Cruise Control and Foul Weather DO NOT MIX

[Anderton Prime]

In addition to that, Californians visiting Michigan in the dead of winter should know better anyway. And to say Your plan will never work is just assinine.

Umm, no it's not. I'm not being assinine, I'm being realistic. Your plan is stupid. Bottom line. So I told you. I don't care that you answered it in an earlier post. It doesn't decrease the stupidity level of the plan; it still won't work, no matter how much earlier you post.

* This is not to say that you are stupid, Loudmusic. Far from it, in fact. Lots of intelligent people come up with stupid ideas all the time.

 

[Famine]

Oh, I see. I don't thik it would effect cruise control to put your car on a rolling road.

Affect.

Why not? If the wheels can detect slipping due to a low-friction surface, why wouldn't they detect gross sideways movement on the rollers?

 

[LoudMusic]

Umm, no it's not. I'm not being assinine, I'm being realistic. Your plan is stupid. Bottom line. So I told you. I don't care that you answered it in an earlier post. It doesn't decrease the stupidity level of the plan; it still won't work, no matter how much earlier you post.

* This is not to say that you are stupid, Loudmusic. Far from it, in fact. Lots of intelligent people come up with stupid ideas all the time.

Well I disagree with you. And I think you have made a stupid retort.

Look at it this way - by requiring people to be licensed for their own area are you reducing the number of wrecks in that area? Damn skippy! What is there to argue about? If the extra licensing costs are the same no matter where you go, people would have no reason to seek a license for their vehicle in another state unless their vehicle simply couldn't pass the local tests. But part of the test would obviously be to determine if your vehicle could handle local conditions. And if it can't why the fashizle would they be driving it there?

And by adding interstate tests and licensing if a vehicle / owner are confronted by local police out of the resident area for the license of the vehicle you could penalize the owner if they don't have the additional interstate driving license. It would be similar to the international driving license that is currently available. The state license would be ~$25 and the interstate license would be ~$100. You could of course just get licensed for each state you wish to drive in, but the interstate license would cover you for the whole nation.

So, are you going to tell the United Nations that their idea is stupid? It does of course include education for differing signage and regulations, but in my travels I have seen some pretty different situations that I was unaware of and I didn't even leave the country. This place is freaking huge and there's a whole hell of a lot going on. As an example, it is against the law to pump your own gas in Oregon. Who knew? That's freaking dumb! In Montana there are in fact speed limits. In DC they have these things called "round-abouts" that exist no where else in the United States (as far as I know ... but are very popular in Europe). Some places it's ok to "right on red", some places it's not. In Texas the highway speed limit is 70 in the day but 65 at night (it's posted but how do you determing "night"?) and in Arkansas it's 70 all the time for cars but 65 all the time for big trucks. In really big cities there occationally are on-ramps with red/green count down timers to space oncoming traffic.

Then there are things that aren't even laws that you NEED TO KNOW in order to be a safe driver. How about where I live in Arkansas when it rains everyone freaks the hell out and drives about half the speed limit. But in Portland, Oregon, where it rains all the time the people don't slow down and don't turn on their headlights ... AT ALL. In Utah there are stretches of road hundreds of miles long where you will see absolutely nothing including fuel stations. Or winter driving in the north or the mountain ranges. Or the gusty winds in New Mexico and Arizona that can blow a small car off the road.

Just because there are a few problems with my initial idea doesn't mean the whole idea is crap. You need to broaden your horizons, child.

 

[LoudMusic]

And furthermore instead of telling people their ideas are stupid how about you offer suggestions on how to improve them. You'll get much further in life that way.

 

[Anderton Prime]

And furthermore instead of telling people their ideas are stupid how about you offer suggestions on how to improve them. You'll get much further in life that way.

To begin with, I only said QUOTE "Your plan will never work." I didn't call it a stupid plan at all in the beginning, and yet still you decided I was being "assinine." It sounds to me like you don't take criticism very well.

Here's my suggestion:

Every province / state could have mandatory driver training for all types of weather conditions, including rain and snow. Since not all states / provinces have natural snow, big huge hundred-acre lots could be built with roads (residential and freeway) and they should have sections where they continuously wet the roads, and other sections where they blow artificial snow onto the roads, and another section where they ice the roads, etc. This would help train, say California drivers to be at least partially familiar with snow and ice conditions.

But none of these idead are very plausible, because the problem is not driver inexperience so much as driver stupidity. If you need a special course to be told to slow down and be careful on snow and ice and rainy roads, you shouldn't be in the driver's seat in the first place.

PLUS, raising the legal driving age to 20 or 21 would get rid of WAY more traffic fatalities per annum than your extended driver training program could ever hope to, baby.

 

[LoudMusic]

To begin with, I only said QUOTE "Your plan will never work." I didn't call it a stupid plan at all in the beginning, and yet still you decided I was being "assinine." It sounds to me like you don't take criticism very well.

Who cares what order you said it in - the fact is you called it stupid without offering any reason as to why you thought so or a single alternative or improvement. Assinine.

Here's my suggestion: now we're getting somewhere

Every province / state could have mandatory driver training for all types of weather conditions, including rain and snow. Since not all states / provinces have natural snow, big huge hundred-acre lots could be built with roads (residential and freeway) and they should have sections where they continuously wet the roads, and other sections where they blow artificial snow onto the roads, and another section where they ice the roads, etc. This would help train, say California drivers to be at least partially familiar with snow and ice conditions.

Interesting, but as you state next it's not plausible. I agree. I think that a region should have facilities for driving lessons to educate only for their region. Interstate testing facilities would be less common - you'd have to travel to get tested, with a permit from your local licenser saying that's where you're headed.

But none of these idead are very plausible, because the problem is not driver inexperience so much as driver stupidity. If you need a special course to be told to slow down and be careful on snow and ice and rainy roads, you shouldn't be in the driver's seat in the first place.

Inexperience and stupidity in this situation are very similar. Once someone has a problem with a certain road condition they are not likely to repeat. And if they do, revoke their license - simple as that.

PLUS, raising the legal driving age to 20 or 21 would get rid of WAY more traffic fatalities per annum than your extended driver training program could ever hope to, baby.

Where I strongly agree with you there, unfortunately that's less likely to take place than what I'm suggesting (: I actually waited until I was nearly 18 to get my driver's license and our state age is 16.

Also, I don't have statistics but I would assume that the 16 to 21 age group has fewer injury accidents than any other 5 year age group, though they do probably have more vehicle damaging accidents. I come to this by realizing that that younger group is less likely to be driving in an injury prone environment, but at the same time they don't know fully how to control their vehicle. So at slower speeds they can still tear up a ride, but they won't hurt anyone in the process. If you look at commuters who drive 70+ miles (round trip) they're doing 70+ miles per hour. If they end up in the wrong place someone is going to the hospital, or worse yet, the morgue.

Thank you for your input. Testing facilities were obvious, but what each testing facility can contain is debatable and should be discussed. For larger things like highway driving an instructor could ride along with the students on a public road. For things like wet road and foul conditions a facility would have to be constructed. Signage and laws of course can all be tested in a classroom.

I still think it's a good idea. The biggest goal of my system is to educate the drivers and prepare them for better everyday driving.