As reported in the LA Times (7/11/94), the DMV has quietly
begun switching over to a more rigorous and lengthier
road test for new drivers. According to the story, the
new test averages 27 minutes and includes freeway driving
and a pre-drive pop-quiz. Supposedly, the new test has
already been implemented in parts of So. Cal., and will
soon be used state-wide.
I would like to hear as much detail as possible about
the new test so that I can better prepare my wife, who
will soon be taking the test.
Has anyone taken the new test or heard any more details?
-Richard
In article <301vo4$…@kaiwan.kaiwan.com>,
Richard E Blauvelt <rblau…@kaiwan.com> wrote:
>As reported in the LA Times (7/11/94), the DMV has quietly
>begun switching over to a more rigorous and lengthier
>road test for new drivers. According to the story, the
>new test averages 27 minutes and includes freeway driving
>and a pre-drive pop-quiz. Supposedly, the new test has
>already been implemented in parts of So. Cal., and will
>soon be used state-wide.
>I would like to hear as much detail as possible about
>the new test so that I can better prepare my wife, who
>will soon be taking the test.
>Has anyone taken the new test or heard any more details?
I heard someone from the DMV being interviewed about this
on the radio. He said that the new test is being implemented in
parts of the state, particularly Southern California, as an
experiment for a year. After a year, they will evaluate the
results, and if the test seem effective they will then start
using it statewide. So if you’re in Northern California
you don’t have to worry about this for at least another year.
Ed
e…@wente.llnl.gov
It’s about time!!
The current tests are obselete.
Richard E Blauvelt (rblau…@kaiwan.com) wrote:
: As reported in the LA Times (7/11/94), the DMV has quietly
: begun switching over to a more rigorous and lengthier
: road test for new drivers. According to the story, the
: new test averages 27 minutes and includes freeway driving
: and a pre-drive pop-quiz. Supposedly, the new test has
: already been implemented in parts of So. Cal., and will
: soon be used state-wide.
: I would like to hear as much detail as possible about
: the new test so that I can better prepare my wife, who
: will soon be taking the test.
: Has anyone taken the new test or heard any more details?
: -Richard
In article <301vo4$…@kaiwan.kaiwan.com>,
Richard E Blauvelt <rblau…@kaiwan.com> wrote:
>As reported in the LA Times (7/11/94), the DMV has quietly
>begun switching over to a more rigorous and lengthier
>road test for new drivers. According to the story, the
[ stuff deleted ]
>-Richard
A local news report said that the new test features
a section on freeway driving (hopefully not during
rush hour!) which includes changing lanes/merging
and a parallel parking test – touch the cones and you
fail.
–
! Alex Morando, Engineer-at-large and an all-around good guy
! Internet: a…@netcom.com, amo…@aol.com
! No way on God’s green Earth does this post reflect my employer’s views.
In article <302g5i$…@news.csus.edu>, stea…@mercury.sfsu.edu (Kenneth) writes:
|> It’s about time!!
|> The current tests are obselete.
I don’t understand this sentiment. As I understand it the "current
tests" test your driving ability. How are they obsolete?
Oh, you mean they don’t have "freeway driving", "hill driving",
etc.? Why should they? I know we live in LA, but there are still
some people who don’t drive on freeways or speed around curves on
hills. Why should they have to prove their ability to do so?
I view this more like professional driving schools. If I want
to learn to drive around a racetrack fast I’ll go to the appropriate
driving school. I sure wouldn’t expect it to be part of a DMV
test…
There are a lot of bad drivers in LA, but making the test more
difficult will only ensure a lot of unlicensed bad drivers in LA.
–
Deepak Brar #include <StdDisclaimer.h>
Senior Software Engineer
The MacNeal-Schwendler Corp.
Los Angeles, CA 90041
Deepak Brar <deepak.b…@macsch.com> wrote:
>Oh, you mean they don’t have "freeway driving", "hill driving",
>etc.? Why should they? I know we live in LA, but there are still
>some people who don’t drive on freeways or speed around curves on
>hills. Why should they have to prove their ability to do so?
Since their license enables them to go on the freeway or around hills,
they have to prove that they can. Are you suggesting a limited license
for people who freak out at the sight of 4 lanes of one way traffic? The
freeway isn’t terribly different from many of the suburbs with speed
limits of 50-55. And I don’t believe a driver could get around without
eventually having to go on one of these surfaces. If he can’t hack an
insignificant challenge, he probably shouldn’t be driving anyway.
Especially in LA, which has the worst (if rather pleasant mannered)
drivers in the state.
You could make a case that parallel parking is an unnecessary test, as
anyone can eventually pull it off (20 reversals later). Wonder how much
space they get, and if the guy in the Caddy gets the same spot as the guy
in the Metro.
Jason O’Rourke
According to the Mercury News, the current test knocks off about
33% of the takers. This itself seems high, considering how easy
the test was. The tougher written test and testing the skills of
the driver on the freeways is a welcome change. (MN also says that
a restricted license will be given for driving other than on the
freeways; no details though.)
Vijay
In article <3044kd$…@agate.berkeley.edu>, j…@uclink2.berkeley.edu (Jason Steven O Rourke) writes:
|> Deepak Brar <deepak.b…@macsch.com> wrote:
|> >Oh, you mean they don’t have "freeway driving", "hill driving",
|> >etc.? Why should they? I know we live in LA, but there are still
|> >some people who don’t drive on freeways or speed around curves on
|> >hills. Why should they have to prove their ability to do so?
|>
|> Since their license enables them to go on the freeway or around hills,
|> they have to prove that they can. Are you suggesting a limited license
|> for people who freak out at the sight of 4 lanes of one way traffic? The
|> freeway isn’t terribly different from many of the suburbs with speed
|> limits of 50-55. And I don’t believe a driver could get around without
|> eventually having to go on one of these surfaces. If he can’t hack an
|> insignificant challenge, he probably shouldn’t be driving anyway.
Will the new test check for expertise in the following:
* Braking from 70 mph when a pile-up occurs right in front of you.
* Dealing with being boxed in by semis and needing to change a lane.
* Driving in extreme weather conditions.
* Maneouvering around a lane obstruction in heavy traffic.
etc, etc.? These are all "challenges" faced by drivers in the course
of their driving. An obvious conclusion then is that the DMV test is
not meant to cover all possible aspects one might have to face
"eventually", but rather to verify basic competence in driving.
It’s important to realize that the driving test itself cannot be a
catch-all and somehow magically prevent bad drivers. As I said before,
I’d rather get into an accident with a bad driver who has a license
than one who is unlicensed (and obviously uninsured) because the DMV
test was "too hard".
The test itself only legitimizes the driver. Anyone can get into
a car and drive, and I’d rather see a broad-based test like this
apply to the lowest denominator to at least ensure the driver’s
legitimacy in most cases.
–
Deepak Brar #include <StdDisclaimer.h>
Senior Software Engineer
The MacNeal-Schwendler Corp.
Los Angeles, CA 90041
In article <armCsxpGn….@netcom.com> a…@netcom.com (Alex Morando) writes:
}
}A local news report said that the new test features
}a section on freeway driving (hopefully not during
}rush hour!) which includes changing lanes/merging
}and a parallel parking test – touch the cones and you
}fail.
Why do so many jurisdictions think parallel parking is so important?
Is it just because it is easy to test?
–
Matthew T. Russotto russo…@eng.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
Deepak Brar (deepak.b…@macsch.com) wrote:
: In article <302g5i$…@news.csus.edu>, stea…@mercury.sfsu.edu (Kenneth) writes:
: |> It’s about time!!
: |> The current tests are obselete.
: I don’t understand this sentiment. As I understand it the "current
: tests" test your driving ability. How are they obsolete?
Virtually any gorilla can pass the current current DMV driving test. In
other words, passing the driving test in this state does not mean, as it does
in many other parts of the world, that one knows how to drive. I am 100%
in favor of having to show true competence in vehicle operation before
getting a license.
: Oh, you mean they don’t have "freeway driving", "hill driving",
: etc.? Why should they? I know we live in LA, but there are still
: some people who don’t drive on freeways or speed around curves on
: hills. Why should they have to prove their ability to do so?
Beacuse anyone at some time may find themselves on a windy hill, or on the
freeway. Just because someone doesn’t drive in these areas on a regular
basis doesn’t mean that they don’t need to know how to (drive on these
types of roads).
: I view this more like professional driving schools. If I want
: to learn to drive around a racetrack fast I’ll go to the appropriate
: driving school. I sure wouldn’t expect it to be part of a DMV
: test…
I seriously doubt that any DMV test would be even remotely equivalent to
high speed racetrack driving.
: There are a lot of bad drivers in LA, but making the test more
: difficult will only ensure a lot of unlicensed bad drivers in LA.
Many factors contribute to the problem of unlicensed drivers. I can only
guess that the driving test is probably NOT one of them. Someone with the
inclination to break the law will do so regardless of the difficulty of
obtaining legal status. A more difficult drivers test may, however, prevent
a truely dangerous, but law abiding, driver from endangering themselves and
others.
–
Christopher A. Calley – all opinions are my own… etc.
internet: cal…@optilink.dsccc.com
Deepak Brar (d…@godzilla.id.macsch.com) wrote:
: It’s important to realize that the driving test itself cannot be a
: catch-all and somehow magically prevent bad drivers. As I said before,
: I’d rather get into an accident with a bad driver who has a license
: than one who is unlicensed (and obviously uninsured) because the DMV
: test was "too hard".
I too would much prefer an encounter with a licensed, insured driver. You make
the assumption though that because the test is harder, there will be more
unlicensed drivers on the road. I believe this is at best a remote and
unproven theory. And it is certainly NOT a justification for keeping
the test so ridiculoulsly easy that anyone who can write there name can
pass. The way it is now, there should be NO test. Just pay your money and
get your license. The idea that a test should be used to prove something,
in this case competence to operate a motor vehicle, may be abhorrent to some.
I think it is an idea whose time has come.
–
Christopher A. Calley – all opinions are my own… etc.
internet: cal…@optilink.dsccc.com
In article <CszrBJ….@optilink.com>, Chris Calley <cal…@optilink.com> wrote:
>I seriously doubt that any DMV test would be even remotely equivalent to
>high speed racetrack driving.
I agree. The situations are entirely different.
Having done both, I tend to believe that street driving in traffic is
more of a challenge. The threats on the racetrack are largely
predictable, few in number, and repetitive; on the street they are
numerous, unpredictable, and constantly changing. Also, you can assume
that every other driver on the racetrack has at least some minimal
training and skills, and that their vehicles are reasonably well
prepared.
– Chuck
—
Chuck Fry chu…@rahul.net
1791: US Constitution adopted, giving sweeping new powers to the people.
1993: Clipper chip proposed, giving sweeping new powers to the police.
What has happened to the US Government in the intervening 202 years?
Richard E Blauvelt (rblau…@kaiwan.com) wrote:
: As reported in the LA Times (7/11/94), the DMV has quietly
: begun switching over to a more rigorous and lengthier
: road test for new drivers. According to the story, the
: new test averages 27 minutes and includes freeway driving
: and a pre-drive pop-quiz. Supposedly, the new test has
: already been implemented in parts of So. Cal., and will
: soon be used state-wide.
Good! I got my driver’s license in November, and was shocked
at how little the tests covered. this sounds like a much better
reflection of the real world.
Karen
kar…@netcom.com
Alex Morando (a…@netcom.com) wrote:
: and a parallel parking test – touch the cones and you
: fail.
Ha! I got my driver’s license in November, and I have parallel
parked five times. Total. I’m not convinced it’s such a necessary
skill. On the other hand, freeway driving is a must.
Karen
kar…@netcom.com
In article <karenkCt0MGq….@netcom.com>, Karen Kay <kar…@netcom.com> wrote:
>Alex Morando (a…@netcom.com) wrote:
>: and a parallel parking test – touch the cones and you
>: fail.
>Ha! I got my driver’s license in November, and I have parallel
>parked five times. Total. I’m not convinced it’s such a necessary
>skill. On the other hand, freeway driving is a must.
My aunt has been driving 15 years and never driven on the
freeway (too scary for her).
Unless you are in a heavily urban area like downtown or west LA,
you can always find a way to avoid parallel parking.
–
! Alex Morando, Engineer-at-large and an all-around good guy
! Internet: a…@netcom.com, amo…@aol.com
! No way on God’s green Earth does this post reflect my employer’s views.
> Oh, you mean they don’t have "freeway driving", "hill driving",
> etc.? Why should they? I know we live in LA, but there are still
> some people who don’t drive on freeways or speed around curves on
> hills. Why should they have to prove their ability to do so?
Why? Because they are getting licenses that say they are ALLOWED
to drive on hills and around curves, that’s why. Now *IF* there
were separate licenses for "straight roads only" your argument
would make sense. But of course that whole concept is absurd —
when the road turns, even the person with the "straight only"
license will turn. In other words, EVERY driver must have
acceptable skill level at EVERY type of driving they are
authorized to perform.
And since I’ve got the microphone
, what bugs ME about the
license "exam" is the extraneous crap that has nothing to do with
driving. For example, they ask how many days after an accident
you have to report it. I don’t know and I don’t care — if I’m
in an accident I’ll *ASK* somebody! On the other hand, given the
number of people who don’t seem to understand the simple
statement "keep right except to pass," there are clearly many
concepts that are *NOT* being tested.
But anyway, a *MUCH* more severe driving test is a welcome thing.
I don’t now how they are planning to fund it, but for once this
is a tax expenditure that I fully support.
wayne
In article <Csy1M9….@draco.macsch.com> deepak.b…@macsch.com writes:
>In article <302g5i$…@news.csus.edu>, stea…@mercury.sfsu.edu (Kenneth) writes:
>|> It’s about time!!
>|> The current tests are obselete.
>I don’t understand this sentiment. As I understand it the "current
>tests" test your driving ability. How are they obsolete?
>Oh, you mean they don’t have "freeway driving", "hill driving",
>etc.? Why should they? I know we live in LA, but there are still
>some people who don’t drive on freeways or speed around curves on
>hills. Why should they have to prove their ability to do so?
>…..
I think I read in the San Jose Mercury News that anyone declining to
take the freeway test (and passing the rest) would be offered a
"limited" license.
-Dave
In article <karenkCt0MGq….@netcom.com> kar…@netcom.com (Karen Kay) writes:
}Alex Morando (a…@netcom.com) wrote:
}: and a parallel parking test – touch the cones and you
}: fail.
}
}Ha! I got my driver’s license in November, and I have parallel
}parked five times. Total. I’m not convinced it’s such a necessary
}skill. On the other hand, freeway driving is a must.
Yeah. I got my license in January— 1988. And I have parallel parked
about five times, as well. Most of the time it wasn’t really parallel
parking, as sliding a Miata or Tercel into a spot big enough for a
Fury isn’t much of a trick.
—
Matthew T. Russotto russo…@eng.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
In article <30gkrp$…@mojo.eng.umd.edu>, russo…@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
|> In article <karenkCt0MGq….@netcom.com> kar…@netcom.com (Karen Kay) writes:
|> }Alex Morando (a…@netcom.com) wrote:
|> }: and a parallel parking test – touch the cones and you
|> }: fail.
|> }
|> }Ha! I got my driver’s license in November, and I have parallel
|> }parked five times. Total. I’m not convinced it’s such a necessary
|> }skill. On the other hand, freeway driving is a must.
|>
|> Yeah. I got my license in January— 1988. And I have parallel parked
|> about five times, as well. Most of the time it wasn’t really parallel
|> parking, as sliding a Miata or Tercel into a spot big enough for a
|> Fury isn’t much of a trick.
I’m all for dropping parallel parking from the CA road test; in fact, I’m
even against teaching it in driver’s ed. The fewer people know how to
parallel-park, the more likely I am to find a parking space…
—
u…@objy.com
I learned to drive in the country, and it took me quite a while to get down
to one pass on a parallel parking job. Now if you need somebody to back a
car down a muddy hill side, at night, and avoiding the water ditch; that’s
another story! (Jest pull into the field, there is always room enough for
parking)
They did not test parallel parking when I took my test, they gave me a
Y-turn instead. Picture this quiet, very wide road. I’m driving a Honda
Civic. The instructor tells me to do a Y-turn. I do three-quarters of a
U-turn and I’m still about 15 feet away from the curb. I look over and say
"Do you really want me to back up?" I passed the test (although he downgraded
me for jerky shifting, evidently he had never driven a Civic). -mjm-
In article <Csy1M9….@draco.macsch.com> deepak.b…@macsch.com writes:
$In article <302g5i$…@news.csus.edu>, stea…@mercury.sfsu.edu (Kenneth) writes:
$|> It’s about time!!
$|> The current tests are obselete.
$I don’t understand this sentiment. As I understand it the "current
$tests" test your driving ability. How are they obsolete?
Not living in California, I don’t know what the CA tests are like.
I _do_ know what the ON test is like, and it’s a joke. After driving
around for about ten minutes in an artificial driving environment
(basically an overgrown parking lot where the only other traffic
is one or two other cars with drivers being tested), at speeds of
up to perhaps 40 km/h, the Government gave me a grade of 96% and
certified that I was good enough to drive on any road in Ontario
or any other jurisdiction which recognizes Ontario licences.
They didn’t see how I reacted to heavy traffic, idiots in other
cars, high-speed driving on the highway, medium-speed driving on
major roads, wet roads, emergency situations, etc., and they could
have created many if not all of the above in testing me. But I’m
sure I’m good enough, obviously, or else they wouldn’t have given
me such a good mark.
$Oh, you mean they don’t have "freeway driving", "hill driving",
$etc.? Why should they? I know we live in LA, but there are still
$some people who don’t drive on freeways or speed around curves on
$hills. Why should they have to prove their ability to do so?
If there is a way of marking them as unfit or untested in those
conditions, and of ensuring that they only drive in the conditions
for which they chose to take their tests, then fine; let the driver
select under what conditions they wish to be tested and give them
a licence that’s valid only for those conditions.
But I don’t imagine a California licence states "This driver
is only licenced to drive on roads of two lanes or less with a
posted speed limit not in excess of 40 mph". Once you get your
licence, you’re allowed to drive on the freeways, right? So it’s
entirely reasonable for the state to want to ensure that you are
capable of doing this safely before issuing a permit that allows
you to.
$I view this more like professional driving schools. If I want
$to learn to drive around a racetrack fast I’ll go to the appropriate
$driving school. I sure wouldn’t expect it to be part of a DMV
$test…
Heck no! I don’t think that’s being suggested at all. There are
probably no roads under the jurisdiction of the DMV where this type
of driving is applicable and appropriate. There are, on the other
hand, numerous freeways which, I’d imagine, are used at least on
occasion by the majority of drivers, and if you’re going to test
drivers to see how they fare on the roads, it only makes sense
to include the types of roads that a typical driver would encounter
in the period from their test until either their next test, if there’s
mandatory re-testing due to elapsed time or age or whatever, or
until they cease driving. For most people, that includes freeways.
$There are a lot of bad drivers in LA, but making the test more
$difficult will only ensure a lot of unlicensed bad drivers in LA.
Well, I don’t know what the answer is. Presumably, since you know
that this one solution won’t work, you also know one that will; could
you share it with us?
Having never been to L.A., I don’t know how people drive, so
I’ll use my experience in Toronto as a basis for comparison,
and presume that much of it applies to both locations in a roughly
similar manner.
The people in Toronto are probably not of higher or lower innate
ability or intelligence compared to, say, the people of Leeds,
Yorkshire, England. Yet the drivers there are far, far more
disciplined in Leeds and, all in all, much better drivers than
the typical Torontonian. Why? Well, I don’t know. It could be
that there is better education, or that there are stiffer
penalties, or that the driving laws are enforced better, or that
the test is far more difficult (and only the better drivers pass),
or something else entirely.
The details are irrelevant. The fact is that, given a group of
people, there does seem to be a far higher proportion of good drivers
in Leeds than in Toronto. Obviously, _something_ makes the average
driver better over there. Whatever it is, it’s of benefit to us all
to find it and implement it over here, and having a realistic driving
examination may be a reasonable step in this direction.
—
______________________________________________
/ Hi Ho Silver, who likes the idea of having \ __________________________
\ SNTF and large h00ters in the same package \/ sil…@bokonon.UUCP \
\______________________________________________/ …{!uunet}!bokonon!silver \
Well, it seems to me that the freeway driving test is pretty pointless.
It would seem that they coul ddo this in a simulator (like a video game)
cheaper than using real cars and real officers.
First of all, the only time the freeways go 55 is when its really packed,
and thats a dangerous time for a test. In any event , I suspect the test would
consist of going down the ramp, merging, driving in the right lane, and
exiting 1-2 mi down. I would assume that driving with traffic, at 60-70
would be breaking the law and thus a flunk.
Doing braking and collision avoidance exercises on a small track behind
thet est center would make more sense.
These need not be complicated exercises. Can you brake in a straight line
in a given distance without locking your wheels? Can you steer around
a bunch of cones without knocking any over? For those that demand more
realkism, we could use foam car and pedestrian obstacles. Maybe that
could drive home the possibilities should someone not be able to pass
the test.
I wish cars had safety tests out here in CA. Perhaps there are unenforced
safety laws. Are cars with failed turn lights, smooth tires, bad brakes,
leaking and loosing parts safe with any driver? Anyone ever played "Dodge
the Hubcap" on the curvy section of the Pasadena freeway ???
Of course, it can be argued that this discriminates against the poor, or
any other group who happens to be poor or drive old, worn out cars. But
if the point is to make sure that th driver can avoid injury to himself
and others, I’m not sure what the problem is. The car and driver need
to be considered as a unit when evaluating safety issues.
Paul Brewer
p…@cco.caltech.edu
In article <Ct7xHE….@ac.tandem.com>, a-mi…@ac.tandem.com (mckay_michael) writes:
|> They did not test parallel parking when I took my test, they gave me a
|> Y-turn instead. Picture this quiet, very wide road. I’m driving a Honda
|> Civic. The instructor tells me to do a Y-turn. I do three-quarters of a
|> U-turn and I’m still about 15 feet away from the curb. I look over and say
|> "Do you really want me to back up?" I passed the test (although he downgraded
|> me for jerky shifting, evidently he had never driven a Civic). -mjm-
Reminds me of my driver’s test in Missouri years ago. I took it in an old post office
jeep, the kind with right-hand drive. You’d have to be an idiot to not be able to
parallel park one of these – just stick your head out the window and see everything.
I pulled up next to the car in front to start, the examiner took a look, and said,
"Never mind."
In article <Ct7nBo…@bokonon.UUCP>, sil…@bokonon.UUCP (Hi Ho Silver) writes:
|> In article <Csy1M9….@draco.macsch.com> deepak.b…@macsch.com writes:
|> [deleted]
|> $There are a lot of bad drivers in LA, but making the test more
|> $difficult will only ensure a lot of unlicensed bad drivers in LA.
|>
|> Well, I don’t know what the answer is. Presumably, since you know
|> that this one solution won’t work, you also know one that will; could
|> you share it with us?
Requiring attendance to a driving school before getting a license.
They do this with kids – ie. if you are under 18 you must have either
taken the school-approved driver training course or gone to a
commercial driving school. Why not extend this to everyone?
Seems to me that’ll ensure a better driver in a much more
predictable fashion than a harder test.
–
Deepak Brar #include <StdDisclaimer.h>
Senior Software Engineer
The MacNeal-Schwendler Corp.
Los Angeles, CA 90041
In article <CtB9xI….@draco.macsch.com> deepak.b…@macsch.com writes:
}
}Requiring attendance to a driving school before getting a license.
}They do this with kids – ie. if you are under 18 you must have either
}taken the school-approved driver training course or gone to a
}commercial driving school. Why not extend this to everyone?
Because there’s basically no evidence that it works for the under 18 crowd.
–
Matthew T. Russotto russo…@eng.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)