Forced licence progression

[Swoop]

About fucking time.

Get this piece of shit country up to the 19th century in driving skills and stop pissing around pandering to the soft cocks who want to have a whine about it.

Excellent decision!

[Berg]

Actually its a right, its defined as such in law.

ANYONE who meets the criteria, pays the fee and passes the test can get a licence.

A privilege is something that is extended to a select few, and is simply not available even if you meet all the criteria.

Yep, anyone who meets the criteria and pays the fee and passes the test can get a licence BUT.......not everyone gets to keep it permanently.
Be aware, should you loose your licence for more than one month, you now have to apply to NZTA Driver Licencing to get it back. Guess what, they don't always give them back! I have been through several cases now of the licencing center saying "nope, they have proofed to be a risk to themselves and others therefore we refuse to return their licence (or in some cases certain classes of licence) for two years". Using NZ roads (even though they are often shithouse) is a privilege that we must prove we can be responsible enough to handle. I'm all for the "up skill or start again" and feel five years is plenty of time to get arse into gear.

[nzmikey]

What a load of fuckin toss pottery. The assessment of her skill level is made by her ( her qualification to assess herself being that she has passed a learners licence) and you (your assessment qualifications being that you have passed a full drivers licence I assume that you have) so therefore going by your summary of your combined skills, you two must be as qualified as a driver testing agent.

yeah ok

There is a chance that she could pass it 1st hit but it more of a case of meh cant be fucked paying for it we have other bills ... I also have more licences that I need to get, I have 1,2,6 but need 4 & 5 ( once again a fuck ton more money jumping hoops to be legal to drive )

[caseye]

Afraid of sitting a practical road test, is all I can attribute anyone sitting on a learners licence fro any thing longer than is necessary.
Therefore if they haven't passed their full by the now very generous time of 5 years, take it off them for good!
No more messing about get them off our roads and we will most definitely be safer for having done so.
For every learner on 5 years or more out there right now who do drive OK and don't have accidents there are literally hundreds who cannot drive worth a crock of shit, who do cause accidents and in many cases don't even know they've done so.
This is a logical and simple step to make our roads safer. Money grabbing? How? You have not yet progressed to a full licence, it still costs the same to do, so it's just that the many who know they won't pass are not taking the chance that they will be removed form the road if they fail.
Personally I feel that this is most appropriate and should be how it works.
Pass a Learners, drive/ride for prescribed time, go for restricted, same drive/ride for prescribed time, sit your full.
Pass,all well and good.
Fail, Licence revoked end of story!
Start again.
If they can't do it, do you really want to be on the same road as them? I don't!

[p.dath]

What a complicated web of ownership this company has (NZ DRIVER LICENSING (1998) LIMITED):
http://www.business.govt.nz/companie.../shareholdings

[Scuba_Steve]

It amazes me the amount of people coming through talking like the licence has something to do with driving ability & then on other threads will go & complain about all the people who can't drive... You know those people have the same licences you people seem to think is a "proof" of driving ability right???
& those Taxi/Bus drivers, they have to get a special licence to drive those vehicles yet they are some of the worst most dangerous drivers on our roads... They alone are proof of just how "good" our licencing system is

[Akzle]

anything for which one can obtain a license must be fundamentally lawful.
would you deny anyone the right to travel? is that not a basic right?

the fact that they've legislated it to include terms and conditions is actually a benefit for those who do not hold a license - when you sign up for the license, you agree to the terms and conditions,
without the license, you're free to make up your own terms and conditions on how, where and when you travel.

they (courts et al) cannot say you are an "unlicensed driver" because you never signed the contract to be a licensed one.

plenty of 1Fs shouldn't be on the road.

why does a "graduated" system need more than two steps? 1) learn the theory and practice driving 2) able to drive.

money grabbing indeed. i think everyone should boycott the system. don't hold a license, don't carry one, don't offer it to policy enforcement when they ask you for one. without the support and consent of the masses they can make whatever rules they like.
i can make up a rule that everyone has to give me five bucks and a bag of chips on tuesdays or they're not allowed to shit. short of paying a gangfull of policy enforcement agents to hammer corks up your asses until payment is made, it means fuckall because it can't be enforced.

[Gremlin]

There is a chance that she could pass it 1st hit but it more of a case of meh cant be fucked paying for it we have other bills ...

Ok, from another point of view it means she should take it seriously, so instead of thinking... mmm, I reckon I should be up to scratch, you'd think, I'll read the documentation on the NZTA website which lays out the expectations and requirements for the test, and make sure I can competently undertake all components.

As users of the road, it is our personal responsibility to make sure we are competent, our vehicles are safe and we are able to interact with other road users with constructively and considerately. If you don't like these... terms and conditions... (I guess) then don't drive/ride on the road? I've read up on the NZTA website... it's about 45 pages for doing your restricted licence and I'll do some intensive practise (stuff like parallel parking) along with more general stuff.

Lets also remember that compared to other places like Europe, it's a hell of a lot more expensive to gain a licence (think thousands of dollars) with mandatory attendance of driving school etc. They can lose their licences more easily and they're harder to get back (and places like the UK don't have work licences). They value their licences a lot more...

[red mermaid]

If you read the whole article:
"There is no target and there is no quota," Furneaux said. "There is, however, an expectation that tests will be applied consistently across the country.

"New Zealand Driver Licensing has provided guidelines to all its branches for several years, stressing the need for consistency. They regularly look at the current overall national average pass rate and try to ensure regional variations over and above that national average stay broadly within a fairly wide band.

"This is so that a customer sitting a test in Northland or in Southland can expect a similar level of rigour to be applied in the application of the test."

He added: 'Well under 60 per cent of applicants are failing. The current pass rate is around 47 per cent."

It is not quite as Davidreid states.

Yeah. NZ Driver Licencing Ltd is a private company granted a monopoly by the NZTA to do driver licence testing.

It has a written policy requiring testers to fail 60% of applicants.

[Berg]

anything for which one can obtain a license must be fundamentally lawful.
would you deny anyone the right to travel? is that not a basic right?

the fact that they've legislated it to include terms and conditions is actually a benefit for those who do not hold a license - when you sign up for the license, you agree to the terms and conditions,
without the license, you're free to make up your own terms and conditions on how, where and when you travel.

they (courts et al) cannot say you are an "unlicensed driver" becase you never signed the contract to be a licensed one.

plenty of 1Fs shouldn't be on the road.

why does a "graduated" system need more than two steps? 1) learn the theory and practice driving 2) able to drive.

money grabbing indeed. i think everyone should boycott the system. don't hold a license, don't carry one, don't offer it to policy enforcement when they ask you for one. without the support and consent of the masses they can make whatever rules they like.
i can make up a rule that everyone has to give me five bucks and a bag of chips on tuesdays or they're not allowed to shit. short of paying a gangfull of policy enforcement agents to hammer corks up your asses until payment is made, it means fuckall because it can't be enforced.

Fuck I'd like to see you in court. That would be my entertainment for a whole month

[red mermaid]

Classic case of "Do as I say, not as I do."

anything for which one can obtain a license must be fundamentally lawful.
would you deny anyone the right to travel? is that not a basic right?

the fact that they've legislated it to include terms and conditions is actually a benefit for those who do not hold a license - when you sign up for the license, you agree to the terms and conditions,
without the license, you're free to make up your own terms and conditions on how, where and when you travel.

they (courts et al) cannot say you are an "unlicensed driver" because you never signed the contract to be a licensed one.

plenty of 1Fs shouldn't be on the road.

why does a "graduated" system need more than two steps? 1) learn the theory and practice driving 2) able to drive.

money grabbing indeed. i think everyone should boycott the system. don't hold a license, don't carry one, don't offer it to policy enforcement when they ask you for one. without the support and consent of the masses they can make whatever rules they like.
i can make up a rule that everyone has to give me five bucks and a bag of chips on tuesdays or they're not allowed to shit. short of paying a gangfull of policy enforcement agents to hammer corks up your asses until payment is made, it means fuckall because it can't be enforced.

[davereid]

If you read the whole article:
"There is no target and there is no quota," Furneaux said. "There is, however, an expectation that tests will be applied consistently across the country.

"New Zealand Driver Licensing has provided guidelines to all its branches for several years, stressing the need for consistency. They regularly look at the current overall national average pass rate and try to ensure regional variations over and above that national average stay broadly within a fairly wide band.

"This is so that a customer sitting a test in Northland or in Southland can expect a similar level of rigour to be applied in the application of the test."

He added: 'Well under 60 per cent of applicants are failing. The current pass rate is around 47 per cent."

It is not quite as Davidreid states.

I know Jim. He is a nice guy.

But he doesn't understand standards based testing.

With standards based testing, there is not, and can not be, a predetermined failure rate.

Standards based testing can achieve a zero percent pass rate or a 100% pass rate. QA systems are designed to continuously improve the results of a standards based test.

The reality is, anyone who meets the standard should pass. Anyone who doesn't meet it should fail.

NZ driver licence testing were caught out, when a staff member released an internal memo, detailing a requirement to fail 60% of applicants. The NZTA didn't set a fail or pass rate, NZ driver licensing did.

Jim wouldn't have a clue what NZ Driver Licensing are setting as pass or fail rates, he doesn't work for them.

I note the Herald hasn't been sued or even had a rebuttal of the memo.

Jim quoted a pass rate as a snapshot in time.

IMHO if the memo had not been made public, the fail rate would be right on target, As its been made public, I think the outcome may be different, but the intent was clear.

Its also my opinion that P.Dath digs far enough into the company structure of NZ Driver license testing, he will find shareholders with a vested interest. Go for it Mr. Dath.

[Road kill]

Five years is still too long.

12 months is fair and anything beyond that is just a piss take by the lazy and stupid that none of us should be expected to share the roads with.

[Scuba_Steve]

If you read the whole article:
"There is no target and there is no quota," Furneaux said. "There is, however, an expectation that tests will be applied consistently across the country.

"New Zealand Driver Licensing has provided guidelines to all its branches for several years, stressing the need for consistency. They regularly look at the current overall national average pass rate and try to ensure regional variations over and above that national average stay broadly within a fairly wide band.

"This is so that a customer sitting a test in Northland or in Southland can expect a similar level of rigour to be applied in the application of the test."

He added: 'Well under 60 per cent of applicants are failing. The current pass rate is around 47 per cent."

It is not quite as Davidreid states.

"there is no quota" NZ police & police minister said for years, until one day... "oh yea there was a quota, but don't worry we got rid of it. It's called KPA's now"

I would say it's more towards as Davidreid/Herald says than not, especially given the fail/pass figures & how/why some people failed yet others far worse pass

[scumdog]

Woo-hoo, ANOTHER KB whinge-fest to the max!!