Researching 70Km L-Plate restriction safety [Archive]

Tony

10th January 2009, 00:46

Hi I am currently researching the issue of the 70Km restricted speed limit. I have some questions that I hope readers of this forum might be able to help with.

There is some debate but very few facts on the safety merits of the 70km restriction. Form reading this forum it appears that different traffic officers use their discretion when deciding when to apply this law.

I am keen to bring some clarity to this issue but first I need to gather some credible research.

For this project I need to stick to facts an avoid opinions and heresay - so any references to specific research, statements, news paper articles, etc would greatly help.

Many thanks in advance for any assistance with this project. I will be happy to keep this forum appraised of any progress I make on this issue by posting to this thread.

Here goes:

1. Does anyone know when the 70Km restriction for learner riders was first introduced. (Interested if it was in the time of the 80Km general open road speed limit)

2. Was the introduction based on any safety research or recommendations by a particular party

3. In March 2008 Transport Safety Minister Harry Duynhoven announced the government is proposing removing the 70km/h speed limit restriction - which applies to learner motorcycle licence holders; Does any one know the current state/progress of this proposal?

4. Can anyone advise why the government is proposing to change this law? s the initiative based on a study or recommendation by any body or group?

5. Can anyone advise if the 70km/h restriction applies to police/traffic officers gaining their motorcyle license?

6. Does anyone know of any other countries that have a similar learner speed restriction?

Tony

10th January 2009, 01:00

To kick things off:

From the office of Harry Duynhoven 28th March 08

"Motorcycle safety package aims to cut high crash rate"

"... Remove the 70km/h speed limit restriction which currently applies to learner motorcycle licence holders. This restriction is largely ignored. When this speed restriction is adhered to it creates a large difference in the speed of vehicles travelling on the open road, which is a known road safety problem. Road safety research indicates this speed difference issue outweighs any benefit of lower open road speed limits for novice motorcycle riders;"

http://beehive.govt.nz/release/motorcycle+safety+package+aims+cut+high+crash+rate

JMemonic

10th January 2009, 04:24

I am keen to bring some clarity to this issue but first I need to gather some credible research.

For this project I need to stick to facts an avoid opinions and heresay - so any references to specific research, statements, news paper articles, etc would greatly help.

Simply put you are only going to get personal experience from here, thus it would be considered opinion and invalidate your requirements, as to considering newspaper articles a valid source if half what is written in a paper is not opinion and conjecture, if Harry Dunhoven made the statement that "Road safety research indicates this speed difference issue outweighs any benefit of lower open road speed limits for novice motorcycle riders", the research must be available.

How ever if you want real life examples and will take the word if people who have had issues then just look around the site plenty of folks have posted real life examples of the dangers involved.

discotex

10th January 2009, 08:21

Tank

10th January 2009, 08:29

What I can add is that LTNZ DO NOT believe that it is safe to ride at 70km on a motor way or the open road.

When discussing this with them - they offered me the ability to go directly to my full license from my learners (ie - not finishing last 3? months of L time or completing any restricted license period).

Just to point out - I didnt even know you could do this - they suggested and offered. It was not on my application for exemption, nor was I asked to fill in any paperwork.

There exact words were "we dont want people doing 70 in a 100km area - its a recipe for disaster"

Tony

10th January 2009, 09:42

Tank

10th January 2009, 09:45

Tank many thanks for your response. Can you point me in the cdirection of whom or which department of teh LTNZ you were talking to?

The "license Exemption team" Its only a team of 4 people - so they should all be on the same page.

Tony

10th January 2009, 09:49

How ever if you want real life examples and will take the word if people who have had issues then just look around the site plenty of folks have posted real life examples of the dangers involved.

Good point I have already had a llok at the real life examples discussed here. There seems to be a surprisingly wide range of situations where the 70km restriction may adversly effect safety. (some of these are not immediately obvious) I have started compiling a list of these.

Tony

10th January 2009, 09:53

The "license Exemption team" Its only a team of 4 people - so they should all be on the same page.

Many thanks I will contact them on Monday.

Tony

10th January 2009, 10:08

The issue is the speed differential as the previous minister said.

I'd be looking for research that shows that is an issue regardless of cage or bike as there will be little evidence in the stats that the existing law causes accidents. I can just see accidents being filed away under "speed is a contributing factor" rather than "stupid law caused crash".

Excellent suggestion. I found some some stuff here (that doesn't differentiate between bikes and cars but references the increasing rates of accidents with increasing differential speeds of vehicles. I suspect it may be the research that Harry Duynhoven was referring to.

http://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/ACC672-Down-with-speed.pdf on page 18 and 23.

My understanding was the 70km/h rule is being scrapped in the next round of legislation so you could be trying to solve something that's already sorted.[/QUOTE]

Discotex, I am not sure that the proposed legislation changes gained enough momentum to become law any time soon as with the change in government Harry Duynhoven is no longer the Minister of Transport safety. It may depend on who was driving the legislation changes the NZ police, LTNZ or Harry Duynhoven. As far as I know there is little evidence on any progress since the original announcement back in December 07. The propsed legislation changes were supposed to go out to public submission last year but I don't think it ever did? Can anyone confirm?

Big Zappa

10th January 2009, 11:38

Tony

10th January 2009, 13:02

Just found this:
(ref http://www.beehive.govt.nz/sites/all/files/Ministry_of_Transport_BIM%20_0.pdf)

BRIEFING
TO
INCOMING MINISTER OF TRANSPORT
PREPARED BY
THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT
November 2008

(Ref page 19) Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 5)
This Bill is being drafted. It will include a range of changes aimed at improving road safety, including the final package of measures to implement the Road Safety Strategy to 2010.

(The provisions of this Bill complement the changes to the Graduated Driver Licence System under the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No. 5), as part of the Road Safety Strategy to 2010.)

...The Bill also deals with all remaining provisions in the Transport Act 1962, such as parking warden powers and bylaw-making powers. The provisions of the Transport Act are currently subject to a 1 July 2009 sunset clause, that is, they will expire on 1 July 2009.

The Bill was referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee but public submissions were not called for.

So they need to get this thru by 1st of July 2009.

Tony

12th January 2009, 11:43

I suggest writing to the new transport mininster to find out the progress/state of the changes proposed by Duynhoven.

By well established convention, ministers (or more accurately their relevant Government departments) have to answer every piece of mail (even email) that is addressed to their offices within 20 working days.

In fact you could ask most of the questions to the minister directly and see what they say in the reply.

Thanks for the excellent suggestion.

I made a quick phone call to the office of the Hon steven Joyce (then Misinster for Transport). Very friendly and helpful staff.

I learned that some parts of the bill require primary changes to legislation and some parts don't. (I am guessing this means there could be different time frames for different parts of the bill. It could mean that there is opportunity for more submissions on some parts of the bill - I understand that there has been some consultation with different industry groups and BRONZ on this issue already and I think that most people who are familar with the proposed changes are very keen on them being introduced as soon as possible.

They understandably couldn't advise me of the progress off hand and suggested that I send and email so that they can get back to me with the info.

I have forwarded a summary of the research information I have accumulated and previous statements from the Ministry of Transport, ACC, LTNZ, etc on this issue

I have also asked if they could advise on Steven Joyce's posistion is on this critical safey issue?

I will post when I have a response.

Big Zappa

12th January 2009, 16:21

Cool :sunny:

Bryan

27th January 2009, 19:25

I enquired a couple of weeks go regarding changes to the 70km/hr limit etc and they came back with the following response :

"There are some proposed changes before parliament at the moment in relation to changes to the motor cycle licence. At the moment these changes are in the policy development stage and have not yet be finalised on what the exact changes are. When this policy development stage has concluded it will allow for public submissions on what the proposed changes are and their effects.

I have attached a link to our website if you would like further information "
http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/rules/progress.html

The actual rule is currently being drafted for public consultation.

http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/rules/progress.html#driver-licensing-6

The orginal proposal contains links to other sources of information,which maybe of interest.

http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/motorcycle+safety+package+aims+cut+high+crash+rate

Rumour has it that it may become law by April.

Tony

13th February 2009, 19:40

I have attached a link to our website if you would like further information "
http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/rules/progress.html

The actual rule is currently being drafted for public consultation.

http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/rules/progress.html#driver-licensing-6

The orginal proposal contains links to other sources of information,which maybe of interest.

http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/motorcycle+safety+package+aims+cut+high+crash+rate

Rumour has it that it may become law by April.

Many thanks for the links and info Bryan

Tony

13th February 2009, 19:52

My resarch so far has taken two paths.

1. Finding research papers that quote the increased risk (but don't detil the specific risks)

2. Researching the specific risks (scenarios) that account for the increased risks.

So far the list of specific risks I have compiled is as below. If anyone can add to this partial list it would be much appreciated.

Learner speed limit restrictions on motorways and the open road may contribute to safety risks in the following ways

1.Increased speed differential of initial impact ( An initial rear or frontal impact from a speed differential of 30km per hour will often not prove fatal to a driver protected by a car but will often be fatal to a motorcycle)

2.The loss of the evasive option of changing lanes if the vehicle(s) ahead in the same lane as the motorcyclist are involved in an incident. A vehicle travelling at 70km/h can't readily change lanes into a gap in a stream of traffic travelling at 100 km/h in another lane.

3.Difficulty merging safely with traffic travelling at 100km/h from motorway on-ramps, side streets and from a stationary position from the side of the road. Increased danger of nose to tail accidents caused by vehicles braking unexpectedly.

4.Surprise/ un-preparedness of traffic merging with 70Km vehicle from motorway on-ramps.

5.Increased difficulty in changing lanes safely on the motorway. (Necessary at some motorway junctions and where left hand lanes end at off-ramps)

6.Increased road rage and driver frustration from other road users (Hostile driving and frustrated and dangerous overtaking manoeuvres).

7.Increased incidence of drivers tail gating. Research between 2003 and 2007 shows that 6% of all motorcycle fatalities were from rear end /obstruction. (ref: page 5, http://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/NewPDFs/Motorcycle-Crash-Factsheet.pdf

8.Incidents of car drivers coming along motorcycles and trying to share the lane with them in the same manner as they might do with a bicycle.

9.Increased incidence of drivers mis-judging closing speed when overtaking 70km motorcyclists. (surprisingly common occurrence).

10.Increased and disproportionate time (as much as 60%) spent by motorcyclist keeping an eye on rear view mirrors (as main safety risk at this speed comes from behind.) means less time scanning up the road and side to side looking for potential hazards.

11.Stops or discourages learner riders (particularly those, who because of where they live/work need to traverse through 100km thoroughfares) gaining the experience they should be gaining while on their L-plates

12.Forces young drivers off the highest standard roads onto lower standard, less safe, roads. with more, pedestrians, intersections etc. (ref: page 45, http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/muarc240.pdf. And 24% of fatal motorcycle accidents and 39% of non fatal injury accidents occur at intersections. (ref page 5 m page 5, http://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/NewPDFs/Motorcycle-Crash-Factsheet.pdf

13.There is some evidence to suggest that restricting speed limits for novice drivers prevents them from gaining experience at higher speeds and from developing high-speed driving skills (such as freeway merging and rural road driving). (ref: page 45, http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/muarc240.pdf)

It would be possible to conclude that some of the points above indicate that learners should not be allowed to ride on the open road, however this would be ignoring the contrary safety research covered in points 12 and 13 done by Monash university.

If anyone can add to this partial list it would be much appreciated.

Tony

13th February 2009, 19:54

Sorry I double posted by accident and only had the option of editing (deleting the content) of this post.

Perhaps one of the moderators could remove this post for me?

NighthawkNZ

13th February 2009, 20:26

1. Finding research papers that quote the increased risk (but don't detil the specific risks)

The 70k law was designed when the open road speed limit was 80kph.

90% of car drivers don't realise that the learners are only are only suppose to 70kph on the open road.

Simply put most people on the open road see a bike the automatically think it is doing 100kph +

The learner at 70kph gets pushed to the side of the road which is a bad place to be, the learner does not have the skill to get him or herself out of alot of situations cage drivers can put you in...

At 70kph many cage drivers will get impatient and could force a dangerous overtaking maneuver again putting the learner into strife.

Tony

14th February 2009, 08:49

The 70k law was designed when the open road speed limit was 80kph..

Thanks for your help and good points. I have had several people sugges that teh 70k law was introduced when the speed liimit was 50Mph (80km) but so far haven't been able to find the anything written anywhere that confirms the actual date it was introduced.

Can anyone help on this point?

Tony

18th February 2009, 11:48

I've just done a quick search of the rode code and the Land Transport act 1998. It seems that there is no law or rule that prevents you driving at 50km/h on the motorway or open road.

All it says is that you need to keep left and be considerate to drivers behind you.

In 1967 a law was introduced that made it an offense to drive unreasonably slowly - but this rule would appear to be no longer on the books.

I have also done a quick look through some of the regions road crash reports. There is a crash contributing factor code (182) for accidents caused by drivers driving unreasonably slowly - but not surprisingly (as there is now no definition of driving unreasonably slowly) not a single accident was ascribed to this crash contributing factor between 2003 and 2007 in any of the report I looked at.

Does anyone know of any rule that a motorist travelling at 50km on the open road could be charged with?

Tubbsy

1st March 2009, 17:56

Excellent post. I came looking for something like this on here because today my g/f and I went to Orewa North of Auckland for a ride. She doesn't want to go faster than 70km/h because that's what the law tells us to do. I think, like many on here, that particular law is f$@#$ked!

On the way back to Akl...we were coming up to the harbour bridge and the traffic got really heavy.....not slow enough to be going less than 100km/h...just heavy, and we were stuck in the middle lane because a separate lane opened up outta nowhere from an offramp. I knew we needed to change to the left lane because we were only going 70km/h, but we were surrounded by traffic moving at 100km/h +, so making any lane changes was exceptionally risky and dangerous. I could see her in the rear view mirror about 200ft behind me with cars tailgating and doing stupid dangerous manouvers to get past, so the only thing I could do was slow a bit so there wasn't enough of a gap for them to push in the middle of us too.
Totally put the shits up me to see that and not be able to do anything. On my own I would'a just twisted the throttle and moved in line with traffic speeds, but it was also her first big day on the bike.

Someone said before, car drivers have no idea we are only supposed to do 70km/h, and this was totally evident. This is one f#*#ked rule, and it's dangerous, we are both more than competent enough to be on the open road (I did the Welly to Akl ride 2 weeks ago), and both have mature heads on our shoulders, but my g/f follows the 70km/h rule to the letter, and has her life put in danger as a result. It needs to go NOW!!! :oi-grr:

On a cooler note, as we were coming to the bridge, a patched bikey gang rode past on their massive cruisers...about 30 of them...the sound was awesome!!! :Punk:

CookMySock

1st March 2009, 19:17

@Tubsy, mate I hope that didnt scare her her too badly. With respect bro, you two shouldn't really have been there - pretty clear in hindsight I guess. Lecture ends.

@70k rule, it's only there for cornering, as unless the total newbie can can countersteer with the bars, they are up shit creek in a tightish corner and anything above newbie-pace. 90km/hr in a straight line is trivial to anyone at any basic level of experience.

Steve

CookMySock

1st March 2009, 19:23

if Harry Dunhoven made the statement that "Road safety research indicates this speed difference issue outweighs any benefit of lower open road speed limits for novice motorcycle riders", the research must be available.No. The statement "research indicates blah blah blah" is a standard persuasion technique. This is used to add credibility to his argument in such a way that it is not questioned by the listener. What research? By who? What was the purpose of the research - to persuade? Persuade who into believing what? Who commissioned this research?

You get the drift I'm sure.. Watch out what you believe.

Note! I am commenting on the persuasion technique, not the 70k limit.

Steve

Tubbsy

1st March 2009, 19:34

Hey Steve, nah she's ok.

Thing is, We didn't know the traffic would be that bad....all the way to Orewa and back it was cruisey, and then suddenly we were surrounded because the barrier mover was doing it's thing and traffic was funneled into a couple of lanes. I have been driving that route for over 6 years, so know my way around there. We just got caught out. And yep...hindsight is good.

Don't know what other way we could have gone though....We live in central akl.

JMemonic

1st March 2009, 20:35

CookMySock

2nd March 2009, 07:06

trouble is if you disprove it no one pays attention.That is because people are sheep. Once they start following people who lead them with "research proves..." type statements, they will believe anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persuasion

Steve

Radar

2nd March 2009, 20:51

... but my g/f follows the 70km/h rule to the letter, and has her life put in danger as a result. ...

If your GF insists on following the 70 kph rule then imo she should not be on the motorway and probably not on any 100 kph road unless there is little traffic and there is a decent shoulder for her to keep out of the way. She needs to wait 6 months until she gets her Restricted, then she will be legal going over 70 kph.

This 70 kph rule has been discussed many times on KB and AFAIK no one has been ticketed by the cops for going 100 kph with an L plate on the motorway or open road. The exception would be if an L plate rider would be riding dangerously, foolishly or in some way that would cause the police to stop them - in this case the cop may ticket the rider but even then it seems to depend on the attitude of the rider (if the rider is polite or somehow can smoothly talk their way out of the ticket).

I know of one basic skills examiner who tells their soon-to-be L plate riders NOT to go 70 kph on the open road - if they feel competent doing so - because it can be dangerous (I was there when the examiner said this to my friend).

RocKai

2nd March 2009, 23:07

6 months is not a stupendously long period of time to go 100kmh unless you're really really eager to go riding...like me. My 6 months is up and soon getting restricted. IMO leaners should be riding 100kmh, Restricted can ride all day and night, and full should be able to carry a pillion. And the time of each period should be 6 months, 12 months respectitively.

I know our woman/female counterparts are hard to persuade, they won't listen to opinions, only what the law tell them. Kudos to you for riding with her. :yes:

FastBikeGear

23rd March 2009, 08:25

This 70 kph rule has been discussed many times on KB and AFAIK no one has been ticketed by the cops for going 100 kph with an L plate on the motorway or open road. The exception would be if an L plate rider would be riding dangerously, foolishly or in some way that would cause the police to stop them - in this case the cop may ticket the rider but even then it seems to depend on the attitude of the rider (if the rider is polite or somehow can smoothly talk their way out of the ticket).

I got a ticket for doing 85 km/h on the motorway instead of 70km/h a few days after Christmas this year. I was doing nothing else to attract attention and the cop (With the ironic name of Mr Toogood, Officer number H918) had no problem with any other aspects of my riding. I am guessing he was just down on his quota. He even said I shouldn't be getting the ticket - but he gave it to me anyway. Strange thing was other than this odd behaviour he seemed a really nice guy.

Tony

23rd March 2009, 08:38

No. The statement "research indicates blah blah blah" is a standard persuasion technique. This is used to add credibility to his argument in such a way that it is not questioned by the listener. What research? By who? What was the purpose of the research - to persuade? Persuade who into believing what? Who commissioned this research?

You get the drift I'm sure.. Watch out what you believe.

Note! I am commenting on the persuasion technique, not the 70k limit.

Steve

Harry Duynhoven was quoting directly from a Monash University study. The Study is online and you can find a link to it from the LTNZ web site. The study is also referenced in the paper "Down with Speed" published by ACC and also referenced to by the LTNZ. The LTNZ web site also has several other safety comments on their web site telling motorcyclists to matching speed with other traffic, etc, that would seem to directly contradict the 70 km/h rule. It's a case of very mixed messages.

Harry Duynhoven the ex minister of transport had announced that they were going to abolish this law... but the New Minister of Transport Steven Joyce when directly asked has declined to say what his stance on this issue is. In the meantime more Motorcyclists are forced by this law to risk their lives doing something that everyone concerned knows is significantly dangerous.

CookMySock

23rd March 2009, 12:11

I think the only time I have seen an L-Plater ticketed for over 70k is when they were doing something they shouldn't have been... Splitting or filtering too quickly, passing in tight areas, or other stuff that should be left to the experienced riders. The fuzz has a good idea what an experienced rider on a powerful bike can safely do, and to a large extent they leave these riders alone while they ride the grey area of the law. Long may this remain, in my opinion.

However, L-Platers are not this smart, and there is little that the fuzz can do while they similarly explore the same grey area of the law that experienced riders get to, and I think it's important that L-Platers can get a ticket if they do it at speeds over 70km/hr, and if the 70k learner limit is the only way they can enforce that, then I say let it stay.

Steve

quickbuck

26th March 2009, 20:35

@70k rule, it's only there for cornering, as unless the total newbie can can countersteer with the bars, they are up shit creek in a tightish corner and anything above newbie-pace. 90km/hr in a straight line is trivial to anyone at any basic level of experience.

Steve
You just made that up.
Cornering speed had nothing to do with it.

It was in fact introduced to keep learner riders in urban areas to practice.
There was no thought of them actually having a requirement to venture out on the open road. It was even recommended you don't!

The problem I see with that logic it that you are putting noobs in harms way of more traffic, not less.... Okay, there might be more on the motorway, but there are plenty of roads around the country that are brilliant to learn to ride a motorcycle.

At the end of the day, changing lanes, giveway rules, traffic lights and round abouts should be sussed within a week!

The real learning to ride comes on the maneuvering of the motorcycle at speed. Learners need to learn the rate in which to process information. Take their time..... This can be done on a quiet road at reduced speed if need be, but on the main roads with other road users 100k is the way to go.
At the end of the day, you have to learn to ride in that too....

scottjpalmer

15th April 2009, 23:29

Hi all

I emailed Steven Joyce (Minister of Transport) last month and he has replied today.

"This change is being considered as part of an update of the Land Transport Rule: Driver Licensing 1999, and that the public will be consulted on the changes to it later this year."

RocKai

16th April 2009, 10:10

Blah Blah Blah...Blah di blah di blah :yawn:

consulted on the changes to it later this year
They said that last year :crazy:

He probably copy and paste that same sentence since last year for a thousand times a day :angry2:

Just keep your L-plate on, when my mate lead on his L-plate, it's a "Leader Plate".
When you carry your missus, it's the "Love Plate".
When you're happy, it's the "LoL Plate".
It's also a "Leave me alone Plate".
Use it to the conditions :beer:

Tony

20th April 2009, 17:42

It was in fact introduced to keep learner riders in urban areas to practice.
There was no thought of them actually having a requirement to venture out on the open road. It was even recommended you don't!

You just made that up too!

In my research I haven't been able to find out why it was introduced. Any ideas we invent for the reasoning behind it are just that...inventions.

Of course if you can point to anything that actually states why it was introduced I would be most grateful.

Ixion

20th April 2009, 18:08

Sigh. Before the GDLS , we had what were called provisional (probationary ?) licences. Cost five shillings.

Rock up to the snake shop, pay five bob, answer a bunch of questions about the road code (tougher ones than now, and they could invent them on the spot, no multi choice), convince the snake it wasn't really you he's seen riding around for the last month, and (maybe, cos snakes was mean and unpredictable, and accountable to no-one), he'd give you a provisional licence.

Toad into the Post office (no Post Shops then we had the real thing), and get a P rego sticker to stick on the number plate.

And you were good to do, start learning. Only one rule really - restricted to 30 mph (50kph) areas. No open road at all. (no motorways in them days). Of course everyone ignored that rule, but that was the law

Now, back then they didn't have such a variety of speed limits. Only 30mph (50kph) and open road 55mph (90kph). Then later, they got all carried away and introduced 70kph zones, and 80 kph zones. Dunno why, always thought it was just complicating things.

So , when the GDLS came out ,and they (TPTB) started discussing the 'L' licence , someone said "Oh, and restricted to 50kph areas, like the provisional licence, of course". And someone else said "Oh, wait, we have some of those new 70kph speed limit areas now, how about we allow them in those too?". "Oh, OK then , restricted to 70kph".
I think the "area" bit got lost in the drafting shop.

The 70kph was intended to be a *relaxation* of the old rule.

Was a bit simpler then, too, you didn't have to wait any specific time before your practical test (only one test, and you could ride any size bike even on a P licence). In theory you could get your P licence in the morning and do the practical test half an hour later. A few did, though it was unwise , the snakes would usually fail you if you did that, for being a smart aleck (there were a couple of general rules back then - snakes could do pretty much anything they wanted, and being a smart aleck was a VeryBadTHing, certain to cost much pain and money- pounds then , not dollars).

That's where it came from.

Tony

20th April 2009, 21:29

.

So , when the GDLS came out ,and they (TPTB) started discussing the 'L' licence , someone said "Oh, and restricted to 50kph areas, like the provisional licence, of course". And someone else said "Oh, wait, we have some of those new 70kph speed limit areas now, how about we allow them in those too?". "Oh, OK then , restricted to 70kph".
I think the "area" bit got lost in the drafting shop.

The 70kph was intended to be a *relaxation* of the old rule.

Nice speculation.

I remember the old scheme certainly a lot easier than now.

I think the new scheme is much smarter/safer for us.

I never bothered to convert to a full license and when they changed to the new lifetime licenses it was left off my new license.

So when I recently wanted to ride a bike again they couldn't find anything in the archives so I had to go right thru the new scheme again.

Ixion

20th April 2009, 21:35

Well, I think your 'old' scheme cannot be as old as mine, because the provisional licence only lasted for a short time . It may have been only one month, but a few months at most. Six months - seems vaguely familiar. Then you had to go back and pay another 5/- for another one, and get another sticker. And, I think, answer another lot of questions . I think there may have been a limit to the number of times you could renew it too. There was no conversion to a full licence. Just a licence. You had a licence , or you didn't . The provisonal thing didn't count as a licence it was just a permit.

Perhaps you are thinking about the later scheme, when they introduced learner lciences, but you convert the elarner licence to a full one after a certain time without another test? I'm talking much earlier, around the 1950s maybe 1960s.

unrealone

20th April 2009, 22:09

Tony

22nd April 2009, 09:01

Blah Blah Blah...Blah di blah di blah :yawn:

They said that last year :crazy:

He probably copy and paste that same sentence since last year for a thousand times a day :angry2:

The rule phase is still stuck in Yellow Phase (rule being drafted for public consultation) where it was last year. It is evident that changing this rule which endangers learner motorcyclists is a low priority. (I have a full license). Maybe BRONZ could give us an update on what they see the progress on this being.

For current progress see http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/rules/progress.html#driver-licensing-6

ecnal

22nd April 2009, 11:04

check the MOT website, the 70k rule is going

Harvd

22nd April 2009, 14:48

check the MOT website, the 70k rule is going

linky pleeeeese me 2 simple 4 this intermabeb

Tony

30th April 2009, 09:22

So , when the GDLS came out ,and they (TPTB) started discussing the 'L' licence , someone said "Oh, and restricted to 50kph areas, like the provisional licence, of course". And someone else said "Oh, wait, we have some of those new 70kph speed limit areas now, how about we allow them in those too?". "Oh, OK then , restricted to 70kph".
I think the "area" bit got lost in the drafting shop.

OK I have done a bit more research on this and can confirm Ixion would apperar to have it exactly right. However I have not been able to source any documetns showing why it was introduced.

The following was sourced from my correspondent at NZTA.

"The lower seed limit appears to have been set by clause 28(d) of the Transport (Driver Licensing) regulations 1987. At this stage, there were only learner and full license stages."

The provision was then carried across into paragraph 16(1)(d) of the Land Transport (drvier Licensing) Rule 1999, with the only change being to add a reference to the practical test for a restricted license.

I had also requested from NZTA if they had any research to show that the 70Km/h restriction had any safety merits. They have confirmed that they and the Ministry of Transport know of no such research.

I had also requested an opinion from the Hon Stephen Joyce. He has replied that he is awaiting the results of the consultation process that is looking at the proposed law change to remove the 70km speed restriction before forming and expressing an opinion.

Tony

30th April 2009, 09:29

check the MOT website, the 70k rule is going

I think we are still along way away from getting this rule changed. Can you provide a link to your source for this comment?

My undersatnding that the law is still stuck at the stage of producing draft legislation. (Where it has been for over a year since the then Hon Harry Duynhoven first proposed it).

Why is it not progressing you ask?

No statistics are kept or created on how many riders have been killed due to this stupid law. We all know how dangerous it is but the people who make the laws don't have any visibility of this. I understand that Harry Duynhoven rode/rides a bike but Steven Joyce does not.

Tony

19th May 2009, 12:59

I have been informed by the NZ Police statistics department that despite this rule being a major safety concern raised by the previous Minister of Transport (Hon Harry Duynhoven) and repeatedly raised by motorcyclists since it's introduction in 1987 that no statistics have ever been collected in NZ on;

the number of learner riders who have died while complying with this rule the number of learner riders who have died while doing 100km/h or exceeding the 100km/h limit.

I had requested both of the above under the O.I.A. and I have been told they can't provide the above as they have never collected either statistic.

Now I know at this point everone is going to think that I have misunderstood their response and I must be mistaken and they surely must collect this information. I have requested a formal written response and I am currently waiting on this.

Surely this information can be extracted from fatal accident reports on which the estimated speed the rider was travelling at when the accident began to unfold should be recorded?

Does anyone else find it amazing that they only record the estimated speed for traffic accidents that happen over the speed limit?

I think this is bordering on criminally negligent?

When I started this researh project I thought that I would discover evidence of intelligent policing and smart research - I have been shocked to find an absense of both.

The traffic safety education that police officers receive is extremely deficient and lite in nature. With the existing rules and poor safety education and focus on policing rather than educating they have, they can have very little impact on road safety. It must be extremley, incredibly frustrating for them to do a job that offers so little satisfaction. Most of the rest of us get to do satisfying jobs why shouldn't they be aforded the same opportunity.

If you started with a clean sheet of paper and the directive to reduce road deaths and injuries, the plan would look nothing like what is being actioned today.

Can you tell I have reached frustration point?

For the record, while I occassionally break the speed limit, I am not an advocate for speeding. But I do think for the money we all pay towards policing through taxes we should expect intelligent policing and we are simply not getting it.

vifferman

19th May 2009, 13:06

I do think for the money we all pay towards policing through taxes we should expect intelligent policing and we are simply not getting it.
I thought that this morning, when riding down the motorway. There's a cop, sitting (actually, parked where it would be illegal for anyone else), pointing his laser at oncoming traffic, just before the end of his shift.
What's intelligent about this, and how does it aid road safety? I guess though, that it's good use of taxpayer money. He would only need to 'ping' a couple of cars doing over 108km/h, and he's paid for his time spent sitting there, and made good inroads into his weekly quota. Plus this data will be included in any stats collected.

Tony

23rd May 2009, 11:15

I have been informed by the NZ Police statistics department that despite this rule being a major safety concern raised by the previous Minister of Transport (Hon Harry Duynhoven) and repeatedly raised by motorcyclists since it's introduction in 1987 that no statistics have ever been collected in NZ on;

the number of learner riders who have died while complying with this rule
the number of learner riders who have died while doing 100km/h or exceeding the 100km/h limit.

I had requested both of the above under the O.I.A. and I have been told they can't provide the above as they have never collected either statistic.

There must have been some confusion in the original phone conversation. Contrary to the above the Police statistics department has followed up the phone call in a letter with the following these statistics. Many thanks to the Police Statistics department all my faith has now been restored.

Here they are:

Between 2001 and 2008, of the 274 morotcyclists killed (including moped riders) 38 of these riders (13.8%) held a learner license.

27 of the 38 fatalities (71%) happened on the open road. We only have an estimated speed for 9 of these 27 riders.

3 (33%) of these 27 riders were travelling at 70km/h or less. It needs to be noted that one of these was travelling betwen 10 and 20km hour
1 (11%) was travelling between 70 and 100km/hr
3 (33%) were killed travelling betwenn 90 km/hand 110 km/h
1 (11%) rider was killed exceeding 120km/h

I don't have figures to compare the % time learners spend riding on the open road Vs limited speed zones.
It should be noted that this is also a relatively small sample to draw conclusions from.

Anecdotal indication is that a large proportion of learners are advised to remove their Learner plates by riding instructors and experienced riders and ignore the 70km/h rule. If learner riders only obey the 70km/h rule 25% of the time then the statistics would tend to indicate it is significantly more dangerous to travel at 70km/h in 100km/h zones. However the reality is we don't know what % of the time learners obey the 70km/h restriction.

Interesting thing is that from the limited statistics above, only a very small percentage of learners were killed in excess of 110km/h. I suspect that this is because learners probably don't speed as much as experienced motorcyclists.

discotex

26th May 2009, 19:45

We only have an estimated speed for 9 of these 27 riders.

3 (33%) of these 27 riders were travelling at 70km/h or less. It needs to be noted that one of these was travelling betwen 10 and 20km hour
1 (11%) was travelling between 70 and 100km/hr
3 (33%) were killed travelling betwenn 90 km/hand 110 km/h
1 (11%) rider was killed exceeding 120km/h

Ummm that's only 8 out of 9.

But it fairly clearly shows that the number of deaths is not relative to speed so there is no justification for the limit itself.

I wonder if 71% of learner car drivers die on the open road as well.

Ixion

26th May 2009, 20:24

Ash250R

26th May 2009, 22:31

Ive been having a skim throught this thread and with the hope that it does not form a debate it is a very good thing to question, as a newbie yet to get my learners I myself am slightly concerned, as of the end of the week my motorbike will be my only for of transport, yes its is fine for sumone in a town like Hamilton for a short commute but I travel from hamilton and kaitaia at a frequency of anyware up to a return trip every two or more months it is definitly somthing to be of concern.

There is allways an idiot on the road it is almost human nature to test boundries weather its driving or riding, is this something that is going to take an awfull accident caused by speed differnce to make the rule aparent that yes it may do more harm than good?

To make a point it is almost as daunting when driving my 73 Datsun (Japanise Tank) at around 80kph on the motorway it only takes one person doing a poor attempt at overtaking to cause problems, I hate to think that it will be greatly amplified whilst riding a bike that is not even half your body weight.

JMemonic

26th May 2009, 23:15

Keep up the effort Tony the info proves at least the statistical information is lacking.

As has been said the figures can be skewed by the riders who have not upgraded, there for time the licence has been held is important info, as is the size of the bike, ie was the rider outside of their licence class.

Tony

15th June 2009, 15:29

Just to complicate things (especially the open road bit), bear in mind that there are an awful lot of "learners" who are not learners. That is, riders who have been riding for years (many years in some cases) but have never bothered to progress their licences past the L stage. One cannot assume that "learner" = "inexperienced"

Ixion your dead right again! The other complication is that I hear that a number of L-Plate riders remove their plates and ignore the 70 km/h limitation on the open road.

I want to get a feel for what percentage of riders do this plus a couple of other things. Can anyone tell me how I conduct a poll on this forum?

Tony

15th June 2009, 15:46

Oh no bad news, the legislation to remove the 70km/h changes to this law have now been pushed back by another year. These were proposed to be in driver license changes currently being drafted.

see http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/rules/progress.html#driver-licensing-6

I think originally the consultation was supposed to be last year and then it was going to be mid 2009 and now it has been announced that they won't be going out to public consultation until 2010.

I wonder how many more learners will lose their lives unnecessarily until this rule is changed.

Please if you are concerned about this please write to the Minister of transport, Steven Joyce.

Hon Steven Joyce
Minister of Transport
Parliament Buildings
Wellington 6011
New Zealand

Jenral

21st June 2009, 17:03

Thanks, this topic has helped me to write my application for exemption.

Cheers Tony and everyone for the useful info.

JMemonic

21st June 2009, 23:23

Thanks, this topic has helped me to write my application for exemption.

Cheers Tony and everyone for the useful info.

I would be interested to see how you get on with the exemption, and the information you used as we might need to apply for one.

Jenral

11th July 2009, 16:00

Thanks, this topic has helped me to write my application for exemption.

Cheers Tony and everyone for the useful info.

Damn it, DECLINED :buggerd:

Oh well, it was only a long shot anyway. I'll just have to be patient until October when I can sit my restricted.

Tony

11th July 2009, 17:37

Damn it, DECLINED :buggerd:

Oh well, it was only a long shot anyway. I'll just have to be patient until October when I can sit my restricted.

On what grounds did you request your exemption?
Did you say that you needed to travel on 100km roads to get to work, place of educaton, etc. and point out your were requesting exemption based on safety as per the previous Minister of Transports comments..."... Remove the 70km/h speed limit restriction which currently applies to learner motorcycle licence holders. This restriction is largely ignored. When this speed restriction is adhered to it creates a large difference in the speed of vehicles travelling on the open road, which is a known road safety problem. Road safety research indicates this speed difference issue outweighs any benefit of lower open road speed limits for novice motorcycle riders;"

http://beehive.govt.nz/release/motor...igh+crash+rate

One would have hoped that would now do the trick!

One reason I have been recently given for delaying the abolishment of this rule was. "Currently this is one of the few mechanisms avalible to us for encouraging Motorcycle riders to progress from their Learners License to a Restricted License, we don't want riders riding on learner licenses for 5 years or more as is currently often the case, particularly with scooter riders."

Although I am not sure why they woud care if scooter riders stayed on learner license for ever?

Dare

11th July 2009, 19:55

Although I am not sure why they woud care if scooter riders stayed on learner license for ever?
Neither, unlike cages there is a basic handling test for learners so it can't be that. The minimal difference between learner and restricted makes me think it would be worth simply stating 'curfew at xx:xx for first year, xx:xx for second'. I think maybe that extra $80 per person?

Tony

24th August 2009, 15:53

...........

FastBikeGear

24th August 2009, 16:08

I got a ticket for doing 85 km/h on the motorway instead of 70km/h a few days after Christmas this year. I was doing nothing else to attract attention and the cop (With the ironic name of Mr Toogood, Officer number H918) had no problem with any other aspects of my riding. I am guessing he was just down on his quota. He even said I shouldn't be getting the ticket - but he gave it to me anyway. Strange thing was other than this odd behaviour he seemed a really nice guy.

I went to court to defend this. The court transcript is hilarious (I'll post some of it later). Turned out the cop who pulled me over was not Officer Toogood But because the officer who pulled me over is a motorway support officer he claimed he didn't carry a ticket book so he got an officer back at the station (Mr Toogood) to write out the ticket and post it to me.

At one stage when I was using the 2 second rule and some basic maths to explain that the officer should not have been following as close as he was the presiding JP (not a judge) corrected me (when I said there was a 1000 meters in a kilometer) to say that there were only 100m in a kilometer.

The officer said he followed me at a distance of 40 meters in his statement. When I cross examined him I asked him how wide the courtroom was and he said it was 40 metres wide. I pointed out that the ceiling tiles in the courtroom were the standard 600mm wide and there were 11 of them so that would make the court room 6.6 meters wide.

At some point unsurprisingly the J.P choose to clear the court room.