Constant Vehicle Licencing

[craigs288]

I'm obviously a little bored with some time on my hands at work so I thought I would try my luck with this one.

Prior to CVL, people could get away with allowing their Rego to lapse and not bother about it until they got a ticket for no Rego. Then they pay for the Rego and don't have to pay the fine. Meanwhile they have just had up to 11 months of not paying for registration.

Now with CVL, if you get away with no Rego for 11 months, when you do finally go and pay, it covers the previous 11 months from when it expired and you have one month of current rego up your sleeve. Kind of like paying in arrears. Like rent, mortgage, power, phone etc.... as in use something for a month and then pay for it. Or use something for 12 months and then pay for it.

I could be wrong, but I believe the ticket would be for not displaying a current registration sticker. But the next week when you pay for the registration you would then have a current rego that covers the period where you received a ticket for not having rego.
While I believe the ticket will be scrapped the moment you front up to the local police station and provide proof of rego, I thought that was more a case of the police "acting in good faith" and if they really wanted to they probably could still prosecute and fine you for 'not displaying a current registration'.

Seems kind of pointless though (maybe like this thread). If the bike or cage has a WOF and has been inspected and passed as "safe and roadworthy" at the time of the WOF, does it really matter where in the 12 months that I pay my rego? The ability for people to get "free time" on the road has been eliminated with CVL because you pay for the time from when it last lapsed.
And if you were silly enough to wait for 12 months you would have the cost of re-registration anyway.

Just some rambling thoughts. ( Hope I posted it in an appropriate place )

[Max Preload]

Firstly, it's CONTINUOUS vehicle licensing, not constant.

Secondly, the infringement is worded as "Failing to display", not "Failing to have paid for".

[craigs288]

I've been corrected twice in the one post. That's a good start.
Cheers

[JimBob]

You are right though.
The main reason they still require you to display a current rego and wof is for the likes of council parking wardens to be able to issue you with a ticket. They dont have access to vehicle details in the same way the police do.

[Taz]

I have the perfect solution. Just pay for the rego when it's due then display the sticker in the position stated by law on the right side of the licence plate or as near to it a possible then there will be no tickets for failure to display a current rego label and no stuffing around trying to get out of the ticket when you really did deserve it for failing to display in the first place. This may be too hard for some tho.

[craigs288]

Yeah. I drilled through my licence plate and have the rego attached so it is clearly visible from the back.
Makes it easy for anyone to see if it is valid or not.

[scumdog]

I eliminated this problem by only having vehicles that are over 40 years old - no continuous licencing - and 1/2 price anyway!!:yes:

[Da Bird]

While I believe the ticket will be scrapped the moment you front up to the local police station and provide proof of rego, I thought that was more a case of the police "acting in good faith" and if they really wanted to they probably could still prosecute and fine you for 'not displaying a current registration'.

You wont get out of any tickets fronting up at the police station. In the old days yes, but everything goes through the Police Infringement Bureau in Wellington now. Unless the cop has written "Compliance" or "Diversion" on the back to let the adjudicator cops in Wellington know, you wont get off anything.

[98tls]

Im still of the opinion that if i own multiple bikes i should be able to pay one rego............i can only ride one at a time..........:nono:

[Zapf]

Im still of the opinion that if i own multiple bikes i should be able to pay one rego............i can only ride one at a time..........:nono:

that I TOTALLY support

[craigs288]

Ahhhhhhh, I dream of the day I can afford to own multiple bikes. Just got to take care of that mortgage first, and the child support, and insurance, and........and.........and....

Well, at least dreams are free, for now. We'll be getting taxed on those next.

[peasea]

I've been corrected twice in the one post. That's a good start.
Cheers


Better in a post than in a court room.

[peasea]

Im still of the opinion that if i own multiple bikes i should be able to pay one rego............i can only ride one at a time..........:nono:


Fair...> Yes, tax the license, not the vehicle.

Our system....>The driver is one item, the vehicles could be numerous. You can only drive one, right? Your missus drives one, your offspring drives one. You have four vehicles coz you have one for Sunday excursions, therefore the Govt misses out if you tax the lincensees.

The reason> It's far more profitable to tax the vehicles.

The solution> Shoot everyone.

[Jantar]

.... You can only drive one, right? Your missus drives one, your offspring drives one. You have four vehicles coz you have one for Sunday excursions, therefore the Govt misses out if you tax the lincensees.

The reason> It's far more profitable to tax the vehicles.

Quite right, but by taxing the licence holder they would also get revenue from those people who aren't registered owners. as in a family with three licenced drivers, but only two vehicles.

[peasea]

Quite right, but by taxing the licence holder they would also get revenue from those people who aren't registered owners. as in a family with three licenced drivers, but only two vehicles.

Seriously, in NZ there'e more likely to be more vehicles than licenses, right?

If the vehicles all run, they'll be out on the roads. More likely to gather revenue. Which is what it's all about.

[craigs288]

Better in a post than in a court room.

Been there, done that.

[craigs288]

[QUOTE=peasea;1137376]Seriously, in NZ there'e more likely to be more vehicles than licenses, right?QUOTE]

Especially if they keep lowering the speed tolerance at which you can get a 28 days mandatory.

I wonder if they started dishing out 28 days walking for offences 11km/h over whether it would stop people speeding, and if so whether it would have a noticeable effect on the road toll.

Probably make too large a dent in the police quotas and hence the governments slush fund, I mean consolidated fund.