15
18
21
Forum whore
you know I think putting the drinking age up to 25 would be a really good idea. I mean im a raging idiot when im drinking. I am not mature enough to control myself and always binge drink. I am not even the worst though by far. Every weekend I see crazy idiots, doing crazy things. Feel sorry for the police etc. Note I NEVER DRINK DRIVE
Pretengineer
Go on ya matt.
If you did drink and drive/ride i would have to KICK YOUR ASS!!
Forum whore
Theres the public admittance. Next rehab!
Forum whore
Mr RG100 makes a very valid point about the cost of sitting for a licence. A check on the LTSA website shows that each stage costs $80-$100. Reports suggest that the "typical" test takes about half an hour. This implies that the testing company is charging at around $180 per hour. Given that their overheads must be minimal (the only machinery is the eye test gadget, and their is little or no "dead time", since tests are booked in advance ) this seems a very high charge out rate. I suggest that the testing company is in fact ripping off the public, because of their monopoly position.
The cost would seem high in isolation, compared to , say , a plumber or other tradesman.
But, given the public benefit to be had from ensuring that all roads users are tested , it would be very easy to argue a case for the testing to be done "at cost" or even subsidised. After all, no-one is going to sit a few extra restricted tests, just because it's cheap.
Back in the day, I think it cost five shillings for a licence. I suggest that the givernment should reduce the cost to $20 per stage.
At present the total cost ofr a licence is over $300. That is a great deal of money to many people.
EDIT: I crossposted this to the safeas website
Originally Posted by skidmark
Forum whore
seems there's a hell of a lot of big companies in this country that have some sort of monopoly position or have formed a syndicate....it's a conspiracy I tell ya. Big fish in a small pond and we just take it.
Anyway, you can't compare the $uckw!ts at the LTSA with skilled tradesmen.
After reading the previous comments I'd suggest the following:-
1) Raise the c@r driving age to 21
2) Make the molyped riding age 14 (think it works OK in France and everyone knows the French are excellent drivers...just look at Alonso)
3) Let em ride 150cc motorsickles at 16
4) Mibby let em ride summit with SV650 type power weight ratio for 2 years after they pass the full test.
5) Raise the alcomohol drinking age to 25!
6) Legalise cannabis
As well as preventing drink driving, step 6 will keep the (obese) kids occupied instead of "tagging" local buildings, setting up 'P' labs or doing burnouts in their dad's holden.
Oh dear...maybe the poisonous spider I sat on has made me a fuckw!t.
L-Plate Rider
I think 15 is a reasonable age to get a licence as it gives the opportunity to be under parents thumb for as long as possible. If you were to start driving at age 18, who supervises driving when you've moved away for uni or gone flatting.
And wouldn't it be sensible to have a power limit on the car a learner is allowed to drive, similar to the 250cc restriction for a motorbike licence?
Immature and proud of it.
The problem with 15 as a licencing age is that, while 15 year olds have a relatively low accident rate, it's after 18 months to 2 years that confidence overcomes ability and they become a menace on the road. Raising the age 2 or 3 years delays the onset of that dangerous period until a little maturity has started to develop. Alowing 16 year olds to buy small bikes will give them an option if they must have transport, and also gives them valuable experience as a 'vulnerable' road user. Graduated licencing with vehicle restrictions will further reduce the risk factors for new drivers.
The arguement about 15 year olds needing to drive for work/study doesn't bear examination in the rest of the world. NZ isn't any different.
Speed doesn't kill people.
Stupidity kills people.
Deus ex ukulele
Donkey abuse and naff Americanisms are offensive to the loyal and resilient membership of the BDOTGNZA!
"Standing on your mother's corpse you told me that you'd wait forever." [Bryan Adams: Summer of 69]
Scotsman on a German
The statistics being thrown at us by the current 'Safe As' campaign clearly show that 15-18 year olds are responsible for a disproportionate amount of road traffic accidents - if revenue gathering were not the REAL issue then lifting ther driving age to 18 or 21 would cause the accident statistics to plummet!
It's just such a shame that the government once again refuses to accept the findings of it's own reports, is stupid enough to publicise the reports along with it's half arsed interpretation of 9% of the results of the report blatently disregarding the remaining 81%.
Why isn't there a Motorcyclists' Political Party? We need specific representation in Parliament.
In space, no one can smell your fart.
Hardcore Biker
G'day all,
I grew up in South Africa. The country was crap in a thousand respects, but I do believe the motor vehicle licensing system was better than here in NZ, and made for a safer progression towards responsible and safe road users.
You could only get a bike learners at age 16 BUT the bike had to be under 50cc capacity. You could only sit your full license test after 6 months, and had to wait another 3 months if you flunked the test. If you flunked it again, you had to wait a further 6 months before resitting the test. If you somehow managed to flunk it a third time, you were deemed beyond hope and you had a shitshow of EVER getting another chance to resit. Being South Africa, bribery would help in some instances, but you also ran the risk of being jailed for attempting to bribe an official (make that a thousand and one reasons). There wasn't a 'restricted' license stage, like here.
So, you rode your 49cc heap to death for 2 years because you could only get a 'big bike' learners at age 18, and again, sit the full license test after 6 months. The same flunk rules (as above) applied here. Here was the only flaw in the system... a large number of bikers died a couple of days after their 18th birthdays because they could legally ride ANYTHING and traded their 50s in on 1100s! I'm guilty of this too, except mine was a 900. But you see my point?
You had to be age 17 to get a car learners and age 18 to get your full, hence 12 months as a car 'learner'. You couldn't carry passengers other than a fully licenced driver in the shotgun seat, and the cops would fine you BOTH into near bankrupcy for any infringement. The traffic cops (a separate force to the regular cops) were - and probably still are - the nastiest, least sympathetic and savage force in the universe, and had enormous powers of arrest and vehicle seizure. These guys took crap from NOBODY, and bikers were inevitably a target because there was so much they could bust us on!
Being forced to wait for half our teen years made us appreciate our 50cc bikes when wecould eventually ride them. Being only marginally faster than bicycles, we were at the mercy of everything else on the road, so we learnt REAL defensive driving skills, not the half-arsed test touted here as defensive driving training. After 12 months of forced road and hazard awareness, we could get our car learners, and only after a further 12 months could we ride bigger bikes.
The result was this... we were far more mature, aware, defensive, tolerant and considerate drivers - and riders - than the 15 year olds I see 'driving' here. After spending a year of dodging every car, truck and bus on the road as a 50 rider, then another year of training as a car learner, we were better equipped to share the road with everyone else. We weren't a menace or a danger to ourselves or anyone else. I'm not saying that there weren't MVAs and the inevitable fatalities and injures, but the risk of being wiped out by an immature 15 year old viewing the road (occasionally) through the gap between the dashboard and the steering wheel of a seriously powerful car was significantly less than it is in NZ!
I propose raising the learner age to age 17, and only permitting a full license at 18. Restrict the cars that can be driven to 1300cc until age 20, 1600cc to age 22, 2 litre to age 25 - and prohibit driving of turbcharged cars to age 25. At 25, drivers will have reached the levels of maturity and responsibility to make the roads safer for everyone.
Any thoughts?
Cheers for now!
CADanimal
Forum whore
But are they really? Everybody keeps saying that, but is it true? Especially once you factor out the inexperience bit ie is it because they are young or because they are inexperienced?
Has anyone ever seen any studies comparing new drivers of different ages ? I suspect that raising the licence age to 18 will just shove the "blip" up the ladder by three years. And insurance companies reckon that it's not until about 25 that "maturity", or fuddiduddiness takes over. Which is not practical
And anyway, are young drivers really that bad? Most I encounter are OK. The ratio of idiots seems no worse than other age groups, just maybe a different sort of idiocy.
Last weekend, 10 dead. I don't think there were any young drivers involved, but there were quite a few truck drivers. We don't hear a burst of indignation about truck drivers,and call to raise the driving age for trucks. Why do the public seem to want to dump on the kids?
One point I will grant, is that most of the problems with young 'uns seem to be when they get several of them together in car. And they start showing off , and egging each other on (as we all did at that age). So why not just a minor change to the rules, no passengers under 21? Still allows Mum and Dad, and allows use of the vehicle for work etc.
Just faidin away!
Driving should be judged and licenced on capability, competence and consequence.
1) Either you can or you can not.
2) You demonstrate a predetermined tangible standard of practical driving and knowledge of the road code.
3) You stuff up and it gets cancelled for a determined period.
4) It all starts again.
Age should be of no real consideration or consequence.
I voted 15, it worked for me but I could drive a variety of vehicles long before that.
People are individuals and not able to be type cast by age alone.
Show me proof that all 15 year olds are at the same degree of maturity and development and I may reconsider my opinion.Cheers John.
Immature and proud of it.
Young drivers are a danger for various reasons, some physiological, some psychological.
The decision making processes are not fully developed in a 15 year old. Neither is an appreciation of consequences.
They are basically not ready or able to cope with modern traffic and vehicles.
In years past, cars were slower, traffic was a lot less. There was more room for error. When I think of my own escapades, I'm sure I wouldn't get off scot free doing those things in modern times.
Can you imagine doing a 180 degree spin across two lanes of Tamaki Drive and not hitting anything today?
Speed doesn't kill people.
Stupidity kills people.
Loud and Uncouth
True, true - and I pissed myself when I read his comment "most 15 year olds are mature enought to drive" mwahahahaha! yep and you see SO many of those 15 year olds running the country too!
Sheesh, how the hell would any 15 year old know what constitutes 'mature'?????
Winding up drongos, foil hat wearers and over sensitive KBers for over 14,000 posts...........
" Life is not a rehearsal, it's as happy or miserable as you want to make it"
Forum whore
Well, one year later they're reckoned mature enough to have and raise babies.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks