Forcing people to learn in a manual or face higher premiums and restricted choice when buying cars will make them a better driver. Since they will have to train for longer in order to pass the test, plus they will have to learn how to actually drive a manual which will require a higher level of skill than driving auto. Through having to practice more they will gain more than just the skills required to drive manual but other skills as well. However my understanding is that driving tests are far far more stringent in the UK than the US. To give a quick run down. We have 3 tests. Theory test, hazard perception test and driving test. Theory test: Looks like this sort of thing. Contains those sorts of questions. You are also expected to know a load of other stuff such as basic first aid and to know stopping distances off by heart. Hazard Perception test: This video from the driving standards agency explains everything. Essentially you get shown a load of rendered videos, you have to click when you see a potential threat, faster you notice the threat, more point you get. Fail to get enough points, you fail the test. You then need to re apply to sit it again. People who did their test longer ago will have been shown video clips from camera's strapped to cars driving along real roads rather than computer renderings. Driving test You have to drive a car with an examiner marking you, the test lasts about 40 mins of continuous driving. You get awarded points for making mistakes, over a certain number of points means you fail. You get given points for driving unsmoothly, being indecisive while driving, driving in an eco-unfriendly way (you always need to keep the revs as low as possible by staying in as high a gear as possible), not checking the mirrors and so on. This is the sort of sheet they use to assess your driving.
Saw a jag like this today it looks so good. Also it always will look like its robbing the place when it stands infront of it
Really? "Eco safe driving?" So, basically, they're teaching you to be That Guy from the very beginning. Utterly disgusting.
I don't really see teaching people to drive smoothly while keeping the revs low as a bad thing. It leads to better fuel economy and less engine wear. Neither are exactly bad things, especially for the average person. Equally if someone wants to drive with the engine pinned to the rev limiter then they can learn to do that when they have their licence.
A thing most Americans don't seems to get is that Autos aren't a thing here. New cars who comes with auto gearbox are either cheap sithboxs with an awful gearbox, either it's on really high-ends cars. And most people don't really care about "Engines" and all those fency stuffs here, so if they put 40k on a car, they will probably get the higher trim model with the shittiest engine, who don't have the option for an Auto. When you've just passed your Driving let's say at 18 years old, the minimum age in most EU contries, you won't buy a 40k all new car with an auto or either a cheap 10k€ with a shitty auto. No, you will buy a 1.5K third hands 90's Clio/106/Golf or maybe a low end BMW with a shitty 60hp diesel and 500K miles and put a big wing on it 'cause you're a ricer. Or do like me and buy a rust bag at 16 years old and hope you'll be able to restaure before you're 40, or just be lucky and get the 30 years old familly Golf. 2 reasons why : -1) Obviously you don't have the money to buy an expensive car -2) Even if you may have the money, for some, euuuh, obscure reasons, keep in mind, beeing a young driver, you will mistakes, even if you're carefull, it's just... Yeah like that. Now try to find me a 25 years old car, in decent condition, for 1.5k, with an auto. You probably won't. if autos are rare todays, imagine 20 years ago. So yeah, there's no point only beeing able to drive Autos, if Autos aren't a thing. Ez, it's N°5
That we dont have, though i think some degree of basic maintenance knowledge should be required. Just the usual checking fluids, tires and lights should be a bare minimum.
No. No no no. No one behind you wants to see how slowly and smoothly you can accelerate. When you're at the head of the line, you're supposed to accelerate aggressively so those behind you can also get going in good time. Few things are more infuriating than getting stuck at a red light on your way to work, then realizing a quarter- or half-mile or more past the light that you still haven't got back up to the speed limit because the person in front of you is half-asleep or just afraid to drive. Forget the polar bears, think of the guy behind you and kindly get a move on! If I was designing a driving test, I would probably find somewhat different things to mark people off on: -Accelerating too slowly -Driving under the speed limit -On multilane roads: camping in the left lane -Also on multilane roads: speed matching or otherwise failing to speed up sufficiently when overtaking -Slowing unnecessarily or excessively for curves, whether single or continuous -Failure to use proper look-ahead technique on corners -Crossing center on outside corners ("muggle cutting") Just to name a few of the annoying things I see on the road sometimes (and am guilty of myself, especially slow overtaking). Also, while we're on the subject, there are a few changes I would make to US automotive modification laws: First step. Removal of catalytic converter and other emissions hardware: NO LONGER A FELONY. Seriously, that's just nuts. Running catless should be a minor offense warranting a fix-it ticket. Second step. Any non-OBDII car (basically MY1995 and older) becomes 100% exempt from all emissions and safety regulations, so you can decat them, remove the airbags and install a racing steering wheel, plug up the EGR valve, etc. For OBDII cars, the threshold will be a rolling 25 years, as it is for gray-market cars already. Third step. Radically simplify and lighten federal emissions regulations as applied to the driver (as opposed to manufacturer). If you're under a certain age (could be calculated based on the mean or median age of cars on the road) you can't let uncatalyzed exhaust escape, but type, location, part number, etc. of the catalyst(s), along with everything else related to pollution control, are up to you as long as it sniffs within a certain acceptable range of stock. Same could be said of airbags and other safety devices that aren't seatbelts; once a car reaches a certain age, they can be removed. Fourth step. Lighten fuel-economy and emissions requirements on manufacturers. First it was Volkswagen, now it's FCA; I have to wonder when the regulators are going to realize that the problem isn't cheaty manufacturers, it's that they and their "standards must constantly get tougher" mindset have finally gone too far. I would endeavor to find out how tough federal standards actually need to be, and scale them back to that level. It's rule number one for the small-government conservative: the higher-level a law is, the more permissive it should be, because one size absolutely does not fit all. Of course, in every case, state and local legislators would be able to have their own tougher regulations, as many already do.
The Eco Driving marks are not about accelerating slowly. They are about driving smoothly and keeping the car in the right gear to minimise emmisions and effort that the car has to expel to keep you at your current speed. So if you pull out of a junction and the car behind you on that road has to slow down because you decided to pull out you would gain penalty points, however if you realize that you may cause an issue and accelerate hard in order to avoid causing problems for other drivers (and manage to do so without giving the examiner whiplash) that is considered ok. The whole point of the driving test is to make sure you are safe to drive, driving economically is certainly a factor of the test, but if you crawl away from junctions you will fail the exam for a multitude of reasons (as I stated earlier, being indecisive will make you fail the exam, since if other drivers are not sure what you will do next that poses a risk). Equally if you consistently drive under the speed limit (less than 25mph in a 30 zone) in situations when you shouldn't be (for example if a road has became very narrow due to parked traffic and so on they will expect you to reduce speed) they will also fail you on that basis too, since it will cause other people to overtake needlessly which once again poses an unneeded risk. However in the UK most of the rural roads have a 60mph speed limit, including twisty roads with sharp corners, since it is expected that the driver will choose an appropriate speed within the limit. So within the context of the UK's laws and how the whole system is run I would say it is pretty reasonable. Top two addressed above -On multilane roads you have to move to the left lane in order to allow faster traffic to pass, the right lanes are the fast lanes (reverse my left and right for LHD countries). I don't know if lane hogging is explicitly illegal but I am pretty sure you can be pulled over for it -Slowing excessively for corners would probably also get you failed. -Crossing centre on outside of corners is considered reasonable practice here as long as you have good visability of the corner, since it is not always reasonable to expect you to stay in your lane (see image below) (and when I say cut I mean properly cut the corner, like 60% of your vehicle in opposite lane based on image above, but I maybe wouldn't suggest going that hardcore in the exam xD)
What is you're obsession with 80's American boats? They're too old to be very reliable and though these trucks are everywhere, one that doesn't require work on it is nearly impossible. For reliable transportation, you'll want something with fuel injection, something things that are at least interesting enough would be a Fox Body Mustang, late 90's to 2000's Pontaic Grand Prix GTP/Monte Carlo SS, maybe a S10, a Miata, 4th gen Camaro, or a more modern gas powered truck (Deisel trucks aren't too budget friendly here) that 80's dream machine should really be a secondary/project vehicle, eveb though I don't understand the fascination with them.
Cultural differences, I guess. Here, the boilerplate rule of thumb is you stay in your own lane all the time, unless 1. the area is explicitly marked for passing and 2. you can see a good long way ahead (around here, 1. doesn't necessarily require 2. creating some tempting but dangerous passing areas). I laugh at speed limits when there are no cops around but hate to even go near the center line unless I can see for a few hundred feet ahead. Meanwhile in Britain, you can cut all over the place but speeding is treated with zero tolerance. WAT.
I'll be honest when I say I've never understood the whole "left lane hogging" thing. It's a lane on the road, fucking use it, that's why it's there: to be used. "Oh, but it's for passing only." Maybe so, but when I'm going 85 I'm passing everybody.
I wouldn't say that. Maybe on the highway, but overall their speed limits are very generous compared to North America. They have miles of the sort of roads you complain about not having with speed limits often higher than you could drive flat out. The US in particular is known for its draconian speed limits, even if they're not necessarily enforced as strictly.
You aren't the problem then. It's the morons who decide to go 5 under and sit in the left lane that cause problems.
Was about to say that. It's not an issue unless you're slowing someone else down by occupying the left lane unnecessarily. Depends on the state, most of Oregon is painfully slow but Montana has some pretty high speed limits.
The problem is, when you do get caught, you're in trouble plenty. Remember that guy in Wales who drifted around a roundabout twice, video surfaced on the internet months later, suddenly he's in court getting his license yanked and they're telling him he's lucky they didn't lock him up. A car that's actually decent on those roads will be subject to extortionate premiums (especially for DD mileage), unless you install an insurance tattle box that'll force you to drive like That Guy all the time. Britain has some great roads, was one of the originators of car culture, still has some, but is overall a horrible place to live as a car guy, especially if you're young. America's cornucopia of space does have its advantages.
I think Alaska and your American exceptionalism (which I've managed to bite my tongue over thus far) have skewed your perception of things a little. All of those things you just said is just how it is in most of the developed world, including much of the US. You're almost certainly not going to get pulled over for doing 5-10 over anywhere. Just don't drive like a moron. People in America (and Canada too) drive too young, usually don't have mandatory training of any kind, and have very lax testing. It seems to me like you want it to just be a free-for-all out there, without any consideration for the environment or other human beings.
Time out. Question, I've inferred from some previous posts that 16 may not be the legal driving age in all places. If I had to wait until I was 17 or God forbid 18, I'd have gauged my eyes out waiting to get my license. That being said, I may or may not have been driving around by myself at 15 on occasions, I just never got stopped. I do remember someone floating the idea of raising the licensing age to 18 when I was in high school, and it went over about as well as a gay pride parade in Saudi Arabia.
