Wrong.

Minnesota (this is a state in the US) traffic code 169.19 Subd. 5 Signal to turn:

A signal of intention to turn right or left shall be given continuously during not less than the last 100 feet traveled by the vehicle before turning. A person whose vehicle is exiting a roundabout is exempt from this subdivision.

Wrong.

Minnesota (this is a state in the US) traffic code 169.19 Subd. 5 Signal to turn:

A signal of intention to turn right or left shall be given continuously during not less than the last 100 feet traveled by the vehicle before turning. A person whose vehicle is exiting a roundabout is exempt from this subdivision.

Wrong.

Minnesota (this is a state in the US) traffic code 169.19 Subd. 5 Signal to turn:

A signal of intention to turn right or left shall be given continuously during not less than the last 100 feet traveled by the vehicle before turning. A person whose vehicle is exiting a roundabout is exempt from this subdivision.

Minnesota (this is a state in the US) traffic code 169.19 Subd. 5 Signal to turn:

A signal of intention to turn right or left shall be given continuously during not less than the last 100 feet traveled by the vehicle before turning. A person whose vehicle is exiting a roundabout is exempt from this subdivision.

You’ve been wrong every time you’ve said you don’t need to signal.

You asked me why I liked Idea A more than Idea B and I told you.

No, I didn’t. I asked “What does the driving portion demonstrate outside of the drivers ability to properly drive under specific, controlled circumstances?”.

You replied specifically referencing the elderly and vision and reaction concerns.

Which is why I asked “Then why do it at every 10 years instead of when the applicant hits a certain age threshold?”

Then you replied with “I don’t know”, routine verification, and saving lives, but that’s not supported by the data and, similar to gun control, a written AND practical test every year only burdens law abiding drivers because not having a valid license doesn’t actually prevent anyone from driving.

Now you’ve just written me a lengthy reply about why Idea B is actually bad and expecting me to defend it.

I don’t think a practical driving test is bad. I’m just unclear why you think every 10 years makes sense, especially when your concern seems to be elderly drivers. That’s why I asked “Then why do it at every 10 years instead of when the applicant hits a certain age threshold?” which you seemed to struggle to answer.

You are being weirdly aggressive about a strawman and it’s extremely offputting. Please don’t do that.

Where am I being aggressive? By asking questions to understand what logic and information was used to arrive at “a written and practical test every 10 years”? These are pretty basic questions a logic based and data driven solution should answer.

What strawman? Where did I misrepresent or distort your argument for “a written and practical test every 10 years”?

I truly wouldn’t care if your idea became the law tomorrow but I would still have all the same questions.

We have new drivers in Minnesota currently that have to book practical driving tests months in advance or go way out state just to get in. If everyone had to do the practical to renew the burden on the examiners and DVS would skyrocket.

The public testing centers for practical driving tests are not as prevalent as regular licensing centers that just process paperwork here either. This adds a burden to people, especially lower income, who would now have to travel further and take more time missing work just to renew their license.

I like the idea of some routine verification that someone is capable of safely using a 2-ton murder machines.

Legally using a 2-ton murder machine. The requirement itself doesn’t actually stop anyone from driving.

How many deaths does it have to prevent for it to be worth it?

I don’t even know how you’d prove it prevents deaths. The increased fatal crash risk among older drivers is largely due to their increased susceptibility to injuries, particularly to the chest, and medical complications, rather than an increased tendency to get into crashes.

I ask these questions to try and understand how you came to your premise but I’m thinking you picked something arbitrary that sounded good?

I’m all for measures to reduce traffic related deaths and injuries but it’s always a balance trying to implement effective legislation that doesn’t create an undue burden on the people or the systems affected by the legislation.

Then why do it at every 10 years instead of when the applicant hits a certain age threshold?

In Minnesota, your vision gets tested every time you renew your license and if you have to put on corrective lenses to take it then that goes on your license. You get pulled over not wearing corrective lenses and it’s on your license you can be penalized for that. You fail the vision test you don’t get to renew.

What does the driving portion demonstrate outside of the drivers ability to properly drive under specific, controlled circumstances?

People choose to ignore speed limits, roll through stop signs, pass illegally, use their mobile devices etc. but they’d follow the rules for the duration of a test for the same reason they slow down when they see a cop on the side of the road.

To be clear, I don’t really have a preference one way or the other but I’m struggling to understand the purpose of both a written and practical portion for renewal.

I can’t speak to your specific examples since I don’t work there.

The reasons beyond CapEx considerations are things like security, compliance, warranty coverage expiration, standardization across the org, general employee satisfaction, hardware falling out of vendor support.

I doubt the banks computers are single purpose or purchased specifically for each job role. Sure a 15 or 30 year old computer might technically work but there’s no way it’ll meet regulatory security compliance rules.

The home user/hobbyist approach really doesn’t scale to corporate IT.

Banks and corporations change computers every 3-5 years because accounting love to lease rather to buy

3-5 years is a pretty standard depreciation schedule for IT equipment like computers, peripheral accessories etc.

Computers and laptops (using Straight-line method): 31.67% with a useful life of 3 years.

Computers and laptops (using Written Down Value method): 63.16% with a useful life of 3 years

It really has nothing to do with leasing vs. buying.

Exactly! My drives are all sitting at about 40°C but they’ll get up to 50°C at the hottest.

I run a fan because I have it in a wall mounted case but when I had it on a shelf it wasn’t actively cooled and never got higher than it does now.

It is in our basement though and it’s only ever gotten to 27°C down there a few times and that was without A/C.

Yes! I loved playing this game on our old 486.

The issue I have in the US is that, in Minnesota at least, the only reason to move into a crosswalk is to turn right on red however you’re supposed to stop at the crosswalk before proceeding across it and almost nobody does.

Edit: Also, happy cake day!