Auto cars are safer...for cyclists.

[jonny jeez]

allegedly.

I have a theory you see.

I've driven both manual and auto cars, each for roughly half of my driving life. I converted to auto about 10 years ago and have, for a specific set of reasons, just gone back to manual.

I am convinced that, save a few instances of octogenarians mistaking the throttle for the brake and parking in next doors pool, that autos are safer....generally.

Specifically though, I've noticed my a tendency to do one thing in the manual that I never noticed, nor felt I needed to do in the auto.

When I approach a T junction, I generally do so in second gear. To stop and drop to first, then have to slip the clutch to move off from a standstill whilst juggling the handbrake is a faff and the temptation to try to stay in second and keep up enough momentum to pull away again is compelling....on very quite roads I've even found myself practising this stupid, irresponsible and dangerous act.

I am ashamed

Thing is, I didn't even notice that I did it until I watched my wife and a mate doing the same, they sort of coasted to the junction, looked (but just the merest glimpse) and then rolled on whilst still in second gear. In fact in most instances they approached the junction looking right and rolled into the middle of the road before even turning their heads left to check the opposite lane.

The reason I noticed them was because in each instance I didn't feel they gave a good enough look for cyclists and motorcyclists...because...ta-da...I am both.

Then, like I say, I realised I'm capable of doing the same but of course when I consider doing it I, think I'm safe.

I wonder how many people pulling out on cyclist's are driving manual cars

Disclaimer- I am not condoning the act as "sensible" in an auto, merely that in an auto it doesn't happen, nor and I condoning my inappropriate compulsion to do the same when in the manual car. Those that practice this act are all daft, yet human. Check your own driving habits before launching into flame mode. Your mortgage may be at risk if you don't keep up repayments and you really, really need more fibre in your diet.

 

[boydj]

What you describe is actually encouraged in driving lessons in order to maintain better progress. Of course the aim is to slow down with enough time and distance to the actual junction to be able to properly assess the traffic before entering the main road. With the accent on maintaining progress, it's easy to see how assessment of the traffic is often no more than cursory.

 

[fossyant]

It's probably you out of practice. Personally prefer manual.

 

[gaz]

What you describe is actually encouraged in driving lessons in order to maintain better progress. Of course the aim is to slow down with enough time and distance to the actual junction to be able to properly assess the traffic before entering the main road. With the accent on maintaining progress, it's easy to see how assessment of the traffic is often no more than cursory.

Is it really encouraged in driving lessons? Can't say it was for me when I had lessons 7 years ago.

 

[gaz]

Can't say this is something I do my self. Nor have I noticed it when I'm a passenger with friends.

 

[Boris Bajic]

To the OP: No. I do not find it as you do.

I've driven manual and slushbox cars of many different varieties over the decades and do not detect any correlation between unintentional forward movement and gearbox type.

I think problems can arise when an experienced manual driver in unused to the characteristics of an auto (or vice versa).

Essentially, good driving is good driving and poor driving is poor driving.

Either type of gearbox, poorly used, will make hazardous situations less unlikely.

If the driver of either type of car is not anticipating or observing properly, then there is a greater likelihood that great naughtiness will befall them.

The gearbox or absence of a third pedal has nothing to do with it if the car is being properly used.

I may be wrong. I was in 1987 and it's about time I was again.

 

[fossyant]

Give me back my Selespeed Alfa, di2 for cars. That was fun. Then again don't, as it would have broken by now. Had an early 1999 147 as a company car. Paddle shift, gear shift, or semi auto.

 

[sabian92]

I prefer a manual, but then I drive a car with no handbrake (well, one of those bloody Citroen auto things) so the handbrake thing doesn't apply to me. At a junction just hold it on the footbrake, it's one less thing to worry about when moving off.

I still look both ways before I roll out of a junction if I don't stop but then I do it in first gear anyway - the 2nd gear on a Picasso is so long you can't pull away in it, not even on a downhill slope. Made myself look a right dick doing that a few times.

 

[mickle]

My Ferrari was an auto - the same General Motors T400 unit used by Rolls Royce, Cadillac and those big American yellow school buses! It was the only slush box available (in 1986) that could handle the torques. It didn't help the fule economy of the 5 liter V12 any...

But yes, driver laziness is a contributing factor to the danger on our roads.

 

[biggs682]

It's probably you out of practice. Personally prefer manual.

use to be the same ie manuals only but having driven autos for last 10 years auto all the way now days

 

[donnydave]

What you describe is actually encouraged in driving lessons in order to maintain better progress. Of course the aim is to slow down with enough time and distance to the actual junction to be able to properly assess the traffic before entering the main road. With the accent on maintaining progress, it's easy to see how assessment of the traffic is often no more than cursory.

I thought this was best practice too (for "making progress"). Slow down in plenty of time so you can roll up at a slow enough pace for you to have a good old look around if its clear and as long as you are actually still moving then stay in second, slip the clutch a tiny bit if your going really really slow and away you go. In many situations it allows for smarter getaway because you've got one less gearchange as you make your way up to the speed of the other traffic (unless your 1st gear goes up to 50 of course ). In some of the slightly past-their-best cars I've owned you can't get into 1st whilst still moving (synchro cream crackered) so staying in second whilst rolling slowly was my preferred method, then the envigorating smell of burning clutch as I join the traffic. With auto's I've found it depends what type it is. I had a lardy old jag that would creep silently at walking pace which was perfect for junction assessments. I've also had several hire cars for work which were autos (robotised manual) which would get confused at low speeds, some of them go into neutral even before you stop so when you do "go for it" whilst rolling you have to wait for it to pick a gear for you so you have less control over the exact moment the car actually moves away. It gets even worse when the newer ones turn the bloody engine off whenever you stop for more than 2 seconds, the first thing I do if I get a car that does this is find out how to switch it off.

Obviously the solution to all the above situations is to actually come to a complete stop then it doesn't matter what type of car your driving. Unless of course its anything made in the last 10 years so it will have enormous A and B-pillars that can hide an entire bus.

 

[jonny jeez]

I was never taught this by my instructor, still I did learn over 20 years ago when the requirement to pass your test was simply reading the number plate and identifying the round bit that steered the car.

Its not the act itself that i am debating here, its whether we are more inclined to undertake the act more dangerously in a manual; as the temptation to not let anything get in the way of keeping that second gear rolling is far greater. On an auto its no hassle to dab a brake and then dab the throttle.

 

[donnydave]

its whether we are more inclined to undertake the act more dangerously in a manual; as the temptation to not let anything get in the way of keeping that second gear rolling is far greater

Yes. I would always choose to roll along slowly in second because I am lazy and am always seeking the lowest energy state so as not to contribute to the heat-death of the universe. I do it at traffic lights too if I know the sequence and I anticipate they are about to change. I do this whether in the car on on the bike.

 

[Amanda P]

Perhaps the point isn't so much whether you actually stop at the junction, as whether you start looking for traffic crossing your path before you arrive at it?

I often see drivers approaching a junction at quite a lick, no sign of braking or slowing, no looks left or right until they're virtually at the give-way line. With a foot or so to go, then they look for traffic (usually looking left first, which in the UK is odd).

If there is any, they must stand on the brakes to stop in time. If there isn't, they sail through (often in the wrong gear). But only looking at the last possible second means there's less time to see whether there's anything coming, and to assess how fast it's coming. And as donnydave says, that doesn't leave time for them to move their heads to see if anything's hidden behind the pillars.

It's the kind of driving behaviour that occurs when the drivers mind (if they have one) is on anything other than actually driving.

 

[hoski]

Lots of people seem to think that handbrakes and first gear are a faff.

Everyone who is saying this is encouraged - are you confusing approaching T-junctions with approaching left/right turns and roundabouts?

Left/right turns and roundabouts, I was taught (6-7 years ago) to approach in second, but prepared to stop.

For T-junctions, unless the visibility was excellent, I was taught to approach them in second, brake, change down to first whilst doing various observations. Then if it was clear, engage the clutch and be on my merry way. If not, stop and proceed when safe to do so.