Is my friend still legally able to drive his car?

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › Is my friend still legally able to drive his car?

1 | 2 | 3

Handle9

11411 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3392184 8-Jul-2025 23:03

OldGeek:

SomeoneSomewhere:

It looks like health workers are only required to notify NZTA if they think the person will continue to drive against instructions:

That seems nonsense to me. How can a medical professional judge whether a patient is likely to disobey their instruction not to drive? Far more rational to require medical practitioners to advise the NZTA if any patient has been told they must not drive. My friend would then show up with as unlicensed.

You can think it's nonsense but it's the law. Section 18 of the Land Transport Act says:

18. Health Practitioners to give Director medical reports of persons unfit to drive

(1) This section applies if a health practitioner, who has attended or been consulted in respect of a driver licence holder, considers that—

(a) the mental or physical condition of the licence holder is such that, in the interests of public safety, the licence holder—

(i) should not be permitted to drive motor vehicles of a specified class or classes; or

(ii) should only be permitted to drive motor vehicles subject to such limitations as may be warranted by the mental or physical condition of the licence holder; and

(b) the licence holder is likely to drive a motor vehicle.

MichaelNZ

1403 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Integrity Tech Solutions

#3392232 8-Jul-2025 23:39

We live in a rural area. Every few months without fail there is a car by itself in a ditch on a straight section of SH2 in our local area.

How did it happen? I don't know.

Nothing wrong with the road.

Think about this. Then urge him to think about it.

If he wants to stay in a rural area there could be an option to get a flat mate with a vehicle. I've been flatting in Auckland recently and while every place I was at was conventional (ie: pay X$ per week for a room) I would certainly have been open to staying with someone who needed a bit of support.

Or he may decide to move into town. Urban areas have their advantages. Where we live its quite common for people at a certain age to sell up and move into one of the local towns.

WFH Linux Systems and Networks Engineer in the Internet industry | Specialising in Mikrotik | APNIC member | Open to job offers

SomeoneSomewhere

1806 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3392238 9-Jul-2025 02:55

OldGeek:

The evidence points not to a reasoned medical diagnosis but to a rigid process that assumes a Focal Seizure occurred despite no direct supporting evidence (of MRI scans taken within hours and a second within a week, both showing no abnormality). There is less risk of such a seizure now than there was before it occurred because of radical lifestyle changes that have been made - but this is ignored by medical professional in pronouncing a driving ban. In rural NZ there is zero opportunity in general to get a second opinion from a reputable medical specialist unless you have the hundreds of dollars to pay for it and the hours of travel to the nearest likely city where said specialist practices.

He already has two medical opinions.

From the NZTA again:

A single seizure doesn’t necessarily mean you have epilepsy, but it does mean you will need to stop driving for 12 months. In exceptional circumstances the 12-month stand-down period may be reduced if there is a clearly identified non-recurring cause for the seizure. The 12-month stand-down period can be reviewed in consultation with a neurologist and your health practitioner.

There is, perhaps, a justification for reducing it to 3-6 months if they think stress was a likely cause - but it doesn't sound like the professionals are convinced. Plenty of people with recurring epilepsy have nothing visible on MRIs.

I wouldn't expect an immediate return to driving unless it was something blatantly obvious like hyperthermia or a bad drug reaction.

You're questioning whether it's a focal seizure or not, but NZTA's medical guidance still lists 'blackout of unknown cause' as a six-month stand-down. There seems to be very little grey area:

https://www.nzta.govt.nz/assets/resources/medical-aspects/Medical-aspects-of-fitness-to-drive-a-guide-for-health-practitioners.pdf

This does say that it's a driver's legal responsibility to "Stop driving when medically suspended or revoked, or when advised by a health practitioner that they’re unfit to drive." I don't see a source for that in legislation but I expect it's there and you're on really, really thin ice.

scuwp

3888 posts

Uber Geek

#3392281 9-Jul-2025 09:37

OldGeek:

Delorean:

if a doctor says you’re not fit to drive (like after a seizure), you legally must stop driving - even if NZTA hasn’t cancelled your licence.

Driving against medical advice can void your insurance and lead to criminal charges. To drive again, your friend needs medical clearance (via a GP or neurologist) and possibly a form submitted to NZTA. Until then, he’s not legally allowed to drive

A reputable cite is what I am looking for.

NAL but have some experience in this area. There isn't a specific citation for this scenario. If someone crashes because of a medical event, and the Police investigation reveals the driver was given medical advice not to drive, then that will be a factor considered in determining the causes of the crash (or event) and potential charges - usually careless driving is the entry point, escalating to more serious driving charges such as dangerous or reckless, including causing injury or death as the case may be. Insurance consequences will be as per the specific policy, but it doesn't take much thinking to understand that if you do something against expert advice, and a loss occurs, you will be on thin ice getting an approved claim.

There are legal obligations under s18 the Land Transport Act for health practitioners to notify the Director of Land Transport (NZTA) of anyone they consider medically unfit to drive. NZTA have a medical team that will review the case and issue a decision on their license, usually suspension for a time period, or until certain criteria is met. There are guidelines for doctors to follow but it's fair to say the individual response varies. It sounds like the doctor in this case should have notified the NZTA.

Lazy is such an ugly word, I prefer to call it selective participation

Bung

6504 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#3392283 9-Jul-2025 09:54

S.18 has 2 parts

" and

(b) the licence holder is likely to drive a motor vehicle."

Doctors are involved in many situations where a driver is temporarily not to drive and NZTA doesn't get notified. The NZTA possibly only has an all or nothing option once they get involved. You lose your licence and have to reapply with the cost of a medical cert added to the licence renewal fee.

wellygary

8345 posts

Uber Geek

#3392300 9-Jul-2025 10:26

There are specific conditions that relate to having to disclose a medical certificate when you apply for or renew a license, - so these would be triggered at such an event,

However there are also overriding conditions in the Land Transport Act, regarding Drivers having to not be reckless, dangerous, careless or inconsiderate

I think the line "without reasonable consideration for other persons" is a pretty big red flag when you have a doctor certificate saying you should not drive..

the "is or might be dangerous to the public or to a person." is also a likely ground for prosecution

Unless he can find another doctor to say its OK, I would say he's on shaky ground legally...

Land Transport Act 1998

7Drivers not to be reckless or dangerous

(1)A person may not drive a motor vehicle, or cause a motor vehicle to be driven, recklessly.
(2)A person may not drive a motor vehicle, or cause a motor vehicle to be driven, at a speed or in a manner which, having regard to all the circumstances, is or might be dangerous to the public or to a person.

8 Drivers not to be careless or inconsiderate

A person may not drive a vehicle, or cause a vehicle to be driven, carelessly or without reasonable consideration for other persons

OldGeek

904 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#3392458 9-Jul-2025 15:35

Thanks to all for all the information. This will be useful if anyone finds this thread in the future.

My friend has found a new rental in town. He will be moving in a matter of weeks and has said he will not drive in the meantime. His children will help out in the interim along with friends and neighbours. Combining the use of a mobility scooter with delivery services available at his new rental, he should be able to lead a normal, independent and retired life. His car will be sold (anyone looking for a Japanese import BMW in Northland?).

--

OldGeek.

Quic referal code: https://account.quic.nz/refer/581402

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

tehgerbil

1102 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Subscriber

#3392624 10-Jul-2025 09:15

OldGeek - You're a lovely friend.

This thread is sad indictment on our driver licensing system, when the law treats an individual's right to drive with much more regard than the potential danger that person may pose to others on the road!

Bung

6504 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#3392631 10-Jul-2025 09:42

tehgerbil:

This thread is sad indictment on our driver licensing system, when the law treats an individual's right to drive with much more regard than the potential danger that person may pose to others on the road!

I don't see that at all. It's clear that there's no right to drive.

When there's a large number driving without ever being involved in the system and repeat DUI offenders that shows the limited control that NZTA or Police have when it comes down to it.

In the end it comes down to what friends and acquaintances tolerate.

tripper1000

1619 posts

Uber Geek

#3392747 10-Jul-2025 13:29

This really isn't any different from drinking and driving from a legal/moral perspective.

You can legally hold a drivers license and drink alcohol (or have an impairing illness).
It is not illegal to be drunk (or have an impairing illness).
Holding a drivers license doesn't entitle you to drive while drunk (or drive while suffering from impairing illness).
You are obligated to refrain from driving while drunk (or while suffering from an impairing illness).
The licensing authority isn't going to revoke your drivers license for the period you are drunk (or while you're suffering from impairing illness).
A Barman doesn't know if you're going to drive while impaired, neither does a doctor but if they somehow find out, they're obligated to dob you in.
You are expected to act like an adult and respect the safety of others and yourself, regardless of the inconvenience to you.
If you hurt someone while driving drunk/driving after a doctor has prohibited you, you belong in prison. (Holding a license doesn't protect you from prosecution).

wellygary

8345 posts

Uber Geek

#3392795 10-Jul-2025 13:39

Bung:

In the end it comes down to what friends and acquaintances tolerate.

This is pretty much why "Drinking and Driving" is no longer the huge problem it used to be..

It has become socially unacceptable amongst many parts of society.... where as 30 years ago it was acceptable...( well certainly in the circles I travel in)

SomeoneSomewhere

1806 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3393015 10-Jul-2025 20:09

tripper1000:

This really isn't any different from drinking and driving from a legal/moral perspective.

You can legally hold a drivers license and drink alcohol (or have an impairing illness).
It is not illegal to be drunk (or have an impairing illness).
Holding a drivers license doesn't entitle you to drive while drunk (or drive while suffering from impairing illness).
You are obligated to refrain from driving while drunk (or while suffering from an impairing illness).
The licensing authority isn't going to revoke your drivers license for the period you are drunk (or while you're suffering from impairing illness).
A Barman doesn't know if you're going to drive while impaired, neither does a doctor but if they somehow find out, they're obligated to dob you in.
You are expected to act like an adult and respect the safety of others and yourself, regardless of the inconvenience to you.
If you hurt someone while driving drunk/driving after a doctor has prohibited you, you belong in prison. (Holding a license doesn't protect you from prosecution).

Big difference I see is that you can be prosecuted for drunk driving regardless of whether you get into an accident. It's not clear if that can happen if you're shown to be driving against medical advice.

gzt

17163 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3393048 10-Jul-2025 21:47

Based on the previous info above it is obvious you can be prosecuted with no accident. It is not unusual for officers to stop vehicles for behavior unrelated to an accident.

OP's friend has made all the right decisions and does not plan to drive unless medically cleared.

1 | 2 | 3