The NZTA appear to be quite happy as the percentage of people passing the learner theory tests is increasing. Here is their press release:
The NZ Transport Agency is congratulating young drivers and their parents for working hard to learn the road code as pass rates for New Zealand’s computerised learner driver licence theory test have hit 70% for the first time, while serious crashes involving teenage drivers drop to record lows.
Nationwide the pass rate for the Class 1 (car) theory test reached 70% in July this year, and while a slight drop to 67% was recorded in August, the national pass rate is up significantly from 60% at the same time last year and less than 50% in 2009.
The Transport Agency introduced computerised theory testing for learner driver licence tests in November 2009. The test asks 25 general and 10 class-specific questions randomly selected from a databank of over 200 questions, but unlike the old paper ‘scratchie’ tests which the computerised test replaced, it presents them as a random string of 35 questions. Applicants must answer 32 out of 35 questions correctly to pass.
Transport Agency Road Safety Director Ernst Zollner said when the computerised test was introduced in 2009 it quickly became apparent that the old paper scratch test was well past its use by date.
“The old test was more than 10 years old and all of the questions, the answers and their exact sequences were well known. It was apparent that many learner licence applicants were memorising the tests and learning by rote rather than actually studying the full road code and learning the road rules. For that reason we expected to see a drop in the pass rate in the early days of computerised testing, and we did. The overall pass rate dropped from 77% in the last six months of the old paper testing regime to less than 50% when the computerised test was first rolled out in November 2009.
“Since that time we’ve seen the pass rate for computerised theory testing steadily increase as young drivers have gotten the message that they really need to learn the road code before sitting the test. That’s great news for everyone who uses the road, because we need our newest drivers to be safe drivers who understand the road rules.”
The Transport Agency also encourages young drivers who have passed the theory test and gained a learner licence to put in plenty of supervised practice and use the free resources at www.practice.co.nz to prepare for the more challenging restricted licence practical test which was introduced in February last year.
Mr Zollner said the number of fatal and serious injury crashes involving teenage drivers had dropped from 475 in 2008 to 257 last year, and while the downward trend was encouraging, road crashes were still the single biggest killer of teenagers in New Zealand. With an average of one teenager killed on New Zealand roads every week in recent years our teen crash rates were still among the worst in the developed world.
“That’s a situation no-one should accept, and New Zealanders are looking for decisive action to reduce this needless waste of young life and young potential,” Mr Zollner said. “Raising the standard of driving required to gain a licence with more challenging tests is an essential part of the solution.”
Mr Zollner said more challenging driver tests were a key element of the Government’s Safer Journeys action plan to improve the safety of young drivers, and other changes introduced as part of the same package have included increasing the minimum driving age to 16, lowering the youth alcohol limit for teen drivers to zero, and encouraging teen drivers and their parents to buy the safest vehicles they can afford.
And here is the table they provided.
However there’s another interesting aspect to these numbers. While pass rates are going up, the total number of tests being taken are dropping dramatically and that means that even with the increased pass rate, overall less new learner drivers are entering into the system. Further I had even been expecting a bump in 2013 as teenagers most affected by the licence age changes in 2011 started to roll through but that doesn’t seem to have materialised either. Personally I think that this is just another sign that we are starting to see a generational shift occur in travel preferences. Here are the numbers for Auckland which shows the change much better that a whole lot of numbers. I have dropped the 2009 year seeing as the data is only for 1-2 months.
Along with this the numbers, the NZTA have also released the figures for how long the tests are taking. Interestingly people in the Nelson region not only have the second highest pass rate in the country but they are also the quickest at answering the questions while those in Gisborne take the longest yet also have the second lowest pass rate.
Lastly the NZTA believe the changes in recent years are starting to have some positive effects with the number of fatal or serious crashes involving teen drivers dropping by 46% since 2008 while fatal crashes alone are down over 62%. This is a great result and proof that sometimes small policy changes can have a massive impact.
Processing...
As I mentioned over here, it costs a heck of a lot more to get a licence now than it did when many of the commenters in here were going through the motions. The first iteration of the GDL could be completed from learner theory test to full licence for less than the current cost of just getting a learner’s licence.
Are you suggesting that a significant number of young people are not getting licences yet still driving? Because if not I don’t see how relevant that difficulty is to the central point that the above data clearly reflects a new disinterest in driving.
More importantly look at those crash stats. How fantastic, great work. Now there are other ways to add to this and lower speeds and protected bike lanes have got to be next.
How on earth did you get that conclusion, Patrick? Seriously, I cannot fathom the mental process involved to get from a statement in the post of “the total number of tests being taken are dropping dramatically”, me pointing out that it’s much, much more expensive to get a licence now than in the past, and you concluding that I think young people are driving without licences.
Explain, please.
It costs $96.10 to get a learner’s license.
Yes. And when I got my licence the whole process of testing was done and dusted for rather less than the price of the testing for any single stage now.
Note that I’m not saying it’s too expensive to get a licence. Driving is a privilege, not a right, and it should absolutely be something that takes commitment and concentration. The testing is, finally, getting to a level of rigour which I consider to be sufficient. I’d like to see mandatory re-testing with all licence renewals, but it’s going to take a huge shift in the perceived “right” to drive before that happens.
How long ago are we talking Matt? Have you deflated the cost today to when you got yours for an accurate comparison?
Mid-90s. $96.10 in 2013Q2 dollars was $65.77 in 1995Q3 dollars, whereas the actual cost of a learner test in 1995 was less than half that. The total cost of just sitting the tests today ($234 in 1995Q2 dollars) is more than the cost of testing, tuition and a defensive driving course for me over 1995-1997.
So it’s more than double the real cost and more than three times the nominal cost, just to get a learner’s licence.
Simply because your comment implies that the change in costs explains the drop in uptake. Whether that’s your intention I have no idea which is why my first sentence above is a question. But either way the increased cost or difficulty of sitting the exam doesn’t look relevant to me; clearly if the kids valued driving as much as previous generations they would find the cash and make the effort.
You seem to think it’s not a factor. Is it the whole story? Of course not. Is it part of it? Almost certainly. Petrol is almost three times as expensive in nominal terms as it was when I was learning to drive. Licences are much, much more expensive, in addition to being much harder to get. If you think it’s entirely a generational shift in attachment to driving, you underrate the influence that these hurdles have on teenagers’ decision-making.
And your evidence is…? Really $96, once, that’s nothing lke the increased cost of fuel which I agree is a huge factor in their disinterest.
What’s yours? I can point absolutely to a minimum cost of over $340 to get a full driver’s licence, if one passes first time, every time, and gets no professional instruction at any point along the way. That’s empirical fact.
Neither of us knows for certain, but I’ve got absolute, black-and-white fact to back up my suggestion that it’s vastly more expensive to become and remain a licensed driver – more expensive than it’s ever been, and much harder to achieve – whereas you’ve got, what? Academic studies? Interviews?
I don’t think you’re totally wrong, but you are incredibly dismissive of the role of the cost of getting a licence with zero evidence to support your position. That’s quite rude.
You also appear to think that it’s teenagers who pay for the licences. My experience was that parents pay, and if lower-income parents are looking at those costs they’ll say “If you want it, you pay.” Which presents a cost hurdle that teenagers just don’t care to surmount, for all kinds of reasons.
Youth are significantly less likely to be in part-time employment than ten years ago, which has flow-on effects on all these things – if you’ve got a revenue stream then the difference between $35 and $96 isn’t huge. You’re also much more likely to have a car and the ability to fill it with expensive petrol. But if you’re not working, then it becomes an expensive exercise in something you’re not going to get as much gain from, and which competes with other desirable items and experiences.
Of course, the fact that employment is hobbled by car-dependency feeds back on this dynamic.
Simple argument; the costs of getting a licence are a part of the overall costs of running a vehicle but are one off and small compared with the ongoing and much larger ones like car purchase, insurance, fuel, etc, so yes cost is clearly an important factor in the observable new disinterest in driving BUT is this one particular cost component that significant?
I asked above is there any evidence that the kids are driving without licences because if so then that would suggest that they still want to drive but the costs/hassle of getting a licence is too much so they are avoiding it. This is a different outcome to them not driving at all.
I suggest that the pleasing improvement in the crash stats suggests that no, this isn’t happening.
And this is important because there is a significant difference between the conclusion that this generation would still be driving like their parents if licences were cheaper/easier and one where this is just another little disincentive.
Good discussion; nothing personal.
Along with the introduction of more pedestrian-friendly roading environments!
Peak car- Portland style:
“Rather, like many Americans, they appear to be modifying their automotive priorities for environmental, social and economic reasons. Maybe they’ve sold off the family’s second or third car and they’re cutting back on road trips.”
http://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/index.ssf/2013/09/driving_drops_but_portland_gri.html
Interesting that that article too makes almost no mention of fuel prices. And, with due respect to Michael Sivak, his research (referred to in the Portland article, and available here http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/98982/102950.pdf) doesn’t really have any deeper analysis than the kind we make in blog posts all the time. I would expect some kind of econometric study, but nope.
I still need to post about this, but I remain flabbergasted that people can look at the changes in travel and fuel consumption that began around the world circa 2004, and which coincided with a massive increase in fuel prices, and think that they were primarily caused by societal shifts that had nothing to do with price. Looking at one city in isolation, like Portland, that may be a valid hypothesis, but is Sivak saying that the same societal shifts coincidentally started to happen around the US, and around the world, at the same time? I think he mixes up correlation and causation.
Anyway eventually I’ll get around to writing a proper post about this instead of just whining 🙂
Of the three places I’ve lived (Sydney, California, and Auckland), Auckland has by far the worst aggressive and incompetent drivers. I would like to see test pass rates go down.
Unfortunately Brendon I would say that many of the drivers with that approach would have got their licences under the old system which was pass a written and oral exam and then go for a spin around the block. We do seem to have a driving culture where everything is a race and otherwise calm and pleasant people go crazy when behind the wheel. And there is a small percentage of drivers that should simply not be allowed to drive at all.
The new tests are pretty hard, particularly the one for getting a restricted licence. Pass rates for that test are barely a majority, which suggests that it’s about at the right degree of difficulty.
What conan said about the old system is also true. Getting my restricted licence took less than 15 minutes, driving a large circle around a segment of inner Hamilton city, demonstrating that I could indicate, stop, hill-start, and not crash. Having subsequently got a truck licence courtesy of the Fire Service I’ve had my driving scrutinised by a professional instructor with a view to becoming someone authorised to drive fire appliances as urgent traffic, but were it not for that I would likely have continued merrily on with whatever skills and bad habits I might have had from being a teenager right up to the point where I’m in my 70s and having to be re-tested. I’d never have to demonstrate my knowledge of road rules again, either, no matter what might change (and many things have).
I think in poorer parts of Auckland there are many young drivers doing so without a license and not paying their fines at all when they do get caught.
Got data?
Anecdotal unfortunately. I work with the police and with some local community groups in south auckland trying to get more of these young drivers to get their licenses because it is a common problem. It is strange because cost is the biggest hurdle, but they end up with far worse costs when they do get ticketed.
Don’t you mean; ‘strange really because if cost is the biggest hurdle, they end up with far higher costs when they do get ticketed.’?
Anyway, if anecdotal is the measure i have three teenagers at home who I am trying to get to get their licences [useful life skill], which i will fully fund, but they still don’t see the point… eldest went as far as passing the theory, but never kicked on. The next one is showing no sign in even doing that despite my urgings…. Eldest now travelling and will no doubt return next year just completely baffled at Auckland’s lack of civilised Transit after using all the systems on offer around the world. I won’t be buying them cars but licence cost is so not an issue for them. Neither are driving anyway.
And yes i do appreciate that the mean streets of Grey Lynn are not the same as other parts in terms of cost pressure but all neighbourhoods all add up to the data we see above.
And still the greatest news are crash stats, wonderful: 40 more kids alive this year than in previous years [Matt is that last figure meant to be 2012 or is it 2013 year to date?]
You also live close to good public transport and to destination suburbs. You’re not a two-parents-with-five-jobs-between-them family of seven in Mangere Bridge, or Weymouth, or Te Atatu South. As we all know there are still many parts of Auckland which are very poorly served by public transport, and even the suburbs that do have “good” public transport aren’t getting close to the quality your eldest will encounter on their travels.
Also anecdotal: my wife volunteers with teenage mums (some solo, some with partners) in south Auckland teaching life skills, mainly showing them how to prepare simple, cheap but nourishing meals. Lovely girls mostly who genuinely care for their kids but don’t know how to parent them. Occasionally they go out somewhere for which my wife provides her people mover. When more seats are needed some of the girls bring their own cars – she has learned to check for WoFs, rego, licences, compliant baby seats… Usually some or even all elements are non-existent. It’s more a mind-set than cost, it simply doesn’t register with them. I do wonder whether south Auckland police/wardens are more tolerant than in the inner city provided there’s no driving offence observed.
It’s not a simple issue, but it is an issue that is common that Police out south have to deal with. As Matt suggests, many of the families that I work with simply don’t have spare money to pay for their kid’s license. So cost is the biggest hurdle. The kids have significant family pressure to get a job. There arent many jobs in the area so they have to travel out of the area to work and many times they cant get a job unless they have a license. Catch 22.
Can’t afford a licence; can’t afford to buy and run a car either…. there is no doubt that along with housing unaffordability there is widespread transport poverty. In fact they are two sides of the one coin and the direct result of decades of crappy land-use, housing, and transport policies.
Can afford to share a car with mum and dad when you’re all putting in a few dollars a week for petrol. Can finance a car, too. Can’t finance a licence.
I know a number of young people who want to get their license, but it’s too expensive. Same as people who are on their restricted, but sit on it for years before getting their full license due to the cost.
On another note, I was surprised when my partner renewed his license recently and there was no test of any kind. I expected that there would be a theory test, as road laws change over 10 years – things like giving way at intersections, and indicating through roundabouts are just a couple of examples I can think of.
Could transport poverty be something that could take the interest of the mainstream media and government, if the argument is crafted the right way ? For every teenager who is on unemployment benefits because they can’t access employment, there is a huge cost to government over the lifetime of that teen. They won’t gain the work skills to secure and maintain employment in their 20’s and 30’s. The government is missing out on income tax revenue, and at the end of their “working” lives, they’ll go straight onto the pension. Confining the poor to car dependent suburbs breeds this cycle, whereas to redevelop some of the inner government housing areas such as Glenn Innes into high density would allow them to access employment and other services. For a poorer person, which is more important – a back yard or access to services such as PT ? Back yards in government housing areas tend not to be looked after, so I don’t think the occupants value them. Better to trade off the back yard for higher density.
The new testing’s good, but wouldn’t the greatest reduction in accidents be due to raising the driving age rather than other factors? They just removed the most dangerous 20% of teens who likely caused 25% of the accidents.
NZTA says NZ is still near the bottom of the league table for teen driver safety- I would expect increasing the driving age to 18 would fix that by removing another 50% of teen drivers from the roads. Many European countries are at 18: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_minimum_driving_age#European_Driving_Licence_area
The most dangerous time in an NZ driver’s life is when they come off their learner’s and can drive without supervision. That’s been studied carefully. So requiring a much higher level of demonstrated skill before allowing that change to occur reduces the risk correspondingly.
If we want to argue maturity, the shift from 15 to 16 is not large when full psychological maturity doesn’t happen until you’re about 25. If they’d bumped the starting age to 18 you might have a point.
On note of a higher skill needed I think that a minimum set amount of hours supervised needs to be on place this woulds show that they are ready for the full resopnsibility of driving on the road
its not the age of the driver its the maturity the person has that is the problem I mean likethere are responsible 16 year olds out there that can cope with the road and then there are the others that upgrade there cars and race then down a public road where someone could be crossing and all they do is speed up and nearly hit him/her but heyits not justthe 16 yearold boy racers that do this there are 25 year olds that do this too so you see that it has nothing to do with age but it is rather someones maturity and attatude towards the road