Time limits for driver licenses

Forums › Off topic › Time limits for driver licenses

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

438 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 82

#743848 12-Jan-2013 19:58

clevedon:
If you want to be exempt from it at school, fine - but you will need a valid excuse, like for not doing PE :-)

PE is optional from year 11

Regs

4066 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 206

Trusted

Snowflake

#743850 12-Jan-2013 20:04

i've had a learner motorbike license for 20+ years.... it probably should have been taken off me long ago though - i'd be a danger on the road if i - legally - rode off into the sunset (in winter time of course, before 10pm).

for bikes, you used to have to pass a practical competency test to go learners -> restricted. dont believe we had to do that for car back then

Sales Engineer
Snowflake
www.snowflake.com

about.me/nzregs
Twitter: @nzregs

Toledo

67 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 3

Trusted

#743856 12-Jan-2013 20:14

jfanning:
Toledo:
We have different logic. Driving experience is nothing. Some people will pick up driving within a few months, some will never be safe to drive on the road no matter how long they try.

Your logic about being tested is odd - "just because you haven't been tested doesn't prove you aren't good enough" If you don't go get tested and you have bad driving habits that you are unaware of then how are you going to know? The whole point of a test is to be assessed by a professional (I know this is debatable with some testing officers) to make sure you are good enough to drive and safe to be on the road.

The last point you make is probably because you have not sat your full test - The full test is very different from the restricted and checks different aspects of your driving ability. It is usually more than twice as long and much harder to pass than the restricted. And for motorcycles its different again, The rider has to get a cert to show they can handle a bike, Then they can get their learners, Then on the restricted test they are followed by the tester, and then followed by the tester for the full test but like I said before the full test is much more involved than the restricted. I know this as I have both full car and bike having spent over $1k in licencing.

Driving experience is everything, and without it you shouldn't taking the test at all. Being tested only measures your experience at one level, once at that level, and on the day you take it, it does not measure all those bad habits you pick up in the years to come after passing that licence. You seem to be assuming that it is only untested drivers that have "bad habits"

Actually to correct your last point, I sat (and passed) my full car licence 23 years ago, I sat (and passed) my full motorcycle licence 15 years, I have also re-sat (and passed) my entire car licence in another country, does this mean I am twice (or three times) as good as people that have one been tested once?

Sorry experience is a bad word for it, how long someone has been driving is not a measure of how good they are at it, being tested by a professional is. Testing may only test your ability on that day but that's a lot better than not being tested. I didn't say anyone has whose driving habits, these laws are being changed to help make sure people obey the law and use the licencing system the way it was designed to be used. There used to be a rule where someone over a certain age could go straight from learners to full slipping the restricted licence if they could pass the full test, don't know if that still exists but seems like that would be the answer for people wanting to avoid this.

Being tested more than once at something doesn't multiply how good you are at it, And the licence process 23 years ago was very different to today's standards so not really relevant.

My opinions are purely my own and are not at all those of my employer 2degrees.

1eStar

1605 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 375

#743878 12-Jan-2013 21:13

I'm for anything that increases the skill level and competence of drivers on our roads. We should all be tested every 10 years to keep our full licences.

jfanning

438 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 82

#743894 12-Jan-2013 22:12

Toledo:

Sorry experience is a bad word for it, how long someone has been driving is not a measure of how good they are at it, being tested by a professional is. Testing may only test your ability on that day but that's a lot better than not being tested. I didn't say anyone has whose driving habits, these laws are being changed to help make sure people obey the law and use the licencing system the way it was designed to be used. There used to be a rule where someone over a certain age could go straight from learners to full slipping the restricted licence if they could pass the full test, don't know if that still exists but seems like that would be the answer for people wanting to avoid this.

Being tested more than once at something doesn't multiply how good you are at it, And the licence process 23 years ago was very different to today's standards so not really relevant.

Yes you are right, the length of driving time isn't a measure, but in the same respect passing the full licence only means you have met the minimum required skills on the day you sat the test. It does not make you an experienced driver, it does not automatically make you a better driver than someone else that may not have yet sat the full licence.

How are the rules being changed going to make sure people obey the law when they are infact obeying the law now?

The rule to bypass the restricted was removed some years ago.

Actually the licence process 23 years ago was very similar to the standard today, it was the graduated scheme as it is today, yes the scheme has changed slightly since then, but very different to the weet-bix box licence provided 24 years ago

mattwnz

20562 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4822

#743903 12-Jan-2013 22:32

The amount of driving you do does tend to be a measure of how competent you can be, because the more time you spend doing something, the better you will become. I think the 10,00 hours rule applies, it take 10,00 hours to become an expert at something.
The problem is that some people were taught badly to begin with, so always have bad habits.

Apple TV

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).

rphenix

990 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 129

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#743915 12-Jan-2013 22:56

1eStar: I'm for anything that increases the skill level and competence of drivers on our roads. We should all be tested every 10 years to keep our full licences.

Too bad nobody drives like they do in a test day to day, so I don't see how this would change anything. Maybe attending some sort of advanced driving course.

turnin

509 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 155
Inactive user

#743931 13-Jan-2013 00:01

Certainly it depends on what you THINK about whilst you are driving, you'll learn nothing if you just switch off and follow the car in front. People who are interested in driving tend to be more aware but also often accumulate a foundation of knowledge and build upon that as they learn to drive. In theory you should never stop "learning" to drive anyway.

If any of you have/are school aged students with at least a learners license in the South Island, make sure they/you take advantage of a totally free, hands on "advanced driving course" called "pro-drive". Held on weekends usually in grass paddocks or racetracks. It's run by an ex race driver called John Osborne. Vehicles are provided and current competitors will teach them things that frankly everyone should know about driving. It circulates around the south island schools every 12-18 months. If it were a commercial outfit it would be a $400 course easily, and I wouldn't be plugging it. I totally endorse what this bloke will teach you or your kids. Your schools office should have details of the next visit.

There are other courses in NZ usually on racetracks run by the likes of car manufacturers and ex motorsport people. Regardless of how good or bad you think you are or how much experience you have , do one.
I think the most dangerous people on the road are those who are bored and disinterested.

The road toll is often used to describe how dangerous driving is, yet it's minor compared to the 10,000 odd serious injuries sustained in car crashes. Not sure what it is now but a few years ago the combined social cost of car accidents in NZ was just over 2 Billion dollars, annually.

Google will be driving your car sooner than you know, and I hate to say it but it will be better and safer. Driving requires 100% concentration 100% of the time, computers can do that and sadly we can't.

sleemanj

1525 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 332

#744039 13-Jan-2013 12:37

Toledo: The difference in driver performance between a restricted test and full test is more than the difference in the licences ie: ability to drive after 10pm and have other people in the car.

You know, actually, that's not true any more.

A year ago, the tests were effectively flipped, what was the old "tough" full licence test became the new tough restricted test, and what was the "easy" restricted became the new easy full.

The full test now is quite short, it's a cursory check really.

While the restricted is much more in depth.

In theory, if you have passed the new (since last year) restricted test, you should have easily met the requirements for the full test.

It would be most interesting to find out, of those who pass the new restricted, how many could possibly fail the new full, just how many bad habits can you pickup since doing the restricted...

---
James Sleeman
I sell lots of stuff for electronic enthusiasts...

CamH

618 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 328

Subscriber

#744149 13-Jan-2013 18:19

I agree with this change. A driver's license is for driving. There are very little ID required tasks that can't be achieved with a passport and a birth certificate. Yes, getting a passport isn't easy but it's a good thing to have.

This being said, I think there needs to be the following changes:

Drivers license tests need to be cheaper. Come on, $100~ to get a license?
We need some adjustment to the driver license system. Even if it's like a motorbike license where we go Learners > Full, with much harder tests - Maybe compulsory lessons with proper instructors (which would be affordable with a drop in licensing prices).

Hobchild

624 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 34

#744324 13-Jan-2013 23:27

Well as I'm one of the very people that this article was talking about I feel I have to add my two cents.

For the record: Obtained learners licence in 1998 and sat on it for seven years before obtaining restricted in 2005. Still on my restricted today.

Reason for not sitting my full: Pure laziness.

My question for everyone is: Why do you care?

And please do not tell me it is because I haven't proved myself to be a fully competent driver yet. Because neither have the majority of people over the age of 40 which includes a very large chunk of the driving population. They decided they wanted to sit their (full) licence so went down to the local cop shop and asked the constable for a driving test. I am yet to hear of a single person who has ever failed this test but I've heard a lot more stories in the form of...

...went for a drive around the block, did a three point turn, returned to the police station, licence passed with flying colours but not before the cop said to me "now son you remember no more than six pints before you drive otherwise you might risk yourself a nasty $20 fine."

Ok I might have fabricated that last bit a wee bit but you get my drift.

As for the OP's original point of needing to get his full for the sake of ID he has a very good point. Contrary to what some of you have said a birth certificate is NOT a form of ID. Why? Because it doesn't have your photo on it which means it really could be anybodies. Forms of acceptable ID are just about always drivers licence or passport plus normally a credit card or bank card with your name embossed onto it. Well so far that is what I've always been asked for. Personally I don't know why an 18+ card cannot be used for such things.

Dell

Shop now for Dell laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

trig42

5901 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2114

ID Verified

#744387 14-Jan-2013 10:08

Does a restricted/learners license currently not expire at all?
A full expires on your 25th, 35th, 45th etc birthday year (up until 65, when it then starts expiring more frequently I believe).
This is not to 'revenue gather', this is to ensure your details are up to date, that you are healthy and can see. In the days of the old lifetime license, you could be licensed to drive on the roads, but be about to drop dead behingf the wheel and be blind.
Paying to renew my license every ten years does not bother me.If I were on a restricted/learners, I would expect those conditions to be stricter (ie, expire more quickly).

If you want to use your DL as ID, fine, but obey the other expectations that come with it. It would be incongruous if a Learners/Restricted di not expire at all, let alone the same as a full. Surely you have to pay when you renew your Learners/Restricted? It makes sense for them to encourage people to get their Full license.

Hobchild

624 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 34

#744393 14-Jan-2013 10:24

They expire every ten years just like a full licence does.

gzt

19015 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8109

Lifetime subscriber

#744436 14-Jan-2013 11:33

Hobchild: Well as I'm one of the very people that this article was talking about I feel I have to add my two cents.

For the record: Obtained learners licence in 1998 and sat on it for seven years before obtaining restricted in 2005. Still on my restricted today.

Reason for not sitting my full: Pure laziness.

That is a long time. Do you comply with the conditions all the time?

ajobbins

5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1280

Trusted

#744442 14-Jan-2013 11:40

sleemanj: You know, actually, that's not true any more.

A year ago, the tests were effectively flipped, what was the old "tough" full licence test became the new tough restricted test, and what was the "easy" restricted became the new easy full.

The full test now is quite short, it's a cursory check really.

Don't agree with that. When I did my Restricted about 11 years ago, it was significantly harder to pass than the full licence test, which was a breeze.

The full test was a lot more relaxed with a much greater focus on hazard identification and recall rather than general driving skills.

Twitter: ajobbins

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5