Petition for removal of L plate and 70km/hr limit????

**speights_bud** · 24th February 2006, 21:56

As a 'learner rider' for almost the past 6 months now i have had about 7,000 km's of interesting riding.

For starters, as a new 'learner rider', riding was not new to me. (started pretty early on being on a farm with no quad bikes).
From day one i have flagged the 70km/hr rule. mainly because after thinking i should try it out i was damn near run off the road by two decent sized logging trucks passing me on corners.
So for the last 5 1/2 months i have been travelling at 100k's with 99% no problem, with the L-plate displayed. This included a fairly well paced ride(for a 250

) from Napier->taupo->Taumarunui->New plymouth and return via Wanganui->Palmerston nth->Napier.

However... upon visiting the girlfriends parents on wednesday afternoon whilst scooting past a slow accelerating cage mr Plod appeared from behind an oncoming station wagon. upon looking up after glancing at the speedo i saw him flick his lights on.

Now he pulled me over and commented on my speed (which we both knew to be 120km/h). This put me 50km/h over my legal 'learner limit'. It must have been my lucky day, he talked about how far over this put me and how he could potentially take my licence off of me. Now he did say that it was good to see i had the L-plate on and then further said that he would give me a warning on the learner speed limit factor(After checking that everything else was legal and proper, ie bike size etc). Booking me for 20km/h over the limit.
Before letting me go he told me that i would be travelling at 70km/h and to the left of the road letting people past me an that they would say,Quote: "He's a great guy." And at that he handed the ticket over, hopped in his car and carried on in the opposite direction.
By the time i got my helmet/gloves back on he was long gone and then i travelled at 100km towards home. After entering a 70km/h zone i decided to try once again to stay at that speed for the rest of the trip home. Usually about a 12 minute ride at 100km. Turned out once again to be a bad idea, almost got taken out by a truck and trailer unit going around the outside of me on a left hand corner

.

So my comments on the learner rules, Have everything set up right, ie, L-plate attached, 250cc, rego/warrent etc as the law states, but travel at a safe speed (100km/h where appropriate) and DON'T SPEED

.

Last week i recieved in the mail a letter stating that my application for an exemption for the learner speed rule was declined as they felt it was more of a risk to the public. Despite my explanation of having ridden motorbikes for a number of years now, Explaining that i have ridden race/track days at speed with no problems and the danger of slow moving traffic on the Napier end of the Napier/Wairoa road.

"...your request has been declined. The desision to decline your application was made because i believe there would be a significant increase in the risk to safety if the exemption was granted." "...(learner licence restrictions) where implemented to ensure that novice motorcyclists gain as much experience as possible in the safest manner"

Off to get my restricted early march so these problems shouldn't worry me for too much longer...

**Ixion** · 24th February 2006, 22:18

,,,
This put me 50km/h over my legal 'learner limit'. It must have been my lucky day, he talked about how far over this put me and how he could potentially take my licence off of me.
,,

This is an interesting point. I have heard this said before (learner = 70kph limit, therefore 50 (now 40) kph over , 120kph , now 110kph = maybe loss of licence , like 140kph for a non learner). I have even said it myself.

But, on reflection, I am not sure it is so.

The new rule is , instant licence suspension for exceeding a permanent speed limit by 40 kph, or a temporary speed limit by 50 kph.

But, the 70 kph restriction on a learner IS NOT A SPEED LIMIT. There are strict rules that have to be followed about speed limits, they have to be gazetted etc.

The 70kph thing is a condition of licence , in effect "Regardless of the speed limit YOU, miserable being, may not travel at more than 70 kph".

So , I think the instant suspension thing does not apply (well, not until the "normal" 140kph). You may get done for Breach of condition , $400 and 25 demerits, I think, PLUS a 20kph excess speeding ticket.But not suspension for 120kph.

This is my own interpretation, I welcome clarification or correction from some of our site plod.

**Pathos** · 24th February 2006, 22:29

Sensible riders will not exceed what they feel comfortable at (eg can read the road and brake well enough). It only takes a couple of months to be reasonably safe at 100kmph.

I only learnt how to read the corners properly and get out of a tight situation by reading the survival skills section. just today I took a corner faster than I was comfortable with and had the presence of mine to let the bike drop some more rather than stopping and braking into the curb.

I wouldn't have learnt that from riding around at 70k, education is always the answer.

**MSTRS:Me** · 25th February 2006, 08:36

Ixion - I'd disagree on the learner speed not being a 'limit'. I would describe the word 'limit' as meaning an imposed condition. Has this ever been tested in court as to it's application on the road???
Pathos - education is (not) the answer. It is important, but still only theory with regards to the individual learning. Couple it with experience and then you have the answer. Practice makes perfect. You are right about doing some things at speed tho....try the front brake in a corner at 30kph, then try it in the same corner at 100kph.....huge difference. (you will want to be veeery careful if you try this - no other traffic, plenty of 'runout' etc)

**Ixion** · 25th February 2006, 10:15

"Speed limit" within the meaning of the law.The 70 kph is a limit ot your speed but a "speed limit" within the meaning of the Act is a legal thing . They have to be Gazetted I think.

**sunhuntin** · 25th February 2006, 21:13

i have obeyed the 70k rule only a few times in my first almost year of riding...once on my first trip on the highway, and the second time coming into paeroa after having lights and twirly fingers flashed at me...mufti cop just up the road.
i have obeyed every other factor [ok, i broke the 10pm rule for a few weeks due to work, but got an exemption for it] i agree...the 70k rule is insane....on the highways, i travel at average 110k, 120 if im downhill, lol. and even then i still have cagers right up my exhaust pipe...tapping the brake seems to make them follow even closer....
i agree, the l plate does encourage fucked up behaviour from fellow motorists...even in town they sit way to close for my liking, forcing my speed and making me follow the car ahead way too close. i prefer a bit of space around me if possible. id be happy to do away with the l plate altogether, but cant see the powers that be agreeing to that anytime soon.
not that fond of the 10pm rule either. finished work at 9 tonight, took me a good 20 mins to get home due to being unable to see properly thanks to all the goddam headlights. i find 1am safer than almost any other time of day.

question....what would happen, if once im free of the l plate i were to attach a baby on board one in its place? im tempted to try it, just to see whether the cages back off somewhat or not.

**Wolf** · 26th February 2006, 20:05

Originally Posted by sunhuntin

question....what would happen, if once im free of the l plate i were to attach a baby on board one in its place? im tempted to try it, just to see whether the cages back off somewhat or not.

One that says: "If you can read this I'm about to throw a spark plug at your windshield you moronic tailgating cock!" might have a bit more effect in making them back off - especially if you back it up with action...

A James Bond-style oil dispenser - aimed at about a 30 degree angle upwards rather than at the road - might be a bit more subtle and you can claim it was accidental. Don't forget to track across the lane so you get the whole windshield...

**thehollowmen** · 27th February 2006, 06:41

If you ever need a good argument as to why learners (1L) should be on low powered cars and drive at limited speed, a fifteen year old driving a dodge ram 500 (8.2 L!!!!) just about hit me on the week end because he couldn't stop at an intersection in time. Only reason he didn't was because I saw him in the mirrors at the last minute and lanesplit.

**FROSTY:Me** · 27th February 2006, 07:26

Clearly im missing the point here. As I understand it a LEARNERS licence is just that an oppertunity to learn to ride a bike.
You aren't sopposed to be out on the open road. You are soposed to be practicing your riding skills.
My argument would be that the law should stay exactly as it is -if not reduced to 50km/h BUT that you should be allowed to sit your restricted licence as soon as you are able to pass the riding test rather than a 6 month waiting time.
the reality of life says that those that flout the law are still going to do so

**Wolf** · 27th February 2006, 07:56

Originally Posted by FROSTY

You aren't sopposed to be out on the open road. You are soposed to be practicing your riding skills.

On the open road you practise riding skills, in town you practise being run over by inconsiderate, or clinically oblivious, cocks in cars. Many of whom are apparently "learning" driving skills - in turbo charged wank-mobiles.

**Hitcher** · 27th February 2006, 08:59

Originally Posted by FROSTY

Clearly im missing the point here. As I understand it a LEARNERS licence is just that an oppertunity to learn to ride a bike.
You aren't sopposed to be out on the open road. You are soposed to be practicing your riding skills.

Bugger off. There was no way I was going to spend three months fannying around the block or driving backwards and forwards to the dairy "practicing" my riding whilst on a learner licence. The best way to learn to ride, surely, must be as much saddle time as possible in all riding conditions. Mrs H and I did 17,500km in the nine months we were on learner/restricted licences. Interestingly when we were doing our CBTA course, there were people there who had done less than 2,000km. One wonders what they knew about themselves and their riding.

**Ixion** · 27th February 2006, 09:06

On reflection, I will go further. I do not think there should be *any* learner licence period for someone who has passed the BHT and has a licence for another class. The BHT should be proof that the person is sufficiently capable of actually riding the bike (if it is not, it is pointless and should itself be abolished or improved). And the holding of another licence is proof of at least some roadcraft. The restricted licence period will adapt that roadcraft to the specific requirements of bikes. If you have passed the BHT you know how to ride. If you are already driving on the road, you know the road rules. What more is wanted?

**Hitcher** · 27th February 2006, 10:08

Mr Ixion, I agree to a point. That point is the adequacy of the BHT which I do not believe is sufficient to assess the competency of riders to ride on the open road. The major factor it fails to assess is confidence. Confidence, I believe, is directly related to saddle time.

**Wolf** · 27th February 2006, 10:22

Originally Posted by Ixion

On reflection, I will go further. I do not think there should be *any* learner licence period for someone who has passed the BHT and has a licence for another class. The BHT should be proof that the person is sufficiently capable of actually riding the bike (if it is not, it is pointless and should itself be abolished or improved). And the holding of another licence is proof of at least some roadcraft. The restricted licence period will adapt that roadcraft to the specific requirements of bikes. If you have passed the BHT you know how to ride. If you are already driving on the road, you know the road rules. What more is wanted?

Right with you on that. I was fortunate enough to have got my cage licence back when such wisdom was recognised, before rampant idiocy and/or a desire to milk as much moolah out of people as possible prompted the law changes.

I had held my motorbike licence since I was 18 - no BHT, general road rules written test and 5 motorcycle-related oral questions for Learner, riding test on the road for Provisional, 1 year wait for full. When I went for my car licence I was 34 or so. Five oral questions with the focus on cars rather than motorcycles to get a learner licence then a road test to get a full car licence. The feeling was that since I already had a motorcycle licence I already knew and applied the road rules and because I was over 25 I was responsible enough to drive alone late at night once I had demonstrated my ability to control a car.

It's slightly different to what Mr Ixion has mooted but in keeping with it as there is no BHT for a car, you are expected to learn on the road with a fully licenced driver beside you.

I fully agree that if you have already demonstrated that your road skills are up to par in, say, car driving by having held a full licence in that category, the combination of that and the BHT should be sufficient to skip the learner stage altogether.

Likewise we should return to skipping the Restricted car licence for those who already hold a full motorcycle licence but without the silly "over 25" proviso - keep the learner licence so they can practice on the road under direct supervsion then progress directly to full once they have passed the practical driving test. By the time they have the skills to pass a rigorous on-road driving test, they should have sufficiently adapted their motorcycle road skills to the car.

None of this will happen so long as revenue collecting is at the heart of motor vehicle licensing. They make way too much money with the current system to give any of it away.

Deregulate the bastards and allow other licensing authorities to compete - "BHT only $10, Learner licence $20, Book NOW!"

**Wolf** · 27th February 2006, 10:26

Originally Posted by Hitcher

Mr Ixion, I agree to a point. That point is the adequacy of the BHT which I do not believe is sufficient to assess the competency of riders to ride on the open road. The major factor it fails to assess is confidence. Confidence, I believe, is directly related to saddle time.

The Restricted Licence would be the confidence building period as it is now.

Back in the day, learner period was literally that, you most likely coudn't ride or control a bike, you answered a few questions and then you went out to learn. Once you felt you had the handling down pat you went for a practical test and got the provisional - that didn't mean you had a lot of confidence under all situations, you still had stuff-all "saddle time" to fall back on.