Rant: theory test and climate change
Nov. 17th, 2006 11:04 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Well I have now re-passed my theory test, so I am good to go with the practical test at some point in the not too distant future.
I had forgotton two things about the theory test:
1: It is ridiculously easy
2: How patronising the book is
It is so easy in fact, that all you really need to know to be able to pass is 'moblie phones are distracting' and if in doubt, answer 'slow down and prepare to stop'.
(Incidentally, I do think you should be awarded a half mark for over estimating the stopping distances, as thinking it is 75', when it is 53' is much less of a problem than thinking it is 53' when it is 75')
The patronising tone comes from the questions that advise us to 'lock the car when we leave it' and to 'park in well lit areas'. But the most irritating example of this is the drinking and driving question. While it is perfectly reasonable for them to have a question about drinking at lunchtime and the possiblity of still being over the limit in the evening. However, when it goes on to say that 'drinking at lunchtime may affect your concentration for work or study', I am left wondering why they think this is any of their business? Unless I work for the DSA it really isn't any of their business if I have a glass of wine at lunchtime and doze off at my desk in the afternoon.
But we also stray into the realms of political propaganda.
I do wonder what knowing that trams are more environmentally friendly than cars because they are quieter and run on electric power has to do with 'safety and your vehicle' - yes that is the section it was in. A lot of the other questions in that section advised me to walk, cycle or take public transport for short journeys - again what does this have to do with 'safety and your vehicle'?
Which brings us into climate change. These questions on the theory test are part and parcel of the governements obsassion with how cars (amongst other things) are evil and are killing the planet - just look at the lastest congestion charge proposals in London for further proof of this.
While I do think that being less wasteful, recycling and using renewable resources are a good thing, I am getting incredibly irritated by the whole climate change mantra. Because what if they are wrong. The climate has changed before without our help, so what if it is doing it again? That would mean we can't stop the change, no matter who signs the Kyoto Protocol, and if we can't stop it, what then? Is anyone even considering what we (as a species) will do if we can't stop the change? Not even the environmental sceptics seem to be discussing that.
1: It is ridiculously easy
2: How patronising the book is
It is so easy in fact, that all you really need to know to be able to pass is 'moblie phones are distracting' and if in doubt, answer 'slow down and prepare to stop'.
(Incidentally, I do think you should be awarded a half mark for over estimating the stopping distances, as thinking it is 75', when it is 53' is much less of a problem than thinking it is 53' when it is 75')
The patronising tone comes from the questions that advise us to 'lock the car when we leave it' and to 'park in well lit areas'. But the most irritating example of this is the drinking and driving question. While it is perfectly reasonable for them to have a question about drinking at lunchtime and the possiblity of still being over the limit in the evening. However, when it goes on to say that 'drinking at lunchtime may affect your concentration for work or study', I am left wondering why they think this is any of their business? Unless I work for the DSA it really isn't any of their business if I have a glass of wine at lunchtime and doze off at my desk in the afternoon.
But we also stray into the realms of political propaganda.
I do wonder what knowing that trams are more environmentally friendly than cars because they are quieter and run on electric power has to do with 'safety and your vehicle' - yes that is the section it was in. A lot of the other questions in that section advised me to walk, cycle or take public transport for short journeys - again what does this have to do with 'safety and your vehicle'?
Which brings us into climate change. These questions on the theory test are part and parcel of the governements obsassion with how cars (amongst other things) are evil and are killing the planet - just look at the lastest congestion charge proposals in London for further proof of this.
While I do think that being less wasteful, recycling and using renewable resources are a good thing, I am getting incredibly irritated by the whole climate change mantra. Because what if they are wrong. The climate has changed before without our help, so what if it is doing it again? That would mean we can't stop the change, no matter who signs the Kyoto Protocol, and if we can't stop it, what then? Is anyone even considering what we (as a species) will do if we can't stop the change? Not even the environmental sceptics seem to be discussing that.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-17 11:39 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-17 11:48 am (UTC)Mind you, us causing it still doesn't mean we can stop it.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-17 12:14 pm (UTC)I do think the government is going about things the wrong way though, as they are alienating a lot of people who would ordinarily belived in recycling, energy saving, etc etc. Giving people a criminal record for using the wrong bin will not endear people to the idea of recycling. Yet another tax on cars, but with no sign of improvement to the public transport system doesn't make people think these taxes have an environmental base, just an excuse.
I would be less annoyed about the bits in the theory test book if they had been in a section on 'driving and the environment' - but seriously they have nothing to do with safety, and everything to do with the anti-car agenda.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-17 01:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-17 01:22 pm (UTC):-)
no subject
Date: 2006-11-17 01:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-17 01:28 pm (UTC)I feel like I had a lucky escape there!
no subject
Date: 2006-11-17 11:43 am (UTC)Having just bought a jeep for the practical purpose of reenactment it irritates me vastly that a charge can be levied per car regardless of how well (or not) that car is maintained or how it is used. A 4x4 doing the school run twice a day is far more environmentally unfriendly than a 4x4 used once a month for motorway journey to a field.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-17 11:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-17 03:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-17 03:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-17 04:50 pm (UTC)My pet on this is that most SUVs (including the largest, e.g. the Ford Excursion) are registered as regular cars in my state - the same as any sedan or coupe - with a cost of $36/year, but my pickup was $150/year. In theory, this is due to the higher payload, but in practice the large SUVs I mentioned had about the same curb and gross vehicle weights.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-17 06:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-17 08:34 pm (UTC)The rationale here is road wear - that my truck having that GVW would be responsible for more highway wear than a passenger car. However, since the large SUVs could have the same load...
Technically, this was a legal point, mattering only if police weighed the vehicle. I believe the SUVs loaded about to their limit would be breaking the law if registered that way, but in practice, they were never stopped to be weighed.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-17 08:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-17 03:00 pm (UTC)Makes me almost miss the simple "are you allowed to turn left here?" and "What should you do here?" questions in my theory then back then...
no subject
Date: 2006-11-17 03:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-17 03:10 pm (UTC)Still, I can't really see a point in those questions and am annoyed with you :)
no subject
Date: 2006-11-17 03:15 pm (UTC)I did get a 'lock your car' question on my test!
no subject
Date: 2006-11-17 03:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-17 03:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-17 03:53 pm (UTC)When is your practical exam?
no subject
Date: 2006-11-17 03:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-17 04:44 pm (UTC)