Another rant on licensing.....! [Archive]

Lucy

11th January 2007, 22:47

Got a few spare minutes at work so thought I'd get this off my chest....sorry if it's already been done to death.

Restricted licence (car and bike): Should be a 'maximum' length, not a minimum. If people are too scared to sit the full test (or sit it and fail), they shouldn't be on the road.

Automatic gearboxes: Only disabled people should be allowed to drive these.

If people are too lazy (or unco-ordinated) to learn to drive a manual, then they shouldn't be allowed on the road.

So when I become transport minister, watch out!

V4ME

11th January 2007, 23:46

Lucy

12th January 2007, 00:29

Hi Lucy,

My angle on this 'auto' vs manual thing is that for me, a car is simply a mode of transport not something to be enjoyed - I mean how can you compare it to riding a bike. Therefore (for me - and since it is a company owned car) an automatic is far more convenient (call me lazy). Mind you I still believe that licensing in an auto is a bad idea unless, as you say you are disabled etc.

Good luck in your applying for the Transport Ministers job - PS once you get it please raise the speed limit (even if it is only for bikes)!!

Hi V4ME,

That is exactly my point, as a 'convenient mode of transport', it's too easy to get slack, lazy, and before you know it you are drinking coffee, talking or texting, basically too comfortable to be fully aware of your surroundings, and therefore a danger to others (esp bikes). Distracted and unfocussed drivers are apparent every single day on my commuting. And they dont only endanger bikes, but themselves and everyone else.

avgas

12th January 2007, 01:39

dont blame the cars. thats like blaming guns or dogs.
and some food for thought - how many manuals are involved in crashes every year, compare that to the population of auto's on the road? You will find an interesting statistic.
I drive an auto for a very good reason - it slows me down.

Spuds1234

12th January 2007, 01:48

Ever try sitting in heavy traffic (such as the LA rush hour) in a manual. You wont have a clutch in a week with a manual.

On..Off..On..Off..On..Oh we made second..Back to first..On..Off..

Its a pain and just to hard.

And to be honest, I think that NZ's roads will one day be like that, once our population grows a bit more. Well a lot depending on where you are.

V4ME

12th January 2007, 08:32

hmm - Thanks avgas I agree - it slows me down too. By the way I've heard rumours that some big bikes are heading the auto route - Now that would be a real pity - I certainly hope they don't head that way - Mind you I would not be surprised with the likes of some of the big tourers. - I mean everything about them smacks of cars on two wheels anyhow. Oops I may have shown my predujice for sports bikes.

Drum

12th January 2007, 08:42

Hi V4ME,

That is exactly my point, as a 'convenient mode of transport', it's too easy to get slack, lazy, and before you know it you are drinking coffee, talking or texting, basically too comfortable to be fully aware of your surroundings, and therefore a danger to others (esp bikes). Distracted and unfocussed drivers are apparent every single day on my commuting. And they dont only endanger bikes, but themselves and everyone else.

True, but no licensing system will ever change that!

There are less and less manual cars on the road, and some people will never drive one in their whole lives. I have no problem with people sitting license tests in auto cars. Driving a manual doesn't make you any more aware of your surroundings.

Drunken Monkey

12th January 2007, 08:44

blah, blah, blah

What a load of twaddle.

V4ME

12th January 2007, 09:00

Hey Lucy - here is another worthless bit of ranting, How bout once you are transport minister making it compulsory for all new car licence holders to have a pillion ride on a motorcycle, maybe through Auckland etc. - This may scare some sense into them.
Drunken Monkey - you are correct - it is a lot of twaddle but it beats sitting in the traffic.

GR81

12th January 2007, 09:18

the minimum time is so that you gain more experience on the road i guess.
some people could pass their test after 1 month of driving... it doesn't mean they have experience tho.

V4ME

12th January 2007, 09:30

GR81 - you are absolutely correct - you simply cannot beat experience.

avgas

12th January 2007, 09:57

I've heard rumours that some big bikes are heading the auto route
Dont worry, looks like they will have either push button gearing or a special clutch system where you can switch from auto to manual. New suzuki Katana will have it (its not called a katana anymore though).
Also experience is the key, i have no respect for drivers that do not know the limits of their vehicles, when the tyres slide, how hard the brakes work, how fast it can corner, how to accelerate out of corners etc.....whether they change the gear or not i couldnt give a toss. There is alot more to driving then changing gears.

crashe

12th January 2007, 10:00

well a bit of useless info for you Lucy....

When you sit your car license in a AUTOMATIC then that is what is written on your license. You can not drive a manual car..... yep if you get stopped by that nice police officer...... you can get a ticket if you are behind the wheel of a manual car if you are meant to be driving a automatic.

But if you got your car license driving a manual car.... then you can drive either a manual or a automatic.

So I always encourage people to go for their car license in a manual car.

Oh and it seems to be getting harder and harder to buy manual cars now....
car dealers seems to be only importing in automatic's these days.

I personally prefer a manual car.

Lucy - If and when you get to be Transport Minister...... can you do away with the 70km limit on Learners for motorbike riders...... cheers.

V4ME

12th January 2007, 10:28

Dont worry, looks like they will have either push button gearing or a special clutch system where you can switch from auto to manual. New suzuki Katana will have it (its not called a katana anymore though).
Also experience is the key, i have no respect for drivers that do not know the limits of their vehicles, when the tyres slide, how hard the brakes work, how fast it can corner, how to accelerate out of corners etc.....whether they change the gear or not i couldnt give a toss. There is alot more to driving then changing gears.

MMM - as long as they do not go digital - eg microwave ovens - also it may be confusing with buttons for gears and buttons for nitrous and a starter button and a hooter button .... (did I say nitrous - do you know where I can get it done for my SV? -would it not be great if we could simply buy more HorsePower like you can buy RAM for a PC)
- maybe you're right it would not be too bad to have a first gear that could hit 250k's who would need the other gears!

Roj

12th January 2007, 10:41

Got a few spare minutes at work so thought I'd get this off my chest....sorry if it's already been done to death.

Restricted licence (car and bike): Should be a 'maximum' length, not a minimum. If people are too scared to sit the full test (or sit it and fail), they shouldn't be on the road.

I would have to agree with this, way back when I got my bike license the "provisional license" was for 6 weeks then you went in to sit the restricted test...

Automatic gearboxes: Only disabled people should be allowed to drive these.

I disagree with this one, what a person drives in the way of a car is personal choice just as much as what I ride is my choice, there are always many factors that will influence the desision

Chisanga

12th January 2007, 13:38

Lucy,

You could also do away with that stupid 10pm to 5am restriction for people over 25. In auckland that is probably the safest time to ride anyway :)

Lucy

13th January 2007, 11:46

Lucy,

You could also do away with that stupid 10pm to 5am restriction for people over 25. In auckland that is probably the safest time to ride anyway :)

Yeah it's dumb eh. Just a hang over from the car restrictions I think, but a learner on a bike is hardly going to take a bunch of mates with him to a party. I just applied for an exemption to this, hope I get it as the fee is non-rrefundable, and like you say, the roads are brilliant at midnight.

Lucy

13th January 2007, 11:47

Lucy

13th January 2007, 11:51

[

Ever try sitting in heavy traffic (such as the LA rush hour) in a manual. You wont have a clutch in a week with a manual.

On..Off..On..Off..On..Oh we made second..Back to first..On..Off...

Yes, I have an automatic, and it's great for rush hour traffic. But I also used to drive a manual people mover, and had have heard so many people say, "oh I couldnt drive a manual, it's just so hard, you are so clever driving this" To which I was always thinking to myself, it's called DRIVING, it's not rocket science, and if you cant' do it you are an idiot.

Lucy

13th January 2007, 11:53

the minimum time is so that you gain more experience on the road i guess.
some people could pass their test after 1 month of driving... it doesn't mean they have experience tho.

Yes I was unclear, I think the minimum and maximum should be the same.

yungatart

13th January 2007, 11:53

I love my auto.. if I had a manual car, then my (our) holiday would have been totally screwed after my off. I doubt that I could have driven a manual car with my left leg in plaster...

Lucy

13th January 2007, 11:55

well a bit of useless info for you Lucy....

When you sit your car license in a AUTOMATIC then that is what is written on your license. You can not drive a manual car..... yep if you get stopped by that nice police officer...... you can get a ticket if you are behind the wheel of a manual car if you are meant to be driving a automatic.

Lucy - If and when you get to be Transport Minister...... can you do away with the 70km limit on Learners for motorbike riders...... cheers.

Yes that is first on the list!

Are you sure about the 'auto' licence? I thought it was only for the restricted phase, and once they passed the full test they could drive anything.

T.I.E

13th January 2007, 12:02

got my vote.
all in favour?

Ixion

13th January 2007, 12:03

An argument could be made that drivers should be able to demonstrate ability to drive a manual transmission, even if, once having obtained their licence, they choose an automatic.

And the previous poster is correct, the "tested on auto, can only drive auto" thing applies at the restricted phase. Incomprehensible.

jafar

13th January 2007, 12:08

Yes that is first on the list!

Are you sure about the 'auto' licence? I thought it was only for the restricted phase, and once they passed the full test they could drive anything.

The quote about the auto only is correct. If you have 'auto' on your licence then thats all you can drive.
Bikes have been made as automatics in the past ( honda ) had them for a short time , they never caught on.
Auto cars are imported because thats what is in demand , the other option if you want it is 'tiptronic' or 'supershift' , the car & truck manufacturing industry is moving this way & manuals will become a thing of the past.

Lou Girardin

13th January 2007, 16:07

With the predominance of autos on the road, you're suggesting that people will have to obtain an entirely different vehicle for their test.
That'll work.
A far better idea is a minimum number of hours of professional instruction. As civilised countries require.

sunhuntin

13th January 2007, 17:54

Yes I was unclear, I think the minimum and maximum should be the same.

but thats just the same as what you said in the first post.
ive been on my learners for 2 years this march or may [cant remember which] and have likely travelled the complete distance of this country k-wise. i still dont feel confident enough to go for my restricted. i dont think id ride as well having someone follow me.
i would not have gone for the one license i do have if id have to be on a higher class with say, 6 months.
theres no way a new rider should feel pressured into advancing. its hard enough learning to ride safely without freaking over the "omg, i have to gain enough experience in 6 months!"

also...when it comes to cars, i cant and wont drive either an auto or manual. both look too damn tricky, and im happier on 2 wheels.

avgas

13th January 2007, 19:04

I would LOVE to know the statistics for auto vs manual in crashes. If you have access please share.

Sorry i havent heard these statistic for about 10 years, but last time i recall (it was ten years ago - so my accuracy is out the window) approx auto equal about 70% of 'cars' on the road, they contribute to about 40% of 'car' accidents. At the time i was quite against autos....but as i stated before, driving an auto has saved my licence so i cant diss them anymore - especially with that whole 'loss-of-traction' act that the cops have chucked in there.....its a bloody joke to drive a manual anymore cos the cops will bust you for anything fun in a car. So i leave the car as transport and the bike for fun

avgas

13th January 2007, 19:10

[
Yes, I have an automatic, and it's great for rush hour traffic. But I also used to drive a manual people mover, and had have heard so many people say, "oh I couldnt drive a manual, it's just so hard, you are so clever driving this" To which I was always thinking to myself, it's called DRIVING, it's not rocket science, and if you cant' do it you are an idiot.
Oh poor lucy, your exactly where i was 5 years ago.......pulling your hair out to people who cant drive.
I refuse to take any driving advice to people who : a) use their horn for anything but to say 'hi/bye' (these people are just assholes) and b) people who dont turn out to turn in (cornering physics) still.

avgas

13th January 2007, 19:17

And the previous poster is correct, the "tested on auto, can only drive auto" thing applies at the restricted phase. Incomprehensible.
Not really, friend of mine got his full bike, bought a zxr4 and failed to complete a 25K corner on a ride with me.......if he had the money he would have bought a R1 and made a mess of himself on that corner (i had secretly restriced his zxr4). Nothing on his license would have restricted him either....after 2 years on auckland roads on a FXR150. That is a joke.
At least if you get a license on an auto, cant drive a manual and try to learn worst case scenario you forget to change down and the car stalls.

avgas

13th January 2007, 19:25

A far better idea is a minimum number of hours of professional instruction.
Hate to rain on your parade here, but some are considered professional (AA in this case), fail to provide suitable instruction.
Girlfriend went to about 10 of AA's one on one lessons, i sat in the car with her and let her drive and i told her in 5 mins she had wasted her money.
All this instructor had done is sat in the car and told her where to drive, along with a 5 min instruction on what pedal does what.
I taught her cornering (the proper way), how to anticipate other drivers actions, all forms of parking, reversing and defensive driving in about 45 mins. In 2 hours i had her driving laps around a local carpark at relatively decent speed.

Lucy

13th January 2007, 19:51

That'll work.
A far better idea is a minimum number of hours of professional instruction. As civilised countries require.

Yes, that is a great idea (but you didn't need me to tell you that). Thanks for the sarcasm, you seem like a really nice guy.

I'm not actually suggesting that people get a different vehicle for their test. I'm suggesting that people who don't know how to drive, aren't allowed to drive.

Cheers

sunhuntin

13th January 2007, 20:37

Yes, that is a great idea (but you didn't need me to tell you that). Thanks for the sarcasm, you seem like a really nice guy.

I'm not actually suggesting that people get a different vehicle for their test. I'm suggesting that people who don't know how to drive, aren't allowed to drive.

Cheers

i dont know how to drive a car. are you sayin i shouldnt be allowed to ride a bike?

davereid

14th January 2007, 11:38

How about classes of licence for :

column shift manual
floor manual
column shift auto
floor auto
pushbutton auto
clutchless manual
preselect manual
tiptronic

then of course for motorcycles
manual LHS foot change
manual RHS foot change
manual hand change LHS
manual hand change RHS
automatic
then div them up by cc rating !

Then of course add ABS.. drivers with ABS equipped vehicles are deemed to be incompetant in vehicles with standard brakes...

Hell we could waste our entire lives getting new classes of licence.

Or we could decide that other skills are more important than the way you change gear, and test those instead !

Lucy

14th January 2007, 11:42

Ixion

14th January 2007, 11:47

The point about ABS is very valid. Is not someone who has only ever driven a vehicle with ABS likely to be a hazard trying to stop in an emergency in an non-ABS vehicle?

After all, pilots have to qualify in each model of plane the want to fly. You can't get a pilots licence in a Piper Cub and jump straight behind the controls of a Boeing 747.

I reckon the country could do a sight worse than model road licencing (and crash investigation!) after the aero model.

Perhaps have the classes a little broader than single models, and the test for a new class just be to show familiarity and competance with that model. Could even be just a time thing. First three months , restrictions apply, at the end of that time restrictions automatically drop off.

avgas

14th January 2007, 16:38

How about classes of licence for :
pushbutton auto

I favour the vauxhall bus license system :) Actually didnt Mercedes busses have them too......good old Kati Bus Company

Toaster

14th January 2007, 16:42

So when I become transport minister, watch out![/QUOTE]

You'd get my vote!

scumdog

14th January 2007, 16:44

How about classes of licence for :

pushbutton auto........ !

The old coot up the road nearly filled his daks when he went to overtake another car in his Belvedere one night and pushed '1" instead of "2" - then floored it!!:gob:
Nearly had a Morry thou as a bonnet emblem.

Toaster

14th January 2007, 16:49

How about classes of licence for :
....Hell we could waste our entire lives getting new classes of licence.

Or we could decide that other skills are more important than the way you change gear, and test those instead !

Hell, don't say that too loud, Cullen might think its a great way to make more revenue out of us and ping us charges for each different class!

Having done some advanced driving courses myself, I'm of the view that the standard tests are too short and too simple (also having been through them and observed them being administered). More extensive tests would at least allow assessors to be more critical.

But, like everything in this politically correct country, we make the system as easy as possible so as to not fail anyone at anything so we don't hurt any feelings, especially for those that can't speak English properly or read our road signs. Wouldn't want anyone to feel rejected now would we?

V4ME

15th January 2007, 10:41

So i leave the car as transport and the bike for fun

Spot on - My point exactly

buellbabe

15th January 2007, 11:04

Unlike a lot of KBrs I don't see my car as a 'cage'.
Its a portable dog kennel... a shopping basket and occasionally a place to kip for the night... but NEVER a cage.

I prefer manuals but like Crashe said its getting harder and harder to buy a latemodel manual car... If I am driving my car I bloody well enjoy it cos I am a bit of a Possum Bourne ... tee hee and I've got the right wheels for that mentality.
However because I am also a motorcyclist I reckon it makes me a better driver as I LOOK for bikes, I move over on the motorway to let them thru and I not only USE my mirrors but also look OVER my shoulder...

As someone else said, don't blame the cars... any idiotic/dangerous behaviour is due to driver lack-of-skill and not whether the car is manual/auto.

Oh BTW a recent AA study revealed that the most dangerous vehicles on the roads are SVUs... surprised... anyone?

Swoop

15th January 2007, 11:17

More extensive tests would at least allow assessors to be more critical.
Unfortunately NZ has been eaten up by the "assess" model. We assess everything to the smallest detail (Unit Standards are ONLY about assessment) and the little insignificant part is forgotten about... TRAINING!!!

I would rather have someone in the driving seat who has been well trained but not assessed, rather than someone who has no training but passed the "assessment".

FilthyLuka

15th January 2007, 11:29

Driving a manual doesn't make you any more aware of your surroundings.

hmm, lets think about this logically.

In an auto, your a newbie and you focus on the road, you car position, people around you ect. ect.

in a manual, your a newbie and dont want to look like a dick if you stall your car, all of a sudden, ALOT of attention that could be going into the road has gone into the act of clutching and changing gears...

so your completely right... there might very well be a statistic that more auto's crash every year, but then again there might be a statistic that states more suzukis crash every year... does that mean we need to ban suzukis? (or reserve them only for the disabled :p)

getting "lazy" whilst driving is gonna happen in a manual aswell... i mean, on the motorway, top gear, chugging along... hey look! a doughnut... mmm, doughnut... CRASH!!! where as auto... on the motorway, mmm... doughnut... CRASH!!!

as for the restricted... you know, some of us are poor students that might not be able to afford to get full licence straight away. if i had a mint rs250, i might very well never want to upgrade... i know my mother is lookin at a gsx250 and shes probably gonna stick with it untill it dies... are you saying she needs to go and get a full licence straight away? if you stay on restricted, the maximum breath alchohol level is 150, so look at it this way. If your on your restricted, ONE BEER will throw most people over the limit, less drunk driving... you can argue either for or against but in this case, taking away a persons licence because he/she doesnt sit his full is just... well... stupid

just my two cents worth

denden

Ixion

15th January 2007, 11:30

,,

As someone else said, don't blame the cars... any idiotic/dangerous behaviour is due to driver lack-of-skill and not whether the car is manual/auto.

,,

I suspect though that there is a correlation. Because, as you note, finding a manual car nowdays takes some effort, the "sit back, push that pedal thingy, waggle this wheel thingie, until you get where you want or hit something" crowd are most unliklly to make the effort to obtain one.

So whilst an automatic is no indication of ability one way or the other, a manual is probably an indication of someone who at least takes some interest in the driving process. And one may assume that a manual driver is either (a) older, and learnt when manuals were common, which at least indicates some degree of experience; or (b) willing to make the effort to acquire a driving skill, which may indicate that they will make the effort to acquire other skills and roadcraft.

Personally I reckon learner drivers should have to sit the test in a car with no front wheel brakes, manual non-synchromesh gearbox, no power anything, and no electric starter. Worked for me, why should they have it easy.

FilthyLuka

15th January 2007, 11:31

. You can't get a pilots licence in a Piper Cub and jump straight behind the controls of a Boeing 747.

thats like comparing a smart car to a australian (sp) road train... then multiplying the complexity by a factor of lots

wait just one cotton pickin minute... dont we already HAVE different licence classes for different types of vehicles... whilst a cesna and a 747 are technically both planes, a tank and a fiat bambina are technically both automobiles (arent they) and we have different licences for cars, trucks, bikes, bigger trucks, even bigger trucks, big f#ck off truck ect ect

Ixion

15th January 2007, 11:34

as for the restricted... you know, some of us are poor students that might not be able to afford to get full licence straight away. if i had a mint rs250, i might very well never want to upgrade... i know my mother is lookin at a gsx250 and shes probably gonna stick with it untill it dies... are you saying she needs to go and get a full licence straight away? if you stay on restricted, the maximum breath alchohol level is 150, so look at it this way. If your on your restricted, ONE BEER will throw most people over the limit, less drunk driving... you can argue either for or against but in this case, taking away a persons licence because he/she doesnt sit his full is just... well... stupid

denden

Not so, There is no connection between licence class and allowable alcohol limit. The limit is under or over 20 years old. A 22 year old on a learners is allowed the full adult limit of 400 squiggledoodles, a 19 year old on a full licence can only have 150.

FilthyLuka

15th January 2007, 11:37

Personally I reckon learner drivers should have to sit the test in a car with no front wheel brakes, manual non-synchromesh gearbox, no power anything, and no electric starter. Worked for me, why should they have it easy.

errm... thats kinda off seeing as you were alive when jesus was a lad (hehe, joking)

technology man... its the mans way of saying "man, the world is like, going forward man... man humanity is gonna be SO technologically advanced man..."

(yay... 6 mans...)

denden

FilthyLuka

15th January 2007, 11:39

Not so, There is no connection between licence class and allowable alcohol limit. The limit is under or over 20 years old. A 22 year old on a learners is allowed the full adult limit of 400 squiggledoodles, a 19 year old on a full licence can only have 150.

really? yeesh, i must be livin under a rock...
explains this back ache :p

denden

Ixion

15th January 2007, 11:47

True, I was jesting.

But there is an element of rationale in there.

When I learned to drive driving was HARD WORK. Nothing was easy.

Now, some people we know have a natural talent for things like driving and vehicle control. Others are the reverse. They have no apptitude at all.

In years gone, the actual process of driving was difficult enough that the apptitude-less , if they tried at all, quickly gave up. And I knew quite a few cases of people who took a few lessons and gave up, declaring that it was "just too hard'. While those who made the effort to acquire the skills to actually control the car, tended to take some pride in the fact, driving was considered an accomplishment.

Nowdays, any fool can drive a car. Sit and wiggle , an eight year could do it , quite seriously.

But while the need for skill in controlling a car has been removed, the need for roadcraft skills is greater than ever. And the muppets , finding that "making the car go" is so easy, see no need to acquire anything beyond that.

So we have people in control of a car at 100kph who have no apptitude at all for such matters, no interest is being a competant driver, and should not really be trusted with anything more lethal than a supermarket trolley.

FilthyLuka

15th January 2007, 11:51

So we have people in control of a car at 100kph who have no apptitude at all for such matters, no interest is being a competant driver, and should not really be trusted with anything more lethal than a supermarket trolley.

exactly, so therefore (in reference to the first post) refusing automatic cars to those that arent motorvehicle impared is unfair and making life harder. The problem is the person, not the car... sometimes the problem is the car... like when the brakes dont work. but thats not what im getting at.

Squeak the Rat

15th January 2007, 11:54

Good call Ixion.

Any muppet can drive a car at open road speeds. It seems though that less and less drivers have any skills to identify or respond to an emergency situation.

And thinking about the comment earlier that people learning on ABS should not be able to drive non-ABS cars, how many drivers are actually aware of what's happening when they jump on the brakes really hard? If we got to the stage where there is awareness and skill at emergency braking then the distinction should be made.

I needed to demonstrate competency of emergency braking on my bike test. Why don't car drivers need to do the same?