Porsche should be selling bumper cars

[PhilDawson8270]

Who does need a Porsche Cayenne or a ghastly contemporary Range Rover, Jeep Grand Cherokee &c., then?

Need?

My friend is a tree surgeon. He often needs a 4x4 to get to some of the places he needs to work. Admittedly not in a Cayenne, or modern Range Rover. But they're not the only vehicles that fall into "all 4x4s are useless". It's like saying that all mountain bikes are useless because a lot of them get used on the road, or that all road bikes are pointless as some are carbon and not necessary for the road.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

I want an automatic assault rifle and some handguns. And some slaves.

How come society doesn't support our wants? We would promise to use our possessions responsibly.

There are societies where this is possible. Whether you want to up and move, depends on the strength of your want I guess.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Out of interest and I may have missed it, what sort of car do you suggest we all own.

I'm more interested in knowing what power/speed/power-to-weight limit @GrumpyGregry would place.

 

[Over The Hill]

Just because a car is capable of getting to 140mph doesn't mean it has to, by your theory my Giant Defy which cost £399 is about the only road bike that anyone needs, yet people are happy to spend £3k+ on their bikes, both if jumping a red light can be just as dangerous.

There seems to be a strange logic of some people that just because you have a car capable of going 140+ then it means you will, maybe that says more about the character of the poster that they don't have the self control required.

You are going down the route of the US gun lobby here. Just because a gun is capable of shooting innocent people doesn't mean it has to. But by you having it the chance of it happening must be greater and clearly every day you can stand on any motorway bridge and see hundreds of motorists doing over 70mph. You are deluded about self control.

Option 1- Law states we can drive up to 70mph. We sell cars that are limited to 70mph. Everyone is within the agreed rules and happy.
Option 2- Same Law. Cars all can go much faster than that. Drivers routinely speed and we live in a culture of speed and racing on our roads. More people get killed or injured on the roads.

It seems I am happy with option 1 but you in the name of freedom go for option 2.

 

[swee'pea99]

Why this obsession with 'need' being the be all & end all, as though cars were a means of getting from A to B, period. They're not. Obviously. With cars, as with any other commodity, there's need and there's want, and why shouldn't someone be able to buy a car they want rather than merely one they need, any more than I should be prevented from buying a fedora hat, just because I want one? No-one needs a fedora hat. Should they be banned?

Ah, but cars kill people, hats don't. Fair enough. Is there any evidence to show that cars that can do 0-60 in 4 seconds, or have a top speed of above 80mph kill more people than cars that don't? Not in absolute terms; obviously they don't in absolute terms, because there are comparatively so few of them. But even in proportion to, say, the miles that are driven in them? In short, are fast cars actually more dangerous to other people than other cars? If they are, then there might be a case to argue. But I very much doubt it. I would guess that drivers of Porsches tend on the whole to be quite good and careful drivers, who are well aware of things like insurance premiums. I would guess there's a much stronger correlation between, say, age & dangerousness than car power & dangerousness. You'd probably have a far better impact on accident statistics by banning all 70 years+ people from driving. (How many of them, after all, really 'need' to drive?) I could be wrong. But that at least would be a case worth arguing.

But the idea that nobody 'needs' a nice car, so they should all be banned other than for use on test tracks, is fatuous, and just reeks of a kind of killjoy, humourless, hair-shirt sanctimony that alienates cyclists from (a large part of) the rest of society, and makes them think we're 'not living on the same planet'. All of which feeds that all-too-endemic 'I hate cyclists' mentality, which does none of us any favours.

By all means attack people for driving stupidly, dangerously, inconsiderately. But don't attack nice cars per se, purely on the grounds of being unnecessary. Nice cars aren't necessary, but they are cool. Like fedoras.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

You are going down the route of the US gun lobby here. Just because a gun is capable of shooting innocent people doesn't mean it has to. But by you having it the chance of it happening must be greater and clearly every day you can stand on any motorway bridge and see hundreds of motorists doing over 70mph. You are deluded about self control.

Option 1- Law states we can drive up to 70mph. We sell cars that are limited to 70mph. Everyone is within the agreed rules and happy.
Option 2- Same Law. Cars all can go much faster than that. Drivers routinely speed and we live in a culture of speed and racing on our roads. More people get killed or injured on the roads.

It seems I am happy with option 1 but you in the name of freedom go for option 2.

Limit cars to 70mph, they can still do more than twice the legal limit in a 30zone, and more than triple the limit in a 20 zone. How do you propose to address this issue?

 

[Over The Hill]

I used to think like that.

Since then I've met people who buy cars, none of them have talked about the top speed.

You could install electronic limiters, but I've since come to realise people need the freedom to break the law. It might sound crazy, but it's true. Even if I never speed, fight, steal, slander or whatever, I need to know that I can.

Imposing control on the population for things they might never do doesn't really work.

However, I do share your desire for less death, less injury and less car usage.

Give them all a gun too perhaps?
Speeding happens all the time, it is not a rare occurrence or something that people do not do.
If you want to live dangerously and break the law then don't wear your seatbelt. At least then that only kills you not me.

 

[Over The Hill]

Limit cars to 70mph, they can still do more than twice the legal limit in a 30zone, and more than triple the limit in a 20 zone. How do you propose to address this issue?

The 70 limit is the start of a change in the mindset of the driver to remove this speed culture we have particularly in the UK. Our whole car industry is created around speed and racing. Look at modern cars, they are predominantly made to promote speed with "sport" models with traits of racing cars added to them. Look at all the car ads with cars racing around built up areas.
Limiting speed will help to change the focus onto other things (like comfort or economy or being cool) but it is I accept only a start.

 

[Tin Pot]

Give them all a gun too perhaps?
Speeding happens all the time, it is not a rare occurrence or something that people do not do.
If you want to live dangerously and break the law then don't wear your seatbelt. At least then that only kills you not me.

I don't think you've understood my post - where have I proposed living dangerously, whatever that means.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Our whole car industry is created around speed and racing. Look at modern cars, they are predominantly made to promote speed with "sport" models with traits of racing cars added to them. Look at all the car ads with cars racing around built up areas.
Limiting speed will help to change the focus onto other things (like comfort or economy or being cool) but it is I accept only a start.

Modern disc brakes came from racing
Crumple zone development was done in racing
Modern armco crash barriers come from racing
Seatbelts come from racing
ABS although an aviation invention, was first used on cars in racing
Superchargers came from aircraft but then through racing, superseeded by turbo chargers. These in road cars allow for amazing MPG depending on configuration
Aerodynamic improvements for economy came from racing
Electric Hybrid systems came from racing
Modern race regulations on engine size and fuel usage, result in technology being developed for more and more economic engines on the road

Of course, all this racing is terrible for the car industry. I mean, it's not like they have developed anything significant. (Sarcasm if you didn't guess). Motorsports development has made road cars, safer, and more economical. All the things people seem to want. I own a sports model Civic, but with a small engine. As I want the economy, but like the styling. Why should it matter to anybody what my tastes are?

Also, I would be interested for you to link to a UK advert of cars being raced around built up areas.

The ICC Code has as one of its basic principles that advertising should be prepared with a due sense of social responsibility; the Code is applied in the spirit as well as to the letter and governs all forms of advertising, including that for motor vehicles. All EASA member SROs apply the principles of the Code and many national codes also contain specific provisions relating to the advertising of motor vehicles, often negotiated with national motor industry associations and then administered by the national SRO. Typically, these detailed rules cover such areas as:

• avoiding the portrayal or encouragement of unsafe, inconsiderate or aggressive driving practices;

• avoiding advertising messages based on speed, performance and acceleration;

• not presenting technical advances and safety features in ways which might encourage a false sense of security and lead to dangerous and irresponsible driving;

• respect for the environment;

• making clear, where appropriate, that demonstration sequences take place on a test track and not the public highway;

• strict observance of relevant laws, good safety practice and the highway code.



Other SROs prefer to rely on the general provisions of their codes relating to issues such as safety and social responsibility.

 

[Tin Pot]

Limit cars to 70mph, they can still do more than twice the legal limit in a 30zone, and more than triple the limit in a 20 zone. How do you propose to address this issue?

Automation. Cars could eventually become fully automated. Manually operated cars would phase out over time.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Automation. Cars could eventually become fully automated. Manually operated cars would phase out over time.

So I get a free chauffeur? And I can get drunk while driving too and from the pub? That will be awesome, I can replace a pub bike with a pub car

 

[vernon]

Limit cars to 70mph, they can still do more than twice the legal limit in a 30zone, and more than triple the limit in a 20 zone. How do you propose to address this issue?

GPS enabled speed control.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

GPS enabled speed control.

What about when you can't get a GPS lock?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

But the idea that nobody 'needs' a nice car, so they should all be banned other than for use on test tracks, is fatuous, and just reeks of a kind of killjoy, humourless, hair-shirt sanctimony that alienates cyclists from (a large part of) the rest of society, and makes them think we're 'not living on the same planet'. All of which feeds that all-too-endemic 'I hate cyclists' mentality, which does none of us any favours.

By all means attack people for driving stupidly, dangerously, inconsiderately. But don't attack nice cars per se, purely on the grounds of being unnecessary. Nice cars aren't necessary, but they are cool. Like fedoras.

Never met an "I hate cyclists" type who wasn't first and foremost coming from a motor-centric mindset.

Cars, are cool. Like fedoras. Guns are cool too.