Toyota wants to eliminate most of its vehicle sales by 2030

[Sebastian Meana + 278]

 

5 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

The other thing to consider is people (and families) like their own space. You can stop when you want for a coffee or a comfort break, or just to stretch your legs.

are you sure about that? modern train wagons can be quite comfortable, most cars are not sold because they are comfortable or pleasurable to drive, they are sold as appliances with wheels, to go from point A to point B, and they are kinda shitty at doing both, modern day daily driving is getting stuck behind retards who take 5 seconds to react to a green light or to the front car moving, or being in a traffic jam at rush hour in summer with 40C of heat, not that glamorous.

and you just have to go and look at modern cars, or thinking ¨hmm yes, im going to get in debt for 6 years to buy a new car pay insurance and wait how it breaks when i end paying the loans¨

and with newer tech filled electric cars they will charge a 1000 dollar to fix your car software after they slowed down and bloated it with updates, like they do with phones, and you can bet they will do it to you, the car industry lives in a world were a 5% profit marging is considered massive, if they can create new problems to make your pay for fix it they will.

All of this goes to the killing point against ¨the car¨, in the book from 2005 it's a spread world, the autor used various sources and estimated an average an american household with two cars changing them every 5-7 years, will spend over 30 year 780,000USD in 2021 dollars between buying them, insuring them, paying the interest on the loans, repairing the cars, only 90,000USD or 11% of that cost is gasoline, even if electricity was free (which it isnt) it would still cost 690,000USD over the same time period

on the other hand it would cost around 42,000USD to do the same distance using mass transing either commuting trains for suburban to urban rail connections, or metro system or light rail, or trolleybuses or a combination of them all, over the 30, year period those 738,000 US dollars not spending on appliances with wheels would be spent on other stuff,or even better on better nicer more enjoyable cars

5 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

You must live somewhere with a high population density.  Outside of a few corners of Europe, India and East Asia, most of the world doesn't have enough people living close enough to one another for mass transit of any sort to make any sense from an energy usage or financial perspective. 

3 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

Those aren't major issues in high density areas, because most trips are very short.  You don't travel for a long enough time for those things to become an issue.  

Not exactly, i live in argentina a relatively low density area, trains were used widely until they thinked it was communist and they decided to remove all rail tracks.

Population density doesnt necessarilly matter that much for rail transport, people is animalistic and adapts to their sorroundings, if a train comes one or twice a day in a relatively small city, is relatively cheap compared to driving ,and is faster and more comfortable people likely will take the train, people in the countryside with pickup trucks will use the truckettes as transport simply because they already brough one as a farm tool

which makes me want to put another point, if those countryside long distance low density roads were built privately and for profit like rail, were tolled, and from that toll you have to pay the 2-4 million USD/Km construction cost (of single lane roads), the maintenance, and the interest on the loans taken, pay taxes, and make a profit for shareholdes ¿how much people would be willing to use roads?,

train tracks are cheaper to build, a EMU or DMU train for 200kmh will cost 4.5 million euro per 100 passengers, similar to the cost of 100 average cars in the US, but in average a car transport one person for and back once or twice a day , a train will do it more than ten times a day,  you can go road take and count of every 100 cars how many of them carry more than 1 person

 

[Sebastian Meana + 278]

35 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The EVs are street legal with the Plaid being a 4 door family sedan suitable for everyday driving and long trips. Who cares about ugly piles of junk that are only useful on a drag strip? Much more exciting is being able to accelerate like mad every time you get on the freeway or effortless passing. EVs are the smart phones that are about to take over the world.

 you may like EVs but i like more the idea of lifting the bonnet of a wagon and seeing this


EVs are quartz watches, 11% of the cost of mantaining a car for a family in america is the fuel, even if electricity was free it wouldn't affect it that much, insurance is more expensive, all technology in cars breaks down, and is expensive to repair, EV are no the exception

however as i posted before moving people by mass transit would cost  5.4% as much as moving by car does, money saved that would be better spent on cars as a personal toy for the weekends or special ocasion more than as a appliance,

And isnt like Chevy cant make power for the cheap, thats the only thing american car makers are good to,  they made the Holden HSV for half the price of a P100D, you put a bigger supercharger or bolt a couple turbos on it and  you have a faster car with well over 1000 horsepower.

and you just have to take a walk outside and see the modern ¨cars¨ all are bland boring grey, black or white jacked up compact cars they call SUV with plastic ugly parts, and the only reason people moves by car is because unlike Rail tracks in most of the world roads are built on taxpayer money and the concerns of the transit companies, safety, comfort, economy, silence, becamse the concern of the consumer and you now only see these things

There's nothing special, cool, interesing or remarkable about these damned things , and making them electric will not solve the problem of the modern car, is very bad at doing the job of moving people,

Edited August 24, 2021 by Sebastian Meana

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

15 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

Those aren't major issues in high density areas, because most trips are very short.  You don't travel for a long enough time for those things to become an issue.  

I disagree people like their own space and to come and go on their own time not wait for a bus or a train, generally people's time is precious and they don't want to waste it as people in cities have busy lives. Also in most places in the UK public transport is actually quite expensive. Many people these days prefer to cycle or are now using electric bikes but mainly electric scooters. These offer very cheap transport and can offer a range of approx 12-14 miles. you can simply recharge these at work for the return journey (which is free).

By the time you have waited for a bus paid $5 for a 4 mile trip queued in the traffic for ages in city centres you would be at your destination $5 better off ($10 per day) and about 15 minutes quicker, and its all on your own timescale, no brainer!

Many younger people (up to 40ish) are using these for city commutes, but I expect these will continue to have a larger demograph. Many of these are "foldable" so easy to carry and store at your workplace.

https://www.pureelectric.com/products/pure-air-go-kimoa-edition-electric-scooter?variant=33502579064920&fo_c=3296&fo_k=6c0c67685efef446461e6f660e9ca392&fo_s=gplauk&gclid=CjwKCAjw1JeJBhB9EiwAV612yy9sfp0Dxz6NieAahyBZ246E0zcpssHz7qpzk_bhPXZBN8WRE4VkBRoCcPYQAvD_BwE

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

11 hours ago, Sebastian Meana said:

or being in a traffic jam at rush hour in summer with 40C of heat, not that glamorous.

Agree with the traffic issue, but every car being built these days has aircon!. And not all countries experience 40C or even 30C.

Your point about the cost of driving makes my point perfectly as I don't know any family that doesn't have at least 1 car and I know plenty that have 3 or 4 in a family of 4. This means people prefer to drive and pay the extra cost that incurs, come and go on their timescale and be in their own space. Your costs are specific to where you live, in the UK it is very expensive to travel by all forms of public transport which creates even more traffic that people would still rather sit in than travel by bus or train. The UK is a very small country with 68 million people so trust me I know about traffic jams.

Only the very poorest people in my country don't own a vehicle and that's clearly not by their choice but because of their personal circumstance.

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

11 hours ago, Sebastian Meana said:

 you may like EVs but i like more the idea of lifting the bonnet of a wagon and seeing this


EVs are quartz watches, 11% of the cost of mantaining a car for a family in america is the fuel, even if electricity was free it wouldn't affect it that much, insurance is more expensive, all technology in cars breaks down, and is expensive to repair, EV are no the exception

however as i posted before moving people by mass transit would cost  5.4% as much as moving by car does, money saved that would be better spent on cars as a personal toy for the weekends or special ocasion more than as a appliance,

And isnt like Chevy cant make power for the cheap, thats the only thing american car makers are good to,  they made the Holden HSV for half the price of a P100D, you put a bigger supercharger or bolt a couple turbos on it and  you have a faster car with well over 1000 horsepower.

and you just have to take a walk outside and see the modern ¨cars¨ all are bland boring grey, black or white jacked up compact cars they call SUV with plastic ugly parts, and the only reason people moves by car is because unlike Rail tracks in most of the world roads are built on taxpayer money and the concerns of the transit companies, safety, comfort, economy, silence, becamse the concern of the consumer and you now only see these things

There's nothing special, cool, interesing or remarkable about these damned things , and making them electric will not solve the problem of the modern car, is very bad at doing the job of moving people,

Sebastian I agree about the styling of EV's and have made the same point previously.

Most EV's are ugly only the typical high performance EV's like the Porche Taycan bother to spend any money on styling which is why none of them look cool.

Also the sound you get from an ICE vehicle when you accelerate makes the whole experience far more pleasurable IMHO. However sound is being introduced on many EV's now (albeit fake) mainly as a safety concern.

Edited August 25, 2021 by Rob Plant

[Eric Gagen + 713]

16 hours ago, Sebastian Meana said:

SNIP

Not exactly, i live in argentina a relatively low density area, trains were used widely until they thinked it was communist and they decided to remove all rail tracks.

Population density doesnt necessarilly matter that much for rail transport, people is animalistic and adapts to their sorroundings, if a train comes one or twice a day in a relatively small city, is relatively cheap compared to driving ,and is faster and more comfortable people likely will take the train, people in the countryside with pickup trucks will use the truckettes as transport simply because they already brough one as a farm tool

which makes me want to put another point, if those countryside long distance low density roads were built privately and for profit like rail, were tolled, and from that toll you have to pay the 2-4 million USD/Km construction cost (of single lane roads), the maintenance, and the interest on the loans taken, pay taxes, and make a profit for shareholdes ¿how much people would be willing to use roads?,

train tracks are cheaper to build, a EMU or DMU train for 200kmh will cost 4.5 million euro per 100 passengers, similar to the cost of 100 average cars in the US, but in average a car transport one person for and back once or twice a day , a train will do it more than ten times a day,  you can go road take and count of every 100 cars how many of them carry more than 1 person

 

Sure - here (USA) we used to have trains to take everyone everywhere too.  thing is, once you get a critical mass of roads and automobiles set up, and a critical minimum level of wealth for people to use automobiles, the trains are worthless because they are slower, less direct, and don't connect enough different places together.  

Train tracks or only theoretically cheaper IF you can force people to use them.  This can be done if you make everyone in the area so poor that they cannot afford better options,  but people prefer speed, convenience and flexibility to trains.  You have to force them to use trains in one way or another.  

The percieved cost savings aren't worth it.  Even assuming your cost numbers are correct (trust me they aren't) once a society has enough extra wealth to spend $ 1million per person on cars over their lifetimes they will.  It's that much more useful.  We could save money by banning washing machines too, and making people use rocks by the river, but that's obviously so much worse to deal with that nobody wants to do it (ok maybe some radical greens would like to) Switching from cars to trains is just as bad a decision.  

[Eric Gagen + 713]

5 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

I disagree people like their own space and to come and go on their own time not wait for a bus or a train, generally people's time is precious and they don't want to waste it as people in cities have busy lives. Also in most places in the UK public transport is actually quite expensive. Many people these days prefer to cycle or are now using electric bikes but mainly electric scooters. These offer very cheap transport and can offer a range of approx 12-14 miles. you can simply recharge these at work for the return journey (which is free).

By the time you have waited for a bus paid $5 for a 4 mile trip queued in the traffic for ages in city centres you would be at your destination $5 better off ($10 per day) and about 15 minutes quicker, and its all on your own timescale, no brainer!

Many younger people (up to 40ish) are using these for city commutes, but I expect these will continue to have a larger demograph. Many of these are "foldable" so easy to carry and store at your workplace.

https://www.pureelectric.com/products/pure-air-go-kimoa-edition-electric-scooter?variant=33502579064920&fo_c=3296&fo_k=6c0c67685efef446461e6f660e9ca392&fo_s=gplauk&gclid=CjwKCAjw1JeJBhB9EiwAV612yy9sfp0Dxz6NieAahyBZ246E0zcpssHz7qpzk_bhPXZBN8WRE4VkBRoCcPYQAvD_BwE

I agree - once you add up waiting time, public transit is never fast. Merely pointing out that the amount of time you spend in the bus or train often isn't very large.  by the time it gets long, you fly, or drive your own car because it makes more sense. 

[turbguy + 1,547]

19 hours ago, Sebastian Meana said:

You should check cleetus mcfarland channel or just see some spicy dragsters, a redneck with a load of money toke a corvette and makes it go substantially faster than a Plaid or a Rimac nevera or any EV that has come out or will come out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1s2IicQ2ZAs

that Camaro made by some guys in poland makes the quarter mile faster than the 2000HP rimac with for 500 horsepower less, and much less money, what's more the fastest electric dragster does the quarter mile in 7.5 seconds, for 5000 horsepower, with that power a Top alcohol dragster can do twice

and that's with Four-Stroke engines, Two-stroke engines will for the same displacement weight and reliability produce twice the power of a Four Stroke engine, simply because you have twice the explosion per revolution of engine.

Electric cars are like quartz watches sure technically they are superior and better than mechanical watches, ¿but so what? people stoped buying watches all together when cellphones arrived you could look the hour in the phone and didnt need to buy a watch, watch are still being sold, but as a luxury item not as something neccessary

But as it turns out mechanical watches are still being sold cause they are pretty, and prettier than quartz watches, with an giant gaz guzzler you just have all the noise and is just nice to move yourself in a cloud of noise and annoying people, if you want to move efficiently ,quickly, and with little noise, you take the train or the bus.

You do realize you can use the Tesla every day to go to work, or to the Grocery, or drop the kids off at school, no?

A purpose-built dragster won't live up to daily use, if not being even street-illegal in some districts.

Then, try to find reasonable liability insurance!

 

Edited August 25, 2021 by turbguy

[Sebastian Meana + 278]

17 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

Sure - here (USA) we used to have trains to take everyone everywhere too.  thing is, once you get a critical mass of roads and automobiles set up, and a critical minimum level of wealth for people to use automobiles, the trains are worthless because they are slower, less direct, and don't connect enough different places together.  

Train tracks or only theoretically cheaper IF you can force people to use them.  This can be done if you make everyone in the area so poor that they cannot afford better options,  but people prefer speed, convenience and flexibility to trains.  You have to force them to use trains in one way or another.  

The percieved cost savings aren't worth it.  Even assuming your cost numbers are correct (trust me they aren't) once a society has enough extra wealth to spend $ 1million per person on cars over their lifetimes they will.  It's that much more useful.  We could save money by banning washing machines too, and making people use rocks by the river, but that's obviously so much worse to deal with that nobody wants to do it (ok maybe some radical greens would like to) Switching from cars to trains is just as bad a decision.  

Things that are wasted unnecessarily are a drag on society, making a tool like moving to work unnecessarily expensive is a drag on  productivity and leisure, if you dont believe me go to the mall take your credit card, and blow it up on new things and tell me how much richer you became. The more money you spend on moving yourself from house to work the less money you can spend in other things you like. Well designed transit sistems are ofen quite faster than driving, except for buses, in the case of the USA transit would be commuter rail from suburbs to inner city center.

Most people that buys cars doesnt like cars, most people that drives doesnt like driving, thats why cars are so boring, thats why there's so many traffic jams accidents and distractions, I dont see what's the privilege or the attractiveness of spending 7 years paying debt to buy a KIA Sorento or a Chevrolet Cruze so i can enjoy it loose 2/5 of its value in the first year and having the honour of paying insurance and repairs from broken OEM stuff that cant be fixed outside the dealer. As it turns out a lot of people in the US thinks the same, for example 1/6 less people between 20 to 24 had a driver license in 2014 than in 1983, 4/9 less people 16 years old has a driving license in 2014 than in 1986

You dont have to make anyone poor to make them choose transit over a car, it only makes sense, the supply of a useful product at a competitive price will create its own demand, and theres a gigantic demand of transport to go from point-a-to-point-b, and transport  is a very, very useful service. Switzerland loves rail and is not what i would qualify as a poor country

And i have an example, Houston, texas, with a population of less than 2.5 million people had the katy freeway in 2004 with around 10 lanes it was a mess filled with traffic jams, was the second most congested rod in the USA with drivers spending a total 25.4 million hours, sitting in traffic, so they spend 2.6 billion tax dollars to expand it 28 lanes making it the widest highway in the world, the 45km commute in afternoon rush hour from downtown houston to katyland takes 64 minutes compared with 41 minutes before expanding it. A 160kmh EMU like a Stadler Flirt or Siemens Desiro with stops every .8 to 1.6 km will do an average speed of around 90kmh.

and that's without even adressing parking space, as it turns out the parking lot in front of Walmart or a Mall isnt free, because land is not a free commodity, concrete, light, supervision, and asphalt arent free neither, they have to charge the cost of that parking into the price of goods, or that parking is lost revenue that could be used for other stuff, either servers rooms, retail, online warehouses whatever, if parking was charged then the revenue from that can be used by the owners to buy stuff, or they can reduce the price of their product or most likely both.

Edited August 26, 2021 by Sebastian Meana

[Sebastian Meana + 278]

14 hours ago, turbguy said:

You do realize you can use the Tesla every day to go to work, or to the Grocery, or drop the kids off at school, no?

A purpose-built dragster won't live up to daily use, if not being even street-illegal in some districts.

Then, try to find reasonable liability insurance!

 

Well you can take a drag car and do that stuff on the road, is illegal, and you shouldnt, but you can, is like burning an entire neighbourhood, you shouldnt and is illegal but you can do it

[Sebastian Meana + 278]

23 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Sebastian I agree about the styling of EV's and have made the same point previously.

Most EV's are ugly only the typical high performance EV's like the Porche Taycan bother to spend any money on styling which is why none of them look cool.

Also the sound you get from an ICE vehicle when you accelerate makes the whole experience far more pleasurable IMHO. However sound is being introduced on many EV's now (albeit fake) mainly as a safety concern.

 

23 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Agree with the traffic issue, but every car being built these days has aircon!. And not all countries experience 40C or even 30C.

Your point about the cost of driving makes my point perfectly as I don't know any family that doesn't have at least 1 car and I know plenty that have 3 or 4 in a family of 4. This means people prefer to drive and pay the extra cost that incurs, come and go on their timescale and be in their own space. Your costs are specific to where you live, in the UK it is very expensive to travel by all forms of public transport which creates even more traffic that people would still rather sit in than travel by bus or train. The UK is a very small country with 68 million people so trust me I know about traffic jams.

Only the very poorest people in my country don't own a vehicle and that's clearly not by their choice but because of their personal circumstance.

The solution and issues are interwindend between those lines, i know the transit management system in the UK since privatiztion is complicated to say the least and that there's a important bureaucratic drag on the UK. I dont think ev's cant be interesing, they can, they just cant be as special as a gas guzzler.

Clearly there's a demand for good, interesing cars that feel special, likely the biggest thing sustaining the car industry in the future 10 or 20 years is wanting a car because of the idea of having a car, and not because you like the vehicle you drive, but is a castle built over the air because illusions only lasts so long.

Today having a high performance car is not really an option as a commuter vehicle or daily driver car, having a 800hp rocket isnt a option to go to work and back not because one cant buy one and do it but because the fuel or electricity bill will set you back, insurance will be expensive, (insurance should be voluntary not statuary btw) because theres a higher chance of getting into trouble with a lot of power, and as daily driver having a boring 150hp econobox is easier.

The problem isn't that transit and cars are antithetical, they are not, in any case they are complementary the issue is that the appliancemobile is antithetical to both, mass transit and the car, and EVs only have a real world advantadge appliancemobile,  as i said before it would be better to use transit everyday for the daily commutes to work or shop or whathever, and use a more powerful more special car brought with saved money instead of 5 year loans to drive and explore the country one lives in.

or to summarize it, having using the car as the main form of transport is equivalent to prohibit water and making beer the main way to hydrate people

>At first time its fun, you get drunk and all of that, and economies of scale make beer very cheap, that was the car industry until 1972, where cars were both, entertainment and became the main form of transport, there will never be another time like the 50s and 60s for the automobile in the USA

>After a while alcohol has is effect on health, and lower alcohol is preefered, because it doesnt torture you liver as much, that was the end of the gas guzzler and when import cars in the US became the norm because they didnt torture the wallest as much

>Because with less to no alcohol beer tastes like piss and old bread, they would have to make it taste less like beer, that the car industry since the late 90s with focus on electronics, silence, and plastic hugue engine covers, rubber bushing everything.

>Eventually beer has no alcohol and the market demands to taste like nothing so people doesnt complain that's electric cars, what you end with is with very expensive watter in brown bottles, or like the EV a expensive disposable minitrolley that isnt interesing or special in any way  which you have to repair in exclusive car deales all of its electronic gadgets that will break.

>The solution to those issues would then be to reintroduce water to drink most of the day, phasing out tasteless zero alcohol beer and making beer be beer again and enjoying it more but less often, instead of drinking it like if it was water, and thats what transit would do to car, it wouldnt kill it, but it would make cars be cars again.

Edited August 26, 2021 by Sebastian Meana

[Eric Gagen + 713]

7 hours ago, Sebastian Meana said:

Things that are wasted unnecessarily are a drag on society, making a tool like moving to work unnecessarily expensive is a drag on  productivity and leisure, if you dont believe me go to the mall take your credit card, and blow it up on new things and tell me how much richer you became. The more money you spend on moving yourself from house to work the less money you can spend in other things you like. Well designed transit sistems are ofen quite faster than driving, except for buses, in the case of the USA transit would be commuter rail from suburbs to inner city center.

Most people that buys cars doesnt like cars, most people that drives doesnt like driving, thats why cars are so boring, thats why there's so many traffic jams accidents and distractions, I dont see what's the privilege or the attractiveness of spending 7 years paying debt to buy a KIA Sorento or a Chevrolet Cruze so i can enjoy it loose 2/5 of its value in the first year and having the honour of paying insurance and repairs from broken OEM stuff that cant be fixed outside the dealer. As it turns out a lot of people in the US thinks the same, for example 1/6 less people between 20 to 24 had a driver license in 2014 than in 1983, 4/9 less people 16 years old has a driving license in 2014 than in 1986

You dont have to make anyone poor to make them choose transit over a car, it only makes sense, the supply of a useful product at a competitive price will create its own demand, and theres a gigantic demand of transport to go from point-a-to-point-b, and transport  is a very, very useful service. Switzerland loves rail and is not what i would qualify as a poor country

And i have an example, Houston, texas, with a population of less than 2.5 million people had the katy freeway in 2004 with around 10 lanes it was a mess filled with traffic jams, was the second most congested rod in the USA with drivers spending a total 25.4 million hours, sitting in traffic, so they spend 2.6 billion tax dollars to expand it 28 lanes making it the widest highway in the world, the 45km commute in afternoon rush hour from downtown houston to katyland takes 64 minutes compared with 41 minutes before expanding it. A 160kmh EMU like a Stadler Flirt or Siemens Desiro with stops every .8 to 1.6 km will do an average speed of around 90kmh.

and that's without even adressing parking space, as it turns out the parking lot in front of Walmart or a Mall isnt free, because land is not a free commodity, concrete, light, supervision, and asphalt arent free neither, they have to charge the cost of that parking into the price of goods, or that parking is lost revenue that could be used for other stuff, either servers rooms, retail, online warehouses whatever, if parking was charged then the revenue from that can be used by the owners to buy stuff, or they can reduce the price of their product or most likely both.

I live in Katy Texas, and drive on that road on many days.  Before Covid, I was on it about 6 days a week.  I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about.  Only 17% of jobs in the Houston area are in the downtown and that was before Covid forced many of those employers to remote operations.  The people who work there come from an area distributed in a circle with a 100 km radius. they aren't going from any one place to another single place.  That sort of city planning died over 100 years ago before Houston was even a small town.  The idea that everyone can, should or ought to go to one place to work is absurd, especially since we now have the tools and ability to work remotely.  Why would you want to encourage it? 

Your opinion that everyone hates their cars is just that - your opinion. If you don't want one, nobody is forcing you to get one.  Of course people complain about their commute to work!  When I lived in San Francisco, I took mass transit to work (BART train system) people complained about that too!  Nobody likes going to work.  That's why they have to pay people to show up.

You don't get to decide what sorts of personal behaviors and decisions are good or bad.  People with the resources to do so are allowed to go on shopping sprees, or buy cars and drive them.  You have no right to stop them, and they have every right to ignore you if they don't like your ideas about their decisions.  

Edited August 26, 2021 by Eric Gagen

[turbguy + 1,547]

7 hours ago, Sebastian Meana said:

Well you can take a drag car and do that stuff on the road, is illegal, and you shouldnt, but you can, is like burning an entire neighbourhood, you shouldnt and is illegal but you can do it

At he distinct risk of loosing your vehicle to the authorities and spending some time in a place "not of your choosing".

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

8 hours ago, Sebastian Meana said:

(insurance should be voluntary not statuary btw)

Really???

So if someone drives into your car who has no insurance and writes off your $50K vehicle you'd be happy with that?? I'm presuming you wouldn't have insurance and would be happy looking at your $50K pile of scrap (maybe your illegal dragster??) Or maybe someone steals your dragster?? Still happy???

Edited August 26, 2021 by Rob Plant

[turbguy + 1,547]

10 hours ago, Sebastian Meana said:

(insurance should be voluntary not statuary btw)

You do realize that the license to operate a vehicle is a privilege off of your own property, not a basic human right, no?

You do realize that to license the vehicle and operator, in order to operate said vehicle on public roads, requires a modicum of liability for any misoperation resulting in torts to others, caused by the licensed operator, no?

If you want liability insurance to be voluntary, THEN use your OWN roads!

Edited August 26, 2021 by turbguy

[Ecocharger + 1,480]

It looks like EV batteries are more at risk for fires than we previously thought, very upsetting.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Chevy-Bolt-Recall-Raises-Concerns-About-Lithium-Battery-Safety.html

"News late last week that General Motors is to recall all 2017 to 2022 Chevy Bolt EVs for battery replacements, saying the LG-supplied batteries could have not one but two serious defects with the result they are at risk of causing fires. As a result, LG’s share price plunged by 10% overnight.GM is to replace the battery modules after two separate incidents of batteries exploding, despite earlier assurances that it was only older Bolts with U.S.-made batteries that had the problem. The recall now also includes those fitted with batteries made in South Korea. The implications are huge for both companies.GM and LG will have to make packs for five model years of Bolts and then swap them out, Electrek reported Friday. This recall includes 9,335 2019 models in the latest extension to the recall, in addition to the 63,683 2020 to 2022 model year Bolt EV and SUVs in the original recall."

 

[Ecocharger + 1,480]

On 8/26/2021 at 3:07 PM, Ecocharger said:

It looks like EV batteries are more at risk for fires than we previously thought, very upsetting.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Chevy-Bolt-Recall-Raises-Concerns-About-Lithium-Battery-Safety.html

"News late last week that General Motors is to recall all 2017 to 2022 Chevy Bolt EVs for battery replacements, saying the LG-supplied batteries could have not one but two serious defects with the result they are at risk of causing fires. As a result, LG’s share price plunged by 10% overnight.GM is to replace the battery modules after two separate incidents of batteries exploding, despite earlier assurances that it was only older Bolts with U.S.-made batteries that had the problem. The recall now also includes those fitted with batteries made in South Korea. The implications are huge for both companies.GM and LG will have to make packs for five model years of Bolts and then swap them out, Electrek reported Friday. This recall includes 9,335 2019 models in the latest extension to the recall, in addition to the 63,683 2020 to 2022 model year Bolt EV and SUVs in the original recall."

 

Does this mean that insurance rates for EV drivers are set to explode upwards? Well, I guess so, if they cannot fix this predicament fast.

Don't look for me to be behind the wheel of an EV anytime soon, or even in the long term. If insurance rates for EVs skyrocket, I would be averse to losing the money.

Edited August 28, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Sebastian Meana + 278]

On 8/26/2021 at 10:47 AM, Eric Gagen said:

I live in Katy Texas, and drive on that road on many days.  Before Covid, I was on it about 6 days a week.  I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about.  Only 17% of jobs in the Houston area are in the downtown and that was before Covid forced many of those employers to remote operations.  The people who work there come from an area distributed in a circle with a 100 km radius. they aren't going from any one place to another single place.  That sort of city planning died over 100 years ago before Houston was even a small town.  The idea that everyone can, should or ought to go to one place to work is absurd, especially since we now have the tools and ability to work remotely.  Why would you want to encourage it? 

Your opinion that everyone hates their cars is just that - your opinion. If you don't want one, nobody is forcing you to get one.  Of course people complain about their commute to work!  When I lived in San Francisco, I took mass transit to work (BART train system) people complained about that too!  Nobody likes going to work.  That's why they have to pay people to show up.

You don't get to decide what sorts of personal behaviors and decisions are good or bad.  People with the resources to do so are allowed to go on shopping sprees, or buy cars and drive them.  You have no right to stop them, and they have every right to ignore you if they don't like your ideas about their decisions.  

Thats a lot of text, you could say that you like driving your car and saving the rest by the way ¿Where i wrote that shopping sprees and buying cars should be banned?

I have a extremely cynical, utilitarian, closefisted view on the world, so i tend to thrust more stastitics and my common sense than other people, on the other hand i separate leisure and work, and from that stuff that is made for leisure and stuff that is made for work, aka: capital goods, buying a new wheel loader in a quarry to replace the old one because of the risk it breaks down and takes weeks to repair is a logical decision, plating it in gold is a waste of money, and if something can be done for cheaper to do the same job, it shall be done, and usually is done. and if people can get something done for cheaper they will get it done for cheaper

My opinion that people dislikes the cars they buy is not an opinion, i can back it up as fact, the average new car depreciates around a 40% in the first year, basical economics says that's because of a high supply of used relatively new cars that far outstrips the demand, ¿if people liked their cars why they would try so sell them relatively quickly to go and buy a new one?

on the other hand people that buys motorcycles kinda likes their motorcycles because they are a leisure good, thats why a motorcycle depreciates 20% in two years, 4 times less depreciation.

Work from home stuff may reduce commuter and average mobility for now at medium and long term it will likely increase it for the same reason automation and productivity increases dont result in massive unemployment, for the same reason energy efficiency doesnt reduce energy consumption, the stuff you used to do some things than be devoted now to do even more things.

not to mention that only jobs that can be done with a computer can be done from home, you cant work as a nurse from home, you cant work in a repair shop from home, you cant supervise a warehouse deposit from home,  most of the service sector jobs cant be done from home, you cant unload or load trucks from home, and even if you have remote controlled forklifts, they need maintenance, and with new hacker treats like malware written by bots thanks to deep learning, theres a future risk on having your job depending on an internet connection, which is likely to make a return to closed systems, some bored slavs hacked a pipeline in the US they could hack the programs of a call center in a private residency

In any case people is animalsitic and it can be fairly easy to manipulate if you know how to, among those things is convincing or tricking them that you are doing something for their own good.

Here are interesing reports btw.
https://mobility.tamu.edu/mip/corridors-pdfs/houston/HOU-22-IH-10-101713.pdf
https://t4america.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Congestion-Report-2020-FINAL.pdf
https://www.dot.state.tx.us/apps-cg/top_100/howTheSegmentsWereIdentified.pdf
https://www.iadlest.org/Portals/0/Files/Documents/DDACTS/Docs/Traffic/Traffic Jam Blame Induced Demand - CityLab.pdf?ver=2020-01-01-133716-830

[Sebastian Meana + 278]

On 8/26/2021 at 12:16 PM, Rob Plant said:

Really???

So if someone drives into your car who has no insurance and writes off your $50K vehicle you'd be happy with that?? I'm presuming you wouldn't have insurance and would be happy looking at your $50K pile of scrap (maybe your illegal dragster??) Or maybe someone steals your dragster?? Still happy???

There are 200 reason the insurer may not pay for anything, Insurance for the external damages caused by someones car creates complacency, on both the car owner and the insurer, why being careful on how you drive if the insurer will pay for the damage you do? And why insurance companies would care about a sound and good quality policy if insurance is statuory anyway?

altho i would like a 2500hp dragster vette my three cars are a 67 ford falcon, a 1978 f150 and a 1972 250hp 7 journals IKA torino,  i would insure only one of them, the last one, because i consider it worthy of insuring it if someone breaks it, i wouldnt insure the falcon because is unironically cheaper to change all body panels than to insure it,  but i dont see any reason to insure a 97 toyotta corolla, or the F150 because it has a third party built crew cab that i would be more than happy that someone crashes unto it so i can use it as an excuse the standard cab and box without making it looks like a waste of money.

 

 

On 8/26/2021 at 3:28 PM, turbguy said:

You do realize that the license to operate a vehicle is a privilege off of your own property, not a basic human right, no?

You do realize that to license the vehicle and operator, in order to operate said vehicle on public roads, requires a modicum of liability for any misoperation resulting in torts to others, caused by the licensed operator, no?

If you want liability insurance to be voluntary, THEN use your OWN roads!

I see everything as privileges, the kind of guy who thinks rights dont exist and that everything is a privilege upon a cost that must be paid, in the case of public roads i'm paying for them when i buy milk, tires, beef, and anything else and half of it is taxed, and if i say that people who text while drivings shouldnt drive or that is okay using a Cummins dragster i will say the government, the police and the lot have food in their mouths thanks to people like me who pays taxes, as such   i consider shouldnt pay insurance in the roads that i pay, because i dont want to.

You cant actually use your own roads to do crazy shit, mainly because still has to be subject to federal, state, and local regulation, laws, and codes, even if you or me have 6 billion euros to built a racetrack, it still has to be subject to noise regulations for example.

Edited August 28, 2021 by Sebastian Meana

[turbguy + 1,547]

8 hours ago, Sebastian Meana said:

There are 200 reason the insurer may not pay for anything, Insurance for the external damages caused by someones car creates complacency, on both the car owner and the insurer, why being careful on how you drive if the insurer will pay for the damage you do? And why insurance companies would care about a sound and good quality policy if insurance is statuory anyway?

altho i would like a 2500hp dragster vette my three cars are a 67 ford falcon, a 1978 f150 and a 1972 250hp 7 journals IKA torino,  i would insure only one of them, the last one, because i consider it worthy of insuring it if someone breaks it, i wouldnt insure the falcon because is unironically cheaper to change all body panels than to insure it,  but i dont see any reason to insure a 97 toyotta corolla, or the F150 because it has a third party built crew cab that i would be more than happy that someone crashes unto it so i can use it as an excuse the standard cab and box without making it looks like a waste of money.

 

 

I see everything as privileges, the kind of guy who thinks rights dont exist and that everything is a privilege upon a cost that must be paid, in the case of public roads i'm paying for them when i buy milk, tires, beef, and anything else and half of it is taxed, and if i say that people who text while drivings shouldnt drive or that is okay using a Cummins dragster i will say the government, the police and the lot have food in their mouths thanks to people like me who pays taxes, as such   i consider shouldnt pay insurance in the roads that i pay, because i dont want to.

You cant actually use your own roads to do crazy shit, mainly because still has to be subject to federal, state, and local regulation, laws, and codes, even if you or me have 6 billion euros to built a racetrack, it still has to be subject to noise regulations for example.

Ever hear of "liability insurance"?

Ever hear of a "deductable"?

Ever hear of a "policy limit"?

Go right ahead and operate without liability insurance.  That's called "self-insured".   Someone you tort with that F150 beater could end up owning YOU!

Yes, taxes pay for most of the the operation of governments.

Who pays for damages to others when a vehicle accident occurs?

Seems to me plenty of privately owned facilities do plenty of "crazy shit".

My mother would never let me get away with the childish excuse, "...because I don't want to".

 

 

[Eric Gagen + 713]

17 hours ago, Sebastian Meana said:

Thats a lot of text, you could say that you like driving your car and saving the rest by the way ¿Where i wrote that shopping sprees and buying cars should be banned?

I have a extremely cynical, utilitarian, closefisted view on the world, so i tend to thrust more stastitics and my common sense than other people, on the other hand i separate leisure and work, and from that stuff that is made for leisure and stuff that is made for work, aka: capital goods, buying a new wheel loader in a quarry to replace the old one because of the risk it breaks down and takes weeks to repair is a logical decision, plating it in gold is a waste of money, and if something can be done for cheaper to do the same job, it shall be done, and usually is done. and if people can get something done for cheaper they will get it done for cheaper

My opinion that people dislikes the cars they buy is not an opinion, i can back it up as fact, the average new car depreciates around a 40% in the first year, basical economics says that's because of a high supply of used relatively new cars that far outstrips the demand, ¿if people liked their cars why they would try so sell them relatively quickly to go and buy a new one?

on the other hand people that buys motorcycles kinda likes their motorcycles because they are a leisure good, thats why a motorcycle depreciates 20% in two years, 4 times less depreciation.

Work from home stuff may reduce commuter and average mobility for now at medium and long term it will likely increase it for the same reason automation and productivity increases dont result in massive unemployment, for the same reason energy efficiency doesnt reduce energy consumption, the stuff you used to do some things than be devoted now to do even more things.

not to mention that only jobs that can be done with a computer can be done from home, you cant work as a nurse from home, you cant work in a repair shop from home, you cant supervise a warehouse deposit from home,  most of the service sector jobs cant be done from home, you cant unload or load trucks from home, and even if you have remote controlled forklifts, they need maintenance, and with new hacker treats like malware written by bots thanks to deep learning, theres a future risk on having your job depending on an internet connection, which is likely to make a return to closed systems, some bored slavs hacked a pipeline in the US they could hack the programs of a call center in a private residency

In any case people is animalsitic and it can be fairly easy to manipulate if you know how to, among those things is convincing or tricking them that you are doing something for their own good.

Here are interesing reports btw.
https://mobility.tamu.edu/mip/corridors-pdfs/houston/HOU-22-IH-10-101713.pdf
https://t4america.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Congestion-Report-2020-FINAL.pdf
https://www.dot.state.tx.us/apps-cg/top_100/howTheSegmentsWereIdentified.pdf
https://www.iadlest.org/Portals/0/Files/Documents/DDACTS/Docs/Traffic/Traffic Jam Blame Induced Demand - CityLab.pdf?ver=2020-01-01-133716-830

I never said I liked to drive anywhere.  What I said was the reasons people drive for are very different from the ones you think they are.  

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 5/13/2021 at 12:40 AM, turbguy said:

You can have a Toyota in any color you want...

 

 

...as long as it's BLACK.

Amazing (if I'm judging colors correctly), that RADIO survived the Great Depression (perhaps as a source of electric heat?).

So did the "Fridge"!

Both still popular to this very day!

Air conditioning strangely missing from the graph. The use is still growing. The population keeps moving toward the USA SW because of it IMHO. 

https://www.energy.gov/articles/history-air-conditioning

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_center_of_the_United_States_population

Edited August 29, 2021 by ronwagn
reference

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 8/26/2021 at 2:40 AM, Sebastian Meana said:

 

The solution and issues are interwindend between those lines, i know the transit management system in the UK since privatiztion is complicated to say the least and that there's a important bureaucratic drag on the UK. I dont think ev's cant be interesing, they can, they just cant be as special as a gas guzzler.

Clearly there's a demand for good, interesing cars that feel special, likely the biggest thing sustaining the car industry in the future 10 or 20 years is wanting a car because of the idea of having a car, and not because you like the vehicle you drive, but is a castle built over the air because illusions only lasts so long.

Today having a high performance car is not really an option as a commuter vehicle or daily driver car, having a 800hp rocket isnt a option to go to work and back not because one cant buy one and do it but because the fuel or electricity bill will set you back, insurance will be expensive, (insurance should be voluntary not statuary btw) because theres a higher chance of getting into trouble with a lot of power, and as daily driver having a boring 150hp econobox is easier.

The problem isn't that transit and cars are antithetical, they are not, in any case they are complementary the issue is that the appliancemobile is antithetical to both, mass transit and the car, and EVs only have a real world advantadge appliancemobile,  as i said before it would be better to use transit everyday for the daily commutes to work or shop or whathever, and use a more powerful more special car brought with saved money instead of 5 year loans to drive and explore the country one lives in.

or to summarize it, having using the car as the main form of transport is equivalent to prohibit water and making beer the main way to hydrate people

>At first time its fun, you get drunk and all of that, and economies of scale make beer very cheap, that was the car industry until 1972, where cars were both, entertainment and became the main form of transport, there will never be another time like the 50s and 60s for the automobile in the USA

>After a while alcohol has is effect on health, and lower alcohol is preefered, because it doesnt torture you liver as much, that was the end of the gas guzzler and when import cars in the US became the norm because they didnt torture the wallest as much

>Because with less to no alcohol beer tastes like piss and old bread, they would have to make it taste less like beer, that the car industry since the late 90s with focus on electronics, silence, and plastic hugue engine covers, rubber bushing everything.

>Eventually beer has no alcohol and the market demands to taste like nothing so people doesnt complain that's electric cars, what you end with is with very expensive watter in brown bottles, or like the EV a expensive disposable minitrolley that isnt interesing or special in any way  which you have to repair in exclusive car deales all of its electronic gadgets that will break.

>The solution to those issues would then be to reintroduce water to drink most of the day, phasing out tasteless zero alcohol beer and making beer be beer again and enjoying it more but less often, instead of drinking it like if it was water, and thats what transit would do to car, it wouldnt kill it, but it would make cars be cars again.

I like looking at life and spending money as a practical thing first and then think individuals or families need to decide what other options they have other than new prestigious cars versus the most cost effective. Air conditoning and automatic transmission make total sense to me, as does navigation if even just from your phone. Large powerful engines make very little sense to me unless you need them for practical reasons. We have a small car, a minivan, and a large powerful van. If gasoline prices stay expensive I will eventually trade my big van in for a replacement minivan if that is cost effective. I doubt if I will ever find and electric vehicle that is more cost effective than my Mitsubishi MIrage. I met a person driving one who has used it to and from Flagstaff Arizona to Tuscon for much of the 300,000 miles he put on his. We recently drove Route 66 for the umpteenth time buy in our minivan instead of the large van, this time, due to high fuel prices. My wife wouldn't take the Mitsubishi because it doesn't have cruise control, so we may have that installed (still worried about the warranty issue). We love driving it around town, and love saving money on gasoline. The only problem is that my brother in California has very long legs and wouldn't fit in it but he has a large SUV so we can use his. It is also noisier and more crowded but has plenty of room for luggage etc. 

[turbguy + 1,547]

10 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

I like looking at life and spending money as a practical thing first and then think individuals or families need to decide what other options they have other than new prestigious cars versus the most cost effective. Air conditoning and automatic transmission make total sense to me, as does navigation if even just from your phone. Large powerful engines make very little sense to me unless you need them for practical reasons. We have a small car, a minivan, and a large powerful van. If gasoline prices stay expensive I will eventually trade my big van in for a replacement minivan if that is cost effective. I doubt if I will ever find and electric vehicle that is more cost effective than my Mitsubishi MIrage. I met a person driving one who has used it to and from Flagstaff Arizona to Tuscon for much of the 300,000 miles he put on his. We recently drove Route 66 for the umpteenth time buy in our minivan instead of the large van, this time, due to high fuel prices. My wife wouldn't take the Mitsubishi because it doesn't have cruise control, so we may have that installed (still worried about the warranty issue). We love driving it around town, and love saving money on gasoline. The only problem is that my brother in California has very long legs and wouldn't fit in it but he has a large SUV so we can use his. It is also noisier and more crowded but has plenty of room for luggage etc. 

Ain't nothin' like a Chevy Suburban!

[ronwagn + 6,290]

4 minutes ago, turbguy said:

Ain't nothin' like a Chevy Suburban!

 

4 minutes ago, turbguy said:

Ain't nothin' like a Chevy Suburban!

I would prefer the largest version of the Mercedes Sprinter, my second choice might be a version of the Suburban, but my Nissan NV 3500 is larger only costs around $41,000 so it is my choice hands down. It seats twelve in large seats.