She must have learned to drive in Boston.
She must have learned to drive in Boston.
Maybe Canada is just more strict? We only have 2 tier... learning permit and driver's license, right? Unless times have changed and I wasn't paying attention?
Canada's 3rd tier is obviously for a racing license!
In all seriousness, if you are driving too slowly compare to flow of traffic, you could pose a danger to others too! However, to fail somebody during a driving test for not driving aggressively enough because the driver is trying to be safe is kinda ridiculous.
It would seem you should be allowed to be "not aggressive enough" because you (and your car's occupants) are the only ones who will suffer from it. Assuming we're not talking about actual failure to take right-of-way, which can cause confusion and delays to other drivers.
Is it true that license-testing has been farmed out to private businesses?
We could try to file a complaint, but it'd be difficult to prove.Originally Posted by Tom Servo
We used to have a two-tier system here back in my day (early-90's). There was the learning permit aka the written (computerized) test which was valid for one year. It was affectionately nicknamed the "365", then the full G license. I remember I got my 365 in January of 1992, then full license in April of that year.Maybe Canada is just more strict? We only have 2 tier... learning permit and driver's license, right? Unless times have changed and I wasn't paying attention?
Canada's 3rd tier is obviously for a racing license!
In all seriousness, if you are driving too slowly compare to flow of traffic, you could pose a danger to others too! However, to fail somebody during a driving test for not driving aggressively enough because the driver is trying to be safe is kinda ridiculous.
This is the first I've ever heard of it being privatized. A quick Google search hasn't yielded anything to corroborate that.
It has been here in Colorado. People pay companies with fleets of Toyota Corollas and similarly inexpensive but fairly new cars to teach their kids to drive. Then, kids drive with a parent in the car and keep a log book of hours driven in various conditions (nighttime, mountains, probably snow, etc.) as a prerequisite to taking the drivers license test and finally getting an unrestricted license at age 18.
We were just talking with our neighbors at a July 4th cookout about this. Their son just got his license at age 18 and a 20-year-old Ford minivan to drive. He was saying he's free of all the restrictions that 16 and 17-year-olds have about how many passengers can be in the car with them and other things I don't know about...yet. My son reminds me almost daily that he'll be eligible to take classes once he's 14 and a half, which is just a few months away.
When I was in high school back east, Drivers Ed was a class almost everyone took at school. They'd show us filmstrips of state troopers narrating gory crash scene photos and telling us how important seat belts were. We'd study intersection diagrams and who has the right of way and how to pass on two-lane roads and all that stuff. Meanwhile, maybe six kids would go out driving, two per car plus instructors in the front seat who had their own brake pedals on the floor in each car. Our school had a couple boring sedans but one black Pontiac Firebird that all the guys wanted to drive. It was a plain-jane automatic V6 'bird for sure, with hubcaps and whitewalls and all, but to a bunch of 15-year-old boys, it was the very same car that the Burt Reynolds drove.
We had a day at a driving range that everyone looked forward to, because you got to miss a whole day of school and drive cars in a parking lot with pylons and stop signs and traffic lights and stuff. They had a mish-mash of vehicles at the range, including some with manual transmissions. I still remember my car that day was a blue, early '80s Datsun pickup truck with an automatic transmission and an emergency brake that pulled out from the dashboard near the steering column.
I also took a year of auto mechanics in high school. Both these opportunities annoy my car-crazed son because his high school, a large one, offers neither Drivers Ed nor has an auto shop. Instead, they just built a cosmetology lab in the school. Yes, I'm serious.
Film strips.
I took Drivers' Ed in Thunder Bay, Ontario in the early seventies, just after seat belt laws were tightening. Perhaps shoulder-harnesses were just becoming mandatory. And the instructor actually voiced objections to shoulder-harnesses.
I see you get a license test in Ontario at a DriveTest Centre. These are licensed by the Government of Ontario, implying they are not fully government-operated.
But I remember at one time the spectre being raised of getting your test done by the driving school where you learned. Which obviously opens up conflicts-of-interest which could result in bad results of either sort.
Last edited by SportWagon; July 11th, 2022 at 02:03 PM.
I remember some cars from that era having shoulder belts stored on the ceiling when not in use. You'd pull the end closer to the windshield down and click it into the lap belt to be fully strapped in.
But that was only for the crazy people who wanted to be trapped inside a wrecked and possibly burning car. Some people thought it was safer to be thrown clear of the accident.
It might still be worth it. I figure even if nothing immediately comes from it, I figure it might be like what they tell people out here when drivers hassle you when you're cycling. Sure, the cops probably won't do anything, but if you report it it goes in a file, and if that driver then does something that actually does attract real attention, there's a documented history of allegations that might make consequences actually come about.
Sorry about your son getting a raw deal, me bruv. Hope he gets it next time.
One thing I've been noticing lately is cars with "PLEASE BE PATIENT! STUDENT DRIVER ON BOARD!" signs on them.
That is actually a great point.
Thanks, bruv. I have no doubt he’ll get it next time.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
