Are Gamers Safer Drivers?

thecarchik writes "Racing video games: many of us play them and love them. But do they really make us better drivers, as some say, or do they make us more dangerous on real-life tarmac? Two studies go head-to-head on the issue."

Comments

Depends on the game

[Josh Triplett]

Depends on the game in question.

Re:Depends on the game

[KiloByte]

Uhm, what does that game have to do to the article in question? Try Carmageddon!

Except for initial levels, actually trying to race becomes tedious, hard and unprofitable so you end up winning every level by crashing all opponents. The best and most profitable way is head-on collisions.

Due to great realism it damages you just a bit, and you can instantly repair paying cash -- with each collision with another car bringing far more than you pay for damages (so you can afford colliding with the environment).

If Carmageddon isn't the best way to learn how to drive safely, I don't know what is.

Re:Depends on the game

[MrEricSir]

Depending on your point of view, it's either funny or scary that I was playing Carmegeddon around the time I learned to drive.

Every so often I wasn't as alert on the road as I should have been, and started thinking in terms of scoring points. Now thankfully, I never did drive over any old ladies IRL, because those walkers would cause a lot of damage to the bearings.

Re:Depends on the game

[underqualified]

try playing grand theft auto for a few hours then go out with a real car.

i actually had to remind myself that i wasn't playing anymore.

Re:Depends on the game

[Vectormatic]

i had this same effect, but a bit more subtle.

At the time i was playing Project gotham racing 4. In that game, they just introduced bikes. The easiest way to win against a bike was when given the chance, just bodyslam them into the railing with your car when comming out of a corner or something, making them lose about 6-7 seconds, giving you a comfortable lead and breathing space to worry about car-driving competition.

Then one day i sat at the traffic lights, and a bike pulled up beside me, my first reaction was "if i just slam him to the side right of the line, i wont have to worry about him", thankfully it took about a tenth of a second for my brain to catch up and correct myself :)

Re:Depends on the game

[peragrin]

you drive around with a gun and crowbar in the front seat, and a hooker between your legs?

Re:Depends on the game

[fractoid]

Don't you? O.o

Re:Depends on the game

[fractoid]

Yeah, much as people try to deny it, practicing something like that over and over does structure your responses. That's the basic principle of any kind of training. It's also why games like Burnout (where you crash frequently and, while it's somewhat realistic, you instantly reset with a shiny new car) are dangerous - because they're training people who play them to believe, on some level, that crashing at high speed is a minor inconvenience rather than an often life-changing disaster. (Not that I don't love playing Burnout... but I watch myself very carefully when driving after doing so.)

Interestingly, I had a similar but opposite effect after the first time I played GTA 2. After spending about four hours at a party with everyone laughing ourselves silly while taking turns at trying to get gourangas (yes I went to those sorts of parties), the next day I jumped every time I heard a car behind me, expecting it to try and run me over for points and lulz.

Re:Depends on the game

[tompaulco]

Wow, I find the complete opposite is the case. I play Gran Turismo and the other day I was just noticing how in GT I always use both feet so I can jump on the brake and back on the gas quickly, but in real life I have never even thought about using anything other than my right foot. In the real world, since you are not racing you don't need to be off the brake and back on the gas so quickly, so you can and should use one foot. I have never had any trouble with having to remind myself whether I was playing a game or driving in real life.

Re:Depends on the game

[TheLink]

Depends on the person too (and the state the person is - fatigued, drunk etc).

If you treat "driving in real life" as a different mode from "driving game" then stuff like that just won't happen.

At least some people can be very context aware. So they have no problems switching from driving cars, flying planes, flying helicopters, riding bicycles without confusing themselves. You could still learn stuff in one mode and apply it to another, but it doesn't mean that you would automatically do the exact same things in a heli as you would in a plane (otherwise you'd be dead).

Of course if you're drunk or half-asleep or otherwise mentally impaired - then you might forget what context/mode you are in...

Re:Depends on the game

[Anonymous Coward]

try playing grand theft auto for a few hours then go out with a real car.

i actually had to remind myself that i wasn't playing anymore.

Sorry, I can't say that I've ever had a problem telling the difference between video game and reality, and I've always been into racing games. Been a gamer since I was probably 3-5 years old. Always hated GTA though--never cared for the "be bad and break the law just for the hell of it" bullshit that basically describes the series.

Video game and reality just don't compare. If you have a hard time telling the difference between the two and somehow, for some reason, video games change your behavior to the point of affecting your real life actions in everyday things like driving... then you've got some problems.

The biggest thing that gets me is driving down the highway, then getting on a normal road with a speed limit of 35MPH or less, and I keep finding myself creeping up toward 45 for a while, constantly having to remind myself to slow down. No video games needed, just some driving at 55-65 for a while and a sudden speed limit drop.

I'd say...

[Crimson Wing]

I'd say it's probably some of both.

Re:I'd say...

[Xest]

Yes, but it certainly doesn't work the other way around. Driving hasn't made me a better gamer, I still completely and utterly suck at racing games, seemingly flying off the track every 5 seconds,

Fortunately I don't do this in real life.

Perhaps being bad at racing games makes you a better driver in that you know you suck so badly at it you just generally don't bother trying to race, and instead prefer to do other things like run round shooting people and chopping them up with chainsaws... wait, no, that's not right either.

Perhaps these studies are both just shit.

Re:I'd say...

[somersault]

In a decent racing game you can learn how your car reacts at the limits of grip, which will serve you well in snow and rain for example, though yes also just driving slower works if you want to be inefficient :p

To be good in racing games you need to realise that slowing down adequately (pick a braking point by the track to help you judge when to brake, and try to brake *before* corners rather than on them - throughout a corner you need to be on the gas slightly to keep the car balanced/at a constant speed) helps you get round the corner faster (better line through, able to accelerate out again earlier), and overall it's better to go in too slow than too fast and end up off the track. It's useful to test the limits from time to time of course, to find out just how fast is too fast.

Re:I'd say...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but it certainly doesn't work the other way around. Driving hasn't made me a better gamer, I still completely and utterly suck at racing games, seemingly flying off the track every 5 seconds,

Fortunately I don't do this in real life.

If you drove at the same speeds IRL, you would.

And if you drove 45 MPH in the games, you'd probably stay on the track too.

Re:I'd say...

[peragrin]

In other words he needs situational awareness, that is very tough to get on a single monitor.

Personally I use my peripheral vision a lot. Playing Racing sims, and FPS games is tough because I can't see over my shoulder. I have been tempted for years to build a three monitor system to give me a little side to side views but there are so few games that support it well.

Re:I'd say...

[Xest]

Yes, this is a major part the problem with racing games. You just can't judge the distance to a corner or the speed you're doing in a racing game simply by the context of your surroundings (other than your speedometer) like you can in real life.

I know when I'm going too fast in my car because I start to feel and hear it in the engine and the car, I can better tell my surroundings, and can more easily judge the stopping distance required.

I imagine it's largely because on a 2D screen you just can't judge depth for corners like you can in a real car. Presumably some people get better at this playing enough but I just find it hard work most the time.

I played Need for Speed Hot Pursuit and Shift a fair bit over christmas, and I was fine with Hot Pursuit and started getting quite good because you can race 3rd person and it's a much more arcade style game, but I just couldn't play Shift. Forced into a drivers seat view things are just completely different.

Oddly I've always been good at the likes of Flight Sims though, and cockpit mode didn't cause me any problems here. Playing the recent Apache: Air Assault in cockpit only mode on Veteran difficulty I actually found damn good fun and online I found myself excelling at flying round canyons at speed, not crashing and pulling off some tough rocket shots as I flew by. I'm not sure why I find this so different.

Re:I'd say...

[somersault]

I imagine it's largely because on a 2D screen you just can't judge depth for corners like you can in a real car.

At very high speeds the stopping distance you require shoots up parabolically (exponentially? whatever :P ), so it becomes very difficult to judge even if you can tell the depth. Real racing drivers still have to use braking points by the side of the road after high speed straights, and similarly I'm fine with judging low speed corners on a 2D display.

You can get 3D with Gran Turismo 5 on a 3D TV, though I don't want to shell out for a new TV having just bought a nice 1080p HDTV 2 or 3 years ago.

Shift doesn't lock you to driver seat view. I think maybe if you set it to full pro settings it might lock to the cock-pit, but you can put it to custom settings, put everything else to pro, and leave the view on the bumper or outside if you want.

In combat flight sims it probably helps to be inside the cockpit otherwise the vehicle obscures your view of targets?

Re:I'd say...

[Xest]

I'll check Shift's settings when I get home, I was playing with the defaults and couldn't find an option to change, so maybe I just hadn't got far enough past the "tutorials" before I got fed up with it! I might find it more tolerable in 3rd person.

I don't think it's the aircraft obscuring targets in flight sims because I still find 3rd person easier and 1st person more of a challenge, only the difference is despite it being more of a challenge it's one I can step up to, which of course I can't in driving sims. You can see an example of Apache Air Assault and the person in the video nearly hitting the wall a few times here to compare:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAHIXZweKkY&feature=related

I can only presume that I just have a better feel for flight physics both fixed and rotary wing than I do for high speed racing perhaps, as guess maybe with a bit of time and perserverence I could perhaps get better at racing games, but whether NFS: Shift, Project Gotham Racing 3, Forza 2/3 I've always struggled to beat the medium let alone hard difficulties and even some easy have been a push when first playing. I've found arcadey games which are more about ramming people offroad like NFS: Most Wanted, NFS: Hot Pursuit and Flatout: Total Carnage easier but I think that's because these games give a bit in terms of racing ability and don't expect you to be able to race round a circuit as fast for the most part because they more often focus on ramming people off the road, which I am much better at than sticking to a track and saving a split second on a corner ;)

Re:I'd say...

[ekgringo]

I'm with you in that I also suck at almost every racing game I've ever played. Maybe it's the fact that I'm trying to steer using a stock controller, but it always seems as though I just think about turning and find myself bouncing off the other side of the track. In a car, you have a little play in the steering wheel before you actually start to turn. Maybe it's the difference in speed, but I can never seem to get the hang of racing games.

Re:I'd say...

[Crimson Wing]

I think the few "realistic" racing games I've played -- mainly Forza Motorsport -- have made me a *slightlt* better driver IRL. Not a huge difference, but noticeable.

On the subject of camera views, I tend to go wtih chase-cam for the more arcadey stuff, and nose-cam for the more realistic stuff.

Re:I'd say...

[danbert8]

Shift does have several camera options. You can do 3rd person, but it is extremely awkward if you have actual pedals and wheels. I built a racing simulator setup with a vehicle seat, a 40" LCD, and some speakers right behind your head, and it feels pretty realistic. However, I use the hood cam because it sucks staring through my broken windshield the whole race in the driver seat... Of course in real life you don't have to pass 16 other vehicles in 3 laps, so there is no need to ram through the crowd.

type of game matters!

[big ben bullet]

FTA: "Continental finds that frequent players of titles like Gran Turismo and Grand Theft Auto are more likely to crash their real-life cars than those that don't."

There's a huge difference between driving a car in Gran Turismo (or any racing sim for that matter) and driving one in Grand Theft Auto. If you can keep your car on the road in Gran Turismo, there's a good chance you can keep it on the road in real life. If you drive your car like Carl or Niko... well...

Re:type of game matters!

[dadelbunts]

That is bullshit. I play racing games religiously. Had over 20 racing titles on ps2 alone. Not a week goes by where i dont put in some hours in forza. Hell i learned to drive via gran turismo. 0 tickes 0 accidents And what the hell is a low percentage pass. Low percentage according to who.

Re:type of game matters!

[ikkonoishi]

If you can drive like Niko I think you need to get the Teflon taken off your tires.

I found that when I started driving my experience in how cars maneuvered in videogames helped me learn the ropes faster. Since the games had much different control schemes than actually driving I didn't transfer any bad habits.

Re:type of game matters!

[lxs]

Road rage carries over to discussion forums I see.

Re:type of game matters!

[AmiMoJo]

I think it is more to do with the competitive nature of games. In real life the best way to drive is considerately and somewhat cautiously, but in a game the only thing that really matters is beating everyone else to the finish line.

Even the summary is quite adversarial, putting the two studies "head to head".

Re:type of game matters!

[MikeDirnt69]

One thing is true: simulator physics really helps you when you start racing in real life. You'll jump a little ahead in the learning curve, but it doesn't necessarily make you a better driver if you where born to crash.

Re:type of game matters!

[cynyr]

how does that saying go?

"you can't make a slow driver fast, but you can make a fast driver safe" something to that effect.

Re:type of game matters!

[Anonymous Coward]

I honestly learned to drive in Grand Theft Auto 4. Long story short, I never got my license when I was 16. A decade later (the end of last year), GTA4 was a crucial tool to help me get my license. I spent 30 minutes a day for 2 weeks driving the speed limit in GTA4. I followed the stop lights. I learned to use the "look back" button to simulate checking my rear before pushing on the breaks. I actually practiced the 3 point turn in game. I didn't understand it when my original teacher tried to tell me how to do it.

Long story short: People in Liberty City seem like saner drivers than where I live. Game taught me patience and helped build confidence. I finally have my license now.

Re:type of game matters!

[tompaulco]

"Continental finds that frequent players of titles like Gran Turismo and Grand Theft Auto are more likely to crash their real-life cars than those that don't."
Really, and does it also mention that there is a strong correlation between people who play GTA and Gran Turismo and people who are relatively new and inexperienced drivers? No, why mention that. That would totally invalidate the survey that some special interest paid them to do.

Re:type of game matters!

[goose-incarnated]

When I started driving, the only experience I had of racing video games was "Test Drive II: The Duel". Sadly, it was nothing like a real car.

Re:type of game matters!

[PachmanP]

I think it is more to do with the competitive nature of games. In real life the best way to drive is considerately and somewhat cautiously, but in a game the only thing that really matters is beating everyone else to the finish line.

It sounds like somebody doesn't drive in a location with a lot of bad traffic.

Re:type of game matters!

[drinkypoo]

There's a huge difference between driving a car in Gran Turismo (or any racing sim for that matter) and driving one in Grand Theft Auto.

I won't say "you're doing it wrong", but Niko in particular has access to what seems to me to be a pretty fantastic physics simulation, and you have the option to not run into everything you see. (Sometimes, of course, running into something is the best course of action in the game...)

Re:type of game matters!

[RazorSharp]

Your anecdote obviously proves your point, whatever that was.

Learn to read.

Re:type of game matters!

[stewbacca]

Tickets and accidents are no indication of your driving skill (well, maybe accidents, if caused by lack of skill, as opposed to lack of attention, or failure to understand rules of the road, or an accident not of your fault). Now if you'd like to take a few laps around Road Atlanta or Laguna Seca with me, I'll judge your driving skill.

Well made racing sims (and no, not Forza or Gran Turismo, while fun, not exactly the best simulators) teach you about car control in racing situations. Granted, they teach you about car control of a Formula 1 car, or a NASCAR car, or some other racing form that rarely translates to around-town driving, but it's still a heightened awareness of how weight transfer and throttle/brake control are related, and how chassis dynamics are affected by certain types of corners under various loads, and how to effectively overcome that with driving skill.

Most importantly, if you race online with other serious sim racers, you learn the art of race craft, which to non-racers is really inexplicable. You have to experience it to understand it, and most people can't afford real racing. Sim racing, if taken seriously, can develop proper race craft.

Re:type of game matters!

[X0563511]

I'd back this up with some personal experience.

Once upon a time, my being used to an onramp coupled with poor visibility and signage resulted in my spinning out on a highway onramp in California.

It was one of the loop styles... except for some reason there was a second loop that was never there before! I came out of the first loop and was up to highway speed to merge... and here comes a SECOND loop! Shit!

I managed to stay on the road during the spin and when I finally touched the guardrail, I was already almost completely stopped (A penny sized scrape in my bumper paint was all I walked away with).

It happened to fast for me to think it through, but the racing game driving that I had done in the past must have programmed me enough that I did was you're supposed to do naturally (IE, brake as much as possible before entering turn, turn wheels in direction of spin, not panicking, getting the fuck out of the way once back under control, etc)

Either that, or I was very lucky. I've not been in a single incident since, and it's been 6 years since then. I was a fairly new driver back then (less than 1.5 years driving). In case this matters, the car was a poor/moderately maintained 1991 Nissan 240SX.

Re:type of game matters!

[Phoghat]

If playing video games were detrimental, why would the Air Force even bother with simulators to afford pilots and astronaut candidates practice before the fly a multi-billion dollar aircraft?

Re:type of game matters!

[Phoghat]

I guess it all depends on whether the player actually plays the game to win or not. A n00b will crash his/her car just to see what happens when you crash and that's not going to make him a better game player or driver.

Re:type of game matters!

[Reapy]

Same experience here for me as a new driver. I was driving down a straight road, to my right was another road meeting the one I was driving down, cars were lined up on my road to make a left onto the second road, and cars were lined up coming off that road to make a left on my road. Basically a T situation with me on the left side of the T.

Anyway I'm going about 40, some woman in a mini van on the road to my right pulls up to the stop sign, stops, presumably looks, doesn't see me at all, and proceeds to pull out, I slam the brakes, but she was so close that I had to steer around her or I'd have slammed into her driver side door.

So I avoid left, and then I can still clearly remember the older guy's face in the car waiting to turn down that street as I start coming right at him, then, I was able to dodge back to the right into my lane, and then feeling like my car was all fine for a second and I'm through it, the car starts fishtailing all over the place while I lost my adrenaline and that was a lot harder to bring under control than the power skid.

In hindsight obviously it was the ABS and possibly the all wheel drive (subaru legacy wagon) that saved my life (well I had an airbag, that woman probably didn't have a side impact bag) because I was able to steer around the obstacles, but I also can't help but feel like all the hours of random driving games I had played where I usually weave and fishtail through traffic came into play somewhere too.

But this makes sense, it is common practice to train pilots and drivers on simulators, and playing a well developed racing sim will help you in your real life driving in the capacity that the simulator mimics real life. Sure GTA won't teach you too much, but it sure will make you a lot better at finding gaps in moving objects like when crossing an intersection you should probably steer into an oncoming car and slip behind it rather than turn away from it and trying to cross in front.

What I got FTA:

[Aerorae]

"We're not sure..."

Re:What I got FTA:

[Joce640k]

"...more funding needed"

VIC20

[sixthousand]

My first driving game (perhaps video game overall) experience was a VIC20 based vertical scroller with keyboard controls, and I've never had an accident. Evidence conclusive.

The Anti-Gaming Study is Questionable

[mentil]

TFA says that those who play games are more likely to be involved in certain types of accidents, but doesn't say whether they controlled for age. The accidents they're more likely to be involved in? Running red lights, road rage, or "low-percentage passes" whatever that means. I suspect playing Gran Turismo doesn't lead to running red lights or road rage.

Re:The Anti-Gaming Study is Questionable

[Anonymous Coward]

It's also not a study. Jalopnik has more. It's a survey of drivers in the age range 17 to 39, half of whom were gamers. Possible sources of error include the possibility that gamers are more likely to be young and male and that this is the actual cause of their recklessness. It's not apparent from the report whether or not they accounted for demographic factors but the way the figures are reported - x% of gamers vs. y% of non-gamers - suggests not. Also it's asking drivers to describe their own behaviour so it may just be that gamers are more self concious than other drivers, or just prouder of their bad behaviour. And the there's the causation issue - boy racers like racing games.

OTOH, the pro-gaming study didn't actually include any evidence that gamers' superior reaction times translated to safer driving. So neither study draws much conclusion either way.

Yours faithfully,

Buzz Killington

Re:The Anti-Gaming Study is Questionable

[BigSes]

To my knowledge, a low-percentage pass is overtaking another vehicle when the upcoming road is obsurced in some way. As in, you push to pass the junker in front of you without completely being able to see if the passing lane ahead is completely open. At that point, you may have to quickly shove yourself back in front of the car you just passed, as your passing lane may be taken. I assume it means "low-percentage of success" or "low-visibility of oncoming traffic or hazards."

Re:The Anti-Gaming Study is Questionable

[stewbacca]

But do gamers have superior reaction times because they play games, or do they play games because they are good at them, because of their superior reaction times? My bet is on the latter.

Not all skills transfer

[Anonymous Coward]

I always get pulled over when I try up up down down left right left right on the freeway.

Re:Not all skills transfer

[quantumhuman]

Brake Brake Gas Brake Gas is still bugged, but at least I only get strange looks.

Re:Not all skills transfer

[Dabido]

You forgot to press SQUARE as many times as you can whilst holding down the R1 button ... or something.

No

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes you a better driver is:

- Respect for other people on the road
- Courteous driving
- Attentiveness to road conditions and what others are doing.
- Doing a defensive driving course that teaches you how long it *actually* takes to stop.

I have not RTFA (proper slashdot style!) - if it states that gaming effects different attitudes then I am all for changing my opinion.

Re:No

[mark-t]

What makes you a better driver is:

• Respect for other people on the road
• Courteous driving
• Attentiveness to road conditions and what others are doing.
• Doing a defensive driving course that teaches you how long it *actually* takes to stop.

Quoted for truth. Most video games, save those that perhaps are specifically geared towards teaching safe driving practices (of which I've heard of exactly zero outside of any sort of classes or programs for driver's education ), do not typically reward any of the above, and a person who plays driving video games will not be practicing any more than anybody else who is behind the wheel of a real vehicle just as frequently. At the very worst, playing driving games could possibly even create bad driving habits as the above practices are ignored.

Re:No

[Totenglocke]

You're confusing the different meanings of the word "better". You mean "better" as in "friendlier to other drivers", where this study means "better at actually driving the car" (judging angles for corners, slow-in-fast out with corners, learning how hard of a corner you can pull and the warning signs of when you're getting close to the limit, etc).

In regards to your comment about a driving course that teaches you how long it "actually" takes to stop - there are SO many different factors involved in braking that there is no "actual" time / distance it takes to stop from a given speed for cars in general - hell, even ONE car if you change the brake pads, rotors, tires, and suspension can have two dramatically different braking distances.

The real key to being a good driver is to know your car. That's one of the reasons I strongly advocate manual transmissions - not only does it cut out the whole "I've got a burger in one hand and a cell phone in the other" driving, but it also requires you to intimately know your car and pay more attention, which makes you a much better driver.

Re:No

[cronius]

At the very worst, playing driving games could possibly even create bad driving habits as the above practices are ignored.

So it's probably not wrong to conclude that since none of the mechanics above are relevant in video games (as you're saying, they're ignored) there's no transfer of either good or bad habits to real life.

(It would be different if e.g. you drive around in congested traffic for a big part of the game and learn that if you time your red lights correctly you can plow through an intersection.)

I think car physics are probably more transferable. I used to love Colin McRea Rally 2, and with an expensive wheel with force feedback I remember the angst of driving on ice and feeling *no force in the wheel* during a complete loss of grip. Whether it makes you a better driver ... does driving a rally car on a track make you a better driver?

Re:No

[Culture20]

The real key to being a good driver is to know your car. That's one of the reasons I strongly advocate manual transmissions - not only does it cut out the whole "I've got a burger in one hand and a cell phone in the other" driving, but it also requires you to intimately know your car and pay more attention...

to your car and less attention to the road. I like my fake-manual transmission when I want to accelerate fast, but I can feel the extra thought it takes to shift.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

In the UK, most cars have manual transmissions, and deaths per vehicle mile are less than half the rate in the USA. The two factors may or may not be related.
 
Italians drive like lunatics, though.

Re:No

[Caue]

Yeah, let's just disregard anything said by those damn scientists. bah. Both my parents are university teachers, with good resumes. The thing they hate the most is when their students say things like: "I reckon yadda yadda yadda..." or "I think yadda yadda yadda", pulling their own concepts with no research or anything like it. I know it seems common sense, but maybe you guys shouldn't be so quick in your assumptions - always remember: in a perfect world, a research only comes available to the public when it's been reviewed by peers. So it's conclusions are far more auspicious than yours, even if you common sense tells otherwise. I'm not saying someone should be naive and trust anything they read, but in order to say out loud your own conclusion on a topic, at least do some research, get an statistical proof of concept and publish it. Only then you'll have a fair ground of discussion.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

"I have not RTFA (proper slashdot style!)" - if i had mod points, i'd mod you insightful simply for this.

Re:No

[phoenix321]

Please, repeat after me:

Correlation does not imply causation

It may have everything to do with education required for licenses, wider roads, narrower roads, lower or higher average speeds due to different population density, larger or smaller cars due to individual preferences, taxes, cost of gasoline and/or the insane density of speed trap cameras in the UK.

In short: it is not clear how many cars in the UK have automatic transmission and how many are manual. Neither is it for the US. Both countries differ wildly in so many important aspects of traffic safety that any and all comparisons of singular factors must be ridiculously flawed.

Compare accidents per kilometer between automatic and manual transmissions within ONE country, account for differences in driver age and social stratum (older and / or richer drivers pay the the premium for automatic transmissions) and then we'll draw any conclusions from them.

Re:No

[dakameleon]

Exactly this. The UK's road network isn't nearly as extensive as the US road network, and while the measurement taken there is deaths per vehicle mile, you can bet your bottom dollar the average speed for that vehicle mile is very different in the US and the UK. Now I know speed is not the only factor in road deaths, but it's certainly a powerful factor for severity of injury.

I'd also cite the counter-example of Australia, where autos and manuals are nearly equal, with a more extensive road network than the UK but not so much as the US, yet only has a slightly higher death rate than the UK. Compulsory seatbelts help!

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

What made me a better driver was being a motorcycle rider prior to driving cars. Everytime I got on my bike I turned my brain to "everyone is out to kill me" mode (which in many ways is true, motorcycles appear invisible to most car drivers, sadly), and act accordingly. Those "survival" techniques carried over very well to the 4 wheel world, I learned to observe traffic more closely, to be proactive instead of merely reactive, to recognize the potential dangerous situations well before they actually happen. In my opinion most car drivers would become much better drivers if they had to ride motorcycles exclusively for a few months

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, repeat after me:

Correlation does not imply causation

In the UK, most cars have manual transmissions, and deaths per vehicle mile are less than half the rate in the USA. The two factors may or may not be related.

Bolded the important part. While I'm all for stomping out that fallacy, let's not spam it on every little thing we see. All the AC did was point out that it is possible they are related, and might be worthy of further investigation. If there were a reverse correlation (is that the right term? It's been a couple years since I took stats), that would cast a lot of doubt on the idea that driving a manual made you a safer driver.

Re:No

[phoenix321]

This correlation-causation fallacy needs hammered in everyone's minds, since it accounts for so many wrong decisions, prejudices and sheer crazyness.

Of course there might be a possible relation, but when comparing countries so different in terms of traffic and roads like the UK and the USA, it can not yield a single hint of a theory. It can only mislead or confuse, so it has a negative measure of information content.

Re:No

[iangoldby]

Car physics are largely irrelevant when you are driving courteously, paying attention, and using sensible defensive driving techniques.

Car physics become important when you take a corner too fast, overtake in the wrong place, don't allow sufficient stopping distance, become distracted, or someone cuts you up and you haven't planned an escape route. The trick is not to get into that situation in the first place.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Most video games, [...] do not typically reward any of the above

I'd have to say that most videogames that I play tend to reward paying attention to surroundings pretty well.

Even a game like Diddy Kong Racing requires you to keep looking ahead for oil slicks and the like while also keeping track of where everyone is around you.

Re:No

[Xacid]

One of the best pieces of advice on how to be a better driver given to me by my driving instructor ages ago: BE PREDICTABLE.

Simple as that. It's easy to remain safe on the road when you can anticipate events - even stupid events with enough warning.

Beyond that - I wish people would realize tailgating doesn't gain them anything. Rather - I wish officers would start enforcing this more than speeding. This isn't NASCAR where drafting is ok. This is a bio-mechanical ecosystem filled with machines that crunch and families who'll die. I can work with people who speed and operate predictably. I can't work with asses who invade my "buffer zone" and risk my safety.

Re:No

[Totenglocke]

Please repeat after me - correlation also does not imply a lack of causation. Yes, we all know that just because two things are correlated that it doesn't mean one causes the other - but your implication that it's impossible for one thing to cause another when two things that are correlated is absurd.

Re:No

[Totenglocke]

Spoken like someone who's never driven a manual. You pay attention to the road because you need to know what's coming so you know when to shift, what gear you need (hills, corners, etc) - you pay more attention to how close you get to other drivers (especially when stopping at hills) and you pay more attention to everything going on. Every person I know who went from driving a manual on a regular basis to driving an automatic on a regular basis openly admits that owning an automatic has made them a worse driver because it doesn't require any thought or attention to operate.

I like my fake-manual transmission when I want to accelerate fast, but I can feel the extra thought it takes to shift.

When you own a manual, there's no conscious thought for shifting gears - it's a vague "back of your head" thought process, just like how you don't actively think about how your legs move when you walk. You just do. Please, learn to actually drive a manual and spend a few hundred hours practicing driving one before assuming that you know anything about what it's like to drive one.

Not to mention the wussamatics with the paddle shifters (I'm talking actual automatics, not sequential transmissions) are the ultimate in faking it. It's the car equivalent of "beating" a game using God Mode.

Oh, and don't worry - it's not just you. Even my best friends who own automatics know that I look down on them for not buying a real car that takes skill to drive.

Re:No

[SleazyRidr]

I once played a game that was called "Bus Driver" (or something like that) where you had to drive a bus. You lost points for getting into accidents, running red lights, accelerating/braking too hard, etc. It was kinda interesting. I'm pretty sure it didn't sell too many copies.

Re:No

[maxwell demon]

In the UK, most cars have manual transmissions, and deaths per vehicle mile are less than half the rate in the USA. The two factors may or may not be related.

Italians drive like lunatics, though.

Also, in the UK you drive on the left side of the road. Oh, and you have a queen.

Thinking about it, it's probably the queen. :-)

Re:No

[ElectricTurtle]

As another manual purist I wholly agree with all of the above. The nice thing about manuals is even an old car can beat a lot of new automatics from a dead stop simply because the manual driver can torque the lower gears as long as they want. Downside of course is in heavy traffic it feels like you're walking to your destination. However, each year it becomes harder and harder to find a good manual car, and you can forget manual trucks and vans, they haven't existed in decades. Pretty soon the only people with manuals in North America will be classic car collectors.

Re:No

[phoenix321]

Correlation does not imply causation.

I did not say anything more and wouldn't do so. "No implied causation" also implies "no implied lack of causation".

To fully confuse the thing: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

"UK people drive more manuals, have lower road deaths per mile as US people, who drive more automatics. But Italians drive like crazy and they also drive manuals."

"X and Y may or may not be connected by causality and I have an unquantifiable gut feeling about both being true" is useless for a reasonable discussion as the statement "Tonight's forecast: Dark. Continued darkness until widely scattered light in the morning." (Thanks Wikipedia). Discussions like these lead to Claude Shannon's ghost beating the shit out of all participants with his bare hands - and we should leave that to the politicians.

This thread is now about the question if Bruce Schneier would win an argument against Claude Shannon.

Re:No

[Windowser]

You can still buy it : http://www.busdrivergame.com/

Re:No

[Pikoro]

Can't agree more. I drove a car for 15 years before I got my first motorcycle. Ended up driving the motorcycle 29km to work and back every day. After doing that for a month, I have never driven a car the same way since. I check my mirrors and blind spots more often looking for bikes and such since I wouldn't want someone to kill me when I was on a bike.

Almost thinking that a motorcycle licence should be a prerequisite to getting a normal vehicle license...

Re:No

[JTsyo]

In the GT licensing part, there are some that are just braking tests. You speed down the track and have to brake within a given area. When I had driven through some slush and started sliding, instincts from GT rally racing helped me stay in control. Playing enough gives your body the muscle memory on how to react in certain situations. While everything doesn't transfer, there are useful things that does. There was also a story about one of the top simulation F1 driver given a shot in a real F1. He did pretty well but after a few laps, his body couldn't take it.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

That said, my anecdote involves doing all of those things, but still nearly spinning out while driving on a highway in some snow. Thanks to Gran Turismo, I was familiar with how cars handled in such situations. I was then able to regain control of the vehicle. Driving video games prepared me for unpredictable extreme situations.

Re:No

[w_dragon]

Bull. As someone who learned manual for the first 10 or so years driving, then switched to automatic I can say that if you're good at driving manual then it makes no difference if you're driving manual or automatic. The motions and decisions around switching gears just becomes habit and you don't think about it any more than you think about pushing on the gas to speed up. A manual does not take more skill to drive, it just takes a little practice. These days they can't even match an automatic for gas mileage, and in a few more years they won't be able to match an electric for acceleration so there really will be no point to buying manual (other than a small cost savings, perhaps)

Re:No

[grimdawg]

Repeat after me: 'Correlation does not imply causation' does not imply 'correlation is not useful'.

Moreover you've spent the rest of your post making an entirely different point! Namely, that the correlation might not exist. Which, I'll add, he conceded before you even attacked him!

Re:No

[tixxit]

Defensive driving is actually often rewarded in racing games. Many racing games have such a low tolerance for failure (crashing, going off the track, etc) that staying clear of the other cars, being attentive, watching other cars, and knowing how long it takes to stop in game is pretty much a necessity to win. And while it certainly isn't your life, the prospect of having to redo (and win) the previous 4 tracks in the championship you just raced (30+ minutes) is a pretty good motivation to simply be defensive, even if it means taking 2nd or 3rd once in a while.

That said, the 2 skills (video games & driving) are largely disjoint and I think most people understand the difference.

Re:No

[PPalmgren]

Thank you for pointing out heavy traffic, its nice to know some manual drivers understand that facet. As someone who drives 30+ minutes 2x a day 5x a week in stop-and-go traffic, I would never touch a manual. Some things are worth effort, and shifting my car every 15 seconds for 5 hours a week is not one of them.

Another point is out-of-shape or old people: I know some older people here who have switched from manuals solely due to the soreness in their leg from driving in that same traffic. I'd rather other drivers not be focused on the pain in their leg and be more focused on the road. No, telling them to get in shape is not an acceptable option: two of these people were in major accidents that weren't their fault, and have medical reasons they can no longer maintain strong muscles.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

The real key to being a good driver is to know your car. That's one of the reasons I strongly advocate manual transmissions - not only does it cut out the whole "I've got a burger in one hand and a cell phone in the other" driving, but it also requires you to intimately know your car and pay more attention, which makes you a much better driver.

Actually it doesn't eliminate people multitasking while they drive - it just makes it so that they have to cradle that cellphone in their shifting shoulder while they steer with their knees and eat their burger. I drive a manual and I like it (and agree that I feel it gives me more control over the vehicle and makes me a better driver) but people that can't avoid driving without distractions aren't going to change their ways just because they drive a car that requires more interaction.

Re:No

[vgerclover]

Another point is out-of-shape or old people: I know some older people here who have switched from manuals solely due to the soreness in their leg from driving in that same traffic.

May be that's a sign that they shouldn't be driving?

I'd rather other drivers not be focused on the pain in their leg and be more focused on the road. No, telling them to get in shape is not an acceptable option: two of these people were in major accidents that weren't their fault, and have medical reasons they can no longer maintain strong muscles.

I've never understood the American insistence of driving everywhere, even within cities where you do have other ways of transportation that require no mental nor physical involvement to use, leaving both your hands and mind free to do as you please with that time.

Re:No

[blankinthefill]

Top Gear did a really interesting segment awhile ago where they talked (a little) about Finnish drivers. One of the interesting things that they talk about is how Finland produces some of the best drivers in the world. The reason for that is that the Finns take driving very very seriously, and they basically learn to rally drive when they learn to drive. When you consider the conditions that they typically have to drive in, this makes perfect sense. So I would say yes, driving a rally car on a track makes you a better driver. Note, however, that better driver does NOT mean that you follow the law, it just means that you are better at handling your car. For anyone interested, here's the segment in question.

Re:No

[kilfarsnar]

to your car and less attention to the road. I like my fake-manual transmission when I want to accelerate fast, but I can feel the extra thought it takes to shift.

The reason you can feel the extra thought is that you let the car shift most of the time. In my car with a manual transmission, I will be in third gear and not even remember shifting. It becomes automatic. Plus, one has a lot more control over a car with a manual transmission.

Re:No

[kilfarsnar]

I will second that. A few years back I went to one of those F1 go-kart racing places. The whole time I was racing I was thinking about Gran Turismo. The physics in that game are very realistic, and the skills I learned in the game transferred directly to the track; when to start braking, when to turn in, what angle to look for, when to start accelerating again, etc. I ended up 2nd out of 20, and the buy who beat me was a German who was used to driving his Porsche on the autobahn.

Re:No

[Cowmonaut]

If after two weeks of driving a manual you still have to think to shift then you're doing something wrong. Really, once you drive a manual for a while it becomes second nature and you don't think about it. Since I've switched I'll never be able to back to an automatic and be comfortable for long periods of time.

Re:No

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Ha! That's a fun conclusion. Let's think about this. In a manual, when you shift up or down, it dramatically affects how your car is going to respond (more power, or mroe speed? etc.). Whereas if you drive an automatic transmission, your car is going to respond in whatever manner it is programmed to. So, driving stick, you pay attention to the road, the grade, the bank, and so on, because you need to know the appropriate power necessary to negotiate a maneuver given the road. Driving automatic, however, you just go into the maneuver trusting your car to do the right thing for you. And, on the chance that your car shifts down when you don't want it to, or shifts up when you don't want it to, you ask yourself, "What the fuck is my car doing?" Whereas, since you shifted to your gear in the stick, you can shift out or stay put based on your judging of the conditions (the shifting action itself takes no attention, it's pure instinct).

So, in which scenario are you actually paying attention to your car, and in which scenario are you actually paying more attention to the road? Think about it.

Re:No

[PPalmgren]

Just because your situation doesn't require it doesn't mean its not required in some situations. I live in a city with a million people, and the transportation you describe does not exist. Not driving is not an option unless you live downtown and work downtown, which isn't the majority of people. Even if you do work downtown, most people don't make the kind of money required to live comfortably in that location. My condo would cost 400% more if it was within 2 miles of my old office. Also, peoople change jobs and would have to change housing under your ideal. It isn't practical to do what you suggest.

You would rather people be left without options than allow your idealism to be dented. This is the same radical behavior used by left and right purists who can't get shit done because they don't comprimise. I suggest you step back and look at your ideas from a birds eye view and evaluate it more logically.

Re:No

[darkwing_bmf]

In regards to your comment about a driving course that teaches you how long it "actually" takes to stop - there are SO many different factors involved in braking that there is no "actual" time / distance it takes to stop from a given speed for cars in general - hell, even ONE car if you change the brake pads, rotors, tires, and suspension can have two dramatically different braking distances.

So what? Of course there will be technical differences in stop times but general rules (heuristics) exist and those are more useful than giving up on safety.

For instance: There is a certain minimum amount of reaction time you need to be able to stop without hitting anything. This is why tailgating is so bad. For most people and cars if you give yourself at least 2 or 3 seconds of space between you and the car in front of you that will be sufficient. Adjust upwards for poor weather or if you're driving a heavier vehicle that can't stop on a dime.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem I have with this line of thinking is that it seems too easy to abuse to silence anyone that would dare disagree with you. Every idea started somewhere, and I find my judgment superior to the majority of my so-called "peers". So until I find a situation where I can't ever seem to make the right decision, I think I'll smile at anyone that disregards my ideas based on the fact that I'm not "published" instead of taking two seconds to conduct a thought experiment with me and see if the idea is even remotely workable first.

Re:No

[Phaedrus420]

Or when a deer jumps out in front of you. Or somebody tries to pass coming up over the hill from the other direction. I met both of these situations early in my driving career, the guy in my lane was while I was still on my learner's permit. I was glad that I already had years of fake experience.
Games DO offer positive feedback, in that not crashing lets you win the race, and even in games where crashing is part of the fun, staying in control makes a difference.

Re:No

[ILuvRamen]

Apparently "regular" people have a response time of about 500 ms and last time mine was tested, it's between 50 and 100 ms. That means I just avoided hitting something someone else plowed right into because they don't have trained reaction capabilities from games. I've not hit about 3 deer here in Wisconsin due to stepping on the brake just in time and coming within feet of them. Also, gamers tend to stay cooler under pressure. One time a flatbed of 6" round duct piping came loose and there were ducts rolling around on the freeway about 5 cars up from me and I managed to not freak out and simply dodge two of them in a stylish back and forth manuever that barely squealed the tires. Some non-gamer would have probably said OHMAHGAWD!!! and ran them all over and crashed into the side barrier. So yeah, focus, staying calm, and reaction time are huge when it comes to driving safety. Now, if you drive like an idiot in a game and then do the same in real life, you're just stupid and careless and it has nothing to do with games.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, and don't worry - it's not just you. Even my best friends who own automatics know that I look down on them for not buying a real car that takes skill to drive.

I'd love to see you drive in stop and go traffic for over an hour, with your fancy, "skill-needed", manual-gear car.

Part of what makes a good driver is actually getting driving as a sub-conscious function, habit, whatever. If you need to think about it, you're doing it wrong.

-XcepticZP

Re:No

[arbarbonif]

My problem is slamming on the brake the first time I would normally take the car out of gear (stupid break pedal where the clutch should be). It usually only takes the one time before I remember tho.

Re:No

[drinkypoo]

Having spent lots of time driving in a variety of ways in a variety of light vehicles both automatic and manual I feel compelled to chime in here. Right now I am driving two automatic diesels, a '92 F250 with an E40D and an '82 MBZ 300SD with what I am told is a transmission based on a 1930s Chrysler design. Both are designed and intended to be shifted fairly frequently; the E40D has an OD disable button which as you moight imagine comes in handy on a 3/4 ton truck, and the MBZ has a buttonless, gated shifter. The truck's major flaw is hard shifts when empty. The car is weird in that you have to rev it up before it will downshift for you, which is pretty annoying when you're actually driving for performance. That's not very fast in that car, which is just fine with me. My current shifter has a cute little clicking lock to kick it down into first gear which it otherwise only uses when it really needs it.

Before that I had a '93 Impreza with one of those fakeymanual automagics, an early one that doesn't like to lock the TC and thus delivers crappy mileage. But you could shift it with some impunity and it was even smart enough to do auto rev matching on down shifts. Probably the smoothest automatic I've driven yet, and I have driven some newer stuff but nothing spendy.

Before that Ihad a 1989 240SX with fancy lowered suspension, full metal pads and 5.1 fluid, and a short-throw shifter... just a fun little canyon toy with 30 MPG. It was impractical in Lake county where the roads are crap so I sold it. It of course had a five speed and let me tell you, I could drive that car as smooth as you like in spite of it being sprung like a tank. Further, because you could choose your gear, any kind of speed modulation (especially down hill) was much easier to control since you could do it with one foot.

Anyway, my point is that once you're used to the manual then you don't have to think about it any more, your body just does it like you just walk. But the automatic you always have to second-guess. In the absence of some kind of readout (which you then have to watch) you don't know what it's thinking even if it doesn't depend on hydraulics. Having to play accelerator pedal games or muck with shifters rather than just putting the lever where your hand knows it goes is at least as complicated as operating a clutch.

Re:No

[Aranykai]

Or have to dodge a driver who pulled out in front of you, avoid a child running into a street chasing a ball, correct a slide on black ice so that you don't spin the car into a tree, etc...

Knowing how to handle those situations is admirable. Claiming you shouldn't have those skills because you shouldn't be in the situation is not what I would describe as "driving defensively". Full disclosure, I have played GT series since the first one came out and I have been driving for 8 years now, 0 accidents, 0 tickets.

Re:No

[iangoldby]

I certainly don't claim you shouldn't have those skills. If you do get into a bad situation, then being able to keep your car under control in an extreme manoeuvre is obviously going to be better than losing control.

My point is simply that we should never think of such skills as a substitute for driving in such a way as to avoid getting into those extreme situations in the first place.

The thing I found surprising when I did a short defensive driving course is just how much you can do to avoid emergency situations. If a child runs out in front of you it is not inevitable that you will have almost no time to react. A really good defensive driver will have seen the signs that a child was going to run out before it even happened.

Really good drivers all have one thing in common: Whenever an accident happens, or nearly happens, they are somewhere else. They are always calm and never seem to have to do anything suddenly. It is a real skill, and I'm nowhere near attaining it, though it is something I aspire to. Really got to work on that concentration ;-(

Re:No

[yurtinus]

"Defensive driving" is a bad term. Folks drive slow and ignorantly and call themselves defensive drivers. They drive passively and let traffic happen to them rather then make themselves flow with it. Call it "proactive driving." It's something they pound into motorcyclists: Read traffic, identify potential threats, plan ahead and act accordingly. Know what is around you and where your potential escape routes are. Know when you need to open up the throttle to get past something and when you need to lay off and give more space. Know the area you're driving through - Residential you watch out for kids and pets. Deer prone you slow down. There's a whole heap of information that drivers know but don't employ when they're passively commuting from point A to B. Sure they'll react if something gets in their way, but they won't be looking out to try to anticipate the problem in the first place.

Yeah, I pretty much agree with what you say, but I've gotten into some ... discussions... with friends of mine who drive passively but claim it's defensive simply because they're going slower than traffic.

Re:No

[yurtinus]

It absolutely takes more skill to drive a manual than an automatic. That's why somebody that starts automatic has to 'learn' manual, but the reverse doesn't apply. Once you've gotten the muscle memory down and the feel for when you need to shift, there's really not much difference to driving either transmission.You've got the muscle memory, so you don't notice the switch. Take somebody that's never driven a manual and put them behind the wheel and you'll see it's pretty clear there is a skill that must be learned. Most folks that drive manuals don't do it for the gas mileage (there's been negligible difference for years), they don't do it for the price (especially if you buy used where manuals usually demand a premium), they do it for control. With no torque converter there is consistent power delivery every time. With no hydraulic/electric/howeveric shifting mechanism, shifting is absolutely predictable. Sure, if you drive the same automatic transmission often enough, you can "tell" it when to shift, but the level of control simply isn't there.

Re:No

[iangoldby]

Agreed. I don't mind if you call it something other than 'defensive.'

Re:No

[yurtinus]

30MPG out of your 240sx? Damn, I'm doing something wrong :(

Re:No

[vgerclover]

And isn't that a problem with the public transport available to you then? I travel 20 km each day all in subway or bus. I get from one point to the other in one hell of a big city in about an hour.

You would rather people be left without options than allow your idealism to be dented. This is the same radical behavior used by left and right purists who can't get shit done because they don't comprimise. I suggest you step back and look at your ideas from a birds eye view and evaluate it more logically.

This isn't a matter of idealism. I don't see what is so radical of thinking that public transportation should be efficient and cheap enough for one to be able to move across a city without the need of a car. If people that have problem driving are pretty much stranded, then there is an problem that isn't solved by throwing cars at it.

Re:No

[Totenglocke]

Well my question is why do you continue to live in a city with such horrible traffic instead of moving to one of the countless other cities that DON'T have that problem? And even when I have been stuck in 1 hour+ crawling traffic, it's not really an issue in newer manuals (over the last say 20 years) because their clutches don't require nearly as much pressure to operate.

No, telling them to get in shape is not an acceptable option: two of these people were in major accidents that weren't their fault, and have medical reasons they can no longer maintain strong muscles.

I'm confused due to your wording - were these accidents caused by someone else or caused because they could no longer drive a manual properly and crashed?

Re:No

[stewbacca]

More for your list of what makes a better driver:

- Doing the posted speed limits when safe to do so, as opposed to being the only a-hole going 30 in a 45.
- Staying out of the left lane except for passing, and, if you are in the left lane, you better be going faster than the car in the right lane
- Not freaking the hell out when it rains (yes, Texans, I'm looking at you), and turning your headlights on in the rain (you may be able to see, but i can't see your gray pickup in the fog).
- Actually accelerating on the on-ramp to get up to freeway speed instead of going 30 and merging with a -30 mph difference
- Not pulling out in front of me from a side street when there's not another car in sight
- If you must pull out in front of me, accelerate to the speed limit
- Defensive driving courses are shit. Race driving courses teach you far more about the limits and capabilities than a defensive driving course that bores you with insurance laws and drunk driving facts.
- Keeping more space between the car in front of you so that you can decelerate by lifting off the gas and NOT by tapping the brakes. People (read: large cars and SUV drivers) drive with their left foot on the brake, causing every car in a 10 mile line behind them jamming on their brakes.
- It's a broken-down vehicle, nothing to see here.
- If a cop pulls you over, GET OFF THE DAMNED ROAD. Pull into a parking lot or a side street. Stopping on the left shoulder of the Interstate should not be an option.

Shall I continue? I haven't even gotten into the aspect of people not even knowing the basics of car control, because people don't know the basics of getting along with other drivers on the road first.

Re:No

[PPalmgren]

Because I like this city and the population density it provides without the over-urbanization in bigger cities. I don't have a problem with my commute at all, my comments are directed at those that feel everyone should drive manuals and I'm giving counterpoints. The stupidest thing about this whole debate is that he's saying manual

As for the second part, no they did not get in accidents due to poor health conditions and bad driving. One was my dad falling out of the attic and shattering his left foot, the other is my co-worker who got hit by a reckless driver and has long-term medical problems as a result. It doesn't hinder their ability to drive, but strenuous or repetitive physical actions like driving a manual in bad traffic can agitate it. If it can be avoided, why not?

Re:No

[stewbacca]

Car physics become important when you take a corner too fast...

Completely untrue. Car physics are important at every speed, because car physics cause a car to react differently at every speed. Understanding this is the first step to being a good driver.

Re:No

[stewbacca]

The actual quality of the road surface affects stopping distance as well. More importantly the driver's awareness and ability to modulate the braking as required by the changing surface and weight load of the car matter. The GranTurismo stopping thing is just dumb, because all you do is pick up your braking point and mash the brake pedal down (and down shift). The surface doesn't undulate and the braking is stupid-linear-smooth (unrealistic). The sort of "seat of the pants" driving you'll never be able to get in a video game can be simulated decently with visual and audio cues, but few game companies make it easy to lock up and skid (like Gran Prix Legends), because most people apt to pay money wouldn't find that sort of thing fun. Of course I do, and gladly would pay $100 or more for a good sim. GT5 is fun, but not a great sim (that stupid Lotus-on-ice-Top-Gear level made me want to sell the damn game).

Re:No

[PPalmgren]

Yes, it is a problem with the public transport, however, it is not cost effective to implement public transport in the manner you suggest for such a small city that covers a huge land area. Land is cheap and available, and the roads are sufficient. There is no reason to build high-rises everywhere except for location benefits, so there is a lot of sprawl and it makes public transportation less efficient. Older cities or cities with boundary constraints have logical reasons for their density, my city really only became big after the advent of cars. You see the exact same phenomenon in China's newer cities - cities built for the most flexible mode of transportation, cars, unless density makes public transportation necessary. Don't get me wrong - I do like public transportation in the bigger cities I've visited, but it is not worth the cost or benefit in a city with this population density.

This is not about public transportation, my original reply is directed at the notion that everyone should be required to drive manuals because its "safer" (which is an anecdotal bullshit assumption since no study to date has been able to prove it). The population group I'm talking about is capable of driving, but uncomfortable driving a manual.

Re:No

[stewbacca]

While the initial implication that automatics might be the cause is silly, you can't really say that it is "unknown" how many manuals and automatics there are in each country. It's well known everywhere in Europe that we Americans prefer automatics, and it's not even close, even though I'm doing my part an have owned nothing but manual transmissions for the past 23 years...every car I've ever owned.

When we took our American spec Ford Ranger pickup to England, the English mechanics were amazed we had a right hand drive manual. They figured all Americans drive automatics (which is a safe bet, but just wrong in this instance).

Re:No

[stewbacca]

Two things have various degrees of correlation, measured in positive and negative. Everything can be correlated, but causation cannot be inferred based solely on the coefficient. The classic Logic 101 example that murder rates go up in NY city when ice cream sales go up. High positive correlation? Yep. Causation? Nope. High temperatures make people cranky (and apt to kill each other) and high temps drive higher ice cream sales. Or, my favorite conclusion, probably something else altogether that is not seen by the casual observer. Maybe ice cream does cause murder, through some sort of chemical induced imbalance. The interesting thing with causation and correlation is that you can identify correlation (and give it a coefficient), but you can't identify causation based on the coefficient alone, without further investigation. In other words, correlation is just a number and means nothing without context and further scrutiny.

I much prefer this explanation to the abrasive "CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION!!!" that the people-skills-deficient types around here like to throw around.

Re:No

[stewbacca]

To fully confuse the thing: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Oh yeah? PROVE it!

Re:No

[phoenix321]

As much as I like reasonable explanations for reasonable answers, sometimes it is one freshman too many. I would expect the general population to never have at least seen at least one differential and one Bayesian equation and being completely ignorant to what correlation even means at all. I can patiently explain the difference to people half my age or double, no problem. But when it's Geek Card carrying members here on /., it's time to unload. They should know better.

Re:No

[phoenix321]

I have this rock that keeps fallacies away. I don't see any of them around, do you?

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

It depends on how you drive it and whether you have the windows up. Also this is the fastback. On long drives I could definitely get 30 mpg by simply not passing everyone. I am a bit free with the pedal in my 300SD but in my F250 I take it as easy as can be... and get over 15 mpg fwy reliably, even in California hill country.

Re:No

[X0563511]

My car doesn't even have gears. CVTs don't behave like either.

Re:No

[X0563511]

Control that is not needed.

On my CVT, there is no fussing with these shift points. The belting adjusts to the optimal ratio based on input power and resistance. If I step on it, it smoothly accelerates my while changing the ratio. If I start going down a hill, it smoothly adjusts the ratio so that my speed stays constant without me changing my throttle input at all.

Driving with a proper CVT is certainly a new experience. I'd never go back if I have the choice.

Re:No

[X0563511]

Just curious. Have you driven a CVT yet? Neat shit. I'd imagine than an all-electric would drive this way.

Re:No

[X0563511]

I especially love those who ignore (or even worse, get pissed) by brake-taps to tell them to back off. Sometimes I have to actually USE the brake and force them to react. They usually back off then, but only for a little while.

Sigh.

Re:No

[X0563511]

Same here :)

My reactions are nowhere near as good as yours, but certainly higher than 500ms when I'm not half dead from work or what have you.

As well, I'm cool under that kind of pressure. The jitters and butterflies come after. I'd rather they not be there at all, but I'll take it the way it is over "OHMAHGAWD"!

Re:No

[X0563511]

Er... make that "certainly lower than..." - stupid brain. "Half dead from work" indeed.

Re:No

[cynyr]

You really should drive a manual for a month or so. After a bit it become so much of a habit that after driving automatic slushboxes for the last two years, I still go for the phantom clutch every once and a while. Which is nice for everyone on the road because someone decided to put a double wide break peddle in the car and when pressing a clutch all the way down and getting a break you sure do stop fast....

In fact it really should take very little thought to shift a car once you are used to doing so.

Re:No

[drinkypoo]

Nope, still no CVTs. Interested, though. On the other hand, I'm not planning to buy or sell any vehicles soon unless someone offers me a nice 'mog for my Ford for some reason

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't work with asses who invade my "buffer zone" and risk my safety.

I can work with those asses, but unfortunately only very slowly.

Re:Depends on the OS too!

[kale77in]

Depends on the OS too. -- How often have we heard that Linux has poor driver support!

*hwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh*

I know who loses

[Anonymous Coward]

I know who loses the debate; anyone who refers to themselves as a "gamer".

Anecdote

[guyminuslife]

Most of my friends are big video game players. A number of them are nutso drivers. We all used to play Mario Kart when we were 14, one friend in particular would always win. Great reflexes, totally twitch, and when he turned 16, he took to driving a real car like it was a game.

I don't remember how many cars he's crashed. He's mellowed out on the road over the years, as hyper-aggressive teen drivers tend to do when they hit their twenties, but I still get nervous when I see him near a car.

He's technically proficient with a vehicle. Yes, he can maneuver out of a tricky situation much better than I can. On the other hand, he's more likely to put himself in a tricky situation than anyone I've ever met. He would try to min-max his driving, slam on the brakes not a second later than he needed to, slow down only at the brink of an accident, and tailgate like crazy. These are all very good things to do in Mario Kart. In the highway, you've probably seen someone like him: that maniac who zooms past you when you're already going 10 over, swerves a foot in front of you to avoid rear-ending a semi, and vanishes on the horizon.

He might even drop a banana in your lane.

Re:Anecdote

[Totenglocke]

I hate to break it to you, but Mario Kart is NOT a "racing" game. Yes, it has cars, but nothing even remotely in the way of actual physics. I'd suggest getting a red turtle shell (read: red bowling ball) and tossing it through his windshield the next time he drives like a moron. Only kidding :-)....well, sorta....

Re:Anecdote

[mazesc]

As long as he only drops bananas ...

Man, I hate those red turtles!

Re:Anecdote

[imakemusic]

Mario Kart is NOT a "racing" game.

So what is it? An adventure game with an exceptionally fast gameplay and a weak storyline? An on-a-rail third-person shooter with a terrible aiming system?

Re:Anecdote

[Vectormatic]

dont take the guy so literal. Mario Kart is still a racing game in that it depicts moving cars, and the first across the finish is the winner, but it has so incredibly little to do with actual racing (not how i didnt say the fastest is the winner), that it is more of a party-game then actual racing.

Mario Kart is to racing what McDonalds hamburgers are to good beef

Re:Anecdote

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

These are all very good things to do in Mario Kart. In the highway, you've probably seen someone like him: that maniac who zooms past you when you're already going 10 over, swerves a foot in front of you to avoid rear-ending a semi, and vanishes on the horizon.

Not quite. Usually that maniac zooms past you, swerve a foot in front of you, then abruptly slams on his brakes because he failed to look past the end of his hood and realize there was a *reason* for the speed you were going ;)

Re:Anecdote

[grimdawg]

It's a Mario Kart clone.

Re:Anecdote

[RossumsChild]

He would [...] tailgate like crazy. These are all very good things to do in Mario Kart.

I don't know what version of Mario Kart you lot played, but tailgating was NEVER a good idea unless you had a green shell and even then it was often just a chance to get something dumped in your lap before you could pull the trigger. Duh.

In fact, it was one of the only Mario Kart lessons that actually transitions well to real driving: Don't stay too close behind people, you never know what kind of crazy shit they're about to try.

Re:Anecdote

[X0563511]

I absolutely love it when I see someone act like an ass behind me, pass me, and then immediately get stuck behind someone/something else and drop back even further behind.

Re:Anecdote

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

There is a certain satisfaction to be found in it, isn't there?

It's even better when it happens repeatedly. On a long drive, you'll see the same people passing you many times. And the more I watch them, the more I believe that they're absolutely *convinced* that they're passing everyone on the road -- completely unaware that they're only passing the same 20-30 cars repeatedly while they're driving half again the distance of everyone else, using almost twice the gas.

Honestly, I can't think of any other way they justify it than to delude themselves into thinking they're getting ahead and staying there.

Re:Anecdote

[guyminuslife]

I was playing the version where I came in last. Which is every version. I'm not a very good video gamer. Evidently, because I tailgate in Mario Kart.

(I'm also not that great of a driver, but at least I'm not a maniac.)

Not in my experience

[mark-t]

Most gamers that I know tend to be more aggressive drivers. So no... I'd say that they aren't safer at all. At most they handle vehicles with more confidence and a greater sense of control, but there is far more to really driving safely than just being confident behind the wheel of a car.

Re:Not in my experience

[Gaygirlie]

I personally have exactly the opposite: all of my friends who play car games and me are all very responsible and careful on the streets, we anticipate things, keep a keen eye on our surroundings, and start braking very early just to avoid any accidents or mishappenings.

Personally, I don't think games really have anything to do with this. It's the personality: some people just tend to be more aggressive and careless and thus it reflects in both their real-life driving and virtual driving, not because virtual driving was the reason behind the aggressiveness.

Re:Not in my experience

[Anonymous Coward]

Ditto. Leave the fun times for the track!

Re:Not in my experience

[steelfood]

And I bet most of those same gamers are male, under 30, and childless.

Anecdote

[LordNacho]

About ten years ago I had a driving test. My brother had just bought a steering wheel + pedals, so I ended up playing Gran Turismo (I forget the version) the whole day before. Failed due to excessive speeding. No damage though.

Video driving vs real thing

[mvar]

Top Gear tested this on laguna seca track back in 2005. Clarkson attempted to beat his gran turismo record of 1.41 but only made it to 1.57, and he said that the game omitted a few details of the track, and the game's physics allowed him to brake later when coming into turns than he could in real life. Video here. And since we're on the "safety" thing, you cannot press a key to restore your car on the track

Re:Video driving vs real thing

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't believe people actually take that so called test for real. They used an arcade game title (Gran Turismo) and worst of all, a gamepad to drive. I don't know about you, but I haven't seen many gamepad driven real life cars. If you want to properly compare racing games to real life, you need a serious simulator that is actually realistic AND a proper steering wheel. The Top Gear test was just television entertainment, not a valid test in any way at all.

Re:Video driving vs real thing

[Totenglocke]

That's not contradicting the study - that's simply saying that the game is not a 100% perfect recreation of real life. The game clearly taught him the track well enough that he got pretty damn close to his game time, especially given that (as most games go, I'm assuming Gran Tourismo does this too) the in-game cars are significantly faster than their real life counterparts.

And since we're on the "safety" thing, you cannot press a key to restore your car on the track

I dunno, I heard that Bill Gates has that option.... ;-)

Re:Video driving vs real thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually they omit the fear and gravity of the driver. Never mind the car, it's the neck that has to take the brunt of the force when breaking and changing directions.
Those are important too, unless you've become really fit moving between the kitchen and the basement. :)

Re:Video driving vs real thing

[Anonymous Coward]

He had a non-race tuned NSX instead of a NSX-R. Gran Turismo is accurate, they just didn't have the right vehicle that's lighter, has 30 hp more power, and better aerodynamics for downforce.

Re:Video driving vs real thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Clarkson wound upproving this in Japan when he injured his neck due to the Gs that he was subjecting it to.

Re:Video driving vs real thing

[mayko]

I remember this same episode, and I believe his experience was also testament to the actual fear of driving a real 3,000lb vehicle to the absolute brink; it not that he was physically unable to brake late in real life... he wasn't mentally able to so the way he had in the game. The most crucial thing a game like gran turismo omits is the g-forces exerted on the driver. This whole experience also goes to show the amount of skill, patience, and fearlessness a professional race driver has to push a car to the limits that even an above average driver (at least in terms of experiencing overpowered vehicles) like Jeremy Clarkston is unable to.

Re:Video driving vs real thing

[hb253]

You bring up a good point. I think most people don't have an appreciation of how difficultt REAL racing can be both mentally and physically. I was watching the Rolex Daytona 24 hour race this past weekend. One of the drivers was being interviewed after his stint, and the sweat was POURING from his face. It's a helluva workout.

carmageddon

[Jimpqfly]

Carmageddon really made me a better driver : I'm able to get a triple combo bonus when aiming an old lady, followed by a kid, then a dog.

Simulators (GTR/iRacing etc) might very well do.

[fozzmeister]

Simulators (GTR/iRacing etc) might very well do, in a car without ABS I managed to get round a corner of black ice without an issue, as I knew what to do past the level of grip, to regain it, while the car infront went into a ditch, funny really (nobody was hurt) as I was the early 20's driver and the other guy was very middle age.

Sim racers, yes, arcade gamers, no

[Anonymous Coward]

It comes down to which kind of racing games we are talking about here. Proper sim racers are often consistent and good drivers both in real life and behind the virtual steering wheel. I just hate to see modern arcade racers like NFS Shift being heavily advertised as "realistic", possibly causing your casual gamer to think he's actually a pro driver in real life too when he succeeds in arcade racing games.

An interesting article what happens when a sim racer who doesn't even have a drivers license is put in a real race car: http://www.topgear.com/uk/photos/geek-rebooted-2010-11-26

Don't know if anyone can relate to this?

[ghmh]

One of the reasons I never got a drivers license was because I was afraid I would treat it a bit like a computer game (the main other reason was just a general lack of interest in cars and public transport otherwise sufficed).

Probably a good thing - occasionally I've walked down the street and been so lost in thought I've stopped (consciously) processing visual input and once even crossed a road in this state.

Re:Don't know if anyone can relate to this?

[Anonymous Coward]

You see, I'm pretty similar. I very easily get lost in thought, my focus can shift between things very rapidly, I often will walk across the house and by the time I've reached my destination, completely forgotten what I went there for.

But the moment I get in a car, that all changes. My focus is completely on driving. I'll listen to music, sure, but if driving conditions are bad, it's very possible that once I arrive, I will have no idea what I had been listening to. I have a hands-free bluetooth set (Ford Sync, to be specific), but I keep my conversations as brief as possible and am more than willing to tell people to shut up and give me a minute if I see a situation ahead that demands my full attention.

I've been in two accidents. One was leaving the high school parking lot when a car full of high school girls in an SUV weren't paying attention and rear ended me, the other was when someone blew through a red light and I couldn't stop in time.

In other words, give yourself a chance. A full understanding of how important it is to drive safely really helps you to focus when necessary.

Changing reference frames.

[Anonymous Coward]

When I got behind the wheel of a car after not having driven in anything but a video game for 6 months I noticed I was driving just like I did in Test Drive Unlimited. Namely ignoring stoplights and just looking for traffic. Needless to say once this was brought to my attention it ceased to be a problem.

25 year old gaming experience

[mutherhacker]

I ve been playing games for 25 years and I can say with certainty that they have had a very positive impact on my reflexes. I rarely drop items (catch them mid air) and can track multiple objects at the same time without much difficulty . I think it's all thanks to gaming.

Re:25 year old gaming experience

[Anonymous Coward]

Or perhaps you've been playing games for 25 years because you're good at tracking objects?

Re:25 year old gaming experience

[phoenix321]

The catch-falling-items-in-mid-air effect is actual. As a (former) avid FPS gamer, I can attest this has everything to do with it. This has brought much fun when things were dropped around friends and family. Average people don't expect someone to catch falling stuff in the blink of an eye and more often than not applauds when seeing that. Depending on the circumstances :) it could be even more fun when not catching that thing but striking an obstacle in the process, since force and momentum of this is impressive. Catching a falling dinner plate or cooking pot is impressive, but completely obliterating it in mid-air or severely denting the pot is even more - depending on the circumstances and ownership of said devices, of course :) Having experienced the speed and force of this rather involuntary action made the tales about Kung Fu at least somewhat plausible - though I was completely unable to repeat any of that consciously or in any other situation :)

As I slowly played less and less, this skill unfortunately diminished :)

Works also for sudden and critical situations in driving. Being able to estimate speeds and vectors of different objects all around the visual field helps tremendously. As does the skill to react correctly in an instant, not overreact by jerking the wheel around, keep cool (until several seconds after, at least).

And GTA works wonders for slippery road conditions, since you've trained thousands of kilometers for them without even knowing it. Steering into the slide when losing traction to let the wheels regain traction and then steering back is a skill that takes some training and guts to do it in the real world. As is knowing how the vehicle will react when suddenly drifting. Saved my hide for a few times now.

I think gaming is a double-edged sword for this. It may lead to risk-seeking or risk-increased driving, but also to much faster and more appropriate responses to sudden incidents. If you're able to keep down the urge to drive like a maniac, it will certainly increase safety because of all these hours spent "training".

Another anecdote

[PhrostyMcByte]

I can nail snap shots with ungodly annoying precision in FPSes, and love to master arcade racers like Need for Speed in between coding sessions. I like to think I'm an above average gamer. The only traits I have that might be partially attributed to a life of gaming are that I don't startle easily and I'm very slow to stress.

I'm not a crazy driver. I'm happy speeding at 80mph like anyone else who grew up in Southern California, but I'm otherwise safe and entirely unlike the kind of person you describe. I don't have any particular great skill at driving and consider myself average.

How gaming helped me.

[bronney]

The only help I got from gaming was horning the reflex I needed when driving, in the snow. And have zero problems viewing the minimap aka GPS once in a while. I know many people that aren't gamers, with a low visual bandwidth, that has trouble looking at the GPS, even for 1 second. So I think gaming improves your visual bandwidth somewhat.

The most helpful advice I got from my driving instructor was always noticing what's around me while I was driving, and always know your safe spots (where to steer) in case something happens. In the Canadian Winter, the brakes isn't enough to save your life :)

Re:How gaming helped me.

[phoenix321]

The visual bandwidth is a good point. Games tend to spread important information all around the screen and that helps with real-world cars, since they, too, have a map there, a speedometer there, a radio down there and three mirrors around the other edges of the screen. Being able to track all that without losing focus on the main part is very important. Hard to do for most non-gamers, but trivial for people that have been playing FPS games all their youth.

Being able to track a large number of "opponents" around the "map" is also quite nice. FPS'es and GTA-style games heavily rely on the skill to keep track of action *outside* of the visual field and make correct "guesstimates" on the actions of others.

Answering the question "I've seen this guy a split second ago in that spot, moving over there in that manner - where will he pop up again and what is he actually trying to do?" is an invaluable skill in Counter Strike and on multi-lane highways.

Re:How gaming helped me.

[Onuma]

Visual Bandwidth is a valid point, I think.

I've been driving in one form or another for about 20 years (go-carts actually can teach you the rudiments very well -- especially how to spin someone else without damaging your vehicle!). Looking over that experience, I realize that peripheral vision is a HUGE factor in driving well and maintaining situational awareness. Much of my driving nowadays is done on the Interstate system, so I maintain a huge visual lead on things -- look about 12-20 seconds into the "future" to ensure I know what is coming up. Peripheral vision allows me to focus ahead while maintaining aware of the d-bags in front of me driving with one foot on the gas and one on the brake while typing a text and fiddling with their GPS.

While not to such an extent, gaming does help you utilize your peripheral vision. Especially so if you're playing on a [relatively] larger screen -- being able to process information without focusing on it can be a huge asset when it comes to both driving and gaming. It even helped me throughout my military career - tunnel vision is a killer.

Re:How gaming helped me.

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. My mom won't even put her GPS where she can see it because she doesn't feel safe going back and forth. As a result she frequently gets lost by only following voice prompts and blames the unit for giving her bad directions. On the other hand, I keep mine where I can see it and have never felt unsafe for doing so. And I usually find the directions pretty good.

Re:How gaming helped me.

[bronney]

good points gents, and you enlightened me why I has 12 games on the iPhone but never played them.

Another anecdote

[Brazilian Geek]

I don't know if it's true or not but my definitely non-gamer wife that only 3 years ago started driving drives like a mad-woman in town while I, a driver for the past 15 years and avid gamer, drive cautiously and actively avoid conflict. When we hit highways, we trade personalities - I drive fast and furious, respecting as many laws as I dare, while my wife turns into 25kph-old-man-with-blinkers-on.

I tell her that I don't trust other drivers in town, I feel like they can swerve at any time and cut me off - like they do in oh-so-many games. On highways I feel more at ease so I cut loose and step on it.

Irrelevant

[Anonymous Coward]

Driving safety is 95% attitude, 4% luck and 1% skill. Sure gaming gives you twitch reflexes and good situational awareness. But respecting the speed limits, keeping a safe distance and generally being a predictable object on the road is what gets you home in one piece. Unless you get hit by a drunk moron who runs a red while speeding, but that's the 4% luck :)

Re:Irrelevant

[phoenix321]

Don't underestimate skill. As a gamer would say "Skill is when luck becomes a habit".

Of course, everything can be brought down to attitude, since everyone driving 10kph everywhere would reduce accidents and their severity by far. Wouldn't make much sense for overall traffic, though.

Tracking other car's vectors, guessing about driver's intentions, accounting for road conditions, knowing when and how to service the car correctly are skills that invaluable to safe driving. Attitude is not flooring the acceleration even though you have the skills to do so :)

Re:Irrelevant

[Onuma]

I always thought "Luck is when preparedness meets opportunity".

Re:Irrelevant

[phoenix321]

If "preparedness" includes "natural talent and/or the appropriate amount of training", then in a way yes. But when that lost airliner wheel crashes into an empty backyard instead of your house, it's luck and nothing but. Skill would be noticing the falling debris and a well-timed rush to cover. Preparedness doesn't help there...

Re:Irrelevant

[Onuma]

Well said. Though if you fortified your house with anti-lost-airliner-wheel-concrete, you'd probably be considered prepared. I know I'm ready!

shocked!

[puterg33k]

They didn't include Mario Kart :'(

So the gist of it is...

[simon0411]

...that games improve motor coordination/reaction time, but may also increase risky behavior/undue confidence in one's driving skills? Seems to me that second part is more a personality fault that is present in most young drivers.

The only times a game has ever affected my driving were when I decided to read the manual on the way home.

Re:So the gist of it is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Agree.
If you just had your driving license, and pretend to drive like in GT5, then you deserve to meet THE WALL.

both good and bad

[Anonymous Coward]

One time i was driving. It was a straight with only two lanes, one in each direction. As i was occupying one, a car coming in my direction was passing another one. So two cars coming in my direction, occupying their and my lane. Since I didn't want to crash, I drove my car to the side of the road, thus avoiding a major crash.

BUT: I didn't even brake, and only a few seconds later I realised that I had avoided such accident.

I think video games made me do that maneuver and not really think it through, and I think videogames made me do that maneuver without having to think it through. =)

Feed Your Need For Proper Dynamics

[Anonymous Coward]

I do at least 20 laps a day in Formula 1 2006, and a few in GT4 on nurburgring and leguna seca in a car that I have modified to try and be as close as my daily drive as possible. I race karts on the weekends and long for the few track days a year, until I buy a proper formula car. Every single time I play racing games, from the very moment I take off I treat it as though my life is at risk, any crash and I turn the game off and return to it later.
I'll admit to having done 300kph in a 70kph zone and racing motorbikes from traffic lights to traffic lights but i've never been in an accident in 7 years of driving and have never had car insurance. I grew up playing racing games, since my very first computer when i had a 2 colour motorcycle racing game.
What i must say though is, Need for Speed is not a racing simulator it automatically puts the car into a drift and is entirely unlike driving a car, if you want to get good at driving get in a gokart, don't play stupid NFS games.

Re:Feed Your Need For Proper Dynamics

[guyminuslife]

have never had car insurance

Where in the world is it legal to not have car insurance? I don't care if you were genetically engineered in a secret government lab to be the ultimate safe driver, you sure as shit better have insurance if you're on the same road as me.

Re:Feed Your Need For Proper Dynamics

[mutherhacker]

In japan. In the yearly tax you pay for owning a vehicle, a small amount is included to insure the passengers of the other vehicle in case of injury but not their vehicle itself. If you want insurance for damages to their vehicle then you make a contract with an insurace company.

Re:Feed Your Need For Proper Dynamics

[neminem]

It's actually legal in the US, too, or at least in California - the one potentially useful thing (assuming I ever become a bajillionaire) I learned having to take a stupid online course for a stupid speeding ticket. All you have to do is set aside some decent chunk of cash (I want to say 30k?) and get it certified by various authorities that that money will never be spent on anything other than paying for damages in case of a car accident.

No

[Anonymous Coward]

Are drivers better gamers?

I call bull on this

[Dreth]

This is about as relevant to my driving skills as it is to my jumping-on-turtles skills in real life.

Correlations

[hcdejong]

Gamers are more likely to be young men, who are already much more accident-prone than the average. Did the studies take this into acount?

Re:Correlations

[Bengie]

Both "Gamers" and "Accident Prone" are subsets of "Young Men". How much do these two subsets overlap?

Re:Correlations

[Lumpy]

The problem is that video games NEVER model physics correctly. All driving games also lack haptic feedback like feeling the rear wheels slip out.

If you have a young male child that loves driving games, the bes thing you can do is get them into REAL racing. Start with kart racing and then upgrade as their skills upgrade. Even full car dirt oval is cheap to get into, I raced from 13 years to 18 years old. I was driving a piece of crap on a dirt oval at 16 years old against 18-40 year olds and learned more about driving that anything else could have EVER taught me.

Plus it's 900X more fun than any racing videogame ever made. IT has real rewards and real consequences with real gains in knowledge and experience.

Causal Relationship?

[Ventriloquate]

To develop a relationship between the two is difficult at best due to all of the factors involved. One might take the gender of gamers into consideration or try to measure the impact of one game versus another, but in the end, you still have to deal with additional factors like what sort of information people take away from games and actually apply to real world situations as well as what really qualifies as a good decision in traffic given multiple factors. I think it is better to slowly pick out the effects of gaming on individual measures of "driving performance" before coming to something as grand as a definite relationship between driving and gaming. That's just me, though.

Yes, but...

[mangu]

What makes you a better driver is:
- Respect for other people on the road
- Courteous driving
- Attentiveness to road conditions and what others are doing.
- Doing a defensive driving course that teaches you how long it *actually* takes to stop.

Very true, however what makes you *avoid* accidents are quick reflexes and being able to control the vehicle under extreme conditions.

I've had two cars totaled by rear end crashes. In both cases the drivers who hit me were middle-aged women who would never dream of having road rage or tailgating someone, but they couldn't control their cars when traffic suddenly shifted around them.

In most cases it's wrong to attribute the cause of a traffic accident to one driver alone, there are circumstances where a driver, even if he or she didn't cause the accident, could have avoided it. In this regard, knowing your car and being able to perform an evasive maneuver without hitting other cars is more important than the precautions you mentioned.
 

Risk vs. reward

[Anonymous Coward]

The only angle of validity I could believe that the Continental study may have is risk vs. reward behavior. Games tend to emphasize this, and the reward is commonly disproportionately greater than the risk involved. However, in reality, ordinary well-adjusted people recognize that there are consequences for driving irresponsibly. Personally I like to drive fast, and I've got two speeding tickets in my 13 years driving to show for that. On a day to day basis, though, I keep my speed within 10 mph (16.09 kph for the rest of the world) of the posted limit to mitigate the risk of being cited again.

I'm of the belief that games generally improve driving ability, due to common requirements of the two activities such as concentration, environmental awareness, reflexes, and rapid judgment. I know benefits to hand-eye coordination are well-documented in various studies, but I'd be interested to see more research in this area. As regards driving games specifically, I suppose that they would boost confidence behind the wheel. I felt like a driving god when I finally earned the S-class license in the original Gran Turismo. The game had some relevant advice for real-world driving in the license test briefings too.

Also, maybe gamers are simply more honest about their mistakes? This was a survey of 1000 gamers and 1000 non-gamers. Gamers do experience failure on a very regular basis, and discuss those failures pretty openly in my experience. Primarily to overcome them, and progress further in the game, but who knows? Maybe this is habit-forming.

Aaaaand... Fox News is on the case, naturally.
http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2011/01/31/study-says-video-gamers-make-dangerous-drivers
Here's Jalopnik's version. At least they provide some context. (Since the Metro version is nowhere to be found.)
http://jalopnik.com/5747792/video-gamers-more-dangerous-drivers-than-non+gamers

Arcades vs Simulators

[mangu]

We all used to play Mario Kart when we were 14

And I used to play Space Invaders, that's why I always shoot first when I see an UFO. I think you are mixing cause and effect here, your friend seems to have an aggressive personality, that reflects in both his driving and game playing.

I have played several car simulators using a force feedback wheel and I think this has improved my driving. When the car starts slipping for some reason I'm able to regain control easily. Real life cars usually have more grip than simulator cars (because they are driven much slower) and you feel the acceleration which gives you extra hints that you don't get in a simulator. If you know how to control a car in a simulator you'll have no problem controlling a real car, even in tricky conditions with snow or ice.

Re:Arcades vs Simulators

[guyminuslife]

I think you think I said something that I didn't say.

I'd say that it makes us safer.

[Phoenix]

And here are my reasons.

1. There is the fact that with most video games, we are forced in game to pay attention to everything that moves as it may be a threat. This is the case in First Person Shooters as well as driving games. In order to not get ganked by either the game's AI or by other players, we gamers need to learn spacial awareness and the ability to access and analyze anything that could potentially be a threat and/or opposition.

2. The Unites States Air Force frequently uses Microsoft Flight Simulator installed PC's in the dorms of trainee pilots. While it does nothing whatsoever for actual feel of the plane in flight, they have noticed that avid players of MSFS are often many hours ahead of "raw" pilots when it comes to simulator practice. It also is a great teaching aid for plotting courses since MSFS shoots for realism. If you're landing at LAX on Runway "X" in the game, it is going to look like and have the same landmarks as the real Runway "X" in the real world. Not to mention the flight paths, routings from airport to airport, fuel considerations, etc.

3. There is also the issue of getting out the pent up aggressions that one can develop on the real road. How many times has someone cut someone off and that person wishes that they could just gun the engine and ram that sonovabitch off of the overpass and into the path of an oncoming tractor trailer? God knows I've wished that many times myself. With the video games, you CAN. You can get your anger out by either firing up a FPS and blowing something away all the while imagining that it is the person who cut you off, you can fire up a road racing game and just randomly start slamming cars into a multi-car pile up of Brobdingnagian Proportions. You can even lose yourself in an RPG or a MMO game to let yourself de-stress and forget what was bothering you.

So my bet is for safer because of gaming.

Gamers leave the house?

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't think that gamers ever left their homes.

I think FPS help more than driving games

[Zorpheus]

FPS train the reaction speed and the ability to analyse complex situations in a split second. That is what really helps with driving skills. Driving games give you bad habits, but do not help too much more with actual driving. To really control a car you need to feel the movement of a car, that is lacking in those simulations.

Re:I think FPS help more than driving games

[mutherhacker]

I absolutely agree.

Hmm?

[Moraelin]

Hmm? I'm pretty sure that most games had an advantage if you can do at least some of those. Not all games are Grand Theft Auto.

Respect for other people on the road

I don't think any games teach one to respect some NPCs, but there can be as big a penalty as you wish for colliding into them.

Courteous driving

Again, maybe not "courtesy" as such, but you can learn that if you drive all over the place you're going to get rammed.

Attentiveness to road conditions and what others are doing.

Are you kidding? I'd like to know if a game even exists where it's not important to pay attention to what the others are doing. As for road conditions, heh, let's just say that if you think rain or snow are bad, in games like Death Track "road conditions" could include a landmine. Now that's one good reason to keep your eyes on the road.

Doing a defensive driving course that teaches you how long it *actually* takes to stop.

Most racing games have such stuff in the tutorial, if you care to take it. And some don't even let you get to the actual racing until you prove you can stop between two lines. E.g., I still remember getting annoyed at GT2 making me do that again when I got a corrupt savegame on the memory card and had to start again from scratch.

Re:Depends on the OS too!

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux may have poor driver support, but Windows crashes every other day. ::rimshot::

Oh, and Mac just works and rarely has problems, but it will only take you to Apple-approved places.

Yeah, that one was weak.

YES WE ARE!

[Lumpy]

Now shut up before I run you into the guard rail!

What ever happened to the scientific process?

[Anonymous Coward]

The first article contends that playing games (specifically, they used Call of Duty 2 and Unreal Tournament) increases the ability to process information and quickly make a decision. Then, incorrectly assumes that playing any type of game correlates to an increase in that ability without any negative consequence.

Playing fast paced racing games where the physics (and therefore, the decision process) is completely different from the real world very well may have a negative effect on real driving decisions. Drivers may still make the decisions faster, but they also need to make the CORRECT decision.

The Second study actually did their investigation using driving games instead of making up a correlation to fit the outcome they wanted to achieve. It showed an increase in accidents for gamers... largely because some decisions are made in a video-game mindset of "no consequences".

Re:What ever happened to the scientific process?

[nedlohs]

The first study said no such thing. In fact it compared two different types of games and found that one type correlated with better performance on an arbitrary test over another type. Neither type was "fast paced racing games", in fact neither type involved driving at all.

The second one is a simple statistics correlation and likely without even reading it you've jumped to a conclusion and decided you know the cause or the correlation. Here's one alternative cause of the correlation: People who enjoy playing driving games drive more than non-players of driving games, hence they have more crashes even though they are of exactly equal ability. Of course I have no idea if that's true I can't read the study (I don't have the print edition of metro) to see if they controlled for that.

No kidding

[Sycraft-fu]

Most of the dangers drivers create on the road, most of the problems, are related to bad practices, not to skill. Things like not watching the road, refusing to yield, driving aggressively, speeding, etc, etc. You look at most of the accidents and these are the kind of things that were in play. It is far more rare to find something where the driver was doing what they were supposed to, but simply lacked the skill or reflexes or whatever to be able to deal with the situation. It happens, of course, but it is pretty rare.

Well I could see video games helping in terms of that, many kinds of games train and reward fast reflexes and of course if you played an accurate driving simulator you could learn how to handle vehicles in more extreme conditions. However that really isn't what most people need to improve their driving skills. What they need to do is pay attention, obey the law, and be more concerned with avoiding potentially dangerous conditions than with getting where they are going.

Hrdly head-to-head

[nedlohs]

One study looked at players of FPS games and found them to be better at answering quick decision questions after playing than players of Sims. And speculate that those decision making abilities might be useful in driving, maybe...

The other looked at players of race driving games, and found that they crash their real cars more often than non-players. With no reference to the actual study (well other than "in the print edition of Metro") so no idea if players of racing games just drive more or whatever other variables are in play.

So two studies. Of two different things. Reaching unrelated conclusions.

What my driving instructor said

[usul294]

Back when I was doing driver's ed, my instructor asked me if I played video games. He said that he had noticed that people who played video games tend to grasp the visual feedback quicker than most people. So that most 15 year olds see a straight road and don't steer, gamers would constantly make corrections based on visual feedback, because that was already a natural thing to do.

Re:Simulators (GTR/iRacing etc) might very well do

[Krneki]

Simulators (GTR/iRacing etc) might very well do, in a car without ABS I managed to get round a corner of black ice without an issue, as I knew what to do past the level of grip, to regain it, while the car infront went into a ditch, funny really (nobody was hurt) as I was the early 20's driver and the other guy was very middle age.

True that, but most accidents do not com from exceptional road situations, but from stupid people mistakes.

In order to become safer on the road we don't need to be better drivers, all we need is more care and patience.

Not All Games

[SilkBD]

From personal experience, after a 4 hour marathon of Burnout3 on a big screen TV.... you don't want to get in a car for at least a day.

Apparently... drifting... not as easy to do in reality.

don't know about games but...

[yodleboy]

don't know about games but cycling made me the most uber-defensive driver on the planet. nothing like having 1 mm of lycra between you and insane people in cars to teach some situational awareness. I operate under the assumption that everyone on the road is out to get me and will do something stupid at any moment.

Re:don't know about games but...

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Same thing goes for riding a motorcycle. Once you've had someone in a car cut you off at 70 miles an hour while on a bike, or once you've had someone with their 5 ton pick-up truck change lanes into you like you don't even exist, you learn really quick just how dangerous driving really is. When there is nothing between you and a body cast save some kevlar and nylon, you wise-up to just what dickheads other drivers are...mostly due to incompetence rather than aggression.

Only in USA ...

[thefon]

I learnt to drive in Australia (on the left). Playing driving games made it easy to drive in America (on the right), it was very natural.

There are racing games and racing simulators

[rhog]

The games do not really punish you for causing accidents. And some online games are more of a demolition derby then real racing.

A simulator like iRacing keeps track of your incidents and as such you are more or less forced to learn clean driving without causing incidents. Racing accidents still happen though. The simulator is starting to get that realistic with usage of force feedback wheels that you can learn to catch and correct situations which without practise would result in a spin or collision. Some people racing there have stated that it helped avoid them sudden road accidents of other people and come to a safe stop. So for some people it definitely helps in increasing their driving experience. One has to be able to keep the simulation and the real world apart though.

Re:There are racing games and racing simulators

[dadelbunts]

Not to mention most people that enjoy racing simulators often try as hard as they can to not only win the race, but to do so without hitting any opponents. At least the people i play with have no problem going in side by side into a corner without sending the other person flying into a wall.

Clutch control not taught...

[fantomas]

Not sure if this is such a big issue in the USA, where I believe (please correct me here) most people learn to drive and continue to drive automatic cars, but here in Europe where the majority of cars are manual (stick shift I think you call it?) learning clutch control is a big issue. In the UK you can even take an automatic-only driving test which only allows you to drive automatic cars after you've passed, but very few people do so. I think the only people who take the automatic-only test are people with health problems (poor motor control in their left leg, or similar disability) or people coming to the UK and only intending to be here for a year or two who have come from countries where automatic cars are the norm. Passing the manual car test means you're allowed to drive an automatic with no further tests or training.

Classic new learner driver problem is dropping the clutch too quickly and stalling the car. Not sure how many driving games give you force feedback on the clutch? So I think you're probably right, games are ok for the skills they expose you to, but a lot of the mechanical skills are just not replicated realistically.

Games in general make us better drivers

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't say racing games specifically make us better drivers but games in general do. Games have been shown to decrease your reaction time, increase hand-eye coordination, improve spacial awareness, improve focus, etc.

Sometimes I'm amazed that some of the other drivers can even make it out their front doors, let along pilot a 3,000 pound machine going 60mph.

Statistics don't always work

[fantomas]

There are many research fields where statistics don't provide the answers.

Don't start me, I just finished a PhD and spent a lot of time thinking about research methods ;-)

But yeah, we all just hang around on slashdot for pleasure so taking most of the things here with a pinch of salt is probably wise. Nice when people link out to decent resources though...

Re:Simulators (GTR/iRacing etc) might very well do

[Anonymous Coward]

As a long-time racer (30 years) if I saw your incident, the first thing I would look at to explain the different outcomes are the tires. On the street, tires make much more difference than driver background.

New tires in good shape grip way better than old worn tires, and better quality tires grip way better than cheap tires. The difference between old cheap tires and new quality tires can be very large.

If you want to stay safe, don't cheap out on your tires (or your brakes).

There's better, then there's SAFER

[GodfatherofSoul]

I used to be an almost anal retentive driver because I'd been hit a couple of times by careless drivers. About 3 years ago, I was thinking about getting a stick shift and I bought a Logitech wheel and GTR2 (a full-blown racing simulator) to practice with to get the coordination down. Having never been a racing fan, I found myself hooked on the driving lessons and competition. I started subconsciously crossing lines in the road to "follow the best line" and getting as close as I could to inside curbs. It hit me how bad I'd gotten when I blew past a slow-moving truck on an entry ramp and drove completely on the shoulder to do it.

So, was I a much better driver after that experience? Yes. Was I safer? No. But, now that I'm aware of how racing habits can affect your everyday driving, I'm better able to keep it in check.

Re:There's better, then there's SAFER

[multipartmixed]

> now that I'm aware of how racing habits can affect
> your everyday driving, I'm better able to keep it in
> check. ...and you have one more set of tools in your arsenal you can bust out if the shit suddenly hits the fan in front of you.

The studies don't contradict each other....

[Radical Moderate]

...because they examined completely different aspects of driving. U Rochester looked at reaction times, and found that gamers tend to be superior to non-gamers. Continental appears to have done some statistical analysis and found gamers are more likely to be involved in a collision. In other words, people who like to drive fast and take risks like to play games that involve driving fast. What are the odds?

As design

[just fiddling around]

Nobody told you about that Easter egg yet?

Gamers are better

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus was a PC gamer...Not one of those pussy console gamers!

Everything about your post is wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

First off, driving is not about making stupid lists that imply that driving is a social situation. DRIVING IS NOT A SOCIAL ACTIVITY. Repeating the golden rule in 3 bullet points and then taking some baby class of obviousness is NOT good driving. Even the term "defensive driving" is stupid. Defensive Cooking. Defensive Reading. DERP. "I am teh defensive driber. I will defend against the other attaking driberz..." WHAT!?!

Here is some REAL driving advice. When you are in a car, you are not a person, you are a GUIDANCE SYSTEM for part of a PEOPLE MOVING MACHINE. Your part of the machine is an atomic unit known as a CAR. Your car drives on the other part of the machine known as a ROAD. The point of your driving day is to get from point A to point B WITHOUT FUCKING UP THE MACHINE, which consists of your car, other peoples cars, and the road. Machines are not courteous or respectful, they are PREDICTABLE and EFFICIENT.

People that play FPS video games have developed the parts of their brains that handle spatial processing of multiple moving objects. They are better at filtering relevant vs irrelevant motion, and predicting motion. they have warmed up their reflexes. they are used to handling fast, stressful situations decisively. They take pride in doing little things well, and have an attitude of constant improvement of their skills. These abilities cross over quite well into driving, vs the "I don't give a fuck its A to B" mentality of your average driver.

Give me 500 gamers on the road with me any day vs the standard distribution armed with your checklist and fresh from their lame-ass defensive driving class. I guaran-fucking-tee you that the gamers road would be driving faster with fewer accidents, fewer slowdowns, and a generally safer feeling. Armed with their new "defensive skills" and directions to be courteous, I guarantee 500 different interpretations resulting in slowdowns, additional accidents due to mixed signals between drivers, and a random, unpredictable feeling on the road.

anticipate...

[Anonymous Coward]

the only thing that makes me a better driver is anticipating all other drivers around me.... the spice must flow

fake, but likely accurate stats

[Anonymous Coward]

1) most video gamers are male and aged 16-30
2) 16-30 year old male drivers are the highest risk on the road
there is a correlation, but 1) does not imply 2) or vice versa