Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm practicing for my DMV test and I've encountered something I don't agree with. Can anybody tell is it me, or is there a mistake in here? Screenshot attached.
Is the logic behind this supposed to be that as soon as the wheels hit the curb, the car will stop? What if the curb lower or damaged? What if the car is the big-wheeled SUV and it will just bypass the curb and as it rolls back it will roll right into the traffic? None of that would be a problem with the wheels turned towards the curb, but apparently that isn't correct.
I'm practicing for my DMV test and I've encountered something I don't agree with. Can anybody tell is it me, or is there a mistake in here? Screenshot attached.
Thanks
The picture is correct. Like it says, if the vehicle was facing downhill, you turn the wheel into the curb. Uphill, you turn it away from the curb.
The picture is correct. Like it says, if the vehicle was facing downhill, you turn the wheel into the curb. Uphill, you turn it away from the curb.
Why?
Is the logic behind this supposed to be that as soon as the wheels hit the curb, the car will stop? What if the curb lower or damaged? What if the car is the big-wheeled SUV? Or for whatever other reason the car might just bypass the curb and as it rolls back it will roll right into the traffic because of the trajectory?
Now if the wheels turned TOWARDS the curb on the other hand, the trajectory of the vehicle will be to go onto the curb rather than into the traffic, and even if it bypasses the curb, it rolls away from the traffic anyway.
Is the logic behind this supposed to be that as soon as the wheels hit the curb, the car will stop? What if the curb lower or damaged? What if the car is the big-wheeled SUV? Or for whatever other reason the car might just bypass the curb and as it rolls back it will roll right into the traffic because of the trajectory?
Now if the wheels turned TOWARDS the curb on the other hand, the trajectory of the vehicle will be to go onto the curb rather than into the traffic.
Only if the vehicle is facing downhill.
Yes, the idea is that the vehicle will roll up against the curb and stop if the wheels are pointed the correct way. I doubt an SUV will get moving fast enough in the 12" it can move for it to roll over the curb. All the other examples you gave really don't matter. The rule is the rule, because it will apply 99% of the time. "What ifs?" don't change that.
The rest is semantics. I've seen the argument before about "what does towards mean" in reference to the front or rear edge of the tire.
It's really not that hard to grasp. Think of the curb acting like a wheel chock. Your over thinking it by adding in low and damaged curbs. Is that the norm where you live? I'm sure the questions are based on average conditions. In your world if you turn the wheels opposite what is recommended, your car can roll onto the sidewalk and crush some pedestrians.
Oh, and since I already have some DMV experts here, can anybody explain another "illogical" rule to me?
In Europe, the car on the RIGHT always has the right-of-way, but in CA - not like that.
According to CA laws, if you arrive at the intersection FIRST (A), you have the right-of-way even if there's a car approaching from your RIGHT (B). So let's say the car on your right doesn't give you the right-of-way, speeds up for whatever reason and goes ahead and you both collide at the intersection. How are you going to prove that you arrived at the intersection first? Let's say I'm the (B) car and I'm going to say that we both arrived at the intersection at the same time, therefore you should've let me go first.
Oh, and since I already have some DMV experts here, can anybody explain another "illogical" rule to me?
In Europe, the car on the RIGHT always has the right-of-way, but in CA - not like that.
According to CA laws, if you arrive at the intersection FIRST (A), you have the right-of-way even if there's a car approaching from your RIGHT (B). So let's say the car on your right doesn't give you the right-of-way, speeds up for whatever reason and goes ahead and you both collide at the intersection. How are you going to prove that you arrived at the intersection first? Let's say I'm the (B) car and I'm going to say that we both arrived at the intersection at the same time, therefore you should've let me go first.
then whoever has an insurance company that's stubborn wins.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
