Jealous of what exactly? Sounds like you are trying to justify your needlessly large/heavy vehicle. Plenty of accidents still occur with vehicles that have all those features. And accidents involving large/heavy vehicles are deadlier. It’s not rocket science. On top of that they have other downsides, like increased pollution and road degradation.
>Sounds like you are trying to justify your needlessly large/heavy vehicle.
I drove a Honda Jazz until I literally couldn't fit everything in anymore. I found I could carry 4 1.2 meter galvanised steel poles at an angle before I ran out of capacity. Which worked fine for me, I wouldn't be anxious unless they were literally scraping the windshield. I could carry half a rack of servers in the back with the seats folded down, before the back of the thing would start to scrape pavement. I needed something that could do better than that when I upgraded. Most hatches and sedans were a backwards step, and Honda stopped selling the Jazz in Aus. But for whatever reason, people feel the need to comment on the large vehicle.
>Plenty of accidents still occur with vehicles that have all those features.
With reduced impact.
>like increased pollution and road degradation.
I get better distance per litre out of the big one, and if its more polluting then I don't understand why I struggle so hard with the DPF which is literally designed to bring the thing down to our honestly egregious emissions standards, I literally dream about getting it illegally removed. "Road Degredation" seems marginal at best, wider tires spreading the load out further. Seems like another engineering problem if it is a problem. The poms figured out how to prevent their CVR light tanks from causing road damage, I am sure big utes aren't that much of an issue.
That's funny because as I recall the BMW iDrive was widely derided when it came out. I have one on my old BMW and I like it, never understood the objections.
> Car enthusiasts were not smitten with iDrive; many found that the system had the opposite of its intended effect, requiring more, not less, visual attention. Automobile Week wrote that iDrive ''turned the 'experience' of driving the car into a computerized affair.'' And even experts who sympathize with the impulse behind iDrive note its shortcomings. ''I spent an hour experimenting in a simulator, and I got lost in the menus,'' says Don Norman, the author of ''The Design of Everyday Things.'' BMW countered by including a cheat sheet that can be affixed to the steering wheel for befuddled parking valets. Eventually, some initially skeptical reviewers have conceded that once accustomed to it, they find the iDrive indispensable; however, that acclimation has taken as long as three months.
> By logic, the iDrive was a superior device. Alas, people function through stories, not logic. Moreover, people are spatial, we remember where things are in space, whereas the iDrive destroyed spatiality. And finally, the stories we remember and the conceptual models we prefer have to do with how a particular device functions: heating and cooling the automobile, changing the station of the radio, checking what distance remains for our trip. Each activity requires a separate story, separate control, and a separate location for operation. Alas, the iDrive collapsed everything into one location.
