Linas.P

Cars and bicycles simply could not safely share the same road, that is why there are pavements for pedestrians, that is why cars don't share train tracks, that is why trains don't drive on the airstrips, that is why you don't see pedal boats in busy ports leisurely paddling in between massive cruise and container ships. There is time and space for everything, but not necessary everything could happen at the same time in the same space. The idea that slow and light bicycle propelled by human own muscle strength could safely share the same space with car which is more than 10s times heavier, 100s of times more powerful and much faster is just fundamentally flawed. Result of this flawed idea is cyclist causalities... and they are not caused by drivers, they caused by flawed concept, flawed idea and as result flawed infrastructure. When was the last time cyclist was killed by the car when riding on the pavement? or cycling path in forest? or by the beach? Never... because cars don't drive there. The issue is not "bad and angry drivers", the whole idea that somehow drivers should be responsible for the safety of cyclists is just stupid. It just shows that the way the roads are designed is not safe... so why do we design and build unsafe roads in the first place, maybe that is where we should start looking first!? This whole blaming each other thing is merely looking into symptom of the problem, but not the underlying cause. So it is not the drivers who needs to change, it is the roads which needs to change - the only solution is separating these 2 incompatible vehicles - like cars don't drive on pavements, cyclist should not drive on the roads. And suddenly there are no issue - car simply can't kill the cyclist if cyclist is not in the way. And what if there are no pavements, or no dedicated cycling lanes... well then there should be!

Exactly.

Yes that sounds about right - D4S Xenon bulbs costs in this range ~£60-140, but they last 5-10years, so the price isn't bad all things considered. When it comes to replacement everyone seems to love (and I personally have good experience) with Osram Nightbreakers. They are improvement over what OEM has to offer, but expect to pay about the same price - they won't come cheaper.

Unless somebody maybe needs to get to work, or go to buy some food, or reach customer at set-time on the set day. For pleasure sure if one can avoid each other is nicer for both cyclists and motorists, but I am not sure why cyclist feel entitled to deny public road to the public and even be smug about it? Somebody sent me this meme and I think it illustrates the situation quite well (who have not seen the movie Captain Phillips may not understand):

I think this is oversimplification. If we look at average mileage of British driver ~10000 miles/year, that makes it ~45miles day. Secondly, not every BEV has realistic range of 260 miles (https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/electric-cars-best-real-world-range_). So average driver most likely going to need to charge their car every other day. Charge points are not available at my work, nor at most railway station car parks, most supermarkets don't have fast charging points (with exception of Tesla superchargers). So this means every other day you will have to waste 30 minutes of your life, spending time in the supermarket buying stuff you don't need whilst waiting for your car to charge. I agree that in future when technology improves (especially charging speed and not so much the range), this may not be an issue, but curranty this is absolutely an issue and owning BEV without ability of charging at home makes no sense. Further, charging in the public charge points although cheaper than petrol still works out 10 times more expensive than doing it at home, so by not having facilities at home one would loose any economical benefit of having BEV. But you know what is funny... that is actually the most environmentally friendly way. Yes diesel sucks in the city, but for long journeys, high and consistent speed on motorway, they are still the way to go.

I really like the double standards as well... - enthusiastically driving the car on country lane - "maniac", racing bicycles or preparing for tournament when blocking all the traffic ... "well that is completely fine". If you overtake - "you have done it too close and to fast and you are killer", don't overtake when there was "plenty of space'"- it is apparently "frustrating when they feel you behind them, " - damn if you do damn if you don't.

I was about to make a joke about it, but all things considered maybe that is bad idea....

Just to be clear... the comment was directed towards me and imaginary minister in the joke suppose to take fun of me, not to offend Scottish. In the comment it is very clear that it concerns fictional person in fictional setting. I am certainly not offended by it and apart of that I think the joke is now being taken far outside of the original scope. I appreciate that other people may have difference sensitivities, but humour cannot be taken literally nor to be censored... whatever was said was not meant to offend anyone and calling coincidence in the names racist is step too far. If joke is funny let's have a laugh, if it isn't then let's find another one - there is no point to look for any hidden meaning and take an offence.

wait... did I say I set it on fire.... no no no - it just randomly engulfed itself... don't know what happened 🤐

I think you meant to say ... any motorists. Cyclists and walkers, and horse-riders... all think that motorists who pays dearly for driving on those roads are as well the the ones who least deserve to use them 🤐

"car of the price"... what was that Linas?! 😁 fixed.

Set it on fire ... how else? 😁

I don't think it is entirely to do with a wealth (probably indirectly). BEVs are more common because there is huge tax advantage to have them, especially if you getting one via company. Now where wealth comes in - one at very least needs to have a drive (to be able to charge BEV) and people who tends to live in houses with drives are generally more wealthy than modern slaves who lives in large blocks and share single parking space with 10 neighbours. But it is not the price of the car which shows the wealth, rather the access to necessary facilities for BEV.

Valid question .... and why do we allow pension funds to be in tax heavens as well?!

Not much to explain - RC200t just has terrible engine and I didn't like it. Lexus UK does not sell any cars which would satisfy me, so I don't really have a choice. On the bright side I can't remember when I needed to drive anywhere, so having a car became much less relevant.

I don't drive a Lexus anymore and as for living in UK... that is complicated 😁

On paper it was identical 4GR-FSE making same 204 or 205hp, same gearbox, extra 150kg weight. But I think you are right, it must be something to do with emissions, when I tired mk3 it just didn't feel as fast or responsive - it shows less CO2, so maybe some emission equipment was changed and despite it making same peak power, it is entirely possible that power curve was different e.g. maybe it was same at ~ 3800RPM, but maybe it was 20-30hp down at say ~2000RPM which would result in it feeling slower.

My only reservation about above - innocent party may end-up loosing more money than they get from compensation. And here I am talking from personal experience - over 8 years I have insurance in UK I have paid £11300 for insurance, 3-non fault accidents... averaging £380 for repair (insurance estimates were ~3k, but that has nothing to do with reality), all 3 times it was scratch on the bumper. Now it is hard to say by how much the accident increased my insurance, but I know that when I got RC200t and got quote for £800, it was later adjusted to £1400 when insurance figured out I had non-fault accidents and were quite upset for me not telling it, despite comparison site saying "claims". So let's assume single accident increased my insurance by around 10% and I had them for 5 years, 4 years and 2 year respectively. This calculates to £1090 increase for non-fault accidents. Repair bill being £1140, this means that having insurance vs. not having it made me poorer by £10160... and even where it was not my fault insurance recouped almost everything by increases in premium on following years. That is why when you have small technical accident is better just to try to agree with another party in private as that overall will reduce the cost for both parties compared to having it declared to insurance. Isn't that defeating the purpose of having insurance in the first place? I mean sure this is nothing more than theoretical discussion - we can't do anything about it anyway... The rest is pretty much on point...

Lexus Extended warranty strikes again... The seat actually makes sense as a warranty job... but shock absorbers?! Or transmission oil pump on 100k miles car?! I mean it is really unbelievable that things like shock absorbers are covered, any other warranty would have them under "wear and tear" and I assume shock absorbers are the most expensive part here.

No I still don't think it is comparable... Bank does no care how old, young you are, or where you live, does not care if you alone, have kids or family and most importantly if you choose not to have account you won't get fined. It is truly free market and free choice. Sure if you want loan, then it is different story.. but you are not required to take loan by law either. And I know you are joking, but person obviously cannot just become older, not everyone can just move "north". But the key difference is that one is required to have insurance by law, but not required to have bank account...

no... it is 0-60 which isn't really even correct, because it was calculated from 8.4s 0-62, which in itself little bit optimistic. The outright 0-60 is just a benchmark, it does not tell much about how car does it... but that is exactly the point. Not only IS300h is much slower on paper and in reality, but as well it delivers that power in much worse way. Now I agree that different people will have different needs and for some 8s to 60 will be plenty, for some other it may not be enough. I always look into acceleration as a safety margin - I would rather have car which can do 0-60 in 5s and never use it, than have car which is much slower and have no option to use it when needed. I think the key point here is the what OP is focusing on... IS300h has plenty advantages over IS250 - it is more modern, it is more fuel efficient, it think it probably handles better and has better chassis (especially F-sport), BUT performance is certainly and significantly worse. So if somebody comes and say - "look guys I don't care about performance, I just want comfortable, reliable and dependable car"... absolutely IS300h is good choice. But if person comes and say "I am not sure I will be happy with performance"... then right away IS300h is not good option. Now fair to say this "line" will be different for different people, for me IS250 was already borderline slow, the smoothness and the sound of the engine made it feel faster than it is and I was able to live with it... but any slower and I would have called it sluggish. Given I choice I would have had IS350, because at ~300hp and 6s 0-60 that would be perfect for me. So my perspective is that IS250 was already just acceptable. I think the key is that mk3 IS250 are very rare and thus much more expensive, mush higher road tax and in effect same car as mk2 IS250 as far as performance is concerned. Actually, IS250 mk3is slightly slower because it is heavier. So I guess the answer is - why pay 4 times the price if you could have 90% of the same car for 25% of the cost? Other big consideration - for nearly the same price as mk3 IS250, you can get mk4 GS450h.... and that is all around much better car, better build, better equipped, better performance, lower tax...

Are you saying I should have some sort of a list for Christmas? 😁

In some countries even higher... I know accounts with negative interest and you still have to pay service fees! At such rate I may as well keep it under the pillow myself...

But let's look into bright side... we are not forced to bank with any bank and pay thousands against our will. In the end of the day we can keep cash under the pillow and nobody can say anything!

IS300h never meant to be quicker than IS250, not even on paper and in real life it is significantly slower. Official time for IS250 was 8.4s 0-62 or 8.2s 0-60 (same as for 300h), but the real times are closer to ~7.5s, whereas IS300h actually does what it says it does ~8.4-8.6s. https://accelerationtimes.com/models/lexus-is-250