Re:People in Los Angeles Are Getting Rid Of Their Cars
by mjevans on Saturday September 03, 2016 @07:46PM
(#12421831)
The license is less saying that you have sufficient skill to operate the vehicle in question, and far MORE saying that you are aware of geo-spatial relations and laws related to being legally responsible for operating such a vehicle.
Just like having a permit saying you can legally own firearms would not mean that you are in any way proficient at their use; just that you know when you should and shouldn't use them.
Re:People in Los Angeles Are Getting Rid Of Their Cars
by thaumasiotes on Sunday September 04, 2016 @05:10AM
(#12423472)
OK, but my point is, it doesn't make any sense to learn how to drive manual so that you can get a license permitting you to drive manual. If you didn't bother to learn, you wouldn't need the license.
But somehow multiple people are presenting the license as a reason to learn to drive manual when you otherwise wouldn't. Logically, that doesn't work.
Somebody else mentioned this too. In the US, there are different driving tests for manual and automatic cars. It would be plausible to me that passing the test in an automatic meant a license that was restricted to automatics, but I just looked over my license and didn't see anything obvious. The "restrictions" section says only "corrective lenses".
However... I can't drive a manual transmission. I know I can't, and that's why I don't try. It's completely superfluous to restrict my license; I suffer the harm of trying to drive one.
And similarly, if you're not planning to drive manual, there is no benefit to having a license that says you can. If you can't drive manual, there's really no benefit to having a license that says you can. The benefit comes from having the skill, not the license. If you could, like me, get a license that allowed you to drive manual cars without knowing how, would you go out and start driving them without knowing how?