Random Thoughts II

[madmaxii]

A piece submitted to the New York Times by Banksy that they refused to publish.

[fidgit]

Originally Posted by Cyberbob

What's expected of a full drivers license test these days? I know it's "easier" and quicker than the old test, but what sort of risks are they looking to point out while driving. 'Theres an oncoming car so I'm going to make sure im on the left side of the lane' x 1000?

I say this as someone that sat the full licence test in May of this year, in Kilburnie.

The full licence test is now entirely focused on making sure that you can drive a car safely. Look at it this way, up until you sit this test, you are expected to have no distractions (ie passengers) in the car, unless you have someone with a full licence that can assist you in driving safely. They are not particularly interested in your capability with regards to mechanically controlling the vehicle - that is what is covered in the now longer, and more complex restricted test.

This is what happened for my test:
Showed up, met tester (had a 50/50 chance it would be an ex-workmate, I didn't get him). We went to the car, where he did the same quick check as restricted (indicators work, brake lights work, you know how to turn on the windscreen wipers and hand brake - I actually asked afterwards if anyone fails at this point - he pointed out that during the test they're not allowed to tell you how to control the car at all, so if you don't know how to use something like the wipers or headlights he can tell you before you start and avoid failing you for that during the test...).

Before we took off, he explained in quite a lot of detail what he was expecting of me.
He said he would require, at certain points, for me to describe the moving hazards around the car. He was only interested in moving hazards, so didn't need me to point out a parked car on the side of the road, but if the car was pulling out, expected me to say so. I then needed to tell him what I was doing to manage the hazard. The example he gave was: if we are coming up to a give way sign, and a car is moving through the intersection, I would expect you to say "there is a car moving through the intersection from my right, I am giving way to it, and waiting until it is clear to go."
I read the PDF's on the nzta website about what the test would include before I sat it, and you are tested in the hazard identification during 6 or so 'situations', so I'm pretty sure you should have the same expectation for hazard identification from any tester (that is, only during the specific situation, then stop)

What they are after is really your thought process to know what you are managing hazards. If you've been driving on a restricted for a while, you've been doing this all the time anyway, just not saying it out loud. I assume they want to know about the moving hazards because these are the unpredictable things you need to adjust for - if you can't deal with stationary hazards on the road, you wouldn't have made it to your full licence test with an intact car.

He did not require that I mentioned all hazards, and would tell me when to start and tell me when to stop. For example, I had to describe hazards going up to one of the big double-lane roundabouts heading towards the airport, and once I was through the roundabout he told me to stop.

Apart from that, you just need to make sure you're following the road rules. Don't speed! (the only thing I got marked down for was speeding up before the 70K sign coming back on the stretch of road between the roundabouts above). Make sure you do things like check your blind spots before you change lanes, and expect a right-to-left lane change in there if there's a two lane road in your test.


Honestly, while I don't like using the terms 'easier' and 'harder' for the tests (neither of them should be hard if you've done enough to learn how to drive), but the full test really wasn't tough. If you've been driving around for a while, you won't have any trouble.

(added because you specifically mentioned on-coming traffic - yup that would get mentioned. He said he would expect from me, iirc, "a car is coming towards me, I am making sure I stay in my lane".

Hope this helps!

[fidgit]

Fair well, Mr Reed. Thanks for the songs.



I should go and find a park to drink sangria in. Or at least find some where that sells sangria. Which is really just an excuse to go to Flying Burrito Brothers for some texmex.



Fair well, Mr Reed. Thanks for the songs, and the excuse to eat nachos.

[Deadmeat]

Originally Posted by Cyberbob

What's expected of a full drivers license test these days? I know it's "easier" and quicker than the old test, but what sort of risks are they looking to point out while driving. 'Theres an oncoming car so I'm going to make sure im on the left side of the lane' x 1000?

Even mention things behind you:
"A car is quite close behind me, if i have to emergency brake i'll have to watch out it doesn't hit me"

"A cyclist behind me, if i stop at a intersection he may ride up the left side of me, an issue if im turning"
Even if you think it's stupid, you're not going to be failed for saying too much.

Indicate/Mirrors/Shoulder those three things are 70% (or something) of the driving marks for the test.

GLHF~

[Cyberbob]

Perfect, thanks for that fidgit & DM.

I expect it to be relatively simple, given that I've been driving for most of this year every day, and good to know that they turn off/on the requirement for hazards to be identified/talked about.

[Spoon1]

I have never understood the fascination with mirror checking. It is the person behind you's job to look out for what you're doing and likewise with whoever is in front of you. Check your mirrors (especially before changing lane or turning) but the frequency they want in the tests is stupid.

[Trigger]

Originally Posted by Spoon1

and likewise with whoever is in front of you.

are you saying they should be checking their mirrors to see what the person behind them is up to?

I do find all the mirror and speedomoter checking very distracting... should be looking at the road instead imo... but hey just like most tests you cram what is needed to pass the test and then apply common sense in the real life instead

[fidgit]

I looked in the mirrors exactly as much as I would when I drive, and the tester was happy with that.

I think there is a misconception that testers require you to look constantly in your mirrors. I know people that have failed for not stopping at stop signs, or stating hazards, or explaining their reaction to hazards. I know zero people that were failed for not checking their mirrors.

Originally Posted by trigger

just like most tests you cram what is needed to pass the test and then apply common sense in the real life instead

Gotta disagree with this. The driving tests, as I took them, really were reality-based testing, not best-case scenarios. I didn't do anything that I wouldn't do in a normal day's driving, except explain my thought process.

[Spink]

Originally Posted by fidgit

I looked in the mirrors exactly as much as I would when I drive, and the tester was happy with that.

I think there is a misconception that testers require you to look constantly in your mirrors. I know people that have failed for not stopping at stop signs, or stating hazards, or explaining their reaction to hazards. I know zero people that were failed for not checking their mirrors.


Gotta disagree with this. The driving tests, as I took them, really were reality-based testing, not best-case scenarios. I didn't do anything that I wouldn't do in a normal day's driving, except explain my thought process.

I remember one person from nzg failed for mirrors but I forget who.

[fixed_truth]

What this women is going through must be hell. But how on earth could you leave a 13-month old in a bath by themselves for almost 7 minutes? Mind boggling.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11148872

[Ab]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

What this women is going through must be hell. But how on earth could you leave a 13-month old in a bath by themselves for almost 7 minutes? Mind boggling.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11148872

Yup, my thoughts exactly.

[Ab]

gaaaaaaaaaay

A Burger King advertisement hailing the merits of a burger as a hangover cure has been pulled from the air.

The ad, for the burger joint's winter promotion, featured a voice-over saying: "I know what will cure this epic hangover, a bowl of cold milky muesli, said no-one, ever.

"Recover from your big night out with the BK breakfast burger, it's hot, it's bacon-y and it's easy to eat when you're curled up in the foetal position."

A complainant wrote to the Advertising Standards Authority complaints board, saying the advertisement gave the impression it was acceptable to have a hangover. Therefore it promoted unhealthy drinking.

[Juju]

The Holidays act says that you are entitled to 4 weeks annual leave at the end of each 12 months employment.

What happens if I leave the company before I complete 12 months employment - do I get paid out what I have accrued so far?

If not - isn't that effectivly saying you can't take any holidays in your first year of employment?

[Cyberbob]

Kids going hyper after sugar: Busted.

http://www.mindthesciencegap.org/201...ging-on-sugar/

[CCS]

Originally Posted by Juju

What happens if I leave the company before I complete 12 months employment - do I get paid out what I have accrued so far?

Yes.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Cyberbob

Kids going hyper after sugar: Busted.

http://www.mindthesciencegap.org/201...ging-on-sugar/

It's the food colouring man, the fooood colouring.

[Lightspeed]

Ah, the article finally loaded. I like this gif at the end, it's a concept a lot of parents don't like. Many struggle to accept lil' Johnny's behaviour has anything to do with how you expect him to behave.

[Ab]

Surprisingly similar to the drunken-behaviour research I read years ago. The way you act after ingesting $substance is the way you think you're supposed to act.

[fixed_truth]

17 Deplorable Examples Of White Privilege

[[LvN]N3misiS]

http://transsoberidentity.tumblr.com/

Originally Posted by This Is Sober Privilege

Many people in the trans sober community face oppression that cis sober shit lords can never imagine. And yes shit lord, while I am drunk almost all the time, I am a sober person living in the body of a drunk. It's called oppression and you might want to take some time off from being a privileged cis sober shit lord to understand what my community goes through. This blog is a "safe space" set up for trans sober people to share their oppression. And yes shit lord, I know I spelled "privilege " wrong on the header. Sober privilege is not being too drunk when making your blog that you don't make irreversible spelling errors.

[Ab]

rateowned

[Lightspeed]

I don't get it? Is it that some people take this kind of thing to the extreme means we get to ignore the concept altogether?

[BoyWonder]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

17 Deplorable Examples Of White Privilege

I use this to quite good effect at petrol stations. If you wait by the car to fill up then eventually all petrol stations will unlock the pump so you won't have to prepay.

[aR Que]

You're white and you should feel bad for being white.

[Lightspeed]

I feel bad when using my power to get what I want, knowing there are others who want the same thing but lack the same power and I have done nothing to earn this power. That being white (and male) has given me much of this power does not make me feel bad about being white or male.

(The reality is, all living humans are extremely powerful compared to their surroundings, but we only pay attention to the differential between ourselves and other humans.)

[Juju]

Trying to find motivation to do anything while working out my notice period at the most motivation sapping company, (Jeremy Clarkson voice) in the world.

[Golden Teapot]

Originally Posted by BoyWonder

I use this to quite good effect at petrol stations. If you wait by the car to fill up then eventually all petrol stations will unlock the pump so you won't have to prepay.

Well no, I was at forrest hill motors ilk station and the attendant announced to me over the intercom that I'd have to come and pay first to do a full fill. What I actually did was get back into my car a drive to the next station. I've never been back since and I'll never go there again.

[DrTiTus]

I also adopt this policy. Especially when you're filling a scooter which might take anywhere from 7 to 11 dollars. How much do you prepay? Get fucked, that's how much.

[xor]

I have an Iraqi kiwi friend. He's off to Baghdad to see family.

[Ab]

For a moment yesterday Xero had a greater market cap than Telecom NZ.

[chubby]

^^and is now sitting comfortably at 4th.

[Lightspeed]

It's as if there was some push to enable a knowledge economy in NZ some time back...

[Cyberbob]

Why do people put TLDR's at the end of their posts.

I want to know ahead of time if the summary is worthy of extrapolation.

[StN]

I suspect it is because posts are informal, and in no way require an Executive Summary. Unless they are a wall of text. Or even a well formatted summary analysis of an argument, like Nothings. Maybe it is because of the linear nature of traditional post representation on a board, and the GenY instant gratification trend requiring a quick fix - or even worse, the laziness of the non-reviewer who can't be fagged scrolling back to the top to add it in.

TLDR - I don't know.

[aR Que]

Originally Posted by StN

GenY

Fuuuuuuuuuuuuu

[Nothing]

Well, in my case it's just because I thought tradition dictated that the end of the post was the best place for it. Perhaps also because I figured that people would scroll to the bottom to see how long it was before deciding whether it was too long to read or not.

Actually, to be honest, there were a few formatting quibbles and typos in there that could have been fixed up. But what's to do about it, it's 2500 odd words and it was 2:30 in the morning.

[chubby]

http://gawker.com/dad-calls-cops-on-son-to-teach-him-a-lesson-cops-shoot-1460159897?utm_source=recirculation&utm_medium=recirculation&utm_campaign=thursd ayPM

[Cyberbob]

Originally Posted by StN

I suspect it is because posts are informal, and in no way require an Executive Summary. Unless they are a wall of text. Or even a well formatted summary analysis of an argument, like Nothings. Maybe it is because of the linear nature of traditional post representation on a board, and the GenY instant gratification trend requiring a quick fix - or even worse, the laziness of the non-reviewer who can't be fagged scrolling back to the top to add it in.

TLDR - I don't know.

I'm gonna put an executive summary at the end of my next proposal, see how many people read it.

hint: zero.

[Nothing]

If I was going to put it at the front of the post I wouldn't be able to call it a TL;DR. Since the DR stands for didn't read it implies past tense. The past tense indicates that I have gone past the post without reading it.

If I put it at the start of the post I'd have to call it a WR;MBTL which would stand for "won't read; might be too long" since presumably posters haven't yet gone past it, and thus don't know how long it is. Without knowing how long it is they couldn't really claim that it IS too long.

[StN]

Originally Posted by Nothing

Without knowing how long it is they couldn't really claim that it IS too long.

Hence why, bicycle shorts.