>>> 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.

> making it difficult to use a cellphone or eat while driving

Desperate lack of imagination there. People do all of the following:

- shove cellphone between ear and shoulder

- temporarily hold food in teeth

- change gear with food hand

- drive with gear hand, jam wheel with knees for the second it takes to change gear

- drive for long periods in the wrong gear; you can do almost all your urban driving in third or second.

Surprising things are possible with partially failed manual transmissions. My wife drove back from the Scottish highlands in a car where the shift was almost totally seized - took both hands to wedge it into third, and left in there. I've driven a car with an ECU failure that meant it stalled if asked to idle, so every downshift required a rolling restart and it was extremely inconvenient to stop at junctions - I had to plan ahead and roll through slowly.

Necessity is indeed the mother of invention. I once rode shotgun with a friend on a car trip where we both had food in our right hands. Whenever he said “shift” I’d move the gear knob.

I learned how to use manual transmission when I was 11 years old. We lived out in the country, 35km from the nearest hospital and my Mum burned her hand quite severely late one night. We drove to the hospital with me shifting to whatever number Mum called out, while she kept the burned hand in a bucket of iced water.

In hindsight I don't know why we didn't just call an ambulance.

  In hindsight I don't know why we didn't just call an ambulance

Presumably, any ambulance would be starting from the hospital, meaning a 70km round trip taking up to twice as long.

Given that you said km instead of miles, I don’t either.

> And I suspect that in practice that the fuel economy advantages of stick shift were erased by the "fun to drive" aspect.

Not always. Hypermiling is a fun pastime that I enjoyed while I drove stick. And it kept me engaged in the act of driving. It’s almost like treating each stretch of roadway like a golf course: how can I get from A to B with the least amount of energy used given the lay of the land, speed limits, traffic signals, and the behavior of other road users?

My first car was a 4-speed stick-shift Fiero, and I remember an automotive tech telling me to ignore their shifting recommendations because “then you’d be doing 35 in 4th gear.” Even at 16 I thought, “well if that’s more efficient, why wouldn’t I do it?” I can accept that I have weird metrics for “fun to drive” though.

> where the driver chose shift points for economy rather than for power and acceleration

I do this every time the fuel light comes on!

My manual sports car gets 28mpg using economy shift points and 22mpg using sport shift points (5 and 2 years data).

In France shift stick are generally cheaper than automatic gear

Same in US. The transmission in my little car was a line item on the price... automatic was US $600 more.

But the car companies barely even make money on small cars, and this particular product line (Toyota Scion) was discontinued.

If the market shrinks to the point where something is a specialty item, then the price difference can invert itself, which is what I think happened in the US.

It's still the case here, but for some models it's not an option.

Most models these days have no manual option in the US. And when it is an option it’s usually force-paired with the baseline trim or incompatible with a number of feature packages.

I read a study several years ago on a similar topic about attention and safety citing higher engagement/less distraction with manual transmissions. However, it also found that while manuals increased safety for younger drivers by forcing them to be fully engaged, it _decreased_ safety in older drivers due to the added complexity it introduced. So while the effect may be real, it is nuanced.

agreed on all points

stick shift won't deter people from doing whatever, I sadly admit that at time I lose focus by trying to manipulate my cellphone when in GPS mode

I agree that stick-shift on its own is not a safety improvement; like you, when I get in a manual car, I shift instinctively. A neatly conditioned response. I switch back and forth between my two cars, one auto, one manual, without messing up shifts in either. The only thing that gets me is my clutch control is a bit flaky for a few days after switching (I run the cars in 6-month intervals).

What I find does help is that my Supra does not have automatic-anything, apart from cruise control. Everything is manual. If I want the car to do something, I have to explicitly set a control to do it. In the process, I'm generally constantly aware of the state of the car, from the lights to the heater. Granted, I did fit parking sensors, but I conditioned myself to never rely on them 100% - shifting into Reverse, I always turn around and watch out the rear window. Even factory-fitted sensors may miss bollards or posts. I have no reversing camera, so I'm acutely aware of the width and length of the Supra when manoeuvring in tight spaces.

I am in agreement that the various electronic driver aids that are sold as safety options are dangerous in the long-term, however. Many cars have automatic braking systems. Not only is this potentially unreliable under certain circumstances, but overconfidence in the system can lead to exactly what the author suggests - the driver's brain shunts authority for panic-braking to the automatic system, without the driver being consciously aware of it, and looks to the next thing on the priority list. Human brains are phenomenally good at outsourcing things. The more we automate, the more we wind up withdrawing attention. Overconfidence in Tesla's Autopilot system is at least partly responsible for the deaths so far (now, I'm not blaming the drivers; they did what anyone could reasonably expect, they shunted responsibility for the car to the computer. No matter how much Tesla disclaim that the driver must supervise the technology and be ready to take control at all times, this isn't going to happen in practise because the shift in priorities happens subconsciously).

There's no clear solution here; the driver aids are set up with the best of intentions, but they may wind up causing more harm than good even to an experienced driver.

And I do choose shift points for economy from time to time :) Sure, sports-shifting is great fun, especially with a performance car, but the only way I can afford to run the car at all is to save fuel where I can, and having full manual control allows me to do that. Roughly 90% of my driving involves shifting before 3k RPM. It's only when joining highways that I let the Supra off the leash :D

You should let me drive you around, then

in 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

Indeed, 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.

Correct, many modern automatics are “full lockup” like the ZF8.

My 25 year old diesel automatic Toyota Estima people carrier has a lock-up clutch that engages at about 75 kph. It's possible to modify the wiring to engage it at lower speeds, or manually select gears.

Yes, but I find modern automatics to be frustrating in their shift points. I have a 30 year old manual transmission sports car, with probably less than 140 hp, but because of the gearing, driving is pretty much all done between 2500-3000 rpm, and it feels reasonably responsive. I also have a 6 year old SUV, with an automatic that has a lot of gears, and a turbo engine with a lot of power, but it feels underpowered much of the time, because if you are just cruising it will end up at about 1200-1500 rpm and seem as though it is practically lugging the engine. If it was just programmed to stay a little higher, like 2000-2500, it would feel as powerful as it is. There is of course a "sport mode", but it is too aggressive.

Also, modern automatics tend to change their behavior all the time according to mood. There is nothing more counterproductive than an "adaptive" transmission (or other system). The word "adaptive" simply means that it isn't responsive when you do something different. Which is bad.

sure, but there is a tradeoff between performance and fuel efficiency: your sports car crusing along at 3000rpm is sucking fuel to do it. i think being programmed for efficiency is a reasonable default, and sport mode available when you need/want it. of course soon enough any differences in ICE transmissions will be moot..

Except it isn't. You'd think that 30 year old engine technology, combined with double the rpm would use hugely more fuel, but in practice it's not that big of a difference. What has changed is that manufacturers have figured out that nobody makes a buying decision on the nonquantifiable driving characteristics that auto magazines used to describe, and therefore it's a no-brainer to sacrifice them for 1 or 2 mpg more.

And of course, the newer SUV gets much worse mileage anyway. If a couple mpg really matters that much to you, you can always drive less too. The earth doesn't care if you get twice the mileage or drive half as much.

Yes, and automatics are now noticeably faster.

It makes me a little sad, though.

Double manual transmissions with computer controlled (often wet) clutches are the current fastest trans. They don’t have a left pedal, but they’re mechanically more like a manual trans than a traditional automatic.

I 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.

This 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.

> 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.

I 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.

> 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?

The 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.

Also, 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.

I 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.

I 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.

I 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.

Maybe 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.

There 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.

Have 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.

I DD a car with a backup camera. It is the nav and entertainment stuff that I find distracting.

Cameras 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.

I 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.

Yet in a motoring context, risk compensation has been shown to have a significant effect, and the more safety features your vehicle has the more unsafely you will tend to drive.

It's been studied and shown in the context of shared streets, switching the side of the road your country drives on (Sweden - the accident rate went down markedly), seat belts, ABS, crash helmets for motorcyclists, and in a non motoring context in sky diving and ski helmets.

Those features are a good thing when people do spend more mental energy on their surroundings - yet it's been shown time and time again that they don't. They have extra bandwidth to chat, listen to music, eat a burger and yell at the kids in the back, or send a text message. In other words to increasingly be a passive passenger. That they shouldn't and a few good and diligent drivers don't is irrelevant.

Cars should be built for the majority of their users, not the presumption that everyone acts like a tiny minority.

>It's been studied and shown in the context of shared streets, switching the side of the road your country drives on (Sweden - the accident rate went down markedly)

This famous example seems to be the opposite of the others you highlight. Reversing lane directions forced people to concentrate more on their surroundings, and be more cautious, not less, unlike seat belts, ABS, helmets, lane assist, and other safety features. Perhaps that is the solution: make the surroundings less safe, so people are forced to pay attention, as many safe streets advocates have been pushing for decades.

Quite - the expectation and predictions were that accident rates would, understandably surge and there might, potentially be chaos. That the reverse turned out to be true seems to show, that everyone was being hyper-aware of their surroundings.

Shared streets seem to work on similar lines - removing right of way for traffic, and the assistance of lights, signs, markings puts drivers in a higher state of vigilance almost by default. Personally I'd like to see them far more widely adopted.

Things like lane assist, ABS etc seem to come with a cost. Increasingly for the vulnerable outside the ever more reinforced and protected vehicle.

Driving has gotten much safer (measured in injuries/fatalities per million miles) over the past century. Obviously the safety features help much more than they hurt.

Sure. Crumple zones and seat belts have both made a huge difference, particularly in the last 20 years or so since much more stringent crash testing. Having picked off low hanging fruit, it's naive to assume every feature comes without negative consequence. Some of these have demonstrably moved the fatalities elsewhere, so whilst fatalities for occupants have been reduced, pedestrian fatalities are rising - as a direct consequence of increasing car safety.

Some, like lane assist, may eventually turn out to even be counter productive to overall figures. I'm not sure if there's been much research on the real world consequence of many of the newer ideas yet.

The 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.

Yes, 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.

Maybe 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.

No, I don't. Unfortunately I have no way to force the US to increase the standards people must meet to be licensed, however, so the next best thing would be to stop giving the already terrible drivers on the road even more reasons to be unaware of their surroundings.

> we should sell automobiles without traction control

That is not a good example. Perfect traction control is beyond human limit even if the person in the driver's seat is maximally attentive.

Agreed, cruise control would fit parent's argument better, although it isn't strictly a safety feature.

s/traction control/shifting/ and your statement still applies

I 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.

How 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.

The 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.

The 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_S...

This begs the question as to why Tesla doesn't have a setting for 8 car lengths. I thought it might be car length but the car length average seems to be 204 inches which is 1.35 seconds. In any case, this 7 car lengths is for TACC rather than human decision.

The general advice I've heard from various safe-driving classes and state driving booklets is 2 seconds at any speed.

Totally 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.

I'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.

I'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.

My 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.

My '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.

drove a stickshift in SF for years no problem. My trick on steep hills is to pull on the parking brake (right hand) while slipping the clutch. Release the brake once the car starts pulling forward. Basically same as on a motorcycle.

This is also how they teach manual transmission drivers in the relatively flat UK (where manual is the default option).

> I was glad I had an automatic there, the hills are insane

Yeah, on, but you're also from the flattest country in the world :)

The 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.

One 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.

> 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?

Speaking of car mirrors, adding a small stick on convex mirror to your side mirror can greatly increase what you can see. Here's the kind of mirror I'm talking about [1].

I've got something like that on my driver side mirror (although not that one...I think I got mine in the small section of random car accessories common in US grocery store chains). When looking straight at the side view mirror the convex mirror nicely fills the gap between when something approaching from the next line disappears from the side view mirror and appears in my peripheral vision.

On my previous car I also put one on the passenger side mirror but I've found that it isn't that helpful, because (1) the head turns more to look at that mirror, meaning peripheral vision covers farther back, and so I've already got them in that when they disappear from the mirror, and (2) the small mirror is too far away to see well.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Ampper-Blind-Mirror-Frameless-Convex/...

You're supposed to use both.

>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).

You 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-adjus...

I’ve been using this method since before this article. I still look, but there’s never a car when I look.

This, everyone should adjust their mirrors that way and work at getting used to it. But I still look anyway like you do, and like you there was never a surprise car there until a few weeks ago and suddenly there was: A vette going a lot faster than my 75MPH and crossing from one rear quarter to the other then flying ahead as I was preparing to pass the car ahead of me from the center lane. I noticed it only because both eyes over my shoulder caught his flight across the periphery of my gaze.

I'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.

In 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.

I 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.

> nothing gives so much fun and feeling of being in control as manual gearbox

Except for an electric motor.

The "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.)

I drove stick shifts, by choice, for 30 years. in December, I traded one in for an electric car that can be set to have significant regenerative braking upon throttle lift. I don't miss a thing about the stick, and it's 100x better than the lack of throttle responsiveness that I experience whenever I rent a car with an automatic (in the US, it's nearly impossible to rent a car with a manual transmission at a "normal" rental place.)

I moved from a 2009 Chevy Aveo with 108hp to a 2003 Accord with a V6 and 240hp... Aveo had a manual transmission, and I miss having one so much.

Everything else about the Accord is significantly better, but man do I miss having a stick shift.

Same 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.

I don't like automatics myself but wife says we get automatics only as she can't drive stick.

Nobody is born knowing how, and Europeans aren’t genetically blessed with some stick gene. Anyone can learn.

If you have two cars, she should really be more supportive of your interests and preferences.

Unfortunately 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.

Makes 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.

Most brands do factory orders. It's not a niche thing.

The problem these days is even the factory won't make MT in all configurations, and often stick is restricted to only the lower tier engine and/or trim levels.

Can 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?

Most 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.

It'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)

I 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).

This is one of the biggest reasons I prefer manual transmissions. I almost never have to look down at the speedometer. I know basically how fast I'm going, and I can keep a constant speed. In an automatic I always find myself going _way_ over the limit without realising it, and I'm constantly looking down at the dash to check my speed and hitting the brakes. It's a terrible experience.

My last car was an automatic, but it would get out of alignment very quickly and I could gauge my speed on the highway by how much the steering wheel vibrated. Whenever I got it aligned I caught myself speeding constantly because that feedback was gone.

I think it does, for the simple fact you don't have a free hand in normal city driving.

I 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

Eating 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.

It was easier before T9 predictive text.

That'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!

I 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.

My 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.

The 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.

I 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.

"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..

I 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.

> 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. ;)

A 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.

Another 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.

I 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.

> 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.

"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.

Not sold. Motorcycles are inherently unsafe because they are extremely unprotected - there is very little you can really do against a driver making a mistake. And the reason most people riding them are risk takers is because everyone else has enough sense to not ride them.

I knew a person who was a careful type, always wanted a motorcycle, took classes, rode carefully, had full protective gear, etc. And he did it for a while but driving in traffic he realized that very little protected him from death. He discontinued eventually.

Generally, "but I'm special, I'm different" is not a great assumption for safety. The average car driver is not great, either, but they're still not dying in the same amounts.

The difference is amazing. I have a 'newish' 2012 Yamaha and it doesn't even bother tell you what gear you are in. It's considered pointless information by many riders since they ALWAYS know. If you bemoan the direction that cars are going and want to be one with "the machine", get a bike.

And yet you're a thousand times more likely to die on your bike than in your car or in a 737 Max.

I 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.

I'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.

A 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.

I 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.

Cars 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.

Since an automatic transmission costs more than a manual, any minor decrease in gas mileage is mostly a wash.

Indeed, and driving habits (quality and quantity) play a much larger role in fuel cost.

It'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.

I 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).

> The article author’s point about using additional limbs making it harder to text and drive is well taken

That point is nonsense. Changing gear is almost completely automatic and takes very little time. Also completely inapplicable on motorways where you're basically always in 5th .

My 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.