ACC - Why automatically renew licences?

[tigertim20]

Another thread I'm sure will be un-popular.

I was thinking about the large number of riders who return to the bike after having a break for a long time, sometimes decades.

And then I was thinking, why do our licences re-new after 10 years without having to do anything?

What about the idea of having people attend some kind of "re-education" class before they can re-new their licence? A bit like how you have to re-new your PADI diving certificate every now and then.

And perhaps if you don't do some type of re-education your licence simply suspends until you do. Then if they don't ride for 30 years you can be reasonably confident that they'll attend some kind of training.

And for those who ride all the time - what harm will it do?

And so you say, they'll just ride with a suspended licence. I'm sure some will. But I suspect most will want insurance - and you can't get that without a licence for on-road use (and least, you can't get a pay out).
Also they are more likely to get nasty fines if stopped by the Police.

So what say all of you? Another bad idea, or it has some merit?

I have been sayign for a long time that this should be done. its odd at 15 I got my learners, took about ten minutes to do the scratch test. restricted at 15 1/2, took about 20 minutes to do the drive. My full fairly soon after, which was less than a 30 minute drive.
so by 16-17 ish, I had my full licence, which means I am qualified to drive untill the mandatory retest at what, 85 I think it is?
so 1 hour of behaving = 68 years of safe driving? fuck off. I always thought every ten years, you should do say the restricted or full driving test again, can be helpful to know what bad habbits etc you have learnt through the complacency of everyday driving being a mundane chore.
I mean how many people follow the rules for indicating at roundabouts, or for lane changes? fuckall. and most of them dont even realise it.

[Pedrostt500]

Continued from above,

If some one gives away riding for more than 10 yrs, they just drop back a power to weight class, thus allowing them to come back to the fold with little drama, but seeing that after a 30 yr break they just can't go out and buy the latest, fastest rocket ship that money can buy, with out proving they have passed the relivant courses.

[Hitcher]

How many 50+ riders have you seen on sports thousands? Come on now, let's get some rationality into this age vs power nonsense.

[Pedrostt500]

How many 50+ riders have you seen on sports thousands? Come on now, let's get some rationality into this age vs power nonsense.

It has little to do with age vs power, its exsperience vs power, if the last riding exsperience was a 1980 XL250, in 1980, then that person decides to get the latest rocket ship, with out any form of understanding of how technology has changed in many ways regarding motor cycles in the intervening yrs, this tends to be a recipe for disaster.
Even what is seen as middle of the road power / weight ratioed bikes that are being produced now, are rocket ships in comparison to what was cutting edge 20 to 30 yrs ago.

[Swoop]

And then I was thinking, why do our licences re-new after 10 years without having to do anything?

Simply because the lifetime licence that we purchased was "sold down the road" by a previous gubbinment.
Without any compensation for the unused portion, either.

Do you remember the "little book" licence?

[rickstv]

I'm with hitcher on this one. I am now 58 years old. I got my full in 1969 by riding down the road, doing a u turn and returning to the cop on the side of the road who issued me a full licence on the spot. I gave up riding about 1976 and returned again last year with a 250cc bike.

I am old enough and wise enough to realise that a gixxer thou would kill me.
I think most of us older returning riders think along the same lines
Rick.

[firefighter]

so 1 hour of behaving = 68 years of safe driving? fuck off. I always thought every ten years, you should do say the restricted or full driving test again, can be helpful to know what bad habbits etc you have learnt through the complacency of everyday driving being a mundane chore.
I mean how many people follow the rules for indicating at roundabouts, or for lane changes? fuckall. and most of them dont even realise it.

So one test every 10 years is going to fix up them bad driving habits....... ? Tui

I can see all you same advocating people whining about the cost of these tests in a few years and the tax and ACC levies being charged......

You people really are suckers for punishment.

[The Stranger:Me]

This has already tried with older people and was removed by the labour government becuase it was too stressful for some old folks.

Bullshit, it was an election bribe, pure and simple and labour never tried to hide that.
They had a simple philosophy. Stitch up the unemployed, the students and maori and they would stay in power. As national started courting some of these groups labour needed to find (buy) another so selected the oldies. It worked a treat for them.

[James Deuce]

What has license renewal got to do with ACC?

His Hobby Llama spoke to him in a dream.

[The Stranger:Me]

why do our licences re-new after 10 years without having to do anything?

So what say all of you? Another bad idea, or it has some merit?

I've said it before, at least make them do a scratch and win test. It could be fairly easily implemented using existing resources.

A driving practical driving test would be met with a LOT of resistance and would cost us a LOT of money.
Even in the city it would be difficult to implement. Small country towns and rural areas wouldn't have the demand for full time testing facilities. The logistics would be significant

[James Deuce]

I've said it before, at least make them do a scratch and win test. It could be fairly easily implemented using existing resources.

A driving practical driving test would be met with a LOT of resistance and would cost us a LOT of money.
Even in the city it would be difficult to implement. Small country towns and rural areas wouldn't have the demand for full time testing facilities. The logistics would be significant

They've just had to spend 70 million quid in the UK building test facilities that are compliant with the new EU test requirements for motorcycle license tests, all because they adopted the wording of the tests in its entirety. This means that learners have to do their tests at 31.2mph (50kph), obviously illegal in UK urban areas due to a 30 mph speed limit, and in quite confined spaces. At the same time the number of testing centres has dropped from 260 to 66 nationwide (only 44 running at present), so you have to ride a long way to your test on your 125 and then ride it home if you fail. (What the!?)

They have this vicious swerve test where you have to swerve around an object at 31.2mph and then stop quickly. Simulates a vehicle pullin gout suddenly. People are falling off and breaking bones in wet conditions, partly because of the complexity of the test and partly because of the lack of space. I reckon some experienced KBers would struggle with that one.

Governments so know how to do things right. I luv Gibbmints.

Isn't ACC a Gubbmint department?

[Gareth51]

Have licence 1,2,3,4,5,6 for over 40yrs
Hadn't owned a bike 40yrs,more likely to kill my self back then than now
Haven't driven a truck for over 30yrs ,but I might want to to-morrow

[tigertim20]

It has little to do with age vs power, its exsperience vs power, if the last riding exsperience was a 1980 XL250, in 1980, then that person decides to get the latest rocket ship, with out any form of understanding of how technology has changed in many ways regarding motor cycles in the intervening yrs, this tends to be a recipe for disaster.
Even what is seen as middle of the road power / weight ratioed bikes that are being produced now, are rocket ships in comparison to what was cutting edge 20 to 30 yrs ago.

The main mistake with this argument is simple, You are assuming that these people who havent ridden a bike for 25 years, have not driven, or been a passenger in any other type of vehicle for that time either, and thus have not seen the technologial advancements which have been made within the engineering and automotive sectors. Of course they fuckin have man!! jesus, they dont just hide under a rock for a quarter of a century! and they know this. One thing in common with a 1965 triumph, and a 2009 R1 ad everything inbetween is this: it will only go as fast as your right wrist tells it to. Anybody who's ever been on a bike knows this anyway.

So one test every 10 years is going to fix up them bad driving habits....... ? Tui

well I would say every 2-3 years, or less, but judging by your following comments, I doubt you would be a fan of that either. perhaps instead of pissing on plausible ideas, you could offer an even better alternative you have thought of? Im open to hearing it if you actually have something!I can see all you same advocating people whining about the cost of these tests in a few years and the tax and ACC levies being charged......

You people really are suckers for punishment.

I've said it before, at least make them do a scratch and win test. It could be fairly easily implemented using existing resources.

A driving practical driving test would be met with a LOT of resistance and would cost us a LOT of money.
Even in the city it would be difficult to implement. Small country towns and rural areas wouldn't have the demand for full time testing facilities. The logistics would be significant

scratch test could be viable, showing you actually remember the rules. neither of my folks could tell me how fast they can drive past a school bus, I just rang and asked them to check, and judging by some fucktards I see, many dont know any of the give way rules either, And dont even get me started on merging lanes, 99% of people dont have a fucking vlue what they are there for, and swear at you and threaten you etc when you use them exactly for their intended purpose!

[AlpinePossum]

Another thread I'm sure will be un-popular.
I was thinking about the large number of riders who return to the bike after having a break for a long time, sometimes decades.

Yip, I'm one of those.

And then I was thinking, why do our licences re-new after 10 years without having to do anything?

What about the idea of having people attend some kind of "re-education" class before they can re-new their licence?

Re-education? You sound like the Khmer Rouge!

So you think I just vanished and sat in a cupboard all the time I didn't own a motorbike?

No. I drove. Probably more different vehicles under more conditions in stranger places than you ever will.

I also got smashed up twice.

One ass hole came clean across a solid white line at me, and killed 3 of his passengers and so tore up his face he couldn't say why the hell he did it.

Another asshole did a U-turn in an SUV on a straight and level piece of road just in front of me. I was OK, but my family hurt pretty bad.

Since then I've been studying road safety like mad. Believe me, I've looked at the road code and test you have here. Nothing in there for me to learn.

What I do need is practice, practice practice. Muscle memory. The conscious mind is too slow. It's Good for strategic thinking and steering... but when the shit hits the fan... it's too slow.

Sure I was a better motorcyclist the first time round. I couldn't afford anything but a bike. I lived on the the thing. I commuted on it. I traveled longer distances than NZ has.

I bought a bike again for fun. I use the tin can to transport family and things. So I'm never going to be as practiced as I was the first time around.

As I mentioned in the thread on Cornering... I'm passionate about the idea of avoiding crashes. Travelling slow, looking and seeing it's clear is all well and Good. I was travelling slow (80-90kph) on a straight and level road. But reality sucks and fuckers can and do convert an all clear road into an SUV size roadblock.

If you want a campaign to reduce ACC premiums face up to the fact that 75% of the accidents are caused by the insulated idiots in tin cans. And even more cost is caused by those damn SUV's.

Better protective gear? Yeah, it'll help a bit. But let me assure you no leathers, no helmet makes a damn bit of difference if an SUV does anything quite that damn stupid.

The only thing that may save you is to rid yourself of that OH MY GOD, WHAT THE FUCK!?, I CAN'T BELIEVE IT! reaction that chews up the 2 seconds you have to avoid it.

If you want ACC to take an action targets older bikers... arrange low cost safe practice areas.

[James Deuce]

Y

If you want a campaign to reduce ACC premiums face up to the fact that 75% of the accidents are caused by the insulated idiots in tin cans. And even more cost is caused by those damn SUV's.

Depends who you talk to, but I think you'll find it's near enough a 50/50 split between "them" and "us".

Fundamentally, if you fall off by yourself, it is unlikely to be ruled no fault.

I do understand the irony of using Government stats, but no one else collects them and it is the data that all Government Depts use.;

From: http://www.transport.govt.nz/researc...-Factsheet.pdf

Who was at fault?
Motorcyclist fault in crashes 2003-2007 Single vehicle, no rider fault identified 3%

Multi vehicle, primary responsibility 25%

Single vehicle, rider at fault 26%

Multi vehicle, no rider fault identified 39%

Multi vehicle, partial responsibility 7%