High-tech Cars Replacing Driver Skill? 805
Nick writes "What happens when you take a bunch of average drivers, put them in a car with no high-tech systems like anti-lock brakes and traction control, and ask them to drive on a safety test track? 360-degree spins, of course. And not only do today's drivers need ABS and traction control to keep their cars under control, it also turns out most drivers can't even name the high tech safety systems that are continually saving their butts. And to make matters worse, carmakers plan to install automatic radar-based blind-spot checkers so motorists can avoid looking over their shoulders while changing lanes. Even geeks find some of these technologies scary, including Wired's Bruce Gain, who drove Mercedes' S-Class with automatic braking."
who cares? (Score:2, Insightful)
automatic breaking? (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's hope this is optional.. (Score:3, Insightful)
A Study Without Perspective... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, the people doing this study actually think that your typical driver facing a panic situation somehow had the foresight to remember some verbal instruction back from a high school driver's ed class about "Cadence Breaking" before ABS was a standard feature? Or that drivers from as little as 10 years ago had the sort of skid-pad training required to drill in the muscle memory and experience necessary to control a car in an understeer/overseer situation? No way; it was the inability for the typical driver to control a vehicle in these circumstances that led to hundreds of millions of dollars of automotive industry investment in these technologies.
I see what the study is getting at and it is a point that any rational person will agree with; drivers need better skill training. Telling people which way to move the wheel in a spin or how to massage the break pedal out of a textbook (or even on a video) is a useless substitute to making a student actually experience car control and build the muscle memory actually required to apply those skills in a high stress situation. At the same time, rational people also realize that nobody will ever invest the billions of dollars necessary in the sort of meaningful driver education on a skidpad and through static exercises.
Given our inability (through unwillingness of lack of funds) to train drivers, I believe that the technologies we've put on the typical passenger car are pretty amazing.
At the same time, the biggest contributing factor to accidents is simply the fact that people don't pay very much attention. Even with all of the idiot drivers on the road and the noted lack of car control skill, the overwhelming majority of accidents are totally avoidable. Unfortunatly, doing so requires the typical driver to have situational awareness above that of a rock...
Re:Some work in this area (Score:2, Insightful)
Ack! Please, no! I hate it when games put acceleration and braking on the same axis. Please don't do that to real cars. If I can't hit the brake and throttle at the same time, how am I supposed to heel-and-toe downshift (don't tell me to drive an automatic, or a sequential manual) or trail-brake (okay, not on public roads :)? Throttle and brake are independent inputs, and should be treated as such.
What's the relevance? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not an article that asks the same questions about medical technology? Does the fact that we have made advancements in heart repair, diagnostics, medicines and more somehow indicate that people today are weaker or dumber than those of ten years ago?
Correlation != Causation, yet that seems to be what this article is obliquely suggesting.
If you buy their premise, then go ask some pirates about global warming, they have strong opinions regarding its affect on their trade.
Unrealistic test (Score:2, Insightful)
If the ABS comes on then you are driving in a manner likely to endanger life. Most probably your own!
The same applies to traction control. Off the race track, hardly anyone would ever encounter a situation where traction control is needed. Driving on the streets is not like a race track. Nor is it like a video game. I was recently persuaded to try a video racing game by my son. His lap time was 1/3 of mine, but he bumped into all sorts of things that would have cost 1000s to repair in a real car. Persuading kids that "driving a car is just like the video game" will cost a LOT of lives. Far more lives are lost from car crashes than terrorism already. Pretending cars are like video games is more dangerous than Al Quaieda, and no more sensible.
I hate ABS...sometimes (Score:1, Insightful)
ABS does shorten stopping distances on wet or snow covered roads, but if the road is dry, the stop time will be much shorter if the wheels lock and you skid.
What I would like to see is a steering wheel mounted kill switch for ABS. I know when I need to maintain control and I know when it's more important to lock the wheels.
LK
I'm on the waiting list for the new S-Class (Score:1, Insightful)
Bullshit test... (Score:3, Insightful)
ABS is a very good example. When it came out, it was causing a large number of accidents. People accustomed to standard brakes would continue their "cadence-braking" techniques on their new ABS-equiped vehicles, and would therefore be unable to stop.
Even though people are accustomed to it now, I personally dislike ABS because of the trade-offs made... It is a system that assumes that less braking ability is okay, provided you are still able to steer. That make be true a lot of the time, but not always. When you have to slam on your brakes, but you still roll into an accident, you can thank ABS for that...
no punchcard skill == computer illiterate! (Score:5, Insightful)
My fun/backup car is a 1977 honda civic, complete with manual choke. It takes an act of god to start it, but I have JUST the nack to get it every time. Most people getting into the car wouldn't have any idea what a manual choke is.
Does this mean that anyone who can't start it is not skilled at starting modern day cars?
Ask your typicall 747 pilot to jump into a spitfire and fly 500km.
You see where I'm going. It's like programmers bitching about no one knowing assembler any more, when no one apart from serious system optimizers (or race car drivers....) need to know it.
Re:One that wasn't mentioned here: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you being purposely dense or were you born an idiot? This system, just like other safety systems in the car, is made to prevent dangerous situations. The beeping, in fact, is to wake the driver up in case he falls asleep. It doesn't happen often, but it does, and the fact that this device can and will prevent accidents from happening is the whole point of the system and a reason good enough for it to exist. After all, why should we expect drivers not to crash and kill themselves? That's why we have belts and airbags, and they're obviously unnecessary because anyone who knows how to drive shouldn't crash.
Re:What about when the systems fail? (Score:2, Insightful)
Horribly bad idea. (Score:5, Insightful)
There's also a reason your acceleration and braking are controlled by your feet - because your leg muscles are stronger than your thumb muscles. You can't have your acceleration/braking controlled by a non-resistive joystick, because it'd just be too easy to sneeze/drop your coffee/knock it with your elbow and have sudden acceleration or braking. You need pretty stiff resistence to prevent accidental input. Now can you imagine driving for an extend period of time using your thumb muscles instead of your leg muscles?
Even on vehicles that have throttle controls (like planes and boats), the throttle is a separate input device, has a large range of motion, and the vehicle being controlled usually experiences INFREQUENT velocity changes.
Making driving easier doesn't make it safer. (Score:2, Insightful)
The less drivers need to think about the fact they are in control of a couple of tonnes of metal adhering to the whims of inertia the less attention they'll pay to that fact. When this innatentive Michael Schumacher finally does push his vehicle past its ability to correct for driver stupidity, the speed at which the car leaves the road is therefore higher, making a bigger crash and increasing the chances of making driver/passenger/pedestrian into shoe custard.
SO, if that is the case, adding more stupidification features into automobiles may reduce the number of collisions, but increase the odds of the collision causing death.
Something for the grant hungry amongst you to draft a study proposal over.
New fangled gadgets (Score:3, Insightful)
The ability to slow down for traffic in front of the vehicle would be appreciated as well. I have been in two accidents where the driver of the vehicle following did not pay attention and slammed into someone that had stopped. A system that helped prevent this from happening would have saved time and effort on my part, especially since the insurance payments are never really enough to cover your expenses.
When driving I also worry about my blind spots quite often. I now drive a minivan and it's difficult to see small cars that are traveling in my blind spot... As a motorcyclist I often have people pull into my lane and have to keep a constant eye out to prevent injury.
So nebulus comments about how no one needs traction control outside of racetracks, attributing new driver skills to skills picked up in video games and talking about how if you took away modern technology like anti-lock breaks etc modern drivers would have more accidents... Well, I'm sorry wasn't that why the new systems were added in the first place? To make driving safer....
Also, I'm highly doubtful that locking the brakes on dry pavement will stop you faster than anti-locking brakes. From my own personal experience it takes longer to stop and you have less control so it appears to me that this is just FUD.
The disconnect from reality is the real danger (Score:5, Insightful)
When you're riding a bike, the danger of what can happen if you're not cautious is all too real. Same with skiing. Same with walking.
Cars are another story entirely. It goes far beyond gadgetry like ABS, traction control, and the other modern technologies. It's far more fundamental than that.
You're in an enclosed environment. The windows are up. You can't fully hear the sounds outside the car. When you're on the highway going 80 mph, you've got the windows up. You can't feel or hear the loud, howling, fierce, blistering wind, the loud, raw sound of the tires grinding down the pavement. The shrieks of cars and trucks passing you by. You hear and feel maybe 20% of that, with the windows rolled up. These are all danger cues, things to keep you on high alert, but you've blocked them out, enclosed in the false security of your vehicular cockpit, with comfortable reclining bucket seat, music and talk radio, comfort-maximizing air conditioning and heating, zero wind, etc.
And then you've got those nice cars with the great suspension. No longer can you feel the all-too-real road beneath you. Now you don't even realize you just drove over a giant pothole at 40 mph.
The car control schema itself is like a video game. One pressure-sensitive button to stop, another to go. A wheel to steer. Each of these controls, your low-effort movements are amplified 1000x to control the multi-ton vehicle you're sitting in. Tired of pressing the B button? No problem, flip on the cruise control.
And most importantly, of course, is the need for speed! We love going 70, 80, 90 mph -- as fast as we can get away with. Why? Because we love to live in the moment, and that's ALL you feel when you're zooming along at 100 mph down an open road. You're steering a giant death machine at 100 mph...you don't have TIME to think about anything but the present.
And this, "living in the moment," is dangerous for exactly the same reasons it's enjoyable: You're not thinking about the future. Not even the near future. Not even the next few minutes. You've all but completely blocked out all thoughts, all concerns of the potential consequences of your actions.
Re:Let's hope this is optional.. (Score:2, Insightful)
This is scary. (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the real question here is how much control of these machines can be safely handed over to the judgement of an automated system, and whether we'd be willing to accept human death caused by such a system.
It's hard enough to accept death if it's human error or bravado that caused the accident. But when an error on your onboard computer means your car rams the back of a 7 seater and kills the two five year olds in the back seat, who do you blame?
Now people will answer with 'but planes already have autopilots and all sorts of automated systems' but a n autopilot doesn't do much more than keep a passsenger plane pointed at the desired heading while two or three professional crew members keep the plane safe. There's still a pilot and crew watching out for the safety of the plane and passengers, there are Ait Traffic Controllers making sure that planes don't come within miles of each other, and planes don't have to watch out for pedestrians (much).
Computers won't make driving much safer for now, and if we're going to allow automated systems such as these to get into the hands of ordainary people, who will take them as an excuse to pay less, not more attention at the wheel, then we're going to have to deal with the consequences of computer error killing people on a regular basis on our roads.
Re:This begs the question... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
so when they buy or borrow another car that doesnt have tractional control power steering a fish finder
they will be a danger to themselves and others
Re:The disconnect from reality is the real danger (Score:3, Insightful)
Great post! I commute from the Poconos to NYC occasionally (most time I take a bus), and the new mode of driving is definitely not the "one car length for each 10 MPH of speed" that I learned 30 years ago - it's NASCAR drafting!
As a result, Route 80 is regularly littered with the wreck of those who found that the two feet between their front bumper and the other car's rear bumper does not provide sufficient reaction time to stomp the brakes when Bambi decides to nibble on that tasty center median grass (BTW - mucho deer collusions in PA - we lead the USA in this statistic) [cnn.com].
Re:Some work in this area (Score:2, Insightful)
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I've never seen an episode of Initial D and I detest drifters. Heel and toe downshifting and trail-braking are both valid, legitimate maneuvers used in all forms of racing (you know, even NASCAR drivers heel/toe, though they really don't turn so much to need trail-braking). It also just so happens that both of those techniques require throttle and brakes to be discrete inputs. I don't mind drive-by-wire so much (the throttle on my car is drive-by-wire), but I do need my throttle and brakes to be able to respond simultaneously. That can't happen if they're mapped to opposite ends of the same axis. There's no way you can have z+ input at the same time you have z-.
Is this a problem? (Score:2, Insightful)
Why is this a problem? There are plenty of things my Mum doesn't understand about her PC but it doesn't stop her getting enjoyment from using it.
I bet most of the youngsters her don't understand what double-declutching is, why it was needed and what invention came along that made it unnecessary?
Do you understand how the electronics in the ECU that drives the engine works? I'd bet half the geeks here don't know that a cam shaft and a crank rotate at different speeds.
This is soooo much of a non-story.
Anti SUV Rant (Score:2, Insightful)
Either way i'm not a fan of automated features. Like automatic transmission, its great for people who are lazy, but most times a manual will be more effecent (and imo safer in unsafe road conditions). Certanly there are features that without a doubt make people safer, but these features are no subsitute for safe driving practices.
Re:who cares? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
However - the article can be paralleled with "Interface controls replacing user skill? Twenty standard computer users were shown to a seat in front of a vintage 22-year old Commodore. While all were competent with their newer systems, not a single one was able to control the early model."
People learn to use the systems they have. Just as with development in computer systems the public - through assistive devices designed by others to reduce the complexity - have absolutely no need to know how to work machine code, or programming languages, or even scripting languages, the modern driver has assistive devices designed by others to reduce the complexity of operation. And, as the parent post puts so well, all the better if it stops them killing us.
Re:Horribly bad idea. (Score:5, Insightful)
Braking and accelerating do not have to be precise; they need to be safe from accidentally applying them too much. Stiff pedals do a good job there. Same for the steering wheel... Even a joystick control that changes according to the speed of the car (fast steering at slow speeds, slow steering at faster speeds) will not at the same time be safe from steering you into a ditch when you sneeze or bump the control, and allow a larger-than-normal steering action in case of an emergency.
Looking over your shoulder, now that's dangerous (Score:2, Insightful)
Learner vehicles (Score:5, Insightful)
My last car was a Citroen AX - carburettor engine, manual choke, no ABS, no power steering, no parking sensors - nothing. Car before that? 1986 VW Polo - that didn't even have servo assisted brakes (PUMP THAT PEDAL!)!. Did I ever crash them? Spin them? Lose control in a skid? No. Why not? Because I learned how to drive, not just how to work the controls. I was well aware of the limits of both the car and myself. If I pushed, it would let me. And I'd be the one suffering.
One of the rules of the driving test in the UK is that the driver MUST be in control of the vehicle at all times. So, let people have their electronics, their gizmos and their gadgets, but don't let them into the toy cupboard until they've proven that can go without.
Re:who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
That is actually the problem. People consider themselves excellent drivers, even when they are not, because they think they are so good they are actually really bad. I always find that Bad Drivers tend to complain a lot and get angry at other people when they drive, because either they are driving to slow, or they cut them off even when there was plenty of room. Then you see them near/tailgate them, swerve in panic, and may other unsafe actions. They figure themselves to be excellent drivers so it has to be everyone else fault. I tend to see myself as an average driver, I realize when I make a mistake when I am driving (We all do, occasionally forgetting to really check the mirror and look to the side if there is blind spot, Getting slightly confused and run a Red Light, Misjudging the time on a yellow, Missed reading a Sign (Stop, 1 Way, etc), ), and I work to correct it the next time, Driving actually takes more brain power then people realize, because they have all the actions in mussel memory. But they tend to forget that they are drive a 1/2 Ton and Up Block of Steel at Speeds that we normally cant run at. Our minds are not Designed to process the world at 60mph, only 10-20mph.
Note: I never met you so I don't know how you really drive, it is not personnel
What's with all this stomping? (Score:3, Insightful)
No you don't. Its the mark of an experienced driver to be giving huge inputs for any reason.
The amount of pressure needed to floor the gas is only slightly higher than that need to move forward a 1 MPH. Likewise, unless you're driving a huge 40 ton earthmover, braking force to lock the wheels is only slightly greater than the force necessary to gently stop the car.
Since you seem to be inexperienced, let me point out a few things to you:
1) the gas pedal does not provide proportional input to fuel system. That is, pressing the gas slightly may provide proportionally greater amounts of fuel than if you press the gas 3/4's of the way to the floor (and before you argue I'm wrong, re-read the sentence. Remember the key word is "proportionally")
2) The brake pedal is very proportional because it allows you to do what's called "modulating" the brakes. The gives you the ability in emergency braking to take your brakes right to the limit by modulating pressure as you feel a wheel starting to lock.
I realize to most 17-25 year olds with only a few years of driving that the controls seem poor when compared with your PS2, but remember, if you understand how to drive, you'll realize that video game controls are crude compared to the controls in an automobile. Its also not helped by the fact that the SUV's you tend to prefer have *bad* control systems, because you guys decided that "chunky looks" and bad gas mileage are way cooler than operating a vehicle that requires precision and finesse. And now you're bitching that the crappy vehicle you chose is no fun to drive. Boo hoo.
Re:Bullshit test... (Score:3, Insightful)
When some muppet pulled out in front of me in his 8 ton lorry doing approximately 60mph less than me on Tuesday, I was exceedingly glad I had ABS.
95 to 35 without skidding. Without loss of control. Without going sideways into the next lane, or the central barrier. Without hitting the idiot in front. In just over 2 seconds.
Sure, if I hadn't got ABS I'd have been able to do a lot to both avoid and control the skid. But I would have skid. I was losing too much speed too fast for me not to.
Modern cars stop in exceedingly shorter distances than cars of 20 years ago. They manage this despite ABS; the ABS gives them greater control and safety while doing so. My car also has various other acronyms dealing with redistributing the braking force to keep the car stable under such conditions.
It's also got an airbag. Hurrah for the modern brake technologies that avoided me needing it.
Yes, I could smell the brake pads burning afterwards..
Re:who cares? (Score:2, Insightful)
though this is all conjecture and heresay as i live in detroit.
Re:who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
Whilst I will agree that usually this would prevent accidents, there are occasions where I have needed to accelerate out of trouble. I would be pretty damn miffed if some speed limiter stopped me from being able to do so!
Re:who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
Only enthusiasts are likely to drive BMWs like the one described in the article. I seem to remember the 3-series had a reputation in those days for being a fun to drive but tricky to handle car. These randomly selected drivers are likely to not know how to drive such a car properly, since they have never owned one.
I thought traction control was still pretty exclusive to high-end cars. ABS, of course, is just about everywhere. I transitioned to a car with ABS but I must be among one of the few who can safely drive without it, because I very rarely feel it trigger, even when braking relatively hard.
There may be psychological factors involved in this study that make it unduly alarmist. When you take drivers and unleash them on a track, I'm betting their competitive instincts override their caution. They know, after all, that if they did spin out, the track is designed to be safe under those conditions. So if the drivers were not told the point of the study, they might have thrown caution to the wind and behaved very differently from normal.
A more interesting study (albiet a more boring one to conduct) would be to see how our accident rate has declined over the years with the gizmos coming into effect. Has anyone done something like that? Have accident rates declined thanks to the gizmos, or do they just offer a false sense of security?
D
Re:The one feature I want... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Bullshit test... (Score:3, Insightful)
As it is, it's a rather pointless excercise (other than to point out the dangers of loaning your car to someone
Re:A Study Without Perspective... (Score:3, Insightful)
One minor issue with the first test is that they didn't know the road was wet, which means that they were misled about road conditions. Generally, being clueless like this indicates that the driver has already made a mistake, because you're supposed to watch out for that sort of thing, but it's a bit hard if somebody's sprayed down the road on a sunny day.
The real issue with the study is that, in order to pass, you'd have to drive in ways that are bad for driving the cars they ordinarily drive. If you've got ABS, you're supposed to not pump the brakes, because that just gives you less stopping power. If you've got traction control, you should turn tighter if you have to swerve. The point of these features is not that you can do stupid things and keep control of the vehicle; it's that you can do necessary things in more extreme situations and keep control of the vehicle. Nobody will be impressed if you crash into another car instead of swerving because you would have skidded in a 1990 BMW if you'd tried to avoid it.
When I drive a Subaru on snow, I have a tendancy to understeer on turns, because I expect to fishtail to complete the turn. This is kind of a bad habit, because I don't really drive anything else on snow these days, and it means I turn less gracefully than I could. (On the other hand, I could drive fine one day when there was thin snow over black ice. I only went out because I knew I could handle fishtailing, and the car actually skidded the way I expected; people who didn't learn to drive locally before traction control stayed home that day.)
Drivers haven't gotten worse; they've gotten accustomed to being able to drive in a way that is safer in modern cars.
Re:The one feature I want... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:The one feature I want... (Score:2, Insightful)
While I agree that driving well below the speed limit in the passing lane is indicative of poor driving skills, I do not understand why people get upset when somebody is passing another vehicle while driving at the speed limit.
Don't get upset at me just because I am temporarily preventing you from speeding. It's called the passing lane, not the speeding lane.
Re:who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
I could be classifed as an excellent high speed, high maneuverability driver. When compared to the average public. I autocross often and I have the autocross timeslips and best of days to prove that I know how to pilot my vehicle well. I can control my car at it's limits because I know almost exactly (you never know 100%) what it will do and what inputs are required to make it do what I want.
That said, I still only consider myself and average driver on the highway. What I do out there on the track doesn't translate to the highway. Just like everyone I get bored in my car. I zone out to music. I don't pay enough attention. I get frusterated in traffic and probably make less than safe passes. I don't qualify that I'm allowed to do these things because I race cars on Sunday. No, I'm just kind of an inpatient asshole with a fast car. I'm not saying I'm a bad driver out there causing wrecks left and right. I'm just saying that I'm your average driver who doesn't think enough when out and about driving on the regular roads.
Granted, if I got into a situation where braking or maneuvering skills came into play, that would obviously help me avoid a collision. However, that assumes I was paying enough attention to react and plan your maneuver properly. Given the amount of concentration I apply at the track and the amount of concentration I have zombiedriving down the interstate, my skills probably wouldn't help the least bit.
Use video cameras instead of blind-spot radar (Score:3, Insightful)
The end of driving for fun? (Score:3, Insightful)
The picture you sketch makes me see roads almost as a system of public transport. You punch in your destination, and with minimum input from you, you're driven to it (quickly, safely, smoothly and efficiently). Sounds great to me! But in a system like this, what's the use of having a sporty car that can pull serious g's when accelerating and cornering? Really, the weakest of economy cars could perform just as well as a sporty one in an automated system like the one you describe.
As for me, I think this is a very good thing: it would encourage responsible, economical cars. But I also know that the more nostalgia-prone drivers who prefer sporty cars would really hate this.
Re:who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
Totally disagree. It is obvious this post was written by someone who doesn't drive a stick.
Speaking as someone who has driven sticks exclusively for 15 years, I can tell you that once you get used to driving one, operating the clutch and shifter becomes a second order action - concious thought is not involved. Best way I can describe it the way the slashdot crowd would understand is touch typing - you don't have to think about typing every letter; your fingers know where they are and just do it. There is not concious thought involved (you are not thinking "OK, type 'letter'. The 'l' key is home row, third finger on the right hand...). Driving a stick is the same way.
What a stick *does* force me to do is use all four limbs while I drive. I *can't* talk on a cell phone, I need my hands. I don't get my gas pedal and brake confused, because every time I brake, I have to clutch - which (effectively) disables the accelerator. I have to pay attention to the distance between me and all the cars around me, because what gear I am in determines how long it takes to stop (downshifting), and whether or not I will roll into the car behind me. Driving a stick forces you to do little other than *drive*. I know it sounds like I have a lot more work to do, but remember, a lot of it is not concious. I have no doubt that I am a better driver than my wife who drives automatics, if only because I am forced by the mechanics of driving the car to attempt fewer non-driving activities.
Actually, my Z3 has a switch (Score:3, Insightful)
All of these technologies are tools to improve driving safety. The point of ABS isn't to allow drivers to stop without pumping the brakes, the fact of the matter is that computer control allows the car to stop in a significantly shorter distance than any human could manage. Partly because the computer samples and responds several hundred times per second, but also because computers never lose their cool when coming around a corner and seeing a semi truck stopped in the middle of the lane.
A (silly) analogy would be saying that antibitoics are inhibiting the ability of the human immue system to evolve, so we should just let people die.
Re:A Study Without Perspective... (Score:3, Insightful)
The driver's license test is farcically easy for a reason--when you make the test any harder, people just skip the license and drive.
The way the driver's license works is not via accreditation (saying the person can drive because they've proven it via education and testing) but through tracking and history (saying the person can drive because in the most recent time period they haven't done anything horribly stupid, or haven't had a series of relatively stupid things happen.) (I call this, for obvious reasons "credit.")
In either case, making the driver's license more difficult to obtain for adults, on the macro level, really just means fewer people get licenses, and that's not to our advantage. It's a bizarre balance.
The best drivers always drive stick (Score:5, Insightful)
Stick is the CLI of driving.