What's yer dream car?
- Thread starter DrRingDing
- Start date
dylanredefined
Not a house elf a tiger
The latest discovery is very nice .Or a customised lwb defender (going to hell aren't I ).The landrovers with guns look cool but aren't very comfortable
djbombscare
Plays with knives
firky said:big fuck off dirty defender that has been customised
Spookily enough I've got a dsicovery that is pretty much exactly the same as that defender
Mine however has mud ALL over it
It certainly aint no Chelsea Taxi
Anyway my dream car would be a proper, non yank shelby bollox, one of these
roryer said:
Sorry, but that's bollocks. The car isn't going away, and nor should it. For many people, the car has meant a massive increase in mobility, and that's a good thing. Of course the car brings problems, as does any technology, but on balance its effect on our world has been enormously beneficial.
A white Ford Capri, probably a 1.6L and possibly with a black roof, not sure.
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
Lamborghini Gallardo
Catherham 7 Superlight R500
Ferrari Enzo
Pagani Zonda
Aston Martin V8 Vantage
BMW M5
Bugatti Veyron
Bowler Wildcat
VW Splitscreen camper with 911 turbo engine
Catherham 7 Superlight R500
Ferrari Enzo
Pagani Zonda
Aston Martin V8 Vantage
BMW M5
Bugatti Veyron
Bowler Wildcat
VW Splitscreen camper with 911 turbo engine
djbombscare
Plays with knives
beesonthewhatnow said:
mate I know its a bit of a sacrilege but they are dumping ituned up mprezza turbo engines in em now. And they absolutley fly. .
There is a crew out there that that are called the USB. Ultimate Street Bus, its a pretty exclusive club and to be in it you gotta drag sub 11 times or something like that.
try this http://www.tsrdragracers.co.uk/
roryer
道可道非常道，名可名非常名
Roadkill said:
I would argue the bicycle, tram, motor bus and train brought about a massive and largely positive rise in mobility, while the car has had little positive effect.
It was designed as a luxury good for the wealthy and is wholly inappropriate as a mass transit technology. The massive space inefficiency of private automobile use dictates that this is the case. Proof of this is that we are travelling more slowly now than 100 years ago, and spend more on transport both in time and money as a society.
Growing up in a car free family myself, I have travelled to more places and more frequently than almost any of my peers, so to claim that the car is a necessity for increased mobility is plainly false.
When you say it is here to stay it depends in which format you are talking about. Taking a positive view of the next 30 - 50 years, where we successfully shift to new sources of energy and technology continues to advance, self driven cars will almost certainly disappear, replaced by automated 'pods' which will likely become a form of public transport. The technology is already quite advanced and is very likely to become mainstreamed.
A negative view would be that peak oil causes an economic crash which could result in challenges the like of which we have not experienced for over 100 years, including wide-spread mal-nutrition, even in the western advanced economies.
In this scenario cars may remain but fuel will become very expensive and difficult to find, the banking system, supply chains for fuel, and food would also collapse.
roryer said:
The car was originally a luxury for the wealthy but, as innovations often do, as the technology became better established and cars mass produced and therefore cheaper, a much wider spectrum of people benefited from it.
I would agree that the train probably had the greater effect in terms of engendering a rise in mobility, simply because when the railways were developed there was nothing faster than a horse. However, the car benefited those not fortunate enough to live near public transport links, and enabled people to travel at a time of their own choosing. Moreover, for people travelling in groups - families especially, particularly with luggage - it reduced the cost and increased the convenience of travel.
Our problems with congestion and slowing journey times are not the fault of the car itself, but with excessive and inappropriate use of it and blind backing by government of the motoring lobby against other means of transport. I'm not cheerleading for the 'car culture' here: I've no patience with the 'car good, public transport bad' mentality. I think we use cars too much and fail to recognise that other means of transport are more appropiate in many instances - such as the bus for urban journeys and the train for fast, long-distance travel. On the other hand, I maintain that the car is basically a good thing. Tbh, the assertion that the car has had 'little positive effect' is more prejudice talking than anything else.
Generalising from personal examples is always dangerous. But at the risk of doing the same thing, I might say that, growing up in a fairly isolated town with no railway (thanks, Beeching!) and poor bus links, my car was a lifeline. I'd not have had half the social life I did, or the ability to get jobs outside the town, had I not had my own means of transport (and no, a bike wouldn't have done, not for a twelve-mile commute).
I think that private transport is here to stay. The car in its current, petrol/diesel-driven form is not, simply because fuel will become more expensive and issues of pollution more pressing. However, once a satisfactory and reasonably-priced fuel cell or similar is developed, I think we'll see motor manufacturers switch over to that.
People like being able to travel at a time of their convenience. In a place like London, public transport more or less offers the chance to do that now, but with the best will in the world it is unlikely ever to be viable to run a comprehensive public transport service out in, say, rural Wales. That is where the car shows to bes advantage, and that is where it is unlikely ever to die away. Moreover, people like being able to control their own journeys - go at their pace, stop when they want etc - which is why people like driving. That is why I don't think people will willingly give up the self-driven car.
There's also the fact that, whether or not you want to accept it, people like cars. They're not just a use-value: people enjoy them for the engineering, the experience of driving, the look of them. That's why there's so much interest in motor sport, in customising cars and in preserving old ones.
The car is not going away, and nor should it. What we do need to do is concentrate on making people think about using the most appropriate means of transport for any given journey, and improving public transport (and facilities for cyclists) so as to increase the range of options and diminish the incentives to drive everywhere.
roryer
道可道非常道，名可名非常名
Very well argued case Roadkill, but interestingly your personal problems were in part caused by the dominance of car transport killing the popularity of the more appropriate form, ie the train.
As for people just liking cars, it is partly due to professional advertising.
Whether it is a positive thing that everywhere is now easily accessible is also arguable... Is it positive that people live rurally and work in urban centres? Is low density suburban sprawl a good use of land?
I've had my say and will leave this to thread back to the car lovers.
As for people just liking cars, it is partly due to professional advertising.
Whether it is a positive thing that everywhere is now easily accessible is also arguable... Is it positive that people live rurally and work in urban centres? Is low density suburban sprawl a good use of land?
I've had my say and will leave this to thread back to the car lovers.
roryer said:
That's true, but only up to a point. Even when the line was running, there were only a few trains a day and they only connected the town to the nearest city (Hull, for the record). Doubtless in the early twentieth century there were also buses, but I very much doubt they were a great deal more comprehensive than they are now. The railway line should never have been closed, but again, I blame that on our twentieth-century obsession with the car, and the run-down of the railways it engendered. I don't blame it on the car itself.
I think that an intelligent transport policy would seek to make cars and trains (or buses, for that matter) complement one another. Parkway stations are one example of this: people can drive a short distance to a railhead across remote land where there's no other means of transport, leave a car in a (hopefully) secure car park and do the bulk of their journey by train. Doubtless other ways to get cars and trains complementing one another could be advanced.
No, I don't think it is. Very few technologies, least of all those of transport, are purely use-values. A lot of people cycle because they enjoy it, and because they like bikes, and there's a lot of interest in railways out there fore reasons other than the purely utilitarian.
In general I think transport should accomodate itself to people's living patterns, rather than having us force people to live where there's appropriate transport. That said, I do think that there's a very strong case for making urban living mroe attractive and improving local facilties (i.e. addressing the delcine of the village shop, school, doctor etc) so as to reduce demand for travel overall.
Great posts Roadkill.
As a working couple with 3 young kids living 5 miles from a rural town and 20 miles from the nearest branch line station with no local bus service life without cars would be pretty much impossible. There's no way the local line that used to run past our house could be reopened, nor for it to be economic to do so. Car sharing isn't possible due to the need to have flexible working patterns. That said I think commuting 60 miles into Cardiff from here would be a dubious practice.
I agree that there needs to be much more investment in public transport in cities and a rethink about planning as far suburban sprawl and its effects are concerned but a blanket "cars are bad and can be done away with" stance isn't practical or realistic. Anyone who feels strongly on these issues should focus on things like the planned closures of rural post offices where real differences can be made here and now.
As a working couple with 3 young kids living 5 miles from a rural town and 20 miles from the nearest branch line station with no local bus service life without cars would be pretty much impossible. There's no way the local line that used to run past our house could be reopened, nor for it to be economic to do so. Car sharing isn't possible due to the need to have flexible working patterns. That said I think commuting 60 miles into Cardiff from here would be a dubious practice.
I agree that there needs to be much more investment in public transport in cities and a rethink about planning as far suburban sprawl and its effects are concerned but a blanket "cars are bad and can be done away with" stance isn't practical or realistic. Anyone who feels strongly on these issues should focus on things like the planned closures of rural post offices where real differences can be made here and now.
Roadkill said:I've always fancied a go in an Austin Seven:
They only go about 40mph, but even that's supposed to be a bit hairy, since the suspension, steering and brakes are all very primitive. They're cute in the extreme, though.
theyse the reason why 1930's semis all have imposibl small garages that are now useful only for storing shite and half used tins of paint
roryer
道可道非常道，名可名非常名
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2966094.stm
Just to show that it is not just me that believes that cars may be on their way out, Ian Pearson, a BT futurologist, predicts that some aspects of self-drive cars could be here as soon as 2010. (see article)
He doesn't necessarily agree with me on everything, but then who does? Interesting chap though see this email...
"BT's view, like mine, is that we do not want to restrict choice, but to use technology in such a way that it protects the environment while providing people with choice and improved quality of life. The two are not in conflict unless traditional thinking is imposed.
In terms of my personal views, I would go much further. I believe that many 'environmentalists' are actually responsible for a great deal of the damage done to the planet already by global warming, by virtue of their extreme views on nuclear power, resulting in use instead of fossil fuels, which have proved much more damaging. Other environmentalist errors include the opposition of genetic engineering, recycling plastics and paper, and mis-promotion of wind farms. I am personally very much in favour of limiting the future impact of the major environmental groups until such time as they make decisions on a more scientific basis rather than dogma.
In travel terms, if the traditional environmentalist view of encouraging public transport is still promoted, it will hold back the enormous environmental gains available by using much more efficient personal intelligent transport systems. There is a huge need for new thinking in this space, and public transport platforms are completely the wrong way to approach the problem. It is time to move on, and traditional environmentalists will only prevent the problems affecting the environment from being solved properly.
Just to show that it is not just me that believes that cars may be on their way out, Ian Pearson, a BT futurologist, predicts that some aspects of self-drive cars could be here as soon as 2010. (see article)
He doesn't necessarily agree with me on everything, but then who does? Interesting chap though see this email...
"BT's view, like mine, is that we do not want to restrict choice, but to use technology in such a way that it protects the environment while providing people with choice and improved quality of life. The two are not in conflict unless traditional thinking is imposed.
In terms of my personal views, I would go much further. I believe that many 'environmentalists' are actually responsible for a great deal of the damage done to the planet already by global warming, by virtue of their extreme views on nuclear power, resulting in use instead of fossil fuels, which have proved much more damaging. Other environmentalist errors include the opposition of genetic engineering, recycling plastics and paper, and mis-promotion of wind farms. I am personally very much in favour of limiting the future impact of the major environmental groups until such time as they make decisions on a more scientific basis rather than dogma.
In travel terms, if the traditional environmentalist view of encouraging public transport is still promoted, it will hold back the enormous environmental gains available by using much more efficient personal intelligent transport systems. There is a huge need for new thinking in this space, and public transport platforms are completely the wrong way to approach the problem. It is time to move on, and traditional environmentalists will only prevent the problems affecting the environment from being solved properly.
djbombscare
Plays with knives
Is that BT as in that great british car company Bangalore. . sorry I mean British Telecom ?
