There is an occupancy sensor in the passenger, surely as a minimum the vehicle should lock but not deadlock if that is showing a presence? Maybe 2 clicks to deadlock and alarm if you are carrying a shopping bag on the seat or the sensor is faulty

 

Not much help for children in the rear though.

@J.R.The button on the door pillar was for 'Disabling the alarm' for people / animals left in a one click locked car, (also for on a transporter or ferry.) or a Double Click dead lock car that even with the window smashed the person can not open the doors from the reaching in and using the handle.

 

Maybe @Leeor someone else can confirm that if they were / are all the same.

11 minutes ago, J.R. said:

There is an occupancy sensor in the passenger, surely as a minimum the vehicle should lock but not deadlock if that is showing a presence? Maybe 2 clicks to deadlock and alarm if you are carrying a shopping bag on the seat or the sensor is faulty

 

Not much help for children in the rear though.

That is what I also thought, normally if a window is open, and I want to close the window, sunroof or fold the mirrors in, then you have to press and hold the lock button on the key. On the old manual locking cars, once locked and you want to fold the mirrors, it required a long press on the lock button on the key. This one, once the doors lock, to fold the mirrors it is a quick press on the key., is this when the deadlock activates? 

@Graham ButcherThe thing is that is about  different class / level or cars, different tech from the lower priced, smaller sized basic cars that had no sliding sunroofs, electric folding mirrors etc. 

The same thing happens with EV,s different generations of Clean Sheet cars like Leaf or Zoe or cars that come as ICE vehicles and hybrid, phev, BEV.

Price points and tech which is more or less basic. 

35 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

This one, once the doors lock, to fold the mirrors it is a quick press on the key., is this when the deadlock activates? 

 

Why are you asking me? I don't even know what Safelock is.

 

Iits your car, its you who is happy to lock his son in there using your belief, acquaint yourself with your own vehicle before you end up in an undesirable situation.

 

My only advice is not to take the words of others, myself included or what the manual says, see it yourself with your own eyes and try to replicate possible scenarios like unlocking the car, opening the rear hatch or passenger door then leaving the keys just inside and closing the door again, see what happens after a couple of minutes. Try to imagine what an unknowing passenger might do or someone you give your keys to to get something out of the car.

Edited 9 October, 20232 yr by J.R.

6 minutes ago, J.R. said:

 

Why are you asking me? I don't even know what Safelock is.

 

Iits your car, its you who is happy to lock his son in there using your belief, acquaint yourself with your own vehicle before you end up in an undesirable situation.

 

My only advice is not to take the words of others, myself included or what the manual says, see it yourself with your own eyes and try to replicate possible scenarios like unlocking the car, opening the rear hatch or passenger door then leaving the keys just inside and closing the door again, see what happens after a couple of minutes. Try to imagine what an unknowing passenger might do or someone you give your keys to to get something out of the car.

Not asking you, it was a general question for anyone😉. As for leaving the keys in the car, then the automatic system does not kick in so it should be impossible to lock the keys in the car. I'll have get my spare set to test one one out. 

Instead of dozen of posts guessing, read the manual in your glovebox? 

If everyone read and understood the manual (assuming it was comprehensive), there wouldn't be a Brisky   

13 minutes ago, Lady Elanore said:

If everyone read and understood the manual (assuming it was comprehensive), there wouldn't be a Brisky   

 

Why RTFM when you can go on Brisky and get twenty different people's interpretation of what it says  

@toot only Skoda I had with no alarm button on the B pillar is a MkI Fabia though I think you could disable it with the key fob or it might have been VagCom / VCDS but never had cause to so I'm not 100% now. 
Only used the button once on a ferry from Harwich to Esbjerg in SWMBO's Yeti. No idea if it worked or not as I was about four decks above the car.

 

Edited 9 October, 20232 yr by @Lee

21 minutes ago, Lady Elanore said:

If everyone read and understood the manual (assuming it was comprehensive), there wouldn't be a Brisky   

True, especially as it is 336 pages long with lots of links to other pages and then more links to diagrams that may or may not be applicable to your particular model and even then not fully comprehensive as my last car was brand new, and I even ordered and collected it from the dealer when it finally here in the UK, almost months after the order, it still not reflect the all the cars equipment such as the TV, solar panelled sunroof to keep the fans running while parked in the sun etc. 

Mine on the last 2 vehicles took up all the space in the then and now reduced capacity gloveboxes, cutting out and throwing away all the foreign language sections of the radio manual alone doubled the available glovebox space.

 

Still not enough to make me RTFM though 😒 I was proved wrong on this forum when I said that my fuel filler cap did not have a notch to hold it away from the bodywork on the filler flap, had I RTFM'd then I would have denied myself a pleasant surprise and helping of humble pie!

18 minutes ago, J.R. said:

Mine on the last 2 vehicles took up all the space in the then and now reduced capacity gloveboxes, cutting out and throwing away all the foreign language sections of the radio manual alone doubled the available glovebox space.

 

Still not enough to make me RTFM though 😒 I was proved wrong on this forum when I said that my fuel filler cap did not have a notch to hold it away from the bodywork on the filler flap, had I RTFM'd then I would have denied myself a pleasant surprise and helping of humble pie!

Yep, I was always of the opinion that it was a well known fact that most men who have plenty of experience don't tend to read the manual, instead they use the experience that they have gained. It is in general the younger generation that tend to RTFM because they are still amassing their knowledge and experience of life and are like sponges, soaking up these things to gain knowledge. 

'Dry your eye,s mate!'    Subscribe and Like as he is on his uppers, he lost so much money on renting a Porsche.   Well not really.

 

PS  For his trip with Geoff.  Obviously the have to get to the North before returning.  Very expensive Highland Council Charging one up there to charge before returning.

John O' Groats to Perth Porsche 229 miles.   Perth to John O' Groats strangle much the same..

Tesla chargers for non Tesla in Aviemore if a splash and dash needed.  Cheap enough,

You has very cheap charging @ Porsche.

 

80 kWh @ 30 pence £24.00.   4miles per kWh X 80 = 320 miles.  3.5 miles per kWh 280 miles.   3 miles per kWh 240 miles.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 9 October, 20232 yr by toot

Yes, well it was an eye watering amount, according to what he claimed, it was a staggering 457% increase, so I expect anybody being hit with the amount of uplift in premiums would have genuine reasons to tearful.

 

His Taycan is also a staggering 557kg heavier than the car that he will be competing against in the Lands End to John O' Groats challenge, so my money would be going on the Volvo as, don't forget for every mile the Volvo does, its weight be getting less but the Porsche will be the same.

Edited 9 October, 20232 yr by Graham Butcher

The Porsche charger which he told us he got a discount on was not that price in a previous video. 

 

I expect the Food Reviewer who is a commercial driver and pretty much one hand on the wheel is going to find that like many others if they done want you they quote ridiculous prices.   He is a driver for gain or reward.   Not Social, domestic or pleasure. 

 

What is all the i will not name the company crap you can read it in the newspapers?    Very Farage!

 

This Expensive to buy EV stuff even for his daughter  really a nonsense or to rent.

A 2nd hand crash in value according to him.

Edited 9 October, 20232 yr by toot

What a knob, you watch (or click through in my case) the clickbait because he is going to tell you how much his insurance has gone up and how much he has lost on the vehicle.

 

It takes him 40 minutes of narcissism to finally explain in 10 minutes what should take 5 seconds "my insurance went up this year from £600 to £3100" then at the end of an hour he finally says again in a really rambling fashion how much he has lost on the vehicle.

 

Except Toot reckons it was on contract hire or PCP in which case he should be crowing about how much he has saved compared to had he bought it.

 

More fool me because I have just indirectly contributed towards his amoral earnings.

It's today's attention economics, whichever gets the greatest views get pushed to front of the algorithm and the creator is incentivised to make more of the same. Balanced verified reporting is out, sensational clickbait rambling is in.

 

 

This video (and its accompany mini series) explains the reason why such divisive contents are so popular.

The 1min or so part where the video is set to start is the important bit. Whole video for context.

 

This video explains why we, as viewer, now need to verify the sources and think critically about information we are fed on social media. Video starts at conclusion, what we need to do, only ~2min to watch:

 

 

THINK before you share stuff online.

Actually this is so true, it is very difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff. There is also another factor at play here and that some of the social media is sponsored by organisations that are trying to distort things down a particular pathway. 

 

Sorry if this has appeared before but the thread has had a lot. I might have missed it.

39 minutes ago, Stonekeeper said:

 

Sorry if this has appeared before but the thread has had a lot. I might have missed it.

 

Great video.

Large scale study, EVs twenty times less likely to catch fire.

 

13 minutes ago, Stonekeeper said:

 

Sorry if this has appeared before but the thread has had a lot. I might have missed it.

While I do already subscribe to his channel, not everything he says, and indeed in this video, even is not without caveats, which he of course omits, as he has very clearly a vested interest in portraying EV's in a particular light, as his business is of course wrapped up in EVs.

 

When mentions Scandinavian figures for car fires, he fails to mention of course that the comparison between the low numbers of EV fires to those for ICE cars is NOT for cars of the same age. The ICE figures are for cars that range from classic cars right through to brand-new ones, not a fair comparison then. Had in been for cars of say now more than 3 years old, then I expect that the figures would be about equal.

 

The type of energy very seldom becomes a factor in the fire, most car fires do not involve EV batteries, diesel or petrol, it is more often than not the plastics etc used in them that is on fire, usually started by an electrical fault or an oil leak dripping onto hot exhausts or catalytic convertors. 

 

He starts off by sitting by a massive battery pack, by the same token, we all walk, by, drive by or even on occasions have driven past or even followed in proximity to these tankers carrying up to 9,660 gallons of the stuff, and how often do we hear of, or see those exploding or catching fire?

 

So following from the post that @wyx087 made about how facts can be distorted by social media for purely economic reasons, this particular channel Electric Classic Cars shows an excellent example of a social media channel that has an obvious bias, motivated for gain. Like there are other channels that maybe for instance sponsored by large companies which have vested interests that are not flagged up as being sponsored, by sometimes there are some giveaways that this might be true. Those made by companies or organisations that have some sort of linkage via an indirect route to one that has a direct vested interest. Or a channel that is consistently putting out videos where the production has all the hallmarks of having a far bigger budget then a normal blogger channel.

 

It is always important to try and verify the source of the info for yourself and to try to discover if the owner/presenter of the channel has any vested interest in trying to sway your decision one way or another. 

 

There are those will use sensational statements that are designed to act as clickbaits, and I can accept these as, lets be honest, are they any different to the main stream media, they're just competing for you to watch/buy their offering as opposed to what others are offering you. Nobody is going to become a millionaire from YT videos, are they?  

47 minutes ago, lol-lol said:

 

Great video.

Large scale study, EVs twenty times less likely to catch fire.

 

With missing caveats, the figures are completely misleading, he does have a vested interest in portraying EVs in a positive light. A good example of media being manipulated and people not looking beyond what they are being told/shown.  🙄 See my other post above for more details.

39 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

So following from the post that @wyx087 made about how facts can be distorted by social media for purely economic reasons, this particular channel Electric Classic Cars shows an excellent example of a social media channel that has an obvious bias, motivated for gain.

Channel is biased, motivation is to sell their product, yes. The information presented can be argued to be steered in a direction that is beneficial to their business.

 

However, this channel's motivation isn't for viewership in stark contrast to likes of Geoff as I demonstrated previously:

 

I personally place more weight over this Electric Classic Cars video than Geoff buy cars videos. Mainly because I can verify its cited sources myself and arrive at my own conclusion. The delivery does not contain languages designed to incite emotions, information are presented without being tainted by throwaway one-liners, and my time isn't wasted by rambling.

 

 

The comparison of burnt cars not the same age is indeed something not taken into account for all the fire statistical studies I've seen. This is idea of comparing like-for-like really need to be fed back to source of those studies.

6 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

Channel is biased, motivation is to sell their product, yes. The information presented can be argued to be steered in a direction that is beneficial to their business.

 

However, this channel's motivation isn't for viewership in stark contrast to likes of Geoff as I demonstrated previously:

 

I personally place more weight over this Electric Classic Cars video than Geoff buy cars videos. Mainly because I can verify its cited sources myself and arrive at my own conclusion. The delivery does not contain languages designed to incite emotions, information are presented without being tainted by throwaway one-liners, and my time isn't wasted by rambling.

 

 

The comparison of burnt cars not the same age is indeed something not taken into account for all the fire statistical studies I've seen. This is idea of comparing like-for-like really need to be fed back to source of those studies.

None of what you have said here, I have contested, apart from some people do exploit click baiting to gain views. However, it is no different to newspaper headlines, they are designed to peke one's interest enough to buy a paper and millions do go and buy a paper, do you? Advertisers do the same kind of tricks.

 

Also, can you deny the fact Geoff Buys Cars started life as a channel about the old cars that Geoff buys and has been sort of lead down the path that you see by subscribers who could see someone who would stand up and discuss the various things that are happening in the motoring world that do not seem to be quite what the authorities are trying to portray them as. All the main stream media would not before dare to speak out for fear of being censored and punished, and we have indeed seen enough evidence of just that being done over the last few years.

 

However, the fact still exists that like or hate him, he is what you see and nothing hidden up his sleeve, his passion is and always will be old cars. Don't believe me, go back watch some of his early videos of 3 years ago and see for yourself how he evolved to be what you seem to hate, someone who is calling for the motoring world, or rather the authorities to clean up their act. 

 

29 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

Also, can you deny the fact Geoff Buys Cars started life as a channel about the old cars that Geoff buys and has been sort of lead down the path that you see by subscribers who could see someone who would stand up and discuss the various things that are happening in the motoring world that do not seem to be quite what the authorities are trying to portray them as. All the main stream media would not before dare to speak out for fear of being censored and punished, and we have indeed seen enough evidence of just that being done over the last few years.

Hum. All that Geoff reports are already in the media. What has he reported that were not reported elsewhere?

 

The fact is Geoff is gaining viewership by exploiting the algorithm. He exploits with anti-EV clickbait titles and pandering to an audience that likes have their anti-EV sentiments confirmed with many not factual throwaway one-liners. The actual news can be found elsewhere and the reporting are better elsewhere.

 

*sigh*

What sort of punishment would main stream media get? if they were to speak out...... against what?  What evidence is there?

Some level of tin foil hat going on here.......