It's very rare for me to read an article I read on the Internet and be so moved by it that I decide to dedicate some of the time from my (busy) day to send an email to the originator. This, however, is one of those times. I've just read your article entitled "Death to The Stick Shift" and now that I've finished laughing, I've decided to give you my thoughts on it.
Alas, where to start...
"Today's manual clutch is the same antiquated system that's been around for the last 100 years, and it's a fundamentally unsafe way to control a car."
We still walk in the same way we used to...must be antiquated and unsafe...many people walk in front of moving vehicles and into walls ever day. Perhaps the manual gearbox has remained (fairly) unchanged in the last 100 years because it does its job so well...
"Driver distraction is one of the major causes of vehicle accidents. According to a 2001 national survey conducted by the Network of Employers for Traffic Safety (NETS), roughly 25% of all fatal automobile accidents are caused by driver inattention. Although this research didnt examine the role of the manual transmission, its potential risks are patently obvious. Operating a manual transmission is an inherently difficult and dangerous procedure..."
Of course driver distraction is a major cause of vehicle accidents. However, I believe you are incorrect when you attribute manual gearboxes as dangerous. Driver inattention means using a mobile phone, smoking a cigarette, drinking, doing make-up etc...changing gears is NOT being inattentive, rather quite the opposite. A driver in a car with a manual gearbox is PAYING ATTENTION to what they're doing...they're having to choose what gear to select and when to change. This along means they are literally forced to pay attention to not only the gearbox but also the conditions around them. The driver of the automatic car is not forced into this decision as much. The automatic driver can just be driving along, using their one foot on one pedal with the cruise control on and doing their make-up or phoning their pals. You correctly point out the fact that the study didn't look into manual gearboxes being the cause of accidents...I wonder why this is? Have you bothered to contact them to ask them about this? Prove to me that manual gearboxes are inherently more difficult and dangerous than automatics with hard facts and I'll be convinced, try to fob me off without any proof and I'm not believing you.
"To start from standstill, the driver must coordinate both feet, using the right foot to bring up the engine speed and the left foot to slowly engage the clutch."
This doesn't sound very difficult to me. I've heard that most humans can actually walk, breathe, blink, listen to music and eat at the same time. Fancy that!
"At the same time, he has to judge the engine speed to anticipate the change to another gear."
Why exactly are we contemplating changing gears at a standstill? In my experience 1st gear is the best to do this in...(that'll be labelled as '1' in your automatic)
"This he does aurally (listening to the revs) or visually (watching the tachometer)."
Again, humans have the ability to multi-task, listening to the engine revs does not confuse them or limit their ability to complete other tasks. Also, I know of no drivers who EVER look at the rev counter during normal driving. Perhaps learner drivers do this, but of those I know who have passed their test, none of them look at the rev counters. A lot of manual cars are actually sold without rev counters.
"Listening to the engine can distract the driver from important auditory stimuli (e.g. approaching emergency vehicles)"
I simply don't believe this...prove it, please...
"while watching the tachometer removes his eyes from the road."
See above. Also, note that most drivers will be checking their speedometer whilst driving and/or checking their mirrors (thus removing their eyes from the road). Catastrophe!
"At the same time, neither foot is available for instantaneous braking."
This is the first fair point I believe you've made, however, unless I'm very much mistaken, a large proportion of drivers with automatic boxes drive using a single foot to operate both the accelerator and brake. If this is not the case, why did you yourself point out in the intro to your article that manual gearboxes were an "Archaic system of transferring engine power to the wheels requiring the use of 2 feet". This says to me that it's a burden to use 2 feet and that most automatic drivers use the single foot. Is this the case?
"Once underway, the dance of the feet begins anew-- except now the driver must use his or her right hand to move the shift lever in coordination with his or her feet. The lack of a foot available for the brake pedal is even more critical since the car is now moving faster, and the driver is now steering with one hand."
Right...I won't mention again the ability most humans have to multitask. I will, however, ask you how long you've driven a manual car for (if at all)? I've only been driving for roughly 3 years (all but a very short period done in a manual car) and I adapted rather quickly to being forced to think about driving and using both feet to operate the major controls of the car. I've also never been involved in an accident (despite operating a car which relies on an "inherently difficult and dangerous procedure". How many tasks can you think of that involve removing a hand from the steering wheel you perform in your car? I can think of several, including:
Using indicators (turn signals)
Operating other auxiliary controls (such as window wipers, demisters, lights etc)
Operating audio controls and/or air conditioning/heating controls.
Any driver worth his/her salt will NEVER change gears during a corner, removing a hand from the steering wheel for an instant whilst driving on a straight piece of road is NOT inherently dangerous.
"Consider that this has to happen five or six times just to get to cruising speed, requiring driver concentration at some level."
Driver concentration is good. It forces the driver to pay attention.
"The amount of distraction caused by downshifting, shifting while turning a corner, and so on is even greater."
Your definition of the term "downshifting" is incorrect. Downshifting is changing from a higher gear to a lower one, it does not necessarily (and should never) be done whilst in a corner. It may be done on approach to a corner though. There is no distraction caused by down changing, it's a process undertaken thousands of times per year for most manual drivers and becomes second nature effectively. Some of us can even blip the throttle whilst down changing to help the synchromesh (yes, we're that advanced). I must also point out just now that it is my belief that the average driver of a manual car is more acutely aware of his/her speed than the average automatic driver. As all gear changes in a manual car must be performed by the driver, they will inherently have a feeling of what speed the car is travelling at (due to the current gear), without removing their eyes from the road (!) and checking the speedometer (which is incredibly dangerous, of course). I, for example, know that my current car will do no more than 25mph in first gear, 45 in second, 75 in third, 105 in fourth and approx 120 in fifth (experiments conducted on a closed track, not on public roads). Therefore, if I'm in third gear, I know that my car will be doing no more than 75mph (and will be able to fairly accurately predict the actual speed of the car by the engine note). Ask an automatic driver to do that and I'm fairly certain they wouldn't know how many gears the car had, never mind the top speed in each gear. Also, there's the dangerous matter of removing their eyes from the road (!) to look at their display to note what gear they're in. On the approach to a corner, I can modulate the car's speed (using a combination of the accelerator, brake and gearbox) without looking at the speedometer to check my speed.
"Heaven help the chicken that decides to cross the road in front of a driver using a manual transmission."
Again, this is a fairly baseless point. Prove what you say, don't just rely on your audience taking everything you say as being correct. Prove to the audience you've done your research and know what you're talking about.
"Contrast this process with the fine art of driving an automatic transmission. The driver slips the shifter into drive and presses the accelerator. Hes free to carve a corner without reacting to changes in vehicle speed or conditions by removing his right foot from the gas pedal."
Removing the driver from the driving process doesn't seem a "fine art" to me. It really does sound like a way to decrease their overall concentration levels. Wouldn't it perhaps be beneficial for the driver to be able to remove his/her right foot from the accelerator (say in the case of an impending accident or an obstacle in the road)?
"The transmissions electronic control system monitors the vehicles speed, lateral and longitudinal acceleration; the steering wheel position and acceleration; and changes gear ratios accordingly."
The only automatic transmission I've ever used was terrible. The changes were slow, badly timed and without finesse. Perhaps the situation is better on more modern cars, but it's my personal opinion that a person's brain is a more capable machine when gauging gear changes than the cheapest embedded systems CPU the car company could afford for the car.
"Stick shift sticklers often defend their archaic rituals by arguing that manual transmissions are more fuel-efficient. <snip> demands infinitely less attention from the driver."
I'd never heard this argument before...
I suppose it does make sense though (given that the idle speed on most automatic cars is noticeably higher than on their manual equivalents (in order to cope with uphill starts and the inbuilt creep with most automatic boxes).
"Why do enthusiasts cling to manuals when the safety and efficiency drawbacks are so obvious"
They're not very obvious to me (or, I would say) most of the manual driving population. Care to elaborate (and provide proof)?
"and the alternative automatic transmission so well developed? Sometimes it's ignorance. Many enthusiasts have never driven a car equipped with a state-of-the-art automatic transmission, complete with electronics that adapt to the sporting driver's shifting preferences."
Perhaps it's ignorance in my case, however, most of the car magazines I read seem to agree with my 'ignorant' opinion (i.e. that manual boxes are generally better than automatics).
""I want to be in control" or "It connects me more intimately with the car". Strip away the human vs. mechanical rationale and Zen posturing and all that remains is simple, wilful resistance to change and progress."
What's wrong with this? Shouldn't eagerness of the driver to interact with the car (therefore paying attention to the road conditions and what's going on) be applauded and respected, rather than rubbished because an automatic box would be "easier"?
Perhaps it's the people of America who are ill-suited to the manual gearbox rather than the other way around..
Anyway, I've spent rather longer than I intended on this, and I'd be interested to read your reply on what I've said.
Thanks very much for your time.
I didn't read any of it but just by the layout of his site and the pics I knew his whole pathetic argument.
