Rant: theory test and climate change
Nov. 17th, 2006 11:04 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pandopWell 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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
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!