> Maybe. I would think it more plausible that a vehicle that requires the operator to actively engage in its operation would, well, keep the operator engaged, and therefore their overall reaction time would likely be faster than a typical driver.

This is one of the best arguments for stick shifts: even if the extra layer of control may take extra effort, the thought process of having to shift, feather the clutch, think about what gear you should be in, rev match, engine break, etc makes you a better driver

Having driven stick shift since I started driving (22 years ago), it becomes totally automatic: you simply start relying on the engine noise to switch gears when needed and are not really thinking about it.

I would wager it isn't even noise, but a fusion of all senses, especially your butt :)

I'd say noise plays a major role. I've driven a noisy car for years and now that I'm driving a quiet one I frequently switch a bit too late when I'm distracted.

Sure, all senses contribute, but for me personally, engine noise is the biggest signal (even in well sound-proofed cars).

Ditto. Every car I've owned for over 20 years has been a stick. It's not more work than an automatic at this point and it's not forcing me to pay any more conscious attention to the road.

I can carry a full technical conversation while I heel-toe to rev-match the downshift into second at 60mph so the engine braking bleeds enough speed that as I throw it through the corner into town and lose a bit more momentum I hit the city street at exactly 30mph and can shift back up to third and tap the cruise control and coast to wherever I'm going. I'm not going to test it, but I'm pretty sure I could do it drunk and with one hand.

For me, being stuck in traffic with an automatic is more cognitive load than a stick. I'm always overthinking my inputs..."if I'm extra light on the throttle here, it may stay in gear and not shift since I know I'm stopping in 100m and I don't want constant up/down shifts"

In my truck (automatic), when I'm climbing up to the Eisenhour tunnel, I want it to stay in 4th gear and I'll just give it more throttle, but it won't do that, it thinks it's smarter than me and downshifts to 3rd and I need to hear the engine scream all the way up the mountain. I always try to find the sweet spot for throttle input to keep it from down shifting which means that I'm running about 5mph slower than traffic, and that's annoying.

Since my only inputs are throttle and brake, I'm always trying to find the combination of those to put the transmission in the gear that I want it in rather than just sliding the stick and putting it in the right gear.

Does your automatic not have a way to switch to manual mode?

I can confirm this - had for 11 years manual shifting bmw (3 series e46), some 2 years ago it sorta died and we bought automatic (5 series f11). The amount of cognitive load is much much lower (also thanx to laser projection of speed and other info on windshield, this is by far the best security car feature in last couple of decades) to the point it becomes boring way too easily.

Once or twice I got into situation where I was very tired and was almost getting sleepy, this would never happened with manual shifting and the need to be more engaged with vehicle. Also, for 98% of the situations, 1 hand on steering wheel is enough so you can handle stick, and the rest of situations you should be able to anticipate if you are a seasoned sane driver.

Another data point - once I had to take my wife's car for 1500km drive to take it back home. It was old Toyota without any cruise control, not ideal for such long drives on European highways full of speed radars. It was the only time in my life when I could drive this run through whole night alone with basically only stopping to refill, buy vignettes or go to toilet (5pm-8am drive). Normally on this road, I get too sleepy around 3-4am and my eyes literally start to close even if mind still can go further, and I have to sleep a bit. Was way too pumped from all sensory input. But I am sure I don't want to repeat this.

I like automatics but learning on stick turns it into a skill game. Mind you not too much skill because basically everybody is doing it fine. But it does give the learner a clue that you're operating something serious, not something where you can push a pedal and be done. With that kind of attitude comes overconfidence. Like the manufacturer would have thought of everything. If I can reach 100mph easily, it will stop just as easily etc.

This was the reasoning my friends parents gave for getting her older sister a stick shift. After driving stick a while it just becomes habit. You don't even think about it. Though i do prefer being able to drop down a gear for extra acceleration on the highway, rather than waiting for the automatic transmission to figure it out and change gears 20 seconds after i needed it.

My plan is to get my son some really underpowered old stick-shift car when he learns to drive. If you're always rowing gears, you won't be texting and driving.

While I prefer driving a manual transmission as well, modern automatic/DCT transmissions are much better at engaging gears quickly when you ask them to than they were even ten years ago. In my current daily driver, one flick of the downshift paddle and the car instantly shifts down.

Partially related, low speed parking lot and shop window accidents are much less common in manual-dominant countries (although those are less frequent yearly).

The usual cause is hitting gas instead of brake, followed by disorientation (expected = braking, result = acceleration, usually strong acceleration). Humans, especially elderly, can't reorient quickly enough. With a manual, you're depressing the clutch as well, so the mismatch is much lesser.

> feathering the clutch

For maximum fun, don't use the clutch at all except to start moving.

> Maybe. I would think it more plausible that a vehicle that requires the operator to actively engage in its operation would, well, keep the operator engaged, and therefore their overall reaction time would likely be faster than a typical driver.

While I believe you are right on average, an attentive driver not fighting their vehicle is going to have better reaction times than an attentive driver who does.

But to support your point further, reaction times for each of us on the road differ depending on the circumstances (personal, vehicle, road and traffic). Safe driving is when we are attentive enough to react to common "failures" in traffic and avoid any catastrophe.

"Common" as in there is no fast enough reaction time when someone decides to eg. head-on you at the last second in regular traffic conditions as you are passing them in the other direction on a two-way street. Or someone jumping in front of you at exactly the moment you are passing by (even driving at 20 mph is enough to kill a pedestrian jumping in front of a moving car, even with the driver breaking as quickly as possible). It's useful to remember that we are all participating in traffic (and life) together, and we rely on general sanity of each participant to avoid disasters.

> While I believe you are right on average, an attentive driver not fighting their vehicle is going to have better reaction times than an attentive driver who does.

True, but "just pay more attention" is no more actionable than "just drive better". AIUI e.g. aeroplanes have deliberately cut down parts of the automation because it ends up doing more harm than good.

> Maybe. I would think it more plausible that a vehicle that requires the operator to actively engage in its operation would, well, keep the operator engaged, and therefore their overall reaction time would likely be faster than a typical driver.

someone once told me: "i'm a safer driver when drunk because then i driver slower and pay more attention."

Superficially plausible, but the statistics suggest it's unlikely. Drunk drivers get into a lot more collisions than average; meanwhile sports car drivers get into a lot less.

sorry, i didn't mean to present it as a honest argument. this guy was pretty much a criminal on the roads. suicidally speeding driver when sober and a drunk driver when drunk.

what i meant to say is that i don't believe a need to overcome distractions makes you a more attentive driver. in my opinion it's better to have less (car operating complexity) to worry about, because then you can - or at least could - focus on the road better(and i have driven manually shifting cars all my life with very few exceptions).

> what i meant to say is that i don't believe a need to overcome distractions makes you a more attentive driver. in my opinion it's better to have less (car operating complexity) to worry about, because then you can - or at least could - focus on the road better

Whether you could matters a lot less than whether you would. As an extreme, your logic would suggest that the "dead man's switch" used on trains would make them less safe.

> and i have driven manually shifting cars all my life with very few exceptions

So if you yourself do the thing you're claiming is less safe, do you actually believe what you're claiming?

tbh, i've only driven an automatic maybe a few hundred kilometers, so my data for comparison is limited. furthermore, my manual and the automatic are not quite the same model, so it's all quite anecdotal. now, the automatic sometimes shifts at an unexpected moment which from a safety standpoint is probably a bigger problem than the concentration. apart from that i think that in most situations there is not difference, but in fiddly edge cases, e.g. low speed city maneuvering with lots of pedestrian traffic and starting on ascents, not having to worry about shifting might help.

as i didn't take part in a controlled experiment i wont claim that, though.

Here is a message that will resonate with you: Old cars avoid wasting natural resources and the pollution that comes with creating new cars. Also, recycling isn't nearly as effective as you think.