Time limits for driver licenses

Forums › Off topic › Time limits for driver licenses

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

17003 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#743672 12-Jan-2013 09:53

Toledo: As far as I am concerned a restricted driver has still not proven themselves in a final test. 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.

This argument makes good sense. If we consider the ability of restricted drivers to be lower than full drivers then allowing a higher proportion of restricted drivers to exist on the road increases risk for other road users. Benefits of new or changed driving regulations are usually measured in number of predicted lives saved reduction in road toll. That is not the case here. It is unusual the govt is not making that case for this change by providing this type of statistic.

Perhaps this change is not justified or motivated by traffic safety concerns. It is impossible to tell because there is no good evidence provided to support it. This is unusual.

jfanning

438 posts

Ultimate Geek

#743673 12-Jan-2013 09:53

Toledo:Im am fully behind the changes to the drivers licencing, As far as I am concerned a restricted driver has still not proven themselves in a final test. 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.

Please explain more, I don't understand how a person who has spent the minimal time on the restricted licence and passed the full is any more experienced than an active driver that has been on their restricted for 5 years

gzt

17003 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#743691 12-Jan-2013 10:25

Toledo is not claiming any difference in experience. Toledo is saying that a proportion of restricted will fail their full test and in the current system will continue on the road on restricted forever.

It is an interesting point. In the new system will the restricted will have to start again and resit learners if the restricted expires without turning into full or can they resit restricted to start again from there?

Batman

Mad Scientist
29727 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#743699 12-Jan-2013 10:43

nate:

You can go to USA/Aussie and use your license as ID but they can't do the same here. Go figure.

not sure about USA but you legally can't in Oz ... the fact that some CSRs accept your NZ means you got lucky coz they don't have to ... not saying they don't, just that legally not accepted over there ... passport only

turnin

509 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#743708 12-Jan-2013 10:59

jeffnz:
Having a drivers license for identity reminds me of an old analogy "fighting for peace is like having sex for virginity" ( loses a bit in translation and changed wording)

Good quote !

Everything we do here in NZ especially in terms of road safety emanates from Victoria. Not sure who is on bed with who but If you want to see what NZ will be like in terms of legislation and enforcement, look at Victoria . Nothing against Victoria, but we seem to have this reliance on copying them rather than thinking for our selves.

Toledo

67 posts

Master Geek

Trusted

#743709 12-Jan-2013 11:02

jfanning:
Toledo:Im am fully behind the changes to the drivers licencing, As far as I am concerned a restricted driver has still not proven themselves in a final test. 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.

Please explain more, I don't understand how a person who has spent the minimal time on the restricted licence and passed the full is any more experienced than an active driver that has been on their restricted for 5 years

Its not about experience, its about ability to drive. A person can be driving for 5 years and still not be a good enough driver to pass the full test vs someone that is a good driver and can pass the test in the minimum specified time. Anyone that has been on restricted for a long period of time has not been tested to see if they are actually fit to be on the road, there could be all sorts of bad habits and mannerisms in their driving that they are not aware of. This is exactly what the full test is there to check on.

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

turnin

509 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#743715 12-Jan-2013 11:20

I think the main reason people sit on restricted licences, rather than move onto a full licence is
1/ cost - for lower income people
2/ stigmas about learning and failing ( especially over long time frames)
If you're young, excited about having your own "freedom" , perhaps still living at home and hopefully interested in driving You'll achieve a full licence in no time at all, hopefully with a load more education than the ridiculous minimum level required.

In my mind the current driver education system is a joke, It hasn't changed since about 1950, yet the roading environment and cars certainly have. A drivers licence means you can recite the road rules , park, do U turns and turn left and right with minimal competence. It has very little to do with your understanding of a motor vehicle nor does it mean you have the level of concentration and knowledge required to drive it properly. All told it probably does have more relevance as an ID rather than any measure of your ability to drive.

GoodSync

GoodSync. Easily back up and sync your files with GoodSync. Simple and secure file backup and synchronisation software will ensure that your files are never lost (affiliate link).

jfanning

438 posts

Ultimate Geek

#743741 12-Jan-2013 12:44

Toledo: Its not about experience, its about ability to drive. A person can be driving for 5 years and still not be a good enough driver to pass the full test vs someone that is a good driver and can pass the test in the minimum specified time. Anyone that has been on restricted for a long period of time has not been tested to see if they are actually fit to be on the road, there could be all sorts of bad habits and mannerisms in their driving that they are not aware of. This is exactly what the full test is there to check on.

Again, can you explain yourself further, because you haven't done it here.

Driving experience is what counts, just because you haven't been tested doesn't prove you aren't good enough.

Just because you have been tested just shows you were good enough for the day, everyday you can see lots of people with full licences making mistakes driving, does that automatically say these people are better than all restricted drivers (which is the impression I believe you make above).

Also, a person on their restricted licence has been tested already in a practical test, and for motorcycle drivers I believe they have been tested twice in the same position.

Toledo

67 posts

Master Geek

Trusted

#743750 12-Jan-2013 13:10

Driving experience is what counts, just because you haven't been tested doesn't prove you aren't good enough.

Just because you have been tested just shows you were good enough for the day, everyday you can see lots of people with full licences making mistakes driving, does that automatically say these people are better than all restricted drivers (which is the impression I believe you make above).

Also, a person on their restricted licence has been tested already in a practical test, and for motorcycle drivers I believe they have been tested twice in the same position.

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.

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

rphenix

983 posts

Ultimate Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#743767 12-Jan-2013 14:36

Byrned: No, I don't think this is discriminatory in any way.

A drivers licence is intended to prove that you can drive. Its primary purpose is not for anything else. The fact that you can is secondary.

Whilst I have sympathy with those who only need their restricted, I don't see it as a major point of contention.

So what if thats its primary purpose, its being used for a secondary purpose and I dont really see anything bad by letting things stay as is.

clevedon

1059 posts

Uber Geek

#743795 12-Jan-2013 16:58

I personally believe learning to drive a car should be a compulsory secondary school subject, just about everyone has learn to drive eventually - start them early I reckon.

mattwnz

20108 posts

Uber Geek

#743796 12-Jan-2013 17:05

clevedon: I personally believe learning to drive a car should be a compulsory secondary school subject, just about everyone has learn to drive eventually - start them early I reckon.

I disagree, because driving isn't a right, it is a privilege. Many people chose not to drive, so it shouldn't be forced on those who don't want to. Also some people are just poor drivers and lack the skill required, and no amount of training will likely fix that, and we don't need more bad drivers on the road, the road if full of them already. Maybe with a huge amountof training they could be made good, but that is expensive.

The OP is really complaining because of the drivers license is used as a form of ID, due to the lack of something else. However the drivers license was never meant to be used for proof of identity, as it is not a national identity card. Perhaps this move means that we do need some form of national ID card, perhaps linked to the IRD's system

jfanning

438 posts

Ultimate Geek

#743802 12-Jan-2013 17:08

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?

clevedon

1059 posts

Uber Geek

#743817 12-Jan-2013 17:23

mattwnz:
clevedon: I personally believe learning to drive a car should be a compulsory secondary school subject, just about everyone has learn to drive eventually - start them early I reckon.

I disagree, because driving isn't a right, it is a privilege. Many people chose not to drive, so it shouldn't be forced on those who don't want to.

What percentage of NZ'ers that go through our secondary school system don't end up driving? I'd hazard a guess at less than 5% I'm not saying everyone one has to pass the current driving test at school, just they learn the basics like any other subject.

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

mattwnz

20108 posts

Uber Geek

#743822 12-Jan-2013 17:43

clevedon:
mattwnz:
clevedon: I personally believe learning to drive a car should be a compulsory secondary school subject, just about everyone has learn to drive eventually - start them early I reckon.

I disagree, because driving isn't a right, it is a privilege. Many people chose not to drive, so it shouldn't be forced on those who don't want to.

What percentage of NZ'ers that go through our secondary school system don't end up driving? I'd hazard a guess at less than 5% I'm not saying everyone one has to pass the current driving test at school, just they learn the basics like any other subject.

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

Possibily requiring people to get taught by licensed professionals, instead of being taught by family members could be an idea, so people aren't picking up the bad habits of their parents. Obviously this would be a very unpopular move, but it would improve the quality of stock of NZ drivers on the roads.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5