Re: The Truth About Cars - \"The Truth About Diesel
On his site:
"The continued existence of The North American International Auto Show is the best example of carmakers’ inability to accept and accommodate the enormous technological changes that have swept society. Let’s face it: it’s a dead show walking. Why would anyone other than industry-types on expense accounts fight the crowds, eat horrendous food and PAY to look at a parked car when they can see the same machine driving on their desktop?"
What the heck? I'm sorry, but you can not declare yourself to be a car "expert" if you think auto-shows are useless. "Desktop" pictures can NEVER replace a real-life view of a vehicle. And it isn't just to see cars that are in production (one can do this by going to a dealer), it is also to see new ideas and concepts. Seeing three shots of the Beetle Ragster DOES NOT suffice. Automobile manufacturers also use the shows to judge public reaction to certain concepts. One can disagree with some of the uses of auto-shows, but saying they are worthless is a mistake.
I'm sorry, he just sounds too full of himself and his own ideas. I'm drawing parallels to him and Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, people who love to tell you "the truth" and how "things are" based on their not-so-extensive knowledge about certain things. Ignoring true scientific data and widely proven facts, they pronounce their own viewpoints as the real facts, anyone who disagrees immediately becomes senseless. Lets not "face it" and lets keep our heads out of the sand about the "true" multi-dimensions of every industry and social situation. This "technological" sweep (which in itself is a huge generalization, what EXACTLY is he talking about? what has changed so much outside of "technology" in general) has nothing to do with the success of automobile shows.
He isn't a car expert and I find it disappointing that he owns "thetruthaboutcars.com". His site is just so wrong! I suggest reading the pieces "Square to be Hip" and "Death to the stick shift"...let me just give you some excerpts from the latter piece:
"Of course, the last feature is actually a traditional manual transmission and clutch ... Today's manual clutch is the same antiquated system that's been around for the last 100 years, and it's a fundamentally unsafe way to control a car"
What is this "fundamentally" word that is so loosely thrown around?
"Listening to the engine can distract the driver from important auditory stimuli (e.g. approaching emergency vehicles), while watching the tachometer removes his eyes from the road. At the same time, neither foot is available for instantaneous braking."
No. Just on that last point, are you braking with your left foot for "instantaneous" braking while leaving your right foot "instantaneously" on the accelerator? Wouldn't this hinder your slowing progress? Don't drive with two feet, eh?
By this article, my best thoughts are that he doesn't know how to drive a stick AND he tried, and failed. He has concluded from his not very extensive research that stick-shifts are unsafe...(note the lack of european statistic, many more cars sold with standards than automatics. does that mean that all of europe is unsafe?)
Whatever....enough from me...
cevans
(PS the rant about those two journalists isn't a politically associated one. I'm quite conservative myself but those two still drive me crazy!)
