Slashdot Mirror
Study Confirms That Cars Have Personalities
Ponca City, We love you writes "A study has confirmed that many people see human facial features in the front ends of automobiles and ascribe various personality traits to cars. Forty study participants assessed cars based on a system known as geometric morphometrics by viewing high-resolution, 3D computer reconstructions and printed images of 38 actual 2004-06 car models and rating each model on 19 traits such as dominance, maturity, gender, and friendliness, and if they liked the car. Study participants liked best the cars scoring high in the so-called power traits — the most mature, masculine, arrogant, and angry-looking ones. Researchers theorized that over evolutionary time, humans have developed a selective sensitivity to features in the human face that convey information on sex, age, emotions, and intentions. The lead researcher explained, 'Seeing too many faces, even in mountains or toast, has little or no penalty, but missing or misinterpreting the face of a predator or attacker could be fatal.'"
Study confirms that Slashdot has dupes.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Those features are there by design. Marketing tells engineering to make it so.
Let have some car analogies! Oh wait... Does this broaden the spectrum that car analogy can apply to?
They are doing research on what the front of that flying car should look like.
It IS the third millennium, I would like my flying car already.
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
The easiest way to change the PERCEPTION of value is to alter the "Face" on the front of the car. Expensive cars have a face that is smarter, sleeker, sexier, more masculine, etc. Take a look at a BMW, how the shape of the headlights and the grille combine to make the characteristic BMW face. Cheap cars have weak, stupid, submissive faces. Why don't they take a cheap car and put a sexy face on it? Because then nobody would buy the expensive cars.
With a porcupine, the pricks are on the outside! // old joke // had 3 bimmers, miss them all
erm, that and the BMW is made to much higher standards, has 10's of millions of RnD put into it and has superior materials used in it. you aren't suggesting a BMW is the same as a KIA, are you?
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
I'm getting a bit tired of Slashdot trolling its own users just to create discussions. Maybe this wasn't the best news post to comment on since only the title is bad but I'm sure most know what I'm talking about. Why can't you just make good titles and good summaries? Do bad ones really generate that many more clicks (ad views)?
Cars not only have personalities, they have souls! Every morning I beseech the machine spirit of my car to start the engine and have it run smoothly and reliably. It's worked so far.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
people have been doing caricatures of automobile "faces" since early 20th century. I mean like 1910. If people did not "see" faces in automobiles, the excellent Pixar movie "Cars" would have had no entertainment value. It would have just been... weird.
And if people are going to see "faces" in automobiles, they are going to see expressions, too.
Did somebody actually get CREDIT for doing this study, which appears to be a phenomenal statement of the obvious?
If you pick a car the driver inside is probably a douchebag.
Fixed.
Ironically the weak stupid submissive ones (known as conformists) are the ones that put a larger priority on the "face" than the engineering of the car. I believe it's called overcompensation. I for one am not afraid to drive a Toyota Corolla because I know it's a good value, will last forever, and for a car is less harmful to the environment than most other cars, and guess what I don't give a rats ass what it's "face" looks like.
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
Why don't they take a cheap car and put a sexy face on it? Because then nobody would buy the expensive cars.
Ummm, so couldn't someone who makes a cheaper car put a little bit more effort into how the car looks and make more money off it? Either through higher sticker price or increased sales?
Drive a car like a BMW or Porsche or whatever -- I mean really drive it like it's capable of being driven -- and you'll understand a little better why cars like that cost more. I know what comes next: Overpriced? Depends on who you ask.
I'd like to see how this relates to how people analyze the faces of other people and how it affects if they like them. In the article, it states that people were attracted to the meaner, angrier, more arrogant, etc. traits but I suspect it would be the opposite if we were talking about some guy instead of a car. I wonder why that is...
My current car must have character by now. It was suppose to be my dream car. My tastes aren't extravagant. It's a 1996 Holden Berlina station wagon. It has however turned out to be a lemon. Nothing but trouble. The aircon intermittently on a hot day decides to read the temperature as -30 celcius outside, and blows hot air instead of cold. It has broken down a number of times despite maintenance. It's got power windows that occassionally stick and a boot that won't stay up (needs regassing but I'll be damned if I spend a cent on it that I don't have to!) I abuse it almost every time I get in the damn thing and if that kind of abuse isn't enough to give you character, what is?
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
I think you will probably be getting a hybrid before a flying car it seems. The article sites that all of the major American car makers are going to come out with hybrids. I think it is a good thing that they are coming out with a hybrid Silverado or Tahoe and I am sure most people would agree. I want a flying car too. :)
I laugh at car faces every time I'm high as heck.
people are inherantly organizsed in their world view. Feed them ANYTHING and they will orginizse it. Thtas why inkblots work. Feed people random information and they will percieve a underlying system, orgization, an image. People naturally see connections wthither they are there or not.
this is known as--if u look for something ver hard and ignoring evidence otherwise,u find it. for example seeing pattern even if data is random!
I get that. Which was my point: someone actually got credit for this "study"? The results of which should be obvious to anyone who has taken Psych 101 + Soc 101 at University?
The facial expression I see in Slashdot's CSS makeover looks kind of like a Picasso.
Table-ized A.I.
So... no car analogies this time! :P
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more. Junta
Headlamps as eyes, grille or even the front bumper as mouth, nose in the center of the hood. I think people see faces in cars because we're used to seeing faces and because seeing faces and differing between people is an inherited thing that always has been important to us humans.
Just look at the movie 'Cars' and you'll see what I mean.
Other examples: The face of Mars, and that Nebula that someone thought looked like Jesus.
... but there's some vacuous humans I've met that don't seem to have one. I also wonder about the mental health of people who would fund and implement a "study" such as this.
When I look at motorcycle, I can't really put a face on it. A car is easy to personify though. The reason is, headlights remind me of eyes. When we see a 'set of eyes', it seems the natural response is to extrapolate a face. This certainly doesn't require a study, although more power to the researchers if that's what they want to do...
;)
Just as an example, if the headlights are squat and wide -- maybe slanted downward toward the middle -- the car looks angry. If the headlights are far apart, big and round, slanted upward toward the middle -- the car looks friendlier. It doesn't take a study to figure that out.
With that in mind, I wonder how people on the autistic spectrum view the personality of a car. Given that one of the difficulties of ASD is reading people based on their actions and appearance, I'm assuming the same 'problem' would appear with personifying cars too?
"Why don't they take a cheap car and put a sexy face on it?"
For the same reason they don't put a beak on a Datsun and call it a flying car. Sex sells but so do other things such as efficiency, cuteness, novelty, and plain old 'cheap-n-nasty-but-does-the-job' (such as the mini I once owned that had a large yellow smiley face covering the drivers door).
I'm sort of a half-caste nerd so here's something I've observed about superficial people: If you buy a car that is (say) a BMW wanna-be, then guess what, the people who judge you by what your car looks like will see you as a "wanna-be". If the car is a "sexy car" wanna-be... well...
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Thank you, the voice of reason. The sad part is that 95% of BMW owners (probably less Porsche owners since they seem to be more the enthusiast demographic) will ever truly drive the car. It's not about doing 140MPH in a straight line, it's about burying the needle into the redline and getting some serious full-opposite lock drifting in at the track...
Me, I drive an Audi RS/4. A bit harder to get to mis-behave, but still a seriously fun and fast track car :)
People worry way too much about what others think. The Humvee driver and yourself included.
Gone!
But $34 to take a look is a bit much. :o(
I would be curious especially to see the images used, hoping to see a vehicle similar to mine, just to see what personality is ascribed to it.
Oh, well, no way I'm paying that much for just casual curiosity.
--
Tomas
I did a study on cars and asked like 40 of my friends to rate a bunch of cars selected at random. The options for choices were "like a squirrel", "like a fox", "like a tiger", "like a bird", "like a bear" and "like a turtle." Without exception, everyone likened each car presented to some kind of animal. Therefore people think all cars look like animals.
Did anyone catch the flaw?
Now go back and look at the summary. All of the words given as choices in describing the cars are closely linked to personality traits. So of COURSE they will be perceived to have personalities if they are described in those terms!
The AMC Gremlin probably resembles the majority of /.ers--maybe any AMC car for that matter.
Set your phasers on "funky"!
Cars definitely do have personalities. My GMC pickup has all the personality of a donkey: it's slow and stubborn and doesn't want to work and no amount of coaxing (new fuel and ignition systems) will convince it to do what I ask. It also eats and drinks a lot but just barely earns its keep. It also poops a lot (rust)
The MR2 I had was that of a beapoo (a beagle/poodle mix) -- quick on its feet, cozy, cute, and nimble, and didn't eat or drink much. It was also somewhat fragile (a coworker hit it with his truck when he lost control backing down a hill in the parking lot) :(
'Vettes - the Stingray is somewhat slow but beautiful, but very reliable, but at the same time very hungry for food (fuel). I'd liken it to a well-bred work horse, but not so stocky and bulky as a draught horse.
The ZR-1 Corvette: it has the personality of a lion. It's very strong and fast, can roar very loudly, holds its course extremely well in turns, but not particularly agile in very tight turns in tight spaces. It roars and is really fast, and can stop on a dime.
The Hyundai Excel had the personality of a gerbil. It was cozy, cuddly, and cute, but also was very prone to being sick.
A Mazda B2000 pickup I had many years ago had the personality of a shetland pony: it was tiny and cute, looked like a truck and wanted to do some work, but totally useless for hauling anything.
Cutlass S: I'd liken it to a draught horse-- OK look at, heavy and stocky, and strong, but also eats and drinks a lot. It also pooped a lot (rust!)
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Yes, all those who like nice things are conformists, whereas people who don't like those things (because they can't afford them) are not only more authentic, but hipper too.
So did the moon in Australia last night as the cresent moon, Venus and Jupiter all aligned for a nice smiley.
Believing something doesn't make it true. Not believing something doesn't make it false.
Not always. Take the original Mini or Beetle for example.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Donald Norman knows:
http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/table_of_contents.html
Tell that to people obsessing over a cucumber slice.
you mean cars turn? surely you only mean left turns?
I am not stubborn. I am right!
D'oh. You don't a study for that, I could have told you that back when I was 4 years old.
Made me think of Bumblebee! ;-)
http://nathanlindsell.blogspot.com/
Study participants liked best the cars scoring high in the so-called power traits â" the most mature, masculine, arrogant, and angry-looking ones
This explain why so many people likes SUVs despite them being more insecure, inefficient and illogical choices: they choose like animals driven by istinct instead of logic. (EG: idiots)
The perceived personality that TFA talks about has little to do with a car's actual performance characteristics and more to do with how the car owner wishes to be perceived, at least to anyone who knows the first thing about cars. Round "open-eyed" headlights and a surprised mouth may suggest some sort of anime-style "passive femininity" to people who aren't familiar with, say, a Shelby Cobra or Ferrari Barchetta, but eventually even the nonenthusiast consumer will learn that "angry aerodynamic eyebrow" headlights and "low-slung frowny grilles" can be just as easily applied to mediocre grocery-getting minivans as high-end sports cars. The face of one's car tends to say far more about its owner than it does about the car itself.
Look at the front of a Prius. Obviously not marketed towards macho leadfoot NASCAR wannabes, but look: The grille is clearly smiling at you, but the headlights connote a high-tech aerodynamic (albeit not unfriendly) robot, in contrast to the helpful eager puppy look of, say, a new Thunderbird.
(For my (nonexistent) money, the new car that strikes the best balance is the new Challenger. The headlights are browed just right to look serious without being psychopathically aggressive, and in combination with the slightly smirking lower (intercooler?) intake the whole face looks confident without being obnoxiously threatening. It would have been a much better Bumblebee than that stupid Camaro.)
Study Confirms That Humans Project Personality Traits onto Cars
People were doing this with ships three thousand years ago.
So, wait... They asked people to rate how much various cars appear to have certain human traits, and then said "Look! They're describing the cars as having human traits!"?
Property is theft.
...the Studebaker.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
The complete paper can be seen here: http://www.anthropology.at/people/swindhager/publications/pdfs/G-Eigene%20Dateien-LITERATUR-Windhager_etal_2008_facetoface_cars.pdf
Lots of people would like flying cars, but the idea of a flying car is, let's be kind, idiotic. People don't need them, they'd waste energy, be a crash-effects multiplier, etc. Crossing an aircraft with a car is like crossing a fish with a mountain goat. The result wouldn't be good for either job.
If you want to fly, become wealthy and buy a proper flying machine.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
you aren't suggesting a BMW is the same as a KIA, are you?
No, I'd expect a Kia to last rather longer than a BMW without needing extensive repair work. Old BMWs are great. New BMWs are rubbish. Most BMWs about 5-6 years old are by now mostly just a thin layer of paint holding some powdery rust together.
I get your point with the Porsche. But a BMW? Seriously? Audi or Mercedes, sure. But BMW??
Cheap cars have weak, stupid, submissive faces.
Not always. Take the original Mini or Beetle for example.
The face of the original Beetle is what inspired Herbie the love bug. While perhaps Herbie didn't have a stupid face, it is hard to really distance a happy, loving smiley face from a submissive one.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Drive a car like a BMW or Porsche or whatever -- I mean really drive it like it's capable of being driven -- and you'll understand a little better why cars like that cost more. I know what comes next: Overpriced? Depends on who you ask.
BMWs are pieces of shit after the 2000 model-year. This is when they started to increasingly use plastic in the engine in order to reduce cost. Not surprisingly, the quality is also reduced perforce. In addition, not surprisingly, many continue to believe in the BMW brand due to their excellent marketing.
This food is tasty, that girl is beautiful, the orion constellation have a belt, the cars have personalities... all phrases where the described object is in fact the observer.
Even if a KIA does last longer than a BMW, is it really a good thing? It's like the recent study that showed that deeply religious people tend to live longer. Even if that is the case (and I have some doubts about their (and your) claim), it's hardly a life worth living if you spend every weekend stuck in a church and the rest of the life fearing of pissing of the invisible man in the sky and going to hell. Same thing with the KIA, except hell is already here every time you have to drive it.
PS Do I get some sort of award for an bad analogy as well as bringing up religion in a completely unrelated topic?
Yes let's look at that. how incredibly poorly designed is the front of the car in general.
all this desire to give it a face has limited it hard. Headlights to the left and right and only 2? WTF is that? I should have an array of 6 or more across the front to use in changing weather conditions. and that big mouth to radiator air flow causes a huge amount of drag. diverting the underbelly air stream into the radiator and out the wheel wells is far more efficient but gives the car a "alien" look that silly people find unattractive.
Honestly car design is horrible. they do too much to satisfy really stupid reasoning on the human mind and too little to increase performance, stability and economy. Most people found the ford probe prototype that got a insanely low Cd "ugly" which is why he real ford probe turned into a turd.
and then you get the sillyness. the escalade is "agressive". yet every fararri on the planet can eat it's lunch so badly it's not funny. and fararri's have a happy friendly face. Hell my tiny Suzuki Sidekick sport can kick a escalade's ass hard offroad or in snow. and mine has a "cute" look.
All of it is simply stupid. and car design has been held back for the past 100 years because of it.
What comes next is whether it is legal to drive a car in that way on a daily basis.
When I go to work in my New Beetle, I drive just as fast as the guy in the BMW, Porche or Ferrari. When I drive it on a Sunday afternoon, the difference is only clear the first few meters when the red light turns green.
So if you look at what performance you actually use, then yes, those cars are heavily overpriced. Just a minority will use their own cars to drive on a circuit. Most people who do such a thing will have a seperate car for it.
I do have a New Beetle, so I should dhut up about overpriced cars you say? No. I know that it is an overpriced car. I was aware of that the moment I bought it. I know it now and I have said so to anybody who asked what kind of car I have. It is just that I do not need an excuse to be aware of that.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
And just which body part is this supposed to make us think of?
Sure. So most German car manufacturers like Audi, VW, BMW and Mercedes will give you 10+ years of warranty on the chassis of the car because they all know that their cars will turn to rust in 5 or 6 years?
Now the body work, that's interesting... Most European cars nowadays will have more plastic for body work than anything else, if you look at Renault for instance, it's pure plastic. This is done to protect the driver and fellow road users on impact. The car will simply shred.
As an added bonus, since it's Not Metal (TM), it don't rust. BMW is currently investigating the use of cloth, enforced with carbon, which can shape-shift for their bodies, so I'm really wondering what the hell you're basing your claims on.
Now I'm not going to diss on KIA. I've been driving a Hyundai i30 to great satisfaction for a while, and lord knows Toyota's never ever break, so I have no beef with Asian cars. I do however observe that KIA and Mazda are behind on their materials. Toyota and Honda aren't, or less so, but KIA, Hyundai and Mazda feel a lot more "Tin-Can-ish" than their modern European counterparts.
IANACE though. I am not a car expert though. But then I don't make categorical statements without any back up. :-D
best describes my truck
-- I am the NRA, enough said...
The Mini and Beetle are only cheap when compared to the overall auto market. Take the price of the Mini or Beetle and compare to similar class cars and you will find you ARE paying extra for that styling and performance.
Back in the early 90s, when Ford was re-designing the mustang, they used this very concept. Although some of the features were based on nostalgia, they put a lot of stock in the car's personality. They had three competing concepts: the sleak and friendly "Bruce Jenner", the angry agressive "Rambo", and the not-so-angry but still pumped-up "Arnold Schwarzenegger" concept. Bruce was seen by most market surveys as too wimpy. Rambo and Arnold were both popular but Ford pick Arnold. Here is a link http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1994-1995-1996-1997-1998-ford-mustang1.htm
so I'm really wondering what the hell you're basing your claims on.
The three 2001-2003 BMWs I've seen scrapped in the past couple of months because of terminal rot.
Just keep in mind that it isn't always the case. There are some very cheap, very good driving cars out there, especially used. I'm actually looking at 1999-2000 Corvettes right now because I discovered how cheap they are and I turned 29, which somehow dropped my insurance dramatically on such vehicles.
That being said...I'm not as familiar with them on the past couple years models...but, while I think they're a blast to drive when they're running, I sure have invented a few new 4 letter words while they were in the shop and sucking money out of my wallet.
Still...it'd be fun to get a 911 turbo again, but, I think for bang/buck, I'd likely look to get a used Z06 vette in the near future.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Who cares?
Seriously...I never look at a speed limit sign till the detector goes off. I drive as safely as I have to according to the road and traffic conditions, but, even in town, in areas, you can stretch the limits of a good performance care safely...and I do it quite often.
A high performance car can go faster safely in any area....you just gotta know how to drive them, and understand theirs and your limitations.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
BMW standard warranty is now 2 years overall, 3 years for paint, and 12 years for bodywork.
Despite forking over nearly $3k in the last year, my 1999 Sebring JXi is starting have the personality of an old man. Creaky joints, bits falling off here and there, some nicks and dings to show its age, but when he wants to he can sure spoil his grandkids. Too bad its old outside, and just like some old people's arthritis - the cold seems to make all of the creaky joint problems worse...
Because then nobody would buy the expensive cars.
Unlikely to be true. Cars are a status symbol. Cars are also the most expensive impulse purchase most will ever own. The combination of the two ensures the wealthy will continue to purchase cars simply because they are expensive - so long as the general public is also aware they are expensive.
Over the last three decades, some of the most expensive luxury cars have had some of the worst mechanical reliability problems and sales continued strong. The wealthy don't care if it runs good. The wealthy generally don't care what it looks like. The bottom line, does it project a sense of wealth, status, and entitlement? If the answer is yes, the vehicle will sell. Look at how ugly some of the high end luxury cars were during the 80s and 90s for proof.
I remember during the 80's someone wrote Ann Landers complaining their high end luxury car came with tinted windows and no one was able to see him using his cell phone - or for that matter, see him driving his uber expensive vehicle. Remember, this is when cel phones were attached to the vehicle and simply owning one had status implications. He was most upset about it. And that mentality is what rules the roost. It's about status and convincing the general public his tiny penis is actually larger than yours - nothing else.
I remember seeing faces in the front of cars...when i was 7....
Nothing new there. Railroaders have known for more than 150 years that steam locomotives had "personnalities"; within any given class of identical engines, there was the smooth runner, the good steamer, the rough rider and so on...
>Why don't they take a cheap car and put a sexy face on it?
Well, they do. Look at the Hyundai Tiberon. It looks like a sexy sportscar, but its a cheap-ish Hyundai. I think buyers in the econobox market want a submissive car.
Im sure a lot of people shopping for Hyundais and Kias are turned off by the Tiberon as being "too sporty." They probably think its just going to burn too much gas and go too fast, but the Civic or similiar looks like your friendly pal who will do his best to get you to where you need to be without breaking down or burning too much gas.
Not to mention its difficult to market to women and families with over-masculine designs.
I'd have to disagree there chief. Say you're speeding through a school zone, or residential zone, and some kids suddenly appear in front of you. You're telling me that your sports car at, say, 40mph can stop faster than my regular run-of-the-mill car at 30mph? People seem to think 10 over is perfectly fine and safe, but it's not. You can change the kind of car you drive, but you can not change your reaction time. The faster you go, the less time you have to react. It's an extremely simple concept to understand. The parents of the kids you didn't run over because you were being Mr. Cool will thank you.
You might think you're a perfectly safe driver who can speed when and where ever you please and no harm will come of it because you're driving a fancy sports car. Sorry to take you down a couple of notches, but you've got some growing up to do. Want to speed and race around? Hit the track. Want to use the public roads? Drive by the rules. They are in place because people whose job it is to know and study these kinds of things, like civil/traffic engineers, police, insurance companies, accident reconstruction specialists, etc, are trying to make things as safe as possible for all road users. That includes motorists, pedestrians, cyclists, owners of adjacent property, etc... not just you. They have to take all that into consideration while, at the same time, not causing huge congestion problems and other issues in the process.
Try living in a jurisdiction where detectors are illegal (or just shut yours off) and see how long you go without incident. Hell with laser, once your detector goes off it's already too late, so what's the point? You've been lucky with the help of your detector if you haven't gotten any tickets or been in any avoidable accidents, but your time will come.
The rules of the road are designed for the lowest common denominator... an uncoordinated person driving a crappy car. The average car on the road is probably an older model with fairly worn out parts. No public road is designed for the exclusive use of a brand new Ferrari with a professional driver with perfect reaction time behind the wheel.
I'm no public safety zealot, but when someone claims they're a safe driver but they speed everywhere, I just can't take them seriously. I used to think the road was a big playground for speeding and doing stupid reckless things... until I grew up. There have been enough deaths of drivers, passengers, innocent bystanders and other motorists due to street racing and speeding in my city alone, let's not add more to that number.
Actually...YES. A Porsche is going to have much better brakes than a Yugo...and stopping distance differences will show. Also, pure stopping is NOT the only factor here, quite often I have avoided accidents where people were about to smack into me, by having a car that has the power to speed up instantly, to have superior steering capacity and response, in order for me to avoid them when they are coming at me. I have also used this capacity of my car (and my experience driving) to avoid numerous surprises in the road when driving at speed.
Also, do recall in my first post, that I drive what is safe for the surroundings. I'm not likely to be going 50-80mph in an active school zone.
"They are in place because people whose job it is to know and study these kinds of things, like civil/traffic engineers, police, insurance companies, accident reconstruction specialists, etc, are trying to make things as safe as possible for all road users."
Not really. Insurance companies? Please...they are ONLY interested in the all mighty dollar. They are for what is safe for their investments. If all the engineers, etc were into making things as efficiently safe as possible, we'd have a MUCH higher distribution of speeds around. Highways would be constructed like the Autobahn...to handle higher speeds in areas. And if you do much hwy driving even on the current roads here in the US, you can see that some areas are much more suited to high speed than others. Me? Sure if I'm on a stretch of hwy that gives me good line of sight, no cross roads and little traffic...I have no problems going well over 100mph for stretches. No danger at all to anyone else. In those areas, the only benefactors might be the cops who take traffic violations as a cash cow. If you want to prove to me that the cops are in it for pure safety, take out any revenue generated by tickets going to them...hell, give all fines to the non-infringing public. Take away the revenue stream from the police for driving tickets, and I guarantee you they will stop being so quick to put resources to enforce those laws.
"Try living in a jurisdiction where detectors are illegal (or just shut yours off) and see how long you go without incident. Hell with laser, once your detector goes off it's already too late, so what's the point? You've been lucky with the help of your detector if you haven't gotten any tickets or been in any avoidable accidents, but your time will come."
Actually, I usually know WAY in advance of the detector going off where the speed traps are. The old CB radio is alive and well....my detector is just a backup unit these days. And thankfully, I don't live in the couple of places that ban them. I personally think that if the govt. wants to use electronic survellience on me of any kinda, I have the right to know about it. Tap my phone? Tap alert systems should be legal. Radar? Radar detector. If nothing else,, a radar detector is safer for the public. It does cause people to slow down...just as effective as those unmanned police cars they sometimes put on the side of the road for people to see.
"I'm no public safety zealot, but when someone claims they're a safe driver but they speed everywhere, I just can't take them seriously. I used to think the road was a big playground for speeding and doing stupid reckless things... until I grew up."
Honestly...I really don't much care. I'm looking out for me, and other's needs are far secondary to that. I'm not out to hurt anyone in any respect of life, but, I'll likely never put someone elses needs ahead of mine for any reason I can think of. Life is too short for that.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Perhaps the Americans are just sore that their whole Automobile industry is going to Hell in a hand basket, and so feel compelled to throw slurs around regarding truly great engineering which, coincidentally, isn't suffering from the recession. *shrug* Karma be damned.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30431
Study confirms that people are delusional. summary: A study has confirmed that many people see human facial features in the front ends of automobiles...
You hate your job? There's a support group for that. It's called "everybody" and they meet at the bar. -Drew Carey.
Most tail lights look like anime cats (or Bender's girlfriend) to me, which makes some sense because they're designed to capture attention and convey information that may be vitally important. Since car designers are interesting people, one presumes they do such things on purpose.
``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
It is a nice 4 door sedan, not very fast but gets me where I want and very reliable.
She is like the ol' milkcow that lets kids pull her tail.
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
I know several "wealthy" people who don't flaunt their wealth -- people like you just don't notice them. I also know that this country (US) is in a serious economic downturn partly because poeple who were not "wealthy" went out and bought fancy cars and houses on credit terms they couldn't afford.
So, who are the bigger egotists, the wealthy or the wealthy-wannabes?
You jumped to conclusions. Obviously, not all wealthy people are as I portrayed but the point remains. Regardless of what the vehicle looks like, many wealthy and wanna-be (which is not me) wealthy will buy objects for the sole purpose of flaunting a status symbol. And this doesn't change that cars are the largest impulse purchase most people will ever make. The fact that it is an impulse purchase for anyone is truly dumbfounding.
You also seem to be confused about wealth in the US too. Far too many "wealthy" people live at their income level or beyond, saving nothing for retirement. I do not consider these people wealthy. Ironically, much of the truly wealthy in the US laugh at these people because you would never notice them on the street - which was perhaps the point you are trying to convey.
Lastly, critical examination of facts does not make one an egotists. Perhaps you should examine your self as to why a critical examination of these people have you in such a defencive posture. In other words, perhaps the issue which has you upset rests on your side of the keyboard.
you aren't suggesting a BMW is the same as a KIA, are you?
Since I never suggested such a thing, that's a silly question. Just the same, I'll answer. Of course not. But contrary to common perception, the delta between your typical vehicle (which is not a Kia) and what you get with the luxury class isn't that far apart either. In fact, often more technology and higher precision goes into sports cars than does many luxury cars - yet the luxury car often costs 2-5x as much.
You also need to keep in mind, the price difference between your common vehicle and lower end cars like Merc or BMW is often artificial tariffs. Most of Europe looks at many of these cars as American's look at Chevys. In other words, much of America's high perception of BMW and Merc is nothing more than marketing.
Even funnier, often the difference in parts between your typical vehicle and one which goes on a luxury vehicle is often only a part number change and 2-5x cost increase - and that's no exaguration. But what do you expect when most of these guys believe Car & Driver is a mag worth reading. Or believe comparing HP numbers of completely unrelated cars/powertrains has any relevance what so ever. All of which is really beside the point.
Welcome to the world of leasing. Most luxury leases are 1-2 years.
Obviously, not all wealthy people are as I portrayed but the point remains. Regardless of what the vehicle looks like, many wealthy and wanna-be (which is not me) wealthy will buy objects for the sole purpose of flaunting a status symbol.
No, your original point was that wealthy people are egotists with small penises. My point was that wealth actually has very little to do with ego or penis size. You can backtrack all you want now, but that's what your post was about.
You also seem to be confused about wealth in the US too. Far too many "wealthy" people live at their income level or beyond, saving nothing for retirement. I do not consider these people wealthy.
Nor do I. Not sure what I wrote makes you think I'm confused.
critical examination of facts does not make one an egotists
Are we involved in the same conversation? If you go back and re-read my original response, you'll discover I made no such assertion.
Perhaps you should examine your self as to why a critical examination of these people have you in such a defencive posture.
Critical examination? What part of what you wrote would you consider a critical examination? Do you even know what critical examination means? Don't project, the ad hominem attacks don't strengthen your argument.
erm, that and the BMW is made to much higher standards, has 10's of millions of RnD put into it and has superior materials used in it. you aren't suggesting a BMW is the same as a KIA, are you?
No, if you reread his post, he's asking why doesn't Kia style their cars to look more like BMW? It's not making the sheetmetal/plastic of a Kia look like a more expensive car would actually add much to the cost. Or go look at Hyundai, who has a car that looks a lot like a Mercedes, and another that looks a lot like an Accord.
As a high performance car driver, I agree with you. I drive at silly speeds on the track, but pretty much aim to nail the speed limits on public roads. Sure, having ample acceleration on hand is nice in the event that the few times where accelerating out of danger proves to be the right choice (only happened to me once in 19 years of driving), but having massive brakes also makes me able to stop much faster from the speed limit compared to a lower performing car. I like to view my car's capabilities as an additional safety net rather than an excuse to drive faster with the belief that I still have safety parity with a lesser car. I'd much rather stop 10 feet from the pedestrian in the road than 1 foot from him.
Also, too many people treat driving as a secondary activity (by which I mean it is not the primary focus of their attention). I always try to focus on precision driving; correct gear, minimal breaking, proper cornering lines, spatial awareness, high-eyes, constant mirror scans, etc. This makes driving fun, and something that I can take some pride in compared to the other idiots on the road...
I would gently propose that you might have this backward. One could fairly ask if the more sophisticated driver wants a more sophisticated look, while the less sophisticated driver actually prefers the more obvious. In my experience, I see low-end outfits, like McDonalds for example, use bright colors and tacky advertising, while higher end products, like say Kay Jewelers for example, tend toward understatement and unsaturated colors.
Kids want sweet, adults tend toward bitters, aged, complex and balanced. might cheaper cars may have more juvenile tastes because their customers have less developed brains?
I think the Hyundai Sonata looks a good bit like a jaguar.
Ummm, so couldn't someone who makes a cheaper car put a little bit more effort into how the car looks and make more money off it?
You mean like a Hyundai Tiburon? Or a Geo Storm?
He's talking about the original Mini and Beetle from decades ago. Both were priced quite competitively IIRC, unlike their modern counterparts which do require you to pay extra for that cute factor.
Most likely, this study only confirms something that has been suspected for a long time.
Speaking subjectively, I know that the brain can easily find certain patterns in randomly arranged shapes. Look at a tiled floor or chain-link fence; you can pick out all kinds of Tetris patterns when you make up your mind to look for them.
However, the "facial feature" patterns are the ones that seem to have the greatest amount of expressiveness--that is, of all the shapes you can pick out from a random arrangement, it is an arrangement resembling two eyes and a mouth that seems automatically to elicit an emotional response, and minor differences in these arrangements--e.g., whether the "mouth" turns down, whether the "eyes" seem to gaze upward--can produce a wide variety of distinct emotional responses.
So are you a moron or just evil? If you are in the top few percentage points of human reaction speed, it will take you .3 seconds to see that you need to stop and another .2 seconds to move your foot. That is half a second of movement at whatever speed before those Porsche brakes can kick in. If you are exceeding the speed limit you are endangering the innocent. I hope you are blinded soon in a freak accident involving a spoonfull of salt, three copper wires, and a love doll and that you never drive again.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
I always contended that the Edsel was a failure because of its front grill. A Mercury sucking a lemon was one way to describe it. I thought it looked like a boozy hooker puckering up for a kiss. The car was ahead of its time but never sold. Same for the Studabaker with the light in the center of the front grill. It turned with the front wheels but looked like a cyclops. Guess the designers missed the whole likability thing. Some people loved these cars like crazy but not enough to keep them on the road.
Maybe the subconscious needs and wants of the designer and those who approve the final product come into play. All designers of "appeal" items are trying whether on a conscious or subconscious level to attract positive attention. William Gibson's book "Patten Recognition" (2003) put this concept forth in a very entertaining way. Artists and writers instinctively know what studies "uncover" by so called research.
Wherever I've lived...I'm certainly NOT the only one speeding. Around here, if you try going the limit, you will get run over and be in an accident...I believe it is always safer to go the speed the flow of traffic around you is (I generally only light it up when no other traffic is around).
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I know what I said and I understand what you can't seem to grasp.
You're very defensive about this topic. You should really figure it out and improve that aspect of your life.
You can't reason with unreasonable people so we're done. If that's what you believe you understood, despite clear objects, then so be it. It only highlights you have at least two personality flaws which require some introspection.
As an enthusiast who runs in HPDE's throughout the year, I am probably one of those rare crazy people who purchases cars like these and risks crashing them into a tire wall on a regular basis.
If you look for the environment for which many of these cars were designed (areas with higher speedlimits/no speed limits) some of the costs begin to make sense as they can be used on a daily basis in these environments.
With BMW, the most common complaints by buyers are excessive brake dust, but this is a result im part of pad selection for the domestic market (though one might conclude that switching to a less agressive compound for the US market).
Most people however are automotive posuers and buy the cars for the look/image associated with it and would be spooked running them in the manner in which they were designed for.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
Take a highway safety course and you will realize there are all sorts of ways to avoid hitting people and objects.
Take a number of High Performance Drive Education courses and you will become a better driver on and off the track.
Become a motorcycle rider and you will gain similiar skills.
I save the vast majority of my higher speed driving for the track, but there are a number of skills which you will pick up riding motorcycles and via track schools which carry over into daily driving (asides from better gas mileage).
You will learn:
1)AWARENESS of your surroundings (rocks in the road, sand, oil, ice, deer, other vehicles etc)
2)avoiding objects can occur by speeding up AND braking
3)if you are about to wreck or collide with another vehicle, you can aim for a quarter panel and cause less injury to yourself and other drivers
4) spins aren't a bad thing. Learning how to rotate a car (or recover from a spin) is a valueable skill in inclimate weather, or to get around an object or corner
5) braking in shorter distances, braking while turning at high speed to avoid an object/aim for a point
6) the limits of most "normal" cars are far higher than most drivers realize
Driver training is a joke in the US, the tests need to be harder, and in my opinon should include some sort of car control element similiar to what a motorcyclist must go through to get a license (saloms, braking within distances, how they take curves at speed, emergency lane change manuevers). Couple this with harsher penalities for inattentive drivers and we would have safer roads.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
Because they're always in the shop?