Jump to content
  • Sky
  • Blueberry
  • Slate
  • Blackcurrant
  • Watermelon
  • Strawberry
  • Orange
  • Banana
  • Apple
  • Emerald
  • Chocolate
  • Charcoal

Gobbles Musings

Sign in to follow this  
  • entries
  • comments
  • views


Sign in to follow this  


Nothing new to report driving wise. I still taking my lessons. Still in the norm with how many I have. (Saying that, because there can be a huge difference between cities and countries. Traffic here is hell.) I will have my 30th lesson this week. 30 is the average, including especially young men who drove illegally before. 

My instructor explained that I'm currently near the peak of the mountain, waiting for the last improvement.

Still struggling quite a lot with shifting. It should be a bit better by now and it harms other parts of driving because I need so much attention for it. At least that is our assumption. Plan is to take two or three lessons in an Automatic car to see if that is my problem. If it is, we know what we have to train hard. Because in the end, I want my license with my manual car. I want to be able to drive every car, not just automatic ones.

I'm very good in a couple of other things, emergency braking or knowing the rules. So it is not all bad. 

Taking the lessons in the other car is still training. It has more power (200 PS) and is a bit smaller. I'm looking forward to driving it. Traffic is the same, so I still learn, just one less thing to worry about.

But in the end, I need to figure out driving a manual car and my instructor believes that I can do it.

  • Upvote 4
Sign in to follow this  


Recommended Comments



Here, if you do your test in an automatic car you can only drive an automatic for the first year (when you are a Provisional 1 driver).  After that you’re a P2 driver (for another 2 years) and you can drive slightly faster, carry over 1 passenger after 11pm, and drive both manual and automatic.  If you do the test in an automatic is it the same, just a limited time restriction?

Share this comment

Link to comment


8 minutes ago, Karma said:

 If you do the test in an automatic is it the same, just a limited time restriction?

Nope, if I do it in an automatic, I'm limited to automatic cars. I would have to take another full exam and depending on the time between also another theoretical test and lessons. So it would be not ideal at all.

I get my license (doesn't matter which one) with a two year probation time. During those two years I'm not allowed to drink any alcohol, other than that there is no limit. After those two years I can drink alcohol until I hit the limit, but I don't care about that, because for me it is clear that I won't drink and drive even if it is legal. 

There are no speed restrictions for new drivers with cars, only motorbikes have a build in reduction until you hit a certain age. And I can carry up to 8 passengers right away.

Share this comment

Link to comment


Hmm definitely better to get the manual license in that case.   When I got my license some 35 years ago there was no restriction.  But we never had a manual car so I never learned to drive one.  It has meant paying extra when hiring cars, and wasn’t convenient when I worked for a mechanic (I couldn’t shuffle cars, and if giving a lift to customers I had to take my car not theirs).   Also when going away with friends I couldn’t take a turn driving.  I don’t want to ever learn now though!

Good luck!

Share this comment

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Posts

    • nastyhobbitses


      18 hours ago, MargaretElliott said:

      I was just having a conversation with my mother.... I moved in with my SO a few months ago and she said "well I guess you guys are pretty serious." She comes from the school of not-living-together-until-marriage. I said that I would never marry someone unless I had lived with them for a significant amount of time first. She nodded and said something along the lines of, "Yeah it's different from when I got married, but not a bad idea." The idea of marrying someone when you've never even been alone in a room with them..... I just can't comprehend it. It's absolutely mind-boggling.

      I've heard people (mainly nosy aunts) say things along the lines of, "if you live with him before marriage, he'll drag his feet and never propose," and "if you live together before marriage, what changes afterwards? What is there to look forward to?" Ummmmmmm a lifetime of love and commitment with a totally awesome human? That's pretty cool. If you're marrying someone mostly because you want to live with them/have sex with them, that's a pretty poor reason to get married, in my opinion. I live with my SO because I want to, and I love seeing his face every day. If I ever want to marry him, I'll marry him, because I want to spend my life with him. Simple as that.

      Even if you do live apart/save sex for marriage, those decisions should be really small blips in the grand scheme of spending your life with someone...... the person is more important than the penis. You can quote me on that.

      It all just reminds me of the John Mulaney "Why buy the cow" routine.

      Why buy the cow?” Uh, maybe because every time another cow gets bought, you have to go to the sale and you have to sit next to your cow at the sale, and your cow looks over at you the entire time like *angry cow noise*. And does not enjoy the sale at all… even though SHE'S the one that wanted to go to the sale. And she’s especially mad because that farmer and cow met, like, eight months after you guys met.

    • JermajestyDuggar


      35 minutes ago, TuringMachine said:

      Me either. And unlike a most people we follow, I'm pretty sure the putmans go to public school.

      I like the first 3's names: Solomon, Jonah, and Elijah.

      I’m pretty sure they do. Heistheway, Uriah, and Spurgeon are fine when you’re homeschooled. 

    • PennySycamore


      @seraaa, you're right about communion under both species starting for the laity post Vatican II.  It's my understanding, though, that the Church was merely returning to earlier practices.  IIRC, they were just undoing some of the "reforms" of the Counter-Reformation.  In earlier centuries, the altar faced the people and was not facing the back wall.  The laity also received both the bread and wine in the Eucharist.  The congregants were mere spectators and not fully participants in the Mass.  The reforms of Vatican II hoped to change all that.  Some Catholics could not understand why the changes were for the good and how they might make the Mass more meaningful.

      • Thank You 1
    • I don’t follow Lori as closely as some do, but on Emily’s Instagram story she refers to Alyssa’s baby announcement and says this makes Lori’s 10th grandchild. I thought Alyssa’s baby makes 9, so I wonder who else is pregnant? Hmm


    • samurai_sarah


      46 minutes ago, Belugaloo said:

      Can someone explain Sectarianism and its relationship with Scotland? I quick google search didn't help me out :) 

      Uhm, it's complicated and I would rather someone like @Glasgowghirl would explain it. But for the now, @just_ordinary has got the long and short of it. It's very, very complicated, due to historical baggage and then some.

      I'm not trying to wriggle out of anything, I'm just in a position where I really don't want to set a foot wrong. Please understand. And I know that I'm asking the impossible, so I'll try to keep it brief and hopefully to the point.

      (Yeah, that didn't work too well, so I spoilered a long bit of abbreviated history.)



      Ireland was a country that England repeatedly invaded. After 1066 Norman landlords came over to Ireland. Feudalism was quite new to Ireland, but the new landlords adapted. Then Henry VIII happened, he of fame for beheading Anne Boleyn. The Reformation of Ireland didn't go well for the English. Terrible things happened on both sides that created hard feelings.

      Cue the 17th century and things got worse. Spain and France as the leading Catholic powers in Europe tried using Ireland and Scotland as a backdoor. They'd tried this before, but things got serious. With a large population of Protestant settlers in Ulster (aka Northern Ireland), and a huge war on the continent, defeating Ireland and Scotland (where rebellions brewed as well), was paramount.

      Are you confused already? Add the potato famine in 1848, and the brutal tactics that English landowners used to get tenants off their lands.

      But most importantly, Catholicism was considered a religion of terrorism. It started with Guy Fawkes in the 1600s, and stayed so. Being a Catholic meant that you were a potential terrorist. And that thinking is deeply engrained. Not least of all, thanks to the IRA.

      What do they have to do with Scotland? In terms of faith, Scotland has never been a unified country. But during the 19th century, a lot of Irish Catholics came over to work. The habitual discrimination against Catholics didn't go down well, and it's been passed down and fossilised. And here we are. All of us. To our detriment.

      I'm sure, I've missed out on a load of things that are important. I just wanted to provide a brief overlook, as to how and why. It's hardly a neutral take, but trying to historically summarise as an outsider is a bit tricky.



      • Thank You 1