The Motor Vehicle Commission has ordered you to take a retest. You don't want to. You may not have to!

Read this page.

Retests typically come in three parts By this we mean that when the Motor Vehicle Commission (“MVC”) orders a retest, what they typically require is that this retest process consist of a vision test, a law knowledge test, and a behind-the-wheel test. Whenever possible, the MVC order to take these tests should be strongly challenged. As we explain below, these tests are very unfair. Far too often, the MVC orders these test for the purpose of simply getting older drivers off the road.

Certain situations authorize or even require that the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission (“MVC”) subject a driver to a retest. One of those situations, for example, is a driver is involved in a reportable car accident two times within a six-month period, when motor vehicle points are assessed in each accident. This requirement is contained in N.J.S. 39:3-10e. As mentioned above, the retest that the MVC orders typically includes a vision test, a law knowledge test, and a behind-the-wheel demonstration. However, the MVC cannot arbitrarily require that the driver submit to a retest.

Elderly New Jersey motorists routinely find themselves told to take such a retest following an incident. This incident can be a single driving infraction. It can be a single accident. The hallmark of this situation is that the driver is elderly. The incident in question is one that would be completely unremarkable but for the age of the driver. But age of driver, standing alone, is not a valid reason to require the retest.

This principle governs the case of Division of Motor Vehicles v. Cioffi, 95 N.J.A.R.2d (MVH) 57. Jean Cioffi was approximately 85 years old when she was involved in an accident. Ms. Cioffi had gone through a red light and hit another car that had the green light. The report of the investigating officer described Ms. Cioffi as being confused and unaware of her surroundings.

The administrative law judge found Ms. Cioffi to be alert, articulate, and responsive. Her driver license point history consisted of just two moving violation points. Those two points arose from the accident that resulted in the MVC demand for the retest. By the time her matter reached the hearing stage before an administrative law judge, even those two points had been reduced to zero!

We mentioned above that these retests are very unfair. The behind-the-wheel portion of the retest can be especially onerous. The driver must bring to the testing center a car that provides the examiner with access to the emergency brake. Cars typically have a center console that limits that access. Unless the driver can borrow a conforming car, he must rent one. At his own expense. Whether borrowed or rented, that conforming car will be one that the driver does not ordinarily use. Thus the driver must pass a retest using an unfamiliar car. And the test itself may require demonstration of events never required in ordinary day to day driving. For example, it may require use of turn signals when leaving from a parked position even though there is no other nearby traffic. It may require a demonstration of parallel parking while not hitting cones on the road that are not visible from the driver's position.

The law knowledge test is another farce. Everyone know they must obey the speed limit. Everyone knows they must stop at a stop sign, and stop at a red light. Everyone knows that must not drive the wrong way on a one-way street. So the law knowledge test, instead, includes questions that have nothing to do with safe everyday driving. These questions might relate, for example, to stopping distance, in feet, on a wet road at a particular speed. Who cares what the number of feet is? What is important is that the driver keeps a safe enough distance for driving conditions. Whether the driver has memorized what number of feet that is means nothing.

We mentioned the Cioffi decision above. We provide the full Cioffi decision elsewhere on this site. Note, however, that familiarity with the Cioffi decision is only the beginning. The “heavy lifting” consists of requiring the New Jersey MVC to follow the principles contained in that decision. The driver will still be required to refute the contention of MVC that he or she is unable to drive safely. Refuting that contention has many steps. Motorists can attempt to do all this on their own, without a lawyer. But it is a loaded minefield. Assistance from a New Jersey Driver's License lawyer will hugely raise the likelihood of successful navigation through this minefield.

Allan Marain is a New Jersey Driver's License lawyer. He has successfully negotiated and, where necessary, fought New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission notices to New Jersey drivers that they must be retested. He has the skill and the knowledge needed to help provide this successful navigation. He would welcome your call.

 Home Page    En Español    Suspension Notice    Retest Ordered    Fatal Accidents    Case Evaluation  

 CDL    OAL    Medical Issues    Medical--CDL    Restorations    Points    Revoked List Ticket  

 Road Signs Quiz    Open Positions    About Our Practice    How Did We Do?    Contact Us