On 3/26/2009 12:53 PM, andrel wrote:
> There are two sides to this and Jim's case. On the on hand you might
> argue that it is technically not driving on the other hand while
> drinking no though was given on how to get home safe. As an incentive to
> think next time before you start drinking and there is no one to take
> you home it might just work.

At the very least, it should be classified separately from DUI (Driving 
Under the Influence), if for no other reason than to show our 
appreciation for the fact that they did, in fact, pull over.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:56:04 -0700, Chambers wrote:

> On 3/26/2009 12:53 PM, andrel wrote:
>> There are two sides to this and Jim's case. On the on hand you might
>> argue that it is technically not driving on the other hand while
>> drinking no though was given on how to get home safe. As an incentive
>> to think next time before you start drinking and there is no one to
>> take you home it might just work.
> 
> At the very least, it should be classified separately from DUI (Driving
> Under the Influence), if for no other reason than to show our
> appreciation for the fact that they did, in fact, pull over.

I would think that the applicable law would be *if* the person were 
intoxicated *and* making a nuisance of themselves, "public intoxication" 
or something similar would already cover it.

But we seem to have a penchant in the US for legislating every little 
thing.  They've just passed a law here in Utah (effective May 1) that 
makes it illegal to text while driving.  But the cops can't tell the 
difference between texting (illegal) and dialing a phone (legal) or 
reading a map (legal) or changing the CD in the car stereo (also legal).

What they *should* do in my opinion is not legislate that *texting* is 
illegal, but legislate that *reckless driving* is illegal *regardless* of 
the reason.

What the local news stations are saying is that the purpose of the law is 
to increase the penalties if, say, someone causes an accident while 
texting - if they were texting (and that can be proven by subpoenaing 
records from the phone company), then the fines get steeper.

I say it doesn't matter WHY they were driving recklessly - make the fines 
or other penalties high enough, and people will eventually get the 
picture.  And if you happen to be able to do these things responsibly and 
don't cause problems, then it's not a big deal.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> I say it doesn't matter WHY they were driving recklessly - make the fines 
> or other penalties high enough, and people will eventually get the 
> picture. 

I disagree. Look at smoking pot, or teenagers sleeping with each other or 
sending naked pictures of themselves to their friends.

Clearly, smoking pot carries disproportionate penalties, yet does apparently 
nothing to reduce its prevalence.

And three cheers for spell checkers after a whiskey sour. Otherwise, this 
post would be illegible. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:32:19 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I say it doesn't matter WHY they were driving recklessly - make the
>> fines or other penalties high enough, and people will eventually get
>> the picture.
> 
> I disagree. Look at smoking pot, or teenagers sleeping with each other
> or sending naked pictures of themselves to their friends.
> 
> Clearly, smoking pot carries disproportionate penalties, yet does
> apparently nothing to reduce its prevalence.

Well, *most* of those illegal activities (with the possible exception of 
teens sleeping with each other) don't generally cause things like 
automobile accidents.  This is a generally different class of problem 
that we're talking about.

I think we've got enough laws to cover "reckless driving" without having 
to legislate "you can't eat a cheeseburger", "you can't talk on a phone", 
"you can't read a book".  Eventually we get to the point where someone 
does something the legislators didn't think of that's worse than all of 
those put together and then we have to watch our legislators argue about 
whether or not we should have a law that makes it illegal to, I don't 
know, pet puppies while driving.

It's just a waste of taxpayer money and legislator time.

That's what my point was, really.

> And three cheers for spell checkers after a whiskey sour. Otherwise,
> this post would be illegible. :-)

LOL.  My wife has a habit of writing on Livejournal after having had a 
bit to drink.  Her friends really enjoy those posts. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Well, *most* of those illegal activities (with the possible exception of 
> teens sleeping with each other) don't generally cause things like 
> automobile accidents.  This is a generally different class of problem 
> that we're talking about.

Fair dinkum.

> I think we've got enough laws to cover "reckless driving" without having 
> to legislate "you can't eat a cheeseburger", "you can't talk on a phone", 
> "you can't read a book".

I think part of the problem is that people are really bad at judging 
low-risk activities.  People wouldn't know that talking on the phone is 
dangerous if you didn't get the word out, and legislators get the word out 
by passing laws.

Granted, if you don't realize that trying to type a text message while you 
drive is dangerous, you're stupid, but...

I think that comes from when they pass laws saying "you can't talk on the 
phone", but people don't want to adjust their habits of doing work while 
driving.

> LOL.  My wife has a habit of writing on Livejournal after having had a 
> bit to drink.  Her friends really enjoy those posts. :-)

It's funky. I have no problem at all, but even one or two mouthfuls of wine 
are enough to multiply my typos several-fold. Clearly you can be impaired 
and not feel it in the least. Whether it's bad enough to ruin your driving 
depends on how well you drive before that, I guess.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:32:19 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

>And three cheers for spell checkers after a whiskey sour

Whiskey sour Euch!

The only thing you should put in whisky is more whisky ;)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 09:13:44 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Well, *most* of those illegal activities (with the possible exception
>> of teens sleeping with each other) don't generally cause things like
>> automobile accidents.  This is a generally different class of problem
>> that we're talking about.
> 
> Fair dinkum.

Ironically, I read what I wrote again and should clarify that I don't 
think teens sleeping together causes automobile accidents. ;-)

>> I think we've got enough laws to cover "reckless driving" without
>> having to legislate "you can't eat a cheeseburger", "you can't talk on
>> a phone", "you can't read a book".
> 
> I think part of the problem is that people are really bad at judging
> low-risk activities.  People wouldn't know that talking on the phone is
> dangerous if you didn't get the word out, and legislators get the word
> out by passing laws.

Well, I'd say that *some* people are really bad at judging low-risk 
activities.  But why penalize the rest of us for it?

For example, I tend to talk on the phone when I'm driving to and from the 
office (which happens about once every 2 weeks these days).  It's 90 
minutes on the road round-trip and generally a pretty boring drive.

So I'll talk to my mom or my wife while I'm driving home.  They know I'm 
in the car and paying attention to the traffic around me, and if I don't 
respond immediately it's because I'm dealing with something.

But I also have an effective way to divide my attention during that 
drive.  When I get into town, things change, so I tend to get off the 
phone, but on the freeway it's an entirely different matter.

> Granted, if you don't realize that trying to type a text message while
> you drive is dangerous, you're stupid, but...

Well, yeah, but at the same time, if I'm out driving (as I was today) and 
need to let my kid know we're on the way home, I'll ask my wife (who 
doesn't know how to use my phone to send text messages) to let me know 
when the light changes, and send him a message while I'm at the light.  
If I don't finish writing, fine, driving comes first.  But not while 
moving.

The new law in Utah would make that illegal.  However, the cops have no 
way of knowing that's what I'm doing.

> I think that comes from when they pass laws saying "you can't talk on
> the phone", but people don't want to adjust their habits of doing work
> while driving.

True.  Many people can multitask.  When someone schedules a meeting for 
7:30 AM, I'm not going to be in the office for it - not a chance that I'm 
up at 5:30 AM most mornings just so I can be to the office for an 7:30 AM 
meeting.  But if I have something I need to be to at 9, an hour meeting 
from 7:30 to 8:30 leaves me insufficient time to get there, so I'm very 
likely going to be on the call while I'm driving.

>> LOL.  My wife has a habit of writing on Livejournal after having had a
>> bit to drink.  Her friends really enjoy those posts. :-)
> 
> It's funky. I have no problem at all, but even one or two mouthfuls of
> wine are enough to multiply my typos several-fold. Clearly you can be
> impaired and not feel it in the least. Whether it's bad enough to ruin
> your driving depends on how well you drive before that, I guess.

True.  And how well attuned you are to your own abilities and driving 
habits.

I've only once, for example, been so drunk that I couldn't remember what 
had happened (the time I got home and wasn't sure); but the memory did 
return after a few days (and let's just say I was damned lucky).  So I 
know my tolerance and I don't get anywhere near it now.

But I think a lot of people *use* drinking as an excuse to act stupid - 
even on that night when I didn't remember getting home, when I started to 
remember things the next day, I recalled that I still didn't do stupid 
things that were out of character for me (confirmed by the friends I was 
with).  And "stupid" is generally not in character for me.

Well, apart from "stupid" driving home - that was out of character, but I 
was still pretty young and didn't know my limits then as well as I do now.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 18:13:13 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:32:19 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 
>>And three cheers for spell checkers after a whiskey sour
> 
> Whiskey sour Euch!
> 
> The only thing you should put in whisky is more whisky ;)

LOL

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Ironically, I read what I wrote again and should clarify that I don't 
> think teens sleeping together causes automobile accidents. ;-)

Not *automobile* accidents, no.  Parking While Intoxicated causes accidents.

> But I also have an effective way to divide my attention during that 
> drive.  When I get into town, things change, so I tend to get off the 
> phone, but on the freeway it's an entirely different matter.

How do you know?

> The new law in Utah would make that illegal.  However, the cops have no 
> way of knowing that's what I'm doing.

Then pull off to the side and do it. :-) Seems easy enough.

> likely going to be on the call while I'm driving.

At least here you get to have hands-free conversations. Not that it's all 
that much better.

>> impaired and not feel it in the least. Whether it's bad enough to ruin
>> your driving depends on how well you drive before that, I guess.
> 
> True.  And how well attuned you are to your own abilities and driving 
> habits.

That, and how much room you leave, and etc. I'm not a very good driver any 
more, since I no longer commute very far if at all, but I'm smart enough to 
know that and leave plenty of space around myself, for example.

> I've only once, for example, been so drunk that I couldn't remember what 
> had happened 

I've never been that drunk. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

On 29-3-2009 7:42, Jim Henderson wrote:

> I've only once, for example, been so drunk that I couldn't remember what 
> had happened (the time I got home and wasn't sure); but the memory did 
> return after a few days (and let's just say I was damned lucky).  So I 
> know my tolerance and I don't get anywhere near it now.

Long before you notice anything yourself your reaction time already goes 
up. You still feel the same and as long as nothing unexpected happens 
you are just as able to drive as always. One of the reasons why the 
alcohol limit is so low that most people think they could drink at least 
three more beer before they their driving is even minutely impaired is 
because of that. I.e. that people are unable to objectively look at 
themselves after consuming alcohol. Possibly because all the internal 
things you normally use to evaluate how well you are performing are 
slowed down by the same amount.

Post a reply to this message

On 29 Mar 2009 01:42:17 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>
>Ironically, I read what I wrote again and should clarify that I don't 
>think teens sleeping together causes automobile accidents. ;-)
>

It can if they are driving, I would think.

>
>Well, I'd say that *some* people are really bad at judging low-risk 
>activities.  But why penalize the rest of us for it?
>

Because everyone thinks that they are the exception.

>For example, I tend to talk on the phone when I'm driving to and from the 
>office (which happens about once every 2 weeks these days).  It's 90 
>minutes on the road round-trip and generally a pretty boring drive.
>
>So I'll talk to my mom or my wife while I'm driving home.  They know I'm 
>in the car and paying attention to the traffic around me, and if I don't 
>respond immediately it's because I'm dealing with something.
>
>But I also have an effective way to divide my attention during that 
>drive.  When I get into town, things change, so I tend to get off the 
>phone, but on the freeway it's an entirely different matter.

"tend to get off the phone" Does that mean that sometimes you don't?
>
>> Granted, if you don't realize that trying to type a text message while
>> you drive is dangerous, you're stupid, but...
>

The same could be said for talking on the phone.

After bumping my motorbike into a wall when parking 40 years ago after drinking
2 pints of beer. (The limit was considered to be 3 pints.) I've never driven
after drinking and I like a drink. I also switch my phone off when driving, If
I've left it on by mistake and it rings I ignore it then pull over to check it
when I can.

Have you ever heard anyone saying "I drive better after a couple of drinks"?

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> 
> Have you ever heard anyone saying "I drive better after a couple of drinks"?
> 

They (yes, the famous they - I don't remember which magazine it was)
tested it at Finland some years ago. They had a computer with driving
simulator and everyone in the test took a one drink between driving
sessions. The results show that after 2-3 drinks most of them actually
were driving better than without. OTOH they drove the same track over
and over again (they had to to make sure that the results are
comparable) and learned how the track goes :). I guess no-one is
surprised to hear that there wasn't people surprisingly running to the
track oslt involved.

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 19:04:56 +0300, Eero Ahonen
<aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid> wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>> 
>> Have you ever heard anyone saying "I drive better after a couple of drinks"?
>> 
>
>They (yes, the famous they - I don't remember which magazine it was)
>tested it at Finland some years ago. They had a computer with driving
>simulator and everyone in the test took a one drink between driving
>sessions. The results show that after 2-3 drinks most of them actually
>were driving better than without. OTOH they drove the same track over
>and over again (they had to to make sure that the results are
>comparable) and learned how the track goes :). I guess no-one is
>surprised to hear that there wasn't people surprisingly running to the
>track oslt involved.
>
>-Aero

That's all very well when things go well but what happens when something
unexpected happens? Faster reflexes and better judgement?

OSLT > Or Something Like That ?
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Eero Ahonen wrote:
> The results show that after 2-3 drinks most of them actually
> were driving better than without. 

So they lacked a control group, which would have told them how much of the 
improvement was repetition.  Bad scientist. No grant.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 12:07:21 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 29 Mar 2009 01:42:17 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Ironically, I read what I wrote again and should clarify that I don't
>>think teens sleeping together causes automobile accidents. ;-)
>>
> It can if they are driving, I would think.

Point.  But even sleeping separately while driving can cause automobile 
accidents. :-)

>>Well, I'd say that *some* people are really bad at judging low-risk
>>activities.  But why penalize the rest of us for it?
>>
> Because everyone thinks that they are the exception.

80% of drivers think they're above average.  What scares me about that 
statistic is that 20% think they're below average and they're still on 
the roads.

> "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.

>>> Granted, if you don't realize that trying to type a text message while
>>> you drive is dangerous, you're stupid, but...
>>
> The same could be said for talking on the phone.
> 
> After bumping my motorbike into a wall when parking 40 years ago after
> drinking 2 pints of beer. (The limit was considered to be 3 pints.) I've
> never driven after drinking and I like a drink. I also switch my phone
> off when driving, If I've left it on by mistake and it rings I ignore it
> then pull over to check it when I can.
> 
> Have you ever heard anyone saying "I drive better after a couple of
> drinks"?

I have, and I think it's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard - 
and I generally will tell people who say that exactly that.

That said, a good friend of mine (who lost his license as a result of the 
incident) ended up with a shattered ankle after a head-on collision.  He 
was over the legal limit, and the other driver died in the accident.  But 
being the freak he is, it was 100% the other guy's fault - the other car 
was over the centre line on a long curve and there's no way my friend 
could've avoided hitting him.

The constables on the scene - as well as the dead driver's family - felt 
badly for him because his license was suspended.

The guess is that the main reason he didn't die in the accident was 
because he was relaxed as a result of the alcohol.  If he hadn't had a 
few pints ahead of time, his injuries would probably have been more 
severe or he might've died.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 19:04:56 +0300, Eero Ahonen wrote:

> Stephen wrote:
>> 
>> Have you ever heard anyone saying "I drive better after a couple of
>> drinks"?
>> 
>> 
> They (yes, the famous they - I don't remember which magazine it was)
> tested it at Finland some years ago. They had a computer with driving
> simulator and everyone in the test took a one drink between driving
> sessions. The results show that after 2-3 drinks most of them actually
> were driving better than without. OTOH they drove the same track over
> and over again (they had to to make sure that the results are
> comparable) and learned how the track goes :). I guess no-one is
> surprised to hear that there wasn't people surprisingly running to the
> track oslt involved.
> 
> -Aero

Well, ISTR that most Finnish drivers go through what is described by some 
as the most intensive driving course in the world, and that the exams are 
actually difficult.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 10:02:50 +0200, andrel wrote:

> On 29-3-2009 7:42, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> I've only once, for example, been so drunk that I couldn't remember
>> what had happened (the time I got home and wasn't sure); but the memory
>> did return after a few days (and let's just say I was damned lucky). 
>> So I know my tolerance and I don't get anywhere near it now.
> 
> Long before you notice anything yourself your reaction time already goes
> up. 

This is definitely true; however I learned a long time ago how to judge 
that.  However the unexpected is something you can't predict, which is 
why I stay off the road until my reactions are better.

If I'm at a friend's house and expect to drink more than a pint or two of 
beer over the course of the evening, I ask them to hold my keys for me 
and to not give them back if it's clear I'm in no condition to drive.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 22:57:36 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Ironically, I read what I wrote again and should clarify that I don't
>> think teens sleeping together causes automobile accidents. ;-)
> 
> Not *automobile* accidents, no.  Parking While Intoxicated causes
> accidents.

LOL!

>> But I also have an effective way to divide my attention during that
>> drive.  When I get into town, things change, so I tend to get off the
>> phone, but on the freeway it's an entirely different matter.
> 
> How do you know?

I know because I drive this stretch of I-15 very regularly and because I 
know how I divide my attention.  For example, I often don't know exactly 
where I am on the road (not important information to safely driving on 
the freeway) but I know the position of every car in my immediate 
vicinity.  Both ahead of *and* behind me as well.  I do that when I'm 
driving "not on the phone" as well, but I also tend to have a better idea 
where I am on the freeway (relative to the office and home).

IOW, I filter out the unimportant things to driving safely on the road 
and my attention is on those things that are instead of listening to the 
radio, seeing how far I have to go to get home, and so on.

There are lots of things that people process while they're driving that 
are unimportant to not being in a wreck.  I switch that part of my 
attention to the conversation, just as I would if the person were in the 
car with me.

But they *always* know I'm driving - often I even start the conversation 
with "I'm on my way home now".  I also occasionally say "sorry, I didn't 
hear that, can you repeat" because my full attention was needed for 
something happening around me (car speeding past on the right, accident 
on the median causing traffic slowing - things like that).

>> The new law in Utah would make that illegal.  However, the cops have no
>> way of knowing that's what I'm doing.
> 
> Then pull off to the side and do it. :-) Seems easy enough.

That's not the point, though.  The point is that the law is unenforceable 
anyways, so it's really a waste of the legislator's time.

While we're legislating things that cannot possibly be enforced, let's 
also make it illegal to clip your toenails on a Sunday night if you're 
home alone.

>> likely going to be on the call while I'm driving.
> 
> At least here you get to have hands-free conversations. Not that it's
> all that much better.

I think it does make a huge difference.  For one thing, if you aren't 
talking hands-free, you don't have both hands on the wheel.  You have 
less control over the 1-1.5 tonnes of vehicle you're driving.

>>> impaired and not feel it in the least. Whether it's bad enough to ruin
>>> your driving depends on how well you drive before that, I guess.
>> 
>> True.  And how well attuned you are to your own abilities and driving
>> habits.
> 
> That, and how much room you leave, and etc. I'm not a very good driver
> any more, since I no longer commute very far if at all, but I'm smart
> enough to know that and leave plenty of space around myself, for
> example.

Yes, that's a very important piece as well.  I *always* try to leave a 
fair amount of space around me on all sides (if I can) and have a 
constantly changing focus as to where I *could* go if I had to shift 
lanes quickly.  I'm constantly updating my situational awareness; I think 
a lot of drivers don't think about what's going on behind them.   A 
couple weeks ago, I hit a patch of ice on a surface street (not on the 
phone, very early in the morning and I hadn't gotten on the freeway 
yet).  I had left plenty of room ahead of me to get stopped (in spite of 
not knowing there was ice on the roads) but the car behind me hadn't.

I think most drivers would've ended up being rear-ended.  I got slowed 
down to a point where I wasn't going to hit the car in front of me, saw 
the headlights of the car behind me disappear below the deck of the 
trunk, cranked the wheel to the left and took my foot off the brake; the 
wheels gripped and the car pulled gently into the center lane, avoiding 
being hit from behind.

The driver in the car behind me *clearly* was unprepared, and when the 
light turned, he maintained a significant gap behind me.

>> I've only once, for example, been so drunk that I couldn't remember
>> what had happened
> 
> I've never been that drunk. :-)

I think you are very fortunate in that.  I generally don't drink a lot 
any more, but there were a few years where it was a common thing for me.  
We've got bottles and bottles of beer in the fridge, for example, that 
have been there for months.  We actually use it more for cooking than for 
drinking.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> 
> That's all very well when things go well but what happens when something
> unexpected happens? Faster reflexes and better judgement?

Exactly. And that they drove the track AFAIK first time ever purely
sober and started the drinks after that, learning while driving, even
though alcohol was making the driving worse, makes the results unreliable.

> OSLT > Or Something Like That ?

Yep.

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> 
> So they lacked a control group, which would have told them how much of
> the improvement was repetition.  Bad scientist. No grant.
> 

Agreed. It was a test by some automobile magazine. They were simply to
prove that the alcohol makes things worse, but they kind of missed
theier target.

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
> Well, ISTR that most Finnish drivers go through what is described by some 
> as the most intensive driving course in the world, and that the exams are 
> actually difficult.

Either I can't comply or I am that better-than-average driver that
something like 80% are told to think of themselves (I did drive and get
more lessons than average driving student, as my father teached me).
Once I hit 18, it was pretty clear go-through for the exams and through
all of them (a picture exam, theoretical questions and driving exam) via
one shot. Last summer I upgraded my license so I can pull hevier loads -
 I trained for one night (with a car I've never driven before - luckily
WV Transporter T4 2,4D Syncro is a damn easy car for such exams) and
tried out the picture test with a computer program couple of times at
the same morning I was about to have the exams (4 this time, 10
questions, 50 pictures, handling exam and half an hour of driving) and
I'd say it was easy. OTOH the guy who took the driving exam said it was
actually a pleasant drive :). I guess something like 100Mm in more
hectic traffic than it was there teaches you something ;).

> Jim

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
> 80% of drivers think they're above average.  What scares me about that 
> statistic is that 20% think they're below average and they're still on 
> the roads.
> 

I still haven't seen any document, which says what those people think is
an average. Those 20 percent might think they are slower and always
harassing someone, while they actually are driving safely in theier own
limits.

Plain numbers are just plain numbers. That 80/20 -sharing proves nor
says nothing, 'cause they don't say, which kind of driver (economic,
safe, fast...) is the best one.

> Jim

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

On 29-3-2009 20:40, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 10:02:50 +0200, andrel wrote:
> 
>> On 29-3-2009 7:42, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>
>>> I've only once, for example, been so drunk that I couldn't remember
>>> what had happened (the time I got home and wasn't sure); but the memory
>>> did return after a few days (and let's just say I was damned lucky). 
>>> So I know my tolerance and I don't get anywhere near it now.
>> Long before you notice anything yourself your reaction time already goes
>> up. 
> 
> This is definitely true; however I learned a long time ago how to judge 
> that.  However the unexpected is something you can't predict, which is 
> why I stay off the road until my reactions are better.
> 
> If I'm at a friend's house and expect to drink more than a pint or two of 
> beer over the course of the evening, I ask them to hold my keys for me 
> and to not give them back if it's clear I'm in no condition to drive.

To which my predictable response would be that they can not judge 
either. But that is so predictable that I won't do it. ;)

Post a reply to this message

On 29-3-2009 20:38, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 19:04:56 +0300, Eero Ahonen wrote:
> 
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> Have you ever heard anyone saying "I drive better after a couple of
>>> drinks"?
>>>
>>>
>> They (yes, the famous they - I don't remember which magazine it was)
>> tested it at Finland some years ago. They had a computer with driving
>> simulator and everyone in the test took a one drink between driving
>> sessions. The results show that after 2-3 drinks most of them actually
>> were driving better than without. OTOH they drove the same track over
>> and over again (they had to to make sure that the results are
>> comparable) and learned how the track goes :). I guess no-one is
>> surprised to hear that there wasn't people surprisingly running to the
>> track oslt involved.
>>
>> -Aero
> 
> Well, ISTR that most Finnish drivers go through what is described by some 
> as the most intensive driving course in the world, and that the exams are 
> actually difficult.

The Dutch is also very intensive. I think less than 40% get it on their 
first exam. It is preceded by a theoretical part that has even a bit 
more failures. It took me about 2 years and 4 tries to get my license. 
The retries mainly because the examinators don't like the style of 
driving of a 40 year old intellectual. Or at least that was the 
explanation of my instructor. He predicted that after a couple of tries 
I could ask for another type of examination and that I would succeed 
then the first time. Which I did. It took that examinator about 100m to 
figure out why I would never pass the normal exam and why that was 
wrong. I, of course, got my theory in one try (twice*).
I think that the everage cost of a driver license here is a couple of 
thousand euro's.
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?

*) because it is only valid for one year.

Post a reply to this message

On 29-3-2009 20:37, Jim Henderson wrote:

> 80% of drivers think they're above average.  What scares me about that 
> statistic is that 20% think they're below average and they're still on 
> the roads.

I assume they think that they are below average but still better than 
that 40% of morons that they normally see on the road.

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> The Dutch is also very intensive. I think less than 40% get it on their
> first exam. It is preceded by a theoretical part that has even a bit
> more failures. It took me about 2 years and 4 tries to get my license.

Why then, at weekends, are the German motorways crowded with Dutch people who
still cannot drive? :P

(sorry, just jumping on an old stereotype ;))

> 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?

I bet the Dutch guy staying in the US: They don't recognize anything that comes
from outside America The Beautiful.

But I bet it's just one drive round the local supermarket car park. In a car
with automatic transmission.

A US citizen staying in Germany would have to fill in tons of paperwork instead,
I guess. Probably to confirm that he is able to drive from his home to the
Strassenverkehrsamt, over to a photographer, the US embassy, half a dozeon
other Aemter, and finally back to the Strassenverkehrsamt... or something like
that :P

The German do recognize stuff from outside Germany - but only if it can be
stapled, stamped and filed ;)

Post a reply to this message

On 29-3-2009 23:37, clipka wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> The Dutch is also very intensive. I think less than 40% get it on their
>> first exam. It is preceded by a theoretical part that has even a bit
>> more failures. It took me about 2 years and 4 tries to get my license.
> 
> Why then, at weekends, are the German motorways crowded with Dutch people who
> still cannot drive? :P

Because we would like to go by bike but they were stolen by the Germans 
in the war.

> (sorry, just jumping on an old stereotype ;))

ditto. ;)


If it were true *) a more reasonable answer would be that we are not 
familiar with driving on motorways without traffic jams every 5 minutes.

*) I have seen Germans driving here, so I am not immediately convinced.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 17:37:22 EDT, "clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:

>But I bet it's just one drive round the local supermarket car park. In a car
>with automatic transmission.

When I passed my UK driving test (1st time) about 30 years ago. I'd had two
driving lessons, went through a red traffic light and parked with four wheels on
the pavement (sidewalk). Go figure!
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 29 Mar 2009 14:37:37 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>
>Point.  But even sleeping separately while driving can cause automobile 
>accidents. :-)
>

Very True :-)

>>>Well, I'd say that *some* people are really bad at judging low-risk
>>>activities.  But why penalize the rest of us for it?
>>>
>> Because everyone thinks that they are the exception.
>
>80% of drivers think they're above average.  What scares me about that 
>statistic is that 20% think they're below average and they're still on 
>the roads.
>

Average? 
Besides that not being above average does not mean being below average. And even
if you think that you are below average that does not mean that you should not
be allowed to drive or 50% of drivers would loose their licences. Then 50% of
the remainder would be below the new average u.s.w.

>> "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.

>> Have you ever heard anyone saying "I drive better after a couple of
>> drinks"?
>
>I have, and I think it's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard - 
>and I generally will tell people who say that exactly that.
>

Me too.

>That said, a good friend of mine (who lost his license as a result of the 
>incident) ended up with a shattered ankle after a head-on collision.  He 
>was over the legal limit, and the other driver died in the accident.  But 
>being the freak he is, it was 100% the other guy's fault - the other car 
>was over the centre line on a long curve and there's no way my friend 
>could've avoided hitting him.
>
>The constables on the scene - as well as the dead driver's family - felt 
>badly for him because his license was suspended.
>

I suppose that you had to be there.

>The guess is that the main reason he didn't die in the accident was 
>because he was relaxed as a result of the alcohol.  If he hadn't had a 
>few pints ahead of time, his injuries would probably have been more 
>severe or he might've died.

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.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

> If it were true *) a more reasonable answer would be that we are not 
> familiar with driving on motorways without traffic jams every 5 minutes.

Or with motorways where people are regularly wanting to go 160 km/hr or 
faster, and are not afraid to show you they want to :-)

Actually the biggest difference I noticed between UK and German motorways 
are that here in Germany most drivers are really thinking about the other 
cars on the road rather than just themselves.  For example, if they see you 
are behind and have come up quite quickly, they will move over into even a 
small gap just to let you pass, this would NEVER happen in the UK, in fact 
the opposite happens, people deliberately don't move even into massive gaps 
if they notice you are daring to go faster than 70 mph.

Post a reply to this message

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. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 23:35:25 +0300, Eero Ahonen wrote:

> (I did drive and get
> more lessons than average driving student, as my father teached me)

I didn't ahead of getting my learner's permit, but similar to you, I had 
both classes and behind-the-wheel lessons (in an automatic) and my dad 
taught me because both of our cars were manual transmissions.  The 
driving school uses automatics because replacing transmissions is 
expensive.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:30:06 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>>80% of drivers think they're above average.  What scares me about that
>>statistic is that 20% think they're below average and they're still on
>>the roads.
>>
> Average?
> Besides that not being above average does not mean being below average.
> And even if you think that you are below average that does not mean that
> you should not be allowed to drive or 50% of drivers would loose their
> licences. Then 50% of the remainder would be below the new average
> u.s.w.

Now you're bringing logic into it - but technically only one person could 
be at the 50% mark. :-)

>>> "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.

>>That said, a good friend of mine (who lost his license as a result of
>>the incident) ended up with a shattered ankle after a head-on collision.
>> He was over the legal limit, and the other driver died in the accident.
>> But being the freak he is, it was 100% the other guy's fault - the
>>other car was over the centre line on a long curve and there's no way my
>>friend could've avoided hitting him.
>>
>>The constables on the scene - as well as the dead driver's family - felt
>>badly for him because his license was suspended.
>>
> I suppose that you had to be there.

Very likely.

>>The guess is that the main reason he didn't die in the accident was
>>because he was relaxed as a result of the alcohol.  If he hadn't had a
>>few pints ahead of time, his injuries would probably have been more
>>severe or he might've died.
> 
> 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.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 23:20:56 +0200, andrel wrote:

> On 29-3-2009 20:37, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> 80% of drivers think they're above average.  What scares me about that
>> statistic is that 20% think they're below average and they're still on
>> the roads.
> 
> I assume they think that they are below average but still better than
> that 40% of morons that they normally see on the road.

LOL

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 23:39:29 +0300, Eero Ahonen wrote:

> I still haven't seen any document, which says what those people think is
> an average. Those 20 percent might think they are slower and always
> harassing someone, while they actually are driving safely in theier own
> limits.
> 
> Plain numbers are just plain numbers. That 80/20 -sharing proves nor
> says nothing, 'cause they don't say, which kind of driver (economic,
> safe, fast...) is the best one.

I've heard it said that 78.795% of all statistics are made up. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

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. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

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.

>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

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

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

> 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.

Haha reminds me of some of the questions in the UK written test ~10 years 
ago (maybe it's harder now?)

Q: You come up behind a slower vehicle, what should you do:
1: Drive as close as possible behind so you can overtake quickly
2: Press the horn to try and make them speed up
3: Keep a safe distance behind
4: Flash your lights

Although there were ones where you had to remember the colours of all the 
cats-eyes (I didn't even notice there were different coloured ones on the 
motorway until this!), stopping distances from various speeds etc.  For a 
geek like me I just calculated and memorised what acceleration value they 
were assuming for wet/dry roads :-)  You only needed to score 30/35 to pass, 
most of the answers were just plain common sense - or rather, you had to 
think what would some really sensible driver do in this situation :-).

Post a reply to this message

On 30 Mar 2009 19:03:34 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>
>And now you're in the wrong thread. ;-)
>

Well so I am.

>
>>>> 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.
>

It is part of their mission statement, I believe.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 08:47:23 +0200, scott wrote:

>> 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.
> 
> Haha reminds me of some of the questions in the UK written test ~10
> years ago (maybe it's harder now?)
> 
> Q: You come up behind a slower vehicle, what should you do: 1: Drive as
> close as possible behind so you can overtake quickly 2: Press the horn
> to try and make them speed up 3: Keep a safe distance behind
> 4: Flash your lights
> 
> Although there were ones where you had to remember the colours of all
> the cats-eyes (I didn't even notice there were different coloured ones
> on the motorway until this!), stopping distances from various speeds
> etc.  For a geek like me I just calculated and memorised what
> acceleration value they were assuming for wet/dry roads :-)  You only
> needed to score 30/35 to pass, most of the answers were just plain
> common sense - or rather, you had to think what would some really
> sensible driver do in this situation :-).

LOL

Reminds me of a "quiz" we had to take here recently at work.  Sit through 
a 15 minute online presentation and then answer 4 questions.  The 4 
questions were on the level of:

1.  A duck is:

a) a fish
b) a cat
c) a duck
d) a dog

And if I were being facetious about it, I'd also add:

e) none of the above
f) all of the above

;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 3/29/2009 9:04 AM, Eero Ahonen wrote:
> The results show that after 2-3 drinks most of them actually
> were driving better than without. OTOH they drove the same track over
> and over again (they had to to make sure that the results are
> comparable) and learned how the track goes :).

Mythbusters did the same thing, and even one drink significantly lowered 
their driving scores.  Of course, I don't remember if the "accidents" 
were randomized or not (I'm sure learning the course helps).

Whether or not its true, I'd recommend not risking it.  So would my 
uncle, who lost a leg to a drunk driver about a year ago.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message