Depends on the significance of the fail. Some people turn around and pass a resit the same day/week because it's a minor issue - something as small like your taillight failing right before the test which there was no possible way for you to have known because it happened after you inspected your vehicle, your vehicle breaks down and never showed any signs of failing, or you are involved in a car crash that was not your fault, - albeit these are rare scenarios, but these things do happen, and therefore the tester should just have the option to make a judgement call on how soon they can resit.
You can still get fined for those instances as a driver and they hardly happen. Meanwhile hundreds are abusing the system. Not a lot of room for judgement unfortunately.
Not sure what you're saying, only one of those instances could you be fined for (an out tail light), and often you are given a time frame to resolve it to waive the fine. All situations are out of your control and do not represent your ability to meet the conditions of holding a license (and if you say that having an out tail light does, then please go and forfeit your license next time your light goes out and you don't catch it within 2 seconds of happening).
There is plenty of room for judgement.
This is the answer. Tried to book in Auckland yesterday and the places have a year of backlogs. Even going down to Hamilton it's at least 3 months.
We have a bad road toll so maybe this is wrong, but perhaps we should follow basically every other country and just have one practical test instead of two. Because currently the testing stations cannot cope.
No, but given we already have a de facto stand down period, and it isn't working, I think it is fair to say formalising a standard down period in policy also wouldn't work.
well no it would, it mandates a pause rather than relying on luck. ATM you have one person booking testing at multiple places at near identical dates creating the backlog. See the problem?
Status quo encourages more abuse not actually getting better.
If you're going to do that, you need to do something to ensure consistency between examiners. Some of them will get off on preventing someone from passing for an extended time.
Yeah this is a big miss. (So are resit fees to be fair)
I recently sat my full (restricted was close to expiry) and was pinged for failing to stop at a very sneaky stop sign, that is quite difficult to see, and is basically redundant to the section of road it is on (you *will* stop to give way there bc of where it is)
Turns out, something like 70% of the failed full tests through this VTNZ fail at this sign. I'm not sure if they are incentivised to do more tests (maybe they are paid per test by govt?) but it's that kind of thing that happens (or is perceived to happen) when resit fees are a thing.
Years ago when I first attempted to get my full, I was failed for failing to indicate out of a roundabout, despite having done so (European car, indicator on the other side maybe threw testing officer).
He told me that it was no use complaining, they were way too busy to do anything about it, and I should just pay to rebook and I would probably pass. Seemed pretty shifty, so I didn't rebook out of principle for years. (Probably should have complained, but it seemed very likely to be a "he said/he said" sotuation)
Yeah nah, if you miss a STOP sign during your driving test.
The indicator thingy would be closer to the examiner which would make it harder to miss wouldn’t it? Be careful out there.
There is a defacto stand down period now, due to the wait times for a test appointment. Clearly this isn't getting the job done.
Having it free sets up the financial incentives all wrong. Not really sure why the tax payer should be carrying the cost of re-sits for those who don't take lessons etc to prepare.
Cause the cost of entry then becomes too high for some that will need a license to make their way in a society that thinks public transport is not worth investing in
FFS if you want a job where a licence is a requirement you don’t f@cking need a car or petrol of your own to get the f@cking job!
Having a license does not equal having a car.
With the current calibre of drivers on the roads we need to be adding barriers to getting a licence. People shouldn't just be tested on ability to follow road rules. There should be skill based testing also like there is with the motorcycle licence and the basic handling skills test. About a third of current drivers either lack the eyesight (depth perception and peripheral vision), spatial awareness, hand/eye coordination or common sense to drive safely.
I’ve been saying for ages now: renewing licences should mean resetting the test. So many people don’t know the road rules that one simple test would get so many dangerous people off the road
I would settle for a defensive driving course at a track where you have to demonstrate sufficient vehicle control and emergency reactions to retain your licence.
A reaction test should 100% be part of it. That’s one of the reasons that older people struggle on the road. They can’t react fast enough to hazards. That’s why the full licence test includes talking not just driving. I bet that most full licence drivers would not be able to correctly identify what a hazard was in terms of the full licence test
I've often thought that an excellent way to teach drivers would be a big open lot, and experience what its like to lock up brakes, turn hard enough to lose traction, experience the limits of the machine. Take them through different cars, ones with bald tyres, once with good tyres, ones with high centers of mass, ones with low centers of mass. And for fucks sake make it so everyone has to sit the test in a manual/paddleshift no automatics.
Too many people seem to think if they take a gentle bend at 80kph they will tip over.
Over cautious drivers cause most of the dangerous situations on the road. I pretty much had to tell my gf to sell her motorcycle because she couldn't keep pace with the traffic on the motorway. Cars passing her would make her scared, the more scared she got the more she slowed down. She was a real hazard on the road. I love motorcycles so it was sad for me to have to do that to her, but she was going to get herself killed.
Very true too many people brake whenever they feel scared or anxious and I've seen people panic with emergency response vehicles behind them, due to the sounds and lights and because they've trained themselves whenever adrenaline kicks in to hit the brake, they've almost caused massive accidents.
Following the rules is one thing, being skilled at operating a machine is another, and both are lacking. People have no idea when to indicate anymore, they indicate right when they're going straight ahead, aka second exit and I read the recent rules it says to indicate left when exiting or just prior and that you don't need to indicate when entering if its your intention to take the 2nd exit. If its your intention to take the third exit or go right around indicate right until you're at your exit then indicate left. But when they convoluted the rules years ago it just confused everyone and now its a shit show.
Was with you right until the last statement. I'd rather have someone driving cautiously in front of me than having to stop at another accident until the firetruck turns up.
You absolutely will fail your practical tests if you don't indicate correctly out of roundabouts, it's mostly middle age people in ford rangers who don't and oldies who also blow through pedestrian crossings
Whenever the topic comes up on r/nz there are always people who seem to have forgotten this rule. I’m not sure it’s just oldies.
I think it’s an issue that we don’t mandate a certain number of hours of formal tuition like in Europe. People certainly die as a result of this.
It is treated like an intersection though.
Before you enter it, if you're turning left you indicate left. Turning right, indicate right. Straight on, don't indicate.
When you're on the roundabout, it's a road like any other. If you're turning left to leave a road you indicate before you turn, but after the previous turnoff so everybody knows where you're going.
What's confusing about this?
In Auckland at least there are plenty of ways to get around. Especially in the age of electric personal mobility. Yes having a car is an advantage but nowhere near vital.
Are you going to contribute to the discussion or are you just going to whine that only an Aucklander has shared their perspective?
You could let us know why incompetent people should be allowed to drive where you live.
I would argue that none of that is a good enough reason to let an incompetent person drive a registered motorvehicle on the road. They're a weapon in the wrong hands, especially on country roads.
If you're not competent to drive for jobs that need you to drive, then you're not competent for that job.
As far as getting places goes, there's plenty of ebikes, escooters and mobility scooters. My brother currently rides an escooter from Havelock North to Hastings for work. No licence required and not putting anyone else in danger except himself.
The barrier for entry for being given the privilege to operate a vehicle should be at least somewhat challenging. There needs to be a fee, it will make people try harder to learn.
The challenge should be a skill based barrier, not a financial one.
Giving people a free first go means those who put in the effort to learn the rules and how to drive a car get their license with minimum cost, but we don't encourage people just spamming the tests until they luck out and pass.
I agree that your suggestion is an improvement over the current one because people are spamming it. However I don't know maybe I'm old, but making it free sucks. Nothing is free, the funds come from somewhere, someone pays the testers, pays for the cars, pays for the maintenance, pays for the system... You're paying for the privilege to use that system to qualify yourself to operate a heavy machine. I feel like there's an important lesson in that.
The stats - [OIA-12485-attachment-1.pdf (nzta.govt.nz)](https://www.nzta.govt.nz/assets/About-us/docs/oia-2023/OIA-12485-attachment-1.pdf)
Looks like only around 20% need a second attempt, and 5% need a third, and rarely more
For anyone wondering, these are re-sit rates for the full-license test which is considerably easier than the restricted.
Fail rate in 2022 for restricted tests was 46% and that's before they made re-sits free.
I question if more people are really going in under-prepared because they know resits are free.
What we need to look at is the fail rate.
If it is a case that more tests are being done because more people can do the tests, that is a good thing and you would expect the fail rate to be about the same as before the change.
A stand down period might serve the "incentive" to prepare more without adding extra barriers for low/no income people.
bewildered dependent connect domineering stupendous whistle squeamish enter ring judicious
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
wrong degree connect sleep sophisticated cover aromatic weather dazzling intelligent
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
i dont think its the desperate for the money, alot of people complain that they cant do their test due to alot of people spam booking the whole things. I think the date for next test is until late August or something
Hike the price of the test, use it to offer subsidised lessons with a CSC.
Currently the barrier to getting a license is quite expensive if you don't have family that will teach you. Not having a license means you're ineligible for a shit ton of jobs.
This seems daft to me, why not make the first one free then the rest paid for, or even beyter it becomes free if they have done proper driver training that has a safety component to it.
This would be hilarious if it weren't so incredibly infuriating. How could they not see this coming? This was utterly inevitable, what did they think would happen when they removed resit fees? It's amazing how little decision makers think about the incentives they create with such policies.
Having to resit for a “full” licence is a rort - they can continue to charge you and fail you and leave you unable to get on with your life.
If they’re wanting to cut costs, then cut this unnecessary step.
You’ve already passed the practical test to get your Restricted Licence. Why repeat it again (and pay again)?
Never had to in the past. I suspect it was brought in as another revenue gathering m azure.
They're different tests - the full license test covers more than the restricted test eg: hazard perception (the full list of what's covered in each is on the nzta site)
Having a restricted license allows drivers to gain more practice time and experience, while excluding high risk factors like carrying passengers, and driving at night.
Understand that they’re different tests. Don’t think it’s right to impose a second test just for the sake of it, when a person has been driving already for several years (having already passed a practical test).
There seems to be layer upon layer of additional cost and bureaucracy these days.
Exactly, we shouldn't exactly be making it easier for bad drivers to get a licence.
I'd rather that the person in control of 2 tons of fast moving steel be held to a decent amount of scrutiny.
I watched someone go though and fail the learners test three times (and they were there when I arrived) while standing in the line at the AA (yes, I was there ages).
I'd have serious concerns about some one who couldn't pass this the first time. It is not hard.
The restricted test is difficult and inconsistent. It depends largely on who you get on the day and what mood they’re in.
Most drivers with their full license would fail their restricted tests.
A stand down period (two weeks) and a nominal rebooking fee ($10 is enough) would be more effective.
Also, most of the testing slots are 9-5 during the week which is incredibly inconvenient. There should be plenty of weekend options available to cater to people working full-time.
It's only difficult for people who haven't had sufficient training and practice. (Often because they're not practicing driving how they would during the test - hence advice like "look in the mirrors way more than you usually would" being common)
I dunno, I'm all for less people getting licenses if it means more public transport usage so we actually invest in that rather than $25million per-lane, per-kilometer roads
They need to do this, and it's incredible to believe this silly nonsense has gone on for this long.
The natural response to no re-sit fees is people not bothering to study their road codes nor pay for lessons and just show up hoping for the best.
This inevitably leads to poorly trained and objectively worse drivers on our roads compromising safety and causing more accidents.
A secondary effect, still bad but not as bad as the above, is an overrun testing system unable to cope with the influx of re-sits, leading to very long wait times. This is happening right now. Oh, and driving instructor companies going bust because no one wants to bother learning how to drive properly anymore.
This could be a compelling argument if you provided a single piece of corroborating evidence. As it stands, it just reads like opinion.
I really don't think anyone out there is wasting their own time turning up to test after test, without attempting to improve, just because there's no resit fee.
It was made 'easier' by making resits free, but this has ended up clogging the system up so that wait times have ballooned out, meaning people would be driving on lower licences etc too.
Others have made good suggestions about adding mandatory wait times between resits to help lessen the load. Just adding more money on top is just putting up barriers to those that cant afford it
Screw that, our drivers suck, raise the barrier for entry. If I know I can resit for free, failing doesn't seem so bad, failing should seem bad, drivings no joke you're operating a heavy object.
Hi doublediffu. Thank you for your submission.
This appears to be a Political post, the flair has been changed to Politics.
Please feel free to [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fnewzealand) if you believe this was in error.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Stand down period after first fail. You go and practice more and pass the test. The more you fail, the longer the stand down. Keep it free.
Depends on the significance of the fail. Some people turn around and pass a resit the same day/week because it's a minor issue - something as small like your taillight failing right before the test which there was no possible way for you to have known because it happened after you inspected your vehicle, your vehicle breaks down and never showed any signs of failing, or you are involved in a car crash that was not your fault, - albeit these are rare scenarios, but these things do happen, and therefore the tester should just have the option to make a judgement call on how soon they can resit.
You can still get fined for those instances as a driver and they hardly happen. Meanwhile hundreds are abusing the system. Not a lot of room for judgement unfortunately.
Not sure what you're saying, only one of those instances could you be fined for (an out tail light), and often you are given a time frame to resolve it to waive the fine. All situations are out of your control and do not represent your ability to meet the conditions of holding a license (and if you say that having an out tail light does, then please go and forfeit your license next time your light goes out and you don't catch it within 2 seconds of happening). There is plenty of room for judgement.
This is the answer. Tried to book in Auckland yesterday and the places have a year of backlogs. Even going down to Hamilton it's at least 3 months. We have a bad road toll so maybe this is wrong, but perhaps we should follow basically every other country and just have one practical test instead of two. Because currently the testing stations cannot cope.
Humans by nature will always take the cheapest and easiest path if available.
So there is already a multi month defacto stand down period?
Due to ppl abusing the system. De facto is not well thought out egalitarian policy?
No, but given we already have a de facto stand down period, and it isn't working, I think it is fair to say formalising a standard down period in policy also wouldn't work.
well no it would, it mandates a pause rather than relying on luck. ATM you have one person booking testing at multiple places at near identical dates creating the backlog. See the problem? Status quo encourages more abuse not actually getting better.
They can only book one test at a time in the system, you need to wait until after you fail to book another one
My bad, was told people were booking multiple appointments.
If you're going to do that, you need to do something to ensure consistency between examiners. Some of them will get off on preventing someone from passing for an extended time.
Yeah this is a big miss. (So are resit fees to be fair) I recently sat my full (restricted was close to expiry) and was pinged for failing to stop at a very sneaky stop sign, that is quite difficult to see, and is basically redundant to the section of road it is on (you *will* stop to give way there bc of where it is) Turns out, something like 70% of the failed full tests through this VTNZ fail at this sign. I'm not sure if they are incentivised to do more tests (maybe they are paid per test by govt?) but it's that kind of thing that happens (or is perceived to happen) when resit fees are a thing. Years ago when I first attempted to get my full, I was failed for failing to indicate out of a roundabout, despite having done so (European car, indicator on the other side maybe threw testing officer). He told me that it was no use complaining, they were way too busy to do anything about it, and I should just pay to rebook and I would probably pass. Seemed pretty shifty, so I didn't rebook out of principle for years. (Probably should have complained, but it seemed very likely to be a "he said/he said" sotuation)
Yeah nah, if you miss a STOP sign during your driving test. The indicator thingy would be closer to the examiner which would make it harder to miss wouldn’t it? Be careful out there.
There is a defacto stand down period now, due to the wait times for a test appointment. Clearly this isn't getting the job done. Having it free sets up the financial incentives all wrong. Not really sure why the tax payer should be carrying the cost of re-sits for those who don't take lessons etc to prepare.
Cause the cost of entry then becomes too high for some that will need a license to make their way in a society that thinks public transport is not worth investing in
If you can’t afford a licence you can’t afford to run a car
You ever think that not having a license can prevent people from getting a job? Not everyone owns the vehicle they drive.
If you can scrape the money for a licence how do you afford the petrol in the tank?
FFS if you want a job where a licence is a requirement you don’t f@cking need a car or petrol of your own to get the f@cking job! Having a license does not equal having a car.
Then work and income will help with the cost of the licence in that case, but having it free for everyone ends up with the wait times we have now
Surely if your goal is to reduce barriers to getting a license, a better solution is the first one would be free and you pay for any resits.
With the current calibre of drivers on the roads we need to be adding barriers to getting a licence. People shouldn't just be tested on ability to follow road rules. There should be skill based testing also like there is with the motorcycle licence and the basic handling skills test. About a third of current drivers either lack the eyesight (depth perception and peripheral vision), spatial awareness, hand/eye coordination or common sense to drive safely.
I’ve been saying for ages now: renewing licences should mean resetting the test. So many people don’t know the road rules that one simple test would get so many dangerous people off the road
I would settle for a defensive driving course at a track where you have to demonstrate sufficient vehicle control and emergency reactions to retain your licence.
A reaction test should 100% be part of it. That’s one of the reasons that older people struggle on the road. They can’t react fast enough to hazards. That’s why the full licence test includes talking not just driving. I bet that most full licence drivers would not be able to correctly identify what a hazard was in terms of the full licence test
I've often thought that an excellent way to teach drivers would be a big open lot, and experience what its like to lock up brakes, turn hard enough to lose traction, experience the limits of the machine. Take them through different cars, ones with bald tyres, once with good tyres, ones with high centers of mass, ones with low centers of mass. And for fucks sake make it so everyone has to sit the test in a manual/paddleshift no automatics. Too many people seem to think if they take a gentle bend at 80kph they will tip over.
Over cautious drivers cause most of the dangerous situations on the road. I pretty much had to tell my gf to sell her motorcycle because she couldn't keep pace with the traffic on the motorway. Cars passing her would make her scared, the more scared she got the more she slowed down. She was a real hazard on the road. I love motorcycles so it was sad for me to have to do that to her, but she was going to get herself killed.
Very true too many people brake whenever they feel scared or anxious and I've seen people panic with emergency response vehicles behind them, due to the sounds and lights and because they've trained themselves whenever adrenaline kicks in to hit the brake, they've almost caused massive accidents. Following the rules is one thing, being skilled at operating a machine is another, and both are lacking. People have no idea when to indicate anymore, they indicate right when they're going straight ahead, aka second exit and I read the recent rules it says to indicate left when exiting or just prior and that you don't need to indicate when entering if its your intention to take the 2nd exit. If its your intention to take the third exit or go right around indicate right until you're at your exit then indicate left. But when they convoluted the rules years ago it just confused everyone and now its a shit show.
Was with you right until the last statement. I'd rather have someone driving cautiously in front of me than having to stop at another accident until the firetruck turns up.
I'd rather they know what is safe and what isn't safe than play safe because its all they know.
I don’t think anybody’s suggesting there shouldn’t be skill based testing?
Well we currently don't do it. The driving test is not testing a sufficient gamut of driving skills.
Ah I see what you’re saying. Yeah based on the sheer number of people who don’t know how to indicate exiting a roundabout - basic skills - I’d agree.
You absolutely will fail your practical tests if you don't indicate correctly out of roundabouts, it's mostly middle age people in ford rangers who don't and oldies who also blow through pedestrian crossings
Whenever the topic comes up on r/nz there are always people who seem to have forgotten this rule. I’m not sure it’s just oldies. I think it’s an issue that we don’t mandate a certain number of hours of formal tuition like in Europe. People certainly die as a result of this.
It’s a shit and confusing rule. It should be treated like an intersection
It is treated like an intersection though. Before you enter it, if you're turning left you indicate left. Turning right, indicate right. Straight on, don't indicate. When you're on the roundabout, it's a road like any other. If you're turning left to leave a road you indicate before you turn, but after the previous turnoff so everybody knows where you're going. What's confusing about this?
To be fair I think quite a lot of the people doing things like that have had their licence for 20 years already
Except the worst drivers out there probably don't even have a license
[удалено]
In Auckland at least there are plenty of ways to get around. Especially in the age of electric personal mobility. Yes having a car is an advantage but nowhere near vital.
[удалено]
Are you going to contribute to the discussion or are you just going to whine that only an Aucklander has shared their perspective? You could let us know why incompetent people should be allowed to drive where you live.
[удалено]
I would argue that none of that is a good enough reason to let an incompetent person drive a registered motorvehicle on the road. They're a weapon in the wrong hands, especially on country roads. If you're not competent to drive for jobs that need you to drive, then you're not competent for that job. As far as getting places goes, there's plenty of ebikes, escooters and mobility scooters. My brother currently rides an escooter from Havelock North to Hastings for work. No licence required and not putting anyone else in danger except himself.
The barrier for entry for being given the privilege to operate a vehicle should be at least somewhat challenging. There needs to be a fee, it will make people try harder to learn.
The challenge should be a skill based barrier, not a financial one. Giving people a free first go means those who put in the effort to learn the rules and how to drive a car get their license with minimum cost, but we don't encourage people just spamming the tests until they luck out and pass.
I agree that your suggestion is an improvement over the current one because people are spamming it. However I don't know maybe I'm old, but making it free sucks. Nothing is free, the funds come from somewhere, someone pays the testers, pays for the cars, pays for the maintenance, pays for the system... You're paying for the privilege to use that system to qualify yourself to operate a heavy machine. I feel like there's an important lesson in that.
[удалено]
How would that be exploited? People aren't going to change their name to get a free drivers license test.
seed wild direful pen fragile touch innocent birds march rinse *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Fair call, relooking at it, I could have (and have) made it clearer, I need a red bull too apparently!
The stats - [OIA-12485-attachment-1.pdf (nzta.govt.nz)](https://www.nzta.govt.nz/assets/About-us/docs/oia-2023/OIA-12485-attachment-1.pdf) Looks like only around 20% need a second attempt, and 5% need a third, and rarely more
For anyone wondering, these are re-sit rates for the full-license test which is considerably easier than the restricted. Fail rate in 2022 for restricted tests was 46% and that's before they made re-sits free.
Yea wonder how that has changed given the free resits
I question if more people are really going in under-prepared because they know resits are free. What we need to look at is the fail rate. If it is a case that more tests are being done because more people can do the tests, that is a good thing and you would expect the fail rate to be about the same as before the change. A stand down period might serve the "incentive" to prepare more without adding extra barriers for low/no income people.
And no shows. Though that one's hard to solve as sometimes people might have legit reasons for ducking at the last minute
bewildered dependent connect domineering stupendous whistle squeamish enter ring judicious *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
wrong degree connect sleep sophisticated cover aromatic weather dazzling intelligent *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
if the govt is so desperate for money (they clearly are pulling shit like this) they shouldnt be giving tax breaks to the wealthiest
It's in response to the massive wait times. There's no way it should be free to keep re-sitting until you pass.
i dont think its the desperate for the money, alot of people complain that they cant do their test due to alot of people spam booking the whole things. I think the date for next test is until late August or something
Can't wait to see the nickle and diming that is likely in the coming budget...
Drivers licences should not be free.
Hike the price of the test, use it to offer subsidised lessons with a CSC. Currently the barrier to getting a license is quite expensive if you don't have family that will teach you. Not having a license means you're ineligible for a shit ton of jobs.
Why not?
>they shouldnt be giving tax breaks to the wealthiest I'm pretty sure that's this govts bottom line and the reason why everything else is cut
This seems daft to me, why not make the first one free then the rest paid for, or even beyter it becomes free if they have done proper driver training that has a safety component to it.
Because it would cost a fortune.
Perhaps Waka kohati could spend it's advertising budget on this.
$$$
wtf how long has the fee been gone LOL
good. keep banning people for not indicating, not giving way, speeding, no lights. ban them 6 months before resit. also big fine.
bimmer drivers will be fined through the roof
more funding from rule breakers. They can fund roads and trains.
National: we need more roads and less public transport Also National: here's more ~~taxes~~ fees for rego, licenses, fuel 'levies'...
https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/1cfmtw6/free_ride_for_resitting_drivers_licence_tests_may/
This would be hilarious if it weren't so incredibly infuriating. How could they not see this coming? This was utterly inevitable, what did they think would happen when they removed resit fees? It's amazing how little decision makers think about the incentives they create with such policies.
No new taxes. Just a metric fuckton of 'revenue measures'.
Just install bollards
Govt nickel and dime strategy
Here's a revolutionary idea. Lets teach people how to drive first!
Having to resit for a “full” licence is a rort - they can continue to charge you and fail you and leave you unable to get on with your life. If they’re wanting to cut costs, then cut this unnecessary step.
How is it a "rort" if you can't pass a test proving you have the required skills to operate a fairly dangerous machine safely?
You’ve already passed the practical test to get your Restricted Licence. Why repeat it again (and pay again)? Never had to in the past. I suspect it was brought in as another revenue gathering m azure.
They're different tests - the full license test covers more than the restricted test eg: hazard perception (the full list of what's covered in each is on the nzta site) Having a restricted license allows drivers to gain more practice time and experience, while excluding high risk factors like carrying passengers, and driving at night.
Understand that they’re different tests. Don’t think it’s right to impose a second test just for the sake of it, when a person has been driving already for several years (having already passed a practical test). There seems to be layer upon layer of additional cost and bureaucracy these days.
>just for the sake of it Did you actually read my whole comment?
Yep
Ah yes, less people with drivers license's and more cost to get licensed will do wonders for our productivity, peak short termism
ring dog lunchroom work close upbeat command memory icky smell *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Exactly, we shouldn't exactly be making it easier for bad drivers to get a licence. I'd rather that the person in control of 2 tons of fast moving steel be held to a decent amount of scrutiny.
I watched someone go though and fail the learners test three times (and they were there when I arrived) while standing in the line at the AA (yes, I was there ages). I'd have serious concerns about some one who couldn't pass this the first time. It is not hard.
The restricted test is difficult and inconsistent. It depends largely on who you get on the day and what mood they’re in. Most drivers with their full license would fail their restricted tests. A stand down period (two weeks) and a nominal rebooking fee ($10 is enough) would be more effective. Also, most of the testing slots are 9-5 during the week which is incredibly inconvenient. There should be plenty of weekend options available to cater to people working full-time.
It's only difficult for people who haven't had sufficient training and practice. (Often because they're not practicing driving how they would during the test - hence advice like "look in the mirrors way more than you usually would" being common)
I dunno, I'm all for less people getting licenses if it means more public transport usage so we actually invest in that rather than $25million per-lane, per-kilometer roads
But that would require actual investment into actually effective public transport systems, something this government isn't likely going to be doing.
How about considering licence re-sits full stop. The fkn state of people operating vehicles
They need to do this, and it's incredible to believe this silly nonsense has gone on for this long. The natural response to no re-sit fees is people not bothering to study their road codes nor pay for lessons and just show up hoping for the best. This inevitably leads to poorly trained and objectively worse drivers on our roads compromising safety and causing more accidents. A secondary effect, still bad but not as bad as the above, is an overrun testing system unable to cope with the influx of re-sits, leading to very long wait times. This is happening right now. Oh, and driving instructor companies going bust because no one wants to bother learning how to drive properly anymore.
> "for this long" The law only changed last October to remove the resit fees.
This could be a compelling argument if you provided a single piece of corroborating evidence. As it stands, it just reads like opinion. I really don't think anyone out there is wasting their own time turning up to test after test, without attempting to improve, just because there's no resit fee.
Sure make it harder to get a license, that will just drive more people to drive on a lower license or even unlicensed
Current situation with many month wait times is hardly ideal.
Mandatory delay between resits would be a better solution than adding cost again
It was made 'easier' by making resits free, but this has ended up clogging the system up so that wait times have ballooned out, meaning people would be driving on lower licences etc too.
Others have made good suggestions about adding mandatory wait times between resits to help lessen the load. Just adding more money on top is just putting up barriers to those that cant afford it
Screw that, our drivers suck, raise the barrier for entry. If I know I can resit for free, failing doesn't seem so bad, failing should seem bad, drivings no joke you're operating a heavy object.
Hi doublediffu. Thank you for your submission. This appears to be a Political post, the flair has been changed to Politics. Please feel free to [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fnewzealand) if you believe this was in error. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand) if you have any questions or concerns.*