Licence tests - is this shonky or what

[Ixion]

A couple of recent threads raised some interesting questions about the testing process.

So, being the bolshie sort of bastard that I am, I rang LTSA (or whatever they're calling themselves now). They were polite, and helpful in response to direct questions, but didn't want to volunteer anything.

But,I did find out several interesting things.

I asked what quality control procedures they ahd for checking on the quality of the testers. Response was that LTSA mostly leave it up to the supervisors from NZDL, who actually employ the testers. But LTSA do sometimes send out someone to audit the supervisors and , randomly, but I had the impression, not often, to audit an actual test, by sitting in the car while the test is done.

Now, firstly, this is pretty useless . Because a dodgy tester is obviously going to be on "good behaviour" while being audited. Nor is there apparently any specific qualification for the auditors.

BUT - even more dodgy. THEY DON'T DO IT AT ALL FOR MOTORCYCLE TESTERS. I asked why and he waffled about not being able to actually be on the bike with the rider (I suspect it's just because there aren't so many of them and they can't be bothered).

So there is NO quality control whatsoever for motorcycle licensing testing.

AND - he also said that the tester doing a motorcycle test MUST have a motorcycle license! (Explained that this is because they don't have a warrant , as the MoT used to).

Now my impression is that it seems unlikely that they all do ? I grilled him a bit on this and he wriggled a lot . Does any one know anything about this ?

Interestingly also, the company who is responsible for this (and purportedly supervising all this) is VERY anonymous. They call themselves NZDL , New Zealand Driver Licensing. But they're not in any New Zealnd phone directory. I tracked them down through the companies office, as DRIVER TESTING SERVICES (NZ) LIMITED or NZ DRIVER LICENSING (1998) LIMITED, their legal names. No NZ directory listings that I could find for either. Anyone know how to get in touch with them ?

He also claimed that NZDL were Telarc accredited. But I've just searched the accreditation register for all their various names , and there is no record of any of them being accredited.

They're hardly a big solid company either. Share capital is $6000. Company office was originally in Napier, then moved to Whakatane.

I did find this COMPLAINT FORM , but it still gives the Napier address, so it might not go anywhere if you tried to use it. It was on the LTSA site, NZDL don't have a website, and googling brings nothing up .

I'm going to check a bit further, and call LTSA back about the Telarc thing (VERY naughty to claim that if you're not), and also see if they have a contact .

I do have an address for NZDL.

88 The Strand Whakatane. PO Box 16 Whakatane.

Anyone live in or near Whakatane, can go check up on them ?

Then I think i may be writing a letter to the Minister. And maybe the press ? What d'y'all reckon ?

[vifferman]

Then I think i may be writing a letter to the Minister. And maybe the press ? What d'y'all reckon ?

Reckon.
It sounds very dodgy - I bet someone awarded the contract to them solely on the basis of being the lowest, or because whoever started the company was a "friend of a friend".

[Motu]

PUT THAT ROCK BACK! I see indistinct shapes scurrying sideways under hidden crevases,they don't want to be exposed.....look,what's that shadow behind you,is that an axe in it's hand?

It doesn't take much to look into these things,but no one bothers...keep up the good work,this has so many loose ends you might not be able to trace them back to the appropriate shoe.

[zadok]

Holy Roller lives out Whakatane way. Maybe he could check out that NZDL outfit. Seems a strange place to have a head office! No offence intended to any Whakataneites.

[bugjuice]

you could have found a small hole in the system there..
Isn't the government meant to be keeping tabs on all this? But then, who polices the police? where do you stop, and at the end of it all, who pulls the strings?

[Ixion]

Update: I found a copy of the contract between the Minsiter and LTSA. They are required to conduct 30 audits of driver testers per year. For the whole country, across all classes (LTSA have told me they only audit car testing) .

Measure is that 95% of audits show that tests are being conducted in compliance
with the LTSA’s Driver Testing Officers Manual.

(What is this manual, has anyone seen one, can we get one ?)

Incidentally, here are the LTSA targets for speed compliance (though the contract is up for renewal so they may be reduced. It also says "further work will be required to meet 2010 targets, which is ominous - what are these 2010 targets.)

Speed (open road) Mean Km/h 99
85th percentile Km/h 107
Speed (urban) Mean Km/h 55.2
85th percentile Km/h 61

Why the hell is BRONZ not doing this stuff.

[bugjuice]

Why the hell is BRONZ not doing this stuff.

cos you're doing it.. just make sure the report is in by the end of the day..

[spiller]

hmmm... (06) 8341952

They seem to be NZDL. Have you spoken to them?

[justsomeguy]

Top efforts here Les, I really think a letter to the approriate press person is definitely in line.

Big Dave you have anything to add to this matter or Lou or one of the cops here?? As you guys sorta know about the legal aspects of the biking world.....???

JSG

[vifferman]

Measure is that 95% of audits show that tests are being conducted in compliance with the LTSA’s Driver Testing Officers Manual.

So, can we infer / extrapolate from that, that maybe 5% of drivers have been improperly tested? Assuming, of course, that the LTSA’s Driver Testing Officers Manual isn't complete and utter crapola.

[Lou Girardin]

NZDL is a kosher, but small company. They initially had the testing contract for all NZ when testing was privatised. They lost the contract for Taupo northwards, to the AA when photo licences were introduced. They are very experienced in driver testing and their initial training was very good. Most of the negative situations came about under the AA's watch. Unfortunately most of their staff are ex-AA now.
A Testing Officer only needs a motorcycle licence if he conducts a test riding a motorcycle, if he follows in a car it's not needed. Because of the objective nature of the full test, the tester does not have to know anything about riding bikes. The applicant is scored on application of the road code and various hazard detection exercises. Equally the audit process relates to application of the testing process.
The auditing process is laughable. It consists of loosely monitoring each Officers pass rate in comparison to the average and occasional ride alongs. I had about 3 each year.
Sorry to disappoint the conspiracy theorists, but these guys aren't shady.
BTW What's the story with requiring a mean open road speed of 99 km/h? This is an admission that they're trying to create a de facto 80 km/h speed limit through fear.

[Ixion]

hmmm... (06) 8341952

They seem to be NZDL. Have you spoken to them?

Good one. Thanks, I'll check them out

[Ixion]

NZDL is a kosher, but small company. They initially had the testing contract for all NZ when testing was privatised. They lost the contract for Taupo northwards, to the AA when photo licences were introduced. They are very experienced in driver testing and their initial training was very good. Most of the negative situations came about under the AA's watch. Unfortunately most of their staff are ex-AA now.
A Testing Officer only needs a motorcycle licence if he conducts a test riding a motorcycle, if he follows in a car it's not needed. Because of the objective nature of the full test, the tester does not have to know anything about riding bikes. The applicant is scored on application of the road code and various hazard detection exercises. Equally the audit process relates to application of the testing process.
The auditing process is laughable. It consists of loosely monitoring each Officers pass rate in comparison to the average and occasional ride alongs. I had about 3 each year.
Sorry to disappoint the conspiracy theorists, but these guys aren't shady.
BTW What's the story with requiring a mean open road speed of 99 km/h? This is an admission that they're trying to create a de facto 80 km/h speed limit through fear.

Do you mean that in the North the testing is done by AA now ? Or did they lose it again? The LTSA contract with the Minister specifies only one Driver testing agent NZDL.

The LTSA guy (Noel) was very emphatic that they expected the tester to have a bike license. I initiated it by commenting that it seemed illogical that the tester should be passing judgement on a persons ability to drive a vehicle when he/she could not do so him/herself. Noel jumped in very quickly and said "No, they must have a motorcycle license". He elaborated that their requirement was that for ALL classes, the tester must have a licence for the class being tested. Perhaps it has changed recently ?

Not suggesting they're shady as in dishonest. But maybe the quality control process is lacking, it certainly seems to be.

Some of the comments from applicants imply they are assessed on more than road code and hazard detection . Eg, "leaning over too far". I don't see how a non motorcyclist can assess that.

[Lou Girardin]

Sorry Ixion, yes they did get the northern sector back after the AA stuffed it up.
When I joined NZDL the requirement was for car and truck/trailer licences only.
The reasoning is that you have to be able to return the vehicle to base if the driver is incapable. Obviously, on a bike test you can't do that anyway.
Don't rely too much on what the LTNZ minions say, these are the people that decided that Taxi applicants could use interpreters.

[Ixion]

So, can we infer / extrapolate from that, that maybe 5% of drivers have been improperly tested? Assuming, of course, that the LTSA’s Driver Testing Officers Manual isn't complete and utter crapola.

Not necessarily. They might be testing the drivers very well, but not in compliance with the manual. The manual may even be crap, and the tester doing a better job than the ones who go by the manual.

And no manual can really take the place of a good driver/rider doing the testing. I think (I may be worngA) that most of the testers are probably not particularly good rivers themselvs. They just know a process of "ticking things off". F'instance, they can tick off "looked in mirror". But did the driver actually SEE anything when he looked in the mirror?