Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to BenWilson,
If I don’t have a license, then my freedom of movement by driving a vehicle will be immediately curtailed. Parliament will back them up.
The Courts will back them up. Parliament gave them the power to curtail your movement in the first place.
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to Lilith __,
young drivers who have just graduated to their restricted licence are in the most danger. These are the people who have just passed all their tests.
No, they haven’t passed all their tests. They’ve passed two of three, one of which was theory, and they’ve still got 12-18 months before they get to the exit test – which has roughly a 40% failure rate for first-time takers. They’re far from being out the final gate.
Why do I have something against older drivers? Because for all the harping on about experience, being experienced does zero to make you well-behaved. If you don’t learn the good behaviours when you’re learning to drive it takes a very concerted effort in later life to change those ingrained things that are wrong, assuming you even know that they’re wrong and can be bothered changing. It was so easy to get a licence for so very long that there are literally millions of drivers in this country whose sum level of driver behaviour testing was that they managed to behave themselves for 15 minutes while a retired traffic cop was in the passenger seat.
The changes to testing are a reflection that young people lack experience, not a cause. They’re an attempt to force them to demonstrate good behaviour and sound judgement before they get permission to drive without supervision. The restricted licence is the most dangerous because the driver is out on their own, with only their own experiences between them and calamity. When they’ve got a supervisor and are on their learner licence it’s the combined observational powers and experience that makes it the safest period of a driver’s time behind the wheel.
Not crashing doesn’t mean that you indicate, don’t tailgate, don’t cut people off, and generally follow all the niceties of traffic law. Experience protects ill-behaved drivers from themselves.
You want evidence, Ben? I find myself being tailgated more by late-model cars, and a lot of the worst failure to use indicators is also by late-model cars. Young drivers mostly can’t afford to own such things, and before you go off down the “it’s the parents’ car” track, I don’t think that could reasonably account for all the bad behaviour. Are young drivers perfect? Of course they’re not, but before they can start driving unsupervised they at least have to spend a longer period of time having their driving behaviour judged critically than most of those of us who’re aged over 30 ever did.
As for your supposedly saintly older drivers, it’s those who’re middle-aged who’re predominately represented in DUI convictions.
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to BenWilson,
You actually went out of your way to say that older drivers are crap, on a theoretical argument based on changes in driver training and testing.
I said that they're under-trained and under-tested, and that's absolutely true all the way through to people who got their licences within about the last five years. I wasn't singling out older drivers, I was singling out all drivers who haven't come through the latest round of changes. There are more older drivers who fall into that category, obviously, but even people in their late 20s haven't necessarily been through much in the way of testing. My brother's 28 and only had to go through the first variation of the exit test to get his full because he was lazy. People down to a cohort currently aged about 27 were able to get their full licence on the basis of time spent as holders of a restricted licence and got their restricted on the basis of a pretty weak test.
Crash stats don't tell you who's more obnoxious, they just tell you who's driving beyond their capability. I never said, anywhere, that older drivers are hoons. I just said they have bad driving habits because they largely learned from their family and friends and the level of testing they underwent in order to get their licence was minimal so the bad habits could be suppressed for long enough to satisfy an instructor. Part of the reason the tests now are a lot longer is so that bad habits will surface as the driver slips back into complacency from the initial "good behaviour" they were on at the start of the test. There are plenty of comments about that from the debates when the exit test was being introduced.
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to BenWilson,
A driver’s licence is proof that the state has given you permission to use a motor vehicle in the exercise of your right to freedom of movement. The state also reserves the right to, with no notice, revoke that licence for up to 28 days, at the roadside, because you have not followed the laws that restrict the applicability of that permission. That revocation does not, however, terminate your right to freedom of movement.
ETA: And, of course, the state can revoke that permission for any period of time all the way up to permanently while still not terminating your right to freedom of movement (though you may find that right suspended temporarily if you stray so far from the legal that you are subjected to indefinite loss of licence).
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to Keir Leslie,
it’s not entirely crazy to argue that restrictions on the right to drive a car are therefore only justified to the extent necessary etc
It may not be entirely crazy, but it does pretend that driving a car is an activity that carries negligible risk to the driver, others in their car, and others who use the roads and the road corridors. Which, given the trigger of this thread, is clearly not the case. We place much greater restrictions on the acquisition and use of firearms by persons for whom they are an essential tool in the furtherance of their earning a living, and everyone has an absolute right to earn a living.
Clearly I'm not at all sympathetic to arguments that freedom of movement equates to a right to drive. If you don't have a driver's licence you can still walk, or ride a bicycle, or use public transport, or get a ride from someone else; the things we demand of those who are too young to be granted permission to drive.
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to BenWilson,
So ragging out anyone older than 30 on account of the poor standard of their training is a wee bit one-sided. They’re likely to have spent tens of thousands more hours at the wheel than you.
a) I'm older than 30.
b) I don't care how much time they've spent behind the wheel, I care how much of that extra time shows up in their attitude and behaviour. When they indicate poorly, tailgate, and generally drive in a manner that shows a disdain for the law and their other road users, why should I cut them slack just because they've got more time behind the wheel? -
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to Islander,
An e.g = if you’d had a stroke, you certainly were
That's a pretty major risk factor, though, and it's hardly something that applies to all drivers.
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
In any case, you might think driving is a privilege to be conferred ona grateful subject, but I suspect that a majority of NZers consider it a right
Whether they consider it a right or not is irrelevant, it is clearly a privilege because the state confers, by way of the licensing scheme, permission for one to drive. One can be denied permission to drive due to medical incapability, or have permission revoked for misdeeds or medical incapability. With the exception of freedom of movement and association being denied as a punishment, the state has no power to revoke the rights of any citizen, and it certainly cannot deny those rights on the basis of medical incapability.
That you say that most people consider it a right is exactly the kind of confirmation of a misguided attitude to driving that I expected; and you were exactly the person I had in mind when I said we'd been down this path before.
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to Islander,
And that was all the testing they were ever likely to go through in their whole lives.
Wrongo.
Age-related and medical certification AND driving tests have been around for quite a long time here in ANZ.At the time that was the level of testing, they weren't.
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to Stewart,
Cornflakes packet, eh? Bet you can’t find a link to support that gem.
Link? I don't need a link. I know people who got their licences then. If they had to do more than drive around the block the testing officer was having a bad day. And that was all the testing they were ever likely to go through in their whole lives.
It's not arrogance, it's the truth. First-hand stories from people who did it.