My question here is, do you mean freeways or not? If so, as far as I'm concerned any road which cannot be actually enjoyed at sub-triple-digit speeds doesn't count. If you don't, then that's actually more of a reason not to ride them there. Sure there is, if you want to be incredibly onerous and annoying to deal with under any and all circumstances. The gulf between the capabilities of a bicycle (or worse, a pedestrian) and the capabilities of a car is so wide that they can never share the same road surface without inflicting obnoxious restrictions on each other - but mostly on drivers. And once again, we see the tragedy of treating efficiency as an end in itself, rather than a means to an end. Efficiency has many definitions to many people in different situations and focusing on the most abstract ones (space and fuel) ends up making everyone's life less efficient in the end.
I say the same thing I always say when cycling is brought up... Just run them over. Extra points. People who seem to endlessly defend the use of our roads are just as, if not more, annoying than those who feel they should stick to sidewalks, by bicycle paths, and bicycle lanes. You both are dumbasses.
At this point let the record show that I have never condoned, and will never condone, hitting cyclists. At the same time, however, there is absolutely a contingent which persistently and, I think, deliberately fails to understand that it is possible to be perfectly within your rights and still freakishly annoying at the same time, and furthermore that this does not automatically mean that the people annoyed by you are selfish, reckless, or incompetent. The libertarians who inspired that chart have a sort of guideline that if someone behind you wants to go faster than you are going, you should speed up for move over. So far, so good, but it breaks down when dealing with things like bicycles that are physically incapable of reaching car speeds. To the I Have a Right Brigade, as long as you're technically leaving enough space for a car to get through, then you're doing enough. Frankly, though, the way I see it, if you're using a mode of transportation like riding a bike (or worse, walking) which is so slow and hard to see that someone could easily run you over without even having time to dodge, that doesn't mean you've ascended to a higher level of road use where you get a free pass on going slow as long as there's almost sort of technically a car width left for the rest of us to use. It means you've descended to a lower level of road use where you become, by default, a dangerous and annoying artificial hazard which also multiplies the danger caused by other hazards such as wild animals and oncoming bad drivers. In the absence of differentiated infrastructure, the solution isn't to expect drivers to stick to the center of their lane all the time, it's to treat walking and biking as desperate last resorts when driving is not possible rather than as viable alternatives to driving.
I just wish cyclists stopped driving like madmen. Around here they run lights, speed through sidewalks, and are just generally a danger to themselves and everyone around them. Anyway, I came here today seeking opinions on a different type of infastructure. I grew up in a place that uses zipper barriers so I'm use to them and see them as just another part of highway infastructure. But today I learned that there's a lot of people out there who think these things are idiotic and lethal. Anyone have any particular thoughts on them?
Oh yeah, remember about the PSA-FCA merger that happened not too long ago? They're keeping all current brands (and yes that still somehow includes the near-rotting corpse of Lancia), which amounting both companies are in total 13. https://europe.autonews.com/automakers/psa-fca-will-maintain-brands-after-merger-tavares-says
But that's exactly the thing. It's like bicyclists in particular have some weird compulsion to find the line of what is polite or acceptable, and then decide that just stepping over it isn't enough, they have to strap on a rocket and get as far to the other side as physically possible. On roads that obviously aren't suitable for nonmotorized use, they ride constantly anyway, at all hours of the day and night, often without any visibility-enhancing gear, while braying about their rights when called out. On roads that are suitable for nonmotorized use, they do everything in their power to make people forget that such a suitability is even possible. In the mind of a bicyclist, nonmotorized still is, always has been, and always will be the default state of road use, common sense is for other people, and courtesy just means not riding right in the middle of the lane. And they are absolutely obsessed with keeping every freaking road in the universe permanently accessible to everything that isn't a motor vehicle, but especially the best driving roads (I repeat: there are actually people out there who think the Nurburgring would be a fun place to ride a bike). Even voluntarily saving a single road somewhere for those of us who actually enjoy driving for its own sake is fascism in its truest form to them. I wish people could be that obsessed with cars and driving, but they never are. I've seen one or two car guys who are that obsessed with their hobby, and one or two cyclists who aren't. It's like what someone else said in another thread, accusing me of thinking the road revolved around me. Well, first, the irony of a bicycle defender saying that is so thick it can almost be physically felt. And second, I never said the road revolved around me. I don't need or want it to. The road never revolved around fast drivers; it was always a method of transit first and being able to go out for a rip late at night while everyone else slept was just a nice side bonus. But non-drivers completely destroy that bonus and quite frequently interfere with "normal" drivers as well. I don't need the road to revolve around me, certainly not me specifically; all I want is for the road to not revolve around non-drivers. There's actually a lot of similarity here to thing car-design trends I complain about, and the difference between "unsporty" and "anti-sporty" - between a car that was not designed to be fun, and a car that was designed to not be fun. Older cars were the former - there were always ugly and boring cars out there, like the 1996 Taurus, but there was always at least a little bit of something there for the enthusiast to draw out, even if it was hidden under several layers of beige and even if only because we didn't yet have the technology to fully get rid of that something. Modern cars, not so much. Lots of power, lots of grip (sometimes), but they're so complicated and so thoroughly "optimized" that there is little left for a tuner - especially of the shade-tree variety - to discover. Maybe if you're lucky, someone will make a few basic bolt-ons for your specific model (though even that is not what it once was), or some big-name tuner will have an "approved" off-the-shelf software package they can install on the ECU. Certainly, you can forget going to the junkyard in search of cross-compatible parts from higher trims or different models. Then you're into the big money, with nothing to be done about the car's surplus heft either. Exteriors, too, have become so thoroughly styled and wind-tunneled that body kits barely exist anymore, except for sports models (usually Japanese or European sports models, and the kits themselves are frequently revolting tack-on-overfender trash as well). In both cases, car enthusiasts have gone from being a periphery demographic to being actively excluded, and in both cases, this has been with the full agreement and support of many car enthusiasts.
Figured out how to lock my phone's image stabilization with a magnet so this style of video turns out halfway decent now. I like the 3.2 V6 in those Cherokees. The 9 speed auto kind of sucks though. After being run back and forth on that road a couple of times the heat began to get to it and it started to get slow to respond while it seemingly fumbled around trying to find a gear. You can also hear the interior rattling from the engine vibration, despite the 3.2 being pretty smooth.
My Jeep WK tried to kill me again. Stalled twice on my 1.5 mile morning commute (25°F this morning. Stalling at an intersecton confused the poor pickup across from me even though I put my hazards on and signalled for him to go), getting 2mpg less since the cold weather started this week, and the thing does not heat up while the car is at idle no matter how early I start (hence the 2mpg loss as I try to figure out how to get the thing warm...) I need to take a look at this thing... But it's 25°F out, I don't want to...
I know that older Jeeps with the 4.0 can have issues from the idle air control valve. I helped replace one last month. Before you replace any parts I would clean the sensors in the intake manifold and throttle body. Good luck fixing it.
It has the 4.7 V8. I know the engine isn't in great shape, the previous owner used it as a beach car and I only paid $2k for it so I haven't really bothered doing more than the bare minimum myself.
Eh, could be worse. My Jeep ZJ is a Florida car in 20°F Ohio winter. The doors don’t open, then they don’t close, then it doesn’t start, and then the transmission shifts 1, 3, 2, slip, 4, 3, 4, converter lock. The horn has had enough and the alarm goes off every time I open the driver’s door, which doesn’t lock. The 5.2 isn’t all that healthy either. It’ll idle so far down to the point where it’ll just stall. And it’s getting 10MPG right now. And come to find out, it’s blowing some sort of noxious gas into the cabin when I have the heat running, so that’s good.
All this talk about cheap used cars here... and I'm sitting here, waiting for the next holiday (probably longest in my life, from mid-May to the start of October) to actually take my driving test in and get a car for college. Damn, I even got the same budget of ~$2k as the folks above me! (P.S. What do you think about the Mazda 6, Mazda 3, BMW E46, Audi A4 B5 and Euro Accord Mk6?)
Ah, driving tests... On my road test the very first turn there was a lady who was stopped in the intersection, out of her car... I start to go around her and the DMV dude gets pissed at me. So I didn't give him a reason to take a single point off after that. Which is good because he took off every point he was allowed to take off for observation and whatever... A friend of mine had a Mazda 3 for his first car. He liked it but found it boring, traded it in after a year for something more peppy.
Probably still less boring than my dad's Corolla, which has a really imprecise gearbox, no-bite clutch and steering feedback mostly based on watching where the turning is taking you. --- Post updated --- What can be done that is not being done?
Following a discussion with @Mullethead , I've had some ideas for how to strengthen PSA-FCA: - Let Lancia and DS die in peace. Sell their cars until they stop selling, and then sell the brands to other corporations. - Make Alfa Romeo a BMW fighter. Dump the RWD C-segment hatchback idea, make a B-segmenmt hatch, C-segment hatch, a C-segment crossover and a B-segment one using FCA underpinnings. Also make a 3-row crossover and a coupe crossover above the Stelvio. - Maserati should become a near-Ferrari brand. The Alfieri needs to be upmarketed nearly to Roma/Portofino levels, the next GranTurismo - nearly to Ferrari's GT level, also upmarket the Levante. Maybe also the Quattroporte if it sells well enough. Drop the Ghibli. - Divide Fiat into the lower (A-/B-segment crossover, B-segment hatch) and higher (500, 500-inspired B- and C-segment car, A-, B- and C-segment crossovers) model range. The lower range would fight Dacia, the higher - replace Lancia. - Drop the idea of selling Peugeots in the States. Maybe sell Opels as a sub-Dodge brand. - Add A-segment crossovers to Fiat's budget and 500 ranges, Citroen's and Opel's offerings (and maybe make a Peugeot 1008 too). - Add a bigger crossover to Peugeot's range, as well as 3-row Citroen and Opel CUVs. -Make a Peugeot coupe-crossover, and maybe also an Opel one, slotting between the 3008/Grandland X and the bigger CUVs. - Drop the Citroen C4 Cactus, make a normal C4. - Keep selling the Citroen minivans as long as they are decently selling. - Apart from the new Challlenger and Charger, add subcompact and compact CUVs to the Dodge range, as well as a Journey semi-replacement (Ithe Journey would still be sold as a cheaper option) and a new Durango. - Jeep is ran pretty well, but they should add a Hemi Wrangler, - Keep selling the Chrysler 300 as long as it sells well, but also add compact, midsize and large crossovers to the range, as well as a middsize coupe-crossover, - Make a midsize Ram truck, and consider making Ram SUVs/crossovers if the market keeps booming. - Add Imperial to the brand range, with a 3-row crossover based on the upcoming Grand Wagoneer, as well as a coupe one on the same platform. - Create a vast hybrid and electric range, with every model except the subcompacts as a hybrid, and the subcompacts and compacts as electric. This is just stage 1, for the early 20s. Stage 2 would involve investment in autonomous technology, large-scale electrification of the range and special EV platforms to get the most of the packaging advancement.
Why would they kill off DS? They have sold boatloads of cars. They already are in terms of platforms and engines, but their infotainment systems suck, and their long held brand reputation for being unreliable doesn't help things. They should, but does the money to do that exist? Once again, they have nice enough engines, they also handle pretty ok. But their in car technology is crap. Typically brand image is important when it comes to selling more expensive cars. Meaning a brand selling more expensive cars typically can't be seen as selling cheaper ones too. The only exception is if they have a really hot product (see Fiat 500, or initially the Citroen DS3 before DS became a sub-brand). Doesn't the C4 spacetourer already fill that gap? How many coupe crossovers do you see on the roads? Are they really that lucrative? (and are the people who are tasteless enough to buy one willing to own a Peugeot? Isn't the main thing that's selling those cars the badge?)
A fraction of what Alfa or the Germans sell in these segments, when you compare the DS4 to the Giulietta and Germans. Though maybe they can be kept for the DS3, just like Lancia for the Ypsilon. But I think the 500 nameplate is stronger, and the DS and Lancia would ultimately have to wither away. The infotainment is improving. Now the product range should do the same, being able to challenge BMW in the quickly growing entry-level premium market. The costs can be recouped on higher prices. Also, Ferrari isn't playing with infotainment, but with image - which can be boosted by adding a car above the Alfieri, and also making some small-series cars like the Ferrari Icona series. Picture things like a low-volume A6C or Tipo 51, and you'll get the deal. And that power of Fiat should be used for profitability purposes. No, it's a minivan. It's not what's hot right now. Someone has to start the idea of affordable prestige, like the incredibly successful midsize personal cars did in the 70s US, in Europe - and Peugeot might just be the right brand for it. Also, if this is tasteless, than all the A5/A7/4-Series/8-Series/MB coupes/etc. are also bought by tasteless people.
The animations run at 2fps, the screen is tiny, the resolution is bad too. Its one of the least slick systems on the market. By almost all other accounts, its a pretty great car. (skip to 0:30) If it had i-drive, and a BMW badge, it would sell in BMW numbers.
