Automatic driving licence

fannyadams

I can't drive any vehicle with an automatic gearbox (as witnessed by the car hire people recently who insisted I could and made me drive it round the car park before admitting that NO I can't drive one).
Same as I can't ride a moped/step through (witnessed by my assembled lerner riders as I tried to ride one of them across to the training area from the garage where they're stored and watched me crash it twice before abandoning it in a fit of pique and pushing it).
does that mean I'm disabled?

pendulum

AltheHibby wrote: »

It's been a while, okay, 20+ years, and I remember having those problems. Maybe it was just me!

It's not just you.
A standard gearbox can't know what the driver is about to do and choose a gear before that, it can only guess at the correct gear, and often it gets the decision wrong, no matter what the auto lovers say.

I quite like driving auto cars that have "manual mode" though. No clutch, but the driver can still decide to choose the gear.

I've driven thousands of miles in auto's but still prefer manuals.

TrickyWicky

pendulum wrote: »

It's not just you.
A standard gearbox can't know what the driver is about to do and choose a gear before that, it can only guess at the correct gear, and often it gets the decision wrong, no matter what the auto lovers say.

There is no defending this - you are correct. Auto boxes can't be 100% correct all the time but then a car is (IMO) and A => B machine not a rally vehicle. As long as it changes up at some point and down at some point thats all that worries most auto drivers including me.

pendulum wrote: »

I quite like driving auto cars that have "manual mode" though. No clutch, but the driver can still decide to choose the gear.

Tiptronic isn't it? Seems like a good idea to me but the only thing I'd be wary of is then forgetting to even use the clutch when using a normal manual.

pendulum wrote: »

I've driven thousands of miles in auto's but still prefer manuals.

I'm undecided on that. While I have a manual licence I do love my autos but as many folks have pointed out you can get a manual to do exactly as you want when you want and an auto may fluff it sometimes. My current car at 40mph will change up and down frequently trying to find the right gear and changing its mind. I've got used to it now but it used to annoy the hell out of me ages ago.

espresso

fannyadams wrote: »

I can't drive any vehicle with an automatic gearbox (as witnessed by the car hire people recently who insisted I could and made me drive it round the car park before admitting that NO I can't drive one).
Same as I can't ride a moped/step through (witnessed by my assembled lerner riders as I tried to ride one of them across to the training area from the garage where they're stored and watched me crash it twice before abandoning it in a fit of pique and pushing it).
does that mean I'm disabled?

Disabled is not the word that I would use to describe you - I can think of many others though!

TrickyWicky

Am I the only one who doesn't understand how the answers in the poll relate to the question?

Dave_C_2

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

You can do all that with an auto.

Reverse flick? Handbrake turn?
Since I posted I found that this both are possible with an auto box. According to this web site the reverse flick or J-turn is easier with an auto. You live and you learn!

Dave

TrickyWicky

In the real world how many people are bothered about doing stunts in an auto? - Most people are more bothered about the costs of running a car yet alone repairing one for stupidity.

thelawnet

fivetide wrote: »

I think we all know that has never been the case. Despite accusations to the contarary, this was the only thread I posted in yesterday.

You are trolling THIS THREAD.

You should go on countdown. Love to see you battle with dictionary corner and tell them the Oxford English is wrong.

The Oxford English Dictionary. Not the 'Oxford English', that's horrific use of language. It's even known as the OED.

I'm sure if I did they would understand that you can't just choose the wrong definition to suit your political agenda.

If I say 'you are an idiot', does anybody suppose that means 'you have an IQ of less than 30'? Of course not, even though that's a possible definition of the word.

From your own definition as an adjective:

"3.without ordinary capability; incompetent."

Try number 2.
"not having the necessary ability, qualification, or strength to perform some specified act or function"

Stop picking random irrelevant definitions.

That backs up what I said. I posted the accepted use of the word.

You posted the noun nobody uses.

kevin0410

TrickyWicky wrote: »

You'd know all about that, taking peoples text, misquoting it and twisting it to use against them.

Please everyone:

         \|||/       
         (o o)       
,----ooO--(_)-------.
| Please            |
|   don't feed the  |
|     TROLL's !     |
'--------------Ooo--'
        |__|__|      
         || ||       
        ooO Ooo

Please dont feed the troll's what?

TrickyWicky

Attention! You feed them attention and thats why they continue to troll a thread.