Car appreciation... the aesthetics, the engineering, etc

That's what I like about you Bellezza - you seem to care.

Just thought it was worth saying.

+1 too...

thank you! I do care, at the end of the day, thats what really matters to me, people... ohh and birds...

This one really doesn't cut the mustard.

ketch-up Oliver, you're behind the times.

Now I'm so terribly sorry that some people don't like cars, but at the end of the day, I don't live to please them or anyone. If you want to rant about how all cars are the devil's work then the LCC will be pleased to have you.

Stereotype fail. No, really, even in jest. We're that humourless. ;)

No-one in the LCC is anti-car. A lot of our members have cars and run them. But in the spirit of such an eminently sensible organisation, we focus on the initial wins that we can help enable people to make. For instance, reliable estimates indicate that roughly 50% of car journeys in London are under two miles, by a single non-disabled person without passengers, and carrying no heavy loads. It is reducing this sort of silly car journey on which we have to focus, as it is perfect for cycling. Showing people the positive joy of cycling is mostly what the LCC is about.

Being anti-car is very stupid, as cars are clearly very useful things. Or would you want to drag forty tonnes of concrete around by bike? I wouldn't, and I wouldn't want to get horses or elephants to do the work, either. The problem is not cars but that people don't tend to use them very sensibly. Car over-use certainly has a lot to answer for when it comes to reducing public health, facilitating crime, environmental degradation, and so forth. But recognising these things doesn't mean that one is anti-car.

Much as I'm sure that no-one cares either way, I also have to say that unlike others I don't have a problem with this thread. (I even pointed it out to Michael, who now probably has the most posts in it. He'd never have found it on his own. ;) ) Two car threads in two years is not bad going, is it?

I note with pleasure that the things people have posted on here mostly relate to appreciation of significant car models from the past, as beautiful-looking, or as triumphs of engineering. I would have found it annoying if this had become a thread about, say, everyday commuting by car. (Yes, I know, some troll will probably start posting now about how they commute by car every day. ;P ) But it's not, it's just a bit of fun.

I think many people on here understand very well that there really is little practical point running a car in London, unless you need one for work, for instance, or some other clearly identifiable practical purpose. If like the vast majority of Londoners you only need one occasionally, you're better off car sharing.

A lot of posting in the thread is also about fun driving. Personally, I'd much rather have that than people using cars for commuting all the time and other activities to which they are not suited. Driving them only for fun every once in a while has a much clearer purpose, on closed racetracks for instance, where the danger can be kept under better control. It's often because people can't get that fun driving done that they take to driving too much; it's a replacement activity.

cars were the enemy when i ran into one on the way home. never understand why in the city people accelerate towards red lights and such then brake suddenly, just makes no sense.

Burst speeding arises from a a very simple misunderstanding of speed that is shared by many victims of motor dependence. They spend their miserable days trying to beat the slim odds that they are ever going to get around London fast by car, which is only really possible late at night (and when we were around W1 at around 4am the other night, I have to say, I'd take that back for that area at night--a huge amount of traffic).

To try and beat the odds, they try to burst speed to get a couple of places ahead in the next queue, not realising that (a) London has been going for block signalling for years (queues moved from block to block wherever London's non-Euclidean geometry will allow, hence quite often the next traffic light ahead will go red just as yours goes green), (b) short-distance burst speeding creates more uneven speeds, which in turn leads to more congestion (it takes longer for cars to move off at the front of a queue than to arrive at the back), and (c) they create a lot more road danger and fear of road danger by engaging in these pointless feats of speeding.

I think people brake suddenly because (a) they're not fixed and (b) They don't want to jump the red light. ;) But yes, you're right--they shouldn't race ahead and then have to brake hard.

ketch-up Oliver, you're behind the times.

No problem. :)

or to put it more simply, cars race ahead because they want to get across before the lights turn red, knowing that thanks to Ken they only turn green for a microsecond now. And they brake because they have number plates and cannot just ignore the law like us cyclists.

@Oliver, you may present the acceptable face of the LCC, and I don't wish to get into a debate about it here, but for me the LCC is characterised by its negative, dishonest and prejudiced campaigning. The Hackney group, for example, are trying to get a blanket 20mph speed limit across Hackney, (including the A12 no doubt), using such emotive crap as "Old street on a Friday night is no place to be driving at 30mph" when any fool who goes there can see that nobody actually drives at more than 6mph in Old St on a Friday. Or maybe the LCC that campaigned and still campaign hard against allowing motorcycles in bus lanes despite the obvious proven safety benefits to cyclists (who are the least likely group of road users to be killed on London's streets), pedestrians and motorcyclists (who are the most). Or the LCC who repeatedly peddle the blatant lies that motorcyles account for more injuries to cyclists than cars, when in fact they account for far far less than any other vehicle, (including other bicycles).

40 years old, and have never even started a car up.

Nice one, murtle. Neither have I. I've never had a need to attempt to pass a driving licence, either. I don't really like cars. This is because I have a traumatic memory that no therapy could ever help with. When I was ten, my parents sold our old Volkswagen Beetle, the car they'd had since before I'd been born. And the only car that I will ever recognise as truly beautiful. ;)

I can't believe no-one had posted a picture of a Beetle here yet. Ours was a very similar model to the one above, but from the late 60s and white. I loved it. It was probably crushed years ago. :((((( To add insult to injury, they then bought an Opel Ascona ...

The Volkswagen ('the people's car') was initially a Nazi project for mass motorisation of Germany, but as they'd already pretty much ruined the economy by the time it was ready for production, it didn't take off before the war and never really had a major part in Nazi Germany. During the war, they built military *Kübelwagen *on the chassis and engine. 20-odd million of the regular Beetles were produced after the war in a succession of different models and I think they might still be being produced in Mexico.

Not a performance car but incredibly reliable. I remember us easily going up icy roads in the Taunus (a hilly area near Frankfurt am Main) in the winter to go cross-country skiing while all the front drive cars struggled. I can't remember it ever breaking down.

I hardly miss it now. I've got my bikes <3. But this is my favourite car ever.

Ahh how the past is rewritten.
The VW (or KDFWagen) was a major part of the Nazi party's public posturing, and the savings scheme that was set up so that the German people could pay for one bankrolled the Nazi war effort.

And they are bloody terrible cars by any sensible measure, but that doesn't stop me really wanting a Karmann Ghia.

my very 1st car was a 1967 VW Beetle

My parents had a VW beetle, they took it on a journey across europe to Istanbul but it broke down + they dumped it by the roadside in the Swiss Alps + took the train, hahaha. nice car, though, you still see them about too.

Hello BlueQuinn,

or to put it more simply, cars race ahead because they want to get across before the lights turn red, knowing that thanks to Ken they only turn green for a microsecond now.

actually, you'd find that under Livingstone overall network motor traffic capacity went up by a considerable degree. Surprising that, but largely unnoticed as it's been due to the constant trickle of smaller, seemingly innocuous traffic schemes, such as squeezing in more stacking lanes at junctions, that don't make the headlines.

(I'd need a very long answer to explain where the myth concerning traffic lights/capacity/congestion comes from. It's an interesting one, this, showing a lot about how lay people perceive traffic, and how this sort of thing is exploited by media misinformation.)

The LCC isn't pro-traffic lights, by the way. Under Livingstone, about 1,000 new sets were introduced (in addition to the existing 5,000 or so), which increases stopping chance for pedal cyclists considerably, and has interestingly enough caused red light jumping to overtake footway cycling as the number one bugbear about cycling that people have. We often think that signalisation is an excessive intervention, preferring zebras or de-engineering more generally.

And they brake because they have number plates and cannot just ignore the law like us cyclists.

You did notice that I made pretty much the same point in my earlier post, didn't you? ;)

@Oliver, you may present the acceptable face of the LCC, and I don't wish to get into a debate about it here,

I'm always happy to have a debate, though. One of the keys to it is of course the spirit in which it is conducted. :) Don't feel under any obligation to reply, but I do hope that you find what follows informative.

Before I say anything else, let me assure you that you also don't know the LCC well enough for what you want to say about it. You seem quite angry because of the campaign against motorcycles in bus lanes and 20mph, but unless you can point to other things I'll take it for now that those are our disagreements, OK?

but for me the LCC is characterised by its negative, dishonest and prejudiced campaigning. The Hackney group, for example, are trying to get a blanket 20mph speed limit across Hackney, (including the A12 no doubt)

I'm a proud member of the Hackney group, which is one of the best in London. Come along to one of our meetings sometime (http://www.hackney-cyclists.org.uk/meetings.htm) and I guarantee you that you'd be very surprised. We have extremely competent people in our ranks, and they could show you a lot of things about 20mph that you might not know yet.

For the record, the entire LCC is in favour of 20mph as a default speed limit for London. It is one of the most important policies that we are in no doubt whatsoever need to be implemented **all across **London. And by the way, in Hackney we already have a commitment by the local authority to make all of Hackney's streets under their control 20mph. This does not apply to the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) within Hackney, or to roads controlled by the Highways Agency like I believe the A12 probably is.

I don't think we'd want 20mph on the A12, anyway--that might come close to legitimising the M11 Link Road, as bulldozed through existing communities and against massive local resistance. We'd rather have it scrapped and the land used for housing or parks. It's a blight on the landscape.

using such emotive crap as "Old street on a Friday night is no place to be driving at 30mph" when any fool who goes there can see that nobody actually drives at more than 6mph in Old St on a Friday.

What exactly is your objection to 20mph?

Old Street is merely an example and you could easily substitute many other streets in Hackney. If you really haven't seen people burst speeding in Old Street at night you should perhaps meet the person who wrote the text you're referring to. He happens to have lived just around the corner for twenty years and I bet knows the area much better than you do.

And yes, people do speed like this when they see a short stretch of clear carriageway ahead. 20mph would make them a lot less frustrated, as, ironically, motor traffic would flow more smoothly. And if motor traffic is moving so slowly at peak times that it is unaffected by a sensible limit, anyway, what's wrong with reducing road danger at other times?

(The offending text may also have been written before the introduction of the congestion charge, our campaigning success in making the Shoreditch Triangle at least partly two-way again, and the designation of part of Old Street as part of the Inner Ring Road, when, it is true, speeding was a worse problem. If so, apologies--we've been trying for ages to find time to update our web-site, which is somewhat stuck in the dark pre-CMS ages. Too busy campaigning. ;) )

Or maybe the LCC that campaigned and still campaign hard against allowing motorcycles in bus lanes despite the obvious proven safety benefits to cyclists (who are the least likely group of road users to be killed on London's streets), pedestrians and motorcyclists (who are the most).

Of course we're campaigning against motorcycles in bus lanes. Contrary to what you say, such evidence of 'obvious proven' safety benefits simply doesn't exist. Show it to me if you think it does. (NB if you think the London trials have shown them, you're mistaken.) I can't remember what the thread is called now, but I'm overdue to reply to JerryXT on motorcycles in bus lanes there, as well. I'll post up some more information there.)

You're certainly wrong to say that cyclists are 'the least likely group of road users to be killed on London's streets'. That honour still goes to pedestrians, who vastly outnumber cyclists. It's the rate of collisions that you need to consider, not the absolute numbers.

Don't get me wrong, cycling in London has always been very safe and has in recent years become even safer owing to the very welcome increase in cycling. While cycling attracts a higher risk than walking, both risks are vanishingly small. But that doesn't mean that we can rest on our laurels or just accept policies which will make the climate for cycling worse. I think like others you've probably only heard one side of the story. The issue is actually a lot more complex than most people realise.

I should also point out that we are very much in favour of better safety measures for motorcycling, including, ironically, 20mph, which has positive safety implications for motorcyclists that are proven beyond any doubt. Safety benefits for motorcycles in bus lanes are not. (Show me otherwise if you can.)

Or the LCC who repeatedly peddle the blatant lies that motorcyles account for more injuries to cyclists than cars, when in fact they account for far far less than any other vehicle, (including other bicycles).

You seem to think too strongly in absolute statistics and have probably misunderstood the remarks you seem to be referring to. It is certainly true that the rate of collisions between motorcyclists and pedal cyclists is higher than the rate of collisions between cars and pedal cyclists. In absolute numbers, there is of course a higher number of car-pedal cycle collisions than motorcycle-pedal cycle collisions, as there are far more cars than motorcycles.

The problem isn't even so much between pedal cyclists and motorcyclists as between pedestrians and motorcyclists, as the rate of pedestrian-motorcyclist collisions is even higher.

The typical response of motorcycle advocates is to point to the allocation of blame for collisions, i.e. arguing that if all those collisions in which motorcyclists were subsequently found not to be at fault were subtracted from the total, a very different picture would emerge. I'm sure there is something to this.

However, this line of argument, while it may seem superficially attractive at first, unfortunately leads to pointing up all sorts of other problems in this country--the highly damaging 'road safety' culture, the unjust and inconsistent pattern of traffic legislation, the strange perception that people should not be allowed to make mistakes in traffic (as the consequences of mass utilisation of motorised modes are often so suddenly so serious when that happens) and consequent victim blaming. If we accepted that people have to be divided and at loggerheads in traffic, it may all come out in favour of motorcyclists in the post-event analysis, but the important thing is of course prevention and reduction of road danger at source. In plain English, this means that we don't want crashes to happen in the first place.

It's complex, BlueQuinn, let's keep a sense of perspective about it and share information and debate sensibly without throwing uninformed comments the way of the LCC, OK? I'm not about to insult the motorcycle lobby because of the disagreements we have with their analysis, either. We have a case with which you're not familiar and I recommend that you try having a look at all the evidence first. After all, we are all in traffic together.

Happy whatevercycling!

Best regards,
Oliver.

The circa 1950 Beetles with the split rear windows are pretty nice

Ahh how the past is rewritten.
The VW (or KDFWagen) was a major part of the Nazi party's public posturing, and the savings scheme that was set up so that the German people could pay for one bankrolled the Nazi war effort.

True, mass motorisation was a major plank of Nazi propaganda. You're right to pick me up on forgetting to mention the savings scheme. Few people ever got a Beetle from the Nazis, though.

Ah, didn't Bellezza express an ardent wish to see more pictures of ugly cars? ;P

I reckon nothing beats these for ugliness:

Sorry to any car lovers I may have inadvertently offended. ;)

http://artcar.blogspot.com/

Old Street is merely an example and you could easily substitute many other streets in Hackney. If you really haven't seen people burst speeding in Old Street at night you should perhaps meet the person who wrote the text you're referring to. He happens to have lived just around the corner for twenty years and I bet knows the area much better than you do..

I tend to cycle through Old Street, and the roundabout never failed to scare me, dodgy road, wide lane (making it diffcuilt to position where you should cycle in order to go round), car bursting out of the red light trying to get to the next light before it turn red, it's literally a deathtrap.

i've always loved the Citroen DS

shit man, thank for reminding me, I fucking love that car, saw a cream newer shape one going by on Clerkenwell road with a middle age bloke looking surprisingly relaxed (during rush hours where drivers look like their car just commit buggery in them) with his daughter in the back street, gave him a thumb up for having one.

[quote=Oliver Schick;425301]Ah, didn't Bellezza express an ardent wish to see more pictures of ugly cars? ;P

I reckon nothing beats these for ugliness:

thank you cheeky! no, I didn't but you have surpassed yourself with your post in ugliness .... for some reason- this one really scares me... its so wrong for so many reasons...

sweet dreams now- NOT!~ :]

i've always loved the Citroen DS

one of my mums friends in france had a stupid collection of ds's at 1 point like 30 or 40 of them he was building a custom 1 until he was really badly injured in a motorcycle accident i think he still has about 3 or 4 but cant drive them

My first car... still love them and hope to own another:

1966 XP Coupe

Followed by a Golf VR6 which was awesome fun.

My dad owns a 1962 Ford Thunderbird Convertible, and a 1953 Buick Skylark. Stunning cars.

These are not the exact cars, but the Buick and the T-bird are pretty close in terms of colour, accessories and condition. Sadly my XP was a bit rough

I love the Skylarks!

The Citroen H for ugliness and cute at the same time.

Speaking of Citroen, you remind me of one;

Citroen AX 1.1 (about 60bhp), my first car, heater not working, radio not working, windows doesn't shut properly, and it make a weird sound at 80mph.

it's just about the most fun I ever have in a car more than even the 200bhp Skoda I borrowed, it's fucking light which mean it go almost like a rocket (only 640 kg, lighter than a Charge Plug).

Speaking of Citroen, you remind me of one;

Citroen AX 1.1 (about 60bhp), my first car, heater not working, radio not working, windows doesn't shut properly, and it make a weird sound at 80mph.

it's just about the most fun I ever have in a car more than even the 200bhp Skoda I borrowed, it's fucking light which mean it go almost like a rocket (only 640 kg, lighter than a Charge Plug).

with respect Ed...how can "60bhp" and "rocket" go together referring to the same car? :]