... Watching me drive a manual is funny.
Now me in an automatic, is not bad, as long as I can get rid of that "aim for pedestrians" desire.

Honestly, if I can get the basic hang on a standard in about the span of time it takes a 6 yearold to climb a tree, then anyone should be able to drive a standard.

Quote from atlantian :

and there is already a mechanism on the lfs cars, it's called inertia, it stops your car and your engine when you start without the clutch depressed

I just call it the parking brake, but I guess you call it something else.

Quote from atlantian :

yes, you would stall if you try to move the car with the starter motor, why would you NOT have a mechanism that prevents you from doing that?(although it's redundant) it would save your car's engine's lifespan if you are learning manual. and there is already a mechanism on the lfs cars, it's called inertia, it stops your car and your engine when you start without the clutch depressed

First thing that was driummed into me was waggle the stick to make sure you are not in gear BEFORE you start the car. Why would you not do this, it is just common sense. The most vital thing about driving stick in knowing what gear you are in at ALL times.

Also look at the history of the motor industry. Why would an industry that performs cost of deaths vs recall calculations worry about fitting such a system unless forced to. Fitting it makes the car more expensive to produce. So there must be a law in place or they must have been sued once and it cost them enough to not want another case against them

Come to think of it, when I tried once, I was surprised when my car wouldn't start in neutral without my foot on the clutch. It's just as well, though, as it's just extra mass for the starter to get up to speed. I have put the clutch in half way and then dumped it as I'm starting, though—no biggy.

Either way, I always start the car in 1st or R with the clutch in. I make sure it's in gear before starting (just habitually).

Quote from MAGGOT :

A lot of new-ish cars will only start in 'P' (Park) and when the brake pedal is pressed. More idiot-proofing, I guess.

Only experienced this in a renault auytomatic. Glad it was not my own car, not because of the safety mechanism, but the engine acted like it was already worn out with only 38000km driven. Oil consumption, loss of engine power(well the little amount it had, became even less), electronic failures of the computer. I did like the programming of the auto-box, felt like driving as someone is manually shifting the gears, reacting very well to heavy braking, accalaration etc.

But safety switch, never heard of it or saw it on cars with manual gear-boxes.

This is rapidly confirming my belief that those who use automatic gearboxes are not drivers, merely motorists.

Having messed around in LFS a bit, I can now say that the FO8 can be made to move on the starter motor, but only with full throttle. I suppose battery wear simulation is another thing to go on the Big List of Stuff To Add, then...

Sam

this is rather simple imo...

Americans are taught to drive in automatics...some places don't even really want you taking your driving test in a manual.

Driver's ed courses never once mentioned manual trans operation. This means it would rely on someone else teaching you not to be a dumbass and start while in gear...

Do you really need to be taught not to start in gear? Did you need to be taught how to work light switches, or how to listen to sounds? Surely it doesn't require 'training' not to be a dumbass (although I know people AREN'T born equal, and some dumbasses are just a result of poor breeding, but they shouldn't be allowed to drive in the first place).

Quote from tristancliffe :

Do you really need to be taught not to start in gear? Did you need to be taught how to work light switches, or how to listen to sounds? Surely it doesn't require 'training' not to be a dumbass (although I know people AREN'T born equal, and some dumbasses are just a result of poor breeding, but they shouldn't be allowed to drive in the first place).

Blunt and too the point, refreshing in the modern bullsh*t world of PC-ness (Is that a word?)

Where would we be without Tristan?

Voila, the solution to danger on the roads of today - a basic intelligence test as part of the driving examinations.
Should be part of S2 licencing conditions, actually. :rolleyes:

Sam

Quote from tristancliffe :

Do you really need to be taught not to start in gear? Did you need to be taught how to work light switches, or how to listen to sounds? Surely it doesn't require 'training' not to be a dumbass (although I know people AREN'T born equal, and some dumbasses are just a result of poor breeding, but they shouldn't be allowed to drive in the first place).

you have way too much faith in people

more than half the people on the road is either a dumbass

a dumb bitch

a dumb ****...or something of the sort

I'm just saying, I don't want some dumb ____ to start their car in gear and run into mine

And yes, you do have to learn how to operate a car...every single feature, either through someone telling you...or just watching someone else do it, or experimentation.

The first lesson you should ever learn when driving anywhere is that you need to treat everyone on the road like a complete idiot, so that when it turns out they are, you were expecting it and won't be taken by surprise.

Quote from spanks :

And yes, you do have to learn how to operate a car...every single feature, either through someone telling you...or just watching someone else do it, or experimentation.

But is it not bloody obvious that if the gearstick has a gear selected, and the clutch pedal is not depressed, there is nothing to stop the engine being under full load when you try to start it? If you hold a driving licence, you need to have an understanding of how a car works, and so if you can't figure out why your car moves when you start it in gear, your licence should therefore be taken away.

Sam

Quote from Dark Elite :

The first lesson you should ever learn when driving anywhere is that you need to treat everyone on the road like a complete idiot, so that when it turns out they are, you were expecting it and won't be taken by surprise.
But is it not bloody obvious that if the gearstick has a gear selected, and the clutch pedal is not depressed, there is nothing to stop the engine being under full load when you try to start it? If you hold a driving licence, you need to have an understanding of how a car works, and so if you can't figure out why your car moves when you start it in gear, your licence should therefore be taken away.

Sam

I actually believe you should have to learn to drive and pass in a manual before you are allowed on the road. In the UK there is an auto only licence and here in NZ you can learn and pass in an auto then drive any transmission.

The way I see it is that if you can't understand how to drive a manual your IQ is far too limited to deal with what you will encounter driving on the public roads.

If I can drive a manual, albiet poorly (5th gear != 3rd gear), anyone should be able to.

Quote from Woz :

I actually believe you should have to learn to drive and pass in a manual before you are allowed on the road. In the UK there is an auto only licence and here in NZ you can learn and pass in an auto then drive any transmission.

Personally I'd rather our auto-only test was limited to those who were physically unable to drive a manual not just those who are plain lazy or incompetent.

Quote from Woz :

in NZ you can learn and pass in an auto then drive any transmission.

That's news to me, and monumentally stupid.

Quote from ajp71 :

Personally I'd rather our auto-only test was limited to those who were physically unable to drive a manual not just those who are plain lazy or incompetent.

We should probably throw in some sort of marking too, for those who hold an auto-only licence - we've got the P-plate for recently passed drivers, now we should have something like the R-plate for those with an auto-only licence...

Sam

+1 This is a must have in the far future, I'd say time is right just after implementation of cigaret lighter and rear window demist. (only on cars that are likely to have it in RL ofcourse)

Quote from Dark Elite :

That's news to me, and monumentally stupid.

If you think that is stupid, that is the tip of the iceberg lol

You can drive at .... drum roll..... age 15 and insurance is OPTIONAL.

You can imagine where this ends up when you can go to a car yard, put down $1 deposit then drive off in a WRX or Evo.

I have to laugh when people then wonder why these "young" drivers wrap themselves around a tree etc.

I knew the age limit was only fifteen - personally I approve of lower age limits, but only if there is a more comprehensive test and some sort of personality assessment for younger people. I speak as someone too young to hold a driving licence in the UK.

Insurance, though... That is simply ridiculous. I'm facing premiums of over £2000, but not having it is just unthinkable. Or rather, the person who hits you not having it is unthinkable.

Sam

I think the age limit should be INCREASED. Whilst younger people have the reactions to cope with emergencies, they don't have either experience to draw on (and changing the age just moves the upwards) or the sense to stay out of trouble! Most 17 year olds are too keen to show off, drive too fast, have no patience, don't understand how dangerous cars are, and are out to prove too much. Raise the limit a year or two. And put power/torque restrictions for the first two years, limiting new drivers to about 70hp. And ban any non-standard modification other than pattern parts for the same period.

To be honest, Tristan, if the age moves up to, say, 19, they're not going to have a hell of a lot more sense. They're still going to be just as much impatient, ignorant showoffs as if they'd been 17 (I'm stereotyping ) - because their understanding of cars will be little greater, and their experience will be exactly the same. They'll also have been waiting for longer, and thus be even more impatient to get out there and drive - whether they can do it well or not. More than that, they'll also be able to buy alcohol more easily.

As for restricting new drivers... Well, I'd think a 70bhp car, with no protection, weighing next to nothing, would be a hell of a lot more dangerous than my 4WD 136bhp Mondeo, don't you? And I think most modifications are ruled out by insurance costs now, anyway.

Sam

Examples of cars with CSSS I have personally witnessed to have...

1990 Mitsubishi Eclipse

1991(?) Ford Probe Turbo

1991 Ford Explorer

1992 SAAB 900

1995 Honda Civic DX

2003 Chevrolet Cavalier

SAAB is Swedish, built overseas according to VIN, the Honda was built in Suzuka, Japan according to VIN.

Well, as you're too young to drive, I assume you mean your parents Mondeo. But of course a 19 year old new driver is safer than a 17 year old driver. You DO mature a LOT between 17 and 19. Maybe not much in terms of 17 to 30, but you have to draw a line somewhere.

Their knowledge of cars would be greater, as they'd be exposed to them more, and be at an age they're likely to see how much energy is involved in moving 1.5 tons of metal around.

What has alcohol got to do with it? Lets stick to the age limit shall we. If buying alcohol was a problem then we'd have to raise the learning to drive age to about 100.

70hp = safer for new drivers than 136hp. Maybe not in the 'get out of danger' as the car won't accelerate, but it'll VASTLY reduce their chances of getting into an emergency in the first place. Ever seen someone mow through shoppers, killing them all because of a few second inattention on a skateboard? Slower = safer in the majority.

No protection? I think you'll find ALL modern cars are a lot safer than some older ones! Okay, a Ka is built out of tin foil, but modern cars are a lot better, especially since NCAP caused them to raise their game in certain areas (possibly to the detriment of untested aspects).

Weighing next to nothing? It's feckin' hard to find a car that weighs less than 1 ton! 1.3 tons plus is more like it...

So no, I don't think a silly rep-mobile is more safe for a new driver.

Mods ruled out by costs? Open your eyes laddie - look at all the twats in Vauxhalls with blue LEDs, unpainted bodykits, daft fake Recaros and printed carbon fibre filler flap covers. Ricing is alive and well (with a plus side that it means you can hear their fart-cans from a mile away, plus they make the car go slower, so you have more time to get out of the county).

Can you move this discussion off my thread please? I would rather see this thread return to the topic at hand instead of being locked!

We finished your topic - non US cars very rarely have such noob protections, and it wouldn't add anything to LFS if Scawen wasted time on it.

Now we've moved on to more interesting topics