22 ms·
Bring Back the Stick Shift
- yial 8y agoI tremendously miss driving a manual car. In the US, a big annoyance of mine is how hard it is to get a vehicle I like, with the trim / engine I want, and a manual transmission. On my most recent vehicle I settled for an automatic. I will say, I feel when I was driving cars with a manual transmission that I was much more aware of road conditions / anticipating needed shifts.
- sys_64738 8y agoMy own opinion is that the likes of the UK is better suited to stick as they mostly have yield at junctions so you can coast a bit. In the USA most intersections are stop signs and stick was always a pain in the @55 when doing stop/starts on the motorway as it was slower for me.
- bko 8y ago> Backup cameras, mandatory on all new cars as of last year, are intended to prevent accidents. Between 2008 and 2011, the percentage of new cars sold with backup cameras doubled, but the backup fatality rate declined by less than a third while backup injuries dropped only 8 percent. I'm confused. It looks like back up cameras may help prevent accodents but not to some standard the author has for the technology. The author doesn't present any evidence that the tech is actually making us less safe, but it's still highly dependent on humans. So do away with it just because?
- curlypaul924 8y agoI suspect that backup cameras make the car less safe overall. The reason is that the image from a backup camera is displayed on a screen. Cars with backup cameras display information on the screen when the car is moving forward, which can distract the driver. I don't think that means we should do away with backup cameras, but I do think we need to consider the overall impact of a safety feature, not just statistics on scenarios that feature is intended to address.
- fyfy18 8y agoI have a car from 2010 with a backup camera. The screen can be used for navigation and radio control too. However if you turn it off, it stays off unless needed (e.g. you go into reverse or press a physical button to change something on the radio) and turns off again afterward. I agree that always on displays are distracting, especially at night. I prefer to drive with as little light as possible in the car.
- sfopdxnonstop 8y agoThe comment you replied to cites stats showing increased safety with the cameras. What kind of personal values lead you to reply saying they are less safe? You should reexamine your motivations, you are promoting human suffering.
- sandworm101 8y agoCameras today. Tomorrow they will remove the mirrors. Next to go are rear windows. Better fuel economy and cheaper production costs. It is a conspiracy, a public one.
- lostapathy 8y agoMaybe with an improperly installed aftermarket cam. Factory backup cameras only show the rear view when you actually are in reverse. I’ve never even seen a car that would let you turn it in when moving forward if you want to.
- theluketaylor 8y agoThere are a number of high end cars that let you control the cameras when moving forward. Range Rovers spring to mind where you can select from all the different cameras at anytime, including the reverse camera.
- greedo 8y agoHave you driven a car with a backup camera? All the ones I have shut off the camera view once you engage drive or shift into 1st. The only thing displayed on the screen at that point is navigation or entertainment stuff.
- justin66 8y agoThe use of backup cameras has increased so much in the past eight years - after 2011, they went from being a luxury item to a standard feature - that the author's citation of that data is a little suspect.
- Finnucane 8y agoAlso, I'm not sure why he's expecting a bigger drop in accidents when he knows that there are still a lot of cars on the road (such as the one he is sitting in) don't have this feature.
- InTheArena 8y agoI think that the whole issue here is the idea of exceptionalism. the Author doesn't believe that they are as bad as the average driver. Therefore things the author does is automatically safer than the average driver, because they do them, even though statistically technology is improving things. People made the same argument all the time about fly-by-wire on airplanes, on cars, etc. There are also compensating factors. We know that cell phones / tablets / etc are also factors. Yet these technologies blunt some of the negative outcomes introduced by other technologies. Tesla's autopilot is a great new technology. I don't trust it with my life - I keep my hands on the wheel and I monitor what the system is doing, but it keeps my car safe if i happen to get distracted, or if i don't see a car swerving into the lane.
- thedanbob 8y agoI drive a manual. I couldn't say whether it's made me a safer driver, but I do believe it's given me a much greater awareness of my speed at all times (for shifting to the correct gear).
- axaxs 8y agoI think it does, for the simple fact you don't have a free hand in normal city driving.
- klyrs 8y agoI drive stick... have since my early 20s. I'm ashamed to admit... you can still text and drive. I don't anymore but that's not even the stupidest thing I've done, steering with my knee. Skilled drivers aren't always good drivers, but skilled drivers can free up a hand or two
- perl4ever 8y agoEating while driving a manual transmission is one thing, but I've never understood how anyone can literally text and drive. I can imagine getting a ticket because I was using the touchscreen to navigate, but not actually typing a message, because I just couldn't do it. Maybe I'm too old. Or maybe I put too much thought into my messages.
- tom_ 8y agoIt was easier before T9 predictive text.
- classichasclass 8y agoThat's an excellent point. I may not know my speed precisely, but I know it generally, and I'm also constantly aware of how busy the engine is from the revs and the noise. I can't ignore these things; I have to know when to shift!
- jXCw1N0jtH3 8y ago
- classichasclass 8y agoI've never personally owned an automatic. Every single car I've ever bought has been a stick shift, 5- and 6-speed. I'm not sure it's made me any safer of a driver, to be honest, but damn, for a long haul driver like me it's a lot more fun.
- rad_gruchalski 8y agoIn Europe, almost everyone learns to drive manual. Manual is awesome. But, when driving long distances or in heavy traffic, nothing beats automatic. Especcially in stop&go traffic. Heavy stop&go can be really draining on your left leg. Nevertheless, manual is awesome, nothing gives so much fun and feeling of being in control as manual gearbox.
- classichasclass 8y agoI get that for stop and go, though I'm pretty used to it. But for long distance, especially freeway miles, I don't see it being any more exhausting or difficult. The opposite, in fact, because the transmission isn't trying to second-guess you when you're passing and you don't have to drum your fingers while the overdrive dithers; just pick the gear you want to be in and go.
- de_watcher 8y ago> nothing gives so much fun and feeling of being in control as manual gearbox Except for an electric motor.
- Buldak 8y agoThe "fun" aspect is one of the reasons I'm skeptical of arguments that driving stick is somehow safer. That is, I suspect that nowadays, in America anyway, car enthusiasts self-select for driving stick to the extent that we can't draw conclusions from their competence. (For what it's worth, I also drive stick.)
- thought_alarm 8y agoSame here. I've never owned an automatic and I don't think I ever will. And when I do drive an automatic, I end up driving it like a manual anyway. I can't resist downshifting when slowing down.
- spaced-out 8y agoI once had a manual that I enjoyed driving, but now I have an automatic with smart cruise control, and I don't ever want to give up that feature.
- javagram 8y agoI have never driven a manual. Automatic cars do get better mileage, and AFAIK the concept of “manual” makes no sense in a future where we switch to electric cars to reduce Co2 emissions. The article author’s point about using additional limbs making it harder to text and drive is well taken, but I think we are going to have to continue to work on ways to make texting while driving either safe or impossible in an electric/automatic future.
- curlypaul924 8y agoCars with automatic transmissions (either planetary gear or dual-clutch) do often get better gas mileage than those with a traditional manual stick shift. The reason is not what some might think. Once, a manual transmission was considered an economy feature. Cars with manual transmissions had a final drive ratio tuned for fuel economy. Today, a manual transmission is considered a sporty feature. Cars with manual transmissions today are often tuned for performance, not economy. This can be seen in both the gear ratios of the transmission and how the engine is tuned. The result is a car that is zippier to drive, but less efficient.
- saltcured 8y agoIt's not just the final ratio. A modern automatic has a large number of closely-spaced gears and many of the engines have been tuned to have a very efficient low RPM cruise mode. Some have entirely different valve, injection, and ignition timing regimes for this low RPM cruise mode. It is very difficult for a human to keep the engine within such a narrow RPM band for efficiency, without accidentally lugging or stalling. So, they will likely spend their time with higher RPMs which miss these opportunities.
- benj111 8y agoI take it you would still need a human to get the very best fuel economy, just that its becoming increasing difficult to beat the automatic (like compilers v hand optimised ASM).
- astura 8y ago
- nradov 8y agoUnfortunately manual transmissions are no longer viable in the mainstream US market due to how the franchise dealer floorplan financing system works. Dealers live and die by their inventory turnover rates. So they mostly only order the most popular combinations of options because they can't afford to have a car sitting on the lot for months waiting for the right customer. Most drivers who would prefer a manual are willing to drive an automatic, but most drivers who want an automatic are unwilling (or unable) to drive a manual. Thus dealers seldom order manuals. Niche brands like Porsche which do more custom orders are a little different.
- e1ven 8y agoMakes sense. I'm only willing to drive a manual. It's getting harder to find them in new cars. Some companies can build them, or still release a few. (Toyota said my car's model had 5% in Manual transmissions) If I have to, I'll buy exclusively used cars to stick to a manual transmission. In my view, what will ultimately change the game is fully electric cars. From my experience, the broader torque curve makes a big difference.
- benj111 8y agoCan you not order in unusual combinations? If you have 1 car 3 trims and 5 colours each, that's already 15 combinations before you get to engines, optional extras etc, etc, etc. Or are you just referring to models to test drive?
- nradov 8y agoMost mainstreaming brand franchise dealers no longer even want to take custom orders. Due to the way manufacturer sales incentives work, they usually only want to sell what's on the lot today.
- jdashg 8y agoIt's still easy to get a factory order where available. I've done it twice now. Skip the dealer and have a middleman service deal with the bullshit. (I used Cartelligent once, and did it myself the other time, which was a mistake)
- Rainymood 8y agoI'm Dutch and we only drive stick here. I've also driven in San Fransisco and holy mother of god I was glad I had an automatic there, the hills are insane and it would give me (as someone who only drives stick) a heart attack to have to drive stick on those hills.
- josho 8y agoMy manual has a hill assist feature, that while you let go of the brake to engage the clutch the brake keeps its hold for a moment to stop from rolling backwards. Problem solved.
- classichasclass 8y agoMy '18 Civic Si Sedan has a full brake hold mode for that too. You can turn it on or off as you like. Beats trying to juggle the handbrake and the clutch at the same time.
- gjs278 8y agothe problem was actually solved by having automatic cars
- nullc 8y agoI've found that the worst part of the hills in SF are the other drivers who get _RIGHT_ on your bumper. This is especially awkward in my truck which is a manual without a handbreak and a bumper that is high enough that sometimes cars will pull slightly under it. When I'm stopped on a steep hill and see someone coming up behind me I've tried rolling back a little to discourage getting too close only to find (multiple times) that the driver just lays on the horn and then proceeds to slide right up to my bumper. ... (don't even get me started on all the bay area drivers that drive around at night with their headlights off and are completely unresponsive to light-flashing, ...) On some roads I've adopted a practice of just going up the hill slowly enough when there is traffic in front of me so that I'm able to stop at the intersection where the hill has flattened out, rather than one car back where it's still really steep and then it doesn't matter if someone wants to wear my bumper as a mustache.
- 8y ago
- oftenwrong 8y agoI can't read the linked pilot study, but I'm not sure why the author thinks it provides significant evidence with regard to people in general. It is based on a test of 10 adolescent drivers with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). I suppose the author also thinks we should sell automobiles without traction control. After all, a person that can't mentally delegate the maintanence of traction will have to manually monitor for traction by feel. Maybe we should also eliminate automatic windscreen wipers, so that people can't mentally delegate that task and will have to manually actuate them like on an old Land Rover. I'm of the mindset that it's a good thing when people can spend more mental energy on their surroundings, and less on operating the mechanical systems of their vehicle. The fact that people like the author don't pay attention to their surroundings because they think a modern car can somehow drive itself is a separate issue.
- 908087 8y agoThe problem is that many modern driver assist technologies end up causing and encouraging drivers to spend less mental energy on their surroundings. Friends and family members of mine with adaptive cruise control, lane keeping, blind spot detection, etc seem to trust those things completely. I hopefully don't need to explain why this is an issue.
- oftenwrong 8y agoYes, people like the author, who admits to regularly reversing without looking, only listening for beeps. Do you think such a person should be allowed to drive ANY car? I don't think a manual transmission will turn a careless moron into a good driver.
- pishpash 8y agoMaybe part of the driving test should be conducted in a car or sim with no assistive technology, or with some of it randomly turned off. Also maybe test for accident avoidance situations. But then here the modus operandi seems to be to get the most drivers on the road as a means of access.
- 8y ago
- yalogin 8y agoThe author says he doesn’t look at the mirror or the camera screen when backing up and only listens to proximity sensor beeps. Is this something people do really? I am amazed.
- BeetleB 8y agoOne should not look at the mirror when reversing. Before cameras, the standard advice was to turn your head around. Now it's a bit muddled, as in some ways cameras are better than mirrors, but in other ways mirrors are better (I scratched a rental because I used the camera instead of the mirror). In driving tests they will mark you down if you use the mirrors for switching lanes or reversing.
- jrib 8y ago> In driving tests they will mark you down if you use the mirrors for switching lanes wait, how are you supposed to safely change lanes without looking at mirrors?
- howard941 8y agoYou're supposed to use both.
- BeetleB 8y ago>You're supposed to use both. You're free to use both (I do), but you only need (and are required) to look behind to ensure there isn't a car in the blind spot or just behind it. There's a reason why in many states you need only one side view mirror. In some states, merely having the rear view mirror suffices (i.e. no side view mirrors required).
- cgriswald 8y agoYou can reduce your blind spots to smaller than a motorcycle or remove them entirely depending on mirror size: https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a15131074/how-to-adjust-your-mirrors-to-avoid-blind-spots/ https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a15131074/how-to-adjus... I’ve been using this method since before this article. I still look, but there’s never a car when I look.
- analog31 8y ago>>> A car with a stick shift and clutch pedal requires the use of all four limbs, making it difficult to use a cellphone or eat while driving. Lapses in attention are therefore rare, especially in city driving where a driver might shift gears a hundred times during a trip to the grocery store. I'm a cyclist, so I can see from above who's eating and using a cellphone. Stick shift is no barrier. I also drive a stick shift car. Shifting requires no attention. It's a reflex, by necessity because you have to pay attention to traffic. The first couple weeks of teaching your kids to drive stick shift are hair raising because it distracts them from driving safely. If stick shift cars were safer, it would have been reflected in our insurance rates, right? I don't believe it. Sure, stick shift is fun, under the right conditions. And it gives a feeling of involvement and a special skill involved in driving a car, other than just getting from A to B in one piece. I get it. But at the same time, I also feel that shifting a car a million times is enough to prove that I can do it, and I'm ready for my next car to be automatic. And I suspect that in practice that the fuel economy advantages of stick shift were erased by the "fun to drive" aspect. I've never been in a stick shift car, where the driver chose shift points for economy rather than for power and acceleration.
- modzu 8y agoin the past automatics tended to have fewer gears, making them less efficient by default. but modern autos are now more efficient than even a perfect driver of a manual
- analog31 8y agoIndeed, and as I understand it, there's a mechanism in a modern transmission that disables the torque converter when cruising, further improving efficiency. Over the course of my life, I've noticed a remarkable improvement in the behavior of automatic transmissions, going from "jerky" to "smooth" for lack of better terms. While overseas last year, I drove a large Mercedes van that even sensed when I was descending a hill, and downshifted the way I would have done it in a stick shift car.
- crushcrashcrush 8y ago
- reaperducer 8y agoI've seen reports of car thefts being foiled because the thieves are too young to know how to operate a stick shift. Or worse — an automatic with the gearshift on the steering wheel. Reminds me of how certain people at work write things in cursive, making it an indecipherable secret code as far as our millennial boss is concerned.
- analog31 8y agoA friend of mine got his car stuck on a ferry, because none of the crew at the dock knew how to drive stick, and he wasn't allowed to drive it out himself. Finally, the ship's captain had to come out and recover the car.
- CalChris 8y agoI learned to drive with a stick shift in San Francisco. And while I do admit that at the time it was fun to parallel park on a hill, I have an EV now with a continuously variable transmission and I don't miss sticks at all. I don't miss replacing the clutch or servicing transmissions. The combination of less toil along with less noise makes for less stress. Traffic Aware Cruise Control improves safety as well. I set my gap at 7 car lengths giving me a safety buffer that I've never had before. I don't think that'd even be possible with a stick.
- Noumenon72 8y agoHow long is seven car lengths in seconds? In open traffic, I prefer to just maintain constant speed and move left one lane whenever someone is slow in front. That would be a cool setting for a cruise control.
- foxthatruns 8y agoTotally depends on the speed. If we're both going 40 mph and a car is 15 feet long, then 7 car lengths takes me 1.8 seconds. But if we're going 80 mph, it's only 0.9 seconds.
- CalChris 8y agoThe setting is 7 car lengths and I think that's for 60 mph or so. It is proportionally less at lower speeds. Google tells me that 7 * 200 inches / 60 mph is 1.32 seconds which isn't that long. But in reality, the car in front of you is braking and you are braking. So the real measurement is when they hit the brakes can you react in time to hit the brakes. Not gonna do that math. Maybe the CA drivers handbook has a table. However, 7 car lengths feels to me like a lot and 7 car lengths with TACC seems very safe. Yeah, people merge into my gap and so I drop back again; big whoop. It also reduces dings from pebbles getting kicked up by the car in front.
- jdietrich 8y agoThe NHTSA treat 1.5 seconds as a typical reaction time, so seven car lengths is really rather marginal at 60mph. https://www.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/Safety1nNum3ers/august2015/S1N_Speeding-August2015_812008.pdf https://www.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/Safety1nNum3ers/august2015/S1N_S...
- madhadron 8y agoThis is the opinion of a psychiatrist who loves driving stick shift. I'd much rather hear from an actuary or an automotive engineer on this topic. > I realized I wasn’t watching the backup camera, nor was I looking out of the rear window. I was only listening for those “audible proximity alerts” Ah, so this person, in addition to not being an expert on the topic, is a terrible driver. Maybe instead of giving them space for an opinion piece, we should be looking into whether they should have a driver's license. Lack of attention is a real problem. So maybe the right answer is a heavy investment in buses and trains where most people don't have to be wasting their lives paying attention to driving. Plus it doesn't matter if stick shift makes drivers safer. They're going away. Transmissions are a way of working around the inadequacies of internal combustion engines. Electric motors don't need them.
- matt4077 8y ago> Ah, so this person, in addition to not being an expert on the topic, is a terrible driver. This isn't really an event that allows any extrapolation to their driving skills. And backing out of a parking space isn't really a high stakes manoeuvre. Plus, the sensors are probably close to human's capabilities now anyway. The exhortation not to trust them is about liability more than safety. In any case, one should applaud their honesty. If I'm wrong and this behaviour is dangerous after all, pointing it out to a few hundred thousand readers, many of whom engage in the same practice without even noticing, is likely a more significant contribution to safety than anyone in this threat will accomplish in their lifetime.
- jfaat 8y agoI would argue that it’s very high stakes, and not looking where you’re driving is incredibly dangerous. Perhaps especially so when doing something mundane like backing out of a spot.
- mruts 8y agoI own a motorcycle and, as a programmer, the difference between a modern car and a motorcycle is like the difference between a GUI and a terminal. My bike has no electronics, just an engine and some wheels. Never am I confused at what it's doing: I have a perfect mental model of the machine that I then use to reason about it's behavior. With a car or in the 737 Max case, the user is unable to develop a mental model of the machine, thus making correct and safe operation difficult.
- esoterica 8y agoAnd yet you're a thousand times more likely to die on your bike than in your car or in a 737 Max.
- mruts 8y agoI mean, I don’t think you have enough information to say that. You might be able to say something about the distribution, but that doesn’t contain very much information about my likelihood of getting into an accident.
- projektir 8y ago> Never am I confused at what it's doing: I have a perfect mental model of the machine that I then use to reason about it's behavior. This seems to be making a good case against your point. Despite what you say here, motorcycles are horribly dangerous compared to a car. Having a good mental model is just not that relevant to safety. Often we specifically make things safe by not leaving a human fully and completely in charge, because humans are imperfect and make mistakes. > With a car or in the 737 Max case, the user is unable to develop a mental model of the machine, thus making correct and safe operation difficult. Planes are extremely safe. People fearing planes because they don't control them is even a known phobia.
- perl4ever 8y ago"Despite what you say here, motorcycles are horribly dangerous compared to a car" Well, to some extent motorcycles are very dangerous because the people who ride them tend to be risk takers and not too bright. For instance, you often see people on motorcycles riding very close to other vehicles, because the power to weight ratio gives you a feeling of maneuverability and speed compared to cars and therefore people assume they can anticipate and avoid cars. Banking into a turn makes you feel like you can go faster than a car. But motorcycles are less able to corner and brake than cars at the limit, so a rational person would leave as much or more space. Another point is that there's no reason to think that people on motorcycles use alcohol and drugs at the same rate as people in cars. But riding a motorcycle doesn't in itself make you ride impaired. In other words, I think you (like an awful lot of people do) are ignoring the fundamental nature of statistics, that they are based on a certain context where you know some things and don't know others. When the context is not appropriate, the numbers are not valid.
- sys_64738 8y agoMy Subaru has a pseudo sort of stick shift without a clutch. It's a mode you stick the gear lever into then you have up and down pads on the steering wheel which go up and down the gears. I tried it a few times but was pretty confused so gave up. I learned to drive stick shift so it was a sort of novelty only in the Subaru.
- esotericn 8y ago> A car with a stick shift and clutch pedal requires the use of all four limbs, making it difficult to use a cellphone or eat while driving. Hello from the UK. Manual cars certainly do make using a phone difficult. I'm not quite sure you want that. ;)
- furgooswft13 8y agoI love stick and go out of my way to make sure the cars I own use them. It was a pain back in 2005 when I got my current car, and now that the baby is over 200k miles, when the time comes, it's gonna be even more of a pain to find one, but hey. Things you can only do with a manual transmission: * On any road with a slight decline, easily roll back a bit just by pressing the clutch, no need to put the car in reverse. * Roll/push start when your battery is drained! * Downshift exactly when you want to to blow past cars/large trucks on the highway. * Have your passenger laugh at you when you accidentally stall the car. * Similarly have your passenger laugh at you when you accidentally grind the gears. * An Uber driver I got in Detroit told me a story of when his car was broken into and attempted to be stolen, only for the perpetrator to give up when he discovered the stick shift he did not know how to operate. Very handy! * Get so used to down shifting to first when coming to a stop that you instinctively put automatics in park when doing the same. * Impress noobs with your effortless acceleration from stop on a steep hill. The ladies love this. * Bond with other stick shift drivers by collectively looking down upon the masses who never learned. Fucking kids these days (Jeep Wranglers with automatics!? Ugh!). Clearly the superior driving experience all around.
- jeffbax 8y agoI drive stick, and rarely fiddle with my phone other than maps and changing the song. I'm not sure returning to that world is the best for most people though. Worse fuel mileage for the majority, and more cognitive load that doesn't guarantee people don't do stupid stuff. Wishful fluffy think-piece IMO.
- smilekzs 8y agoAnother anecdata: I work on autonomous driving tech and I now drive stick. Getting into a company full of gearhead geeks contributed to that a lot I guess ;) When I learned how to drive it was auto only, and In the US, trying to switch from auto to stick is a classic catch-22 if you don't have really good friends. However if you can somehow get yourself bootstrapped (YouTube videos, racing sims, plus maybe an hour or two with a friend) to the point where you can practice yourself in an empty parking lot you should be good to go.
- cgrealy 8y agoThe entire premise of the article is flawed. If increasing road safety is the goal, we don't need to make drivers more engaged, we need to continue research to eliminate drivers entirely. The problem with articles like these are that they start from the presumption that self driving cars need to be perfect. They don't; they just have to be better than humans... and that's a pretty low bar. The middle ground of "driver assist" might be more dangerous, but the end goal of "no driver at all" will ultimately be much safer. Even if it still results in the occasional death, that's still going to be better than humans.
- somecallmechief 8y ago"Though research on the safety of manual transmissions is scant", I insist my evidence devoid but highly emotional claim must be true. Before the flint, people were far less prone to create wildfires. Before the wheel, no one ever killed another person by shoving a bagel down their throat. Before the printing press, well..
- DBYCZ 8y agoA big benefit to forcing your kids to drive manual when they get their license is that most of their friends will be unable to borrow your kid's car.