Hacker News Reader

Comment by gvurrdon | Hacker News Reader

Automatic transmission cars are not popular in the UK. I've never really understood why, but I get the impression that they are considered to be expensive, unreliable and somehow offering poor performance or fuel economy. I've never owned one (there aren't many for sale) and so I wouldn't know whether such opinions have any basis in fact. However, IIRC passing the driving test in an automatic only allows the driving of automatics whereas passing it in a manual allows driving all cars, so driving lessons are conducted in manual cars.

It is slightly amusing that my current manual car has a display I can't turn off which tells me when it thinks I should change gear. The software which issues these instructions can tell when I am trying to accelerate rapidly or navigate hills and changes its instructions accordingly, so it might as well be changing the gears for me.

View on HN

6 or 7 years ago I owned my only automatic after a few mostly poor experiences hiring, especially in the US. It was pleasant enough in traffic jams, but everywhere else it was compromised - it'd change gear when I'd prefer it didn't, preferred to drive like a limousine driver (slow, and very steady, slow gentle changes) to such an extent that I had to keep it permanently in sport mode, though it was far from sporty.

The book figures said it gave just about the same economy as the manual version, but real life use gave me far further from those than I ever remember experiencing with a manual.

I'll never have another unless it is a sporty thing with 8 speed, paddles and a prancing horse on the bonnet.

I'm just going to venture that most who DO own automatics frequently experience 'heavy traffic'.

In the US, no: Most folks simply own automatics, regardless of where they live.

The only time I recall wishing I had one was when I was driving through London (normally something I avoid at all costs) and got stuck in very slow traffic for about two hours.

> it'd change gear when I'd prefer it didn't,

That may be an issue with the particular model?

In all the "automatics" I drove, American as well as Japanese models (the latter only several Hondas), I had no problem to know and control very precisely when the shift up or down would occur. I would drive up a hill and I knew exactly if I pressed down just a millimeter more the care would shift, which I delayed from happening until the ascend got less steep. That level of control was easy to get with only a little bit of experience with the specific car/transmission.

Oh you could certainly affect the point of change with position of right foot. But that makes for as much of a compromise. Now you might have to back off mid turn instead.

I suspect I'd have noticed or cared far less if more of my vehicles hadn't been sports and I'd bought more mobile sofas, driving accordingly. :)

Overall I prefer the lazy V8 approach to avoiding gearchanges - have vast torque on tap.

For a long time manual transmission cars got better fuel economy. That has only recently changed where automatics beat manual transmission cars.

The high price of gas in Europe is a key reason why people chose manuals for a long time.

Last time I looked up the claims that autos have better fuel economy, all I saw were manufacturer ratings being quoted. I'd love to see a real-world study of real drivers.

I know that personally I can tell I'm a much worse driver in an auto. I'm lazy - so in a manual that means paying extra attention to lights and the traffic so I can engine brake and coast more and avoid stopping and starting from first. In an auto I'm simply lazy period so I end up driving more stop-and-go. I wonder how much of an outlier I am.

> IIRC passing the driving test in an automatic only allows the driving of automatics whereas passing it in a manual allows driving all cars, so driving lessons are conducted in manual cars.

Somebody else mentioned this too. In the US, there are different driving tests for manual and automatic cars. It would be plausible to me that passing the test in an automatic meant a license that was restricted to automatics, but I just looked over my license and didn't see anything obvious. The "restrictions" section says only "corrective lenses".

However... I can't drive a manual transmission. I know I can't, and that's why I don't try. It's completely superfluous to restrict my license; I suffer the harm of trying to drive one.

And similarly, if you're not planning to drive manual, there is no benefit to having a license that says you can. If you can't drive manual, there's really no benefit to having a license that says you can. The benefit comes from having the skill, not the license. If you could, like me, get a license that allowed you to drive manual cars without knowing how, would you go out and start driving them without knowing how?

The license is less saying that you have sufficient skill to operate the vehicle in question, and far MORE saying that you are aware of geo-spatial relations and laws related to being legally responsible for operating such a vehicle.

Just like having a permit saying you can legally own firearms would not mean that you are in any way proficient at their use; just that you know when you should and shouldn't use them.

OK, but my point is, it doesn't make any sense to learn how to drive manual so that you can get a license permitting you to drive manual. If you didn't bother to learn, you wouldn't need the license.

But somehow multiple people are presenting the license as a reason to learn to drive manual when you otherwise wouldn't. Logically, that doesn't work.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com