Island Life: BP-Fuelled Rage
205 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 Newer→ Last
-
"iconic" removed from function = fetish.
Mind you, it's pretty hard to find much beauty in the majority of vehicles that currently ply the roads.
Agreed. I can't help but think of the ideal of the privately owned car as being but the most current espesssion of tulipmania. If one wants to be absurd, then one should be gloriously absurd. Mediocre absurdity is a contradition in terms.
-
A S,
"iconic" removed from function = fetish.
You'll need to explain that one for me, I'm not quite sure what you mean. Do you mean that you don't think those examples are functional, which makes them some sort of fetish? Or something else.
If you meant the first, I'd suggest that they are examples of things are both functional and iconic, it looks to be the use to which they are often put that makes them appear less funtional and more of a fetish. The functionality remains, even if it isn't used.
Kind of like having a phone/pda/mini-pc thing, even when all it is used for is texting, the ability for it to do those other things isn't reduced.
-
Icons are for museums and books. If it serves a purpose, then it's all very well, but if something designed and produced for exclusively functional reasons is bought and used for any other reason, it is not serving its purpose, nor fulfilling its designed role and is therefore used for other, irrational reasons.
Admittedly, in practise, motives and functions are mixed with cultural/sociological/psychological imperatives (see Roland Barthes' "The New Citroen") and one may be able to advance a rationale according to these criteria, but it would be idiotic to claim that an SUV is a practical, reasonable proposition. The only practical rationale for an SUV for an urban dweller who is not a builder or tradesperson is ergonomic - one does not have to bend over so much to lift a heavy load from the back seat or loading bay, placing strain on the lumbar region - and even in such a case, the massive overdesign, redundant 4wd and excessive fuel consumption as well as the inherent safety flaws of SUVs are unnecessary and downright pernicious.
-
A S,
...but it would be idiotic to claim that an SUV is a practical, reasonable proposition. The only practical rationale for an SUV for an urban dweller who is not a builder or tradesperson is ergonomic ...
I'd probably separate usage from purpose a bit more in this context. A 4wd is well suited to doing what it was designed for, and presumably from the perspective of the user, they must feel it does it quite well, or you'd probably assume that they would own something else.
-
So why an SUV and not a station wagon?
And at last - None of YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS.
-
they must feel it does it quite well, or you'd probably assume that they would own something else.
It does what I want very well, it's drawback is the cost of fuelling it, but it actually does better in that regard than minivans & stationwagons belonging to tradespeople I am related to.
And I don't trust a minivan nor stationwagon not to get stuck in a paddock.
I can't be bothered arguing that I'm not the stereotypical SUV owner in your perception, but I suspect I'm less atypical than you guys think.
-
Safety wise - it compares to the Vw Passat, which has been named the safest car on the road. According to this site anyway
-
I'm sure you are far from unusual, Andrew, but if every SUV I saw on Auckland streets over the course of a week was being used for righteous outdoor pursuits and bush-bashing, we'd be seeing some pretty well-worn paddocks and trails.
From the perspective of a cyclist I'm less than happy to be surrounded by vehicles that seem expressly designed to kill people like me in the event of an accident, but I suppose it's worth living with it in the name of stereotype avoidance. After all, people say they buy SUVs for the visibility, so they'll probably spot me, right?
-
From the perspective of a cyclist I'm less than happy to be surrounded by vehicles that seem expressly designed to kill people like me in the event of an accident,
Check the front page of the paper... ban trucks.
Also, on a less irritated note - check this out
-
True enough about the trucks. I could probably live with a bit less heavy road traffic and a bit more rail freight, safely out of everyone's way.
And a wicked link, too. Thanks.
Just to mix things up, one of the most hardcore road cyclists I know also runs a Range Rover Sport, a Jeep Grand Cherokee and a work-related Humvee... although not all at once.
-
also runs a Range Rover Sport, a Jeep Grand Cherokee and a work-related Humvee... although not all at once.
There are limits IMO. :)
I'd cheerfully support a car free wellington, how do we arrange it?
-
Start with a car-free city core and gradually roll it out, so to speak, through the central city and out beyond - and invest more in public transport. Fuel prices will do the rest in time, barring of course the much-anticipated future discovery of some dirt-cheap eco-friendly fuel that doesn't take food out of the mouths of Third World citizens.
Those who really do need to drive will probably get much better value out of their vehicles in time - problem being that so many people are unwilling to even entertain the proposition that their driving is less than essential and unavoidable.
-
Safety wise - it compares to the Vw Passat, which has been named the safest car on the road. According to this site anyway
Supposedly, though the NCAP criteria favour the sort of collision normally suffered by lower CoG vehicles (not swerves, loss of control and rolls on wet/black ice surfaces etc). Sorry, it's still physics. It likely gets a couple of its stars for having enough airbags to be hired out to children's parties as a bouncy castle. It gets one star out of five for safety to others. That's also physics - mass times speed equals momentum, plus the overall higher structure of the vehicle means that SUVs in crashes with normal cars often ride over them or hit at a higher point and plough straight into the less well protected zones (glazed area, roof), making rather a mess of the occupants. Charming. Not.
And at last - None of YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS
Thhhhbbbtttt!!!
And I don't trust a minivan nor stationwagon not to get stuck in a paddock.
Great Cthulhu, someone who actually takes one really off-road and even off-pavement!
I did specifically refer to urban use. A brother of mine runs an aged Nissan Patrol and uses it on a farm or towing horse floats. Certainly a Smart won't be much use for that.
-
Thhhhbbbtttt!!!
You call me a "fucking idiot" - allow me the luxury of telling you where to go with that.
It likely gets a couple of its stars for having enough airbags to be hired out to children's parties as a bouncy castle
Undoubtedly true. It also (untested by me), detects objects about to impact at high speed & sends an SOS to emergency services. Apparently. I've always suspected that in the event of that happening, someone in munich will get an SOS from Paekakariki.
That's also physics
Yes it is - and buses & trucks have that advantage over an SUV, as does a Fiat 500 over a cyclist, and a cyclist over a pedestrian.
What do you propose, everyone has to drive vehicles that are exactly the same size or spec?
Or does freedom of choice still exist on Planet Krack?
-
Safety wise - it compares to the Vw Passat, which has been named the safest car on the road. According to this site anyway
It gets one star out of five for safety to others.
And that's the thing - I'm less likely to survive being in a crash with someone in an SUV than with someone in a Passat, so all things considered, I'd rather that someone drove a Passat. And in the majority of situations where I personally encounter other drivers (i.e. on urban streets) there's no need for them to be driving an SUV over a Passat.
Do I have any right to tell other people what to drive? Of course not. Are my reasons for wanting other people not to drive SUVs selfish? Sure thing. But they are reasons, not just blind emotional hatred of anyone behind the wheel of an SUV because they're a "rich prick" or a cat-stroking Bond villain or something.
-
Why don't you feel the same way about buses, trucks, & vans?
They are also a danger to you.
-
Dude, we've been over this.
In the case of buses and trucks, I'd be lucky to drive past two or three a week in the driving I do - they're less of a danger to me, because there's less of them. They tend to drive slower, too (on the urban roads where I drive).
Buses also carry dozens of people - couldn't do that in a smaller, safer-to-me vehicle. Trucks and vans carry big heavy loads - couldn't do that in a smaller, safer-to-me vehicle. The SUVs that I personally see on the roads where I personally drive aren't carrying lots of people or big loads, so could be replaced with a smaller, safer-to-me vehicle. That's the difference.
-
Dude, we've been over this.
Yeah we have - although I haven't heard an argument that persuades me - it's still nasty old SUVs. Buses & trucks? we need them! It's not their fault!
And I'm prepared to be disproven, but I dispute that there are more SUVs than buses & trucks, I dispute that there are more SUVs causing accidents than buses & trucks even.
Busybodies, is the word that comes to mind.
-
And that's the thing - I'm less likely to survive being in a crash with someone in an SUV than with someone in a Passat, so all things considered, I'd rather that someone drove a Passat.
.Do I have any right to tell other people what to drive? Of course not. Are my reasons for wanting other people not to drive SUVs selfish? Sure thing.
Sooo...Why don't we just slow down,avoid "rather" having a crash in the first place and enjoy __sharing __the road. I am in a tiny car and ,yes I am fortunate enough to choose what time I start my day, but I never set out to hurry anywhere and I allow a SUV to go left/right first , from any side street I happen to share with them as it works in my situation and I am alot lower and don't choose to gamble . My man just yelled his car is a mobile toolshed that don't get stuck on muddy building sites being a 4wd. Another reason for their inner city use. Anyones selfish reason becomes pointless because trying to reason with a driver who has purchased their vehicle(no matter how wanky in your eyes) for their own needs,has not done so considering what anyone else might think and I am sure it applies to lotsashit.
-
What do you propose, everyone has to drive vehicles that are exactly the same size or spec?
Straw man argument. My argument is that anyone who believes that SUVs (or FUVs?) are inherently "safe" is a few ants short of a picnic. In a direct one-on-one collision a heavier massing object will be more likely to kill the lesser (leaving aside geometry, CoG, design etc). It is also more likely, due to inertia, to have an accident in the first place. And people still do die in SUVs, no matter how many airbags they have. The question is how to reduce the overall prevalence of risk and SUVs are a positive (in strictly statistical sense) contribution to risk levels.
Or does freedom of choice still exist on Planet Krack?
Exactly what freedom of choice does someone hit by one of those things have? Freedom seems to be an exclusive personal privelege in such a case. Pardon me, but the standard libertarian argument is usually very disingenuously one-sided.
munich
If it's a VW, it'll be Wolfsburg.
buses, trucks, & vans?
Don't get me started... Buses however however are brighly coloured, driven slowly and responsibly on predictable routes in cities. There is also a difference between amateurs and professionals.
Do I have any right to tell other people what to drive? Of course not
Indeed. Somehow some people think that freedom of choice automatically extends to freedom from criticism by the PC Thought Police, which is somehow as egregious a breach of personal freedoms as being locked up in the Lubyanka.
-
Buses however however are brighly coloured
And to be fair, I'd prefer more buses & less cars of any kind.
But how many people are killed by brightly coloured, professionally driven buses each year in NZ?
Exactly what freedom of choice does someone hit by one of those things have?
I don't follow this - they have the same freedom of choice as anyone else don't they? Choice of what?
Freedom of choice is not a euphemism for chances of survival & those chances depend on a lot of factors.
-
A S,
Buses however however are brighly coloured, driven slowly and responsibly on predictable routes in cities. There is also a difference between amateurs and professionals.
Having watched the apparently homicidal maniacs that drive buses in wellington, I'd dispute the buses driven slowly and responsibly bit.
-
Somehow some people think that freedom of choice automatically extends to freedom from criticism by the PC Thought Police,
I'll offer that if remove the words "freedom from", that would reflect your belief.
You're free to criticise, but I'm unconvinced that you're doing it from any position other than a prejudiced busybody, and Im exercising my freedom to criticise you for it.
-
although I haven't heard an argument that persuades me
They persuade me - you asked why I feel the way I feel. And from the sounds of things, my experiences on the road are quite different to yours, so what I'm saying doesn't apply to you.
Why must you make this all about you, when it's clearly all about me - me, damn it ME!!!
-
Why must you make this all about you, when it's clearly all about me - me, damn it ME!!!
beat me to this Josh - but you're wrong, everything is about me!
Let's amicably agree to disagree.
Until I find more stats to back my position.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.