 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30 Mar 2009 11:15:47 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
>
>Now you're bringing logic into it -
Of course, if all else fails then use logic.
>but technically only one person could
>be at the 50% mark. :-)
>
Duh? O_O
>>>> "tend to get off the phone" Does that mean that sometimes you don't?
>>>
>>>Depends on the route I'm driving and how busy the road is. I usually
>>>get to the city after rush hour is over, so the surface streets are not
>>>all that busy. I also use a headset, both hands on the wheel at all
>>>times.
>>>
>>>
>> Better than using a handset, I admit, but your concentration is still
>> not 100% on the road IMO.
>
>Nobody's is at all times anyways. You've had a crappy day at work, you
>get in the car and you're still thinking about work. Some guy cuts you
>off doing 85 in a 65 and nearly runs you off the road; most people tend
>to think about what a jack*ss he is for at least 5-10 minutes afterwards.
>
>Like I said, I restrict my attention to the things that are important and
>don't overload my mind. Rather than seeing the stupid billboard at the
>side of the road, I'm having a conversation.
>
I don't want to get all religious about it so I'll say no more other than "YOU
will burn in HELL" </Joke>
Actually that was the way of speaking some of the ministers I had at school,
when I was too young to walk out. Sad really.
>> From my understanding of the way alcohol relaxes you he must have been
>> blotto then. That does not add up. If he was so relaxed then he would
>> not have been able to react swiftly and correctly. I presume that he was
>> wearing a seatbelt and in a safe car to escape serious injury.
>
>Ford Mondeo, and yeah, seatbelt was on. But no, having seen how he
>drinks, he is generally pretty relaxed when stone cold sober anyways, so
>it wouldn't have taken a lot. His account was that he was just over the
>limit.
That's what I drive so it is good to know that they are safe.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: I knew this would happen at some point
Date: 30 Mar 2009 13:42:13
Message: <49d10475@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:13:24 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 30 Mar 2009 11:15:47 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>
>>Now you're bringing logic into it -
>
> Of course, if all else fails then use logic.
LOL
>>but technically only one person could be at the 50% mark. :-)
>>
>>
> Duh? O_O
<grunt> (Oh, wait, wrong thread).
>>Like I said, I restrict my attention to the things that are important
>>and don't overload my mind. Rather than seeing the stupid billboard at
>>the side of the road, I'm having a conversation.
>>
> I don't want to get all religious about it so I'll say no more other
> than "YOU will burn in HELL" </Joke>
LOL, but really, you didn't think I'd detect the joke? I'm hurt now. ;-)
> Actually that was the way of speaking some of the ministers I had at
> school, when I was too young to walk out. Sad really.
Yeah, I know what you mean.
>>> From my understanding of the way alcohol relaxes you he must have been
>>> blotto then. That does not add up. If he was so relaxed then he would
>>> not have been able to react swiftly and correctly. I presume that he
>>> was wearing a seatbelt and in a safe car to escape serious injury.
>>
>>Ford Mondeo, and yeah, seatbelt was on. But no, having seen how he
>>drinks, he is generally pretty relaxed when stone cold sober anyways, so
>>it wouldn't have taken a lot. His account was that he was just over the
>>limit.
>
> That's what I drive so it is good to know that they are safe.
Apparently very. I still can't find what it's called in the US, though,
we don't use that name here as far as I know.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30 Mar 2009 13:42:13 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>>but technically only one person could be at the 50% mark. :-)
>>>
>>>
>> Duh? O_O
>
><grunt> (Oh, wait, wrong thread).
>
ROTFL
>>>Like I said, I restrict my attention to the things that are important
>>>and don't overload my mind. Rather than seeing the stupid billboard at
>>>the side of the road, I'm having a conversation.
>>>
>> I don't want to get all religious about it so I'll say no more other
>> than "YOU will burn in HELL" </Joke>
>
>LOL, but really, you didn't think I'd detect the joke? I'm hurt now. ;-)
>
Lbh znl abg or gur bayl bar yvfgravat.
>> Actually that was the way of speaking some of the ministers I had at
>> school, when I was too young to walk out. Sad really.
>
>Yeah, I know what you mean.
>
Hell mend them! <Not a joke>
>> That's what I drive so it is good to know that they are safe.
>
>Apparently very. I still can't find what it's called in the US, though,
>we don't use that name here as far as I know.
>
I had my last one for 10 years and drove from London to Malaga and back then
from London to Malaga then to Zagreb then back to London. From London to Glasgow
several times. I was sad to let "Friend of Jesus" go (Initials of number plate)
I've now got Hey Nonny Hey.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30-3-2009 17:17, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 22:55:05 +0200, andrel wrote:
>
>> To which my predictable response would be that they can not judge
>> either. But that is so predictable that I won't do it. ;)
>
> Well, if you did, I would probably be inclined to point out that not all
> of the parties present may have been drinking. :-)
And if you would, I would have said that that is immaterial because
whether they would have been drinking or not, they could still not
really see if your reaction time to something unexpected was 0.5 or 1.0
or 1.5 seconds. But of course there is no need, as you did not react to
what I did not say.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30-3-2009 17:08, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 23:16:17 +0200, andrel wrote:
>
>> Question to check how your link with reality is: a Dutchman going to the
>> States for a couple of years or an American coming here. One has to do
>> an exam to convert to a valid local license: which one?
>
> Very likely you have to take the US exam.
>
> In the US, the MN state driver's license test is (was) one of the most
> difficult in the country, supposed to be good for everywhere. Well, not
> Utah, I had to take the Utah written exam (but not the behind-the-wheel
> exam).
>
> Less than 40%, though, doesn't say much until you know the difficulty of
> the questions, too. 10 questions that show you an octagonal sign with
> the word "STOP" on it asking you what the sign is for wouldn't really
> count. :-)
Slightly more difficult. Any sign and any situation can come up, also
the ones involving military transports, horses and dustroads. In fact
you have to know almost all traffic rules :(
Typically you get a picture of a situation with a couple of cars, bikes,
and persons and a question along the line of: you want to go right here,
is that allowed? and 10 seconds or so to choose. And IIRC 50 question
like that.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 20:23:07 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 30 Mar 2009 13:42:13 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>>>>but technically only one person could be at the 50% mark. :-)
>>>>
>>> Duh? O_O
>>
>><grunt> (Oh, wait, wrong thread).
>>
> ROTFL
And now you're in the wrong thread. ;-)
>>>>Like I said, I restrict my attention to the things that are important
>>>>and don't overload my mind. Rather than seeing the stupid billboard
>>>>at the side of the road, I'm having a conversation.
>>>>
>>> I don't want to get all religious about it so I'll say no more other
>>> than "YOU will burn in HELL" </Joke>
>>
>>LOL, but really, you didn't think I'd detect the joke? I'm hurt now.
>>;-)
>>
> Lbh znl abg or gur bayl bar yvfgravat.
Nu, ohg ng gur fnzr gvzr V cebonoyl nz ng guvf fgntr. ;-)
>>> Actually that was the way of speaking some of the ministers I had at
>>> school, when I was too young to walk out. Sad really.
>>
>>Yeah, I know what you mean.
>>
> Hell mend them! <Not a joke>
Heh, and I knew that as well. It's funny how some people are compelled
to "correct" others' view of the world.
>>> That's what I drive so it is good to know that they are safe.
>>
>>Apparently very. I still can't find what it's called in the US, though,
>>we don't use that name here as far as I know.
>>
> I had my last one for 10 years and drove from London to Malaga and back
> then from London to Malaga then to Zagreb then back to London. From
> London to Glasgow several times. I was sad to let "Friend of Jesus" go
> (Initials of number plate) I've now got Hey Nonny Hey.
Wild Circus Guys here on ours.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:57:14 +0200, andrel wrote:
> On 30-3-2009 17:08, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 23:16:17 +0200, andrel wrote:
>>
>>> Question to check how your link with reality is: a Dutchman going to
>>> the States for a couple of years or an American coming here. One has
>>> to do an exam to convert to a valid local license: which one?
>>
>> Very likely you have to take the US exam.
>>
>> In the US, the MN state driver's license test is (was) one of the most
>> difficult in the country, supposed to be good for everywhere. Well,
>> not Utah, I had to take the Utah written exam (but not the
>> behind-the-wheel exam).
>>
>> Less than 40%, though, doesn't say much until you know the difficulty
>> of the questions, too. 10 questions that show you an octagonal sign
>> with the word "STOP" on it asking you what the sign is for wouldn't
>> really count. :-)
>
> Slightly more difficult. Any sign and any situation can come up, also
> the ones involving military transports, horses and dustroads. In fact
> you have to know almost all traffic rules :( Typically you get a picture
> of a situation with a couple of cars, bikes, and persons and a question
> along the line of: you want to go right here, is that allowed? and 10
> seconds or so to choose. And IIRC 50 question like that.
Ours are nothing like that, and I wish they were. Though given the
history here in the US, that probably would just lead to more unlicensed
drivers on the road. :-(
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:38:38 +0200, andrel wrote:
> On 30-3-2009 17:17, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 22:55:05 +0200, andrel wrote:
>>
>>> To which my predictable response would be that they can not judge
>>> either. But that is so predictable that I won't do it. ;)
>>
>> Well, if you did, I would probably be inclined to point out that not
>> all of the parties present may have been drinking. :-)
>
> And if you would, I would have said that that is immaterial because
> whether they would have been drinking or not, they could still not
> really see if your reaction time to something unexpected was 0.5 or 1.0
> or 1.5 seconds. But of course there is no need, as you did not react to
> what I did not say.
Ah, but I would've pointed out then that it is material, because the
party organizer is being responsible for their partygoers. It's not a
reaction time measurement, yes, but there are points where someone's
falling-down-drunk that it's obvious they shouldn't be driving even if
they think so.
But of course I'm not saying that, because I have nothing to respond
to. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Eero Ahonen
Subject: Re: I knew this would happen at some point
Date: 31 Mar 2009 00:06:55
Message: <49d196df@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> Typically you get a picture of a situation with a couple of cars, bikes,
> and persons and a question along the line of: you want to go right here,
> is that allowed? and 10 seconds or so to choose. And IIRC 50 question
> like that.
Finnish picture test is the same. Also there's usually something nasty
hidden in part of the images, like a motorcycle, who's driver's helmet
is visible only for 5mm over a parked car and is allowed to go before
you are.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 07:02:28 +0300, Eero Ahonen wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> Typically you get a picture of a situation with a couple of cars,
>> bikes, and persons and a question along the line of: you want to go
>> right here, is that allowed? and 10 seconds or so to choose. And IIRC
>> 50 question like that.
>
> Finnish picture test is the same. Also there's usually something nasty
> hidden in part of the images, like a motorcycle, who's driver's helmet
> is visible only for 5mm over a parked car and is allowed to go before
> you are.
The "written" test here in Utah was also a picture test, but nothing so
nasty as that.
Picture of a yield sign. Question: "What should you do when you see
this sign?" Answers: a) look to see if there's traffic approaching and
proceed with caution. b) come to a full stop and look both ways. c)
accelerate through the intersection. d) close your eyes and pray as you
speed up.
It amazes me that anyone *fails* this exam, yet people do. And they
still are granted a license after they pass it, no matter how many times
they've failed it.
Not in Utah, but there's a 80-ish year old guy in Florida who has taken
his written drivers' license exam some 70+ times and he could still be
licensed to drive if he passed it.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
