«

On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 6:52:30 PM UTC-7, Highway to Hell wrote:
> On 26/06/2012 9:20 PM, Lew wrote:
> > Nope.
> >
> > My car was $800.00 less expensive with a manual transmission than with
> > an automatic transmission. Manual gets better fuel economy. It gives better
> > control over the vehicle, especially in inclement weather. You can drop to
> > a lower gear and accelerate to pass more readily.
> >
> > Subconscious distrust of complicated technology, indeed! Sniff! It's a
> > rational economic decision for those of us skilled enough to drive a manual
> > transmission.
>
> Why am I not surprised that you'd not only have one, but be snobbish
> about it?

You seriously need to grow a sense of humor.

I suppose mine goes right over your head, based on your response.

Your snarkiness does not change the fact that the choice of a manual
transmission is a rational economic decision, and making that point
does not constitute snobbery, you silly troll, you.

--
Lew

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 09:05:11 -0700, Gene Wirchenko wrote:

> It is a rational choice if you know how to use a manual
> transmission.
>
And have a license that says you're qualified to use it.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

Martin Gregorie wrote:
> Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>
> > It is a rational choice if you know how to use a manual
> > transmission.
> >
> And have a license that says you're qualified to use it.

I live in the U.S. I know of no state here that has a separate driver's license
for manual-transmission vehicles.

--
Lew

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 20:15:04 +0000 (UTC), Martin Gregorie
<> wrote:

>On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 09:05:11 -0700, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>
>> It is a rational choice if you know how to use a manual
>> transmission.
>>
>And have a license that says you're qualified to use it.

I think most people would understand that and such things as
needing to have hands to operate the stickshift.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

On 27/06/2012 12:05 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> It is a tool that he says he knows how to use.
>
>> who chooses differently than him, in that and several other arenas.
>
> It is a rational choice if you know how to use a manual
> transmission.

Ah, so, you simply have the same elitist opinion he does. I see.

On 27/06/2012 12:32 PM, Leif Roar Moldskred wrote:
> Highway to Hell <> wrote:
>
>> I beg your *freaking* pardon? "Sniff! It's a rational blah blah for
>> those of us skilled enough blah blah" is about as
>> intellectually-snobbish as it gets. He clearly looks down on everyone
>> who chooses differently than him, in that and several other arenas.
>
> Knowing how to drive stick is _intellectually_ snobbish?

No, saying "Sniff! ... those of us skilled enough ..." is intellectually
snobbish.

On 27/06/2012 2:45 PM, Lew wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 6:52:30 PM UTC-7, Highway to Hell wrote:
>> On 26/06/2012 9:20 PM, Lew wrote:
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> My car was $800.00 less expensive with a manual transmission than with
>>> an automatic transmission. Manual gets better fuel economy. It gives better
>>> control over the vehicle, especially in inclement weather. You can drop to
>>> a lower gear and accelerate to pass more readily.
>>>
>>> Subconscious distrust of complicated technology, indeed! Sniff! It's a
>>> rational economic decision for those of us skilled enough to drive a manual
>>> transmission.
>>
>> Why am I not surprised that you'd not only have one, but be snobbish
>> about it?
>
> You seriously need to grow a sense of humor.

How ironic.

> I suppose mine goes right over your head, based on your response.

What humor?

> Your snarkiness does not change the fact that the choice of a manual
> transmission is a rational economic decision, and making that point
> does not constitute snobbery, you silly troll, you.

Who is "you silly troll, you"? There is nobody here by that name.

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:41:09 -0700 (PDT), Lew <>
wrote:

>Martin Gregorie wrote:
>> Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>
>> > It is a rational choice if you know how to use a manual
>> > transmission.
>> >
>> And have a license that says you're qualified to use it.
>
>I live in the U.S. I know of no state here that has a separate driver's license
>for manual-transmission vehicles.

I think that British Columbia used to have an endorsement
required on a licence in order to be able to drive a standard. That
could be way out of date now. It was from my childhood, and I am 51
now.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:41:09 -0700, Lew wrote:

> Martin Gregorie wrote:
>> Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>
>> > It is a rational choice if you know how to use a manual
>> > transmission.
>> >
>> And have a license that says you're qualified to use it.
>
> I live in the U.S. I know of no state here that has a separate driver's
> license for manual-transmission vehicles.
>
The countries where I've obtained driving licenses (NZ and the UK) both
have a restriction that prevents a person who learnt on an automatic from
driving a manual shift without additional training. The opposite does not
apply: learn on a manual gearbox and you're good to go on an automatic.

As I stupidly did my right leg a lot damage a few years ago I'm now
restricted to driving an automatic with a left-foot accelerator, which
makes sense: I can drive a conventionally equipped manual Hilux pickup
for short distances (2-3 km) but would not want to drive it on the road
for any distance. I presume you're used to similar restrictions in the
USA?


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

Martin Gregorie wrote:
> Lew wrote:
>> Martin Gregorie wrote:
>>> Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>>> It is a rational choice if you know how to use a manual
>>>> transmission.
>>>>
>>> And have a license that says you're qualified to use it.
>>
>> I live in the U.S. I know of no state here that has a separate driver's
>> license for manual-transmission vehicles.
>>
> The countries where I've obtained driving licenses (NZ and the UK) both
> have a restriction that prevents a person who learnt on an automatic from
> driving a manual shift without additional training. The opposite does not
> apply: learn on a manual gearbox and you're good to go on an automatic.
>
> As I stupidly did my right leg a lot damage a few years ago I'm now
> restricted to driving an automatic with a left-foot accelerator, which
> makes sense: I can drive a conventionally equipped manual Hilux pickup
> for short distances (2-3 km) but would not want to drive it on the road
> for any distance. I presume you're used to similar restrictions in the
> USA?

I personally am not. I know of no place in the U.S. that restricts one to
driving an automatic without a certification for manual transmissions. I do
not know of medical restrictions, e.g., having to have a left-foot accelerator
if you cannot use the right foot, but they might well exist as that is outside
my area of knowledge. I do know that if you need prescription eyewear you
are not permitted to drive without it on.