Re: Cheapest California mandated Teen Behind the Wheel Driver Training (17 year old)

[Arklin K.]

On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 17:24:04 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

> Wow, I had not heard of this step in the Nanny state.
> What a load of crap.

Yes. The lobbyists in California mandated that you are breaking the law
if you attempt to teach your teen to drive a car on public roads EVEN
after they have their provisional teen permit after passing the written
test!

You MUST (by law) give your kid to a total stranger to learn first how to
drive.

You can not teach them to drive yourself until they have been with this
total stranger for at least two hours (and they must continue eventually,
with this same total stranger, for six hours).

And, of course, you are not allowed to be in the vehicle with this total
stranger at any time of the lesson.

All this is mandated by the nanny state - merely to make you pay through
the nose (yet again) for services you neither want, nor agree with.

If you attempt to teach your child how to drive without FIRST paying a
total stranger to teach your kid to drive, you are breaking California
law!

PS: You can't even put your GPS low down in the middle of your windshield
in California - ask me how I know!

[NM]

This 'total stranger' you refer to must have passed through a system
of background checks and their levels of competency before he/she is
allowed to spend time alone with your kid?

If he/she turns out to be a dangerous pedo. 'for example' could you
not seek compensation from the state?

I taught my missis to drive many moons ago from her having no driving
experience whatsoever, she used to passenger everywhere without a
murmer now she sits and critisises my driving everywhere we go.

[Scott Dorsey]

Arklin K. <ark...@notmyemail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 17:24:04 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:
>
>> Wow, I had not heard of this step in the Nanny state.
>> What a load of crap.
>
>Yes. The lobbyists in California mandated that you are breaking the law
>if you attempt to teach your teen to drive a car on public roads EVEN
>after they have their provisional teen permit after passing the written
>test!

How horrible! This is America, the land where everyone is supposed to be
equal, and this sort of thing is nothing but discrimination against people
who have not received driver training.

In America, driving is a right, and not a privilege. Just because they don't
have the slightest idea how to operate or maintain an automobile is no reason
to prevent someone from receiving a driver's license. Why, next thing you
know, they'll be taking people's licenses away for not using turn signals or
driving in the wrong lane.

In America, every teenager should have the right to get behind the wheel of
a 5,000 pound turbocharged deathmobile with only a few hours of training from
their parents (who probably don't know how to drive either). Let them all
out on the roads and see who survives. A high highway death rate is a sign
of safety because it means the unsafe drivers are being weeded out the
American way.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Hugo Nebula]

[Default] On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 22:16:15 -0700 (PDT), a certain
chimpanzee, NM <nik.m...@mac.com>, randomly hit the keyboard and
wrote:

>This 'total stranger' you refer to must have passed through a system
>of background checks and their levels of competency before he/she is
>allowed to spend time alone with your kid?
>
>If he/she turns out to be a dangerous pedo. 'for example' could you
>not seek compensation from the state?

Would a paedophile be interested in a 17 year old? Quote from Family
Guy:
Meg: No offense, Mr. Herbert, but I'm a seventeen year old girl, and I
have no need for you.
Herbert: Well, no offense to you Meg, but you're a seventeen year old
girl, and I have no need for YOU.
--
Hugo Nebula
"If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this,
just how far from the pack have I strayed"?

[NM]

On Jul 11, 4:22 pm, Hugo Nebula <ab...@local.host> wrote:
> [Default] On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 22:16:15 -0700 (PDT), a certain

> chimpanzee, NM <nik.mor...@mac.com>, randomly hit the keyboard and

> wrote:
>
> >This 'total stranger' you refer to must have passed through a system
> >of background checks and their levels of competency before he/she is
> >allowed to spend time alone with your kid?
>
> >If he/she turns out to be a dangerous pedo. 'for example' could you
> >not seek compensation from the state?
>
> Would a paedophile be interested in a 17 year old? Quote from Family
> Guy:
> Meg: No offense, Mr. Herbert, but I'm a seventeen year old girl, and I
> have no need for you.
> Herbert: Well, no offense to you Meg, but you're a seventeen year old
> girl, and I have no need for YOU.
> --
> Hugo Nebula
>  "If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this,
>   just how far from the pack have I strayed"?

Yes you are correct, poor example picked. I remember that episode of
FG, seen them all now, time for some new ones please.

[Steve Firth]

No one gives a fuck.

[Arklin K.]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 22:16:15 -0700, NM wrote:

> This 'total stranger' you refer to must have passed through a system of
> background checks and their levels of competency

I agree. But really. This is driving. It's something we've been doing
safely for more decades than that 'total competent stranger' probably
has.

And, it's 'our kid' which is the most important thing in the world to us.

I'm breaking the law, for example, by teaching my kid (who has the
provisional permit) to drive on public roads. But that's what I have to
do in order to keep 'my' kid safe in California.

It's sad that a parent is forced to break the law just to teach their kid
to drive safely BEFORE they get into a mandated situation with a total
stranger (who may be competent - I have no idea - but I certainly hope
so) who almost certainly has decades less experience driving than I do
and certainly cares less about the safety of my kid than I do.

> I taught my missis to drive many moons ago from her having no driving
> experience whatsoever, she used to passenger everywhere without a murmer
> now she sits and critisises my driving everywhere we go.

Heh heh. Such is life!

[Arklin K.]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 16:22:57 +0100, Hugo Nebula wrote:

> Would a paedophile be interested in a 17 year old?

I'm more worried that this 'stranger' whom I'm forced to have my kid
drive with isn't as competent as I am at teaching my kid how to drive.

I'm sure they have to pass 'some' tests (I certainly would hope so), but
I suspect they trust in insurance over actually caring - since, after
all, they're just a business who thinks of my kid as six hours of money
and not as a lifetime of care.

What's worse, is that I am breaking the law by teaching my kid to drive,
even though I've been driving for many decades and have, as yet, never
had an accident - and only a ticket for putting my GPS on the windshield
and one for putting my license plate tags on crooked and a few parking
overtime tickets (I never realized when I first moved to California that
they have five, yes five, different colored curbs)

Green
Yellow
White
Blue
Red

All of which mean DIFFERENT (but some are extremely similar) things!

So, my tickets are all because I flaunted these laws:
a) Nothing can be on the windshield in any usable place in California
b) You have to know all the subtle differences between curb colors in Ca
c) You can't put your registration stickers on crooked in California

Sigh.

[Arklin K.]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 10:04:49 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> In America, every teenager should have the right to get behind the wheel
> of a 5,000 pound turbocharged deathmobile with only a few hours of
> training from their parents (who probably don't know how to drive
> either).

If this is true ... how do all the other 49 states in the nation survive
by 'allowing' parents to teach their kids?

Why is it only in California, that the parents can't teach their kids to
drive?

What's different about driving in California that parents know nothing,
while in other states, parents know something.

What am I missing in your argument?

[jim beam]

hear hear!

in my neck of the woods, kids get the new six-digit mercedes or bmw to
drive to school while the teachers are there in their 15-year old dodge
caravans. but i don't think it affects fatalities - high end bmw's and
mercs are much safer and have way more air bags than caravans.


--
fact check required

[jim beam]

On 07/11/2012 08:02 PM, Arklin K. wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 16:22:57 +0100, Hugo Nebula wrote:
>
>> Would a paedophile be interested in a 17 year old?
>
> I'm more worried that this 'stranger' whom I'm forced to have my kid
> drive with isn't as competent as I am at teaching my kid how to drive.
>
> I'm sure they have to pass 'some' tests (I certainly would hope so), but
> I suspect they trust in insurance over actually caring - since, after
> all, they're just a business who thinks of my kid as six hours of money
> and not as a lifetime of care.
>
> What's worse, is that I am breaking the law by teaching my kid to drive,
> even though I've been driving for many decades and have, as yet, never
> had an accident - and only a ticket for putting my GPS on the windshield
> and one for putting my license plate tags on crooked and a few parking
> overtime tickets (I never realized when I first moved to California that
> they have five, yes five, different colored curbs)
>
> Green
> Yellow
> White
> Blue
> Red
>
> All of which mean DIFFERENT (but some are extremely similar) things!
>
> So, my tickets are all because I flaunted these laws:
> a) Nothing can be on the windshield in any usable place in California

indeed. and yet if you live in the bay area and have a fastpass for the
bridges, they give you velcro and tell you to stick it on the windshield!

> b) You have to know all the subtle differences between curb colors in Ca
> c) You can't put your registration stickers on crooked in California
>
> Sigh.

--
fact check required

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 02:57:31 +0000 (UTC)
"Arklin K." <ark...@notmyemail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 22:16:15 -0700, NM wrote:
>
>> This 'total stranger' you refer to must have passed through a system of
>> background checks and their levels of competency
>
>I agree. But really. This is driving. It's something we've been doing
>safely for more decades than that 'total competent stranger' probably
>has.
>
>And, it's 'our kid' which is the most important thing in the world to us.
>
>I'm breaking the law, for example, by teaching my kid (who has the
>provisional permit) to drive on public roads. But that's what I have to
>do in order to keep 'my' kid safe in California.

Safe from what? Some mythical pervert who's got a job as a driving instructor?
In the UK its the norm to learn with an instructor - though parents can
teach their kids if they want - and I've yet to hear of any girls being
raped by one. Seems like paranoia is the order of the day in your house. You
should consider getting councilling as you obviously have issues.

>stranger (who may be competent - I have no idea - but I certainly hope
>so) who almost certainly has decades less experience driving than I do
>and certainly cares less about the safety of my kid than I do.

Usain Bolt probably has decades less experience of walking on 2 legs than you
do but I wouldn't fancy your chances in the 100 metres.

B2003

[Scott Dorsey]

Arklin K. <ark...@notmyemail.com> wrote:
>
>What's different about driving in California that parents know nothing,
>while in other states, parents know something.
>
>What am I missing in your argument?

The fact that, on the whole, Americans can't drive worth a damn. Anything
that makes some attempt, no matter how slight, at improving this would seem
like a good idea.

[Hugo Nebula]

[Default] On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 03:02:38 +0000 (UTC), a certain
chimpanzee, "Arklin K." <ark...@notmyemail.com>, randomly hit the

keyboard and wrote:

>I'm more worried that this 'stranger' whom I'm forced to have my kid
>drive with isn't as competent as I am at teaching my kid how to drive.

I have no children to teach to drive, but I remember being taught by
my dad. This usually ended with shouting, crying, and storming out of
the car; either him or me, and sometimes both.

[jgar the jorrible]

You are missing the fact that nearly everyone vastly overestimates
their ability to teach this, not to mention their own driving
ability. Those of us with big honkin' race trophies are in a tiny
minority.

The difference is that some places recognize this and implement rules
to make everyone safer. Impartial statistics support that it works,
though the actual causality may be murky.
http://www.cdc.gov/MotorVehicleSafety/teen_drivers/GDL/youngdrivers.html

My wife, who among other things teaches graduate university students,
couldn't deal with teaching the kid to drive, and dumped it on me. I,
who think I would make a lousy teacher in general, seem to have an
easy time with this, probably because I was a car-guy to begin with,
and this is a guy thing. I don't think I could do it for others. I
think the general case is, people don't really have the skills to
teach their kids to drive well. You probably think you can berate
your kid while he's driving, eh?

I mostly taught myself to drive, then had to unlearn most of it when I
started racing. My eyes were particularly wide when I was in a race
school and the instructor went around the track in a fully loaded
Toyota minivan with bald tires faster than I would have dared in my
own car.

Every frickin' day I have to slam on the brakes (on Barranca in
Irvine, for locals) because people don't know they need to get over to
the right before they make a right turn, rather than stopping in fast
moving traffic. Think of every dumb-ass move you've seen this week.
You want these people to teach others?

The laws are at leginfo.ca.gov (health and safety, vehicle code,
business and professions), but eventually you find that the rules are
set by various bureaus. By the time it gets to Autozone, it's like
playing telephone. With deaf lawyers in the middle.

jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
http://shows.autospies.com/gallery/Comicon-2012-461/

[Arklin K.]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 23:27:19 +0100, Hugo Nebula wrote:

> I have no children to teach to drive, but I remember being taught by my
> dad. This usually ended with shouting, crying, and storming out of the
> car; either him or me, and sometimes both.

Heh heh. Yeah. Sometimes the parent is the 'worst' teacher for a kid -
but it depends on both the parent and the kid.

Still, nobody on earth cares more about their kid than the parents!

The thing about these California laws that gets me is that no other state
has them ... so you start to wonder ... and when you find out that the
laws greatly benefit the services that are mandated, you begin to wonder
yet again.

Over time, living in California, you realize all these laws are merely a
ploy to take money out of your pocket and give it to whomever it was that
lobbied for the mandate.

Case in point:
a) California has a smog law that you randomly get a notice that you MUST
go to an inspection-only station for your smog test. Guess what? They run
the EXACT same test. Guess what else? They ALL charge MORE for that same
test! Why? Because you have no choice. It's mandated. Seems to me it
'should' be illegal for them to charge the person who came ahead of you X
dollars for a smog test and then you go to the same place, the same guy,
the same car, the same everything ... the ONLY difference is your
registration requires a test only - and they charge you MORE for that!

b) California has a carbon monoxide detector law that mandates you must
have one on ever floor (essentially) of every house in the state. Who
sponsored the law? Home Depot. Guess why.

c) California had a law called the 'smog impact fee' where they charged
me $300 just for bringing my out-of-state-car into the state. Why?
Because they needed money. Luckily this law was considered a tax on out
of state imports and was deemed unconstitutional - but the only reason
for the law, despite the fancy name, was to raise money from outsiders
moving into the state.

d) California has a law that you have to pay TAX on your car every single
year! Not once but every year! I do realize 'other' states have that law
- but it's crazy. Why should you pay sales tax on this when you don't pay
sales tax every year on, say, a bicycle. Makes no sense other than
California wants your money.

e) California has the highest gasoline tax in the nation. So, the natives
'think' they're getting away with 'free' roads (i.e., they think they
don't have toll roads), yet they're paying more per mile in taxes than
any other state in the nation.

f) California has a law that you can only buy a car in California. You
can't buy a new car, which they define as ANY car that has less than 7500
miles on it, and bring it into the state, even if it meets all the
standards. You have to ship it out on a truck if you don't follow this
law (or it will be confiscated). Why? Guess.

g) California has a law that says you can only buy gasoline made in
California. That gasoline is 'special' gasoline. Made 'only' in
California. Why? Again, so the lobby interests that made this law can
make money by jerking around with the supply and demand curve.

And the list goes on and on and on in the nanny state.

[Arklin K.]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 15:46:49 -0700, jgar the jorrible wrote:

> You are missing the fact that nearly everyone vastly overestimates their
> ability to teach this, not to mention their own driving ability.

I'm told that anyone who asks a sample of drivers to rate their ability
from 1 to 10, almost all (if not all) drivers will rate themselves a 10.

Obviously, if we assume a bell curve, that can't be true ... so I do
agree with you that each and every one of us over rates our driving
skills.

I wonder, actually, WHAT driving skills would actually rate a 10?

Seems to me, to be a 10, I'd assume a driver would need:
a) To have over 25 years experience (if not, subtract five points)
b) To have zero tickets (subtract 3 points for each ticket)
c) To have zero accidents (subtract 4 points for each accident)
d) To have both a motorcycle & car license (if not, subtract 5 points)
e) To have taken at least a half dozen driving classes (add 2 points for
each class)
f) To be able to drive a stick & automatic & motorcyle (add 2 points for
each)
g) To have driven on the track at least once a year (add 2 points)
h) To understand how an engine works (especially the oil, cooling, belts,
etc. that can break while driving)
i) To understand countersteer and ABS braking in detail
etc.

And, you'd have to pass a test that asked 'real' driving questions, like:
Q1: What roads do 3-digit federal highways connect to?
Q2: Does ABS make you stop faster or straighter?
Q3: What direction do you go if the orange construction stripes are from
left to right?
Q4: What direction are you going if you just passed mile 3 and the next
mile is mile 4 on an even numbered two-digit federal highway?
Q5: What is the difference between a white turn arrow painted in the road
and a white turn arrow with 'must' or 'only'.
Q6: Are shopping mall parking lot STOP signs legal or not?
Q7: Can you dial a phone with push-button dialing in a hands-free state
or not?
etc.

[The Welsh Windbag]

"Arklin K." wrote

>PS: You can't even put your GPS low down in the middle of your windshield
>in California - ask me how I know!

Let me guess. Because you put it there, and being a good driver you quickly
realised that it obscured an important part of your vision, unnecessarily?
--
Lyndon

[Hugo Nebula]

[Default] On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 06:11:23 +0000 (UTC), a certain

chimpanzee, "Arklin K." <ark...@notmyemail.com>, randomly hit the
keyboard and wrote:

>Still, nobody on earth cares more about their kid than the parents!

I'm sure the children of Josef Fritzl or Fred & Rose West would
disagree.

[Arklin K.]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 11:37:02 +0100, Hugo Nebula wrote:

> I'm sure the children of Josef Fritzl or Fred & Rose West would
> disagree.

Actually, Rose took care of the 'extra' kids and Josef didn't AFAIK abuse
his daughter's kids. I think. (Depends on how you define 'abuse' though.)

[Barb Dwyer]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 06:11:23 +0000, Arklin K. drooled

This is a uk group, no one gives a shit about California.



--
If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten (c) George Carlin

[Alan Holmes]

"Arklin K." <ark...@notmyemail.com> wrote in message
news:jti7nn$me5$2...@speranza.aioe.org...

> On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 17:24:04 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:
>
>> Wow, I had not heard of this step in the Nanny state.
>> What a load of crap.
>
> Yes. The lobbyists in California mandated that you are breaking the law
> if you attempt to teach your teen to drive a car on public roads EVEN
> after they have their provisional teen permit after passing the written
> test!
>

What the f*** has this to do with the uk?

Alan

[jgar the jorrible]

"NM" increased the scope of the troll by adding uk to the thread in
his post on Tue, 10 Jul 2012 22:16:15 -0700 (PDT). He's the one you
should be asking.

But is the concept of graduated licensing and how other jurisdictions
handle it not appropriate for urd?

jg
--
@home.com is bogus.

$5M/in http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/jan/13/jury-awards-man-penis-injury-75-million/

[The Revd]

What the fuck does the uk have to do with anything?

[Alan Holmes]

"The Revd" <pee...@degenerate.Grik> wrote in message
news:al2l0854br5ian53j...@4ax.com...

Lots of newsgroups have 'uk' in the title!

>