advertisement


Other people's driving

I prefer sportier cars and my parents are getting on a bit so for that 1% of the time that I have them in the car I compromised and bought an Audi RS Q3. What a waste of time (and money) that was. Yes, it had space in the back for adults and luggage but it handled like a pig and had a thirst like you wouldn’t believe. Never again!
 
paul rich said:
That makes sense to me.

My protocol could therefore give exemptions for calling 999 or 112.

As for safely parked, that is more tricky, parking sensor data? But in any case I wouldn't want to lose track of the greater good/big picture objective. Would a protocol that allowed none hands free use of the phone only when the engine is stopped and the car not moving not be a big step forward in terms of accident prevention compared to what we have now which is twits driving along at all speeds in all conditions texting each other? And if they choose to use the phone when not parked safety then they are still breaking a law. i am not saying there is a water tight solution, but one that assists people to do the right thing by reducing their options for doing bad things behind the wheel.
Click to expand...
You’re still relying on: people obeying the law; a police presence.

Remember that most crashes are caused by sober people who aren’t on their phones.
 
awkwardbydesign said:
I haven't looked it up, so why is it cheaper to tax? Lower emissions? I don't know much about EVs, just that I couldn't find a small one I could afford, and can't fit a high current charger.
Click to expand...

I believe it is down to lower emissions - a lot of hybrids (including the Outlanders up to about 2017 I think) are £0 road tax.

You don't really need a high-current charger for a lot of hybrids. I haven't fitted one for our car as it can be charged from a normal mains socket in about 5 hours, which isn't that much longer than the circa 3 hours it'd take to charge it with a higher current home charger. I imagine that wouldn't be an option for a full EV though.
 
awkwardbydesign said:
Hmm, how many of you SUV fans watched that video? Most of the claimed advantages are actually untrue, it would seem.
Click to expand...

It reminded me of what a great little vehicle my diesel Fiesta van was. Did a few booze cruises and it would take 300 bottles with tyres well inflated, often cruised at 50mpg, put a carpet in the back and a pair of bookshelf speakers to upgrade the audio.

First day i had it i noticed a flashing in the mirror and it was a police car: hadn't noticed it would sit happily at 90 as well.

Needed knobblier tyres on the front though.
 
SteveG said:
I believe it is down to lower emissions - a lot of hybrids (including the Outlanders up to about 2017 I think) are £0 road tax.

You don't really need a high-current charger for a lot of hybrids. I haven't fitted one for our car as it can be charged from a normal mains socket in about 5 hours, which isn't that much longer than the circa 3 hours it'd take to charge it with a higher current home charger. I imagine that wouldn't be an option for a full EV though.
Click to expand...

My daughter had an i3 which always managed to fully charge here overnight on a standard 3 pin plug; wasn't viable for a trip to the inlaws in Scotland though (from London).
 
dweezil said:
They also make it far easier to transport kids in car seats and big luggage. Tyres are often a higher profile so resist punctures and rim damage better. Ground clearance is better for snow and passing on country roads.

Not everybody is obsessed with status.
Click to expand...

This caught my interest, which type of SUV do you have in mind, high profile tyres suggests something truly built for offroad with a separate chassis perhaps? I compared Audi A6 Avant (estate) to Q5 (SUV) as they are the same cost for entry level models and found the Avant had slightly more luggage space, 100mm more wheelbase (I couldn't get the rear legroom for both models, so a proxy for interior space) and had the same choice tyre combinations as the Q5. That said I don't see any issue in running a Q5 instead of the A6 for road use, same weight, similar size etc. A Q5 is fundamentally a saloon car with greater ground clearance.

If you travel across the sort of terrain that needs big ground clearances fair enough, its an SUV for you. But if you run said SUV on summer tyres then it won't do better on roads in winter for being an SUV, winter tyres trump even 4x4 in snow and ice (see various tests on youtube for demonstration of this). In any case it sounds like you are the type of person who needs a proper SUV and long may you benefit from owning one :) Have a look at the video Roog linked to above, the car company's research suggests you are a minority SUV owner in this respect. Its the ladder frame chassis SUV's and pick-ups used exclusively as family road cars that I have problem with.
 
Tony Lockhart said:
You’re still relying on: people obeying the law; a police presence.
Click to expand...

No I'm not. The system blocks phone use (with stated exemptions and conditions) automatically. Nothing to do with drivers obeying the law, that's the bit taken out of their hands. As I said its not a watertight solution, but it stops the most flagrant texting while driving we've all seen too much of
 
My personal need for ground clearance isn't for off-roading (as I'll most likely not do any with our Outlander) but to reduce the chance of the car beaching in the heavy snow conditions that we often get in the Cairngorms. My Merc C-class estate car has all-season tyres on (Michelin Cross Climates) which are very effective in snow conditions (even with it being rear-wheel drive) but as soon as the snow gets deep enough and the car runs out of ground clearance then it'd beach and get stuck. The Outlander also has all-season tyres (and also Michelin Cross Climates) and the combination of the higher ground clearance plus being 4x4 means it can still make progress in conditions where my C-class will get stuck.

I appreciate my use-case isn't all that normal for the UK as my place in the Cairngorms is in the highest village in the Highlands with the approach roads being even higher and with some pretty steep sections, so I encounter a lot more snow than most UK folks will. Pretty much everyone in the village has a 4x4, and nearly everyone is running all-season tyres now.
 
paul rich said:
No I'm not. The system blocks phone use (with stated exemptions and conditions) automatically. Nothing to do with drivers obeying the law, that's the bit taken out of their hands. As I said its not a watertight solution, but it stops the most flagrant texting while driving we've all seen too much of
Click to expand...
And the tens of millions of vehicles without the system?
 
just buy a burner nokia with no GPS tiny screen, and text away until your heart is content - people that'll want to get round it will.
 
gintonic said:
just buy a burner nokia with no GPS tiny screen, and text away until your heart is content - people that'll want to get round it will.
Click to expand...
And the great thing about an old button operated Nokia is that it’s easy to text without looking at the screen very often. Touch screens were a step backwards on that front.
 
gintonic said:
just buy a burner nokia with no GPS tiny screen, and text away until your heart is content - people that'll want to get round it will.
Click to expand...
Being realistic how many people will either ditch the smartphone and go back to this Nokia you suggest or take out a second mobile contract just so they can have a Nokia to beat the system I suggest?

As I keep stating, it's not a watertight system, but will bring a stop to driving while texting on a smartphone. Do you think the roads would be better if we just leave things as they are rather than greatly reduce this dangerous practise?

Or, following your line of thought: if it's not a watertight solution that prevents every possibility an of injury occurring that it was designed to help prevent then let's not bother installing it. So on that basis say goodbye to seat belts, ABS, windscreen wipers, crumple zones etc etc etc. Surely you see the point, every system that reduces risk by a given percentage contributes to lower overall accident injury outcomes?

We had the anti-seat belt luddites, but soon most people adapted their behaviour and accepted wearing them without further fuss. Now do we live in an era of the lets just carry on allowing people the facility to text while driving? I am sure some people would complain at first at not being able to send texts while driving, but they'd get used to it.
 
I have a new proposal. Why not equip every car the a blood sampling robot and in dash blood analysis lab, to test for alcohol and drugs, and stop the car from starting if found.

Also how about an integrated
vision checking machine to ensure all drivers eyesight is in spec.....
 
gintonic said:
I have a new proposal. Why not equip every car the a blood sampling robot and in dash blood analysis lab, to test for alcohol and drugs, and stop the car from starting if found.

Also how about an integrated
vision checking machine to ensure all drivers eyesight is in spec.....
Click to expand...

Self driving car? Then nothing will matter. Texting, drinking, poor eyesight....all good.
 
You are walking down the road on your phone and a car pulls up beside you and your phone cuts off, I don’t think people would be happy.
And your passengers won’t be able to use th air phones.


Blocking phones is a total non starter, all it needs is one person to be blocked from phoning for help.

We need using a phone in a car to be as bad as drink driving to stop it, not some unsafe system of blocking the phone system.

Pete
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top