First of all , that last sentence is not true - I know lots of people who behave unprofessionally in only one way (or one area) but not others, and one of the most common is people who behave professionally in every way except how they dress. Second, a driving test is inherently going to be subjective in some ways - here’s a link to road test points in NY. How do you have an objective standard for “follows too closely” or “poor judgement in traffic”? A two second distance might be fine under some conditions but not others. No, he shouldn’t be able to decide ahead of time that you are going to fail, but there really is no way to prevent it from ever happening.
The first time I took my road test to get a DL I reached an intersection just as the light turned yellow, leaving me with a choice to jam on the brakes or continue through the yellow light. When I chose the latter option, the examiner told me to head back to the license bureau. Obviously I had failed but the examiner wouldn’t say why at the time. I think this has long been the policy for road tests (at least in some locations), to avoid getting into arguments that for some people might turn physical.*
I doubt a prospective driver’s piercings/tattoos/hair color would get her failed unreasonably. There are lots of people with these characteristics and an examiner who kept flunking them wouldn’t last long. I agree that the examiner shouldn’t have been wearing a MAGA hat. Why do something that is bound to antagonize many people coming in for road tests and create more tension than there already is?
*I had to wait at least a couple weeks before retaking the test and passed with flying colors. The new examiner asked me why I’d failed it the first time. When I explained he had no comment. :dubious:
I reckon that, like in many occupations, there are probably plenty of examiners who wonder how the hell some of their colleagues ever got hired in the first place, and marvel that they manage to keep their jobs.
@Tibby: Did Chlo pass a Driver’s Ed course before taking her test? I ask because I too caught an unsympathetic tester my first time around but I passed because that training worked. I’ll claim Driver’s Ed and Typing as my most valuable secondary-school classes.
Yea, that’s definitely what they need. More prayer. If it’s one thing right-wing conservatives are lacking, it’s prayer. Good call.
Amen!
I failed my first time out for one error also. I drove down the middle of a one-way street in the middle of the street, not on one side or the other. And even though there was no middle line designating it as a two-lane street, the instructor failed me for it.
In California, the test prep materials put out by DMV state explicitly that the examiner will not ask the driver to do anything illegal. So, no “trick” questions. Or at least, they’re not supposed to.
I wonder if the examiner was doing something like that in asking OP’s daughter to stop at a RR crossing and then do a U-turn. Was he setting her up to turn on the tracks to see if she would?
Sometimes a hat is just a hat.
MAGA hats excepted.
How do they have tattoos as teenagers? It sounds like they’re still in high school and I guess they could be 18, but multiple tats?
I don’t understand your question. You realize, I assume, that a tattoo doesn’t actually take that long, especially a relatively small one? You could get one or two at 15, one or two at 16, etc. It’s pretty easy to have multiple tats at 18.
In some places it is illegal to have a tattoo done below the age of 18. That’s certainly the law in the UK.
In the US, it’s a state-by-state thing. Some states have 18 as an absolute minimum age, while others allow tattoos under 18 with parental consent.
The OP is in Florida, which allows tattoos from age 16.
I didn’t know that. It’s illegal under 18 where I am and I assumed all states were like that.
Why on earth would the state (i.e., government) have the slightest interest in what a citizen has painted on his/her body?
Emphasis mine.
You’ve lived in America (presumably) all or most of your life, and you’ve been on this board for 17 years, and you still make that assumption?
Come on, man. This is Government 101 in the United States. “They do it like that here, so they must do it like that everywhere” is literally about the worst and most ill-informed assumption you can make in American law and policy.
While I tend to agree, as a general principle, the fact is that a tattoo is NOT just a painting. It is a somewhat invasive procedure, involving piercing the skin with needles, and it leaves an essentially permanent mark. As the Wikipedia article notes, the rationale behind requiring parental consent for minors is, in considerable measure, based on issues of contract and informed consent, and the legal principle that, in at least some cases, minors cannot enter contracts or give informed consent for themselves.
We might think that’s a silly rule, or that the age barrier should be lowered, but it’s a bit more complex than just painting on the body.
It’s worth noting, also, that where you live, (at least at the state level) tattooing minors is allowed, as long as there is parental consent. Here is the relevant Michigan law:
It’s interesting that, unlike some other states, Michigan sets no minimum age at which a minor can get a tattoo with parental consent. Your location says Detroit, and I guess it’s possible that the city has passed a more restrictive ordinance.
Fuckin a, dude! I was wrong, which I already acknowledged by saying “I didn’t know that”. But sure, make two posts in a row to chastise me.
I was also half-remembering and thought about the parental permission (and that there are shops/artists who won’t tattoo underage, period, even with parental permission) but I’ll be honest and say I think it’s really unusual for a parent to give permission for multiple tattoos on their underaged kid.
I don’t agree at all with this sentiment. It appears to assume that one should always respect those in authority, even if they do not think they are worthy of that respect. That there is some sort of automatic respect that is warranted due to someone being in a position of authority.
The OP’s response in not being deferential, and fighting back inasmuch as they think they could get away with is, in fact, a good lesson to teach. Sure, life is unfair, but sitting back and accepting that only means it doesn’t get any better.
There is the issue of picking one’s battles. But that doesn’t mean one should teach an automatic respect for authority. Such is how authoritarian people are able to come into power–people have been conditioned to give into them instead of fight back if they aren’t good.
One should respect a good person in authority. One should respect what an authority figure can do to you. But one should not automatically respect anyone in authority or show deference to them.