Thread: Going to take my drivers test any tips

you guys are settign my mind at ease. i just drive to the letter of the law and froget about old habits or what others are doing around me as far as speeding or what not.

you too sleek ands smooth both have great tips and i trulyt apperciate it im comfortable getting in my truck and driving but its having someone pay that close attention to me. the other resason im not taking my truck is i have a nasty habit of riding with my right hand on the stick and my left foot partially on the top of the clutch but n ot pushing it so if i have to press it its right there.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

....snip...
Come to a full stop at stop signs and stop lights, making sure the front bumper comes to a full stop behind the sign or light, even if that means you are not far enough ahead to see if any cars are coming. Stop first, then if necessary you can inch forward

This one is interesting... in some states there are two places to stop.
The first is the cross walk and then there is a second at the intersection
proper.

Pedestrians, bicyclists, grey hairs.... give them a lot of room.

A friend of mine failed his exam TWICE for not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign.
Tbh, in some place it is complete bollocks, and usually I only slow down if there are no other cars around.
But on an exam: do a complete stop.

Originally Posted by niftyshaving

This one is interesting... in some states there are two places to stop.
The first is the cross walk and then there is a second at the intersection
proper.

Pedestrians, bicyclists, grey hairs.... give them a lot of room.

The MUTCD (Manual of uniform Traffic Control Devices) prescribes a SOLID WHITE, 24" "stop bar" in advance of of pedestrian crosswalk if the cross walk is present, otherwise it will be placed at or even with a stop sign or before and intersection controlled by a light. The borders of pedestrian crosswalk "shall be" SOLID WHITE and 12" in width.

Note that this quote says "guidance" while the second quote says "standard". Standards are what I am required to use.

Section 3B.16 Stop and Yield Lines
Guidance:
01 Stop lines should be used to indicate the point behind which vehicles are required to stop in compliance with
a traffic control signal.
Option:
02 Stop lines may be used to indicate the point behind which vehicles are required to stop in compliance with a
STOP (R1-1) or some other traffic control device that requires vehicles to stop, except YIELD signs that are not
associated with passive grade crossings.

Standard:
04 Except as provided in Section 8B.28, stop lines shall not be used at locations where drivers are required
to yield in compliance with a YIELD (R1-2) sign or a Yield Here To Pedestrians (R1-5 or R1-5a) sign or at
locations on uncontrolled approaches where drivers are required by State law to yield to pedestrians.
05 Yield lines shall not be used at locations where drivers are required to stop in compliance with a STOP
(R1-1) sign, a traffic control signal, or some other traffic control device.
06 Stop lines shall consist of solid white lines extending across approach lanes to indicate the point at
which the stop is intended or required to be made.
07 Yield lines (see Figure 3B-16) shall consist of a row of solid white isosceles triangles pointing toward
approaching vehicles extending across approach lanes to indicate the point at which the yield is intended or
required to be made

In most states, stopping past the stop bar constitutes an illegal stop. I know it is rarely enforced but nonetheless is the law.

I work with the above mentioned stuff pretty regular in my job. My state has its own MUTCD, the TMUCTCD,
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot...tcd/2011/3.pdf
which has more stringent stuff than the federally mandated one.

Is the ostrich licensed?

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Sweet! So does that mean I do have the right to travel around strapped to a rocket tipped with a nuclear warhead? After all, it's my choice, my freedom, and we don't want to jeopardize that by restricting its use in the name of safety. Does this mean I can ride an ostrich to work down the interstate? I certainly hope nobody would try to stop me since they are bound to uphold the constitution

Originally Posted by Jasongreat

Isnt every person on the roads already at risk? Even with the licensing protocol already in place, people get in accidents, there is no way to completely alleviate that risk. A license does not prove you will never hurt another, but it does give you an out of liability. Ie; I got in an accident, but I was a licensed driver, notice how I said because I was licensed I was in the right, what if it was the facts and only the facts counted, you operated your equipment in the wrong way it doesnt matter at all about a license. On the other hand I could say that I havent had a moving violation let alone an accident in the last ten years, even though I am unlicensed. Why is a license the test for one being at fault or not, shouldnt it be their actions?

For drunk driving, do you consider those at .08% BAC unsafe? Are they gauranteed not to hurt others no matter what if below that limit? If above that limit there is no chance they are fine to drive? Speaking from experience, an experience I am not proud of, my DUI's have came at the .18 to .23 levels, at .08% I could drive for years without ever being pulled over, with probable cause. Does that make me an anomoly? I dont think so. I have known people that have driven for fourty years, drunk as hell, but they never do anything that would get them busted, ie; swerving, speeding, wrecking. Is it the amount of achohol that is at fault or peoples driving habits, ie; safe driving that is in question?

Like I said before, people, try to preserve their own life. Would someone go into a position that puts themselves at excessive risk? Let alone put other peoples life at risk? I will agree that a few do, but should we punish the majority for the actions of the minority? There is always the court of law if one feels wrongly put at risk.

Citizens have no right to put others at an unacceptable risk, but IMO, we should have to prove that unacceptability, beyond having a state sanctioned license, since those licensed can already cause risk. It is actions that matter.

You can be charged and
Convicted of DWI with a BAC below .08. Below .08 the presumption is your not drunk and the state needs to provide more proof that you were drunk not just a bad driver. And yes, at .08 your too drunk to drive.

Your logic about licensing is seriously flawed.

Originally Posted by Mvcrash

You can be charged and
Convicted of DWI with a BAC below .08. Below .08 the presumption is your not drunk and the state needs to provide more proof that you were drunk not just a bad driver. And yes, at .08 your too drunk to drive.

Your logic about licensing is seriously flawed.

.04 BAC if you're operating a commercial vehicle OR if the cop wants to push it because you happen to hold a CDL.

Originally Posted by Mvcrash

You can be charged and
Convicted of DWI with a BAC below .08. Below .08 the presumption is your not drunk and the state needs to provide more proof that you were drunk not just a bad driver. And yes, at .08 your too drunk to drive.

Your logic about licensing is seriously flawed.

Excuse me but I thought we were presumed innocent until proven guilty? Can you prove that everyone over .08 is drunk, or is that just what you were taught?

If so please enlighten me, or am I wrong just because you say so? I have given references to USC cases, please feel free to read them, that is why I posted them, and argue your point.

Originally Posted by Slartibartfast

Is the ostrich licensed?

Only of your going interstate. How much fuel does the rocket have?