Re: OT: Hybrid cars make no economical sense

A 1976 Rabbit is a death trap compared to any modern vehicle.
So we should all drive armoured tanks that get 5 GALLONS to the mile
instead?
That response can only be characterized as idiotic.

Well, it wouldn't be the first time I've said something idiotic, and it
certainly won't be the last... :)

A car does not have to be an armoured tank that gets 5 gallons to the
mile in order to be safer than a 1976 VW by an order of magnitude.

The point is my 32 year old car gets better fuel economy than most of the
current vehicles on the road, is more reliable (fewer parts and
technology to break), easy to fix when something does go wrong, and is
inexpensive to operate.

Safety is certainly a big factor to consider in a car, but the vast
majority of the time in a vehicle is spent driving, not crashing. How
much does the vehicle cost to purchase and maintain? How much energy and
materials go into the manufacture of the vehicle? What kind of fuel
economy does it get? etc...

I mean, I could get shot in a drive-by shooting, but I don't put on a
bulletproof vest everytime I go to town. Then again, I don't go to areas
that are likely to increase my odds of being shot. I could rely on the
technology of the vest for more safety, or I could use common sense to
try and reduce my odds of it happening in the first place. In any case,
there's no way to completely eliminate the risk. Similarly, improving
your driving habits will do far more for safety than relying on
technology to save you from yourself.

How about a new VW? What's their current model that replaces the
Rabbit? I can tell you without knowing anything about it, that it is a
hell of a lot safer than anything made in 1976.

I haven't driven the newest VW's, but my wife owns a 1986 Jetta. It's 10
years newer, with more "safety" features, and weighs considerably more
than my car does. She does get slightly better mileage with less
emissions, but there's less visibility, has been less reliable, and
doesn't even come close to the drivability of my old Rabbit.

My sister-in-law owns a 96 Jetta, and it's even heavier with additional
safety features, and gets about the same mileage I do (less than my
wife's 86 Jetta). The visibility and driveability is even less than my
wife's car.

We also now have thing like ABS brakes, anti rollover systems,
Collision avoidance lights, better lights for seeing and being seen,
and a host of other improvements.

I'm not against technology improvements, but it's foolish to use
technology to cover common sense.

ABS brakes are fine, but they make people overconfident. Simple physics
will show my lighter car can stop faster than a heavier car. And with a
little common sense, like not following so close or going too fast for
conditions, braking shouldn't be a concern. I've been driving about 30
years and braking has never been an issue, even in the few accidents I've
been involved in.

Anti-rollover systems may help, but the fact is those vehicles are top-
heavy to start with. Again, people get overconfident and think those
SUV's can handle like sports cars. I've seen enough SUV rollovers to know
all the technology in the world won't prevent that.

I would argue the better lighting, as all of the newer vehicles I've
driven are horrible to drive at night, compared to the simple 7" round
lights on my Rabbit.

If a newer vehicle with all the safety features makes you feel safer, by
all means drive one of those. But I personally don't like the
disconnected feeling I have when driving newer vehicles. I just can't
"feel" the road like I do in my Rabbit.

In any case, it's not so much a choice of the vehicle you drive, as the
fact that fuel economy has not really improved in 30+ years. Watch any TV
commercial and they're promoting how much power the car has, and are
racing around at high speeds or driving trucks over mountains of
boulders. It doesn't take that much power to get to work and back, and
that style of driving negates ANY safety features the car may have.

Anthony
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Who does NOT agree that Honda should fire their designers
    ... More structural strength around the passenger compartment is more ... > "Safety" is right between your ears. ... where my car was legally positioned and stopped in traffic, ... when a vehicle coming the other way swerved into their lane ...
    (rec.autos.makers.honda)
  • Re: Yet another innocent driver dies after police chase stolen vehicle
    ... Garmin- or TomTom-type instruction code to the pursued vehicle. ... but the technology isn't ready yet. ... It would also need to be set up to receive encrypted regular "heartbeat" signals - otherwise jamming or shielding could be used to block the incoming police "stop" signal. ... If the unit did go faulty, or sunspot activity interfered with the broadcast, or the car was stuck in a tunnel, or whatever, at least the car could still be driven. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Yet another innocent driver dies after police chase stolen vehicle
    ... Garmin- or TomTom-type instruction code to the pursued vehicle. ... but the technology isn't ready yet. ... cars to be driven wherever those signals are received. ... would only be chasing a slow car. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Philosophy: Evolutionary thinking and racist thinking
    ... car" if the family has more than two children. ... I see with the air car is bringing back the stuff from Home Depot and ... pollution vehicle powered by compressed air. ... As for the technology being applied to whatever type of vehicle one ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: How to safely sell a vehicle?
    ... >My son is thinking of selling his vehicle, but is not home often enough ... Since that may be my responsibility, I have some safety ... >concerns - for myself and the vehicle. ... >will return the car - and return it in good condition? ...
    (rec.autos.misc)
Loading