RE: Ford Mustang Mach-E | Ridden
Discussion
big_rob_sydney said:
You may have missed the bit where I discussed need versus want. If this meets your needs, great. Try reading that again.
Not missed it so no need to read it again. I want a car that meets my needs, like most people. Glad you approve. big_rob_sydney said:
Even so, that wont change the fact that this body type causes trailing vehicles to have impeded view.
Live with it. I could say you don't need a 5m car that takes up so much road space and adds to congestion. But I don't because I am tolerant and not easily upset by insignificant annoyances. Live and let live Rob. gigglebug said:
big_rob_sydney said:
gigglebug said:
Surely this couldn’t be coming from the person who recently bemoaned straw man arguments could it?
Dry your eyes mate. Maybe one day in the future legislation will allow you to gain compensation for the trauma that you suffer. Until then maybe you should just get on with it.
Really? Nothing of substance by way of argument (and I think many would be saying you have plenty of material to work with here, given the rampant selfishness some observe), yet you talk of drying eyes and straw men...Dry your eyes mate. Maybe one day in the future legislation will allow you to gain compensation for the trauma that you suffer. Until then maybe you should just get on with it.
The irony is strong with this one...
You have had nothing of substance by the way of argument from day one just an arrogant sense of self entitlement and the belief that somehow your ability to maintain safe visibility whilst on the road is down to anyone other than yourself. It should be a concern to everyone that shares the road with you that someone in a car as large as a Lexus LS doesn’t appear to have the ability to deal with everyday, and very minor, situations without going into melt down.
Edited by gigglebug on Sunday 16th February 13:43
And that want, I don't think, is an arrogant sense of self entitlement. Actually, it's in everyone's interests that people are able to see where they're going.
The issue isn't that I can't see (I've had Lasik and my eyesight is 20/20 or better, thanks). You seem to have trouble comprehending; it is people that choose to buy an object that is high riding, and therefore obscures the view of trailing vehicles. It *forces* trailing vehicles to modify their following distance, due to the requirement to maintain safety, through the sheer selfishness of the leading vehicle.
If you want to describe that as "melt down", or minor, or everyday, or whatever else, that's up to you. But it is a fact when you choose to drive such a high riding vehicle, other vehicles that are lower can no longer look through them. Is that imagination, or is that a scientific fact?
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...
big_rob_sydney said:
I'm not so sure it is an ironic tendency to want to be able to see.
And that want, I don't think, is an arrogant sense of self entitlement. Actually, it's in everyone's interests that people are able to see where they're going.
The issue isn't that I can't see (I've had Lasik and my eyesight is 20/20 or better, thanks). You seem to have trouble comprehending; it is people that choose to buy an object that is high riding, and therefore obscures the view of trailing vehicles. It *forces* trailing vehicles to modify their following distance, due to the requirement to maintain safety, through the sheer selfishness of the leading vehicle.
If you want to describe that as "melt down", or minor, or everyday, or whatever else, that's up to you. But it is a fact when you choose to drive such a high riding vehicle, other vehicles that are lower can no longer look through them. Is that imagination, or is that a scientific fact?
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...
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 that want, I don't think, is an arrogant sense of self entitlement. Actually, it's in everyone's interests that people are able to see where they're going.
The issue isn't that I can't see (I've had Lasik and my eyesight is 20/20 or better, thanks). You seem to have trouble comprehending; it is people that choose to buy an object that is high riding, and therefore obscures the view of trailing vehicles. It *forces* trailing vehicles to modify their following distance, due to the requirement to maintain safety, through the sheer selfishness of the leading vehicle.
If you want to describe that as "melt down", or minor, or everyday, or whatever else, that's up to you. But it is a fact when you choose to drive such a high riding vehicle, other vehicles that are lower can no longer look through them. Is that imagination, or is that a scientific fact?
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...
And cut the fantasy straw man arguments, you really are making yourself look like a complete tool.
big_rob_sydney said:
I'm not so sure it is an ironic tendency to want to be able to see.
And that want, I don't think, is an arrogant sense of self entitlement. Actually, it's in everyone's interests that people are able to see where they're going.
The issue isn't that I can't see (I've had Lasik and my eyesight is 20/20 or better, thanks). You seem to have trouble comprehending; it is people that choose to buy an object that is high riding, and therefore obscures the view of trailing vehicles. It *forces* trailing vehicles to modify their following distance, due to the requirement to maintain safety, through the sheer selfishness of the leading vehicle.
If you want to describe that as "melt down", or minor, or everyday, or whatever else, that's up to you. But it is a fact when you choose to drive such a high riding vehicle, other vehicles that are lower can no longer look through them. Is that imagination, or is that a scientific fact?
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...
I love the fact this frankly ridiculous rant is aimed at only SUV drivers, yet you dont dare mention the vans, HGV's or any other type of vehicle that isnt low enough to allow you to drive in the way that suits only you.And that want, I don't think, is an arrogant sense of self entitlement. Actually, it's in everyone's interests that people are able to see where they're going.
The issue isn't that I can't see (I've had Lasik and my eyesight is 20/20 or better, thanks). You seem to have trouble comprehending; it is people that choose to buy an object that is high riding, and therefore obscures the view of trailing vehicles. It *forces* trailing vehicles to modify their following distance, due to the requirement to maintain safety, through the sheer selfishness of the leading vehicle.
If you want to describe that as "melt down", or minor, or everyday, or whatever else, that's up to you. But it is a fact when you choose to drive such a high riding vehicle, other vehicles that are lower can no longer look through them. Is that imagination, or is that a scientific fact?
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...
and before you jump on me as probably being a typical 2 tonne SUV driver....my household consists of a V40, an E46 convertible and my forester, which for taking the dog out over the New Forest and its crap and currently flooded roads is perfect.
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.
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.
A lot of people clinging onto a rose tinted past in this thread.
Governments make the rules chaps, gonna have to get used to it. Cars with legally enforced safety systems, banning fossil fuels....heck, we might even have to hand motorway driving over to the car in years to come.
People being silly on the road kills people - the current trajectory we are heading on is that driving is a means of transport from A to B and NOT a source of entertainment. Enjoy it while you can, that's my advice. The fun of driving will be taken away from us, and probably sooner than we all think.
Little point getting upset about what's a Mustang and what isn't- just enjoy driving whatever you happen to own yourself rather than worrying about nostalgia. Car manufacturers are being forced to change- just let them get on with experimenting with cars like this Mach E. Ford have a great legacy and I wish them well with this new era.
Governments make the rules chaps, gonna have to get used to it. Cars with legally enforced safety systems, banning fossil fuels....heck, we might even have to hand motorway driving over to the car in years to come.
People being silly on the road kills people - the current trajectory we are heading on is that driving is a means of transport from A to B and NOT a source of entertainment. Enjoy it while you can, that's my advice. The fun of driving will be taken away from us, and probably sooner than we all think.
Little point getting upset about what's a Mustang and what isn't- just enjoy driving whatever you happen to own yourself rather than worrying about nostalgia. Car manufacturers are being forced to change- just let them get on with experimenting with cars like this Mach E. Ford have a great legacy and I wish them well with this new era.
nickfrog said:
Clivey said:
MC Bodge said:
The golden age of motoring has ended. We will have the memories.
I'm only 31. 
Driving cars has only been a thing for 120 or so years. Driving horses and carriages for much longer.
nickfrog said:
Clivey said:
MC Bodge said:
The golden age of motoring has ended. We will have the memories.
I'm only 31. MC Bodge said:
Some of the technology might be interesting, but I suspect that road driving as something to enjoy of itself is going be increasingly a thing of the past.
I have found road driving impossible to enjoy for the past 15 years or so. Traffic, potholes and speed enforcement. Driving for fun and as a sport on track is where it's at and we are blessed for that in the UK, so many brilliant tracks. AceKid said:
I love the fact this frankly ridiculous rant is aimed at only SUV drivers, yet you dont dare mention the vans, HGV's or any other type of vehicle that isnt low enough to allow you to drive in the way that suits only you.
and before you jump on me as probably being a typical 2 tonne SUV driver....my household consists of a V40, an E46 convertible and my forester, which for taking the dog out over the New Forest and its crap and currently flooded roads is perfect.
Actually, yes, I have previously mentioned vans, etc. And in that previous discussion, what I had said was, if the vehicle is necessary for its intended function, fine. Anyone that needs to deliver several tonnes of product to a retail can't very well be expected to do it in a regular sedan / estate. It's a case of a vehicle that is fit for a purpose. No issues with that, and had you read a little more widely, you might have seen those comments previously.and before you jump on me as probably being a typical 2 tonne SUV driver....my household consists of a V40, an E46 convertible and my forester, which for taking the dog out over the New Forest and its crap and currently flooded roads is perfect.
And I don't especially care what you drive; the argument ought to stand on its own merits. Lack of visibility is lack of visibility. In itself, as I said for the reasons just mentioned, that's not a big deal. The issue I have is when people do it for the reason of "want" as opposed to "need". It's simply an act of selfishness, brought on by the "f
k you jack, I'm okay" brigade.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.
Perhaps last first? If the shoe fits, wear it. If you want to engage in straw man arguments, then don't get the sAnd cut the fantasy straw man arguments, you really are making yourself look like a complete tool.
ts at being called out as such.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.
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.
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.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.
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'm really interested in a good-looking 300+ miles range EV at about £40k. Badge is irrelevant, comfort and range critical, as I regularly have a 260 mile day trip. If it's well-made and the range is realistic I'm definitely thinking of trading in the diesel XC60, even though it's Euro 6 compliant and returns 44+mpg. It's on the cards that oil and petrol are in for a kicking, regardless of the colour of the government, as time goes on.
And I know the REAL green cars are those you can run cleanly for 5years or more, but governments take a short-term view, and ICE-powered cars will be penalised more and more, to "encourage" drivers to go for EVs.
And I know the REAL green cars are those you can run cleanly for 5years or more, but governments take a short-term view, and ICE-powered cars will be penalised more and more, to "encourage" drivers to go for EVs.
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.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.
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 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.
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. ts at being called out as such.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. If people want to be selfish, that's on them.
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.
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!!!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.
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 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?and
2. Ah, so in actual fact your only objection is having not made it through some traffic lights. Ha Ha!!!
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.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff