I tend to agree, but I wonder how many in the "IDE bad" camp would agree that in order to obtain your drivers license, you must pass the drivers test on a manual transmission?
Since I got my driver's license over a decade ago, I've had to parallel-park less than ten times. I've probably changed a flat tire more often.
I think you would find that the vast majority of drivers in the US don't parallel park even once per year. Furthermore, an increasing fraction of new cars can park automatically.
The chief value of having a road test, in my mind, is to force most teens to learn to drive in a structured program that introduces rules of the road and safe habits. Parallel parking is rare and not dangerous, so we shouldn't waste the limited hours that teens spend with professional driving educators on it.
> I think you would find that the vast majority of drivers in the US don't parallel park even once per year.
In the UK, I had the exact opposite experience. Immediately after passing my test, I was parallel parking daily, and I've frequently been in situations where parallel parking is the only way to find a parking space. IMO it _would_ have been dangerous had I not learnt how to do it and was confident doing it. I'd have likely have been too distracted thinking about what I'm trying to do rather than paying sufficient attention to my surroundings. I know I was when I was first learning, and I failed my first driving test because I didn't adequately check my surroundings before starting to reverse.
At least here in Sweden, manual and automatic transmissions have different driver's licenses, a manual license lets you drive both. Since getting the license is pretty expensive to begin with (with no difference between the two), people tend to prefer getting the manual one.
How much of a difference does learning on a manual actually make? I learnt in the UK, where it's the norm to learn in a manual, and I know after about 5 lessons, it's not really something I thought about. It became habitual very quickly (other than _occasionally_ on steep hills, which took a few lessons longer), and it's something I picked up whilst learning other things anyway.
Why? I would expect manual drives to diminish in popularity over time. It's harder to use, and does not give any benefits at all, other than a slightly cheaper price, and a slightly higher performance if the user is knowledgeable.
An auto transmission is so much better in every respect, and the performance improvements in manual hardly comes into play during every day use.
I consider the ability to use manual transmission vehicles, of which there are many, a benefit. Last year I visited my aunt for a week and traveled around the state with her in her car. I couldn't share in the driving, because she has a manual transmission.
I think it might be more fair to say the "IDE bad" camp is comparable to folks that would say you shouldn't be able to press the "auto parallel park" button on your smart car to pass that part of the test.
Well, considering being able to parallel park is a really insignificant part of being a good driver, and the biggest complaint I hear on the internet is people apparently not knowing where the turn signal is on their car, perhaps people should be required to know more about the buttons on their car.
Agreed! I can't think of many professional trades where you aren't required to know certain fundamentals just because there are higher level tools available. A trained cabinetry carpenter, for example, likely knows how to make a fancy cabinet door without a CNC router, even if that's how they mostly do their work. I'd venture a guess that statisticians could calculate variance, t-score, f-score, z-score, etc by hand.
I'm not saying you can't be a productive professional without knowing lower-level fundamentals, though I don't think you legitimately lay claim to be an expert in the field without them.
