Going back to work has been rough on my petrol expenses, with the post-covid prices skyrocketing. I'm spending about 350-450€ a month on petrol alone and that is not very fun.
So I've been calculating. I'm usually buying cars for around 10' €, for me a car is just a tool that takes me to places, it's not a status thing or a fun thing. But I do want a good car since I spend quite a lot of time in it going quite fast. So far electric vehicles have been too expensive for me, there's barely any second hand market and what's there can't handle my daily 130 km highway commute. The cars costs me something like 500 € a month just driving and owning and over time about 650-700€ a month when including purchase price.
For an electric car to be profitable it needs to cost me about 500€ a month or less, since my present car is bought and paid for. It needs to have a range above 400 km. Calculation there is that I can only use 60% of the battery, since battery degrades when charging above 80% and going below 20%. I also go mostly on the highway in 120 km/h so the range decreases rapidly. 60% of 400km gives me 240 km daily range, which should be about 180 km highway range. We are a two car household and we have a motorhome, so long range travel does not factor at all.
I have a few options, prices are quickly going down.
Hyundai Kona/Kia e-soul costs about 450'€, but they are very plastic and low quality.
VW ID3 and ID4 are about 500'€ and even though they have the quality, it's too expensive. Also I don't want a car built by cheaters.
Tesla Model S used has also been going down, but then I'll buy a 2014 or so and the doubts about automotive quality are too big.
Tesla model 3 likewise too expensive both used and new.
But the Chinese have been building cars. MG ZS EV is a small electric SUV with a 440 km range that costs about 390'€. It seems to be light years ahead of Hyundai/Kia in quality and much cheaper. Putting that 390' in my calculation gives me a monthly cost, over 5 years, of about 480€. After that, when it's paid I more or less have a free car.
Any electric drivers here? Anyone driving a Chinese MG?
There's a review here https://www.whatcar.com/mg-motor-uk/zs-ev/hatchback/used-review/n22835 (https://www.whatcar.com/mg-motor-uk/zs-ev/hatchback/used-review/n22835) that implies the MG ZS EV range isn't what you need.
Quote from: grumbler on October 31, 2021, 02:11:46 AM
There's a review here https://www.whatcar.com/mg-motor-uk/zs-ev/hatchback/used-review/n22835 (https://www.whatcar.com/mg-motor-uk/zs-ev/hatchback/used-review/n22835) that implies the MG ZS EV range isn't what you need.
That's the previous model, or rather the present model but with the old battery. For model year 2022 they've increased battery capacity (and price, from 34' to 39').
Which.co.uk ranks a Kia (e-niro) second of all electric cars.
Interestingly they rank the mini in their top 5 too- I do like the look of them. Volkswagen is not massively far behind and the Nissan Leaf behind that.
My only electric car experience was a small BMW owned by work which was...interesting. Really good acceleration. Didn't feel like actually driving.
On Tesla its reliability is apparently shit as well as being expensive.
Definitely the Tesla. No brainer.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 31, 2021, 05:21:40 AM
Definitely the Tesla. No brainer.
Why? Tesla model 3 LR is 62k in Sweden, that's a steep price increase from 39k. Cheapest Tesla 3 is 55k.
We also get a 7k environment bonus from the government on every electric car, so in practice it's 55k against 32k, almost double the cost.
Because he has skin in the game hah
One thing tesla really has going for it in NA is filling stations (don't thnk that's the proper term), but I do t know about Europe. However, since you said no long travel that doesn't really pertain to you anyway.
Obligatory post: .....
Voiceover: -But it wasn't obligatory...
Quote from: HVC on October 31, 2021, 06:23:45 AM
Because he has skin in the game hah
One thing tesla really has going for it in NA is filling stations (don't thnk that's the proper term), but I do t know about Europe. However, since you said no long travel that doesn't really pertain to you anyway.
There's a Tesla supercharger half-way between my work an my home, but I imagine that I'll never use it.
I've driven a Model 3 and it's a very nice car. Great software, great design, perfect for me. The automotive reputation is bad, but if I could get one of the ones they build in China instead of the US the quality is reputedly going straight up. But it is out of my economical envelope, too expensive.
Hyundai sell its Ioniq out there?
Ford offering is getting good too.
All electric cars are too expensive. Also don't buy Tesla. Tesla is shit quality and owned by a Zuckerberg like persona.
Ioniq also looks nice, but is also in the 50k range rather than the 40k range.
https://alltomelbil.se/jamfor-elbilar/ (https://alltomelbil.se/jamfor-elbilar/) are the available cars in Sweden. Sorting by "Pris/Räckvidd" sorts by price/range, how many SEK you have to spend for every km of range. 10 SEK is almost exactly 1€. The competition seems to be between Kona, E-soul and ZS EV.
You should definitely make sure to consider the persona of the person who manages the company you purchase a new car from, for sure.
Teslas look like their outside is made of some cheap plastic.
Quote from: Berkut on October 31, 2021, 10:17:08 AM
You should definitely make sure to consider the persona of the person who manages the company you purchase a new car from, for sure.
Yes. Plus, you need to avoid the safest cars, the best-selling ones, and the highest-rated ones, all of which can be avoided by not buying Tesla.
https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/05/elon-musk-the-worlds-raddest-man.html (https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/05/elon-musk-the-worlds-raddest-man.html) has a long series of blog posts on Musk and his endavours. It's old by now, but when I read it back in the day I was totally convinced on the advantages of an electric car. It's taken until now for them to get down enough in price to actually consider one.
This was before Musk went a bit on the insane side.
We could use a lot more insane people, apparently.
Quote from: Berkut on October 31, 2021, 10:17:08 AM
You should definitely make sure to consider the persona of the person who manages the company you purchase a new car from, for sure.
Buy any My Pillow's lately? :P
Quote from: HVC on October 31, 2021, 01:48:24 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 31, 2021, 10:17:08 AM
You should definitely make sure to consider the persona of the person who manages the company you purchase a new car from, for sure.
Buy any My Pillow's lately? :P
Cannot say that I have.
Americans :rolleyes:
Quote from: Threviel on October 31, 2021, 09:41:01 AM
Ioniq also looks nice, but is also in the 50k range rather than the 40k range.
https://alltomelbil.se/jamfor-elbilar/ (https://alltomelbil.se/jamfor-elbilar/) are the available cars in Sweden. Sorting by "Pris/Räckvidd" sorts by price/range, how many SEK you have to spend for every km of range. 10 SEK is almost exactly 1€. The competition seems to be between Kona, E-soul and ZS EV.
Here, in Quebec, the cheaper all electric cars are the VW e-golf followed by the Chevy Bolt. Both sell for around 26k$ after 13k in governments rebates.
Coincidentally, I'm seriously considering an electric vehicle.. an electric bike.
What's putting me the idea isn't the technology, it's nearly there in terms of performance, but given the cost it, the buying experience will be akin to getting a vehicle rather than just a bicycle. :bowler:
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 31, 2021, 07:00:16 PM
Quote from: Threviel on October 31, 2021, 09:41:01 AM
Ioniq also looks nice, but is also in the 50k range rather than the 40k range.
https://alltomelbil.se/jamfor-elbilar/ (https://alltomelbil.se/jamfor-elbilar/) are the available cars in Sweden. Sorting by "Pris/Räckvidd" sorts by price/range, how many SEK you have to spend for every km of range. 10 SEK is almost exactly 1€. The competition seems to be between Kona, E-soul and ZS EV.
Here, in Quebec, the cheaper all electric cars are the VW e-golf followed by the Chevy Bolt. Both sell for around 26k$ after 13k in governments rebates.
You forgot that 14,975% sales tax.
GM's site gives me 770$/month with taxes and interests for 5 years. You're in the range of a luxury car, for something very cheaply built.
Quote from: mongers on October 31, 2021, 07:27:41 PM
Coincidentally, I'm seriously considering an electric vehicle.. an electric bike.
What's putting me the idea isn't the technology, it's nearly there in terms of performance, but given the cost it, the buying experience will be akin to getting a vehicle rather than just a bicycle. :bowler:
How is the technology for electric bikes "not there in terms of performance "?
I'm a very unsporty person, but I was doing fine taking an electric bike through the Styrian hills for hours with no issues. Granted, the bike model cost around 2000 EUR (according to the guys we rented from), but that was a few years ago, so prices might be different.
Quote from: viper37 on October 31, 2021, 07:35:03 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 31, 2021, 07:00:16 PM
Quote from: Threviel on October 31, 2021, 09:41:01 AM
Ioniq also looks nice, but is also in the 50k range rather than the 40k range.
https://alltomelbil.se/jamfor-elbilar/ (https://alltomelbil.se/jamfor-elbilar/) are the available cars in Sweden. Sorting by "Pris/Räckvidd" sorts by price/range, how many SEK you have to spend for every km of range. 10 SEK is almost exactly 1€. The competition seems to be between Kona, E-soul and ZS EV.
Here, in Quebec, the cheaper all electric cars are the VW e-golf followed by the Chevy Bolt. Both sell for around 26k$ after 13k in governments rebates.
You forgot that 14,975% sales tax.
GM's site gives me 770$/month with taxes and interests for 5 years. You're in the range of a luxury car, for something very cheaply built.
Got my figured from www.roulonselectrique.ca They are low, since they don't include anything like taxes, fees or options. Annoying. :hmm:
Quote from: mongers on October 31, 2021, 07:27:41 PM
Coincidentally, I'm seriously considering an electric vehicle.. an electric bike.
What's putting me the idea isn't the technology, it's nearly there in terms of performance, but given the cost it, the buying experience will be akin to getting a vehicle rather than just a bicycle. :bowler:
I planned to get one last year but they were impossible to get. Came close again in summer but job switching interrupted this.
They're... OK. I can't help but feel a bit cheated that in the UK they can't go fully automated - when I test rode one I purposefully stopped on a steep hill and tried to get going again. It was just as much a disaster as doing this on a normal bike.
I definitely felt a difference on reasonably flat terrain but it's subtle. The price is high, £2000 even for the cheapest.
Quote from: Tyr on November 01, 2021, 06:38:57 AM
Quote from: mongers on October 31, 2021, 07:27:41 PM
Coincidentally, I'm seriously considering an electric vehicle.. an electric bike.
What's putting me the idea isn't the technology, it's nearly there in terms of performance, but given the cost it, the buying experience will be akin to getting a vehicle rather than just a bicycle. :bowler:
I planned to get one last year but they were impossible to get. Came close again in summer but job switching interrupted this.
They're... OK. I can't help but feel a bit cheated that in the UK they can't go fully automated - when I test rode one I purposefully stopped on a steep hill and tried to get going again. It was just as much a disaster as doing this on a normal bike.
I definitely felt a difference on reasonably flat terrain but it's subtle. The price is high, £2000 even for the cheapest.
You can get electric bikes for much less than that, but will need to spend £1,000 for anything half decent. Carrera Subway is meant to be the best at that price point.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 01, 2021, 05:56:56 AM
Quote from: viper37 on October 31, 2021, 07:35:03 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 31, 2021, 07:00:16 PM
Quote from: Threviel on October 31, 2021, 09:41:01 AM
Ioniq also looks nice, but is also in the 50k range rather than the 40k range.
https://alltomelbil.se/jamfor-elbilar/ (https://alltomelbil.se/jamfor-elbilar/) are the available cars in Sweden. Sorting by "Pris/Räckvidd" sorts by price/range, how many SEK you have to spend for every km of range. 10 SEK is almost exactly 1€. The competition seems to be between Kona, E-soul and ZS EV.
Here, in Quebec, the cheaper all electric cars are the VW e-golf followed by the Chevy Bolt. Both sell for around 26k$ after 13k in governments rebates.
You forgot that 14,975% sales tax.
GM's site gives me 770$/month with taxes and interests for 5 years. You're in the range of a luxury car, for something very cheaply built.
Got my figured from www.roulonselectrique.ca They are low, since they don't include anything like taxes, fees or options. Annoying. :hmm:
Financing is around 5-7% these days. That's a lot compared to the 0%-2% rates of a few years ago.
I think, maybe, the GM site does not factor in the govt help in their monthly price, it seems quite high. In any case, it's still a lot of money for a small car.
Quote from: viper37 on November 01, 2021, 08:02:35 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 01, 2021, 05:56:56 AM
Quote from: viper37 on October 31, 2021, 07:35:03 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 31, 2021, 07:00:16 PM
Quote from: Threviel on October 31, 2021, 09:41:01 AM
Ioniq also looks nice, but is also in the 50k range rather than the 40k range.
https://alltomelbil.se/jamfor-elbilar/ (https://alltomelbil.se/jamfor-elbilar/) are the available cars in Sweden. Sorting by "Pris/Räckvidd" sorts by price/range, how many SEK you have to spend for every km of range. 10 SEK is almost exactly 1€. The competition seems to be between Kona, E-soul and ZS EV.
Here, in Quebec, the cheaper all electric cars are the VW e-golf followed by the Chevy Bolt. Both sell for around 26k$ after 13k in governments rebates.
You forgot that 14,975% sales tax.
GM's site gives me 770$/month with taxes and interests for 5 years. You're in the range of a luxury car, for something very cheaply built.
Got my figured from www.roulonselectrique.ca They are low, since they don't include anything like taxes, fees or options. Annoying. :hmm:
Financing is around 5-7% these days. That's a lot compared to the 0%-2% rates of a few years ago.
I think, maybe, the GM site does not factor in the govt help in their monthly price, it seems quite high. In any case, it's still a lot of money for a small car.
GM financing rates are crazy, as usual.
Gm financing is crazy because Canadians have too much vehicle debt. Somethings gonna give and they know that.
I've had a Tesla 3 for about 2 years now. Never had any issues with it. Only problem was positioning right in the driveway to get good wifi reception for software updates. The driving experience is definitely superior to a gasoline car. Quiet, great acceleration, responsive.
Our next car is 99% likely going to be electric, but I'm not sure when it's going to be. Subaru is meant to come out with an electric car this year (or is it out already), and we have a bit of brand loyalty there, but we'll do proper research and test drives when the time comes so who knows.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 01, 2021, 09:06:49 AM
I've had a Tesla 3 for about 2 years now. Never had any issues with it. Only problem was positioning right in the driveway to get good wifi reception for software updates. The driving experience is definitely superior to a gasoline car. Quiet, great acceleration, responsive.
But you are enabling a monster! Should have bought Chinese so as not to support a man with occasionally obnoxious opinions.
I'd really like to buy a truck next year, and an electric truck would I think meet our needs perfectly. F150 Lightning, Cybertruck and some company called Rivian are supposed to come out with electric trucks next year. However it looks like they'll be seriously supply-constrained for years so it seems like we'll probably need to get a gas-powered truck.
Quote from: grumbler on November 01, 2021, 09:54:58 AM
But you are enabling a monster! Should have bought Chinese so as not to support a man with occasionally obnoxious opinions.
Tesla does a lot of manufacturing in China, I believe, so if you want to do both you can.
Quote from: Tyr on November 01, 2021, 06:38:57 AM
I planned to get one last year but they were impossible to get. Came close again in summer but job switching interrupted this.
They're... OK. I can't help but feel a bit cheated that in the UK they can't go fully automated - when I test rode one I purposefully stopped on a steep hill and tried to get going again. It was just as much a disaster as doing this on a normal bike.
I definitely felt a difference on reasonably flat terrain but it's subtle. The price is high, £2000 even for the cheapest.
When you say fully automated, do you mean a throttle to help get you going when you start? Or do you mean the ability to do the whole trip, using the motor (essentially an electric scooter with pedals, I guess)?
I have two electric bikes at this point. One is a Raleigh (with the classic Raleigh form factor and everything) which I got years ago. It still has the usual struggle to get started when going up a hill or with a heavy load, since it's purely pedal assist, but it's still really nice once you get going.
The other is a Rad Power Bike which we just got to haul the kids around. It's quite a bit bigger and heavier (and has fat tires), but the motor is more powerful as well. It has the throttle to get you started which is super nice. I don't think the battery has the capacity to support riding it around at a scooter for any length of time, and I don't know if the throttle is sensitive enough for that either. That said, it's a lot of fun to ride. The only caveat for me is this specific brand seems a little weak on the build quality. Nothing super egregious, but it feels like it needs more regular tuning and tightening than any other bike I've ever owned - and not on the electrical components but purely the bike mechanical ones.
Quote from: Jacob on November 01, 2021, 11:32:15 AM
When you say fully automated, do you mean a throttle to help get you going when you start? Or do you mean the ability to do the whole trip, using the motor (essentially an electric scooter with pedals, I guess)?
I have two electric bikes at this point. One is a Raleigh (with the classic Raleigh form factor and everything) which I got years ago. It still has the usual struggle to get started when going up a hill or with a heavy load, since it's purely pedal assist, but it's still really nice once you get going.
The other is a Rad Power Bike which we just got to haul the kids around. It's quite a bit bigger and heavier (and has fat tires), but the motor is more powerful as well. It has the throttle to get you started which is super nice. I don't think the battery has the capacity to support riding it around at a scooter for any length of time, and I don't know if the throttle is sensitive enough for that either. That said, it's a lot of fun to ride. The only caveat for me is this specific brand seems a little weak on the build quality. Nothing super egregious, but it feels like it needs more regular tuning and tightening than any other bike I've ever owned - and not on the electrical components but purely the bike mechanical ones.
In the UK we aligned with EU regulations a while back, so the only allowable electric bicycles are now of the pedelec variety; you must pedal to get the motor assist, which ceases above 15.3 mph.
Any bike that can be propelled solely by an electric motor and controlled by a throttle, would now be classed as an electric motorbike and so would need 'road tax', insurance and rider license provision. :(
I can see the reasoning I think - presumably they want to avoid people riding electric scooters claiming it's a bike. But the little extra boost to get started (esp. uphill or with a heavy load) is really useful. Safer too, IMO, at intersections with cars - you can get in and out of the intersection much quicker.
Why the hell shouldn't electric bike riders have to pay road tax and buy insurance?
For that matter, why shouldn't regular bike riders?
Quote from: mongers on November 01, 2021, 05:47:21 PM
Any bike that can be propelled solely by an electric motor and controlled by a throttle, would now be classed as an electric motorbike and so would need 'road tax', insurance and rider license provision. :mad:
it kinda seems to be logical, though...
But hey, what's the point of Brexit if you're going to align your laws to EU laws? :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 01, 2021, 06:24:55 PM
Why the hell shouldn't electric bike riders have to pay road tax and buy insurance?
Because by then, what's the difference with this and a scooter/small motorcycle?
Quote
For that matter, why shouldn't regular bike riders?
Because... Ah, I don't know, really. :P
It's been decided a while ago that only vehicles with an engine would pay for the roads, since they were the primary beneficiary.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 01, 2021, 06:24:55 PM
Why the hell shouldn't electric bike riders have to pay road tax and buy insurance?
For that matter, why shouldn't regular bike riders?
It's harder to feel ike a member of the superior cycling master race if you have to pay taxes or have a licence plate like a peon.
Proper hardcore cyclists don't even use the cycle lane, let alone pay tax on their ride.
Hey look a thread hijacked to talk about bikes. :cool:
Quote from: mongers on November 01, 2021, 07:05:37 PM
Hey look a thread hijacked to talk about bikes. :cool:
For it to become a hijack someone (you, hint, hint, wink, nudge) would have to pick up the gauntlet. :smoke:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 01, 2021, 06:24:55 PM
Why the hell shouldn't electric bike riders have to pay road tax and buy insurance?
For that matter, why shouldn't regular bike riders?
Because:
1. The wear and tear that bikes apply to roads are orders of magnitude less than those applied by cars and trucks (taxes).
2. The vast majority of roads are designed explicitly for cars, even where bikes are permitted. Bikes are forbidden to use a large proportion of roads (freeways et. al.) (taxes).
3. In places where there is significant bike infrastructure, this is not necessarily funded by road taxes but is paid for in other ways (taxes).
4. A significant number of bike riders also own cars and pay road taxes that way. Presumably they shouldn't be paying
more for activities that cause less wear and tear on the infrastructure, and which uses a significantly smaller proportion of the road network. The overhead of administering road taxes for the small subset of people who ride bikes but don't drive may be revenue negative (taxes).
5. The potential damage someone can inflict while riding a bike (and thus the potential liability) is orders of magnitude less than that which can be inflicted by someone driving a car or truck (insurance).
6. The damages that can be caused by individual bike rider negligence is already adequately covered by personal liability insurance (insurance).
7. On a societal level bike riding is preferable to car driving where practical, for reasons of population health and environmental impact. Therefore it should be incentivized (taxes).
All that said, I'd happily pay an additional "bike tax" that went to expanding and maintaining infrastructure specifically geared towards being useful and safe for bicyclists.
I also think that North America could use some sort of traffic standards for bicyclists, and attendant education for bicyclists and other participants in traffics to enhance predictability and safety for all involved parties. I also wouldn't mind some sort of mandatory education to establish this. I think a licensing model is unnecessary since bikes are not heavy machinery in the same way cars are.
#7 I fully concede
#6 I do not because, in my experience, normal people don't carry personal liability insurance.
The other arguments are about scale. Of course bike riders should pay less.
Zuck and Musk don't seem all that much alike in personality.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 01, 2021, 09:00:47 PM
#7 I fully concede
#6 I do not because, in my experience, normal people don't carry personal liability insurance.
Fair enough. Still, I expect if we look at the liabilities generated by cyclists they may well be insignificant enough that requiring them to carry insurance makes no more sense that requiring people to carry insurance for operating lawn mowers or chain saws, for riding horses, and so on.
That said, I'm perfectly willing to accept whatever a reasonable analysis of the actual numbers indicate. Conversely, I think given that you accept #7, there has to be a reasonable social benefit (as in, significant liability covered that otherwise would not have been) to implement licensing, since adding bureaucracy to riding bikes will have a discouraging effect.
QuoteThe other arguments are about scale. Of course bike riders should pay less.
I think scale is part of it. Another part, I think, is that if bike riders have to pay road tax then road taxes should also be spent explicitly to support bike riding (rather than as a subsidy for car focused infrastructure); and I think a non-trivial number of road-works departments would have to be significantly retooled to be able to do that given how car-centric North American cultures are outside of a few cities. Given that, it may actually be beneficial to tax bike riders if it means their interests are better represented during traffic planning.
Quote
It's harder to feel ike a member of the superior cycling master race if you have to pay taxes or have a licence plate like a peon.
Proper hardcore cyclists don't even use the cycle lane, let alone pay tax on their ride.
Build proper cycle lanes and that problem will go away
Quote from: mongers on November 01, 2021, 05:47:21 PM
In the UK we aligned with EU regulations a while back, so the only allowable electric bicycles are now of the pedelec variety; you must pedal to get the motor assist, which ceases above 15.3 mph.
Any bike that can be propelled solely by an electric motor and controlled by a throttle, would now be classed as an electric motorbike and so would need 'road tax', insurance and rider license provision. :(
Huh, didn't know it was an EU law. Thought it was British - I'm certain I heard in the free-EU a lot of places let you get bikes that allow engine alone running?
Quote from: Jacob on November 01, 2021, 11:06:51 PM
Fair enough. Still, I expect if we look at the liabilities generated by cyclists they may well be insignificant enough that requiring them to carry insurance makes no more sense that requiring people to carry insurance for operating lawn mowers or chain saws, for riding horses, and so on.
There are a lot more accidents caused by bikes than officially reported, as no stats are collected centrally, unlike for car accidents.
Quote from: Jacob on November 01, 2021, 11:06:51 PM
Fair enough. Still, I expect if we look at the liabilities generated by cyclists they may well be insignificant enough that requiring them to carry insurance makes no more sense that requiring people to carry insurance for operating lawn mowers or chain saws, for riding horses, and so on.
Most people operating lawn mowers and chain saws are doing it on their own property, which is generally covered by insurance as a condition of their mortgage. People operating them off their own property (e.g professional lawn and tree services) are required to carry insurance.
QuoteThat said, I'm perfectly willing to accept whatever a reasonable analysis of the actual numbers indicate. Conversely, I think given that you accept #7, there has to be a reasonable social benefit (as in, significant liability covered that otherwise would not have been) to implement licensing, since adding bureaucracy to riding bikes will have a discouraging effect.
I think that this is the more telling argument. The social good of people eschewing cars for bicycles far outweighs the social costs of allowing bicyclists to ride without liability insurance.
Quote from: viper37 on November 02, 2021, 08:10:52 AM
Quote from: Jacob on November 01, 2021, 11:06:51 PM
Fair enough. Still, I expect if we look at the liabilities generated by cyclists they may well be insignificant enough that requiring them to carry insurance makes no more sense that requiring people to carry insurance for operating lawn mowers or chain saws, for riding horses, and so on.
There are a lot more accidents caused by involving bikes than officially reported, as no stats are collected centrally, unlike for car accidents.
Yeah none of the four times I've been hit by cars have been reported to the police or recorded as accidents.
Quote from: mongers on November 02, 2021, 08:49:03 AM
Quote from: viper37 on November 02, 2021, 08:10:52 AM
Quote from: Jacob on November 01, 2021, 11:06:51 PM
Fair enough. Still, I expect if we look at the liabilities generated by cyclists they may well be insignificant enough that requiring them to carry insurance makes no more sense that requiring people to carry insurance for operating lawn mowers or chain saws, for riding horses, and so on.
There are a lot more accidents caused by involving bikes than officially reported, as no stats are collected centrally, unlike for car accidents.
Yeah none of the four times I've been hit by cars have been reported to the police or recorded as accidents.
You've been hit by a car four times and never reported any of them to the police???
i just want the legal right to hit someone riding a bike on the sidewalk next to a dedicated bike lane.
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2021, 08:56:19 AM
Quote from: mongers on November 02, 2021, 08:49:03 AM
Quote from: viper37 on November 02, 2021, 08:10:52 AM
Quote from: Jacob on November 01, 2021, 11:06:51 PM
Fair enough. Still, I expect if we look at the liabilities generated by cyclists they may well be insignificant enough that requiring them to carry insurance makes no more sense that requiring people to carry insurance for operating lawn mowers or chain saws, for riding horses, and so on.
There are a lot more accidents caused by involving bikes than officially reported, as no stats are collected centrally, unlike for car accidents.
Yeah none of the four times I've been hit by cars have been reported to the police or recorded as accidents.
You've been hit by a car four times and never reported any of them to the police???
No witnesses, so zero point.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 01, 2021, 09:06:49 AM
I've had a Tesla 3 for about 2 years now. Never had any issues with it. Only problem was positioning right in the driveway to get good wifi reception for software updates. The driving experience is definitely superior to a gasoline car. Quiet, great acceleration, responsive.
I'll +1 that. Love driving that car.
Quote from: mongers on November 02, 2021, 10:02:51 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2021, 08:56:19 AM
Quote from: mongers on November 02, 2021, 08:49:03 AM
Quote from: viper37 on November 02, 2021, 08:10:52 AM
Quote from: Jacob on November 01, 2021, 11:06:51 PM
Fair enough. Still, I expect if we look at the liabilities generated by cyclists they may well be insignificant enough that requiring them to carry insurance makes no more sense that requiring people to carry insurance for operating lawn mowers or chain saws, for riding horses, and so on.
There are a lot more accidents caused by involving bikes than officially reported, as no stats are collected centrally, unlike for car accidents.
Yeah none of the four times I've been hit by cars have been reported to the police or recorded as accidents.
You've been hit by a car four times and never reported any of them to the police???
No witnesses, so zero point.
You are a witness.
Quote from: mongers on November 02, 2021, 10:02:51 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2021, 08:56:19 AM
Quote from: mongers on November 02, 2021, 08:49:03 AM
Quote from: viper37 on November 02, 2021, 08:10:52 AM
Quote from: Jacob on November 01, 2021, 11:06:51 PM
Fair enough. Still, I expect if we look at the liabilities generated by cyclists they may well be insignificant enough that requiring them to carry insurance makes no more sense that requiring people to carry insurance for operating lawn mowers or chain saws, for riding horses, and so on.
There are a lot more accidents caused by involving bikes than officially reported, as no stats are collected centrally, unlike for car accidents.
Yeah none of the four times I've been hit by cars have been reported to the police or recorded as accidents.
You've been hit by a car four times and never reported any of them to the police???
No witnesses, so zero point.
That is not how that works.
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2021, 12:58:13 PM
Quote from: mongers on November 02, 2021, 10:02:51 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2021, 08:56:19 AM
Quote from: mongers on November 02, 2021, 08:49:03 AM
Quote from: viper37 on November 02, 2021, 08:10:52 AM
Quote from: Jacob on November 01, 2021, 11:06:51 PM
Fair enough. Still, I expect if we look at the liabilities generated by cyclists they may well be insignificant enough that requiring them to carry insurance makes no more sense that requiring people to carry insurance for operating lawn mowers or chain saws, for riding horses, and so on.
There are a lot more accidents caused by involving bikes than officially reported, as no stats are collected centrally, unlike for car accidents.
Yeah none of the four times I've been hit by cars have been reported to the police or recorded as accidents.
You've been hit by a car four times and never reported any of them to the police???
No witnesses, so zero point.
That is not how that works.
In the US a driver can kill a bicyclist and avoid any criminal consequences quite commonly, so yeah, zero point.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/31/why-so-hard-charge-motorists-cycling-deaths
https://whyy.org/articles/philadelphia-drivers-rarely-prosecuted-for-crashes-that-kill-pedestrians-and-cyclists/
https://www.newsday.com/long-island/transportation/accidents-cyclists-pedestrians-1.50246836
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2016/04/23/motorists-kill-cyclists-fines-but-no-jail/82982570/
...and it isn't much different in the UK:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/7660205/over-80-per-cent-of-drivers-who-kill-cyclists-in-road-collisions-arent-being-sent-to-prison/
https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-28345522
Quote from: ulmont on November 02, 2021, 02:09:11 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2021, 12:58:13 PM
Quote from: mongers on November 02, 2021, 10:02:51 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2021, 08:56:19 AM
Quote from: mongers on November 02, 2021, 08:49:03 AM
Quote from: viper37 on November 02, 2021, 08:10:52 AM
Quote from: Jacob on November 01, 2021, 11:06:51 PM
Fair enough. Still, I expect if we look at the liabilities generated by cyclists they may well be insignificant enough that requiring them to carry insurance makes no more sense that requiring people to carry insurance for operating lawn mowers or chain saws, for riding horses, and so on.
There are a lot more accidents caused by involving bikes than officially reported, as no stats are collected centrally, unlike for car accidents.
Yeah none of the four times I've been hit by cars have been reported to the police or recorded as accidents.
You've been hit by a car four times and never reported any of them to the police???
No witnesses, so zero point.
That is not how that works.
In the US a driver can kill a bicyclist and avoid any criminal consequences quite commonly, so yeah, zero point.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/31/why-so-hard-charge-motorists-cycling-deaths
https://whyy.org/articles/philadelphia-drivers-rarely-prosecuted-for-crashes-that-kill-pedestrians-and-cyclists/
https://www.newsday.com/long-island/transportation/accidents-cyclists-pedestrians-1.50246836
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2016/04/23/motorists-kill-cyclists-fines-but-no-jail/82982570/
...and it isn't much different in the UK:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/7660205/over-80-per-cent-of-drivers-who-kill-cyclists-in-road-collisions-arent-being-sent-to-prison/
https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-28345522
In the US a human can kill another human and avoid any criminal consequences, so yeah, zero point to every reporting a crime.
So Mongers...
If what you were saying was "I didn't get a good look, didn't get a license plate number, so no point reporting it" I would tend to agree.
But if what you were saying was "I got a good look at the guy who hit me, but because there was no third party witness there's no point reporting it" I would very much disagree.
Quote from: grumbler on November 02, 2021, 08:45:37 AM
Quote from: Jacob on November 01, 2021, 11:06:51 PM
Fair enough. Still, I expect if we look at the liabilities generated by cyclists they may well be insignificant enough that requiring them to carry insurance makes no more sense that requiring people to carry insurance for operating lawn mowers or chain saws, for riding horses, and so on.
Most people operating lawn mowers and chain saws are doing it on their own property, which is generally covered by insurance as a condition of their mortgage. People operating them off their own property (e.g professional lawn and tree services) are required to carry insurance.
QuoteThat said, I'm perfectly willing to accept whatever a reasonable analysis of the actual numbers indicate. Conversely, I think given that you accept #7, there has to be a reasonable social benefit (as in, significant liability covered that otherwise would not have been) to implement licensing, since adding bureaucracy to riding bikes will have a discouraging effect.
I think that this is the more telling argument. The social good of people eschewing cars for bicycles far outweighs the social costs of allowing bicyclists to ride without liability insurance.
Professionals who use chain saws and lawn mowers may be required by law to carry insurance as a condition of obtaining their business license - although I doubt that is universally true, but that wasn't really Jacob's point. It is that the damage done by someone riding a bike is likely so limited that there is no need for mandatory insurance coverage.
I don't know how much of a hassle it is to report an accident in the UK, so I cannot say if it's worth it or not. I will observe that the powers that be are more likely to act on a big problem if they have data that supports it being a big problem.
I guess it depends on what he means by "got hit by a car".
I can imagine a scenario where that is strictly true, but I would not report it. But it is a pretty narrow scenario, and it seems unlikely for it to happen four times without any of those times being more serious.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 02, 2021, 03:25:45 PM
... that wasn't really Jacob's point. It is that the damage done by someone riding a bike is likely so limited that there is no need for mandatory insurance coverage.
Exactly.
I'm pretty confident that if we look at the amount of financial liability generated by improper operation of bicycles it will be orders of magnitude less in terms both of maximums reached and in terms of average per capita.
I expect that amount of liability that ends up uncovered is relatively neglible compared to a scenario where car drivers did not have to be insured, though I'm perfectly willing to persuaded by reasonable numbers if anyone has them handy.
Quote from: ulmont on November 02, 2021, 02:09:11 PM
In the US a driver can kill a bicyclist and avoid any criminal consequences quite commonly, so yeah, zero point.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/31/why-so-hard-charge-motorists-cycling-deaths
https://whyy.org/articles/philadelphia-drivers-rarely-prosecuted-for-crashes-that-kill-pedestrians-and-cyclists/
https://www.newsday.com/long-island/transportation/accidents-cyclists-pedestrians-1.50246836
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2016/04/23/motorists-kill-cyclists-fines-but-no-jail/82982570/
...and it isn't much different in the UK:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/7660205/over-80-per-cent-of-drivers-who-kill-cyclists-in-road-collisions-arent-being-sent-to-prison/
https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-28345522
So 50% of the cases involving bicycle fatalities result in felony charges (first source), but "a driver can kill a bicyclist and avoid any criminal consequences quite commonly?" I mean, the percentage of cases resulting in felony charges for bicyclists is much higher than that for fatal auto accidents (roughly 1/3, usually for DUI).
I'm with those who argue that better bicycle infrastructure is the best solution, but not with those who argue that reporting crimes is a waste of time because sometimes the system doesn't charge people as severely as our OUTRAGE! demands.
Quote from: Jacob on November 02, 2021, 03:54:01 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 02, 2021, 03:25:45 PM
... that wasn't really Jacob's point. It is that the damage done by someone riding a bike is likely so limited that there is no need for mandatory insurance coverage.
Exactly.
I'm pretty confident that if we look at the amount of financial liability generated by improper operation of bicycles it will be orders of magnitude less in terms both of maximums reached and in terms of average per capita.
I expect that amount of liability that ends up uncovered is relatively neglible compared to a scenario where car drivers did not have to be insured, though I'm perfectly willing to persuaded by reasonable numbers if anyone has them handy.
That's my argument as well; that the costs of not having such coverage isn't worth the chilling effect it would have on bicycle use to require it, whether you think that there is some threshold for liability coverage or not.
I think Mongers is the best judge over whether any of these instances merited reporting.
Quote from: grumbler on November 02, 2021, 04:28:04 PM
So 50% of the cases involving bicycle fatalities result in felony charges (first source), but "a driver can kill a bicyclist and avoid any criminal consequences quite commonly?"
That quote is offered off the cuff by one advocate rather than any sort of statistical information. If you look at the second link:
QuoteAbout 100 people die in motor vehicle-related crashes annually in Philadelphia. Nearly 50 percent of the deaths are cyclists and pedestrians, according to the coalition. The advocacy organization examined 95 crash fatalities that occurred in 2017 and 2018 and found that just 16 percent of the drivers were charged with a felony.
Limited to Philadelphia, but much lower than 50%.
The third link shows 20 charges out of 135 incidents in Nassau and Suffolk countries (limited to one NY area, but much closer to 15% than 50%).
The fourth is unclear on how many felony charges were brought but does show 22 incidents, only 13 charges of any types, and a $250 fine being the most common result. Limited to Iowa but appears below 50%.
Quote from: ulmont on November 02, 2021, 04:44:24 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 02, 2021, 04:28:04 PM
So 50% of the cases involving bicycle fatalities result in felony charges (first source), but "a driver can kill a bicyclist and avoid any criminal consequences quite commonly?"
That quote is offered off the cuff by one advocate rather than any sort of statistical information. If you look at the second link:
QuoteAbout 100 people die in motor vehicle-related crashes annually in Philadelphia. Nearly 50 percent of the deaths are cyclists and pedestrians, according to the coalition. The advocacy organization examined 95 crash fatalities that occurred in 2017 and 2018 and found that just 16 percent of the drivers were charged with a felony.
Limited to Philadelphia, but much lower than 50%.
The third link shows 20 charges out of 135 incidents in Nassau and Suffolk countries (limited to one NY area, but much closer to 15% than 50%).
The fourth is unclear on how many felony charges were brought but does show 22 incidents, only 13 charges of any types, and a $250 fine being the most common result. Limited to Iowa but appears below 50%.
That still doesn't tell us anything.
People die in car accidents all the time. That doesn't always mean a felony was committed, so noting that there were only X% of felony charges doesn't tell us anything.
Presumably mongers did not die in his case, so I am not sure why we are talking about deaths and felonies anyway.
Quote from: ulmont on November 02, 2021, 04:44:24 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 02, 2021, 04:28:04 PM
So 50% of the cases involving bicycle fatalities result in felony charges (first source), but "a driver can kill a bicyclist and avoid any criminal consequences quite commonly?"
That quote is offered off the cuff by one advocate rather than any sort of statistical information. If you look at the second link:
QuoteAbout 100 people die in motor vehicle-related crashes annually in Philadelphia. Nearly 50 percent of the deaths are cyclists and pedestrians, according to the coalition. The advocacy organization examined 95 crash fatalities that occurred in 2017 and 2018 and found that just 16 percent of the drivers were charged with a felony.
Limited to Philadelphia, but much lower than 50%.
The third link shows 20 charges out of 135 incidents in Nassau and Suffolk countries (limited to one NY area, but much closer to 15% than 50%).
The fourth is unclear on how many felony charges were brought but does show 22 incidents, only 13 charges of any types, and a $250 fine being the most common result. Limited to Iowa but appears below 50%.
Just the Philadelphia one, since I'm not going to pick every nit you raise:
QuoteThe analysis found that for 46 percent of the cases examined, there is no information on the status of the investigation or whether charges were filed.
You draw a lot of conclusions based on a study with an almost 50 point margin of uncertainty.
In any case, following your prescription of not reporting crimes because the criminal justice system is imperfect would be boneheaded. No improvements to anything can come from your level of apathy.
Quote from: grumbler on November 02, 2021, 04:33:29 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 02, 2021, 03:54:01 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 02, 2021, 03:25:45 PM
... that wasn't really Jacob's point. It is that the damage done by someone riding a bike is likely so limited that there is no need for mandatory insurance coverage.
Exactly.
I'm pretty confident that if we look at the amount of financial liability generated by improper operation of bicycles it will be orders of magnitude less in terms both of maximums reached and in terms of average per capita.
I expect that amount of liability that ends up uncovered is relatively neglible compared to a scenario where car drivers did not have to be insured, though I'm perfectly willing to persuaded by reasonable numbers if anyone has them handy.
That's my argument as well; that the costs of not having such coverage isn't worth the chilling effect it would have on bicycle use to require it, whether you think that there is some threshold for liability coverage or not.
So why not just agree with him. :P
Quote from: Tyr on November 02, 2021, 04:28:58 AM
Huh, didn't know it was an EU law. Thought it was British - I'm certain I heard in the free-EU a lot of places let you get bikes that allow engine alone running?
Pedantic point of order:
Electric bikes do not have engines (a machine with moving parts that converts power into motion) unless you consider the pedalling human the engine. They have motors (a machine that supplies motive power for a vehicle or for some other device with moving parts).
I can't find it now but I remember reading about an "e-bike" that had detachable peddles and was all intents and purposes an electric motorcycle.
Government ruled it was in fact a motorcycle, with all the resulting regulatory requirements thereof.
Quote from: Barrister on November 02, 2021, 07:02:09 PM
I can't find it now but I remember reading about an "e-bike" that had detachable peddles and was all intents and purposes an electric motorcycle.
Government ruled it was in fact a motorcycle, with all the resulting regulatory requirements thereof.
Yeah, there'll be companies and people trying to game the system I'm sure.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 02, 2021, 05:41:59 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 02, 2021, 04:33:29 PM
That's my argument as well; that the costs of not having such coverage isn't worth the chilling effect it would have on bicycle use to require it, whether you think that there is some threshold for liability coverage or not.
So why not just agree with him. :P
I
did, though you couldn't comprehend that in your zeal to be contrarian. :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on November 02, 2021, 08:08:59 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 02, 2021, 05:41:59 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 02, 2021, 04:33:29 PM
That's my argument as well; that the costs of not having such coverage isn't worth the chilling effect it would have on bicycle use to require it, whether you think that there is some threshold for liability coverage or not.
So why not just agree with him. :P
I did, though you couldn't comprehend that in your zeal to be contrarian. :lol:
I don't know if you were laughing at yourself and being ironic or not. I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
Grumbler is the best at making his agreements sound like arguments.
After cleaning up the latest bicyclist from my car I sat down and looked for an electric car. I found a used VW ID.3 for 349.800 SEK, which fits my requirements.
https://svenstigs.se/sok-bilar/#/details/2a089a52-c0b0-461f-b0e1-5472ce56719f (https://svenstigs.se/sok-bilar/#/details/2a089a52-c0b0-461f-b0e1-5472ce56719f)
The problem with that is that the car is 434.900 SEK new, meaning it has dropped 95.000 SEK or so in a year. The environmental bonus is 70K, so there's only a difference of 25k to buy a new car. Used car prices are insane.
As usual all SEKs can be divided by 10 to get dollars or euros.
Though with conventional cars you're an idiot (and/or flash git) to buy new, I have heard it muttered that with electric this is far less clear cut considering battery capacity loss (albeit better than with eg phones).
So whatevrr happened to mopeds then? Can't you pedal those if you were so inclined?
Quote from: Tyr on November 03, 2021, 03:21:29 AM
Though with conventional cars you're an idiot (and/or flash git) to buy new, I have heard it muttered that with electric this is far less clear cut considering battery capacity loss (albeit better than with eg phones).
Does that stack because most phones are used for much of the day, certainly on nearly all the time, whereas electric cars are still going to be used like other cars ie off and parked for the large majority of the time.
Quote from: Tyr on November 02, 2021, 04:28:58 AM
Build proper cycle lanes and that problem will go away
:lol: Next to the main road I have there is a broad combined sidewalk-cycling lane easily wide enough for a pedestrian and a cyclist to pass each other. It is almost never used by cyclists, who prefer the road.
A friend of mine is an avid cyclists so I asked why is this so. Apparently -in Hungary at least- cycling lanes are more bumpy, and it is also inconvenient, apparently, to slow down because of other cyclists and/or pedestrians. :P
My favourite is the main road toward Windsor from the south-east. It's super busy with a single lane each way, zero chance for reckless drivers to risk a 2-car-1-cyclist overtake. There is a cycle lane but admittedly it is shared by pedestrians so there is a non zero chance a cyclist would have to slow down occasionally. Which is clearly unacceptable to 90% of them so what happens is that the road clogs up and slows down to a crawl behind each cyclist as they toil away in their pro outfits. Which inevitably results in impatient drivers DO attempting to pass between the cyclist and the car coming the other way.
Show me this cycle lane and I'm sure I'll be able to point out the problem with it. It's hard to say just off that description but there's a variety of typical issues e.g. Cars parking on cycle lanes, cycle lanes that run for a pointlessly short distance before dumping people on the road, crap signage that its a cycle lane, dangerously narrow cycle lanes, cycle lanes made of inappropriate materials, etc...
Shared pedestrian/cycle lanes in urban areas are dangerous and I'm not a fan at all. I usually stick to the road with them as its never clear where they end and cyclists on the pavement annoys a lot of people.
Don't forget that slowing down on a bike isn't the same as in a car either. You cant just speed up and slow down on a whim. Hills matter.
Quote from: mongers on November 03, 2021, 05:54:28 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 03, 2021, 03:21:29 AM
Though with conventional cars you're an idiot (and/or flash git) to buy new, I have heard it muttered that with electric this is far less clear cut considering battery capacity loss (albeit better than with eg phones).
Does that stack because most phones are used for much of the day, certainly on nearly all the time, whereas electric cars are still going to be used like other cars ie off and parked for the large majority of the time.
I won't pretend to understand the technology but I think it helps that car batteries are a collection of a bunch of batteries too?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 02, 2021, 09:52:28 PM
I don't know if you were laughing at yourself and being ironic or not. I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
Like I said, comprehension has never been your strong suit when you burn to be contrarian. This is exhibit C.
Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2021, 06:13:34 AM
:lol: Next to the main road I have there is a broad combined sidewalk-cycling lane easily wide enough for a pedestrian and a cyclist to pass each other. It is almost never used by cyclists, who prefer the road.
That is not my experience at all, as a car driver or a cyclist.
I'm guessing Tyr is right and you've mostly been around poorly designed and/or shittily maintained cycle lanes.
The Windsor lane:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4662563,-0.5933267,3a,75y,114.42h,92.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3TaTss0FwIoQyTHc0HF2iw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
The one on the main road not too far from me:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5233688,-0.6952619,3a,75y,114.74h,71.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2R0MALMgTGB1bhppRkz8BQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
At a glance I didn't see any cycle lanes there. Took some zooming and examining to notice the little signs that seemed to indicate those paths were for bikes too. Which is surprising as they look really narrow.
The question I'd have riding there is when does the shared area end and when does it turn back into a path. Blind corners where walkers could potentially come are worrying too.
I can't say I blame cyclists for using the road there. It does seem a much better place to cycle, you can get some good speed up there and keep pace with the cars.
Quote from: Tyr on November 03, 2021, 10:34:29 AM
keep pace with the cars.
Not really though. Anyways, all I have is my own perceived subjective experience of driving these roads regularly and having to deal with the queues behind cyclists and seeing the risk people take to get out of them, and you have haven't been on these roads so there's not much to compare.
Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2021, 10:37:16 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 03, 2021, 10:34:29 AM
keep pace with the cars.
Not really though. Anyways, all I have is my own perceived subjective experience of driving these roads regularly and having to deal with the queues behind cyclists and seeing the risk people take to get out of them, and you have haven't been on these roads so there's not much to compare.
I'm just saying how I imagine it looks from the pov of someone riding a bike.
I totally understand why someone would stay where they belong on the road rather than jumping up onto the path because apparently its OK here.
I've been stuck behind cyclists on roads before. It is indeed quite annoying in the moment. But that's driving. Bikes (and horses) have had the right to use roads a lot longer than cars have. Lest we forget once upon a time roads belonged to people and not cars.
Both are clearly marked cycling paths I even chose shots which show the signs. It being inconvenient are not sufficient excuse not to use them. I don't drive on the sidewalk to avoid slower cars or potholes, for example.
Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2021, 11:10:52 AM
Both are clearly marked cycling paths I even chose shots which show the signs. It being inconvenient are not sufficient excuse not to use them. I don't drive on the sidewalk to avoid slower cars or potholes, for example.
Tamas I'm not sure what you're trying to convince yourself of?
Unless you both drive that road and ride on it and/or the cycle provision, I don't see how you can come to an objective opinion.
Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2021, 11:10:52 AM
Both are clearly marked cycling paths I even chose shots which show the signs. It being inconvenient are not sufficient excuse not to use them. I don't drive on the sidewalk to avoid slower cars or potholes, for example.
You would drive on a well maintained wide road over a scruffier bumpier potentially more dangerous one that goes to the same place however.
The analogy of driving on the path doesn't work as bikes have the right to go on the road (and can't go on most paths) . If they choose to go on the road then for some reason they're seeing it as the better option.
In Holland for instance bikes aren't banned from most roads.... But they usually do go on the cycle tracks instead as they see them as the better option.
Quote from: mongers on November 03, 2021, 11:16:22 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2021, 11:10:52 AM
Both are clearly marked cycling paths I even chose shots which show the signs. It being inconvenient are not sufficient excuse not to use them. I don't drive on the sidewalk to avoid slower cars or potholes, for example.
Tamas I'm not sure what you're trying to convince yourself of?
Unless you both drive that road and ride on it and/or the cycle provision, I don't see how you can come to an objective opinion.
What I am trying to convince Tyr of is that those are cycling lanes. And thus I'd prefer if cyclists used them. I appreciate the practicality of the lanes can't be judged by those who haven't used them.
This links in to the larger issue where I also think we agree is that the most road setups are just not convenient for cyclists and cars to be sharing them. I accept in many situation the road is a better option for the cyclist but I would propose that their analysis is probably mistaken in the case of every busy road. I always try and make sure I stay well clear of them when overtaking, but this is often impossible, and I see a lot of cases of cars going inches from them, that's the norm, really. I thought I must look like a right dork leaving a couple of meters or more during overtaking when I can (like I am supposed to) when I almost never see anyone else do it.
On the road, being too slow can cause issues in traffic just like being too fast. Holding up traffic creates confusion and dangerous situations. I appreciate cyclists have the right to use the road, but if they have an option to NOT be a source of danger to themselves and others I'd prefer they took it. I always take such options whenever I am aware of them, and I don't think it is irrational to expect the same.
Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2021, 11:43:35 AM
This links in to the larger issue where I also think we agree is that the most road setups are just not convenient for cyclists and cars to be sharing them. I accept in many situation the road is a better option for the cyclist but I would propose that their analysis is probably mistaken in the case of every busy road. I always try and make sure I stay well clear of them when overtaking, but this is often impossible, and I see a lot of cases of cars going inches from them, that's the norm, really. I thought I must look like a right dork leaving a couple of meters or more during overtaking when I can (like I am supposed to) when I almost never see anyone else do it.
On the road, being too slow can cause issues in traffic just like being too fast. Holding up traffic creates confusion and dangerous situations. I appreciate cyclists have the right to use the road, but if they have an option to NOT be a source of danger to themselves and others I'd prefer they took it. I always take such options whenever I am aware of them, and I don't think it is irrational to expect the same.
Yeah for sure.
I have definitely been stuck behind cyclists making some very dubious decisions in terms of what roads to use and in what manner. There's one main street where during rush hour cars typically do 70-75 km/h in a 50 zone, three lanes in either direction, bumper to bumper during rush hour.
I've seen some guy decide that - in the dark, in the rain - it was a good idea for him to take up a lane with no helmet and no lights, when there are side streets that go in the same direction and are much much safer for him (and less annoying to drivers). Just fucking stupid. So I'm not saying that some bicyclists don't make dumb ass decisions, and I don't begrudge anyone calling them fucking idiots either. I sure called that guy one in my internal monologue.
Personally when biking I try to stay as far away from cars as I possibly can (taking protected bike lanes or side streets as much as possible and avoiding big streets, even if I have a right to be on them). I prefer avoiding getting in the way of cars (and pedestrians) where at all possible. It's as much because I don't want to be a dick as it's for my own safety, because if a car and I have a disagreement while I'm on a bike it's going to be much worse for me. And hitting a pedestrian isn't exactly the kind of interaction I'm going to enjoy.
All that said - and while conceding that there are definitely cyclists who make stupid, dangerous, and / or inconsiderate decisions about where they bike - I think if there's a bike lane somewhere and large number of bicyclists consistently avoid it and use the road instead that's indicative of a problem with the bike lane rather than bicyclists.
I think the split here is on the road you're taking the risk on yourself. It's down to your skill cycling and the luck that there won't be a stupid / bike hating driver that you survive. Drivers are generally pretty switched on and expecting things like bikes. It seems in your power and any injuries that result you're likely to take on yourself.
On the path meanwhile its not in your power. Pedestrians will act stupid - bikes on the path is normally illegal and not usually seen so of course they're not ready for it - and there's a good chance you'll hit one. You'll be hurting other people here.
Iirc there might be a ridiculously slow speed limit on these shared paths too?
Quote from: Tyr on November 04, 2021, 04:18:08 AM
I think the split here is on the road you're taking the risk on yourself. It's down to your skill cycling and the luck that there won't be a stupid / bike hating driver that you survive. Drivers are generally pretty switched on and expecting things like bikes. It seems in your power and any injuries that result you're likely to take on yourself.
On the path meanwhile its not in your power. Pedestrians will act stupid - bikes on the path is normally illegal and not usually seen so of course they're not ready for it - and there's a good chance you'll hit one. You'll be hurting other people here.
Iirc there might be a ridiculously slow speed limit on these shared paths too?
But see? What you describe for the cyclist on the path is very similar to the situation the cyclist on the road puts all car drivers to. Sure, if the cyclist falls over in front of me or something else happens that ain't my fault, the cyclist gets hurt and I probably won't due to the ton of metal around me. But if something serious happens it will be my life on the line, having to hope I won't end up in prison because the situation won't be judged correctly.
Plus, I think the surest way to an early death is assuming car drivers are "pretty switched on". Best advice mar car instructor gave me was "do not assume anything except stupidity" (it was in the context of ensuring I always look in every direction even where people are not supposed to be coming from, but it holds for traffic in general).
Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2021, 10:08:36 AM
The Windsor lane:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4662563,-0.5933267,3a,75y,114.42h,92.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3TaTss0FwIoQyTHc0HF2iw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
The one on the main road not too far from me:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5233688,-0.6952619,3a,75y,114.74h,71.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2R0MALMgTGB1bhppRkz8BQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
There's not a lot of space but you could probably narrow the car lanes to allow for a dedicated bike lane.
Quote from: Maladict on November 04, 2021, 07:53:42 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2021, 10:08:36 AM
The Windsor lane:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4662563,-0.5933267,3a,75y,114.42h,92.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3TaTss0FwIoQyTHc0HF2iw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
The one on the main road not too far from me:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5233688,-0.6952619,3a,75y,114.74h,71.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2R0MALMgTGB1bhppRkz8BQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
There's not a lot of space but you could probably narrow the car lanes to allow for a dedicated bike lane.
You can, but should you?
I am all for biking, but from the standpoint of the purpose of roads and bike lanes (to allow people to transport themselves and their stuff from A to B) bikes are terrible. The carrying capacity of a given width of bike lane has to be horrible compared to a similar width of car lane, right? Bikes are just relatively slow, and don't carry very much.
If you could somehow convince 50% of commuters to switch to bikes....well, that actually would probably not be possible, I am guessing, in most congested places. There just would not be enough "bike lane space" to handle that much bicycle traffic even if you took 50% of the existing roads and dedicated them to bikes.
I suspect a road has probably at least an order of magnitude greater carrying capacity then an equivalent width of bike path per "rush hour".
And I suspect, at the end of the day, that is why we very rarely see adequate to the needs of cyclists bike paths in areas where the space is a limited resource.
Quote from: Tyr on November 03, 2021, 03:21:29 AM
Though with conventional cars you're an idiot (and/or flash git) to buy new, I have heard it muttered that with electric this is far less clear cut considering battery capacity loss (albeit better than with eg phones).
Used electrics have far less range then most new models. So if you are going to be buying used there should be a pretty steep price difference.
I really dislike dedicated bike lanes in Edmonton. I never see them get used. It was a "build it and they will come" sort of design philosophy, but one that appears to have failed.
Beware of the "I've never seen anyone in bike lanes" argument. I see anti cyclist nutters use this one often.
If a road works right then on any given random moment looking at it you'll never see a car.... As they smoothly run through it and don't get stuck in traffic there.
Induced demand does tend to work for cycle lanes too. Though I've zero idea about Edmontons geography to guess whether it's a remotely sensible place to encourage cycling.
Quote from: Tamas on November 04, 2021, 04:31:53 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 04, 2021, 04:18:08 AM
I think the split here is on the road you're taking the risk on yourself. It's down to your skill cycling and the luck that there won't be a stupid / bike hating driver that you survive. Drivers are generally pretty switched on and expecting things like bikes. It seems in your power and any injuries that result you're likely to take on yourself.
On the path meanwhile its not in your power. Pedestrians will act stupid - bikes on the path is normally illegal and not usually seen so of course they're not ready for it - and there's a good chance you'll hit one. You'll be hurting other people here.
Iirc there might be a ridiculously slow speed limit on these shared paths too?
But see? What you describe for the cyclist on the path is very similar to the situation the cyclist on the road puts all car drivers to. Sure, if the cyclist falls over in front of me or something else happens that ain't my fault, the cyclist gets hurt and I probably won't due to the ton of metal around me. But if something serious happens it will be my life on the line, having to hope I won't end up in prison because the situation won't be judged correctly.
Plus, I think the surest way to an early death is assuming car drivers are "pretty switched on". Best advice mar car instructor gave me was "do not assume anything except stupidity" (it was in the context of ensuring I always look in every direction even where people are not supposed to be coming from, but it holds for traffic in general).
Sure, that was an intentional hierarchy.
However choosing to put yourself at risk is fa ar more understandable active than choice than choosing to make yourself the danger with other people not concentrating being a problem..
Especially considering it isn't a straight hierarchy and pedestrians are far more unaware of what's going on around them than road users.
And nobody wants to kill a dog.
Though must add I'm generally against bike lanes. That's the wrong approach.
We shouldn't be tacking on places for bikes to the side of roads.
Roads in urban areas should be for bikes and people by default with some having car lanes :contract:
Bikes & People don't belong on the same road.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 04, 2021, 11:31:29 AM
Used electrics have far less range then most new models. So if you are going to be buying used there should be a pretty steep price difference.
Less range due to design, not battery degradation. Properly cared for the batteries should outlast the car. Most signs seem to point to battery degradation flattening out at 80ish percent.
Quote from: Berkut on November 04, 2021, 09:05:47 AM
Quote from: Maladict on November 04, 2021, 07:53:42 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2021, 10:08:36 AM
The Windsor lane:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4662563,-0.5933267,3a,75y,114.42h,92.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3TaTss0FwIoQyTHc0HF2iw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
The one on the main road not too far from me:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5233688,-0.6952619,3a,75y,114.74h,71.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2R0MALMgTGB1bhppRkz8BQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
There's not a lot of space but you could probably narrow the car lanes to allow for a dedicated bike lane.
You can, but should you?
I am all for biking, but from the standpoint of the purpose of roads and bike lanes (to allow people to transport themselves and their stuff from A to B) bikes are terrible. The carrying capacity of a given width of bike lane has to be horrible compared to a similar width of car lane, right? Bikes are just relatively slow, and don't carry very much.
If you could somehow convince 50% of commuters to switch to bikes....well, that actually would probably not be possible, I am guessing, in most congested places. There just would not be enough "bike lane space" to handle that much bicycle traffic even if you took 50% of the existing roads and dedicated them to bikes.
I suspect a road has probably at least an order of magnitude greater carrying capacity then an equivalent width of bike path per "rush hour".
And I suspect, at the end of the day, that is why we very rarely see adequate to the needs of cyclists bike paths in areas where the space is a limited resource.
Fully separated bike lanes would be preferable, but in tight spaces dedicated bike lanes would still be an advantage.
And it doesn't take away from the carrying capacity for cars. It will still be a two-lane road, just safer for bikes (and pedestrians).
This seems to be roughly the same width as the second road Tamas posted:
https://www.google.com/maps/@52.0832837,4.8800117,3a,75y,61.82h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sW0TLXP-b-xbcb0_emGpWrw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Hell, you could even fit in two bike lanes and two tram lanes
https://www.google.com/maps/@52.3536763,4.9022393,3a,75y,165.11h,88.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sedZ8RuYiAy5VyW1CDevwLQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Quote from: Barrister on November 04, 2021, 11:58:32 AM
I really dislike dedicated bike lanes in Edmonton. I never see them get used. It was a "build it and they will come" sort of design philosophy, but one that appears to have failed.
An almost direct quote from someone in Vancouver about 20 years ago. Of course they were wrong for Vancouver. And it turns out you are also wrong about Edmonton.
QuoteBefore the bike network was built, the city counted 2,454 cyclists on May 31. On June 30, the numbers jumped to 4,711, said Olga Messinis, bike network project manager.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/edmonton-bike-cycle-lane-usage-traffic-car-bike-city-friendly-1.4242814
Number of cyclists up - injuries down
https://www.edmonton.ca/public-files/assets/document?path=The_Downtown_Bike_Network_Interim_Report.pdf
Quote from: Tyr on November 04, 2021, 12:56:24 PM
Though must add I'm generally against bike lanes. That's the wrong approach.
We shouldn't be tacking on places for bikes to the side of roads.
Roads in urban areas should be for bikes and people by default with some having car lanes :contract:
I'd rather see roads without any restrictions in dense urban areas, but cars are expected to yield to everyone else.
(https://files.fietsersbond.nl/app/uploads/sites/86/2017/05/10122637/P1080448-875x583.jpg)
Quote from: Threviel on November 04, 2021, 01:44:11 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 04, 2021, 11:31:29 AM
Used electrics have far less range then most new models. So if you are going to be buying used there should be a pretty steep price difference.
Less range due to design, not battery degradation. Properly cared for the batteries should outlast the car. Most signs seem to point to battery degradation flattening out at 80ish percent.
Yes, but the source is not point. Why bother buying old inferior tech? You wouldn't buy a 486 today would you :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 04, 2021, 01:57:18 PM
Yes, but the source is not point. Why bother buying old inferior tech? You wouldn't buy a 486 today would you :P
I would not buy something with inferior range, correct. Unfortunately the only used cars with sufficient range, driving quality and cheap enough available are 2012-2014 Tesla Model S. Great cars, but doubtful from an automotive perspective.
Quote from: Maladict on November 04, 2021, 01:56:24 PM
I'd rather see roads without any restrictions in dense urban areas, but cars are expected to yield to everyone else.
(https://files.fietsersbond.nl/app/uploads/sites/86/2017/05/10122637/P1080448-875x583.jpg)
Oh good that would be so annoying for drivers, and i'm not even a driver.
Faster than interstates during rush hour though.
Quote from: Maladict on November 04, 2021, 01:56:24 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 04, 2021, 12:56:24 PM
Though must add I'm generally against bike lanes. That's the wrong approach.
We shouldn't be tacking on places for bikes to the side of roads.
Roads in urban areas should be for bikes and people by default with some having car lanes :contract:
I'd rather see roads without any restrictions in dense urban areas, but cars are expected to yield to everyone else.
(https://files.fietsersbond.nl/app/uploads/sites/86/2017/05/10122637/P1080448-875x583.jpg)
:yes:
Quote from: Tyr on November 04, 2021, 12:52:42 PM
Though I've zero idea about Edmontons geography to guess whether it's a remotely sensible place to encourage cycling.
They have nice summers. For the two days it lasts. :P
There's a lot of bycicle lanes around here, in Quebec as well as in my own semi-remote area, and they all see lots of use.
I've nothing against bike lanes, but I'm totally against cycling in the middle of the street during winter. And there's not enough demand for that time of the year to warrant shoveling the snow.
Quote from: viper37 on November 04, 2021, 10:09:23 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 04, 2021, 12:52:42 PM
Though I've zero idea about Edmontons geography to guess whether it's a remotely sensible place to encourage cycling.
They have nice summers. For the two days it lasts. :P
There's a lot of bycicle lanes around here, in Quebec as well as in my own semi-remote area, and they all see lots of use.
I've nothing against bike lanes, but I'm totally against cycling in the middle of the street during winter. And there's not enough demand for that time of the year to warrant shoveling the snow.
I wouldn't dismiss cycling on the basis of cold weather.
Uppsala is a very bike friendly city despite having a blanket of snow for 5 months of the year. The worst part comes in the month or two after that when the snow is sort of melting but keeps refreezing. This creates tram tracks all over which are pretty dangerous.
It helps of course that a lot of the city has proper cycling infrastructure and not just a corner of busy roads road painted as a bike lane. Segregation is really under rated.
Quote from: mongers on November 04, 2021, 07:26:35 PM
Quote from: Maladict on November 04, 2021, 01:56:24 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 04, 2021, 12:56:24 PM
Though must add I'm generally against bike lanes. That's the wrong approach.
We shouldn't be tacking on places for bikes to the side of roads.
Roads in urban areas should be for bikes and people by default with some having car lanes :contract:
I'd rather see roads without any restrictions in dense urban areas, but cars are expected to yield to everyone else.
(https://files.fietsersbond.nl/app/uploads/sites/86/2017/05/10122637/P1080448-875x583.jpg)
:yes:
That photo looks like hell.
Quote from: Berkut on November 04, 2021, 09:05:47 AM
Quote from: Maladict on November 04, 2021, 07:53:42 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2021, 10:08:36 AM
The Windsor lane:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4662563,-0.5933267,3a,75y,114.42h,92.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3TaTss0FwIoQyTHc0HF2iw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
The one on the main road not too far from me:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5233688,-0.6952619,3a,75y,114.74h,71.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2R0MALMgTGB1bhppRkz8BQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
There's not a lot of space but you could probably narrow the car lanes to allow for a dedicated bike lane.
You can, but should you?
I am all for biking, but from the standpoint of the purpose of roads and bike lanes (to allow people to transport themselves and their stuff from A to B) bikes are terrible. The carrying capacity of a given width of bike lane has to be horrible compared to a similar width of car lane, right? Bikes are just relatively slow, and don't carry very much.
If you could somehow convince 50% of commuters to switch to bikes....well, that actually would probably not be possible, I am guessing, in most congested places. There just would not be enough "bike lane space" to handle that much bicycle traffic even if you took 50% of the existing roads and dedicated them to bikes.
I suspect a road has probably at least an order of magnitude greater carrying capacity then an equivalent width of bike path per "rush hour".
And I suspect, at the end of the day, that is why we very rarely see adequate to the needs of cyclists bike paths in areas where the space is a limited resource.
I agree with this entirely.
Quote from: garbon on November 05, 2021, 04:27:16 AM
That photo looks like hell.
I think it works reasonably well for everyone. Drivers can still get everywhere by car, and they're not impeding traffic too much.
Its iffy. It seems very reliant on the good will of drivers.
Most will behave but all it takes is one out of towner who doesn't get it...
Though I do like that it doesnt look like a proper road. That should implant something in their minds.
Quote from: Maladict on November 05, 2021, 06:16:27 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 05, 2021, 04:27:16 AM
That photo looks like hell.
I think it works reasonably well for everyone. Drivers can still get everywhere by car, and they're not impeding traffic too much.
Seems like it would slow crowded areas to even more of a crawl which would then impact the surrounding network.
Maybe something sensible for main roads in a suburbs.
The same old story of some car drivers bleating about a few cyclists supposedly holding them up. :P
The reality is what holding you up is the huge number of other cars on the roads all trying to go places at the same time; what's delaying you is the cars in front and your delaying all the cars behind you. :hmm:
I think I correct in saying there's never been more cars on the roads, parked up and so often blocking pedestrian pavements etc. I get there's a tenth more than 20 years ago.
My home town has a daily traffic jam on and off from 2.45pm through to after 6pm, as the school pickup merges with the drive home from work.
So doesn't seem like that setup will help anyone but cyclists.
Quote from: garbon on November 05, 2021, 08:00:56 AM
So doesn't seem like that setup will help anyone but cyclists.
More cyclists = fewer cars, which will help the remaining drivers. Being stuck behind an actually moving bike is faster than being stuck behind a car that doesn't move.
Quote from: Jacob on November 05, 2021, 10:24:08 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 05, 2021, 08:00:56 AM
So doesn't seem like that setup will help anyone but cyclists.
More cyclists = fewer cars, which will help the remaining drivers. Being stuck behind an actually moving bike is faster than being stuck behind a car that doesn't move.
I'm very skeptical of that first equation for the reasons that Berkut mentioned.
Quote from: Jacob on November 05, 2021, 10:24:08 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 05, 2021, 08:00:56 AM
So doesn't seem like that setup will help anyone but cyclists.
More cyclists = fewer cars, which will help the remaining drivers. Being stuck behind an actually moving bike is faster than being stuck behind a car that doesn't move.
Fewer cars also helps pedestrians and buses/public transport.
I always think of the pictures of the Netherlands, say, or Denmark in the 1960s v now. These are choices we've made.
Yep. The Netherlands vs UK is particularly interesting. Go back to the 50s and the situation was totally the opposite with the UK being a very cycling friendly place with loads of great bike infrastructure whilst the Netherlands was the car filled smelly shit hole.
Then the UK caught the American disease and the Dutch woke up.
I'm sure we've all seen this before.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh3.ggpht.com%2F_9F9_RUESS2E%2FS7tbclwxiPI%2FAAAAAAAACmw%2FuI1bCpNuKNA%2Fs800%2Fpicoftheday0012-space-60people.jpg&hash=e9ad234f6eb11a209cbf162522a41a6a64611404)
Berkuts reply doesn't make sense.
Each additional passenger and/or cargo to carry starts ruining that picture pretty quickly. Also dishonest not to think of time constraints. Does it make sense on England's tiny little medieval roads for middle class people to be driving land cruisers (best fitting car name ever) on their own and barely fitting on the road even without traffic? Of course not. But that comparison is just dishonest.
Quote from: Tamas on November 05, 2021, 10:51:17 AM
Each additional passenger and/or cargo to carry starts ruining that picture pretty quickly. Also dishonest not to think of time constraints. Does it make sense on England's tiny little medieval roads for middle class people to be driving land cruisers (best fitting car name ever) on their own and barely fitting on the road even without traffic? Of course not. But that comparison is just dishonest.
How is it dishonest? how many commuters sitting in their cars transport cargo?
The majority of car journeys are single occupant. Especially at rush hour.
Time constraints... Its dishonest to pretend this is a case of the car is always quicker. If you're going 20 miles in a suburban area then yeah, obviously it is. But for getting around in cities at rush hour, especially when you factor in parking, it's not so clear cut.
Consider too the gains from getting some exercise on your commute and reducing the time you need to devote just to that....
I'm not sure what you mean about land cruisers. The cars in the picture seem to be a variety of models.
Its sad it needs to be restated but nobody thinks we should ban absolutely all cars and expect 100% of people to ride a bike. But there are a huge amount of journeys for which taking a bike is absolutely the best choice even discounting environmental gains and on these we should be doing more for it.
99% of school runs in particular need brutally eliminating.
Quote from: garbon on November 05, 2021, 04:27:16 AM
Quote from: mongers on November 04, 2021, 07:26:35 PM
Quote from: Maladict on November 04, 2021, 01:56:24 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 04, 2021, 12:56:24 PM
Though must add I'm generally against bike lanes. That's the wrong approach.
We shouldn't be tacking on places for bikes to the side of roads.
Roads in urban areas should be for bikes and people by default with some having car lanes :contract:
I'd rather see roads without any restrictions in dense urban areas, but cars are expected to yield to everyone else.
(https://files.fietsersbond.nl/app/uploads/sites/86/2017/05/10122637/P1080448-875x583.jpg)
:yes:
That photo looks like hell.
I agree, replace that abomination of an internal combustion vehicle with an EV and it would be heaven.
Quote from: Tyr on November 05, 2021, 11:00:11 AM
The majority of car journeys are single occupant. Especially at rush hour.
Time constraints... Its dishonest to pretend this is a case of the car is always quicker. If you're going 20 miles in a suburban area then yeah, obviously it is. But for getting around in cities at rush hour, especially when you factor in parking, it's not so clear cut.
Consider too the gains from getting some exercise on your commute and reducing the time you need to devote just to that....
I'm not sure what you mean about land cruisers. The cars in the picture seem to be a variety of models.
Its sad it needs to be restated but nobody thinks we should ban absolutely all cars and expect 100% of people to ride a bike. But there are a huge amount of journeys for which taking a bike is absolutely the best choice even discounting environmental gains and on these we should be doing more for it.
99% of school runs in particular need brutally eliminating.
One data point. I can get to my work place in downtown Vancouver from my house in the foothills of a mountain on the North Shore faster by bike than by car. That includes the uphill climb on the way back. It is also safer because most of the time is spent in a separated bike lane or travelling through side roads of Stanley Park where there are no cars.
Quote from: Tyr on November 05, 2021, 10:45:33 AM
Yep. The Netherlands vs UK is particularly interesting. Go back to the 50s and the situation was totally the opposite with the UK being a very cycling friendly place with loads of great bike infrastructure whilst the Netherlands was the car filled smelly shit hole.
Then the UK caught the American disease and the Dutch woke up.
I'm sure we've all seen this before.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh3.ggpht.com%2F_9F9_RUESS2E%2FS7tbclwxiPI%2FAAAAAAAACmw%2FuI1bCpNuKNA%2Fs800%2Fpicoftheday0012-space-60people.jpg&hash=e9ad234f6eb11a209cbf162522a41a6a64611404)
Berkuts reply doesn't make sense.
That picture doesnt make sense.
It does not account for time. Absent congestion, the cars are going to inhabit their space in the picture for a small fraction of the time the bikes will.
If you factor IN congestion, then an equivalent number of bikes will have the same problem of not being able to move easily.
I think there is probably some kind of curve here, where as an urban area gets more dense and needs to be able to move more people further distances, cars become the optimal means. But it reaches a point where they become inadequate, and probably end up making the problem worse - which is where the actual solution is probably more public transportation.
In more spread out urban areas, like what we mostly have in the USA, the entire argument is moot in 95% of the places it is relevant. You are not going to get any significant number of people biking back and forth to work every day if it is a 20 mile trip each way.
I don't have any dog in this fight. I have no problem with bikes. But I have never seen an actual argument from a non-bike enthusiast that bikes are actually a viable means of getting a lot of people around in most scenarios.
Quote from: Berkut on November 05, 2021, 11:11:20 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 05, 2021, 10:45:33 AM
Yep. The Netherlands vs UK is particularly interesting. Go back to the 50s and the situation was totally the opposite with the UK being a very cycling friendly place with loads of great bike infrastructure whilst the Netherlands was the car filled smelly shit hole.
Then the UK caught the American disease and the Dutch woke up.
I'm sure we've all seen this before.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh3.ggpht.com%2F_9F9_RUESS2E%2FS7tbclwxiPI%2FAAAAAAAACmw%2FuI1bCpNuKNA%2Fs800%2Fpicoftheday0012-space-60people.jpg&hash=e9ad234f6eb11a209cbf162522a41a6a64611404)
Berkuts reply doesn't make sense.
That picture doesnt make sense.
It does not account for time. Absent congestion, the cars are going to inhabit their space in the picture for a small fraction of the time the bikes will.
If you factor IN congestion, then an equivalent number of bikes will have the same problem of not being able to move easily.
From these comments I can only assume you have spent no time riding a bike in a city that has a bike culture.
Quote from: Berkut link=topic=16454.msg1339138#msg1339138
That picture doesnt make sense.
It does not account for time. Absent congestion, the cars are going to inhabit their space in the picture for a small fraction of the time the bikes will.
If you factor IN congestion, then an equivalent number of bikes will have the same problem of not being able to move easily.
Congestion is part of it clearly.
What cc says here.
In Amsterdam and other bike heavy places it's rare I saw traffic jams of bikes. And then they rarely had people stuck in them for more than a minute or two. And note this is without them controlling the roads, using considerably smaller spaces than cars.
I don't think your maths add up on this.
It doesn't matter if a bike takes longer in a given space if everyone else is going slow too. It's a mix of speeds that can cause congestion, not merely going a bit slower.
Also note bikes take up far less space than cars and it's pretty easy to get off and walk them around obstacles unlike with cars. You'll never see someone holding up a line of traffic parking a bike.
Quote
I think there is probably some kind of curve here, where as an urban area gets more dense and needs to be able to move more people further distances, cars become the optimal means. But it reaches a point where they become inadequate, and probably end up making the problem worse - which is where the actual solution is probably more public transportation.
Ideally its a combination imo. Public transport for longer distances but for short trips bikes are a lot more convenient.
QuoteIn more spread out urban areas, like what we mostly have in the USA, the entire argument is moot in 95% of the places it is relevant. You are not going to get any significant number of people biking back and forth to work every day if it is a 20 mile trip each way.
Beware of falling into the trap of thinking that because this is all you know it's the natural state of affairs and must be accommodated.
This in itself is a key part of the problem to be fixed.
Lest we forget even in americas history this is a fairly recent deviation from the norm.
Quote
I don't have any dog in this fight. I have no problem with bikes. But I have never seen an actual argument from a non-bike enthusiast that bikes are actually a viable means of getting a lot of people around in most scenarios.
Really?
I see it all the time.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 05, 2021, 11:13:14 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 05, 2021, 11:11:20 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 05, 2021, 10:45:33 AM
Yep. The Netherlands vs UK is particularly interesting. Go back to the 50s and the situation was totally the opposite with the UK being a very cycling friendly place with loads of great bike infrastructure whilst the Netherlands was the car filled smelly shit hole.
Then the UK caught the American disease and the Dutch woke up.
I'm sure we've all seen this before.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh3.ggpht.com%2F_9F9_RUESS2E%2FS7tbclwxiPI%2FAAAAAAAACmw%2FuI1bCpNuKNA%2Fs800%2Fpicoftheday0012-space-60people.jpg&hash=e9ad234f6eb11a209cbf162522a41a6a64611404)
Berkuts reply doesn't make sense.
That picture doesnt make sense.
It does not account for time. Absent congestion, the cars are going to inhabit their space in the picture for a small fraction of the time the bikes will.
If you factor IN congestion, then an equivalent number of bikes will have the same problem of not being able to move easily.
From these comments I can only assume you have spent no time riding a bike in a city that has a bike culture.
Yeah, look at the stress and chaos just a few cars can create in an otherwise smooth flow of traffic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqQSwQLDIK8
Its funny how bicycles were the vehicles in widespread use before cars. Yet here we are. I wonder what caused entire societies to choose the more inconvenient option.
Quote from: Tamas on November 05, 2021, 02:16:19 PM
Its funny how bicycles were the vehicles in widespread use before cars. Yet here we are. I wonder what caused entire societies to choose the more inconvenient option.
It varies - in Europe a huge part was the war. And in the 1950s the car was the future, it was modernity. It's not a million miles away from the reason that so many cities all around the world have similar brutalist blocks from a similar era - the utopian views/ideals of urban planners and architects.
Needless to say, like brutalist blocks, that car-centric urban infrastructure has fallen out of favour now in many cities - the ones who were best able to escape the urban highway projects are now often the ones that are doing the best. Big infrastructure projects do not happen because of market forces alone (at least in the 20th century) - they happen because what government funds which is based on what government (and the expert committees of Robert Moses and chums) think is best. Now I love a brutalist block, obviously, but the fact that everyone built them for a while doesn't tell us much (same with indentikit international regeneration projects now).
Truth is I think after the 20th century experiments I feel like the things that make urban life work well are probably the opposite things you need for cars.
Quote from: Tamas on November 05, 2021, 02:16:19 PM
Its funny how bicycles were the vehicles in widespread use before cars. Yet here we are. I wonder what caused entire societies to choose the more inconvenient option.
Never properly pricing the cost of the energy needed to fuel them?
Quote from: Tamas on November 05, 2021, 02:16:19 PM
Its funny how bicycles were the vehicles in widespread use before cars. Yet here we are. I wonder what caused entire societies to choose the more inconvenient option.
A person is smart.
People are stupid.
Plus the whole great street car scandal and other related crap from the car companies and misguided governments and urban planners.
Transportation networks are heavily dependent on the network effect. One shitty bike path (or stretch of road, or busline, or railroad track, any other form of transportation) that goes from nowhere to nowhere is going to be shitty in terms of efficiency. For any given piece of transport infrastructure to be worthwhile it needs to be connected to a large network that can get people conveniently to and from places they actually want to go.
Looking at one stretch of road and a bike path and judging the volume of people going across that one specific line is not a very useful for judging the overall efficacy of either system. The volume of traffic that flows through (and that needs to flow through) depends very heavily on what they're connected to.
Also, changing traffic infrastructure and patterns is something that takes years if not decades, so something that may seem kind of silly now may turn out to be important and useful as a large plan unfolds (i.e. if more bike routes are going to flow through the spot it makes sense to have a dedicated bike path there, especially if the roadway is less critical for the cars).
That's not to say that there can't be poor decisions made on how to build bike infrastructure (or car infrastructure), but typically when it comes to overall efficiency that's something that should be looked in a larger context.
Quote from: Berkut on November 05, 2021, 11:11:20 AM
I don't have any dog in this fight. I have no problem with bikes. But I have never seen an actual argument from a non-bike enthusiast that bikes are actually a viable means of getting a lot of people around in most scenarios.
In Copenhagen, fully 62% of commutes are by bike.
(https://cityobservatory.org/copenhagen-more-than-bike-lanes-2/#:~:text=Long%20a%20leader%20in%20this,percent%20just%20seven%20years%20ago.)
Seems a pretty viable argument to me.
Though, to be fair, it's not in "most scenarios". It's in one specific scenario, where political (and infrastructure and economical) decisions have been made to support that. But I think that's sufficient. When we're discussing bike lanes in a particular place, we probably shouldn't be deciding whether they're good or bad based on whether "it's viable in most scenarios" merely whether it's viable in that particular scenario.
And I think it's been shown that biking as a means of mass transport can be absolutely viable in a reasonable number of places, if those places commit to it. But to be fair, that commitment is probably not just about "building bike routes".
Yep - in London we are getting better but it is still too much a thing for enthusiasts and MAMILs with rage issues.
I actually think the key is making it more diverse/accessible - so getting older people to cycle, more women, more kids and parents etc. Those groups in opinion polls and focus groups on cycling are most afraid of just being on the road/want separate cycle infrastructure. But I think they are the key from turning it from a minority purssuit of the confident to something social.
Is there much interest among London residents to take up cycling? I'll admit I never hear the topic come up except among cycling enthusiasts.
This is a mindset problem that's pretty common amongst people who never cycle. They see a divide between cyclists and non cyclists.
In places where cycling is a common way to get around like Amsterdam they don't look at it that way. You don't ride a bike because you're a cyclist, you do it purely because it's the most convenient way to get to where you're going.
I'd look at it as less are people keen to take up cycling and more do people want a more accessible, convenient, safer and pollution free city.
Quote from: garbon on November 06, 2021, 08:07:22 AM
Is there much interest among London residents to take up cycling? I'll admit I never hear the topic come up except among cycling enthusiasts.
Yeah definitely. People want to cycle - there's regular TfL/Mayor reports on cycling and there's generaly quite a lot of people who would like to do it. It may not be for every trip or become a lifestyle choice as it is with enthusiasts but there's lots of desire to be able to cycle into work.
The overwhelming reason people (with over two thirds saying it's the big issue) is that they feel the roads are too dangerous for cyclists. That's why every time there's new cycle infrastructure there tends to be quite a big increase in use. It's definitely something I've had - I cycled during lockdowns, I cycled to work during holiday seasons when the roads are too busy but I find the rest of the year too stressful/scary as non-enthusiast.
Quote from: Tyr on November 06, 2021, 08:48:30 AM
This is a mindset problem that's pretty common amongst people who never cycle. They see a divide between cyclists and non cyclists.
In places where cycling is a common way to get around like Amsterdam they don't look at it that way. You don't ride a bike because you're a cyclist, you do it purely because it's the most convenient way to get to where you're going.
I'd look at it as less are people keen to take up cycling and more do people want a more accessible, convenient, safer and pollution free city.
I wouldn't. I'd prefer less cars in London but also have no desire to cycle. It wouldn't be more convenient for me as someone who doesn't live centre city.
That makes sense - and I probably wouldn't cycle to work in my new job because it's a but more up in North London which would be a long ride every day. It would also involve crossing Euston Road which would absolutely terrify me :ph34r:
But I think there's lots of people who live in central-ish London boroughs, so reasonably close to work, plus lots of employers in outer boroughs which are a bit more suburban.
Also living in South London I think one of the benefits would be more easily getting around generally because I'm relatively well connected with buses and overground, but there's no tube near me and also there's very limited horizontal connections across South London. So I have friends who don't live that far from me by distance but are either a nightmare to get to by bus or involve going in to London Bridge/Blackfriars and then going out again. More often than not it's easier for us to meet somewhere central which is a bit of a shame.
I also think that might be why Hackney is the most cycling borough because I think there's similar lots of buses and overground but I always find bits of Hackney weirdly awkward to get to, so cycling makes sense.
Quote from: garbon on November 06, 2021, 08:07:22 AM
Is there much interest among London residents to take up cycling? I'll admit I never hear the topic come up except among cycling enthusiasts.
I cycle in to work in the City. It's about 7 miles and takes 30-35 minutes, about 15 minutes less than the train. I'd say that the number of cyclists on my commute outnumber cars. Not sure if that's a post lockdown thing as only started a couple of years ago
Quote from: Gups on November 06, 2021, 10:30:00 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 06, 2021, 08:07:22 AM
Is there much interest among London residents to take up cycling? I'll admit I never hear the topic come up except among cycling enthusiasts.
I cycle in to work in the City. It's about 7 miles and takes 30-35 minutes, about 15 minutes less than the train. I'd say that the number of cyclists on my commute outnumber cars. Not sure if that's a post lockdown thing as only started a couple of years ago
I'd be a human puddle. No thank you. :x
Quote from: garbon on November 06, 2021, 10:55:53 AM
I'd be a human puddle. No thank you. :x
I think you'd find that with an electric bike you'd be a lot less sweaty than you anticipate. Certainly, I don't get particularly sweaty from the 10 km I do to bring my boy to and from school - but it's still low impact exercise, and I've noticed my beer gut is slowly but steadily shrinking since I started.
Also most offices I've worked in have a shower area which is normally actually quite nice. But also seems like a genuinely useful thing for employees unlike, say, the sleep pods or on-site doctors which just seem like excuses to stop people from leaving :lol:
Also worth considering as already mentioned is that the current car focused setup of our civilization is a big part of the problem to be fixed and not the default that must be accommodated.
There's been a lot of talk lately about a move towards the 15 minute city for instance. I believe Paris has a head start but London is looking this way too.
https://londonlivingstreets.com/2020/10/25/the-15-minute-city-a-london-case-study/
https://citymonitor.ai/transport/pedestrians/what-is-a-15-minute-city
Basically if you have to go to an office 20 miles away then sure. Nobdlody is expecting most people to want to cycle.
But for popping to the chemist or kids going to school? That should be in your neighbourhood and very definitely not done by car.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 06, 2021, 11:11:55 AM
Also most offices I've worked in have a shower area which is normally actually quite nice. But also seems like a genuinely useful thing for employees unlike, say, the sleep pods or on-site doctors which just seem like excuses to stop people from leaving :lol:
They have on site doctors in UK offices?
In Switzerland that was a very useful perk for me. I saved tonnes of money going through there rather than straight to a for profit doctor. Got my travel vaccines for free for one.
@Jos - I don't really need to bike to get to all the amenities in my neighborhood.
Quote from: Jacob on November 06, 2021, 11:09:37 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 06, 2021, 10:55:53 AM
I'd be a human puddle. No thank you. :x
I think you'd find that with an electric bike you'd be a lot less sweaty than you anticipate. Certainly, I don't get particularly sweaty from the 10 km I do to bring my boy to and from school - but it's still low impact exercise, and I've noticed my beer gut is slowly but steadily shrinking since I started.
Maybe but I also know I can break a sweat easily. :(
Just looked up and my commute is 23km.
@Sheilbh - So I would get up earlier to make the journey by bike and additional time I'd need for showering at the office? Feels like a lot of lost sleep. -_-
Yeah if I have to shower at work I feel like I've made some terrible life decisions :lol:
This obviously doesn't apply to everyone, but if you're the type that goes to the gym then substituting [biking + shower] for [gym + shower] & [other commute] has the potential to actually free up time. Obviously the gym is a different type of workout than biking, though, so it may be more or less relevant depending on what your goals are.
But like I said, I bike in a fairly low impact way and don't feel the need for a shower (except during the heat of peak summer). I don't think I'm particularly non-sweaty in general either. Some people bike like they're working out, and they'll typically want showers, but then it is a kind of two for one deal - you get your exercise in and you get from A to B.
Same as Jacob. Cycling is no more inherently sweaty than walking.
The only people I've ever known who showered at working after cycling in were full on cyclists who made a habit of biking the sort of distance every morning that would take me all day and I'd boast about for years after.
Quote from: Jacob on November 06, 2021, 02:37:27 PM
This obviously doesn't apply to everyone, but if you're the type that goes to the gym then substituting [biking + shower] for [gym + shower] & [other commute] has the potential to actually free up time. Obviously the gym is a different type of workout than biking, though, so it may be more or less relevant depending on what your goals are.
There is no type of human I understand less than the people who can go to the gym in the morning before work.
Cycling has been for me basically about the same as my normal commute (except for one time when I somehow got lost) plus basically showered at the office instead of at home so it doesn't really change the timing that much.
QuoteBut like I said, I bike in a fairly low impact way and don't feel the need for a shower (except during the heat of peak summer). I don't think I'm particularly non-sweaty in general either. Some people bike like they're working out, and they'll typically want showers, but then it is a kind of two for one deal - you get your exercise in and you get from A to B.
I would add that for me (and I am profoundly unfit) it very much depends on whether you encounter any hills :ph34r:
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 06, 2021, 03:06:16 PM
There is no type of human I understand less than the people who can go to the gym in the morning before work.
:lol: :yes:
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 06, 2021, 03:06:16 PM
... I would add that for me (and I am profoundly unfit) it very much depends on whether you encounter any hills :ph34r:
Hills are the reason to get an electric bike. I tried biking in Vancouver with a regular bike and I couldn't stick to it. Way too much dread about the hills, and way too much sweat. With an electric bike, hills a great.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 06, 2021, 03:06:16 PM
There is no type of human I understand less than the people who can go to the gym in the morning before work.
I hate going to the gym after work. It's always the busiest time and I'm already tired and stressed out.
I used to swim at 7 AM, before work, and that was much better, despite me not being a morning person at all. I should really start doing that again.
Best of all was going to the gym at lunch time, which I did on my 30s for some time. I had like 5 years worth of unspent vacation time, so I just took evenings off work for a while.
Quote from: Jacob on November 06, 2021, 02:40:43 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 05, 2021, 11:11:20 AM
I don't have any dog in this fight. I have no problem with bikes. But I have never seen an actual argument from a non-bike enthusiast that bikes are actually a viable means of getting a lot of people around in most scenarios.
In Copenhagen, fully 62% of commutes are by bike.
(https://cityobservatory.org/copenhagen-more-than-bike-lanes-2/#:~:text=Long%20a%20leader%20in%20this,percent%20just%20seven%20years%20ago.)
Seems a pretty viable argument to me.
Though, to be fair, it's not in "most scenarios". It's in one specific scenario, where political (and infrastructure and economical) decisions have been made to support that. But I think that's sufficient. When we're discussing bike lanes in a particular place, we probably shouldn't be deciding whether they're good or bad based on whether "it's viable in most scenarios" merely whether it's viable in that particular scenario.
And I think it's been shown that biking as a means of mass transport can be absolutely viable in a reasonable number of places, if those places commit to it. But to be fair, that commitment is probably not just about "building bike routes".
And I have zero issue with them being leaned on in places where they do in fact make sense.
I am just skeptical of the idea expressed that they would make sense in most place, or many many many more places, except for reasons reasons reasons that amount to what sounds to me like a lot of "just so" thinking.
I think in those places where it makes sense, they absolutely should be accomodated, even to the extent of significantly inconveniences autos.
Not sure what the point of focusing on cyclists, too many cars are the cause of congestion problems; tribalism and group identify perhaps?
Quote from: mongers on November 08, 2021, 09:52:01 AM
Not sure what the point of focusing on cyclists, too many cars are the cause of congestion problems; tribalism and group identify perhaps?
Well it should be looked at how much extra pollution cyclists are causing by holding up cars making them crawl around at terrible fuel efficiency. :P
Quote from: mongers on November 08, 2021, 09:52:01 AM
Not sure what the point of focusing on cyclists, too many cars are the cause of congestion problems; tribalism and group identify perhaps?
Want to use roads, don't want to respect any of the rules.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 08, 2021, 10:07:38 AM
Quote from: mongers on November 08, 2021, 09:52:01 AM
Not sure what the point of focusing on cyclists, too many cars are the cause of congestion problems; tribalism and group identify perhaps?
Want to use roads, don't want to respect any of the rules.
:blink:
Quote from: mongers on November 08, 2021, 09:52:01 AM
Not sure what the point of focusing on cyclists, too many cars are the cause of congestion problems; tribalism and group identify perhaps?
Yes. All v Jeremy Clarkson.
Quote from: mongers on November 08, 2021, 09:52:01 AM
Not sure what the point of focusing on cyclists, too many cars are the cause of congestion problems; tribalism and group identify perhaps?
Because cyclists can help but bring up cycling. :rolleyes:
Quote from: mongers on November 08, 2021, 10:32:13 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 08, 2021, 10:07:38 AM
Quote from: mongers on November 08, 2021, 09:52:01 AM
Not sure what the point of focusing on cyclists, too many cars are the cause of congestion problems; tribalism and group identify perhaps?
Want to use roads, don't want to respect any of the rules.
:blink:
Add in pavements to use roads, and that's the e-scooter riders in a nutshell. :P
I still find "cyclists" riding rent bikes way worse than the normal cyclists.
Both rent types also clog public transportation more and more.
Quote from: Threviel on October 31, 2021, 01:18:25 AM
Any electric drivers here? Anyone driving a Chinese MG?
Did you make a decision?
I drive an electric car (not a bicycle, electric or otherwise) as my daily driver. It's wonderful. I have a 2019 Kia Niro EV, which is a slightly larger version of the Hyundai Kona. Yes, there's plastic in the interior, but, honestly, it doesn't matter to me. The power train and handling are pretty good even in Eco mode, so, for me, that trumps the interior finish - which is perfectly serviceable and pretty comfortable really. Further, at least here in the US, it was net of everything about $20k to $25k cheaper than any Tesla (and available instantly from a dealership), and the 0% financing offer was pretty great in the depths of the lock down last May.
My family separately has a 2019 Chevy Bolt and a VW ID.4. In terms of fit and finish, the ID.4 is definitely the best, though its infotainment system is finicky and kind of poorly set up.
As to battery degradation - I wouldn't worry about that too much. Studies done of Teslas used as taxis have shown degradation rates way below what would have been expected. So long as the car has some sort of liquid cooling system and isn't air cooled like the Nissan Leafs, you should be fine. By way of example, I charge my car to 90% and seldom go below 20%. I've done ~20k miles so far and there has been no discernible range lost. I still get around 230 miles (370km) per 90% charge, dipping below that only when its cold (and most of the seemingly lost range comes back as the battery warms up, so meh). The Bolt has in excess of 40k miles over 2 years and likewise has seen no real range loss either (though because of that LG manufacturing defect it's due to get a new, larger battery for free). For both cars this may be due to battery over-provisioning. That is, the stated battery capacity is slightly underrated to account for some initial degradation while you're breaking in the car. VW is pretty explicit about this in their materials.
One other thing to consider is charging infrastructure. Would you have a Level 2 charger at your house?
Sup.
Quote from: Napoleon XIV on November 11, 2021, 02:10:28 AM
Quote from: Threviel on October 31, 2021, 01:18:25 AM
Any electric drivers here? Anyone driving a Chinese MG?
Did you make a decision?
I drive an electric car (not a bicycle, electric or otherwise) as my daily driver. It's wonderful. I have a 2019 Kia Niro EV, which is a slightly larger version of the Hyundai Kona. Yes, there's plastic in the interior, but, honestly, it doesn't matter to me. The power train and handling are pretty good even in Eco mode, so, for me, that trumps the interior finish - which is perfectly serviceable and pretty comfortable really. Further, at least here in the US, it was net of everything about $20k to $25k cheaper than any Tesla (and available instantly from a dealership), and the 0% financing offer was pretty great in the depths of the lock down last May.
My family separately has a 2019 Chevy Bolt and a VW ID.4. In terms of fit and finish, the ID.4 is definitely the best, though its infotainment system is finicky and kind of poorly set up.
As to battery degradation - I wouldn't worry about that too much. Studies done of Teslas used as taxis have shown degradation rates way below what would have been expected. So long as the car has some sort of liquid cooling system and isn't air cooled like the Nissan Leafs, you should be fine. By way of example, I charge my car to 90% and seldom go below 20%. I've done ~20k miles so far and there has been no discernible range lost. I still get around 230 miles (370km) per 90% charge, dipping below that only when its cold (and most of the seemingly lost range comes back as the battery warms up, so meh). The Bolt has in excess of 40k miles over 2 years and likewise has seen no real range loss either (though because of that LG manufacturing defect it's due to get a new, larger battery for free). For both cars this may be due to battery over-provisioning. That is, the stated battery capacity is slightly underrated to account for some initial degradation while you're breaking in the car. VW is pretty explicit about this in their materials.
One other thing to consider is charging infrastructure. Would you have a Level 2 charger at your house?
I got a Kia Soul about 5 years ago, and love it for city driving. The main drawback is the range is not that great so travelling outside Vancouver has its limits.
I am looking at getting the new VW ID.4 AWD - planning to test drive it next week - it is only available in BC and I think Quebec atm. I don't fit in the Bolt so that is definitely out. I am not entirely sure if I will fit in the VW - the reviews I have read commented on the lack of leg room, so that may be a short test drive.
The other thing I am looking at - but it won't be here until December is the new Hyndai electric - IONIQ 5 - completely new design with lots of leg room because no engine space required... Finally someone is moving away from the combustion engine designs..
Mrs. CC is lobbying for the Audi ETron and the new BMW that is coming out - so you can see who feels more comfortable with spending on a car :D
There are 2 Bolts now.
One is the Bolt EV, where you don't fit CC, and the other is the Bolt EUV which is mid-SUV size. You might fit in it.
The VW ID.4 is available in Quebec. Our provincial subsidy is 8k.
I wish someone out there would actually push an aggressive price point of MSRP at 35K. All those 44999 cars are ridiculous.
Good to know
On pricing, my impression is everyone is setting the base just under the Federal subsidy line.
Quote from: Jacob on November 06, 2021, 02:40:43 AM
In Copenhagen, fully 62% of commutes are by bike.
(https://cityobservatory.org/copenhagen-more-than-bike-lanes-2/#:~:text=Long%20a%20leader%20in%20this,percent%20just%20seven%20years%20ago.)
Seems a pretty viable argument to me.
Cophenhagen:
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-P905efYvLk0/Vsbu8xBt06I/AAAAAAAAHpU/hLWhSPmo3xg/s1600/ps2DSC_0239.JPG)
Quebec city:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4b/Boulevard_Henri-Bourassa%2C_Quebec_2.jpg/1200px-Boulevard_Henri-Bourassa%2C_Quebec_2.jpg)
There's a difference in geography, I think. :P
Bike is useful there for east-west travels as it'll be on the same elevation. North-south would be another matter. Some huge-ass slopes there, to get from the low city to the high city, or that+distance for those living in the near-suburbs.
Cycling uphill is not that different from cycling into a sustained headwind.
For the hundredth time here - north americas shitty car focused urban design is part of the problem to be fixed. Not the default natural state which must be accommodated.
As to hills.... Cycling to get around is starting to really take off in Lausanne. In most of Japan it has long been standard.
Quote from: Maladict on November 11, 2021, 02:56:02 PM
Cycling uphill is not that different from cycling into a sustained headwind.
Hills are there every day of the year. Sustained headwind is not.
Quote from: Tyr on November 11, 2021, 03:01:10 PM
For the hundredth time here - north americas shitty car focused urban design is part of the problem to be fixed. Not the default natural state which must be accommodated.
As to hills.... Cycling to get around is starting to really take off in Lausanne. In most of Japan it has long been standard.
That's just not possible in many cities here.
Quote from: viper37 on November 11, 2021, 03:07:19 PM
Quote from: Maladict on November 11, 2021, 02:56:02 PM
Cycling uphill is not that different from cycling into a sustained headwind.
Hills are there every day of the year. Sustained headwind is not.
Try coming to Vancouver - you are weak if you think that is a hill :P
Quote from: viper37 on November 11, 2021, 03:07:19 PM
Quote from: Maladict on November 11, 2021, 02:56:02 PM
Cycling uphill is not that different from cycling into a sustained headwind.
Hills are there every day of the year. Sustained headwind is not.
Niet every day but very common. If you live up north you can even experience the pleasure of cycling somewhere into a headwind and then returning home some hours later... into a headwind. Downhill is there every day.
I rather fancy a Citroen Ami, would fit my modest needs. :)
Quote from: Maladict on November 11, 2021, 03:28:19 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 11, 2021, 03:07:19 PM
Quote from: Maladict on November 11, 2021, 02:56:02 PM
Cycling uphill is not that different from cycling into a sustained headwind.
Hills are there every day of the year. Sustained headwind is not.
Niet every day but very common. If you live up north you can even experience the pleasure of cycling somewhere into a headwind and then returning home some hours later... into a headwind. Downhill is there every day.
Isn't that so.
Quote from: mongers on November 11, 2021, 03:46:56 PM
I rather fancy a Citroen Ami, would fit my modest needs. :)
They should just make an electric model of the 2CV and the DS like we all want <_<
Quote from: viper37 on November 11, 2021, 03:08:02 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 11, 2021, 03:01:10 PM
For the hundredth time here - north americas shitty car focused urban design is part of the problem to be fixed. Not the default natural state which must be accommodated.
As to hills.... Cycling to get around is starting to really take off in Lausanne. In most of Japan it has long been standard.
That's just not possible in many cities here.
How so?
Historically their current setup is a fairly recent post war development. Before that they did follow a more stereotypically European style.
I haven't done anything yet, too much work. I've booked a test ride of the MG for Monday, I'll see if I have time for it.
I really appreciate all input here.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 11, 2021, 03:56:11 PM
Quote from: mongers on November 11, 2021, 03:46:56 PM
I rather fancy a Citroen Ami, would fit my modest needs. :)
They should just make an electric model of the 2CV and the DS like we all want <_<
Sadly I think the weight of the batteries will then kill their bouncy/wallowing ride feelings.
Viper, that hill isn't that bad if you have an electric bike.
Yakie, your shameless social media influencing has planted a seed in my head. How much did you say those rigs go for, like 2 grand?
Quote from: Tyr on November 11, 2021, 04:27:15 PM
How so?
Historically their current setup is a fairly recent post war development. Before that they did follow a more stereotypically European style.
(Quebec City is an exception to this, but overall) 1946 isn't that recent in terms of North American cities. For instance Miami and Edmonton weren't incorporated as cities until 1895; they've been post-WWII cities for more time than they were pre-WWII cities.
Our population has shifted a great deal since the Second World War. During the 1920s Florida was the smallest state in the south; today we're the third largest state in the Union. Turning the clock back to 1939 is simply not a realistic option here.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 11, 2021, 06:35:12 PM
Yakie, your shameless social media influencing has planted a seed in my head. How much did you say those rigs go for, like 2 grand?
Electric bikes?
But isn't the point that part of the reason we're here and cities look like they do is because of a series of decisions that have been taken since 1939 - so changing the urban fabric and way people live is down to the sets of decisions we make and not some inevitable state of nature.
I see it at least with American YIMBYs with, for example, the huge opposition that any density at all seems to provoke even though there is clearly enough demand for it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 11, 2021, 06:50:03 PM
But isn't the point that part of the reason we're here and cities look like they do is because of a series of decisions that have been taken since 1939 - so changing the urban fabric and way people live is down to the sets of decisions we make and not some inevitable state of nature.
Yes, of course, but that's not something that can happen quickly. We need a much shorter term solution to global warming; something that is going to have to account for the urban fabric as it exists today. In much of North America that will have to be electric vehicles.
Quote
I see it at least with American YIMBYs with, for example, the huge opposition that any density at all seems to provoke even though there is clearly enough demand for it.
What are YIMBYs?
Quote from: Savonarola on November 11, 2021, 06:59:49 PMYes, of course, but that's not something that can happen quickly. We need a much shorter term solution to global warming; something that is going to have to account for the urban fabric as it exists today. In much of North America that will have to be electric vehicles.
Sure but I think that's a wider piece around how we want our cities to be and what makes them liveable etc. And obviouslyvastly improved public transport should be part of it too.
QuoteWhat are YIMBYs?
Yes in my back yard. People who are generally pro-development and pro-density.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 11, 2021, 06:53:33 PM
Quote from: mongers on November 11, 2021, 06:48:27 PM
Electric bikes?
Si
It's complicated, seem more akin to buying a vehicle than a bike so Jacob/CC/Liep/Mal would have the best advice here; I have nothing.
Thanks for sharing mongers. :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 11, 2021, 06:35:12 PM
Yakie, your shameless social media influencing has planted a seed in my head. How much did you say those rigs go for, like 2 grand?
There's a fair bit of range depending on what you want, but you should be able to get a very reasonable electric bike for US$ 2,000 I think.
And you just plug into a wall outlet at home?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 11, 2021, 09:14:26 PM
And you just plug into a wall outlet at home?
Yup. You typically take the battery off the bike and plug it into whatever outlet you have handy.
How easy to steal?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 11, 2021, 09:25:21 PM
How easy to steal?
You would have to get by Jacob's dog and then deal with his wife, so I would not advise the attempt.
One thing that keeps me from thinking about biking is the danger factor, it just seems so dangerous to me, at least on American streets. However, I was curious whether statistics bear that out, so I googled around a little bit. I came across a site of someone claiming that biking wasn't that dangerous at all, but later it turned out the author of that site was killed in a biking accident. :hmm:
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 11, 2021, 09:39:39 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 11, 2021, 09:25:21 PM
How easy to steal?
You would have to get by Jacob's dog and then deal with his wife, so I would not advise the attempt.
:lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 11, 2021, 09:25:21 PM
How easy to steal?
Basically as easy as a bike. I have a pretty hefty fuck-off lock, but my main strategy is to not leave it unattended in insecure places. Vancouver has a lot of bike theft, so I'm pretty paranoid. I had someone come into my back yard and steal two (luckily quite cheap) bikes out of our bike shed (that I'd forgotten to lock) five-six years ago. And since e-bikes are expensive, they're attractive targets... though I guess they're not that much use without an appropriate recharger, so I don't know how that figures into the theft rates.
But yeah, strategizing about how safe it is to leave them at your destination is something that probably should figure into your feasibility analysis.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 11, 2021, 09:25:21 PM
How easy to steal?
As easy as any bike, depending on the lock. Electric bikes typically get stolen for their batteries, so get one with a removable battery and never leave it attached when parked.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 11, 2021, 06:50:03 PM
I see it at least with American YIMBYs with, for example, the huge opposition that any density at all seems to provoke even though there is clearly enough demand for it.
Where, what demand?
I don't know how we could change our some of our NA cities. Some of our streets before they were built in this configuration, there was nothing.
Quote from: Jacob on November 12, 2021, 12:05:42 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 11, 2021, 09:25:21 PM
How easy to steal?
Basically as easy as a bike. I have a pretty hefty fuck-off lock, but my main strategy is to not leave it unattended in insecure places. Vancouver has a lot of bike theft, so I'm pretty paranoid. I had someone come into my back yard and steal two (luckily quite cheap) bikes out of our bike shed (that I'd forgotten to lock) five-six years ago. And since e-bikes are expensive, they're attractive targets... though I guess they're not that much use without an appropriate recharger, so I don't know how that figures into the theft rates.
But yeah, strategizing about how safe it is to leave them at your destination is something that probably should figure into your feasibility analysis.
:yes:
Also the best strategy is to regularly use a bike that isn't worth much, when in an urban/built up area.
And with any bike make sure you lock it close to one or more obviously more expensive/desirable bikes.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 11, 2021, 07:03:46 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on November 11, 2021, 06:59:49 PMYes, of course, but that's not something that can happen quickly. We need a much shorter term solution to global warming; something that is going to have to account for the urban fabric as it exists today. In much of North America that will have to be electric vehicles.
Sure but I think that's a wider piece around how we want our cities to be and what makes them liveable etc. And obviouslyvastly improved public transport should be part of it too.
I'm working on it; I'm working on it, honestly. :rolleyes: .
;)
QuoteQuoteWhat are YIMBYs?
Yes in my back yard. People who are generally pro-development and pro-density.
Obrigado; Like GF I haven't encountered this, but I don't live in a city.
Quote from: mongers on November 12, 2021, 08:46:22 AM
Also the best strategy is to regularly use a bike that isn't worth much, when in an urban/built up area.
Doesn't work with e-bikes. And, at least in my city, cheap shitty bikes get stolen too.
QuoteAnd with any bike make sure you lock it close to one or more obviously more expensive/desirable bikes.
Depends on the thieves' MO. Easy to steal and cheap may be more attractive than hard work and expensive, depending on the situation.
Quote from: Jacob on November 12, 2021, 12:29:25 PM
Quote from: mongers on November 12, 2021, 08:46:22 AM
Also the best strategy is to regularly use a bike that isn't worth much, when in an urban/built up area.
Doesn't work with e-bikes. And, at least in my city, cheap shitty bikes get stolen too.
QuoteAnd with any bike make sure you lock it close to one or more obviously more expensive/desirable bikes.
Depends on the thieves' MO. Easy to steal and cheap may be more attractive than hard work and expensive, depending on the situation.
All bikes can get stolen, just a matter of deterring people who steal to order, I know roadies who've lost several quality bikes to thieves.
And yes even cheap bikes get stolen/vandalised when left out in a city; a homeless friend of mine had his old one reduced to scrap over a series on incidents in London.
Just be sure to record your bike's serial #, and to report it as stolen to your local police right away.
Police actually have an ok rate of returning stolen bikes - but only as long as then know whose bike it is.
Or just get it insured. With an expensive bike it might be worthwhile.
Quote from: DGuller on November 11, 2021, 11:27:26 PM
One thing that keeps me from thinking about biking is the danger factor, it just seems so dangerous to me, at least on American streets. However, I was curious whether statistics bear that out, so I googled around a little bit. I came across a site of someone claiming that biking wasn't that dangerous at all, but later it turned out the author of that site was killed in a biking accident. :hmm:
Before dedicated bike lanes here, I would not have considered it.
I've ordered an MG ZS EV with all bells and whistles for 420.000 SEK (42.000 € or so). It will be delivered Q2 next year so the report will have to wait a while.
I plan on putting some kind of 7ish kW charger on the side of my garage and to charge it every night. i'll get an hourly electrical service and optimise my charge time for when it's cheapest.
This will mean that I'll have to move a stone wall and increase the size of my driveway, I'll do it in such a way that I can have the motorhome also on the same side of the garage.
Quote from: Jacob on November 12, 2021, 12:29:25 PM
Doesn't work with e-bikes. And, at least in my city, cheap shitty bikes get stolen too.
If they're priced as everything else in BC, they must be able to pay a couple of months rent with that sale! ;)
Nearly bought an electric bike a couple of days ago, but since it's near the depths of Winter now, have put it off till late March early April. :bowler:
Quote from: Threviel on November 24, 2021, 11:22:51 AM
I've ordered an MG ZS EV with all bells and whistles for 420.000 SEK (42.000 € or so). It will be delivered Q2 next year so the report will have to wait a while.
I plan on putting some kind of 7ish kW charger on the side of my garage and to charge it every night. i'll get an hourly electrical service and optimise my charge time for when it's cheapest.
This will mean that I'll have to move a stone wall and increase the size of my driveway, I'll do it in such a way that I can have the motorhome also on the same side of the garage.
:cheers:
We have ordered the Hyndai - IONIQ 5, also scheduled to arrive around Q2.
Did you try out the Bolt EUV?
I'll test drive the Ford Escape PHEV and Kia Niro PHEV. I'd like to try Toyota RAV4 Prime PHEV but those are rare and expensive.
MA TESLA :(
Quote from: Savonarola on November 11, 2021, 06:47:16 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 11, 2021, 04:27:15 PM
How so?
Historically their current setup is a fairly recent post war development. Before that they did follow a more stereotypically European style.
(Quebec City is an exception to this, but overall) 1946 isn't that recent in terms of North American cities. For instance Miami and Edmonton weren't incorporated as cities until 1895; they've been post-WWII cities for more time than they were pre-WWII cities.
Our population has shifted a great deal since the Second World War. During the 1920s Florida was the smallest state in the south; today we're the third largest state in the Union. Turning the clock back to 1939 is simply not a realistic option here.
Eh...Florida is gonna go back to being the smallest state in the south because most of it is going to be underwater.
Are we entering the S curve phase of EV adoption?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FE98ifLXEAICUoT?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Serves them right for stealing Tom Brady, amirite?
I currently drive a PHEV and get like 50km range from the battery. I can recharge it at home easily. That's sufficient for commute and grocery shopping. The gasoline engine basically only is used on the autobahn for long distances. My next car will also be a PHEV, but after that I consider a BEV.
Quote from: mongers on November 24, 2021, 07:54:08 PM
Nearly bought an electric bike a couple of days ago, but since it's near the depths of Winter now, have put it off till late March early April. :bowler:
I need to at some point too. The cycle to work scheme money came back to me luckily but no bike for it. And very hard to find anything sub 2500 to test.
Thinking to buy one abroad then at least it has a throttle.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 25, 2021, 05:49:16 PM
Did you try out the Bolt EUV?
I'll test drive the Ford Escape PHEV and Kia Niro PHEV. I'd like to try Toyota RAV4 Prime PHEV but those are rare and expensive.
The new Bolt is a bit smaller and has a bit less range.
Mind you, I am also paying more than a bit more so value wise the Bolt would probably be a better choice.
Photo from reddit, but I've seen a few of these police VW ID.4 recently.
(https://preview.redd.it/0gc8bcubjr381.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=b00ec1a558f40f761c77ddbe9f32e47fa95b4727)
Bumping an ancient thread.
Due to reasons I will probably need a bigger car this year.
Buying new of course remains a luxury that I have no interest in.
Nonetheless not buying electric does seem irresponsible. I've done some research on the relative emissions of running down a petrol car vs. an electric and things do suggest electric is for the better.
There is a concern of reduced battery life with time but again much of what I've read suggests this isn't a huge deal with 100k miles+ still giving you 80% capacity at least.
The two that seem to stand out as good options so far are the Nissan Leaf and Hyundai Kona.
Thoughts?
How will you be driving? What is the use case?
Both are insanely expensive unless you drive alot.
Quote from: Threviel on January 11, 2023, 08:57:47 AMHow will you be driving? What is the use case?
Both are insanely expensive unless you drive alot.
Me- hardly ever. 20-30 mile journeys every other weekend, very occasional trips within 5 miles to shops and such.
Its more my gf who is using it generally every day. Usually going around within the urban area taking the boy, soon to be V2.0 also, to activities, shopping, etc... then on days where she works going to schools that are 20 miles away max, more normally within 10.
Why do you say insanely expensive? The leaf's price seems broadly comparable to petrol cars.
Will you be able to charge it at home?
In any case though, buy a hybrid. Cheaper mileage than a straight petrol car, can get your indulgence paper green licence plate, yet you won't rely on a future electric infrastructure which may or may not materialise.
Depending on where you live existing infrastructure for EV's is fine. No need to rely on future development. The only exception to that is if you're planning to take your car for long distance trips.
Hybrids don't really make much sense. You have all of the expense of an internal combustion engine and particularly the maintenance of that engine and the extra weight which reduces your EV range which is itself very limited.
If you buy a full electric, your maintenance costs are next to nothing. Further, if you drive it properly, you really don't need any brake maintenance either. I've had my first electric for over six years now and no work on the brakes has been required.
The other advantage to a full electric vehicle that is manufactured as an electric, rather than just a modified internal combustion model is that you have much more interior space, which, from the sounds of it, is an important factor for you.
There are lots of models to choose from now, I recommend you do a little bit more shopping around to see what fits both your budget and your needs.
My youngest son has a Nissan Leaf which we and his carers use to chauffeur him around to the various places and activities he does. It has been completely reliable and according to my wife is fun to drive, the acceleration is very good.
Now the battery is very limited imo, with a range of only 140 miles, less on cold days and less if you do some fast driving on the motorway. There is an "economy" setting which improves on this but makes the car a bit sluggish. So, if you want to be driving to Edinburgh or Manchester it would be a pain; but, for the suggested use would be perfect.
You can get EVs with much longer ranges of course; but I believe they are correspondingly more expensive.
FWIW it is a motability car and we only had to pay a surcharge of a few hundred pounds for it; which indicates that the government agrees with CC that maintenance etc is pretty cheap.
Wait for model year 2024. Ford and GM will finally have come out with their offerings.
My current PHEV gets about 100 km from the battery. That's sufficient for daily driving. I don't think I used my petrol engine the last two weeks.
Quote from: Josquius on January 11, 2023, 08:56:31 AMBumping an ancient thread.
Due to reasons I will probably need a bigger car this year.
Buying new of course remains a luxury that I have no interest in.
Nonetheless not buying electric does seem irresponsible. I've done some research on the relative emissions of running down a petrol car vs. an electric and things do suggest electric is for the better.
There is a concern of reduced battery life with time but again much of what I've read suggests this isn't a huge deal with 100k miles+ still giving you 80% capacity at least.
The two that seem to stand out as good options so far are the Nissan Leaf and Hyundai Kona.
Thoughts?
What's your parking situation at home?
I do remember you own your own place. Do you have a parking spot, and hopefully some kind of garage?
I don't have an EV, but I would like one and am interested in one. As I understand it to make the best use of one you need a level 2 charger installed at home. It's basically the same kind of outlet that is used for your dryer or electric stove, so nothing outrageous. Cost is supposedly $1000-$2000. But that allows you to get a full charge overnight, whereas a standard electrical cord can take most of a day to fully recharge.
If you're just parking on the street though I think the use case for a BEV is substantially reduced. Then you're stuck finding public charging points which aren't all that quick.
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 11, 2023, 10:45:14 AMWait for model year 2024. Ford and GM will finally have come out with their offerings.
An American car? Good one. :p
Quote from: Tamas on January 11, 2023, 09:20:29 AMWill you be able to charge it at home?
In any case though, buy a hybrid. Cheaper mileage than a straight petrol car, can get your indulgence paper green licence plate, yet you won't rely on a future electric infrastructure which may or may not materialise.
Yes, I could setup a charging port fairly easily at home. My electrics box is in a very convenient place for the drive, plenty of space to setup a outside plug.
As to hybrid...yeah. What CC says aligns with what I've heard. In trying to be both things they seem to carry more disadvantages than advantages. I'm open minded however.
Quote from: Josquius on January 11, 2023, 11:49:05 AMQuote from: Grey Fox on January 11, 2023, 10:45:14 AMWait for model year 2024. Ford and GM will finally have come out with their offerings.
An American car? Good one. :p
Ford is apparently the #2 electric car producer.
The #1 brand is also American :ph34r:
Quote from: Josquius on January 11, 2023, 11:49:05 AMQuote from: Grey Fox on January 11, 2023, 10:45:14 AMWait for model year 2024. Ford and GM will finally have come out with their offerings.
An American car? Good one. :p
Quote from: Tamas on January 11, 2023, 09:20:29 AMWill you be able to charge it at home?
In any case though, buy a hybrid. Cheaper mileage than a straight petrol car, can get your indulgence paper green licence plate, yet you won't rely on a future electric infrastructure which may or may not materialise.
Yes, I could setup a charging port fairly easily at home. My electrics box is in a very convenient place for the drive, plenty of space to setup a outside plug.
As to hybrid...yeah. What CC says aligns with what I've heard. In trying to be both things they seem to carry more disadvantages than advantages. I'm open minded however.
You don't have to buy it. Other manufacturers will react to the Americans net increase in stock of EVs.
Also, as you mentioned you live in a jurisdiction where buying new is a rich person thing, so new new cars means new old cars for you to buy.
Lots of Hybrids are also lies, especially in cold humid climates, since they require the ICEngine to produce heat.
I am currently mainly charging at work, only occasionally at home. If that's an option for you, it helps a lot.
Quote from: Barrister on January 11, 2023, 11:25:43 AMQuote from: Josquius on January 11, 2023, 08:56:31 AMBumping an ancient thread.
Due to reasons I will probably need a bigger car this year.
Buying new of course remains a luxury that I have no interest in.
Nonetheless not buying electric does seem irresponsible. I've done some research on the relative emissions of running down a petrol car vs. an electric and things do suggest electric is for the better.
There is a concern of reduced battery life with time but again much of what I've read suggests this isn't a huge deal with 100k miles+ still giving you 80% capacity at least.
The two that seem to stand out as good options so far are the Nissan Leaf and Hyundai Kona.
Thoughts?
What's your parking situation at home?
I do remember you own your own place. Do you have a parking spot, and hopefully some kind of garage?
I don't have an EV, but I would like one and am interested in one. As I understand it to make the best use of one you need a level 2 charger installed at home. It's basically the same kind of outlet that is used for your dryer or electric stove, so nothing outrageous. Cost is supposedly $1000-$2000. But that allows you to get a full charge overnight, whereas a standard electrical cord can take most of a day to fully recharge.
If you're just parking on the street though I think the use case for a BEV is substantially reduced. Then you're stuck finding public charging points which aren't all that quick.
A consumer can usually get the level 2 charger thrown in to make the deal - or at least get a significant discount. Like anything with cars, it's a point of negotiation.
Consider leasing. I did it for the first time in 2021 and it's pretty affordable. I think I pay about 240 a month for a honda Jazz hybrid including road tax, servicing, minor repairs etc. Takes a lot of the stress out and you get a new car every 2 or 3 years.
That's a cool car name.
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 11, 2023, 01:40:24 PMThat's a cool car name.
It's not a cool car. But works fine for us - we only do a few thousand miles a year. I wouldn't have a car at all but my wife insists.
Quote from: Barrister on January 11, 2023, 11:54:51 AMQuote from: Josquius on January 11, 2023, 11:49:05 AMQuote from: Grey Fox on January 11, 2023, 10:45:14 AMWait for model year 2024. Ford and GM will finally have come out with their offerings.
An American car? Good one. :p
Ford is apparently the #2 electric car producer.
The #1 brand is also American :ph34r:
BYD was the second biggest BEV and biggest xEV producer in 2022. Considering their growth trajectory they might surpass Tesla in 2023 or 2024 for BEV. Ford is like 15th or so globally.
Could not find 2nd half, but looks similar:
(https://www.ev-volumes.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/WW-S3-7-2022.png)
None of us is buying a BYD car any time soon tho.
Quebec's car commentators have nothing but good things to say about the Polestar 2.
The numbers I had in mind were for America, not worldwide. Sorry.
I can see how globally they would be different. Though surprised GM is so high. What BEV vehicles are they selling in such great numbers? They have a bunch of vehicles coming, but the only existing one I can think of is the Bolt, which I thought wasn't selling well.
Gm has offerings under its umbrella of companies. The Cadillac EV is supposed to be real good. Although if I wanted to be a dick Eva guy with money I'd get the hummer ev :D
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 11, 2023, 01:55:58 PMNone of us is buying a BYD car any time soon tho.
Heh... one of my wife's old school friends is fairly senior in the automobile industry in China. He's looking to leave and is trying to figure out how to make a living in Canada (he's not senior enough to just come over and be rich). One of the things he is talking about is finding a way to import and sell Chinese EVs... but yeah, I think the obstacles are many on that front.
Quote from: Gups on January 11, 2023, 01:37:35 PMConsider leasing. I did it for the first time in 2021 and it's pretty affordable. I think I pay about 240 a month for a honda Jazz hybrid including road tax, servicing, minor repairs etc. Takes a lot of the stress out and you get a new car every 2 or 3 years.
How much is insurance?
Quote from: Gups on January 11, 2023, 01:37:35 PMConsider leasing. I did it for the first time in 2021 and it's pretty affordable. I think I pay about 240 a month for a honda Jazz hybrid including road tax, servicing, minor repairs etc. Takes a lot of the stress out and you get a new car every 2 or 3 years.
Could actually be an option since we are looking at probably leaving the country within 5 years or so.
What company do you use?
On car leasing (I have leased a car before, though not electric):
The thing to be really careful of is there's no flexibility. You want to break your lease early? Too bad. You want to keep your car longer? Too bad.
Your lease rate depends on how many km is part of your lease. If you go over your kms there's a really large penalty. If you go under your kms you're leaving money on the table.
If you buy a car and in 18 months you want to move you just sell your car. If you lease it though...
If you have a really good sense how much you drive in a year leasing absolutely can make sense though.
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 11, 2023, 01:55:58 PMNone of us is buying a BYD car any time soon tho.
As most of the traditional OEMs move to larger (more expensive/profitable) cars, the small car market will globally soon see competitive offers by Chinese companies, especially in the EV sector.
Quote from: Tamas on January 11, 2023, 03:14:30 PMQuote from: Gups on January 11, 2023, 01:37:35 PMConsider leasing. I did it for the first time in 2021 and it's pretty affordable. I think I pay about 240 a month for a honda Jazz hybrid including road tax, servicing, minor repairs etc. Takes a lot of the stress out and you get a new car every 2 or 3 years.
How much is insurance?
You take out your own insurance so whatever it would be normally. Think mine was about £350 but I have years of no claims, no offences etc
Quote from: Josquius on January 11, 2023, 03:22:38 PMQuote from: Gups on January 11, 2023, 01:37:35 PMConsider leasing. I did it for the first time in 2021 and it's pretty affordable. I think I pay about 240 a month for a honda Jazz hybrid including road tax, servicing, minor repairs etc. Takes a lot of the stress out and you get a new car every 2 or 3 years.
Could actually be an option since we are looking at probably leaving the country within 5 years or so.
What company do you use?
Select car leasing who were fine but I expect they are much of a muchness.
Agree with what Barrister said. Also you can't go abroad with it.
Quote from: Josquius on January 11, 2023, 03:22:38 PMQuote from: Gups on January 11, 2023, 01:37:35 PMConsider leasing. I did it for the first time in 2021 and it's pretty affordable. I think I pay about 240 a month for a honda Jazz hybrid including road tax, servicing, minor repairs etc. Takes a lot of the stress out and you get a new car every 2 or 3 years.
Could actually be an option since we are looking at probably leaving the country within 5 years or so.
What company do you use?
I don't recommend leasing, unless you are the type that wants a new car every 4 years or so and you are willing to pay a large premium for that pleasure - and you don't strike me as the type.
There is a large and lucrative (for the owner) resale market in EV's - hell I can sell my current old "beater" for more than I paid for it.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 11, 2023, 04:23:59 PMThere is a large and lucrative (for the owner) resale market in EV's - hell I can sell my current old "beater" for more than I paid for it.
That's just the used market in general. I've heard stories of dealerships calling people up to buy (mostly work trucks) back for more than they sold them for, just because they can then turn around and sell them for even more.
I'm really hoping the supply chain / used market is more normal by this summer as we really need to replace one of our vehicles...
Quote from: Barrister on January 11, 2023, 04:56:29 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on January 11, 2023, 04:23:59 PMThere is a large and lucrative (for the owner) resale market in EV's - hell I can sell my current old "beater" for more than I paid for it.
That's just the used market in general. I've heard stories of dealerships calling people up to buy (mostly work trucks) back for more than they sold them for, just because they can then turn around and sell them for even more.
I'm really hoping the supply chain / used market is more normal by this summer as we really need to replace one of our vehicles...
Yes, but what I have in mind is that EV resale market has always been strong, because there has always been limited supply. And that is not changing any time soon. At least in the time horizon he is talking about.
I got my EV back in September, and have enjoyed it quite a bit. While I could benefit from a Level 2 charger*, I've been getting by on the plain 'ol power outlet, even if I only get about 2 miles/hour (enough for my daily commute plus some change).
I took on its first long-distance road trip from CA up to Seattle over the holidays, and that worked out fine. Total time recharging was about 2.5-ish hours (5 stops total, 30-ish minutes per stop) of a 15-hour trip from CA to Portland, OR. And I rather didn't mind the difference from the quick gas-and-go.
20-40 minutes is pretty easy to kill...all the charging stations were by/at a Walmart or grocery store. I'd either pick up some road snacks or just walk around and stretch the legs taking in the Walmart scenery (most of the Electrify America fast chargers along I-5 are located in Super Walmart parking lots).
I only had a couple hiccups...one was resolved fairly easily with a call to EA's customer support (I got right through, almost no wait, problem quickly solved). The second time (on the trip home) was bit more wonky, but managed to find an alternate charger to get enough to make it to my next waypoint.
The advanced cruise control/lane keeping also made the long-haul drive much more relaxing and less fatiguing.
Interesting car market, the cheapest used electrical car with some range and size that I can find around here is about 350.000 SEK, about 27.000£.
If I don't drive a lot there are a lot of cheaper (lifetime cheaper I mean, not only buy) combustion engine cars to buy. I bought my last car for 100.000 SEK for example. Another 250k buys me a lot of gas and service.
Share of electric vehicles (not counting hybrids) among new registrations in Austria:
(https://preview.redd.it/2rxgw6hrklba1.png?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=e3d468829f042638fdb86b3a3d8c9342d181fbe9)
Quote from: Threviel on January 12, 2023, 01:22:23 AMInteresting car market, the cheapest used electrical car with some range and size that I can find around here is about 350.000 SEK, about 27.000£.
If I don't drive a lot there are a lot of cheaper (lifetime cheaper I mean, not only buy) combustion engine cars to buy. I bought my last car for 100.000 SEK for example. Another 250k buys me a lot of gas and service.
Ouch. Thats painful.
With leafs I see quite a few at sub 10k .
Lately the used car market is indeed pretty hot. Everything is double what it was. This goes for ICE as well.
My dad had to buy a new car last year when his not very old Ford SUV started showing signs a full breakdown was imminent. He ended up paying the same as he had for the Ford despite the new one being a step down- a much more reliable brand and more fitting for their current needs however.
TBH though I don't really see this going down much, and it works both ways, I should get more for my perfectly fine though too small old car in part-ex.
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 11, 2023, 11:27:38 PMI got my EV back in September, and have enjoyed it quite a bit. While I could benefit from a Level 2 charger*, I've been getting by on the plain 'ol power outlet, even if I only get about 2 miles/hour (enough for my daily commute plus some change).
I took on its first long-distance road trip from CA up to Seattle over the holidays, and that worked out fine. Total time recharging was about 2.5-ish hours (5 stops total, 30-ish minutes per stop) of a 15-hour trip from CA to Portland, OR. And I rather didn't mind the difference from the quick gas-and-go.
20-40 minutes is pretty easy to kill...all the charging stations were by/at a Walmart or grocery store. I'd either pick up some road snacks or just walk around and stretch the legs taking in the Walmart scenery (most of the Electrify America fast chargers along I-5 are located in Super Walmart parking lots).
I only had a couple hiccups...one was resolved fairly easily with a call to EA's customer support (I got right through, almost no wait, problem quickly solved). The second time (on the trip home) was bit more wonky, but managed to find an alternate charger to get enough to make it to my next waypoint.
The advanced cruise control/lane keeping also made the long-haul drive much more relaxing and less fatiguing.
What kind do you have?
I think the used car market is bound to go down soon with the rest of the economy, but I guess EVs will be affected the least.
You guys really convinced me not to get a hybrid so our next car is probably going to be another petrol one. We need all our cash money for buying a 100 years old run down terraced house somewhere in far edge of everything.
Quote from: Tamas on January 12, 2023, 12:35:18 PMI think the used car market is bound to go down soon with the rest of the economy, but I guess EVs will be affected the least.
You guys really convinced me not to get a hybrid so our next car is probably going to be another petrol one. We need all our cash money for buying a 100 years old run down terraced house somewhere in far edge of everything.
Why would you buy an IC car? Do you like the increased costs of ownership :P
QuoteWhat kind do you have?
I used up my mid-life crisis benefit and got a Rivian R1T.
Quote from: Josquius on January 12, 2023, 08:46:39 AMQuote from: Threviel on January 12, 2023, 01:22:23 AMInteresting car market, the cheapest used electrical car with some range and size that I can find around here is about 350.000 SEK, about 27.000£.
If I don't drive a lot there are a lot of cheaper (lifetime cheaper I mean, not only buy) combustion engine cars to buy. I bought my last car for 100.000 SEK for example. Another 250k buys me a lot of gas and service.
Ouch. Thats painful.
With leafs I see quite a few at sub 10k .
Lately the used car market is indeed pretty hot. Everything is double what it was. This goes for ICE as well.
My dad had to buy a new car last year when his not very old Ford SUV started showing signs a full breakdown was imminent. He ended up paying the same as he had for the Ford despite the new one being a step down- a much more reliable brand and more fitting for their current needs however.
TBH though I don't really see this going down much, and it works both ways, I should get more for my perfectly fine though too small old car in part-ex.
IIRC the older Leafs (Leaves?) have a really small range.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2023, 12:37:56 PMQuote from: Tamas on January 12, 2023, 12:35:18 PMI think the used car market is bound to go down soon with the rest of the economy, but I guess EVs will be affected the least.
You guys really convinced me not to get a hybrid so our next car is probably going to be another petrol one. We need all our cash money for buying a 100 years old run down terraced house somewhere in far edge of everything.
Why would you buy an IC car? Do you like the increased costs of ownership :P
So we're looking at getting a truck as the towing situation for our camper trailer is really not ideal. Plus I miss having a truck.
There's no such thing as a used electric truck, so I go to compare new trucks. The only ones available so far are the F-150 Lightning and the Rivian.
In order to compare apples to apples I tried pricing out a regular F-150 to a Lightning. You can get a regular one for about $60k with light options. The Lightning comes out to $100k. So $40k difference.
What are you going to spend on fuel - $100/week? Let's say $150. So that's $7800/year. That's going to take a bit over 5 years to make up the price difference. And that's assuming the electric truck costs nothing to keep charged.
So this might only work for trucks right now, but there's still definitely an argument to be made for IC vehicles.
And that's before you start worrying about range concerns. Everything I've read says towing drastically reduces the range on an electric vehicle.
I can understand the issue with trucks, but I don't understand why Tamas wants to buy an IC car.
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 12, 2023, 12:40:00 PMQuoteWhat kind do you have?
I used up my mid-life crisis benefit and got a Rivian R1T.
Sweet. I keep eyeing the BMW i3... :hmm:
I almost ordered a Mercedes EQE as my next car, but when I eventually had convinced myself, it was no longer available and I ordered another plugin hybrid instead.
Yeah, if a good size and range electric costs the same as a comparable IC it would be daft to buy the IC.
For the Germans/Euros...
https://sonomotors.com/en/sion/
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2023, 01:00:13 PMI can understand the issue with trucks, but I don't understand why Tamas wants to buy an IC car.
If I had to buy right now I would have to be very price conscious. We want as big a deposit as we can when we finally buy a property, and you can get a pretty decent - if old - petrol car much cheaper than the limited stock of EVs even used ones.
In addition, where we live now, the closest opportunity to charge one is half a mile away, around 3 spots at a supermarket parking lot.
Maybe wait until you have your own place and can install a charging station?
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2023, 05:11:42 PMMaybe wait until you have your own place and can install a charging station?
Sure. :) I am not planning a car purchase, was just speculating. :) the current one works fine and I love it, but very old (2006 Avensis) with punitive taxes and high fuel cost, so practically, one major issue away from being more economical to be replaced.
Quote from: Tamas on January 12, 2023, 05:23:03 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2023, 05:11:42 PMMaybe wait until you have your own place and can install a charging station?
Sure. :) I am not planning a car purchase, was just speculating. :) the current one works fine and I love it, but very old (2006 Avensis) with punitive taxes and high fuel cost, so practically, one major issue away from being more economical to be replaced.
Yeah, our 2008 Honda Odyssey van is having increasing (and expensive) issues. I'd prefer to NOT buy a newer vehicle right now, but I think we're being forced into it.
Ideally once we get the truck, then in a few years we could look into replacing our "newer" 2011 RAV4 with a commuter-style EV.
I wanted to buy an EV for my next car but I don't think my current one will make it.
I'd like to get a new design Hyundai Santa Cruz.
Decided I wanted to try to pick up a Mustang Mach E. Right now there are literally only 6 in all of Louisville and I looked at every single one of them today. Ended up negotiating over one that's been sitting at a Nissan dealership for some reason... dunno why because it's price seemed reasonable and I could find nothing wrong with it. Didn't come to an agreement as The Colonel is a tough negotiator, but might try again next week.
Quote from: Caliga on February 25, 2023, 06:37:50 PMDecided I wanted to try to pick up a Mustang Mach E.
The Mach E looks like a regular Mustang trying to have a baby. :yuk:
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 25, 2023, 06:40:59 PMQuote from: Caliga on February 25, 2023, 06:37:50 PMDecided I wanted to try to pick up a Mustang Mach E.
The Mach E looks like a regular Mustang trying to have a baby. :yuk:
I love the look, and I absolutely loved the interior and the ride. Raging boner material.
Lots of Tesla had a hard time during the last run of cold weather.
I hear the best is the Ioniq 5, but cold weather autonomy is around 250km when it's -5C.
Still not a good main car for our climate, I think.
Anyway, with luck, I'm keeping mine for another 10 years.
Leaning against getting electric now. They do seem far more stuff you get for keeps.
I basically need a car for the next 4 years or so. Hoping for something that keeps its value well.
Hybrid doesn't make logical sense... But they are popular. It's curious.
Quote from: Josquius on February 26, 2023, 02:49:42 AMThey do seem far more stuff you get for keeps.
What does that mean?
Quote from: Josquius on February 26, 2023, 02:49:42 AMLeaning against getting electric now. They do seem far more stuff you get for keeps.
I basically need a car for the next 4 years or so. Hoping for something that keeps its value well.
Hybrid doesn't make logical sense... But they are popular. It's curious.
Non plugging hybrid are available and significantly alter down your gas consumption for not a lot of money more than the regular ICE only car.
You have to wait years for a new electric car.
I've also test driven a Hyundai Ioniq and a Chevy Bolt now.
I liked both, even the Bolt, though it's obviously a step down from the other two.
The one Ioniq my local Hyundai dealer has has a cracked windshield, and they keep asking me if I want it, and I keep saying no, because I don't want a car with a cracked windshield till they fix it, and then they ask me again in a day or so. :lol:
Right now I'm negotiating with two different dealers over a new and a used Mach-E. Pretty sure they both hate me at this point but I don't give a fuck. :)
Got tired of fighting with the Ford guys, thought about it some more blah blah blah bought a Mercedes. :ph34r:
P.S. I have named it the Colonelmobile.
Which one?
C300... so, not an electric at all. :D
I figure I'll hang on to this car for five years or so and then get an electric, when there are tons more options.
I have a C300e plugin hybrid and the 90km electric range is sufficient for my daily driving.
Seeing a lot more Ioniq 5 cars around now - deliveries are obviously happening. But not for me. Latest update is delivery in July. So more than a year later than initially promised.
The cars I am seeing are the base model. I would have thought they would have given priority to the higher end models because presumably there is more profit margin there. But I still wait.
I still only see another Rivian rarely now and then. Being CA, Teslas are everywhere. Lots of Bolts too.
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 17, 2023, 11:08:34 AMI still only see another Rivian rarely now and then. Being CA, Teslas are everywhere. Lots of Bolts too.
Rivian production is limited to 50k units and that includes fleet vehicles. They'll never be everywhere with those numbers.
Quote from: Caliga on March 16, 2023, 09:13:09 PMC300... so, not an electric at all. :D
I figure I'll hang on to this car for five years or so and then get an electric, when there are tons more options.
:lol:
6 to 8 more weeks and I'll have my new ICE car. :blush:
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 17, 2023, 10:54:51 AMSeeing a lot more Ioniq 5 cars around now - deliveries are obviously happening. But not for me. Latest update is delivery in July. So more than a year later than initially promised.
The cars I am seeing are the base model. I would have thought they would have given priority to the higher end models because presumably there is more profit margin there. But I still wait.
I enjoyed test driving the Ioniq but the look doesn't appeal to me too much... it somehow looks '80s' to me. Also apparently the windshield issue I wrote about earlier is pretty common, for some reason (maybe something about the design of the front of the car?) so just be careful about that, dude.
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 17, 2023, 12:12:07 PMQuote from: Caliga on March 16, 2023, 09:13:09 PMC300... so, not an electric at all. :D
I figure I'll hang on to this car for five years or so and then get an electric, when there are tons more options.
:lol:
6 to 8 more weeks and I'll have my new ICE car. :blush:
I will note my C300 does shut the engine off at stoplights and stuff. So I consider it to be environmentally friendly. :)
Quote from: Caliga on March 17, 2023, 12:26:55 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 17, 2023, 10:54:51 AMSeeing a lot more Ioniq 5 cars around now - deliveries are obviously happening. But not for me. Latest update is delivery in July. So more than a year later than initially promised.
The cars I am seeing are the base model. I would have thought they would have given priority to the higher end models because presumably there is more profit margin there. But I still wait.
I enjoyed test driving the Ioniq but the look doesn't appeal to me too much... it somehow looks '80s' to me. Also apparently the windshield issue I wrote about earlier is pretty common, for some reason (maybe something about the design of the front of the car?) so just be careful about that, dude.
Its got two things that are most important to me. Lots of interior space (and leg room) and good suspension. I get the comparison with 80's design. But I can't fit into sporty looking cars. :D
Just remove the front seat and sit in the back :P
Quote from: HVC on March 17, 2023, 01:00:19 PMJust remove the front seat and sit in the back :P
Many sports cars don't have backseats. :(
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 17, 2023, 01:03:16 PMQuote from: HVC on March 17, 2023, 01:00:19 PMJust remove the front seat and sit in the back :P
Many sports cars don't have backseats. :(
Fair point :D
I kind of like the way the car looks, btw. Cars look so much alike that I'm car blind. can't tell makes and models apart. Not being a car guy probably makes it worse.
Quote from: HVC on March 17, 2023, 01:05:18 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 17, 2023, 01:03:16 PMQuote from: HVC on March 17, 2023, 01:00:19 PMJust remove the front seat and sit in the back :P
Many sports cars don't have backseats. :(
Fair point :D
I kind of like the way the car looks, btw. Cars look so much alike that I'm car blind. can't tell makes and models apart. Not being a car guy probably makes it worse.
Look up the Subaru Solterra, Toyota BZ4X and Lexus RZ450e and play spot the difference.
Spoiler : Same base all made in the same factory.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 17, 2023, 12:58:51 PMIts got two things that are most important to me. Lots of interior space (and leg room) and good suspension. I get the comparison with 80's design. But I can't fit into sporty looking cars. :D
Yep, I would agree that it is incredibly roomy and comfortable. :thumbsup:
Reviving as I really need to get a move on with this awful task of getting a larger car.
Some have said hybrids are bad. Though on "which" their top rated cars are by lexus, BMW, and...
This.
https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202304136241313?advertising-location=at_cars&fuel-type=Petrol%20Plug-in%20Hybrid&include-delivery-option=on&make=Volkswagen&model=Golf&page=2&postcode=NE64YA&price-to=25000&radius=30&sort=relevance&fromsra
I do like the thought of a car which is electric for most conceivable daily use (more than 30 mile a day and something is wrong) but has the backup for the handful of times we go further or forget to charge.
Thoughts?
Quote from: Zanza on March 17, 2023, 01:32:18 AMI have a C300e plugin hybrid and the 90km electric range is sufficient for my daily driving.
So with the way Germany is generating power right now, you have a petrol-coal hybrid, then. :p
What is the objection to plug-in hybrids? From a pragmatic perspective, it seems like the best solution at the moment on a global scale. You still have the range and the relatively robust infrastructure of the ICE engine, but still spend most of the time using only electric engine. You also don't have to waste as many resources on large battery packs, because for most people's use case only a fraction of Tesla's range will suffice, and you've got fallback option if it doesn't.
Quote from: Tamas on May 21, 2023, 03:39:49 AMSo with the way Germany is generating power right now, you have a petrol-coal hybrid, then. :p
The renewables share in the last 30 days in Germany was 60%. The place where I charge usually has 100% renewable energy.
A couple of guys at my work have the Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV and they both really like it. Listening to them, the plug-in hybrid makes a lot of sense. You've got electric for all your running around town stuff - getting your kids around, shopping, commuting - but you have a combustion engine so you can still do road trips (and, I suppose, so you can still drive even if it gets so cold it impacts the batteries).
I don't know how it rates in terms of environmental impact, but in terms of fuel economy and on a purely practical level it seems pretty sensible.
Quote from: DGuller on May 21, 2023, 11:03:16 AMWhat is the objection to plug-in hybrids? From a pragmatic perspective, it seems like the best solution at the moment on a global scale. You still have the range and the relatively robust infrastructure of the ICE engine, but still spend most of the time using only electric engine. You also don't have to waste as many resources on large battery packs, because for most people's use case only a fraction of Tesla's range will suffice, and you've got fallback option if it doesn't.
Plugin hybrids can make sense as a bridge technology depending on driving profile and energy mix, but often they do not, especially if drivers are not incentivized towards charging. But they have significant disadvantages: mainly their weight and cost. That makes the technology inefficient.
Locally there's plenty of incentive towards charging - electricity is significantly cheaper than gasoline. Anecdotally driving electric is also more pleasant than using the combustion engine.
I'd also be a bit surprised at someone buying a PHEV and then not using the EV capability, but I suppose people can be weird that way.
If you don't use the EV bits you're just hauling a lot of weight around for no reason (AFAIK 500kg for the C300e)
PHEV are not electric cars and then ICE cars when the battery runs out. They are hybrid vehicles (both at the same time) that you have to plug every day to be recharged.
PHEVs are lies.
Jos, get a Toyota RAV4 hybrid. It is the best price point large hybrid available.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 21, 2023, 07:36:24 PMPHEV are not electric cars and then ICE cars when the battery runs out. They are hybrid vehicles (both at the same time) that you have to plug every day to be recharged.
PHEVs are lies.
How does the engine decide which power source to draw on at any given time?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 21, 2023, 10:17:50 PMQuote from: Grey Fox on May 21, 2023, 07:36:24 PMPHEV are not electric cars and then ICE cars when the battery runs out. They are hybrid vehicles (both at the same time) that you have to plug every day to be recharged.
PHEVs are lies.
How does the engine decide which power source to draw on at any given time?
AFAIK, it's 2 engines & the computer decides. The transmission probably does much of the work.
Quote from: Caliga on March 16, 2023, 09:13:09 PMC300... so, not an electric at all. :D
I figure I'll hang on to this car for five years or so and then get an electric, when there are tons more options.
...aaand it's already in the shop for an extended visit. :lol:
Front right brake caliper cracked, and all the brake fluid leaked out. No fluid, no brakes, no good. :sleep:
Mercedes is paying for everything though, so there's that at least.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 21, 2023, 07:36:24 PMPHEV are not electric cars and then ICE cars when the battery runs out. They are hybrid vehicles (both at the same time) that you have to plug every day to be recharged.
PHEVs are lies.
Jos, get a Toyota RAV4 hybrid. It is the best price point large hybrid available.
Woops. Forgot to reply here.
Looked into those and they tend to be 20k+. Fair bit above my price point.
Tempted by volkswagen golf plugin hybrids at the minute - went to a garage and viewed some cars and this Skoda rapid thing seemed Suitable (despite petrol) though reviews all say the golf is better.
The hybrids are automatic though which is slightly off putting for me and has my gf terrified.
Kind of impossible to have a manual electric motor.
I never owned a manual car. Too much trouble in traffic.
I didn't mention before, I got a 2023 Subaru Outback back in April. The backseat being heated was the deal maker.
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 21, 2023, 03:51:39 PMKind of impossible to have a manual electric motor.
I never owned a manual car. Too much trouble in traffic.
Manuals are awesome. Except in stop-and-go traffic.
I had a manual BMW 5-series, and a manual Nissan Sentra. I miss manuals. :(
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 21, 2023, 03:51:39 PMI never owned a manual car. Too much trouble in traffic.
Sexy though.
Quote from: Caliga on June 21, 2023, 01:34:04 PMQuote from: Caliga on March 16, 2023, 09:13:09 PMC300... so, not an electric at all. :D
I figure I'll hang on to this car for five years or so and then get an electric, when there are tons more options.
...aaand it's already in the shop for an extended visit. :lol:
Front right brake caliper cracked, and all the brake fluid leaked out. No fluid, no brakes, no good. :sleep:
Mercedes is paying for everything though, so there's that at least.
Brake fluid leaking out can be a blessing in disguise, it ensures that the other three brake calipers will remain intact.
Automatic transmission can be terryifimg? :huh:
In such a traffic heavy environment like here in England I would never go back to manual. Who the hell needs the constant double pedalling for hours being stuck on the M25? Or the M4? Or on some minor road during rush hour? Compare that with just lifting your foot off the break pedal to crawl forward when the queue does. Bliss.
Plus as others said you can either have manual transmission or a hybrid/EV. You can't have both.
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 21, 2023, 03:51:39 PMKind of impossible to have a manual electric motor.
Yes. But its a trade off you never really hear mentioned around electrics.
Quote from: Josquius on June 22, 2023, 03:04:39 AMQuote from: Grey Fox on June 21, 2023, 03:51:39 PMKind of impossible to have a manual electric motor.
Yes. But its a trade off you never really hear mentioned around electrics.
Because unless you are racing, manual transmission is a cost saving disadvantage that has been turned into an "I am man enough not to need an automatic transmission" thing :p
Quote from: Tamas on June 22, 2023, 03:06:18 AMQuote from: Josquius on June 22, 2023, 03:04:39 AMQuote from: Grey Fox on June 21, 2023, 03:51:39 PMKind of impossible to have a manual electric motor.
Yes. But its a trade off you never really hear mentioned around electrics.
Because unless you are racing, manual transmission is a cost saving disadvantage that has been turned into an "I am man enough not to need an automatic transmission" thing :p
I don't care about cars. I see no status in them. Neither I nor my GF see driving a normal car as a macho thing. Automatics are just harder to drive as they give you less control.
Please, especially if you want a hybrid, give automatics a try. I don't know maybe rent one for a couple of days? You are missing out.
Less control is true of course but only to a degree. You can control gear switches quite reliably with the gas pedal pressure - you don't have to, but e.g. you are on a high-ish rpm, you step back for a moment and you can feel it switch up etc. Every once in a while, mine does not "read the situation" properly when I am starting to slowly accelerate from very slow speed just as I am start to go uphill and does not switch back sufficiently to get the acceleration I'd want, but bear in mind this is now a 17 years old car, and this is solved by stepping on the gas.
Otherwise it is great. Once you get used to it you can have all the control you ever want for non-race driving by your pressure on the gas pedal, and it becomes much less tiring to drive in traffic. I love it and as long as I can afford I will never go back to manual transmission.
I don't like the delay in control of an automatic, it feels like my car is considering how to do what I want rather than doing what I want.
For me it's more or less don't care. Would prefer manual, but it's not important as I mostly drive on the highway.
Electric on the other hand feels like I'm in control and with the energy regeneration I can even engine brake. Like that. No need for another mechanical thing that can break which a gear box is.
Quote from: Josquius on June 22, 2023, 04:07:58 AMQuote from: Tamas on June 22, 2023, 03:06:18 AMQuote from: Josquius on June 22, 2023, 03:04:39 AMQuote from: Grey Fox on June 21, 2023, 03:51:39 PMKind of impossible to have a manual electric motor.
Yes. But its a trade off you never really hear mentioned around electrics.
Because unless you are racing, manual transmission is a cost saving disadvantage that has been turned into an "I am man enough not to need an automatic transmission" thing :p
I don't care about cars. I see no status in them. Neither I nor my GF see driving a normal car as a macho thing. Automatics are just harder to drive as they give you less control.
Well, that's not a feeling I understand.
Quote from: Tamas on June 22, 2023, 03:06:18 AMBecause unless you are racing, manual transmission is a cost saving disadvantage that has been turned into an "I am man enough not to need an automatic transmission" thing :p
It's been a disadvantage in racing as well for at least 20 years. If not restricted by rules, racing cars would have automatic transmission with maybe an option for override.
BTW somebody mentioned engine break: I regularly engine break with my automatic when on hilly terrain, there's a "manual" mode where you can manually switch between 3 "gears". I also use it once per 5 years when there's noticeable snow on the roads and want more manual control over my max/min gears.
Quote from: DGuller on June 22, 2023, 08:30:18 AMQuote from: Tamas on June 22, 2023, 03:06:18 AMBecause unless you are racing, manual transmission is a cost saving disadvantage that has been turned into an "I am man enough not to need an automatic transmission" thing :p
It's been a disadvantage in racing as well for at least 20 years. If not restricted by rules, racing cars would have automatic transmission with maybe an option for override.
What kind of racing are we talking about? Formula 1 pioneered the use of sequential transmission (semi-automatic) long ago.
One of the few times I drove a true automatic (as apposed to automated manuals like DSG) was when I drove a rented car at Pikes Peak. The park rangers actually remind you time and again to use engine braking when going downhill, and to avoid riding the brakes at all costs (as I imagine the brake fluid would boil after some period of riding the brakes). I successfully made it down from the highest point not snowed in without touching the brakes more than once in a long while, in a cheap Toyota, so I think automatics can do engine braking.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 22, 2023, 08:46:43 AMWhat kind of racing are we talking about? Formula 1 pioneered the use of sequential transmission (semi-automatic) long ago.
I'm thinking of Formula 1, but probably because that's the only series with open enough rules (in the past) to even consider automatics. There was a period about 20 years ago when driver aids were legalized again for a couple of years, and drivers typically opted for automatic mode of shifting (although some chose to stay manual for downshifts and only automate upshifts).
Quote from: DGuller on June 22, 2023, 08:56:15 AMQuote from: Duque de Bragança on June 22, 2023, 08:46:43 AMWhat kind of racing are we talking about? Formula 1 pioneered the use of sequential transmission (semi-automatic) long ago.
I'm thinking of Formula 1, but probably because that's the only series with open enough rules (in the past) to even consider automatics. There was a period about 20 years ago when driver aids were legalized again for a couple of years, and drivers typically opted for automatic mode of shifting (although some chose to stay manual for downshifts and only automate upshifts).
Not a Formula 1 watcher, so I have to rely on wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_transmission (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_transmission)
QuoteThe first Formula One car to use a semi-automatic transmission was the 1989 Ferrari 640.[35][113] It used hydraulic actuators and electrical solenoids for clutch control and shifting, and was shifted via two paddles mounted behind the steering wheel. Another paddle on the steering wheel controlled the clutch, which was only needed when starting from a standstill.[114] The car won its debut race at the Brazilian Grand Prix, but for much of the season suffered from reliability problems.[115] Other teams began switching to similar semi-automatic transmissions; the 1991 Williams FW14 was the first to use a sequential drum-rotation mechanism (similar to those used in motorcycle transmissions), which allowed for a more compact design that required only one actuator to rotate the drum and change gears. A further development was made possible by the introduction of electronic throttle control soon after, which made it possible for the car to automatically rev-match during downshifts.[116] By 1993, most teams were using semi-automatic transmissions. The last F1 car fitted with a conventional manual gearbox, the Forti FG01, raced in 1995.[117]
Following concerns about the potential for Formula One cars to shift gears automatically without any driver input, mandatory software was introduced in 1994[118] that ensured that gear changes only occurred when instructed by the driver. Pre-programmed, computer-controlled, fully-automatic upshifts and downshifts were re-introduced and allowed from 2001, and were permitted from that year's Spanish Grand Prix, but were banned again in 2004.[119][120][121][122][123][124][125][126] Buttons on the steering wheel to shift directly to a particular gear (instead of having to shift sequentially using the paddles) are permitted.[citation needed] The 2005 Minardi PS05, Renault R25, and Williams FW27 were the last Formula 1 cars to use a 6-speed gearbox before the switch to a mandatory 7-speed gearbox for the 2006 season. Since 2014 season, Formula 1 cars currently use mandatory 8-speed paddle-shift gearboxes.
Semi-automatic transmission, i.e semi-manual seems a good compromise for the everyday driver.
Yeah, I had an early version of semi-automatic in my 2004 Corolla in Hungary (MMT it was called). It was pretty neat. Once learned, I could VERY well regulate gear switches (the gearbox mechanism was identical to a manual, just a computer changing) with the gas pedal, and when the mood or necessity stroke, I could switch (haha) to switching manually up and down the gears.
With the current climate crisis and emphasis on reducing fuel consumption a manual transmission is simply not a good deal. Also, CVTs are fuel efficiency game changer in consumer cars that have no torque needs.
I get what Josq is saying, I think it's largely down to what you learned on and first use, so many including him and me probably find automatics non-instinctive? You sometimes have to actively 'think' what you're doing with your feet as opposed to a complex but learned muscle memory?
I've driven plenty of autos for work, but only ever own manuals. :bowler:
Quote from: Josquius on June 22, 2023, 04:07:58 AMI don't care about cars. I see no status in them. Neither I nor my GF see driving a normal car as a macho thing. Automatics are just harder to drive as they give you less control.
Automatics give you less control, true.
But that's what makes them easier to drive. More control, more choices = more difficulty.
It's like Linux - you can have a crazy amount of control over the operating system and your computer in general. But that certainly doesn't make it easier to use - quite the opposite in fact.
Yeah. Didn't the Ford Model T have 5 pedals? We have lost a lot of control since then. ;)
So model t= Linux. Too much.
Automatic =mac. Too little.
Manual = windows. Just right :p
Do you get regular electric manuals I wonder or are they destined to doom?
Quote from: mongers on June 22, 2023, 09:41:23 AMI get what Josq is saying, I think it's largely down to what you learned on and first use, so many including him and me probably find automatics non-instinctive? You sometimes have to actively 'think' what you're doing with your feet as opposed to a complex but learned muscle memory?
I've driven plenty of autos for work, but only ever own manuals. :bowler:
I understand though one's kilometrage may vary. :frog:
When one discovered drving a with a 4-speed gearbox Ford Transit, having a 6 or 7-speed smaller car, with power steering does not feel as much driving. :P
:lol: Just try one for like an hour.
Besides, if the petrol engine is on its way out, manual transmission is also on its way out. Better learn it now than when you are 60. :P
Quote from: Josquius on June 22, 2023, 11:32:19 AMSo model t= Linux. Too much.
Automatic =mac. Too little.
Manual = windows. Just right :p
Do you get regular electric manuals I wonder or are they destined to doom?
As I understand it there's zero point to an "electric manual".
ICE vehicles need multiple gears because they only have max torque and power at higher RPMs, so you want to make sure to stay within the optimal RPM range to keep max power.
An electric doesn't have that problem - it has max torque and power all the way through the RPM range.
Quote from: Tamas on June 22, 2023, 11:37:14 AM:lol: Just try one for like an hour.
Besides, if the petrol engine is on its way out, manual transmission is also on its way out. Better learn it now than when you are 60. :P
Just try the 1978 Ford Transit for one hour with its old-fashioned 4-gearbox and heavy steering, then you'll understand. :lol:
Diesel obviously, for added fun.
Judging by the 7th Art masterpieces such as the Fast and the Furious, manual transmissions are still all the rage. :P
I was replying to Josq
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 22, 2023, 12:17:12 PMJudging by the 7th Art masterpieces such as the Fast and the Furious, manual transmissions are still all the rage. :P
Even if there weren't culture and identity things tied up in manual transmission, car action films would still tend towards manual. Dramatically shifting gears is visually more interesting and better established in film-making conventions than dramatically stepping on the gas in an automatic car.
Quote from: Jacob on June 22, 2023, 12:27:35 PMQuote from: Duque de Bragança on June 22, 2023, 12:17:12 PMJudging by the 7th Art masterpieces such as the Fast and the Furious, manual transmissions are still all the rage. :P
Even if there weren't culture and identity things tied up in manual transmission, car action films would still tend towards manual. Dramatically shifting gears is visually more interesting and better established in film-making conventions than dramatically stepping on the gas in an automatic car.
Indeed. That's why it figured so prominently in the best Fast and Furious parody: Superfast! a.k.a (Super)Fast 8 in some countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfast! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfast!)
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 22, 2023, 11:36:40 AMQuote from: mongers on June 22, 2023, 09:41:23 AMI get what Josq is saying, I think it's largely down to what you learned on and first use, so many including him and me probably find automatics non-instinctive? You sometimes have to actively 'think' what you're doing with your feet as opposed to a complex but learned muscle memory?
I've driven plenty of autos for work, but only ever own manuals. :bowler:
I understand though one's kilometrage may vary. :frog:
When one discovered drving a with a 4-speed gearbox Ford Transit, having a 6 or 7-speed smaller car, with power steering does not feel as much driving. :P
:lol:
Man I've done so much transit driving down the years, be it a full load of video or sound/light gear whilst at a video company, various transit/transit pickups carrying oil equipment and/or picking up welders/pipe fitters or taking transit minibuses full of students and teachers on expeditions/outdoor activity courses. :bowler:
Whens the mongers autobiography coming out?
Quote from: Josquius on June 22, 2023, 02:06:16 PMWhens the mongers autobiography coming out?
I know right? Mongers has many layers.
Quote from: Barrister on June 22, 2023, 11:51:57 AMQuote from: Josquius on June 22, 2023, 11:32:19 AMSo model t= Linux. Too much.
Automatic =mac. Too little.
Manual = windows. Just right :p
Do you get regular electric manuals I wonder or are they destined to doom?
As I understand it there's zero point to an "electric manual".
ICE vehicles need multiple gears because they only have max torque and power at higher RPMs, so you want to make sure to stay within the optimal RPM range to keep max power.
An electric doesn't have that problem - it has max torque and power all the way through the RPM range.
It neither has max torque nor max power throughout the RPM range. Typical electrical motors have max torque at zero RPM, which decreases linearly, so it makes max power halfway through the range.
That's still a whole lot more drivable than an ICE engine, which has power peak near the end of the range, but that doesn't mean that you can't make use of a gearbox with an electric motor. Only motors with a constant power curve would find a gearbox totally useless.
That said, I don't know if that's how the electric motors in passenger cars behave, they may have a different torque curve, but in any case it's mathematically impossible to have max torque and max power at all RPMs.
In addition to the above, electric cars might have a transmission, but a single ratio is sufficient to translate from the engine to the axles, so there is no need to switch gears.
Quote from: DGuller on June 22, 2023, 03:44:09 PMQuote from: Barrister on June 22, 2023, 11:51:57 AMQuote from: Josquius on June 22, 2023, 11:32:19 AMSo model t= Linux. Too much.
Automatic =mac. Too little.
Manual = windows. Just right :p
Do you get regular electric manuals I wonder or are they destined to doom?
As I understand it there's zero point to an "electric manual".
ICE vehicles need multiple gears because they only have max torque and power at higher RPMs, so you want to make sure to stay within the optimal RPM range to keep max power.
An electric doesn't have that problem - it has max torque and power all the way through the RPM range.
It neither has max torque nor max power throughout the RPM range. Typical electrical motors have max torque at zero RPM, which decreases linearly, so it makes max power halfway through the range.
That's still a whole lot more drivable than an ICE engine, which has power peak near the end of the range, but that doesn't mean that you can't make use of a gearbox with an electric motor. Only motors with a constant power curve would find a gearbox totally useless.
That said, I don't know if that's how the electric motors in passenger cars behave, they may have a different torque curve, but in any case it's mathematically impossible to have max torque and max power at all RPMs.
You actually made me remember that supposedly Porsche did have a 2-speed transmission. A quick googling confirms:
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a28903274/porsche-taycan-transmission/
But still - two speeds is hardly going to give you the same visceral thrill of rowing through a ICE manual tranny, plus the fact that news was from 4 years ago, and I can't find any other BEV car that has done something similar, makes me think it's more of a niche gimmick.
I was curious to see what Formula E cars do, so I asked ChatGPT. Surprisingly, there doesn't seem to be a convergence. Some cars don't have a gearbox, some do.
Looks like finally going hybrid is too expensive for the moment. I don't want to wipe out my bank account paying 30k for one. I just don't get how these new car sellers are in business. Who has that much for a bloody car? I'm probably in the top 20% of income and lol no.
Looking like a Citroën C5 is what we are getting.
Quote from: DGuller on June 22, 2023, 04:37:44 PMI was curious to see what Formula E cars do, so I asked ChatGPT. Surprisingly, there doesn't seem to be a convergence. Some cars don't have a gearbox, some do.
Another example of ChatGPT just making shit up.
Formula E cars all have the same design.
Quote from: Josquius on July 06, 2023, 03:50:40 PMLooks like finally going hybrid is too expensive for the moment. I don't want to wipe out my bank account paying 30k for one. I just don't get how these new car sellers are in business. Who has that much for a bloody car? I'm probably in the top 20% of income and lol no.
Looking like a Citroën C5 is what we are getting.
Loans? That's how America does it.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2023, 04:00:25 PMQuote from: DGuller on June 22, 2023, 04:37:44 PMI was curious to see what Formula E cars do, so I asked ChatGPT. Surprisingly, there doesn't seem to be a convergence. Some cars don't have a gearbox, some do.
Another example of ChatGPT just making shit up.
Formula E cars all have the same design.
They most definitely do not all have the same design. The big draw of the series for manufacturers is that many areas of the car are open and not spec, and that includes the drivetrain.
Quote from: DGuller on July 06, 2023, 05:55:24 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2023, 04:00:25 PMQuote from: DGuller on June 22, 2023, 04:37:44 PMI was curious to see what Formula E cars do, so I asked ChatGPT. Surprisingly, there doesn't seem to be a convergence. Some cars don't have a gearbox, some do.
Another example of ChatGPT just making shit up.
Formula E cars all have the same design.
They most definitely do not all have the same design. The big draw of the series for manufacturers is that many areas of the car are open and not spec, and that includes the drivetrain.
You, and ChatGPT might be getting confused with both F1 and what happened in the first year of Formula E. In that first year, the approach in Formula E was to emulate what occurs in F1 and have manufacturers design to their own specifications. As you may know, that is a huge part of what separates teams in F1. But the revenue was not present in F E to use the same model. As a result, the regulations changed, and all cars used the same specs. The cars designs are essentially identical now - and with Gen 3 one company designed the engine for all.
One of the exciting changes for the coming season is that all E cars will now have a quick charge capacity so that we will actually see pit stops now.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2023, 06:09:00 PMYou, and ChatGPT might be getting confused with both F1 and what happened in the first year of Formula E. In that first year, the approach in Formula E was to emulate what occurs in F1 and have manufacturers design to their own specifications. As you may know, that is a huge part of what separates teams in F1. But the revenue was not present in F E to use the same model. As a result, the regulations changed, and all cars used the same specs. The cars designs are essentially identical now - and with Gen 3 one company designed the engine for all.
One of the exciting changes for the coming season is that all E cars will now have a quick charge capacity so that we will actually see pit stops now.
Either Wiki is also confused along with ChatGPT and myself, or you've got it exactly backwards. The first season was fully spec, and then the regs were opened up.
QuoteIn the first season, all teams used an electric motor developed by McLaren (the same as that used in its P1 supercar). But since the second season, powertrain manufacturers could build their own electric motor, inverter, gearbox and cooling system although the chassis and battery stayed the same. There were nine manufacturers creating powertrains for the 2016–17 season: ABT Schaeffler, Andretti Technologies, DS-Virgin, Jaguar, Mahindra, NextEV TCR, Penske, Renault, and Venturi.[27]
Have you ever watched a formula erase in the last year or two.
I am guessing that you were getting all your information from quickly skimming a wiki article.
If you watch the race, you would see that all the cars are identical in design.
Porsche seems to agree with Dguller, wiki, and ChatGPT
QuoteCars share the same chassis, battery and tyres. The only variable is powertrains, where teams can develop or deploy their own choice of electric motor or gearbox, for example.
https://www.porsche.com/stories/mobility/a-beginners-guide-to-formula-e
Right, and now further update that post with the new design specs for the third generation of cars.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2023, 07:20:01 PMHave you ever watched a formula erase in the last year or two.
I am guessing that you were getting all your information from quickly skimming a wiki article.
If you watch the race, you would see that all the cars are identical in design.
Not the worst place to get information, all things considered, especially when the alternative is hallucination personified. How exactly can you tell a difference in powertrains from looking at the cars on TV, in Formula E, Formula 1, or any other series? Things like engines tend to be under the hood, so to speak.
You claimed they all had different design, including drive trains. You were wrong.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2023, 07:58:07 PMRight, and now further update that post with the new design specs for the third generation of cars.
I did a search for difference in gen 3 vehicles. Amongst other things I learned brake regen powering has increased from 25% to 40%, a speed increase of top speed by 16 mph to 200 mph, minimum weights were decreased 132 lbs to 1852 lbs, and that batteries are made out of sustainably-sourced minerals, and will be reused and recycled at the end of its life. all very interesting.
All cool to know since I do have a passing interest in electric vehicles. However, i don't see anywhere that the vehicles have identical gearboxes or motors. It could be that my search is deficient in which case I'd graciously accept a link you could provide to set me (us) straight. As it stands now against what I was able to find all I have is your word and your ability to determine the inner workings and construction of vehicles by watching them go around a track.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2023, 08:22:00 PMYou claimed they all had different design, including drive trains. You were wrong.
Dude, seriously, WTF is wrong with you? You seem totally incapable of comprehending any type of communication without reversing it somewhere in your brain. First you wrote in the most self-assured tone possible something which was exactly the opposite of the truth: you said the first year in the series was open, and then it was a spec series, whereas the reality was exactly the opposite. The reality was that the first year was a spec year, and then parts of the car were opened up for individual manufacturer development.
Any normal person, after being caught saying something that is black on white false, would pause a little and reconsider the fidelity of their recollection or understanding. You, on the other hand, just keep doubling down without even double-checking anything on your own. Then again, maybe you did Google Formula E Gen3 specifications thoroughly, saw five sites talking about half a dozen manufacturers of drivetrains, and saw it as a confirmation that everyone races with the same car now.
This is just bizarre.
Incidentally, ChatGPT was not correct about the gearboxes, although probably only because it was out of date. It appears that all the manufacturers have now converged on using just single-gear transmission. They're not forced to because that's what the spec car has, they just all developed their powertrains in a direction where the advantage of having gearboxes with multiple gears would not exceed the disadvantages.
EDIT: Damn you HVC for deleting the post on me.
Stop using ChatGPT.
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 06, 2023, 04:33:11 PMQuote from: Josquius on July 06, 2023, 03:50:40 PMLooks like finally going hybrid is too expensive for the moment. I don't want to wipe out my bank account paying 30k for one. I just don't get how these new car sellers are in business. Who has that much for a bloody car? I'm probably in the top 20% of income and lol no.
Looking like a Citroën C5 is what we are getting.
Loans? That's how America does it.
Maybe. There are an awful lot of people living in debt in this country.
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 07, 2023, 06:48:44 AMStop using ChatGPT.
Why? It's the greatest knowledge force multiplier that has been invented so far, you just have to keep tabs on it if it's really important.
Quote from: DGuller on July 07, 2023, 07:48:48 AMQuote from: Grey Fox on July 07, 2023, 06:48:44 AMStop using ChatGPT.
Why? It's the greatest knowledge force multiplier that has been invented so far, you just have to keep tabs on it if it's really important.
Not really. It's asking a 4 years old that somehow can read questions about any subjects. The answers are kind of right but ultimately wrong.
Quote from: Josquius on July 07, 2023, 07:37:44 AMQuote from: Grey Fox on July 06, 2023, 04:33:11 PMQuote from: Josquius on July 06, 2023, 03:50:40 PMLooks like finally going hybrid is too expensive for the moment. I don't want to wipe out my bank account paying 30k for one. I just don't get how these new car sellers are in business. Who has that much for a bloody car? I'm probably in the top 20% of income and lol no.
Looking like a Citroën C5 is what we are getting.
Loans? That's how America does it.
Maybe. There are an awful lot of people living in debt in this country.
Having no debt means you are not leveraging properly tho.
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 07, 2023, 08:20:51 AMNot really. It's asking a 4 years old that somehow can read questions about any subjects. The answers are kind of right but ultimately wrong.
If that's all you get out of ChatGPT, especially the GPT4 version, then you're either not using it correctly, or your imagination is too limited. I use it a lot for data science work, and not just for coding, but also for very theoretical questions.
The amount of things to know in the field is tremendous, and it's impractical to be aware of even a sizable fraction of relevant developments. By explaining to ChatGPT what I want to accomplish, I get a lot of useful information that negate the need for me to reinvent the wheel. It's not like asking a 4 year old, it's like asking a superstar colleague for ideas.
When asking chat gpt for factual stuff it overwhelmingly lies with confidence I find.
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 07, 2023, 08:22:15 AMQuote from: Josquius on July 07, 2023, 07:37:44 AMQuote from: Grey Fox on July 06, 2023, 04:33:11 PMQuote from: Josquius on July 06, 2023, 03:50:40 PMLooks like finally going hybrid is too expensive for the moment. I don't want to wipe out my bank account paying 30k for one. I just don't get how these new car sellers are in business. Who has that much for a bloody car? I'm probably in the top 20% of income and lol no.
Looking like a Citroën C5 is what we are getting.
Loans? That's how America does it.
Maybe. There are an awful lot of people living in debt in this country.
Having no debt means you are not leveraging properly tho.
I don't understand.
Why is it better to pay x a week at 10% interest than go just pay Y now?
If its some kind of deal where the Interest rate is lower than you get from the bank I can see it but not how paying more for a fancy car helps.
Quote from: Josquius on July 07, 2023, 09:29:48 AMWhen asking chat gpt for factual stuff it overwhelmingly lies with confidence I find.
To each his own, and maybe the free GPT3.5 model is worse than I remember it being. However, I think that "Stop using ChatGPT" is one of the worst pieces of advice you can give to someone in 2023.
Quote from: DGuller on July 07, 2023, 10:27:51 AMHowever, I think that "Stop using ChatGPT" is one of the worst pieces of advice you can give to someone in 2023.
Depends on your objective, surely.
Personally I'd definitely like people to stop buttressing their arguments with "ChatGPT says" and I'm pretty much over "I had some random idea and put it into ChatGPT, look at the amusing answer" on social media as well.
Quote from: HVC on July 06, 2023, 08:29:27 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2023, 07:58:07 PMRight, and now further update that post with the new design specs for the third generation of cars.
I did a search for difference in gen 3 vehicles. Amongst other things I learned brake regen powering has increased from 25% to 40%, a speed increase of top speed by 16 mph to 200 mph, minimum weights were decreased 132 lbs to 1852 lbs, and that batteries are made out of sustainably-sourced minerals, and will be reused and recycled at the end of its life. all very interesting.
All cool to know since I do have a passing interest in electric vehicles. However, i don't see anywhere that the vehicles have identical gearboxes or motors. It could be that my search is deficient in which case I'd graciously accept a link you could provide to set me (us) straight. As it stands now against what I was able to find all I have is your word and your ability to determine the inner workings and construction of vehicles by watching them go around a track.
When I have a bit of time, I will find the YouTube video in which the engineer who designed the motor describes her design. It's very cool for a number of reasons.
But one of the downsides is that because the individual manufacturers are not engineering, their own engine design, there is less incentive for them to invest in formula E. The future of formula is getting more of an audience, so that there is more revenue to fund individual manufacturers doing their own R&D, that is when I think electric motor technology will really take off. But for the moment formula E still has to get a sufficient audience.
Edit, I should note that there is also one manufacturer who provides the electric recovery and motor components for F1. That manufacturer has also now created its own electric road car.
Quote from: Jacob on July 07, 2023, 10:58:52 AMQuote from: DGuller on July 07, 2023, 10:27:51 AMHowever, I think that "Stop using ChatGPT" is one of the worst pieces of advice you can give to someone in 2023.
Depends on your objective, surely.
Personally I'd definitely like people to stop buttressing their arguments with "ChatGPT says" and I'm pretty much over "I had some random idea and put it into ChatGPT, look at the amusing answer" on social media as well.
Yeah, it really depends on the purpose it's being used for. If one wishes to get accurate information about something it is absolutely the wrong tool.
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 07, 2023, 08:20:51 AMQuote from: DGuller on July 07, 2023, 07:48:48 AMQuote from: Grey Fox on July 07, 2023, 06:48:44 AMStop using ChatGPT.
Why? It's the greatest knowledge force multiplier that has been invented so far, you just have to keep tabs on it if it's really important.
Not really. It's asking a 4 years old that somehow can read questions about any subjects. The answers are kind of right but ultimately wrong.
Actually, a four-year-old would be smarter. At least some effort is made to give a correct answer, rather than just one that sounds good. Humans need to age a bit before they reach the stage where style means more than substance.
Quote from: DGuller on July 07, 2023, 08:51:33 AMIt's not like asking a 4 year old, it's like asking a superstar colleague for ideas.
If your superstar colleague is a compulsive liar, yeah.
While I agree with you that ChatGPT has some uses (especially in the "what's another way to look at this" arena), its main flaw is that, if you don't know enough about the topic to detect its frequent falsehoods, it gets you into trouble, and if you
do know enough, it's not adding anything.
Quote from: Jacob on July 07, 2023, 10:58:52 AMQuote from: DGuller on July 07, 2023, 10:27:51 AMHowever, I think that "Stop using ChatGPT" is one of the worst pieces of advice you can give to someone in 2023.
Depends on your objective, surely.
Personally I'd definitely like people to stop buttressing their arguments with "ChatGPT says" and I'm pretty much over "I had some random idea and put it into ChatGPT, look at the amusing answer" on social media as well.
I don't think it does depend on one's objective. I think every person can benefit from having access to a whole lot of knowledge essentially a question or two away. Do you need to double check what you get out of ChatGPT? Yes, if it's very important.
However, most of the time, what is truly important for improving one's knowledge and understanding is the speed of getting feedback (even if the feedback is not perfectly reliable). A lot of learning becomes impractical when the time gap between you being curious and having your curiosity satisfied exceeds some threshold. Low latency is crucial for synthesizing concepts.
Quote from: grumbler on July 07, 2023, 11:32:58 AMQuote from: DGuller on July 07, 2023, 08:51:33 AMIt's not like asking a 4 year old, it's like asking a superstar colleague for ideas.
If your superstar colleague is a compulsive liar, yeah.
While I agree with you that ChatGPT has some uses (especially in the "what's another way to look at this" arena), its main flaw is that, if you don't know enough about the topic to detect its frequent falsehoods, it gets you into trouble, and if you do know enough, it's not adding anything.
I think I know quite a bit about data science, and I have some quantifiable accomplishments to show for it. ChatGPT is adding enough for me that I use it every day at work. Some of my colleagues also know quite a bit about data science, and they also use ChatGPT for work.
Maybe data scientists are just more comfortable with uncertainty, I'm not at all bothered that the answer that I get can be wrong. It's easy to deal with wrong answers, it's very difficult to deal with stuff that you don't know that you don't know. ChatGPT makes it infinitely easier to be introduced to concepts that will make your life much easier, but that you couldn't know about unless you were lucky or very highly educated.
Data scientists are probably some of the worst people to act as a representative use case for using ChatGPT precisely because they have a lot of domain expertise at dealing with unreliability.
A huge portion of people using ChatGPT assume every word it emits is 100% true, and don't understand literally anything about it whatsoever.
Quote from: DGuller on July 07, 2023, 11:36:05 AMI don't think it does depend on one's objective.
... and then you go on to state your objective.
QuoteI think every person can benefit from having access to a whole lot of knowledge essentially a question or two away. Do you need to double check what you get out of ChatGPT? Yes, if it's very important.
What's the benefit?
I mean, yes having access to knowledge is probably a good in and of itself - but is the combination of convenience and precision offered by ChatGPT superior to alternate forms of accessing knowledge for any given specific use case? That's not a given.
QuoteHowever, most of the time, what is truly important for improving one's knowledge and understanding is the speed of getting feedback (even if the feedback is not perfectly reliable). A lot of learning becomes impractical when the time gap between you being curious and having your curiosity satisfied exceeds some threshold. Low latency is crucial for synthesizing concepts.
That gets significantly murkier if the low latency is combined with with imprecision or direct factual errors, especially if you're unable to investigate and critique sources and underlying processes and/ or detect and address likely inaccuracies in the output- whether because you don't have access to them, or whether because you lack the knowledge to do it whatsoever.
FWIW the "accuracy" issue around ChatGPT isn't that novel. Wikipedia--which in every real sense is an amazing human achievement of knowledge, is often mocked when people "cite it" in formal research or school papers because it...does have inaccuracies in it.
The "problem" with such inaccuracies are pretty manageable, but one reason they often rear their ugly head is a lot of unsophisticated users simply assume "if it is written in Wikipedia, it is true."
When what they should be assuming is "well, someone is saying this on Wikipedia, I should dig deeper in the article citations to confirm it unless I already know to a high reliability it is true based on other knowledge I have."
That is similar to how one should approach ChatGPT, but unsophisticated people approach neither Wikipedia or ChatGPT with this sort of attitude, and instead simply consume it as unambiguous black letter facts.
Which...is also okay, right? Like it's unfortunate, but we've trundled along pretty far as a society with a huge % of the population dumbly believing half truths and inaccuracies in every aspect of their daily life.
Quote from: DGuller on July 07, 2023, 11:44:28 AMI think I know quite a bit about data science, and I have some quantifiable accomplishments to show for it. ChatGPT is adding enough for me that I use it every day at work. Some of my colleagues also know quite a bit about data science, and they also use ChatGPT for work.
Maybe data scientists are just more comfortable with uncertainty, I'm not at all bothered that the answer that I get can be wrong. It's easy to deal with wrong answers, it's very difficult to deal with stuff that you don't know that you don't know. ChatGPT makes it infinitely easier to be introduced to concepts that will make your life much easier, but that you couldn't know about unless you were lucky or very highly educated.
Sounds like a good usecase for ChatGPT then :hug:
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 07, 2023, 12:49:15 PMFWIW the "accuracy" issue around ChatGPT isn't that novel. Wikipedia--which in every real sense is an amazing human achievement of knowledge, is often mocked when people "cite it" in formal research or school papers because it...does have inaccuracies in it.
The "problem" with such inaccuracies are pretty manageable, but one reason they often rear their ugly head is a lot of unsophisticated users simply assume "if it is written in Wikipedia, it is true."
When what they should be assuming is "well, someone is saying this on Wikipedia, I should dig deeper in the article citations to confirm it unless I already know to a high reliability it is true based on other knowledge I have."
That is similar to how one should approach ChatGPT, but unsophisticated people approach neither Wikipedia or ChatGPT with this sort of attitude, and instead simply consume it as unambiguous black letter facts.
Which...is also okay, right? Like it's unfortunate, but we've trundled along pretty far as a society with a huge % of the population dumbly believing half truths and inaccuracies in every aspect of their daily life.
That's a good point. Though with Wikipedia at least there's a link to the alleged sources so you can dig into them to assess the quality of the content. That's a bit harder with ChatGPT - though I guess you can ask for sources (though then you have the question of whether the sources actually say what ChatGPT says they say).
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 07, 2023, 12:49:15 PMFWIW the "accuracy" issue around ChatGPT isn't that novel. Wikipedia--which in every real sense is an amazing human achievement of knowledge, is often mocked when people "cite it" in formal research or school papers because it...does have inaccuracies in it.
The "problem" with such inaccuracies are pretty manageable, but one reason they often rear their ugly head is a lot of unsophisticated users simply assume "if it is written in Wikipedia, it is true."
When what they should be assuming is "well, someone is saying this on Wikipedia, I should dig deeper in the article citations to confirm it unless I already know to a high reliability it is true based on other knowledge I have."
That is similar to how one should approach ChatGPT, but unsophisticated people approach neither Wikipedia or ChatGPT with this sort of attitude, and instead simply consume it as unambiguous black letter facts.
Which...is also okay, right? Like it's unfortunate, but we've trundled along pretty far as a society with a huge % of the population dumbly believing half truths and inaccuracies in every aspect of their daily life.
Yes, that is one problem, but another problem with ChatGPT, as illustrated in the case of a lawyer relying on it to write a court brief, is that it just makes things up. Not because it is trying to be dishonest. It has no ability to be accurate. It is literally just suggesting what word should come next and strings a bunch of text together, that to the uninformed reader sounds like it might be right.
As people might recall, in the court brief, it make up cases and principles of law that did not exist.
At least with Wiki actual human being are trying (presumably) to be accurate. But they makes mistakes or oversimplify.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 07, 2023, 12:08:12 PMData scientists are probably some of the worst people to act as a representative use case for using ChatGPT precisely because they have a lot of domain expertise at dealing with unreliability.
A huge portion of people using ChatGPT assume every word it emits is 100% true, and don't understand literally anything about it whatsoever.
Even if that is the case, how is that worse than the alternative? If you're that cartoonishly lacking in critical thinking, you're going to believe other false things as well that don't come from ChatGPT. It's not like there is currently a reliable way for people with no critical thinking to get 100% accurate information.
As CC mentions, one way it is worse on that front is if it has produced incorrect caselaw (as an example) and you ask for citation...it will give them to you, literally fabricating fake case citations. Wikipedia at least doesn't "proactively" generate fake answers for you, it may have existing fake answers due to vandals or general idiocy, but it doesn't generate them on the fly.
Quote from: Jacob on July 07, 2023, 12:46:19 PMQuote from: DGuller on July 07, 2023, 11:36:05 AMI don't think it does depend on one's objective.
... and then you go on to state your objective.
I'm stating an objective that I think applies to all humans. If an objective applies to all humans, then there is nothing conditional (i.e. depending on) about the advice being bad, it's bad for everyone.
QuoteWhat's the benefit?
I mean, yes having access to knowledge is probably a good in and of itself - but is the combination of convenience and precision offered by ChatGPT superior to alternate forms of accessing knowledge for any given specific use case? That's not a given.
It doesn't have to be superior to be useful, it merely has to be adding something. Using ChatGPT does not prevent you from using other forms of accessing knowledge, but I argue it acts as a force multiplier on them.
QuoteThat gets significantly murkier if the low latency is combined with with imprecision or direct factual errors, especially if you're unable to investigate and critique sources and underlying processes and/ or detect and address likely inaccuracies in the output- whether because you don't have access to them, or whether because you lack the knowledge to do it whatsoever.
I'll turn it around and ask: so what if from time to time it's going to tell you something false? We learn wrong facts all the time, did we double check everything before ChatGPT? You can always double check what ChatGPT is saying, what is much harder is being introduced to something to begin with that you would then be double-checking.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 07, 2023, 01:37:35 PMAs CC mentions, one way it is worse on that front is if it has produced incorrect caselaw (as an example) and you ask for citation...it will give them to you, literally fabricating fake case citations. Wikipedia at least doesn't "proactively" generate fake answers for you, it may have existing fake answers due to vandals or general idiocy, but it doesn't generate them on the fly.
Okay, granted, it gives new modes of failure to people who lack critical thinking. That said, new modes of failure always come with new technology. The invention of airplanes drastically increased the number of people killed in plane crashes, the invention of computer drastically increased the number of hacks, and so on...
I think in the past it was more productive to embrace the possibilities of the new technology and work on mitigating the failure modes, either by education or by further technological iteration.
Quote from: DGuller on July 07, 2023, 08:51:33 AMIt's not like asking a 4 year old, it's like asking a superstar colleague for ideas.
A superstar colleague who also happens to be a pathological liar and suffers from severe hallucinations.
Quote from: DGuller on July 07, 2023, 01:51:13 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 07, 2023, 01:37:35 PMAs CC mentions, one way it is worse on that front is if it has produced incorrect caselaw (as an example) and you ask for citation...it will give them to you, literally fabricating fake case citations. Wikipedia at least doesn't "proactively" generate fake answers for you, it may have existing fake answers due to vandals or general idiocy, but it doesn't generate them on the fly.
Okay, granted, it gives new modes of failure to people who lack critical thinking. That said, new modes of failure always come with new technology. The invention of airplanes drastically increased the number of people killed in plane crashes, the invention of computer drastically increased the number of hacks, and so on...
I think in the past it was more productive to embrace the possibilities of the new technology and work on mitigating the failure modes, either by education or by further technological iteration.
Its not a failure of critical thinking. It is a failure of having knowledge. If CHAT spit out a fictitious case citation and the legal principle for which it stands, you would have no idea that was wrong. Despite your undoubted prowess at critical thought.
Quote from: DGuller on July 07, 2023, 01:51:13 PMOkay, granted, it gives new modes of failure to people who lack critical thinking. That said, new modes of failure always come with new technology. The invention of airplanes drastically increased the number of people killed in plane crashes, the invention of computer drastically increased the number of hacks, and so on... .
The analogy doesn't quite work. I don't think airplanes would have caught on as quickly if they commonly blew up in midair despite no mechanical fault or pilot error, or if 20% of the time the airfoil caused the plane to go down instead of up despite the control surfaces being set for climbing.
Airplanes are designed to fly - they may fail to do so, but that is a problem with the execution or implementation of the design. ChatGPt on the other hand is not designed to provide correct answers. It is designed to convincingly simulate the appearance of someone claiming to have that answer. So the analogy would hold better if airplanes were designed to simulate the appearance of the experience of flight as opposed to flight itself.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 07, 2023, 02:03:34 PMIts not a failure of critical thinking. It is a failure of having knowledge. If CHAT spit out a fictitious case citation and the legal principle for which it stands, you would have no idea that was wrong. Despite your undoubted prowess at critical thought.
It's definitely a failure of critical thinking. I'm sure there is a way to search for the actual cases being cited, which a personal with even moderate critical thinking would do before submitting a brief. Knowing what facts to check and when is definitely part of critical thinking.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 07, 2023, 02:12:21 PMChatGPt on the other hand is not designed to provide correct answers. It is designed to convincingly simulate the appearance of someone claiming to have that answer.
I don't think that's true at all. It's designed to simulate a person knowing correct answer. The problem is that it's not always successful at that simulation, although even at this stage it's a manageable problem.
Quote from: DGuller on July 07, 2023, 02:19:59 PMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on July 07, 2023, 02:12:21 PMChatGPt on the other hand is not designed to provide correct answers. It is designed to convincingly simulate the appearance of someone claiming to have that answer.
I don't think that's true at all. It's designed to simulate a person knowing correct answer. The problem is that it's not always successful at that simulation, although even at this stage it's a manageable problem.
No, it does not simulate knowing the correct answer. There is no part of what it does that checks accuracy.
It just makes stuff up.
Quote from: DGuller on July 07, 2023, 02:14:43 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on July 07, 2023, 02:03:34 PMIts not a failure of critical thinking. It is a failure of having knowledge. If CHAT spit out a fictitious case citation and the legal principle for which it stands, you would have no idea that was wrong. Despite your undoubted prowess at critical thought.
It's definitely a failure of critical thinking. I'm sure there is a way to search for the actual cases being cited, which a personal with even moderate critical thinking would do before submitting a brief. Knowing what facts to check and when is definitely part of critical thinking.
You say definitely in circumstances when your view is not beyond doubt. Are you using CHAT to script your languish posts? :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 07, 2023, 02:38:21 PMNo, it does not simulate knowing the correct answer. There is no part of what it does that checks accuracy.
It just makes stuff up.
The concept of any statistical model is that it will give an accurate enough answer if it captures the patterns with low enough error rate. ChatGPT is a very complex statistical model, but it is still a statistical model. Conceptually, if it does a good enough job capturing the patterns in human knowledge, it will give an accurate enough answer. Hallucination happens because during model training it didn't identify sufficient exceptions to the pattern that it picked up.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 07, 2023, 02:40:17 PMQuote from: DGuller on July 07, 2023, 02:14:43 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on July 07, 2023, 02:03:34 PMIts not a failure of critical thinking. It is a failure of having knowledge. If CHAT spit out a fictitious case citation and the legal principle for which it stands, you would have no idea that was wrong. Despite your undoubted prowess at critical thought.
It's definitely a failure of critical thinking. I'm sure there is a way to search for the actual cases being cited, which a personal with even moderate critical thinking would do before submitting a brief. Knowing what facts to check and when is definitely part of critical thinking.
You say definitely in circumstances when your view is not beyond doubt. Are you using CHAT to script your languish posts? :P
Dude, you just totally confidently hallucinated a page ago about Formula E, and that was despite having a very easy way to verify what you thought was true. Maybe this is not the best time to make such lame attempts at such lame jokes?
Quote from: DGuller on July 07, 2023, 01:39:18 PMI'm stating an objective that I think applies to all humans. If an objective applies to all humans, then there is nothing conditional (i.e. depending on) about the advice being bad, it's bad for everyone.
But it does not apply to all humans, as you yourself said " it gives new modes of failure to people who lack critical thinking." That's a non-zero number of people, and potentially a non-trivial number of people.
QuoteIt doesn't have to be superior to be useful, it merely has to be adding something. Using ChatGPT does not prevent you from using other forms of accessing knowledge, but I argue it acts as a force multiplier on them.
I'm happy to concede that ChatGPT can be a force multiplier in any number of use cases, and for a number of people. But not for all use cases (you can use force multipliers to increase the impact of your mistakes and lapses, for example), and not if used incorrectly (because people lack the correct mindset/ knowledge base to use it correctly).
QuoteI'll turn it around and ask: so what if from time to time it's going to tell you something false?
If you treat it as a truthful oracle - and that does seem to be the case in any number of situations - then it can lead you astray. The consequences of being led astray will vary based on what is being divined (and contingency).
QuoteWe learn wrong facts all the time, did we double check everything before ChatGPT? You can always double check what ChatGPT is saying, what is much harder is being introduced to something to begin with that you would then be double-checking.
Your use case is pretty good, no doubt about it. Anyone with similar objectives and levels of critical thinking skills and/ or relevant knowledge certainly can benefit from using ChatGPT.
Okay, I'll concede that one. If you're lacking in critical thinking skills and you're happy to continue lacking them, ChatGPT in your hands would probably be a dangerous weapon. I do still think that the real problem is with the lack of critical thinking skills, though, and I also think that it must've been a substantial problem for them even before ChatGPT came along.
Quote from: DGuller on July 07, 2023, 02:47:25 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on July 07, 2023, 02:38:21 PMNo, it does not simulate knowing the correct answer. There is no part of what it does that checks accuracy.
It just makes stuff up.
The concept of any statistical model is that it will give an accurate enough answer if it captures the patterns with low enough error rate. ChatGPT is a very complex statistical model, but it is still a statistical model. Conceptually, if it does a good enough job capturing the patterns in human knowledge, it will give an accurate enough answer. Hallucination happens because during model training it didn't identify sufficient exceptions to the pattern that it picked up.
I don't think you are right about that. Up thread, I posted a link to a podcast in which Runciman was interviewing two experts in AI. They described what does very differently, and their explanation actually provides a more compelling reason why it just make shit up.
Quote from: DGuller on July 07, 2023, 02:50:46 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on July 07, 2023, 02:40:17 PMQuote from: DGuller on July 07, 2023, 02:14:43 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on July 07, 2023, 02:03:34 PMIts not a failure of critical thinking. It is a failure of having knowledge. If CHAT spit out a fictitious case citation and the legal principle for which it stands, you would have no idea that was wrong. Despite your undoubted prowess at critical thought.
It's definitely a failure of critical thinking. I'm sure there is a way to search for the actual cases being cited, which a personal with even moderate critical thinking would do before submitting a brief. Knowing what facts to check and when is definitely part of critical thinking.
You say definitely in circumstances when your view is not beyond doubt. Are you using CHAT to script your languish posts? :P
Dude, you just totally confidently hallucinated a page ago about Formula E, and that was despite having a very easy way to verify what you thought was true. Maybe this is not the best time to make such lame attempts at such lame jokes?
Please tell me once you have actually watched a formula E race. Then after you have done that, please explain to me why you think there is any difference between the cars. If you actually watch a Formula E race, you will see that there is really no measurable difference in performance amongst the cars. Then watch a Formula One race and you will see that there are significant performance differences between the cars.
The problem with having discussions with you is that you take a little bit of knowledge that you know from a very cursory scan of the Internet, and then you pretend to be an expert. It's very difficult to have a civil discussion with you.
Quote from: DGuller on July 07, 2023, 04:36:00 PMOkay, I'll concede that one. If you're lacking in critical thinking skills and you're happy to continue lacking them, ChatGPT in your hands would probably be a dangerous weapon. I do still think that the real problem is with the lack of critical thinking skills, though, and I also think that it must've been a substantial problem for them even before ChatGPT came along.
:cheers:
To try to push it just a little bit further... the question for any given use case is whether the effort of applying critical thinking skills or doing due dilligence where facts are important is worth it given the additional value that ChatGPT brings to the table.
You've given some good examples of where ChatGPT is a massive force multiplier in your own work and the work of your colleagues.
Now, if you're using ChatGPT to answer your comp. sci. assignments and exams maybe it's not as good an idea. I mean, you can make the argument that "you'll always have access to ChatGPT, so why not use the available tools to be more efficient." But at the same time, if using ChatGPT retards the process of you developing the domain specific critical thinking skills and expertise to interrogate ChatGPT results appropriately (which is the point of a comp. sci. education), maybe it's counterproductive.
And personally I see almost no use for ChatGPT in my own direct work* - it's all highly context sensitive, risk assessment and mitigation, planning, and interpersonal. While I can probably find places to crowbar in ChatGPT usage (if I put aside risks associated with proprietary or personal identifiable information), the work to craft the inputs or massage the output is greater than or equal to the work potentially saved.
Which takes me back to my original argument - that whether "stop using ChatGPT" is good or bad advice depends on your objective.
*there're likely good applications for ChatGPT-like AI in game dev all up, but it's goint to take a bit IMO before they're fruitful and somewhat longer before they're widely applicable as per my post on the topic earlier (in the games forum maybe?).
I considered getting an electric car, but couldn't justify the environmental impact.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 07, 2023, 05:48:44 PMI don't think you are right about that. Up thread, I posted a link to a podcast in which Runciman was interviewing two experts in AI. They described what does very differently, and their explanation actually provides a more compelling reason why it just make shit up.
I strongly suspect that that their description wasn't actually very different, but actually just a different way of saying what I said. I wouldn't expect you to be able to recognize that, as this isn't your domain of expertise.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 07, 2023, 05:52:11 PMThe problem with having discussions with you is that you take a little bit of knowledge that you know from a very cursory scan of the Internet, and then you pretend to be an expert.
I'm not an expert on Formula E, and never pretended to be one. What little I did know was enough to make me strongly suspect that you were dead wrong about what you said. Of course, I did understand that I was not an expert in Formula E, so I did what any person with critical thinking skills would do: double check my knowledge and recollection on the Internet before writing anything.
Don't you think that it can also be a little problematic to discuss things with a person who with very smug patronizing confidence says things that are just dead wrong? It happens to everyone, although it happens much more often to smug patronizing people, but what really doesn't happen to anyone I know other than you is pivoting to saying some other thing with smug patronizing confidence and again getting it dead wrong. And then pivoting again and again getting it dead wrong.
At least when it comes to machine learning, when the model gets a train example wrong, it learns from it, and the more confident it was in its wrong prediction, the more it learns from it. It doesn't change the subject and pretend that it was actually fitting to a different target variable, to stretch the analogy.
Quote from: DGuller on July 07, 2023, 08:20:08 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on July 07, 2023, 05:48:44 PMI don't think you are right about that. Up thread, I posted a link to a podcast in which Runciman was interviewing two experts in AI. They described what does very differently, and their explanation actually provides a more compelling reason why it just make shit up.
I strongly suspect that that their description wasn't actually very different, but actually just a different way of saying what I said. I wouldn't expect you to be able to recognize that, as this isn't your domain of expertise.
Ooooh, sick burn.
Quote from: Jacob on July 07, 2023, 06:18:33 PMNow, if you're using ChatGPT to answer your comp. sci. assignments and exams maybe it's not as good an idea. I mean, you can make the argument that "you'll always have access to ChatGPT, so why not use the available tools to be more efficient." But at the same time, if using ChatGPT retards the process of you developing the domain specific critical thinking skills and expertise to interrogate ChatGPT results appropriately (which is the point of a comp. sci. education), maybe it's counterproductive.
I think it's a different instance of the old debate about the use of calculators in math classes. One side says that calculators in math classes would make students not understand the basics, while the other side says that using calculators allows you to get quicker to learning something more deep. I personally fell into the second camp, and in my opinion it's often easier to learn backwards: start with the application, and then gradually increase the first principles knowledge as it becomes necessary (and it may never become necessary). That said, reasonable people can disagree on this discussion.
QuoteAnd personally I see almost no use for ChatGPT in my own direct work* - it's all highly context sensitive, risk assessment and mitigation, planning, and interpersonal. While I can probably find places to crowbar in ChatGPT usage (if I put aside risks associated with proprietary or personal identifiable information), the work to craft the inputs or massage the output is greater than or equal to the work potentially saved.
I can't talk with any confidence about your work, for obvious reasons, but I would put out there the possibility that you may not be thinking of all the ways you can make use of ChatGPT. Every work that I know of has a whole bunch of micro tasks, sometimes only tangentially related, in addition to big ticket one. Maybe ChatGPT can't do A-Z for you, but maybe when you ask it for ideas on how to do D, F, P, and Q, you'll find out ways to do them that you never suspected existed and improve your quality of life tremendously. You do have to have that intuition that surely there must be a better way to do D, F, P, or Q, and not just assume that plowing through them as you always do is the best way, but I think people who have the mindset to look for better ways to do things have that intuition well-developed.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 07, 2023, 08:58:38 PMQuote from: DGuller on July 07, 2023, 08:20:08 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on July 07, 2023, 05:48:44 PMI don't think you are right about that. Up thread, I posted a link to a podcast in which Runciman was interviewing two experts in AI. They described what does very differently, and their explanation actually provides a more compelling reason why it just make shit up.
I strongly suspect that that their description wasn't actually very different, but actually just a different way of saying what I said. I wouldn't expect you to be able to recognize that, as this isn't your domain of expertise.
Ooooh, sick burn.
That wasn't meant to be a burn. It's legitimately hard to understand when someone is saying equivalent things in a field where you're not an expert. It doesn't mean that you shouldn't be discussing them, it would be a very boring place if we all just stuck to discussing our areas of expertise, but it would help to say things in a way that allows for the possibility that the experts in the field might know something you don't.
Quote from: Josquius on July 07, 2023, 09:29:48 AMWhen asking chat gpt for factual stuff it overwhelmingly lies with confidence I find.
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 07, 2023, 08:22:15 AMQuote from: Josquius on July 07, 2023, 07:37:44 AMQuote from: Grey Fox on July 06, 2023, 04:33:11 PMQuote from: Josquius on July 06, 2023, 03:50:40 PMLooks like finally going hybrid is too expensive for the moment. I don't want to wipe out my bank account paying 30k for one. I just don't get how these new car sellers are in business. Who has that much for a bloody car? I'm probably in the top 20% of income and lol no.
Looking like a Citroën C5 is what we are getting.
Loans? That's how America does it.
Maybe. There are an awful lot of people living in debt in this country.
Having no debt means you are not leveraging properly tho.
I don't understand.
Why is it better to pay x a week at 10% interest than go just pay Y now?
If its some kind of deal where the Interest rate is lower than you get from the bank I can see it but not how paying more for a fancy car helps.
Because you don't have Y?
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 07, 2023, 09:12:34 PM]
Because you don't have Y?
I don't have 44 grand for a shiny new car.
I do have <20 grand for something a few years old.
I get that not everyone is so capable of saving and emergencies do happen. I once had to loan my parents 14k as they needed a car at short notice.
But then why go for the luxury new car rather than loaning the smaller amount if its all you can afford. If its not amount you conceivably could save up in a reasonable amount of time then taking a loan seems unwise.
Quote from: Josquius on July 08, 2023, 12:22:15 AMIf its not amount you conceivably could save up in a reasonable amount of time then taking a loan seems unwise.
That's the whole point. You finance future consumption out of future income. If you hold off on a purchase because you don't want to finance it you are delaying gratification and discounting it greater than the rate you were charged.
Quote from: DGuller on July 07, 2023, 09:04:50 PMQuote from: Razgovory on July 07, 2023, 08:58:38 PMQuote from: DGuller on July 07, 2023, 08:20:08 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on July 07, 2023, 05:48:44 PMI don't think you are right about that. Up thread, I posted a link to a podcast in which Runciman was interviewing two experts in AI. They described what does very differently, and their explanation actually provides a more compelling reason why it just make shit up.
I strongly suspect that that their description wasn't actually very different, but actually just a different way of saying what I said. I wouldn't expect you to be able to recognize that, as this isn't your domain of expertise.
Ooooh, sick burn.
That wasn't meant to be a burn. It's legitimately hard to understand when someone is saying equivalent things in a field where you're not an expert. It doesn't mean that you shouldn't be discussing them, it would be a very boring place if we all just stuck to discussing our areas of expertise, but it would help to say things in a way that allows for the possibility that the experts in the field might know something you don't.
No, they were real experts and so they were able to explain complex ideas using plain language. I find that is the hallmark of someone who knows what they are talking about. People who pretend to be experts, on the other hand, tend to retreat into the realm of, "this is too complicated for you to understand or for me to explain it in a way you will understand."
Since you can't be bothered to listen to the actual experts before determining whether you agree with what they said, I am not sure why I should continue to have this discussion with you, if all you are going to do is go on a personal attack.
Good day.
So you make an argument of the form "some experts on some podcast said something differently from you, and I think they're right", and your expectation is that I would listen to the entire podcast to figure out what it is that they said, and how it differs from what I described, just for me to figure out what I'm supposed to rebut? Does that strike you as a reasonable expectation? I just assumed it was an appeal to authority not meant to be taken as an argument.
Quote from: DGuller on July 10, 2023, 03:52:24 PMSo you make an argument of the form "some experts on some podcast said something differently from you, and I think they're right", and your expectation is that I would listen to the entire podcast to figure out what it is that they said, and how it differs from what I described, just for me to figure out what I'm supposed to rebut? Does that strike you as a reasonable expectation? I just assumed it was an appeal to authority not meant to be taken as an argument.
No, my argument is that CHATGPT has a well known track record of spitting out information as fact which is completely made up. The reason it does so is because it is a program that essentially is just guessing what the next word should be. It strings words together that to the ill informed makes sense. But to the knowledgeable is complete rubbish.
We have already drawn to your attention the case of the legal brief which cited principles of law and cases which did not actually exist. But sounded good.
This is not a system which tries to be correct. It was not designed to be correct. Just to string words together that sound good.
Your argument in this thread is that it is akin to z well informed colleague who is expert in their field. It is definitely not that. No lawyer I have ever worked with simply made case names and principles up. There are things that reasonable people can disagree about and debate. Making shit up is not one of them.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 10, 2023, 04:10:33 PMNo, my argument is that CHATGPT has a well known track record of spitting out information as fact which is completely made up. The reason it does so is because it is a program that essentially is just guessing what the next word should be. It strings words together that to the ill informed makes sense. But to the knowledgeable is complete rubbish.
This paragraph is an example of why I said what I said earlier, about you not being qualified to identify whether the different words are describing the same concept, or a different concept. It's clear to me that you have not grasped the meaning behind the technical description of how large language models work.
It is true that ChatGPT hallucinates, but your "because" does not follow. Yes, you are correct that the way ChatGPT writes is by predicting one word at a time, but it seems like you've taken that knowledge in without really understanding the concept or the context. As I'm writing this reply, I'm also writing one word at a time, and I think most people likewise write one word at a time.
Even though I'm writing one word at a time, I have a general idea in my mind what I want to convey, and that general idea is a big part in determining what the next word I'm typing is going to be. I still care what words I already typed, because obviously I want the next word to play nice with everything I've already written before it, but that doesn't mean that I'm just writing something that strings together. You seem to think that predicting which word to write one at a time somehow precludes the possibility that a larger ideation of what is being written can possibly exist.
I don't know what these experts said on the podcast. More likely than not, they said something insightful and correct. That doesn't necessarily mean that what you got out of listening to them is anywhere near what they wanted to convey. Clearly some other communication about LLMs didn't land the way it was intended, because no expert would want you to believe that LLMs hallucinate because they write one word at a time.
You are not simply predicting what your next word should be. You are thinking (I hope) in full sentences/thoughts toward the goal of making an argument.
That is something that is not happening with CHAT - and that is why it just makes shit up.
Let's try this a different way - what is your explanation for why CHAT makes up case references and legal principles that do not exist.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 10, 2023, 05:40:35 PMYou are not simply predicting what your next word should be. You are thinking (I hope) in full sentences/thoughts toward the goal of making an argument.
That is something that is not happening with CHAT - and that is why it just makes shit up.
Predicting the next word is the mechanism of converting "thoughts" into sentences for ChatGPT. How else would it know which word is likely to be next, and which is unlikely to be next, if there is no sense of what it's trying to say?
This reminds me of a conversation I had with my dad a week ago about chess engines, although one difference is that my dad was asking me questions rather than telling me how they worked. He did not understand how chess engines today could beat the very best human in the world every single time. He understood that computers could calculate so much better than humans, but he knew that there are some positions in chess which are very hard to calculate, and that the best players intuitively know whether they're good or not.
My response to my dad was that he was wrong to implicitly assume that chess engines have no intuition, and that they're only beating humans by thinking deeper. Some chess engines actually have incredibly strong "intuition", if you define it as vaguely knowing from experience what is good and what isn't without being able to elucidate why. In fact you can say that all deep learning neural network models are "intuitive", which in some contexts is actually a weakness if you need a concise understanding of how it got to the prediction that it did.
I think one reason why we're failing to connect here in our competing explanations of how LLMs work is that you seem to reject the notion that it's possible for a model to have an "idea" behind its predictions. While technically they don't have "ideas', it's all just a complex formula with literally billions of parameters, when formulas get so complex that humans can't possibly understand where they came from, there is no practical difference between mathematical calculations and the worshipped intangible human ideas.
QuoteLet's try this a different way - what is your explanation for why CHAT makes up case references and legal principles that do not exist.
I already gave my explanation: it overgeneralized, because it either wasn't strong enough, or it wasn't exposed enough to the legal content. What statistical models of all kinds do is find generalizations in observations: they want to capture transferable patterns. Capturing patterns is how they learn (and I would argue that's also how humans learn). The more data and the more capacity you give the model, the more it will be able to find the patterns in all their complexity, and with all the right exceptions to them.
When it comes to legal references, there is no reason why legal cases have the names that they do: whatever name the legal case has is essentially a random accident of history. Not to delve too deep into the field I have no expertise in, but as far as I know, there is no obvious reason why Ernesto Miranda had to be the guy whose case gave rise to the rights: somebody had to win the lottery to be immortalized in such a way, and he happened to be the guy. You can't intuitively suss out random facts: all you can do is memorize them. It's not impossible for large language models to learn random facts, but they need to have enough capacity and exposure to the right training data to learn them well enough.
By the way, I think this is a good discussion that deserves its own thread. Can this tangent be split off?
OK you must be playing a joke because your response was nonsensical. For sure this is something chat created.
Case names are critically important, they are not random.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 10, 2023, 09:31:51 PMOK you must be playing a joke because your response was nonsensical. For sure this is something chat created.
Case names are critically important, they are not random.
What a nice feeling to spend a lot of time thinking and crafting a reply, only to realize that you were replying to a setup for a "ChatGPT must've wrote that" one-liner.
I don't know why I expected something different, but it's a gut punch, I'm not going to lie. Hopefully it's going to be the last gut punch I'll allow myself to take. What an utterly worthless poster you are.
You are the one that claimed case names are random in an attempt to avoid the fact CHAT just makes up the names.
Then when called on making such an absurd claim, you resort to yet another personal attack.
If that really was your idea to claim that case names were of no import, you might want to ponder just how ridiculous that was before lashing out.