How many feet do you use while driving?

[Rustedsaint]

Manual 2, all the autos I have driven since I got rid of my old car,1
My old car had so many different issues with it, if you didn’t keep alittle pressure on the gas when breaking the car would stall. So 2 feet had to be used

[Forogil]

Someone taught everyone to ride on a bicycle with kiddie wheels to assist them from falling. But if you ride long enough, you will eventually realize that those kiddie wheels prevent you from leaning your bike and effectively stop you from turning at any speed above walking pace without twisting yourself into a pretzel.

That is different. A two wheeled vehicle is inherently unstable at low speed which training wheels try to solve, but then they become a nuisance.

And many believe that the simplest way of avoiding the problem is to not add training wheels at the start, but to remove the pedals - both of them, and have the new learner scoot along at first on a balance bike.

- - - Updated - - -

I'd imagine with automatic, the left foot does nothing while driving. Might as well as only have 1 foot, for all it would matter.

Well, a lot of the time neither foot does anything if you have cruise control.

[Elegiac]

Well, a lot of the time neither foot does anything if you have cruise control.

Ah, cruise control. The invention which made the interstate bearable. Love she.

[Gaaz]

Assuming people are ambidextrous and have a good level of individual limb control, sure. Most aren't.

You can hold a plate with one hand and a spoon with the other, right? This is no different. A simple minded chimpanzee can get that one foot means go, the other means stop.

Which is a bad analogy because single-foot driving doesn't actually impede the function of the vehicle in the same way training wheels do with a bicycle, y'all are just touting (marginal) safety gains. The equivalent here would be disabling a speed limitation in your car.

It actually does impede function of the vehicle. Just like having no ABS makes it harder to stop without blocking your wheels, having control only over one pedal slows your response times and affects your safety. Moving your leg from one pedal to the other at the very least doubles your reaction times to emergency situations. And this is an extra 40-50 feet of travel before full stop even at modest 60mph.

Nooooooooo, they don't. They would be if left-foot braking involved the brakes being on the wheel.
Again, this is a bad comparison.

It does not matter. Many motorcycles have combination brakes and you can engage front brakes with your right foot if that particular point bothers you. In any case, your left foot is doing basically nothing on an automatic transmission. Why not use it? I do not get the reasoning "it is dangerous / more difficult to use your free appendage to do braking. Instead, I am going to use another appendage that is already engaged in another vital function of my movement and split its use." Does that sound about right?

[Santti]

Well, a lot of the time neither foot does anything if you have cruise control.

Ah, true. Didn't consider cruise control. My car doesn't have that, but I think all of my family members have newer cars that do have it.

[Elegiac]

You can hold a plate with one hand and a spoon with the other, right? This is no different.

Aside from it being very different in terms of exercising independent fine motor control. Not remotely the same thing as holding two things.

It actually doe impede function of the vehicle. Just like having no ABS makes it harder to stop without blocking your wheels, having control only over one pedal slows your response times and affects your safety. Moving your leg from one pedal to the other at the very least doubles your reaction times to emergency situations. And this is an extra 40-50 feet of travel before full stop even at modest 60mph.

You do realise that not every car accident involves a failure to stop quickly enough, yeah? And those other forms of accidents can be made more likely by fucking around with the brake?

It does not matter. Many motorcycles have combination brakes and you can engage front brakes with your right foot if that particular point bothers you.

The conclusion being motorcycles and automobiles are two different types of vehicle and comparing their driving styles is specious at best, not that motorcycles prove left-foot braking is "superior". Rofl.

In any case, your left foot is doing basically nothing on an automatic transmission. Why not use it?

The same reason I don't put my foot over the accelerator when I'm using cruise control. It's superfluous.

I do not get the reasoning "it is dangerous / more difficult to use your free appendage to do braking. Instead, I am going to use another appendage that is already engaged in another vital function of my movement and split its use." Does that sound about right?

Exactly what scenario requires you to be utilizing the brake and the accelerator simultaneously. Besides running out your brake pads faster than a Mumbai chauffeur.

[Santti]

Snip

I just have to ask; is that profile picture from Robin Hood? By Disney, I think? Loved that movie as a kid.

[Gaaz]

Aside from it being very different in terms of exercising independent fine motor control. Not remotely the same thing as holding two things.

Except for we are not talking about fine motor control, but slamming everything in an emergency situation. You know, exactly like you would do with one foot, but faster.

You do realise that not every car accident involves a failure to stop quickly enough, yeah? And those other forms of accidents can be made more likely by fucking around with the brake?

And yet all vehicle manufacturers as if compete who can stop their vehicle in the shortest possible distance... I wonder why... Also, that is not fucking around with brakes. That is more to the always having control over them. You see the difference?

The conclusion being motorcycles and automobiles are two different types of vehicle and comparing their driving styles is specious at best, not that motorcycles prove left-foot braking is "superior". Rofl.

https://www.alberta.ca/stopping-time-and-distance.aspx Average time it takes for a normal person to move their right foot from one pedal to the other is 3/4 second. That is about 60-65 feet of extra travel from 60mph simply because of the very fact that you use one foot instead of two. It is superior, you are just trying to pretzel yourself from admitting it.

The same reason I don't put my foot over the accelerator when I'm using cruise control. It's superfluous.

Not the same reason. Both cruise and throttle do the same function. They make you move forward. Brakes and throttle are completely opposite. You are willingly disabling a part of functionality of your vehicle and gating it behind your reaction times to, I quote you "your fine motor control" and ability to find the other pedal in a stressful situation.

Exactly what scenario requires you to be utilizing the brake and the accelerator simultaneously. Besides running out your brake pads faster than a Mumbai chauffeur.

No scenario requires it. You are completely missing the point. By using two feet you eliminate reaction times needed to switch pedals. Again, that is at least 60 feet of extra travel from 60mph AT FULL SPEED. Given that the speed decreases non linearly, it is a difference of stopping right beside an idiot pedestrian, or slamming into him/her at 30ish mph. Or instead of breaking some of his/her bones at 30mph impact (because the distance was to short) but allowing him a chance to survive, you splatter him at 50mph all over asphalt.
It also allows you to just slam everything without thinking, eliminating the decision process and improve your reaction even further. That is not so good for a motorcycle because it might cause you to fall, slide and loose control of the braking. But this is very good for 4 wheel users. Automatic transmissions on any car produced in the last 10 years account for this scenario and disengage throttle automatically. Some are even dating to early 2000s. So there is NO engaging brake and accelerator simultaneously, please pay attention.

[Elegiac]

Except for we are not talking about fine motor control, but slamming everything in an emergency situation. You know, exactly like you would do with one foot, but faster.

I wasn't aware that driving consisted entirely of slamming everything on the brakes.

And yet all vehicle manufacturers as if compete who can stop their vehicle in the shortest possible distance... I wonder why...

I wonder why you brought this up considering it's a non sequitur.

Also, that is not fucking around with brakes.

Repeatedly tapping the breaks because ambidexterity is hard is in fact fucking around with them.

Not the same reason. Both cruise and throttle do the same function. They make you move forward. Brakes and throttle are completely opposite. You are willingly disabling a part of functionality of your vehicle

Considering the brakes are still installed and freely accessible, no they aren't. Cut it out with the hyperbole.

No scenario requires it. You are completely missing the point. By using two feet you eliminate reaction times needed to switch pedals.

And introduce a whole other host of considerations that may very well make up for the gain in safety in this specific emergency scenario by creating additional risks in others.

If we're going by the technology will fix it standard I can point out that newer cars can and are equipped with obstacle sensors that render the need for left-foot braking moot, either way. So your crusade becomes doubly obsolete in light of that, lol.

[Muzjhath]

That is a hell of a straw you are pulling. He indeed can. But what is more likely (and quicker) in a panic situation - lifting your foot from the throttle, moving it over brakes and pressing them, or just slamming everything down with both feet? Your argument is based on an extremely unlikely, and frankly weird situation that a panicked person will selectively press on throttle and do nothing with the other foot, even though both of his feet are on pedals. That is akin of saying "what if he has paralysis of his left side". Yeah, in this extremely unlikely scenario those systems will not help. But having no foot on the brake pedal will not help either - he still will press the throttle pedal only. So it makes no difference.
The left foot on the brake method at least gives him an ability to just slam everything down with both feet, without wasting any time by thinking. As long as his left side is not paralyzed that is.

Every panic break lesson and training I've had for driving manual consists of pressing two pedals.
Clutch and Breaks.
Everything you spout after this might be good for incremental gains if you drive a fuckload and practice it etc etc. For your everyday driver? No, better just to train panic breaking while learning how to drive and then keep the left foot on the clutch. It'll be far more useful on there than on the break as you use the clutch far more while city driving than you use the break (at least if you drive smartly). Same as, again, any time you break sharply you want to engage the clutch anyway.
As for your other responses after this. Practically everything is semantical arguments my argument here puts down before made.

So using left for breaking in a manual is just, dumb. As for when I drive automatic? The few times I've had to really jump on the breaks there I break with both feet. Left just on the floor of the car, right on the break. Because that's just ingrained in me.
When I started driving automatic I "shadow-clutched" all the time ... aka pressed the fucking break. I still do if I rest my foot on it.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

In a manual transmission: left foot is for the clutch. Right foot for accelerator and brake. In an emergency, you floor both the brake and clutch pedals to not stall the engine so you keep your power steering during the emergency stop maneuver and don't suddenly have a really heavy steering wheel to contend with.

If you let the engine stall during an emergency brake exercise in your driving test where I live, that's basically your test over (and you will have to do one).

In an automatic, the right foot does the brake and the accelerator.

The only time I'll hover my right foot over the brake is when I know I might have to slam the brakes on instantly (for example when driving through a pedestrianized area with kids playing nearby). But then I'm also only moving between 5-10 kph on tick-over anyway, so I can actually stop the car immediately, and the car is rolling forwards without any interaction with the accelerator.

[Cosmic Janitor]

I mean I always thought that using just 1 foot for gas and break was kind of an design flaw, as it adds unnecessary delay and the clutch could be operated in various other ways as well (though every single one of them has downsides). But since I drive an old car with a clutch and even if not, most automatic cars seem to have the pedals more towards the right side (thouigh the break tends to be wider), I think I would still only use my right foot for both gas and break. Hmm maybe my next one will be an automatic, then I'll find out.

[Kerrion]

I drive an automatic so I usually use one, but sometimes both. I just switch to the other feet when the main one gets tired during long drives and both if I'm driving through a difficult terrain to have more control over acceleration.

[Bigbazz]

Majority of cars here are manual, you drive with both feet. That aside, left foot braking is a common technique used by racing drivers and was popularised particularly by Rauno Aaltonen, a Finnish Rally driver from the 1950s. The main reason it isn't taught is that it isn't considered as idiot proof as both the throttle and brake application being one or the other, and done with only one foot (which is no surprise given that you're generally taught in a manual and the majority of the time left foot braking would be useless in a real world stop/start scenario)..

In high performance driving however it's a staple technique.

[Muzjhath]

Majority of cars here are manual, you drive with both feet. That aside, left foot braking is a common technique used by racing drivers and was popularised particularly by Rauno Aaltonen, a Finnish Rally driver from the 1950s. The main reason it isn't taught is that it isn't considered as idiot proof as both the throttle and brake application being one or the other, and done with only one foot (which is no surprise given that you're generally taught in a manual and the majority of the time left foot braking would be useless in a real world stop/start scenario)..

In high performance driving however it's a staple technique.

Also, on this, in high performance driving the drivers often just don't use the clutch, as they know when to switch gear without it and it just slows them down.

[Strawberry]

I use both feet and both hands because I ride a motorcycle.

I'll see myself out.

[ghotihook]

I use both feet and both hands because I ride a motorcycle.

I'll see myself out.

In the winter?!
I ride a motorcycle too. Don't think you're special!

[ldev]

I use both feet and both hands because I ride a motorcycle.

I'll see myself out.

Isn't "riding" used for motorcycle? Question was about driving.

[Progenitor Aquarius]

Of course you use two. What the hell?

[Kerrion]

One - I drive an automatic. Using two in an automatic is dangerous.

At high speeds maybe. But it's not that dangerous if you just tryna work your way through a difficult terrain.