Just listening to the lunchtime news and I was alerted to the law change that will require trainee drivers to undergo 120 hours of supervised driving before they can sit their restricted licence.
This is UTTERLY ABSURD.
Do you know how many hours one has to fly to sit a private pilot's licence?
50
And some of those will be solo.
But driving a (probably) automatic car, with a couple of instruments to monitor, in one dimension, with the extra security that if the engine stops you glide to a halt rather than fall out of the sky (sorry, within the 50 hours pilots are taught how to perform an emergency landing in the event of engine failure), not having to communicate orally with other drivers or a control tower simultaneously, monitor weather or track, can only be taught to licence standard in 120 hours???
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
No its not absurd at all.
How many killed by private drives in NZ last year: about 300.
How many killed by private pilots in NZ last yearL about 3.
So with a 100-fold difference, I'd see a good reason for 5,000 hours practice for driving a car.
But in fact there is another 100-fold difference:
price of average bludger-driver's car: $500
private plane (not kit bulit) minimum $100,000
so there's another simple rule:
* either 500 hours supervised driving
* or own a car worth $100,000
sounds good to me and puts the burden where it belongs - on NZ's bludger-drivers who shouldn't be allowed to drive anyway - because lets face it; it's bludger-drivers who kill not productive Kiwi businessmen!
Our politicians have gone mad. That's the only explanation, they are stark, raving bonkers and no one's noticed yet.
Ok, it's not as bad as it sounds, Lindsay. Have a look at this link
It looks like the test for the restricted license is going to be a lot more difficult (1 hour test), and therefore leaner drivers will need more practise in order to be able to pass it (they recommend 120 hours - there's not going to be a log book or anything). They seemed to have taken out a lot from the full license test which used to be an hour and now will be half an hour.
Driving is a privilege, not a right.
Bludgers don't deserve that privilege.
Frankly it would be much more effective to remove all license requirements - and then, as anon #1 suggests = just ban all cars worth less than say $100,000 (or perhaps 50,000) from the roads.
The road toll would go to zero & traffic congestion would end.
The National Party, the party of freedom and individual responsibility....yeah right!
I love people who claim things are a privilege not a "right" - they almost universally define the privilege in such a way so as to include themselves worthy of it while excluding other people.
In other words they are just plain old fashioned arseholes.
BTW the road toll last year was the lowest ever since 1961 but that doesn't stop the authorities coming up with ever more restrictions, laws to trap the unwary to keep Government coffers filled and so forth
We are on a slippery slope where more and more personal freedoms are considered "privileges." The problem with accepting that anything is a privilege is that you accept that whoever has granted that privilege has the right to take it away. Ultimately this leads to life itself being regarded as a privilege that can be taken away at will by those in power.
In other words they are just plain old fashioned arseholes.
I prefer the term "high-value individual" to "arsehole" but that's the point: I deserve it. You don't.
Anyone here want their taxes to pay for cars & petrol for bludgers? Bludgers sure didn't drive in 1941 or 1961 - why should they drive now? Hell they didn't have TVs or PlayStations or Internet or inside plumbing in 1937 - why should they now?
We are on a slippery slope where more and more personal freedoms are considered "privileges."
Independent individuals have "personal freedom". Bludgers don't. How hard is that to understand?
Anon., your 'Bludger solution' is misdirected. Cut welfare drastically and it would result in most of them becoming productive members of society.
Anybody who defines themselves as a "high value individual is almost certainly just a stuck up prat whose real contribution to society is zero if not into the negatives.
Anon 1 (and possibly 2,3 and 4) I have tolerated your comments for a long time. So long that I am starting to prefer the 'bludgers' to you.
Cut welfare drastically and it would result in most of them becoming productive members of society.
Of course we should cut welfare drastically - actually just eliminate all forms of welfare (not just Dole & DBP but super, sickness, health & education & ACC) - but the chances of bludgers actually becoming "productive" (there's no such thing as society!)
What use were all the bludgers thrown on the scrapheap after Ruth's reforms? none whatsoever.
but frankly I don't give a shit. As long as they're no longer bludging on my fucking money.
I am starting to prefer the 'bludgers' to you.
Well said, Lindsay. Witness the sharp distinction between the libertarian "left" (humble folk who actually care about their fellow human beings) and the conservative "right" (self-styled "high-value individuals" who "frankly don't give a shit").
Sadly many of the people who cause serious crashes will not take any notice of any test.
In the same way as no licence, no road fund, no WOF, and already disqualified. And probably drugged or drink impaired.
Wishful thinking.
Read the article properly. The length of the restricted test increases to 45 minutes. The full test is reduced to 30 minutes. Nothing else is changed.
Richard...are you saying that non etc have NO right NOT to give a shit?
And what prey tell will you do to make them give a shit?
Freedom...the right NOT to give a shit.
James, I disapprove of not giving a shit, but I will defend to the death your right not to give a shit. Well, maybe not to the death, but you get my drift ...
^ Richard.....I agree and thank you.
;-)
Post a Comment