 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / November 2007CNN: 36 million drivers would flunk drivers tests
http://www.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/wayoflife/11/16/driving.stupid/index.html > "Two questions consistently sent respondents skidding into the weeds," Kusumi notes. The first has to do with the correct action to take when approaching a steady yellow traffic light (Answer: Stop if it is safe to do so.). Isn't the correct action to slow down until the light is red, then go slowly through the intersection and force the intersecting traffic to wait? That's how some Sloths like to drive. If you're going to go through a red light, accelerate and get out of the intersection before you interfere with the other traffic. > The next biggest puzzler after that question had to do with the proper following distance from a car in front of you (Answer: Two seconds). That's incorrect. The proper following distance is an optimal distance between cars and other objects from which it should be possible to stop safely and without causing any collisions. "Two seconds" is not a measure of distance and it is irrelevant without considering how the road conditions affect the stopping distance and how much time is required before maximum braking power can be applied. I leave enough distance between cars such that even when a Sloth does something unexpectedly-stupid, I don't crash into it and cause a pile-up. >http://www.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/wayoflife/11/16/driving.stupid/index.html > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >distance between cars such that even when a Sloth does something >unexpectedly-stupid, I don't crash into it and cause a pile-up. 36,000,000 idiot drivers / 110 deaths per day = 327272.72727272727272727272727273 days before the roads become safe again, assuming no new dullards receive driver's licenses. :-( -- Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people. - Admiral Hyman Rickover, U.S. Navy On Nov 16, 5:47 pm, "Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein)" <drunk_and_distracted@the_wheel.com> wrote: > >http://www.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/wayoflife/11/16/driving.stupid/index.html > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Just think how much beer you can drink in that amount of time waiting on Darwin to operate in Sloth mode. :^) >On Nov 16, 5:47 pm, "Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver >(Hector Goldstein)" <drunk_and_distracted@the_wheel.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >Just think how much beer you can drink in that amount of time waiting >on Darwin to operate in Sloth mode. :^) Even I'm not that thirsty. :-/ -- Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people. - Admiral Hyman Rickover, U.S. Navy >http://www.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/wayoflife/11/16/driving.stupid/index.html > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >slowly through the intersection and force the intersecting traffic to >wait? All kidding aside, this test is complete bullshit. No wonder people "flunk" it - the questions are poorly phrased, and the answers probably all have a Claybrookian bias like this one. The CORRECT answer is to either proceed or stop, making sure that you do not enter the intersection after the light turns red. There are times when it is "safe" to stop, but why waste time sitting stopped at a red light when you can legally go through the intersectin on a yellow light? Sitting at a light idling your engine wastes fuel, causes air pollution and global warming, and wastes your valuable time. If I can enter the intersection legally, I ain't stopping. I guess I would "flunk" this question. >> The next biggest puzzler after that question had to do with the >>proper following distance from a car in front of you (Answer: >>Two seconds). > >That's incorrect. Yep, another mindlessly dumbed-down question with a ridiculous answer key. I would "flunk" this test for sure. > On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 21:45:02 +0000, Alexander Rogge > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >slowly through the intersection and force the intersecting traffic to > >wait? Got to be mash the accelerator, do a police slide and aim for anyone who dares enter the intersection. :^) > All kidding aside, this test is complete bullshit. No wonder people > "flunk" it - the questions are poorly phrased, and the answers [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Yep, another mindlessly dumbed-down question with a ridiculous answer > key. I would "flunk" this test for sure. IMO the estimate seems low. Considering most drivers get road-tested only once, and the laws change frequently in a driver's time on the road, I doubt more that 1 in 6 would pass. I'm in the age range of those who *earned* the license when the Federal double-nickel (not to be confused with the Calrog Federal Routes) was still in effect. I'd bet the percentage is real low of anyone who had a test including freeway driving. I grew up living 70 miles from the nearest freeway. I found it sobering that the average was 77%. In my state that would just be barely passing the test (MO requires 70%). > On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 21:45:02 +0000, Alexander Rogge > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > "flunk" it - the questions are poorly phrased, and the answers > probably all have a Claybrookian bias like this one. So... you obviously feel no need to actually view or take the test in order to determine it's complete bullshit and the questions are poorly phrased, et. al. and, as usual, the less you know about something the more qualified you feel to judge it. > The CORRECT answer is to either proceed or stop, making sure that you > do not enter the intersection after the light turns red. There are > times when it is "safe" to stop, but why waste time sitting stopped at > a red light when you can legally go through the intersectin on a > yellow light? See your state Driver Handbook: "Solid Yellow- A yellow signal light means "CAUTION." The red signal is about to appear. When you see the yellow light, stop if you can do so safely. If you can't stop safely, enter the intersection cautiously." http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs16thru17.htm#traffic_lights > Sitting at a light idling your engine wastes fuel, > causes air pollution and global warming, and wastes your valuable > time. If I can enter the intersection legally, I ain't stopping. I > guess I would "flunk" this question. Oh, of that there is little doubt. Your driving expertise seems more or less limited to thinking of irrational reasons why traffic laws are "wrong" and/or excuses why you won't, and shouldn't comply with those that do not lessen or offer the impression of lessening your travel time. > >> The next biggest puzzler after that question had to do with the > >>proper following distance from a car in front of you (Answer: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Yep, another mindlessly dumbed-down question with a ridiculous answer > key. I would "flunk" this test for sure. On that, I think we could all agree... As I suspected the answers were multiple choice and one would chose the "best" answer of a mere few, most of which were obviously not the best answer. 16. Under most conditions what is a safe following distance? - 2 seconds - 10 seconds - 20 seconds Would the question be better worded as: "Under *ideal* conditions what is a *minimum* safe following distance? Of course, but that's really not necessary to determine that a wrong answer indicates the test subject's complete ignorance of the widely accepted conventional wisdom and "rule of thumb". But, of course and as usual we find the most vocal of r.a.d. driving experts loudly proclaiming that their obviously complete and willful ignorance of several subjects may be construed by themselves as "informed opinions" and/or "expertise". Who'da thunk it...? ----- - gpsman >> All kidding aside, this test is complete bullshit. No wonder people >> "flunk" it - the questions are poorly phrased, and the answers [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >phrased, et. al. and, as usual, the less you know about something the >more qualified you feel to judge it. It's certainly more prudent thinking than accepting the advice of a "professional driving instructor" who obviously doesn't know how to operate motor vehicles around stopped school buses. -- Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people. - Admiral Hyman Rickover, U.S. Navy > http://www.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/wayoflife/11/16/driving.stupid/index.html > > > "Two questions consistently sent respondents skidding into the weeds," Kusumi notes. The first has to do with the correct action to take when approaching a steady yellow traffic light (Answer: Stop if it is safe to do so.). > Isn't the correct action to slow down until the light is red, then go > slowly through the intersection and force the intersecting traffic to [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > distance between cars such that even when a Sloth does something > unexpectedly-stupid, I don't crash into it and cause a pile-up. For the second answer, the correct test answer is two seconds. That's because according to the California DMV Driver's Handbook (though I haven't research the DMV handbooks in other states), two seconds is the correct answer. Actually, though, I think later revisions might even say three seconds and so the test would need to be updated accordingly. Anyway, the DMV driving tests are primarily based on both the vehicle code content and some of the safe driving practices mentioned in the handbook. A lot of it is just memorizing what the handbook says, to answer the correct test questions. So, even if one's own opinion of safe driving differs from the choices on the DMV driving test, the correct test answer is the one that can be verified using the vehicle code or the driver's handbook. >For the second answer, the correct test answer is two seconds. > >That's because according to the California DMV Driver's Handbook (though I >haven't research the DMV handbooks in other states) And therein lies the rub. This was a NATIONWIDE test. Unless GMAC was clever enough to a) figure out which state the anonymous test-taker was licensed in, and b) deliver a version of the test specifically tailored to the laws of that state, then the whole thing is invalid. >http://www.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/wayoflife/11/16/driving.stupid/index.html > >> "Two questions consistently sent respondents skidding into the weeds," Kusumi notes. The first has to do with the correct action to take when approaching a steady yellow traffic light (Answer: Stop if it is safe to do so.). That answer is correct in Canada and some US states, but not in all. In other US states, there is no duty to stop for a yellow. >Isn't the correct action to slow down until the light is red, then go >slowly through the intersection and force the intersecting traffic to >wait? That's how some Sloths like to drive. If you're going to go >through a red light, accelerate and get out of the intersection before >you interfere with the other traffic. Some sloths do it even better. Approaching a yellow or a stale green, they slow down enough so they can make it through the intersection on yellow, but whoever is behind them does not. Then (as a bonus) they stop a car length beyond the stop line, interfering with the cross traffic as well.  SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.