America's love affair with the (automatic) car

[TheFeniX]

Certainly it does not require 'vastly more skill and concentration'. From about the 1960s when all-synchro gearboxes became common, the extra skill required is a few hours worth of muscle memory. It does need a bit more concentration to drive smoothly/efficiently though, because you have to anticipate your velocity changes by a couple of seconds and preferably not gear-change in the middle of a maneuver. I've never seen any non-annecdotal evidence that his translates into safer drivers.

I remember my first time driving, how BIG my car felt, and how NARROW the lane felt. It was work just to keep the car in between the lines. Within a month, a week, whatever? Pfft.

With a manual, especially mine with a shit clutch, bad bearings, and a shifter 9-feet long: driving was, ok a bit of gas... now some clutch, bit more gas, wait, too much, ok more clutch, ok it's caught, bit more bit more.

Then like... 2 days: I wasn't even thinking about it, up until I got stuck on a rough incline with a Texas Driver™ millimeters from my bumper. I had to kind of pop the clutch just to ensure I didn't roll back. I then practiced a bit on an incline by my house: done. Never an issue again. By the time I sold my truck, I had two issues still prevalent: smacking myself in the knee when shifting into 2nd lazily and accidentally throwing it into 2nd when I meant to shift from OD>4th: VROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!

Yes, there's definitely a skill involved in driving a manual that automatic drivers don't have to learn. So technically a person who can drive a manual is more skilled than someone who can't. I remember being intimidated by learning, but the truck was $2800 and had a working A/C: fucking SOLD! However, most of my intimidation came from hating the way dirt bikes worked. Actually practicing: takes 5 minutes to learn and a few days to forget about/handle it instinctively.

It's nice to be able to drive any class C vehicle out there, but this still didn't help me when borrowing my buddy's truck. His Reverse was Top-right, not bottom-right. I had to get this from his instructions because he was the kind of guy who replaces a perfectly good shifter knob with a fucking 8-ball.....

[Starglider]

Commercial vehicles are generally harder to drive than passenger cars, but that does not make the average work truck driver safer. Personally I find towing a three tonne trailer makes me work much harder than merely using a manual transmission or switching from a car to a minibus, because there are whole new categories of things that can go wrong once the vehicle is articulated. So there you have it, by Stas logic the way to ensure road safety is to permenantly couple a caravan to every car.

[Broomstick]

I'Ve been looking all over the net for a study done on this, and ther was none. Only opinion pieces. So I looked into accident data. Sadly, most data is only for accident rate, but well, it's a start.

Surprisingly, the US with ~100% automatic is pretty much consistenty worse than most of the (~90% manual) European countries in traffic safety, no matter where you look.

You need to take into account the abysmally low requirements for a driver's license in the US. Seriously, in some states the testing is a fucking joke. As an example - I have never had to have an official road test. NEVER. Because I passed (the requirement being passing, not excellence) my high school's driver's education course I was not required to take a road test in Michigan at the time I got my first license. Since I've had a spotless record since and never let my license lapse I have never subsequently been required to take one, even after moving to a new state of residence.

Would that apply to ANY European country, even places like Eastern Europe or Italy?

Now, I was fortunate in that my parents would not permit me to get my full license until they were satisfied I was an adequate driver, and I've made an effort over the years to become a good driver. All too many Americans don't give a fuck. The accident rate reflects this.

[K. A. Pital]

But there's no way I'd buy manuals require vastly more skill and concentration to use. Once you learn it, which is easy to grasp for anyone with two brain-cells, it becomes just another lever and pedal to operate.

Certainly it does not require 'vastly more skill and concentration'.

I did not base it on nothing.

A qualitative evaluation was made on how a newly-developed semi-automatic transmission system “ESCOT” (Easy, Safe Controlled Transmission) reduced the mental work load on drivers, by measuring their physiological reactions. Heart rate, brain waves (β-waves), and galvanic skin response clearly changed under driving conditions that increased the driver's mental work load, such as when shifting gears, braking and turning at a crossing. From these measurements, a mental work load index was empirically derived. The average mental work load index for long-distance driving was reduced by about 30% when driving a tractor equipped with the ESCOT system compared to the conventional 12-speed manual transmission.

Mental and, if we take older drivers, physical stress levels are elevated when driving manual. For young drivers, this just means greater stress (you most likely would not notice it yourself, subjective stress reports make little difference between the two, but sensors will read out a much greater stress level when operating manual).

To cope with this stress, you do need improved concentration and skill.

This is also why driving automatic improves behaviour of older drivers, although for them the gear changing is already a known and learned by muscle memory procedure.
http://edit.hj.se/download/18.1590596b1 ... +DOI_1.pdf

Dunno what else to say except please stop basing the talk on anecdotes.

[Aether]

But there's no way I'd buy manuals require vastly more skill and concentration to use. Once you learn it, which is easy to grasp for anyone with two brain-cells, it becomes just another lever and pedal to operate.

Certainly it does not require 'vastly more skill and concentration'. From about the 1960s when all-synchro gearboxes became common, the extra skill required is a few hours worth of muscle memory. It does need a bit more concentration to drive smoothly/efficiently though, because you have to anticipate your velocity changes by a couple of seconds and preferably not gear-change in the middle of a maneuver. I've never seen any non-annecdotal evidence that his translates into safer drivers.[/quote]

My thought would be if you are at least aware of when to (down)shift and engine brake efficiently then it keeps your concentration focused on the working of the car and/or road. It would certainly make it harder to put your makeup on, drink a coffee, text while driving. It's still possible, but it is a little harder to to those things. Overall, is a manual safer in those regards? Maybe, I don't know. It would be interesting to see if there is data to support it.

[Aether]

Duplicate. Please delete.

[Sea Skimmer]

I fail to see how a method of driving which traditionally requires removing a hand from the wheel is ever going to be safer, given otherwise similar drivers. All the more so in an era of ABS and stability control on all new cars sold in the US by law, those systems really don't want engine braking they can't electronically control to be a factor. It's certainly not helpful. Maybe in areas of rough hills, where engine braking can usefully keep down rotor temp, but that isn't much of the US or that important on a modern passenger car. Towing/trucks is different.

Also a smaller percentages of the US population now have driver license or drive daily compared to a couple decades ago, when manuals where much more common. Which means whatever anecdotal evidence people might think about how bad other US drivers are, it all but had to be worst in the past because a larger segment of the population drove. And accident rates did used to be higher, and death rates far higher, but of course that stemmed from many factors.

Meanwhile say Russia, has far more manuals and all that seems to allow is more aggressive suicide passes. The mentality of the driver is what matters, not the transmission.

[Flagg]

@Aether Not every car is a HP-crazy sports car, you know.

@Thread
I've been watch this discussion for a while, but am still missing evidence - people keep saying that of course, automatic transmission makes driving saver, because people...

I'Ve been looking all over the net for a study done on this, and ther was none. Only opinion pieces. So I looked into accident data. Sadly, most data is only for accident rate, but well, it's a start.
Surprisingly, the US with ~100% automatic is pretty much consistenty worse than most of the (~90% manual) European countries in traffic safety, no matter where you look.

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/caus ... y-country/
http://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.main.A997
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... death_rate

In some cases, even insane-driving eastern european countries(which are Mad Max's wet dream, traffic-wise), or notoriously rowdy driving Italy, are scoring much better than the US. If anything, then statistics supports the notion that manual driving people are better drivers.

It still doesn't change the fact that it's the 21st century, most people have automatic transmissions, and having a transmission that requires an entirely different learning curve (manual, aka stone age transmissions) on consumer cars is fucking dumb and just a way for the dealers to add an extra $1-$2k for automatic. If you want to drive a manual that's fine, but don't act like you're some kind of superman driver because you have to use an extra pedal and get the timing right or fuck up traffic for normal people.

[TheFeniX]

Yea, I'm still not understanding how people think manuals make driving safer. It's more likely the UK and other countries have stricter driving requirements, don't treat driving as a right, and lack the substance abuse problem American drivers have.

From the link I posted earlier:

For the nation in 2014, BAC was reported for 72 percent of fatally injured passenger vehicle drivers. New Hampshire reported BACs for 96 percent of fatally injured passenger vehicle drivers, while Mississippi reported BACs for 42 percent.

Thirty-five states and the District of Columbia had BAC reporting rates of at least 70 percent. Among these states, Montana had the highest estimated percentage of fatally injured drivers with BACs of 0.08 percent or higher (49 percent), and Utah had the lowest (18 percent).

Also of note: the least populated areas of the country (where roads are shit, drunk driving is easier to get away with, and law enforcement in general is at a premium) account for 50% of US road deaths:

Nationwide, 51 percent of motor vehicle deaths in 2014 occurred in rural areas. The percentage on rural roads was 93 percent in Montana, 91 percent in Mississippi, and 89 percent in Maine compared with 14 percent in New Jersey, 12 percent in Rhode Island, 10 percent in Massachusetts, and none in the District of Columbia.

Downshifting, no matter how good you get at it, is still another two steps that need to be taken to accomplish a given task. This also means, during a time when I need the most control, I don't have two hands on the wheel (which any driving safety will tell you is very important). All having a manual really means is that you have a manual. American drivers sucking shit and killing ourselves at an alarming rate has nothing to do with our reliance on Automatics.

[K. A. Pital]

American drivers sucking shit and killing ourselves at an alarming rate has nothing to do with our reliance on Automatics.

Partially. Partially it is related, because getting a DL for automatics is way easier than getting one for manual. That's also why people who drive auto only are not allowed to operate manual transmission cars here.

This ease allows anyone, even people who are dangerously bad at keeping concentration and attention, to pass the exams and get the DL. Which may be a contributing factor to the low skill level and high rate of traffic accidents.

Eastern European manual-driving countries have a different problem, namely, bought DLs. It is an even greater risk, and not related to transmission type.

[LaCroix]

It still doesn't change the fact that it's the 21st century, most people have automatic transmissions, and having a transmission that requires an entirely different learning curve (manual, aka stone age transmissions) on consumer cars is fucking dumb and just a way for the dealers to add an extra $1-$2k for automatic. If you want to drive a manual that's fine, but don't act like you're some kind of superman driver because you have to use an extra pedal and get the timing right or fuck up traffic for normal people.

1st - "most people" only applies to the US - all other countries are mostly manual.

2nd - why do you hatte freedom? Of course, adding a complicated system (aka automatic) instead of two manual levers will make it more expensive.

3rd - Stop putting words in my mouth - I asked for evidence. No one has yet given any but "Common sense" and a vague study about stress by people form the Us who don't even know how to use one, but have pre-determined notions how horrible it must be.

I actually made notes during my commute - in a 2 hour, ~80 mile drive, I operated the gear less than 2 minutes. Mostly while moving a straight line (because you do all shifting before and after the turn, not while turning), and most of the rest during parking. The hard part was to notice I was doing it - you barely even notice during driving if you don't pay attention to doing it.

In fact, in driving class, it is expected from students that they master the clutch and transmission during the first half hour, because the second half of their first lesson, they will aready be on public roads, and will be for the next +20 hours of classes. (on average, they need 25 hours to pass our practical test) And everyone manages, while still learning to drive. They may have problems getting it right, occasionally, during the first few hours, but apart from taking a bit longer at the stop light to get going (and generally being slower), you barely notice.

[Aether]

Maybe it should be broken down into commuter driving and spirited/performance driving. Even when considering performance driving, there are pro's and cons.

I have an automatic Mustang GT with 750HP at at the crank. You are going to be hard pressed to out-shift me with a manual at the drag strip. A manual will be easier to launch, but I can upgrade my torque converter with a higher stall allowing me to launch higher in the RPM band as well.

If you are talking track/autocross, a manual is going to have an advantage. It's easier to downshift into the curves for engine braking and staying in the power band. I can do that with an automatic where I am applying the brake and the accelerator at the same time; however, that is more difficult to do. You will be hard pressed to have the control of the shift in an auto (you are basically maintaining a certain RPM in a given gear and knowing when to allow the auto to shift). None of this applies to commuter driving.

I think most people would say that a manual requires more focus on the road and vehicle: a greater situational awareness. I made a joke before, but I would argue that it has truth to it. You are *driving* a manual. With an automatic, you are simply *steering*. Where an automatic removes the point of failure of human shifting, and keeping your hands on the wheel at all times; in practice this laziness allows for worse behaviors to creep in like texting while driving. It decreases your situational awareness. And I agree; it's all "feel" and manly-man manual talk. It would be nice to find actual data to this.

And yes. I am better than you because I have a fast car that I built and can drive a manual too. Now, onward to 1000 RWHP+ you pansies!

[Flagg]

It still doesn't change the fact that it's the 21st century, most people have automatic transmissions, and having a transmission that requires an entirely different learning curve (manual, aka stone age transmissions) on consumer cars is fucking dumb and just a way for the dealers to add an extra $1-$2k for automatic. If you want to drive a manual that's fine, but don't act like you're some kind of superman driver because you have to use an extra pedal and get the timing right or fuck up traffic for normal people.

1st - "most people" only applies to the US - all other countries are mostly manual.

2nd - why do you hatte freedom? Of course, adding a complicated system (aka automatic) instead of two manual levers will make it more expensive.

3rd - Stop putting words in my mouth - I asked for evidence. No one has yet given any but "Common sense" and a vague study about stress by people form the Us who don't even know how to use one, but have pre-determined notions how horrible it must be.

I actually made notes during my commute - in a 2 hour, ~80 mile drive, I operated the gear less than 2 minutes. Mostly while moving a straight line (because you do all shifting before and after the turn, not while turning), and most of the rest during parking. The hard part was to notice I was doing it - you barely even notice during driving if you don't pay attention to doing it.

In fact, in driving class, it is expected from students that they master the clutch and transmission during the first half hour, because the second half of their first lesson, they will aready be on public roads, and will be for the next +20 hours of classes. (on average, they need 25 hours to pass our practical test) And everyone manages, while still learning to drive. They may have problems getting it right, occasionally, during the first few hours, but apart from taking a bit longer at the stop light to get going (and generally being slower), you barely notice.

I never responded to you directly, so let's get it straight right now that I never put words in your mouth.

If you live in most of Europe you have a fairly robust public transportation system so the need for cars isn't as high, so it wouldn't surprise me that most car owners would drive manual since in my understanding cars are mostly luxury items for the douchy upper middle class and rich.

[LaCroix]

I never responded to you directly, so let's get it straight right now that I never put words in your mouth.

If you live in most of Europe you have a fairly robust public transportation system so the need for cars isn't as high, so it wouldn't surprise me that most car owners would drive manual since in my understanding cars are mostly luxury items for the douchy upper middle class and rich.

Ok, misunderstanding, then.

No, even though we have said public transit system, pretty much everyone insists on having a car, as well. Stupid, but yeah, humans...

[madd0ct0r]

First, my post should have started with "automatic should be safer given equally skilled drivers", and second, I base it on the fact hte US has roughly the same number of fatalities as E. European states (I think the US is between Serbia and Lithuania), but it is a 100% automatic country, while most E. European nations utilize manual - which takes vastly more skill and concentration to operate.

Funny, because I was about to agree with you on the motorway entry thing. In my heavy, small engined automatic it takes longer to get up to speed, but the automatic adds a good three second extra between me putting my foot down and the engine really delivering a boost. Going the other way,going down steep hills I miss being able to drop down a gear and dump the extra kinetic energy into the engine block instead of my brakepads.

Dealing with a complex set of miniroundabouts in a manual, yeah I can see gear twitching being distracting. Automatics in the city are as easy as anythibg

[K. A. Pital]

Manual is dangerous on a motorway exit, the shape of which is not known in advance. Underestimating the curve and keeping too high a speed at too high a gear can lead to collisions with side barriers.

[Flagg]

Also, the idea that the US is "100% automatic" is so false it goes right around from being funny to outright annoyance as to its falsehood. I don't have percentages, but my mom has owned 4 manual transmission vehicles within the past 20 years, the last one being 3 years ago.

I know plenty of people who learned to drive stick when being taught how to drive and so don't pay a markup for an automatic. Yes, it's anecdotal, but the dozen or so people I've known who drive stick sure as hell aren't the only ones in the nation that do so. It's just that it's the 21st century and automatics are easier to drive.

I imagine it's why the hand-crank to start your car in the early 20th century went away. It's just too bad, because you're not really driving unless you broke an arm hand-cranking your car to get the engine started!

[TheFeniX]

Partially. Partially it is related, because getting a DL for automatics is way easier than getting one for manual. That's also why people who drive auto only are not allowed to operate manual transmission cars here.

I'd need to see something on this because from what I know (at least in the UK) getting a driver's license isn't an "easy" task in general. There is no emphasis on automatic vs manual because an understanding on how to operate your car is probably the most basic requirement. If you walked in and couldn't get your car in gear, they'd probably fail you right then and there.

In the U.S., the instructor would probably just find you an automatic to drive. That's not a joke because my friend took her test in her Manual Jeep Wrangler. She couldn't get it into gear, so they just used the instructor car and her dad drove the Jeep back home after she passed. She had to practice around our neighborhood.

To get my American license when I was 16 years old, I had to take a very short multiple choice theory test. Having not studied and never driven, I passed easily. Then I took a practical test that consisted of a 15-minute amble through a flat rural area. I performed poorly, and at the end of my test the examiner turned to me and said, "You really don't know what you're doin', do ya?" And he passed me.
The stories you need to read, in one handy email
Read more

I initially assumed the UK test was comparable to the one across the pond. But then I read that the large majority of UK motorists fail their first driving exam. And I heard horror stories of Americans and other foreigners failing multiple times. I began to study (or "revise" as you Brits say) in earnest.

It's hard to find any "real" data on this, but Europe in general, at least those places that aren't murder-fields do not fuck around when it comes to letting any idiot drive a car. In the U.S.: they totally don't have fucks to give. I don't know if it's still true, but in Texas at one point in my lifetime: if you were 18, all you had to do was pass a written test, no driving test required.

My mom taught me how to drive under "Parent Taught Driver Education" in Texas. This was probably a bad idea, but my mom is actually a really good driver and I've caused zero wrecks in my 20 years of driving, so she did something right. I have run into very few situations of "WTF do I do" and nearly every time it was due to missing signage and/or construction.

Either way: I was 16 and did not have to take a driving test, instead getting credit for time spent driving my mom around.

Getting an idea how bad US driving education is yet? And honestly, if it weren't for alcohol and driver distractions such as fucking cell phones and radios, I think we'd still be doing a lot better. It just takes an act of fucking GOD to get your license revoked around here (this is a huge problem with elderly drivers. In Texas, it can take a court order and this is after you've caused a serious accident). On another note, my best friend's sister got THREE (fucking THREE) DUIs before they revoked her Driver's License. And I think that was only because the 3rd time she ran into 3 parked cars, one belonging to the wife of a Judge who then got personally involved.

Once again: I'm pretty sure Automatics vs Manual aren't a factor to the American Murderways. It's talking past the point. It also doesn't explain why Russia doubles our murderway death rate.

[K. A. Pital]

I don't know if it's still true, but in Texas at one point in my lifetime: if you were 18, all you had to do was pass a written test, no driving test required.

Wut? That's... many degrees of wrong.

Sorry.

[Broomstick]

Yeah, upthread I mentioned that in Michigan I wasn't required to take a driving test, either.

As we've been saying - any fucking idiot can get a license in the US. I think that's a much more significant factor than what sort of transmission people are driving.

[TheFeniX]

I don't know if it's still true, but in Texas at one point in my lifetime: if you were 18, all you had to do was pass a written test, no driving test required.

Wut? That's... many degrees of wrong.

Sorry.

Yes, as Broomstick said and I've ranted at a couple time: U.S. driving standards are WAY lower than they realistically should be. A lot of this comes from people viewing driving as a right. But EVEN WITH such a poor system, if Americans could quit pounding fucking brew and driving, wore their seatbelts, and put the damn phone away when driving (or, back in the day, messing with the radio) then we could probably get our deathtoll to a manageable "first-world country" numbers. A revamp of the driving training system could knock that down even lower, but is just unlikely to happen because Americans have accepted the numbers and deaths have been decreasing in spite of all of this.

American's learn (or die) on the road to get the experience they need to be good drivers. Then they get old and start dieing en masse again. However, these deaths are likely skewed since the older you get, the less punishment your body can take. Even still, older drivers are dieing way too much for my taste and people are living much longer in general, so there will be more older drivers on the road as time progresses.

If you can survive to about 25 as a male driver in America, you're set. Your insurance rates also drop (female rates drop much sooner because I guess the lack of testorsterone makes them less "fuckwitty" than men) and you're much less likely to die in a fireball fueled by alcohol fumes and hubris.

The only outcome measure whose pattern deviated substantially from that of overall crash involvement with respect to driver age was the death rate of the subject drivers themselves: the driver death rate increased rapidly at older ages, such that drivers ages 80-84 had mileage-based death rates similar to those of novices ages 16-17, and drivers ages 85 and older had death rates double those of drivers ages 16-17, and more than 10 times the death rate of drivers ages 40-49, whose rates were the lowest. In light of the age-related patterns in the overall crash involvement rate, driver injury rate, and rates of injuries and deaths of other people, this is clearly a function of older peoples’ elevated risk of death if involved in a crash much more so than their increased risk of being involved in a crash, a finding reported originally by Li et al. (2003)

Essentially, we give licenses away too easily and make them almost impossible to take away. The type of transmission involved is just not a factor.

[Sea Skimmer]

A lot of this comes from people viewing driving as a right. But EVEN WITH such a poor system, if Americans could quit pounding fucking brew and driving, wore their seatbelts, and put the damn phone away when driving (or, back in the day, messing with the radio) then we could probably get our deathtoll to a manageable "first-world country" numbers.

Belgium has higher death rates on the roads then the US does per mile driven. Which really points to the stupidity of making any sweeping comparisons at all, only specifics can be compared.Certain first world countries are indeed about 45% safer maximum, but this is not some universal first world thing. I suspect you'd find road safety tracks with income equality as much as driver training in first world countries.

[TheFeniX]

Belgium has higher death rates on the roads then the US does per mile driven. Which really points to the stupidity of making any sweeping comparisons at all, only specifics can be compared.Certain first world countries are indeed about 45% safer maximum, but this is not some universal first world thing. I suspect you'd find road safety tracks with income equality as much as driver training in first world countries.

That's fair. It's also worth noting Massachusetts, D.C. (3.5), and New York have death rates in the 5 per 100k range, which is respectable. And in New York, 80% of people involved in those deaths blew over .08BAC. So.... remove alcohol from the equation and you aren't left with a whole lot to clean up. In fact, at a cursory look a LOT of states (or districts like D.C.) where general fatalities are low, those involved in wrecks are drunk at a stupid-high level.

Texas and Mississippi are much lower in that than I would except, but it's probably a combination of everything that leads to their high death-toll: rural roads, alcohol, bad education, etc.

[Sea Skimmer]

Texas and Mississippi have better weather conditions for driving then northern states overall which probably helps their numbers.\. Hot roads grip better then cold, no ice and snow conditions to deal with, and people usually aren't driving around in Hurricanes.

Rural roads can be dangerous from poor lighting and slower emergency response times, but they also have much lower traffic densities. Texas and Mississippi don't get super remote the way say, Montana does either where you could crash your car in a winter storm, die, and not be noticed until the spring thaw.

[TheFeniX]

Texas and Mississippi have better weather conditions for driving then northern states overall which probably helps their numbers.\. Hot roads grip better then cold, no ice and snow conditions to deal with, and people usually aren't driving around in Hurricanes.

The numbers are bad though. Texas (13 per 100k) and Mississippi (20). Though (and sorry about not being clear): What I meant is that their alcohol related deaths are lower than I would expect. However, it could be they are just as bad about it as other drunken hillbilly states, but there's enough other bullshit getting people killed to bring the alcohol related stuff down. Texas is both rural AND Urban and we're splitting our deaths about 50/50 between the two. Unlike D.C which is very safe, mainly urban, but the people dieing/killing others on the road are drunk as fuck.

EDIT: D.C. isn't "mainly" Urban: it's 100% Urban.

Rural roads can be dangerous from poor lighting and slower emergency response times, but they also have much lower traffic densities. Texas and Mississippi don't get super remote the way say, Montana does either where you could crash your car in a winter storm, die, and not be noticed until the spring thaw.

This. Yes. Montana has a death rate at almost 19 per 100k AND 85 something % of them involved alcohol. And 70% of those wrecks are single-vehicle. AND 93% of those deaths are in rural areas.

Like I said, The U.S. just has problems with driving. And those problems vary WILDLY depending on where your driving at. The ONE problem we don't seem to have is automatic vs manual transmissions.