Should you need a license to buy a car?

April 14th, 2013 at 9:08 am by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

A top police officer is calling for unlicensed drivers to be banned from buying vehicles after a horror motorcycle death last week.

Nazareth Joshua Taulagaua, 28, died a week ago when he smashed his motorcycle into a stone wall in the Auckland suburb of Mt Roskill.

Taulagaua owned a powerful, 800cc Honda VFR 800F.

Road policing manager for Auckland, Inspector Gavin Macdonald, said speed was a factor but it was also significant Taulagaua did not have a motorcycle licence.

Macdonald said there needed to be a change in the law which let Taulagaua buy a motorcycle 140cc more powerful than he could buy on a learner or restricted licence.

“I suspect there’d be a lot of motorcycle riders who don’t have a licence and I don’t think you should be able to buy a vehicle, car or motorcycle, if you don’t have a licence.

On the surface, seems a good idea.

Ministry of Transport spokesman Brenden Crocker said a law change had been considered.

“The main reason for not recommending legislative change has been because such a requirement could disadvantage people who want to own a car so as to maintain their mobility but may be unable to drive, for example, the elderly or infirm who may get someone else to drive for them.

“Arguably this situation is less applicable to motorcycle ownership, however it is the safety and competence of drivers and riders that is the paramount issue.”

I think you could work around the problem cited, by having some sort of exemption regime.

Tags:

37 Responses to “Should you need a license to buy a car?”

  1. tvb (4,432 comments) says:

    People drive cars without licences. People steal cars without licences. The problem with people abusing the use of motor cars are lawless meanwhile the rest of us have to put up with more and more ineffective laws that achieve very little.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Whilst it does seem like a good idea, unfortunately it is only the honest that it will effect.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Lloyd (125 comments) says:

    You can’t buy a gun (legally) without a license. I would be happy to see this come into effect!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. peterwn (3,277 comments) says:

    I cannot see any ‘issue’ with such a rule. It could operate within the registration system, which could refuse to complete a registration or transfer to a person not holding the appropriate licence. The seller should could be equired to note the purchaser’s licence number on the seller’s form. The system could throw up an exception report to the police if anyone attempts a forbideen transfer. At present, a dealer would be crazy to sell a vehicle on finance to someone without sighting the purchaser’s licence, so it would be little problem to insist that licenced dealers check driving licences (or corporate number) in all cases.

    The only bother is if someone persuades a gullible friend to purchase a vehicle on his behalf. This may already be covered in the law.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. hamnidaV2 (247 comments) says:

    It seems like a sensible suggestion – Why do you need a car if you can’t legally drive?

    Some policy considerations: A disabled person unlicensed wanting to buy a car so their helper can drive them around; A young person not yet 16 years-old wanting to buy a car to work on it in the back-yard or a garage; An elderly car collector, now unlicensed, wanting to add to his/her collection; And, a new immigrant with an overseas licence wanting to buy a car before they sit their test here.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Redbaiter (9,123 comments) says:

    Kiwiblog’s sector of statist morons salivating at the thought of more regulations as usual.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. tristanb (1,127 comments) says:

    On the surface, seems a good idea.

    No, on the surface it sounds like a stupid idea.

    And on deeper inspection, it is still a stupid idea. It’s called a “drivers’ licence”. Not a “buy a car licence”.

    So if I sell my car privately, am I going to have to ensure that the buyer has a licence? What if he doesn’t have it on him? Am I going to have to wait until he shows it to me? If I sell a motorbike, will I have to inspect the endorsements?

    Licences would not have stopped this guy killing himself! HE is the one who drove a bike he couldn’t control! The law wouldn’t have made the slightest bit of difference. Just more and more bureaucracy.

    I think you could work around the problem cited, by having some sort of exemption regime.

    It could be worked around by not creating a new law! “Excemption regime!!!!” DPF, you really, really need to update your political compass. Hamnida and Judith think it’s a great idea, what does that tell you? – “More laws, more rules for the people to obey, with this we will build our utopia!”

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. jims_whare (403 comments) says:

    Great just what we need – more stupid laws to try and protect the stupid from the action/consequence scenario.

    And for the 95% of reasonable folk they have to pay another processing fee to pay for this new ‘system.’

    Just leave it as is and if the odd moron dies well that is their own fault for buying a vehicle they couldn’t ride safely.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    It’s called a “drivers’ licence”.

    More properly, it’s called fraud.

    It is a common law right to use a public road. It’s also a common law right to own property.

    But we have the situation where the state lies about the nature of common law and acts as if fair use doesn’t exist.
    Fair use is based on equity, which in turn is based on matters of conscience. But the corporate Crown doesn’t have a conscience, and judges and MP’s have a duty to act in the interest of this amoral corporate entity.

    There’s no reason for the system to stop treating people like slaves so long as people continue to pay tribute to it in the form of taxation and obedience.

    The remedy is to keep the law of the land, to be vigilant, and to stop treating parliament as if it were sovereign.
    In a real democracy sovereignty belongs to the people.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Paulus (2,633 comments) says:

    Whenever I have bought a car from a Licenced Dealer I have had to have my Driving Licence photocopied for their files.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Paulus, they are motor vehicle dealers. The fraud involves ambiguous language, a vehicle can refer to a car and it can refer to an intangible legal idea called a contrivance. People typically think that a car is a vehicle, but law looks to the intangible aspect of things.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Grendel (1,002 comments) says:

    what a lot of bullshit, and the usual statist crap.

    when i got my learners i bought a car which i could not legally drive without someone overseeing me. so it sat in the driveway until my mate had time to give me lessons. once i got my restricted it did not matter.

    but thats irrelevant, the only answer to “why would you own a vehicle you are not allowed to drive” is none of your fucking business.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. dime (9,980 comments) says:

    what a pain in the ass

    no doubt there would be an additional cost involved.

    nanny state bullshit.

    like someone wont just put the car in a brothers name or whatever.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Michael (910 comments) says:

    There is a difference between owning a car and driving it. My sister bought a new car years ago with the intention of using it to learn to drive. She held onto it for years, but only her partner drove it (plus I did on a couple of occasions) and she still doesn’t have her licence.

    I also had a school friend who would buy old dungers and fix them up for sale – despite being only 12 when he started doing it. He would make a tidy profit on each one and is now a… lawyer.

    Besides, you can’t legally drive an unregistered or unwarranted vehicle on the road, but that never stopped anyone.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. peterwn (3,277 comments) says:

    Paulus – did you arrange finance via the dealer? As I indicated earlier a dealer offering finance would be a fool not to sight the driving licence.

    Grendel – could you register the car in your own name when you acquired it? or did you wait until you got a restricted licence before completing the transfer?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. MD (62 comments) says:

    You are already required to provide your drivers license number when you try to register the purchase of a motor vehicle. A company can’t complete it online and have to get the form and provide the certificate of incorporation. So either he had a drivers license (but just not the right type) or he didn’t register the purchase.
    The real issue with unlicensed (car drivers) is they commonly also drive unregistered cars, with no WOF (don’t you watch motorway patrol).
    The same people will continue to ignore all these laws and drive unlicensed, with an unregistered vehicle with no WOF. And those who obey the law, we’ll get a new law (requiring what is already demanded) and get to pay additional fees for the privilege. Hard to see the up side here.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    The real issue with unlicensed (car drivers) is they commonly also drive unregistered cars

    Cars are not registered, motor vehicles are registered.

    And those who obey the law

    The law of the land (i.e. common law) recognises the right of ordinary use of a public road. The state lies about the nature of common law, misrepresenting it as case law.
    http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-28032013/#comment-611335

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. rouppe (971 comments) says:

    Not workable.

    Why should you need a licence to buy a farm bike that is never (apart from mustering) on the road. All this would lead to is licensed people buying vehicles for others.

    And lets be honest: When I got my motorcycle licence in 1980 all I did was ride around the block, do a couple of u-turns and figure-8’s and that was it. The fact this bloke didn’t have a licence would be a minor factor compared with alcohol or drugs or darwinian inevitability.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. gump (1,650 comments) says:

    My company owns a couple of vehicles (cars and trucks).

    My company is not a natural person and cannot hold a driver’s license.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. labrator (1,850 comments) says:

    Another ridiculous idea on top of a full suite of ridiculous ideas we currently have around our roads, roading and road safety. Thoroughly surprised that DPF would think it even remotely worth considering.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. hamnidaV2 (247 comments) says:

    Can you legally buy firearms without a license?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Steve (North Shore) (4,565 comments) says:

    Is there something funny in the water?There are stupid people here today.
    The post is “Should you need a license to buy a car?”

    The crims just don’t give a shit. No license means don’t drive, but do the crims care?

    Just stop it with the regulation and Law change bullshit, it will have no effect

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Manolo (13,840 comments) says:

    On the surface, seems a good idea.

    More regulations, yeah. DPF, you make Labour lite proud!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. flipper (4,084 comments) says:

    I am sorry, but anyone who thinks this a good idea is cracked in the head – or on an illegal substance.

    What will be next? Will we need a licence to buy a house, because the Government/.hand wringers are worried about house prices?

    There was a time when the purchase of a radio or a TV set brought a follow-up from the radio/TV licensing folk at P & T.

    This knee jerk, internet headline is just garbage. I am shocked that otherwise sensible folk think it is not a problem.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Just stop it with the regulation and Law change bullshit, it will have no effect

    Because people – not just criminals – know that it is bullshit.
    A protection racket is what it is, the fact that it happens in the beehive has never made it legitimate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. labrator (1,850 comments) says:

    Taulagaua owned a powerful, 800cc Honda VFR 800F.

    If he had gone to the trouble of getting a license, he would be banned from _riding_ this bike in the first place as you have to start on a bike under 660cc. I can’t comprehend why any one would think more regulations would’ve resolved this. Was the bike even registered?

    It’s like handing people a gun without a firearms licence.

    So the police think vehicles are like weapons now? How about charging people with crimes relating to this stated severity when the driver causes an accident? You can have a list of drink driving convictions the length of your arm and kill someone and serve only one year in prison.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Johnboy (16,722 comments) says:

    Anyone without a pukka Anglo Saxon name should have to catch the bus. That should do it! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    hamnidaV2 (151) Says:
    April 14th, 2013 at 5:34 pm
    Can you legally buy firearms without a license?

    Can you spout left wing totalitarian garbage without a licence ?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    The state lies about the nature of common law, misrepresenting it as case law.

    I seem to recall it came from the Court of Common Pleas, the decisions of which were recorded and followed by other Courts, forming a body of case law. You lot are hilarious and I always enjoy meeting you in my work. :)

    I like people who stick it to the system without harming others. The fact that most people who advance the, common law, admiralty law, legal person myth are on a benefit, provided by the system to legal persons, takes the edge off my admiration !

    (I read your link Ugly. Maybe you should too)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Grendel (1,002 comments) says:

    For those who asked. Yes i had the car registered in my name when i bought it. cant recall if they ever asked for my license.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    I seem to recall it came from the Court of Common Pleas

    The court of common pleas is not the authentic common law court, the hundred is.

    You lot are hilarious

    You find it amusing that some people are aware of the predatory nature of the state?

    I read your link Ugly. Maybe you should too

    What point do you think that I missed?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. brucehoult (195 comments) says:

    Making an already illegal thing doubly or triply illegal doesn’t do any more to prevent it happening.

    There are plenty of legitimate reasons why someone might buy a vehicle without having a license to drive it on public roads.

    For example, that they intend to operate it somewhere other than public roads.

    Or they want to practice (under supervision of a licensed driver) in order to obtain a license. As is their right.

    Do you want to force everyone to do their entire learning to drive with expensive professional instructors? That will certainly cut down on poor people getting licences. I’ve taught a few people to drive. I’m not going to use my precious car for it. They buy a cheap, disposable, car and we use that.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. brucehoult (195 comments) says:

    Also the “140 cc more powerful” statement shows incredible ignorance from a top cop.

    A VFR800F is 108 HP (80.5 kW) and weighs 222 kg. That’s 363 HP/tonne.

    The maximum allowed for learner motorcycle is 150 kW/tonne.

    So the VFR800 is nearly 2.5 *times* more powerful than allowed. Yes, you’re potentially allowed a 660cc bike (that is the upper limit of capacity), but only certain low powered models, generally of the “trail bike” variety, not racing or sports bikes.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. RRM (9,933 comments) says:

    Licensing laws don’t seem to stop people getting guns that want them for foul deeds. As others have said this wouldn’t prevent unlicensed drivers doing their thing.

    Maybe I’m a brain-dead statist, but when you go out on the public roads in your car you’re putting other citizens in harms way, therefore there IS a moral obligation for you to meet some safety standards, and it’s good that there is some attempt made at having codified standards, and it’s not inappropriate for the Govt on behalf of all the public to be arbiter of those standards. Yes I have to jump through a few hoops to get my license, but I’m glad that most other people on the road have had to too.

    RE the CC/ horsepower rules for bikes –
    I’ve never ridden a bike, but when you’re an inexperienced car driver it’s not easy to keep a little screamer up in the power band where you need to be if you want to go fast. Whereas big automatic V6s and the like make it easy for even the very unskilled to build up a bit too much speed – you just step on the ‘go fast’ pedal and it goes fast…
    So the idea of engine size restrictions coupled with a blacklist of excluded racer bikes and a whitelist of allowable little old tractors is a pretty sensible scheme (imho) probably devised by people with an understanding of bikes and power rather than by a bunch of political theoreticians.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Maybe I’m a brain-dead statist, but when you go out on the public roads in your car you’re putting other citizens in harms way

    Not if you are using the road lawfully, i.e. exercising proper care.

    Whenever people interact in public spaces there is a possibility that accidents will occur. There is no such thing as an absolutely save environment, “putting people at risk” is a meaningless phrase used the the mob to get people to surrender their rights.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. RRM (9,933 comments) says:

    Whenever people interact in public spaces there is a possibility that accidents will occur.

    Correct, and we don’t HAVE to do anything to minimise this risk, but maybe a little bit of minimisation would be a good thing to do?

    “putting people at risk” is a meaningless phrase

    No, it’s not.
    If you drive from Auckland to Taihape and there’s no-one else on the road at all, then there’s zero possibility of someone else crossing the centreline and hitting you.

    If there’s anyone else on the road at all, then there is a possibility they’ll do something wrong and hit you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    we don’t HAVE to do anything to minimise this risk, but maybe a little bit of minimisation would be a good thing to do?

    Sure, but in the real world risk minimisation has strings attached, and the attached costs may outway the benefit of reduced risk. “Putting people at risk” is meaningless because life is not risk free.

    If you drive from Auckland to Taihape and there’s no-one else on the road at all, then there’s zero possibility of someone else crossing the centreline and hitting you.

    That doesn’t make the trip risk free. There could be wandering stock or a washout.

    If there’s anyone else on the road at all, then there is a possibility they’ll do something wrong and hit you.

    Right. But accidents arising from ordinary use are not the same as putting people in harm’s way.

    The state has always overplayed the risks associated with ordinary life in order to reinforce it’s role as protector of the citizen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote