This is a big WTF for me. NZ already has not great driving standards
this post was submitted on 03 Feb 2026
2 points (100.0% liked)
NZ Politics
858 readers
4 users here now
Kia ora and welcome to the NZ Politics community!
This is a place for respectful discussions about everything that's political and kiwi
This is an inclusive space where diverse opinions are valued, but please don't be a dick
Banner image by Tom Ackroyd, CC-BY-SA
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I think this has been discussed before, but they say NZ has two tests where most countries have one so we should drop one of them.
You know what else most of those countries have? A requirement to spend time with a driving instructor, which we don't have.
After cancelling road to zero, now this, it kind of feels like they want people to die in preventable accidents.
Yeah my thoughts as well. I don't mind having just one test. But to not have any kind of compulsory driving instruction with that one test is kind of crazy.
Tbh it kind of makes sense to have a part of Waka kotahi that organises the training with the test at the end.
If people want to have additional driver instruction to make sure they pass the test outside of that then go for it.
But at least with a central agency doing it, then everyone is theoretically being trained to the same standard.
I did come across a thread on Bluesky in which the author of an NZ traffic study seemed mostly in favour of the changes. So maybe I'm completely wrong. It just seems counter intuitive.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022437510000654
That paper introduction is super interesting.
The introduction of the graduated licence system led to an ongoing crash rate reduction of (only) 8%!
A study in Canada found that education programmes to reduce time on learner licence led to an increase in crashes among those that took the extra course.
Crash rates in new drivers reduce by 2/3 after 500 miles of driving.
If the test isn't as important (especially after the full test got made easier and the restricted much harder) then perhaps our system should require a longer restricted licence period, not to give everyone the discount from doing a course without them needing to do the course.
I guess that author is mostly in favour because the test isn't the important thing, but having people drive for longer (getting more experience) is important and this change will have the average restricted driver get less experience.
I've posted it here in NZ Politics as it's a government announcement and has the potential to be controversial, but I'm interested to hear if people think this would be better suited in c/NZ.
I'm thinking it's politics until it's about to come into effect (next year) then it's informational.
Sounds about right
This is an interesting one for me. I have a bunch of mates in their 40s still on their restricted, it has never impacted them, cops never seem to care.
If the law isnt being inforced then its just frivilous buracracy. Now i agree that we already have a poor standerd of average driver skill in NZ so that should be elevated. But laws for the sake of laws that only get applied sporadicaly and inconsistantly just create derision with our justice system.
Perhaps creating a longer learner period, something like 2 years, that can be reduced by 3-6 month increments by taking certain courses could be a thing. Skip the restricted altogether.
Im not against what they are doing with this, to me it seems like a step in the correct direction. I do question their motives behind it. What do you know, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
I think their propsal has missed the most important thing: that experience is what matters. I don't see why they needed to drop the restricted period to 12 months, they could have dropped the second test and left the 18 month restricted period.