Linas.P

What does that change? You have decided that in real driving conditions you do, the ES provides you with reasonable compromise between handling can comfort. That may be true to you, actually I am sure it is true to you. But this is not about you... it is about how the car stacks against other cars in the market. When it comes to reliability we know how it stacks - it is pretty much the best and it seems you are happy to take this. But in handling (forget about comfort or what you do) it is not the best - why can't you just admit it?

Ok fair enough, but you do agree that Porsche 911 can do the same bend at 120MPH? That maybe BMW 530e can do it at 90MPH as well? So there you have it - journalists have to compare cars handling somehow. They don't say you have to take the bend at 120MPH and I don't, that would be illegal, but it is still fact that ES would handle worse than other "cars in it's segment" in such situation (to begin with it would not be able to even reach 120MPH). So there simply is car ranking from best handling to worst handling, as it happens Lexus ES300h for the 2019 model in £40k price range handles worse than most comparable cars Lexus chosen to compare itself with. Nobody says it is not safe to drive, or that you going to understeer into the ditch at 50MPH. And as for other slowing down where you don't... maybe they are incompetent drivers, or maybe they are 15 years old car, or maybe their tyres are poor, or maybe they are in econo-box with skinny tyres. I am sure bran new Lexus on brand new tyres should not have issue taking a bend at 50MPH, that is just way too low bar for any new luxury car. And where my example may be reductio ad absurdum, then you decided to constrict yourself to arbitrary limit to prove the point - so it is both cherry picking and fallacy defines fallacy. And I agree with you, but then doesn't it make ES "below" average? If Mazda 6 does it better being whole segment and price point below ES? I have no doubt most of BMW handle better as well. And let's not forget Lexus wrongly advertised ES as 5-Series competitor. Would they have advertised it as VW Arteon competitor, maybe it would handle better and thus would be above average? Remember that nothing exists in isolation. I am sure that if ES would be single car in the world, then it would be best handling car, but it isn't and as long as there are cars handling better, it can't be best.

Exactly my point. I long said that cyclist in my opinion must go thought at least high level course. Not like driving test, but like a vocational course or presentation. I know some do, but it isn't mandatory. As well I think kids at school should have "road safety" lessons, before they start studying math and other stuff. I mean we did have road safety subject when I was going to primary school and it was quite detailed - I believe it was once a month for whole year, with practical exercises, paramedics or police officers coming to give presentation and then at the end visiting "road safety museum" with quite "graphical" content from accidents and stories of injuries and similar. I mean it wasn't the pictures of brain on pavement, I think there was one with body covered in blanket. It was shocking for me as a kid, but now I really appreciate it a lot, it was just and appropriate level making us to respect the road. Not hate drivers, not learn our "rights", just respect the force of metal moving at 30MPH+. I just wish we had that course repeated maybe when we were 16 and just about to get into first cars, just to remind of dangers and with more mature content. It is one thing to look at it with 7 years old brain and different when you at least teenager. These "I have a rights statements" are just silly - tell that to the sea next time in the storm... I am sure "it will cry you a river". Nowadays everything is just about "rights, rights, rights" and when it comes to responsibilities it is "pfff... we let somebody else be responsible". And as for the drivers that is exactly my point. I do agree that drivers takes liberties sometimes, but they at least knows the rules and consequences. So all in all driver follows the rules say 90% of the time, some may argue 70% of the time... fine. But to be able to follow the rules you must at least know them. Cyclists and pedestrians, unless they have driving license - I would say maybe only 10-20% knows the rules and most of the time they disregard them. I really don't understand how drivers can be held responsible for the group of people who in most cases don't even know the rules and even less follows them.

And that is exactly what review said. Isn't it? Yes and that is Lexus fault - they advertised it as competitor to this segment. It isn't and it get's compared against wrong cars. As well they called it sporty and has this silly "F-Sport" pack on the car which has nothing to do with sporty. Again that sets wrong baseline, wrong impression, wrong comparison and wrong review. Really the only other car in this segment is VW Arteon, maybe to extent A6 in lower specs, or A5 saloon, or old good VW Passat. As well, Audi A6 (current model) was called least reliable car, so there is fair share of negative press. As for reviews - reviewers can't estimate how reliable the car will be, so it is impossible expectation. Although, it would be fair to point out that almost every review I have seen the presenters literally said "this is Lexus, so it will last forever", so even if they don't say Audi will fall apart (because they can't), they do mention that Lexus is reliable. There is not such thing as "handling at speed limit". Are you saying because I live in 20MPH zone, then I should look at how car handles at 20MPH? Because if that would be the case, then there will be no difference between 911, Fiesta or indeed ES, I am sure they can more than handle corner at 20MPH! No - handling is absolute, speed limits disregarded, you take car to twisty road or track and see how it "handles". Some cars handles well and are predictable, exciting to drive etc. Some others are not. ES isn't. And I don't think he said it handless poorly - he said it is FWD car and "it plainly wasn’t designed to set any cornering speed records. Or raise the hairs on the back of your neck". And that is true.

It is rather hypothetical scenarios and attribution of intent which you want to hear. Look at my first post - I said that I don't see like new rules are that much different from what we had. I knew that when turning to side road or at junction pedestrians who are crossing have right of way to continue crossing and I never had any issue to wait for them to do so. What I have issue is with new undefined condition of "waiting", what exactly "waiting" means? As I said - based on Highway code pedestrians have to stop and look around before crossing, if that is what "waiting" means then I will stop when I see somebody on the end of the pavement looking around. And that what Highway Code says. In country where I have learned to drive rules actually says that all edges of junction are equivalent to pedestrian crossing and doesn't need to be marked. That is way better explanation of the rule, because for car drivers it is clear they have to stop, because it is pedestrian crossing and pedestrians have to follow the same rules - "stop, look around, make sure car stopping, before stepping in". But there are 2 problems here - first, in my experience no pedestrians ever look around or stop, so they don't "wait" and second... there are people who believe that "waiting" could mean "walking towards the road, but still several metres away from it" and according to them I have slowing down just seeing that pedestrians is walking towards the road. Even worse some drivers thinks this too and may randomly start braking for pedestrians who don't even intend to cross the road. I mean they are clearly confused as there is nothing about that in the rules and just proves my point that "waiting" need to be defined further. Now you as well add hypothetical scenario, which has nothing to do with the rules we discussing - what if they kids (actually rules says parents are responsible), what if they blind deaf, old, mentally incapacitated etc. Sorry I don't know - rules do not define that. I can't know that from inside of the car if they deaf etc. Perhaps it comes under the advise for pedestrians - "help for people in need". I said - I won't bother to figure out and slow down, but specifically when people are still far away from the road. The way you interpreted it (I am sure deliberately) - is that I won't slow down when I see pedestrian crossing the road and just run them over. That is misconstruction.

People seems to read into it what they want to hear. Isn't this exactly what Clarkson said?! He said it is good car, excellent build quality, comfortable - but not exciting and rather boring - befitting the world we living in, where we can't drive fast because ecomentalists and speed cameras etc. And here you basically say the same thing, highlighting that you don't care about handling, speed, excitement, because you can't drive any faster when stuck in traffic, which Clarkson said is exactly what car lacks and that for owners it does not matter. I just can't see how this was negative review?! It seems people feel entitled to hear only cheesy and sweet things and get upset about objective review. It seems that expectation is - "I have paid £40k for new car, so I expect to read it is best car ever made and I made absolutely the best choice and it is just amazing", the sort of thing 70 years old aunt who has no clue about cars would say. But as soon as there is balanced review, pointing out both positives and negatives, they get enraged and only focus on negative comments saying it was "negative reporting", despite actually agreeing that the reason they bought the car was that they only care about positives and they don't actually care for those negatives.

Yes and for that reason you need to take care about yourself first, before expecting others to care for you - they don't, just a fact. At least I am honest enough to admit it. As well thanks for misconstruction my statements again - nothing new, it seems you like to do that quite a bit.

Sadly I don't have access to whole article and I would not pass the judgement on just few quotes from what he said, however from what little I was able to read on Sunday Times without subscription I thought that his comments were spot on and rather fair. He said that unlike other cars this one was not made to shock anyone and it is rather subtle and implied it was not made for "speed and handling and lashings of rip-snorting exhaust noises"... which is exactly the case. Yes absolutely ES300h is boring car, maybe Clarkson didn't even drive it, but I did and it is exactly that. I was just comfortable, very Toyota like (well made, but not fancy) car with few Lexus badges. There was nothing offensive about it, but nothing exciting either. The next quote - "the perfect car for people who simply don’t care about attributes such as performance, handling and fun" - spot on. If I would be picked-up in one by cab driver I would be very happy, but I wouldn't want to drive one myself... ever. Quite importantly it is not comparable to say BMW 5-Series, because it isn't "sports" saloon, basically take BMW 5-series remove everything sporty and driver focused away, make it 4 times more reliable and you have yourself ES. The belief that Clarkson hates Lexus comes from TG worst car of the century nomination for SC430. I disagree with them on this one, but I do see where they coming from. The styling at the time was questionable, inclusion of back seats was questionable and for the price it cost new it was bad deal. When we look at it from perspective of 10 years old flagship car which sells under £10k and it is completely reliable with minimal effort - that is good value for money. If one would have been asked to pay like £60k for it new in 2002 - that was definitely poor deal. Apart of that Clarkson really only ever looked at very few Lexus cars - mocked LS600h for not working self-parking, IS-F review was rather fair from new car buyer perspective, but again didn't aged well just because of Lexus reliability (which new car buyers don't care about), RC-F was Lexus own fault - they advertised it as competitor for M4 (sport coupe), which it wasn't, it was rather competitor for E-Class coupe (GT car). GS-F he liked, just because it was genuinely good alternative to M5. If anything I think it is Lexus fault that by trying to shake off "old-people" brand sticker, they tried too hard to market their cars as sport cars they are not. Same for ES - they try to sell it as alternative to 5-Series, then people and press looks into it as sport-saloon it isn't and they get wrong impression.

That is doubly true if you pedestrian or cyclist, not protected by 14 airbags and metal frame.

Yeah, this annoys me as well. IS250 is nice comfortable car, but just lacks a bit of power - I would have gone for IS350 and later RC350 myself. On other hand IS-F/RC-F already has too much power as daily car in my opinion and running cost reflects it. 350 would just right size engine which I can use and enjoy, whereas I would almost never be able to use 5L V8 potential. I did have very negative view towards automatics as well, but that was before I driven IS250 and moved into London. All older automatics I had really sucked and my opinion was that they are slow in changing gears, poor economy etc. But around that time ~2006 autos really took manuals in terms of efficiency and gear changes are fine, not fast but certainly faster than most people can shift manual.

Well... Yes it does and kind of doesn't - components are similar and many are the same, but it has wider track and various suspension changes, geometry different - IS-F has wider track in front than it does in the rear and that is opposite to IS250/350, IS-F is as well few inches longer. Besides early IS-Fs ride very harsh, at least consensus on IS-F section was that 2008-2009 cars have harsh ride and damping was changed in 2010 and 2011 which improved ride quality considerably.

I can read the rules and they are in plain English, so no need to consult any authorities. Even thought it is not my first language highway code is pretty straight forward. Sometimes I disagree with what it says, sometimes I don't like it and sometimes, but those are the rules and I follow them. However, sometimes there are things which are plainly stupid - like including term "waiting" which is undefined, vague and thus confusing. However, I am not making my own rules like you are and I am not including non-existent context between the lines. I really don't know where you got such attitude and who indoctrinated you, but I have better things to do than babysit pedestrians who can't even be bothered to look around before crossing (frankly highway code does not require me to do it either). Pedestrians are the ones who should look around and make sure that it is safe to cross. There is this "exception" around junctions and I never said I have an issue to wait for pedestrian to cross if they already started crossing. However, because it is impossible to tell when they are "waiting" to cross, I won't slow down and I won't bother figuring it out. In short pedestrian does not exist to me before their foot crosses the line between pavement and the road. And when they do, it doesn't give them right of way automatically so I won't necessarily stop.

I may not understand the concept, but it seems you don't know how to read at all.

Don't really see anything wrong with that, because it was the car which came along side you. The issue with is other way around... when car is indicating and slowing down for the turn before the junction and bicycle comes along side and starts undertaking.

1. Clearly you haven't even bothered to read those rules before making such foolish claim. Just read section for pedestrians and you will see, that pedestrians have long list of responsibilities which are in direct contradiction to this "waiting to cross nonsense". You common sense is just wrong and as for empathy, I only have that to people who did everything right, but still got hurt (that is indeed unfortunate), but I have no empathy for idiots who can't even look around before crossing the road. 2. Yes on the road in front of you, or on the road in which you turning into... not on the pavement 2 metres from the kerb. What happens on the pavement doesn't concern me the slightest and it shouldn't concern anyone. Look at the road in front of you for optimal safety. I hate the drivers when they start looking to the sides of the road where they shouldn't be looking and then crash into the car right in front. Safe driving requires concentration and not babysitting pedestrians who may or may not be "waiting" to cross. 3. No you don't and I won't. You confusing what is known as "hazard perception" test with the Highway code. Yes it is fact that people can emerged behind parked cars or from blind spots, there is risk it may happen. So caution needed. I personally not overly cautions, certainly not good place to be speeding or having argument with the girlfriend, but I look into it this way - if some idiot runs into the road and dies... sad, but that is on them.

Not sure you have provided any objective argument apart of your own opinion. That is fine - we can both have our own opinions, but it neither makes me wrong nor you right. Suggestion that driver with limited view, multiple blind-spots and muted sounds could look around the junction whilst traveling at ~30MPH, controlling the car, indicating, looking at traffic lights, signs and following other rules is ridiculous and requires superhuman perception. Not to mention there could be dozens or hundreds of pedestrians all doing random things. However, suggestion that pedestrian with perfect 270 degree+ view and clear 360 degree hearing can stop for split second from what is probably around 3MPH and just look around for their own safety, before blindly stepping into the road is just common sense (which you clearly don't have). What you said is typical blind entitlement and expectation for rights without duties or responsibility. As well I love how you ignore the rules which are against your "belief": https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/rules-for-pedestrians-crossing-the-road.html Rules for pedestrians are quite explicit and includes all the things I have mentioned: Choose right spot (this would really help for Doog) Stop Make sure you can see approaching cars Look around Listen When it is safe - only then cross There are no BS expectation for safety or for drivers to care for you.

Not really... There were situation where I was "brave" or stupid... and where I decided that I want to cross the road more than being safe and alive... and therefore I have decided to run in front of vehicle instead of waiting few more seconds. So that is on me. There were few situations where car was not indicating, but just turned right into me and I had to jump out of the way. So that is on them. As well I note that you brush it of under excuse "car was speeding"... it may be true, but not an excuse. It is pedestrian responsibility to make sure it is safe to cross... regardless of speed of the vehicle. You can't just assume they driving at the limit. If it was speeding and you assumed it wasn't then your judgement was wrong. Speeding is not your problem - there is police to sort this out (you in particular should know better)... I have made such mistake as well, especially because driving with headlights on is not mandatory in UK (and it is proven that this makes it harder to estimate speed of the car). But again I would count that as my mistake in estimating. But I honestly have never been in situation where I was waiting to cross the road, looked around, decided it is safe, started crossing and then car just appeared out of "nowhere". Just doesn't happen to me. If you were in such situation, then you doing something wrong. It seems majority of British pedestrians were briefed in Ho Chi Minh City as well 😄

Maybe history which isn't censored? Although I would not be surprised if Spanish pupils miss out on fellow Spaniards deeds in South and Central America. How they massacred Inca, Maya and Aztec... However in Spain's defence that was 15th-16th century, maybe early 17th Century. The world was quite different back then and we were still burning "witches" back home. So I see how somebody could have forgotten about it. In UK case there are still living first hand survivors... since 1952-1963... so it is hard to believe it was simply forgotten or not relevant today..

Sorry, I have looked to wrong graph... in 2010 Norway only made 40% of hydro electricity, but by now it is 90%+ https://www.planete-energies.com/en/medias/saga-energies/history-energy-norway

If you were about to step into the road, then they should not given you the way and that will continue not to be the case even in new rules - few steps ... how far is that? 2 metres? So you were long way away from the kerb and you expected car to stop... why? It is not how it works. Let's start from pedestrian own responsibilities - pedestrian should stop at the side of the road, look both ways and only start crossing when safe. If pedestrian is not yet on the side of the road (literally with foot on the kerb), or if they have not looked around, then they are not crossing the road and should not expect cars to stop or even slow down. Motorists who are skittish and brakes at every sight of pedestrian 10 meters away from the kerb drives me mad as well, not to mention they confuses pedestrians as well. Nobody has an issue with letting pedestrians finish crossing the road, even if it is slightly annoying because by definition this means pedestrian started crossing without making sure it was safe. The issue is with vague language used, specifically "waiting" to cross, and in practice that is nearly impossible to tell. Sure when I am on foot, then one would know if I am waiting because I would stop right on the corner and look in the direction of oncoming car trying to make eye contact with the driver to try to somehow convey this intent... but pedestrians like that are exception, most are stuck in their phone and it is absolute guesswork to figure out what they do next. Now I understand in the spirit of the law, what they meant by "waiting" is this point where pedestrian has stopped and is looking around... however there is massive issue here. This rule assumes pedestrians will do what they must, but majority pedestrians don't ever stop and even fewer look around. So realistically there is never such thing as "waiting". Literally today I have seen pedestrian who was crossing the pedestrian crossing through red (for him) and ambulance was driving with lights, but without sirens (doesn't need it because it was green). The pedestrian stepped into the road probably 20m in front of speeding ambulance and the ambulance then slowed down and turned on sirens. The guy was looking at his phone, got scared by sirens and then slowly finished crossing after flipping-off the ambulance and ambulance was waiting!

Yes... I was very surprised with the statement, because Netherlands is flat country and most of it is under sea level - not ideal conditions for hydroelectric. Norway is big on hydropower, but even they only have 40% of energy needs covered, so not 30x times.

I was thinking along the lines of MB SLK 300 manual and put 300 SL "Gullwing" bodyshell on it 😄

I think when it comes to historic fact your position is incomprehensible. The statement was made in a way to show European deaths compared to British, why would I include soviets who are non-Europeans, same reason why I have not included axis as those were the guys basically causing the deaths. As for "great empire"... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/worst-atrocities-british-empire-amritsar-boer-war-concentration-camp-mau-mau-a6821756.html https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/apr/23/british-empire-crimes-ignore-atrocities I sadly can't quote the information in articles so you have to read it yourself, not that I am afraid of the facts but because after making it appropriate to read there would be little of content left: I would question how widespread aforementioned techniques were and I would like to believe these are highlights and isolated cases. But just a fact we know about them and it was of British doing in "peace time", think about untold horrors throughout the entire history of empire. This is not nazi concentration camps, or animal like soviet soldiers let lose in war ravaged country side. This is the "Great" British Emprise in 1954 we are talking about. I am sure those on receiving end were "enlightened". Sorry for dark turn and content which has questionable relevance in automotive forum, but I just want to be clear that I don't make opinions out of nothing. Maybe let's stop here?

It is hard to debate when you can't even read single sentence right 😄 I think I was very clear in my previous post so I don't have much more to add, besides we are reaching the foremost limits of out of topic universe already, so I stop here.

Absolutely, but history told by the victorious is by definition doctored and falsified - basically definition of propaganda and indoctrination. When I make my historic assessment I specifically exclude and account for any such bias and look into it as it was factually, not how it was told by winners. Just to throw in some stats - total death by Europeans in WW2 excluding soviets and axis powers were 10 million dead, for UK - 485 thousand... and I say "10 million"... actually it was 10 million 685 thousands... so the rounding error on European deaths is more than total UK deaths. You know who as well lost 400 thousand lives? Lithuania.. country of 2.5 million... as a proportion of the population this is second largest in the world (14%) and only surpassed by Poland which lost 5.9 million (17% of population), UK - 0.49%. And sure total deaths are not equivalent to the impact nation had on the war, but it puts things in perspective. So when I hear that - "UK was the one beating nazis" I don't exactly believe this.