Who really does 70 on learners?

[marine0089]

Sort of on topic,

I just booked in my restricted test for 15th of Feb so am now in need of an L plate.

Was going to just go buy a new one but thought I may as well try save the trees (trees?) and see if anyone on here has an old one they no longer need?

If so, PM me.

[Mikkel]

But the thing is, if you haven't ridden a motorcycle in traffic - most probably indicated by the fact you have a learners licence - they you *dont* have extensive experience in traffic on a motorcycle. Sure it might be in a car - but riding a bike is simply not the same. Only some of your experience is transferrable.

I didn't expect you to understand all of it - but I had hoped you wouldn't have missed the point entirely. A learner's license indicate that you are completely new to the game of motoring - a restricted license indicates that you are new to the vehicle in question and getting familiar with its specifics.

You'll have to get used to it. "Grown ups" are told what to do all the time. At work. At home. And yes, by the Government.

And only the sheeple accept that fact with questioning it. Grown ups do what they do because they want to - and they face up to their responsibilities. Following the rules, because they are the rules is worthy of scorn - following the rules because they make sense and you agree with them is an entirely different matter.

But you must be so glad that you get to live in a nanny state... at least you won't have to do hard stuff like thinking for yourself. And I guess you never speed and never exceeded 70 km/h when you were on your L.

You do realise you can simply apply for an exemption to any restrictions if you feel your judgement is sound - and that you can convince the NZTA of that? If you can't convince them then perhaps it might be a touch of overconfidence?

I realise that I can apply for an exemption - simply, that I don't know about. However, that fact doesn't in any way justify having silly restrictions in the first place.
Having to deal with bureaucratic institutions is a hassle I can do without.

So please people, while you are learning, please take it careful and try and stick to your licence restrictions. No one likes to read about any rider being involved in an accident.

"Yes mom!" Seriously, get over yourself - you are currently preaching to the choir. If people are silly enough to really put their lives at risk, do you actually think they'll give a heck about the rules? And do you think they'll give a damn about your concerns?

I'm not going to dig out the figures for you (I have a latter to write, but that's another thread), you can retrieve them yourself from the NZTA. They are on their web site. Young riders are dis-proportionally represented in the accident statistics. Accidents as a result of breaches of licence conditions figure highly enough that they do mention them in the NZTA report. The breach of alcohol restriction being the most commonly broken. I think exceeding the speed restriction of their licence was one of the other top factors listed.

Well, I'm sure that if I had, during my learner period, somehow managed to get run over by a truck at 10.20 pm on a summer evening - due to no fault of my own - then that death would be attributed to breach of license condition. I really hope I don't have to give more than one example for you to get the point here.

There is no license restriction in regards to learners and restricted licenses and alcohol. There's a distinction in regards to age, which makes your argument even more irrelevant in light of our current discussion.

As has been established here many many times, a lot of people break the 70 km/h restriction. It follows that some people will have accident during the particular time in which they are breaking this restriction - reasoning that all these accident must be due to the breach is a laughable claim. ...but no doubt that's the assumption upon which the statistics are based.

Ultimately bike safety comes down to three things: maturity (attitude if you will), competence and luck. (And most likely in that order too.) I'll claim that the average 16 year old kid doesn't have the maturity to handle him/herself safely in traffic. This claim is at least in accord with the statistics - and most other countries do not hand out drivers licenses at that young an age. Also, teenagers don't give a shit about the rules - never have, never will. Trying to make them adhere to a number of restrictions, half of which are inherently silly, is not going to happen. Trying to enforce the same rules upon an independently thinking adult is even more ridiculous.

Just for your interest I took a look at the 2008 crash statistics for motorcycles:
http://www.transport.govt.nz/researc...%20crashes.pdf
Jump down to page 70, "PERCENTAGE OF MOTORCYCLE CASUALTIES BY AGE AND SEX".

15-24 year olds had the highest number of accidents, followed closely by 25 to 54 year olds. The accident statistics don't support that having extensive experience in traffic is enough to stop you having a motorcycle accident.

You don't really get statistics at all do you? The table in question shows the distribution of casualties between people of different ages. In order to interpret that in any meaningful manner you need to know the distribution of motorcyclists depending upon age - i.e. if there are twice as many young riders as old riders it would be (all other factors considered equal) expected that there be twice as many casualties within this category.

Young people may well be over-represented in the casualties - the logical conclusion, to me, would be that the license restrictions do not work as intended!
We see casualties drop off as the age goes up - this could be due to several factors: e.g. people riding less as they get older or that the experience-to-testosterone ratio may have an impact.

Now I'm just left wondering what the "Other" category covers... children under 5? Hermaphrodites?

[The Everlasting]

Even travelling at 100 I get people over taking me! and then slowing down in front of me?
Like WTF mate, you dont want to follow me cos of an L-Plate?

Loser, Then I chilax and laugh at them for being douches...

Yeah I did notice that too when I had my L-Plate on,after I took it off didn't seem to happen anymore.

[tcpdump]

yea and its only a $400 fine anyway innit

Since 1st of December 2009 the fine decreased to $100 but of course you'll get another $100 for doing more than 70km/h and 60 demerit points (25+35).
But it's way better than getting $800 fine.

I kept my L plate. And I'm doing 100 on the Wellington motorway every day and I saw a lot of others L platers do the same. So far, nobody bothered stopping me.

[enzedone]

I put my L plate on for the first time today. I had a wee chat with a man in blue the other morning on my way to work. 105km, 4.30am, no plate. 20 minutes later and loads of warnings (bike impounding, court....) he let me go to work and back.
Went for a ride today (1hour) came home, no plate left. Only a small piece around the nut.
I had and old XJ550 years ago, never got hassled, even at check points. No license, no worries. But now I can't afford to lose my license. So no riding to work anymore. I can wait another 2 months.
Just glad he didn't stop me coming home doing naughty speeds.....

[Cayman911]

Id recommend having your plate for riding around the inner city.
like i found out today. the biker cop told me to pull over at the lights . there goes $100 and 25 demerit points.

[Genie]

I took mine off as I felt like a target, rode around for a week and put it back on. Dont' care about it. If it saves me $100 then I'll have it on.
Not sticking to 70k as I think on the open road it is far too dangerous and I'm not into big trucks sitting on my arse!!!!
Only have to have it on for a short time anyway, will induce me to get restricted asap!!!

[Cayman911]

Restricted will be over and done with next week, after delaying and being on my learners for nearly 2 years. and i only get my ticket a week before my test lol.

its just how the world works

[blackdog]

can someone correct me if im wrong, but my understanding is that if you are caught riding on only a full car license without any class 6, that the appropriate fine is only $50 for riding with the wrong class of license?(and vice versa) (accordin to a cop i talked to some time ago). 4got to ask about demerits tho.......has this changed?

also, in my experience the level of maturity you show when engaging with an officer can make a huge difference in any actions he/she may decide to take. i believe most are willing to take a common sense approach with both the 70km limit and 'L' plates

[tcpdump]

Id recommend having your plate for riding around the inner city.
like i found out today. the biker cop told me to pull over at the lights . there goes $100 and 25 demerit points.

Were you stalling or having difficulties with the bike?
Seems a bit odd for a cop to pull you over without him suspecting something.

[red mermaid]

Wrong class of licence is $400, not sure if there is any demerits.

can someone correct me if im wrong, but my understanding is that if you are caught riding on only a full car license without any class 6, that the appropriate fine is only $50 for riding with the wrong class of license?(and vice versa) (accordin to a cop i talked to some time ago). 4got to ask about demerits tho.......has this changed?

also, in my experience the level of maturity you show when engaging with an officer can make a huge difference in any actions he/she may decide to take. i believe most are willing to take a common sense approach with both the 70km limit and 'L' plates

Police do not need a reason to stop a vehicle. You can stop at random all day, every day.

tcpdump
Originally Posted by Cayman911
Id recommend having your plate for riding around the inner city.
like i found out today. the biker cop told me to pull over at the lights . there goes $100 and 25 demerit points.
Were you stalling or having difficulties with the bike?
Seems a bit odd for a cop to pull you over without him suspecting something.

[blackdog]

Wrong class of licence is $400, not sure if there is any demerits.

.

anyone on the demerits?

[tcpdump]

I already provided a link in this thread to the Land Transport saying that you get
$100 and 35 demerit points for not having the L plate
$100 and 25 demerit points for going above 70km/h.

This changed on the 1st of December 2009, prior to that it was $400+25 (no L platE) and $400+25 (over 70km/h).

[CRF119]

Na im on my learners, got bored of a 250 so brought a CBR900RR. Can't sit my restricted now as i dont have a 250 lol

[blackdog]

I already provided a link in this thread to the Land Transport saying that you get
$100 and 35 demerit points for not having the L plate
$100 and 25 demerit points for going above 70km/h.

This changed on the 1st of December 2009, prior to that it was $400+25 (no L platE) and $400+25 (over 70km/h).

im sorry you appear to have misunderstood me.

the question was, "what are the demerits for riding on the wrong class of license?"