It's Okay to be Shiftless

[Pete Kraus <Pete_Kraus@Emory.Org>]

Virtual Bob comments:

>Say, explain to me how autos which saps power and lowers milage to
>be doing an excellent job. There's more than "not enthusiast" as
>trade-offs to use auto transmission, that's why there are manufacturers
>trying to automate manual transmissions to work like an auto.

>But in the land where gas is cheaper than water, it really doesn't
>matter if manual is better than autos. It's also why gas-gulping SUVs
>(and many domestic boats) are selling well here...

Well, that's true, but it isn't the only reason.  Why is it so difficult for
those who are anti-SUV/Yank-tank to understand the attraction 
non-enthusiast drivers have for these behemoths: comfort; capacity;
versatility; towing ability; gadgetry; perceived safety, security, status,
invincibility; and so on?  These folks don't actually enjoy driving the way
we do, so many of the qualities we hold near and dear don't count for
much with them.  Today's sophisticated, unobtrusive, relatively efficient
automatics fit perfectly with what most consumers want.  Tell your
average car-buyer that choosing manual will save a few dollars a year in
fuel bills and he/she will reply that the convenience of being shiftless is
well worth it.  For someone who values such convenience, that's the
right answer.  

Enthusiasts should think twice before criticizing the vehicle choices of
non-enthusiasts.  I'm not sure it's any of our business.  If you think it is,
then doesn't that justify reciprocal non-enthusiast scrutiny of our
preferences?  They may not approve of what they see, they may be
members of the Anti-Destination League and we're profoundly
outnumbered.   Even though it's a wonderful time to be a car enthusiast,
our choices in the U.S. are restricted enough already by government
regulation and understandable profit-driven corporate decisions.  I say,
leave well enough alone.

Pete
Pete_Kraus@emory.org