Re: Cheapest California mandated Teen Behind the Wheel Driver Training (17 year old)

Wow, I had not heard of this step in the Nanny state.

> What a load of crap.

Yes. The lobbyists in California mandated that you are breaking the law if you attempt to teach your teen to drive a car on public roads EVEN after they have their provisional teen permit after passing the written test!

You MUST (by law) give your kid to a total stranger to learn first how to drive.

You can not teach them to drive yourself until they have been with this total stranger for at least two hours (and they must continue eventually, with this same total stranger, for six hours).

And, of course, you are not allowed to be in the vehicle with this total stranger at any time of the lesson.

All this is mandated by the nanny state - merely to make you pay through the nose (yet again) for services you neither want, nor agree with.

If you attempt to teach your child how to drive without FIRST paying a total stranger to teach your kid to drive, you are breaking California law!

PS: You can't even put your GPS low down in the middle of your windshield in California - ask me how I know!

Reply to
Arklin K.
Loading thread data ...

Here is the text of the cite:

formatting link
Recently, the dreaded check engine lit up like a Christmas tree in the middle of winter. Trying my luck, I figured my local auto parts would lend me an OBDII scanner for free so that I could retrieve the error code, just as I did with my old car.

I visited my local Kragen?s, Pep Boys, and Autozone to find out that they no longer provide this service for free. Apparently, it violates some California (and Hawaii) regulatory law. Which wicked people caused this handy service to go away? They wanted to charge me $100.00, just so that the technician could give me the error code. Are you kidding me? $100.00? It takes less than 5 minutes of labor.

What seems to be unnecessary bureaucracy like this increases the ownership of an older car, one that is no longer under the manufacturer?s warranty. Considering that these parts stores rely on DIY / at-home mechanics to fill their coffers with sales, it makes even less sense that the state governments of California and Hawaii would legislate such a silly law into the books.

Is this a ploy by the states to increase new car sales? Perhaps usher in that scrappage program everyone is raving about? Whatever the reason is, there was no legitimate reason for these states to enact such laws. It hurts the consumer and the retailer. Quite a double whammy when the economy could use all the help it can get.

Reply to
Arklin K.

have you written any of your representatives on this? be assured that lobbyists for the auto repair did. and they tossed about a few campaign contributions too.

the only way to stop this racket is to inform your representatives that this is important to you and that you intend to vote according to their ability to repeal this law. if they're in a close call district, both incumbents and candidates will listen to you - until november at least.

Reply to
jim beam

Rather assinine if an actual law. But I can't find it. It may or may not be given what a store employee says.

BTW, OBD2 scanners can be purchased for less than $100 now. Considerably less.

Reply to
Brent

The law has been in place for a couple of years because I myself tried to get my car scanned at Autozone. They're the ones who personally informed me it's against the law in California to do a free check-engine scan.

Luckily, you can buy an OBDII scanner for $21 off of Amazon.

formatting link
B001LHVOVK

It's free shipping if you can bump the price up to over $25.

But the point is 'why' does California, of all continental US states, have such whacky laws?

Answer: Lobbyists have a lot of money and California is the nanny state.

Reply to
Arklin K.

This 'total stranger' you refer to must have passed through a system of background checks and their levels of competency before he/she is allowed to spend time alone with your kid?

If he/she turns out to be a dangerous pedo. 'for example' could you not seek compensation from the state?

I taught my missis to drive many moons ago from her having no driving experience whatsoever, she used to passenger everywhere without a murmer now she sits and critisises my driving everywhere we go.

Reply to
NM

hear hear!

in my neck of the woods, kids get the new six-digit mercedes or bmw to drive to school while the teachers are there in their 15-year old dodge caravans. but i don't think it affects fatalities - high end bmw's and mercs are much safer and have way more air bags than caravans.

Reply to
jim beam

indeed. and yet if you live in the bay area and have a fastpass for the bridges, they give you velcro and tell you to stick it on the windshield!

Reply to
jim beam

How horrible! This is America, the land where everyone is supposed to be equal, and this sort of thing is nothing but discrimination against people who have not received driver training.

In America, driving is a right, and not a privilege. Just because they don't have the slightest idea how to operate or maintain an automobile is no reason to prevent someone from receiving a driver's license. Why, next thing you know, they'll be taking people's licenses away for not using turn signals or driving in the wrong lane.

In America, every teenager should have the right to get behind the wheel of a 5,000 pound turbocharged deathmobile with only a few hours of training from their parents (who probably don't know how to drive either). Let them all out on the roads and see who survives. A high highway death rate is a sign of safety because it means the unsafe drivers are being weeded out the American way.

--scott

Reply to
Scott Dorsey

Would a paedophile be interested in a 17 year old? Quote from Family Guy: Meg: No offense, Mr. Herbert, but I'm a seventeen year old girl, and I have no need for you. Herbert: Well, no offense to you Meg, but you're a seventeen year old girl, and I have no need for YOU.

Reply to
Hugo Nebula

Yes you are correct, poor example picked. I remember that episode of FG, seen them all now, time for some new ones please.

Reply to
NM

I agree. But really. This is driving. It's something we've been doing safely for more decades than that 'total competent stranger' probably has.

And, it's 'our kid' which is the most important thing in the world to us.

I'm breaking the law, for example, by teaching my kid (who has the provisional permit) to drive on public roads. But that's what I have to do in order to keep 'my' kid safe in California.

It's sad that a parent is forced to break the law just to teach their kid to drive safely BEFORE they get into a mandated situation with a total stranger (who may be competent - I have no idea - but I certainly hope so) who almost certainly has decades less experience driving than I do and certainly cares less about the safety of my kid than I do.

Heh heh. Such is life!

Reply to
Arklin K.

I'm more worried that this 'stranger' whom I'm forced to have my kid drive with isn't as competent as I am at teaching my kid how to drive.

I'm sure they have to pass 'some' tests (I certainly would hope so), but I suspect they trust in insurance over actually caring - since, after all, they're just a business who thinks of my kid as six hours of money and not as a lifetime of care.

What's worse, is that I am breaking the law by teaching my kid to drive, even though I've been driving for many decades and have, as yet, never had an accident - and only a ticket for putting my GPS on the windshield and one for putting my license plate tags on crooked and a few parking overtime tickets (I never realized when I first moved to California that they have five, yes five, different colored curbs)

Green Yellow White Blue Red

All of which mean DIFFERENT (but some are extremely similar) things!

So, my tickets are all because I flaunted these laws: a) Nothing can be on the windshield in any usable place in California b) You have to know all the subtle differences between curb colors in Ca c) You can't put your registration stickers on crooked in California

Sigh.

Reply to
Arklin K.

If this is true ... how do all the other 49 states in the nation survive by 'allowing' parents to teach their kids?

Why is it only in California, that the parents can't teach their kids to drive?

What's different about driving in California that parents know nothing, while in other states, parents know something.

What am I missing in your argument?

Reply to
Arklin K.

The fact that, on the whole, Americans can't drive worth a damn. Anything that makes some attempt, no matter how slight, at improving this would seem like a good idea.

--scott

Reply to
Scott Dorsey

I have no children to teach to drive, but I remember being taught by my dad. This usually ended with shouting, crying, and storming out of the car; either him or me, and sometimes both.

Reply to
Hugo Nebula

You are missing the fact that nearly everyone vastly overestimates their ability to teach this, not to mention their own driving ability. Those of us with big honkin' race trophies are in a tiny minority.

The difference is that some places recognize this and implement rules to make everyone safer. Impartial statistics support that it works, though the actual causality may be murky.

formatting link
My wife, who among other things teaches graduate university students, couldn't deal with teaching the kid to drive, and dumped it on me. I, who think I would make a lousy teacher in general, seem to have an easy time with this, probably because I was a car-guy to begin with, and this is a guy thing. I don't think I could do it for others. I think the general case is, people don't really have the skills to teach their kids to drive well. You probably think you can berate your kid while he's driving, eh?

I mostly taught myself to drive, then had to unlearn most of it when I started racing. My eyes were particularly wide when I was in a race school and the instructor went around the track in a fully loaded Toyota minivan with bald tires faster than I would have dared in my own car.

Every frickin' day I have to slam on the brakes (on Barranca in Irvine, for locals) because people don't know they need to get over to the right before they make a right turn, rather than stopping in fast moving traffic. Think of every dumb-ass move you've seen this week. You want these people to teach others?

The laws are at leginfo.ca.gov (health and safety, vehicle code, business and professions), but eventually you find that the rules are set by various bureaus. By the time it gets to Autozone, it's like playing telephone. With deaf lawyers in the middle.

jg

Reply to
jgar the jorrible

Heh heh. Yeah. Sometimes the parent is the 'worst' teacher for a kid - but it depends on both the parent and the kid.

Still, nobody on earth cares more about their kid than the parents!

The thing about these California laws that gets me is that no other state has them ... so you start to wonder ... and when you find out that the laws greatly benefit the services that are mandated, you begin to wonder yet again.

Over time, living in California, you realize all these laws are merely a ploy to take money out of your pocket and give it to whomever it was that lobbied for the mandate.

Case in point: a) California has a smog law that you randomly get a notice that you MUST go to an inspection-only station for your smog test. Guess what? They run the EXACT same test. Guess what else? They ALL charge MORE for that same test! Why? Because you have no choice. It's mandated. Seems to me it 'should' be illegal for them to charge the person who came ahead of you X dollars for a smog test and then you go to the same place, the same guy, the same car, the same everything ... the ONLY difference is your registration requires a test only - and they charge you MORE for that!

b) California has a carbon monoxide detector law that mandates you must have one on ever floor (essentially) of every house in the state. Who sponsored the law? Home Depot. Guess why.

c) California had a law called the 'smog impact fee' where they charged me $300 just for bringing my out-of-state-car into the state. Why? Because they needed money. Luckily this law was considered a tax on out of state imports and was deemed unconstitutional - but the only reason for the law, despite the fancy name, was to raise money from outsiders moving into the state.

d) California has a law that you have to pay TAX on your car every single year! Not once but every year! I do realize 'other' states have that law

- but it's crazy. Why should you pay sales tax on this when you don't pay sales tax every year on, say, a bicycle. Makes no sense other than California wants your money.

e) California has the highest gasoline tax in the nation. So, the natives 'think' they're getting away with 'free' roads (i.e., they think they don't have toll roads), yet they're paying more per mile in taxes than any other state in the nation.

f) California has a law that you can only buy a car in California. You can't buy a new car, which they define as ANY car that has less than 7500 miles on it, and bring it into the state, even if it meets all the standards. You have to ship it out on a truck if you don't follow this law (or it will be confiscated). Why? Guess.

g) California has a law that says you can only buy gasoline made in California. That gasoline is 'special' gasoline. Made 'only' in California. Why? Again, so the lobby interests that made this law can make money by jerking around with the supply and demand curve.

And the list goes on and on and on in the nanny state.

Reply to
Arklin K.

I'm told that anyone who asks a sample of drivers to rate their ability from 1 to 10, almost all (if not all) drivers will rate themselves a 10.

Obviously, if we assume a bell curve, that can't be true ... so I do agree with you that each and every one of us over rates our driving skills.

I wonder, actually, WHAT driving skills would actually rate a 10?

Seems to me, to be a 10, I'd assume a driver would need: a) To have over 25 years experience (if not, subtract five points) b) To have zero tickets (subtract 3 points for each ticket) c) To have zero accidents (subtract 4 points for each accident) d) To have both a motorcycle & car license (if not, subtract 5 points) e) To have taken at least a half dozen driving classes (add 2 points for each class) f) To be able to drive a stick & automatic & motorcyle (add 2 points for each) g) To have driven on the track at least once a year (add 2 points) h) To understand how an engine works (especially the oil, cooling, belts, etc. that can break while driving) i) To understand countersteer and ABS braking in detail etc.

And, you'd have to pass a test that asked 'real' driving questions, like: Q1: What roads do 3-digit federal highways connect to? Q2: Does ABS make you stop faster or straighter? Q3: What direction do you go if the orange construction stripes are from left to right? Q4: What direction are you going if you just passed mile 3 and the next mile is mile 4 on an even numbered two-digit federal highway? Q5: What is the difference between a white turn arrow painted in the road and a white turn arrow with 'must' or 'only'. Q6: Are shopping mall parking lot STOP signs legal or not? Q7: Can you dial a phone with push-button dialing in a hands-free state or not? etc.

Reply to
Arklin K.

I'm sure the children of Josef Fritzl or Fred & Rose West would disagree.

Reply to
Hugo Nebula

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.