New vs Old

[john.wigley]

While there is nothing fundamentally wrong with having 'toys' in a car 'Harvey1512'. I think the trick is, as 'DaveNP' suggests, to achieve an acceptable balance. The example he points to of cameras replacing mirrors is pertinent. Not only are they less efficient in David's view, but I would imagine that a camera and screen will be more expensive to provision than a mirror - who will pay for that? Just because we have the technology and can do it doesn't always mean that we have to.

I would not want to return to the cars of my youth, which were basic in the extreme. My Ford Popular was supplied with one vacuum powered windscreen wiper. It had no indicators, heater, windscreen washers, radio, safety belts; none of the safety and convenience equipment that we take for granted today.

My V70 has a decent heater and a good radio. If pushed, I would say that was sufficient. I believe that too many 'toys' (Sat-Nav, phone, T.V. and the like) can prove a distraction. It is said that Issigonis made no provision for fitting a radio in the original Mini for this very reason, although cost probably had something to do with it, too.

Finally, as has been pointed out by others, there is the question of long-term reliability. 'Toys' may be fine for the first owner, often a company, of a motor-car, but when it is 10 years old and has been through several hands, they can be an expensive head-ache. Computers do not like heat and vibration. You would not drive around with a lap-top strapped to the top of your engine and expect it to work reliably after a couple of years, but that is effectively what we are doing with 'new' cars today. As you've probably realised by now, I'm firmly in the 'old' camp!

Regards, John.