Comments on: Five year limit on learner and restricted licenses

By: Jim

Jim — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 15:45:49 +0000

” the 3 year New Zealand passport.”

And then the single trip NZ passport that costs $100k. The final solution.

By: OECD rank 22 kiwi

OECD rank 22 kiwi — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 09:37:04 +0000

Next up, the 7 1/2 year license renewal cycle, followed up shortly thereafter by the 3 year New Zealand passport.

By: Steve (North Shore)

Steve (North Shore) — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 05:54:14 +0000

All crap as far as I am concerned. You either pass or fail. The driving instructors can’t drive for shit either.
Oh, a bit like Teachers and Children yes? Where I come from is there are ‘drivers’ and there are ‘steerers’

By: hinamanu

hinamanu — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 04:03:35 +0000

Mute point really. Price of gas and cars only being imported from 2005 will be out of reach for the ever increasing low decile class. Govts pour colossal amounts into roading simply to waste colossal amounts of money and help drive the value of currency down. The Nat/Lab coalition are basically financial terrorists with no original goals to stimulate the economy.

By: labrator

labrator — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 02:17:24 +0000

This seems like it’s going to create more problems that it’s actually solving. A law designed by people who mostly catch taxis.

By: tristanb

tristanb — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 01:57:37 +0000

Weihana:

In ten years we’ll be plugging our smart phones into our smart car, yelling at it in a drunken stupor to take us home and we’ll wake up 12 hours later having been dragged into bed by our smart home assistant.

Don’t worry, the far-left Greens-National-Maori-Mana coalition of 2024 will have plenty of laws for the owners of smart cars and robots to follow. Fines for being having consumed alcohol will be $1000, with the money going to fund a rehabilitation fund for rapists who have completed their full 2 week sentence.

By: OECD rank 22 kiwi

OECD rank 22 kiwi — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 01:28:10 +0000

North Korea does not have this “problem”.

By: Graeme Edgeler

Graeme Edgeler — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 00:26:49 +0000

First problem is that the so-called learner licence is no such thing. It is a permit to learn to drive.

It’s also the licence you need to ride a scooter or moped. Which makes requiring people who want to continuing doing that prove they can drive a car or a motorcycle they may never want to ride, really stupid.

By: Weihana

Weihana — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 00:26:05 +0000

It’ll all be academic soon anyway. In ten years we’ll be plugging our smart phones into our smart car, yelling at it in a drunken stupor to take us home and we’ll wake up 12 hours later having been dragged into bed by our smart home assistant. Who need’s driving skills?

http://news.discovery.com/tech/ces-2013-driverless-cars-motor-ahead-130109.htm

By: scrubone

scrubone — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 00:24:05 +0000

First problem is that the so-called learner licence is no such thing. It is a permit to learn to drive. So rename it to Learners Permit like some countries call it. Not sure if it’s a credit card, but if it is then it should be paper to show that it’s temporary.

Restricted means that people have proven they have learned to drive. Get rid of the exit test – it’s stupid and only there because some people didn’t understand what the restricted peroid was actually for.

End of problem.

By: Jim

Jim — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 23:52:48 +0000

“Actually, I don’t really care. I agree with the others (those who are not National apologists) that this is a waste of time.”

More rules for no reason other than to keep officious revenue collectors in jobs. Them and the cast of thousands that produce glossy pamphlets to explain pointless changes, update flowcharts, redesign forms…

From Stuff “Driver Educators national president Wayne Young said [...] ‘The problem is every bugger is staying on their restricted and not changing.’ “ The buggers! Cheating our driver educators out of jobs!

By: RRM

RRM — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 23:50:18 +0000

IMHO having a wide menu of graduated licenses, that tag various people into or out of certain activities (based on their tested competence to do them) is a GOOD thing.

There should be no time limits, the there should be MORE intermediate classes of licenses between learner and full, with more things permitted and restricted, (E.g. metal road driving, night driving, towing trailers…) and the tests should be hard.

The present system we have, holds that the moment you pass your full license test in suburban Tauranga, you are immediately qualified to drive on metal roads, in the mountains, with snow on the road, at night – and other citizens are reasonably safe sharing the road with you. That’s quite a generous assessment!

By: RRM

RRM — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 23:49:22 +0000

“The [system] never intended drivers to stay on a learner or restricted licence indefinitely. What these drivers need to do is demonstrate their skills and competence and graduate to a full licence in a reasonable time.”

Pardon? The conditions of the licenses are what they say they are. Nominate changes if you like but please don’t tell me what you think “the system intended.”

By: tristanb

tristanb — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 23:22:20 +0000

Seems reasonable to me. You don’t want people staying on a learner license for ever.

Actually, I don’t really care. I agree with the others (those who are not National apologists) that this is a waste of time.

If people are happy to abide by the conditions of the licence, and only drive with another sober full licence holder and not drive after 10pm, then why not let them keep the learner licence?

How about instead of making new laws to piss off more innocent people, we actually punish those who break the conditions of their learners and recidivist drunk drivers. I’d rather a person with a learners for 7 years was on the road than the guy with 13 drink drive convictions.

This government has made so many laws turning the innocent into criminals for simply breaking rules, but the true criminals (who adversely affect others) remain as leniently treated as they were under Labour.

I would be ashamed to be a National MP, and National should be ashamed to have Simon “Encourage to move through the system” Bridges. (And that other nanny-state Hunua ex-doctor that no-one has heard of who wants to make some more laws to protect us from sunbeds).

By: unaha-closp

unaha-closp — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 23:06:29 +0000

What is the evidence that this will make a difference other than filling the coffers of drivers testing organisations? How about if you have had a licence for 5 years and not had any crashes or infringements - you automatically get a full licence sent to you?

By: SGA

SGA — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 23:01:03 +0000

@Bullitt “My partner has had her learners for around 10 years as she only got it as an ID and hasn’t used it to drive with.”

One of my daughters is the same – she’s 18 and, at this stage, she got a Learner because it’s a readily accepted (probably second only to a passport?) and easy-to-carry form of ID. I don’t see the harm in that. Also, as I understand it, the “high hurdle” in our system is moving from Learner to Restricted, rather than Restricted to Full.

I’m not convinced that there is a major problem here that needs “fixing”.

By: James Stephenson

James Stephenson — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 22:47:25 +0000

Also – why should someone need to demonstrate the skills required for a full licence, if they’re happy to live with the restrictions of a restricted licence?

If we’ve got too many dunce drivers on the road, it’d be a better idea to make the tests tougher and give people a maximum of 5 attempts before they’re lifelong pedestrians.

By: Belinda

Belinda — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 22:43:28 +0000

My daughter has been driving around on a restricted licence for 16 years.
When she gained her restricted licence it was automatic to gain your full licence after 18 months
with no further tests required.
Unfortunately they changed the rules, without much publicity, so many were probably caught out.
Maybe these people should automatically be given their full licence now,

By: Graeme Edgeler

Graeme Edgeler — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 22:43:08 +0000

if this was Labour you would call it a nanny-state money grab

It does seem remarkably similar to the discussion about warrants of fitness.

What is the evidence that this will make a difference other than filling the coffers of drivers testing organisations?

By: Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left

Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 22:24:23 +0000

Oh puh-lease
if this was Labour you would call it a nanny-state money grab