Modern cars are rubbish (for cyclists and pedestrians)

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

problem is, and has been talked about many times (including by Guy Martin when he raced against an AI car) is how these vehicles are programmed. MB have already said they will sacrifice innocent victims to keep their motorvehicle occupents safe.

Elsewhere and incl Guy Martin say those in the vehicle should be the ones that take the hit. There's a discussion here https://www.reddit.com/r/scifi/comments/3pw714/why_selfdriving_cars_must...

I'm firmly in the keep straight and slow down/stop camp for autonomous vehicles. It's the right thing to do in most cases and swerving out of the lane that you're in can have unpredictable consequences (could also open up the manufacturer to legal action).

By the way, I saw this article about grocery delivering, unmanned, autonomous vehicles hitting the streets in Scottsdale (they go a max of 25mph):

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/technology/driverless-mini-car-delive...

kil0ran wrote:

why would you buy a Merc instead of a BMW if it drives the same? Of course, you'll no longer be driving it so perhaps that question is irrelevant .

As per the very first post, I think we are most of the way there. It's all down to marketing - people buy a Merc not because it does anything substantially better but simply because it's more expensive. It's a status symbol.

I suspect that eventually, one day in the future, a whole load of people currently riding the new car treadmill will wake up and ask themselves why they pissed away a fat wodge of money every month (or every time they traded their 2 / 3 year old model in for a new one) to get what is essentially the same thing. Easy come, easy go, I guess.

kil0ran wrote:

I find it very odd that a few families I know splurge £700 a month on car leases. Surely the better option is to pay off the mortgage and subscribe to the bangernomics approach? I'm probably going to spend £500 on a Xsara Picasso at the weekend - 1 owner, low miles, bit tatty but a good runner and easy to fix. Will easily last a couple of years. And I'm a higher-rate taxpayer.

All about priorities I guess. Cars have always been about hierarchy, just as horses and buggies were. Personal transport has always carried status - its only when you get to 40-something that you realise its all bollocks.

(Of course, the same applies to bikes, but probably best not to go there

Totally agree. Im my last job, there was a police call Centre on the floor above us. About half the kids who worked in there were late teens / early twenties and most of 'em drove leased BMW 1-series. Here's a thought, why not drive a banger like we all used to and save some money towards a mortgage deposit  ? The world has definitely gone car crazy...

StraelGuy wrote:

kil0ran wrote:

I find it very odd that a few families I know splurge £700 a month on car leases. Surely the better option is to pay off the mortgage and subscribe to the bangernomics approach? I'm probably going to spend £500 on a Xsara Picasso at the weekend - 1 owner, low miles, bit tatty but a good runner and easy to fix. Will easily last a couple of years. And I'm a higher-rate taxpayer.

All about priorities I guess. Cars have always been about hierarchy, just as horses and buggies were. Personal transport has always carried status - its only when you get to 40-something that you realise its all bollocks.

(Of course, the same applies to bikes, but probably best not to go there

Totally agree. Im my last job, there was a police call Centre on the floor above us. About half the kids who worked in there were late teens / early twenties and most of 'em drove leased BMW 1-series. Here's a thought, why not drive a banger like we all used to and save some money towards a mortgage deposit  ? The world has definitely gone car crazy...

I suspect it's mostly about status anxiety and (related) peer pressure. I think younger and poorer people tend to be more prone to such pressures (and advertisers know it).

On buying bangers, there's also the risk that your £500 bargain generates a £2000 bill at the MOT stage... Of course that could happen to any motor but it's more galling when it's more than the thing is worth! 

It's not just cars... how many people who can ill afford it are tied into expensive contracts for the latest iPhone, etc when they don't need more capability than a midrange handset (which is as good as the top end of 3/4 years ago)?

But let's not be too smug... how many of us spend four figure sums on new bikes every year or two, or several hundred quid on wheelsets (etc. etc.) plus just to potter around at modest pace on a Sunday?

kil0ran wrote:

Duncann wrote:

StraelGuy wrote:

kil0ran wrote:

I find it very odd that a few families I know splurge £700 a month on car leases. Surely the better option is to pay off the mortgage and subscribe to the bangernomics approach? I'm probably going to spend £500 on a Xsara Picasso at the weekend - 1 owner, low miles, bit tatty but a good runner and easy to fix. Will easily last a couple of years. And I'm a higher-rate taxpayer.

All about priorities I guess. Cars have always been about hierarchy, just as horses and buggies were. Personal transport has always carried status - its only when you get to 40-something that you realise its all bollocks.

(Of course, the same applies to bikes, but probably best not to go there

Totally agree. Im my last job, there was a police call Centre on the floor above us. About half the kids who worked in there were late teens / early twenties and most of 'em drove leased BMW 1-series. Here's a thought, why not drive a banger like we all used to and save some money towards a mortgage deposit  ? The world has definitely gone car crazy...

I suspect it's mostly about status anxiety and (related) peer pressure. I think younger and poorer people tend to be more prone to such pressures (and advertisers know it).

On buying bangers, there's also the risk that your £500 bargain generates a £2000 bill at the MOT stage... Of course that could happen to any motor but it's more galling when it's more than the thing is worth! 

It's not just cars... how many people who can ill afford it are tied into expensive contracts for the latest iPhone, etc when they don't need more capability than a midrange handset (which is as good as the top end of 3/4 years ago)?

If it generates a £2k bill you throw it away (or part it out) and start again. When you're buying at £500 you can easily recoup most of your outlay if you're handy with a spanner (interiors and switchgear are popular eBay items)

I used to go to footy - £800 on a season ticket - and would stand next to teenagers off the local estate who all had iPhones. No idea how they afforded them - I certainly couldn't justify a £50 a month contract. Perhaps if it's your only device and you don't have broadband/tv it makes sense.

I was the same in my 20s - spent a fortune on cars, DVDs, XBox games, footy, drinking, etc. But the difference was I could easily afford a mortgage because the housing market hadn't gone mad. I guess they're all living with their parents still...

I wasn't/am not a big earner but I think my Northern upbringing had an influence on my spending/saving habits (as it has my son). I've always bought my cars outright, usually 3-4yr old ex company cars and never had a loan/debt aside from the mortgage. I was lucky to buy in the mid 90s when house prices even in the Northern home counties were affordable to those on a below average salary, I feel so fortunate to never worrying about having money in my wallet/account, never felt I couldn't go out when I wanted or go on holiday somewhere.

BUT, you sacrifice x so that you can have y, within your means. Saving £100 month not having x so that in a number of years you can buy y, but that amount could be £500 a month or a £1000 or more, in reality the amount people earn often means exactly the same thing just at a higher spend level.

As said, it's this need within some to keep up with the jones's or to peacock themselves, humans are different but predictable, some need to do what they do as a crutch, to project an outward impression or garner favour. But when that causes more negatives, more problems further down the line and doesn't address the issue then it must be very stressful living that way, needing the next fix that costs you a shit ton of money, particularly cars.

Teaching our kids that you can have a happy and fulfillinb life without having to spend every penny you earn and more on what are mostly material things that are wants not needs, is extremely important IMHO.

Duncann wrote:

I suspect it's mostly about status anxiety and (related) peer pressure. I think younger and poorer people tend to be more prone to such pressures (and advertisers know it).

Older two-wage households are still susceptible to marketing, evidenced by the proliferation of 4x4s and posh German marques everywhere. Upgrading high-end smartphones is just blowing money on a toy computer, probably also for the reasons you cite.

I think spending £x per month is easier than finding and/or justifying a hefty lump sum every two years to get the same thing again in a different colour. But it is a hand-to-mouth existence and PCP, along with other forms of credit/finance, does apparently make the possibility of another 'credit crunch' very real. [Guardian] The last time I borrowed money was in 1990 to buy a 7 year old VW Polo, the youngest car I've ever owned.

Duncann wrote:

But let's not be too smug... how many of us spend four figure sums on new bikes every year or two, or several hundred quid on wheelsets (etc. etc.) plus just to potter around at modest pace on a Sunday?

Not me, I'm afraid. £600 for a s/h TCR 6 years ago, bought specifically for racing, is my biggest ever cycling purchase. I don't think I'd go any faster on a new one.

Simon E wrote:

Duncann wrote:

I suspect it's mostly about status anxiety and (related) peer pressure. I think younger and poorer people tend to be more prone to such pressures (and advertisers know it).

Older two-wage households are still susceptible to marketing, evidenced by the proliferation of 4x4s and posh German marques everywhere. Upgrading high-end smartphones is just blowing money on a toy computer, probably also for the reasons you cite.

I think spending £x per month is easier than finding and/or justifying a hefty lump sum every two years to get the same thing again in a different colour. But it is a hand-to-mouth existence and PCP, along with other forms of credit/finance, does apparently make the possibility of another 'credit crunch' very real. [Guardian] The last time I borrowed money was in 1990 to buy a 7 year old VW Polo, the youngest car I've ever owned.

Duncann wrote:

But let's not be too smug... how many of us spend four figure sums on new bikes every year or two, or several hundred quid on wheelsets (etc. etc.) plus just to potter around at modest pace on a Sunday?

Not me, I'm afraid. £600 for a s/h TCR 6 years ago, bought specifically for racing, is my biggest ever cycling purchase. I don't think I'd go any faster on a new one.

Unfortunately,  there´s a lot of us out there who get brand new cars thrown at us every couple of years! Life´s a bitch.

And getting back on topic a bit:

kil0ran wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

problem is, and has been talked about many times (including by Guy Martin when he raced against an AI car) is how these vehicles are programmed. MB have already said they will sacrifice innocent victims to keep their motorvehicle occupents safe.

Elsewhere and incl Guy Martin say those in the vehicle should be the ones that take the hit. There's a discussion here https://www.reddit.com/r/scifi/comments/3pw714/why_selfdriving_cars_must...

Seems to me that the only viable solution is for all cars to have the same homologated safety logic, like they have sealed ECUs in F1 & MotoGP. It's the same as the rules of the sea and rules of the air, albeit in a more chaotic environment. If all cars know the control rules for all other cars then that should eliminate vehicle to vehicle collisions.

The challenge is that it removes a differentiator for the manufacturers - why would you buy a Merc instead of a BMW if it drives the same? Of course, you'll no longer be driving it so perhaps that question is irrelevant .

One of the posited developments of autonomous vehicles is that they will constantly communicate with each other. This should have both safety benefits (I'm crashing, keep clear! Ice here! etc) and allow "platooning" (forming convoys of vehicles all heading for the same destination, thus saving energy). 

kil0ran wrote:

Bmblbzzz wrote:

And getting back on topic a bit:

kil0ran wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

problem is, and has been talked about many times (including by Guy Martin when he raced against an AI car) is how these vehicles are programmed. MB have already said they will sacrifice innocent victims to keep their motorvehicle occupents safe.

Elsewhere and incl Guy Martin say those in the vehicle should be the ones that take the hit. There's a discussion here https://www.reddit.com/r/scifi/comments/3pw714/why_selfdriving_cars_must...

Seems to me that the only viable solution is for all cars to have the same homologated safety logic, like they have sealed ECUs in F1 & MotoGP. It's the same as the rules of the sea and rules of the air, albeit in a more chaotic environment. If all cars know the control rules for all other cars then that should eliminate vehicle to vehicle collisions.

The challenge is that it removes a differentiator for the manufacturers - why would you buy a Merc instead of a BMW if it drives the same? Of course, you'll no longer be driving it so perhaps that question is irrelevant .

One of the posited developments of autonomous vehicles is that they will constantly communicate with each other. This should have both safety benefits (I'm crashing, keep clear! Ice here! etc) and allow "platooning" (forming convoys of vehicles all heading for the same destination, thus saving energy). 

Platooning won't be safe. Even with as close to zero reaction time as possible to an obstacle, somewhere in the queue there is going to be a collision, unless the platoon is moving very slowly.

They've been a lot safer than human drivers so far.

https://media.daimler.com/marsMediaSite/en/instance/ko/Daimler-Trucks-te...

OldRidgeback wrote:

New cars are designed for passenger protection, with much thicker roof pillars. They really do obscure the view. Our current Ford Focus has a particularly large blind spot at the rear. You do have to be very careful.

New cars are also packed with driver assitance technology. My feeling is that these encourage drivers simply to drive to the limits, and don't actually improve overall safety. Worse still, features like cruise control can lull a dozy driver to inaction/sleep, as one poster mentions earlier on.

Exactly.  My Beetle, and my wife's VW microbus (1973 vintage), are probably both a bit rubbish for passenger protection.  Made out of thin metal, no airbags, ancient brakes, etc. 

But - and this is the thing - we know that, and we drive accordingly.  In the wet, or going round bends, or down hills, you slow down because you know your brakes' effectiveness.  There's no ABS gubbins to pick up the slack, so you drive more carefully.

OldRidgeback wrote:

What I loved about that old generation 911 was the fact that you had to really drive it. Modern cars are boring essentially. That includes the Aston Martin Vantage I drove at Silverstone on a track day a couple of years back. What a boring car. No, I really mean it.

I know what you mean. My first car was a 1275gt mini and it felt like I was literally  one of the wheels. Same with my Mk2 golf.

My wife just got an Ford ecosport thing and I have no idea where the limit is (not that I been pushing on it anyway) but power steering is so over powered there's no feel in the wheel at all. She has a Clio before that and I just got nothing through the wheel as you could literally turn it with a finger. 

I remember my old man's early 80's passat. Clutch that required quads of steel, no power steering and brakes that made you see god.

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

OldRidgeback wrote:

What I loved about that old generation 911 was the fact that you had to really drive it. Modern cars are boring essentially. That includes the Aston Martin Vantage I drove at Silverstone on a track day a couple of years back. What a boring car. No, I really mean it.

I know what you mean. My first car was a 1275gt mini and it felt like I was literally  one of the wheels. Same with my Mk2 golf.

My wife just got an Ford ecosport thing and I have no idea where the limit is (not that I been pushing on it anyway) but power steering is so over powered there's no feel in the wheel at all. She has a Clio before that and I just got nothing through the wheel as you could literally turn it with a finger. 

I remember my old man's early 80's passat. Clutch that required quads of steel, no power steering and brakes that made you see god.

A friend had a Mini Clubman with a Cooper S engine back in the day. It felt like it cornered on rails. It made a great noise too. Sure, my modern Ford is quicker, but not so much fun to drive.

For the old 911s you really need quads of steel to change gear. They have a stiff clutch with an unusual 'over the top' action. My wife's cousin has a mid 80s 930 Turbo and it's the same. Now that really is a fun car to drive!

Luckily, while bicycles have evolved, new ones are still pretty good to ride. The fun hasn't been engineered out of them. My new BMX cruiser is a blast.

OldRidgeback wrote:

 

Luckily, while bicycles have evolved, new ones are still pretty good to ride. The fun hasn't been engineered out of them. My new BMX cruiser is a blast.

I want one of those 26" PK Rippers just for posing. Gave up the BMX a couple of years back now after I got back into it at a late age. Landing on your shoulder in concrete skateparks and not being able to move your arm for days has that effect. It's great fun being able to get air in your 40s but I was going out dressed like robocop to try and avoid injury and it still found me. People at work aren't very understanding as well when you're 40+ and have done yourself in on a 'kid's bike'.

Oh to be young again!

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

OldRidgeback wrote:

 

Luckily, while bicycles have evolved, new ones are still pretty good to ride. The fun hasn't been engineered out of them. My new BMX cruiser is a blast.

I want one of those 26" PK Rippers just for posing. Gave up the BMX a couple of years back now after I got back into it at a late age. Landing on your shoulder in concrete skateparks and not being able to move your arm for days has that effect. It's great fun being able to get air in your 40s but I was going out dressed like robocop to try and avoid injury and it still found me. People at work aren't very understanding as well when you're 40+ and have done yourself in on a 'kid's bike'.

Oh to be young again!

Well you could always try racing BMXs instead. The 50+ age category for cruisers (with 24" wheels) is thriving (as are the 40-44 and 45-49 classes). I took part in the first 50+ BMX race in the UK a few years back. One guy racing in the UK is 72, so I reckon you've a bit to go yet. He goes to the US to race sometimes and me and another of the old farts are thinking of going as well next year.

I know what you mean about concrete skateparks. I messed up a turn and bruised my hip some time back. It took months for the bruising to come through.

Racing can be challenging too though. I broke my wrist when I crashed in a race a few years back and then tore all some ligaments in my left shoulder after a crash while training.

One of my colleagues is a serious roadie and in his 60s and the rest of the people think we're both nuts.