harder to achieve qualifications in less time.

[red mermaid]

Actually its got more to do with unlicensed drivers getting a learners licence and then sitting on that forever and a day.

Therefore when caught, if they ever do, they get a ticket for breach of learners, instead of getting forbidden to drive as an unlicenced driver.

By sitting on a learners it means they have passed a theory test but there actual driving skills have never been tested, and we all know how bad that is with the amount of whinging on KB about driver training, or lack of it.

If I could be bothered I'm sure I would find a post by Scuba Steve lamenting this fact, and stating more driver training is needed.

[nzmikey]

In the UK it's 2 years on the learners or you lose it. FFS if people aren't competent enough to pass their test in 5 years they deserve it taken away for a while. Why let them be allowed to carry on driving, as an accident waiting to happen If they are bucking the system to save some pennies then, boohoo, too bad, they changed the system.

I think it's shite that you can do a multi choice theory test and then be allowed out on the road in charge of a vehicle. Or just sit for 6 months and then sit the restricted test. The graduated system is supposed to allow people to gain experience as they move up, rather than just a series of delays.

I think all drivers, of all vehicels, should have to undergo and pass practical compulsory basic training by qualified instructors before being let loose on the road. I also think that people should have a practical restest periodically to make sure they can still drive 'properly'. Costs more, but I bet it's more effective at keeping everyone alive.



Why does my wife NEED the full licence ? She has been driving long enough to know the rules she is a safe driver & has the correct skills, at 10pm her driving ability does not go to shit all of a sudden so why the need to give the gooberment $111
??

[Coolz]

Why does my wife NEED the full licence ? She has been driving long enough to know the rules she is a safe driver & has the correct skills, at 10pm her driving ability does not go to shit all of a sudden so why the need to give the gooberment $111
??

She needs to be accessed as being competant otherwise the whole system is pointless. Much like the reason you would take your bike to a qualified mechanic rather than the guy who has just been doing it for a while.

[Scuba_Steve]

She needs to be accessed as being competant otherwise the whole system is pointless. Much like the reason you would take your bike to a qualified mechanic rather than the guy who has just been doing it for a while.

But the system IS pointless, we run a "have money? here's a licence" system, ability to drive is optional.
As for the mechanic... I'm alright with the "guy who has been doing it for awhile" hell I'm even alright with me, the guy who has done it shit all.

[nzmikey]

She needs to be accessed as being competant otherwise the whole system is pointless. Much like the reason you would take your bike to a qualified mechanic rather than the guy who has just been doing it for a while.

Yeah that argument is kinda of invalid, 8 years... if you cant figure out how to drive after that then get the fuck off the road .

& Yeah I do the work on my bike not a shop

[Headbanger]

I'm concerned about sharing the road with someone who having never proven their competent just assumes it.

[avgas]

laziness is not a virtue I would like to see in motorists. force them to upgrade.

[davereid]

Sadly learners don't pass even if they have the necessary skills because they are failed to a quota.

The NZTA has given the lucrative driver license testing contract to a monoploy company called NZ Driver Licensing (1998) Limited. You can't sit your test with anyone else, its an exclusive deal.

But NZ Driver Licensing has been caught out, with a memo requiring testers to fail 2/3 of applicants.

This makes the company exra revenues of $650,000 a year.

Source : http://www.nzherald.co.nz/motoring/news/article.cfm?c_id=9&objectid=10837379

A memo leaked to the Herald on Sunday reveals testers have been told to pass around 40 per cent of candidates, or face the consequences. The arithmetic isn't hard: that means failing 60 per cent.

Now, there are clear, legal guidelines around what qualifies as a pass or a fail. Do the indicators and brake lights work? Can the candidate turn right at a T-junction, giving way to one lane of oncoming traffic? Do they maintain a safe following distance? There are dozens of boxes they must tick.

Nowhere in the legislation does it say pass rates should be scaled up or down to ensure most candidates fail.

Even parents are getting frustrated. One Hamilton father told this paper how he watched his two sons fail three times each, despite a driving instructor assuring them they were ready.

Is it a coincidence that each time NZ Driver Licensing fails a young driver, the company can charge them $88 to resit the test - and that the 7397 resits forced on candidates since tough new standards were introduced in February have garnered the company more than $650,000?

Arbitrary scaling was phased out of high school examinations 25 years ago, because the community realised it was unfair to treat children as rats in a statistical laboratory. We shouldn't let some avaricious testing contractor bring it back, just because we're scared to let our kids grow

[bluninja]

Why does my wife NEED the full licence ? She has been driving long enough to know the rules she is a safe driver & has the correct skills, at 10pm her driving ability does not go to shit all of a sudden so why the need to give the gooberment $111
??

Simple. Having a license is a privilege not a right. Had she gone through the progression (lets assume she is a competent driver) she would have experience of driving in (mostly) daylight, then she would be assessed, get a tick in the box, and then after some more experience she would add night time driving avoiding drunks and half asleep drivers of family filled vans to the list of experiences.

Perhaps it would be simpler if people paid all their licensing fees up front, then there would be no reason to stay on learners or restricted longer than necessary.

I was fortunate I spent 6 months, with once a week driving lessons, and passed my cage test; I took a compulsory training course for my bike and was assessed before going onto the road and then passing my bike practical a short time later. It cost a lot, and I earned bugger all at the time, but it helped me become the conceited driving/riding prick I am today :rolleyes:

[davereid]

Simple. Having a license is a privilege not a right.

Actually its a right, its defined as such in law.

ANYONE who meets the criteria, pays the fee and passes the test can get a licence.

A privilege is something that is extended to a select few, and is simply not available even if you meet all the criteria.

[skippa1]

Why does my wife NEED the full licence ? She has been driving long enough to know the rules she is a safe driver & has the correct skills, at 10pm her driving ability does not go to shit all of a sudden so why the need to give the gooberment $111
??

What a load of fuckin toss pottery. The assessment of her skill level is made by her ( her qualification to assess herself being that she has passed a learners licence) and you (your assessment qualifications being that you have passed a full drivers licence I assume that you have) so therefore going by your summary of your combined skills, you two must be as qualified as a driver testing agent.

yeah ok

[skippa1]

I'm concerned about sharing the road with someone who having never proven their competent just assumes it.
yep

laziness is not a virtue I would like to see in motorists. force them to upgrade.
and yep

[Zedder]

Well seems the Govt is going ahead with their money grabbing forced licence progression

"The Government is going to put 5 year time limits on people staying on a learner or restricted licence."

Me, I think it's the most retarded idea ever to try & force people to graduate especially if those people aren't capable (& don't give me no shit about "they'll fail the test then", look at the drivers out there!) This is just a pure money grab from the Govt I can't see any other "reason" for it.

I spent around 8yrs or so on a bike learners because the restricted was such a fucking waste of money it offered nothing but cost alot, I've also been sitting on a truck licence for a couple years, I don't need it for a job it is a personal choice to progress up the truck ladder but at the same time I don't have readily accessible trucks to just go get my licence with, so I just sit until the opportunity presents itself. I don't want to be forced to go hire a truck or lose my licence & have to redo a pointless overpriced multi-choice all over again just because the Govt wants more useless drivers & money :mad:

A while back before all the new graduated licencing Scube, there used to be just a provisional one which lasted 30 days. The idea being you were meant to "learn more" before going to a full. From memory you could roll it over a few times but then lost it if you didn't get a full licence.

However, there wasn't the huge emphasis on Gubbermint gaining money from everything in those days unlike now. Also, things were obviously not driven by ACC etc.

If you take the money grubbing by tptb out of the equation though, 5 years is a long time to get licenced.

[bluninja]

Actually its a right, its defined as such in law.

ANYONE who meets the criteria, pays the fee and passes the test can get a licence.

A privilege is something that is extended to a select few, and is simply not available even if you meet all the criteria.

I disagree entirely. If we had the right to drive there would be no license requirement. But because driving is a privilege (a grant to an individual, corporation, etc., of a special right or immunity, under certain conditions. ) then you must become licensed and pass the requirements defined in law.

I have the right to free speech, therefore I can say and post utter bollox without the requirement for accreditation, certification, or a license. I realise it would be useful if people speaking in public were competent and qualified to speak, but that's rights for ya.

[davereid]

I disagree entirely. If we had the right to drive there would be no license requirement. But because driving is a privilege (a grant to an individual, corporation, etc., of a special right or immunity, under certain conditions. ) then you must become licesnes and pass the requirements defined in law.

I have the right to free speech, therefore I can say and post utter bollox without the requirement for accreditation, certification, or a license. I realise it would be useful if people speaking in public were competent and qualified to speak, but that's rights for ya.

A license makes legal that which would otherwise be illegal.

The way it is allocated is the determiner of right of privilege, not the fact that a license exists.

If you meet the criteria you have the RIGHT to have a drivers licence.
You can't be denied it just because you aren't part of an elite.

Although it seems that NZ Driver Licensing consider it a privilege. Even if you pass the test they will fail you 2/3rds of the time.

[bluninja]

A license makes legal that which would otherwise be illegal.

The way it is allocated is the determiner of right of privilege, not the fact that a license exists.

If you meet the criteria you have the RIGHT to have a drivers licence.
You can't be denied it just because you aren't part of an elite.

Although it seems that NZ Driver Licensing consider it a privilege. Even if you pass the test they will fail you 2/3rds of the time.

That makes it a privilege; it is a the granting of a special right under certain conditions. QED
Also, as a right it cannot be taken away. Thus speeding, DIC, could not remove your right to drive. However if you have the privilege to drive via the licensed driver system then that privilege may be removed as you no longer meet certain conditions.

On a philosophical note, I think it's the attitude that driving is a right, rather than a privilege to be earned, that makes many people think that costs involved in training and assessments, and continuous improvement are money grabbing and not worth it = crap drivers = more accidents.

[Gremlin]

Want to drive on the roads? Then follow the rules that others have to (as said, it's a priviledge not a right)... Learners is a theory test only and then you're on the road. Plenty ignore the conditions and who knows what they are like?

Now uh, that said, I've had my car learners since late 2005 I think. Restricted is booked mid Feb. Why? Well, I figured since I was in the AA for my bike restricted I may as well do the car learners to get that done, then time could tick away and I would practise when the opporunity arose. Fast forward to end of 2012, I figured I really should get on with it and had barely driven (still probably haven't done 1000km in a car yet). In contrast, I've clocked up more than 250,000km on bikes. Since I rode, there was never really a need for a car licence, and I never owned a car either to practise with. Also probably a bit of laziness, as I was riding instead.

I'm for the rules, I want a skilled driving population in NZ.

The curious thing has been trying to get to grips with cars over the last couple of months. Smooth steering (can't just lean and the bike flops into the corner), throttle control with a foot used to using a back brake, and probably the hardest, knowing the dimensions of the 4 wheeled contraption for parking...

[pzkpfw]

Maybe they should just have more restrictions on the non-full licenses? (To stop them being "attractive").

Who's for a 70 k/h limit?

[p.dath]

...But NZ Driver Licensing has been caught out, with a memo requiring testers to fail 2/3 of applicants...

Wow. I say Wow again. I find that very surprising.

So it is not a test of merit at all.

[wharekura]

This is all null and void. Fork out a few bucks and get a Maori Drivers License. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=46b_1245548514

Anyway - I had my learners for 20 years until last year when I finally went through the new regime and obtained my 6F.

[Flip]

Complete your drivers licence or loose it. IMHO five years is long enough. I don't want to share the road with any learners.

[Headbanger]

Heh, I got my learners bike license a couple weeks back.

Its only been 2 decades.

next bike is to be a tad lame.

[GTRMAN]

A license makes legal that which would otherwise be illegal.

The way it is allocated is the determiner of right of privilege, not the fact that a license exists.

If you meet the criteria you have the RIGHT to have a drivers licence.
You can't be denied it just because you aren't part of an elite.

Although it seems that NZ Driver Licensing consider it a privilege. Even if you pass the test they will fail you 2/3rds of the time.

So how does that work? They fail you 2/3 of the time even if you pass??

Interesting that we have multiple threads around motorcycle safety etc and now we are debating whether or not you need a full licence??

You may well have the RIGHT to APPLY for a licence, but you must meet the requirements to OBTAIN that licence. Yes that means passing the tests. You are not denied because you are not on of the 'haves' you are denied because you have not met that standard.

Real change in the road toll comes from having a better standard of driving.

[Zedder]

NZ Herald article about the leaked quota memo:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10837402

[davereid]

So how does that work? They fail you 2/3 of the time even if you pass??


Yeah. NZ Driver Licencing Ltd is a private company granted a monopoly by the NZTA to do driver licence testing.

It has a written policy requiring testers to fail 60% of applicants.

[scumdog]

Yeah that argument is kinda of invalid, 8 years... if you cant figure out how to drive after that then get the fuck off the road .



Who says she's 'figured out how to drive'? or otherwise??

A lack of crashes is not proof of an individual driving capability...

[Swoop]

About fucking time.

Get this piece of shit country up to the 19th century in driving skills and stop pissing around pandering to the soft cocks who want to have a whine about it.

Excellent decision!

[Berg]

Actually its a right, its defined as such in law.

ANYONE who meets the criteria, pays the fee and passes the test can get a licence.

A privilege is something that is extended to a select few, and is simply not available even if you meet all the criteria.

Yep, anyone who meets the criteria and pays the fee and passes the test can get a licence BUT.......not everyone gets to keep it permanently.
Be aware, should you loose your licence for more than one month, you now have to apply to NZTA Driver Licencing to get it back. Guess what, they don't always give them back! I have been through several cases now of the licencing center saying "nope, they have proofed to be a risk to themselves and others therefore we refuse to return their licence (or in some cases certain classes of licence) for two years". Using NZ roads (even though they are often shithouse) is a privilege that we must prove we can be responsible enough to handle. I'm all for the "up skill or start again" and feel five years is plenty of time to get arse into gear.

[nzmikey]

What a load of fuckin toss pottery. The assessment of her skill level is made by her ( her qualification to assess herself being that she has passed a learners licence) and you (your assessment qualifications being that you have passed a full drivers licence I assume that you have) so therefore going by your summary of your combined skills, you two must be as qualified as a driver testing agent.

yeah ok

There is a chance that she could pass it 1st hit but it more of a case of meh cant be fucked paying for it we have other bills ... I also have more licences that I need to get, I have 1,2,6 but need 4 & 5 ( once again a fuck ton more money jumping hoops to be legal to drive )

[caseye]

Afraid of sitting a practical road test, is all I can attribute anyone sitting on a learners licence fro any thing longer than is necessary.
Therefore if they haven't passed their full by the now very generous time of 5 years, take it off them for good!
No more messing about get them off our roads and we will most definitely be safer for having done so.
For every learner on 5 years or more out there right now who do drive OK and don't have accidents there are literally hundreds who cannot drive worth a crock of shit, who do cause accidents and in many cases don't even know they've done so.
This is a logical and simple step to make our roads safer. Money grabbing? How? You have not yet progressed to a full licence, it still costs the same to do, so it's just that the many who know they won't pass are not taking the chance that they will be removed form the road if they fail.
Personally I feel that this is most appropriate and should be how it works.
Pass a Learners, drive/ride for prescribed time, go for restricted, same drive/ride for prescribed time, sit your full.
Pass,all well and good.
Fail, Licence revoked end of story!
Start again.
If they can't do it, do you really want to be on the same road as them? I don't!

[p.dath]

What a complicated web of ownership this company has (NZ DRIVER LICENSING (1998) LIMITED):
http://www.business.govt.nz/companies/app/ui/pages/companies/891892/shareholdings

[Scuba_Steve]

It amazes me the amount of people coming through talking like the licence has something to do with driving ability & then on other threads will go & complain about all the people who can't drive... You know those people have the same licences you people seem to think is a "proof" of driving ability right???
& those Taxi/Bus drivers, they have to get a special licence to drive those vehicles yet they are some of the worst most dangerous drivers on our roads... They alone are proof of just how "good" our licencing system is

[Akzle]

anything for which one can obtain a license must be fundamentally lawful.
would you deny anyone the right to travel? is that not a basic right?

the fact that they've legislated it to include terms and conditions is actually a benefit for those who do not hold a license - when you sign up for the license, you agree to the terms and conditions,
without the license, you're free to make up your own terms and conditions on how, where and when you travel.

they (courts et al) cannot say you are an "unlicensed driver" because you never signed the contract to be a licensed one.

plenty of 1Fs shouldn't be on the road.

why does a "graduated" system need more than two steps? 1) learn the theory and practice driving 2) able to drive.

money grabbing indeed. i think everyone should boycott the system. don't hold a license, don't carry one, don't offer it to policy enforcement when they ask you for one. without the support and consent of the masses they can make whatever rules they like.
i can make up a rule that everyone has to give me five bucks and a bag of chips on tuesdays or they're not allowed to shit. short of paying a gangfull of policy enforcement agents to hammer corks up your asses until payment is made, it means fuckall because it can't be enforced.

[Gremlin]

There is a chance that she could pass it 1st hit but it more of a case of meh cant be fucked paying for it we have other bills ...
Ok, from another point of view it means she should take it seriously, so instead of thinking... mmm, I reckon I should be up to scratch, you'd think, I'll read the documentation on the NZTA website which lays out the expectations and requirements for the test, and make sure I can competently undertake all components.

As users of the road, it is our personal responsibility to make sure we are competent, our vehicles are safe and we are able to interact with other road users with constructively and considerately. If you don't like these... terms and conditions... (I guess) then don't drive/ride on the road? I've read up on the NZTA website... it's about 45 pages for doing your restricted licence and I'll do some intensive practise (stuff like parallel parking) along with more general stuff.

Lets also remember that compared to other places like Europe, it's a hell of a lot more expensive to gain a licence (think thousands of dollars) with mandatory attendance of driving school etc. They can lose their licences more easily and they're harder to get back (and places like the UK don't have work licences). They value their licences a lot more...

[red mermaid]

If you read the whole article:
"There is no target and there is no quota," Furneaux said. "There is, however, an expectation that tests will be applied consistently across the country.

"New Zealand Driver Licensing has provided guidelines to all its branches for several years, stressing the need for consistency. They regularly look at the current overall national average pass rate and try to ensure regional variations over and above that national average stay broadly within a fairly wide band.

"This is so that a customer sitting a test in Northland or in Southland can expect a similar level of rigour to be applied in the application of the test."

He added: 'Well under 60 per cent of applicants are failing. The current pass rate is around 47 per cent."

It is not quite as Davidreid states.





Yeah. NZ Driver Licencing Ltd is a private company granted a monopoly by the NZTA to do driver licence testing.

It has a written policy requiring testers to fail 60% of applicants.

[Berg]

anything for which one can obtain a license must be fundamentally lawful.
would you deny anyone the right to travel? is that not a basic right?

the fact that they've legislated it to include terms and conditions is actually a benefit for those who do not hold a license - when you sign up for the license, you agree to the terms and conditions,
without the license, you're free to make up your own terms and conditions on how, where and when you travel.

they (courts et al) cannot say you are an "unlicensed driver" becase you never signed the contract to be a licensed one.

plenty of 1Fs shouldn't be on the road.

why does a "graduated" system need more than two steps? 1) learn the theory and practice driving 2) able to drive.

money grabbing indeed. i think everyone should boycott the system. don't hold a license, don't carry one, don't offer it to policy enforcement when they ask you for one. without the support and consent of the masses they can make whatever rules they like.
i can make up a rule that everyone has to give me five bucks and a bag of chips on tuesdays or they're not allowed to shit. short of paying a gangfull of policy enforcement agents to hammer corks up your asses until payment is made, it means fuckall because it can't be enforced.
:laugh:Fuck I'd like to see you in court. That would be my entertainment for a whole month

[red mermaid]

Classic case of "Do as I say, not as I do."


anything for which one can obtain a license must be fundamentally lawful.
would you deny anyone the right to travel? is that not a basic right?

the fact that they've legislated it to include terms and conditions is actually a benefit for those who do not hold a license - when you sign up for the license, you agree to the terms and conditions,
without the license, you're free to make up your own terms and conditions on how, where and when you travel.

they (courts et al) cannot say you are an "unlicensed driver" because you never signed the contract to be a licensed one.

plenty of 1Fs shouldn't be on the road.

why does a "graduated" system need more than two steps? 1) learn the theory and practice driving 2) able to drive.

money grabbing indeed. i think everyone should boycott the system. don't hold a license, don't carry one, don't offer it to policy enforcement when they ask you for one. without the support and consent of the masses they can make whatever rules they like.
i can make up a rule that everyone has to give me five bucks and a bag of chips on tuesdays or they're not allowed to shit. short of paying a gangfull of policy enforcement agents to hammer corks up your asses until payment is made, it means fuckall because it can't be enforced.

[davereid]

If you read the whole article:
"There is no target and there is no quota," Furneaux said. "There is, however, an expectation that tests will be applied consistently across the country.

"New Zealand Driver Licensing has provided guidelines to all its branches for several years, stressing the need for consistency. They regularly look at the current overall national average pass rate and try to ensure regional variations over and above that national average stay broadly within a fairly wide band.

"This is so that a customer sitting a test in Northland or in Southland can expect a similar level of rigour to be applied in the application of the test."

He added: 'Well under 60 per cent of applicants are failing. The current pass rate is around 47 per cent."

It is not quite as Davidreid states.

I know Jim. He is a nice guy.

But he doesn't understand standards based testing.

With standards based testing, there is not, and can not be, a predetermined failure rate.

Standards based testing can achieve a zero percent pass rate or a 100% pass rate. QA systems are designed to continuously improve the results of a standards based test.

The reality is, anyone who meets the standard should pass. Anyone who doesn't meet it should fail.

NZ driver licence testing were caught out, when a staff member released an internal memo, detailing a requirement to fail 60% of applicants. The NZTA didn't set a fail or pass rate, NZ driver licensing did.

Jim wouldn't have a clue what NZ Driver Licensing are setting as pass or fail rates, he doesn't work for them.

I note the Herald hasn't been sued or even had a rebuttal of the memo.

Jim quoted a pass rate as a snapshot in time.

IMHO if the memo had not been made public, the fail rate would be right on target, As its been made public, I think the outcome may be different, but the intent was clear.

Its also my opinion that P.Dath digs far enough into the company structure of NZ Driver license testing, he will find shareholders with a vested interest. Go for it Mr. Dath.

[Road kill]

Five years is still too long.

12 months is fair and anything beyond that is just a piss take by the lazy and stupid that none of us should be expected to share the roads with.

[Scuba_Steve]

If you read the whole article:
"There is no target and there is no quota," Furneaux said. "There is, however, an expectation that tests will be applied consistently across the country.

"New Zealand Driver Licensing has provided guidelines to all its branches for several years, stressing the need for consistency. They regularly look at the current overall national average pass rate and try to ensure regional variations over and above that national average stay broadly within a fairly wide band.

"This is so that a customer sitting a test in Northland or in Southland can expect a similar level of rigour to be applied in the application of the test."

He added: 'Well under 60 per cent of applicants are failing. The current pass rate is around 47 per cent."

It is not quite as Davidreid states.

"there is no quota" NZ police & police minister said for years, until one day... "oh yea there was a quota, but don't worry we got rid of it. It's called KPA's now"

I would say it's more towards as Davidreid/Herald says than not, especially given the fail/pass figures & how/why some people failed yet others far worse pass

[scumdog]

Woo-hoo, ANOTHER KB whinge-fest to the max!!:banana:

[scumdog]

"there is no quota" NZ police & police minister said for years, until one day... "oh yea there was a quota, but don't worry we got rid of it. It's called KPA's now"



Splittin' the pubes ScooberSchteve!!

As many have said: IF the potb said yep, there's a quota would people rabbit on as much??

NOOOooo, but they like moaning about semantics, - go the semantics, they're of paramount importance, oh yeah baby, we scree!!wed 'em but good, we PROVED there was a quota, we made a difference, oh yeah, we da man!!

[Scuba_Steve]

Something else to think about... This came up somewhere else on the same topic.
Some people get their licence simply for photo ID (as this is "essential" in todays world) they don't own a vehicle, might have no intention of ever getting one but use their licence as their much needed photo ID

[red mermaid]

That is not the intent of the document so its tough luck for them.


Something else to think about... This came up somewhere else on the same topic.
Some people get their licence simply for photo ID (as this is "essential" in todays world) they don't own a vehicle, might have no intention of ever getting one but use their licence as their much needed photo ID

[scumdog]

Something else to think about... This came up somewhere else on the same topic.
Some people get their licence simply for photo ID (as this is "essential" in todays world) they don't own a vehicle, might have no intention of ever getting one but use their licence as their much needed photo ID

Tell em to fuck off and get a 18+ card.

Problem solved!:banana:

[Scuba_Steve]

That is not the intent of the document so its tough luck for them.

Then what is the intent? cause from where I'm sitting ID is very much a licences modern day purpose


Tell em to fuck off and get a 18+ card.

Problem solved!:banana:

cept the 18+ card has limited use, do you boys allow it as ID even???

[red mermaid]

Its called a drivers licence so obviously the intent of the document is as a record of your drivers licence.

Quite simple really...Was that the problem for you?


Then what is the intent? cause from where I'm sitting ID is very much a licences modern day purpose



cept the 18+ card has limited use, do you boys allow it as ID even???

[Road kill]

Something else to think about... This came up somewhere else on the same topic.
Some people get their licence simply for photo ID (as this is "essential" in todays world) they don't own a vehicle, might have no intention of ever getting one but use their licence as their much needed photo ID

My first ID of choice is always my Firearms licence,,,,plus I mutter "Motherfucker" and give a nice smile as I hand it over.

Much like your first Post,,,you lack imagination,,,,loser !

[Road kill]

Its called a drivers licence so obviously the intent of the document is as a record of your drivers licence.

Quite simple really...Was that the problem for you?

Actually wanker steve has a point in that the photo licence/national photo ID was a trade off against the lowering of the drinking age at the time,,,,,so how's that worked out?:rolleyes:

Just another example of NZ's over all sell out political system.

[scumdog]

My first ID of choice is always my Firearms licence,,,,plus I mutter "Motherfucker" and give a nice smile as I hand it over.

Much like your first Post,,,you lack imagination,,,,loser !

'Cept it's not 'Official I.D." as far as the pubs go...frickin' queer as since the Firearms Licence is harder to get, go figure:wacko:.

[skippa1]

There is a chance that she could pass it 1st hit but it more of a case of meh cant be fucked paying for it we have other bills ... I also have more licences that I need to get, I have 1,2,6 but need 4 & 5 ( once again a fuck ton more money jumping hoops to be legal to drive )

well dont grizzle when she gets a ticket for driving without an appropriate licence, which will incidentally be a bigger waste of money than paying to get a licence:blink:

[Akzle]

:laugh:Fuck I'd like to see you in court. That would be my entertainment for a whole month
normally don't spend that long there. haven't been in a while (getting better at avoiding it). i'll invite you next time i get invited.


Classic case of "Do as I say, not as I do."
nono. most days i do not carry a license. it stays in a safe bolted to the floor at home. i happened to get some before i figured out the system was a crock of shit. (1R 6L if anyone cares) and when i had more cash than sense. most cops (outside auckland - auckland cops are dicks) are pretty good about it. either fuck off, or look it up on the computer (if i tell them that all important name.
this hurry-up will be good, because i'm waiting for it to expire anyway.

Some people get their licence simply for photo ID (as this is "essential" in todays world) they don't own a vehicle, might have no intention of ever getting one but use their licence as their much needed photo ID
yeah, 18+ card. NZ is one of the few countries where a driving license is accepted as defacto ID, most other places require passport etc.

cops have to accept anything with your name and birthdate as ID, i've also been told WINZ cards count as they're govt issued though afaik don't have that all important d.o.b

[scumdog]

cops have to accept anything with your name and birthdate as ID, i've also been told WINZ cards count as they're govt issued though afaik don't have that all important d.o.b


No they don't - and I don't.

[steve_t]

cops have to accept anything with your name and birthdate as ID, i've also been told WINZ cards count as they're govt issued though afaik don't have that all important d.o.b


Told by whom?

[bosslady]

Five years is a very generous amount of time for people to gain the skills and save the money to progress to their next class of licence. People put themselves through university, appreticeships to gain much higher, harder to achieve qualifications in less time.

agree


She needs to be accessed as being competant otherwise the whole system is pointless. Much like the reason you would take your bike to a qualified mechanic rather than the guy who has just been doing it for a while.

agree


I'm concerned about sharing the road with someone who having never proven their competent just assumes it.

agree



I really don't understand what there is to whinge about. Money? I had two kids to pay for, worked 55hr weeks, ate noodles, paid for my full, sure as fark didn't whinge about it. You can find the money if you try though it ain't always easy but you're pretty fucked in general if in 5 years you can't find that amount of dosh? If people want to be a part of our society and live in our country you got to abide by the rules and face the consequences if you don't. Let's face it though, it's less about the money and more about people being f*cking lazy. Get over it, save the money, get organised and make the time. Excuses, excuses...

p.s. not directed at anyone, just a general comment/thought

[scumdog]

I really don't understand what there is to whinge about. Money? I had two kids to pay for, worked 55hr weeks, ate noodles, paid for my restricted, sure as fark didn't whinge about it. You can find the money if you try though it ain't always easy but you're pretty fucked in general if in 5 years you can't find that amount of dosh? If people want to be a part of our society and live in our country you got to abide by the rules and face the consequences if you don't. Let's face it though, it's less about the money and more about people being f*cking lazy. Get over it, save the money, get organised and make the time. Excuses, excuses...

p.s. not directed at anyone, just a general comment/thought

"Must spread rep" blah-blah...

[FJRider]

Tell em to fuck off and get a 18+ card.

Problem solved!:banana:

But at 16 (now) they get photo ID. So shortsighted doormen at the clubs (that can't count) let them in.

Bar staff serve them 'cause the doormen let them in ... so they must be legit ..

[Zedder]

But at 16 (now) they get photo ID. So shortsighted doormen at the clubs (that can't count) let them in.

Bar staff serve them 'cause the doormen let them in ... so they must be legit ..

Nah FJR, it's the Gummint behind it all mate. They need the tax from the booze and they bribe the doormen to let punters in and also the bar staff to serve them.

Akzle told me so.

[FJRider]

Nah FJR, it's the Gummint behind it all mate. They need the tax from the booze and they bribe the doormen to let punters in and also the bar staff to serve them.

Akzle told me so.

Aaaahhhhh .. enlightenment.


Where would we be without Akzle ???

[scumdog]

Aaaahhhhh .. enlightenment.


Where would we be without Akzle ???

Akzaktly!;)

[Parlane]

Nah FJR, it's the Gummint behind it all mate. They need the tax from the booze and they bribe the doormen to let punters in and also the bar staff to serve them.

Akzle told me so.

Don't worry, they only let in 40% of the under-age drinkers.

[davereid]

Its called a drivers licence so obviously the intent of the document is as a record of your drivers licence.

Quite simple really...Was that the problem for you?

We already had a document that recorded our drivers licence. And it had your signature on it so you could prove you were you.

The photo drivers licence has an interesting history.

It was introduced a couple of years after Jenny Shipleys 'KiwiCard" ID card system was abandoned.

The Government and NZTA (Called LTSA then) were very embarrassed when Polariod announced they had the contract for NZ new ID Card system using the new polaroid system with 2D facial recognition.

Because it hadn't been mentioned publicly, after all we had only just bought and paid for our paper licences, and of course the kiwicard had been abandoned. But the new driver licence had all the features of the kiwicard, except a database to allow it to be shared inter-agency, had yet to be created.

By 1999 it was all over, in spite of the Privacy Commission calling it a universal ID card that will be demanded for every transaction, it got pushed through anyway. The AA didn't defend it, instead they got a contract to administer it.

The AA and LTSA/MOT were (are ?) very intertwined. Many AA Directors, and Management did time in MOT/NZTA and vice-versa so it was a predetermined outcome.


Once we got our shiny new licences, NZTA rolled out the database as originally designed for the kiwicard.

These systems called DLVS and DRIVERCHECK give access to the driver licence register to other government departments, banks, debt collectors etc.

It was purely an identity document. Even now over a dozen pieces of legislation refer to it as an identity document.

The next few years, it will quietly revert to a drivers licence, as the government has almost finished our new ID card system, "real me".

Decreasing the usage of the drivers license as ID is a necessary step in forcing people onto the "voluntary" real me system, and this proposal is a step in that direction, especially when considered in light of the new anti money laundering legislation which requires people to have approved ID for most transactions.

[scumdog]

We already had a document that recorded our drivers licence. And it had your signature on it so you could prove you were you.

The photo drivers licence has an interesting history.

It was introduced a couple of years after Jenny Shipleys 'KiwiCard" ID card system was abandoned.

The Government and NZTA (Called LTSA then) were very embarrassed when Polariod announced they had the contract for NZ new ID Card system using the new polaroid system with 2D facial recognition.

Because it hadn't been mentioned publicly, after all we had only just bought and paid for our paper licences, and of course the kiwicard had been abandoned. But the new driver licence had all the features of the kiwicard, except a database to allow it to be shared inter-agency, had yet to be created.

By 1999 it was all over, in spite of the Privacy Commission calling it a universal ID card that will be demanded for every transaction, it got pushed through anyway. The AA didn't defend it, instead they got a contract to administer it.

The AA and LTSA/MOT were (are ?) very intertwined. Many AA Directors, and Management did time in MOT/NZTA and vice-versa so it was a predetermined outcome.


Once we got our shiny new licences, NZTA rolled out the database as originally designed for the kiwicard.

These systems called DLVS and DRIVERCHECK give access to the driver licence register to other government departments, banks, debt collectors etc.

It was purely an identity document. Even now over a dozen pieces of legislation refer to it as an identity document.

The next few years, it will quietly revert to a drivers licence, as the government has almost finished our new ID card system, "real me".

Decreasing the usage of the drivers license as ID is a necessary step in forcing people onto the "voluntary" real me system, and this proposal is a step in that direction, especially when considered in light of the new anti money laundering legislation which requires people to have approved ID for most transactions.

How are the evil Govt going to cope with those that never bother to get a licence - or can't get one?
Or travel and constantly use an overseas one?

[AllanB]

Either I need a holiday or you are a knob.

Grow up and become a adult.

Fucking 8 years on a restricted ....... I supose you don't bother with warrents as you know better too?


Frankly with the shit driving in NZ we should all have to resit or do a refresher every 10 years. I'd bound to fail over some rule change I've missed in the past 30 years.

[Laava]

Boo frikken hoo! If you can't pass something so simple in 5yrs, don't drive!
How do you get by in the rest of life?

Not aimed at anyone in particular, just amazed that people are complaining about it being a time constraint.

[davereid]

How are the evil Govt going to cope with those that never bother to get a licence - or can't get one?
Or travel and constantly use an overseas one?

The "real me" ID card system. The driver licence was a ten year patch, and it has done its dash.

[red mermaid]

Oh there's a lamp post, quick I see a govt conspiracy behind it.

You mention driverchek and then make up a story about it telling the half truth to make it sound better.

Heres a half truth about...any business who wants to pay gets access.


We already had a document that recorded our drivers licence. And it had your signature on it so you could prove you were you.

The photo drivers licence has an interesting history.

It was introduced a couple of years after Jenny Shipleys 'KiwiCard" ID card system was abandoned.

The Government and NZTA (Called LTSA then) were very embarrassed when Polariod announced they had the contract for NZ new ID Card system using the new polaroid system with 2D facial recognition.

Because it hadn't been mentioned publicly, after all we had only just bought and paid for our paper licences, and of course the kiwicard had been abandoned. But the new driver licence had all the features of the kiwicard, except a database to allow it to be shared inter-agency, had yet to be created.

By 1999 it was all over, in spite of the Privacy Commission calling it a universal ID card that will be demanded for every transaction, it got pushed through anyway. The AA didn't defend it, instead they got a contract to administer it.

The AA and LTSA/MOT were (are ?) very intertwined. Many AA Directors, and Management did time in MOT/NZTA and vice-versa so it was a predetermined outcome.


Once we got our shiny new licences, NZTA rolled out the database as originally designed for the kiwicard.

These systems called DLVS and DRIVERCHECK give access to the driver licence register to other government departments, banks, debt collectors etc.

It was purely an identity document. Even now over a dozen pieces of legislation refer to it as an identity document.

The next few years, it will quietly revert to a drivers licence, as the government has almost finished our new ID card system, "real me".

Decreasing the usage of the drivers license as ID is a necessary step in forcing people onto the "voluntary" real me system, and this proposal is a step in that direction, especially when considered in light of the new anti money laundering legislation which requires people to have approved ID for most transactions.

[bogan]

Heres a half truth about...any business who wants to pay gets access.

Which only confirms it's a lot more than just a simple drivers license.

Though thats neither here nor there with regards to this topic as its government forcing people off the license, or to progress. Which is fine by me as the tests are far too easy anyway (fail quotas being a different issue).

Another point (I don't know if anyone has brought up) is the other classes, like HT (or to a lesser extent motorcycle), which take while to get, and need an uncommon vehicle type. Could imagine there would be a few people who start licensing a class like HT when they are working with them, then change jobs, but still keep their general roadcraft skills up to date; doesn't seem there should be any reason to revoke the work they have already done on getting a license. 5 years should be long enough, but I wouldn't be surprised if they bring it in at 5 years, then drop it back to 2 a few years down the track.

[FJRider]

How are the evil Govt going to cope with those that never bother to get a licence - or can't get one?
Or travel and constantly use an overseas one?

To issue a stand-alone New Zealand photo ID card to ALL citizens (School age and above is used overseas). With re-issue required in similar time frames to the drivers license. With a requirement for it to be carried at ALL times. Automatic arrest and/or heavy fines for those that don't carry it.

The more that flout the current system ... the more likely it will happen.

[red mermaid]

No it doesn't because I only told a half truth so it can therefore be twisted to mean anything you want, which you have so very kindly done.


Which only confirms it's a lot more than just a simple drivers license.

Though thats neither here nor there with regards to this topic as its government forcing people off the license, or to progress. Which is fine by me as the tests are far too easy anyway (fail quotas being a different issue).

Another point (I don't know if anyone has brought up) is the other classes, like HT (or to a lesser extent motorcycle), which take while to get, and need an uncommon vehicle type. Could imagine there would be a few people who start licensing a class like HT when they are working with them, then change jobs, but still keep their general roadcraft skills up to date; doesn't seem there should be any reason to revoke the work they have already done on getting a license. 5 years should be long enough, but I wouldn't be surprised if they bring it in at 5 years, then drop it back to 2 a few years down the track.

[bogan]

No it doesn't because I only told a half truth so it can therefore be twisted to mean anything you want, which you have so very kindly done.

Actually no, the truth is so obvious even half of it shows what it means. If the DL is use by more than just transport agencies as you have just said, then it is more than just license to operate a vehicle; pretty simple really. Whether that fact has any bearing on the current topic is less clear cut.

[caseye]

To issue a stand-alone New Zealand photo ID card to ALL citizens (School age and above is used overseas). With re-issue required in similar time frames to the drivers license. With a requirement for it to be carried at ALL times. Automatic arrest and/or heavy fines for those that don't carry it.

The more that flout the current system ... the more likely it will happen.


I'd flout it on principal FJ.
The notion that I must carry an exclusive Identity card is abhorrent to me in every sense.
Where do we live again? oh that's right Nazi NZ. fines and arrest for walking your own streets, no fucking way hos'e.
Now RM, Scummy,riddle me this, is it true that if asked to present your drivers licence you must do so , if of course you have earned the right to have one of those nice shiny things.
Further that if you have earned the right but have failed to have it on your person then the Police offiricer asking can either arrest you for failing to do so or have you fined for same.
This of course occurring on a footpath as you were quietly walking home, smashing car windows minding your own business.
Point being, I'm pretty sure that is the case, whether or not you are in control of a car or not at the time of being asked.
So FJ, you see, it's already here.
Issue each child at birth with a plastic card with sex, eye colour,address and or licences earned and the IRD's number burned into your forehead so each time you go past a facial recognition camera it can log your exact movements each and everyday.
Who wants this sort of shit?
Too late.

[red mermaid]

Nope still wrong because you are assuming instead of fact finding


Actually no, the truth is so obvious even half of it shows what it means. If the DL is use by more than just transport agencies as you have just said, then it is more than just license to operate a vehicle; pretty simple really. Whether that fact has any bearing on the current topic is less clear cut.

[bogan]

Nope still wrong because you are assuming instead of fact finding

Haha, now who's twisting things into half truths and whatnot. I'll make it even simpler for you:

Q: Is the DL used for more than just transport related things?
A: Yes (and this has been fact found)
Q: Is it also the primary form of identification in some non-transport related things?
A: again Yes (again this has been fact found)
Q: Is the DL just a simple license to operate a vehcile
A: No (see above)

I'd even suggest you probably would have asked people for their driver's license that hadn't even been driving.

[FJRider]

I'd flout it on principal FJ.
The notion that I must carry an exclusive Identity card is abhorrent to me in every sense.
Where do we live again? oh that's right Nazi NZ. fines and arrest for walking your own streets, no fucking way hos'e.
Now RM, Scummy,riddle me this, is it true that if asked to present your drivers licence you must do so , if of course you have earned the right to have one of those nice shiny things.
Further that if you have earned the right but have failed to have it on your person then the Police offiricer asking can either arrest you for failing to do so or have you fined for same.
This of course occurring on a footpath as you were quietly walking home, smashing car windows minding your own business.
Point being, I'm pretty sure that is the case, whether or not you are in control of a car or not at the time of being asked.
So FJ, you see, it's already here.
Issue each child at birth with a plastic card with sex, eye colour,address and or licences earned and the IRD's number burned into your forehead so each time you go past a facial recognition camera it can log your exact movements each and everyday.
Who wants this sort of shit?
Too late.

I'm not a cop ... but if you have a drivers license ... it must be carried at all times. If you are not driving at the time .... you can be asked if you have a drivers license (or other ID) to prove who you are.

If none is given ... you can be "detained" ... Fitting the description of/on suspicion of committing an offence ... until such time your identity Guilt/innocence can be ascertained.

Failing to provide the required information can lead to other charges. Including wasting Police time.
Attempting to pervert the course of justice is another favourite. As well as various obstruction charges ...

As I said ... the more that try to flout the current system ... the more likely it will happen. That simple.

[Ocean1]

As I said ... the more that try to flout the current system ... the more likely it will happen. That simple.

How does that work, then?

'Cause I reckon that any ID system is only much good if everyone's details are captured. There's been enough effort made in previous system implimentation to deny people the right to privacy to amply demonstrate that.

So, if enough people tell 'em to fuck off then the system simply won't work for them, will it? Which, in my book makes it much more likely that any system that's too invasive will simply fail and quietly do exactly as the people suggested.

In fact I'd go so far as to say that declining to jump through the required hoops to get a licence that gives anyone more access to your private life than you might like is more than ample reason to refrain from doing so.

Simple enought?

[scumdog]

Now RM, Scummy,riddle me this, is it true that if asked to present your drivers licence you must do so , if of course you have earned the right to have one of those nice shiny things.
Further that if you have earned the right but have failed to have it on your person then the Police offiricer asking can either arrest you for failing to do so or have you fined for same.
This of course occurring on a footpath as you were quietly walking home, smashing car windows minding your own business.
Point being, I'm pretty sure that is the case, whether or not you are in control of a car or not at the time of being asked.
So FJ, you see, it's already here.


You're so...so wrong....:rolleyes:

Or so...so..trolling. (I hope so!)

[scumdog]

Haha, now who's twisting things into half truths and whatnot. I'll make it even simpler for you:

Q: Is the DL used for more than just transport related things?
A: Yes (and this has been fact found)
Q: Is it also the primary form of identification in some non-transport related things?
A: again Yes (again this has been fact found)
Q: Is the DL just a simple license to operate a vehcile
A: No (see above)

I'd even suggest you probably would have asked people for their driver's license that hadn't even been driving.

True - but doesn't HAVE to be used for non-transport related things, it's a convenience thing, easier than carrying a passport. (Oh that's right, not EVERYBODY has a passport, sorta like not everybody has a NZ drivers licence)

Pubs use it for ID (nowt to do with transport)
Banks use it (nowt to do with transport)
etc etc

The only true bit is the last question.

Now go and don yer foil hat....

[Harry the Barstard]

Join the Military!

they gave me my 2L to 2 and 4L to 4,6R to 6,D and F all for free...... well kinda, theres ten years gone. Easy come easy go i suppose:confused:

[red mermaid]

You are assuming that those companies that pay for access thru driverchek are using it for other than transport related things.



Haha, now who's twisting things into half truths and whatnot. I'll make it even simpler for you:

Q: Is the DL used for more than just transport related things?
A: Yes (and this has been fact found)
Q: Is it also the primary form of identification in some non-transport related things?
A: again Yes (again this has been fact found)
Q: Is the DL just a simple license to operate a vehcile
A: No (see above)

I'd even suggest you probably would have asked people for their driver's license that hadn't even been driving.

[Akzle]

*freeman rant, scroll past now, you've been warned, and i've had bourbon.

No they don't - and I don't.
aren't you a yank? here in kiwiland, an policy enforcement officer needs to be "reasonably satisfied as to the identity of a person" (ish)
a person is a corporate fiction and has nothing to do with a living human, unless that living human accepts joinder to it. 99% of cops don't know this. 99% of cops don't understand why they ask the questions they do. it's all just "process".
if i don't have a "license to drive", does that mean i'm "not allowed to drive"?


Told by whom?
humans who operate unlicensed "vehicles" on "NZ roads" without a "driver's license"


Either I need a holiday or you are a knob.

Grow up and become a adult.

Fucking 8 years on a restricted ....... I supose you don't bother with warrents as you know better too?

Frankly with the shit driving in NZ we should all have to resit or do a refresher every 10 years. I'd bound to fail over some rule change I've missed in the past 30 years.
could be a bit of both, you'd certainly garner support for the latter 'round here. (was that directed at me?)

nono. the standards as they are today DO NOT ensure a (to my mind) reasonable level of competency. licnese them every month, it wont make a fuck of difference, 49% of people are blow average, add a vehicle to that equation and it seems to increase to 98%.

and no, i have not paid for warrants or registration in at least 6 years.



Further that if you have earned the right but have failed to have it on your person then the Police offiricer asking can either arrest you for failing to do so or have you fined for same.
This of course occurring on a footpath as you were quietly walking home, smashing car windows minding your own business.
Point being, I'm pretty sure that is the case, whether or not you are in control of a car or not at the time of being asked.


...Issue each child at birth with a plastic card with sex, eye colour,address and or licences earned and the IRD's number burned into your forehead so each time you go past a facial recognition camera it can log your exact movements each and everyday.
Who wants this sort of shit?
Too late.

1) this came about with the change from paper license to photo license, where they imposed a 50$ fine (which stands today, i believe) for not carrying the photo license.
if you had a paper license and weren't dumb enough to forfeit it, you're still LEGALLY entitled to "operate a motor vehicle on a [public] road"

2) the child is not issued, at birth, the child is registered at birth, (registration of live berth) much like a car, the corporate parents forfeit possession (of the corporate fiction/ capitus diminutio name)to the state, under all sorts of terms and conditions which they probably aren't aware of, once it's registered, it's issued a SIN, IRD# etc, which allows it to play the governments corporate game (commerce) of course, in playing the game, you accept the terms and conditions.

so tell me, does a living human child who has not been registered, have less rights than one that has?

also at birth they take a blood sample (DNA or living matter (the heel prick)) which your government kindly keeps on file. (unless you demand it back, in which case you get put on a special list of people)
i'm not entirely sure the extent of the whyfore of this, but it sums up slavery fairly well.

vive la revolution!

[scumdog]

[
aren't you a yank? here in kiwiland, an policy enforcement officer needs to be "reasonably satisfied as to the identity of a person" (ish)


ANOTHER incorrect assumption on KB - when will it ever end? :rolleyes:


Please, won't somebody think of the children??:(

[davereid]

I'd flout it on principal FJ.
The notion that I must carry an exclusive Identity card is abhorrent to me in every sense.
Where do we live again? oh that's right Nazi NZ. fines and arrest for walking your own streets, no fucking way hos'e.

Real Me is a virtual identity card. You don't have to carry it, its just accessed on demand (with your permission of course) any-time its required.

Your personal details, photo etc are stored by the DIA who release the details as requested by the agencies you are dealing with.

After the debacle of the original kiwicard, they never went back to the idea of making us carry an ID card. They saw the internet as the tool that meant you could have one, and not ever be faced with having to carry it.

So it can just be downloaded to a PC, smart phone etc by whoever requires to check your credentials.

Its being introduced as an online tool. I guess thats why they need your photo LOL.



Now RM, Scummy,riddle me this, is it true that if asked to present your drivers licence you must do so , if of course you have earned the right to have one of those nice shiny things.
Further that if you have earned the right but have failed to have it on your person then the Police offiricer asking can either arrest you for failing to do so or have you fined for same.
This of course occurring on a footpath as you were quietly walking home, smashing car windows minding your own business.
Point being, I'm pretty sure that is the case, whether or not you are in control of a car or not at the time of being asked.
So FJ, you see, it's already here.
Issue each child at birth with a plastic card with sex, eye colour,address and or licences earned and the IRD's number burned into your forehead so each time you go past a facial recognition camera it can log your exact movements each and everyday.
Who wants this sort of shit?
Too late.

Driver Licence can only be demanded for driver licensing related stuff.

Strictly speaking, it can't even be demanded for vehicle licensing.

But the Privacy Commissioner has authorised it for a wide range of non driving usage, including collection of the unique identifier.

And Acts from the Prostitute Act to Liquor Licensing use it as primary ID.

Try getting that next script of pain killers or a wide range of drugs without letting your pharmacy copy it.

Even the scrap metal man wants a copy of it.

[bogan]

True - but doesn't HAVE to be used for non-transport related things, it's a convenience thing, easier than carrying a passport. (Oh that's right, not EVERYBODY has a passport, sorta like not everybody has a NZ drivers licence)

Pubs use it for ID (nowt to do with transport)
Banks use it (nowt to do with transport)
etc etc

The only true bit is the last question.

Now go and don yer foil hat....

Well, if I was really worried about a lack of privacy, the tin foil hat would go on the router; google probably knows enough about me to start the cloning program any day now :whistle:


You are assuming that those companies that pay for access thru driverchek are using it for other than transport related things.

Well, most of the pubs I go to don't have wheels :bleh: And neither do the banks I go to, would be a bit of a security flaw I'd image :chase: The horse (or perhaps mermaid in this case) is dead son, let it lie.

[davereid]

You are assuming that those companies that pay for access thru driverchek are using it for other than transport related things.

They are. Biggest user of driver licence database is Vodaphone.

[FJRider]

Join the Military!



Yep ... free photo ID card.

Done ...

[scumdog]

They are. Biggest user of driver licence database is Vodaphone.

Cancel your licence!:bleh:

[scumdog]

Well, most of the pubs I go to don't have wheels :bleh: And neither do the banks I go to, would be a bit of a security flaw I'd image :chase: The horse (or perhaps mermaid in this case) is dead son, let it lie.

Well ya don't HAVE to use you licence for ID at the pub

Or the bank.

It's your choice to do so...

[Zedder]

I'm not a cop ... but if you have a drivers license ... it must be carried at all times. If you are not driving at the time .... you can be asked if you have a drivers license (or other ID) to prove who you are.

If none is given ... you can be "detained" ... Fitting the description of/on suspicion of committing an offence ... until such time your identity Guilt/innocence can be ascertained.

Failing to provide the required information can lead to other charges. Including wasting Police time.
Attempting to pervert the course of justice is another favourite. As well as various obstruction charges ...

As I said ... the more that try to flout the current system ... the more likely it will happen. That simple.

Some legal info on when you have to give police your ID or details etc:http://www.lawaccess.govt.nz/Chapter/police-powers/76-Police-Powers/3-Questioning

[bogan]

Well ya don't HAVE to use you licence for ID at the pub

Or the bank.

It's your choice to do so...

I tried choosing to use a silly beard hat once, they didn't go for it, though it made me look older and everything :rolleyes:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_wg2mnzIH9mI/TKutZ1TBW6I/AAAAAAAAHkQ/Syug06dQwzA/s1600/Funny_Beard_Head_Knit_Caps__14.jpg

[Road kill]

'Cept it's not 'Official I.D." as far as the pubs go...frickin' queer as since the Firearms Licence is harder to get, go figure:wacko:.

That's odd,,NZTA accept it an so does my bank,,,used it several times to make the ID points.

Not that it matters,I don't go to pubs or clubs anyway:mellow:

[Road kill]

The "real me" ID card system. The driver licence was a ten year patch, and it has done its dash.

We,,,all HT class holders contracted to the firm I work for have already been asked to provide information for a new Licence/ID class.

Those that have said "no thanks" have been told their contracts will not be renewed after March this year.

[Gremlin]

Simple... no ID card required. Chip people at birth...

Those in circulation (the people that is) get chipped as you catch/find them. :eek:

[Coolz]

Another point (I don't know if anyone has brought up) is the other classes, like HT (or to a lesser extent motorcycle), which take while to get, and need an uncommon vehicle type. Could imagine there would be a few people who start licensing a class like HT when they are working with them, then change jobs, but still keep their general roadcraft skills up to date; doesn't seem there should be any reason to revoke the work they have already done on getting a license. 5 years should be long enough, but I wouldn't be surprised if they bring it in at 5 years, then drop it back to 2 a few years down the track.[/QUOTE]

This has been in the pipeline for a while. I have been sitting on my 5l for a number of years and when I renewed my license in 2010 I noticed on the back of the new license along with the expiry date for my D and F classes was listed 5l expires 2020 at next renewal.

[Akzle]

ANOTHER incorrect assumption on KB - when will it ever end? :rolleyes:
nono. i said something relating to the useless sacks of shit we have for politzei in NZ, you said you were in america. unless that was a deliberately misleading comment.
( i was young, and naiive, OK? i didn't know any better, now i know you're you. lawdy it'll be a fun traffic stop when we meet.)

Well ya don't HAVE to use you licence for ID at the pub

Or the bank.

It's your choice to do so...

actually.. you DO need photo ID, try getting a bank account (or anything else) without it.
funny thing is, to GET a photo ID, you take paper ID (birth registration certificate, Citizenship certificate), they take a photo, you sign it, and BAM-> photo ID. go figure, your sig-nature creates the contract.

[Ocean1]

We,,,all HT class holders contracted to the firm I work for have already been asked to provide information for a new Licence/ID class.

Those that have said "no thanks" have been told their contracts will not be renewed after March this year.

Ask for that in writing.

[FJRider]

Ask for that in writing.

Why ... nothing illegal there.

It is just a condition of employment. Either the information they require is provided or they employ somebody else.

Those that refuse are free to find employment elsewhere.

[Zedder]

The Northern Advocate's version of the quota memo and new test including another rebuttal: http://www.northernadvocate.co.nz/news/new-test-baffles-learners/1701233/

[scumdog]

actually.. you DO need photo ID, try getting a bank account (or anything else) without it.
funny thing is, to GET a photo ID, you take paper ID (birth registration certificate, Citizenship certificate), they take a photo, you sign it, and BAM-> photo ID. go figure, your sig-nature creates the contract.



Still not a driver licence eh...

[FJRider]

How does that work, then?



Implementation of a personal ID card would be easy. But totally optional.

Step 1. Mandatory issue to all Government employees. In most cases it already is.

Step 2. Personal ID card required for any person requiring (and prior to) ANY Government departmental assistance.

Step 3. Personal ID card for those (prior to) appearing in court. (a large percentage of step 2.)

Step 3. Wait for the rest to apply for their personal ID card.

Simple ... eh .. !!!

[Road kill]

Ask for that in writing.

It was given in writing from day one,,,,what's your point ?

[Coolz]

The Northern Advocate's version of the quota memo and new test including another rebuttal: http://www.northernadvocate.co.nz/news/new-test-baffles-learners/1701233/

In the second paragraph of that article it states the national average is 59% failing the test. In the second to last paragraph NZTA spokesman Knackstedt says "The fact of the matter is that more than 50% are passing the test" Go figure?

[mhm]

interesting,read page one,skipped to page 7 and doesn't seem like I missed much. I've been on my learners coming up 12 years.only reason I haven't upgraded is because I haven't owned a bike for the past decade. doesn't mean I lost any of my skills.nor to say I haven't ridden other peoples bikes.those ranging from 50-1000cc. a licence holder simply has proven they've passed a test 1 day in the past.like with welding tickets you can pass one year fail the next by missing a slight inclusion,resit the next day and pass.its all here nor there. I will never judge a rider by the license they hold, I judge them by how they ride plain and simple,hell we all know riders with licenses that ride illegally

[FJRider]

Excuses ... excuses ... excuses ...

Even more excuses ...



Yep ... sounds familiar ...

[Ocean1]

Why ... nothing illegal there.

It is just a condition of employment. Either the information they require is provided or they employ somebody else.

Those that refuse are free to find employment elsewhere.

Employers are not free to require their employees accept conditions that are unreasonable. If, in this case the employee complies with the requirements of the law with regards to his licence then I suspect he'd have the right to tell the employer "no thanks".


It was given in writing from day one,,,,what's your point ?

See above. If you signed the agreement or you're happy to do so then you don't have a problem, good for you.

But what about these guys:


Those that have said "no thanks" have been told their contracts will not be renewed after March this year.

They deserve to lose their jobs because they object to government imposing unreasonable constraints on it's people?

[Ocean1]

Implementation of a personal ID card would be easy. But totally optional.

Step 1. Mandatory issue to all Government employees. In most cases it already is.

Step 2. Personal ID card required for any person requiring (and prior to) ANY Government departmental assistance.

Step 3. Personal ID card for those (prior to) appearing in court. (a large percentage of step 2.)

Step 3. Wait for the rest to apply for their personal ID card.

Simple ... eh .. !!!

Yes. Just to refresh your memory:


As I said ... the more that try to flout the current system ... the more likely it will happen. That simple.

Any government that finds it has to force compliance to arbitrary regulation on it's people has already lost the battle. It's not a government to which I'd feel the slightest hesitation in applying a little gunpowder.

[Zedder]

In the second paragraph of that article it states the national average is 59% failing the test. In the second to last paragraph NZTA spokesman Knackstedt says "The fact of the matter is that more than 50% are passing the test" Go figure?

The Advocate article was written several months after the original "drama" though. Knackstedt said the pass rate was better now ie: December.

[FJRider]

Employers are not free to require their employees accept conditions that are unreasonable. If, in this case the employee complies with the requirements of the law with regards to his licence then I suspect he'd have the right to tell the employer "no thanks".

Contracts work both ways. Employers are free to award contracts to whomever it is their best interest to get the contract. Lowest tenderer is not always awarded any contract. The employee/tenderer is free to accept the contract if legal conditions of employment are offered ... or not accept the conditions. Conditions regarding any license he/she may (or may not) hold is not on any ILLEGAL list I know of. Care to point out which of it is .. ??


They deserve to lose their jobs because they object to government imposing unreasonable constraints on it's people?

It is not a "job" ... it is a contract to do a job. Contracts previously completed ... do not imply future award of all (or ANY) future contracts.

AND ... See above ...

[FJRider]

Any government that finds it has to force compliance to arbitrary regulation on it's people has already lost the battle. It's not a government to which I'd feel the slightest hesitation in applying a little gunpowder.

No force required. As I said ... ALL totally optional.

Booked your one way ticket yet ... and don't forget to wave goodbye.

[Ocean1]

It is not a "job" ... it is a contract to do a job. Contracts previously completed ... do not imply future award of all (or ANY) future contracts.

AND ... See above ...

You're comprehensively wrong.

He's employed by the company, he's an employee, they don't, for example have the right to insist he wears a tutu.

[Ocean1]

No force required. As I said ... ALL totally optional.

Booked your one way ticket yet ... and don't forget to wave goodbye.

Why would I be going anywhere? I'd much rather stay here and require any unreasonable and arbitrary law be repealed. By force if nescessary, and I've no doubt I'd have help.

You seem to have a problem with authority, you respect it far too much.

[FJRider]

for example have the right to insist he wears a tutu.

If it's the company uniform ... perfectly legal to be required :killingme

[FJRider]

Why would I be going anywhere? I'd much rather stay here and require any unreasonable and arbitrary law be repealed. By force if nescessary, and I've no doubt I'd have help.

You still here .. :confused:


You seem to have a problem with authority, you respect it far too much.

I have more success using authority to my advantage ... than you obviously ... <_<

And I've probably had more to do with "unreasonable authority" than you have ... :bleh:

[Coolz]

The Advocate article was written several months after the original "drama" though. Knackstedt said the pass rate was better now ie: December.

The figures quoted were up to September 14th. Nowhere in the article did Knackstedt say the pass rate was better in December.

[Zedder]

The figures quoted were up to September 14th. Nowhere in the article did Knackstedt say the pass rate was better in December.

I took it to be because the article was dated 31 December and also they stated the memo was leaked last month ie: November.

In the second to last pargraph Knackstedt said: "The fact of the matter is that more than 50 percent are now passing..." was then referring to December.

[Coolz]

I took it to be because the article was dated 31 December and also they stated the memo was leaked last month ie: November.

In the second to last pargraph Knackstedt said: "The fact of the matter is that more than 50 percent are now passing..." was then referring to December.

I find Knackstedts' quote interesting if true and interesting anyway.

[Zedder]

I find Knackstedts' quote interesting if true and interesting anyway.

Yep. I found the article way better written than the Herald one, no surprises there though.

[davereid]

I find Knackstedts' quote interesting if true and interesting anyway.

Mr. Knackstedt is in the business of making the NZTA look good.

The "Advocate" seemed to have accurate figures when it quoted a 59% failure rate, Mr Knackstedt may simply have found a single period when the rate was better than 50% to make his quote.

In fact that is to be expected, as NZ Driver Licensing LTD, once caught out would have immediately lifted the pass rate to allow effective rebuttal.

Its true that the NZTA don't have a quota.

Its their monopoly contractor that was caught out with a quota system.

Having been caught out, I dare say they won't be applying it again, until the heat dies down.

The next part of the question is, how does the NZTA get away with offering lucrative monoploy contracts to private companies ? If the driver test standard is adequately defined, the test could be offered directly by the same testers that are currently forced to contract to NZ Driver Licencing.

IMHO the foul smell around this, is typical of the NZTA.

[red mermaid]

I find it interesting that it is continually bemoaned on KB how easy it is to get a NZ drivers licence, the poor standard of our driving, how the authorities never do anything about it, and how we should toughen up like overseas countries.

Now that it has started to move this way the moaning on KB can't stop!

And isn't it great all these ideas but do any of these moaners do anything constructive about this and make submissions in regard to how driver licensing should be managed?

Nope?
Didn't think, keyboard heros and conspiracy theorists the lot of you.

[bogan]

I find it interesting that it is continually bemoaned on KB how easy it is to get a NZ drivers licence, the poor standard of our driving, how the authorities never do anything about it, and how we should toughen up like overseas countries.

Now that it has started to move this way the moaning on KB can't stop!

And isn't it great all these ideas but do any of these moaners do anything constructive about this and make submissions in regard to how driver licensing should be managed?

Nope?
Didn't think, keyboard heros and conspiracy theorists the lot of you.

The moaning was more about the cereal box prize difficulty of getting one, now it's about the lottery of whether the tester has failed his quota or not. None of it has to do with the difficulty of the test themselves. Do try and keep up.

[Ocean1]

I find it interesting that it is continually bemoaned on KB how easy it is to get a NZ drivers licence, the poor standard of our driving, how the authorities never do anything about it, and how we should toughen up like overseas countries.


It's the classic old man's disease, everyone else is the problem and needs to change their behaviour, immediately. I think it's their way of affirming their superiority in the face of their diminishing competence.


And isn't it great all these ideas but do any of these moaners do anything constructive about this and make submissions in regard to how driver licensing should be managed?

Oh do grow up old chap, the myth that submissions regarding proposed legislative changes are actually read belong in the same storybook with Santa and the tooth fairy.

[scumdog]

Oh do grow up old chap, the myth that submissions regarding proposed legislative changes are actually read belong in the same storybook with Santa and the tooth fairy.

Yep, far better to whine and moan on KB - ya achieve so much more!<_<

[Ocean1]

Yep, far better to whine and moan on KB - ya achieve so much more!<_<

Obviously, at least someone read it.

You are someone, aren't you mate?

[Zedder]

Mr. Knackstedt is in the business of making the NZTA look good.

The "Advocate" seemed to have accurate figures when it quoted a 59% failure rate, Mr Knackstedt may simply have found a single period when the rate was better than 50% to make his quote.

In fact that is to be expected, as NZ Driver Licensing LTD, once caught out would have immediately lifted the pass rate to allow effective rebuttal.

Its true that the NZTA don't have a quota.

Its their monopoly contractor that was caught out with a quota system.

Having been caught out, I dare say they won't be applying it again, until the heat dies down.

The next part of the question is, how does the NZTA get away with offering lucrative monoploy contracts to private companies ? If the driver test standard is adequately defined, the test could be offered directly by the same testers that are currently forced to contract to NZ Driver Licencing.

IMHO the foul smell around this, is typical of the NZTA.

Plus it gives an opportunity for a Dave Rave.

[FJRider]

It's the classic old man's disease, everyone else is the problem and needs to change their behaviour, immediately. I think it's their way of affirming their superiority in the face of their diminishing competence.

As opposed to the classic modern mans disease ... where every whim or opinion must be put into policy without hesitation. Regardless of how stupid ... or selfish it is.


Oh do grow up old chap, the myth that submissions regarding proposed legislative changes are actually read belong in the same storybook with Santa and the tooth fairy.

If people came up with intelligent, workable and viable suggestions (for the greater good) ... some may be implemented ... <_<

Until then ... keep moaning ... we really do care ... :yes:

Honest ... :killingme

[GrayWolf]

Sadly learners don't pass even if they have the necessary skills because they are failed to a quota.

The NZTA has given the lucrative driver license testing contract to a monoploy company called NZ Driver Licensing (1998) Limited. You can't sit your test with anyone else, its an exclusive deal.

But NZ Driver Licensing has been caught out, with a memo requiring testers to fail 2/3 of applicants.

This makes the company exra revenues of $650,000 a year.

Source : http://www.nzherald.co.nz/motoring/news/article.cfm?c_id=9&objectid=10837379

A memo leaked to the Herald on Sunday reveals testers have been told to pass around 40 per cent of candidates, or face the consequences. The arithmetic isn't hard: that means failing 60 per cent.

Now, there are clear, legal guidelines around what qualifies as a pass or a fail. Do the indicators and brake lights work? Can the candidate turn right at a T-junction, giving way to one lane of oncoming traffic? Do they maintain a safe following distance? There are dozens of boxes they must tick.

Nowhere in the legislation does it say pass rates should be scaled up or down to ensure most candidates fail.

Even parents are getting frustrated. One Hamilton father told this paper how he watched his two sons fail three times each, despite a driving instructor assuring them they were ready.

Is it a coincidence that each time NZ Driver Licensing fails a young driver, the company can charge them $88 to resit the test - and that the 7397 resits forced on candidates since tough new standards were introduced in February have garnered the company more than $650,000?

Arbitrary scaling was phased out of high school examinations 25 years ago, because the community realised it was unfair to treat children as rats in a statistical laboratory. We shouldn't let some avaricious testing contractor bring it back, just because we're scared to let our kids grow

Fuck Me , I thought we lived in NZ, not the USA...
Oooh conspiracy theory,,, leaked memo, the LTSA shot Kennedy......
Here's another look at the memo..... you WILL pass 40% of applicants, even IF there are some of the 40% who dont make the grade.... (underwritten message) pass some of those who were only JUST below the standard, or else!!!.... Oooh now doesnt THAT put a different complexion on this horrific FAIL 2/3 of all applicants???
So All you theorist of the dreaded Gubbermint are money grabbin assholes... police are revenue collectors and stop poor innocent bikers who aint hurtin no one speeding...... The IRD are just fuckin assholes, why should I pay my Rego when I can leave it to other suckers........ etc etc

If the Testers have been told to make sure they PASS 40% how do you now feel that you could be riding next to someone who 'didnt make the grade' but was passed to make the gubbermint enforced quota.............Oh hang on just like the Police 'quota' or the 'quota' to pass/fail the NCA

Oh fuck, i've just become one of them//////////

Ive found a conspiracy :no::no::no:

[FJRider]

Mr. Knackstedt is in the business of making the NZTA look good.

The "Advocate" seemed to have accurate figures when it quoted a 59% failure rate, Mr Knackstedt may simply have found a single period when the rate was better than 50% to make his quote.

Seemed ... ??? Accurate ... ??? Two words that don't belong in the same sentence if you are trying to make a point. About as stupid as using (their) statistics to prove your beliefs. If 50% fail their driving tests ... perhaps 50% shouldn't be on the road if they cant reach a known, well publicized and defined test on what is required.


In fact that is to be expected, as NZ Driver Licensing LTD, once caught out would have immediately lifted the pass rate to allow effective rebuttal.

If pass rate statistics were the same for each and every month ... of each and every year. You may have grounds to suspect something. Proving it is another thing. Your faith in (their) statistics accuracy amuses me ... (thank you for that)


Its their monopoly contractor that was caught out with a quota system.

Having been caught out, I dare say they won't be applying it again, until the heat dies down.

The ones most caught out were the stupid people that failed the tests ...

Any word on the statistics on numbers of those that require two (or more) attempts to pass the driving tests .. ???


The next part of the question is, how does the NZTA get away with offering lucrative monoploy contracts to private companies ? If the driver test standard is adequately defined, the test could be offered directly by the same testers that are currently forced to contract to NZ Driver Licencing.

IMHO the foul smell around this, is typical of the NZTA.

I would think ... as you used the word Lucrative ... and then suggested those testers were Forced to contract ... is a simple contradiction in terms.

Lucrative contracts take little arm twisting to accept.

[FJRider]

Yep, far better to whine and moan on KB - ya achieve so much more!<_<

Knowing your occupation ... it would be pretty obvious (in my opinion) ... what you would find as a result ... if the licensing system gave a 100% pass rate. Going under the assumption that some of those tested ... are being passed (or failed ???) to "meet a defined/set quota"

Thoughts .. ???

[Road kill]

Yes. Just to refresh your memory:



Any government that finds it has to force compliance to arbitrary regulation on it's people has already lost the battle. It's not a government to which I'd feel the slightest hesitation in applying a little gunpowder.

Guess every gov't in the world is at risk of being taken over or blown up by you then huh.

Mate you really should get out more:wacko:

[Scuba_Steve]

Fuck Me , I thought we lived in NZ, not the USA...


Maybee this will help with your confusion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yydlX7c8HbY

[bogan]

If the Testers have been told to make sure they PASS 40% how do you now feel that you could be riding next to someone who 'didnt make the grade' but was passed to make the gubbermint enforced quota.............Oh hang on just like the Police 'quota' or the 'quota' to pass/fail the NCA


The ones most caught out were the stupid people that failed the tests ...

You're missing Dave's point, more than 40% were passing the tests, then they set a quota saying only 40% should pass. What use is a quota, if the test results were based on technical skills alone?

[davereid]

You're missing Dave's point, more than 40% were passing the tests, then they set a quota saying only 40% should pass. What use is a quota, if the test results were based on technical skills alone?

Yeah, its supposed to be a test of knowledge and skills.

If you pass the test you should get a licence. If you don't pass it you shouldn't get a licence. But you shouldn't be failed just because the 3 who will pass today have already been tested.

[FJRider]

You're missing Dave's point, more than 40% were passing the tests, then they set a quota saying only 40% should pass. What use is a quota, if the test results were based on technical skills alone?

If people pass the test to the REQUIRED standard ... they are legally bound to pass them.

Any quota in any workplace ... is merely an incentive for the employee to achieve. If a quota is set ... and only to that number ... why don't the testers go home for the rest of the month after they reach that quota .. ???

Those that believe the Highway Patrol have a quota ... might believe this should be the case. What is different about both cases .. ??? <_<

[bogan]

If people pass the test to the REQUIRED standard ... they are legally bound to pass them.

Any quota in any workplace ... is merely an incentive for the employee to achieve. If a quota is set ... and only to that number ... why don't the testers go home for the rest of the month after they reach that quota .. ???

Those that believe the Highway Patrol have a quota ... might believe this should be the case. What is different about both cases .. ??? <_<

Just think that through, they are legally bound to pass them, but the quota system is an incentive for an employee to achieve, ie, to fail them. How does this give the last testee of the day/week/month the same chance as any other?

I'm not seeing what you mean about going home or the HP. They don't go home cos there are more people to test. HP is different cos it encourages the officers to do a certain task over another, testers do the testing regardless.

[Ocean1]

Guess every gov't in the world is at risk of being taken over or blown up by you then huh.

Mate you really should get out more:wacko:

Generally speaking NZ governance has been pretty benign, and by that I mean their behaviour has been seen to be beneficial to the majority of their citizens and to the detriment of none, but there's been legislative changes made and proposed that threaten that.

The time to object to unfair government behaviour is when your government gives itself the powers to behave unfairly, not when they impliment them.

[FJRider]

You're missing Dave's point, more than 40% were passing the tests, then they set a quota saying only 40% should pass. What use is a quota, if the test results were based on technical skills alone?

You all seem also ... to be confused with the difference between a quota and a statistic.

Statistics state a pass rate of a known and recorded percentage of those sitting the test.

A quota is a set number (ie:300 per month) that must pass the test. (Or in the case of the believed police quota ... a set minimum number they MUST issue [apparently] per day [or is it weekly or monthly ?? :scratch:])

[FJRider]

Just think that through, they are legally bound to pass them, but the quota system is an incentive for an employee to achieve, ie, to fail them. How does this give the last testee of the day/week/month the same chance as any other?

I'm not seeing what you mean about going home or the HP. They don't go home cos there are more people to test. HP is different cos it encourages the officers to do a certain task over another, testers do the testing regardless.

Read post #140 of mine in this thread.

[Zedder]

You're missing Dave's point, more than 40% were passing the tests, then they set a quota saying only 40% should pass. What use is a quota, if the test results were based on technical skills alone?

Daves "point" came across as quota = huge conspiracy, NZTA ripoff etc. Not much of a balanced argument and solely reliant on the initial Herald article.

Forget about anything else such as the quote from an instructer that "It's a lot stricter" or "They're looking for more competancies". Perhaps it could have been a case of trialling the new test and having to adjust it.

What about the fact that 8900 applicants had their exams cut short due to critical errors such as collisions and ignoring testers instructions?

[FJRider]

The time to object to unfair government behaviour is when your government gives itself the powers to behave unfairly, not when they impliment them.

I believe that comment to be unfair. And based soley on your opinion.

So it must be wrong, but carry on ... it is amusing me ..... :bleh:

[bogan]

You all seem also ... to be confused with the difference between a quota and a statistic.

Statistics state a pass rate of a known and recorded percentage of those sitting the test.

A quota is a set number (ie:300 per month) that must pass the test. (Or in the case of the believed police quota ... a set minimum number they MUST issue [apparently] per day [or is it weekly or monthly ?? :scratch:])

If you're going to try and talk semantics, at least use a dictionary first :rolleyes: Clearly, if you took the time to think about it, you would realise in both cases the quota affects the result. So it clearly isn't just a statistic (result).

quota (plural quotas)
A proportional part or share; the share or proportion assigned to each in a division.
A prescribed number or percentage that may serve as, for example, a maximum, a minimum, or a goal.  [quotations ▼]
(business, economics) A restriction on the import of something to a specific quantity.

[bogan]

Daves "point" came across as quota = huge conspiracy, NZTA ripoff etc. Not much of a balanced argument and solely reliant on the initial Herald article.

Forget about anything else such as the quote from an instructer that "It's a lot stricter" or "They're looking for more competancies". Perhaps it could have been a case of trialling the new test and having to adjust it.

What about the fact that 8900 applicants had their exams cut short due to critical errors such as collisions and ignoring testers instructions?

Good job if they are failing on technical non-ability. I just don't understand why a quota is required, just update the testers to test to the new standard of technical skills. Maybe it was more of an offhand comment that has been blown out of proportion, which is why I'm disagreeing with those who say a quota is acceptable, rather than insisting this is what has happened.

[davereid]

A quota is a set number (ie:300 per month) that must pass the test.

Yeah lets apply it to WOFS.

Test em all. Then fail the worst 60%.

[FJRider]

If you're going to try and talk semantics, at least use a dictionary first :rolleyes: Clearly, if you took the time to think about it, you would realise in both cases the quota affects the result. So it clearly isn't just a statistic (result).

quota (plural quotas)
A proportional part or share; the share or proportion assigned to each in a division.
A prescribed number or percentage that may serve as, for example, a maximum, a minimum, or a goal.  [quotations ▼]
(business, economics) A restriction on the import of something to a specific quantity.

You can't be aware of a final percentage of pass rate until the end of the month. When it becomes a statistic.

As you stated above in (a) ... a goal to be achieved .... and restricted to that goal.

If statistics show the goal is being surpassed .... either the test is too easy (and thus should be toughened, or the driver skill level of those tested is high. Personally ... I'm going with the former ...

Also ... I'm glad you know how to access a dictionary now ... perhaps we can expect more intelligent posts from you ...

[Oblivion]

Having a quota for a skill based test is something where someone will always undeservingly get the short end of the stick. Mostly because there is no way to prejudge someones level of competence, without being next to them doing the test. As such, people whos skills are borderline passable can sneak through the system, while someones skills are where they should be, can fall flat.

A system where a set % of people are failed on purpose is disgusting and always will be ( I've always believed that if you have the skills to do it correctly and safely (If applicable) you should pass ), but in the more than likely event that it doesn't change, I would be all for waiting 24 hours to hear whether I passed or not so the best will pass and the ones who are slack will fail.

[FJRider]

Yeah lets apply it to WOFS.

Test em all. Then fail the worst 60%.

How can you tell if the ones tested on Monday ... will be better (or worse) than the ones tested on Friday ... ??? :scratch:

[davereid]

How can you tell if the ones tested on Monday ... will be better (or worse) than the ones tested on Friday ... ??? :scratch:

Well if its standards based it doesn't matter.

A new Lexus dealership may have a 99% pass rate, while Hongis Auto Werks in South Auckland has a 10% pass rate.

But if its quota based, the Lexus man will get a call to say he is passing too many, and Hongi will get a call to say he is not passing enough.

[bogan]

You can't be aware of a final percentage of pass rate until the end of the month. When it becomes a statistic.

As you stated above in (a) ... a goal to be achieved .... and restricted to that goal.

If statistics show the goal is being surpassed .... either the test is too easy (and thus should be toughened, or the driver skill level of those tested is high. Personally ... I'm going with the former ...

Also ... I'm glad you know how to access a dictionary now ... perhaps we can expect more intelligent posts from you ...

C'mon man, put the thinking hat on. You can be aware of your running percentage just as you can be aware of your running total. You can't know the final percentage or total until the end of the month. Yes they do both become statistics at the end of the month, but you must be aware that because the statistic is a target (and the testers are adjusting the results as they go), it is not much use as a statistic except to evaluate how well the target are being met. If there was no quota, there would be no adjustment due to predicted results, so the results would show a much clearer picture.

As above, if the statistics are quota driven they don't show information about the ease of testing or the driver skill level.

[FJRider]

A system where a set % of people are failed on purpose is disgusting and always will be ( I've always believed that if you have the skills to do it correctly and safely (If applicable) you should pass ), but in the more than likely event that it doesn't change, I would be all for waiting 24 hours to hear whether I passed or not so the best will pass and the ones who are slack will fail.

You may have hit on a possible solution. :yes: If the "quotas" are achieved monthly ... perhaps we ensure ALL TESTED ... wait until the END of the MONTH to see if you have reached the required % of YOUR months tested license applicants ... <_<


Thus ... All quotas would be achieved (fairly) to those set. And everybody would be happy. :blank:

RIGHT .. ??? :devil2:

[FJRider]

Well if its standards based it doesn't matter.

A new Lexus dealership may have a 99% pass rate, while Hongis Auto Werks in South Auckland has a 10% pass rate.

But if its quota based, the Lexus man will get a call to say he is passing too many, and Hongi will get a call to say he is not passing enough.

In the interest of fairness ... :yes: I shall ask my local MP to press for one (and only one) National testing station. To be situated in Alexandra (to be fair to ME) All vehicles to be tested there. No exceptions ... :doh:

DONE ... :bleh:

[FJRider]

C'mon man, put the thinking hat on. You can be aware of your running percentage just as you can be aware of your running total. You can't know the final percentage or total until the end of the month. Yes they do both become statistics at the end of the month, but you must be aware that because the statistic is a target (and the testers are adjusting the results as they go), it is not much use as a statistic except to evaluate how well the target are being met. If there was no quota, there would be no adjustment due to predicted results, so the results would show a much clearer picture.

As above, if the statistics are quota driven they don't show information about the ease of testing or the driver skill level.

Being aware of a "running percentage" is as difficult as keeping a average speed on the highway.

When testing drivers ... 20 total fuckwits in one day will ruin your "running average" in the blink of an eye test.
Just as a slow vehicle ahead of you (that you can't overtake) ... will ruin your average speed.

[Zedder]

Good job if they are failing on technical non-ability. I just don't understand why a quota is required, just update the testers to test to the new standard of technical skills. Maybe it was more of an offhand comment that has been blown out of proportion, which is why I'm disagreeing with those who say a quota is acceptable, rather than insisting this is what has happened.

Off hand comment? Well, Scumdog did comment on the semantics a while back. The situation should be viewed in context is what I'm saying as well.

At the end of the day if tptb want to make it harder to get a drivers licence then that's what they'll do, "quotas" or not. To be blunt, NZ has the highest death rate for drivers 16-17 years old so it's too bad if it's tough to get a pass.

But that doesn't make for a good Dave Rave.

[bogan]

Being aware of a "running percentage" is as difficult as keeping a average speed on the highway.

When testing drivers ... 20 total fuckwits in one day will ruin your "running average" in the blink of an eye test.
Just as a slow vehicle ahead of you (that you can't overtake) ... will ruin your average speed.

I said thinking hat, not silly hat.

20 total fuckwits would throw out the running total just as it would a running average, either way, the next day you don't have to fail or catch as many.

[FJRider]

I said thinking hat, not silly hat.

Silly is what I do. Have you not read my sig. ????????? :bleh:


20 total fuckwits would throw out the running total just as it would a running average, either way, the next day you don't have to fail or catch as many.

Yep fail everybody in the last week ... Or not test anybody .... that would work ... oh wait.


Note to ALL taking a license test ... don't book for later in the month. EARLY in the month is a better likelyhood of passing the test (According to statistical quota averages)

[Akzle]

And isn't it great all these ideas but do any of these moaners do anything constructive about this and make submissions in regard to how driver licensing should be managed?

Nope?
Didn't think, keyboard heros and conspiracy theorists the lot of you.
i do constructive shit all the time, i'm telling you cunts to leave your DLs at home and let them expire and refuse to deal with cops. that's constructive as shit, if we all did that, then what? the government is going to arrest and charge (court costs money, or is that makes money - depends which seat you're in eh?) every motorist?

unfortunately strongly worded letters or even constructive input, once put in the post, is just creating work for the people who empty the shredders at parliament.


Fuck Me...the Gubbermint are money grabbin assholes... police are revenue collectors and stop poor innocent bikers who aint hurtin no one speeding...... The IRD are just fuckin assholes, why should I pay my Rego when I can leave it to other suckers........ etc etc

well, at least you got some bits right....

[Ocean1]

At the end of the day if tptb want to make it harder to get a drivers licence then that's what they'll do, "quotas" or not. To be blunt, NZ has the highest death rate for drivers 16-17 years old so it's too bad if it's tough to get a pass.


Tptb? They "be" in order to administer the will of the citizens of NZ. Why don't you ask those 16-17 year old citizens if they want tougher licence tests?

[davereid]

At the end of the day if tptb want to make it harder to get a drivers licence then that's what they'll do, "quotas" or not. To be blunt, NZ has the highest death rate for drivers 16-17 years old so it's too bad if it's tough to get a pass. But that doesn't make for a good Dave Rave.

Yeah, I stand up and say my bit when I think things are dodgy. I think NZ would be a better place if TPTB always knew they would get called out over anything suspect.

But as outlined, a quota system DOESNT help. Fail those that can't drive safely. Pass those that can.

If the goal is safe drivers, safe roads and safe vehicles, then quota failing young people lets them down, lets us down, and it's lose lose.

Except for the guys that made the extra $650,000 in revenue.

[Zedder]

Tptb? They "be" in order to administer the will of the citizens of NZ. Why don't you ask those 16-17 year old citizens if they want tougher licence tests?

The best question would be: Do they want to be good drivers and stay alive/uninjured and not kill/maim others? Who, in their right mind, would say no to that?

[FJRider]

Tptb? They "be" in order to administer the will of the citizens of NZ. Why don't you ask those 16-17 year old citizens if they want tougher licence tests?

It's OK ... they don't vote until they're 18. And if the majority of the voting public don't like the policy ... they may not be in power then. (but wont necessarily mean the rules will be repealed by the next ruling party though)

[FJRider]

The best question would be: Do they want to be good drivers and stay alive/uninjured and not kill/maim others? Who, in their right mind, would say no to that?

They don'/wont ask that question. They just ask ... When can I sit the test. As I want my license NOW.

[Zedder]

Yeah, I stand up and say my bit when I think things are dodgy. I think NZ would be a better place if TPTB always knew they would get called out over anything suspect.

But as outlined, a quota system DOESNT help. Fail those that can't drive safely. Pass those that can.

If the goal is safe drivers, safe roads and safe vehicles, then quota failing young people lets them down, lets us down, and it's lose lose.

Except for the guys that made the extra $650,000 in revenue.

Good on you for caring, but they don't care about whether you (or anyone) think there's a quota system. So, it got reported in the media, big deal. Do you think anything is going to be proven or are heads really going to roll?

TPTB just want to do their thing and in this case, if it saves lives and heartbreak for families and loved ones plus all other downstream effects then resit costs are stuff all.

I really hate injustice too, but I also don't like unbalanced uninformed rabble rousing argument as well.

[Headbanger]

Personally I don't care if the rate is 90 percent if they are getting failed for legitimate reasons, and if some fuckers need to be told to get harder on the fuckers, then so be it.

As for leaving my drivers license at home?

I'm getting old, I want a system in place, Anarchy is a nice dream, But as soon as the systems were ripped apart then the more capable people would start introducing them again to once again build a better society. well, after winning the war against the idiots hell bent on being in the stone age.

[Zedder]

They don'/wont ask that question. They just ask ... When can I sit the test. As I want my license NOW.

Stupid boy Pike, the teenagers would be asked the hypothetical question, it's not the teenagers asking the question.

[Akzle]

If the goal is safe drivers, safe roads and safe vehicles,
pretty big if there.. there's no money in it.


if it saves lives and heartbreak for families and loved ones plus all other downstream effects
another big if. is there any proof or even suggestion?) that driver or vehicle licensing has made teh road a safer place to do stuff?

(yay visual puns)


Personally I don't care if the rate is 90 percent if they are getting failed for legitimate reasons,

I'm getting old, I want a system in place,

yeah. that'd be fine by me.
IF having a license of any variety would guarantee that the holder wasn't a fucking muppet.
... judging by the "driver"s i see on the road - it isn't.

as for a system: how about a bunch of disgruntled old pricks get to drive tanks around to sort out those young hooligan upstarts on their loud motorcycles with their rap videos and whut nut. say, one old cunt for every 2000 "driver"s... it'd be a damn site cheaper than the current policy enforcement scheme.

[Zedder]

pretty big if there.. there's no money in it.


another big if. is there any proof or even suggestion?) that driver or vehicle licensing has made teh road a safer place to do stuff?

(yay visual puns)



yeah. that'd be fine by me.
IF having a license of any variety would guarantee that the holder wasn't a fucking muppet.
... judging by the "driver"s i see on the road - it isn't.

as for a system: how about a bunch of disgruntled old pricks get to drive tanks around to sort out those young hooligan upstarts on their loud motorcycles with their rap videos and whut nut. say, one old cunt for every 2000 "driver"s... it'd be a damn site cheaper than the current policy enforcement scheme.

You are living proof some people should stay out of the gene pool.

[Akzle]

You are living proof some people should stay out of the gene pool.

i dropped a floater in the pool.
nekk minute: YOU!

[Subike]

I am contracted to a customer to to provides a service.The terms of my contract deem that I must complete a minimum requirement of work tovsatisfy my customer. the contract is growing weed, . I must get a minimum of 49% strike rate from the seed they supply.
I manage eash year to get a 53% strike from the seeds supplied, I reach my quota required to keep my contract.
Is the 40% stated in the memo the minimum amount of persons required to pass this test for the company to be able renew its contract each year? Less than a %40% pass in a year would see the contract opened up to any other company who could meet this requirement.

[awayatc]

you smoked the surplus yourself...?

[davereid]

I am contracted to a customer to to provides a service.The terms of my contract deem that I must complete a minimum requirement of work tovsatisfy my customer. the contract is growing weed, . I must get a minimum of 49% strike rate from the seed they supply.
I manage eash year to get a 53% strike from the seeds supplied, I reach my quota required to keep my contract.

Yep quota based contract.

Your customer would be better off specifying a delivered amount of product, of a certain quality, with clear measures as to what the quality measures were.

If you manage only to grow 35% of seeds but germinate all female plants, you have done much better than the grower who manages a 49% target, equally divided male/female.

The STANDARD is important... the quota merely easier to measure.

[scumdog]

Tptb? Why don't you ask those 16-17 year old citizens if they want tougher licence tests?


What?
One of THE most brainless age group in the country?
So brainless the polies didn't even give them the vote?

I'm sure you'll get a ton on sense form 16-17 year old citizens...<_<.

[Ocean1]

The best question would be: Do they want to be good drivers and stay alive/uninjured and not kill/maim others? Who, in their right mind, would say no to that?

Better for who? If you want to categorise drivers into safe and unsafe lumps you wouldn't be handing licences out to anyone under 24 to start with.

Now that you've effectively got yourself voted out of office the next set of fuckwit politicians with a fresh new bunch of lobbyists in their ears will come up with another idiot policy with even less relevance to the real world. Rinse and reload.

[Zedder]

Better for who? If you want to categorise drivers into safe and unsafe lumps you wouldn't be handing licences out to anyone under 24 to start with.

Now that you've effectively got yourself voted out of office the next set of fuckwit politicians with a fresh new bunch of lobbyists in their ears will come up with another idiot policy with even less relevance to the real world. Rinse and reload.

What do you mean by better for who?

The hypothetical question which would be put to the tenagers is "Do you want to be good drivers and not be dead/injured or kill/maim others?" Who would want to consciously be a bad driver and be killed/injured etc?

Statistically they are categorised anyway. That's what this whole new licensing system is all about, most young drivers are unsafe and need to be upgraded.

[FJRider]

What do you mean by better for who?

The hypothetical question which would be put to the tenagers is "Do you want to be good drivers and not be dead/injured or kill/maim others?" Who would want to consciously be a bad driver and be killed/injured etc?



Teenaged drivers are not "consciously" bad drivers ... after a few lessons (but before getting a license) ... they'll tell you they're getting quite good. And the "Boy-racers" that find themselves parked on their roof/in the side of a house/inside another car/under a truck ... etc. ... will ALL tell you how good a driver they are. And then howThey just got unlucky. And it wasn't their fault.

But hypothetically (of course) ... they might be wrong.

[FJRider]

Is the 40% stated in the memo the minimum amount of persons required to pass this test for the company to be able renew its contract each year?

They are telling us it's the maximum number allowed to pass ...

[Nova.]

What?
One of THE most brainless age group in the country?
So brainless the polies didn't even give them the vote?

I'm sure you'll get a ton on sense form 16-17 year old citizens...<_<.
us 17 year olds are alot smarter then you think mr piggy.

[FJRider]

us 17 year olds are alot smarter then you think mr piggy.

I guess their high insurance rates ... because they crash so often, just means they can't drive for shit.

Smart but can't drive. And too stupid to know ...

[scumdog]

us 17 year olds are alot smarter then you think mr piggy.

Just not so so smart with with the English language eh...

Or running countries

Or..I give up, a gazzilion other things.

But good at using up Clearasil though, I'll give youz that!

[Zedder]

Teenaged drivers are not "consciously" bad drivers ... after a few lessons (but before getting a license) ... they'll tell you they're getting quite good. And the "Boy-racers" that find themselves parked on their roof/in the side of a house/inside another car/under a truck ... etc. ... will ALL tell you how good a driver they are. And then howThey just got unlucky. And it wasn't their fault.

But hypothetically (of course) ... they might be wrong.

Pike! It's nothing to do with consciously being a good or bad driver.

[davereid]

us 17 year olds are alot smarter then you think mr piggy.

Yes, we see evidence of that every day.

[FJRider]

Pike! It's nothing to do with consciously being a good or bad driver.

I never said it was. They are consciously thinking ... they were good drivers

[Nova.]

maybe its just me. :shifty:

[Zedder]

I never said it was. They are consciously thinking ... they were good drivers

Ok, since it's Sunday and I've been for a good long motorbike ride lately, I'll answer the hypothetical question that was going to be put to hypothetical teenagers. Ready? Right, "Do you want to be a good driver and not be dead or injured or kill or maim others?"

The answer should be "No", or dirivatives of that answer eg: "Fuck no!" "No way!" etc. Nobody (in their right mind or consciously or knowingly) should answer yes.

[FJRider]

Ok, since it's Sunday and I've been for a good long motorbike ride lately, I'll answer the hypothetical question that was going to be put to hypothetical teenagers. Ready? Right, "Do you want to be a good driver and not be dead or injured or kill or maim others?"

The answer should be "No", or dirivatives of that answer eg: "Fuck no!" "No way!" etc. Nobody (in their right mind or consciously or knowingly) should answer yes.

Ok, since it's Sunday ...

They will all answer ... "Of course". (Followed by) But I AM a good driver now. The tests are tough enough now.

A few may even admit to struggling with learning in the early stages of getting a license now. But realistically ... the license tests are more memory based (remembering the required answers) rather than skill based.

[Akzle]

you wouldn't be handing licences out to anyone under 24 to start with.

or women, old folk, those demnd dangerous motorcyclists, fuck why should they even be on the road... death traps, those things.

infact, license half the population as bus or taxi drivers and remove the "right" to private vehicle ownership/use, that way the only people on the road will be proffesional drivers and cops. that would be for the greatest good of society. no more drunk driving, no more speeding (ever seen a taxi go withing 5km of the limit while charging a fare?)
nice. safe. roads.

if you want to be a hero on a motorcycle, or drive, go to the track, or get a P license.

[Zedder]

Ok, since it's Sunday ...

They will all answer ... "Of course". (Followed by) But I AM a good driver now. The tests are tough enough now.

A few may even admit to struggling with learning in the early stages of getting a license now. But realistically ... the license tests are more memory based (remembering the required answers) rather than skill based.

Well ok maybe some would say that. However, the practical side of it is skill based (obviously) and is apparently harder now so they have to be better skilled in order to pass it.

[Ocean1]

or women, old folk, those demnd dangerous motorcyclists, fuck why should they even be on the road... death traps, those things.

The point I was trying to make, apparently not very clearly. Thank you.

Now, who's next?


the only people on the road will be proffesional drivers and cops. that would be for the greatest good of society. no more drunk driving, no more speeding (ever seen a taxi go withing 5km of the limit while charging a fare?)
nice. safe. roads.

What, cops and truckies? The most dangerous fuckers on the road! Get them outa there!

[bosslady]

us 17 year olds are alot smarter then you think mr piggy.

As Ambassador of all 16-17 yos, I say bullshit :laugh: more like you THINK you're a lot smarter than you actually are.


maybe its just me. :shifty:

Doubt it.



Patience young grasshopper...

[FJRider]

Well ok maybe some would say that. However, the practical side of it is skill based (obviously) and is apparently harder now so they have to be better skilled in order to pass it.

Knowing and following ALL the rules (you can remember) for 20 minutes or so as you are followed/watched ... after that ... trying not to get caught. Not THAT difficult. (Until a few hormones kick in)

With only a few rules to think about ... that if failed ... is an instant test fail.

[Nova.]

As Ambassador of all 16-17 yos, I say bullshit :laugh: more like you THINK you're a lot smarter than you actually are.



Doubt it.



Patience young grasshopper...

No bullshit, full time job, running my own sites at work etc etc.

but I do drive around on my learners :rolleyes::whistle:

and would consider myself a better driver then most others on the road but its definitely something i do need to get asap

[FJRider]

Well ok maybe some would say that.

I rest my case ... from a 17 year old. And still on a learners ...


and would consider myself a better driver then most others on the road but its definitely something i do need to get asap

[Kickaha]

and would consider myself a better driver then most others on the road
Everyone in NZ thinks that

[bosslady]

No bullshit, full time job, running my own sites at work etc etc.

but I do drive around on my learners :rolleyes::whistle:

and would consider myself a better driver then most others on the road but its definitely something i do need to get asap

Sorry, good for you (really) but... B.S., I was you once, trust me... and yes, upgrade your license asap, one less thing for us grown ups to pick on you for...

[scumdog]

and would consider myself a better driver then most others on the road but its definitely something i do need to get asap

Mwahahahha!!:laugh::killingme:rofl:

Surely you jest???

Or troll??

[FJRider]

Mwahahahha!!:laugh::killingme:rofl:

Surely you jest???

Or troll??

I think he's serious ... :rolleyes:


us 17 year olds are alot smarter then you think mr piggy.

[bosslady]

I'd consider myself a very average driver and I've never had an accident/never made any claims, no tickets (except two speed cameras going 7 or 5km? over the speed limit during the holiday period, tickets a year apart and the camera vans were at the bottom of a hill gosh darnit!), no demerits, no convictions. Average.

[Nova.]

I'm actually not shitting you... its hard not to be cocky about it but yeah. obviously no ones going to give two fucks about what i say seeing as i am only 17..

[Zedder]

I'm actually not shitting you... its hard not to be cocky about it but yeah. obviously no ones going to give two fucks about what i say seeing as i am only 17..

Unfortunately, most young people think they're good drivers but the statistics say otherwise. It's good that you're going to upgrade though.

[Nova.]

Unfortunately, most young people think they're good drivers but the statistics say otherwise. It's good that you're going to upgrade though.

statistics don't count for every young driver on the road though...
just the ones that crash

[FJRider]

I'm actually not shitting you... its hard not to be cocky about it but yeah. obviously no ones going to give two fucks about what i say seeing as i am only 17..

And how did you come to the conclusion you are so good ... ???

Was it the (less than a) year on the road ... ???

It is good you have learned so much in a short time. Imagine how much you could still learn over the next fourty years.

Statistics say you wont make it though. If I could give a fuck ... I'd be inclined to put money on it.

Prove us wrong ...

[Zedder]

statistics don't count for every young driver on the road though...
just the ones that crash

How do you think the statistics come about? NZ has the worst death rate of 16-17 years old drivers in the world. I can look up the stats on just injury crashes etc if you want.

[Nova.]

And how did you come to the conclusion you are so good ... ???

Was it the (less than a) year on the road ... ???

It is good you have learned so much in a short time. Imagine how much you could still learn over the next fourty years.

Statistics say you wont make it though. If I could give a fuck ... I'd be inclined to put money on it.

Prove us wrong ...

people have told me (people who have been on the road for the last 30-40 years)
the driving instructor told me so (yes i went to a driving instructor)
I've been driving for a year, I'm not saying I'm the best, I'm just saying that I am better then alot of people that you see on the road

[Kickaha]

I'm actually not shitting you... its hard not to be cocky about it

One thing every shit driver I have ever met had in common was the fact they thought they were "good" drivers

[bluninja]

Interesting point....how many 'good' older drivers made it through driving at 17 without a crash? (or 18,19...to 24).

I, of course was a rare driving talent from 17 years onwards :bleh:

[scumdog]

people have told me (people who have been on the road for the last 30-40 years)


"Ya know boy, you're a fairly good driver"




"For a 17 year old":msn-wink:

[Nova.]

"Ya know boy, you're a fairly good driver"




"For a 17 year old":msn-wink:

hahah fuck ya :laugh:

[Zedder]

Interesting point....how many 'good' older drivers made it through driving at 17 without a crash? (or 18,19...to 24).

I, of course was a rare driving talent from 17 years onwards :bleh:

I had a car crash at 18. Nothing too major but it was the old mans car....

[FJRider]

statistics don't count for every young driver on the road though...
just the ones that crash

Don't worry about the ones that crash ... don't even give them a thought.

Just think about the ones that have died. Those are the ones ... you should think about often.

And I would guess that Scummy has scraped more dead 17 year old's off the road ... than you have had birthdays. And most of those for stupid, idiotic reasons ... by usually (often) intelligent kids.

[bosslady]

I'm actually not shitting you... its hard not to be cocky about it but yeah. obviously no ones going to give two fucks about what i say seeing as i am only 17..

You're right, I only give -1 "fucks", anyway you're doing yourself and your kind a disservice by even responding and frankly, nothing you say will make me give a "fuck" I've got almost a decade and a shitload more life experience on you :) and those older than me can and do tell me to get fucked sometimes too, most people here have 10, 20, 30 even 40 years on you and I. They've been there.. done that. One day when you grow up you'll know what I'm talking about.





p.s. I'm purposely being patronising, and sort of trying to wind you up cause I'm bored, I do mean what I say though :)

[Nova.]

You're right, I only give -1 "fucks", anyway you're doing yourself and your kind a disservice by even responding and frankly, nothing you say will make me give a "fuck" I've got almost a decade and a shitload more life experience on you :) and those older than me can and do tell me to get fucked sometimes too, most people here have 10, 20, 30 even 40 years on you and I. They've been there.. done that. One day when you grow up you'll know what I'm talking about.





p.s. I'm purposely being patronising, and sort of trying to wind you up cause I'm bored, I do mean what I say though :)

you cant wind me up haha its just not possible :niceone:

[bosslady]

you cant wind me up haha its just not possible :niceone:

never say never, boy ;)

[mashman]

Ahhh the days of personal responsibility. At least we get the opportunity to test our skills allowing us to prove just how responsible we are before we hit the great tarmac highway and prove the quality of the licensing system by driving in exactly the same manner as we did when we passed the test for evas. Fuckin waste of time and money.

[FJRider]

never say never, boy ;)

He's still just a kid ... still shittin' yella .... :killingme

[Nova.]

man on the inside :bleh:

[bosslady]

man on the inside :bleh:

it's what's on the outside that counts... that's what she said! badoom pshh!

[Nova.]

it's what's on the outside that counts... that's what she said! badoom pshh!

should have seen that one coming... :nono:

[Coldrider]

He's still just a kid ... still shittin' yella .... :killingmethe kid hasn't wasted all day on here :bleh:

[bosslady]

the kid hasn't wasted all day on here :bleh:

that's cause he was poppin zits and jerking the turkey all day?

[Nova.]

that's cause he was poppin zits and jerking the turkey all day?

its a rare occasion that i get zits/pimples, and it was only twice, sheesh. :wait:

[FJRider]

the kid hasn't wasted all day on here :bleh:

Neither have I ... :confused:



Time on KB isn't wasted ... :wings:

[Coldrider]

Neither have I ... :confused:



Time on KB isn't wasted ... :wings:well it has kept you off the road with all the other undesirables i suppose, up here it is just to hot think about riding.

[Subike]

17, mmm by then I had been driving for a bout five years,
17, I knew I was a better than average dirver because I had been told that by the police
17, I balls as big as base balls, would challenge anybody who said different
18, learnt that I was not as good a driver as I thought, when I discovered that driving conditions are not always the same and thinking I was better than average was a stupid thing to think, gee and I was so sure I was good.
19, My balls shrunk back to normal, I discovered I was a shit driver really..

55, still only an average driver/rider after several million miles........But im still alive

[bosslady]

its a rare occasion that i get zits/pimples, and it was only twice, sheesh. :wait:

twice aye, see these youngins got a good amount of energy, some ladies like em young for that very reason :laugh:


anyway, enough

[Coldrider]

17, mmm by then I had been driving for a bout five years,
17, I knew I was a better than average dirver because I had been told that by the police
17, I balls as big as base balls, would challenge anybody who said different
18, learnt that I was not as good a driver as I thought, when I discovered that driving conditions are not always the same and thinking I was better than average was a stupid thing to think, gee and I was so sure I was good.
19, My balls shrunk back to normal, I discovered I was a shit driver really..

55, still only an average driver/rider after several million miles........But im still alive

At 17 it was to get a full licence to get an ACU licence to ride South Island round enduros, the road didn't even come into it.

[bosslady]

17, I knew I was a better than average dirver because I had been told that by the police

adults are liars, my mum told me my freckles were beauty spots, yet I'm still single? lying moocow! (just joking mum)

[FJRider]

well it has kept you off the road with all the other undesirables i suppose, up here it is just to hot think about riding.

"Other" undesirables .. ??? <_<

Only a bit over 30 C here today. I guess it might warm up tomorrow ... :laugh:

[FJRider]

man on the inside :bleh:

Shaving twice a week yet .. ???

[Nova.]

Shaving twice a week yet .. ???

easily twice

[Coldrider]

"Other" undesirables .. ??? <_<

Only a bit over 30 C here today. I guess it might warm up tomorrow ... :laugh:only 33 today, cooled off to 30 at the moment, so hopefully be able to sleep at 27.

[scumdog]

only 33 today, cooled off to 30 at the moment, so hopefully be able to sleep at 27.

9am it was 32.1 here, luckily inside it was only 28.9!:laugh:

Now down to 19 or so...

[FJRider]

easily twice

Using a razor ... or damp facecloth .. ??

Hair numbers into double figures yet .. ??

[Nova.]

Using a razor ... or damp facecloth .. ??

Hair numbers into double figures yet .. ??

hedge clippers :laugh:

[FJRider]

hedge clippers :laugh:

Your mother allows you to use sharp tools .. ?? <_<

[Nova.]

Your mother allows you to use sharp tools .. ?? <_<

thats a heated debate. <_<

[GrayWolf]

Pike! It's nothing to do with consciously being a good or bad driver.

Funny thing is, it is a MEDICAL FACT, that the frontal lobes of the brain (which control executive functions of reasoning, AND the inhibitory behavioural modifying control centres dont fully develop in the average male until around 25 yrs of age. Hence why there is such a high level of risk and inappropriate behaviour patterns in young males

but of course 17 year olds are all smarter than adults, however, you are correct, it isnt a conscious choice, as they are not yet fully developed mentally to realise their stupidity.

[Oblivion]

Interesting point....how many 'good' older drivers made it through driving at 17 without a crash? (or 18,19...to 24).

I, of course was a rare driving talent from 17 years onwards :bleh:

18, so I'm at 3 so far. I wanna keep my bike the way it is. It just got painted :confused: I'm only average. Always have been :bleh:

[Banditbandit]

man on the inside :bleh:

How gay ...

[SNF]

Yeah. NZ Driver Licencing Ltd is a private company granted a monopoly by the NZTA to do driver licence testing.

It has a written policy requiring testers to fail 60% of applicants.

What is the point of a license then? If the instructor decides they don't like you from the word "GO" for whatever reason can they just make something up? I mean fair enough failing people for not following road rules etc, which is the point of having a license as we all know to make sure the person can control the machine they are in/on properly. If I didn't indicate/look properly during my test and I was failed for it, fair call - I'd be pissed off at myself/the situation, but yeah I would have deserved to fail because obviously I can't prove I can handle what I'm riding/driving safely.

But the thought of having something made up against me almost makes me want to just keep the learners, give them all the finger and tell them to suck it. Mind you I don't think that's hard for them to fail 60% with some of the wankers that are on the loose swerving all about on the roads.

[scumdog]

Mind you I don't think that's hard for them to fail 60% with some of the wankers that are on the loose swerving all about on the roads.

Swerving is all it is - ya can't call it 'driving' or 'riding' eh...

[FJRider]

Actually its a right, its defined as such in law.

ANYONE who meets the criteria, pays the fee and passes the test can get a licence.

A privilege is something that is extended to a select few, and is simply not available even if you meet all the criteria.

It is a right to have a license ... if you sit the test and get a pass. Not AS OF RIGHT to have a license. (as in ... I'm 16 so give me a license)

The law also has a legal method/process to remove that right ... to be a licensed driver ...

And read number 8.


priv·i·lege
[priv-uh-lij, priv-lij] Show IPA noun, verb, priv·i·leged, priv·i·leg·ing.

noun
1. a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most: the privileges of the very rich.

2. a special right, immunity, or exemption granted to persons in authority or office to free them from certain obligations or liabilities: the privilege of a senator to speak in Congress without danger of a libel suit.

3. a grant to an individual, corporation, etc., of a special right or immunity, under certain conditions.

4.the principle or condition of enjoying special rights or immunities.

5. any of the rights common to all citizens under a modern constitutional government: We enjoy the privileges of a free people.

Verb:
6. to grant a privilege to.

7. to exempt from.

8. to authorize or license (something otherwise forbidden)

[bosslady]

well I have a license to kill, so take that!

[Nova.]

well I have a license to kill, so take that!

i have a license for anything, I'm just the only one who knows about it. :wait:

[FJRider]

well I have a license to kill, so take that!

I guess your first name is James then ... :laugh:

[bluninja]

I guess your first name is James then ... :laugh:

Second name Blonde :bleh:

[FJRider]

Second name Blonde :bleh:

Stirred (up) ... but not shaken ... :devil2:

[bosslady]

Second name Blonde :bleh:

hahaha that's a goody!

[GrayWolf]

Stirred (up) ... but not shaken ... :devil2:

HA! after the wee 'mishap' with the exhaust pipe.
its

Jane Blonde, fried, not stirred!! :bleh::bleh:

[FJRider]

HA! after the wee 'mishap' with the exhaust pipe.
its

Jane Blonde, fried, not stirred!! :bleh::bleh:

All part of the learning process ... exhaust pipe ARE hot ... :doctor: