Ehh, it’s a winter beater. It came out fairly unscathed surprisingly... well, save for the horrible shaking caused by all the packed mud in the rims. It’s raining today so that’s all washed out now. And yeah, I’m just fine. Wasn’t really going all that fast. Maybe 25-30 MPH.
Assuming you mean the "old" Beetle, they're extremely simple cars. Very reliable if properly maintained, easy to repair and upgrade. If you know what you're doing you can remove and reinstall the entire engine in about half an hour.
And there are companies still producing parts for them. Don't know if there's anyone making new blocks though (probably is, haven't checked) and some of the Subaru engines can be persuaded in if not. --- Post updated --- Checked, replacement pretty much everything is available. You could probably assemble a beetle entirely from aftermarket parts
Right, because the fools who take as much space in a subcompact as a good driver in a box van don't exist.
If they want to ride on a given road, well then they have a right and it flatly doesn't matter if drivers have to self-restrict in onerous ways just to keep them alive. But then if there's a separate path for nonmotorized traffic, and pedestrians start taking over/being annoying on that path, then the pedestrians are an obnoxious problem and, usually, an excuse to forget the alternative exists and keep riding on the road. In other words, to certain people, "a slower, more vulnerable mode of transit is ruining my experience" is always a valid complaint when made by a bicyclist, but never when made by a driver. But more than that, it's like they genuinely just cannot understand that it is no longer 1898 and horses/bicycles (usually bicycles) no longer rule everything by default. If a bicyclist is in a driver's way, then the driver needs to slow down and use less lateral space. If a pedestrian is in a bicyclist's way, then the pedestrian needs to get out of the way. It sounds more like you unironically believe that drivers should just happily and willingly stick to the exact center of their lane by default, and don't care about the rest.
What's keeping drivers outside center? Are you serious? Why should they be forced to stay in the exact center? For what it's worth, I agree with them about the pedestrians on NMT paths... or at least I would, if they weren't doing the exact same thing on the road!
Exactly. Why would anyone - especially anyone who calls themselves a car enthusiast - see this as a good thing?
Yeah... always the same thing. Just for once I'd love to see find a "car-guy bicyclist" who puts the car-guy part first, but it seems I will forever be disappointed. You ask why cars should rule everything by default. I ask you, why should bicycles still rule everything by default?
Because cars already have the roads built for them? Because there is room for cycles on the road? Because they are a more efficient form of transport?
I like cars and bicycles, and I think that bikes have no place in lanes of travel unless it is on residential roads with sub 30 mph speed limits. Bikes should stick to bike paths, bike lanes, and the shoulders of the road. If those are not an option then they should stay on the far right side of the lane or off the side of the road if possible. That being said, I live in Florida, meaning that the roads can be drawn with rulers on a flat table to make a topographical map. There are almost no blind corners, no blind crests, or any other obstructions to visibility. It is incredibly stupid to ride bikes on mountain roads (not that I have ever seen such thing), but I am ok with it as long as they are going the speed limit downhill, and being as safe as possible when going uphill without getting in the way.
Oooooor you could get a motorcycle, which is just a bike but faster, and if it's the environment you're concerned about, they make electric motorcycles. Plus now you get to be a cool biker and not a stuck-up hipster. If you're going to be a bicyclist, fine, just don't be an asshole about it.
