7d ago

Driver licence changes: Government proposes to scrap second practical test, reduce eyesight tests

www.nzherald.co.nz

Driver licence changes: Govt proposes to scrap second practical test, reduce eyesight tests

Proposed Driver Licence Changes: Government May Remove Second Practical Test, Cut Back on Eye Exams

Honestly, this sounds like a recipe for disaster. The driving standards out there are already sketchy enough without lowering the bar even more.

21 comments

I'm only ok with this if they add mandatory third party insurance or a mandatory defensive driving course.
Honestly it's been so long since I've done my full license test, I can barely remember it. I don't know what it's like now, but I remember people complaining a few years ago how some testing stations are so busy it takes months to sit or rebook a full license test. I don't actually think it's going to make much difference to the quality of drivers we have.. unless policing and fines become a lot stricter.
- Mandatory insurance is a recipe for disaster. Compare the cost of insurance in countries where it is mandatory to the cost here, and you will notice that ours is some of the cheapest in the world.
  If you give private companies a captive market, prices will go up.
  
  In Australia, third party medical insurance is rolled in with the cost of vehicle registration and the money goes to the Transport Accident Commission to pay for accidents and what not. If the insurance was mandatory, it could be handled by the government to prevent market abuse.
  
  By any chance do you know which countries have mandatory third party car insurance? I'd like to find out a bit more
  
  UK and some US states do. Maybe Australia?
  
  Ah thanks I'll read up on it a bit later.
  
  Insurance costs for new drivers in the UK are notoriously high, especially young men, to the point where insurance can be more than the cost of the vehicle.
  
  romania
- We changed the tests maybe 5-10 years back so that the most thorough test is now the restricted not the full.
  The long wait times are in response to removing the resit fee. People started using the tests as basically free driving lessons, just keep resitting until you pass. From memory I think they changed some rules about how often you could resit to try to alleviate that.
  
  That's interesting. I love to know in what way the restricted and full test have changed if there's details anywhere. I don't think anyone drives like they do in the tests. I'm willing to bet if they made everyone take a another practical test when they're 40 or 50, many full license holders would fail.
  
  Here's the first thing I could find. Not much in the way of details but it at least gives a rough time that it happened.
  https://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/6279847/Restricted-licence-becomes-a-lot-harder
  
  I guess it makes sense that they wouldn't publish the details.
  I think it's a case for a lot of people that they study to pass the test rather than study to retain information or change their habits. That's why I think advanced driving courses/lessons are a good idea. I never had them and ended up failing my first go at one of the practical license tests. I can't remember if it was my restricted or full though.
  
  I agree about driving courses. I think we should make some amount of lessons mandatory. Advanced driver courses are good but it's probably something more beneficial with a bit of experience (I think we already incentivise doing one when on your restricted to reduce the time needed to get your full licence - this is a good time I think).
  I see there are some more details about the harder test here: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/rotorua-daily-post/news/so-how-tough-is-the-tough-new-driving-test/BWP67JAO4CWMCTAQKDA6I5J6DA/
  It seems this journalist failed because of tougher requirements on things that are technically legal but show inexperience. Stopping at a give way when unnecessary, not using an appropriate gap to go when turning right.
  
  Thanks that's kind of interesting.
  Following introductions I was politely informed that if it were a real testing situation, I would have already failed because I was five minutes late.
  However I think this is bullshit.
  My dad tried to give me driving lessons when I was going learners > restricted and it just ended up in arguments. I had pretty low driving confidence when I went into the tests, which is probably what affected me. I'm definitely shelling out for lessons for my kids when they're of driving age.
  
  I don't think it's too much to ask for people to be on time. I bet they ask people to be there 5 or 10 mins before their scheduled time too (so she was actually 10-15 mins late).
  If they start the test late then the next person is late and it flows on like a doctor's office. Given the big wait times it seems reasonable for them to require you are on time.
  I for sure think lessons should be required. The tricky bit is the cost. The answer should be that driving is a privilege not a right, but to be able to say that earnestly we need a true alternative which most of the country doesn't have.
  
  Oh I agree being on time is good. But it shouldn't count as a "fail", just needs to be rescheduled if they're too late. The test is for assessing driving competency, not time management. Unless I'm reading it too literally and that particular comment in the article was hyperbole.
  
  Ah I see what you're getting at.
  I "failed" my first test, because I showed up and my car didn't have a warrant (it was warrantable, just had missed a reminder).
  Is it semantics, though? I guess when they say X number of people failed their test then you need to take that into account. But I don't think there is any impact on the person, there's no penalty for a fail other than the cost - and that's now gone with free resits.

21 comments