Daughter learning to drive

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Renocat @ Dec 27 2006, 03:55 PM) [snapback]367425[/snapback]</div>

Her license will entitle her to drive any car, not just a Prius. The examiner will most likely want to make sure that she has the requisite skills to park any car, even one without a rear camera or IPA.

Just my 2 cents.

 

Howdy Renocat

I have no idea of NY area test procedure. As an opinion, it seems it would be acceptable to use the backup camera. I would add, however, that I would hate to rely on the backup camera to judge distance from an object like a post or car or whatever obstruction was there. The fisheye lens does distort distances quite a bit - as I'm sure you have noticed.

Hope your daughter passes the first time.

 

When I took my road test to get a California license I used the mirrors to pull out into traffic. I passed, but was told to make sure I TURN AROUND AND LOOK not just use mirrors. I bet it's the same most places. She should be in the HABIT of always looking, especially at her age. My daughter is also 16 but hasn't gotten around to getting her learners permit yet. Good luck.

 

States differ in how they administer tests. In my opinion, a driver should have to demonstrate the ability to park without the camera, since, as Isr points out, the license entitles the person to drive any car. However, actual laws and regulations seldom make any sense. You'd have to call your local examination center to find out their actual rule.

When I took my driving test in rural North Dakota in 1974, The examiner had me drive once around the block. No left turns. No emergency stop. No parallel park.

A person can take their test in an automatic, and be entitled to drive a manual. A person can take their test in a sub-compact and be allowed to drive the biggest SUV. These sorts of policies probably result in many deaths every year, due to people driving vehicles they are not competent to drive.

 

The usage of the camera during a test should match the spirit of the law regarding the device: Don't move backwards without looking directly behind you. If a glance at the camera is necessary to see how close you are to something, stop the car, check the screen to see how far you have to go, then look behind and start moving again. There's no way they could dock any points for this method, either. They may for moving backwards even an inch without looking behind, though!

 

it took me about three months to get use to having a rear facing camera. For at least the first month, I didn't even use it. Now that I know 'how to use it," It is great. But I can see that for someone who does not know how to parallel park or back up around things, it would not be useful to use the camera because the view the camera provides is so strange.

So I do not see anything morally wrong with it because in my experience, you have to know what you are doing anyway before you use the camera for added convince and ocassionally to enhance your view.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Renocat @ Dec 27 2006, 06:55 PM) [snapback]367425[/snapback]</div>

Requirements vary by state and the wording of the law. Most states require the head to be turned so as to be looking out of the rear window anytime the car is moving backwards. In addition individual examiners may or may not dock points for various techniques. I suggest your daughter proceed as if there is no backup camera. As an alternative she could ask the examiner if using the camera while backing would be acceptable, but make sure she is prepared if the answer is no.

 

I'd shut the screen off when she's driving it entirely.

I say that because she REALLY needs to be able to learn how to maneuver a car without it. Its a crutch, and one that she is most likely not going to have in a car of her own until, well she can afford a car expensive enough to have a backup camera. My guess is for the exam the insutructor will force her to turn around and maneuver the car without the use of the camera, so I would teach her that way as well. Plus, any distractions are a negative when you're learning anyways, and the screen is definately a distraction when you're not used to it.

Tell her to take heart though. I took my driving test in my father's Cadillac...when it wasn't even the car I had learned to drive in really. Imagine paralell parking and doing a 3 point turn in that! In Maryland the test consisted of stopping at a stopsign (most kids failed the test right there for failing to stop at the line and creep up lol) making a box turn into a lane, paralell parking, doing a 3 point turn, backing up 100 ft and that was it. Never got over 10MPH and you were free to hit the highway at 80. Smart lol. That was 10 years ago though, hopefully its harder now...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jmann @ Dec 27 2006, 07:38 PM) [snapback]367493[/snapback]</div>

Nothing "morally wrong" with the camera. It can be a great safety feature, and I'd love to have one. But a person should know how to parallel park without it if they are going to drive a car without it, just as a person who is going to drive an over-sized SUV should demonstrate the ability to handle it, by being tested in it, before being allowed to drive it.

Maybe what I'm saying is that a person should only be licensed to drive a vehicle comparable to the one they've been tested in.

And it might be a good idea for Renocat's daughter to learn to park without the camera, just in case the examiner prohibits its use during the test.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Dec 28 2006, 12:04 AM) [snapback]367537[/snapback]</div>

And for the simple reason that she may one day have to park a car without one. Irregardless of the test she should know how. I also think kids should learn to drive in several vehicles in varying size and type. I had the benefit of being able to learn on a large sedan and an SUV, both automatics, and a small sporty car with a manual.

This is also why I advocate people learning to drive a manual even though the never think they'll have to drive one. Who knows...

On top of this, I'm also a huge proponent of new drivers taking professional defensive and precision driving courses. You learn SO much more about actually handling a vehicle in adverse conditions than you do in the pathetic state mandated courses that are really just full of red asphalt videos and pointless tests. I took one right after I was licensed and not only was it extremely fun, the knowledge I learned I still use today. Not being a trained driver yourself, you can't teach her how to best use the yaw of a skid to keep the car pointed in the right direction for example. The course used skid cars to replicate different kind of skids and we all had to get the car out of them, and we had to keep doing it until we got it right. It also involved driving our own cars on a small road course that simulated onramps and offramps, emergency lane changes, etc. It was very cool, and at a cost of about $300 (although that was 10 years ago) totally worth it. I enjoyed it so much I've taken other courses over the years. Its made me a MUCH better driver than I would have been otherwise. I'd look into it.

 

They wouldn't dock her points, that would be unfair. Just go into the display menu and hit display off

 

Probably wouldn't hurt for her to ask the examiner if she should turn it off. But my guess is that if the camera comes on and the examiner does not like it, he'd ask her to turn it off and then start over. No biggie.

 

Who says cars are just for men? Nowadays, many girls are fad of buying vehicles. When it comes to car matter, we always think of it as male activity. But it shouldn't be that way. Developing a love of automobiles should start young. Read this here: Help your daughter appreciate cars.

 

You realize that the OPs daughter is 24 now.
I'm thinking she has a license and has bought a car by now....but I could be wrong.