PHOTOS OF CONCERN - New Driver Signs

cameraThis driver must have attended the Red Green School of Driving. Who else would consider fabricating a New Driver sign out of duct tape? The restriction printed on the back of a new driver's license says that the driver must display "an official new driver sign." Only ICBC furnished signs are acceptable.

If you lose your new driver sign, you may print and use a temporary L sign or a temporary N sign until you attend a Driver Service Center and obtain a replacement.

Drivers who do not display a new driver sign when required may face a charge under Section 25(15) of the Motor Vehicle Act. This carries a ticketed amount of $109 and 3 penalty points.

Effective June 1, 2016 by regulation 107/2016 division 30.13 MVAR was repealed. This was used an an alternative to 25(15) MVA as there were no points associated with a conviction. Division 30.10(2) for learner drivers and 30.10(4) for novice drivers are now used instead.

Duct Tape New Driver N Sign

Comments

Fabricated 'N' signs

They're frequently seen on cars where I live, and to my mind the Class 7 N driver who does this is simply inviting the police to pull them over and say hello, just like driving with an obscured license plate; potentially resulting in demerit points that said driver really does not want on their license.

And there is no excuse; if you're worried about having your L or N sign stolen, they're free from ICBC so carrying a spare one isn't difficult; nor is taping it out of reach inside the car, in the bottom corner of the rear window.

So if it was Friday night

And ICBC was closed, and a "L" or "N" driver didn't have a spare or that had been lost or stolen as well, This duck tape temporary "L" or "N" would be legal according to the law then? After all it is temporary.

Not Legal

A printed sign from the links shown in the article would be, but the duct tape one would not.

Seemed better than nothing

So if a new driver was out in the bush camping for example, and no access to a printer, they legally have to walk out of the bush to find a place with a printer in order to go back and get their vehicle. 

So I guess "N"  drives should keep a stack of official signs with them.

Nit picking?

It's pretty obvious what the correct procedure is so why the, "what ifs"? 

Personally, I love the SUV that frequents Hwy 99 between the Massey Tunnel and the border.  It wears both an L and N sticker.  Should I mention that it's an RCMP Ghost Car?

Oh but you have to think of the danger!

I mean, what if the driver not only lacked access to a printer, but failed to take duct tape along on the camping trip too?

(Never mind that nine times out of ten, Class 7 drivers found to be driving against the restrictions on their license are only discovered due to having been pulled over for some other offence ... )

Is it legal to display an L or N if you have a class 5 license?

Is there any law that says a vehicle that displays an L or N must be operated by a new driver?

Just curious.

Legal Display of L & N

The offence is in needing it and not having it, not displaying it when you don't need it.

Display of Red L

If you are driving by yourself you will definitely attract attention with a red L on the back. The purpose of the red L is to signify a learning driver that should have a qualified driver along for supervision. You would be wasting the time of the Police that might think a learning driver was on the road unsupervised. I was under the impression that it was in fact illegal.
When I was teaching I always made a point of telling the students that it was their responsibility to make sure they managed the red L to not get their supervisors into trouble.

Freedom of expression

Displaying a sign, unless it can reasonably be deemed to confuse/mislead or affect somebody (i.e. a detour arrow into a chasm) is protected by the freedom of expression guaranteed to all Canadians. No law that explicitly forbids anyone from displaying signs can withstand a charter challenge.

I do not agree with your assertion that the purpose of an L sign is to signify a pre-requisite of a supervisor; I contest that there is absolutely no prescribed purpose to displaying this sign in the law, and this is simply a short sighted regulation with no concrete reasoning behind it. I also think such law is patently discriminatory and I have in the past compared it to a yellow star of David being required to be worn on the arm of Jews by Nazi Germany. Therefore any reason you assign to it is strictly a construct of your imagination, and a reflection of the shortsightedness of the regulation.

But I am open to a discussion on what this sign should signify, and more importantly - a determination what the receivers of such information should do differently in relation to a vehicle displaying such a sign. I believe the sign should signify nothing, and drivers seeing the sign should do nothing different, therefore it should be abolished. My opening argument is:

Since every road user is subject to the same subset of laws and regulations, with an onus on the road users to avoid breaking the law, the sign is unnecessary. Further, the sign signifies a class of road users and identifies it publicly; which results in public misconceptions - case in point the post above - and may subject the sign bearer to increased scrutiny by the police in cases where an observed infraction would likely result in the sign bearer being pulled over and ticketed, as opposed to non-signed vehicle being ignored under the same circumstances.
 

Totally Agree Outrageous

And very well put, in my opinion.

To me every other driver on the road should be watched equally, not one driver/vehicle can be trusted. So even if new drivers had to paint their vehicles floresent orange, it would get NO added attention from me, I expect every driver/vehicle on the road around me to do the unexpected the entire time I am driving, so to me the L or N has ZERO meaning. 

How foolish is it to Assume because there is no L or N you don't need caution around every other driver, or somehow you need to pay MORE attention just because of a L or N,,,,,,,, or is that just me? 

It's just you, I reckon.

To me every other driver on the road should be watched equally, not one driver/vehicle can be trusted. So even if new drivers had to paint their vehicles floresent orange, it would get NO added attention from me

We can only assume then that you treat vehicles with flashing lights the same way - never mind whether they're flashing yellow, flashing red, or flashing blue, or the reason that they have been switched on?

Me, I'll deal with everything from construction vehicles to snow plows to emergency vehicles, in their various situations, as appropriately as possible in terms of what they are, where they are, and the laws that apply. Don't matter if they're painted orange, neither.

How foolish is it to Assume because there is no L or N you don't need caution around every other driver, or somehow you need to pay MORE attention just because of a L or N,,,,,,,, or is that just me? 

'Assume'. It can make an ass out of me ... or you - as they say.

But to draw a better analogy perhaps than my flashing lights thing, you imply that those inverted orange and red triangles required to be displayed on the back of slow moving vehicles are redundant; after all, if 'Class 1 Driver' treats Amish horse-drawn wagons or Farm Tractors on the highway the same way as every other vehicle - no matter what the risk - then clearly, we should demand that the government eliminate the requirement for these signs to be displayed. Right?

As for those street cleaning vehicles, why should they display 'Right-hand Drive' signs, just because they move along slowly, weaving abruptly around parked cars, even if the driver has a comparatively limited view in his offside mirror?

And those signs they put on the back of large trucks about how 'If you can't see my mirrors, then I can't see you' ... or, perhaps, 'This vehicle makes Wide Right Turns' (along with a clever depiction of something getting squished against the curb as a result of not figuring this out) well heck, we should lobby parliament to make these illegal. Because 'Class 1 Driver' treats every driver, every vehicle, every situation, exactly the same and that's what all of us should be doing. Right?

 

Signs! Signs! Everywhere a Sign!

 

Displaying a sign, unless it can reasonably be deemed to confuse/mislead or affect somebody (i.e. a detour arrow into a chasm) is protected by the freedom of expression guaranteed to all Canadians. No law that explicitly forbids anyone from displaying signs can withstand a charter challenge.

Fair enough, but I don't think this thread is really about drivers choosing to display signs - there's some nut job who parks his car downtown with about a zillion biblical messages scrawled all over it, but hey it's a free country.

I do not agree with your assertion that the purpose of an L sign is to signify a pre-requisite of a supervisor; I contest that there is absolutely no prescribed purpose to displaying this sign in the law, and this is simply a short sighted regulation with no concrete reasoning behind it. I also think such law is patently discriminatory and I have in the past compared it to a yellow star of David being required to be worn on the arm of Jews by Nazi Germany. Therefore any reason you assign to it is strictly a construct of your imagination, and a reflection of the shortsightedness of the regulation.

In terms of the 'L' sign being required simply to signify the pre-requisite of a supervisor, you're correct; that may be - well, it is - one of the several restrictions that apply to the 'L' driver but it isn't the primary purpose for it to be displayed.

And there's nothing new, or different, in the idea of a Learner driver being required to display a sign in order to caution other road users that they are new at this game, and might do something unexpected or seemingly illogical. If you think about it, Driver Training vehicles have been required to display some kind of 'Student Driver' sign for decades, as well as having other devices such as certain dual controls and mirrors so that the Instructor can demonstrate skills, and/or take over physical control if necessary, whilst being able to see more of what's going on around them in the driving environment.

A Driving Instructor will typically be an individual with some degree of experience and knowledge about teaching a new driver. A parent? Probably not so much. So inasmuch as fewer than 15% of new drivers actually take lessons from a professional, then prior to August 3rd 1998 (when Graduated Licensing was introduced in BC) the situation was that the vast majority of new drivers were being taught on public streets by complete amateurs, without any sort of warning sign being displayed for their protection, and everybody else's.

Ridiculous. Just like your attempted analogy with the situation in Nazi occupied Europe and the persecuted Jews.

Incidentally, other jurisdictions - both Australia and the UK come immediately to mind - have been requiring Learner and Probationary signs to be displayed for ages; there's nothing new in this concept, and nothing particularly onerous or unreasonable.

But I am open to a discussion on what this sign should signify, and more importantly - a determination what the receivers of such information should do differently in relation to a vehicle displaying such a sign. I believe the sign should signify nothing, and drivers seeing the sign should do nothing different, therefore it should be abolished.

I disagree completely. Obviously, the idea that 'a sign should signify nothing' makes absolutely no sense. Otherwise, I would put a sign on my house that says 'this is a house' just in case anybody thought it was a railway station, or something.

The fact is that for any person, learning a new skill, there will be a learning curve; combine this with the fact that driving can present a huge task load, and you have a recipe for potential disaster. So the whole concept behind Graduated Licensing is to reduce the risk factors, and displaying the 'L' or 'N' sign is only one of the conditions applying. Most importantly, the evidence is that it's working, in terms of reducing collisions, injuries, and deaths.

My opening argument is: Since every road user is subject to the same subset of laws and regulations on the road users to avoid breaking the law, the sign is unnecessary.

That's not an argument. The purpose of the sign is to caution other drivers that the driver may make unexpected errors; these other drivers, if they have a grain of sense (I said 'if') will respond by allowing for a greater margin of error.

'Baby on board' - now that's an unnecessary sign. A discretionary sign; and I really wish the idiots who put it on their cars would realize this.  But it's a totally different concept from being required to display an 'L' or 'N' on your car as a Class 7 driiver.

Further, the sign signifies a class of road users and identifies it publicly; which results in public misconceptions - case in point the post above - and may subject the sign bearer to increased scrutiny by the police in cases where an observed infraction would likely result in the sign bearer being pulled over and ticketed, as opposed to non-signed vehicle being ignored under the same circumstances.

No, and yes. Let me explain, from what I've encountered after 30 years as a Driving Instructor in this province.

First off, that 'L' sign - or 'Student Driver' sign almost always results in the police turning something of a blind eye to the errors made by new drivers, the very opposite of increased scrutiny. For years and years I was the Administrator for the largest Driving School in western Canada, and on only one occasion was a student driver pulled over for an illegal maneuver - that's in thousands and thousands of hours of training conducted by numerous Instructors with even more numerous Student Drivers.

(In case you're interested, I got to see the video from the RCMP vehicle, and that driver totally started into the intersection after the light had changed to red - I also then pursued this with the local Traffic Sergeant, who agreed to have the ticket dismissed.)

Meanwhile, so far as the sign bearer - and I'm thinking here of the 'N' Driver, which is the original subject of this Thread - 'increased scrutiny' is the goal! All of the GLP laws are designed to reduce risk, and indeed to result in harsher penalties for new drivers who disobey traffic laws.

If an 'N' driver doesn't even try to come to a stop before turning right on a red, and gets nailed for it, I'm fine with that.

If an 'N' driver weaves through traffic without signalling his/her lane changes or showing consideration for other road users and gets nailed for it, I'm fine with that.

If an 'N' driver gets into the car, picks up his cell phone and starts chatting, and then backs swiftly out of the parking space whilst making pedestrians walking by leap out of the way - and gets nailed for it, to the extent of having his license suspended, massive fines and penalty points imposed, and his 2-year mandatory waiting period before being eligible for applying to get a Class 5 restarted ... well guess what? I'm just delighted with that, for the safety of everybody.

Meanwhile, I'll leave you all with this ... 

That was well phrased.

Here's an anomoly, or something.

Driving Instructors will often slap L and/or N signs on the back of their Driving School cars - which isn't actually necessary, as there are separate regulations in place to specify signage and other items required on or in the vehicle.

But although the onus is on the Class 7 driver (the restriction is on their license) to have the requisite L or N on the car, ICBC Driver Examiners will always take the necessary L or N out when commencing a Road Test, and stick the appropriate one on (if necessary) if the needed sign isn't there.

 

 

L and N Signs

It's actually hard to believe that the regulations actually associated points with failure to display L or N.  My understanding of points is that they are only associated with MVA violations that increase your risk of getting in an accident. 

A driver's license has an insurance certificate inherent to it.  It's called the "driver's certificate" under the Insurance (Vehicle) Act.  With this insurance certificate, each driver gets a $200,000 insurance policy that indemnifies them if they get in an accident (unless they are operating a motor vehicle that they own or operate regularly).  This policy's premium is $0 unless you have more than 3 premium points in a year.  When you are "paying off your points" you are actually paying for driver's certificate insurance policy for the year.  So it doesn't make sense to get points for this violation.

 

This has nothing to do with insurance

The requirement to display an L or N is a Restriction that applies to the individual driver's license; the commonest of these restrictions is probably Restriction 21, the requirement to wear corrective lenses when driving, but there are many possible restrictions (or endorsement/permission, in the case of Restriction 15). As mentioned at the beginning of this Thread, it falls under Section 25.

I don't want drivers with inadequate eyesight on the road, as this clearly increases the risk for all of us. Same thing with drivers who try to operate Airbrake equipped vehicles without adequate knowledge of how their brake systems function, and should be maintained, either - and for the same reason. They have caused far too much death and injury in BC over the years, and we need to be protected from them.

And if I was a fireman, I wouldn't want some twit driving over the hose, either, even if there was no possible chance of that motorist getting into an accident as a consequence! Which is why Section 199 stipulates a points penalty.

Requiring the L or N to be displayed helps other drivers to realize that they may be dealing with someone who is still in the learning stage when it comes to driving in BC, and helps to protect both them and everyone else; and of course it's easy for a cop to spot, if they've already pulled a driver over, as the colour of the license makes it immediately obvious that they're dealing with a Class 7 licensee - it's a fair guess that the vast majority of drivers who receive a ticket for failing to display wouldn't even have been discovered if they weren't already breaking some other rule (or maybe looked like they were only 12 years old ... )

A lot of folks probably don't realize how many different points penalties exist, based on various violations. You may find it of interest to scan through MVA Regulations Section 28.

The L or N on your window.

Hi Folks 

whinnie excuses for those that have silly reasons not to display the N or the L. Grow up now your a big kid with a car.Fallow the rules and display the proper letter.Failing to do that stay at home there’s probably more reasons you shouldn’t be driving a car. 

TJB. 

Google Ads