Interesting thoughts on "N" sign
 

Here's an article from a local driving instructor outlining his thoughts on the "N" sign:

http://www.timescolonist.com/signs+h...257/story.html

IMO, dont get rid of it cause i've had to go through this stupid fucking phase. :troll:

I don't know what the big deal is about checking your car before you drive off. Everyone should always do a walk around before you get in anyways. Personally, when I had my N, I couldn't afford a ticket (or a replacement N sign - which you had to pay for back then), so I always put my N on my drivers seat when I stopped the car, and replaced it when I drove off. Takes 2 seconds... If you are too lazy to do that - I don't think you can really blame the law if you get a fine.

Interesting bit about the Highway of Tears though...

Yes, but I doubt very much that it would play a big part in a serial killers decision to target someone. I think most of the missing women up there were hitch hikers and they don't display an "N"....

I stop myself from writing a letter to the editor almost every time I read his columns...this one in particular got my blood boiling. If this guy is a GLP qualified driving instructor then he must be aware of the most important part of the GLP foundation...skill, education and attitude...with attitude being the most important. No point in having skill and education if you choose to flush it all and drive badly. The purpose of the N and lower tolerance is to instill the proper driving attitude from the first driving days and I don't know why he is not aware of this fact.

Like Skidmark said, using the mass murder of hitchhikers in PG on the highway of tears as an excuse for a Victoria N driver to not display a N is just rediculous. If you are that scared your daughter is going to be murdered then don't have her drive alone at night...and give her a cell phone to call the Cops. I'm not aware of a single case in BC where a teenage female N driver was assaulted or murdered because she was picked out because of an N. Don't try to say that a "responsible parent" would deliberately tell their child to break that law...an irresponsible one would do that. I'm sure you have seen many vehicles being operated displaying N's, by drivers who are not teenagers...and my experience has been that the cars I stopped being operated by N drivers who had not displayed their N or it was so difficult to see wherever it was placed.

My experience had been that the cars I stopped that were being operated by N drivers, were stopped for breaking the law before I found out that they were Novice drivers. The N had nothing to do with them being stopped in the first place as it was often not even displayed. Making sure one is there is been covered many times here. if you can't figure out how to do something as simple as that, maybe you can't handle the complicated process of driving ?

He is entitled to his opinion but by his hyperbole and straight untruths he has blown his credibility as a driving instructor. Does he not know that the single largest cause of death and injury in Canada for 15-25 year olds is traffic crashes? If I was a parent reading what he wrote, I would not want my kids taking a driving course from someone who displayed that opinion.

Please tell me that column was a joke... Is this guy for real? Those aren't interesting thoughts, they're retarded. Like gars said, if you can't take 2 seconds to make sure you still have your sign (we all know the idiot high schoolers think it's funny to steal them at Metrotown), then perhaps you should go turn in your license or just plain get off the roads. If 2 seconds is too much to take to check, how annoying would you find shoulder checking? Or making sure an intersection is clear of hazards?

As for his "responsible parents" comment. I know a few parents in the interior with high school age girls, NONE of them would even consider that. I bet this guy's kid got a no N ticket and he just doesn't want to pay for it. This guy is clearly not fit to be teaching anyone anything about driving. Kind of like my former instructor O.o

I don't think that requiring the N to be displayed changes the driver's attitude for the better. In fact, I think it encourages poorer driving attitudes.

It's easier to act the part if you look the part, and displaying the N simply announces to everyone that there is a good probability that there is a young, testosterone filled male at the wheel who will do whatever he wants with little regard for other drivers.

The fact that student driver cars plastered with "student driver" stickers still need to have an L and N displayed shows how silly the whole thing is. How many collisions have been prevented solely by the display of an N sign? I'd guess none.

"I don't think that requiring the N to be displayed changes the driver's attitude for the better. In fact, I think it encourages poorer driving attitudes"

The installation of a sign does not automatically make anyone a better driver...if you bother to read the whole process involving the GLP you will see that displaying the sign is there for a number of reason. They include : informing other drivers that the N has not yet established enough driving experiences to make them an informed driver, letting Police know that there are restrictions (passengers, alcohol etc) upon the operators and that it is appropriate to check to make sure they are following them, reminding and reinforcing the N drivers of the facts and restrictions above, making the drivers know that they could be subject to tickets and suspensions if they violate laws....those sort of things.

Your second paragraph is also another example and N the drivers Police ticket represent much larger percentage than the percentage of total drivers licenced.

Driving school vehicles are required by law to display "student driver" signs and their display usually results in greater cooperation from other drivers when they see the signs I also display the N and L signs too..the more visible an untrained river is, the more likely they are to get a break from other drivers. As a licenced class 5,6,7,8 and GLP Instructor I see daily how the display of these signs help avoid crashes.

It's so good that BC is so advanced in its driver's licensing program, that it has developed this revolutionary and unique program!

Strangely 11 other provinces & territories, and not to mention an nearly an entire country comprised of 50 individual states and 300+ million people do not feel that the statistics support the overwhelming need to publicly display a drivers current license status as measure of public safety. Despite the fact that a large majority of them employ a very similar staggered licensing program for new drivers.

You would think that if such signs caused such a drastic reduction in collisions and had such a profound positive social impact, that all the provinces would be clamoring at the bit to implement such a program. After all, it's been 12 years (?)


But I guess ICBC must have hired all the brilliant minds on this continent, that's why right!


Edit: My bad, I forgot the Newfies had one too! :P Way to go BC.
PS. I'm well aware of a handful of Commonwealth country requirements... but have you seen the roads and the way they drive over there?

A long time ago, I stumbled across a paper that was a PhD. study funded by ICBC to investigate the GLP system with adult drivers. While this isn't a peer reviewed/publish journal article, it holds quite a bit of merit, and is likely far more unbiased and educated than the monkey studies routinely pulled off by ICBC themselves and their propaganda machine.

Quotes from the research paper:

"On the basis of the interview data, all adult novice drivers felt that placing the 'N' in the back window of their cars caused more dangerous actions than it prevented. To the driving public, novice drivers are a nuisance to be avoided, rather than drivers who are to be afforded extra care and courtesy. According to the respondents, many motorists feel that novice drivers drive too slow or are indecisive about taking actions, such as 'waiting too long' to change lanes. Instead of being patient with novice drivers, motorists will tend to honk, make rude gestures, or pass novice drivers in a dangerous manner."

Recommendations

"The requirement that a 'N' new driver sign be posted should also be removed, if future studies confirm the negative reactions of the motoring public to novice drivers."

All i know is that I get cut off a lot when I have my N sign up. People tend to be less forgiving on the horn when they see an "N" driver doing something questionable.

The magnetically attached "N" can easily be removed without the knowledge of the driver. It is not uncommon for an overzealous police constable to issue a ticket for not displaying the "N," despite the novice driver being unaware of losing it and despite carrying a spare inside the vehicle.

^ dat shit happened to me twice.



and I think the N/L sign should remain.

For example, if some retarded L driver is doing 40k in the left lane in a 60 zone, I'll be ok like they are learning and let that shit slide. Now if it was any other driver, I'd go dogshit crazy... so the N/L signs will prevent road rage.

I e-mailed the guy with my thoughts on his comments. So far, no reply....

I had the rebuttal letter to the TC written and then decided to not hit the send button. He is so far off base on many things he writes that I just shake my head. The fact that he is running ads in the TC and on CHEK TV makes me wonder if that is influencing anyone? Maybe I'll send it now if you don't get a response...or maybe we could submit responses to the TC and see if they get published? This is a perfect example of..."just because you read something in the paper/see it on TV/hear it on Radio...does not mean that it is correct". It is, after all, his opinion...not fact.

I haven't paid much attention to his articles. What else is he wrong about?

Couple of examples...telling people that it is Ok to "tap the curb" as you back up to find where the curb is, when backing up during a parallel park. Do this on your ICBC road test and see what happens. The parker also does not have the right of way over other vehicles. Telling people that you must signal a turn when 30m away from a corner...I have never found that section in the MV Act. This is what the law requires..
Signals on turning
170 (1) If traffic may be affected by turning a vehicle, a person must not turn it without giving the appropriate signal under sections 171 and 172.

(2) If a signal of intention to turn right or left is required, a driver must give it continuously for sufficient distance before making the turn to warn traffic.

Writing a column "excusing" an elderly driver who takes several runs at a re-test and breaks 2 traffic laws in the process....that sort of thing. I have discussed his columns with other driving instructors and they are on the same page as I am, wondering why he is telling people these things. I don't disagree with everything he says but he comes up with enough strange points of view on some basic subjects, that I am questioning what he is saying, and others likely are as well. His points on having untrained family members who may be good drivers but bad teachers, trying to teach new family members to drive, were good ones...but then he comes up with the "trail of tears death N sign" theory and he has lost me for a long time.

Yet this very same idea - young individuals being targeted by predators/persons with the intent to do harm due to a public notice of their age - is in fact being used as a primary argument in a current New Jersey legal case where they are attempting to overturn the recent introduction of "young driver stickers".

A bit of light reading will reveal some academic studies and scholars who support this "theory".

I feel as though, if there is legal challenge based on the fact that these stickers may increase violence against young people, that there is likely some merit to the idea. They are in the midst of conducting a review of the bill, so we'll likely see results around spring.

A strange idea isn't it, conducting actual studies, based on factual evidence and done by an somewhat unbiased third party, not a government corporation which has a financial interest in the outcome....

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/201...month_rev.html

http://blogs.app.com/capitolquickies...udys-underway/

I too was taught that tapping the curb won't be terribly frowned upon providing you immediately stop and move forward away from it and not roll onto it, but I suppose this depends on the examiner.

I also found his bit on signalling to be questionable. 170 (1) immediately came to mind yet he states that each and every turn must be signalled. The MVA doesn't state where someone should start signalling either.

However while technically incorrect, I do see his point. It's about attitude. A driver who always signals even when not required to by 170 (1) shows a better developed attitude towards communicating with other drivers and will be less likely to make a turn or lane change without signalling when it is needed.

Thanks for sharing that Bainne. You have to realize that Zulu's positions is one that comes from a law-enforcement background. He's in the business of promoting and enforcing the law and punishing those who break it. There's nothing wrong with that, but it does colour his opinions a bit ;)

[QUOTE=Bainne;7247828]Yet this very same idea - young individuals being targeted by predators/persons with the intent to do harm due to a public notice of their age - is in fact being used as a primary argument in a current New Jersey legal case where they are attempting to overturn the recent introduction of "young driver stickers".

Read my point again..I'm not aware of any cases on BC where the N on a young female driver's car has been used to target her for death or injury...he is saying that it so dangerous that concerned parents should break the law to avoid this happening. He is completely avoiding the fact that none of the missing women on the "Trail of Tears" was such a person, as far as I'm aware. It's my understanding that they were believed to be hitch hikers and not N drivers. He is using completely unrelated sensationalism to support his hair-brained unsupported theory...not the mark of a professional. The application of some theoretical studies in another country that may or may not even apply, to what may or may not happen in our area is not appropriate. The studies would have to be applied to identical circumstances to have any validity at all. A highly populated US State of New Jersey is not in any way even slightly similar to rural BC in the PG area.

Oh my god you are so annoying.

Can you please put a stop to your bashing towards the police?

What do you have that makes you so against them? If you and your family was in danger, what figure first pops in your head that will give you the hope of safety and security?

The Police.

Actually I'm retired and no longer get a percentage of the fines I levied on N drivers. :D My experience of enforcement is just that, what I saw. As a driver instructor my experience in that field also has shown me certain things. I volunteer my time to help train new ( not just young) drivers so that they can be as safe as possible in cars or on motorcycles. I believe training works, I believe that having the best available knowledge is also very important and I fully believe, based on experience, that the most important part of all this is having the proper attitude. When that is not there, the mistakes happen and people and things get hurt...sometimes real bad. Watching a student who "knows it all", make mistakes on a course because of bad attitude, tells me that they will learn much harder lessons that I try to teach them. Life gives you the test first, then it teaches you the lesson second...the reverse is true on a course.

Yet on several occasions you have referred to studies and facts from other jurisdictions to support your agrument for similar laws and enforcement practices here.

Have you ever once seen me post anything hateful towards any of the officers here? Do I post immature comments like "eff the police" or "this effin pig pulled me over for ____"? No. Not once.