Star Trek Actor's Death Inspires Class Action Against Car Manufacturer (cnn.com)

Anton Yelchin, who played Chekov in the new Star Trek movies, was killed Sunday when his own vehicle rolled backwards. Now Slashdot reader ripvlan writes: It has recently emerged that his vehicle was a Jeep. As discussed on Slashdot previously consumers are having a hard time knowing if the vehicle is in "Park." A new class action lawsuit is gaining momentum... Also Maserati has a similar system and can join the class action.
In fact, Maserati "is recalling about 13,000 sedans that have the same sort of gear shifter that was used in the Jeep that killed Yelchin," according to CNN Money, and Chrysler Fiat had in fact already filed a recall notice with federal regulators in April for Yelchin's band of Jeep, "but owners had only received a warning and not an official recall notice at the time of Yelchin's death". The lawsuit claims Chrysler "fraudulently concealed and failed to remedy a gear shifter design defect affecting 811,000 vehicles and linked to driverless rollaway incidents," including 2014-2015 Jeep Grand Cherokees, 2012-2014 Chrysler 300s, and 2012-2014 Dodge Chargers.

Comments

"Inspired"

[Anonymous Coward]

So only because Star Trek and after death will something be done. More like some greedy lawyer seeing a payday. Also, EditorDavid, what the hell?

Re: "Inspired"

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Murica Beeyotch! That's the way things work when corporations rule the government.

Re:"Inspired"

[BDF]

Publicity leads to frivolous lawsuits. At the end of the day, he died because he failed to use the safety features available to him. This thread illustrates that many of us are guilty of the same. However the fact still remains that he failed to set the parking brake, and then fought a vehicle with decent ground clearance instead of falling flat to the ground and letting it roll over him -- or getting out of the way. The shifter is a problem, but it is only one part of a multiple step process. The user chose to ignore the primary parking brake and was killed as a result of that decision. It's very unfortunate, and even more so that rather than using this incident to promote safety awareness (which would actually save more lives) -- we have to focus on finding someone to sue.

It's the design not the part

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, this is a design issue. A dramatic change from how most people are familiar with selecting gears. There is no tactile feel to knowing your in a certain gear. You have to visually rely on the indicator to know what gear your in. Most people would instinctively think they have selected Park when in fact they have selected Reverse in these cars. What engineer thought this was a good ideal considering the history of gear selection is beyond me. Someone said it was all about making the cup holders bigger? Are you freakin' kidding me? Ford has gone a similar way but with a large dial indicator, which at least gives some tactile feedback along with a selection indicator. Yes, you could argue some of this goes back on the driver incapable of properly operating their vehicle. But the design and function which just doesn't give any physical sense of knowing what gear your in has to bear much of the blame. Chrysler has a major problem on it's hands and a software update won't fix this.

Re:It's the design not the part

[Hognoxious]

Yes, you could argue some of this goes back on the driver incapable of properly operating their vehicle.

As proven by the fact that neither James Doohan nor Simon Pegg have, AFAWK, made the same mistake.

Re: It's the design not the part

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason they did this was cost and marketing. The shifter is just an electrical button, not a mechanical link which saves cost. A row of 5 buttons would make more sense but not appeal to Jeep's macho image.

Re:It's the design not the part

[Sax Russell 5449D29A]

It would be rather interesting to know if they had internally found this particular feature to be problematic. There may have been a product tester that evaluated the design on paper and in prototyping, but their findings were disregarded. Software companies, for example, are often internally aware of serious security and design flaws, but will likely do very little about them until they become public knowledge through a third party. There are a great many cases like that from practically every industry out there, especially the auto industry.

Re:It's the design not the part

[Anonymous Coward]

Whats worse is Plymouth did a push button transmission in the 1964 Valiant that was safer designed that this, showing at a glance what gear your were in.

http://www.valiant.org/valiant/1964.html

Re:It's the design not the part

[ganjadude]

that is true, i wouldnt say its a design flaw as much as an education flaw. The system is wonderful...as long as you know what you are doing. and in a 4000 pound hunk of metal, a little education is a good thing.

ive used this system and found it to be a great little system to be honest. takes a few days to get used to however, but thats true of any new car!

Re:It's the design not the part

[thegarbz]

Unfortunately, this is a design issue. A dramatic change from how most people are familiar with selecting gears.

Most people familiar with gears would never be in this situation as they would use the park brake when parking. It seems to be a distinctly American thing that people throw the car in Park and get out relying on the parking paw to keep their vehicles in place.

Re:It's the design not the part

[gweihir]

Removing tactile feedback in a safety-critical user-interface element is not a problem on the user's side. Even a competent user will get this wrong from time to time. This is a design-screwup of epic proportions. The morons that designed this must not even have the basic course on ergonomic and save design.

Re:It's the design not the part

[sjames]

Sorry, no. The new UI is an accident waiting to happen since it makes itself look and feel like a different interface that has been around for decades.

Everyone "knows" that if you press the button in and push the shifter forward until it stops you are in park. Everyone but Chrystler, that is.

Actually, making that motion will put the car in NEUTRAL. While the pushbutton won't turn the engine off that way, it is way to easy to push the button and not notice the nearly silent idling becoome completly silent.

The whole thing with push to start and the new electronic shifters sounds like the work of marketing weenies who gave zero thought to real world use cases.

Re:It's the design not the part

[swillden]

Removing tactile feedback in a safety-critical user-interface element is not a problem on the user's side. Even a competent user will get this wrong from time to time. This is a design-screwup of epic proportions. The morons that designed this must not even have the basic course on ergonomic and save design.

My Nissan LEAF also has a gear shifter with no tactile feedback... but it's fine because the car automatically goes into "Park" when you turn it off. In practice, this leads me to screw up in a different way: when I drive other cars -- especially other Nissan cars with an on/off button rather than the normal key-actuated ignition -- I tend to hit the "off button" and then expect to get out and go about my business, leaving the car in "Drive". But Nissan fixed that by making it obvious that the car didn't actually turn off; the dash stays lit up and a warning sounds, IIRC.

So there are options other than tactile feedback. Actually, I think the "auto-park" is the best solution of all. I really like not ever having to think about it on my LEAF. I suppose there may be some obscure circumstances in which I want to turn the car off and leave it in neutral (e.g. towing it), but overall I think it's an excellent approach.

Re: It's the design not the part

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't fix what isn't broken.
Newer isn't always better.
Etc

Re:It's the design not the part

[PrimaryConsult]

When I test drove my car (which has this shifter), I complained about it straight away, I find it hard to believe no one voiced concerns. After 2 weeks I got used to it. In bright sun you cannot even see which gear is lit up on the shifter. It is a terrible design but at least there are a few blatant signs that the car is still in gear when you try to stop it:
1 - Attempting to stop the engine while in gear results in a tone sounding, and the engine continues to run. Ideally with push-to-start cars you should be in the habit of looking for the "run" light to disappear when doing this. I believe I can override by pushing it again, but I have never tested this.
2 - The car radio will not turn off upon opening the door when the engine is still running.
3 - If the car is in reverse, the backup camera will be displayed (assuming you have one), another sign that you're not in the right gear.

That said there have been situations where I've gone from reverse to neutral instead of drive because I didn't perform the right ritual to get the damn thing to shift properly. They had a perfectly good design in the Challenger, Chryslers, and the 2011 and earlier Chargers, as well as the police version of the charger (though that's a dash mounted shifter). Why they didn't do the same for Jeeps and the other cars mentioned in this article is a mystery to me...

Re: It's the design not the part

[hackwrench]

It's kind of hard holding someone responsible after they are dead. Responsibility is only useful when it corrects for mistakes.

Re:It's the design not the part

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people familiar with gears would never be in this situation

People familiar with manual transmissions would FLIP THEIR SHIT if someone decided to make a 5 speed shifter with upper left position 4th gear and bottom center position Reverse for shits and giggles, and YOU KNOW IT.

Stop trying to defend people fucking up decades old conventions just to be different.

Re:It's the design not the part

[angel'o'sphere]

There are many problems there.
A car with automatic gearing that can detect if a certain seat has a passenger and that passenger has not fasten his seat belt is unable to automatically switch into 'park' when no driver is inside?
Or am I the first one who had this idea?

Re:It's the design not the part

[oakgrove]

It seems to be a distinctly American

Anton Yelchin was a Russian born in Leningrad you dipshit.

Re: It's the design not the part

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't be the weirdest gearbox I've seen. My current car has 1st and reverse in the same position, except you push the gear knob down for reverse.

Re:It's the design not the part

[thegarbz]

It seems to be a distinctly American

Anton Yelchin was a Russian born in Leningrad you dipshit.

driving an American car, in American automatic style, while living and ultimately dying in ..... naaaaah I'll let you guess that one.

Are you one of those stupid shits who moves somewhere and then stays completely oblivious to the local customs and way of doing things?

Re:It's the design not the part

[tinkerton]

I find it hard to blame and sue a manufacturer for lack of userfriendliness of their interface. I also don't see much signs of negligence. I think if you're a manufacturer and you get the first signs of accidents the first thing you do is start looking at possible malfunctions. And when that shows up nothing you just end up confused and wait.

So in this case they've been recalling the cars for some kind of mod since the beginning of the year. What kind of mod is that anyway?

Re: It's the design not the part

[nukenerd]

A row of 5 buttons would make more sense but not appeal to Jeep's macho image.

Not sure how one button looks more macho than 5 buttons .....

Anyway, a macho image would be better served by a purely mechanical lever looking like one from an old-style railway signal box. In fact like the transfer case lever in my old Jeep Cherokee - you could feel and hear the gears bite.

Re:It's the design not the part

[oakgrove]

driving an American car

Wow. He wasn't driving. The car rolled onto him while he was outside of it.

Are you one of those stupid shits who moves somewhere and then stays completely oblivious to the local customs and way of doing things?

Really? Like whether people engage their parking brakes or not? Do you do a survey before you go or just check the Wikipedia article to make sure? Or maybe you just make shit up that sounds good in your own head. Based on your response here, I'd guess the latter.

Re:It's the design not the part

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you suggesting that James Doohan is still alive?

Re:It's the design not the part

[Hognoxious]

Yes. I clearly stated so in so many words, didn't I? *eyeroll*

Re:It's the design not the part

[Anonymous Coward]

Pity you aren't as skilful with the shift key.

Re:It's the design not the part

[thegarbz]

Wow. He wasn't driving.

Ahhh I get it. You're a product of the American education system, incapable of discerning meaning from words.

So he wasn't driving was he? He magically magic'd his way to his house alone as a passenger of the car he wasn't driving, which magically chose the moment he was behind it to magically hit him because magically someone (clearly not him) did the incredibly common American thing of relying on the parking paw to stop the car, something that is not at all common in most of the rest of the world.

You sir win arguing idiot of the internet award.... by magic.

Re:It's the design not the part

[Anonymous Coward]

This design was a MANAGEMENT decision, not an engineering one.

Re:It's the design not the part

[dryeo]

Luckily you always set your parking brake before leaving the vehicle so it doesn't matter too much that you might not have left a vehicle depending on a little metal pawl to stop it from rolling.

Re:It's the design not the part

[Anonymous Coward]

Emergency Brake. Use it.

Re: It's the design not the part

[Anonymous Coward]

Pity you aren't skillful with not being a pedantic dicksnout. Or a spell check.

Re:It's the design not the part

[Solandri]

Safety engineers are pretty low on the totem pole in the auto design process. One of the safety engineers at BMW gave a guest lecture in my grad school structural engineering course. You'd think with a luxury brand like BMW safety would be a priority, but no. The artists do their thing first - they get to design what the car's shape will be like and where all the main areas like seating, wheels, trunk, etc. will go. Then the engineers who make the essential components like the engine and transmission have to figure out how to install their components into the shape and layout predicated by the artist. The safety engineer comes dead last. He's given a weight budget of x kg of steel, and has to decide where to put it to make the vehicle pass government crash safety tests, while staying within the bounds of the artist's body design and avoiding other already-designed components like the engine.

So the "morons who designed this" probably never had to take a basic course on ergonomic and safe design. They're free to design whatever the hell they wanted, and it was up to people who came after them to make it functional and safe. I suspect that's why the Teslas do so well on safety tests. They probably put the safety engineers higher in the pecking order, so they can actually put the strengthening beams and crumple zone in the optimal place, and it becomes the artists' and other engineers' jobs to work around these structural elements.

Re: It's the design not the part

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah I'm sure you're smarter than all those guys that actually have jobs designing cars.

Re:It's the design not the part

[Anonymous Coward]

why would you use a ladder to drive a car?

Re: It's the design not the part

[sjames]

What makes you think I have one?

How about marketing just butt out and Chrystler learns how to design a car?

And given the number of complaints compared to more conventional shifters or even the newer ones that don't use a joystick that looks like a shift lever, I would say that plenty of people are having problems with it.

Re:It's the design not the part

[Anonymous Coward]

There are a lot of design issues these days. Shit design is the current trend. Automotive interfaces have lots of problems, not just this stupid shifter issue. The luxury high-end is going with gesture control, of all things.

Sadly, it's not limited to cars. Take the Tonka Toy interface trend for all computing products, apps and web pages alike.

It's like an entire generation of UI designers have decided to throw out the entire history of UI research and start over.

Re:It's the design not the part

[gweihir]

Sounds entirely plausible. The same thing is true for software security experts. That is why most software is badly insecure.

Re: It's the design not the part

[gweihir]

Well, one thing if for sure, dear AC, you are not even it the running for last place.

Re:It's the design not the part

[gweihir]

There are other options, agreed. But tactile feedback is by far the best understood and most established one. If you go the extra mile on an alternate option and design it really carefully, it can work just as well. But just removing the tactile feedback on something safety-critical without replacing it with something that works at least as well is asking for people to accidentally kill themselves and others. And, surprise!, that is exactly what is happening.

Re:It's the design not the part

[hambone142]

I rented a Chrysler 200 once. It had a KNOB for the gearshift. Inane and was dangerous when doing a turnabout. Some conventions make sense. Chrysler is designing nonsense.

Re:It's the design not the part

[Anonymous Coward]

I looked at what I think is the manual for a Jeep Grand Cherokee. It explicitly states that you should put the parking brake on when parking the car.

So, Darwin award? Why didn't he apply the hand brake?

And, no, why do some people believe that the "P" on the transmission is a replacement for the handbrake? It isn't. The "P" is merely a back-up, why not have multiple redundancies?

Re:It's the design not the part

[Anonymous Coward]

driving an American car,

Jeep is an Italian car, it's a Fiat.

Re:It's the design not the part

[oakgrove]

So he wasn't driving was he?

No, he wasn't driving when the car rolled into him and killed him.

You sir win arguing idiot of the internet award...

This coming from the guy who by his own writing, implicitly admits to adopting the bad habits of people wherever he happens to visit. In a story about a guy who mistakenly thought he had his car in park and excepting a design flaw that removed tactile response from the gear shift, he would have. And you have the gall to call someone else an idiot.

Re:It's the design not the part

[PrimaryConsult]

There was some software change, I don't think it had an effect on this issue.

As far as this specific issue, they sent out a notice stating that they are going to issue a "fix" at some point and in the meanwhile, double check that you are in park. I can confirm that this notice went out before the unfortunate incident in question. The only fix I can imagine is a complete replacement, but I don't know how easy that will be - the space it occupies is rather small.

There's also the matter of the one legitimate reason for having such a strange design - in addition to being able to still select 2nd and 1st gear, there is also a "sport" mode (reached by notching it down slightly while in drive) which enable paddle shifters for selecting your specific gear manually. If you royally screw up gear selection (not quite redline but close) it will force you back into full automatic. Not sure how they'll work that into whatever they replace this with...

Re:It's the design not the part

[Agripa]

... What engineer thought this was a good ideal considering the history of gear selection is beyond me...

Isn't GMC enough reason for this? I knew it was a bad idea when I first heard of it but I assume it goes along with glarey touch screens and that Apple look. The future is here and ignoring human factors engineering.

I recall a possibly apocryphal story that GMC came up with a new safety feature where the car would not start until the seat belt was fastened and being a GMC of course, sometimes not even then. Then some woman got raped because she could not get her car started quickly enough.

Re:It's the design not the part

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I think this is dangerous on the LEAF as well, I occasionally use one from our work fleet, and have confused REVERSE with DRIVE. However, Nissan seem to have at least acknowledged that PARK was important enough to have a separate PARK button on the top of the shifter.

Re:It's the design not the part

[tlhIngan]

There are a few problems.

First, Park is all the way at the top, or a distinct motion. If it's a lever on the center tunnel, pressing the button and shoving it all the way forward until it stops should be park. I don't care if there's feedback or not, if I hold the button down, shove it all the way up to the stop and let go, park it is.

Other ways might be a stalk shifter, which pressing it IN puts it in park (up is reverse, down is drive, away is neutral).

Next, the car has an LCD on the dashboard, between the gauges. Know what's prominent? The current shifter position! Yes, it says "Park" on the shifter, but it also says "P" on the LCD. It tells me what position it's in without me glancing down. So before I turn off the car, I can check that it says "P" and the parking brake is set (idiot light) and make sure the car is completely ready to leave (lights off, wipers off, etc).

Given all cars have a color LCD in the gauge cluster, there's no more excuse - if the car's not in park and the driver's door is opened, the LCD can say "CAR NOT IN PARK" and flash the dashboard lights light a Christmas tree (while darkening all other interior lights - the goal is to draw attention to the display - which it will if it's the brightest thing there). If there's a central nav screen, guess what? It can do the same and point down at the shifter.

If necessary, it could then force-park it (electronic transmission - the shifter is merely a fancy switch)

Re:It's the design not the part

[thesupraman]

Tell that to the whole BMW 7 series, which have had electronics (column positioned) gearbox controls exclusively for some time.
for some STRANGE reason, that has not been a safety issue.. funny that.
They also have an electronically controlled park brake, which has deep menu settings that control if it is on or off when idling stationary, etc.

All it takes is enough competence to CHECK that you have made a vehicle safe when its on an incline and there is a safety risk like, for example,
YOU ARE GOING TO STAND BEHIND IT!

FFS you limp wristed morons, stop trying to blame 'the man' for every little fuckup/accident that happens out there. It is unfortunate this guy died,
however he made a mistake, plus had some bad luck, and it went the worst way. Things like that happen. We could require cars to not let the driver
open the door until the car was totally secured every time, which would make them even safer (until someone died from being trapped inside), but we dont...

Re:It's the design not the part

[Anonymous Coward]

How about 2nd gear in the upper right, 4th in the lower right, third in the upper middle, reverse in the upper left and first gear in the lower left?

I've driven one of those.

Though it may have helped that I drove it before I learned the standard layout.

Re:It's the design not the part

[Cederic]

They'd still put the fucking brake on when they left the car though.

Re:It's the design not the part

[Cederic]

No, that's for other reasons, including primarily education.

Writing secure software can be hard; writing mostly secure software is trivial but the security experts spend their lives demanding the impossible and not making it easy for developers to get the basics right.

Re:It's the design not the part

[jrumney]

I've driven manual cars where the reverse is below 5th, and I've driven manual cars where the reverse is next to 1st. Stop trying to assert that there is a single standard for manual gear sticks. I haven't seen the actual shifter in question, but I have trouble believing that it goes to the extreme that you are implying of having forward gears out of sequence, and reverse mixed in with the forward gears.

Re:It's the design not the part

[Waccoon]

When I test drove my car (which has this shifter), I complained about it straight away, I find it hard to believe no one voiced concerns.

You still bought it. Why should they listen to complaints?

Re:It's the design not the part

[PrimaryConsult]

While true, there's a lot more to a car than a gear shifter.

By that same logic, everyone who bought laptops with windows 8 "still bought it", so why should Microsoft have listened to complaints about the missing start button?

Re:It's the design not the part

[swillden]

You didn't read my comment. I don't think it's dangerous, I think it works quite well. Reverse vs drive is a bit weird because of their placement, but the diagram makes it clear.

Re:It's the design not the part

[gweihir]

You must never have written any software in the real world. (Note that clicking things together does not qualify as "writing software".) The thing is that writing software that works well, completely disregarding security, is already pretty hard and writing software that is "mostly secure" is something most programmers cannot do.

Re:It's the design not the part

[gweihir]

Spoken like a true moron that has no clue at all about safe design. You probably also think guns should not have safeties and all safety features from chainsaws should be removed.

Re:It's the design not the part

[Cederic]

Hmm. Admittedly of the nine languages I've used to write production systems only 3-4 were used to build software that involved payments, contractual or other highly sensitive data.

Writing mostly secure systems is trivial. That most programmers are not challenged or helped to achieve even that is an industry failure, not a difficulty burden.

Fully securing systems is indeed hard, but the number of buffer overflows and SQL injection vulnerabilities still being created suggest that the basic fundamentals just aren't happening. They're trivial.

Re:It's the design not the part

[Anonymous Coward]

I got a RAM pickup to drive while my truck was in the shop, and it had this dial shifter in it. Took all of about three seconds for me to gain a true hatred for its idiocy. NO tactile feedback as to what gear you are in. No sound - NOTHING.
AND - if you park on a hill, and put it in park before you set the parking brake (thus loading the "park" pawl), you may have to have someone rock the vehicle to get it out of Park. With the old-style mechanical lever, you just gave it an extra-hard yank. Hard to do that with a solenoid-driven system.
Beyond stupid as far as design.

Re:It's the design not the part

[BDF]

Hang on there now... You just told us that he can SEE what gear he is in, but that he has no physical way of knowing.

That puts 100% of the blame on the driver. He knew the shifter was different when he purchased the vehicle, he chose the vehicle, he bought it. No one removed or altered the mechanism after this purchase. The display was present and accurately confirmed that he was not in park. He also chose not to use the parking brake.

How about placing the blame where it belongs -- 100% on the poor guy who got rolled by his own car. That's really a crappy way to go.

Caveat: All of the above is based on "facts" from this thread. If the gearbox did actually display that the vehicle was in park when it was not, then the manufacturer would be 50% responsible - with the user 50% responsible for not using the brake.

Re:It's the design not the part

[Anonymous Coward]

The Tesla Model S is a little similar. In that case opening the drivers door at zero or low speed will put the electric brake on (this only has two positions, fully on or fully off, it works on the rear wheels only via its own calipers).

Re:It's the design not the part

[ripvlan]

You're correct. It is a design issue. Lots of people are posting about "Luke: use the parking brake" but are missing the point. Safe by Design ! If you've never experienced this stick shift one doesn't understand how difficult and counterintuitive it is. Use the brake? The car should engage it for you. I rented a Dodge Charger with this stick in it. It's a joystick, a " + / - " to select gears. To select drive you pull , (release) pull, (release) pull. Then reverse is push forward, (release) push. and Park is one more (release) push forward. I remember more than once being confused about what gear I was in. Usually I found neutral when wanting D after backing out of a spot.

A human factors and UX engineer should have seen this. It is too obvious a design flaw. I think everyone saw this coming.

There is no opportunity for memory muscle. In my standard drive cars I can find any gear without looking because it is "right there." Over and up, or push down and forward (reverse) -- quick and easy to learn. Same with a classic Automatic. Whether column shift or on the floor - you can slide the stick to the correct position. And with my current Auto it has special stops to help designate certain gears...pulling back and it hangs up on Drive. Pressing forward and it hangs up on Neutral requiring a special button press/click to make Reverse and then again for Park. Easy to remember (even column shifts had this concept but different).

The shifter is always in the same position

[willworkforbeer]

"The gear selector in these vehicles always remains upright. The driver moves it forward or back to select a gear, but it then returns to its original upright position."

Re: The shifter is always in the same position

[Anonymous Coward]

False. Automatic or manual, one should still engage the parking brake. Failing that if on incline, move steering wheels towards closest curb.

Re:The shifter is always in the same position

[reboot246]

Automatic transmissions were invented for non-drivers. Everyone should have to use a manual transmission equipped car to pass their driving test.

My next vehicle purchase will be a pickup truck with a manual transmission. With so few people out there who know how to drive one, nobody will be asking to borrow it.

Re:The shifter is always in the same position

[thegarbz]

And where is the park brake?

Re:The shifter is always in the same position

[Anonymous Coward]

In some countries, the driver's test can only be passed on a MT unless the driver has some physical disability that requires the use of an AT.

In other countries, you can take the test using an AT but that gets you a restricted form of license, and since 80% of all vehicles in some countries have a MT, most people want a license that lets them drive any vehicle.

Re: The shifter is always in the same position

[DarkTempes]

I think it's disingenuous to say that automatic drivers have a lesser understanding of how to operate their vehicle. And I learned on automatic and later switched to manual so I've personally done both sides.

I think it's more that a MT forces you to use a parking brake and, in my experience, the parking brake is usually a more pronounced hand brake rather than a foot pedal. If AT vehicles didn't have "park" and required the parking brake then people would use that more.
You can't really tell if a foot pedal is set from a glance and possibly not even from tactile feedback.

And as a MT driver, I leave my car in neutral when I park. Because you start the car in neutral, and even though I check before starting it, it still seems like a good habit.
I could see an argument for leaving the car in gear if you park on an incline, or if you park on a street where you think you might be hit from behind and want less of a chance of hitting the car in front of you. Personally, I try to avoid parking on inclines.

Manual is a lot more fun to drive (usually) but I'm of the firm opinion that automatic is safer to drive because your attention isn't as divided.
Sure, shifting is basically muscle memory after a while but I still feel like it takes away some attention from your surroundings.

And then there are things like stop-and-go traffic on an incline...

Re: The shifter is always in the same position

[Anonymous Coward]

You are what is wrong with society.

Re: The shifter is always in the same position

[henni16]

And as a MT driver, I leave my car in neutral when I park. Because you start the car in neutral, and even though I check before starting it, it still seems like a good habit.

The good habit is to put the car in neutral via the clutch when turning the key.

Re:The shifter is always in the same position

[mjm1231]

Automatic transmissions were invented for non-drivers. Everyone should have to use a manual transmission equipped car to pass their driving test.

So, you're saying that if you get in an accident, and the other car is an automatic transmission, the person behind the wheel of that vehicle couldn't be held liable? After all, the only driver involved was yourself...

I've driven manual transmission cars. It's not fun or interesting and the benefits are marginal and unimportant to me. Then again, as far as I am concerned, a car is just a tool for getting from one place to another. I'm looking forward to them all being driverless.

Re: The shifter is always in the same position

[beanpoppa]

MT don't force you to use the parking brake. I've met a few drivers of MT's from flat states that never used the parking brake. And with a manual transmission, you are more engaged in the driving experience. It has become such an 'automatic' activity for me, it requires little more thought than breathing.

Re:The shifter is always in the same position

[guruevi]

I have a manual shifted in my Volvo about 2 decades ago but no clutch. Not sure whether other manufacfurers have followed suit, but it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of modern "manuals" are actually semi-automatic.

Re:The shifter is always in the same position

[beanpoppa]

Should we require manual chokes and timing advance, as well? The transmission is just one more thing in an automobile that used to require manual operation but through technology, the function has been automated. The only difference between it and other items is that many people (myself included) feel that the act of rowing your own gears is part of the driving pleasure, so the option do so has remained. But the requirement for a multi ratio transmission is only a necessity of the nature of an internal combustion engine and it's torque curve.

Re: The shifter is always in the same position

[DarkTempes]

I'm pretty sure you have to do that? Isn't there a clutch safety switch or something that requires the clutch to be engaged for the starter to work?

After looking into what other people do, apparently some owner's manuals say to leave the car into 2nd when parked. Interesting.

Re: The shifter is always in the same position

[Khyber]

In a manual transmission, putting the car in gear is the parking brake. If parked facing uphill, you put your vehicle in first, if you're parking facing downhill, put the vehicle in reverse.

Handbrake isn't even necessary, and in fact I simply never touch it.

Re:The shifter is always in the same position

[ArchieBunker]

Modern automatics do a better job than manuals now.

Re:The shifter is always in the same position

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is to say, you are a non-driver.

Re: The shifter is always in the same position

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure you have to do that? Isn't there a clutch safety switch or something that requires the clutch to be engaged for the starter to work?

no: you can start the engine in first gear and the car just move forward

Re: The shifter is always in the same position

[smooth wombat]

Handbrake isn't even necessary, and in fact I simply never touch it.

And you're a complete idiot for doing so (as are the others above who say they do the same thing). You are putting the entire weight of your vehicle on your transmission by doing so which will lead to premature wear and possibly having your transmission damaged.

The parking brake is there for a reason. The folks who designed this feature wouldn't have put it there just for looks.

But don't believe me, believe the experts and these guys as well. In fact, ask any driving school instructor anywhere in the country and I can guarantee they will say the exact same thing.

Re: The shifter is always in the same position

[the_humeister]

Haven't driven a manual recently I gather? They all still have clutches. No manual (ie manual clutch, manual gear selection) is a semi-automatic but some automatics are semi-automatic (ie auto clutch (instead of torque convertor), auto gear selection)

Re: The shifter is always in the same position

[LynnwoodRooster]

Yes, but what I've seen is that MT drivers typically leave the car in either 1st or R when parking

AND, this RIGHT HERE would have saved him. That memory muscle to leave it in gear means the SECOND he started to get out of the car he would have let out the clutch (hard to hold it down when you're out) and the car would have either lurched forward and stalled, lurched backward and stalled, or simply stalled (if he had the parking brake on). Pop the clutch, car dies.

Re:The shifter is always in the same position

[LynnwoodRooster]

Do you mean torque converter based automatics (which have ~7% to 10% less power to the rear wheels, power that is consumed in the transmission itself) or the newer DCT/DSG automatics which are in fact completely manual transmissions but with the computer deciding when to use the clutch and when to shift? The latter are almost always better/faster than a human rowing the gears (except in VERY few instances such as autocrossing), but it's still a manual transmission that has the gears rowed. The former is quite a bit behind a manual transmission in terms of efficiency and performance.

Re: The shifter is always in the same position

[Anonymous Coward]

> Handbrake isn't even necessary, and in fact I simply never touch it.
That's a useful fact for the courts to know.

Re: The shifter is always in the same position

[Anonymous Coward]

In a manual transmission, putting the car in gear is the parking brake.
Handbrake isn't even necessary, and in fact I simply never touch it.

Holy shit. This is PURE misinformation.

In a MT car you should always both leave the car in gear (R is best) AND use the parking brake. If you use the gear alone, you are depending on engine compression to provide enough resistance to hold the car in place, and in many situations it is not capable of doing that. Anything beyond a mild grade and your car will creep down the hill as gravity overwhelms drivetrain resistance and engine compression. I have seen people park in driveways with the car in gear without the parking brake engaged, and come out later to find their car in the middle of the street. It didn't happen instantly when they got out of the car - it took a while for the cylinder compression to give way to the exterior force upon the car.

Seriously, DO NOT DO THIS. You want the car to be left in gear AND with the parking brake engaged. Anything else is a bad, bad habit and will get you in trouble sooner or later.

Re: The shifter is always in the same position

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure you have to do that? Isn't there a clutch safety switch or something that requires the clutch to be engaged for the starter to work?

Probably depends on the specific car, but all of the ones I've driven have such a switch. They will not let you engage the starter without disengaging the clutch.

I would imagine that maybe much older cars (50's / 60's?) would let you try... probably bad for the starter motor.

Re:The shifter is always in the same position

[Incadenza]

Not in the Alps.

Re: The shifter is always in the same position

[chihowa]

Manual is a lot more fun to drive (usually) but I'm of the firm opinion that automatic is safer to drive because your attention isn't as divided.
Sure, shifting is basically muscle memory after a while but I still feel like it takes away some attention from your surroundings.

Your attention is definitely divided in that you are doing more things to operate the car (although it becomes muscle memory pretty quickly), but I've noticed that I pay more attention to my surroundings when driving a manual because I have to plan out which gear I need to be in based on the lay of the road and the traffic patterns ahead of me, even if most of that planning tends to be subconscious.

And then there are things like stop-and-go traffic on an incline...

Commuting in stop and go traffic in a manual really blows, especially if there are hills involved.

Re: The shifter is always in the same position

[Vlijmen Fileer]

What is wrong with you people (mostly Americans I guess). Do you actually take driving lessons?
This is not true, horrifyingly stupid and really really dangerous.
The handbrake is there to /always use/ when you need your car to be stopped: in front of a traffic light, in garage, parking spot, on your drive way, and most certainly on a hill.
Putting your car in gear is to be used when parking inclined, as a small extra safety measure, to make sure that if the parking cable breaks your car will roll away as slowly as possible. For the same reason you might want to steer your front wheels to a curb, or even put stones behind the wheels.
Just putting your car in gear means it can jump forward much further when hit by another car, or start rolling on a hill when given a small bump.

Re: The shifter is always in the same position

[guruevi]

The Volvo I had had a clutch as well (different drivers licenses for manual and automatic) but it was unnecessary to use to switch gears, the controls were electronic. My more recent Volkswagen also has a fully electronic gear box although it is a full automatic, the parking brake is electronic. I thought even manuals would've switched to at least full electronic controls.

Re: The shifter is always in the same position

[angel'o'sphere]

There is no safety for the clutch.
Traditionally you can use the starter to move the car a few hundred meters if the engine is broken down.

Parking in 2nd gear is pretty old school, it is useful in situations where you think one might need to push your car a few centimeters.

Usually you park in gear 1 or in reverse. Depending on terrain: without break.

In some countries / regions it is considered polite to park in neutral and no parking brake, so if one likes to enter into a narrow parking slot he can push the front car and the car behind him a bit out of the way (with the bumpers), e.g. in Paris you are supposed to park that way.

Re:The shifter is always in the same position

[iris-n]

Wow. This is an incredibly stupid design decision. I have driven several different automatic vehicles. All of them had a special position to park and reverse (at least).

Re: The shifter is always in the same position

[DarkTempes]

Here's how my car works if I leave it in first and start it:

A) Press clutch and turn the ignition: car starts. It goes nowhere because of the clutch (and brakes).
If I ride the clutch (and unset the parking brake and take my foot off the brake) then, sure, it'll go forwards very slowly on a flat surface.
But if I take my foot all off clutch completely without feeding it gas it's going to stall.

B) Don't press the clutch and turn ignition: car doesn't start. It goes nowhere.

Re: The shifter is always in the same position

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on the car. My Hyundai and Mazda require the clutch pedal to be fully depressed to start. I park in gear, then depress the clutch and shift to neutral before starting.

Re: The shifter is always in the same position

[Anonymous Coward]

Your transmission is exposed to more than the weight of the car when you drive, parking in gear won't damage it. But you should still park using the parking brake. Two things have to fail before the car becomes a missile.

Re: The shifter is always in the same position

[angel'o'sphere]

And you're a complete idiot for doing so (as are the others above who say they do the same thing).
More likely you are the idiot.
You are putting the entire weight of your vehicle on your transmission
Only if you are parking uphill or downhill. Not if the street is flat.
by doing so which will lead to premature wear and possibly having your transmission damaged.
It wont be damaged by that. The 'weight' while standing around is nothing in comparision to accelerating under engine power.

Probably you are one who believes avoiding gear 1 and gear 2 in an automatic transmission is good for your car, too?

In fact, ask any driving school instructor anywhere in the country and I can guarantee they will say the exact same thing. I guess the driving instructors in your country greatly disagree with instructors in my country. Because: I learned that in driving school, facepalm.

Re: The shifter is always in the same position

[nukenerd]

I have seen people park in driveways with the car in gear without the parking brake engaged, and come out later to find their car in the middle of the street. It didn't happen instantly when they got out of the car - it took a while for the cylinder compression to give way

Indeed. What happens when you first park the car on an incline is that the engine will hold it by compression of air in one or two cylinders. But cylinders are not 100% airtight and the air will leak away, allowing engine to turn if the incline is steep enough. Only the friction of the engine and drive train will resist movement in the longer term.

Putting a MT car in a gear when parked is only a back-up to the handbrake (as we call them in the UK). It means that if the handbrake fails (cable snaps say) the car will at worse roll slower than it would have done in neutral.

Re: The shifter is always in the same position

[Hognoxious]

what I've seen is that MT drivers

At first I read that as MIT, and was wondering what Berkeley drivers do differently.

There's a potential systemd joke here which I have left as an exercise for the reader.

Re:The shifter is always in the same position

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the defect is this manufacturer decided to fuck with something that has been standard for 50 years. P-R-N-D-L with a very obvious tactile "clunk" between each gear, was adopted as the industry standard in the 1960s after accidents similar to this one. Back then, different manufacturers were making different gearshifts and guess what happened? Accident, injury, and death. So the entire auto industry settled on the same style for automatic transmissions. As a result you could get into any car with an automatic transmission and immediately know which gear you were in, without any guess work, without having to look down at the shifter or up at the dash, etc. (The gear pattern for manuals is similarly standardized.)

People are creatures of habit. You take someone who's been driving 5, 10, 20, or 50 years, where every car he's ever driven has had a gear shift that operates exactly the same way. Now Chrysler/Jeep decides, hey, let's completely fuck with how the most basic feature in a vehicle operates! What could possibly go wrong? Well, we're seeing what went wrong, and the manufacturer is going to pay for their stupid design decision.

Re: The shifter is always in the same position

[dryeo]

I think all (N. American) cars/trucks have a clutch safety switch where the vehicle won't start unless the clutch pedal is depressed. First one I had like that was a '88 Ford piece of crap. The firewall was glued together and started to flex too much for the safety switch to work after a bit and I had to bypass it.

Re: The shifter is always in the same position

[turbidostato]

"What is wrong with you people (mostly Americans I guess). Do you actually take driving lessons?"

Well, for any practical purpose, no, they don't.

Re: The shifter is always in the same position

[turbidostato]

"I'm pretty sure you have to do that? Isn't there a clutch safety switch or something that requires the clutch to be engaged for the starter to work?"

I recall a tiny minority of cars with that kind of safe but, as a general matter, no.

Re: The shifter is always in the same position

[bsolar]

Most manual cars don't have any safety and are pretty happy to start and jolt forward if you turn the ignition with the gear engaged and no clutch pressed.

Was your car a Suzuki? I don't know Suzuki cars but on motorbikes they are known to require the clutch being pressed to start the engine, which is usually not the case with other brands.

Re: The shifter is always in the same position

[Anonymous Coward]

"There is no safety for the clutch."

Only the Sith deal in absolutes.

Re:The shifter is always in the same position

[Anonymous Coward]

No they dont. Modern autos are still shit

Re: The shifter is always in the same position

[Khyber]

"The handbrake is there to /always use/ when you need your car to be stopped: in front of a traffic light,"

No, that's what your normal fucking brake pedal is for. Only idiots engage their handbrake in a manual transmission while waiting at a light, causing traffic impedance. Apparently you failed your driving school lessons.

You're probably the kind of person that puts their automatic transmission in park when they come to a stop at a stop sign.

Re: The shifter is always in the same position

[Anonymous Coward]

Clue: Nobody but anachronistic twats like you give a shit about a 10% performance or efficiency hit because of an automatic transmission. You probably still preach vi because GUI editors are 10% slower.

Re:The shifter is always in the same position

[Anonymous Coward]

Prius' are like this. There is a dedicated position for each gear but it moves back to center after selection. However, it switches to park automatically when you press the power button. Now I have a habit of not switching to park.

Fortunately, my other car complains excessively if not in park and the driver's door is opened.

Re: The shifter is always in the same position

[Anonymous Coward]

You are what's wrong with society.

Re:The shifter is always in the same position

[thesupraman]

You have never driven a 760 BMW or an e55 AMG have you...
Ie: you dont know what the fuck you are talking about.

FWIW, as you like pickup trucks, I am also willing to bet you would have trouble actually driving an e55 AMG, even with its automatic.
You would probably wrap it round a tree at the first real corner, but I know a few 'non-drivers' who can make them sing.

Re: The shifter is always in the same position

[stealth_finger]

In a manual transmission, putting the car in gear is the parking brake. If parked facing uphill, you put your vehicle in first, if you're parking facing downhill, put the vehicle in reverse.

Handbrake isn't even necessary, and in fact I simply never touch it.

The thing is the gearbox isn't a brake. It's a gearbox. The brake is a brake is is for, well braking.

Re: The shifter is always in the same position

[Anonymous Coward]

I can one-up both of you guys! A friend was shocked once when her car rolled backwards out of a parking spot into a big field. She had not used her parking brake, but in her own words "It's not possible! I had it in first gear, so it should have been impossible for it to roll backwards!"
Yes, engines CAN actually spin backwards! Idiots are everywhere.

Re: The shifter is always in the same position

[Anonymous Coward]

"something that requires the clutch to be engaged for the starter to work?"

The clutch is engaged unless you press on the clutch pedal.
I think you mean "something that requires the clutch to be DISengaged for the starter to work?"

Re:The shifter is always in the same position

[Yunzil]

I've driven manual transmission cars. It's not fun or interesting

Actually, yes it is.

Then again, as far as I am concerned, a car is just a tool for getting from one place to another.

Ah, I see the problem.

I'm looking forward to them all being driverless.

Try driving a car that's actually fun to drive first.

Re:The shifter is always in the same position

[mjm1231]

I think I see the misapprehension you are suffering from. You think the number of things which are fun and interesting to all people is greater than zero. It isn't.

Why?

[ledow]

As someone who drives a car with an electronic handbrake, it eludes me as to why that feature, which auto-releases when I pull away (DANGEROUS!), and auto-applies when I've braked manually on a hill until the car pulls forward, does NOT automatically apply when the engine is off entirely.

I got out of my car on my drive (fortunately quite flat) after driving a friend to my house. They were in the car and I parked, pulled the handbrake (really a switch) and got out. And the car rolled away. Maybe I didn't pull it properly, or maybe I tapped a pedal on the way out, but for whatever reason it decided to let me get out of the car without the parking brake on without a warning.

Fortunately, I was only half-out so I was able to jump in and press the footpedal as it rolled away but I spent the next afternoon doing nothing but testing it, on hills and other scenarios. It totally destroyed what little trust I'd built in that feature (I hate unnecessary electronic systems anyway, but I was getting "used" to that to help on hill-starts, etc.).

My question is why? Why does it apply for pointless situations that you always have been used to having to manually doing something (hillstarts), but not when the engine has just been switched off, the driver unbuckled, the door just opened. If you WANT to tow it, it would be a cinch to push the button down deliberately for a second (which indicates definite intention to release the brake), but why would you not auto-apply in the ONE situation that you need to.

I tested it and I can even double-lock the car and it will still let it roll away and not apply the brake. The only "warning" is lack of a brake symbol on the dash.

Useless fecking features, check.
Critical safety feature that's obviously going to be needed once the driver gets used to the automatic system, nah, we'll just leave that out.

Now I just have to go back to when I first learned to drive and pause, hands hovering over the wheel, for a second before I open the door in case there's something I did that didn't take effect. It shouldn't be necessary.

Still convinced that I pressed the damn button, though, because I could not replicate that roll-away, but if there's an automatic system like that, it's the work of a second to make it infinitely safer with a simple update.

Re:Why?

[camperdave]

... and auto-applies when I've braked manually on a hill until the car pulls forward,,,

Sounds useless if you're parked nose downhill.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you WANT to tow it, it would be a cinch to push the button down deliberately for a second (which indicates definite intention to release the brake), but why would you not auto-apply in the ONE situation that you need to.

I mostly agree with your comment, but maybe the design decision for not having a "towing button" has to do with being able to tow the car should the battery run out of juice?
However, being an old fart reluctant to use cars with automatic transmission or parking push-buttons, I cannot say I feel completely interested in these issues.

Re:Why?

[ganjadude]

it eludes me as to why that feature, which auto-releases when I pull away (DANGEROUS!), and auto-applies when I've braked manually on a hill until the car pulls forward, does NOT automatically apply when the engine is off entirely.

Simple, sometimes you need to roll a car when its powered off

Re: Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you want to reverse uphill....

Re: Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I didn't pull it out properly" -- well there you go! That does tend to cause some mishaps, is what she said at least.

Re:Why?

[beanpoppa]

...all the more reason to NOT use an electronic parking brake!

Strange insistence from Chrysler

[Ecuador]

I've been reading about this electronic shifter issue for some time before Anton's unfortunate death and I could not understand the insistence of Chrysler to keep at it for years when there were over 100 documented crashes and so many complaints. Sure, I understand that it doesn't actually fail, it is user error, but if you have to (literally) put bells and whistles in place to warn drivers they have selected the wrong position, you should realize that you are doing something wrong. Additionally, it must cost a lot more than the simple mechanical stick that everybody knows how to use, so there should be some important reason to put it in cars, and yet I haven't come across any praise for it in reviews etc. Are there people who look for it when buying a car? I would expect not, while an electronic shifter might appeal to someone buying a manual transmission car (yeah, electronic shift like formula-1 baby!), we are talking about automatic transmission here, the only job of the stick is to switch modes unambiguously (and preferably fast - it is always one movement with the standard stick, it could be multiple as I understand it with the electronic type). In the end, when you've "dumbed-down" (not necessarily in a bad sense) driving with an auto transmission, you shouldn't expect having no problems when you change something as basic as that.
Unless I've missed something and it is an option on Chrysler cars, not the standard shifter. Otherwise, I don't get it...

Re:Strange insistence from Chrysler

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, I understand that it doesn't actually fail, it is user error, ...

When you change functionality enough that it goes against years of ingrained habits, what you have is design ignorance. Sometimes and many times, the engineers after the dummies.

... it must cost a lot more than the simple mechanical stick that everybody knows how to use, ...

No. All this electronic shit in cars now is cheaper. They charge a lot to fix and replace because they can.

A lot of car design is all about bells and whistles and making an appearance of "high technology", shiny stuff, and making it look like the consumer is getting more for their money when the opposite is true.

But, you can't fight the market and the auto business is just that - a business. And suppliers are constantly under pressure to reduce their prices and the best way to do it is to cheapen the product - notice all that plastic? That's NOT just to make the car lighter (we pushed the limit on that) and improve fuel efficiency and gubberment regulations (those are excuses to BS the public.) It's all about profit.

Re:Strange insistence from Chrysler

[camperdave]

I've been reading about this electronic shifter issue for some time before Anton's unfortunate death and I could not understand the insistence of Chrysler to keep at it for years when there were over 100 documented crashes and so many complaints.

Chrysler is keeping at it because it's easier to run a wire than to run a mechanical linkage. Without worrying about the linkage, they can use the same transmission in multiple styles of vehicle. It's probably easier for electronic traction control as well. As far as sales, adding the word "electronic" in front of things boosts sales. Adding bells and whistles is merely an adjustment to the vehicles software. Besides, "over 100 documented crashes" is barely on the radar when it comes to fundamental shifts (if you'll pardon the expression) in technology.

Re:Strange insistence from Chrysler

[Anonymous Coward]

Car companies do things for two reasons: 1. costs less 2. makes more money

Re:Strange insistence from Chrysler

[beanpoppa]

You can still have a gear selector that for all intents and purposes, looks and operates like a mechanical linkage but merely is an electrical switch sending signals through a wire.

Re:Strange insistence from Chrysler

[ooloorie]

Sure, I understand that it doesn't actually fail, it is user error, but if you have to (literally) put bells and whistles in place to warn drivers they have selected the wrong position,

The user error here is not turning off the engine, not engaging the hand brake, and not curbing/turning the wheel. There are no UI problems with any of those steps.

In the end, when you've "dumbed-down" (not necessarily in a bad sense) driving with an auto transmission

People operating cars with automatic transmissions are still responsible for the operation of a heavy, lethal hunk of metal and need to learn to use it properly. That includes parking it properly, a procedure that is largely unrelated to the transmission.

Re:Strange insistence from Chrysler

[sjames]

If they want to make it electrical, they should do it right. Have a multi-position switch, a stepper, a codewheel for feedback, and a bit of simple logic. Now the look, feel, and actual operation of the lever matches decades of driver expectation and they get the freedom of positioning.

Of course, they still leave the owner screwed if the battery goes dead and they need to move the car to fix it.

Re:Strange insistence from Chrysler

[Anonymous Coward]

That includes parking it properly, a procedure that is largely unrelated to the transmission.

Well, not exactly, in a manual car you just pull the handbrake which is a lever next to the stick shift. No way to mess that up.

Re:Strange insistence from Chrysler

[angel'o'sphere]

There was only one user error: not turning the engine off.
The rest is a question of taste and situation, or do you really want to tell us you are turning the wheel in your garage? And what would that have helped rolling backward one yard?

parking it properly, a procedure that is largely unrelated to the transmission.
In a computer game? Probably. In areal car, it is.

Your introduction was more a matter of taste, your ending is: you have no clue about cars.

Re:Strange insistence from Chrysler

[ooloorie]

The rest is a question of taste and situation,

No, not really, at least not in the US. In addition to turning off the engine, you must engage the parking brake.

or do you really want to tell us you are turning the wheel in your garage?

No, because garage floors (at least in the US) are level. You turn/curb the wheel when the ground is sloped.

In a computer game? Probably. In areal car, it is.

As a devotee of public transit, I suppose you can be forgiven your ignorance.
Even you aren't as stupid as that

Re:Strange insistence from Chrysler

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone drove in to a lake by following GPS. Why are the tech companies still pushing GPS down our throats? Can't they see it is flawed and we should all still be using paper maps?!

Re:Strange insistence from Chrysler

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct! My 1994 Honda Accord had what looked and felt like a conventional console-mounted automatic shift lever/quadrant. But it was just a switch. Since it was back then, there were several wires involved with connection to the transmission's computer, but that's all it was. No mechanical connection to the transmission. Solved problem; why make it more difficult for the user with a little flippy lever thing that you have to concentrate on to figure out what the selection is?

Re:Strange insistence from Chrysler

[angel'o'sphere]

Nevertheless I have a car.

And like every german would claim: I'm the best driver I know (at least know in person).

The parking "rules" you have, we don't have. But I only drive manual gear switching anyway (and usually front drive).

Re:Strange insistence from Chrysler

[ooloorie]

The parking "rules" you have, we don't have.

According to German courts, on a slope, you need to use both the parking brake and put your car in gear: https://www.deinfuehrerschein.... You may also have to curb your wheels.

Re:Strange insistence from Chrysler

[angel'o'sphere]

No, you don't have to curb your wheels.

And it is enough to either have car in grear, that is ehat I do, or to use the hand break.

It makes no sense to use both, especially if you put in the break while the engine is still running.

Re:Strange insistence from Chrysler

[ooloorie]

RTFA. Do you need me to translate the German for you?

I don't buy it

[fnj]

I'm having a hard time buying this "difficulty to know when it is in park" premise. Yes, the shifter design is silly/stupid, and I wouldn't favor it. But, come on. There is an indicator light (actually I think there are two, no?). If it lights up "P", it is in park. If it doesn't light up "P", it is NOT in park. How hard is that? Additionally, the chime when you open the door and it is not in park should be a giant clue.

I just don't get it. The case is sad and regrettable, but I don't see any wrongdoing and it shouldn't be legally actionable. If I'm missing something, please inform me.

Re:I don't buy it

[Anonymous Coward]

Parking brake keeps the vehicle stationary. Shifting to park is for the transmission.

Re:I don't buy it

[Anonymous Coward]

I was of the same impression till a friend showed me his jeep. The design is flawed. First, the indicator on the stick shifter is not red, so in bright light it not possible to see what gear selection you selected. There should be no question if the car is in park, the driver should not be covering the handle to create a shadow in order to see the gear indicator on the shifter. Second, you have to pull the handle forward and wait for it cycle through and put it in park, so if you don't hold long enough it won't go into park. In my opinion, when in park, the gear shifter should stay forward in my opinion.

Re:I don't buy it

[David_Hart]

I'm having a hard time buying this "difficulty to know when it is in park" premise. Yes, the shifter design is silly/stupid, and I wouldn't favor it. But, come on. There is an indicator light (actually I think there are two, no?). If it lights up "P", it is in park. If it doesn't light up "P", it is NOT in park. How hard is that? Additionally, the chime when you open the door and it is not in park should be a giant clue.

I just don't get it. The case is sad and regrettable, but I don't see any wrongdoing and it shouldn't be legally actionable. If I'm missing something, please inform me.

I have a car with this shifter and you are right in that there are two indicators of the shift position, one on the dash and one on the shifter itself. In addition, drivers should be using the parking brake as outlined in the manual.

In fact, prior to Anton Yelchin's death, I had received the recall notice from Jeep which includes instructions on how to use the shifter, to apply the parking brake whenever parking the car, and that they would be coming out with a fix. It also included a How-To sheet to keep in the car. CNN is splitting hairs when they said that only a warning was issued and not a Recall Notice. It was definitely the same type and style as the other recall notices that have been sent by Jeep and included instructions on how to avoid the problem (always use the parking brake). As I understand it, the permanent fix is still being developed.

Re:I don't buy it

[cellocgw]

The objection is that this is a serious deviation from a longstanding and well-understood interface. In all other cars, you can tell by feel or by position of the shift lever whether it's in PARK or not. Making the driver depend on a display -- in a different view angle -- is a crappy kludge to cover a serious design bug.

I recommend reading AskTog's columns on UI design, as well as Joel Spolsky's articles on UI and general app design. You'll see the reasons this joystick-shifter design is a disaster.

Re:I don't buy it

[Anonymous Coward]

The objection is that this is a serious deviation from a longstanding and well-understood interface. In all other cars, you can tell by feel or by position of the shift lever whether it's in PARK or not. Making the driver depend on a display -- in a different view angle -- is a crappy kludge to cover a serious design bug.

Sure, yeah, let's not try anything different because some dudes 100 years ago already came up with a design.
Every car has differences from other models, and each driver needs to learn how to drive their specific car. The quirks and habits from other vehicles should NOT ever be assumed to apply. This may be unusual, but it is still less of a difference than the difference between driving and manual and driving an automatic.

I recommend reading AskTog's columns on UI design, as well as Joel Spolsky's articles on UI and general app design. You'll see the reasons this joystick-shifter design is a disaster.

Making a bad design decision does not equal criminal liability.

Re:I don't buy it

[Anonymous Coward]

I recommend reading AskTog's columns on UI design, as well as Joel Spolsky's articles on UI and general app design. You'll see the reasons this joystick-shifter design is a disaster.

Making a bad design decision does not equal criminal liability.

I'm not sure about criminal liability, but there is liability if you sell something that kills people. I'm also trying to figure out what the use case is for not having it automatically move to park when the key is off. I'm not sure if these even have a key though. Perhaps it could automatically shift to park if no one is sitting down in the drivers seat? Of course pushing the car would be an issue, though not a common one and you usually want someone inside the car when you do that.

Still, there is something to be said for an old design that just worked, even if you no longer need the mechanical linkage. Tactile feedback is useful. I never really believed in the UI design shown on star trek with no physical feel to any important buttons.

Re:I don't buy it

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, yeah, let's not try anything different because some dudes 100 years ago already came up with a design.
Every car has differences from other models, and each driver needs to learn how to drive their specific car. The quirks and habits from other vehicles should NOT ever be assumed to apply. This may be unusual, but it is still less of a difference than the difference between driving and manual and driving an automatic.

Ok, maybe it's time for some kind of... well I won't write "regulation" because a lot of Slashdot readers will implode, but le'ts call it "global normative design comittee/authority".
Or, better idea, just ban human driving because we're obviously too dumb to prevent stupid and dangerous design decisions to be made, just to create the new smartass-shiny different thing that would cause confusion among users.

Re:I don't buy it

[mrbester]

If I'm to drive a car, one that doesn't have a manually operated handbrake is not one I'm going anywhere near. If there needs to be a fucking instruction manual that tells you how to keep the damn thing from wandering off of its own accord then you can forget that as well. Similarly, if there is a manual handbrake but it can't hold against an incline, then gtfo, as that is even worse.

Re:I don't buy it

[camperdave]

... to apply the parking brake whenever parking the car...

I suspect that most people don't do this except when parking on a steep hill.

Re:I don't buy it

[Anonymous Coward]

These days, you are pretty much SOL for buying new cars then...

Re:I don't buy it

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on your definitions. I drive an automatic transmission which has both a "park" gear and a parking brake. I don't use the parking brake unless I doubt the locking of the park gear on a slant I'd really rather not be parked on in the first place. The key does not turn all the way to a removable state unless the gear is in park.

So, that's the "old way" of doing things with an automatic transmission. The "new way" of handling those is to have an auto-enable RFID system that makes the car think it should be unlocked and ready to go any time the stylish keyring decoration is within some range that depends on the model of each part.
It would be simple enough to use the weight sensor in the driver's seat (the one that helps the car decide to beep when you shift into drive without the seatbelt clasped) be a requirement to be in any gear other than park. Maybe have a 4-step process to enable neutral mode in case you need to push through some low-traction material or something. Unfortunately, designers are changing parts of the system without fully considering the consequences of each change. At best they are comparing the advantages and disadvantages of applying their new idea to a car like mine, when they should be going through full risk/benefit analysis on the final car design they are proposing.

Re:I don't buy it

[thegarbz]

I have difficulty with this concept as I leave my car in neutral. I once had to emergency brake and an unsecured steel beam hit my shifter bending it just enough that I could no longer get the car in park.

It never rolled away.

That's what the handbrake is for.

Re:I don't buy it

[willworkforbeer]

And I am really surprised at the responses, here of all places ... I thought a basic UI principle evetyone understood is this: "Make it easy to use, and hard to misuse"

Re:I don't buy it

[beanpoppa]

The gear selector was not designed by some dudes 100 years ago. The automatic transmission is much newer, and there were many iterative designs through the years which ultimately landed in the familiar P-RNDL console mounted selector that you think has always existed. The design converged on this because manufacturers repeatedly took the best elements of a design and moved it forward. The same reason why all cars have round steering wheels, column mounted switches, and gas tank fillers on the right or left rear quarter panel.

Re:I don't buy it

[LinuxIsGarbage]

Depends on your definitions. I drive an automatic transmission which has both a "park" gear and a parking brake. I don't use the parking brake unless I doubt the locking of the park gear on a slant I'd really rather not be parked on in the first place. The key does not turn all the way to a removable state unless the gear is in park.

So, that's the "old way" of doing things with an automatic transmission. The "new way" of handling those is to have an auto-enable RFID system that makes the car think it should be unlocked and ready to go any time the stylish keyring decoration is within some range that depends on the model of each part.

I've heard people complain about getting out of their push-button start car and accidentally leave it running. Anytime I had a rental with push-button start I never had this problem, but it removes the tactile sensation of having to remove the key.

This is continuing it by removing it for the shifter as well. With an "old fashion" design you can't get the key out unless it's in park.

I can understand the desire to remove the mechanical linkage to the transmission, but couldn't it be replaced by a 5 position switch?

Re:I don't buy it

[ArchieBunker]

When parking your car do you always check the indicator lights? Everyone else knows by tactile feedback that the shifter is fully forward its in park.

Re: I don't buy it

[Anonymous Coward]

The parking BRAKE isn't optional and it's dangerous to not use it ever. every parked, unoccupied vehicle should have it set at all times. period.

Re:I don't buy it

[Anonymous Coward]

The transmission was never intended to immobilize your car, let alone while running.

(1) Turn off the engine when you exit your car.

(2) Use the hand brake.

(3) Turn your wheels when on an incline.

What gear you are in makes little difference when you exit your car.

Re:I don't buy it

[Anonymous Coward]

I think there's also some kind of federal safety standard requiring automatic transmission shifters to use the PRND(other) pattern. Unless they're sufficiently different that it can't apply (e.g. Prius). Even the knob types (some Jaguars) have their gear positions in the PRND... sequence. There's also a requirement that the brake be pressed to shift from P into any other position. The shifter sequence appeared in some cars in the 1950s, and was one of the earliest federal safety standards (which nobody complained about because by then everybody used it). The brake press requirement came later, after the Audi "runaway" issues iirc. But when somebody makes something that LOOKS like a normal shifter but doesn't act like one you have problems.

Re:I don't buy it

[Wraithlyn]

LOL, seriously? You're surprised to find people on Slashdot blaming the user instead of the design?

This place is full of people who take pride in operating complex interfaces and wail at the thought of "dumbing things down" for "stupid regular users". It's technical-literacy elitism.

It's the same crowd still expecting the Year of the Linux Desktop, and claiming Apple only became* successful because of good marketing.

* I use past tense here because I'm the first to admit Apple has taken some steps backward on usability in recent years.

Re:I don't buy it

[Solandri]

The problem isn't that it's a deviation from a longstanding interface. Sometimes a change results in a better interface.

The problem is that it's taking a gear selection process which previously provided two independent pieces of feedback (the highlighted gear letter and shift knob's physical position), and reducing it to just one piece of feedback (only the highlighted gear letter). If people's failure rate at reading the letter was 0.1%, and people's failure rate at detecting the gearshift position was 0.1%, then the two combine for a 0.0001% failure rate. Only one in a million times does the driver think the car is in park when it's actually in neutral. Eliminate one of these pieces of feedback and you've increased the rate at which people accidentally leave the car in park by 1000x.

Even something like using a light to highlight the selected gear is a design mistake. You've now added a new mode of failure - the LED could burn out or its power wire fray, leaving you unable to tell which gear it's in. Previous gear shift levers simply use a painted red line to highlight which gear is selected. There's nothing to fail there, unless the shift mechanism physically breaks or the car burns. You do not add new modes of failure just to make things appear fancier or more modern. KISS

Re:I don't buy it

[willworkforbeer]

LOL, seriously?

No, not really.

Re:I don't buy it

[Anonymous Coward]

Cars made in the 1920s had a level that the driver used to shift between gears. So, yea, the modern design is at least 90 years old. That's close enough to 100, I think, for rhetoric.
The exact order of the gears is irrelevant - if someone wants to try something other than your "P-RNDL console" you think is so important, let them. Assume their users aren't complete imbeciles and will learn to drive their own damn car. If someone fails to use a safety feature, and then puts themselves into trouble, it's their own fault. If Yelchin hadn't screwed up in multiple ways, he'd be fine.

It isn't criminal to do something a different way. Even if people off themselves by being stupid.

Re:I don't buy it

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say that the Windows fans are the ones proclaiming user error, because the new Windows UI cannot be wrong, even when it works the exact opposite of the established standards.

Where as the Linux users would be in favor of making the dangerous stuff into commands that you can't even spell without a manual and two cups of coffee.

Compare
"I'm going to install Windows 10"
"Oh no you don't. X."
"Installing".

To
$ sudo mke2fs /dev/sda2

Re:I don't buy it

[Cederic]

In all other cars, you can tell by feel or by position of the shift lever whether it's in PARK or not.

Cars with a manual gearbox don't have a PARK position, so immediately you're talking nonsense.

Perhaps the issue is that people aren't learning how to operate complex dangerous machinery, and adopting simple basic practices like applying the fucking brake.

It's a design flaw, but it's only a dangerous one when combined with fuckwits.

Re:I don't buy it

[Cederic]

Depends whether he means manual linkages, or whether he'd be happy with an electronically linked brake with a manual switch.

The latter is pretty common these days, but still gives the certainty that a brake is in operation irrespective of the gearbox setting.

Re:I don't buy it

[Cederic]

Hmm. All of the automatic cars I've owned have neutral between reverse and drive.

Re:I don't buy it

[Agent0013]

This may be unusual, but it is still less of a difference than the difference between driving and manual and driving an automatic.

If it was very different there would not be the same problem. If you had an up and a down button rather than a shifter it would be much more clear that you need to do something different from what you are used to doing. It would also be much more clear that you need to check the indicators to see which gear you are in. The fact that they made the gear shift look and feel like the older style makes your muscle memory act like it does in all the other cars you drive without thinking about it.

And for the people that are talking about getting used to it, that isn't as easy as you imply. My older Jeep has the electric window buttons in between the front seats instead of on the doors like most cars. If I am driving that vehicle regularly I get used to it. But if I drive the Honda for a few days, with the window switches on the doors, I then find myself reaching the wrong way when I am back in the Jeep. I see the sense of putting the switches in the middle, there is fewer of them needed and the passenger can operate all four widows when the driver is busy, but it still is confusing because the muscle memory means you reach to the door when you want to operate the windows. And muscle memory is probably the biggest point in this being a bad design. It isn't that people can't learn that it is different, it is that when you reach down to the shifter your arm does the motions you have learned without you even thinking about it. When that motion completes as expected you will not think about whether the desired outcome has been achieved. If the shifter moved left and right rather than up and down it would break your muscle memory when you tried to shift all the way up to park and it didn't move. Then you would need to actively think about the action rather than just doing it on autopilot.

RTFM

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't know how to operate a 1.5 ton heavy machine, don't operate a 1.5 ton heavy machine.

Re:RTFM

[ledow]

Please tell this to every speeder, red-light runner, drink-driver, dickhead on their phone, etc. Right down to those dickheads that cut in at the last minute after 800 yds of warning signs.

Because whenever I do, I get a load of abuse. Everyone up in arms about speed cameras, speed "traps" (they can't "trap" you if you're fucking speeding in the first place, no matter where they site their camera/detector), etc. all the damn time.

Obviously because "everyone does it", it's automatically less dangerous.

Re:RTFM

[Anonymous Coward]

Jeep Grand Cherokee is more like a 2.5 ton heavy machine.

Re:RTFM

[Wrath0fb0b]

Sorry dude, the most efficient way for cars to handle a closing lane is to use all the available space and zipper with the next adjacent lane as near to the closure as possible. Those people are doing it right, and you are doing it wrong by merging a mile early and leaving that lane unused. See all the the guidance given or this study [PDF] or this one.

This might also be a good time to consider civility and not calling people 'dickheads'. Consider that even if you were right and they were wrong about the proper way to merge, that would just mean they were mistaken, nothing more.

Re:RTFM

[adolf]

Sorry dude, but I learned that merging early is the only correct and civil way of doing things. And not only did I learn that way, but millions of others did as well.

Many of us were even taught that was *exceptionally rude* to pass the line of slowed, merged cars, only to duck into line at the last moment, whereby grown adults would shout "Oh, look at that asshole, who does he think he is?" at the offending party.

It might be a great concept and all, but it's going to take a lot of re-educating drivers. Which is almost fucking impossible in a country where a license renewal generally just consists of a photo, a vision test, and a rubber stamp.

Re:RTFM

[Wrath0fb0b]

I accept your point about how it used to be taught, but I hardly see how that's relevant. No one would claim that stuff learned decades ago in school still applies in the face the overwhelming consensus from traffic engineers. That's just not how facts works.

Nor do I see how we need to re-educate all drivers all at once. Programmable signage is already deployed and so long as enough drivers are doing it the right way, it doesn't matter how many continue to merge wrong. The only thing those drivers do is slow down the destination lane, further incentivizing people to remain in the source lane until the proper merge point.

Finally, this is a pretty good example of why you shouldn't teach kids that certain behavior is "rude" as opposed to merely conveying the best knowledge about what's the most efficient. Once you do, it's much harder to revise that emotional judgment if and when facts change in the future. The added benefits of civility should also be fairly evident :-)

Re:RTFM

[adolf]

Perhaps I was trying to steer your argument in favor of my own want for re-education programs.

Many drivers consistently don't know how to use shared turn lanes properly. They consistently misidentify passing zones (!) on rural 2-lane roads. They consistently don't know how to handle an intersection with (gasp) more than one dedicated left-turn lane.

Currently, the only reinforcement of correct behavior is negative: Car crashes and tickets for those who get it wrong. This is a problem.

Just have people take the same written test that new licensees have to take, every 5 years, with zero immediate penalty for not passing, and many opportunities to re-take. If drivers are as good they claim to be (I'm the best driver in the world, and so are you! Just ask one of us!), it'll be no big deal since they already know this stuff.

Right?

If it was Sony...

[Opportunist]

...they'd probably settle for people who can prove they bought the Jeep and didn't know what the difference between Park and Reverse is can get a free extra big soda for the cup holder.

Of course the problem would remain the way it is.

What's Chrysler's motivation?

[rmdingler]

I've been reading about this electronic shifter issue for some time before Anton's unfortunate death and I could not understand the insistence of Chrysler to keep at it for years when there were over 100 documented crashes and so many complaints.

The redesign itself would be an admission of design flaw, thus instigating momentum for an official recall.

A hard time knowing it's in park?

[Ihlosi]

It's in park if you put it there.

I can't think of any good reason not to put the thing in park when you turn off the engine and want it to stay in place. Engage the parking brake while you're at it, single fault safety and all that.

Re:A hard time knowing it's in park?

[sjames]

And 3 decades of driving tells me that you put it in park by pressing the little button on the side of the shifter and moving the lever forward until it stops. OOps, that doesn't work now. Gee, I hope it's not too bright out to read the little indicator lights.

Ever heard of the parking brake?

[Viol8]

It exists for a reason. Yes this shifter is a dumb design, but it doesn't exactlt require a degree to operate it, its little different to a bike sequential shifter and people manage to operate them ok. This is just dumb fools looking for a payout for their own stupidity. And I feel sorry for this actor and his family - but leaving a car on a hill and not even putting the brake on , never mind checking the gears was just asking for a Darwin award nomination.

Re:Ever heard of the parking brake?

[Registered Coward v2]

It exists for a reason. Yes this shifter is a dumb design, but it doesn't exactlt require a degree to operate it, its little different to a bike sequential shifter and people manage to operate them ok.

However, what would happen if some bike manufacturer decided to change from a sequential design to some other one? I'd venture a significant number of riders would have a hard time adjusting and make serious mistakes when they try to operate it. While it would be their own fault the design lead them to making mistakes.

This is just dumb fools looking for a payout for their own stupidity. And I feel sorry for this actor and his family - but leaving a car on a hill and not even putting the brake on , never mind checking the gears was just asking for a Darwin award nomination.

While I agree with your sentiments, poor human factor design leads people to make errors and should be considered during the design. Unfortunately, too many designers, wether they are car, aircraft, appliance or software, want things to be cool and do not think about how by changing the way something operates from what people are used to happening can cause problems.

Re:Ever heard of the parking brake?

[Z00L00K]

That's a very flawed analogy since the bike sequential gear shifter design does not involve a position for safety.

As soon as you have a system for safety you need to have a solution that clearly indicates that it has a safe position.

Re: Ever heard of the parking brake?

[hackwrench]

So what if it is just dumb fools looking for a payout? (Sarcasm) I love how people just assume their position is the one everyone should accept without defending it. That goes double for when they show a total disregard for life on the level of human beings.(/sarcasm) You shouldn't just feel sad for the family; you should be concerned for the fact that a human being just died and what that means for the greater human community.

Re:Ever heard of the parking brake?

[BlackHawk-666]

You probably don't ride a motorbike so you don't know that there are in fact a couple of different options for the gears, depending on the make of the bike.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Older British bikes have gear change on the right foot, Japanese and modern bikes have it on the left foot. Common is one down, 3-5 up. Your foot brake may be on the other side than you are used to, depending on the make of bike.

Most bike riders are aware of the differences and it doesn't take very long to adjust.

This guy was just oblivious to how his car worked and he paid the price for stupidity. Even just pulling on his handbrake would have saved his life.

Re: Ever heard of the parking brake?

[Anonymous Coward]

However, in this case, making a mistake is only a problem if you're already in the bad habit of not using the parking brake.

Re:Ever heard of the parking brake?

[tinkerton]

I agree manufacturers should work more on functional design instead of focusing on coolness. It's not an easy subject , and looking at a movie of how this one works it doesn't give the appearance of being that flawed. I still have a book that discusses functional design of door handles(some even need instructions on them , such as 'push') and gas cookers(alright, which knob is for which unit again?)

Re:Ever heard of the parking brake?

[fdragon]

What we may be seeing here is a repeat of what happened in the motorcycle industry happening to the car industry.

Motorcycle shift patterns have been standardized in US specification bikes since the 1960s due to http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/C... to enforce the 1N234 pattern on the left foot peg. Prior to this, it was not uncommon to find UK spec bikes with 32N1 and 1N234. Norton and Triumph are good examples of manufactures that changed during the 1960s when this standard came out.

Where things get interesting is there are scooter segments that use a N12345 pattern instead of the motorcycle pattern of 1N2345.

Because of this, I always ask what shift pattern is used on motorcycles when riding a new on for the first time.

But if you want some safety' changes that got taken off subsequent year models, BMW during the 1980s put a spring loaded auto retract side stand on at least the R series bikes to prevent you from riding off with the side stand down. No idea how many of these bikes got dropped on their side because owners looking to get off their bike would put the stand down, lean the bike over, and find the stand had already come back up. Another I actually liked was middle 1990s through early 2010s (model refresh time dependent) BMW had 3 different buttons for turn signals, Left handlebar for left, right handlebar for right, and a cancel instead of the 3 position toggle switch found on nearly every other bike before and since. Hazard was to hit both left and right at the same time. Midway, the bikes got auto cancel as a number of complaints came in that the cancel switch was hard to reach when wearing some types of gloves.

Re:Ever heard of the parking brake?

[Hognoxious]

It's probably by Papanek or the other guy. Norman?

Re:Ever heard of the parking brake?

[Registered Coward v2]

Older British bikes have gear change on the right foot, Japanese and modern bikes have it on the left foot. Common is one down, 3-5 up. Your foot brake may be on the other side than you are used to, depending on the make of bike.

Most bike riders are aware of the differences and it doesn't take very long to adjust.

My point was that while there is often a common way to operate different manufacturer's products as well as common symbols/signage; if a manufacturer decided to go to 1, 3, 5 up and 2, 4 down, or some other non-standard combination, a number of riders would get confused, and take much longer to adjust, even if they were experienced riders. It's the changing of the standard pattern that causes the problem because it's not what we are used to and /or the device responds differently than expected. This was an issue with some serious aircraft accidents as well where, despite years of experience, unexpected or unclear ways of operation contributed to an accident.

This guy was just oblivious to how his car worked and he paid the price for stupidity. Even just pulling on his handbrake would have saved his life.

I agree; getting out without setting the handbrake was dumb.

Re:Ever heard of the parking brake?

[nnull]

What handbrake? Most American junk cars now have annoying foot pedal ebrake that no one ever uses because it's black and hidden. Or my favorite, the electronic push the button ebrake that's hidden in some back console somewhere where no one ever uses either. You'd be surprised how many cars are now parked without the ebrake activated on hills.

Re:Ever heard of the parking brake?

[Anonymous Coward]

I own a jeep... I use the e-brake when I park it; so of course I have never had it roll on me. I honestly don't know how people are "confused" about being in park. I wonder how much trouble they would have working 4WD and 4 low. Then of course there are the elockers and the decent control. It makes me wonder if they purchased more car then they could handle, or perhaps they are just looking to blame others for their own carelessness.

I'm going to miss Anton Yelchin. He was a spirited actor and was playing the part of a beloved character perhaps better than anyone else could.

Re:Ever heard of the parking brake?

[tibit]

I don't ride, but isn't the 1N2... pattern a bit silly? When you get rolling, you have to tap the lever twice to go from 1 to 2 - doesn't that make it feel weird?

Re:Ever heard of the parking brake?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't ride, but isn't the 1N2... pattern a bit silly? When you get rolling, you have to tap the lever twice to go from 1 to 2 - doesn't that make it feel weird?

It doesn't work that way - one tap takes you from 1 to 2. You have to "hunt" for neutral, and on some bikes it takes a while. I had an old Honda S90 that was particularly hard to get into neutral. Basically you have to do a light half-push from either 1 or 2, and hope it stops at N.

Re:Ever heard of the parking brake?

[Agent0013]

I don't ride, but isn't the 1N2... pattern a bit silly? When you get rolling, you have to tap the lever twice to go from 1 to 2 - doesn't that make it feel weird?

The N is actually half way between the 1 and 2. You have to gently push down from 2 or up from 1 to get into N. Going from 1 to 2 or from 2 to 1 is very easy to do and is the same motion as any other gear change, ie. 3 to 4.

Re:Ever heard of the parking brake?

[Anonymous Coward]

It does, but safety for a bike is not neutral. It is 1st gear, which allows you to take off in a hurry if a car approaches rapidly from behind while stopped at a light or somewhere. All safety-trained motorcyclists wait at stop lights in first with clutch down, not in neutral.

Re:Ever heard of the parking brake?

[tibit]

Thank you, that detail clears it up.

Here's a thought

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't like a "non standard" shifter or you don't think you could adjust to properly using it then buy a different vehicle. Its not like you have to divine the position of the shifter with a ouija board, it sounds like there are multiple indicators and warning sounds/lights if you're foolish enough to leave it in gear when opening your door. When it kicks itself out of park or it is overtly difficult to discern its position then you can call it a design fault, until then it is simple operator error.

Re:Here's a thought

[Anonymous Coward]

It looks like a mouse, but behaves like a keyboard. This is an example of silly (and dangerous) design-by-marketing. Simply eliminate the "shifter" and replace it with many buttons and some indicator lights ("P", "N", "D", "D3", "D2"). If you require users to be overly careful or experts, you're a retarded designer.

Meh...

[Firethorn]

I think that people need to be re-trained to actually use the PARKING BRAKE. It's not supposed to be an 'emergency brake' as it'll do jack all if you're at speed.

But if you set it, your car is a whole lot less likely to move.

Re:Meh...

[pjbgravely]

People also need to be retrained to drive a manual shift transmission/transaxle. That way they will know to use the parking brake.

My parking brake cable broke so I had to chock my wheel at work. Everyone wanted to know why. Most asked "why not use Park?" My cars don't have a park.

Re: Meh...

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought it was for drifting

Re:Meh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, you're not making a very compelling case for manual transmissions with this story.

Re:Meh...

[itsenrique]

You could have just put it in gear.........

Re: Meh...

[hackwrench]

If it's the brake that I'm thinking of, not all cars have them and I'm really not sure what sort of "emergency" it would be good for, but I've only heard it called an emergency brake and not a parking brake. Apparently they need to remarket it as such.

Re:Meh...

[LynnwoodRooster]

If only there was a way to leave a manual transmission car in gear after the engine was shut off... You know, you solve THAT problem, patent it and you'd be RICH!

Re: Meh...

[Vlijmen Fileer]

You are part of the problem.
The hand brake is the thing meant to safely and effectively immobilise your car when needed; in front of a traffic light, parking spot, driveway, garage.
The "P" position of automatic gearboxes is a gimmick without obvious use. When used while driving or on a hill it can even damage the gearbox.
You guys simply do not know how to handle a car properly.

Re:Meh...

[kimvette]

You still want the parking brake on.
Why?
Because sometimes when stopped a transmission will feel like it's in gear, but only partially engaged. I almost lost a ZR-1 down a hill when I parked it on a below-zero day. It felt like it was in gear so I left it... and heard it rolling behind me. I shoved my foot under the 12" wide tire to stop it from rolling (I just happened to have steel-toed hiking boots on that day) and managed to stop it, then I worked my boot out from under the tire and quickly got behind the wheel and stomped down on the brake. Started up the car, made SURE it was firmly in first the fun way ;) and parked it again. The tranny slipped out of gear because the gear oil was still cold, preventing it from fully engaging when stopped, and the parking brake didn't hold most likely because the lever for the pad was probably iced up.

About 12.5 years later had the same thing happen in a SAAB, except that time I didn't catch it before it rolled, down into a swamp. I normally set the parking brake but that one time I forgot, it wasn't fully engaged in first. No frame/unibody damage but the car does need a new left fender, inner fenders, front spoiler, etc... but I haven't bothered with it.

Do you think "Park" on a slushbox is any better? It's not; open up an automatic transmission sometime, and you'll see that the "park" gear is a dinky soft cast iron pawl. On latest-generation transmissions it looks like they've finally switched to forged steel for the parking pawl, but you're still better off putting the parking brake on first and putting it in park and that is still what manufacturers recommend.

Re:Meh...

[kimvette]

Do you think "Park" on a slushbox is any better? It's not; open up an automatic transmission sometime, and you'll see that the "park" gear is a dinky soft cast iron pawl. On latest-generation transmissions it looks like they've finally switched to forged steel for the parking pawl, but you're still better off putting the parking brake on first and putting it in park and that is still what manufacturers recommend.

Re: Meh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Put it in gear. It's something you can't do in an automatic because the torque converter will allow movement. This is why automatics have a park 'gear' in the first place.

Re:Meh...

[dryeo]

You're also supposed to park with the wheels turned so you'll hit the curb or roll more onto the shoulder if no curb so the vehicle won't roll away.
I've never experienced a tranny popping out of 1st or reverse when parked but have experienced my parking brake freezing up over night and learned not to use the parking brake in winter or if the vehicle is parked for a long period. I've also had my vehicle creep when parked in gear so park in such a way that it won't go far. Many parking brakes seem like crap

Re: Meh...

[Anonymous Coward]

When used while driving

It won't engage. Pretty sure there was even a Mythbusters episode about it.

Re: Meh...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't take advice from anyone who drives Corvettes or Saabs.

Re:Meh...

[mcgrew]

Leave it in reverse, that's as good as a brick. I never used the parking brake, just stuck it in reverse. When I first got it I always used the brake until I discovered that shut off and in reverse held better than the brake.

Re:Meh...

[ukoda]

Put it in gear to hold on a slope when your handbrake is broken is only going to work on the flat or very slight slope. Enough incline and the engine will turn over, just like when you bump start a car. On a significant slope it will move immediately but on a more modest slope it will move slowly was the compressed air in the cylinders leaks past the piston rings. Over an hour or so you car may roll several meters. Using a choc block under the wheels is a good idea in his case.

Re:Meh...

[tetranz]

I think the vehicle in this accident does have a user interface problem but as foreigner in the USA, I have observed that most Americans never use the parking brake or hand brake as I call it. Sometimes where I have lunch at a cafe and I sit looking out a window at a parking lot, I see lots of cars arriving. Pretty much without exception I see the car rocking back and forward as people get out or, if it's on a slope, it moves abruptly when the driver releases the foot brake and it crunches up tight on the transmission. I asked a few friends why they don't use the brake and I've only received blank looks.

I surprised that the warnings I've read about this accident are mostly just saying "double check that it's in park". I have seen a clear recommendation to put the brake on.

Re: Meh...

[Anonymous Coward]

I once watched a manual stick car roll slowly across an inclined lot off into the grass. The owner hadn't set the brake. The car moved with short halting movements as the compression built up and was overcome by the weight of the car. And it got faster as it went.

If have a manual you *need* to use the brake. Ever heard of roll starting a car? Same idea.

Re:Meh...

[dotgain]

and you'll see that the "park" gear is a dinky soft cast iron pawl.

So? Hook a rope up to that car and try to tow it, and you'll find that "dinky soft cast iron pawl" stands up to the challenge perfectly, and the wheels will skid. There's no point in engineering it any better.

Re:Meh...

[kimvette]

Newsflash! There isn't always a curb to turn the wheels toward. What then, genius? :-p

Re:Meh...

[delt0r]

People need to be retrained in riding horses. I mean how many people these days don't know how to ride a horse properly!

Re:Meh...

[pjbgravely]

Lots, it is pretty sad.

Re:Meh...

[pjbgravely]

Kim, thanks for answering for me. I was out all day. I never expected any replies except for cowards. The best term I have heard so far for a slushbox is autotragic. That means most cars in the USA are autotragic wrong wheel drive.

Re:Meh...

[dryeo]

Read the first sentence again. I'll quote the relevant part,

or roll more onto the shoulder if no curb so the vehicle won't roll away.

It's generally better for the vehicle to roll into the bush then down the road

Re:Meh...

[Scoth]

Many years ago I was driving an MR2 with a broken parking brake cable, and left it parked in first on a slight slope in the middle of a parking lot at work. An email went out to the campus email that an MR2 had rolled out of its parking space, so I ran down to assess the damage but somehow I'd left the wheel such that it'd pulled out of the parking space perfectly. It was still in gear, wouldn't move anymore from where it was, and hadn't made it more than about ten feet. No idea what happened, best I can figure is something happened that let the engine spin over a few times and let it move forward some.

Still drive an MR2, and I've always made sure to keep my parking brake working.

Re:Meh...

[fredgiblet]

I think it may be partly because of the spread of the term "emergency brake" which indicates it's only useful in emergencies. It's stupid, I'd rather have the brake on and the car in N than the brake off and the car in P myself. Both is, of course, best.

Re: Meh...

[Anonymous Coward]

On the Nissan Juke it is useless in any situation where your speed is more than 15mpg. It just won't engage or produce no actual breaking force, even though the rear breaks are disks and not drums. It is unusable as handbrake and as emergency break. In fact the manual advises on emergency engine shutdown and using the engine as a break (and that is a push button start/stop engine)

Re:Meh...

[Agripa]

A parking brake is pretty weak only because it relies on the rear wheels which normally have a lot less traction in braking than the front tires. If it is working properly, it should be able to lock the rear tires while moving.

Re:Meh...

[stealth_finger]

Honestly, you're not making a very compelling case for manual transmissions with this story.

Well, he could've gone and got it fixed, or leave it in gear and it won't go anywhere instead of looking like a pillock carrying around a couple bricks.

BTW is a parking brake the same thing we brits call a hand brake?

Re:Meh...

[Hognoxious]

Yes. Probably because on some American cars you operate it with your foot.

Some call it an "emergency brake", which is even stupider.

Re:Meh...

[Joce640k]

My parking brake cable broke so I had to chock my wheel at work. Everyone wanted to know why. Most asked "why not use Park?" My cars don't have a park.

Um, yes they do.

It's called "in gear".

Re:Meh...

[Anonymous Coward]

The engine will still turn. In fact it might turn more easily, as reverse is often the lowest ratio.

Re:Meh...

[MichaelSmith]

What about first or reverse?

Re: Meh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the car's I've driven, even if you engage the parking brake, will tend to move if they are in gear and the engine is running.

Re: Meh...

[carolharlow323]

Eh?????) Be fabulously wealthy if I coulddevise a way to keep my manual transmission car in gear when I Park the car????? Where's my money, Dude? I do that all the time!!!!!

Re: Meh...

[carolharlow323]

In case you had not noticed, the only people who regularly learn to ride horses these days are one or more of the following: 1. Cowboys (real ones) 2. Rodeo contestants 3. Royalty 4. Billionaires and their children 5. Very small adults who decide they want to ride horses in races (jockeys) 6. Polo players 7. Connoisseurs of dressage 8. Connoisseurs of fox hunting 9. Ranch children (both ranch owners' children and cowhands' children) 10. Owners of show horses (like show dogs but usually a lot larger) 11. Starry-eyed young women from families with money 12. Canadian Mounties 13. Mounted ceremonial guards at various royal palaces and such 14. Members of mounted patrols in any number of large city Poloce Departments 15. The Ceremonial Cavalry of the French Army 16. Ceremonial Cavalry of US Armed Forces 17. Successful actors, actresses, and their children 18. Horse riders in circuses 19. Stunt men and women

Re:Meh...

[Cramer]

Except when the pawl and gear wear out and no longer completely latch. (I have a Ford bus (converted van) like that -- you have make damn sure the thing has engaged and locked before getting out of it.) Or when the pawl or gear teeth literally shear off; I've seen that happen many times, usually due to a parked car getting hit.

Re:Meh...

[Dread_ed]

Completely relevant to your comment:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljPFZrRD3J8

Re:Meh...

[Cramer]

Actually, it IS also an emergency brake. It's an independent braking system (physical cables) that will continue to work when the normal hydraulic system fails. On some cars, it's also a completely independent brake drum. It's much less precise than the main brakes, so they won't apply the same stopping force, but they will generally slow the car to a stop, as well as hold the car at rest. (both are tested in the NC safety inspection procedures.)

Re: Meh...

[Cramer]

Most modern cars have electronic shifters, so it won't engage park while moving. Older cars had a centripetal mechanism that wouldn't engage the pawl while the shaft is spinning. (think old roll-up window shades.) Much older (70's and earlier) had no safeties at all; throwing it in park would, indeed, damage things.

Re: Meh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, I've used it for that on an old car in that exact scenario.

Re:Meh...

[Hognoxious]

I see you used the word also, and because of that I agree, technically. My point was that calling it an emergency break sort of implies you shouldn't use it except for emergencies, which is wrong.

Re:Meh...

[delt0r]

Awesome...Totally Awesome. fuck your honda civic.

Re: Meh...

[citylivin]

You only really *need* to use a parking brake when you are on a hill (or your car is stupidly designed and keeps trying to kill you). There is absolutely nothing wrong with not using the parking brake.

Yes, on many cars with drum brakes, the parking brake will adjust the drums, so it is good to use it occasionally, but I have driven off with the parking brake on more times than it has saved my car from rolling off, so i don't use it. I learned to drive not using it, my dad never used it, so I don't. I come from a very flat city, with barely any hills, so growing up there was no reason.

If you are parking on a hill, to prevent the transmission from clunking when you put it into drive, you should have the parking brake on. But to say people "dont know how to handle a car properly" if they dont use their parking brake every time they park is hyperbole.

Re:Meh...

[pjbgravely]

On the steep parking lot I was parked on, the engine may have turned. Anyone with an automatic should have used their parking brake also. I doubt anyone did.

Re:Meh...

[Anonymous Coward]

You might want to refresh your knowledge of basic mechanics.
Hint: Which gear gives the lowest crankshaft torque for a fixed linear force?

Patent pending fix

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey Jeep, here's a prior art thingy for you (as seen right here on Slashdot right now): add a "park" button on the dashboard, separate from the stick and make sure it says "PARK" when active. You can introduce this without major software changes, as all you have to make this button do is jump straight to "PARK". Oh, and make it not work while rolling at any speed, OK?

Re:Patent pending fix

[louden obscure]

yuh, BMWs have a separate "P" button. To go backwards you push the shifter forward, not exactly a logical move but it does conform to the standard PRNDL pattern.

Prius and BMW X3

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Prius has a tiny shifter in the dash, quite insignificant actually compared to a real shiter. And it has a very prominent indicator in the dash to show you P, N, D, R and something called B for engine braking. It was completely new so I got used to looking at the dash and the large P button with a green LED. Anyway its parking brake is totally mechanical and I press it all the way. So I am more confident about Prius.

BMW X3 on the other hand has a traditional shifter and shows the position clearly. But its parking break is electric. Just press the button and hope it is engaged correctly. It has auto parking brake, that will apply every time the car comes to a halt and auto release when the gas is pressed.

Trains always had their brakes applied all the time. A locomotive must create a negative pressure to keep the brake released. Any interruption to the vacuum line, the brakes apply automagically. Westinghouse invented this some 120 years ago. Still no car even thinks of using such a method. There were times when they stupidly designed windshield wipers to work off the negative pressure in inlet manifold. But no advancement at all in keeping the parking brake applied in a fail safe manner.

Re:Prius and BMW X3

[Anonymous Coward]

It's my recollection that "air brakes" in large vehicles (buses and large trucks) work this way as well, though with positive pressure (around 120psi) - the parking brake is engaged by a spring and needs to be pressurized in order to release, while the "normal" brakes need to be pressurized in order to engage.

Re:Prius and BMW X3

[Anonymous Coward]

You're actually incorrect on how train brakes work.
And it was this same misunderstanding by emergency service workers that killed a bunch of people and destroyed a town:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/a9176/understanding-a-runaway-train-how-do-air-brakes-work-15678938/

Chrysler

[ArchieBunker]

This guy probably had some good cash rolling in and he buys a fucking Jeep? At least spring for something upscale like a Land Rover or G Wagon.

Re:Chrysler

[lucm]

something upscale like a Land Rover

A Land Rover is the ultimate "I don't know shit about cars but this one is expensive and foreign so it must be good" vehicle. Runner-up: Lotus.

Hopefully wih Brexit those engineering pieces of shit will stop leaving the UK.

Re:Chrysler

[ArchieBunker]

I'll admit they rank low on reliability but most people with money buy a new one every few years so they never notice. What is wrong with Lotus? A small British sports car with a Japanese engine? Sounds like the best of both worlds.

Re:Chrysler

[Anonymous Coward]

Jaguar/Land Rover is actually a wholly owned subsidiary of India's Tata Motors these days.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tata_Motors#Jaguar_Land_Rover

Re:Chrysler

[lucm]

What is wrong with Lotus?

Buy one. Then when you're stalled by the side of the road half a mile after leaving the dealership, you'll have plenty of dashboard fault indicators to realize what's wrong with Lotus.

Of course you'll get it back (somehow) to the dealership, and they'll say it's just a bad fuse. So a few days later when the car stalls again, or when the doors won't unlock, or the radio won't play music, you'll figure it's just a bad fuse again.

Fast forward six months and thousands of dollars of repairs that were for some reason not covered by the "bumper to bumper" warranty, you'll find yourself offloading this piece of shit to an unsuspecting idiot. Buying an unreliable luxury car is a lot like watching the tape from The Ring; at some point you just can't take it anymore, you have to give the curse to someone else.

handbrake?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know the details of these cars. Am I to believe that the gear shift and the emergency handbrake are no longer completely separate mechanisms?

If there is still a regular handbrake and it wasn't engaged LIKE IT ALWAYS SHOULD BE WHEN PARKED, then that is the main reason for an accident.

Maybe the gear shift design is poor, but the real issue is not using a feature designed to protect against these sort of situations.

E-BRAKE. Use it.

park your car properly

[ooloorie]

When you leave the car, use the parking brake (and curb your wheels when on an incline). It's actually the law in some states. Anybody who doesn't do that and relies on the "P" setting of their automatic transmission isn't just a risk to themselves but also a risk to others. That's not just because relying on "P" alone creates a single point of failure for a multi-ton lethal projectile, but also because the "P" setting simply isn't designed to guarantee immobilization of a car. While it's sad that Yelchin died this way, this should not be the car manufacturer's responsibility: the car was parked improperly.

Most vehicle manufacturers and auto mechanics do not recommend using the transmission's parking pawl as the sole means of securing a parked vehicle, instead recommending it should only be engaged after first applying the vehicle's parking brake. Constant use of only the parking pawl, especially when parking on a steep incline, means that driveline components, and transmission internals, are kept constantly under stress, and can cause wear and eventual failure of the parking pawl or transmission linkage. The pawl might also fail or break if the vehicle is pushed with sufficient force, if the parking brake is not firmly engaged. Replacement can be an expensive operation since it not only requires removing the transmission from the vehicle, it's usually the first component to be installed in the gearbox case during a complete overhaul rebuild.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

http://www.driversedguru.com/d...

What about the EULA for the car?

[Anonymous Coward]

Has Chrysler/Jeep joined the 21st century and provided a non-modifiable EULA with the car that prohibits lawsuits? Check the pile of papers you signed without reading at purchase. It's possible that something's in there, or a link to something online about it. Everybody else is doing it, why not carmakers?

From what I've seen of the Chrysler/Jeep shifter problem, it is a design screwup of the first magnitude. Nearly every car magazine that's tested one has complained about it. It *looks* normal but it doesn't *work* normal so people who just drive are left thinking that it does things it doesn't. The other "novel" shifter arrangements (such as Prius) are sufficiently different from normal that you have to think about them to make them work, and there are prominent indicators of what the status is. Also, with Prius, shutting off the engine automatically engages Park.

Re: What about the EULA for the car?

[Big Boss]

That's my thought with it as well. I have owned a Prius and currently own a Leaf which uses a similar setup. They made the shift setup different enough that you don't have muscle memory competing with you. Making the shifter look the same but work differently is stupidity of the highest level. And with the whole thing being electronic now, just make the car automatically go to park mode if the engine is off, driver door is open, or the driver is not present. Simple software update as all the required sensors are already there.

Yes, people should use the parking brake. But they don't. I even had a driving instructor get after me for using it, he said it was "unnecessary". So it's not surprising that people don't do it. The vehicle should have basic fail safe setups. Make it possible to override, but have big warnings and noise if they do. If a distracted user can easily miss that the vehicle is not in Park mode with the engine off or doors open, the UI has a serious flaw that needs fixing. We all agree drivers shouldn't be distracted, but they are. Everyone gets in a hurry or something once in a while.

While a death as a result is tragic, I don't think it rises to a fault of the manufacturer that should result in legal action. With the current courts and laws though, it probably does. And the lawyers involved will get millions, affected owners will get a coupon for a free oil change or similar.

Frankly, we wouldn't even be discussing it if it hadn't been a famous/rich person who was killed. Sad as that is.

YESYESYES

[Anonymous Coward]

YESYESYES Let's further enrichen the lawyers

Don't change for the sake of change

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a lot to be said for sticking with old familiar standards that work. If you're going to change things, make sure the change is super obvious. For example, I once had a ride in a car from the late 50's or early 60's that had push-buttons for shifting. Want to be in park? Push 'P". It made the car distinctive, but it was a crazy simple UI change to understand.

Proper car handling

[Vlijmen Fileer]

Maybe people should just learn proper car handling.
Any position where the car is halted means you put on the handbrake. Traffic light, drive way, parking lot, wherever.
Not . ever .abuse the "P" position of an automatic gearbox. It was not meant for that, it is not fit for too; on hills it also puts unnecessary stress on the gearbox.
That "P" position is little more than a gimmick only present on automatic gearboxes, or at best, a feeble extra safety measure to be used /on top of/ the basic good practice of using handbrake.

Re:Proper car handling

[viperidaenz]

Why would you put the parking brake on when at a traffic light? You shouldn't be putting your transmission in park at a traffic light either.
Put your foot on the brake pedal. That's what it's for.

P is there because the parking brake isn't as good as the service brake. It can't always hold a car on a hill. It only applies to the rear wheels. It's not part of the hydraulic brake system. It's a cable connection to the rear brakes (or a separate drum brake in some cars) with no power assist.
It's a replacement for leaving a manual car in gear when parked on a hill, to assist the parking brake.

Simple solution

[Anonymous Coward]

A very loud noise when the door is opened and Park is not engaged. That probably can be pushed out as a software upgrade, huh?

Re:Simple solution

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC6Uldx1mi8

I suggest you look at roughly 2 minutes into the video, it has a quite loud warning and a plain text message on the dashboard saying "Vehicle Not In Park" already.

I drive a Jeep

[Anonymous Coward]

A 99 TJ (wrangler in American brands).
It's all manual: transmission, doors, locks, windows, no air conditioning, ABS ,etc. In fact, the only computer controlled component that interfaces directly with the driver, the dashboard, is one of the first things that went flakey on it as soon as the warranty passed. My entire dashboard occasionally goes dead (odometer, tax, speedometer) with a bus error until I smack the dash Fonzie-style with my fist.

One of the main reasons I've held on to this car for 17+ years is because I dread the fact the next car I own will have me victim of fly-by-wire B.S.

Class actiona because ...

[CaptainDork]

... famous.

Celebrities have more value than commoners?

Re:Class actiona because ...

[TroII]

In this case, the fact that it was a celebrity (FSVO "celebrity" - I never heard of the guy until he died) means the design flaw got national media attention. That's a good thing. But class actions happen all the time. What celebrity spurred the lawsuit against Red Bull? Which famous person should I thank for suing Capital One over millions of illegal robocalls? How about Truvia being sued for false "all natural" labeling? Commoners, as you say, initiated all of those suits. And they're initiating this one, too - the suit is not being brought on behalf of the actor or his family, but regular people who own the same type of vehicle.

Re:Class actiona because ...

[CaptainDork]

Look way up there at the top, OK?

Star Trek Actor's Death Inspires Class Action Against Car Manufacturer

Whut?

[BlackHawk-666]

OMG, have you been driving a car with no idea what he handbrake is used for? I drive a manual, and have for about 30 years now. It's a preference, but I still know that every single car I've ever driven, and this is hundreds of them of all sorts...all have a handbrake - which you might call an "emergency brake".

When you park your car you are meant to:

* turn off the ignition
* drop it into first gear if a manual or park if an auto
* pull on the handbrake

None of those steps are optional.

Re:Whut?

[wwalker]

Not quite. In my car (a 10 year-old Audi), if you put it in park, the handbrake is optional. Even if parked on a hill, putting the gearshift into park alone stops the car from rolling down the hill. It starts to roll a bit, but then you can hear the brakes being applied to stop it. I think the handbrake (which is still mechanical in my car, since it's old) is just a secondary "safety" brake, in case the main system fails. I'd venture to bet that it's even more so on modern cars (at least when the designers didn't screw it up).

Re:Whut?

[ledow]

1) I had the full driving lessons and test not long ago (about 8 years now, I didn't learn to drive until much later than normal). No, we were never told to put it into gear when parking. Turn the wheels towards the curb on a hill, yes, handbrake, yes, gear, no. It's not taught nowadays except on automatic-only tests.

Additionally, out of all the people I know, ONLY older people use the gearbox as a brake. Handbrakes are seen as the optional part to them (whereas I'm the other way round and was taught that handbrake mattered, gear did not), and often they will park with it in gear and not apply the handbrake at all. It's surprisingly common. One FAMILY I know had a car with a completely non-functional handbrake for years - it drove me insane whenever I drove it. And they always left it in gear, so I had to always knock it out of gear (gearstick waggle on startup procedure), at which point the visibly-applied handbrake did nothing and the car would roll (jolt, actually, because I foot-brake even if it's not technically necessary) before I could start any further procedure.

2) Lots of handbrakes are electronic nowadays. Literally just a switch that can go wrong and not apply and you not notice until you're out of the car. I'm a VERY careful driver. Check my previous post about this on this article. It can still happen.

3) The point is that they thought they had put it into park. The only part they omitted is the handbrake. And some people were basically taught - by their parents or instructors - that gear mattered and not handbrake. So they "Park" it but don't handbrake and - bam - someone dies because it wasn't actually in Park as they thought.

Yes, a careful driver should never roll. But it's not part of the teaching now to do all these things every time. Hell, it's now "Mirror, Signal, Mirror, Manoeuvre" and my parents were only ever taught "Mirror, Signal, Manoeuvre".

And I was also taught to never wrench a manual handbrake up without the button held down. Personally, I think that's a load of horseshit, but I humoured them. And never, not even on my test, did I depress the clutch when starting an engine. It's just not necessary in Neutral and I was never told to, never did. Yet my new car insists on it before it will start and it's uncomfortable to me because I'm not used to it.

There's a lot of habit in car-driving and a lot of bad teaching and a lot of it can slip past driving tests. Nobody's claiming that this was anyone's fault but his own, but you should also fix the bugs with your car.

Re:Whut?

[afgam28]

No!

The P position in an automatic gearbox engages what is known as a "parking pawl". The handbrake is the primary brake, and the parking pawl is the secondary brake, in case the handbrake fails.

Parking pawls are flimsy, and constant use will wear out transmission components, making it even more dangerous to rely on. Use your handbrake!

Re:Whut?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the handbrake (which is still mechanical in my car, since it's old) is just a secondary "safety" brake, in case the main system fails.

You are 100% wrong.

Re:Whut?

[Hognoxious]

And I was also taught to never wrench a manual handbrake up without the button held down. Personally, I think that's a load of horseshit

That rasping noise it makes is the pawl rubbing against the ratchet teeth as it wears them out.

Re:Whut?

[Hognoxious]

Calling it an emergency brake is stupid, because it has plenty of uses which aren't emergencies. Setting off uphill, for example.

Re:Whut?

[dryeo]

You should apply the hand brake earlier in your procedure, especially in an automatic as park can bind up and it is hard on the pawl.
Also depending on whether pointed up or down hill, sometimes the vehicle should be left in reverse.

Re:Whut?

[dryeo]

You're driving instructor screwed up. Redundancy is good, always leave your vehicle in gear with the parking brake set and wheels turned correctly to hit the curb or roll onto the shoulder if no curb.
Always waggle the gear stick to make sure you are in neutral when starting out and engage the clutch when starting, safer and easier on the starter as it doesn't have to turn the engine and tranny over. This is especially important in the winter when that tranny fluid can be almost solid. There's been times I've had to keep the clutch down for minutes until the engine would turn the cold tranny.

Re:Whut?

[Richard_at_work]

I beg to differ about none of those steps being optional.

Here in the UK, most people learn to drive a manual, automatics are very much the minority here. When you learn to drive a manual, you are taught to leave the car in neutral and with the handbrake on when parked, but not in gear, unless you are parking on a slope, in which case you turn the wheels toward the curb and put the car in either first or reverse (depending on which way you are facing).

Cars are not routinely left in gear when parked on flat (or near flat) ground.

Re:Whut?

[Richard_at_work]

Been doing it for 11 years on the same car, havent had an issue yet...

Re:Whut?

[turbidostato]

"Here in the UK, most people learn to drive a manual"

I can confirm the same in Spain -and probably everywhere as it just makes common sense: always use the parking brake, put in gear only on a slope with wheels turned so the car goes out of the way in case of going loose.

But on the other hand, as some of the steps, while common sense are just there for redundancy, or are just good for the long term/rare circunstances, a lot of people tend not to do it.

Just on the start/stop process a lot of people won't depress the clutch before turning the engine on, for instance.

Re:Whut?

[Anonymous Coward]

Handbrake cables are usually exposed on a car.

If a thief wants to wheel your car off the drive (so they can spend some quality time gutting or simply getting it further away so they have a better chance for a smash/grab/etc/etc) then they simply snip those.

Having had that done(and the only thing that saved the car was the 'shock' alarm going off after they cut a tensioned cable), I now leave the car with the handbrake on and in gear/park

Re:Whut?

[Ramze]

I can't speak to your specific vehicle, but it's extremely unlikely that its design varies significantly from every other auto manufacturer that I'm familiar with, so...

A bit of advice: Do not ever park on an incline without using the parking brake. What happens when you put the car into park is you're pressing a big claw-like brake inside the transmission that locks it into place so that it can't turn, so the wheels aren't able to move. On an incline, the force pulling your car downhill is being applied to the transmission itself - which over time will tear it apart. The large, main gear inside the transmission will not just wear out, but will crack and leave you with no transmission. The large gear the brake is applied to can take a lot of force, so minor inclines aren't a big issue... but the abuse adds up and the steeper the incline, the worse the wear. I've had a Ford Taurus's transmission literally tear itself apart on a minor downhill incline in Tennessee.

I'm not sure what you're hearing when you say you hear brakes being applied to stop the car from rolling -- most car brakes (when you depress the brake pedal) are hydraulic brakes that pinch to stop the (usually front) wheels from turning. The transmission Park position has nothing to do with the hydraulic brakes. Instead, what you might be hearing is the teeth on the transmission brake sliding across the transmission gear as the car rolls and the brake's teeth rake the gear until they find the grooves they lock into which stops the car.

Also, a parking brake is a good thing to use at least occasionally as the parking brake system tends to degrade when not used regularly, and you might need it in an emergency. The parking brake has nothing to do with the transmission and also bypasses the hydraulic braking system. It's also called an emergency brake b/c if your hydraulics go out, you can pull the lever and stop the vehicle.

Re:Whut?

[Woldscum]

You are so wrong. Think of a 5000lbs manual pickup truck with a 4000lbs boat and trailer at a boat launch ramp. In my truck, engine off, trans in 1st gear and brakes on. 9000lbs is enough to turn the engine over and the whole mass rolls down the ramp. I must use wheel chocks when launching my boat by myself.

Re:Whut?

[BlackHawk-666]

I don't think anyone here is debating the fact that you need wheel chocks when launching a boat on a steep boat ramp. That's just common sense. At least, I hope no-one is debating it. But at least we agree, your vehicle is facing up the ramp, it's in first gear, the engine is off *and* you placed chocks under the wheels to stop the obvious from happening.

Re:Whut?

[BlackHawk-666]

A "hill-start" is part of the standard driving test over here in Australia. That means coming to a stop on a steep hill, pulling on the hand brake "emergency brake" and then pulling away cleanly without rolling backwards or riding the clutch. Maybe some other countries need to ensure their drivers can also do this simple manoeuvre.

Re:Whut?

[BlackHawk-666]

True this. Leave it in first gear for slight leans downhill and reverse for the opposite of that.

Re: Whut?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would they teach that nonsense? Add a trailer to a loaded truck, and the handbrake might not actually be capable of holding the whole thing on a modest incline, whereas the boosted brakes will, without a doubt.

Re:Whut?

[dotgain]

Parking pawls are flimsy, and constant use will wear out transmission components, making it even more dangerous to rely on.

BULLSHIT.

Re: Whut?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some modern cars dont even have a real ebrake. They have a button which is pretty stupid.

Re: Whut?

[mccotter]

I was taught by my father (he drove a fire truck) to:
* turn of the engine
* apply parking brake and let that hold the weight of the car
* and then put it in first

That way the weight of the car is being supported by the parking brake and not the engine (or something... I'm not a car guy), which would be used as a back up in case the parking brake fails.

Re:Whut?

[Anonymous Coward]

Learned that us of the parking brake the first time I was on a hill in SF with the VW Beetle, at the stop sign at the top (Bill Cosby routine - look it up - was right), with the usual bumper sticker waiting for me to go.

Re:Whut?

[fredgiblet]

In 'Murica the vast majority of cars are automatic, so that's not needed.

Re: Whut?

[Izuzan]

My 2010 charger and 2007 grand caravan do not have "hand" brakes. They both have ratchet pedals for the emergenct brake. The caravans is siezed and does not work because of salty roads here in the winter.

Emergency brakes in ontario here last only a year or 2 because of the roads in the winter. And in the wintertime the cable generaly freezes, rendering it inoperable.

Only time it is atempted to use is while parking on a hill. And hoping it releases(or even engages for that matter)

Re:Whut?

[cbiltcliffe]

In 'Murica the vast majority of cars are automatic, so that's not needed.

A steep hill, and an automatic can still roll backwards at idle. I've had it happen.

Re: Whut?

[cbiltcliffe]

My 2010 charger and 2007 grand caravan do not have "hand" brakes. They both have ratchet pedals for the emergenct brake. The caravans is siezed and does not work because of salty roads here in the winter.

I'm in Ontario. Use the parking brake every time you park, whether on a slope or level ground, and you'll find it doesn't seize. The only seized cables I've had are when I bought a used car as is from someone who never used it. Both times I replaced the cable, and used it regularly. Years later, it was still working fine.

Re:Whut?

[fredgiblet]

At which point you apply the brake, then when you need to go forward, the gas, it's not very complicated with an auto.

Re:Whut?

[ncc74656]

Yet my new car insists on it before it will start and it's uncomfortable to me because I'm not used to it.

That's not exactly a new feature...my first car required the same, and it was a 1980 model. Clutch safety switches have been around since the '70s. I would expect they've been pretty much a universal feature of manual-transmission cars and trucks at least as long as I've been driving (got my first license in 1989).

Re: Whut?

[Izuzan]

Hard to push a button in on a foot activated emergency brake.

Re: Whut?

[stealth_finger]

Why would they teach that nonsense? Add a trailer to a loaded truck, and the handbrake might not actually be capable of holding the whole thing on a modest incline, whereas the boosted brakes will, without a doubt.

Probably because it's just the standard test not part of truck school.

Re:Whut?

[Anonymous Coward]

* turn off the ignition

You're doing it in the wrong order. That's step 4, in case one needs to '3. operate an appliance' (eg. electric windows) or cancel the parking procedure before '5. release the seat belt; 6. open the door'. I do other stuff between steps 5 and 6 that doesn't involve vehicle controls.

Re:Whut?

[ledow]

No car that I've owned in the last 20 years (owned cars even if my wife had to drive them), including models made from 30-5 years ago, not one had that.

Literally, it's only since I've had a 2015 model that I've ever had it on a car I've owned or driven.

Re:Whut?

[hackwrench]

No. I don't drive. I was saying there's misinformation that might be somewhat cleared up by a marketing campaign. I asked my mom about it and she said she was told it was called an emergency brake and when in park the vehicle should be put in first gear instead, though she couldn't remember by who.

She also seems to think that the brake is a separate system from the regular brakes, but I don't remember seeing anything about another physically present brake other than the regular brakes. She thought it could be engaged if the regular brake gives out. I suppose that's why she was told first gear only as the "emergency" brake would supposedly be conserved for when the regular brakes gave out. It seems to me that the best name for the brake is "parking brake" though. Or maybe change it up to dispel the notion that there is another brake down there.if that is actually the case and just call it parking lever or something.

Putting it into first gear instead of neutral might be hard on the gear, so I don't know if the supposed additional safety is worth it.

Automatics don't have a parking lever so there are probably quite a few people who drive those who wouldn't know what they are for.

Re:Whut?

[BDF]

Not at all. The handbrake is the primary brake. You are supposed to engage it first.

Prior to the electronic transmissions, you would often find it very difficult to move the shifter out of "Park" if you were on an incline and had not FIRST set the parking brake. This was due to the stress being placed on the prawl. The parking brake has always been meant as the primary means of holding the vehicle stationary with the transmission as a backup. This is true of both manual and automatic transmissions.

Rampant driver ignorance aside.

Re:Whut?

[BDF]

We don't need the brake because we can apply the brake. Gotcha.

Re:Whut?

[gosand]

I have been driving manuals for 30 years as well, and I use it correctly as you do. Although, I usually leave my car in neutral not in gear. I know it's modern and you have to depress the clutch to start it, it's just an old habit from back when you didn't have to do that, and could start the car with it in gear.

On rear-wheel drive cars handbrakes also have lots of fun uses when it's raining or snowing out. (I still haven't quite figured them out on front-wheel drive cars though)

However, I have always called it a "parking brake" and not a handbrake, simply because many parking brakes are foot operated. Personally, I don't really use them in our van because we don't live where it is particularly hilly, and also because it's not as obvious that you've set it. Ever drive away with the parking brake set? Much easier to do in a slushbox where you just put it in gear and jam the accelerator. One of the many reasons I will always drive a manual trans - you just are more connected to the vehicle.

Re: Whut?

[carolharlow323]

ohhhhh ?????????? Oh ye of little faith. He is right, you know.

Re: Whut?

[carolharlow323]

Of course.. That is a different matter entirely. The rest of us are talking about cars, not monster trucks and yachts.

Re:Whut?

[Richard_at_work]

Having bump started a car, I can tell you that leaving a car in gear isnt going to stop someone pushing it away - sure, its harder, but its not impossible.

Re: Whut?

[carolharlow323]

hmm Do you ever start your car in anything other than neutral????? If not, then no clutch in is tequired, obviously. We're not talking about what they teach you in driving school or expect you tondo on a test, we're talking about how cars work.! If you're in anything other than neutral (manual transmission of course), you MUST have the clutch engaged. Won't start otherwise, and you'll hear a lot of grinding of gear teeth.

Re: Whut?

[Anonymous Coward]

Stupid??? Are you a flatlanders or something??? One thing is for sure, if you don't engage in proper braking procedures, coordinating both your regular and hand brakes, you WILL have an emergency on your hands. (Why do I feel like I'm channeling Yoda all of a sudden?)

Re: Whut?

[Anonymous Coward]

ANo... Some of us never have anything other than manuals. Mine's a 6 speed.

Re: Whut?

[Anonymous Coward]

Waggle the gear stick??? That is not allowed in my sports car. I do not want that particular mechanism to get all floppy, so if you start with the clutch in, hand brake on, no need to do any waggling.

Re:Whut?

[Hognoxious]

Maybe I had the timing wrong (had always driven a manual before) but I found that didn't work. If I tried to hit the gas as I released the brake it rolled back. If I put gas on earlier, before releasing the brake, it made a clattering noise that I didn't like the sound of.

Re:Whut?

[fredgiblet]

That's...weird. With an auto you should be able to run the RPMs up a bit without a problem.

Re:Whut?

[Cramer]

2) Lots of handbrakes are electronic nowadays.

ABSOLUTELY. 100%. INCORRECT. The park brake / e-brake is a physically cabled, manual auxiliary brake mechanism -- sometimes a completely independent brake. In every civilized part of the world, it's a safety device that MUST be 100% operable with zero power. An electronic mechanism cannot be engaged or disengaged without power. Yes, the gear box, including "park", are almost always electronic these days, but the "handbrake" is not.

Re:Whut?

[Cramer]

Except when the parking pawl slips, or breaks, or ISN'T ENGAGED. Engaged the damned park brake; then your car is much less likely to "accidentally" roll down a hill and kill you.

Re:Whut?

[Cramer]

Just on the start/stop process a lot of people won't depress the clutch

That's why cars have a safety interlock that requires the clutch pedal be depressed before the starter can be engaged. Even automatics have an interlock -- starter is only available in park and neutral.

Re: Whut?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an simple push-button on both of my parents' cars, about the same as the buttons to roll the windows up & down. I'm not even sure it's linked to a separate braking system. They have a 2007? Volvo S80 and a newish X60, FWIW.

Re:Whut?

[Hognoxious]

Maybe it was a fault with the car, then. It was a rental, so I thought no more of it. Not a huge sample size, but only other places I've driven an auto were Midwest states so the issue never came up.

Oh, I once drove a shitty old van over the Rockies, but I kept moving...

Brings up an old saying...

[jbwolfe]

"Rumor versus fact"

In modern aircraft (that is to say from dawn of glass cockpits), pilots have been taught to reference FMAs (flight mode annunciators) as depicted on the PFD rather than switch positions. As to what mode is selected, a button push is a rumor, an FMA is a fact. Classic example: most Airbus have an electric switch that selects the parking brake and a triple gauge that shows brake pressure. There have been numerous occasions where pilots set the switch to "on" but failed to check the gauge resulting in unintended aircraft movement. Just as in this case, injuries or death can result.

Re:Brings up an old saying...

[Anonymous Coward]

Planes, whether old or new are "fly by checklist". If we drove the same way, we'd never get to work in time.

"Yelchin's band of Jeep"

[Anonymous Coward]

Will they still be releasing the latest album?

Chrysler on the cross

[Anonymous Coward]

How many times can this sort of thing happen before people say, "Hey, look, it's a Chrysler! Remember when THAT company still existed?"

I wonder whom the government will try to force them to merge with THIS time as they struggle to stay afloat, and when people realize they don't even know how to make CARS anymore.

Maybe it's time to accept the inevitable, and pull the plug. It makes a certain amount of sense to do so, the whole line of products they make are basically obsolete anyway.

Do they even MAKE a hybrid, let alone an electric car? Hahahah!

No, they just make overpriced, unsafe junk out of shitty Mopar parts. Mopar... should be called Subpar!

Does anyone seriously think they're any real competition for Chevy or Ford anymore? Come on, guys.

why was such a bad design approved for sale?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is an example of very bad design. I had personal experience with something similar when I borrowed a Toyota Prius from a friend. The damn thing had a push button for park mode - it was very, very hard to tell when the Prius was in park. I had the car roll away on me at least twice. For this reason, I never borrow my friend's car anymore. Not worth the risk.

Something as critical as a park feature in a car should have a positive indication lever or switch that is easy to tell when it is in that mode. And yes, in an automatic you should also set the Parking Brake as well (For those that ask, the parking brake in the I had borrowed was a foot operated one, which...of course...was also unclear as to its position. Yuck!)

Coming back to the car that squished Anton and also the Prius I mention: The question we should ask is why did the Regulator (NHTSA) approve such a design for sale?

Re:why was such a bad design approved for sale?

[Rick Zeman]

Maybe NHTSA thought that people would read their owner's manual? And/or learn how to use said vehicle before using it (a lesson you could have learned yourself).

Re:Ever heard the parking brake?

[tinkerton]

I looked it up. Donald Norman, The Psychology of Everyday Things. It was later renamed to 'The Design of Everyday Things'.

Sure, blame somebody else

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope this gets thrown out. If you put your car in park and don't set the parking brake you deserve what you get.

Re:Ever heard the parking brake?

[Hognoxious]

All uxtards should read it. Some of them might even grok the points it makes.

If I was on the jury.

[Rick Zeman]

"So, how many miles had xyz driven on that Jeep?"
"22,112."
"Don't you think that would be a enough time to figure out how the [bleeping] thing worked?"

If people had accidents on their way home from the dealership, that'd be one thing. People out of their first week...no, no sympathy.

Re:Ever heard the parking brake?

[Registered Coward v2]

I looked it up. Donald Norman, The Psychology of Everyday Things. It was later renamed to 'The Design of Everyday Things'.

A great book. Jeep must have won an award for their shifter design...

Wow!

[Anonymous Coward]

I have had several vehicles with electronic shifters and found each one easy to use. While it required a bit of relearning, each one felt very natural after a few days of driving. None have caused me to question what gear is engaged nor caused me to leave a vehicle in gear. I just watched a video on how to operate the Chrysler/Fiat electronic shifter and all I can say is, "Wow!" The design is horrible. There are plenty of possible ways to accidentally engage the wrong gear or leave a gear engaged. While a focused person should have no problems, I can see how someone distracted will lead to an accident due to poor design.

BMW

[elistan]

My 2013 BMW has a shifter that's the "spring back to rest position" type. But BMW's design hasn't led to any roll-away issues whatsoever that I've heard of. I think there are a few design-related reasons why. The first is how the gears are actually selected - push the lever forwards to select reverse, pull the lever backwards to select drive. This is in contrast with the Chrysler shift where appears to be a pull-back regardless of whether you want to go into Reverse or Drive from Park. Also, the BMW shifter has a push-button that does nothing but tell the car to go into Park, so it's obvious when the Park command has been given. With the Chrysler shifter, the command to go into Park from Drive is to push the lever forward - which is the same motion to put the car into Neutral from Drive, but you have to move the shifter further for the Park function. I can see how this can be very unclear for the driver. Finally, BMW has programmed the car to go into Park if the driver's door is opened, even if it is moving slowly which can be quite jarring I've heard. (I know of nobody who has tested opening the door while at highway speeds. :) ) Mostly, people on the BMW forums have been complaining how difficult it is to get the car into Neutral and keep it there.

Not a defect

[Anonymous Coward]

A defect would be if the transmission was in park and somehow that changed without an act on the part of the driver. That's not what is happening here.

The Grand Cherokee has a ratcheting shifter, a push on the button and a nudge to the lever and you move one position on the gear selection pattern.

When I don't want to visually verify the gear position but want to shift to park, I push the shift button and ratchet forward 5 or 6 times and I'm good. My problem is the paddle shifters on the steering wheel, I sometimes hit one and accidentally down shift manually.

Nope

[ThatsNotPudding]

* With the service brakes STILL APPLIED, apply the parking brake.
* With the service brakes STILL APPLIED and the parking brake engaged, shift into park / clutch down, into first.
* With the service brakes STILL APPLIED, turn off the ignition.
* Slowly lift off on the brake pedal and check for any unintended movement. Then foot off the clutch pedal if a manual.

Re:Nope

[William Baric]

Slowly lift off on the brake pedal and check for any unintended movement.

Slowly? LOL! I agree with everything else, but that one is just ridiculous.

Re:Nope

[Firethorn]

"slowly" can be a relative term.

Failure of driver education?

[RogueWarrior65]

When I took driver's ed and even as part of my road test for the license, you were required to use the parking brake. Do they not teach that anymore?

Rented one of these in 2013 and HATED it

[Anonymous Coward]

About frigging time they do something about this. Rented a Charger back in 2013 (wasnt my choice- they were out of other cars so they gave us the Charger). I thought it was about the frigging stupidest design I'd ever seen. This coming from a LONG time Jeep guy. I had to make a 3-point turn a day or so into our trip and it took me way too long and I wound up in the wrong gear in the middle of the road. Shifting should be SIMPLE folks. And especially PARK! What was so wrong with the old style? Or hell, at least the new Durango and some others have the dial-shift (still not great but at least it has visual and tactile feedback). I'm not joking when I say I will not buy one of these cars with this shiftier, and I'm in the market right now (would almost certainly be buying a 2-year old Grand Cherokee, but instead just gonna wait and/or look at Durango).

Frankly my favorite of all is what my current '10 Hyundai has. Stick with gate, and slide to the right to manually gear select. Its obvious where you are with no visual cues at all, totally by feel.

Re:Ever heard the parking brake?

[tinkerton]

It's been a long time but I liked the book a lot and never forgot the main message.
In the video of the shifter you can see that they took care to add multiple ways of visual feedback on the dashboard , probably to compensate for the loss of tactile feedback. This year old review describes well how drivers need to adapt to it. It doesn't show the dashboard, for that I checked other reviews.
review

Mechanical failure

[Firethorn]

That way the weight of the car is being supported by the parking brake and not the engine (or something... I'm not a car guy), which would be used as a back up in case the parking brake fails.

Indeed That's the reason I mentioned using the parking brake - on a slope, if you put it in park AND set the brake, you have 2 redundant systems that should stop the car from rolling. If you do the third thing - properly angling your tires, you're either creating a 3rd backup with a curb or at least limiting the damage.

It's the same reason we mirror drives and such - If you have two 99% effective systems that are completely redundant, you reduce the failure rate from 1% to .01%.

Need to retake driver training

[Anonymous Coward]

Who the hell gets out of their vehicle WITHOUT putting on the parking brake. Everyone should know better than to trust PARK to keep a vehicle from moving.

Re:Need to retake driver training

[viperidaenz]

Some people are stupid and enjoy putting undue stress on their transmission.

Re:Ever heard the parking brake?

[Registered Coward v2]

It's been a long time but I liked the book a lot and never forgot the main message. In the video of the shifter you can see that they took care to add multiple ways of visual feedback on the dashboard , probably to compensate for the loss of tactile feedback. This year old review describes well how drivers need to adapt to it. It doesn't show the dashboard, for that I checked other reviews. review

Yup, it's pretty clear on the dash; although the shifter would be better if the lights of the non-selected gears on the shifter would be off so only the selected gear was lit.

That's shit.

[viperidaenz]

My auto car has a physical link from the shifter to the parking pawl. The interlock system also won't let me turn the ignition to off without putting it in park first.

what is an "emergency brake"?

[Anonymous Coward]

there is no such reference in the owners manual, in fact it says explicitly to not ever use the parking brake when the vehicle is in motion under any circumstances whatsoever.

Well there are a lot more factors here.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok , I am ignoring all the "wanna be smartest guys in the room" because yes, you should know your car and how it's gears shift, but based on personal experience with a classic American car, there are situations where what gear you think the car is in based on tactile feedback, in some situations may not actually be the gear it is actually in.

I had a Camaro, a Z28 with an automatic transmission that, unbeknownst to me had bottomed out and a shift cable had been severed due to contact with debris on the road. I pull into the driveway and put it into park like I had done 100000000000 times before, and surprise surprise, the car turned out to still be in reverse.

Yes Anton's car may be confusing to some, but to say that the driver is stupid, because something like this happens.. is shortsighted and stupid in and of itself until you know that you know that you know what is happening in the instance you are talking about. In my case, tactile feedback or even looking at the shifter would have done no good , because it was in P and the indicator said P but the transmission was in reverse.. fortunately I noticed the second the car started to roll back and I reflexively put on the emergency brake and checked out what the hell was happening.

SO all you armchair engineers.. keep saying how you should know your vehicle.. and when you end up in a situation like mine, you could get run over by your own vehicle just like Anton did.. I think this accident was unfortunate and there will never be any shortage of all the idiots that come out of the woodwork victim shaming because , hind sight is 20/20 so if that is your way of proving you are smart, you are idiots.

Engineer's Decision

[Anonymous Coward]

What was the solution that promised the most profit for the manufacturer?
Can you see the gear shift?
Can you touch the gear shift?
Then an engineer had probably little to do with the decision to use this solution â" engineers make things work within the limits of decisions made beforehand as good as possible.

Big problem in my Prius

[Deep Esophagus]

I have a 2013 Prius, and that's been a constant problem.

On at least one occasion (that I know of), I was able to exit the vehicle and enter my house, taking my key with me, and even without the presence of the key the car remained in reverse. It was only the fact that it was parked on a slight upward (to the rear) incline with cinder blocks as a barrier (it's a rural neighborhood with no paved driveway or parking area, don't judge me) that prevented it from continuing to idle backwards into the outside stairwell in front of the house.

On at least one other occasion, I started to get out only to find the car continued moving backwards because it was not clearly signaling that it was still in reverse.

At the very least, they should prevent motion when the key is moved away from the vehicle.

Braking is complicated.

[Firethorn]

There's lots of problem with the parking brake as an emergency brake. While on some models, yes, they'll lock up the rear tires, on others they won't, and a secondary problem is heating causing brake fade.

As they're not intended for use while driving, they're pretty much all or nothing. You can't apply them partially with an acceptable amount of control.

Thus, my labeling it as a parking brake, not an emergency brake. I've never used it in an emergency, but as a driver of a manual transmission, setting it is part of my parking ritual.

Re:Braking is complicated.

[Anonymous Coward]

The parking brake is an emergency brake in the sense that if your main brakes fail (rusty pipe, air in the pipes, boiling brake fluid), you can use it to stop the car more gently than using the nearest tree as an emergency stop.

Re:Braking is complicated.

[BDF]

If it's a hand-brake, yes you can control it. If it's a foot-brake, then you are correct -- control is out the window. The necessary caveat is that there is no hydraulic assist, and it will require some upper body strength to utilize as an emergency brake (and it's tied to the rear wheels -- which are responsible for 30% of your braking). It's going to take a lot longer to stop.

Re:Braking is complicated.

[Firethorn]

For me that's 'put it in low gear and turn the engine off'.

Re:Braking is complicated.

[BDF]

Unless it's an automatic, in which case you may need to leave the engine on while utilizing the transmission's braking bands. I've never tried that with the car in off, but I understand that most automatic transmissions require pressure from the PTO side and will not get it from the wheels.

Re: Driving

[hackwrench]

Jokes on you. I don't even drive. And you completely ignored the part where I said that not all cars have them, though that appears to be automatic transmissions whose park mode may be completely different from manuals, but probably wouldn't hurt to have the same brake as a manual, though that might be overkill. I also pointed out that there was misinformation that could be partially dispelled by a marketing campaign.

The "P" position of an automatic transmission has the obvious use of engaging the parking brake and disengaging gears. Its suitability to that task however is another question altogether. What leads you to believe it isn't up to that task?

As the other person pointed out the gearbox is apparently not engaged when an automatic transmission is in park, so I guess it wouldn't damage the gearbox... ever? Unless it is somehow tampered with to not disengage the gearbox, I guess.

The brake handle thing on manuals could damage the gearbox if used while driving or on a hill.

Re: Driving

[carolharlow323]

Shall we say Nooooo. Have you ever driven a car, any car? All cars have a hand or emergency brake, near as I can tell. They operate in the same way and can be activatd by pulling the hand lever up or toard one's self, or if the.brakeis foot operated, as it is in many pickups, SUVs and other really manly vehicles, you step on the pedal with your left foot and push it down town toward the floor and leave it there, unltill such time you want to release it. Putting an automatic transmission into Park most certainly does not engage any sort of brake

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

So he was killed by a Russian Reversal?