Bored whilst waiting for time for an OS upgrade, so why not (yes, that's rhetorical)?
How many documented cases of accidents can you find that are directly attributed to someone driving with two feet instead of one? Not someone speculating about what might happen, but accidents that actually did happen. Can you find any?
Now factor in how many people drive with both feet, since it's obvious you haven't been doing that.
Ok. From most estimates I've run into, it's about 8-10% of the automatic driving public. My question is not ignoring that. I'm asking you for *any* accounts where an accident can be directly tied to the fact that someone was driving an automatic with two feet. I think that's a legitimate question given how completely most people assume that doing so is inherently dangerous. We'd expect to find a higher rate of accidents among that group, yet so far no one's produced evidence of any at all, much less evidence that the ratio of pedal misapplication accidents in automatic vehicles by two foot drivers is higher than that by one foot drivers.
Dear god, not only did you completely misread the example but you typed a wall of text about it. I guess I need to give you the play by play and spell it out for you. Driving in car. OH GOD PANIC SITUATION! Slam down both feet. Left foot misses break, right foot hits gas pedal. Don't try to cop out and say this can't ever happen or won't happen. You've been citing incredibly unlikely scenarios the entire thread.
Except I already covered this:
The left foot guy, at worst will miss the brake (but not hit the gas), or press both pedals. Both of which have far less dangerous results than what can (and does every year) happen to the right foot only driver.
I love how you imagine all these wonderful unlikely ways that a normal driver could mess up and accelerate when they mean to break, and then you blatantly disregard the unlikely situations that could occur for left foot brakers. Why can't the left foot braker miss the brake and also hit the accelerator?
Do you see why I interpreted your question to mean missing the brake and hitting the accelerator with the same foot? I mean, I suppose you can claim you meant miss the brake with one foot and then hit the accelerator with the other foot, but that's a bit of a stretch. At the very least, you could have been a hell of a lot more clear. Doubly so since the scenario you were responding to was someone having their right foot slip off the brake and onto the gas. Sure seemed like you were claiming that the same thing could happen while using the left foot.
In any case, I'm not disregarding your arguments. I'm dismissing them as insignificant relatively speaking. You assume that a two foot braker would push down with both feet when braking. Why? You assume that in addition to doing this (for no apparent reason at all), he could then miss with one foot and hit with the other in exactly the wrong combination to result in runaway acceleration. While I'll grant the incredibly unlikely possibility of this happening, that probability is vastly less likely than the much more simple scenario in which one foot slips off the intended pedal and on to the other.
You do understand the difference between something being impossible and something being less likely than something else. In the context of the question "which is safer" that's a very relevant point to make. I still maintain that driving an automatic with two feet is safer than driving it with one and so far no one has presented any valid argument to refute it.
Not even close to as dangerous though. Assuming the odds of missing the brake are the same, one is much much worse than the other.
Do you even drive a car? When I'm commuting to school I'm going no slower than 60 on the LIE. If something happens and I need to brake suddenly there's very little difference between me hitting the gas for 2 seconds and me missing the brake for 2 seconds.
Huh? But everything else being equal, one is less likely to happen and less likely to result in an accident. You keep contriving situations in which it wont matter, while ignoring all the cases where it will. If it wont make a difference, then driving with just the right foot isn't any better, right? But in the cases where that 2/10ths of a second reaction time difference matters, the left footed braker will have an advantage. And in the cases, where covering ahead of time makes a difference the left footed braker has an advantage. There is no case I can think off where driving with just one foot makes it easier or safer when reacting to an emergency. Can you?
Did you ignore this situation so hard you forgot it exists as well? I guess if you factor in that it's usually people who shouldn't be driving anymore that press the wrong pedal they would indeed be less likely to be driving fast.
You're introducing irrelevant conditions though. Those people are dangerous regardless of which foot combination they use. Assume two people with identical driving skills, reaction time, etc. One drives with both feet. One drives using just one. Everything else being equal, the guy using both feet will be better able to respond to random events on the road.
Because you have to shift your left leg and foot more to the right than its natural resting position.
That's circular though. And not true in most cars.
The brake pedal certainly isn't "designed" to be used by the right foot though. Where did you get that idea?
Where did you get the idea that the brake pedal isn't
designed to be used by the right foot? My statement falls perfectly in line with automatic cars not being designed separately from manual cars, where your left foot would only be using the clutch.
The brake is in the middle precisely so you can use either foot to operate it. You are aware that people use their left feet to brake when driving manuals as well. The only time you actually *need* to use your right foot to brake in a manual is when coming to a full stop. Many people (myself included) learned to drive on an automatic, and learned to use right and left feet on gas and brake when at speed on the highway, right and left feet on gas and clutch when shifting, and right and left feet on brake and clutch when coming to a complete stop. You'd be surprised how natural that is and how much better you can control the car when you do it that way. This bizarre idea that the left foot is only to be used for the clutch, while the right foot manages two pedals all by itself all the time is strange as hell.
So your argument is that left foot brakers can be prepared whereas bad regular drivers who choose not to put their foot over the brake or get ready to brake can't. Guess you're pretty screwed when you factor in competent drivers like myself who choose safety over getting somewhere 2 seconds faster and get ready to press the brake when I'm in a parking lot of near suspicious cars.
Didn't read what I wrote, did you? I said that you *can't* cover the brake with your right foot while still maintaining speed control of the car. How do you manage to pass a group of slower moving cars on the freeway? If you move your foot off the gas, you'll slow down and wont pass them. If you don't, then you can't cover the brake. There are lots of situations where a person driving with just one foot must essentially pick an option and hope he's right. The two foot driver and hold his left foot over the brake while maintaining complete control over the speed of the car. He can speed up to get into an open spot, let off the gas completely, or anything in between, all while covering the brake just in case something unexpected happens.
The right foot only driver simply cannot do this. To cover the brake he *must* relinquish any control over the speed of the car. He can only slow down.
Now comes the part where you try to safe face by saying your way is more advantageous for those unexpected unforeseen panic situations.
Not sure how repeating the statement I already made, which you ignored entirely is "saving face", but whatever floats your boat.
[quote]I'll just head you off at the pass. You said that when the situation calls for it the left foot brakers can "(move his foot over to the pedal, planting heel to floor in front of it, toe pointed upwards and ready to press it as needed). I do this..." This means that in an unexpected situation you would need to move your left foot to the brake, just like I would need to move my right foot to the brake.[/quote]
And again you left off the important part. I can do this prior to the unexpected situation happening (you know. Being prepared for it), without having to sacrifice control of the speed of my car to do so. You can't do it. You *must* choose to either coast the car and cover the brake or maintain speed and not cover the brake. That seems to be a pretty stupid choice to force on yourself if you can avoid it.
Once again, you've pointed out a scenario in which two footed driving is no better than one footed, while ignoring the cases where it is better. If we're both caught by surprise, and you have your foot on the gas pedal, and I have my foot resting to the side, we're both equally slow to respond. But I can move my left foot over to give me an advantage in brake response speed any time I want. So the odds of us being in that "even" situation are low. Most of the time that something unexpected happens, I'm going to already have my left foot poised over the brake. You, on the other hand, will have it on the gas. Thus, your response time will be slower. As I stated multiple times already, the only way for your response time to be as fast as mine is for you to take your foot off the gas and put it over the brake. But by doing this, you lose control of the speed of the car. That is not something you can just do any time you feel like it.