New driver rules changes in NI
-
28-01-26 23:41I think I may have posted this before, but I remember a TV prog from a few years ago, when the then Transport Minister was being interviewed as to why motorcyclists haqd to go through various stages, yet car drivers weren't. The interview took place in a large car park full of Lamborghinis, Ferraris, McLarens, Porsches etc. The interviewed asked the Minister if he thought it was really a good idea to let young drivers who had just passed their tests drive such cars. The minister laughed and said that no young driver would drive such a car. The interviewer then called across to ask the owner/drivers to come and stand by their cars. When they did so, the interviewed walked around the car park, with the Minister in tow, asking the owners their ages. The oldest was 19, and had just passed his test.
The interviewer pointed out they had advertized nationally for young supercar owners but had received so many responses that they could only accept so many due to the size of the car park. He was talking thousands. The Minister stormed off in a huff as he has 'other engagements'. -
29-01-26 19:13@Rolebama So still no plans to activate the ISA speed limiters then? -
30-01-26 13:54
As the NRA (National Rifle Association) say - It's not the guns who kill it is the people behind the guns). Pick any speed limit you like, and there will be occasions when that speed is not appropriate.
Give your average driver a car ISA activated and they will attempt to drive the car always limited and stop thinking about speed in relations to road conditions.
-
30-01-26 21:35
But the whole idea of the ISA system is that drivers are physically unable to break the speed limit.
But it's funny that you equate this to firearms as our Governor wants to introduce more anti gun laws using the standard rhetoric of "Nobody needs an AK-47 to go hunting. They only place for an AK-47 is on the battlefield and if legislation saves the life of just one child; it's worth it"
Now paraphrase to "Nobody needs a 100mph car to go to the supermarket. The only place for a 100mph car is on the racetrack and if legislation saves the life of just one child; it's worth it"
But no politician has ever dared to suggest a ban on all cars that can travel at 100mph because they would never be re-elected; and that's far more important than public safety to them. -
31-01-26 18:49I think the disagreement/confusion is maybe Olduser is assuming the limits will be whatever the road signs say and NMNeil is assuming it will be more like in Japan?
I think a speed limit that stops you doing stupid speeds (Japan has no issues with 112mph despite the maximum legal limits being similar to ours) but still allows people to break what the traffic signs say - as there are justified reasons, albeit most won't be justified - is more defensible? -
01-02-26 02:38They cannot advertise these for sale in any newspaper or TV channel, and to buy one from a licensed firearms dealer I had to fill out no end of forms have a background check and jump through multiple hoops to buy it due to public safety concerns.
But they advertise these freely in newspapers and magazines and I can walk into any Dodge dealership and just buy one and drive away.
Despite the carnage they cause.
https://www.8newsnow.com/investigato...that-killed-9/
https://abc13.com/post/passenger-dod...-say/18283341/
https://local12.com/news/nation-worl...-scene-charges
Just seems odd that they regulate one deadly weapon but not another.Last edited by Lily; 03-02-26 at 16:25.
-
01-02-26 12:07I would say both statements (AK47, 100MPH car) are right but nature being what it is, no one likes limitations on their freedom, and therefore will explore the limits.
Throw into the melting pot a dash of male competitiveness, and it becomes understandable why we are where we are.
To legislate on Gun/Car control suggests, the legislator cannot compete! -
01-02-26 12:44
It does look illogical but I think I can offer a possible reason for the contrast;
Guns are designed, and built to kill pure and simple, so best left in the hands of soldier's who we pay to kill on our behalf, and are trained to do so.
Cars are for convenience, the are not intended to kill, of course they can but they are not intended to kill.
Part of the convenience is we arrive at our destination quicker.
If someone dies involving a car, we think of it as an accident*, someone made a mistake, it was not intentional.
Society, has in effect decided the convenience outweighs the deaths and injury's.
*Accident - An unexpected and undesirable event, especially one resulting in damage or harm. -
01-02-26 13:30
Sorry Drivingforfun, I should have made it clear, I was trying to say, " the signed speed limit could be far too fast for the conditions at that time."
It's part of the idea that a good driver would not need speed limits!
These discussions tend to be based in the phrase, "speed kills" which of course is not accurate.
If drivers can drive, then a more accurate mantra might be, "inappropriate speed kills".
In a practical sense, when I lived in Kings Lynn there was a blanket speed limit for the town of 30MPH. Yet for a journey across town the average speed would be around 7MPH. It would be unusual to reach 20MPH.
The road to Cambridge (A10) was mostly 60MPH, at night for short stretches 60MPH could be achieved but bends, side roads, roundabouts, villages, for most of the journey meant 60MPH just was not possible.
The point being, if driving skills are adequate, a driver adjusts speed to a level appropriate to the conditions, which has little to do with what the speed limit says. -
03-02-26 13:47There was a news article I saw a little while ago where a driver ran off the road, hit a tree and wrote the car off. They sued the County Council because they blamed them. Their argument was that the Council had put signs on previous bends advising max speeds. They came across one where there was no sign so assumed they could get round it at 60mph. (NSL on that road.) Their stupidity was upheld by the Court, as it was argued, and agreed, that if the Council are going to use such signs it should be done in entirety or not at all.
I came across a car that had hit an overhead motorway support on a roundabout. (J4 on M4). I asked what had happened and was told that it was not possible to drive around the roundabout at 70mph.
For many years if you joined the M1 Southbound at J6, the last posted sign was 30mph at Brickett Wood. TrafPol agreed that technically that made the M1 a 30mph limit if entered from that point. -
03-02-26 14:55
Never take legal advice from a police officer!
The "Start of Motorway" signs on the slip road indicate that motorway regulations apply, including the default speed limit. -
03-02-26 15:48@Beelzebub AAgreed, but that particular junction had no indication of there being a motorway ahead. I used to use that junction on a regular basis for years.
As to the Police advice, my attitude was that they would be the ones to report me. I used to ask at Athlon Road TrafPol HQ.Last edited by Rolebama; 03-02-26 at 15:51.
