If you keep your foot on the brake pedal while in traffic, then you’re seriously irritating. Don’t do it!

Brake off!

Seriously, I see a LOT of this, and the prevalence of super-bright LED lamps just makes an annoying problem even worse. It’s seriously dazzling, which is bad news for night vision.

I really don’t know what the problem is. I mean, even my ropey old vehicles have decent handbrakes. It’s a fairly important MOT requirement. That includes the automatics that come and go on my fleet – the S-MX has a fantastic handbrake (drum rear brakes help), so I always use it.

Some modern cars will even automatically apply the parking brake (horrible, problematic electronic things. Awful). I’ve often heard the whirr of the brake being applied by the car, yet the driver has kept their foot on the parking brake nonetheless, blinding me in the process. Cheers!

There’s one exception here, which I’ve talked about before. If you’re the last vehicle in a queue, then it’s much safer to keep that foot on the middle pedal, even if you’ve applied the handbrake. But you can move your foot once someone has stopped behind you. Don’t dazzle them!

It seems everyone has forgotten their driving test, where such blatant disregard of the handbrake is very much frowned upon.

By the way, the same thing applies to fog lamps. Too many people either don’t use them at all, or stick them on, and then LEAVE them on. WRONG! The fog guard lamp is to warn people you’re there. If there’s a car behind you following at a safe distance, then you do not need to use your fog lamp. Similarly, even if it’s quite foggy, if you’re stuck in traffic with a car inches from your rear bumper, then you don’t need the fog lamp. Keep an eye on your mirrors, because the only time you really need a fog lamp (unless it’s SERIOUSLY foggy, which is rare) is when you cannot see another vehicle behind you. In short, FOG OFF! Mostly.

As for front fog lamps, they also should only be used when conditions dictate. They’re not posing lamps. Not all cars have dazzling fog lamps, but many do – Renault Scenic Mk1 especially. Just don’t bother. Frankly, it annoys me that some cars won’t let you use the rear fog lamp without having the fronts on. I currently don’t own a car with front fog lamps. I like this.

Rant over. Thank you.

Self-driving cars really are the answer to a question that doesn’t need answering. What a rubbish idea!

Think about it. There’s apparently this dream to be transported from one place to another in a box, without you having to go to the trouble of driving said box yourself. Hardly a new idea – trains and buses have been offering this magnificent service for decades. They even have the added bonus that you don’t have to worry about parking or garaging the things, and there’s no need to worry about servicing or MOTs. You just clamber aboard and end up where you want to go. Sort of.

If the future looks like this then we’re screwed. GO AWAY!

Yet people cling to their cars like heroin addicts to a favourite spoon, even though from what I’ve seen, car ownership in cities can be a hateful, hateful experience. Frankly, even I would rather use public transport. When I go to London, I do.

Perhaps these are the sort of people who welcome the idea of self-driving cars. People who really can’t be doing with the tiresome business of having to move a steering wheel and operate some pedals.

What worries me most is the mixture of self-driving and entirely proper human-driving traffic. This article highlights the concerns. On the face of it, how great it is that robots were not to blame for self-driving accidents. On the other, it’s the unpredictability of these robot cars that is often at fault. If confused, the cars will just stop. Not always appreciated by following traffic and while sure, you should always expect the unexpected when you’re behind the wheel, the truth is that we do anticipate and hedge our bets in a way computers don’t. When you mix the two styles, the recipe is not always comfortable.

I’ve experienced this myself in Volkswagen’s clever e-Golf. It has Adaptive Cruise Control where radar is used to match the e-Golf’s speed to the car in front. This also allows it to detect if an accident is likely and even to brake to avoid a collision.

e-Golf. Prone to bouts of panicky strop due to computers.

Problem 1. I was following a car turning left. The car indicated left and slowed down as expected. Yet the e-Golf panicked and slammed the brakes on really quite hard because it couldn’t anticipate that the car would move out of the way. Annoying. Especially for the car behind me. It looked like I wasn’t paying attention.

Problem 2. I was overtaking a car. Further ahead, a car was turning right and was in the appropriate filter lane. I could see that I would complete my manoeuvre safely within the confines of the road markings, and with plenty of space between all cars. The e-Golf saw the stopped car and panicked and actually applied the brakes even though my foot was on the throttle! I had to stamp down on the throttle to override it, but it interrupted my overtake and caused some digestive discomfort to the driver. And perhaps some swearing.

You see, we may crash an awful lot, but us humans really are quite good at driving. The decisions we make, and how quickly we make them, are very difficult to replicate. How would you programme a computer to see Problem 2 and deal with it safely? How can you programme it to quickly consider so many different factors?

The other problem is that I live in rural Wales. The roads here often lack road markings and/or clear boundaries. Sometimes, it’s hard to judge if two vehicles can pass. Yet, human brains seem pretty adept at making these judgement calls. You also have to adapt your driving style to suit weather conditions and the amount of mud pulled onto the road by tractors and the like. I can’t see self-driving cars getting on very well at all here.

So, they’re better off in cities perhaps, where pedestrian accidents should be a thing of the past – as self-driving cars are always on the look-out and don’t get distracted by girls in short skirts, topless young men or i-pods. But, really, cars should have no place in cities at all. Public transport does a far better job of moving a lot of people.

I therefore can’t help thinking that self-driving cars only exist because tech companies want to show off how clever they are. They are a stupid idea that plenty of us do not want at all. If they really are the future, then I’m bloody glad to say I’m of a generation where we were able to drive our cars and have fun with them. I am not ready to let the computers take over.

I can’t make head nor tail of modern trim levels on cars. They usually involve some marketing guff that creates some meaningless name such as Eronomy or DreamSpiritEcstacyWaft which could be bottom of the range, a sporty little number or the most luxurious version you can get. One thing’s for sure, they’ll all look exactly the same.

Not like the good old days. Remember when a Fiesta could be had as a Popular or a Ghia? One was painfully lacking any sort of kit, while the other was plush and crammed with velour and a five-speed gearbox. Here’s a pic to show how easy it is to spot a sporty Fiesta against the complete poverty model – or perhaps austerity is a topical phrase to use.

Fiestas compared. Very obviously different.

How different can you get? Notice that the black XR2 has driving lamps, a bodykit, a sunroof and pepperpot alloy wheels. The Popular doesn’t even get a rear wiper. Or wheel trims. Or a passenger door mirror. It is very obviously the bottom of the range.

Here’s another comparison. First up, the Vauxhall Cavalier Mk2 SRi.

Sporty Cavalier goodness.

Undeniably sporty. Again, alloy wheels help give the game away, but there is a subtle chin spoiler and sill trims, while spotlights, headlamp wipers and side graphics ensure everyone in the sales manager car park knows that this is a premium product.

This is a Vauxhall Insignia SRi.

Sporty my arse.

This is a normal Insignia.

Yawn.

Ok, so it looks like front fog lamps still make a difference, but the SRi doesn’t really look sporty does it? The Design is what I think is bottom of the range – it’s one of those stupid non-name names. They should call it the Deluxe, or Fleet. There should actually be a difference!

Of course, it’s always harder to sell a bottom of the range car if it screams Austerity in the same way as a Ford Fiesta Popular, or a Vauxhall Astra Merit. Buyers don’t really want a car that shouts how much of a skinflint they are apparently. Or if they do, they just buy second-hand instead. But could they not make a bit more effort? Should a Vauxhall SRi not at least have a bit of red trim or lairy, Recaro seats? I know they have the sporty VXR models for those really desperate to try and look cool whilst catering for the family – a bit like putting alloys on your pushchair – but the SRi was always about having that sporty look without necessarily having that much grunt. It was a bit more trouser, but not the full blown latex shorts. At the very least, it was about looking different. Something manufacturers seem more and more scared of doing. Come on folks. Swallow a brave pill and give us back some actual variety.

I’m a car enthusiast, but I have a major problem with car museums, and I’m not sure I’m right.

You see, the problem is, the motor car is a marvellous creation – a way to taste freedom as you hurtle along at impossible (to a human on foot) speeds, scenery flashing by, engine roaring and your senses bombarded. Even in a Perodua Nippa.

I took this photo in 2003. It hasn’t move far since…

Sure, I can look at a car and appreciate it, but that appreciation doesn’t last long. I mean, yes, a Citroen SM is a fabulous looking machine, but even I would struggle to look at one for more than five minutes. Throw me the keys though, and you’ll find it hard to remove me from the driver’s seat even after several hours. Unless it needs more fuel. Or has broken down.

But an SM just sitting there? No. Wrong. It’s like a caged bird, or a bear chained to the ground. It’s magnificence with its wings clipped. Stupendous wonder kept in a box and stored on a shelf like a mere trinket. Here is a car with a race-inspired Maserati engine, that makes a noise that can elevate the hairs on my neck better than Johann Sebastian Bach or Saint-Saens. A machine that floats in an uncanny manner on spheres filled with nitrogen and a strange green fluid. A car with steering that can centre its steering even when stationary and which adjusts its assistance level depending on speed. On a car designed in 1970!

The best kind of Citroen SM. One that is freeeee!

Seeing one just sitting around like a bored elephant is frankly a little disturbing. That’s exactly how I felt when I went to the Stondon Transport Museum a few years ago. There was little joy in seeing a car which, even though it is rare and spectacularly blue, hadn’t really turned a wheel for many years – possibly not since 1997 when it was put on display. The worst thing you can do to a hydraulic Citroen is not use it, which is why the car failed to sell when it first appeared at auction in 2012, and made less than £10,000 when it finally sold last year. I do hope it gets the recommissioning it deserves. If you own it, let me know!

I have problems with other museums too, even the hallowed Heritage Motor Centre. I remember visiting the place back in 1993, when it first opened. I remember how magical an experience it was to a then-15-year-old. But I also remember the Austin Sevens and BMW Dixi sitting around the escalators. They’re still there now.

To be fair to the Heritage Motor Centre though, they’ve got a lot better in recent years. More of the cars now seem to be running, and that is VERY exciting indeed. Not just because it gives opportunities for over-excited journos to drive them, but just because cars need to live and breath and feel some motion through their myriad components. Yes, I know it’s stupid to humanise a lump of metal, but to many of us, cars are more than just conveyances. They have soul.

And that’s what made the Practical Classics Restoration and Classic Car Show so good to me. It showcased cars that had lived a life and had the scars to prove it! Or that had been lovingly restored so they could enjoy another life. I could wander around the place looking at cars that yes, weren’t doing an awful lot, but which had great tales to tell. Some had made impressive journeys to get there – like Callum Beveridge and his near-1000-mile round trip to the show in his immaculately restored Citroen Dyane.

Definitely not a museum piece

Now, before all the museums in the land start castigating me, I should point out that I understand their problem. That being that it costs an awful lot of money to keep a huge fleet of elderly cars going. Vauxhall Heritage and Ford Heritage manage it, because they’re backed by enormous, global car companies. Places like Stondon, or even the Haynes Motor Museum, just don’t have the budget to keep every car going. I can understand that. I also know that museums often save cars from the crusher – I will concede its better to see a car not-moving in a museum than being turned into bean tins.

But I just prefer cars in motion. It pains me that the Coventry Transport Festival won’t happen this year, just because I enjoyed last year’s spectacle of quite so many classics in action completely beguiling. These cars weren’t being thrashed about, but nor were they just sitting around. They were simply being driven, and that was enough. Classic road runs seem to be on the rise at the moment and that’s fantastic news. Just like this gaggle of Austin Sevens I discovered at my local hotel the other day, the sight of old cars being used is truly one to warm the heart.

How utterly fantastic a sight is this? Austin Sevens in mid-Wales

So, while I understand the problems museums face – the same as many enthusiasts indeed – I must concede that I would still rather head out to find classics in action than to stare at shiny, motionless objects. To me, museums are often a bit too much like automotive taxidermy.