Thread: Going to take my drivers test any tips

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.

Originally Posted by Bruno

On the flip side, do you think that someone who is near blind should be allowed to drive?
Should people be allowed to fly without a pilot license?
Should people be allowed to drive while drunk?

Yes, I think someone near blind still has common sense, if you cant see, you arent going to get too far and I suppose they would find other transportation. If someone was near blind and didnt have the common sense to stay off the roads, I would think them pretty easy to see coming down the road, i guess as long as you are not near blind yourself.

Yes, if one doesnt know how to fly, the most they will be able to do is drive it around. If they do get lucky and get airborne and figure out how to fly they will never be able to land and we will not have to worrow about them being a danger anymore. If they do land, then I guess they have just proven they were a somewhat capable pilot.

Yes, if one is too drunk to drive, then they are not going to make it far. If they are drunk yet make it home, with no property damage then I guess they werent too drunk to drive.

Now, before everyone jumps on, let me explain that no one has the right to put other peoples lives or property in danger, and I would go so far as to say that most people try not to put their own lives or property in danger even more. In all cases above I am not about to argue that the police have to sit by and watch, if anyone is a danger the police have the right, nay the duty to make a stop to accertain why. On the other hand I will argue that the cops should not be allowed to restrict any travel unless the publics safety is at risk, when I say that, I mean and already observed risk, ie; probable cause. Not all risk can be negated, there is and will always be risks in life, if one chooses to travel on a roadway they are doing so knowing there is a risk. There are people who think flying is too dangerous and do not fly. Those who think driving after drinking is too dangerous and do not drive after they have drank. We should be allowed to make those distinctions ourselves, I do not believe the vast majority of my fellow mankind need a babysitter, and I dont think that the vast majority should have their rights trampled on due to the actions of a small minority. When we do choose wrongly, thats what the courts of law are for, deciding after the fact.

A license system does not reduce risk to zero, heck its along way from zero if you look at traffic statistics. It does not prove that a person is capable in all circumstances, heck not even most cases. I can take a competent licensed driver, from the east and have him drive in the west and it is a completely new experience, would they, the first day be as safe as someone driving those roads for years? They are licensed. Vice-versa, and I learned this the hard way, take someone from the west and go east an it is a new experience, especially if one experiences an ice storm, in the west we skate on ice, I was surprised to find that easterners drive on it. What it does do is gives government the power to control our basic common law right to travel.

I understand why driving regulations originally came about, and I dont think mexico city style anything goes driving is good. We can have regulations most everyone agrees on and follows, like stopping at a stop sign, without a license system where we beg our governments for a fundamental right, and pay them to do it. Freemen(as in mankind, i hate politcal correctness) should be able to make their own choices and live with the consequences, our governments are not there to protect us from ourselves.




To the OP: Well its sunday and we havent heard, should we take that to mean you are driving around and dont have the time to let us know?

no sorry guys i got a bit busy helping finish a garage, I failed it i was 1.5 inches over the white line for parallel parking and he shut me down right there even tho i did everything else perfect. so i can take it next week at some point so ill practice a few more times and see what goes. i still think he could have cut me some slack since i did everything else right.

In Belgium we have the same set-up. First you have to do the maneuvering tests (parking, driving in read, etc) and if you fail there, you're not allowed to take the actual road test.

Freemen(as in mankind, i hate politcal correctness) should be able to make their own choices and live with the consequences, our governments are not there to protect us from ourselves

As soon as you have a lot of people living in 1 location, that just doesn't work anymore. I can completely follow your reasoning if the only person at risk is you.
As soon as you put other people at risk for no reason at all, that is no longer true.

To take drunk driving: allowing people to drive drunk in a crowded street is similar to putting 1 bullet in a revolver, spinning the cilinder, and shooting at a pedestrian eveyr mile or so. Your argument is basically that it is ok to do so as long as the gun doesn't fire. And you continue the argument that if the gun should fire, there are laws to deal with that.

However, I think the majority of the people just don't want to participate in this game of russian roulette. I otoh say that the person playing russian roulette with passers by should be taken off the streets, even though he has managed (through dumb luck) not to shoot anyone so far.

By the same token, I think that when you approach a busy airport it is the wrong time to find out if you are aware of the relevant protocols and procedures.

Great news guys i just got back from a job interview and i start this saturday. so now im ready to get my liscence lol

good for you, now you definitly need the license, should have practiced with a big vehicle, works every time. my younger brother took his driving test in a ford fiesta, a 78 model, all he did was pulled the thing into the spot, the trooper told him to do it again, but right this time. wasnt trying to be a smart ass, but all the same, why parallel park something you can swing in. besided how many areas still have parallel parking. i cant think of many.

Originally Posted by Deerhunter1995

no sorry guys i got a bit busy helping finish a garage, I failed it i was 1.5 inches over the white line for parallel parking and he shut me down right there even tho i did everything else perfect. so i can take it next week at some point so ill practice a few more times and see what goes. i still think he could have cut me some slack since i did everything else right.

When and where I grew up, it was standard procedure for the examiner to fail you at least once, just to put the fear in you and make you study and practice all the harder. It worked.

Originally Posted by wvloony

besided how many areas still have parallel parking. i cant think of many.

Rochester NY is one such place http://straightrazorpalace.com/conve...park-like.html