It's Okay for Drivers to be Shiftless

[Pete Kraus <Pete_Kraus@Emory.Org>]

Among other comments Sarge declared:

>My driving school would feature nothing but stick-shifts... Can't drive
>it? No license for you!

>Yet the artile is fairy on-point regarding how pathetic most american
>drivers are. I swear to god, I've seen drivers playing Nintendo or the like
>*while driving*. Absolutely pathetic. I guess a six-speed S8 will not be
>seen on our shores...

As a life-long champion of manual shift who decries the fact that many
otherwise wonderful cars are automatic-only (at least in the U.S.
market), I respectfully disagree with Sarge about requiring manual
training.  Most U.S. drivers are not enthusiasts.  Why burden them with
a chore that modern technology has done an excellent job of
superseding?    

Mastering manual shift is an admirable but wholly unnecessary activity
that doesn't make the average driver any safer or more attentive and
may render the marginal driver even more of a menace.   I'll concede
that the presence of manual transmission might force learners to take
their lessons more seriously, but I doubt that it would make a
poorly-taught driver (Sarge is right, most U.S. driver training programs
are appalling) more competent on the road.  

Even the old what-if-you-needed-to-drive-a-manual-shift-in-an-emergency
argument doesn't hold much credibility any more.  In the U.S.
automatics are everywhere.  Some enthusiasts have cottoned to them,
though not this one.  I do think licenses should be marked Automatic
Only unless proficiency with manual shift is demonstrated.    And we
should all support more stringent levels of driver training.

Pete
Pete_Kraus@emory.org   
'85 4KSQ (5-speed manual, what else?)
''95 Z28 (6-speed manual)
'89 F250 4x4 diesel (3-speed automatic, you can't win 'em all)