Comment by mistercheph | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mistercheph | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Don’t conceal your hatred behind a mask of a desire to understand something novel, you just don’t like it. Consider being more open to viewpoints that differ from yours, instead of setting up ad-hoc verbal jousting games that make actual communication impossible like, “Oh my, I simply do not understand why somebody would want do such a thing!”. Imagine if someone said that to you about something you liked, would you make a sincere attempt to explain why someone might do such a thing?

In my own foolishness, I will say something sincere to your insincerity. Risk-aversion varies wildly among people, and everything you choose to do exposes unconsenting members of the public to risks that could have been avoided. For example, getting in an 8000-lb NPC mobile that is designed to numb you from the outside world with 25” touchscreen infotainment centers might (in some ways) be more hazardous to the health of pedestrians and other vehicles that a 2000-lb car that was designed, engineered, and is now driven for the sole purpose of engagement between driver, machine, and road.

And with respect to the matter of maintenance, the only cars of vintage that are in perfect condition are those that are never driven. These machines are incredibly complex, and as they age, they take on many problems that have varying degrees of seriousness, any owner that can afford to will take reasonable steps to bring the car into a drivable state, but there are many quirks, odds, and ends of operation that the machine will exhibit that are either too mysterious at present or too expensive to fix, and so the operator does exactly what any rational person faced with using a legacy system that is complex and undocumented, they make an attempt at patching the problem imperfectly and dealing with some technical debt in the future instead of rewriting from scratch today.

I'm not concealing my hatred of this, sorry if I somehow gave that impression. Let me say this clearly then;

I hate when people make selfish and reckless decisions that can severely impact the lives of others without their consent. It's unfair and should not be allowed, and I think they should be judged harshly for it.

I always try to maintain an open mind however, so stating that I don't understand the appeal of making such decisions isn't some game I'm playing. I legitimately don't understand the appeal and am open to hearing arguments for those decisions.

Much like going 5 or 10 over speed limit, it's a risk he's willing to make. I much prefer someone driving a sketchy car because he's having fun than someone who doesn't really know how to drive safely in a modern SUV. Turns out they both are dangerous but one of them is aware of the dangers and how to mitigate them.

This is a false dichotomy. The commenter above would probably also prefer to not have someone who doesn't know how to safely operate their modern SUV on the road either (and would similarly suggest it's not a thing to brag about).

My point is this car is not much more dangerous than a lot of regular drivers out there. Can't speak for everywhere obviously but in my area some age groups didn't have to go to any class to get there licence (and not just old people here). We don't all need to be race car pilots but some behaviors I see regularly should not be acceptable on the road. That machine is not something I would be concern about.

I have mentioned some of the reasons in an edit to my above reply, but to partially restate: All actions have unintended consequences on unconsenting passersby. To some, it is inconceivable to, if it can be avoided, get behind the wheel of an automobile when doing so actively increases the danger and probability of collision and injury. You are blind if you do not see this in your own life, or if you fail to see that the privileged life that you do enjoy is only possible because of the tragic conditions of life and strenuous labor that the rest of the world endures for your pleasure.

Owners of older cars work hard or spend a great deal of money to maintain their vehicles in good operating condition, but the machines have quirks, some of which are impossible or not worth solving. That does not make them unsafe. That does not make them oblivious endangerers of the unconsenting co-users of the roadway. You have one notion of what it means to be a safe driver, others have different ones. Should people be allowed to drive 5000lb luxury barges, an unregulated and unpermissioned doubling of the amount of force at play in any collision that has been forced upon pedestrians and cyclists and drivers by motorists’ unquenchable thirst for increasingly sedate, massive, and insulated driving experiences, where visibility is almost 0, and drivers are completely dependent on the onboard sensors and warning lights to indicate to them whether or not switching lanes will end someone else’s life

With a car as tiny as the 914, the risk is nearly entirely shouldered by the driver and his (presumably consenting) passengers. I had a 944 Turbo for a long time that had a number of similar... let's say eccentricities. Those unique qualities did not make it a danger to anyone else on the road--quite the opposite. When you sit in a car that old and bring it up just to highway speeds, it is abundantly clear that you are taking your life into your own hands.

Think about people who ride motorcycles, or small single-engine airplanes, or skydive. These are risky hobbies, and there usually isn't a practical reason for doing them. If something goes wrong, yes, passersby can potentially be harmed. Should we judge them harshly for these hobbies?

Only in America is a 914 considered small.

Your just projecting your own narrative on this situation.

After all, percentage wise, sports cars kill fewer people than any other category of car, so this reckless decision is a lot less reckless than you think it is.

You’re talking past the conclusion because your own hatred is making you blind to your own assumptions.

List specifically what you think the driver of this car does with this car that is more dangerous than a typical driver distracted by a cell phone, or even an Uber driver staring at the app instead of the road.

Your false premise is that the author is doing anything at all here that is more dangerous than “drive a modern SUV in a normal way”.

> Norman Garrett was the Concept Engineer for the original Miata back in his days at Mazda’s Southern California Design Studio. He currently teaches automotive engineering classes at UNC-C’s Motorsports Engineering Department in Charlotte, North Carolina and curates his small collection of dysfunctional automobiles and motorcycles.

He probably knows a thing or two about car safety and risk. All the issues he described are around starting the thin and parking.. It probably drives safely.

> Imagine if someone said that to you about something you liked, would you make a sincere attempt to explain why someone might do such a thing?

"I like my hobby because X, Y, and Z. It poses no danger to anyone".

Seems a bit rude to accuse OP of concealing anything. The owner of the Porsche is proud of the shoddy state of his vehicle, and this rubs him the wrong way. It's not hard to see why.

Car culture forces us into daily contact with folks who are also proud of their vehicles, and their blinding lights, their lifted suspension, protruding rims, tinted windows, overpowered engines, etc. I am reminded of this vehicle [0] and its owner. Running "beaters" is one facet of that same culture.

It's a very public hobby, which puts the public at real risk. That makes it fair game for criticism.

[0] https://www.motor1.com/news/597254/1300-hp-mercury-comet-bra...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com