NZ driver licensing system - what would YOU do???

**Juud** · 9th February 2007, 09:49

Being Dutch and all, I never knew this about Germany (the penalty system I mean) Have to come all the way to NZ to hear about it lol

**Macktheknife** · 9th February 2007, 10:15

First thing is to raise the age of licence to 17, then everyone must complete 2 years on a motorcycle/scooter before being allowed to begin training for a car licence.
Rider training compulsory every 6 months for the first 2 year period, driver training compulsory for a further 1 year.
Create new class of licence for 'advanced' drivers/riders who undertake a course that demonstrates high skills, apply after 5 years of clean record. (needs some work)
Changes to all licencing to restrict HP in relation to experience: more experience = more HP, but you must apply for it and have a clean record.
Anyone who racks up more than $2000 in driving related fines over a 12 month period, loses their licence until all fines are repaid, vehicle impounded until paid off, and must restart licence process from scratch.
Vehicular manslaughter charge for anyone who takes the life of another through reckless/dangerous road use.
Compulsory retesting for every 2 years over 65, every year for over 75.
1 'freebie' speeding offence for any driver/rider who has a clean record for 2 years, if exceeding the limit by less than 20km/h.
4wd licence category, must complete specialist course showing offroad skills and advanced on road skills, possibly integrate with advanced class of licence.
Compulsory 3rd party insurance for all drivers/riders, government scheme not subject to 'private increase' behaviour.
Any person gets 2 drunk/drug driving convictions in a 5 year period, loses licence for 2 years and must restart licence process after this, confiscate vehicle to defray costs.

**Ixion** · 9th February 2007, 11:29

There is little wrong with the present licensing system. The problem is that the process of getting a license does nothing much to affect what the newly licensed driver does on the road.

Very few of the idiots who do the idiotic things we complain of (or boast of) do them because they don't know any better. The soccer Mom who hangs a U turn right in front of you without checking or signallining KNOWS she should check, signal etc. She just doesn't give a damn so she doesn't bother.

So I think you can't separate the licensing process from enforcement.

For me? Reduce the age for a license for a <125cc (4 stroke, power restriction also) motorcycle to 14 . Because 14 year olds are much more controllable than 16 year olds. Learner cage or < 250 (power restricted or limited to list) motorbike or cage (< 1200cc power restricted , or limited to list: I don't give a stuff about how inconvenient it is not being able to borrow dad's V8 ) after 2 years on <125cc motorbike OR aged 18. After two years on a small bike even the most testosterone driven youff may have some respect for the risks of the road. Don't want to ride a little motorbike? Fine, wait until you're 18.

The present learner, restricted, full regime seems OK just change it as above, allow earlier start on small bike, later start otherwise . This gets over the "Kids need a licence at 15 to get to work" argument. Yep, they can do what kids of my generation did and get to work on a little motorbike.

I don't see any real downside to restricting them to a small bike until 18.

And, sorry folks, but I think that there needs to be much more stringent enforcement of breaches of licence conditions. Breach your licence conditions, suspended licence, impounded vehicle (explain that to Dad).

And a time limit you can sit on each stage before taking a test . People might be amazed at the number of cages being driven (unsupervised) by people who have NEVER taken a test, and have been driving on a learners licence for 5 or 10 years.

OK, if you're not ready and don't pass, you can keep on at the same stage. But, if you sit the test and fail, then to qualify to sit it again, you have to do X hours of professional tuition. This is sort of a half way house between the "Dad will teach you" we've traditionally had, and the people who want professional tutition only. I'm not too keen on forcing people to pay professionals - partly cos I don't like the idea and partly because some of the "professionals" are totall idiots. So, if you can pass the test without it, fine. Fail, and you have to go to a pro.

The tests (L->R, R-> F) MUCH tougher. I think the full should be 3 or 4 hours long split into several sessions. And cover a lot more conditions. Some (like wet roads) might need special artifical test grounds , since we can't arrange rain to order. I'd like a requirement for testing at night too, but don't quite know how that could be managed. And much more qualified testers, preferably cops. At least, people who actually know HOW to drive themselves. So the tests are going to cost quite a lot, unless subsidised. A think a case can be made for that. Maybe the first test is subsidised ,fail and the subsequent ones you have to pay the full cost. So an incentive to make sure you pass first time.

Retest (shorter, like todays full) for all drivers every 10 years. If you do that I don't think you need a special regime for the elderly.

Much tougher enforcement of the DANGEROUS stuff. Reinstitute a separate traffic force. NOT part of the police. I have become convinced that the whole police approach to traffic is wrong.

And instead of the demerit points system, a system where you get X points awarded each year if you have NO violations . And violations deduct points as at present, but more steeply. So , years of good driving and one naughty doesn't put you off the road, but repeated "minor" offences quickly will. No accrued goodie points and you go through a red light? You're walking.

I think that more use could be made of short licence suspensions - a couple of weeks. Fines don't necessarily worry rich folk, but not having a vehicle for 2 weeks is a hassle for most people. But not so big a hassle that even poor people can't work round it. And the suspension eriod goes up for repeat offenders.

**Guitana** · 9th February 2007, 12:23

Originally Posted by Ixion

There is little wrong with the present licensing system. The problem is that the process of getting a license does nothing much to affect what the newly licensed driver does on the road.

Very few of the idiots who do the idiotic things we complain of (or boast of) do them because they don't know any better. The soccer Mom who hangs a U turn right in front of you without checking or signallining KNOWS she should check, signal etc. She just doesn't give a damn so she doesn't bother.

So I think you can't separate the licensing process from enforcement.

For me? Reduce the age for a license for a <125cc (4 stroke, power restriction also) motorcycle to 14 . Because 14 year olds are much more controllable than 16 year olds. Learner cage or < 250 (power restricted or limited to list) motorbike or cage (< 1200cc power restricted , or limited to list: I don't give a stuff about how inconvenient it is not being able to borrow dad's V8 ) after 2 years on <125cc motorbike OR aged 18. After two years on a small bike even the most testosterone driven youff may have some respect for the risks of the road. Don't want to ride a little motorbike? Fine, wait until you're 18.

The present learner, restricted, full regime seems OK just change it as above, allow earlier start on small bike, later start otherwise . This gets over the "Kids need a licence at 15 to get to work" argument. Yep, they can do what kids of my generation did and get to work on a little motorbike.

I don't see any real downside to restricting them to a small bike until 18.

And, sorry folks, but I think that there needs to be much more stringent enforcement of breaches of licence conditions. Breach your licence conditions, suspended licence, impounded vehicle (explain that to Dad).

And a time limit you can sit on each stage before taking a test . People might be amazed at the number of cages being driven (unsupervised) by people who have NEVER taken a test, and have been driving on a learners licence for 5 or 10 years.

OK, if you're not ready and don't pass, you can keep on at the same stage. But, if you sit the test and fail, then to qualify to sit it again, you have to do X hours of professional tuition. This is sort of a half way house between the "Dad will teach you" we've traditionally had, and the people who want professional tutition only. I'm not too keen on forcing people to pay professionals - partly cos I don't like the idea and partly because some of the "professionals" are totall idiots. So, if you can pass the test without it, fine. Fail, and you have to go to a pro.

The tests (L->R, R-> F) MUCH tougher. I think the full should be 3 or 4 hours long split into several sessions. And cover a lot more conditions. Some (like wet roads) might need special artifical test grounds , since we can't arrange rain to order. I'd like a requirement for testing at night too, but don't quite know how that could be managed. And much more qualified testers, preferably cops. At least, people who actually know HOW to drive themselves. So the tests are going to cost quite a lot, unless subsidised. A think a case can be made for that. Maybe the first test is subsidised ,fail and the subsequent ones you have to pay the full cost. So an incentive to make sure you pass first time.

Retest (shorter, like todays full) for all drivers every 10 years. If you do that I don't think you need a special regime for the elderly.

Much tougher enforcement of the DANGEROUS stuff. Reinstitute a separate traffic force. NOT part of the police. I have become convinced that the whole police approach to traffic is wrong.

And instead of the demerit points system, a system where you get X points awarded each year if you have NO violations . And violations deduct points as at present, but more steeply. So , years of good driving and one naughty doesn't put you off the road, but repeated "minor" offences quickly will. No accrued goodie points and you go through a red light? You're walking.

I think that more use could be made of short licence suspensions - a couple of weeks. Fines don't necessarily worry rich folk, but not having a vehicle for 2 weeks is a hassle for most people. But not so big a hassle that even poor people can't work round it. And the suspension eriod goes up for repeat offenders.

Yeah what he said!!!!!

**Squeak the Rat** · 9th February 2007, 12:27

Originally Posted by Juud

You mean they actually get a penalty for failing the test? Seems a bit harsh on people who are that nervous for a test and make mistakes they normally never would have made (like me for instance

).

Driving on the road can be very stressful. The driving test *should* show competency in dealing with stress while in control of a tonne of steel travelling at killing speeds.

**Horney1** · 9th February 2007, 13:13

I don't have too much time to write and I really could get carried away with this(!) but briefly:

I'm with the chaos theory to an extent (keeping driving on the left - unless passing) or at least grading licences to IQ, reflexes and proven ability to allow decent speeds (I mean 240ish or even a category for unlimited!! NO pissy 100, 110 or 120 maximum!).

Pluses for chaos: People will expect someone to do something stupid and take more care.

Pluses for graded licences: I won't get tickets for putt putting along at a safe 180 and certainly not for a much safer 130! (yes there are times to go slow to but the IQ, reflexes and proven ability factor should take care of those).

Banish speed limits and people will drive to their speed. Yes, there is much more to say on training (& revenue gathering!!!)... briefly, I learned early on "private" roads and was riding a big heavy english bike before I was ten (it really pissed dad off each time he found out!). I could drive a landrover in rough terrain at 12-13 for safety reasons. I think these things helped my skills and they are the sorts of things that should be encouraged instead of recoiling in fear. The later someone learns to drive the older they will be when they make their mistakes. So extrapolating the fear & "oh, lets raise the age limit" things, in 100 years people will have to be what? 35 years old before they can hold a licence!

The genetic exclusion argument is compelling! I know the types people that have caused me the most aggrevation on the roads and I'm only guessing that it's a common occurance for others. Although, I guess the graded licencing I suggested above could take care of that to! Go the one-speed bicycles theory!

**SPman** · 9th February 2007, 13:36

Issue licences with the birth certificate - after all - it's a RIGHT!

**Juud** · 9th February 2007, 13:49

Originally Posted by Squeak the Rat

Driving on the road can be very stressful. The driving test *should* show competency in dealing with stress while in control of a tonne of steel travelling at killing speeds.

Mmm, in theory there is some truth in that. However, psychologically, in my case, there is a huge difference between riding on the road and doing a test where everything has to be perfect. Everybody knows that when you're nervous you are more likely to make mistakes, it's only human.

I can assure you that I didn't turn in to a killer maniac on the road. (I'm not a nana either)

**Swoop** · 9th February 2007, 16:51

Originally Posted by Ixion

So I think you can't separate the licensing process from enforcement.

This thread is about the process that a person must go through to actually get a licence.
Enforcement of the rules is co-existing with this scheme and naturally any breaches will invoke the wrath of complete enforcement by the police. Found driving on a learners at night with passengers = out with the law book and enforce penalty laid out therein. Simple.

Good post Ix, I expected nothing less!

**Ixion** · 9th February 2007, 17:42

You can't separate the two though. If you make it hard to get a licence, but the penalties for driving without a licence/wrong licence/breach of conditions are small compared to the cost/difficulty of getting licence, then people will simply ignore the licence.

F'instance - it is was like Germany, and cost $10000 to get a full licence. But the penalty for driving on a learners and ignoring the restrictions was only $400 a time - most people would simply get a learners and go no further $10000 is a lot of $400s. So the tougher you make the licence regime, the tougher you have to make the penalties for not complying with it.

At present the graduated licencse scheme is by and large ignored. Learners,restricted, full it's all the same.

**Swoop** · 13th February 2007, 16:49

Unfortunately our NZ public transport system does not provide a decent alternative to using your own vehicle. We see this every day.

**scracha** · 13th February 2007, 18:54

First thing I'd do is put a foreigner in charge of the licensing system cos it's foreigners that run this country.

Next thing I'd do is force ALL the existing kiwi's to sit a harder driving test over the next two year's. I woudn't bother with the foreigners as they tend to drive in a far safer fashion than most kiwi's. This driving test would have elements in it that are currently alien concepts such as being courteous on the road and leaving more than 5 milliseconds braking distance.

Third thing I'd do is make a graded license system with an 80kmh limit for new drivers or drivers with more than 50 points and (where appropriate) a 120kmh limit for competent drivers. I'd probably lower the speed limit in most towns though.

Fourth thing I'd do is make a penalty system that people actually give a $hit about. Yeah, and that means losing your license (NO EXCEPTIONS) if you're caught drink driving and JAIL if you're caught more than once. A night in the cells for people caught driving without a license would also not be a bad idea. Public flogging for being a selfish prick and not pulling over to let the 50 vehicles behind you past would also be on the agenda.