Forced licence progression

[Scuba_Steve]

Well seems the Govt is going ahead with their money grabbing forced licence progression

"The Government is going to put 5 year time limits on people staying on a learner or restricted licence."

Me, I think it's the most retarded idea ever to try & force people to graduate especially if those people aren't capable (& don't give me no shit about "they'll fail the test then", look at the drivers out there!) This is just a pure money grab from the Govt I can't see any other "reason" for it.

I spent around 8yrs or so on a bike learners because the restricted was such a fucking waste of money it offered nothing but cost alot, I've also been sitting on a truck licence for a couple years, I don't need it for a job it is a personal choice to progress up the truck ladder but at the same time I don't have readily accessible trucks to just go get my licence with, so I just sit until the opportunity presents itself. I don't want to be forced to go hire a truck or lose my licence & have to redo a pointless overpriced multi-choice all over again just because the Govt wants more useless drivers & money

[nzmikey]

My missus has been sitting on her Restricted car licence for the past 8yrs ... has never needed to get her full & now it is a case of cant afford to get it due to the cost

[bluninja]

In the UK it's 2 years on the learners or you lose it. FFS if people aren't competent enough to pass their test in 5 years they deserve it taken away for a while. Why let them be allowed to carry on driving, as an accident waiting to happen If they are bucking the system to save some pennies then, boohoo, too bad, they changed the system.

I think it's shite that you can do a multi choice theory test and then be allowed out on the road in charge of a vehicle. Or just sit for 6 months and then sit the restricted test. The graduated system is supposed to allow people to gain experience as they move up, rather than just a series of delays.

I think all drivers, of all vehicels, should have to undergo and pass practical compulsory basic training by qualified instructors before being let loose on the road. I also think that people should have a practical restest periodically to make sure they can still drive 'properly'. Costs more, but I bet it's more effective at keeping everyone alive.

[Coolz]

Five years is a very generous amount of time for people to gain the skills and save the money to progress to their next class of licence. People put themselves through university, appreticeships to gain much higher, harder to achieve qualifications in less time.

[red mermaid]

Actually its got more to do with unlicensed drivers getting a learners licence and then sitting on that forever and a day.

Therefore when caught, if they ever do, they get a ticket for breach of learners, instead of getting forbidden to drive as an unlicenced driver.

By sitting on a learners it means they have passed a theory test but there actual driving skills have never been tested, and we all know how bad that is with the amount of whinging on KB about driver training, or lack of it.

If I could be bothered I'm sure I would find a post by Scuba Steve lamenting this fact, and stating more driver training is needed.

[nzmikey]

In the UK it's 2 years on the learners or you lose it. FFS if people aren't competent enough to pass their test in 5 years they deserve it taken away for a while. Why let them be allowed to carry on driving, as an accident waiting to happen If they are bucking the system to save some pennies then, boohoo, too bad, they changed the system.

I think it's shite that you can do a multi choice theory test and then be allowed out on the road in charge of a vehicle. Or just sit for 6 months and then sit the restricted test. The graduated system is supposed to allow people to gain experience as they move up, rather than just a series of delays.

I think all drivers, of all vehicels, should have to undergo and pass practical compulsory basic training by qualified instructors before being let loose on the road. I also think that people should have a practical restest periodically to make sure they can still drive 'properly'. Costs more, but I bet it's more effective at keeping everyone alive.

Why does my wife NEED the full licence ? She has been driving long enough to know the rules she is a safe driver & has the correct skills, at 10pm her driving ability does not go to shit all of a sudden so why the need to give the gooberment $111
??

[Coolz]

Why does my wife NEED the full licence ? She has been driving long enough to know the rules she is a safe driver & has the correct skills, at 10pm her driving ability does not go to shit all of a sudden so why the need to give the gooberment $111
??

She needs to be accessed as being competant otherwise the whole system is pointless. Much like the reason you would take your bike to a qualified mechanic rather than the guy who has just been doing it for a while.

[Scuba_Steve]

She needs to be accessed as being competant otherwise the whole system is pointless. Much like the reason you would take your bike to a qualified mechanic rather than the guy who has just been doing it for a while.

But the system IS pointless, we run a "have money? here's a licence" system, ability to drive is optional.
As for the mechanic... I'm alright with the "guy who has been doing it for awhile" hell I'm even alright with me, the guy who has done it shit all.

[nzmikey]

She needs to be accessed as being competant otherwise the whole system is pointless. Much like the reason you would take your bike to a qualified mechanic rather than the guy who has just been doing it for a while.

Yeah that argument is kinda of invalid, 8 years... if you cant figure out how to drive after that then get the fuck off the road .

& Yeah I do the work on my bike not a shop

[Headbanger]

I'm concerned about sharing the road with someone who having never proven their competent just assumes it.

[avgas]

laziness is not a virtue I would like to see in motorists. force them to upgrade.

[davereid]

Sadly learners don't pass even if they have the necessary skills because they are failed to a quota.

The NZTA has given the lucrative driver license testing contract to a monoploy company called NZ Driver Licensing (1998) Limited. You can't sit your test with anyone else, its an exclusive deal.

But NZ Driver Licensing has been caught out, with a memo requiring testers to fail 2/3 of applicants.

This makes the company exra revenues of $650,000 a year.

Source : http://www.nzherald.co.nz/motoring/n...ectid=10837379

A memo leaked to the Herald on Sunday reveals testers have been told to pass around 40 per cent of candidates, or face the consequences. The arithmetic isn't hard: that means failing 60 per cent.

Now, there are clear, legal guidelines around what qualifies as a pass or a fail. Do the indicators and brake lights work? Can the candidate turn right at a T-junction, giving way to one lane of oncoming traffic? Do they maintain a safe following distance? There are dozens of boxes they must tick.

Nowhere in the legislation does it say pass rates should be scaled up or down to ensure most candidates fail.

Even parents are getting frustrated. One Hamilton father told this paper how he watched his two sons fail three times each, despite a driving instructor assuring them they were ready.

Is it a coincidence that each time NZ Driver Licensing fails a young driver, the company can charge them $88 to resit the test - and that the 7397 resits forced on candidates since tough new standards were introduced in February have garnered the company more than $650,000?

Arbitrary scaling was phased out of high school examinations 25 years ago, because the community realised it was unfair to treat children as rats in a statistical laboratory. We shouldn't let some avaricious testing contractor bring it back, just because we're scared to let our kids grow

[bluninja]

Why does my wife NEED the full licence ? She has been driving long enough to know the rules she is a safe driver & has the correct skills, at 10pm her driving ability does not go to shit all of a sudden so why the need to give the gooberment $111
??

Simple. Having a license is a privilege not a right. Had she gone through the progression (lets assume she is a competent driver) she would have experience of driving in (mostly) daylight, then she would be assessed, get a tick in the box, and then after some more experience she would add night time driving avoiding drunks and half asleep drivers of family filled vans to the list of experiences.

Perhaps it would be simpler if people paid all their licensing fees up front, then there would be no reason to stay on learners or restricted longer than necessary.

I was fortunate I spent 6 months, with once a week driving lessons, and passed my cage test; I took a compulsory training course for my bike and was assessed before going onto the road and then passing my bike practical a short time later. It cost a lot, and I earned bugger all at the time, but it helped me become the conceited driving/riding prick I am today

[davereid]

Simple. Having a license is a privilege not a right.

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.

[skippa1]

Why does my wife NEED the full licence ? She has been driving long enough to know the rules she is a safe driver & has the correct skills, at 10pm her driving ability does not go to shit all of a sudden so why the need to give the gooberment $111
??

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