I have made a very expensive mistake

[Alinz]

14 hours ago, Pepe Bones said:

Comparing a real piece of engineering (Porsche Taycan) vs a Marketing gimmick (Toyota Corolla) is sad. 

How is a Toyota Corolla GR not a "real piece of engineering"?. Its easy to compare them by the way, they are both cars.

[ImorallySourcedElectrons]

21 hours ago, leadeater said:

New vehicles here are brought on finance or through mortgage extension. People typically don't have lots of money laying around ready to use, it's usually tied up in their most expensive asset they will ever purchase in their live time, a house. And if you can't afford a house then you are stuck in rental hell and not able to save a lot of money either or you wouldn't be stuck in rental hell and be using that as a deposit on a house purchase.

 

The collapse of the 50's-70's "middle class" isn't isolated to the US, it's basically a global thing.

 

Most new vehicles here are purchased for vehicle rental companies or business fleet vehicles, used for 5-8 years then sold in to the used market often back through vehicle manufacturer like Toyota Signature Class or Toyota Certified Used. Consumers here do buy new however used and imported vehicles is by far the staple of vehicle purchases here. Why would I buy new when I got my 370GT with 25k km on the ODO for $30k NZD (~18k USD).

The first two paragraphs are also an issue here, no worries about that. Heck, I'm well above average income and I still can't purchase any property. I'd literally have to make twice as much as I currently do to be able to purchase liveable housing.

 

But what I'm pointing out is that a lot of the smaller more economical cars probably never really make it to the US market because there's no demand for them (both due to financial and societal reasons), so the large second hand market for these cars never really grew as much there as it did in other parts of the world. Throw in the US's traditional protectionist policies regarding foreign manufactured vehicles, which bumps up prices, and you're in for a really twisted market with dynamics that don't make much sense, which is why you're seeing folks driving twenty year old cars and monster pick-up trucks.

[leadeater]

6 hours ago, poochyena said:

Cars shouldn't be allowed to go more than ~5% higher than the fastest speed limit in the country its registered in.

You're not going to get that since countries have many different speed limits and actually getting that granular isn't going to get done nor will it be suitable for used car market and import/export. Never going to happen.

 

6 hours ago, poochyena said:

Does the Ford Ka encourage people to drive like an idiot? Any car with racing modes do. You can't argue against that, as its the entire point of those modes.

You're mistaking the vehicle as encouraging it when it has and will always be the person. Those people drive like that in literally any vehicle they are in. I can argue against it because it has nothing to do with it at all. Those people will drive the way they do in a Ford Ka or a Bugatti Chiron.

 

6 hours ago, poochyena said:

Honestly terrifying. Why do regular people need such powerful vehicles? What good is it doing to society? I can show you the harm

Except you aren't showing that this is linked to the increase in horsepower at all. I can show you a better statistical correlation with population density than with engine horsepower increases. And yes there actually is a legitimate need for between 120-200 horsepower, if you have ever been in a vehicle with less than that and had more than a single passenger and/or also luggage then you'll know they struggle real hard.

 

My family used to drive many hours to go on holiday in a 1991 Honda Civic towing a trailer filled with camping equipment with 4 people in the vehicle. It was required to stop constantly to let the car cool down and it also could not maintain speed in any semi decent incline which in NZ is the majority of our roads. The car today is a death trap, we actually passed laws to ban imports of such old vehicles or equivalent because they are dangerous and there is no reason to allow it when comparing to modern vehicles.

 

There needs to be a cut off and the most unsafe vehicles on the roads are not the ones with "track mode", which again almost always does not fully turn off TC or ESC so does not make them less safe in that mode.

 

Also if you want a statistically meaningful graph, not one that pushes an agenda then here is the correct one to use.

 

6 hours ago, poochyena said:

An old beater will do less damage and doesn't actively encourage and advertise dangerous behavior.

Young people thrash their old cars because they are worth nothing and can just go buy a new one. They are also more likely to kill and injure the passengers as well as other vehicle occupants or pedestrians they collide with since cars are designed today to cause less harm to anything they collide with and everyone involved. Old vehicles are factually less safe in every situation, collision and accident including pedestrians.

 

SUVs and pickups are are problem, don't think many will disagree but that is very much a US problem with a very US reason for it existing. That still doesn't have anything to do with "track mode" and sporty cars.

 

I have a question for you, which is less safe? A 1991 Honda Civic or a 2012 Mazda 6? The Mazda 6 has twice the horsepower so you think it is less safe right? The Mazda 6 has a "sport mode" so this makes it an unsafe vehicle right? P.S. The sport mode does basically nothing and is critically panned as being useless.

 

Or should we judge vehicle safety on objective independent and standardized vehicle safety testing? Should we judge the safety of drivers by their driving alone and not the vehicle they drive?

 

6 hours ago, poochyena said:

I don't think all cars should be banned. ebikes are speed regulated, why not cars?

They are: Japan 120MPH, Europe 155MPH. Not every vehicle but many cars do in fact have speed limiters. Some Japanese vehicles will also automatically remove the speed limiter when GPS locates them on a known official race track.

[Cavalry Canuck]

5 hours ago, poochyena said:

 

Cars shouldn't be allowed to go more than ~5% higher than the fastest speed limit in the country its registered in.

Does the Ford Ka encourage people to drive like an idiot? Any car with racing modes do. You can't argue against that, as its the entire point of those modes.

It encourages people to drive badly, such as faster acceleration and faster cornering (see video of linus's driving).

An old beater will do less damage and doesn't actively encourage and advertise dangerous behavior.

e-bikes are regulated by law to not exceed ~26mph. Bicycles kill significantly fewer people than cars, yet, are regulated further than cars.

Then we should take those cars away from drivers.

Right, thats why we need to ban dangerous cars, so you will be less likely to be killed by one.

I don't think all cars should be banned. ebikes are speed regulated, why not cars?

Occasionally for work. ~15 year old kia sorento I use to transport my inventory between events. Its a work vehicle. I only get gas once every 2 or 3 months.

Honestly terrifying. Why do regular people need such powerful vehicles? What good is it doing to society? I can show you the harm

Banning fast cars because they encourage stupid people to drive like idiots is like trying to solve the obesity & cholesterol epidemic by banning butter knives.

[WolframaticAlpha]

It makes me wonder, why didn't Linus just get an ICE Porsche. From what I have heard they are pretty fast and fun to drive. 

 

Also, as someone who doesn't know much about cars, can someone explain how the GR corolla is better than say a golf gti or a different hot hatch.

[ToboRobot]

5 hours ago, poochyena said:

 

 

I think smartphones and pedestrians using them instead of looking where they are going is partly to blame for the increase in pedestrian deaths.

http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/51279d5269bedd552b00002d-960/global smartphone sales.png


Unfortunately you can't just show a chart with a line going up and then claim the reason is whatever you want without any data to prove it. 

This is a pathetic level of discourse and debate.

 

[ToboRobot]

23 minutes ago, WolframaticAlpha said:

It makes me wonder, why didn't Linus just get an ICE Porsche. From what I have heard they are pretty fast and fun to drive. 

 

 

Avoiding gas stations.  Charge at home/office, no time spent refuelling.

And the appeal/luxury of electric is nice... until the weekend comes around and you want to go for a fun drive, then you want to burn some gasoline and manually shift!

[ImorallySourcedElectrons]

16 minutes ago, ToboRobot said:

Avoiding gas stations.  Charge at home/office, no time spent refuelling.

And the appeal/luxury of electric is nice... until the weekend comes around and you want to go for a fun drive, then you want to burn some gasoline and manually shift!

To be fair, electric is good for commutes, less good for long distance driving.

[ToboRobot]

7 minutes ago, ImorallySourcedElectrons said:

To be fair, electric is good for commutes, less good for long distance driving.

Don't disagree.

I think privately owned commuter appliances, opposed to shared fleets, is rather wasteful, and given the impact of mining for the resources to make these heavy electric transportation appliances, it doesn't make much sense to have millions of them to be used to and from work and then sit in parking lots (paved paradise) for the rest of the day.

[ImorallySourcedElectrons]

5 minutes ago, ToboRobot said:

Don't disagree.

I think privately owned commuter appliances, opposed to shared fleets, is rather wasteful, and given the impact of mining for the resources to make these heavy electric transportation appliances, it doesn't make much sense to have millions of them to be used to and from work and then sit in parking lots (paved paradise) for the rest of the day.

Shared cars are useless and atrocious unless if you live in a densely populated area, and even then they're a massive waste of time. I used a shared car system for a while, and it ended up costing me so much additional time and causing so much agony that I quickly stopped using it. Transport is a base necessity, not a luxury product, it should be available quickly and without significant barriers to entry. In any case, now it doesn't matter, because the closest shared car is literally ten kilometres away.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, ImorallySourcedElectrons said:

Shared cars are useless and atrocious unless if you live in a densely populated area, and even then they're a massive waste of time. I used a shared car system for a while, and it ended up costing me so much additional time and causing so much agony that I quickly stopped using it. Transport is a base necessity, not a luxury product, it should be available quickly and without significant barriers to entry. In any case, now it doesn't matter, because the closest shared car is literally ten kilometres away.

Shared cars are mostly a system that is trying to address shortcomings in public transport. There are situations where shared cars can make sense but overall public transport is better, more efficient and less hassle. Not every city or town needs huge public transport systems and personal vehicles don't have major issues, cost of scale is a big factor.

 

I'm also a very big proponent of EVs and Vehicle to Grid (V2G) and Vehicle to House (V2H) solutions that help cover peak demand and distribute load demand across networks with very good load offsetting. Long/medium term parking, private and public, should all have V2G. EVs are portable energy storage and generators, they have massive potential outside of transportation.

[wanderingfool2]

13 hours ago, Cavalry Canuck said:

The car has an Ontario plate. If you want to see who provided the car, you can look up the registered owner via the Ontario Ministry of Transportation website. That'll tell you if it was provided by Toyota in some way.

Personally, I don't think it was a paid shill for Toyota. These cars are available everywhere, they would have provided a model off the lot in the lower mainland. Instead, I think LMG got something in their inbox from a private individual that interested them. Whatever the deal with said individual was, someone drove the car across the country for Linus and Alex to play with it for a day. Maybe they got free tickets to LTX and milage paid? I'd drive from Ontario to BC and back for that deal.

It should not, and never be the case where you have to look up a license plate to see who the owner was in order to tell that it was provided by Toyota.  I'm guessing though that the license wasn't blurred it belongs to a corporation though [I'm not about to go looking up license plates and violating people's privacy]

 

Things such as press vehicles make their rounds around the country, as they hop from lets say influencer to influencer.  Either way, if there is any involvement with Toyota here then it 100% should be disclosed in terms of if Toyota paid for anything or provided anything.  So maybe @JordB and @LinusTech can step in and clarify exactly what was Toyota's involvement.  It's different when products aren't directly related to the video, but when a product is the highlight of the video it should be disclosed if LMG purchased, rented, or was provided said product.

 

16 hours ago, leadeater said:

Let's ban the right thing first then? Right? Or maybe it's not and has never been a vehicle issue at all and cars are only safer today than they have ever been no matter what "setting" is being utilized.

It depends on what you consider a right thing.  As I mentioned, it's the mentality aspect that the feature of track mode feeds into; which is the encouragement of dangerous driving.

 

As I also mentioned, EV's themselves typically have a lot better acceleration and generally, if not fitting an EV into an ICE design, better handling.  Although essentially flooring it as well can increase the risk of accidents

 

17 hours ago, leadeater said:

Also it's time to remember that exactly zero vehicles within the last roughly 20 years struggle to reach 60mph/100kmph and don't have decade long acceleration times because even the most cheaply made mass produced engines have vastly more power than much older vehicles so be very weary of what you are blaming. Anything half modern will get you in to trouble very rapidly very easily, "track mode" actually has nothing to do with anything at all.

Better acceleration is actually a thing that can be blamed; while I don't like trusting this news article I don't really have time to hunt down the statistics

https://www.brusselstimes.com/287315/electric-cars-involved-in-more-accidents-than-regular-vehicles-study-shows

 

Good acceleration like I said has it's pitfalls as well as it's perks, again I was talking about acceleration not "track mode".  It's something that unless you have driven a vehicle with drastically better acceleration how much more comfort there is not having to merge while still accelerating (instead being a the proper speed by the time of the merge) [there are a few highways here that meet that requirement].

 

 

As a note, please re-read what I said, I didn't blame the old cars.  I literally said EV's typically have better acceleration than cars WITH track mode, and I talked about how better acceleration can be a bad thing.  It can cause actually a lot of damage when pedal misapplication happens, as with the fast acceleration 

 

8 hours ago, poochyena said:

Honestly terrifying. Why do regular people need such powerful vehicles? What good is it doing to society? I can show you the harm

That is a terrible graph, it give no context.  Population growth for example would be 10%, population density in vehicles with accidents, total milage driven.  Really to be at least less biased it should be based per capita, and per mile driven.

[ToboRobot]

2 hours ago, ImorallySourcedElectrons said:

Shared cars are useless and atrocious unless if you live in a densely populated area, and even then they're a massive waste of time. I used a shared car system for a while, and it ended up costing me so much additional time and causing so much agony that I quickly stopped using it. Transport is a base necessity, not a luxury product, it should be available quickly and without significant barriers to entry. In any case, now it doesn't matter, because the closest shared car is literally ten kilometres away.

Densely populated area like Vancouver? 

The systems aren't perfect, but are fairly new.  While we tend to think that car sharing is new and novel, it's not, and it actually works really well.  Taxis are the model!  It would be nice if there was robotic cars that could eliminate the human driver, but we already have a working system to distribute access to private transportation in an efficient manner.

It would be nice if we had mass public transit that was ubiquitous and affordable.  Society needs a lot less cars (but not zero) and more trains.

[sub68]

On 8/3/2023 at 6:25 AM, leadeater said:

New vehicles here are brought on finance or through mortgage extension.

Yeah reminds me why the Nissan Altima is usually associated with bad drivers.

When Nissan was about to go under they decided what if we let bad credit people take a very cheap loan for a Altima.

[sub68]

3 hours ago, WolframaticAlpha said:

Also, as someone who doesn't know much about cars, can someone explain how the GR corolla is better than say a golf gti or a different hot hatch.

Uhh it's already meant for the race track.

GR is basically Subaru sti so a street legal race car.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

It depends on what you consider a right thing.  As I mentioned, it's the mentality aspect that the feature of track mode feeds into; which is the encouragement of dangerous driving.

That is only your sentiment and opinion around it. There is basically no relation to such a feature and driving habits. Extreme high speed inner city crashes are most often either: stolen vehicle, drug/drunk driver, evading police due to whatever reason. Minor idiotic mistakes of impatient drivers happen with or without a vehicle with a sport/track mode and you also have no idea if it was even enabled at the time either.

 

These people have this mentality before, after, whenever, wherever, it's simply not the vehicle. Take away the option for a fast sporty car and guess what? They'll be stupid in whatever they are allowed to buy.

 

An EV will slam you in to a wall, parked vehicle, stationary vehicle, moving vehicle, pedestrian etc etc just as fast if not faster than the fastest hyper track focused vehicles that don't actually get driven daily.

 

My option is a big red button labeled "track mode" has zero change in the driver's already existing mentality. It's also my opinion they'll be just as reckless in a Ford Ka as a Toyota Supra.

 

Just because you think such a button has an effect on the way a driver thinks and acts doesn't mean it actually does. I could be wrong, you could be wrong, we could both be partially correct but do you really honestly think that such buttons in vehicles have an actual impact you could statistically prove it? If you can't prove it with data then it's not a thing. It might be a thing and you lacked a way to properly collect that data to prove it but until then it's just an opinion and you'll find a huge amount of people that will not agree.

 

While when I point out old vehicles are less safe in all situations that data does exist to prove that to be true. We also have plenty of data showing idiots exists in every possible car that exists. It is also no surprise that the most crashed vehicle in the US are Ford F150's because they also happen to be by far, extremely far, the most popular vehicle sold and driven. Statistically speaking the most crashed vehicle is the Ford Fusion, is this really the type of vehicle you want to see get banned?

 

This is a danger to society and must be banned...

 

P.S. Zero EV's in the top 10.

 

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

As a note, please re-read what I said, I didn't blame the old cars.

I know you don't, I do. I am pointing at old cars as the most dangerous and evidenced as so vehicles on the road. Why go after vehicles based on subjective opinion when we have something we know is more dangerous? Doesn't that seem more logical?

 

If you know a 90's to early 00's vehicle is more likely to kill a pedestrian, it's driver, it's passengers, other vehicle occupants then why allow them to be on the road. Why target vehicles that by the evidence are less likely to injure and kill?

 

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

if not fitting an EV into an ICE design, better handling.

Heck no, EV's have worse handling due to weight regardless of pure EV design or not. Same price class vehicle an EV will have worse handling.

 

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Better acceleration is actually a thing that can be blamed; while I don't like trusting this news article I don't really have time to hunt down the statistics

https://www.brusselstimes.com/287315/electric-cars-involved-in-more-accidents-than-regular-vehicles-study-shows

There are many factors and one of those is typically anti-EV bullocks. I doubt there is any actual data to back this up and the most likely causes are the known things like the over confidence in driver aides and complacency leading to careless driving. This also exists in ICE vehicles with lane keep assist. 

 

Scared person plows in to wall, shop, vehicle in front is not exclusive to EVs and is actually common. But you'll report on it because "EV". Be wear of observation bias.

[wanderingfool2]

3 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Heck no, EV's

 

have worse handling due to weight regardless of pure EV design or not. Same price class vehicle an EV will have worse handling.

Weight distribution is a key factor, any sensibly designed EV will have most mass situated closer to the ground; which on an ICE typically the engine block is higher off the ground

 

15 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I know you don't, I do. I am pointing at old cars as they most dangerous and evidenced as so vehicles on the road. Why go after vehicles based on subjective opinion when have have something we know is more dangerous? Doesn't that seem more logical?

 

If you know a 90's to early 00's vehicle is more likely to kill a pedestrian, it's driver, it's passengers, other vehicle occupants then why allows them to be on the road. Why target vehicles that by the evidence are less likely to injure and kill?

I still read it as comparing my statements as though I somehow was stating that track mode is inherently dangerous because of acceleration and such

 

You are still looking at it from the perspective of an accident that already happened, or that 50km/h means 50km/h; without the consideration that the leadup to it is just as important.

 

The mentality behind a "track mode" and similar concepts of "hearing" the engine does actually play into a general role of mentality behind it.  Does enacting laws preventing it, or laws that force standards change the end mentality of everyone?  No, but there is a cumulative effect of doing things like advertising things like track mode or similar racing concepts.  Just like I don't think a 0 - 60 time should be actively be advertised; instead it should be almost a footnote.  It just encourages a behavior which shouldn't be done on a roadway; just like on Tesla's I think the left/right blinkers should be regulated to at minimum use hard buttons instead of capacitive.

 

27 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Scared person plows in to wall, shop, vehicle in front is not exclusive to EVs and is actually common. But you'll report on it because "EV". Be wear of observation bias.

It happens on both ICE and EV...but the thing that you seem to overlook is that on an EV flooring it can accelerate you to much higher speeds than many ICE cars.

 

When acceleration is high, you physically have less time to react in pedal misapplication.  The number of people who have a pedal misapplication is scarily high as well.

 

41 minutes ago, leadeater said:

An EV will slam you in to a wall, parked vehicle, stationary vehicle, moving vehicle, pedestrian etc etc just was fast if not faster than the fastest hyper track focused vehicles that don't actually get driven daily.

The issue is is that a vehicle that was showcased isn't a vehicle that would just be sitting; it would be driven daily as a normal vehicle as well...there's plenty of people in my neighborhood who have gone for the "racing" style vehicles.

 

44 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Just because you think such a button has an effect on the way a driver thinks and acts doesn't mean it actually does. I could be wrong, you could be wrong, we could both be partially correct but do you really honestly think that such buttons in vehicles have an actual impact you could statistically prove it? If you can't prove it with data then it's not a thing. It might be a thing and you lacked a way to properly collect that data to prove it but until then it's just an opinion and you'll find a huge amount of people that will not agree.

The point though is that it's enough of a thing that it has at least been built into some policing and laws.  While it's true that it's not something that is quantitative, I know enough people who hopped into cars saw things like track mode, and couldn't resist the urge to turn it on and "try it out".

[treestain]

5 hours ago, leadeater said:

We also have plenty of data showing idiots exist

Amen.

[ToboRobot]

4 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Weight distribution is a key factor, any sensibly designed EV will have most mass situated closer to the ground; which on an ICE typically the engine block is higher off the ground

 

 

 

Mass is a key factor.  EVs with current batteries are HEAVY.  More mass = more energy to move it.  More mass = more stress on roads = more repairs/$$$.  

Even with sensibly designed EVs cannot overcome MASS.  Sports cars are fun, in large part because they are lightweight, and nimble.  There is a reason why car companies sell lightweight models, especially enthusiasts or track focused ones,  for a premium.  

The Taycan battery is 1,389 lbs.
 

 

 

[leadeater]

7 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

The point though is that it's enough of a thing that it has at least been built into some policing and laws

How exactly? In what way. These are not illegal to use otherwise they would not be an option and if it were the car would be illegal to be sold or imported so I doubt it is at all.

 

7 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

While it's true that it's not something that is quantitative, I know enough people who hopped into cars saw things like track mode, and couldn't resist the urge to turn it on and "try it out".

Trying it out because it is new and novel doesn't actually make it unsafe, it also doesn't mean it'll get used all the time either.

 

And I MUST STRESS THIS EXTREMELY HIGHLY! Sport modes and track modes on pretty much the majority of vehicles do not fully turn off traction control and other stability safety features. Some do, most if they allow it to be fully off require specific extra steps that are not the single press of that button. So the usage of these modes doesn't actually make them unsafe for usage on public roads since the safety features are still on, just less aggressive in their application and sensitivity.

 

This also ignores the much greater time in history where vehicles didn't even have such safety features which makes those less safe, not unsafe, compared to vehicles that do. You don't need 300+ horsepower to get yourself in a seriously bad situation where TC/ESC would save you.

 

7 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

It happens on both ICE and EV...but the thing that you seem to overlook is that on an EV flooring it can accelerate you to much higher speeds than many ICE cars.

 

When acceleration is high, you physically have less time to react in pedal misapplication.  The number of people who have a pedal misapplication is scarily high as well.

It's high but I'm not overlooking it, I own an EV. But it's not actually extreme in any way or causes panic. People that end up in the situation wouldn't be any more or less likely to have been if it were an EV. Some people just freeze up when they panic and can't take their foot off the accelerator and it's when that happens that you get the situation of "person drives in to shop window" from a carpark directly in front of it.

 

Oops wrong pedal no matter how quick the acceleration is not and will never be a problem in almost every situation if you correct the mistake immediately. Unless you are in stopped traffic very close to the vehicle in front you aren't going to collide with it. You also aren't going to significantly enter an intersection more so than a typical ICE vehicle either.

 

If this really were such a problem every Tesla that has existed would be embedded in to walls by now. It's an insignificant issue that actually doesn't make a difference. There are just factors out there that are just looking to give EVs a bad reputation and will find anything that just might maybe sound plausible but is just total nonsense. EV's accelerate too fast is one of them.

 

Standard ICE vehicles have gone from above 10 seconds 0-60mph to 5-7 seconds and sometimes below. If it were really a problem then it would have been exhibited in ICE vehicles too. A base model Kia EV6 0-60 is 7.2 seconds, the trim level above it is 5.1 seconds, only if you go for the GT model will you get 3.1 seconds. Plain average EV's actually are not that much faster than the popular sporty ICE vehicles people like to buy. The super fast EV's are now the exception not the normal.

 

The GR Corolla has a 0-60mph of 5.2 seconds btw.

 

7 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Weight distribution is a key factor, any sensibly designed EV will have most mass situated closer to the ground; which on an ICE typically the engine block is higher off the ground

It doesn't matter, battery weight is so vast compared to an ICE it's always a problem. There hasn't been a single review of any EV beyond hyper cars where this hasn't been a highlighted issue. All EV's are not Rimac Nevera, there are very good handling EV's but the reality is mass is mass and when you're 1000kg heavier putting it down low is only a mitigation factor, it does not remove the issue.

 

7 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

You are still looking at it from the perspective of an accident that already happened, or that 50km/h means 50km/h; without the consideration that the leadup to it is just as important.

I am and I am telling you the track mode button has zero relevance or impact here. In the given examples in this topic like the car that obliterated everything in it's path going in to the intersection at speeds well over 70mph had nothing to do with the vehicle, track mode buttons or any such thing. Those events have literally happened in minivans. The person is the problem not the vehicle.

 

This discussion is entirely about the lead up to accidents, you're presenting such buttons has having an effect on the mentality of the driver and contributes or causes accidents. My response to that assertion is the mentality of the driver was and always would have been the way it is with or without the button.

 

7 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

No, but there is a cumulative effect of doing things like advertising things like track mode or similar racing concepts.

It won't, you think it might but it will not. Banning such buttons will have zero measurable effect in accident rates.

 

First of all lets present data of vehicles with such buttons and their accident rates normalized by vehicle sales. First prove such vehicles have a statistically higher accident rate, if you can't do that then there is no discussion to be made.

 

If we are to throw around things that need to be banned then that should be the Ford Fusion going by the data, it's greater than 4x more likely to be in an accident than a Ford Mustang!

 

7 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

The issue is is that a vehicle that was showcased isn't a vehicle that would just be sitting; it would be driven daily as a normal vehicle as well...there's plenty of people in my neighborhood who have gone for the "racing" style vehicles.

The GR Corolla isn't actually a hyper track focused vehicle and if you circle back to the start of what I said an EV is just as capable, more so than a GR Corolla.

 

A hyper track focused vehicle is something like an Ariel Atom, Porsche GT2 RS etc. GR Corolla isn't that. There are vehicles made for the exclusive purpose of taking it to a track day, they are road legal, usually only just.

[Cavalry Canuck]

31 minutes ago, MrLion said:

I couldn't give 2 flying fucks about cars. In fact I want the good ol' "it works and we can fix it". I am not in favor of the current or future industry standards for cars and tech in general.

That said... I love Alex having fun and I also learn a thing or two. If I ever buy a car (if I ever could afford it in this hellhole) now I know at least basic things to look for. Important things, like knobs to touch while you're driving, aside from your co-pilot gf (joke!)

Edit: point being even if I'm not an enthusiast, I can appreciate their taste, passion and knowledge. Same for "Servers with Jake". I don't understand anything, but it's still fun to watch.

What it boils down to is they need to approach how they do videos like this differently. I don't think most LMG followers are big gear heads, but a portion of us are. Even if it's 5% of the channel, that's 750,000 viewers. It might not be enough to support a dedicated channel within LMG, but there are other options.

 

What comes to mind is collaborating with a dedicated automotive channel. There aren't enough tech innovations in the automotive industry for LMG to really develop the skills and know-how to do a good car video. But by collaborating with a dedicated automotive channel the rare time something interesting does comes up tech-wise (fuel tech, self-driving, etc), you'll have that auto-industry knowledge and presentation experience you need to make a good car video.

[poochyena]

15 hours ago, leadeater said:

You're not going to get that since countries have many different speed limits and actually getting that granular isn't going to get done nor will it be suitable for used car market and import/export. Never going to happen.

It literally already exists for ebikes. This isn't fantasy. There are already a huge list of regulations each country has for cars, why pretend this would be the first? As if, the idea of every country having different regulations is unheard of.

15 hours ago, leadeater said:

You're mistaking the vehicle as encouraging it

No, I'm not. They literally advertise the car driving dangerously in cities

 

15 hours ago, leadeater said:

And yes there actually is a legitimate need for between 120-200 horsepower

So, what, before ~2010, cars were effectively useless? I don't understand how you can lie to yourself like this. Cars world perfectly fine without 200+ hp in the past.

 

15 hours ago, leadeater said:

Also if you want a statistically meaningful graph, not one that pushes an agenda then here is the correct one to use.

uhh, that data is nearly 10 years old and clearly shows an increase in the US.

 

16 hours ago, leadeater said:

 since cars are designed today to cause less harm to anything they collide with and everyone involved.

NO THEY ARE NOT

An older sedan, with its lower bumper and less horsepower, its much less likely to kill people than a modern SUV or truck with its taller bumper and higher horsepower.

16 hours ago, leadeater said:

They are: Japan 120MPH, Europe 155MPH. Not every vehicle but many cars do in fact have speed limiters. Some Japanese vehicles will also automatically remove the speed limiter when GPS locates them on a known official race track.

didn't you start out by saying that would never happen?

 

[leadeater]

12 hours ago, poochyena said:

NO THEY ARE NOT

Yes they are, SUV's aren't every vehicle. Also crash testing includes pedestrian testing and all of EU, NZ, AUS, UK and many more have laws requiring certain design aspects and minimum pedestrian safety rating for vehicle classes.

 

You have a, singular, point about SUVs and large UTEs/Pickup trucks which I haven't said anything about. I have been talking about you declaring that track mode settings in vehicles is dangerous and makes the vehicles unsafe (why?) and changes drivers habits, all without any evidence to support this. 

 

12 hours ago, poochyena said:

didn't you start out by saying that would never happen?

No I said in reply to you that it should be restricted for each country is not going to happen. There are only two implemented maximum speed limits used in vehicles and those are the two I mentioned. But you have immediate problems with say Japanese imports in Germany where the Autobahn has sections and times where there are no speed limits.

 

Other countries have sections of highways with higher than 100kmph.

 

You aren't going to get vehicle manufacturers to go making variants for their products for every country with every unique combination of speed limits and you also aren't going to get them or governments to implement some expensive and costly system to adjust the limiter.

 

Legally you drive to the displayed speed limit, the majority do. Addressing a small subsection of accident types by limiting cars in a very costly and ineffective solution is not a good idea. That vehicle will still be able to go 100kmph in an inner city that is 30kmph or 50kmph limit. What exactly is achieved?

 

12 hours ago, poochyena said:

It literally already exists for ebikes. This isn't fantasy. There are already a huge list of regulations each country has for cars, why pretend this would be the first? As if, the idea of every country having different regulations is unheard of.

No there is a globally accepted limited that they all limit to, you don't have 196 different speed limits on e-bakes and 196 different country variants of them that comply to each country's limit.

 

A limit is not what you said, you said specifically you want it per country. That is not what is going to happen and that is not what e-bikes and e-scooters are doing.

 

12 hours ago, poochyena said:

So, what, before ~2010, cars were effectively useless? I don't understand how you can lie to yourself like this. Cars world perfectly fine without 200+ hp in the past.

You don't read graphs do you then? 120hp on average for sedans, the lowest on the graph, was reached in the 90's. Then that is the average, vehicles above and below the average exist and you can choose to buy a vehicle that best suits your needs. If you plan to tow a trailer often you can choose a sedan that is above the average.

 

12 hours ago, poochyena said:

uhh, that data is nearly 10 years old and clearly shows an increase in the US.

It shows a small increase where as if we look at your graph in the same time period yours has an extremely massive increase while mine shows little change at all. Your graph is agenda biased and you know it.

 

If there are 100 million people the absolute number of any event is going to be lower than a population of 300 million etc etc. Your graph is just useless statistically. It doesn't matter how out of date mine is, it's statistically meaningful and shows a vast difference than yours. If you want to make a point go find up to date per capita data not raw absolute numbers.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, poochyena said:

No, I'm not. They literally advertise the car driving dangerously in cities

That is company marketing not "the vehicle" and this point need not be addressed any more than this. You pointing to this video is silly, adverting is not real and people will not be driving like that on public roads and that advertising will not cause it.

 

Don't bring disingenuous videos or talking points in to what should be a reasonable discussion, it doesn't do you any favors for getting people to listen to you.

[ImorallySourcedElectrons]

10 hours ago, poochyena said:

 

NO THEY ARE NOT

An older sedan, with its lower bumper and less horsepower, its much less likely to kill people than a modern SUV or truck with its taller bumper and higher horsepower.

You do realise not every country is the US? In most countries the law now requires you to design a car with certain pedestrian safety features, if we're looking at place like an average EU country, a modern SUV is safer than that older sedan, because that SUV was actually tested. Check what they do for "Euro NCAP" testing at this point, and there's hundreds of pages of design guidelines and recommendations for modern cars. Heck, even things like lane assist, traffic sign readers, detection systems, parking sensors, rear view camera, etc. are also becoming mandatory.