Need help, if your in SoCal and know anything about DMV's...
Need help, if your in SoCal and know anything about DMV's...
My friend wants me to give him help on where a DMV is anywhere in SoCal, prefereabble somewhat close to LA is a DMV that doesnt have too long of a wait line for the behind the wheel test and arent total hardasses for the actual test. The place I went to I had to wait a month and I dont know any others. I told him id ask around and you guys are the only place I can think of with any possibility of knowing anything about DMV's. Thanks for any help.
Have him make an appointment. Come to think of it, most of the DMV's around where I live won't even let you take a test without an appointment. If has been so long since I took my driving test, that I'm not sure which DMV has the "easiest" test. Back in my day (insert geezer jokes here), everyone went to Placentia because the course that they laid out, was super low stress. That is, in comparison to the Santa Ana DMV, where you are on crowded streets driving alongside immigrants who learned to drive in Tijuana.
He might want to try Long Beach. It is an appointment only DMV, but ALL of the roads around there are AT LEAST 3 lanes wide. The closest place to do a 3-point turn is an under developed residental area with super wide streets.
He might want to try Long Beach. It is an appointment only DMV, but ALL of the roads around there are AT LEAST 3 lanes wide. The closest place to do a 3-point turn is an under developed residental area with super wide streets.
i took my test in la. the 'usc' course was harder than the other i think. it was pretty easy. its been a while so im not totally sure. check for one around liconln heights. i dont think i had to wait that long to take the test. and with less than 10 hours of driving on my own i passed the test with only 3 mistakes 
-
C-Kwik
- Moderator
- Posts: 8070
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2002 9:28 pm
- Car: 2013 Chevy Volt, 1991 Honda CRX DX
nismod_rps13 wrote:i took my test in la. the 'usc' course was harder than the other i think. it was pretty easy. its been a while so im not totally sure. check for one around liconln heights. i dont think i had to wait that long to take the test. and with less than 10 hours of driving on my own i passed the test with only 3 mistakes
If you're saying your total wheel time was 10 hours before you passed the test, then that is scary. And if you were a minor when you got your license, your parents should be slapped. My kids not going to even get to think about testing until I think he is ready or until he turns 18 and does it on his own. IMO, the tests need to be much harder.
IMO driving isnt exactly the hardest thing in the world. when people mess with the radio, talk on phones, or get easily distracted thats where the trouble lies.
i believe i was ready for the test, yes even with just 10 hours. its not that hard to SMOG (signal, mirror, over the shoulder, go), gas, brake, look at lights/pedestrians. if you take your time, drive carefully, be aware of the surrounds youll be fine.
and it was 6 hours driving training, plus the 10 with my mom.
i believe i was ready for the test, yes even with just 10 hours. its not that hard to SMOG (signal, mirror, over the shoulder, go), gas, brake, look at lights/pedestrians. if you take your time, drive carefully, be aware of the surrounds youll be fine.
and it was 6 hours driving training, plus the 10 with my mom.
-
C-Kwik
- Moderator
- Posts: 8070
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2002 9:28 pm
- Car: 2013 Chevy Volt, 1991 Honda CRX DX
Sorry, but distractions do not cause accidents. People who don't think do. What the DMV does not test for is what to look for and identify hazards when driving. They only test for whether or not you follow the rules of the road. While following the rules of the road is a good guideline, it does not dictate good driving by any means. A good driver can break every law in the book and never get into an accident. As an example, you can not come to a complete stop at every stop sign and as long as you make sure it's safe, you won't be any more likely to be involved in an accident than a person who stops. The same could be said of red lights. Running a red light if there are no car coming will not cause any accidents. But if you shoose to just go without checking, well, the chances that you would be involved in an accident would definitely be higher.
16 hours is still not enough. While learning the rules of the road are easy, and so is learning to actually make a car go stop and turn. The reason I say more supervised drive time is needed is because young drivers do not have as much experience to know what they should look for. More supervised drive time will allow the parent or whoever is riding along to help point out things that the driver should look for and for visible hazards that the driver may not recognize.
I've investigated thousands of car accidents as an insurance adjuster. I've heard every excuse in the book from he wasn't there when I looked, to he shouldn't have stopped so quickly, to I stopped at the stop sign so it was okay for me to go...
Here are some examples of some o the more common statements I've taken:
Me: Did you see the other car before the impact?Driver: YesMe: Where was the other car when you first saw it? Driver: 300 feet awayMe: Do you know how fast he might have been going?Driver: no but he was speeding. Me: how could you tell?Driver: I saw him speedingMe: so why did you pull out if you saw him speeding?Driver: uhh????
ex2:
Me: What happened?Driver: I looked both ways and then started backing out of the parking space and he hit me.Me: Where did he come from? Driver: Out of nowhereMe: Cars don't pop out of thin airDriver: From my right, but he wasn;t there when I looked. Me: Did you see him before the impactDriver: NoMe: Why not?Driver: Because he wasn't there when I looked. Me: So where were you looking when the impact occured?Driver: At the car parked next to me.Me: Why were you looking there?Driver: So I don't hit itMe: So you weren't looking behind you while you were backing?Driver: I looked beforeMe: But you didn't continue to make sure it was clear the entire time you were backing if you weren't looking behind you. Driver: uhh?
Believe me. This is much more typical than most people realize. And it scares me as a driver. These kinds of drivers should not be on the road at all unless supervised so they can try to learn. Passing the DMV test doesn't ensure that these kind of drivers don't get licenses. If the tests were effective, I'd never get claims like this.
There are way too many people that learn the laws of the road, but don't bother to understand why they are written. Unfortunately DMV doesn't test for this and few parents probably actually explain it or even understand it themselves.
I'm not trying to judge your driving abilities or your parents personally, but realistically, I see it as irresponsible as a parent to allow their children to be driving a 3000 lb car amongst other 3000 lb cars without doing a reasonable amount of instruction to make sure they are ready for it. The fact that you made three mistakes on your test at all, I think should force you to have to retest. Hell, thinking back, I shouldn't have gotten my license the first time I tested either.
If it were up to me, testing would be much more expensive. This would discourage people from just taking the test just to try and pass. And the wait between tests should be longer as well. This would really help to try and make sure people who want their licese will practice/study more prior to taking a test. I'd love to see that the test would be much more comprehensive of not oly following law, but to show you understand the reasons for the laws as well.
16 hours is still not enough. While learning the rules of the road are easy, and so is learning to actually make a car go stop and turn. The reason I say more supervised drive time is needed is because young drivers do not have as much experience to know what they should look for. More supervised drive time will allow the parent or whoever is riding along to help point out things that the driver should look for and for visible hazards that the driver may not recognize.
I've investigated thousands of car accidents as an insurance adjuster. I've heard every excuse in the book from he wasn't there when I looked, to he shouldn't have stopped so quickly, to I stopped at the stop sign so it was okay for me to go...
Here are some examples of some o the more common statements I've taken:
Me: Did you see the other car before the impact?Driver: YesMe: Where was the other car when you first saw it? Driver: 300 feet awayMe: Do you know how fast he might have been going?Driver: no but he was speeding. Me: how could you tell?Driver: I saw him speedingMe: so why did you pull out if you saw him speeding?Driver: uhh????
ex2:
Me: What happened?Driver: I looked both ways and then started backing out of the parking space and he hit me.Me: Where did he come from? Driver: Out of nowhereMe: Cars don't pop out of thin airDriver: From my right, but he wasn;t there when I looked. Me: Did you see him before the impactDriver: NoMe: Why not?Driver: Because he wasn't there when I looked. Me: So where were you looking when the impact occured?Driver: At the car parked next to me.Me: Why were you looking there?Driver: So I don't hit itMe: So you weren't looking behind you while you were backing?Driver: I looked beforeMe: But you didn't continue to make sure it was clear the entire time you were backing if you weren't looking behind you. Driver: uhh?
Believe me. This is much more typical than most people realize. And it scares me as a driver. These kinds of drivers should not be on the road at all unless supervised so they can try to learn. Passing the DMV test doesn't ensure that these kind of drivers don't get licenses. If the tests were effective, I'd never get claims like this.
There are way too many people that learn the laws of the road, but don't bother to understand why they are written. Unfortunately DMV doesn't test for this and few parents probably actually explain it or even understand it themselves.
I'm not trying to judge your driving abilities or your parents personally, but realistically, I see it as irresponsible as a parent to allow their children to be driving a 3000 lb car amongst other 3000 lb cars without doing a reasonable amount of instruction to make sure they are ready for it. The fact that you made three mistakes on your test at all, I think should force you to have to retest. Hell, thinking back, I shouldn't have gotten my license the first time I tested either.
If it were up to me, testing would be much more expensive. This would discourage people from just taking the test just to try and pass. And the wait between tests should be longer as well. This would really help to try and make sure people who want their licese will practice/study more prior to taking a test. I'd love to see that the test would be much more comprehensive of not oly following law, but to show you understand the reasons for the laws as well.
Quote »Sorry, but distractions do not cause accidents. People who don't think do. [/quote]
i guess people who dont think get distracted then
Quote »The reason I say more supervised drive time is needed is because young drivers do not have as much experience to know what they should look for. More supervised drive time will allow the parent or whoever is riding along to help point out things that the driver should look for and for visible hazards that the driver may not recognize. [/quote]
understandable. and agreed that it takes times to get the experience to be a good driver. i heard it takes about 5 years to actually become a good driver. and even if theres a parent to supervise, the parent has to be a good driver too. i know a few parents that should be taken off the road...
Quote »The fact that you made three mistakes on your test at all, I think should force you to have to retest.[/quote]
id seriously test again. i wonder if ive improved or worsened as a driver. id hope improved of course. but then again you say that the rules of the road is easy.
Quote »I see it as irresponsible as a parent to allow their children to be driving a 3000 lb car amongst other 3000 lb cars without doing a reasonable amount of instruction to make sure they are ready for it. [/quote]
whats even more irresponsible IMO is that they give them brand new cars. my first car was this POS '88 toyota tercel that already had the remnece of an accident. of course it was a hand me down, but i didnt care and i knew that i didnt want a new car anyway.
Quote »If it were up to me, testing would be much more expensive. This would discourage people from just taking the test just to try and pass.[/quote]
that would suck for the people at the bottom of the middle class (like me) because it was hard enough to get the money for driver training.
Quote »And the wait between tests should be longer as well.[/quote]
that i totally agree with. wait time should be longer and be made sure that the person actually goes and practices driving and not just wait for the week to pass.
there should be a way for people to call and report wreckless drivers or people that are unfit to drive... some people really do need to be taken off the road...
i guess people who dont think get distracted then
Quote »The reason I say more supervised drive time is needed is because young drivers do not have as much experience to know what they should look for. More supervised drive time will allow the parent or whoever is riding along to help point out things that the driver should look for and for visible hazards that the driver may not recognize. [/quote]
understandable. and agreed that it takes times to get the experience to be a good driver. i heard it takes about 5 years to actually become a good driver. and even if theres a parent to supervise, the parent has to be a good driver too. i know a few parents that should be taken off the road...
Quote »The fact that you made three mistakes on your test at all, I think should force you to have to retest.[/quote]
id seriously test again. i wonder if ive improved or worsened as a driver. id hope improved of course. but then again you say that the rules of the road is easy.
Quote »I see it as irresponsible as a parent to allow their children to be driving a 3000 lb car amongst other 3000 lb cars without doing a reasonable amount of instruction to make sure they are ready for it. [/quote]
whats even more irresponsible IMO is that they give them brand new cars. my first car was this POS '88 toyota tercel that already had the remnece of an accident. of course it was a hand me down, but i didnt care and i knew that i didnt want a new car anyway.
Quote »If it were up to me, testing would be much more expensive. This would discourage people from just taking the test just to try and pass.[/quote]
that would suck for the people at the bottom of the middle class (like me) because it was hard enough to get the money for driver training.
Quote »And the wait between tests should be longer as well.[/quote]
that i totally agree with. wait time should be longer and be made sure that the person actually goes and practices driving and not just wait for the week to pass.
there should be a way for people to call and report wreckless drivers or people that are unfit to drive... some people really do need to be taken off the road...
I doubt taking it again after youve had lots of experience means youll get flawless. Somethings you just stop caring about over time. Like most people dont stop before the intersection line when making a right turn. I mean 3 mistakes shouldnt warrant a retest IMO, but any MISTAKES should. Im talking no traffic check, failure to stop or just about anything at that level.
Quote »The reason I say more supervised drive time is needed is because young drivers do not have as much experience to know what they should look for. More supervised drive time will allow the parent or whoever is riding along to help point out things that the driver should look for and for visible hazards that the driver may not recognize. [/quote]
and to add to that... the parent HAS TO KNOW THE RULES as well. or else he'll screw over the one trying to learn. i mean if the parent has bad driving habits, he'll tell the kid to do the same. young drivers arent the only bad ones out there... and all young drivers arent bad.
and to add to that... the parent HAS TO KNOW THE RULES as well. or else he'll screw over the one trying to learn. i mean if the parent has bad driving habits, he'll tell the kid to do the same. young drivers arent the only bad ones out there... and all young drivers arent bad.
I dont trust the driving test all that much either. I dont think it remotely shows how a driver will drive. The only thing I think it really does is filter out drivers that drive in the opposite direction of trafic or on the side walks. For example, I got two friends, one that passed with flying colors. Had a 98 or something and is the craziest driver youll ever meet. And I have another friend that failed 2 or 3 times, and is perfect example of what a safe driver should be.
Quote »I doubt taking it again after youve had lots of experience means youll get flawless. Somethings you just stop caring about over time. Like most people dont stop before the intersection line when making a right turn. I mean 3 mistakes shouldnt warrant a retest IMO, but any MISTAKES should. Im talking no traffic check, failure to stop or just about anything at that level.[/quote]
and stop caring is what scares me as a driver too. and people who also INSIST on their right of way. sometimes they just blow by stop signs.
and stop caring is what scares me as a driver too. and people who also INSIST on their right of way. sometimes they just blow by stop signs.
-
C-Kwik
- Moderator
- Posts: 8070
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2002 9:28 pm
- Car: 2013 Chevy Volt, 1991 Honda CRX DX
nismod_rps13 wrote:and to add to that... the parent HAS TO KNOW THE RULES as well. or else he'll screw over the one trying to learn. i mean if the parent has bad driving habits, he'll tell the kid to do the same. young drivers arent the only bad ones out there... and all young drivers arent bad.
No, They have to understand why the rules exist, as should any driver. I am the first to say young drivers aren't all bad. But experience does count for something and statistically, younger drivers in general are more likely to be involved in an accident. There are those who have tried to make the argument that the other driver is young as an argument of liability. I am the first to disregard the age.
And yes, people who don't think get distracted.