RE: Ford Mustang Mach-E | Ridden

RE: Ford Mustang Mach-E | Ridden

Author
Discussion

AceKid

115 posts

9 months

Monday 17th February
quotequote all
big_rob_sydney said:
Nick, casting obtuse aspersions is a cheap shot. And this is now the second time you're doing this. Again, I wont rise to it, but simply tell you, visibility is important, sure, always has been, and always will be. So yes, you're quite right, nothing has changed in that regard.

Which, if you're focused on only that aspect, means you've totally missed the point.

If people don't need a high riding vehicle, yet choose to buy one anyway, then through their selfish choice, they impact the ability of trailing vehicles to see through.

It is quite simply a choice that didn't need to be made, yet was selfishly done anyway.

Why am I responding to this? Because it annoys me that someone else's selfishness forces me to drives several car lengths further back than necessary. On occasions too numerous to count, I've not made it through a traffic light. That's one simple example where the selfishness of others has cost me time.

In an unrelated point, my wife is a social worker who works in brain injury rehab. The people she has seen who've been in RTA's where visibility was an issue is just tragic.

You people behave like complete cowboys with no thought for who trails in your wake.
I think that in actual fact anyone can drive whatever the hell they want without having to justify it to someone who clearly has issues with being able to adjust their driving style to suit road and traffic conditions.
Also unsure as to why you think a social worker in brain rehab would know the ins and outs of RTA details, but then i suppose it helps you to justify your innane ranting...

But then this is all irrelevant to the OP about the Ford....not my cup of tea, but then i can fully see why they are utilising the Mustang name to try and push it as a sub brand going forward.

gigglebug

1,671 posts

76 months

Monday 17th February
quotequote all
gigglebug said:
Can you explain to me why modifying your distance to maintain visibility is such a hardship to you Rob. It is part and parcel of driving, always has been always will be, and if it really is something that you don’t think you should have to do, or are simply incapable of, you really shouldn’t be on the road. You do not have to be able to see through the vehicle in front of you to maintain safety, otherwise all manor of vehicles would be under scrutiny for the danger that they would present to other road users, and if your own ability to remain safe really does rely on this then again it only serves to highlight your own inadequacy.

And cut the fantasy straw man arguments, you really are making yourself look like a complete tool.
big_rob_sydney said:
Perhaps last first? If the shoe fits, wear it. If you want to engage in straw man arguments, then don't get the sts at being called out as such.
You really don’t understand what is happening here do you Rob? Try going back to the X3 vs F-Pace thread to where you, rather cosmically, bemoaned the use of straw man arguments then proceeded to do exactly the same yourself. Me highlighting the fact on this thread, and then pointing out your continued use of them, serves no other purpose than to take the micky out of you and the fact that you have absolutely no self awareness. For one who talks of irony so much I would have expected you to be able to spot it.

big_rob_sydney said:
The reasons around visibility being trespassed upon are, I think, well enough laid out just above.

If people want to be selfish, that's on them.
So you don’t actually have an explanation as to why your driving isn’t even of the standard that can cope with everyday driving scenarios. Didn’t think so to be honest.

nickfrog said:
I have never noticed the height of an SUV in front being a major issue for visibility. The thing is there isn't a "normal" height of car. I never hear a Caterham driver moaning about the lack of visibility when behind a relatively high vehicule like a Lexus LS, for instance.

Most cars have darkened rear windows now anyway so you can't see through them either, not that you should rely on that.

Storm in a tea cup. Or perhaps the issue is slightly different.
big_rob_sydney said:
Nick, casting obtuse aspersions is a cheap shot. And this is now the second time you're doing this. Again, I wont rise to it, but simply tell you, visibility is important, sure, always has been, and always will be. So yes, you're quite right, nothing has changed in that regard.

Which, if you're focused on only that aspect, means you've totally missed the point.

If people don't need a high riding vehicle, yet choose to buy one anyway, then through their selfish choice, they impact the ability of trailing vehicles to see through.

It is quite simply a choice that didn't need to be made, yet was selfishly done anyway.

Why am I responding to this? Because it annoys me that someone else's selfishness forces me to drives several car lengths further back than necessary. On occasions too numerous to count, I've not made it through a traffic light. That's one simple example where the selfishness of others has cost me time.

In an unrelated point, my wife is a social worker who works in brain injury rehab. The people she has seen who've been in RTA's where visibility was an issue is just tragic.

You people behave like complete cowboys with no thought for who trails in your wake.
Ah, so in actual fact your only objection is having not made it through some traffic lights. Ha Ha!!!

If your wife being a social worker and the RTA’s mentioned are , in your own words, an unrelated point why mention it at all??

gigglebug

1,671 posts

76 months

Monday 17th February
quotequote all
Back on topic, am I dreaming this or can you option a standard looking front grill on these? I haven’t got used to the electric cars with filled in fronts yet.

big_rob_sydney

2,548 posts

148 months

Monday 17th February
quotequote all
gigglebug said:
1. So you don’t actually have an explanation as to why your driving isn’t even of the standard that can cope with everyday driving scenarios. Didn’t think so to be honest.


and



2. Ah, so in actual fact your only objection is having not made it through some traffic lights. Ha Ha!!!
1. Where do you get any idea whatsoever to draw that conclusion?
2. You answered your own question right here.

More to the point, your Ha Ha!!! tells me how selfish your own mindset is. I'm not surprised.

nickfrog

11,836 posts

171 months

Monday 17th February
quotequote all
How selfish of some people to drive a Lexus LS. If you're behind it in a Caterham, you lose significant visibility, you miss traffic lights and have a good chance of ending up in a RTA. So unfair.

Edited by nickfrog on Tuesday 18th February 07:08

gigglebug

1,671 posts

76 months

Monday 17th February
quotequote all
gigglebug said:
1. So you don’t actually have an explanation as to why your driving isn’t even of the standard that can cope with everyday driving scenarios. Didn’t think so to be honest.
big_rob_sydney said:
1. Where do you get any idea whatsoever to draw that conclusion?
Oh, I don’t know Rob. Maybe it is your continued assertion that you personally (and therefore others) somehow require the ability to see through the vehicle in front of you in order to be safe on the road. You still haven’t managed to explain why this would be the case.

To be honest you just sound like the typical person who unfortunately isn’t willing to take responsibility for their own actions and would rather put the onus on anyone other than yourself for being compriable for your own safety.

big_rob_sydney said:
And what do you say to the families of people who may be killed due to making a mistake through that lack of visibility? I'm guessing you drive off in your visibility reducing SUV and simply say "too bad?" Heaven forbid that RTA statistic is not a member of your own family...
While you are at it Rob could you clarify exactly what you mean by this statement?

You use the term “may have been killed” suggesting that you are commenting based on nothing more than conjecture which, to be honest, is no surprise.

What percentage of accidents on the road are you suggesting can be directly attributed to folks making a ”mistake” because they are “forced to modify their trailing distance” (another classic) whilst following a vehicle that they cannot see through and how many of these, in the cold light of day, wouldn’t come down to being a result of their own actions as oppose to a lack of visibility? (which of course would be within their own ability to control)

mistake
noun [ C ]
UK /m??ste?k/ US /m??ste?k/

A2
an action, decision, or judgment that produces an unwanted or unintentional result:

gigglebug said:
2. Ah, so in actual fact your only objection is having not made it through some traffic lights. Ha Ha!!!
big_rob_sydney said:
2. You answered your own question right here.

More to the point, your Ha Ha!!! tells me how selfish your own mindset is. I'm not surprised.
Again you only succeed in showing yourself as being the typical person who along with being ironically self centred is also prone to over exaggeration. You clutter threads bemoaning how SUV’s present a risk to your personal safety, providing nothing more than tenuous links, and when push comes to shove the best thing you can come up with is the fact that you have been stuck at a few red lights. Sounds very dangerous Rob. Conclusive evidence right there.

Edited to include the definition of mistake

Edited by gigglebug on Tuesday 18th February 07:09

gigglebug

1,671 posts

76 months

Monday 17th February
quotequote all
nickfrog said:
How selfish of some people to drive a Lexus LS. If you're trailing it with a Caterham, you lose significant visibility, you miss traffic lights and have a good chance of ending up in a RTA. So unfair.
I would much rather be involved in an accident, all things being equal when considering the forces involved for any given closing speed, with your SUV that weighs 1250kg than Robs LS that will weigh getting on for two tonnes. Why do these people insist on being selfish and having massive, heavy cars that pose a greater risk to all of those around them?

LuS1fer

36,162 posts

199 months

Monday 17th February
quotequote all
Perhaps you two could get a room and roger out your differences. Nobody cares.

gigglebug

1,671 posts

76 months

Monday 17th February
quotequote all
LuS1fer said:
Perhaps you two could get a room and roger out your differences. Nobody cares.
Apart from Nickfrog, eddharris and Acekid you mean who also have contributed? Maybe it is actually an orgy that you are imagining right now you dirty boy?! If you don’t personally care don’t engage but don’t act on the misguided pretence that you are speaking for everyone else.

GoodCompany

241 posts

17 months

Monday 17th February
quotequote all
LuS1fer said:
Perhaps you two could get a room and roger out your differences. Nobody cares.
Those little numbers at the bottom of the page allow you to see the other pages of the discussion. It's not quite a one on one quibble.

Apologies if you're actually trying to request that the two users make love, and I've totally spoiled the moment.

Edited by GoodCompany on Monday 17th February 23:59

R400TVR

391 posts

116 months

Wednesday 19th February
quotequote all
I hate the way that a few car companies are using the names of sportier models in order to tie in. Jaguar is bad enough with the F-Pace, but this couldn't be much further away from a Mustang if they tried.

fblm

17,715 posts

217 months

Wednesday 19th February
quotequote all
R400TVR said:
I hate the way that a few car companies are using the names of sportier models in order to tie in. Jaguar is bad enough with the F-Pace, but this couldn't be much further away from a Mustang if they tried.
By that reasoning you should be upset that they call most Mustangs a Mustang!

soupdragon1

2,360 posts

51 months

Thursday 20th February
quotequote all
fblm said:
R400TVR said:
I hate the way that a few car companies are using the names of sportier models in order to tie in. Jaguar is bad enough with the F-Pace, but this couldn't be much further away from a Mustang if they tried.
By that reasoning you should be upset that they call most Mustangs a Mustang!
If your names not Sally, you shouldn't be allowed to buy one either. Strict control is required for such important matters.

skyrover

12,329 posts

158 months

Thursday 20th February
quotequote all
No thanks

R400TVR

391 posts

116 months

Thursday 20th February
quotequote all
fblm said:
By that reasoning you should be upset that they call most Mustangs a Mustang!
You could be right, especially about some of the 80's models! But at least they follow the correct Mustang format.

fblm

17,715 posts

217 months

Thursday 20th February
quotequote all
R400TVR said:
fblm said:
By that reasoning you should be upset that they call most Mustangs a Mustang!
You could be right, especially about some of the 80's models! But at least they follow the correct Mustang format.
The 4th and 5th generation were pretty dire too. In 2010 the 4L V6 only made 200bhp and the less said about the rest of the car the better! Today the base car comes with a 2.3 4 Cylinder, most unmustang. To be fair the eco-boost is an otherwise great engine and the 6th gen V8 Shelby cars are absolutely epic.

irocfan

23,234 posts

144 months

Thursday 20th February
quotequote all
gigglebug said:
gigglebug said:
Can you explain to me why modifying your distance to maintain visibility is such a hardship to you Rob. It is part and parcel of driving, always has been always will be, and if it really is something that you don’t think you should have to do, or are simply incapable of, you really shouldn’t be on the road. You do not have to be able to see through the vehicle in front of you to maintain safety, otherwise all manor of vehicles would be under scrutiny for the danger that they would present to other road users, and if your own ability to remain safe really does rely on this then again it only serves to highlight your own inadequacy.

And cut the fantasy straw man arguments, you really are making yourself look like a complete tool.
big_rob_sydney said:
Perhaps last first? If the shoe fits, wear it. If you want to engage in straw man arguments, then don't get the sts at being called out as such.
You really don’t understand what is happening here do you Rob? Try going back to the X3 vs F-Pace thread to where you, rather cosmically, bemoaned the use of straw man arguments then proceeded to do exactly the same yourself. Me highlighting the fact on this thread, and then pointing out your continued use of them, serves no other purpose than to take the micky out of you and the fact that you have absolutely no self awareness. For one who talks of irony so much I would have expected you to be able to spot it.

big_rob_sydney said:
The reasons around visibility being trespassed upon are, I think, well enough laid out just above.

If people want to be selfish, that's on them.
So you don’t actually have an explanation as to why your driving isn’t even of the standard that can cope with everyday driving scenarios. Didn’t think so to be honest.

nickfrog said:
I have never noticed the height of an SUV in front being a major issue for visibility. The thing is there isn't a "normal" height of car. I never hear a Caterham driver moaning about the lack of visibility when behind a relatively high vehicule like a Lexus LS, for instance.

Most cars have darkened rear windows now anyway so you can't see through them either, not that you should rely on that.

Storm in a tea cup. Or perhaps the issue is slightly different.
big_rob_sydney said:
Nick, casting obtuse aspersions is a cheap shot. And this is now the second time you're doing this. Again, I wont rise to it, but simply tell you, visibility is important, sure, always has been, and always will be. So yes, you're quite right, nothing has changed in that regard.

Which, if you're focused on only that aspect, means you've totally missed the point.

If people don't need a high riding vehicle, yet choose to buy one anyway, then through their selfish choice, they impact the ability of trailing vehicles to see through.

It is quite simply a choice that didn't need to be made, yet was selfishly done anyway.

Why am I responding to this? Because it annoys me that someone else's selfishness forces me to drives several car lengths further back than necessary. On occasions too numerous to count, I've not made it through a traffic light. That's one simple example where the selfishness of others has cost me time.

In an unrelated point, my wife is a social worker who works in brain injury rehab. The people she has seen who've been in RTA's where visibility was an issue is just tragic.

You people behave like complete cowboys with no thought for who trails in your wake.
Ah, so in actual fact your only objection is having not made it through some traffic lights. Ha Ha!!!

If your wife being a social worker and the RTA’s mentioned are , in your own words, an unrelated point why mention it at all??
now maybe I'm due a parrot here but:

- there are so many artics, vans and in-between sizes that even if every SUV ever made disappeared in a puff of smoke there'd still be obscured vision?
- if your vision is obscured then the prudent thing to do would be to hang back a little?

Obviously the above doesn't help vis-a-vis in SUV vs smaller things accidents, but that size disparity is everywhere and something that won't disappear any time soon

nickfrog

11,836 posts

171 months

Thursday 20th February
quotequote all
irocfan said:
Obviously the above doesn't help vis-a-vis in SUV vs smaller things accidents, but that size disparity is everywhere and something that won't disappear any time soon
Correct and when that criticism comes from someone who drives a 2ton 5m long car, the mind seriously boggles.

gigglebug

1,671 posts

76 months

Thursday 20th February
quotequote all
nickfrog said:
irocfan said:
Obviously the above doesn't help vis-a-vis in SUV vs smaller things accidents, but that size disparity is everywhere and something that won't disappear any time soon
Correct and when that criticism comes from someone who drives a 2ton 5m long car, the mind seriously boggles.
Come on nickfrog, you know full well that there will be a perfectly justifiable reason why Rob "needs" such a big, heavy car.

unsprung

4,477 posts

78 months

Thursday 20th February
quotequote all



It's fine to say that you don't like the Mustang Mach-E car or its name. Personal preference means everything.

If you claim, however, that Ford are wrong today to extend their most powerful brand to include a crossover vehicle, then you're strategically incorrect. Full stop.

See posts in this thread of 14th February.