Chat Thread

Drivers of The Playmaker, does anyone else think the practical test is far too easy?

I passed first time last week with three minor faults, which I'm told is excellent.- although well below the standard I was aiming for - but I'm still running into situations on the road where I'm pretty much guessing what to do. Motorway driving not being included on the test is a fucking stupid idea too, that's a whole different ball game. Easy enough once you get used to it but if you're going on for the first time with nobody experienced you stand a fair chance of killing someone.

The American driving test is a joke. It's about 15 minutes where basically all they test is turning and lane changing. Apart from that you have to reverse in a straight line for about a block. I think it's designed to get as many people to pass as soon as possible.

I got a perfect score on the permit component.   Three years have passed and I'm still not licensed.

4 way intersections scare me. The ones with 2 give-way/stop signs on either end...

Oh and uncontrolled intersections...I try to avoid them.

El_indian wrote:4 way intersections scare me. The ones with 2 give-way/stop signs on either end...

Oh and uncontrolled intersections...I try to avoid them.

Why would they scare you? Just slow down and see if it's safe. 3-4 lane roundabouts on the other hand are fucking dangerous.

Well not so much anymore, as you say, i just take it slow. They used to scare me at the time i was learning..

Yeah those roundabouts can be dangerous. We have a 2/3 lane close to home...so i'm kinda used to that. Don't think i've been on a 4 lane..

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Drivers of The Playmaker, does anyone else think the practical test is far too easy?  

I passed first time last week with three minor faults, which I'm told is excellent.- although well below the standard I was aiming for - but I'm still running into situations on the road where I'm pretty much guessing what to do.  Motorway driving not being included on the test is a fucking stupid idea too, that's a whole different ball game.  Easy enough once you get used to it but if you're going on for the first time with nobody experienced you stand a fair chance of killing someone.

I absolutely agree. I passed with 6 minors on my first test, but I only had 15 hours of driving lesson experience behind me. My instructors car had hill assist and when I got my first car I never knew what a hill start even was which caused a lot of stalling in dangerous situations. I wasn't a safe driver until about 6 weeks of independent driving, luckily I didn't cause any accidents in that time.

I disagree on the motorway bit, it's illegal for provisional license holders to drive on a motorway for a reason.

SBSP wrote:The American driving test is a joke. It's about 15 minutes where basically all they test is turning and lane changing. Apart from that you have to reverse in a straight line for about a block. I think it's designed to get as many people to pass as soon as possible.

To be fair, driving in America is a lot easier than driving in the UK. Almost every car in the US is an automatic, plus the roads are massive and are usually pretty clear so you have good visibility and a lot of time to react to situations so it's pretty laid back.

Over here (at least in Yorkshire) we have a lot of narrow and hilly roads and it takes a fair bit of effort to drive. I still struggle on judging another drivers intentions, especially on unmarked crossroads.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Drivers of The Playmaker, does anyone else think the practical test is far too easy?  

I passed first time last week with three minor faults, which I'm told is excellent.- although well below the standard I was aiming for - but I'm still running into situations on the road where I'm pretty much guessing what to do.  Motorway driving not being included on the test is a fucking stupid idea too, that's a whole different ball game.  Easy enough once you get used to it but if you're going on for the first time with nobody experienced you stand a fair chance of killing someone.

I failed the first 2 times I was tested, mostly because I was really nervous. I had the same feeling as you when I first started driving on my own though. It just comes with practice, I drive for a minimum hour a day and I don't ever think about it any more. I don't think anyone fully knows how to drive until they're a few months deep in driving alone. You couldn't hold people to that standard when testing or it would cost an incredible amount of money. 

Motorway driving is easy, if you can pass the test then the motorway shouldn't be an issue. Once you merge you can just sit in the left lane and it's no issue. If it was on the test/lessons it would just be a comfort thing rather than a skill thing, as you may be nervous the first few times. Probably why it's optional with Pass + but not on the real lessons.

Grenade wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Drivers of The Playmaker, does anyone else think the practical test is far too easy?  

I passed first time last week with three minor faults, which I'm told is excellent.- although well below the standard I was aiming for - but I'm still running into situations on the road where I'm pretty much guessing what to do.  Motorway driving not being included on the test is a fucking stupid idea too, that's a whole different ball game.  Easy enough once you get used to it but if you're going on for the first time with nobody experienced you stand a fair chance of killing someone.

I absolutely agree. I passed with 6 minors on my first test, but I only had 15 hours of driving lesson experience behind me. My instructors car had hill assist and when I got my first car I never knew what a hill start even was which caused a lot of stalling in dangerous situations. I wasn't a safe driver until about 6 weeks of independent driving, luckily I didn't cause any accidents in that time.

I disagree on the motorway bit, it's illegal for provisional license holders to drive on a motorway for a reason.

Don't even fucking get me started on the differences between instructor cars and your first car. My instructor car had automatic lights, automatic wipers, turbo window demisters, automatic restart, my first car's a pretty nice Fiesta but it's got none of that, it's so different. I set off without my fucking lights on the second day I was driving.

Zzonked wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Drivers of The Playmaker, does anyone else think the practical test is far too easy?  

I passed first time last week with three minor faults, which I'm told is excellent.- although well below the standard I was aiming for - but I'm still running into situations on the road where I'm pretty much guessing what to do.  Motorway driving not being included on the test is a fucking stupid idea too, that's a whole different ball game.  Easy enough once you get used to it but if you're going on for the first time with nobody experienced you stand a fair chance of killing someone.

I failed the first 2 times I was tested, mostly because I was really nervous. I had the same feeling as you when I first started driving on my own though. It just comes with practice, I drive for a minimum hour a day and I don't ever think about it any more. I don't think anyone fully knows how to drive until they're a few months deep in driving alone. You couldn't hold people to that standard when testing or it would cost an incredible amount of money. 

Motorway driving is easy, if you can pass the test then the motorway shouldn't be an issue. Once you merge you can just sit in the left lane and it's no issue. If it was on the test/lessons it would just be a comfort thing rather than a skill thing, as you may be nervous the first few times. Probably why it's optional with Pass + but not on the real lessons.

Yeah, I've definitely noticed it getting easier as I've been driving - I've done quite a bit partly because it's a novelty, partly to consciously get the practice in. I also think it should be at least partially state funded, driving is a huge part of modern life but the financial barriers before entering are huge. Unless you're on your parent's/parents' insurance the insurance prices are completely unaffordable too. I had a mate who had to give up his car when his dad died. It wasn't until he was earning £25k+ he was able to get another one.

Generally it's easy enough on the motorways - the relative speeds are pretty low - but slip roads can be a bit of a nightmare. It's not even addressed on the lessons which is purely because they don't address it on the test and the lessons are relentlessly test focused.

Grenade wrote:

SBSP wrote:The American driving test is a joke. It's about 15 minutes where basically all they test is turning and lane changing. Apart from that you have to reverse in a straight line for about a block. I think it's designed to get as many people to pass as soon as possible.

To be fair, driving in America is a lot easier than driving in the UK. Almost every car in the US is an automatic, plus the roads are massive and are usually pretty clear so you have good visibility and a lot of time to react to situations so it's pretty laid back.

Over here (at least in Yorkshire) we have a lot of narrow and hilly roads and it takes a fair bit of effort to drive. I still struggle on judging another drivers intentions, especially on unmarked crossroads.

That's a fair point. It massively depends where you live though. Where I took my test, driving is mostly straightforward. There are barely any hills or narrow roads, so they don't test those. If I had to drive in a more rural place, I'd probably be a bit stuffed.

It's a pretty flawed system. Passing in these modern cars with so much driver aid technology should mean you can only drive cars as such. Just like how passing in an auto allows you to only drive auto. Instead they expect you to put some P plates on to show you're not a fully qualified driver and hope every other motorist stays well clear of you.

It's no surprise that the majority of new drivers crash within their first 3 months.

Just out of interest is this true?

hahahahaha

Theo Filippo wrote:Just out of interest is this true?

Most of it. I'm not sure about Jews being "indigenous" to the land since that's a very murky term that can be twisted to mean whatever anyone wants it to mean, the people using it are usually being dishonest in some way.

The bit about the 1947 plan being rejected is absolutely true though. The Palestinians - or more accurately the Arabs - decided to reject the UN's plan and decide the existence and extent or Israel in a war. They have to live with the consequences of that. I don't know why people always go back to those borders.

RR's opinion is of course invalid.

Keyser Söze wrote:RR's opinion is of course invalid.

Why? Because I know what I'm talking about?

vel wrote:

My subreddit is thriving

Link.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Theo Filippo wrote:Just out of interest is this true?

Most of it.  I'm not sure about Jews being "indigenous" to the land since that's a very murky term that can be twisted to mean whatever anyone wants it to mean, the people using it are usually being dishonest in some way.  

The bit about the 1947 plan being rejected is absolutely true though.  The Palestinians - or more accurately the Arabs - decided to reject the UN's plan and decide the existence and extent or Israel in a war.  They have to live with the consequences of that.  I don't know why people always go back to those borders.

Well of course they rejected the 1947 plan. It violated national self-determination not to mention completely unfair.

56% of the land went to the Jewish state and it was better land than the 44% given to the Arabs. Jews only made up 33% of the entire population and 7% of the land ownership at that time.

If you honestly think Palestinians should have accepted a plan by a group of foreign nations deciding how to split up their lands and giving it mostly to a minority (who many of them never even lived in that area), then you're more biased and dumber than I thought. At the same token, Jews would have been stupid not to accept the 1947 plan. They had nothing to lose.

FCB wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Most of it.  I'm not sure about Jews being "indigenous" to the land since that's a very murky term that can be twisted to mean whatever anyone wants it to mean, the people using it are usually being dishonest in some way.  

The bit about the 1947 plan being rejected is absolutely true though.  The Palestinians - or more accurately the Arabs - decided to reject the UN's plan and decide the existence and extent or Israel in a war.  They have to live with the consequences of that.  I don't know why people always go back to those borders.

Well of course they rejected the 1947 plan. It violated national self-determination not to mention completely unfair.

56% of the land went to the Jewish state and it was better land than the 44% given to the Arabs. Jews only made up 33% of the entire population and 7% of the land ownership at that time.

If you honestly think Palestinians should have accepted a plan by a group of foreign nations deciding how to split up their lands and giving it mostly  to a minority (who many of them never even lived in that area), then you're more biased and dumber than I thought. At the same token, Jews would have been stupid not to accept the 1947 plan. They had nothing to lose.

If they don't want to accept it and don't want to discuss it diplomatically then they have the option of rejecting diplomacy and going to war. You can't very well go to war and if you win keep the conquered lands but if you lose go back to diplomacy and say you want the borders you just rejected which give you far more land on the immediate border of the country you just attacked. It's laughable.

The Palestinians would be much better off had they accepted the UN plan. They absolutely should have accepted it.

Do you still think the Jewish state should have been formed by taking land away from Germany two years after the Nazis fell by the way?

Everything RR says is what you'd expect from a spineless coward with no morals or values. The worst thing is that he pretends to be a proponent of justice when all he advocates for is the domination of the strong over the weak, i.e. the standard liberal affliction. What kind of proponent of justice would advocate for servility to the whims of imperialists and colonialists? And it should be made clear that the decision to return to those borders was not something that the Palestinian Authority called for immediately after the loss of any particular war. It was only in 1993 when both parties agreed to such terms that this became the demand, after Arafat basically capitulated to Israeli terms. And despite this, appalling exploitation of Palestinian resources has persisted continuously, especially in the West Bank where a pack of eunuchs have basically stopped any form of resistance.

Ra's al Ghul wrote:Everything RR says is what you'd expect from a spineless coward with no morals or values. The worst thing is that he pretends to be a proponent of justice when all he advocates for is the domination of the strong over the weak, i.e. the standard liberal affliction. What kind of proponent of justice would advocate for servility to the whims of imperialists and colonialists? And it should be made clear that the decision to return to those borders was not something that the Palestinian Authority called for immediately after the loss of any particular war. It was only in 1993 when both parties agreed to such terms that this became the demand, after Arafat basically capitulated to Israeli terms. And despite this, appalling exploitation of Palestinian resources has persisted continuously, especially in the West Bank where a pack of eunuchs have basically stopped any form of resistance.

I don't advocate that, I advocate diplomacy and peace. If certain parties choose to reject diplomacy and resolving issues by peaceful means they have to accept the consequences of that in the same way they would accept the spoils of victory. At the time genocide was standard practice in wars, the Palestinians were lucky to avoid being completely exterminated. This near unprecedented act of mercy from the Israelis is something the Palestinians have shown no gratitude for, and their continued acts of terrorism must lead Israel to wonder if it should have followed through.

What diplomacy and peace are you talking about? Forcibly displacing people from their homes is a blatant act of war. I don't know what your confused perception of history is telling you but massive ethnic cleansing took place following the announcement of the partition plan, hence the refugee problem that exists today. There was no rejection of peace by the Arabs, war was thrust upon them. And I think you should be a bit more specific when saying that genocide was the standard practice in wars then. It wasn't generally, although it certainly was in a particular kind of war: colonialist invasion. I'm glad you brought up this point because it clarifies the kind of historical examples with which the creation of the Israeli state can be compared. One indeed may have expected genocide in that region in the same way Native Americans were exterminated by colonial-settlers, or in the way the Aboriginal Australians were similarly wiped out. But truthfully, Israel gains a lot more by keeping Palestinians alive on the fringes than by exterminating them entirely. They obviously get to maintain the false threat of "terrorism" as vindication for many of their heinous crimes, in addition to being able to commit mass exploitation of the Palestinian labour force. To suggest that there was any degree of Israeli generosity in not exterminating the Palestinians is to confirm your ignorance.

Is your moral bad that low that not committing genocide should be commended?

SBSP wrote:Is your moral bad that low that not committing genocide should be commended?

In 1948? Absolutely. Nobody was refraining from genocide when it served their interest until very recently.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:RR's opinion is of course invalid.

Why? Because I know what I'm talking about?

It's actually the opposite. You have no idea what you're talking about, you just mindlessly parrot what Sam Harris/Bill Maher/Christopher Hitchens say.

Keyser Söze wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Why? Because I know what I'm talking about?

It's actually the opposite.  You have no idea what you're talking about, you just mindlessly parrot what Sam Harris/Bill Maher/Christopher Hitchens say.

They are/were very intelligent men with a lot of important stuff to say about that conflict. I have, however, studied the subject in a fair amount of detail myself at university and formed most of my opinions on the subject before finding they agreed with me.

An insecure bigot, a clown and an alcoholic. 

Cut the bullshit. You yourself said you didn't do any reading at University,  you said you just watched Bill Maher, and it shows through your comments.

Sam Harris isn't a bigot, it's not bigoted to oppose dangerous ideas or people buying into them. Have you read any of his books? I think his book about ethics was a lot better than his book on faith.

Bill Maher is a very funny man, I agree.

Christopher Hitchens was a big drinker, no question, it doesn't effect whether he was right or wrong though. It says a lot that that's what you target about him rather than his arguments.

I went to lectures, I discussed it with colleagues, I did reading when I was doing my essays although a lot of it was independent rather than what was on the reading lists. If I was reading a load of shit or what I was learning was inaccurate I would have failed my degree.

Anyone who says that Palestinians should have accepted a plan that was forced upon them by colonialists who gave most of the land to immigrants should not be taken seriously.