I like this because it highlights how it’s not an all-or-none question. There are plenty of countries with low firearm deaths that allow some guns but restrict others.

Wrong.

“You are required to use your turn signal anytime you are changing direction in your vehicle,” he said.

2.71Tb/515 series for TV, 6.28Tb/1176 titles in Movies.

Almost everything in MKV because that’s what I prefer.

I use Plex so it’s organized according to their requirements.

Everything is stored with a redundant backup on a Synology NAS with 6/9 HDD bays filled, totaling 48Tb in total storage space.

I run two servers (one on the Synology, one on a NUC-type Asus box) along with all my other systems.

Oh, and I have dual antenna tuners connected as well for live TV, DVR and playback.

Why not switch to a different platform? The screenshot in the post looks like eBay and I’m pretty sure you can disable the offers option there.

Wrong again.

Trooper Steve was asked by a viewer named Lisa, “Are turn signals required in Florida? I see them not being used all the time – and never being enforced.”

Trooper Steve started by saying that the answer to first part is plain and simple.

“You are required to use your turn signal anytime you are changing direction in your vehicle,” he said. “Florida Statue 316.155 talks very specifically about when you are supposed to indicate a turn or change of lane.”

Wow! You’re wrong again!

No person may turn a vehicle from a direct course or move right or left upon a highway unless and until such movement can be made with reasonable safety, and then only after giving an appropriate signal in the manner hereinafter provided

Even in your nonsense “direct course” argument “no person may turn a vehicle from a direct course” until such movement can be made with reasonable safety, and then only after giving an appropriate signal.

That literally means you have to signal when turning from a direct course. The last part, “in the manner hereinafter provided” is inclusive. It means every one of those clauses applies.

You are a great example of why people should be retested regularly.

Yes please!🙏

I know the answer now, it’s an arbitrary idea you pulled from nowhere.

I thought a short response was what you wanted but it seems you just don’t want to overtly state your premise is arbitrary.

I do have another question. Is your ego so fragile that you have to accuse others of the things you do when questioned?

You accused me of a strawman and then engaged in it yourself. You accused me of being aggressive for asking questions to understand what reasoning you used to arrive at your premise but then engaged in personal attacks. You repeatedly engaged in deflection. You might want to work on your mental maturity.

I’d fully support your idea if it was practical and data supported at all but it’s clearly not. Pointing that out seems to upset you.

The joke is on me for assuming you actually had sound reasoning based on information that would be new to me rather than just your feelings.

I’m not going to read your essay.

I’ll just assume it’s arbitrary and pulled out of your ass since you keep deflecting instead of answering questions.

Is your idea for a written and practical test every 10 years supported by any data or is it arbitrary?

Deflection is a defense mechanism characterized by redirecting a conversation away from a challenging topic or issue to something less emotionally charged. It can manifest in various ways, such as changing the subject, asking a question, making a joke, or even becoming defensive or aggressive.

I’m not reading

You could have stopped there. Why comment if you’re going to get so bent out of shape about simple questions that you resort to projection and deflection?

Perhaps you should be looking in a mirror when you throw around claims like engaging in a strawman and being aggressive.

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.

If I was guaranteed to end up back where I am now in my life then I’d go back to my early 20s and head off my drinking.

I put my friends and family especially through a lot and I’d undo that if I could, but not at the expense of all the positives in my life since I’ve been sober.

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.