Scale of illegal drivers 'stunning'

By JASON COLLIE and NZPA

Up to 200,000 unlicensed motorists - 10 times more than original estimates - are thought to have been driving on our roads.

Officials overseeing the switch to the new photo driving licences have been stunned by the number of motorists coming forward who have never passed a New Zealand driving test.

The controversial scheme and tougher motoring laws, including the mandatory carrying of the licence, were introduced a year ago this week and have been credited by police and former Transport Minister Maurice Williamson with cutting the road toll over the past 12 months.

Automobile Association spokesman Noel Rugg said it had been estimated that there were between 10,000 and 20,000 unlicensed motorists.

But after dealing with about 35,000 unlicensed drivers, the AA now put that figure at "anywhere between 100,000 and 200,000 people."

"Mandatory carriage has probably slashed about 50,000 or more and while it's caused pressure on the system, we are delighted that number of people have come forward," Mr Rugg said.

"The bonus is people have to go through the theory and practical tests, learning rules associated with road safety they were not aware of."

About 2.2 million drivers have received the new licences, while under the tougher penalties 12,323 vehicles have been impounded because they were being driven by disqualified or unlicensed drivers.

Superintendent Neil Gyde, the police national road safety manager, said more than 8000 disqualified drivers had been arrested in the past year, about 3000 fewer than the previous 12 months.

"That paints the success of the new regime [getting disqualified drivers off the road]," he said. "It's sent a message to the worst offenders."

The road toll for the 12 months to the end of April was 479, compared with 521 for the year to April 1999, and Mr Williamson, who oversaw the scheme's controversial introduction, said: "I am really proud to have done it and I am sure there are 42 New Zealanders out there who are glad they are still alive.

"Is it because people are carrying a licence with a photo on it? Of course it isn't. It's the penalties associated with the photo-driver licence."

The new laws arrived amid a storm of complaints about mammoth queues to obtain licences, the eye-testing equipment wrongly failing people, organ donor declarations incorrectly listed, overcharging, mistakes over details and photos and delays receiving them.

Although Land Transport Safety Authority director Reg Barrett said many of the early problems had been solved, the queues at issuing agencies returned this week.

The AA reported a rush after motorists were warned they would become unlicensed and have to resit their tests if they did not upgrade to the new licence a year and 60 days after their last birthday.

Mr Barrett said: "We have had 116 cases of mistaken identity out of 2.265 million driver licences. It's hardly been a disaster.

"It was always going to be controversial and a difficult thing to implement.

"We have introduced it as a road safety measure and it's already contributing to reducing trauma in New Zealand and will continue to do so."

The authority had collected $42 million in revenue but spent $43 million implementing the system, Mr Barrett said.

Of the 2.265 million new licences, 2.1 million have been upgrades from the former paper licences.

The authority has sent out 2.5 million reminder notices but could not say how many people were refusing to change their licences.

Meanwhile, lawyers on both sides of a court case over the new licences were yesterday sent off to do more research.

The High Court at Wellington was hearing a judicial review application brought by Wellington woman Lois McInnes, who claims the new system cuts across the rights of "lifetime" licence-holders and affects privacy. Mrs McInnes' lawyer, John Gwilliam, told the court the consultation process over the law change went off the rails in 1997.

The cabinet had decided on a date for the new system to take effect, and it appeared that the safety authority's only goal was having things organised by that deadline.

The authority had not even complied with its own rules and procedure manual when it failed to send a copy of a revised draft to every person who had made submissions on an earlier draft of the rule change.

Mr Gwilliam said the revised draft was sent only to those who requested it.

He also noted that in doing any cost-benefit analysis, the authority should take into account not just financial costs, but costs such as loss of rights, privileges and privacy.

Justice McGechan said he wanted more information on examples of statutes requiring consultation on rule and law changes.