Automatic vs. Manual: The Ultimate Showdown Thread

[Danoff]

Neither. I'd rather make them take REAL driving courses and/or get off the road.

Nice deflection. Way to avoid the question entirely. Let's pretend that everyone has taken your driving course for a moment. Some people are still going to be awful drivers. Which would you rather do?

a) make driving more complex and distracting?
b) make driving easier and more straightforward?

 

[eiriksmil]

If someone think driving a stick is difficult, why the **** are they driving?

 

[kingcars]

Nice deflection. Way to avoid the question entirely. Let's pretend that everyone has taken your driving course for a moment. Some people are still going to be awful drivers. Which would you rather do?

a) make driving more complex and distracting?
b) make driving easier and more straightforward?

I'd rather them not be on the road period, since they'll still be a danger on the road when driving an automatic. Your argument holds no water.

If someone think driving a stick is difficult, why the **** are they driving?

Agreed.

And if someone has trouble driving a car, what makes you think transmission type is going to fix it? If anything, driving a manual would keep the driver's attention more on the driving, making them more aware of what's going on.

 

[the Interceptor]

If you know your automatic really well, you can probably predict when it'll upshift or downshift... And then you can incorporate that into your driving.

I think this is the key point in why people say you're not as much in control with an autobox. You sure can predict the behavior of your auto once you got to know it. But the thing is that you adapt to the gearbox, instead controlling happenings by yourself. That's what people are on about when they say that they prefer a manual.

 

[Danoff]

If someone think driving a stick is difficult, why the **** are they driving?

Yea, what the hell is their problem? I say if they can't drive a stick shift without a clutch and without looking at the tach (by ear of course), then they have no business being alive in the first place. Everyone should have to successfully heel-toe 3 times in a row in a full racing car or face execution.

I'd rather them not be on the road period, since they'll still be a danger on the road when driving an automatic. Your argument holds no water.

Yes, I know, you'd rather that everyone was a wonderful driver. This is not the case, no will it ever be. There will always be bad drivers, just like there will always be bad pilots. No matter how much training you require, there will always be those who are just not that good at it. It's up to the rest of us to keep on the lookout for them.

So, back to the question. Since you know it is clearly impossible to get all bad drivers off the road, or train them to the point where they are no longer bad drivers - given that, which would you rather do?

a) make driving more complex and distracting?
b) make driving easier and more straightforward?

 

[kingcars]

So, back to the question. Since you know it is clearly impossible to get all bad drivers off the road, or train them to the point where they are no longer bad drivers - given that, which would you rather do?

a) make driving more complex and distracting?
b) make driving easier and more straightforward?

And if someone has trouble driving a car, what makes you think transmission type is going to fix it? If anything, driving a manual would keep the driver's attention more on the driving, making them more aware of what's going on.

I'm hoping you can figure out my answer from that statement. The less the driver is involved, the less they have to pay attention. So even if I try to follow this useless argument, it just backfires on you.

 

[eiriksmil]

Yea, what the hell is their problem? I say if they can't drive a stick shift without a clutch and without looking at the tach (by ear of course), then they have no business being alive in the first place. Everyone should have to successfully heel-toe 3 times in a row in a full racing car or face execution.

Don't try that heel and toe **** on me, it's as stupid as not being able to drive. But if they're too slow to change the gear or use the clutch properly or don't hear that what they're doing is wrong, do you really think they would react quickly enough in a situation where for instance a kid runs out after a ball in the middle of a street? No way.

 

[Danoff]

I'm hoping you can figure out my answer from that statement. The less the driver is involved, the less they have to pay attention. So even if I try to follow this useless argument, it just backfires on you.

That's actually not what I asked. I asked if you'd rather make it less complex. You're jumping a step ahead. But, just so that I can keep up with your through patterns here, I'll put you down for "b".

So the premise is that the more a driver has to do the more they'll be paying attention to what everyone else is doing?? Ok, lemme see if I can follow this. Perhaps we should be making the driver MORE involved then than they are currently.

We should have an extra foot pedal to disengage power steering so that you can be more in-link with the car. Power steering, as we all know, is just a layer of removal from the inner workings of the car. So we should have a pedal to disengage it (since the more involved the driver, the less distracted).

What else can we add? We need more gauges for sure!

Perhaps we could add a switch to turn on and off each individual cylinder in the car. Or maybe a paddle behind the wheel that you have to flick with your finger every time you want the cylinder to fire.... that's it?

Why are we allowing ourselves to be so disconnected with the car that we let the spark go off whenever it's timed to do so? We should be controlling that manually! It will help people be less distracted on the road.

Care to defend your "more to do = more time to pay attention to everything else" argument?

Don't try that heel and toe **** on me, it's as stupid as not being able to drive. But if they're too slow to change the gear or use the clutch properly or don't hear that what they're doing is wrong, do you really think they would react quickly enough in a situation where for instance a kid runs out after a ball in the middle of a street? No way.

WTH!

Those have NOTHING to do with each other. Your ability to use a clutch has NOTHING to do with your ability to react to a kid running in the street. What are you talking about?

 

[kingcars]

Bad drivers will be bad drivers, no matter the transmission or whatever you want to argue. Danoff's argument is pointless beyond belief.

 

[Philly]

HOWEVER, they will NEVER replace the feeling that a manual gives you, unless they get a clutch pedal and dont have a torque converter and...wait...that's what a manual tranny setup is.

A DSG box will give you all those minus the clutch pedal. Perhaps I could go so far as to say a DSG box gives you everything about a manual except for the clutch pedal, an H-pattern shifter and the ability to override the computer to put you in situations you would never dream of being in in any car (stuff like taking off in 4th gear.) And then there is always the option of bumping the lever over in traffic when shifting becomes a pain for regular auto mode.

Neither. I'd rather make them take REAL driving courses and/or get off the road.

So you think everybody should take a Bondurant racing course just so the average driver can know how to drive a manual? Quite impractical. Although I agree fully that driving courses and license requirements are far too easy here in the states. And then there are some people who just can't handle driving period. And you can't just kick those people off the roads.

I would also say that the bad drivers aren't the ones who just got their license and are weaving in and out of traffic. While experience does matter on the roads, I think I could probably say that the people you have to look out for are the ones who have been driving a while and don't have the biggest grasp on all the rules. And those are the people who just haven't taken a course in quite a while.

 

[Danoff]

Bad drivers will be bad drivers, no matter the transmission or whatever you want to argue. Danoff's argument is pointless beyond belief.

You just won't have a discussion will you? I wonder how badly you'd react if I took the same approach to your side of the debate here. Lemme see:

Agree totally. 95% of the population are bad enough at driving as it is without being distracted by eating.

Bad drivers will be bad drivers, no matter...

 

[kingcars]

Care to defend your "more to do = more time to pay attention to everything else" argument?

Wow, you're more desperate than I thought. Good job grasping at straws there. If you think driving a manual is THAT complicated, you have some serious problems. There is a fine line where my argument stands and where, like that ridiculous photo you showed, it becomes way too much for an average person. If a simple manual transmission is that complicated to someone, I'd hate to see them in other every day scenarios, like using a microwave.

A DSG box will give you all those minus the clutch pedal. Perhaps I could go so far as to say a DSG box gives you everything about a manual except for the clutch pedal...

Still not the same, then.

So you think everybody should take a Bondurant racing course just so the average driver can know how to drive a manual? Quite impractical. Although I agree fully that driving courses and license requirements are far too easy here in the states. And then there are some people who just can't handle driving period. And you can't just kick those people off the roads.

My statement was more referring to the lax regulations of driving tests, not whether or not people can drive manuals. However, typically, anybody who is a good driver should be able to learn to drive a manual without issue.

You just won't have a discussion will you? I wonder how badly you'd react if I took the same approach to your side of the debate here. Lemme see:

What? You realize that what you quoted backs up what I'm saying right now, dont you?

 

[Danoff]

There is a fine line where my argument stands and where, like that ridiculous photo you showed, it becomes way too much for an average person.

Yes, there is a point where it becomes too much for the average person to handle. But that's not what we're talking about. I'm debunking the notion that "more involved = more attentive". Don't lose track of the point.

If a simple manual transmission is that complicated to someone, I'd hate to see them in other every day scenarios, like using a microwave.

Again, not the point. The point is that additional complication = distraction. And microwaves are far easier to operate than manual transmissions. Don't simplify driving like that. We all think it's easy because we've done it for years, but it's not a simple task. A 6 year old can operate a microwave.

...speaking of which...

What? You realize that what you quoted backs up what I'm saying right now, dont you?

If you can't follow this conversation, I'm not sure you should be allowed to drive. (it's your argument, I'm just using it against you (again))

 

[homeforsummer]

Fixed.

No, not fixed, broken. With your generally good comments I've come to expect more from you than childish "fixes". It's moronic. Try and avoid it. Eating is one hell of a lot worse than shifting gears, even if you happen to have an auto.

Given the shocking driving I'm used to seeing, changing gear is the least of their worries. People can at least handle it as despite the generally crummy driving standards, the one thing they don't seem to do is be driving along at maximum revs in first gear, so they must have a rudimentary grasp of changing gear at the very least.

Manual or auto, people do tailgate, use their indicators badly or not at all, chat on a mobile phone, speed in poor conditions, eat behind the wheel, brake for lights at the last minute as if they're in a rush and then accelerate away from them slowly... and hundreds more examples of crappy driving. I'd be inclined to think all of these are due to the person themselves, rather than them all being confused by having to shift their own gears.

I can't see how it's a distraction for anyone other than a brand new driver taking their lessons.

 

[kingcars]

Yes, there is a point where it becomes too much for the average person to handle. But that's not what we're talking about. I'm debunking the notion that "more involved = more attentive". Don't lose track of the point.

Let me spell this out for you, since you obviously have reading comprehension problems:

As I said, the SLIGHT extra involvement (not the space-craft level involvement you're passing off), COULD (read: not in EVERY case) lead to more attentiveness directed towards driving. While driving automatics, all the driver has to do is stick it in D and drive around aimlessly, not really having to pay attention.

Again, not the point. The point is that additional complication = distraction. And microwaves are far easier to operate than manual transmissions. Don't simplify driving like that. We all think it's easy because we've done it for years, but it's not a simple task. A 6 year old can operate a microwave.

ROFL. Yeah man, regulating a pedal and moving a stick at the same time is just....UNBEARABLE. I don't know how ANYBODY does it!

Oh, and you tried to compare driving to flying a spaceship, so good work on the hypocrisy.

If you can't follow this conversation, I'm not sure you should be allowed to drive. (it's your argument, I'm just using it against you (again))

Actually, you're just digging yourself a deeper hole. Stop before you're too deep. Oops, too late. As for my own argument that you're "using against me," lets take a look at what was being said:

He said that drivers are bad enough without having to eat. I agreed. INFERRING that the drivers are bad BEFORE eating. Hence, the driver will be bad BEFORE shifting. I hope that isn't too complicated for you.

 

[the Interceptor]

I think kingcars has a point there. When I drive a manual, I'll naturally be looking ahead to what's happening there to see whether I can prepare to accelerate and shift up a gear, let the car just coast along or probably even go down a gear to decelerate.

When I drive an autobox, I obviously will still look ahead to what traffic does, but there's no point in thinking what's happening next since I won't need to work out how to operate my gearbox. That means that despite I actually have to do more work in the car with the manual, I also pay more attention to what happens around me, because I need to know to be able to operate the gearbox appropriately.

 

[kingcars]

I think kingcars has a point there. When I drive a manual, I'll naturally be looking ahead to what's happening there to see whether I can prepare to accelerate and shift up a gear, let the car just coast along or probably even go down a gear to decelerate. When I drive an autobox, I obviously will still look ahead to what traffic does, but there's no point in thinking what's happening next since I won't need to work out how to operate my gearbox. That means that despite I actually have to do more work in the car with the manual, I also pay more attention to what happens around me, because I need to know to be able to operate the gearbox appropriately.

THANK YOU! It's nice to talk to someone who isn't trying to compare driving a manual to flying a space shuttle. I've also noticed the same tendencies that you mentioned in my driving between driving an automatic and driving a manual.

 

[Danoff]

No, not fixed, broken. With your generally good comments I've come to expect more from you than childish "fixes". It's moronic. Try and avoid it.

Just pointing out where your own logic leads you. The "fix" is the best way to drive home when someone's own reasoning works against them.

Eating is one hell of a lot worse than shifting gears, even if you happen to have an auto.

Thank you! Finally, a reasonable argument.

It is reasonable, and I think eating is a bigger distraction than shifting gears. But a distraction is a distraction, and if you're concerned about people doing too much while driving then you should be in favor of automatics.

the one thing they don't seem to do is be driving along at maximum revs in first gear, so they must have a rudimentary grasp of changing gear at the very least.

The point is not whether they can adequately accomplish the distracting task. The point is whether they're sufficiently paying attention to the road. The equivalent of what you wrote would be me saying "I don't see people choking on their food while driving", or "I don't see people forgetting how to talk on their phone just because they're driving". The point is that if attention on the road is what you're after, minimizing distractions - especially for bad drivers, would seem to be a good thing.

I think kingcars has a point there. When I drive a manual, I'll naturally be looking ahead to what's happening there to see whether I can prepare to accelerate and shift up a gear, let the car just coast along or probably even go down a gear to decelerate.

When I drive an autobox, I obviously will still look ahead to what traffic does, but there's no point in thinking what's happening next since I won't need to work out how to operate my gearbox. That means that despite I actually have to do more work in the car with the manual, I also pay more attention to what happens around me, because I need to know to be able to operate the gearbox appropriately.

That's a reasonable argument, but there's nothing stopping you from looking ahead while operating an auto is there? You're assuming that people are going to operate their gearbox "appropriately". That assumption only pertains to people who drive well. By assuming that bad drivers would take into consideration the same things you do while driving a manual, you can pretend that bad drivers would be better if they were operating a manual. The flaw is in the assumption that they'll pay attention. I can tell you from experience that this is not the case.

THANK YOU! It's nice to talk to someone who isn't trying to compare driving a manual to flying a space shuttle.

Yea, at least someone is doing a decent job of making your point for you. Take notes.

 

[Joey D]

So where did I say you CANT have fun in autos? Thanks for proving yourself wrong.

For fun cars nothing beats a manual, seems to me that you were saying that you can only have real fun with a manual, which is why I made that remark.

Too bad you keep ignoring the fact that most autos dont let you change your own gears

Most auto's let you change your own gears, every single auto I have ever driven has D 1 2 3 on it or at least D 1 3. You can change gears if you want to.

I was being serious.

How many of those cars have you had enough experience with to accurately talk about them? If I posted the resume of cars I've driven it would be absurdly long but a 20 minute spin in a friends car hardly counts.

Joey seems to be stuck on the idea that we're trying to say that a non manual car will cause you to lose control of the vehicle. This isn't what we're getting at. Even then, I've already given 1 direct example of a situation that requires precise control of the vehicle, that I couldn't acheive with an automatic car because I was unable to control shift points and the gear I was in.

What does lack of control mean then? Explain.

This statement...
...is completely contradicted by...

..that statement. Think about it for a moment. If fun is purely subjective, then how can the people who say they don't have fun with an AT be wrong??

Not really, I'm saying fun is subjective. I apologise if it's worded weird. You can have fun in a manual you can have just as much fun in an auto. Fun is what you make of it. There are many people saying if you want a fun car it has to be a manual, I'm disagreeing with that.

If you don't have fun with an auto then that is you personal preference, but to say no one can have fun is an out and out lie.

This does not even begin to address my point. I would really appreciate your reading my posts before you reply to them.

Likewise. I've addressed everything you've asked of me previously. The only reason I've used my car as an example through any of this is because I have experience with it. This is boarding on getting personal so I'll drop it.

Answer these simple questions:

Can you change gears in all basic, non-performance ATs without changing the throttle?

All? No. Most? Yes. As I've said you can shift D 1 2 3 if you so desire or at least D 1 3. Is it recommended? No. However I know many people who drive their autos like this on a daily bases, although I am unaware of what problems they have had.

Can you apply full throttle in all basic, non-performance ATs without the transmission shifting gears on it's own?

All? No. Most? Yes. Once again leave an auto on 1 2 or 3 and most of the time it will stay there while putting un-needed strain on the engine and transmission.

It's not hard to follow, dude. Srsly.

Likewise. What I'm saying isn't hard to follow either.

Statements like this are annoying on so many levels.

Many "holier then thou" statements being thrown around by many members are as well.

First, it serves no purpose. Second, it's a complete and utter cop-out because instead of arguing against my points, you've either ignored or distorted them. Third, the statement tries to paint me as being stubborn or unreasonable. Fourth, it's hypocritical because YOU have obviously made up YOUR mind about this as well, so how does that give you a moral leg to stand on??

Personal much? You have made up your mind about manual gearboxes, which is fine, I'm not here to change you opinion on them because ultimately I won't and you won't change mine. I don't disagree I've made my mind up about transmission, I think an modern automatic is equal to a modern manual, that's my stance. I don't see how it's biased or playing favourites of one or the other when I say they are equal.

I don't discuss some points because it's either going to just going to end up beating a dead horse, which this is slowly turning into.

Yeah, you've already said that. Do you have anything other than your absolute unyielding conviction that supports your claim? Care to take a shot at addressing the stuff above about what you can and can't do with an AT?

Likewise. Do you have any evidence that supports a manual car being more fun, granting you more control, or making the drive more enjoy other then your own preferences? Of course not. Everything being discussed here is subjective in almost every way, my points not excluded.

Anyway, if it upsets you, you will need to take that up with the people who said those things, because I haven't made statements like that. I've said some ATs are terrible, while others are pretty good. In your zeal to defend your personal choice (which I agree was attacked for some poor reasons), you've mixed my points up with every guy here who doesn't like ATs. I really wish you wouldn't do that.

I said many members, I didn't say names because as I've learned that could be construed as a direct attack and thus an AUP violation. If you don't fit in one of those "many people" then the point was not directed at you. I'm just trying to play by the forum rules.

I think it's foolish that in your zeal to defend your personal choice of an automatic (which -once again- is perfectly reasonable), you have gone way past arguing the reasonable or even rational.

As many people who are arguing for manuals have, this whole debate is quite out of hand and I admit I'm just as guilty in making it that way as many other members.

You should just stop at saying "auto is a good choice for me and I enjoy it", rather than trying to saying "I firmly believe you can have as much fun, be in just as much control, and enjoy the drive just as much no matter which transmission you have in your vehicle", which is partially untrue.

Why? It's subjective. What in control is to you is different for me is different for the next guy. Once again the subjectivity is this thread's cruel mistress.

===

Wow that was a terrible post, I strongly dislike text walls .

 

[kingcars]

That's a reasonable argument, but there's nothing stopping you from looking ahead while operating an auto is there? You're assuming that people are going to operate their gearbox "appropriately". That assumption only pertains to people who drive well. By assuming that bad drivers would take into consideration the same things you do while driving a manual, you can pretend that bad drivers would be better if they were operating a manual. The flaw is in the assumption that they'll pay attention. I can tell you from experience that this is not the case.

And you think they'll pay MORE attention because theyre driving an automatic? If ANYTHING, they'll pay LESS attention. How do you not understand this?

Yea, at least someone is doing a decent job of making your point for you. Take notes.

It would make my job a lot easier if you could learn to figure out what "paying more attention while driving a manual" meant, without it having to be spelled out for you.

 

[the Interceptor]

I (seriously) think you guys need to go out for a bit and chill, otherwise you'll just keep throwing feces at each other.

 

[kingcars]

Q: Can you change gears in all basic, non-performance ATs without changing the throttle?
A: All? No. Most? Yes. As I've said you can shift D 1 2 3 if you so desire or at least D 1 3. Is it recommended? No. However I know many people who drive their autos like this on a daily bases, although I am unaware of what problems they have had.

Nowhere near the same as switching gears with a manual. Manually shifting automatics causes lots of strain on the tranny, and MOST autos do not allow for full choice of gears. With my old AOD, I only had 1 D OD. If I wanted to manual shift, I'd have to hold it in 1, move to D, move it back to 1 after it shifted to 2nd, then go back to D for 3rd, and OD for 4th (AOD guys call it the "AOD shuffle"). Pretty ridiculous and is nowhere near the control that the 5 speed gives me.

Q: Can you apply full throttle in all basic, non-performance ATs without the transmission shifting gears on it's own?
A: All? No. Most? Yes. Once again leave an auto on 1 2 or 3 and most of the time it will stay there while putting un-needed strain on the engine and transmission.

Unless you're holding the tranny in gear, it will shift itself every time. Most people dont drive their autos around like that.

 

[Danoff]

As I said, the SLIGHT extra involvement (not the space-craft level involvement you're passing off), COULD (read: not in EVERY case) lead to more attentiveness directed towards driving. While driving automatics, all the driver has to do is stick it in D and drive around aimlessly, not really having to pay attention.

See my previous post.

ROFL. Yeah man, regulating a pedal and moving a stick at the same time is just....UNBEARABLE. I don't know how ANYBODY does it!

Do you know what can be involved in regulating a pedal (even just two) and moving a stick?

Yea, what the hell is their problem? I say if they can't drive a stick shift without a clutch and without looking at the tach (by ear of course), then they have no business being alive in the first place. Everyone should have to successfully heel-toe 3 times in a row in a full racing car or face execution.

Oh, and you tried to compare driving to flying a spaceship, so good work on the hypocrisy.

I did? Please, show me where I did that. If you're referring to the photo of the gauge cluster, I used it as an illustration of what I was sarcastically advocating adding to cars. I most certainly did NOT compare driving to flying a spaceship.

He said that drivers are bad enough without having to eat. I agreed. INFERRING that the drivers are bad BEFORE eating. Hence, the driver will be bad BEFORE shifting. I hope that isn't too complicated for you.

I don't know, I'm pretty stupid. I hope I can keep up with your genius. The point is that bad drivers don't need the additional distraction of eating in the car. If distractions are to be avoided, making them operate a manual transmission seems to be a step in the wrong direction.

Or maybe it's my incredibly low IQ that's preventing me from keeping up.

And you think they'll pay MORE attention because theyre driving an automatic? If ANYTHING, they'll pay LESS attention. How do you not understand this?

Because driving an automatic frees up their attention (to small degree) to focus more on the road and less on operating the car.

Or maybe it's my low IQ preventing me from keeping up.

It would make my job a lot easier if you could learn to figure out what "paying more attention while driving a manual" meant, without it having to be spelled out for you.

Here's what "paying more attention while driving a manual" means to me:

"Performing a more complex task, and yet, devoting additional focus on the road".

Notice the "and yet".

I (seriously) think you guys need to go out for a bit and chill, otherwise you'll just keep throwing feces at each other.

Cute. Rather than claiming that I'm "throwing feces" how about responding to my criticism of your argument?

 

[homeforsummer]

Just pointing out where your own logic leads you. The "fix" is the best way to drive home when someone's own reasoning works against them.

Nah, you pretty much just buggered about with something that made perfect sense to suit your own ends. My own reasoning didn't work against me in any way whatsoever. There is nothing distracting about changing gears, even for bad drivers. Trust me, I've been passenger with a few bad drivers and their observational skills and use of the throttle are much worse than their ability to change gears. Maybe we should find something better than the accelerator pedal?

It is reasonable, and I think eating is a bigger distraction than shifting gears. But a distraction is a distraction, and if you're concerned about people doing too much while driving then you should be in favor of automatics.

As above, changing gear is not even in the top 50 "distractions" whilst driving. Mostly because it isn't a distraction, no more than having to turn the steering wheel is. Maybe we can add the steering wheel to the accelerator pedal for things to replace?

And if you'd bothered to read any of my other posts save for the one you butchered, you'd see that I am in favour of automatics, in certain situations.

The point is not whether they can adequately accomplish the distracting task. The point is whether they're sufficiently paying attention to the road.

Chances are the average driver isn't paying as much attention to the road as they should be anyway, so the presence of an extra pedal and a gearlever both barely in the peripheral vision won't make a blind bit of difference.

The equivalent of what you wrote would be me saying "I don't see people choking on their food while driving", or "I don't see people forgetting how to talk on their phone just because they're driving". The point is that if attention on the road is what you're after, minimizing distractions - especially for bad drivers, would seem to be a good thing.

No, it wouldn't be like me saying that at all. The actual process of chewing and swallowing isn't a distraction, the process of getting hold of the food, unwrapping it if needs be, and then holding onto it whilst they take bites out of it is. And the problem certainly isn't people forgetting how to talk on their phone while driving, it's people forgetting how to drive while they're talking on their phones...

That's a reasonable argument, but there's nothing stopping you from looking ahead while operating an auto is there?

Again I refer back to the bad drivers I've passengered with, and I can safely say that none of them have ever had to look at the gearlever when they change gear, not least frequently enough to distract. Changing gear is a tactile experience and you can feel where the lever needs to go.

You're assuming that people are going to operate their gearbox "appropriately". That assumption only pertains to people who drive well. By assuming that bad drivers would take into consideration the same things you do while driving a manual, you can pretend that bad drivers would be better if they were operating a manual. The flaw is in the assumption that they'll pay attention. I can tell you from experience that this is not the case.

As I've already said, they'll be paying equally little attention whether they're driving a manual or an automatic. If anything, as pointed out by the Interceptor earlier, driving an auto gives drivers fewer things to consider when driving so their attention may slip even more. It's the same as making cars more cosseting, quieter and more comfortable. It becomes like a living room and requires less and less attention to operate to even a rudimentary level.

 

[the Interceptor]

Cute. Rather than claiming that I'm "throwing feces" how about responding to my criticism of your argument?

Sorry, I looked for my name on your responses, and I saw just now that you shortened it to "TI". Also, my comment about catching some air was pointed at everyone in this thread, not just you.

That's a reasonable argument, but there's nothing stopping you from looking ahead while operating an auto is there? You're assuming that people are going to operate their gearbox "appropriately". That assumption only pertains to people who drive well. By assuming that bad drivers would take into consideration the same things you do while driving a manual, you can pretend that bad drivers would be better if they were operating a manual. The flaw is in the assumption that they'll pay attention. I can tell you from experience that this is not the case.

I absolutely agree with that. Actually, I think that at least 3/4 of drivers on the roads should never have been given a car, no matter what gearbox it has.

Other than that, I was stating what I repeatedly experience when I drive a car with an autobox, which I do quite regularly. Since my own car is a manual, I notice differences in my behavior. I do not only pay less attention to traffic, I also find myself doing what the gearbox wants to make it work perfectly. Thus, I do understand what people mean when they say that you're more connected to driving and you have more control when you're in a manual.

 

[Danoff]

My own reasoning didn't work against me in any way whatsoever.

You claimed bad drivers didn't need more distraction. Regardless of the size of the distraction, shifting is a distraction. I tried to explain this by giving exaggerated examples of how being more "in tune" with a car can take your focus off the road. You persist that there is no more focus required to drive a stick than an automatic... and yet you say this:

driving an auto gives drivers fewer things to consider

uh.... That's pretty much checkmate buddy. You lose.

There is nothing distracting about changing gears, even for bad drivers.

VV

driving an auto gives drivers fewer things to consider

As above, changing gear is not even in the top 50 "distractions" whilst driving.

I totally agree.

Mostly because it isn't a distraction, no more than having to turn the steering wheel is. Maybe we can add the steering wheel to the accelerator pedal for things to replace?

VV

driving an auto gives drivers fewer things to consider

And if you'd bothered to read any of my other posts save for the one you butchered, you'd see that I am in favour of automatics, in certain situations.

...and I drive stick. A tight pattern, short throw, 6 speed shifter. What has that got to do with anything?

Chances are the average driver isn't paying as much attention to the road as they should be anyway, so the presence of an extra pedal and a gearlever both barely in the peripheral vision won't make a blind bit of difference.

VV

driving an auto gives drivers fewer things to consider

No, it wouldn't be like me saying that at all. The actual process of chewing and swallowing isn't a distraction, the process of getting hold of the food, unwrapping it if needs be, and then holding onto it whilst they take bites out of it is. And the problem certainly isn't people forgetting how to talk on their phone while driving, it's people forgetting how to drive while they're talking on their phones...

Yes. That's right. Just like the problem isn't people forgetting how to shift... see my point yet?

Changing gear is a tactile experience and you can feel where the lever needs to go.

I'm aware.

As I've already said, they'll be paying equally little attention whether they're driving a manual or an automatic. If anything, as pointed out by the Interceptor earlier, driving an auto gives drivers fewer things to consider when driving so their attention may slip even more. It's the same as making cars more cosseting, quieter and more comfortable. It becomes like a living room and requires less and less attention to operate to even a rudimentary level.

Honestly, it's like you're making my argument for me.

 

[buickgnx88]

Haha geez, this debate is as tense as the one about religion vs. evolution!

 

[kingcars]

Y
uh.... That's pretty much checkmate buddy. You lose.

Wow, you really ARE slow. As he said, when driving a manual, you have more things to consider (for the slow: PAY ATTENTION TO). Therefore, that KEEPS the driver's attention on what's going on around him or her as opposed to, say, looking around at the trees changing color, or daydreaming. You're basically trying to say that driving a manual distracts the driver from driving by making him focus more on driving. Nice logic you have going.

If driving a manual truly distracts you in any way, get an automatic. I'm far from the most experienced manual driver, but the only effects I've had as far as paying attention have been in a positive manner. (if you can't figure out what i mean by positive manner: a large decrease in attention lapses)

 

[homeforsummer]

Danoff: With every subsequent post you're being more and more of a complete pain in the arse. I've gone from thinking your posts were fair, to thinking you'd made a few dubious comments, to just thinking you're being a stubborn, argumentative git.

"Fewer things to consider" doesn't mean "less distracting". I can consider something without it being a distraction. I can also be free of distractions whilst I'm considering something. I can even be considering something, but be distracted by something else.

So using my post over, and over, and over again to illustrate your own badly worded points doesn't serve any purpose. Or in the case of your last post, you just repeated my own sentences over and over again, with a lack of any content, let alone badly worded content.

The living room comment, if you'd read what I typed and not selectively read what you wanted to hear, was supposed to be a minus point. How much concentration do you require watching the TV? I'm guessing probably not a lot? But it's comfy right? Well that's the modern car. No concentration on the road required for most people, because they're not having to worry about giving the process of driving any of their attention.

Let me put this into very, very simple terms:

If I was playing baseball surrounded in ten layers of bubble wrap and with bats automatically controlled all around me, then I probably wouldn't have to concentrate very much. If I then applied the same lack of concentration in a normal game, I'd get a ball in the face (or in the balls) and it'd hurt somewhat.

- I wouldn't be "distracted" by swinging the bat, but it would require concentration to play the game. I'd be making a conscious decision to swing the bat so I hit the ball in the best way, but it's not a distraction.
- I wouldn't be "distracted" by having to change gear, but I would require concentration to drive. I'd be making a conscious decision to change into the appropriate gear for the conditions, but it's not a distraction.

That's the fundamental point I'm trying to get across, and it's sailing straight over your head.

 

[Perfect Balance]

How many of those cars have you had enough experience with to accurately talk about them? If I posted the resume of cars I've driven it would be absurdly long but a 20 minute spin in a friends car hardly counts.

Part of my job is to test drive used cars that come in via trade ins or auction, and find any faults in it.

The route I take goes down a highway, through a city, and along a back road, during which I'm supposed to test the engine, brakes, transmission, and suspension of the car. It's only about half an hour or so, but at that time I'm driving the car hard. Braking hard to make sure all the brakes work and work correctly, turning hard and listening for noises/ weird movements, accelerating hard to expose engine problems, overheating, hesitation, ect ect.

I don't always drive them extensively, but when I do, it's specifically for the sole purpose of "testing" the car.