Restricted licence time frame

[miloking]

Look, there are really only 3 possibilities here, and I defy anyone to provide a convincing argument that proves my logic is wrong:

POSSIBILTY NUMBER ONE: You did not consider all the costs involved in owning and operating a motor vehicle. If you cannot factor in WOF, rego, and licensing costs, that is your problem. The people who are that "hand to mouth" as you put it, are also the types that decide insurance is not on the priority list - again, if you can't afford the costs associated with a vehicle, then you can't afford to be on the road. I'd rather Mr or Mrs possibility number one was not on the road, thanks.

POSSIBILITY NUMBER TWO: You are not skilled enough to pass the requisite tests to move up through the license stages. You may have tried and failed, and thus are sitting on an L or P, or you may never have tried to get past L because you are afraid of failing. I'd rather Mr or Mrs possibility number two was not on the road, thanks.

POSSIBILITY NUMBER THREE: You have not graduated through the stages for some other reason. Assuming it's not one of the above, that means you CAN afford the cost, and you DO have the skill to pass. The only conclusion I can come to is that you have a good quantity of fresh air between your ears. I'd rather Mr or Mrs possibility number three was not on the road, thanks.

If you are going to operate a vehicle, is it really too much to ask that you are

1. Able to afford the associated costs
2. Qualified to operate it
3. Not a complete munter who doesn't get why 1. and 2. are important?

There is so much wrong with your logic that i dont even know where to start, so lets go from top down...

1) What if the person was fully aware of associated costs and was able to afford cost of vehicle and licencing at the time but due to some unforseen events...like sickness or loss of employment they are currently "hand to mouth" taking their licence away is wrong as it will cause further hardship (and shows Mr.Joyce doesnt use his brain at all):
ALSO IT IS NOT UP TO YOU WHETHER THIS PERSON DRIVES OR NOT!

2) You might not be skilled enough to pass R or L but you are skilled enough to be learner...and legally thats all that NZTA required from you when you sat the "scratch and win" so changing the rules half way for the people that are still learning to master the skill of driving or riding is very unfair.
AGAIN...IT IS NOT UP TO YOU WHETHER THIS PERSON DRIVES OR NOT!

3) You are on R or L and are skilled enough to pass the full and have enough money for the licence test...but when you sat your L or R there was no mention of how fast you need to get full, and there definitely wasnt anyone saying that you have to sit full at all (EVER!)....so ITS freedom of choice that was given, and taking it away by forceful legislation is plainly wrong.

And its definitely NOT UP to YOU if this person drives or not either....

[Mully Clown]

The NZ Drivers License is essentially our National ID Card. I'm sure there's a reasonable proportion of people that don't actually drive at all but have a learners license as it was the first proper usable form of ID they could get.

Screw carrying around a passport or birth certificate just to identify yourself.

[notme]

There is so much wrong with your logic that i dont even know where to start, so lets go from top down...

Yes, let's.

1) What if the person was fully aware of associated costs and was able to afford cost of vehicle and licencing at the time but due to some unforseen events...like sickness or loss of employment they are currently "hand to mouth" taking their licence away is wrong as it will cause further hardship (and shows Mr.Joyce doesnt use his brain at all):

What if? Well well well my son, there are numerous ways around this one. WINZ will give you a grant for such a situation. Employers (nice ones) will give you a loan or advance on wages. Family and friends could help. Finally, I really don't think that the laws are going to be drafted up without considering this sort of hardship. There will be some appeal method, some avenue to write in and get an exception. For example, you can get an excemption from being restricted to a 250cc bike on your learner's at the moment. You can get an exemption to ride/drive outside the mandated hours of an L or R license.

ALSO IT IS NOT UP TO YOU WHETHER THIS PERSON DRIVES OR NOT!

Correct. It's up to the government. Did you have a point?

2) You might not be skilled enough to pass R or L but you are skilled enough to be learner...and legally thats all that NZTA required from you when you sat the "scratch and win" so changing the rules half way for the people that are still learning to master the skill of driving or riding is very unfair.

Not sure what you are saying here. Say someone went for their learner's today, and the law changed tomorrow. All that the change is proposing, is that you can only stay on your L for a certain period of time. The time is AFAIK undeicded, but naturally it is going to be more than the minimum time that you must be on an L before trying for a R, and less than infinity. I'd suggest that they will do something like make it double the minimum. That means you can be on your L for a year, practicing your riding skills. So if in that time you are unable to master the skills necessary, you should not move on to an R - which is exactly the point of the proposed change!

AGAIN...IT IS NOT UP TO YOU WHETHER THIS PERSON DRIVES OR NOT!

Correct. It's up to the government. Did you have a point?

3) You are on R or L and are skilled enough to pass the full and have enough money for the licence test...but when you sat your L or R there was no mention of how fast you need to get full, and there definitely wasnt anyone saying that you have to sit full at all (EVER!)....so ITS freedom of choice that was given, and taking it away by forceful legislation is plainly wrong.

And its definintely UP to YOU if this person drives or not either....

I think you meant "not". and once again:
Correct. It's up to the government. Did you have a point?

Yes, you are right - currently there is no mention that you must move up the stages at some point. This is the very reason that the change is being proposed, to stop people viewing this omission as an excuse to stay on one rung of the ladder. I imagine that the original drafters of the rules thought that is was not necessary to put ina clause saying you should progress, because they, like myself and most other normal people, probably though "why would anyone NOT move through the stages" (the answer to which is here)

Seriously - why would you not move up?
- you get better insurance rates/maybe insurance full stop
- you have no time/vehicle restrictions within the class
- full is a requirement for many jobs
- if you have multiple classes on your license and any one is an L or R, your license is a non-full colour and this can cause delays and aggravation when producing it
- when i was at school and uni, people had a bit of pride in achieving something and it was a bit of a race between mates - if you failed one of the stages you were made fun of. The attitude nowadays seems to be of pride in failure - eg. "add it to my tab officer" and "i've been on my learners for 10 years!"

So, what was wrong with my logic?

[notme]

The NZ Drivers License is essentially our National ID Card. I'm sure there's a reasonable proportion of people that don't actually drive at all but have a learners license as it was the first proper usable form of ID they could get.

Screw carrying around a passport or birth certificate just to identify yourself.

A very valid point, and one I hadn't thought of. I'll add it to my original post

[Neon]

Look, there are really only 3 possibilities here, and I defy anyone to provide a convincing argument that proves my logic is wrong:

...

1. Able to afford the associated costs
2. Qualified to operate it
3. Not a complete munter who doesn't get why 1. and 2. are important?
4.
THIS IS THE ONLY VALID REASON FOR STAYING ON YOUR L OR R LICENSE. If the change is introduced, the govt needs to rectify this issue at the same time.

Sure, just to be clear, I don't disagree with anything you have said thus far.

1. Poor
2. Unskilled
3. Lazy / other

However, aside from point 2 which is obvious, points 1 and 3 have absolutely no bearing on whether one presents a higher risk of accident. At least I have not seen or heard of any study which suggests that this is true.

[Owl]

I'll also provide a direct answer to this in case the points above are not clear enough.

The evidence is that they have not passed.

On the contrary, they have passed any licence they hold, whether that be L,R or full!

[notme]

... points 1 and 3 have absolutely no bearing on whether one presents a higher risk of accident. ...

Agreed (for point 1 at least) - and it's nice to read your reasoned and well thought out argument above, rather than the alternative "wah wah govt bullshit cops are out to get me" type of thing that usually dominates these threads.

Regarding pont 3 - the munters:


It is indeed an assumption that a full license=safer driver/rider until some stats are revealed by Joyce, however the fact remains that the gubbmint doesn't NEED to prove this fact in order to change the law, because for 90% of the population, 90% of the time, it is going to be true.

******updated - the stats are here, so it's not an assumption any more.

What you can not prove with crash stats is the mentality of the driver. It's a good indicator of the attitude of the person in charge of a deadly weapon that they can't even be bothered taking a simple test - maybe they can't be bothered maintaining a safe and roadworthy vehicle either? Hell, why even bother sticking to the speed limit or giving way or obeying traffic signals.....I'd deem that person to be at higher risk of causing an accident.

[notme]

On the contrary, they have passed any licence they hold, whether that be L,R or full!

Thanks for that, original post amended so that the exact wording matches the obvious (to most, given the context) intention.

[PrincessBandit]

At which point they carry on and finish it off.

Not necessarily - as evidenced by many of the posts and opinions here.

Look, there are really only 3 possibilities here, and I defy anyone to provide a convincing argument that proves my logic is wrong:

POSSIBILTY NUMBER ONE: I'd rather Mr or Mrs possibility number one was not on the road, thanks.

POSSIBILITY NUMBER TWO: I'd rather Mr or Mrs possibility number two was not on the road, thanks.

POSSIBILITY NUMBER THREE: I'd rather Mr or Mrs possibility number three was not on the road, thanks.

If you are going to operate a vehicle, is it really too much to ask that you are

1. Able to afford the associated costs
2. Qualified to operate it
3. Not a complete munter who doesn't get why 1. and 2. are important?
4.
THIS IS THE ONLY VALID REASON FOR STAYING ON YOUR L OR R LICENSE. If the change is introduced, the govt needs to rectify this issue at the same time.

This will come as no surprise, but I agree with you. What people who are moaning about it want is a return to the old days where you sat your license and the only choice was Full. (As per when I sat my car license back in 1979 - no GDL back then). However the difference is they want to be able to use their L as a full license.

[Old Steve]

and oh by the way also 18,000 motorcyclists have had learners for more than 15 years.

That doesn't mean that there are 18,000 motorbike riders actually riding around who have had their learners licence for 15 years. It means that there are 18,000 motorbike learners licence holders who have had their L for 15 years, probably most of whom have decided that motorbiking is not for them and have never cancelled their 6L licence.

If there was some time limit on a 6L and 6R licence, then those who have not continued with motorbike riding would have dropped out of this statistic and this figure which worries the Government would be much smaller.

I'd suggest they introduce a default time on 6L and 6R licences, if you don't sit and pass a 6R licence test within 2 years of gaining your 6L then it is cancelled. If you don't sit and pass a 6F licence test within 3 years of gaining your 6R then it is cancelled. Bring in this so the time limit on current licences starts now.

Whatever the problem is, solved!

[notme]

.... What people who are moaning about it want is a return to the old days where you sat your license and the only choice was Full. (As per when I sat my car license back in 1979 - no GDL back then). However the difference is they want to be able to use their L as a full license.

Ah but you forget, my princess - THEY are good drivers....they should be allowed to be the exception! It's all the other clowns on the road that are the problem.....

Personal responsibility? wassat?

[miloking]

Agreed (for point 1 at least) - and it's nice to read your reasoned and well thought out argument above, rather than the alternative "wah wah govt bullshit cops are out to get me" type of thing that usually dominates these threads.

Regarding pont 3 - the munters:
It is indeed an assumption that a full license=safer driver/rider until some stats are revealed by Joyce, however the fact remains that the gubbmint doesn't NEED to prove this fact in order to change the law, because for 90% of the population, 90% of the time, it is going to be true.

What you can not prove with crash stats is the mentality of the driver. It's a good indicator of the attitude of the person in charge of a deadly weapon that they can't even be bothered taking a simple test - maybe they can't be bothered maintaining a safe and roadworthy vehicle either? Hell, why even bother sticking to the speed limit or giving way or obeying traffic signals.....I'd deem that person to be at higher risk of causing an accident.

You are so full of shit its unbelievable, do you actualy listen to what you say? I mean you probably are because you sound like the type that just likes to hear his own voice...(and probably thinks thats pretty funny too with some "neat" programming related puns...)
Your "logical" arguments as you like to call them are nothing then just uneducated guess... do you actualy believe it when you say that someone who is not having full licence because they didnt find the time to sit the test is a "good indicator of drivers mentality" ??? ...and the sad assumption that someone who doesnt have full cant be bothered to stick to speed limit is just... well, sad.

By the way...iam not your "son" and thanks for the tip on how to write let's properly..that was very helpful...

[scracha]

Your "logical" arguments as you like to call them are nothing then just uneducated guess... do you actualy believe it when you say that someone who is not having full licence because they didnt find the time to sit the test is a "good indicator of drivers mentality" ??? ...and the sad assumption that someone who doesnt have full cant be bothered to stick to speed limit is just... well, sad.

Umm....I think your logic is flawed. If someone is prepared to break the law and ride without the correct license or rego then it wouldn't be illogical to assume they'd flaunt the law in other ways, including speeding.

Me, I sometimes ride dirty and I sometimes speed

Now bikes aside, surely the most dangerous issue is letting restricted drivers drive cars unsupervised in the first place.

[Neon]

That doesn't mean that there are 18,000 motorbike riders actually riding around who have had their learners licence for 15 years. It means that there are 18,000 motorbike learners licence holders who have had their L for 15 years, probably most of whom have decided that motorbiking is not for them and have never cancelled their 6L licence.

You are correct, and in fact when I re-read my first post it should read 'up to 15 years' not 'more than 15 years'.

Whatever means must be adopted to get people taking vehicle use more seriously are worth consideration. For the record I'm all for changing the current system provided it does not unfairly disadvantage those of very limited means, and it actually goes some way to reducing the road toll.

So in sum, adopting the time-limit strategy is probably good practice. If nothing else it ensures that beginners do not consider their driver education finished the moment they can drive/ride by themselves. Follow through IS important, and I am even inclined to agree with allun that it perhaps demonstrates the individual's committment to the process and desire to become a competent driver/rider (even though this is an entirely speculative view).

[notme]

You are so full of shit......rant rant rant, wah wah wah....

Settle down, kiddo - or I'll put you in the naughty corner!

Now I'm happy to continue taking apart your arguments ad infinitum, but you'll have to forgive a delay after this post as I have a family and a life to continue on with before I next show you why you are (still) wrong.

Oh and a tip - if you take ANYTHING you have read on this or any other thread on any forum too seriously and get wound up about it - remember, it's just the internet.

So, to address your post item by item -

You are so full of shit its unbelievable, do you actualy listen to what you say? I mean you probably are because you sound like the type that just likes to hear his own voice...

It's always good to start off with a reasoned and considered approach, politely putting your point across to engender respect for your opinion in your fellow debater, isn't it? Ah well, I'm big enough and ugly enough to move past the juvenile posturing. It's just a shame your first paragraph doesn't actually contain anything useful to this discussion!

(and probably thinks thats pretty funny too with some "neat" programming related puns...)

Well, you've stumped me there - WTF are you talking about? I have read back through my posts and they must have been puns so good that I made them unintentionally and now can't spot them! The only line that i can even slightly think you might mean is "... that a full license=safer driver/rider...", which is not really a programming related pun, it's me being too lazy to write out the word "equals".

Your profile suggests you are in IT - maybe you are seeing programming references where there are none?

Your "logical" arguments as you like to call them are nothing then just uneducated guess...

Look up the definition of logic on WikiFaceTwits or whatever the devil you children are using these days...then please reply to any one of my 4 points above with reasons why they are wrong.

do you actualy believe it when you say that someone who is not having full licence because they didnt find the time to sit the test is a "good indicator of drivers mentality" ??? ...and the sad assumption that someone who doesnt have full cant be bothered to stick to speed limit is just... well, sad.

Of course I believe what I have written - I have the conviction and self confidence to put an opinion out there, then defend it, and what's more to be prepared to be proven wrong by healthy debate!
I have repeatedly made nicely worded, structured arguments for why I believe in what I have written - you are most welcome to reply in kind. Asking if i believe what i have written and calling it sad is unfortunately not really a good counter argument...not really an argument at all in fact.
As to the mentality - which part don't you agree with (see, I'm really trying help you structure a reply here!). My position is that a responsible driver/rider is one who has AT A MINIMUM, whatever legal requirements are necessary, plus maintains the vehicle in a safe condition, and operates it in a safe manner. What I'm saying, is that the type of person who can't be bothered going up the license steps is likely to be the same type who doesn't bother with WOFs, rego, insurance etc. Refer to my points above again, you are either too poor, too unskilled, or too stupid to go up the steps. Until someone provides a plausible alternative(like Mully Clown) did, that's what i believe.

By the way...iam not your "son" and thanks for the tip on how to write let's properly..that was very helpful...

Again you have misread my post - I was not correcting your spelling, I was proposing a course of action. i.e. "Let's go to the park" "yes, let's".

I realise you are not my biological offspring, it was meant as a semi-diminutive form of addressing you. Sorry for any confusion!

Your avatar, your profile, and your past posings oh whoops i mean "postings" suggest that you are, if not young phyiscally, at least young mentally. Your attitude in this discussion reinforces that suggestion.

So, to conclude - you have yet to make an actual point about the topic under discussion. When the insults start flying, it's a good indicator that you are running on empty and the argument is over.