Aside from reducing wear on the throwout bearing, what is the purpose?

Not having the car jerk forward if your foot slips off the clutch.

Which it may well do if you get rear-ended. One 'accident' can become two.

Technically you're supposed to hold on brakes or a hand brake while idle, which makes both points moot. Especially important in clutchless cars or other auto transmissions.

The brakes will hold a slipped clutch and a rear end.

The clutch has an added benefit of you get rear ended and drop it - engine braking is a thing. Not good for the engine, potentially good for your forward bumper when you get reared.

> The clutch has an added benefit of you get rear ended and drop it - engine braking is a thing.

There's no engine breaking when stopped, if the engine is running.

I typically do keep my foot on the brake when stopped in traffic. And I do balance brakes, clutch and throttle when stopped on a hill. But except for stop-and-go traffic, or when getting ready to punch it, using the clutch and brakes together seems pointless.

Safety. If clutch could fail mechanically while your foot was on it and the consequence of the failure would be the same as your foot slipping off, then it is safer to shift to neutral. I was taught this when I owned a 1980 VW Scirocco and my informant owned a 1980 Rabbit (Golf).

Interesting. In Australia you're required to keep it in 1st with the clutch in while at red lights.

For the P plate tests maybe, but that'd depend on the state too.

The way you phrased it makes me think of cops at lights just going around and aggressively throwing gear sticks into 1st.

I was responding to a post which said:

> Not putting it in neutral when stopped can contribute to failing your driving test in the U.K.

So the context was specifically driving tests.