Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Saturday February 11 2017, @12:57PM   Printer-friendly
from the what-does-betteridge-say? dept.

Autotrader reports a study:

Canadians looking to impress on their next romantic date might want to stay clear of on-demand car services, taxis or even public transit, according to the findings of a recent autoTRADER.ca survey that explores the role of the automobile in modern-day dating. In fact, a whopping 92 percent of Canadians say they find it appealing when their date shows up with their own ride. And don't even think about "borrowing the car" for the occasion – close to half of the population surveyed (48 percent) reported that they would find a borrowed vehicle unattractive or "embarrassing beyond words."

While it is unsurprising a publication called Autotrader would find car ownership is necessary for romance, do the study's claims track? Do today's humans really prefer being picked up for a date by someone who owns a car? Is being picked up on a motorcycle really the least attractive?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Saturday February 11 2017, @09:23PM

    by bzipitidoo (4388) on Saturday February 11 2017, @09:23PM (#465891) Journal

    Yes, your car matters. It's not nice or fair, perhaps, but that's life.

    What hurts is being misjudged. I've always driven small economy cars, by choice, not out of a lack of money to afford "better". Most people can't see past the car, and just assume I must be poor. Surely no one would choose to drive a Geo Metro? Most of the women couldn't run away from me and my car fast enough. But to me, the Metro was one of the very best cars there is. Great fuel economy, and reasonably well built, not a pile of junk like an American designed and built small car such as a Ford Escort. (The Escort got so bad that Ford had to take a design from Mazda to put some quality back in it.) That the vast majority of Americans despise little cars works in my favor when it comes to buying one, as they can all be had at dirt cheap prices. It also works against me in that the previous owner probably didn't like the car and treated it badly. It was tough to stick to my convictions when even my friends couldn't tell I drove that car out of choice. Like everyone else they thought I would buy a "better" car if I had more money, so I must be dirt poor. What surprised me was my protests were taken as bull and lies. They really thought I had to want a "better" car, and what I was saying was just the sort of excuses and justifications they'd expect of anyone stuck with a small car. You really like that car? Suuure you do. You're just trying to gild a turd with your talk, uh huh, you don't fool us.

    America has propagandized heavily to promote big cars and trucks over little, and Americans have taken it to heart. In the US, a 2.0L engine is small. In Columbia, 2.0L is huge, much bigger than average. Australians refer to the huge American luxury cars of the Cadillac and Lincoln varieties as "Yank tanks". American manufacturers have been all too happy to roll with the prevailing sentiment and egg people on. It's all about parting fools from their money. Canyonero, anyone?

    However, I believe electric will be the way to go in the future and my plan is for my next car to be all electric. The question is when to make the jump. I want the car to be able to do road trips in a reasonable amount of time, none of this needing a whole hour to recharge enough to go a measly 25 miles, like the Chevy Bolt needs. That right there means your top speed cannot be more than 25 mph once you've used up the initial charge. You'll spend more time sitting around waiting for the car to recharge than you will driving. An hour long charging session should give at least 200 miles more range, preferably 300 miles or more.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday February 11 2017, @10:33PM

    by frojack (1554) on Saturday February 11 2017, @10:33PM (#465920) Journal

    Well, small is not universally mistaken for low quality (or even cheap) by most people.
    You can find small quality cars [whatcar.com].
    Small doesn't have to mean devoid of creature comforts, safety features, etc.

    Most of the women couldn't run away from me and my car fast enough.

    They might have been aware that the Geo Metro garnered zero stars [edmunds.com] for safety.
    Or maybe they looked at how you maintained it. Did it ever see a wax job? Were all the pizza boxes less than a week old?

    There are a lot of people that keep a small efficient cars around for city errands or short commutes. But even those people tend to give a fig about safety these days.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by bzipitidoo on Saturday February 11 2017, @11:58PM

      by bzipitidoo (4388) on Saturday February 11 2017, @11:58PM (#465936) Journal

      That is misleading. The lowest possible crash test rating a car can have from the NHTSA is 1 star. 0 stars means untested and/or no data available.

      I can speak from personal experience. T-boned a car when it ran a red light just as I was entering the intersection. The Metro was totaled, and I walked away with a few bruises. Yes, it had airbags and yes they worked.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @09:30AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @09:30AM (#466070)

      Did it ever see a wax job?

      My car isn't old enough to grow pubes. (grin)

  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday February 12 2017, @02:05AM

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Sunday February 12 2017, @02:05AM (#465954)

    >I've always driven small economy cars, by choice, not out of a lack of money to afford "better".

    So, you're cheap - that's a trait some women like.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday February 12 2017, @03:09AM

      by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Sunday February 12 2017, @03:09AM (#465972) Journal

      So, you're cheap - that's a trait some women like.

      I don't know this person, but buying an "economy" car even when you can afford better doesn't necessarily imply "cheap" -- it just says you have different priorities.

      Some people like to splurge on season tickets to a sports team they are fans of. Some people like to splurge on season tickets to the opera or the ballet. Some don't care much about a "new car" but are happy to fork out several hundred dollars/person for a fancy meal. Etc., etc. Everyone has their priorities.

      Frankly, if I'm on a date, I'd rather see someone who splurges on something they're passionate about -- whatever it is. Someone who can both save up money responsibly AND spend it on something meaningful is a lot more interesting to me than someone who "goes through the motions" of trying to "look" successful with the standard signs (nice car, fancy watch, etc.). I know I'm in the minority, but I also know (from experience) that relationships between people who crave the "standard cultural signals" of success are not generally compatible with people who are actually successful but don't care about such stuff.