Increased speed limits on Oklahoma interstates

[In_Correct]

Isn't it the driver's responsibility to slow down when conditions require regardless of whether the government tells them to or not?

In addition to the other comments the other people made, it is unlikely that most drivers will know if the condition exists until they are too close to it. The  Flip Disc Displays With Flashing Yellow Lights are very useful to alert traffic to slow down or change lanes. The Department Of Transportation or Toll Authority can even close the entire road if the weather is too slippery or too windy.

[kphoger]

Not everybody lives in cities, nor should they. There's a lot of empty space in our country. Somebody has to live and/or work in those areas, such as to mine the gold, or tend the oil/gas wells or wind farms, or herd the cattle, or grow our food.

Are these people capable of driving a motor vehicle competently or not?  If they are, then they should have no problem meeting the increased standards for obtaining a driver's license.  If they are not, do you really want them driving?  Driving has always been a privilege, not a right.

And how, exactly, do you expect people in a rural area to become "competent" at city driving?  I grew up in a town of 1300 people, 30 miles from the nearest stoplight; the nearest town with a mall was more than two hours away.  The "city driving" portion of my driver's ed class involved driving 50 miles, across a state line, to a town of less than 8000 people.

The irony in the discussion here is that those are precisely the people who live where the speed limits are highest.  It's actually all the city folk who aren't used to seeing 75 and 80 mph speed limits.  And there are likewise things in the country that city drivers would have no real-world experience with through a driver's ed course.  For example, passing a herd of cattle on mud, or encountering a bean harvester head-on on a narrow country road.

[jeffandnicole]

Not everybody lives in cities, nor should they. There's a lot of empty space in our country. Somebody has to live and/or work in those areas, such as to mine the gold, or tend the oil/gas wells or wind farms, or herd the cattle, or grow our food.

Are these people capable of driving a motor vehicle competently or not?  If they are, then they should have no problem meeting the increased standards for obtaining a driver's license.  If they are not, do you really want them driving?  Driving has always been a privilege, not a right.

And how, exactly, do you expect people in a rural area to become "competent" at city driving?  I grew up in a town of 1300 people, 30 miles from the nearest stoplight; the nearest town with a mall was more than two hours away.  The "city driving" portion of my driver's ed class involved driving 50 miles, across a state line, to a town of less than 8000 people.

The irony in the discussion here is that those are precisely the people who live where the speed limits are highest.  It's actually all the city folk who aren't used to seeing 75 and 80 mph speed limits.  And there are likewise things in the country that city drivers would have no real-world experience with through a driver's ed course.  For example, passing a herd of cattle on mud, or encountering a bean harvester head-on on a narrow country road.

Or Parallel Parking.

At the time I got my license, we in NJ had to parallel park to pass the test.  I don't think PA required that on their test. 

[vdeane]

Then you have people in rural (or even many suburban) areas who would be completely out-of-luck, because they wouldn't meet the new standards and there is no remotely practical alternative to driving where they live or work.

Not everybody lives in cities, nor should they. There's a lot of empty space in our country. Somebody has to live and/or work in those areas, such as to mine the gold, or tend the oil/gas wells or wind farms, or herd the cattle, or grow our food.

They somehow managed before automobiles were invented.  At least, I'm pretty sure we weren't all living in cities back then.

[Plutonic Panda]

Then you have people in rural (or even many suburban) areas who would be completely out-of-luck, because they wouldn't meet the new standards and there is no remotely practical alternative to driving where they live or work.

Not everybody lives in cities, nor should they. There's a lot of empty space in our country. Somebody has to live and/or work in those areas, such as to mine the gold, or tend the oil/gas wells or wind farms, or herd the cattle, or grow our food.

They somehow managed before automobiles were invented.  At least, I'm pretty sure we weren't all living in cities back then.

It is a different world today. Apples to oranges take.

[hotdogPi]

Then you have people in rural (or even many suburban) areas who would be completely out-of-luck, because they wouldn't meet the new standards and there is no remotely practical alternative to driving where they live or work.

Not everybody lives in cities, nor should they. There's a lot of empty space in our country. Somebody has to live and/or work in those areas, such as to mine the gold, or tend the oil/gas wells or wind farms, or herd the cattle, or grow our food.

They somehow managed before automobiles were invented.  At least, I'm pretty sure we weren't all living in cities back then.

It is a different world today. Apples to oranges take.

Most people stayed in their communities for day-to-day life before about 1900 (and possibly for a few decades after, but I'm not sure).

[kphoger]

Not everybody lives in cities, nor should they. There's a lot of empty space in our country. Somebody has to live and/or work in those areas, such as to mine the gold, or tend the oil/gas wells or wind farms, or herd the cattle, or grow our food.

Are these people capable of driving a motor vehicle competently or not?  If they are, then they should have no problem meeting the increased standards for obtaining a driver's license.  If they are not, do you really want them driving?  Driving has always been a privilege, not a right.

And how, exactly, do you expect people in a rural area to become "competent" at city driving?  I grew up in a town of 1300 people, 30 miles from the nearest stoplight; the nearest town with a mall was more than two hours away.  The "city driving" portion of my driver's ed class involved driving 50 miles, across a state line, to a town of less than 8000 people.

The irony in the discussion here is that those are precisely the people who live where the speed limits are highest.  It's actually all the city folk who aren't used to seeing 75 and 80 mph speed limits.  And there are likewise things in the country that city drivers would have no real-world experience with through a driver's ed course.  For example, passing a herd of cattle on mud, or encountering a bean harvester head-on on a narrow country road.

Or Parallel Parking.

At the time I got my license, we in NJ had to parallel park to pass the test.  I don't think PA required that on their test. 

In my driver's ed class, we had to search for several blocks before we found two cars that were even remotely close enough to count as a decent test of parallel parking skills.  I still struggle with it, just living in Wichita instead of Chicagoland (where I eventually got halfway decent at it, which skill has faded with disuse).

[Plutonic Panda]

Then you have people in rural (or even many suburban) areas who would be completely out-of-luck, because they wouldn't meet the new standards and there is no remotely practical alternative to driving where they live or work.

Not everybody lives in cities, nor should they. There's a lot of empty space in our country. Somebody has to live and/or work in those areas, such as to mine the gold, or tend the oil/gas wells or wind farms, or herd the cattle, or grow our food.

They somehow managed before automobiles were invented.  At least, I'm pretty sure we weren't all living in cities back then.

It is a different world today. Apples to oranges take.

Most people stayed in their communities for day-to-day life before about 1900 (and possibly for a few decades after, but I'm not sure).

LOL. Things were certainly more local. Correct me if I'm wrong, but even things like mattresses were made locally.

[Scott5114]

Not everybody lives in cities, nor should they. There's a lot of empty space in our country. Somebody has to live and/or work in those areas, such as to mine the gold, or tend the oil/gas wells or wind farms, or herd the cattle, or grow our food.

Are these people capable of driving a motor vehicle competently or not?  If they are, then they should have no problem meeting the increased standards for obtaining a driver's license.  If they are not, do you really want them driving?  Driving has always been a privilege, not a right.

And how, exactly, do you expect people in a rural area to become "competent" at city driving?  I grew up in a town of 1300 people, 30 miles from the nearest stoplight; the nearest town with a mall was more than two hours away.  The "city driving" portion of my driver's ed class involved driving 50 miles, across a state line, to a town of less than 8000 people.

The irony in the discussion here is that those are precisely the people who live where the speed limits are highest.  It's actually all the city folk who aren't used to seeing 75 and 80 mph speed limits.  And there are likewise things in the country that city drivers would have no real-world experience with through a driver's ed course.  For example, passing a herd of cattle on mud, or encountering a bean harvester head-on on a narrow country road.

Or Parallel Parking.

At the time I got my license, we in NJ had to parallel park to pass the test.  I don't think PA required that on their test. 

In my driver's ed class, we had to search for several blocks before we found two cars that were even remotely close enough to count as a decent test of parallel parking skills.  I still struggle with it, just living in Wichita instead of Chicagoland (where I eventually got halfway decent at it, which skill has faded with disuse).

They had us park between cones, which was probably a good idea, as the cones got run over a few times.

[In_Correct]

Not everybody lives in cities, nor should they. There's a lot of empty space in our country. Somebody has to live and/or work in those areas, such as to mine the gold, or tend the oil/gas wells or wind farms, or herd the cattle, or grow our food.

Are these people capable of driving a motor vehicle competently or not?  If they are, then they should have no problem meeting the increased standards for obtaining a driver's license.  If they are not, do you really want them driving?  Driving has always been a privilege, not a right.

And how, exactly, do you expect people in a rural area to become "competent" at city driving?  I grew up in a town of 1300 people, 30 miles from the nearest stoplight; the nearest town with a mall was more than two hours away.  The "city driving" portion of my driver's ed class involved driving 50 miles, across a state line, to a town of less than 8000 people.

The irony in the discussion here is that those are precisely the people who live where the speed limits are highest.  It's actually all the city folk who aren't used to seeing 75 and 80 mph speed limits.  And there are likewise things in the country that city drivers would have no real-world experience with through a driver's ed course.  For example, passing a herd of cattle on mud, or encountering a bean harvester head-on on a narrow country road.

Or Parallel Parking.

At the time I got my license, we in NJ had to parallel park to pass the test.  I don't think PA required that on their test. 

In my driver's ed class, we had to search for several blocks before we found two cars that were even remotely close enough to count as a decent test of parallel parking skills.  I still struggle with it, just living in Wichita instead of Chicagoland (where I eventually got halfway decent at it, which skill has faded with disuse).

They had us park between cones, which was probably a good idea, as the cones got run over a few times.

Before the automobiles were sold to customers, some times people took trains. And a very long time ago that was with steam locomotives.

All these comments about every body works hard in rural areas: 

I really doubt most will ride a passenger train any more. Nobody even wants buses either. Perhaps they have nightmares about school buses. I did and so I walked or rode with class mates that did not take the school bus either. I do not remember how many years I rode the school bus. But it was not every year (except for field trips and extra curricular) After high school, I was the just about the only person to ever ride public transportation. Asking neighbours or who ever about riding me they rolled their eyes, laughed, or panicked. Buses are a nice thing to have. 6 months before I got my second car, I was with one car that needed a new battery. There was a bus that let me take the old battery (carried in an ice chest and dried out and lid closed. the other passengers never bothered it.) and dropped me off at an auto supply place to get the new battery. Cars will take you to where ever you need to go (or want to go) that public transportation will not. Also most public transportation has a schedule to wait for.

But just be cause I am open to Public Transportation does not mean that Rural People are open to it. Strict requirements for Driver License might work in Urban Areas be cause They probably do not rely on their cars and are much more open to Public Transportation and use it regularly. In most Rural Areas they will never accept strict requirements. Thus lots of people drive unsafely. Some even want to reach the highest number on the speedometer. None of this will ever change.

Driving might as well be a right, not a privilege.

Also:

Parallel Parking between cones is one example, or some type of metal structures resembling two goal posts moved close enough together. And I suppose other example is that the examiners simply parked their other cars for the students to park between them.

[Scott5114]

You cannot elevate driving to a right because there are always going to be people for whom granting that right is a clear and present danger to others. People like the blind, or those who lack the manual dexterity to operate a motor vehicle, or those who have proven they cannot handle the responsibility through repeated DUI offenses.

Should someone find themselves unable to drive a car, either by their own limitations or by statute, they will need to take up some form of transportation. Should such a thing be impractical in the place they live at, they will need to relocate to somewhere that they are within easy walking distance to either amenities they need to access or public transportation that can take them there.

[kphoger]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but even things like mattresses were made locally.

The bed my wife and I sleep on was shipped up the Mississippi River to Minnesota on a barge years ago.  It has a horse-hair mattress.  Taking it apart is a pain in the butt because of the square bolts–one of which is quite rounded off.

[In_Correct]

You cannot elevate driving to a right because there are always going to be people for whom granting that right is a clear and present danger to others. People like the blind, or those who lack the manual dexterity to operate a motor vehicle, or those who have proven they cannot handle the responsibility through repeated DUI offenses.

Should someone find themselves unable to drive a car, either by their own limitations or by statute, they will need to take up some form of transportation. Should such a thing be impractical in the place they live at, they will need to relocate to somewhere that they are within easy walking distance to either amenities they need to access or public transportation that can take them there.

Like This?

https://www.chickasaw.net/Services/Road-To-Work-Services.aspx

[texaskdog]

Parallel parking should not even be on drivers tests.   I don't even do it, I don't have good depth perception.

[Rothman]

I disagree.  In a lot of cases, they're the only available spaces.

[J N Winkler]

There is often a distinction between what you are required to know to pass the driving test and what will actually be tested.  Kansas has a driving test, but waives it for people who can produce a certificate indicating successful completion of driver's education.  I obtained my license by certificate, so I don't even know whether the driving test requires parallel parking, let alone whether the examiners actually test for it.*  We certainly didn't do parking exercises during any practice driving sessions, which in my case were limited to three for the whole semester, two of which included actual behind-the-wheel time for me.  (The class was large enough that the instructor had to perform triage and I wasn't inept enough for significant behind-the-wheel time.)

The one jurisdiction where I have actually taken a driving test is Great Britain, where you are required to know how to back around a corner, but I was not asked to demonstrate this.  I did rehearse it in advance of the test.  And, FWIW, I can parallel park, but I have no memory of attempting it in a country that drives on the left (besides GB, I have driven in Ireland), and I do it so seldom that I am mildly amazed I can still execute the maneuver successfully.  (Pretty much the only occasion where I can count on having to know how to parallel park is when I go to the county courthouse downtown to look up records and choose to park at the curb for free rather than in their pay parking garage.)

*  A very common route toward a driving license when I was learning--but not one I took--was for a teenager to take the driving test and obtain a full license, not just an instructional permit, on the strength of very rudimentary driving skills, and then take driver's education to polish those skills or obtain the insurance discount.

[jakeroot]

The one jurisdiction where I have actually taken a driving test is Great Britain, where you are required to know how to back around a corner, but I was not asked to demonstrate this.  I did rehearse it in advance of the test.

I had to perform this maneuver for my WA driver's test. It was the only part of the test where I was marked off (for failing to stop before backing around the corner). I turned right, stopped as instructed, and then basically just reversed the maneuver. Strangest thing I've ever had to do; have not done it at all since.

Parallel and bay parking (in both directions) was part of my WA driver's test as well. Of course, the car I used had a backup camera, which they didn't block, so it was a rather easy test. I later became a valet for several years, and learned to parallel (and reverse) park pretty much any car in a matter of seconds. Point-of-pride for myself these days, especially when parallel parking in a loading zone for Lyft passengers (which very few drivers do).

[SoonerCowboy]

I do not have very much experience with the Cimarron, or the H.E. Bailey beyond Chickasha. I think the Indian Nation, is a very nice highway, for the most part. I would agree that the part north of US 69 is the best part. I will be traveling it this Friday, from Henryetta to Hugo, and then again on Sunday from Hugo to Henryetta, so I can give a full report.   

The Indian Nation Turnpike south of US 270 is in bad shape, or at least it was the last time I drove it. It was rough and you could hear and feel the tires hitting the expansion joints on the highway. The stretch of the turnpike from US 69 south to US 70 has daily traffic counts of less than 2000 cars a day so it is not a priority of the OTA.

Ok, I traveled the Indian Nation, both ways this weekend. I would say the road is fine southbound, up until about the time you enter the Choctaw Nation, which is at the South Canadian river. The right lane is rough, but the left lane is fine. I would say it is like that well past US 69 exit, almost to the Daisy/Stringtown exit. There are rough patches northbound, but I would say its worse southbound.

[J N Winkler]

I had to perform this maneuver for my WA driver's test. It was the only part of the test where I was marked off (for failing to stop before backing around the corner). I turned right, stopped as instructed, and then basically just reversed the maneuver. Strangest thing I've ever had to do; have not done it at all since.

I think it serves as a proxy for backing through 90° in general, which is a very useful skill to have not just for parking but also for driveway turnarounds.  Backing 90° to the nearside (right in the US, left in the UK) minimizes the number of traffic streams that have to be crossed but is also more technically challenging since the driver is on the opposite side of the vehicle and thus has less easy line of sight to side guides.  So a driver who shows he or she can successfully back around a street corner can be presumed to have the ability to carry out the easier offside version of the maneuver.

Every so often I visit a family friend (former neighbor) who now lives in assisted living.

Where I park

I refuse to nose in, so in order to access a free space, I drive up, turn left at the portico (covered by roof), back through a shallow angle so I am entering the parking area back first, and then back 90° nearside into the space I want.  This is probably the severest test of my parking skills I encounter on a regular basis.  About 50% of the time I hit it on the nose, and the rest of the time I have to drive out and back in again to center myself within the stall.

[jeffandnicole]

Parallel parking should not even be on drivers tests.   I don't even do it, I don't have good depth perception.

Um, that's scary to hear if you're driving.

[oscar]

Parallel parking should not even be on drivers tests.   I don't even do it, I don't have good depth perception.

Um, that's scary to hear if you're driving.

Not really. In mid-2004, I was almost completely blind in one eye due to a temporary implant holding my retina in place while it healed from surgery. (Had to wait several months for the second surgery to remove the implant.) After a four-week limited-physical activity period following the first surgery, I was able to drive the rest of the summer, and indeed did a long road trip to Providence from D.C. via eastern Ohio and Massachusetts. I could only drive in daylight, but otherwise had no problem with limited depth perception.

I was surprised (but also concerned) to find that Virginia licenses drivers with only one eye.

[jakeroot]

I was surprised (but also concerned) to find that Virginia licenses drivers with only one eye.

Less surprised than Jeff and I, that people with poor/no depth perception are driving?

[kphoger]

Kansas has a driving test, but waives it for people who can produce a certificate indicating successful completion of driver's education.  I obtained my license by certificate, so I don't even know whether the driving test requires...

Same here.  I took driver's ed one summer in school, I forget how many sessions.  When it was time to get my license, I turned in my proof of course completion, took the written test, and got my license.  No road test required.  For what it's worth, I got my learner's permit at age 14.

This was an amazingly simple and affordable route to getting a driver's license for foreign exchange students from Europe, too.  They were able to follow the same process as I did, then simply exchange their Kansas DL for a European one upon returning home at the end of the school year.

[jakeroot]

This was an amazingly simple and affordable route to getting a driver's license for foreign exchange students from Europe, too.  They were able to follow the same process as I did, then simply exchange their Kansas DL for a European one upon returning home at the end of the school year.

Hopefully they had originally trained to drive in Europe! Otherwise...

[kphoger]

This was an amazingly simple and affordable route to getting a driver's license for foreign exchange students from Europe, too.  They were able to follow the same process as I did, then simply exchange their Kansas DL for a European one upon returning home at the end of the school year.

Hopefully they had originally trained to drive in Europe! Otherwise...

Certainly not!  No, they came over as exchange students around age 17 with no driving experience at all.  They took driver's education in a town of 1300 people in the middle of western Kansas, took a written exam at the state office, and got a drivers license.  They then went back to Germany or Croatia or wherever they were from and promptly exchanged it for a national driver's license in their home country.