An excellent illustration of what Bodgebuild was saying, I think?
Diesels
- Thread starter JP_
- Start date
An excellent illustration of what Bodgebuild was saying, I think?
Sponsored Links
LOL! I love the way each time you say this, another string is added. The latest being "of a similar vintage"!
No, I would not say that - nor have I EVER said that! You seem to be arguing against nobody on that score! All I have done, is to point out that there's more to it than that, and that saying "keeping everything else the same" is unrealistic.
Hang on! In Post#133 you said: "People are prepared to pay for higher running costs in order to drive a car which is deliberately oversized so that it does more damage to other cars in accidents".
Read more: https://www.diynot.com/diy/threads/diesels.567415/page-9#ixzz6xtWUbPt6
In Post#176 you said: "They know that if they could choose theyd want any car that hits them to be as light as possible. And they know full well why."
Read more: https://www.diynot.com/diy/threads/diesels.567415/page-12#ixzz6xtXIIV9M
Neither of those statements sound anything like: "But its quite possible for people to do something with consequences without having any conscious or deliberate or thoughtful intention of bringing about those consequences."!
On that, we can agree.
I don't really object to that statement either. However, it's not consistent with some of your earlier quotes.
Would you care to explain why? I happen to think it is not only relevant, but actually pretty darned crucial!
C
Captain Nemesis
Yes, because people keep introducing factors in an attempt to deny correlation as part of their attempt to deny responsibility for consequences.
Of course in any individual event there is "more to it than that". But you have just agreed that you would never say that theres no correlation between relative mass and relative damage in an accident. "Keeping everything else the same" is all you can do, and what you have to do, when considering the scenario where someone says "Im going to buy a 2.5t car instead of a 1.5t one because I want to be safer in an accident than I would be if I bought a 1.5t one".
They arent saying "Im going to buy a 2018 car instead of a 2008 one".
They arent saying "I'm going to buy a Euro NCAP 5-star car instead of a 4-star one".
They say "I'm going to buy a big heavy car instead of a smaller lighter one".
And as you have just agreed, you would never say that there is no correlation between having a bigger heavier car and there being more damage to the smaller lighter car in an accident.
Sorry, but that inevitably means that you would never say that there is no correlation between choosing to a have bigger heavier car and choosing for there to be more damage to the smaller lighter car in an accident.
https://www.diynot.com/diy/threads/diesels.567415/page-9#ixzz6xtWUbPt6
Well isnt that obvious?
Weve already established that by their own admission they are buying a car which they have deliberately chosen to be bigger/heavier in order to improve their chances in an accident.
Weve already established that there is a correlation between having a bigger heavier car and there being more damage to smaller lighter ones in accidents.
The choice to buy a bigger heavier car for the specific reason of being safer for you in an accident is a choice to make it less safe for others in an accident.
It cannot be otherwise.
Given the correlation, it cannot be otherwise.
The reasoning Im trying to draw out is that the correlation previously discussed is known, therefore the consequences are known. It is clear from the way people react when you put the joined-up-dots in front of their face that not only have they not thought about the consequences they dont want to think about them, and they certainly dont appreciate someone trying to force them to think about them.
Good, because that is important to this question of consistency.
It is consistent.
No, I do not believe that people sit down and consciously think to themselves "Im going to get a big heavy car in order to make it less safe for the other guy if we have a collision". But you agree with the correlation, you agree with the consequences.
What I wrote in #133 for example is simply expressing "People are prepared to pay for higher running costs in order to drive a car which is deliberately oversized so that it suffers less damage than other cars in accidents" in terms of its corollary, not inconsistently.
Would you care to explain why? I happen to think it is not only relevant, but actually pretty darned crucial![/QUOTE]
Its irrelevant because of the "all other things being equal" provisos.
Lighter cars back then were less safe than lighter cars now because modern ones are much better designed in terms of crashworthiness, but the consequences of disparity in mass were still there. They may have been less significant - not because of the way that the lighter car performed back then but because the heavier one was also no great shakes either.
You can only consider the heavy car vs light car issue within roughly the same generation of engineering. As you observed, your older car is less safe than your newer one. If you had to have a collision today you could well be safer in a modern 1.5t car than you would in a 1950s 2.5t Bentley.
The overall improvements in safety over the last 50 years do not negate the correlation of a heavier car doing more damage to a lighter one than one closer in weight would do.
Ironically, it's actually because every time someone adds in a factor that doesn't fit your preconceptions, you have to rule it out, rather than engage with the discussion and (heaven forbid!) change your position! I'm reminded of a question asked by a fellow student many years ago:
"Sir, how long would a piece of steel last before rusting away"?
"Well, it depends on a lot of factors. What sort of thickness"?
"Er... average thickness".
"What sort of atmospheric conditions"?
"average conditions"
"What sort of temperature"?
"average sort of temperature".
Well, on consideration, I'd say it would last an average amount of time then"!
Sorry, you don't have to at all! You have chosen to. (And frankly, in doing so, you're contributing about as much to mankind's pool of knowledge in this field as someone who points out that the further North you go, the colder it gets, contributes to meteorology). The latter isn't untrue, in a general sense, but it's not really telling anyone anything they don't already know!
Er... I think you'll find that plenty (perhaps most) prospective car buyers say precisely that!
So where do the small, light cars that I see on our roads come from? Who buys them? Where do you draw your arbitrary line between "big heavy car" and "small light one"? A ton? 1.5 tons? 2 tons?
I have never said there is "no" correlation. However, the correlation is far from clear-cut. Indeed, as I have just demonstrated from experience, it is by no means always true. There are plenty of examples of this.
No, we have not established it. You have asserted it. The fact that small cars still sell in large numbers, certainly shows that not all purchasers think that way. In fact, I suspect it is a minority who do. If you took a poll of car purchasers, I bet very few of them would be able to tell you the weight of the car they had bought, whereas I suspect a much larger number of them could tell you how many EuroNCAP stars it had.
Oh make your mind up!!! First you say people are choosing big cars that are "deliberately oversized so that it does more damage to other cars in accidents". Then you say "But its quite possible for people to do something with consequences without having any conscious or deliberate or thoughtful intention of bringing about those consequences." and now you're back on "The choice to buy a bigger heavier car for the specific reason of being safer for you in an accident is a choice to make it less safe for others in an accident."!
So can we just put this to bed once and for all, please? Are you saying that people who buy big, heavy cars are doing it in full knowledge of what it might do to a smaller vehicle or not?! (And while we're at it, do you also accept that sometimes people buy big cars for reasons completely OTHER than perceived safety? (Such as wanting to carry a lot of people and / or stuff)?
Yes.. I can see that...
In fact, would you believe there are even some people who make bald assertions based on oversimplifications of reality and then really don't like it when they're presented with evidence that contradicts them?To the extent that I agree with the correlation (which isn't that much)... Remember that much as you might like to think of it in black and white terms, real life ain't like that. It's a vague, but positive, correlation. Nothing more.
But that is not quite what you wrote in Post#133, is it? What you wrote was: ""People are prepared to pay for higher running costs in order to drive a car which is deliberately oversized so that it does more damage to other cars in accidents".
Ah... of course... ignore all the variables that don't fit your preconception!
So both lighter and heavier cars were less crashworthy back then? Yes, that's correct. The original Mini weighed little more than half a ton. Forget driving a Bentley into it at 30, if you drove another Mini into it, neither set of occupants would come out of it well! Fast forward half a century, and the Mini is MUCH bigger and heavier. Crash two of those into each other at the same speed, and the picture looks rather rosier for both sets of occupants. (The same would be true of two Bentleys from each era, of course). I'm afraid that there's no getting away from the fact that ALL cars have become both heavier and safer. So, what is it you want to happen? Do you want to put a cap on the weight of a passenger car? Where would you draw the line if you did? Half a ton, like the old Mini or 2 tons like a Bentley?
So... if the difference between heavy and light cars existed then and still exists today, why do YOU think that (despite there being a lot more of them and the speeds being far greater) fewer vehicle occupants die in crashes today?
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 2,760
- Reaction score
- 573
- Country
but so many opportunities have been missed by increasing size and power to weight ratios, yes our new car could be argued as impressive to cars from 50 years ago (180bhp, 1.5t, over 60mpg (over 70 sometimes)) but a smaller less powerful car using the same modern engine tech could have been achieving 100+ mpg and considerably less pollution. And sadly we are going to be doing the same with electric cars, people want to drive fast and to show off to others her big their chariots are, so they will be overly big and overly powerful, they will be using far more energy than what is necessary for personal transport.
True enough. My first car had 35 horsepower. However, car manufacturers are no different to any other manufacturer. They make what they think people will want to buy. If they thought people would want to buy small, low-powered, frugal and light cars, they'd be only too happy to build them! In the EU (and UK) they are subject to the "New Car CO2 Regulation", which caps the corporate average CO2 emissions of everything they sell. Each year, that cap is lowered. They are fined (a lot!) per gramme of CO2 per car that their average is over the limit. It's why Aston Martin tried to introduce the Cygnet, so that they reduced their average CO2 emissions per car. It didn't work, of course. Nobody bought an Aston Martin Cygnet, because it was just a tarted-up Toyota hatchback. Could you see James Bond in one?!
The problem is how much energy for personal transport is too much? You'd use even less if you were on an e-bike. Less still, if you were on a pushbike...
C
Captain Nemesis
In the sense that you are in complete denial, we have no choice.
No, Im not.
Im saying thats the problem.
Im saying that they are in denial of the consequences of their decision to buy a bigger heavier car for their own protection.
Im saying that they should have the decency to own up to those consequences, to own them, and not to stamp about saying its rubbish when they are told about it.
Of course they do.
This was my first post on the issue:
It was only about, and I have continued to only talk about, scenarios where the justification is "increased safety", none of the other reasons.
Positive is positive. Thats all that matters.
FGS - have you got a reading problem? Let me try repeating what I said, with a bit of added formatting to help you.
133:
183:
No, just trying, obviously totally futilely as you are determined to be in denial, to remove all the obfuscation you throw up to try and avoid accepting the fact that if someone gives as his justification for buying a larger heavier car "its safer for me in an accident" there is a positive correlation between that and "its more dangerous for other people in an accident".
OK... so the guy who is quite willing to agree that there is some correlation between the relative size of vehicles in an impact and damage done; who in fact, has never denied any such correlation; who has agreed that there is one at least half a dozen times; and whose own wife now has a very heavy car for precisely that reason...
...is "in denial".
Whereas the guy who has repeatedly tried to bat away every possible other factor, hasn't brought a single new argument to the table, and has steadfastly refused to engage in anything other than his particular mantra...
...isn't?
OK... got it...
C
Captain Nemesis
Yes.
Despite everything you have said right there, you are in denial that the choice of a big heavy car in order to make your wife safer is a choice to make other people less safe.
You are in denial that you/she have deliberately chosen to buy her safety at the expense of other peoples safety.
You are in denial that you/she have decided that somebody else should be forced to face a higher risk of injury so that she can face less.
And there, I think, we will have to leave it. I'd probably have more luck getting the Taliban to enter into reasoned debate. I should have realised I was on a hiding to nothing when I quoted one of your own posts back to you and you tried to change it and then tell me I couldn't read!. You have your "creed", as it were, and nothing is going to divert you from it. Any challenging questions will remain unanswered, and any evidence that goes against your "beliefs" will be batted aside as "irrelevant". It's been a bit like playing chess with a pigeon, really...
I wish you many safe and happy miles of motoring in (what I can only assume is), your 20 year old Smart car...
I should have realised I was on a hiding to nothing when I quoted one of your own posts back to you and you tried to change it and then tell me I couldn't read!. You have your "creed", as it were, and nothing is going to divert you from it. Any challenging questions will remain unanswered, and any evidence that goes against your "beliefs" will be batted aside as "irrelevant". It's been a bit like playing chess with a pigeon, really...I wish you many safe and happy miles of motoring in (what I can only assume is), your 20 year old Smart car...
C
Captain Nemesis
I did not try to change anything.And there, I think, we will have to leave it. I'd probably have more luck getting the Taliban to enter into reasoned debate.
The "change" which you allege was nothing more than me trying to point out, once again, that the fact that there is a correlation between what happens as a result of disparity in size and mass between two vehicles means that there is the same correlation between a decision to create that disparity and decision to bring about what happens.
And it is that about which you are in denial. Understandably, as its a very unconfortable truth to have to face.
Repeatedly, and at times quite insistently, you said that you agreed that there was a correlation between Vehicle A being larger/heavier than Vehicle B and Vehicle A suffering less damage than Vehicle B. But what you flatly deny is that the choice to have an "A" in order to suffer less damage than a "B" is the choice to have an "A" in order to make the "B" suffer more damage.
Its as if you had a pie you were going to cut into two, and you attempted to deny that if you chose to take more than half for yourself you were choosing for the other person to get less than you.
And there's another thread not long for the chop!
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
