Driving Test 2

Though I only drove my car for a few minutes over the past few weeks, it seems that I magically acquired much improved driving skills,  sufficient to pass the test with flying colors.  Now, apparently thanks to the beneficent tutelage of the DLD, I am such a wondrously improved driver.  Now I suddenly and inexplicably deserve to be granted the privilege of driving without my mommy to accompany me, after my initial execrable performance and abject failure.  But not without significant cost and compromise.

The DLD deigns to issue me a "license" - albeit with a multitude of arbitrary restrictions that make it well nigh to useless.  I still cannot legally drive to my doctor's office or hospital.  Nor can I even drive to the Springville Walmart without running afoul of the restrictions.  Driving to Salt Lake Valley to visit my children is out of the question.

After she notified me that I passed the test, I complained about all the unwarranted restrictions to the examiner, who seemed astonished that anyone would be so ungrateful about being presented with such a charitable gift.  So she dutifully summoned her supervisor to confront me with bureaucratic stonewalling, and berate me for my gauche.  The supervisor said something about "having a conversation", then proceeded to discount every word I said,  effectively granting me her  beneficent permission to shut up and go away.  She offered no reasonable justification for any of the arbitrarily imposed "restrictions".

I had to laugh when the woman bristled at my characterization of their segregating the group of "normal" drivers from the "impaired" to target for discrimination.   Her retort, "Do you realize what a SERIOUS charge you're making!?"  As if I was somehow offering insult to her virtue and integrity.   I am using exactly the same language used in the State of Utah laws which the DLD uses to codify and justify discrimination against handicapped drivers.

She claimed that the State of Utah DLD is the guardian of "safety" - even though none of the "restrictions" they were imposing had anything to do with any demonstration of "safety" issues.   Indeed, the drivers who are recognized by the Utah Department of Public Safety as the most accident-prone of all generally enjoy perfectly unrestricted driving privileges, right up to the moment when they murder somebody.  What a brilliant "SAFETY" program!

In this round, the insistence on head-swiveling continues.  The examiner KNOWS, in her heart-of-hearts, backup cameras are no substitute for turning your head around 180 degrees, even though this virtually eliminates the usefulness of a backup camera.  The NHTSA has mandatory required backup cameras in all new vehicles starting next year.  But the DLD still knows better.  The examiner says, "Don't you DARE look at the backup camera while backing."  Even though in the vehicle I drove for this test,  the view through the back window that the examiner insisted I should use is severely limited and unreliable at best, even NOT SAFE to rely on!

Need I add that this is a totally regressive mindset.  I daresay it is typical at the State of Utah DLD.  The Federal government mandates that all cars have backup cameras starting this year, but the State of Utah DLD still insists that we must never use them.

Not only does the DLD examiner insist on swivel heads, she maintained her pretence that she could not change the driving test requirements to omit parallel parking.  I demonstrated my parallel parking skills by the curb on the street next to the DLD office, and asserted that this is the only type of parallel parking I am ever likely to attempt.  Nonetheless, she still insisted that I try to park between the DLD cones.  I asserted numerous times that my physical handicap precludes any facility at such manuvering, but she continued to insist that it is a mandatory part of the driving test.  Even though other parts of the test are routinely omitted.  I made a token pass at parking between the cones, and she predictably construed my "failure" as a driving test violation, with an imposed penalty.

I could not care less about parallel parking.  It would be fine with me if the DLD imposed a restriction on my driving license that explicitly restricts me from attempting to park between two cones.  I am happy to stipulate that I cannot and will not ever be able to perform parallel parking, by the DLD definition.   I would not even object to any number of other restrictions that prevent me from legally attempting things I am not physically capable of doing.  But the insistence that I must perform the parking attempt on the driving test is obviously symptomatic of a greater problem at the DLD.

According to this, I am restricted to:

• driving on roads with a speed limit of 40 MPH or less
• daylight driving only
• hand controls
• 15 MILE RADIUS FROM HOME
• spotter mirrors

Not one of these listed restrictions makes a particle of sense - in fact, they are the height of absurdity.  I implemented the hand controls myself.

None of the "restrictions" have to do with anything remotely related to "safety".  The examiner's supervisor at the DLD defended their arbitrary requirements, asserting that I raised no objection to them when they were originally imposed.  Well, excuse me, but I do not recall that  you were present at the time.  I most certainly DID object to the restrictions.  At the time, I had no reason to believe that the DLD practices routine discrimination against handicapped drivers.  Now that I have experienced it consistently, I recognize blatant discrimination for what it is.

My suspicion is that the examiner passed me this time because she believed my pickup truck was under video surveillance - which it was - and she no confidence that she could get away with fabricating such an unjustified and outrageous test score as previous, with other people witnessing.  I don't like video surveillance, but I could think of no other option to protect myself in this manifestly hostile environment.

Her primary concern was that there was a little bit of snow on the roads.  I have no such doubts about driving on snowy roads, and would venture that I have more cumulative experience driving in snow than the examiner has ever travelled on dry pavement.

One of the violations she checked off was "RS", indicating that she was reporting a "rolling stop".  Because of problems with automatic adjustment for light conditions, that portion of the video record of the incident is not conclusive, but the audio track clearly indicates that the vehicle made a complete stop for several seconds prior to accelerating for the right turn.  The engine noise is unmistakable.

It was funny to see that the examiner chose to instruct me to perform a U turn on a residential street - in my full sized pickup truck.   Most would have easily recognized that the truck does not have a small enough turning radius and cannot complete a U turn in such a narrow street.

I also had to laugh about the examiner's imposition of the "spotter mirrors" requirement, after she observed my frequent use of mirrors during the test.  In fact I have always made frequent use of mirrors.  This "spotter mirrors" requirement is just an annoyance more than anything.  She apparently noticed that my right hand mirror has a cheap cheesy convex mirror affixed.  Two of these little mirrors were on the truck when it was purchased used, some years previous.  They never bothered me, other than the barely significant useful mirror surface they waste.  But this is an additional symptom of imposing meaningless arbitrary restrictions.  The truck used to have another little phony mirror glued on to the drivers side REAL mirror, but it fell off somewhere, and I never bothered to replace it.  The little mirrors never made any significant difference to my SAFE driving.

The restriction to drive on roads of 40 MPH or less is fatuous  and punitive from the beginning.  I am certainly no better or worse at driving 60 than I am at driving 40.  Another baseless "safety" restriction.

I have no idea why anyone would have dreamed up the "daylight driving only" restriction.  Indeed, I have no recollection that anyone ever formally tested my night driving, or questioned me more than in passing about any difficulties I might have had with night driving. I would have answered that  I have never had any reason to suppose my nightime driving is any better or worse than any NORMAL driver.  And neither does the State of Utah DLD.  Just another inexplicable arbitrary and discriminatory restriction.

As already mentioned, the hand controls were implemented by ME, as an adaptive measure to accommodate my physical handicap.  None of the other restrictions can be realistically construed to relate to the hand control adaptation.  But the DLD just had to list this, as if it were THEIR idea.  Actually, I gave up all hope of driving with NORMAL pedal controls years ago.  I only recently discovered the hand controls that let me drive my car nearly as if I could function NORMALLY.

The "15 MILE RADIUS FROM HOME" restriction is another pointless and arbitrary restrictive measure that amounts to punitive.  If I had the will, I could legally drive in circles for thousands of miles.  This appears to be the intent of this silly restriction.  I have a number of destinations I could and would travel to frequently if it did not violate my "restrictions".  The compassionate and sensitive supervisor suggested I should just learn to rely on public transportation.  I could tell from her attitude that SHE never does, and that she would never suggest this to any NORMAL person.

The "spotter mirrors" requirement is just a ludicrous afterthought.  I bought a new set from Amazon to install in my pickup for $3.00.  I could not care less, other than the fact that it is an arbitrary and entirely capricious imposition.  I cannot imagine that the DLD would even THINK to make such a silly requirement for a NORMAL driver.  But for me, the IMPAIRED driver, it's just a great idea.  So why not make it a "restriction"?

As far as I know, I have never encountered one single person from the State of Utah DLD who has medical credentials, is board certified as a qualified medical practitioner, or who even is even reasonably well informed about medical handicaps.  If DLD employees have no particular expertise that qualifies them to make judgements about medical issues, they need to defer to the opinion of those who ARE qualified to make such deliberations.  I expected the DLD to actually LOOK at the recommendations my doctors make.  When I see clear evidence that they are not even CAPABLE of reading a medical report, I don't believe they ever did.  Instead, they just assume that medical handicaps must be a safety hazard.  As a result of this bigotry,  NORMAL drivers have not restrictions, while those labelled as medically IMPAIRED get much worse treatment than drunk drivers.

Note that the restricted temporary license states that it expires in six months.  Yet another arbitrary and capricious limitation that no NORMAL driver ever encounters.  Oh joy!  I get to repeat this senseless exercise, every six months.  To be sure, I will work on improving my video surveillance technology.



Thrilled at the prospect of enjoying such graceful accommodation at the State of Utah DLD!

State of Utah Practices Institutional Discrimination against Handicapped

Discrimination is treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing is perceived to belong to rather than on individual merit.  This includes treatment of an individual or group based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or social category, "in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated".  It involves the group's initial reaction or interaction going on to influence the individual's actual behavior towards the group leader or the group, restricting members of one group from opportunities or privileges that are available to another group, leading to the exclusion of the individual or entities based on logical or irrational decision making.

The State of Utah routinely discriminates against drivers with disabilities by subjecting them to unnecessary road tests and medical exams, and imposing arbitrary restrictions on their driving.

The Utah Drivers License Division applies its Medical Evaluation Program – meant to identify drivers with medical problems that might cause them to crash – to punish drivers who are capable and safe, but have a physical disability. The practice is based on stereotypes about people with disabilities, and it serves as a punitive imposition on those drivers, who must spend extra time and money proving they don’t pose a risk.

Presumed guilt unless and until they can prove innocence to the satisfaction of the State of Utah.

The State of Utah Drivers License Division presumes to interpret every possible evidence by their own privately held and arbitrary set of special rules. The propriety of their management of such concerns is not in question. The problem is a presumptive overreach that extends far beyond any reasonable measures. Such abusive bullying is clearly a violation of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act.

Obviously, disabled people over the years have endured being subjected to this institutional prejudicial discriminatory attitude. Though the State treats them capriciously, and bullies them into fearful submission, almost all fear to complain, as the State routinely threatens to restrict or revoke their licenses in reprisal.

The State commonly cites medical conditions affecting a person’s ability to drive as the cause of automobile accidents. But there is no evidence to substantiate the claim that drivers with orthopedic impairments, or who use adaptive hand controls, present any increased accident risk.

The State of Utah mandates that health care providers report when patients in their care are treated for any of the health conditions iterated on their list of politically-incorrect conditions. Once a driver is forced into the Drivers License “medical review” program, he or she remains there forever, without hope of reprieve. While in the program, drivers are routinely required to undergo special medical testing, and forced to provide documentation from doctors and therapists disclosing personal medical information that is otherwise supposed to be protected from such government prying. Handicapped people are routinely subject to a set of totally arbitrary special restrictions placed on their licenses. The State is not required to justify or substantiate, and generally gives the impression that there is no possible appeal from their permanent punitive measures.

Among the unjustified restrictions imposed against me personally by the State:

• Limit maximum operating speed to roads with speed limit of 40 mph or less
• Distance from home I am permitted to travel must be within a radius of 15 miles
• Restricted to daytime driving
• Prohibited from travel on freeways and interstates
• Prohibited from travel in areas with higher speed limits
• Restricted to operation of my own vehicles only when accompanied by a fully licensed “normal” driver

The State of Utah has already revoked my driving license, so there is really nothing they can do to impose further additional punitive measures or implement additional arbitrary restrictions. They have to be satisfied with fabricating results from the “driving test” that fail to qualify for their standard of drivers license renewal. I suspect they enjoy the feeling of smug moral superiority that derives from such abuse of the public trust.

A good place to address this problem would be to put a stop to the routine discrimination against drivers with disabilities based wholly on speculation, stereotypes and generalizations. The State of Utah is not entitled to act based on their suspicion that a particular driver MIGHT be dangerous. Either I am, or I am not. Prove it.

Since the State of Utah Drivers License Division has demonstrated an ingrained, institutional predisposition to such behavior, it would be fair and appropriate for their records to be regularly subjected to routine audit by an outside independent and objective auditing agent. This auditing must needs be conducted at random intervals selected by the auditor and unannounced to the management, so that the Drivers License Division is unable to easily falsify or sequester appropriate documentation.

It might also be effective for the State to intervene with at least temporary qualified independent management oversight, since the abuse of public trust is apparently found through all levels of this bureaucratic institution. These discriminatory practices are obviously not the fault of any one particular individual, although I have met certain people who exhibit the greatest enthusiasm for pursuing the job of punishing handicapped people. Perhaps some of them fully believe that they are just doing their duty. And that is probably the most unfortunate aspect of all these problems.

The State of Utah publishes an elaborate and comprehensive summary showing numerous charts and statistics regarding all motor vehicle accidents.  There are no graphics or statistics to substantiate the prejudice against handicapped drivers, though there are other circumstances which are clearly related to the incidence of traffic accidents.

Apparently they don't really bother to read their own reports.

Overall, a general attitude seems to prevail in  the State of Utah Drivers License Division that is so aptly and succinctly characterized by one of their recent public service ad campaigns.

In my case there is an implied comma after the injunction.

They seem to be saying, we automatically assume a priori that the people we work for are stupid, and treat them accordingly.  And of course, that prejudice goes double for handicapped individuals.  The contemptuous and parochial posturing apparently informs this attitude and the institutional policy that formalizes it

More about the driving test results...

Sexual politics in Utah just got real

In the Feb 06 2015 Salt Lake Tribune, Paul Mero submits a remarkable article correlating with the recent Church news conference.  It stands out in honesty and candor like few other related comments I have seen.  I have copied the entirety here because I think it merits serious reflection.  I think the Salt Lake Tribune does not seek to promote or provide balanced discussion in the public square, and is not a worthwhile venue to publish such an article.

In light of the local euphoria over the recent statements by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regarding religious freedom and nondiscrimination, fully anticipating this euphoria to be temporary once the reality of what was actually said starts to sink in, I was reminded of the Hans Christian Andersen classic The Emperor's New Clothes.

You remember the story. Con men convince an arrogant and narcissistic king that they can make him a suit of clothes so special, so enlightened, that no mere common person would be able to see the suit. Of course, the king's sycophants weren't about to admit that they too were unable to see the clothing for fear of being marginalized as "hopelessly stupid." Once on public display, it took the innocence of a small child to reveal the obvious — the king "isn't wearing anything at all."

In its collective wisdom and painful honesty, the LDS Church, like the observant child in the classic story, just lifted all pretense from the serious debate over religious freedom and nondiscrimination. They said, for all intents and purposes, the emperor has no clothes. Sexual politics in Utah just got real.

With characteristic humility the LDS Church spokesmen told the truth: Resolving inherent legal conflicts between religious freedom and nondiscrimination will be very difficult. And I would add probably impossible to the liking of all opinions.

The legal conflict between religious freedom and nondiscrimination is inherent because those who cherish religious freedom view it much differently than those who cherish nondiscrimination and vice versa. Seasoned gay advocates know what I mean, as do seasoned defenders of religious freedom. Even as the LDS Church spokesmen uttered their words, seasoned observers knew that, far from drawing closer connections between the two issues, the divide had just grown wider.

The good news for sincere seekers of sound public policy is that the LDS Church's statements create an environment of honest dialogue. There is no more room for gay activists to imply LDS Church support for "activist sinners" (as opposed to repentant sinners) where none really exists. Nor is there room for social conservatives, like me, to imply that sexual politics can be simply ignored any longer.

The truth, now facing the Utah Legislature, is that nondiscrimination is forever linked with religious freedom in Utah. The delusion of Sens. Steve Urquhart and Jim Dabakis, that nondiscrimination is an absolute and independent civil right, has been laid to rest now by the LDS Church. More precisely, nondiscrimination is forever tied to the huge exception of individual conscience. In other words, there is no true religious freedom unless it applies equally to both religious institutions and their adherents.

Another delusion was settled, at least for the time being, by the statements of the LDS Church. Sexual politics is not viewed in the same pantheon of rights such as historic civil rights about race or sex. Despite sincere outreach to people with same-sex attraction issues, the LDS Church and most of Utah view homosexuality in terms of behavior. Race and sex (maleness and femaleness) are viewed as innate. For better or worse, homosexuality is largely viewed as something people do, not as something people are. This is precisely why the LDS Church cannot doctrinally satisfy gay activists who yearn to have their sexual relationships viewed as "worthy." And this is precisely why gay activists no doubt cringed when Elder Dallin H. Oaks punctuated during the Trib Talk interview that lifelong "chastity is not unique" to the human experience. His conclusion is unacceptable to gay activists — go ahead and "be gay" just don't engage in sexual relations outside of legal marriage defined as between a man and woman.

I appreciate this candor. It's refreshing even if it might make a prudent nondiscrimination bill more difficult to craft. Only one nondiscrimination bill with a clear provision for individual conscience can satisfy the constraints just imposed in principle by the LDS Church. Perhaps clever legislative attorneys can accomplish what LDS Church leaders, in the wisdom of Solomon, won't even attempt to address in the law. Good luck to all.

Paul Mero lives in Sandy, Utah, and can be reached at paulmero@msn.com.

I am uncertain about why Mr. Mero chose to publish this article in the Salt Lake Tribune.  It will certainly not be well received, or ever be thoughfully considered in that venue.  In fact it probably serves only to provoke more angry and threatening responses from the gentle readers of that journal.

Political Capitol Presumes to Speak for the Church

The misguided proposal known as "Utah SB 100" continues to lurk in the dark halls of the Utah State Capitol.  In the left-slanted commentary about political dealings in Salt Lake City and throughout Utah, the "Utah Political Capitol" effectively puts foot-in-mouth.

Perhaps emboldened by their apparent success in pressing for government-sanctioned deviant "marriage" practices, the liberal-minded were wont to crow that the LDS Church has come out in support of SB 100, though the "discovery" was somewhat premature.  Apparently an anxious by-product of wishful thinking.

First they were all in a breathless sweat to make the announcement, "BREAKING:  LDS Church Announces Support for State-wide Non Discrimination Law"

Next, apparently disappointed that their spin was somewhat flawed, the group decides that the LDS Church is somehow "Walking Back" the announced support announcement.   "Walking Back" is a polite political term for abruptly changing your stated position.  It frequently accompanies the insinuation that advocates for the former ideology are being "thrown under the bus" in the interest of political expediency.  This elaboration appears to be "CYA" spin to cover up the embarrassing misread of the original Church statement, actually nothing particularly new, a work in progress derived from the Salt Lake City deliberations in 2009.

Finally the Deseret News publishes a statement from the Church explaining this fabricated controversy, clearly a product of wilful misunderstanding.  Apparently the Church feels entitled to actually speak for itself in isolated rare instances.  Imagine that.

Fox13, the local news affiliate in Salt Lake City, applies their own pro-homosexual spin to the story.

My initial examination of the proposed SB100 and why it is still a bad idea.

Discriminating through anti-discrimination

Another conflict between individual rights and "anti-discrimination" laws. 

Little satisfaction from "I told you so," but - I told you so.

Ordained ministers are compelled to perform homosexual "marriage" against their will, or face punitive fines or imprisonment.

It occurs to me to ask someone to explain, how exactly does this serve the cause of "anti-discrimination"?

Such laws have been proposed in Utah and are already in place in Salt Lake City.  How do they promote anything but the homosexual agenda?  I am not in favor of discrimination, but these questions obviously go far beyond any original intent.

We have little to look forward to in a future where politically-correct ideas that promote perversion and depravity become the rule of law.   When will people wake up and realize what is happening?

Ordain Men

To the British Isles, and members of the Commonwealth...

I respectfully submit my request to be crowned Queen of all England.

I have determined that it is the only way I can gain true equality and fairness.  Notwithstanding the fact that my current "gender identity" has a bit of a conflict with the traditional role of "Queen".

It is not rational or fair to maintain such exclusive rights to the Matriarchy of the British Isles.  In this current epoch, it is only proper that the title of "Queen" be equally available for both males and females.  Anything less would be discriminatory bigotry. I announce my intention to form disruptive queues at Buckingham Palace, with daily news conferences, until my requests are considered to my satisfaction and proponents of traditional female Monarchy capitulate.

My lack of understanding and respect of English tradition is not a consideration. I just want my fair share.  And I'm perfectly willing to intrude in private affairs, even where I am not wanted, to pursue my own interest.

"Gay" in the News: Not So Okay in Russia?

Police detain wielder of "Gay is OKAY" banner. Russian laws presumably violate  "gay freedom".  The demonstrations apparently serve to inform the public of this grave injustice.  I suppose the demonstrations are staged with this in mind.  Most generally, I think it serves to get their pictures in the papers.  Interestingly, the Russian authorities deny that any such event occurred.

"Gay" in the News: Uganda Homophobes

Discrimination in Uganda.  Homosexual behavior is criminalized.
Mr. Obama threatens to use harsh language in his vigilance against Uganda discrimination.  Seems to be comparable with his concern for Syrian children and his golf game.