> [...] since not that many know how to ride a bicycle.
Come on, seriously? It gives a pretty poor image of the average american. Manual transmission? Don't know how to use that. Bicycle? What is that thing?
I bet this means that people don't know how to get from A to B on a bicycle, rather than, you know, being able to pedal a bicycle in a straight line, and keep the thing upright.
For example: which streets are the best to take? What's legal/illegal to do? (sidewalks OK? "I DON'T KNOW? I'M SCARED TO RIDE ON THE ROAD/NOT ON THE ROAD") Where do I lock up this thing? What happens at night - do I need lights? What kind of light? What do I do if it start raining? Oh no? What do I do about my wheel - the tires not holding air!
These are topics not always taught to you... ever by... anyone. Especially the legal aspects of bicycle rights on the road. That leads to all sorts of arguments about what bikes can/cannot do and creates a horrible opposing relationship with cyclists and other road users. As a motorist, if you don't ride a bike as an adult, you may have NO idea what a cyclist is allowed to do on the road, but the same can be said about a cyclist that's JUST getting into riding a bike. They'll make all sorts of mistakes, and put themselves in bad situations, often angering other users of the road. How long is that going to last, until that bike is back in the back of the garage?
What's the solution? Seek out a support group of cyclists to help you.
I'm kind of surprised. I live in France and spent my time growing up in the countryside. I was aware of common cycling regulations, all the do and don't, by the time I was in 5th grade.
I know biking in a city is very different from biking on a road in the middle of nowhere. And, even I, prefer to avoid crowded circulations and difficult crossings, because those other road users are pesky assholes (at least in Paris) when it comes to sharing anything with pedestrians, cyclists, or even other motorized vehicles. Kudos to cyclists support groups!
When I rode in France - once on a two-month tour through the country, and once living in Paris, I was incredibly shocked at how aware motorists were to cyclists. Motorists would drive fast around me, but I wasn't worried that their intentions were maligned. Coming back to the States, and I had to readapt to being much more defensive.
In short: it's just embedded in the French culture. France has le Tour, we have football.
Switzerland takes this to a whole 'nother level, saying nothing about the Netherlands, Denmark, etc.
In the States, I feel very much like an enemy on the road. I mean, I'm just riding my bike to work.
I can't agree with this sentiment enough, you have to ride defensively on the road, you're seen as a second class citizen, and drivers don't act with the same respect as they do other cars. However, I've never lived in France so I have nothing to compare to.
It's essentially class warfare, when cars are seen as a symbol of wealth, status and mobility. It's not car vs. bike. It's the status quo vs. a competing idea that, if it takes root, unearths a value system based on owning and using an expensive personal item that devalues precipitously as soon as it's driven off the lot, adds a hefty environmental cost, etc: the automobile. And that upheaval is going to cost powerful people money.
Also look at: public transportation.
It's no wonder that higher economic mobility people have chosen essentially a private town car company (or at least a virtual one, that undermines things like workers rights) to replace personal car ownership (at least partly so) and not a bicycle or public transportation. The illusion of the status quo is still there - except that it's enhanced, as you're paying a premium for someone else to do the stressful work for you.
As an American that has explored Europe, it's just not the same thing. Trains are amazing, people flaunting wealth by buying enormous cars is seen as a faux pas. City centers are turning into car-free zones. Being simply a pedestriann isn't see as a backwards thing. Cycling is taken much more seriously and things like safety regulations and road-side checks are a Thing.
This extensive list of skills is exactly why cycling is a lifestyle choice/hobby, not an effective method of transportation.
Car ownership isn't much better.
Lyft/Uber? I tap a button, get in the car, then appear at my destination.
I don't have to spend mental cycles on accidents, vehicle failures, weather, navigation, insurance, licensing, fuel, equipment, tiredness, sobriety, clothing, locks, road laws, time of day, road debris, other road users, parking, safety of my vehicle when I'm not around, maintenance, vehicle condition and cleanliness, transportation politics, etc.
Instead, I can live my life. It's actually quite liberating.
> This extensive list of skills is exactly why cycling is
> a lifestyle choice/hobby, not an effective method of
> transportation.
>
> Car ownership isn't much better.
But that's it, isn't it? There's an investment in time/energy you have to make. Is the investment worth it for you?
> Instead, I can live my life. It's actually quite liberating.
For me, being car-free is very liberating. There's just more pluses to using a bike for my primary transportation.
Where have you lived that cycling is not an effective method of transportation? All of your arguments can be exactly adapted for Uber/Lyft, and even if I were to do that it doesn't mean ride sharing is an ineffective method of transportation.
I assure you in MOST of the rest of the world cycling is a very effective method of transportation.
Don't know where the parent is from but I live in a largish Canadian city. Using a bike for primary travel is not viable except for short leisure/weekend errands. I even live in the part of town where biking would be the most viable.
1) the city isn't built for biking. It's long distances between where people work and their homes. Not many live downtown like other large cities.
2) you can only do it for six months of the year. The other six are too cold.
Do I understand you correctly that you _only_ get around via Uber/Lyft? That seems expensive or at the least, very boring because you don't get out much.
Really, I think the minimum knowledge needed to use a bike for transportation is quite small. Walk into a local bike shop, list your needs/abilities, pay money, and start riding a bike. When you stop, use the u-lock they gave you to lock up the frame. Every week, put some air in the tire and recharge your lights. If something breaks, take it back to the shop.
>Do I understand you correctly that you _only_ get around via Uber/Lyft?
Back in Europe at least, I know several of people who use taxis for all their getting around -- with the occasional subway ride thrown in.
And those are people that get around a lot, though that's mostly true for above a certain income source and usually on creative professions (directors, composers, journalists, etc. -- kind of like people whose work doesn't necessitate commuting every day to some office, and who couldn't afford a 24/7 personal chauffeur, but could still pay for 2-5 taxi rides per day).
Uber/Lyft, aircraft, and walking for short distances, yes. I realize now that I live in very walkable areas, so I have a little more variety available than people in the suburbs.
That said, this post was intended to encourage people to think about the future of transportation, not saying that everyone should immediately switch to Lyft/Uber.
Car/bike ownership will certainly make sense for some people for quite some time, even after we have fully autonomous vehicles. But I maintain that cycling is more recreation than an effective method of everyday transportation, and it is frustrating to see the biking contingent pushing it as a transportation option to encourage public expenditure on their recreational needs.
> This extensive list of skills is exactly why cycling is a lifestyle choice/hobby, not an effective method of transportation.
> Car ownership isn't much better.
I suspect the list for car ownership would look much longer, actually. It's just that the skills necessary for car ownership are taught much more effectively because of the prevalence of driving in our society.
The parent poster was saying bikes are less likely to get stolen in LA because nobody knows how to ride--I don't think that's true at all. Most people who steal bikes just want to sell it for money. I heard SF had a huge bike theft problem and was working to reduce stolen bikes in the second-hand market instead of attacking thefts directly. They also added a stolen bike registry to make recovery more seamless. Maybe LA has something similar and that's reducing thefts? I still see evidence of bike thefts in LA (parts of bikes or empty chains locked to things).
More to your point, Los Angeles has free bike safety courses for varying levels all over town. They start with "learn to ride," "interested in riding a bike for daily trips, but are concerned about safety," and "confident city cycling." I think they also give out free safety equipment like helmets, lights, and reflectors.
That's awesome, and I'm glad to hear it. For me, it was first taught in after-school clubs (bicycle club!). I can't thank the local bike shop enough for pointing me in the right direction.
As an adult, I joined a lot of social circles that centered around having fun, and riding bikes. I also got into things like Critical Mass, and the local bike messenger racing scene. It felt like we were all helping each other to survive out there. A lot has changed in 10 years, and I'm very grateful for that. Just having a public bike sharing program present and very easy to access has really changed people's perceptions.
When I was a kid in the USA (Torrance, CA which is in Los Angeles County) the police came to our elementary school once a year for a bicycle information day, where they'd talk about bike safety rules and even had a little rolling road to test your brakes on. Most of my friends rode their bikes to school. So it doesn't seem completely unheard of.
Before I lived in LA, I lived in Boston. I still have the rather nice pair of wire cutters that were left behind rather hastily when I came back to get my bicycle at the stand after being in a shop for about 3 minutes. Now that is a city with a bicycle theft problem.
But military histories quite often comment how most of the GI's had much better mechanical skills that their British counterparts, and how baseball pitching was instrumental in their superior grenade use. (Cricket bowling just doesn't teach quite the right skills there.)
Despite being one of the most homogeneous species on the planet, everybody is different. I agree it was rather cruel of the local council to stick a magic roundabout right outside Heathrow's car hire[1], to add to the driving on the wrong side/manual transmission nightmare, but at least it let's people know what they're in for.
> I agree it was rather cruel of the local council to stick a magic roundabout right outside Heathrow's car hire[1]
The inverted pentagram shape (facing east) of that thing was made on purpose, right? It seems, somebody on the city council just wanted to summon a massive demon :)
Just for clarifacation: I live in Northern Europe, but am American.
The manual transmissions? Part of this is the lack of requirement for driver training to teach folks. The other bit of this is that most folks don't have access to manual transmissions. A great deal of cars don't even offer the option. I was fortunate enough to learn to drive one years ago, but not all are. This is really simple lack of availability.
Ancedote: My spouse and I own a (older) 4 door sedan. It has a manual transmission. Now, the brand isn't sold in the states, but many similarly sized vehicles are. In the US, this class of vehicle isn't generally available with a manual transmission - if it is available at all. Usually, the only cars with the options are the smallest cars, trucks, or luxury vehicles.
Average American in a Norman Rockwell painting, maybe. A lot of kids grow up these days without learning how to ride a bike. We just learn to drive early.
And I've never encountered a non-smug argument against automatic transmission.
I'm from the UK, and automatics are pretty rare here. If you do your driving test in an automatic, your license is annotated so you can only drive automatics, so people do it in manuals instead; and then, of course, they buy a manual, because they're cheaper.
So my first experience with an automatic gearbox was on a holiday to the US. And I loathed it. It felt like all the controls were connected to the road via rubber bands --- everything seemed to happen a couple of seconds after I moved the controls. If that had been my only experience of an automatic, then I too would be saying how horrible they were.
But then, much, much later I tried driving a hybrid with a CVT automatic gearbox. (I can't even remember what it was now.) And it was... amazing. It felt just right. There was no lag, there was no uncomfortable feeling of being in the wrong gear. It was like it was reading my mind. I put this down to being an expensive hybrid with lots of low-end torque from the electric motor, but then just this year I drove a Nissan X-Trail, also with CVT, and it was just as good.
So I'm willing to say: not all automatic gearboxes are the same.
The CVT in my wife's Honda is surprisingly good. No "sag and surge" due to shifting. It just keeps going (with an engine RPM proportional to the throttle amount) as you hit the freeway onramp.
Her car has a bigger engine than my Prius (also with a CVT as well as the motor/generator), though. My car does very well around town, being quite peppy in the 0 to 30 range, but a bit more doggish getting up to freeway speed. But it makes a good daily driver otherwise.
Traditional automatics seem to change gears and re-clutch slowly. The 5 speed on my old small pickup was fun to drive, once I learned how to do it years ago :-)
That rubber-band feeling is exactly what CVTs are known for around here. Maybe you got one the whole time? Of course, rental cars have the most terrible engines no matter what.
The fastest gear switching is on DSG/DCT engines, or electric cars which don't have gears in the first place. Both of those should beat a manual car in speed and mileage.
BTW, as an American who can't drive manual or ride a bike, and grew up in a city which didn't even have sidewalks, I recommend this as a great way to become a computer expert.
> And I've never encountered a non-smug argument against automatic transmission.
Manual are cheaper and ubiquitous. If you want an automatic car in Europe, you pay premium on a new car, and a very large premium each time you rent a car.
I'm not sure how that works for second hand cars - there are less but less people interested too, so not sure where the balance tip. In any case, automatic car tend to be expensive cars to begin with (BMW Series 5, ...) - you won't find as easily a regular joe car that is automatic.
Manuals are the same price in the US as automatics (or are more expensive) and are harder to find. Buying a new manual doesn't make economic sense here anymore. It's purely for the fun.
Manuals are the same price in the US as automatics (or are more expensive)
This is absolutely false. Not every car is offered with manual transmission, but cars that can be configured with both are almost always cheaper with a manual. I cannot recall every seeing a case where it was the more expensive option.
Manuals should be cheaper because they're cheaper for manufacturers to make. Unfortunately, in the US they've become a niche product that doesn't move very well, so you're going to get a lot more resistance on price when you're haggling with the dealer.
My girlfriend's car got stolen a few years back. When I asked the cop how much this happens locally he asked me what I drive, and when he found out my car had a manual transmission he laughed and said nobody would steal my car - the kinds of people who steal mass market cars don't know how to drive a manual any more.
Manual transmissions are almost always a custom order. You can walk into any dealer and ask that $800 be knocked off and chances are you will get it. But this only applies to the cars on the lot, which are almost always automatic.
If you are lucky the dealer might have a cancelled order on the lot with a manual transmission.
That's the purchase price. In the US, the market for manual transmission cars is smaller and so unless you plan on driving it into the ground, that manual transmission could very well end up costing the same.
On top of that, automatic transmission cars are more fuel efficient, so the operating costs might be a wee bit lower.
Is it smug to enjoy the perception of having more control over the vehicle's performance?
What's funny to me is the observation that only low end and high end cars have had manual transmissions. I started out with a low end Honda and either had to give it up or jump to a high end vehicle a decade later. I bought a second hand Audi to keep going with a manual at the time.
Is it smug to enjoy the perception of having more control over the vehicle's performance?
Enjoy it all you like, as long as you keep it to yourself. The point was about the argument, not the enjoyment. But "perception" is correct. After driving a '16 Corvette (Mom's) and a '15 BMW 428 (rental), I'm convinced that a manual transmission is good only for nostalgia or a mis-placed sense that one can do better with a manual. With double-clutch transmissions attached to an eight speed gearbox, I am now the bottleneck in the equation. I've played with the flappy paddles and concluded, "meh, who am I kidding, the computer can do this better and faster than I can". Let alone having to push a foot pedal and move a lever. To add insult to injury, a lot of cars I've looked at get better mileage with the auto than the manual. sigh
In conclusion, those with the smug attitude along the lines of "a real driver would drive a manual" can stuff it, the machines have won. There's no more need to manually shift the gears than there is to manually advance the ignition with a lever on the steering column. That said, four out of five vehicles in our house have manuals (the Leaf doesn't have a transmission at all), but were I to buy a modern performance car today it would have one of them there fancy DCT eight speed autos.
As for the mid-range being auto-only, makes a bit of sense to me. Low-end offers manuals for economy. High-end for performance, even if it's not entirely accurate these days. Mid-range? You mean the people that just want to drive to work in some thing other than an econo-box? Yeah, I guess they'd go auto since they're not trying to save money nor are they really "into" cars.
Not at all smug to enjoy it, but smug to judge other people who don't care about that and just want their car to take care of shifting gears on its own.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This isn't an argument that everyone will care about, but it is a legitimate one for some: manual transmissions are much easier/cheaper to repair/rebuild.
The question seems to be which you'd care to replace first: clutch or rebuild the tranny? So I've been told, anyway. I've driven manuals all my life and don't recall replacing a clutch in anything I've owned, car or motorcycle. Come to think of it, of the few auto trannies I've had I don't recall having to get those rebuilt, either. And I've owned some hard-ridden vehicles, so maybe I'm just easy on tranny parts.
The tranny has to be removed in either case, so it's a question of what's easier once the tranny's out. For me, I'm happy to put a clutch in. I haven't the first clue how an auto tranny works Well, I have an idea of the principal, but no working knowledge of what those little check balls and the like do.
I wore the clutch out on the first manual I had in just over 6 years (too much slipping out slowly, I'm sure). After that, it went another 15 years or so before other reasons made the clutch/tranny life moot. Replacing a clutch is quite a bit cheaper, though, than rebuilding an entire automatic tranny.
I have, because just recently someone tried to convince me it's just plain impossible to go at slow speeds (<10mph) in a car.
And apparently that's very difficult when you don't have the clutch to moderate speed, or so I was told. It might just be that American drivers aren't used to going in any sense slow at all.
(But those damn bikers, always zipping by! By the cries, you must think cyclists in America have some magic potion that makes them go 50mph instead of, you know, <=20mph peak)
Well, it isn't impossible, but automatics vary on ease of this. Most automatics will move forward without pressing on the gas if they are in driving gear. Some do this faster than 10mph. Going less than idling speed requires fancy brakework.
It is much easier with a manual transmission. It isn't going forward with some power from you. Ease up on the clutch a bit and give just a bit of gas and you have no problems.
My 1999 Rover 75 has an automatic transmission and I have no trouble driving slowly (if I must). Never had any trouble driving cars in the US either (many visits over the last 20 years) and quite a lot of that was pretty slow (freeway from Raleigh to RDU on a Friday afternoon can be pretty much walking speed sometimes).
Come on, seriously? It gives a pretty poor image of the average american. Manual transmission? Don't know how to use that. Bicycle? What is that thing?