Auto cars are safer...for cyclists.

[numbnuts]

Automatic cars are for idiots









That's why I have one

 

[Boris Bajic]

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.

I gave this post a 'like' although I find it slightly perjorative in tone.

The observation about lack of anticipation and observation is absolutely right.

One sees it at roundabouts, Give Way signs... all over the place. It puzzles me because whether cycling or driving, it is always easier not to have to pick up lost speed.

I was taught that roundabouts are designed to keep stopping to an absolute minimum, yet some road users rush up, stop then look. How much happier life is when we have a peep when still a long way off and adjust our cycling or driving sped to slot into gaps.

 

[Tynan]

sounds like simple bad driving to me, blaming the car for it for heaven's sake

when I've driven autos I've felt it was more like a dodgem, I was less in touch with the car and engine

 

[BlackPanther]

I've only driven autos on a few occasions on holiday, where the yanks seem to swear by them. I suppose one way they could prove safer is if you trained yourself to brake with your left foot, thereby significantly cutting your 'reaction time', plus you'd be able to cover your brakes for a larger percentage of the time?

 

[Boris Bajic]

What is quite fun (for a geek) is when you have a car that was designed to be driven as an automatic. It seeps into many aspects of the car's behaviour and responses. A properly designed automatic is a lovely thing and wouldn't work too well as a manual.

Larger Daimler-Benz cars, big Peugeots (604, 605, 607 etc) and so on. V8 Rovers could be hard work with three pedals. The delivery of the engine just asked for gearchanges to be made by the machine, not the driver. XJ Jaguars were happy with an auto, but an old S1 2.8 I drove only worked as a manual. I'm sure it would have been a waste of time with a slushbox.

Some (Citroen XM inter alia) are simply not that good with a manual box because the parking brake was clearly designed for a driver with a spare foot. Despite this, Citroen put loads of manuals on the market. I love them for that, but they were nuts to do it.

Then there are cars with an auto box despite clearly begging for a manual. About the only automatic econobox I enjoyed driving for what it was was a Mark2 Golf. Only a 3-speed automatic but it was so zesty and just utterly game for anythng that it might have been a Jack Russell in disguise.

Almost all US saloons have auto boxes as a default, not a design option. They are sometimes poorly thought out and just not a pleasure to drive.

I rarely wear a helmet when cycling. Carbon Fibre is just the fad-fetishist's latest self-importance enhancer. ASLs make no sense to a terrapin.

What was this thread about?