Kids will become better drivers when they either add petals to Playstation/Xbox or put controllers in cars.
Why don't they teach kids to actually drive?
- Thread starter MarkC
- Start date
- Status
you have the right to drive a car on your own land
Same here, minus the crashing part (still accident free). One time when I was test driving my Integra before purchasing it, someone decided to pull out of a place of business in front of me (about 10 feet in front of me, while i was already going 35mph in the snowy weather) and luckily I was able to avoid the accident by not instinctively jamming on the brakes, but rather tapping my brakes (i wasn't aware the car had ABS at the time, was used to my Altima which didn't have it) and then letting off the brakes and moving into the other lane as quickly, smoothly and safely as possible for the distance given. There were no cars behind me for miles, btw. She just HAD to pull out in front of me, without looking before going (she ran a stop sign too). Almost took out my new car before I could even buy it!
Last edited:
JHZR2
Staff member
Not really... because kids are idiots, which is why they turn into idiotic adults. From these games they learn that time is important, and that there is no issue with mashing on the go pedal and accelerating from stops like nothing.
Put them in the AT-equipped, (everybody NEEDS) v6-powered vehicle of choice, and what do they do? exactly what they learned in the games.
We see it daily. If someone doesnt, they arent being observent.
Again, the reason people (kids) are such poor drivers is their lack of knowledge of math. Mathematical ability (and standard college calculus is ----, by the way, it should be high school stuff) is extremely poor, and it reflects the way we use nature, which is all described in the maths.
Poor knowledge of math and advanced science is also why most doctors and lawyers are useless idiots. Unfortunately our country has given up engineering and math for political science and pre-med. Those fields of study are not hard, nor do they really give people the struggling learning experience.
Hate to say it, because it is kind of mean, but that fundamental lack of understandingof the real, physical world in a non-dumbed down way is why people can't drive...
Simulators are great, they teach a lot. Flight of various sorts is simulated mainly because of cost, but has proven this. Still, there is no alternative to hearing the sounds and feeling the forces when you do things right vs. mildly or seriously wrong.
JMH
It would take leadership to establish new driver's license standards. Just because new standards are needed and it's obvious does not mean anything will be done. Standards were established when the average highway speed was 45 mph, freeways were not invented yet and FDR was President. There is more traffic now, speeds are faster and life is more complicated. In 1935 there were not as many cell phones and there were fewer buttons and levers and things inside a car to deal with. The written part of the test has moved from paper to computer screens in many places but the questions are still the same. As for the driving test it is more important to know how to parallel park (even if you don't know what that means) than it is to control a skid or do a panic stop from 70 mph. A standard transmission is just something that Grandpa had to deal with and young drivers can't even tell you what musical group does ABS. If asked what driver training is you'd get an answer like, it's the 6th period class with Coach Johnson. A proficient driver is someone that can text message and drive in traffic at the same time. Some states have found that a lot of retesting of prospective young drivers costs a lot so they have lowered the passing score to reduce operating costs. Not enough people are getting killed on the highways yet but don't worry, progress is being made.
Insurance companies could get into the business of testing drivers. The ones with good scores would get lower rates. It doesn't have to be done by the gubmint.
Mark,
if it were truly a privilege, then there would be a reasonable alternative for the masses to get about their business without it.
If it's reasonable to walk for a day to get water, then it's reasonable for the constabulary to ride for a day to see your water permit.
I heard that in some Scandinavian countries, driving is taken much more seriously and trainig and testing are much more thorough.
I heard the driving test[for getting a license] was a full day affair.
I heard the driving test[for getting a license] was a full day affair.
Privileges are something that are taken away and then given back to us and called "privileges"
What JHZR2 said about doctors and training in physics and math is very true. The bone in my right arm would have healed staight and proper if my doctor had a clue about forces and simple mechcanics.
Seems I heard the in Ohio they show kids pictures of bloody accidents to make an impression. This doesn't teach them how to drive however.
What JHZR2 said about doctors and training in physics and math is very true. The bone in my right arm would have healed staight and proper if my doctor had a clue about forces and simple mechcanics.
Seems I heard the in Ohio they show kids pictures of bloody accidents to make an impression. This doesn't teach them how to drive however.
JHZR2
Staff member
Problem is that driving is something that is a new invention, kind of... Public roads were a response to the private turnpike system of old, where excessive fees could be charged by private companies to get around.
I understand about how we pay taxes, and some goes to the roads... but how much comes from our actual income withholding, and how much comes from the amount collected as road tax on fuel? I dont know, but it would be interesting to see, because the reality is that if not much is coming from my income tax, then it is really an optional thing. I can bicycle on all but the interstates (some other roads have restrictions too, Im sure), and not pay road tax. I can walk along many public roads too. Their right of way is not only for my travel on them, but also as a conduit for everything from basic necessities to data wires. As I stated in the Onstar thread, these things didnt used to exist. You don't have to use them, just like you dont have to use much of anything else. You can walk into town, you can send mail, you can wait until the constable comes to you. There was a reason why people tended to live within a day's ride of town back before cars... But now we merely feel entitled to drive and live where we want, because we feel entitled to cars - something that did not exist 120 years ago. Yet somehow people had (perhaps better) social skills, knowledge in a lot of areas that we have not a clue in anymore, etc. 120 years ago than now. Not saying that 120 years ago was better, but it is only because a product that we feel entitled to have and use arrived and we can't see our way around it.
I challenge anyone that feels entitled to drive and use the roads when free options exist to quit griping about the 'entitlement' attitude of illegals, inner-city welfare folks, etc. While I can't stand any of that, I realize that I have my feelings of entitlement too. I may have earned my driving privledge, the money to buy the car, insurance, fuel, etc., but I still feel entitled to use the roads. In that I am a hypocrite if I gripe about anyone elses' entitlement feelings on unrelated stuff, merely because I don't agree with them. I think we all need to consider what we could do if comfort and laziness wasnt overwhelming. It is all entitlement that we drive, nothing else.
Again, I don't care if they round up and send back illegals, and if people who can't work or save starve. So long as they stay out of my back yard, I really don't care. But so long as a modern entity, set up by the choice and desire of the people whom i am stuck in society with is what is available, and I want to use that entity (the roads) swiftly, then I feel entitled to use the roads - I dont have to use them. People long ago didnt have the luxury of swift travel, so they lived accordingly, and made their choices accordingly. What besides entitlement to drive gives us the ability to live elsewhere now? With fuel prices increasing, there is another reason to drive people back to the 'centers', to avoid the trips. It is all choices, all determinations of what is best for onesself, but many of these decisions that stray from the ages old norm are only possible because of their facilitation by the automobile. remember that... we feel entitled to make these choices because we feel entitled to drive... otherwise we would be making standard survival-based decisions, as people did until about 150 years ago.
JMH
I understand about how we pay taxes, and some goes to the roads... but how much comes from our actual income withholding, and how much comes from the amount collected as road tax on fuel? I dont know, but it would be interesting to see, because the reality is that if not much is coming from my income tax, then it is really an optional thing. I can bicycle on all but the interstates (some other roads have restrictions too, Im sure), and not pay road tax. I can walk along many public roads too. Their right of way is not only for my travel on them, but also as a conduit for everything from basic necessities to data wires. As I stated in the Onstar thread, these things didnt used to exist. You don't have to use them, just like you dont have to use much of anything else. You can walk into town, you can send mail, you can wait until the constable comes to you. There was a reason why people tended to live within a day's ride of town back before cars... But now we merely feel entitled to drive and live where we want, because we feel entitled to cars - something that did not exist 120 years ago. Yet somehow people had (perhaps better) social skills, knowledge in a lot of areas that we have not a clue in anymore, etc. 120 years ago than now. Not saying that 120 years ago was better, but it is only because a product that we feel entitled to have and use arrived and we can't see our way around it.
I challenge anyone that feels entitled to drive and use the roads when free options exist to quit griping about the 'entitlement' attitude of illegals, inner-city welfare folks, etc. While I can't stand any of that, I realize that I have my feelings of entitlement too. I may have earned my driving privledge, the money to buy the car, insurance, fuel, etc., but I still feel entitled to use the roads. In that I am a hypocrite if I gripe about anyone elses' entitlement feelings on unrelated stuff, merely because I don't agree with them. I think we all need to consider what we could do if comfort and laziness wasnt overwhelming. It is all entitlement that we drive, nothing else.
Again, I don't care if they round up and send back illegals, and if people who can't work or save starve. So long as they stay out of my back yard, I really don't care. But so long as a modern entity, set up by the choice and desire of the people whom i am stuck in society with is what is available, and I want to use that entity (the roads) swiftly, then I feel entitled to use the roads - I dont have to use them. People long ago didnt have the luxury of swift travel, so they lived accordingly, and made their choices accordingly. What besides entitlement to drive gives us the ability to live elsewhere now? With fuel prices increasing, there is another reason to drive people back to the 'centers', to avoid the trips. It is all choices, all determinations of what is best for onesself, but many of these decisions that stray from the ages old norm are only possible because of their facilitation by the automobile. remember that... we feel entitled to make these choices because we feel entitled to drive... otherwise we would be making standard survival-based decisions, as people did until about 150 years ago.
JMH
Last edited:
The real reason the drivers training system is not fixed is that same reason many things that are wrong in this country don’t get fixed. There is no profit motive to change it.
How much would the insurance companies lose if drivers were safer? They get to keep a percentage of the cost of doing business. How much would cities loose due to less revenue from tickets and accidents? How much less business would hospitals get?
You might think this is far fetched but I have seen enough in my life to suspect it is quite possible. The old saying that the “love of money is the root of all evil” applies.
Police are not allowed to park by bars to stop people as they leave. They make up excuses like calling it entrapment. I guess the possibility of them getting down the road a ways improves the odds of something bad happening so everyone with something to gain gets involved. Job security for the judges and police.
Improving the training of young drivers would be simple and it doesn’t get done. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out better ways to teach important driving skills. They are still doing it the same as 30 years ago. Take the kid out on a sunny day and have them drive around a bit.
Please tell me I am wrong.
How much would the insurance companies lose if drivers were safer? They get to keep a percentage of the cost of doing business. How much would cities loose due to less revenue from tickets and accidents? How much less business would hospitals get?
You might think this is far fetched but I have seen enough in my life to suspect it is quite possible. The old saying that the “love of money is the root of all evil” applies.
Police are not allowed to park by bars to stop people as they leave. They make up excuses like calling it entrapment. I guess the possibility of them getting down the road a ways improves the odds of something bad happening so everyone with something to gain gets involved. Job security for the judges and police.
Improving the training of young drivers would be simple and it doesn’t get done. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out better ways to teach important driving skills. They are still doing it the same as 30 years ago. Take the kid out on a sunny day and have them drive around a bit.
Please tell me I am wrong.
Dangerous drivers lead to more claims, which costs the insurance companies, so I don't agree the insurance companies need bad drivers out there. Hospitals, body shops, and car dealers do benefit in the short term when accidents, happen. But society overall benefits when fewer people are killed. This is the proper job of government - something that has benefits far beyond the reach of the annual financial statement.
16 years is simply too young in many aspects for children to drive. Reactions are not fully in place and maturity of the responsibility is not there.
It does not require an full understanding of physics/math to drive although it can help with the logic. It requires common sense and practice.
It does not require an full understanding of physics/math to drive although it can help with the logic. It requires common sense and practice.
All in all, we need stronger licensing laws across the nation. The US should stop recognizing foreign licenses unless that country conforms to the same training system. Work in a college town and you will know exactly what I am talking about.
Driver training/testing, young, old, and throught ones' life is the only way to go. Nice and simple, not really. We can't keep our roads in a safe condition due to lack of money. I'm sure we won't be able to employ the necessary amount of staff to handle the additional requirements.
Back in the day, I went to the DMV to get some driving records for court. On the way out, I ran into a young man preparing to take the driving portion of his test (usually conducted by a DMV employee but in the past, by State Troopers). I stood there, greeted the young man, and, in my best State Trooper tone, asked him if he was ready for me to "administer" the test. I ----'d him for a few minutes and then wished him luck when the DMV tester arrived. I wonder if he passed!
Driver training/testing, young, old, and throught ones' life is the only way to go. Nice and simple, not really. We can't keep our roads in a safe condition due to lack of money. I'm sure we won't be able to employ the necessary amount of staff to handle the additional requirements.
Back in the day, I went to the DMV to get some driving records for court. On the way out, I ran into a young man preparing to take the driving portion of his test (usually conducted by a DMV employee but in the past, by State Troopers). I stood there, greeted the young man, and, in my best State Trooper tone, asked him if he was ready for me to "administer" the test. I ----'d him for a few minutes and then wished him luck when the DMV tester arrived. I wonder if he passed!
Kids don't read signs, such as "Left turn must yield" or "cross traffic does not stop." It's there, right in front of them, and after the inevetible "accident" their answer is "I don't know." or "I didn't see the other car."
That's because they never look.
Driving is one of the very few elements in life where I think we need more authority in the form of law enforcement and even a little bit of Big Brother. Why do many, if not most, people react differently to having law enforcement behind them vs. no authority to observe their attempt at driving lawfully?
It's the "I won't get caught" factor that lets people drive often in just generally sloppy manners, cutting corners too tight, disregarding yellow and white lines, and changing lanes much too often. Many times I'd like to ask these drivers, "why are you driving in the bike lane?"
Turn signal usage, for example. It's on the steering collumn, not in the trunk. There's really no excuse for not using it. Kids today, and myself, were too young to be taught hand signals by driver's ed, but doesn't mean they can't be used. Last time I had a cop behind me when I had a turn signal bulb that burned out that day before I could fix it, I used hand signals and didn't break a sweat. I cringe at the thought of how many people wouldn't know that the bulb was burned out in the first place (gee, my blinker thingee by my speed-o-meter is like a strobe!)
I'm not advocating black boxes yet, but if everybody drove like The Man's eyes were watching them, as in following the rules and adhering to the laws, it would be much safer.
Just tonight, while entering an intersection as my light turned green as I drove straight across the intersection, the driver with the red light to my right made a not so complete stop and had their front wheels in the crosswalk. As I exited the intersection, they jumped the red light and continued ahead. This driver probably thought of me as some inconveniance as they actually had to stop at the red light in order not to T-bone my car.
Would they ever consider doing this if they saw a cop in their rear view mirror? Probably not. It never stops.
That's because they never look.
Driving is one of the very few elements in life where I think we need more authority in the form of law enforcement and even a little bit of Big Brother. Why do many, if not most, people react differently to having law enforcement behind them vs. no authority to observe their attempt at driving lawfully?
It's the "I won't get caught" factor that lets people drive often in just generally sloppy manners, cutting corners too tight, disregarding yellow and white lines, and changing lanes much too often. Many times I'd like to ask these drivers, "why are you driving in the bike lane?"
Turn signal usage, for example. It's on the steering collumn, not in the trunk. There's really no excuse for not using it. Kids today, and myself, were too young to be taught hand signals by driver's ed, but doesn't mean they can't be used. Last time I had a cop behind me when I had a turn signal bulb that burned out that day before I could fix it, I used hand signals and didn't break a sweat. I cringe at the thought of how many people wouldn't know that the bulb was burned out in the first place (gee, my blinker thingee by my speed-o-meter is like a strobe!)
I'm not advocating black boxes yet, but if everybody drove like The Man's eyes were watching them, as in following the rules and adhering to the laws, it would be much safer.
Just tonight, while entering an intersection as my light turned green as I drove straight across the intersection, the driver with the red light to my right made a not so complete stop and had their front wheels in the crosswalk. As I exited the intersection, they jumped the red light and continued ahead. This driver probably thought of me as some inconveniance as they actually had to stop at the red light in order not to T-bone my car.
Would they ever consider doing this if they saw a cop in their rear view mirror? Probably not. It never stops.
The driving test should be set up with a 20th percentile, where 20% of people fail the first test, on average. This will motivate kids to not be in that percentile and learn their stuff.
It should re-test every 20 years also... not discriminating against the elderly, mind you (Don't cross angry geezers) but to cut the hypocrisy of "kids these days..." What gets me are all these SUVs with backup camera/TV systems... old people with bad necks are going to rely on this and get into trouble, just watch.
When I was in high school, this stupid girl showed up at 1st period class late during a 2 inch snowstorm. She started skidding into a telegraph pole then declared "I tried the parking brake, putting it in Park, nothing stopped it."
I fault the lack of knowledge of physics on kids not fooling around with bicycles anymore. I could do a rear wheel skid, fishtailing sideways, on my BMX bike, controllably and repeatedly. In a car where I didn't have to balance-- peace of cake. I bet the so-called hooligan skateboarder population, for example, will have a real-world appreciation for balance and physics and do okay behind the wheel of a car.
It should re-test every 20 years also... not discriminating against the elderly, mind you (Don't cross angry geezers) but to cut the hypocrisy of "kids these days..." What gets me are all these SUVs with backup camera/TV systems... old people with bad necks are going to rely on this and get into trouble, just watch.
When I was in high school, this stupid girl showed up at 1st period class late during a 2 inch snowstorm. She started skidding into a telegraph pole then declared "I tried the parking brake, putting it in Park, nothing stopped it."
I fault the lack of knowledge of physics on kids not fooling around with bicycles anymore. I could do a rear wheel skid, fishtailing sideways, on my BMX bike, controllably and repeatedly. In a car where I didn't have to balance-- peace of cake. I bet the so-called hooligan skateboarder population, for example, will have a real-world appreciation for balance and physics and do okay behind the wheel of a car.
My biggest gripe is that the laws don’t really address or control the real problems associated with driving. I could run every stop sign I came to and not cause an accident if I were paying attention to other cars.
Accidents do not happen when people break the law. They happen when people do something stupid. This can be caused by lack of training , prescription medicine , alcohol , low blood sugar, bad attitude or whatever. Would you rather be on the road with a teen talking on the cell phone driving 55 or Valentino Rossi going 150. Who would be breaking the law and who would be safe?
Accidents do not happen when people break the law. They happen when people do something stupid. This can be caused by lack of training , prescription medicine , alcohol , low blood sugar, bad attitude or whatever. Would you rather be on the road with a teen talking on the cell phone driving 55 or Valentino Rossi going 150. Who would be breaking the law and who would be safe?
Drivers have gotten progressively worse over the years because the vehicles they are driving have gotten progressively "smarter". Things like automatic transmissions, traction control, stability control, anti-lock brakes, and even AWD etc. have made it that the car is smart, so the driver doesn't have to be. Think about how little effort it takes to operate a modern sedan with all the driver aids and an automatic transmission...turn the key, push the brake pedal (the big one on the left), pull the gear shifter into "D" and you're on your way. Any idiot who can see over the steering wheel can operate a vehicle these days (I said operate, not drive properly), and that is where the problem lies. People rely on these driver aids to keep them safe, and worst of all parents rely on them to keep their kids safe. All that creates is an eighteen-year-old girl, talking away on her cell phone without a care in the world, driving down a snow covered country road in her daddy's Ford Explorer because the car is TOO EASY TO DRIVE. Give her even a manual transmission and she has no choice but to be completely focused on what the car is doing. The number of people I've talked to who can't drive a car with a manual transmission is absolutely ridiculous. Give people a car with no driver aids and a manual transmission on a soaking wet test track to take their driver test in. If they can't do it, they don't get their license until they can...it's just that easy.
BTW, I agree with the legal driving age being raised to 18, and I'm fifteen years old! Most teenagers these days are just wwwaaayyy too stupid to operate a vehicle. Back in the day the driver had to be smart, not the car - and the fact that it isn't that way anymore has made driving much more dangerous.
BTW, I agree with the legal driving age being raised to 18, and I'm fifteen years old! Most teenagers these days are just wwwaaayyy too stupid to operate a vehicle. Back in the day the driver had to be smart, not the car - and the fact that it isn't that way anymore has made driving much more dangerous.
JHZR2
Staff member
Octane, I wish you all the best. At 15, you have a good head on your shoulders.
Regards,
JMH
Regards,
JMH
Octane...when you get older, run for president and I will vote for you.
- Status
