Automatic vs. Manual: The Ultimate Showdown Thread

[the Interceptor]

Studies don't necessarily have to be conducted during a test. That study may have been observing folks who had no idea they were being used.

But how do you conduct a study on reaction times on hazard stimuli without the test subject knowing?

 

[kingcars]

So, then what's this point you manual guys seem to be making that manual drivers pay more attention to the road? If the shifting becomes second nature, what says they can't be distracted by anything an auto driver becomes distracted by?

Nobody ever said that. Here is my point:

There ARE a couple of reasons for a manual driver to be more aware of something that an automatic driver does not feel the need to. On the flip side, there are NO situations where an automatic driver would feel more reason to be more aware than a manual transmission driver. This DOES NOT mean they'll act upon those reasons, simply that they're more likely to.

 

[Danoff]

But doesn't the shifting response somewhat lead into the face-in-windshield response? If you don't shift properly, your face may end up being in the windshield.

If that were true (which I don't think it is) it would be a point in my favor.

Agreed, but there's nothing about an automatic that makes them want to pay attention to that stuff either.

Agreed.

For most manual drivers, shifting becomes so normal that it does not take any focus off of the road.

Not possible. Every single action you perform takes some small part of your brain off the road.

For me, it became a use of habit, rather than a distraction. If it distracts you, you should consider whether you are safe to be on the road.

Even if it's a habit, any action you perform in a car takes some part of your brain off the road.

As for driving pleasure. Only one thing wins, doesn't it?

Depends on the situation. If I'm eating, hell no.

 

[Wolfe]

I don't think MTs make you pay any extra attention to most of the things that cause accidents. And anything they do make you pay extra attention to you already have huge reasons to pay attention to.

And I don't think ATs allow you to pay any extra attention to most of the things that cause accidents. Ergo, manuals are no more distracting than other transmissions, and as you said above, encourage you to pay more attention to certain things, regardless of whether or not such things already should have had your attention.

 

[Danoff]

And I don't think ATs allow you to pay any extra attention to most of the things that cause accidents.

Do you think it takes any attention at all to drive a manual (over an AT)? Because if you do, it does take something away from the road.

 

[kingcars]

If that were true (which I don't think it is) it would be a point in my favor.

No, it would lend to my argument that the driver has more reason to pay attention, imo.

Not possible. Every single action you perform takes some small part of your brain off the road.

Even if it's a habit, any action you perform in a car takes some part of your brain off the road.

Lets say I agree with you on this; my response would be:

But if said action gives you more reason to pay extra attention to the road, it will more than offset that small piece.

 

[Danoff]

No, it would lend to my argument that the driver has more reason to pay attention, imo.

Your statement made it seem like a botched shift would get you killed - making it seem that shifting is dangerous.

I don't think that's true, but it would certainly bolster my argument if it were.

But if said action gives you more reason to pay extra attention to the road, it will more than offset that small piece.

Depends on what situations it makes you pay attention to. Specifically (and this is a major concession), I can see the following:

- MT decreases (slightly) your chances of rear-ending someone.
- MT increases (slightly) your chances of getting hit by cross traffic, or getting merged into/merging into someone.

I think it decreases lateral situational awareness. But it is possible that it increases forward situational awareness. But I think only good drivers are going to experience the "looking 10 cars ahead" effect (though, if they were good drivers, they probably should have experienced that anyway). I maintain that bad drivers should be in ATs.

 

[kingcars]

Your statement made it seem like a botched shift would get you killed - making it seem that shifting is dangerous.

I don't think that's true, but it would certainly bolster my argument if it were.

Hahahahaha that's not what I meant at all; it would take some weird circumstances for that to happen. But in order to brake properly for a light, a manual driver would want to pay a little extra attention to ensure he or she doesn't stall or something. I personally just like to put the car in neutral and coast . It's fun sometimes.

Depends on what situations it makes you pay attention to. Specifically (and this is a major concession), I can see the following:

- MT decreases (slightly) your chances of rear-ending someone.
- MT increases (slightly) your chances of getting hit by cross traffic, or getting merged into/merging into someone.

For a driver that's relatively new at driving a manual, I could definitely see your second argument. But for even a slightly more experienced driver, they should be able to shift and still be just as aware of their surroundings as they would when driving an automatic. I've only been driving a manual daily for 2 months now, but I find myself more aware of my surroundings than before.

 

[Wolfe]

Do you think it takes any attention at all to drive a manual (over an AT)? Because if you do, it does take something away from the road.

No. Not after you're used to it. I do have to make a conscious effort to pay attention to my throttle position in an automatic, taking into consideration the lack of engine braking and vague throttle response, and paying more attention to my speedometer than I ever do in a manual (which allows me to find the right speed and then maintain it by simply listening to the engine note). Of course, that wouldn't be the case if I drove an automatic all the time.

You bring up a good point with the lateral awareness, but again, for any manual driver that is accustomed to the task, I don't think shifting and clutching in that situation isn't any more distracting than driving an auto. I would argue that "oh no, I need to get going quickly, I should use plenty of throttle so that the transmission doesn't upshift right away" uses about as many neurons as "oh no, I need to get going quickly, I should bring the revs up and launch kinda hard."

 

[McLaren]

But how do you conduct a study on reaction times on hazard stimuli without the test subject knowing?

Easy. You just do. If a test subject knows he's being tested, there is a chance they will concentrate more on the test than what the test is trying to prove. IMO, doing a study without the subject's knowledge should allow the study to see what a more natural, more accurate representation of how the driver really acts.

Ex. of what I mean.
A study is trying to find how many times someone will say, "like" during a conversation. If the subject knows they're being tested, chances are they'll do their best to not say like. If they don't know, the study should get a more truthful, accurate view of how many times the person says "like". With the subject knowing there's a study on them, they'll easily "lie" and try to avoid saying the word.

 

[Leonidae]

My personal favorite would be manual. I've driven good manuals, and bad manuals, and I'd still rather take the bad manual than an auto. Those few times I've driven an auto, my thoughts have started wandering, and I instinctively used my left foot on the brake, as I forgot that I was driving a slushbox. Result was rather abrupt stop. In addition, those few times when I've driven longer distance with auto, I've felt utterly bored and almost began to feel sleepy. Thus, IMO manual is better since it requires some levels of attention to operate, even if you're used to it and that might make the difference between crash and close call.

Just my 2 cents.

And now I will sit down and watch this ongoing drama. who needs bold and the beautiful when we have automotive section?

 

[Philly]

For a driver that's relatively new at driving a manual, I could definitely see your second argument. But for even a slightly more experienced driver, they should be able to shift and still be just as aware of their surroundings as they would when driving an automatic. I've only been driving a manual daily for 2 months now, but I find myself more aware of my surroundings than before.

I would agree to this. Granted, I have one less motion in the GTI then all you manual drivers have for each shift, but I do find that I don't even have to think when I'm going through the gears and sometimes find that it doesn't even register that I made the shifts I needed to. I can also tell that I'm more aware of things in manual mode than in auto mode, especially in traffic when I'm focusing on using the engine to slow down.

 

[the Interceptor]

Easy. You just do. If a test subject knows he's being tested, there is a chance they will concentrate more on the test than what the test is trying to prove. IMO, doing a study without the subject's knowledge should allow the study to see what a more natural, more accurate representation of how the driver really acts.

Ex. of what I mean.
A study is trying to find how many times someone will say, "like" during a conversation. If the subject knows they're being tested, chances are they'll do their best to not say like. If they don't know, the study should get a more truthful, accurate view of how many times the person says "like". With the subject knowing there's a study on them, they'll easily "lie" and try to avoid saying the word.

I understand what you're saying and you are correct for sure, but I meant to ask how they did this very one study on reaction times without the test subjects knowing.

 

[eiriksmil]

This is nothing but an assumption. Unless you have actual evidence all old people fill those criterias and are not good drivers.

Where did I state all people are crap drivers? I said the crap drivers are mostly old. And comments about how some peoples friend's grandma that never has crashed are worthless, perhaps she drive in a such way everyone around have to take extra care not to hit them. Just a heads up, not stating that some peoples friend's grandma suck at driving..

This better not be directed towards me.

Not everything in life's about you J/k, I think they know who they are

 

[McLaren]

Where did I state all people are crap drivers?

Where did I state that? I specifically typed old people which is who you said fit the criteria.

And comments about how some peoples friend's grandma that never has crashed are worthless, perhaps she drive in a such way everyone around have to take extra care not to hit them. Just a heads up, not stating that some peoples friend's grandma suck at driving..

They're not worthless. They exactly disprove your statement that old people fit the criteria and are not good drivers. Casio's grandmother obviously disproves that old people fit your list and are bad drivers.

 

[kingcars]

They're not worthless. They exactly disprove your statement that old people fit the criteria and are not good drivers. Casio's grandmother obviously disproves that old people fit your list and are bad drivers.

So you're saying that because one person's grandmother is supposedly a good driver that all old people are? Sorry man, MOST old people are HORRIBLE drivers. Even you can't be blind to that fact. It's been known for a while that old people are the most likely to cause accidents due to horrid reaction times and awareness.

 

[McLaren]

So you're saying that because one person's grandmother is supposedly a good driver that all old people are? Sorry man, MOST old people are HORRIBLE drivers. Even you can't be blind to that fact. It's been known for a while that old people are the most likely to cause accidents due to horrid reaction times and awareness.

Sorry, but your post is just as blind. It is only generally assumed all/most old people are terrible drivers. Fact remains, though, that none of us know every old person in the world, nor do we follow them on their daily commutes to actually conclude they are the worse drivers in the world.

Studies can portray them as such, but again, studies do not conduct every old person alive that can drive. My uncle who raised me is 73 years old. He's far from the worse driver around. I, for one, believe teenagers are a bigger culprit of being the worse drivers around, at least in my city. Dallas reports more accidents caused by teenagers than old people in a 6:1 ratio, due to kids continously crashing during street races in Dallas.

 

[Famine]

Anyway. Manual vs. Automatic...

The £130,000 trucks feature semi-automatic sequential gearboxes similar to those used on Formula One cars.

But they were in service for just two weeks before firemen complained they did not "like the way they slowed down" and refused to use them.

Union leaders claim the gearboxes are a health and safety hazard and are demanding the hi-tech gearboxes be replaced with manual ones.

 

[Kent]

So you're saying that because one person's grandmother is supposedly a good driver that all old people are? Sorry man, MOST old people are HORRIBLE drivers. Even you can't be blind to that fact. It's been known for a while that old people are the most likely to cause accidents due to horrid reaction times and awareness.

I suppose that's only known to kids who don't know crap... Or for that matter, crap about themselves because the actual fact is that kids are the ones most likely to be involved in an accident.
If I'm wrong I'll report back with a retraction, otherwise expect some hard stats on the matter shortly (off to find evidence)...

National Highway traffic safety site says teens 3 times more likely to be in fatal accidents...

More to come, wait for another edit.

Not enough time for this to continue too much so here's one last piece...

In the United States, two out of five deaths among American teens come as a result of motor vehicle crashes, according to the U.S Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). More than 5000 American teenagers aged 16-19 died of injuries sustained in road accidents in 2002, with that particular age group almost four times more likely of being involved in a traffic accident than older drivers.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Teens-at-High-Risk-of-Involvement-in-Road-Traffic-Accidents&id=1350328

That will be it for now but I'm sure there is more data out there supporting the fact that Teens are much more likely to be involved in accidents or killed in those accidents than their adult counterparts.

 

[kingcars]

That will be it for now but I'm sure there is more data out there supporting the fact that Teens are much more likely to be involved in accidents or killed in those accidents than their adult counterparts.

It doesn't say anything about the elderly. I'm pretty sure I've heard that middle aged people are the best drivers, and I'm going to make a compromise and say that teens/elders are the worst depending on the area; around here, elderly are in WAY more accidents than teens. I can easily see how in areas were street racing is prominent that teens would be involved in just as many or more.

 

[Famine]

Kent - You are quite right. In the UK someone aged 17-25 is more likely to have a crash, more likely to have a high speed crash, more likely to be killed and more likely to have a vehicle written-off than all the other age groups put together, even adjusted for the population of the groups and road mileage driven.

That's why they pay higher basic insurance premiums (even before NCD adjustment) than any other group.

 

[eiriksmil]

Premature people are just as hopeless on the roads as old people..

They're not worthless. They exactly disprove your statement that old people fit the criteria and are not good drivers. Casio's grandmother obviously disproves that old people fit your list and are bad drivers.

You again imply that I state all old people fit the criteria and aren't good drivers. She alone disproves that old people fit 'my list' (what list?) and are bad drivers? Do you think this is a forum for discussion, or rather arguing..? I think you've lost your way.. Go back to square one and start over

 

[Dave A]

Not possible. Every single action you perform takes some small part of your brain off the road.


Even if it's a habit, any action you perform in a car takes some part of your brain off the road.

Not reccesarily. Sure that may be the case with some people, but just because something is taking an ounce of concentration, that doesn't mean that that part of the brain would otherwise be concentrating on other aspects of the driving. You're never 100% focused on one thing, your brain doesn't work like that and there is always a hell of alot going on besides your primary focus at any one time and you are never using 100% of your brain at any one time so there is always room to multitask if you as an indivual can handle the tasks in question. A lot of people are more than capable of operating a manual gear box to a degree than they are no sacrificing any attention they are otherwise giving to the road.

Depends on the situation. If I'm eating, hell no.

I'll agree with that, but then I wouldn't driving for enjoyment while I'm eating anything. That said, I don't eat behind the wheel period because gears or not I do find that distractng. Which I guess backs up a point I made earlier that each person will handle driving with certain distraction differently. Some people will drive a manual as second nature, other will and do struggle with manual gears but are perfectly good road uses without. There's no answer here that fits everyone, there's arguments for and against and I've read good points for both.

 

[Danoff]

Not reccesarily. Sure that may be the case with some people, but just because something is taking an ounce of concentration, that doesn't mean that that part of the brain would otherwise be concentrating on other aspects of the driving. You're never 100% focused on one thing, your brain doesn't work like that and there is always a hell of alot going on besides your primary focus at any one time and you are never using 100% of your brain at any one time so there is always room to multitask if you as an indivual can handle the tasks in question. A lot of people are more than capable of operating a manual gear box to a degree than they are no sacrificing any attention they are otherwise giving to the road.

Well, I think you see my point. I'm pretty sure everyone who has been reading along does. I maintain that any and every activity in the vehicle distracts from road-awareness. You and others disagree, and I don't see anything else that can be said about the issue.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Submerged]

I maintain that bad drivers should be in ATs.

Just to comment on this little sentence. Why would you want to increase everyone's risk to bad drivers by having them in AT's? That would mean that they're more likely to have even *less* attention on the road themselves than in a manual, where they have to think about gear changing and getting everything right. Which generally means they slow down and check that they are actually on the road properly.

Additionally if bad drivers are learning in an AT it just means that they pass their driving test much faster than if they were to learn in an MT. In an MT the flaws of the driver would become much more apparent and as a concenquence, they would have to learn for a few more lessons longer than an AT but have a higher chance of possibly being a better driver.

I do understand the comment that Danoff is trying to make in saying than manual gearing means you don't focus on the road. That's certainly true for someone who's learning how to shift gears while learning to drive. But once you've become sufficiently advanced and used to shifting, it's practically second nature. Like walking. Therefore by Danoff statement, everyone shouldn't walk but crawl cos it means that there is less concentration required to get around on all fours than with two legs (if one was to be so pendantic)

 

[Joey D]

I maintain that bad drivers should be in ATs.

Bad drivers shouldn't be in anything, they should be off the road.

 

[Philly]

Kent - You are quite right. In the UK someone aged 17-25 is more likely to have a crash, more likely to have a high speed crash, more likely to be killed and more likely to have a vehicle written-off than all the other age groups put together, even adjusted for the population of the groups and road mileage driven.

This is because they take more risks than everybody else. Youth aren't bad drivers, just stupid ones. I personally feel safer riding with my friends than my parents. But then again, my friends are generally good drivers.

 

[Danoff]

Just to comment on this little sentence. Why would you want to increase everyone's risk to bad drivers by having them in AT's?
That would mean that they're more likely to have even *less* attention on the road themselves than in a manual,

I guess you just proved this (VV) quote incorrect:

Well, I think you see my point. I'm pretty sure everyone who has been reading along does

Here's my response:

I maintain that any and every activity in the vehicle distracts from road-awareness.

Note that this post was the one right above yours.

everyone shouldn't walk but crawl cos it means that there is less concentration required to get around on all fours than with two legs (if one was to be so pendantic)

Comparing MT vs. AT to walking vs. crawling isn't adding anything here.

Bad drivers shouldn't be in anything, they should be off the road.

There will always be bad drivers on the road.

 

[homeforsummer]

Don’t try to pass that off as an apology. It isn’t one.

If I used the word "apologise" then it's an apology. There's no subtext with me. I also had the night to sleep on the conversation and realised that they possibly weren't the most subtle of comments. So yes, I apologise, but you'll understand if I don't feel it necessary to retract the comments, as it was genuinely how I was feeling at the time.

Incidentally, I've read the last few pages that've gone on whilst I've been out all day, and you've been making some much more considered and well-illustrated points, which is something I didn't feel you were doing yesterday.

Now, I know you think if you stick the phrase “being a” in front of an insult it makes it ok. So, you’d have no problem if I aid you were being a complete a**hole then right? Hypothetically speaking of course.

You're right, I wouldn't have a problem 👍 In the end they're pixels on the screen from someone I don't actually know, and I've been called a lot worse, to my face, by people I do know

^^ Those are an attempt, by assuming the conclusion, to claim that the problem is my own competence. So is the following:

The questions I asked weren't assumptions on your skill, they were questions to bring out a little more info, as it's confusing to hear someone say that something they're adept at is a distracting process. You also mentioned shifting mid-corner, which I'm inclined to assume was just a mis-type, as I'm sure you know as well as I do that shifting mid-corner is to be avoided.

Incidentally, when an auto shifts mid corner, it is distracting because it catches you by surprise. In a manual, you can plonk it into the gear you want before the corner and it stays there.

As I touched on further up, I actually found the rest of your reply to me to be well-written and more realistic than your previous conversations with me. For this reason, I don't feel I need to reply to any of it, and I can simply nod and accept it as your opinion 👍

That said...

Everything you do in a car, every single action you perform, is taking some small amount away from your awareness of the drivers around you. That’s my point, and I think that’s a position that’s almost impossible to disagree with.

...I still disagree with this, for the many reasons I've already mentioned, which can be summed up by saying that personally, I don't find any of the components of actually driving the car (steering, gears, pedals) distracting. At all. My familiarity with all of that deals with the driving, which leaves me free to concentrate on the road, my surroundings, and other external factors.

So alas, I fear on this matter we'll have to agree to disagree and leave it at that. I'm going to sit back and observe from this point, as I've already been swallowed into this thread more than I intended.

Fin

 

[McLaren]

Premature people are just as hopeless on the roads as old people..



You again imply that I state all old people fit the criteria and aren't good drivers.

So you never wrote this?

And if someone is out on the road still not figuring out how to use this lever, dumping the clutch before the car is properly in gear or not hearing when you're riding the clutch, big chances they haven't figured out how to read traffic, observating properly or hearing a speeding car or an ambulance.

Most of the people using a manual poorly here are for instance old people who fills all the criterias above, and the same people are NOT good drivers in traffic.

You specifically said old people fit the criteria of folks who can not read traffic, observe properly or hear a speeding car or ambulance (just because they can't work a manual properly; which is terrible logic to assume), and that they are the same people who are not good drivers.


You are obviously talking out the wrong end if you can not even understand what you wrote 2 pages ago.

She alone disproves that old people fit 'my list' (what list?) and are bad drivers?

Your list of criterias. Read above.

Do you think this is a forum for discussion, or rather arguing..? I think you've lost your way.. Go back to square one and start over

It certainly isn't a forum for typing one thing, and then acting like you never wrote it.

Try going back to reading what you wrote & leave the cute remarks to folks who are on the same page as each other.