[ale] [OT] Cars and licensing... (Was: Re: Well, this does nothing for the reputation of Linux)

[Michael B. Trausch]

On 07/22/2013 09:54 AM, leam hall wrote:
> Ah, so you're saying that cars are bad because there are dumb drivers
> that can't replace an engine?

No, but I am one of those who believe that you should at least know
enough to know when you need to see someone who knows what they're doing
(e.g., a mechanic) and should at least know the short-list of things
that you should hard-stop right-now when experiencing.  I am also one of
those who think that the requirements for receiving a driver's license
should be stricter.  A person should know the difference between a white
and a yellow solid line, a solid vs. a dotted line, a dotted line vs. a
dashed line, what a double-yellow line means, when to yield without a
yield sign to explicitly tell them to, and when a malfunctioning traffic
light is a four-way stop vs. a two-way-stop-with-two-way-caution.  Among
other things that I would consider basic and fundamental, but nearly
universally lacking as evidenced by, well, every time I've driven in the
last who-knows-how-long in this metropolitan area.

I've known people to continue to drive in any or all of the following:

 1. The oil pressure has gone through the floor, and the car is now
    notifying you of this.
 2. The coolant temperature, engine temperature, or both have gone
    through the roof, and the car is now notifying you of this.
 3. You smell sweetness coming from the engine compartment, combined
    with steam or hissing.
 4. Something's just gone "boom" and now the ride is very rough.

All save for #3 are dire, though #3 certainly might be dire and thus
requires investigation, and all drivers should know enough to get the
hell onto the shoulder before they're forced to block traffic due to an
otherwise-preventable breakdown.  Of course there are situations where
that's not possible (one-lane road or sudden, unexpected and unwarned
about catastrophic failure), but most of the time, the car will warn you
before it throws a rod.

I'm not saying you need to know enough to work on the car.  But you
should know enough about the operation of the car to be able to operate
it safely and avoid the humanly avoidable.  I fail to see the point of a
driver's license if it doesn't serve as proof that one is competent to
operate a vehicle safely.

I would therefore argue that yes, the license requirements do need to
change.  Not only do the vision tests require randomization, but people
should demonstrate their ability to remember traffic law and demonstrate
that they've learned the new traffic laws since their last renewal.  It
floors me how many times I've come across a situation where the
mandatory driver's education curricula where I came from had certain
content on it that people here seem to not know.

    --- Mike

-- 
Naunet Corporation Logo 	Michael B. Trausch

President, *Naunet Corporation*
? (678) 287-0693 x130 or (888) 494-5810 x130

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ale.org/pipermail/ale/attachments/20130722/581cf5a8/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: baajjdfg.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1701 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ale.org/pipermail/ale/attachments/20130722/581cf5a8/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 901 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.ale.org/pipermail/ale/attachments/20130722/581cf5a8/attachment.sig>