|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: AdrianAdrian Date: Sep 14, 2008 23:41
Derek Geldard miniac.demon.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:
>>That you acknowledge many are not competent to pass the basic standard
>>of a driving test proves just how poor many are.
> There are indeed many very poor drivers.
>
> I just don't accept that being able to replicate the party tricks that
> learner drivers learn by rote is an indicator of a good driver with say
> 30 years experience.
It's not.
But _not_ being able to "replicate the party tricks" (by which I'll
charitably assume you mean "drive safely and competently for half an
hour") is a pretty fucking good indicator of somebody who is A LONG WAY
from being a good driver.
|
| |
|
| | 4 Comments |
|
|
Author: MortimerMortimer Date: Sep 15, 2008 00:21
> Derek Geldard miniac.demon.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much
> like they were saying:
>>>>That you acknowledge many are not competent to pass the basic standard
>>>of a driving test proves just how poor many are.
>
>> There are indeed many very poor drivers.
>>
>> I just don't accept that being able to replicate the party tricks that
>> learner drivers learn by rote is an indicator of a good driver with say
>> 30 years experience.
>
> It's not.
>
> But _not_ being able to "replicate the party tricks" (by which I'll
> charitably assume you mean "drive safely and competently for half an
> hour") is a pretty fucking good indicator of somebody who is A LONG WAY
> from being a good driver. ...
|
| Show full article (2.26Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: Tony DragonTony Dragon Date: Sep 15, 2008 00:38
Mortimer wrote:
>> Derek Geldard miniac.demon.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much
>> like they were saying:
>>>>>> That you acknowledge many are not competent to pass the basic standard
>>>> of a driving test proves just how poor many are.
>>> There are indeed many very poor drivers.
>>>
>>> I just don't accept that being able to replicate the party tricks that
>>> learner drivers learn by rote is an indicator of a good driver with say
>>> 30 years experience.
>> It's not.
>>
>> But _not_ being able to "replicate the party tricks" (by which I'll
>> charitably assume you mean "drive safely and competently for half an
>> hour") is a pretty fucking good indicator of somebody who is A LONG WAY
>> from being a good driver.
> ...
|
| Show full article (2.50Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: MortimerMortimer Date: Sep 15, 2008 00:46
"Peter Hill" nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:361sc4l5ls3jbefv4p5ih1a6aimlosffpf@4ax.com...> On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 02:17:09 +0100, Derek Geldard
> miniac.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Fact that so many cars are
> parked nose in to the driveway, even when obstruction of view by high
> walls or trees make the reversing off near sucide and requires other
> drivers to make allowance, indicates that many could/would/should
> fail.
The debate about driving forwards into a parking space or driveway versus
reversing into it is one that divides the world! The IAM prefer reversing
into spaces, but I could make a good case for driving forwards:
- It is easier to drive forwards (car in normal mode with steering wheels at
front of direction of travel, and with good visibility) when doing the
high-precision part of the manoeuvre which requires you to be positioned
accurately side-to-side and not to hit the car/wall ahead of you, and to
leave the reversing for when you've got bags of space (the lane between the
car-parking spaces)
|
| Show full article (2.10Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: MortimerMortimer Date: Sep 15, 2008 00:52
"Tony Dragon" btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:FdydnczfN-x9jVPVnZ2dnUVZ8uednZ2d@bt.com...>> The driving test would have required me to omit the initial reverse and
>> to make several shunting movements, whereas my initial reverse reduced
>> this to just one shunt. I did not go through the slavish ritual of
>> applying the handbrake each time I came to rest and releasing it after
>> I'd selelected the opposite gear.
>
> Does the driving test require that?
> When I took my test the requirement was to turn in the road using forward
> & reverse gears.
Well it was 1980 when I passed, so things have changed, but in my day
although the wording was "turn in the road using forward and reverse gears;
try not to touch the kerb", there was an unspoken but strict requirement
than the first movement had to be forwards rather than backwards (so my
initial reversing into the layby to reduce the number of shuttling movements
across the road would have been verboten) and that you had to apply the
handbrake between each change from forwards and reverse. And of course you
must not cross your hands or move either hand past the 12-o-clock position!
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Mike BarnesMike Barnes Date: Sep 15, 2008 01:44
In uk.transport, Derek Geldard wrote:
>On 13 Sep 2008 10:21:50 GMT, Adrian gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>Once every decade? I'd be happy to live with that, in return for a very
>>large number of incompetent fuckwits being removed from the roads. £30/yr
>>(although the vast majority of people don't have a bike licence or need a
>>trailer licence, so it'd actually be £85, or considerably less than a
>>tenner a year) is a tiny proportion of the cost of driving. It's also
>>very likely to result in much larger savings on insurance premiums.
>
>How to bring the country to a halt in one easy lesson.
>
>The number of failures would very likely be absolutely catastrophic.
>
>Remember most drivers were coached to pass the test the first time
>round and after decades of driving have picked up habits and
>"accomodations" which mean they drive as normal drivers do IE with the
>purpose of accomplishing the journey in a safe and timely manner,
>rather than as a party piece demonstration of what has been learned by ...
|
| Show full article (1.27Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Mike BarnesMike Barnes Date: Sep 15, 2008 01:45
In uk.transport, tim..... wrote:
>
>"Mike Barnes" bluebottle.com> wrote in message
>news:69sodmIfxTzIFwXl@g52lk5g23lkgk3lk345g.invalid...>> In uk.transport, tim..... wrote:
>>>> "Brimstone" yahoo.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding
>>>> much
>>>> like they were saying:>>>>> 'It's another stealth tax. Drivers will be very annoyed.'
>>>>
>>>> What complete bollocks.
>>>
>>>I'm annoyed about it.
>>>
>>>I paid for a license to my 70th birthday when I got the paper one.
>>>
>>>If the Government want to change the format I see no reason why I should ...
|
| Show full article (1.68Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: KeithKeith Date: Sep 15, 2008 02:07
On 15 Sep 2008 at 8:44, Mike Barnes wrote:
> That's assuming that the ten-yearly test would use the same criteria
> as the original test. Why would anyone think that?
If something is a serious or dangerous fault in an L-test, basic
consistency would surely force the DSA to declare the same fault to be
serious or dangerous in a re-test too, even though in the real world all
drivers (apart from a few IAMers who wear their self-righteousness on
their sleeves) commit innumerable such "faults".
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Mike BarnesMike Barnes Date: Sep 15, 2008 02:36
In uk.transport, Mortimer wrote:
>"Peter Hill" nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:361sc4l5ls3jbefv4p5ih1a6aimlosffpf@4ax.com...>> On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 02:17:09 +0100, Derek Geldard
>> miniac.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Fact that so many cars are
>> parked nose in to the driveway, even when obstruction of view by high
>> walls or trees make the reversing off near sucide and requires other
>> drivers to make allowance, indicates that many could/would/should
>> fail.>
>The debate about driving forwards into a parking space or driveway versus
>reversing into it is one that divides the world! The IAM prefer reversing
>into spaces,
I'm with the IAM on this one.
>but I could make a good case for driving forwards:
Go on then!
|
| Show full article (3.48Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Derek GeldardDerek Geldard Date: Sep 15, 2008 02:53
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 08:38:06 +0100, Tony Dragon
btinternet.com> wrote:>
>Does the driving test require that?
>When I took my test the requirement was to turn in the road using
>forward & reverse gears.
That was the spec. for that manouver, perhaps with some reference to
without touching the kerbs.
However during the test the car has to be kept under control at all
times, the definition of "under control" being extended to mean that
it should either be being driven forwards in gear, or driven in
reverse in gear or stationary with the handbrake on.
This changes a simple proceadure of turning the car round into a great
quasi-religous ceremony that takes so long that nowadays the traffic
would be bearing down upon you from both directions well before you
were half way through it.
Derek
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
