The British Government’s love for cameras of all kinds is well known, and its passion for speed cameras is a story we’ve followed at TTAC for some time. Until now, the news we’ve reported has been consistently bad, unless you happen to be a big fan of increasing government surveillance for revenue-building purposes. But the Times of London reports the speed camera onslaught may have reached its zenith, as the town of Swindon has become the first British municipality to ban the automatic speed traps. The Tory-led council of Swindon banned the devices, for a variety of reasons, although it seems that the “blatant tax on motorists” angle may have taken a back seat to the camera’s half-million-dollar annual maintenance costs in the decision. Hysterical opponents of the move wail that the council would have “blood on its hands” when the first person is killed by a speeding driver.

Read More >

Before I rip you-know-who a new you-know-what, let me just say that if you haven’t sampled Alex Nunez live blog diary (oxymoronic but there you go) of the new Knight Rider TV show, it really is worth the jump. I don’t know if Alex is gay, but it’s the cattiest thing in the history of the world, ever. Pulitzer-prize poetry, I kid you not. (e.g. “Now we get to the part where Mike curries favor with Cooperman. KITT’s got Mike’s six. Mike punches Cooperman’s girlfriend in the face, because she talked more trash to him, and he wasn’t tied to a chair with a firehose blasting him in his grille. We go to commercial.”) OK, now to the intra-blog attack… “Green car advocate proves first hand how small cars aren’t deathtraps” is a completely irresponsible post. While we’re happy that gas2.0.org’s Nick Chambers walked away from a bad smash in a Toyota Yaris (three-star front and rear side safety ratings), his anecdotal experience proves precisely nothing about small car safety. As our post on small car insurance indicates, statistically, there’s another, more credible POV on this. We’d expect Autoblog to be more responsible in its reporting. Or, in fact, not. And as long as they’re not, TTAC will be there.

The [UK] Daily Mirror reports that Top Gear curmudgeon Jeremy Clarkson has been injured in a head-on car crash. “He suffered minor injuries to his legs, hand and back in the head-on collision during filming for the BBC show. He described it as his first serious road traffic accident in 31 years. Clarkson, 48, said: ‘My right index finger looked like a burst sausage, my left shin was fatter than my thigh and my back felt like someone had driven over it with a pile-driver.’ Yesterday, from their Cotswolds home in Chipping Norton, Clarkson’s wife Frances said: ‘My husband is fine.'” And the other driver/passengers? Apparently not worth a mention. Also, it’s important to note that the accident is the second to occur during Top Gear production; there will no doubt be a BBC investigation (which could permanently shut down filming). It’s equally certain that police will mount their own inquiry (which could remove Mr. Clarkson’s right to drive). We’ll provide details of the crash as and when they become available.

It’s hard to know which aspect of hypermiling is the most dangerous. Switching off your engine to coast? A soup tureen of not good. Driving more slowly than the surrounding traffic flow? A plunge pool of uh-uh. How about drafting an 18-wheeler? Let me put it this way: I’m watching Final Destination 2 right now. And yet, in Sam Abuelsamid’s latest installment of “And Now for Something Completely Mundane,” Autoblog‘s main man is happy to do just that– as are some of his new best buds. Before I share this excerpt, a word to the wise: NEVER DO THIS. “Jim managed to get hooked up behind a semi that was cruising at a good clip for an extended period of time, while we had trouble finding any trucks running faster than 60-65 mph. The day before, on the trip from Chicago, we tied at 28.8 mpg although Jim and Kevin had a slightly higher average speed at 63 mph vs our 60 mph. We’ve since become aware of a couple of tricks that seem to be helping, which I’ll divulge at a later time. Never let it be said that journalists aren’t competitive. As I finish writing this paragraph, a slightly faster truck passed us, and Steve has slipped in behind it. As we slid past, I glanced over to see a very unprofessional finger gesture from Mr. Kelly. Kevin and I will be discussing that tonight over steaks in Amarillo.” Note to Audi PR minders: someone needs a bitch slapping.

The Journal of the American Medical Association (subscription required for full text) offers a study on car and pedestrian death rates on Presidential Election Days (E.D., believe it or not). When compared to the day before and day afterwards, there was a small but consistent rise every time we’ve elected a president since 1976, approximately 24 more deaths each E.D.  This small (18% overall) fatality increase was seen in all parts of the country, across different age groups and genders, drivers and pedestrians, shorter vs. longer polling hours, and Democratic vs. Republican victor. The authors noted that Election Day was deadlier than Super Bowl Sunday, although did not compare these data to more notorious periods such as New Year’s Day and Independence. The Canadian researchers (takes an outsider to figure this out) still recommend participating in democracy, but to avoid speeding as well as alcohol and other distractions. (Drinking while voting is probably not a wise activity).  As they say in Chicago, vote early, and vote often.

Roof Strength Standard~Statement from U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters

“As stewards of the nation’s transportation system, we take our safety responsibilities seriously, and it is incumbent on us to develop new regulations that optimize safety.  We must ensure that any final rules we issue are as successful as possible. Accordingly, we have informed Congress today that we need more time to complete a new roof strength standard that effectively protects motorists.”

According to AutoWeek, it’s currently a backlash of one: Scott Weires. The Florida attorney canceled his order for a GT-R after learning that Nissan’s taken the accident data recorder black box thing to a whole new level. “Unlike an EDR [electronic data recorder], which activates only when sensors indicate that a crash is imminent or has occurred, Nissan’s VSDR [vehicle status data recorder] runs constantly, collecting information such as wheel and engine speed. The device, thought to be a first in the automotive industry [tell that to BMW M3 owners], stores more than a few days’ but less than a week’s worth of data on the vehicle’s operation, Nissan says. The VSDR cannot be deactivated.” Never mind speeding, although that’s certainly a worry. It’s all about the warranty. “Nissan specifically warns owners that they could void warranty protection by running a car with its vehicle dynamic control (VDC), governing traction and stability, turned off. (In fairness to Nissan, the owner’s manual does allow owners to defeat VDC when wheelspin is needed to rock a car that’s stuck in snow or mud.)” Sure, that’s fair. And there’s another, justifiable concern: “We do realize that some customers will take their car to the track for all-out driving,” Ed Hibma, senior manager for technical support with Nissan North America. “But racing is different.” Pistonheads will remember (though I can’t recall the exact details) that manufacturers have been known to prowl the internets for racing photos. Paranoid? Consider the fact that the Japanese-spec GTR limits the car to 111 mph– unless the GPS knows you’re on a race track (not racing). Or the GT-R’s 156mph U.S. speed limiter.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) is a formidable political force. As you’d expect, the group supports police “sobriety checkpoints,” a .08 blood alcohol content threshhold for drunk driving convictions and ignition interlocks for convicted drunk drivers. As we’ve reported before, the American Beverage Institute (ABI) opposes random roadblocks and believes that the .08 level is set too low. And they’re not happy about ignition interlocks for anyone convicted of drunk driving. Obviously, this means war. MADD has opened a new front in their anti-ABI campaign. A press release names ABI members and completely mis-characterizes the trade group’s position on drink driving (“ABI’s consistent stand is that America’s drunk driving laws are too strict and should not be enforced) and intimates that ALL “family restaurants” (quotation marks theirs) should quit the organization. “The American public wants to know why these so called ‘family-friendly’ restaurants appear to be putting alcohol profits ahead of public safety,” said Laura Dean-Mooney, national president of MADD. “We call upon these restaurants to explain to the public why they oppose laws proven to keep drunk drivers off the road or, preferably, to support these life-saving measures.” Ends. Means. Justification?

The facelifted Audi A6 is the first of Ingolstadt’s machines to abandon conventional front indicators; instead, they’re located on the side mirrors. Other brands are set to follow suit. This is a bad, even stupid, idea. When you hold a conversation with somebody, do you look at their ears? Of course not. You look into their eyes and try to interpret their facial expression. This is hard-wired into people’s brains, so we’re pretty good at it. Cars have faces too and car makers go long ways to make them expressive and individual. Some are supposed to be cute. BMWs for the supposed benefit of [überho] prestige are supposed to look masculine. And some are unintentionally genital. But it’s not a stretch to say that all intend to be recognizable. So why make them less readable? You’re in traffic, you want to see what the other guy is going to do, so you look at his car’s front, hoping for a signal. Sure, blinking mirrors are better than no blinkers at all. But I surmise that the average driver sees them a  split-second later than he would front-mounted ones. And locating indicators on mirrors sucks anyway. They are more prone to break in normal driving conditions than fender-mounted indicators. Will you be able to get a replacement high-tech-mirror for your Audi 15 years hence? I doubt it. And some side blinkers are downright dangerous; the ones on the VW Golf glare into your peripheral vision in rainy or foggy driving conditions. Car makers should stop introducing empty styling gimmicks.

Researchers at The Institute of Traffic Engineering and Logistics in Kassel, Germany, don’t like induction loops (those things under the pavement that detect how long a car has been waiting for traffic lights to change). They say the loops are expensive, failure-prone and easily damaged. Simplistic, too: they only say how long a car has been waiting; they don’t tell you how many other cars are in line, how many are approaching and whether the other drivers plan to turn off or go straight ahead. The solution: mobile phones that automatically communicate with traffic lights. AKTIV (Adaptive and Kooperative Technologies for Intelligent Traffic, a project funded with federal millions) envisions mobile phones equipped with WLAN and GPS sensors, installed inside cars that tell nearbye traffic lights where you are heading. As a quid pro quo, the traffic lights tell your mobile how many seconds remain till the light turns green and whether you should turn your engine off. Traffic flows should improve, because AKTIV (pro-actively) times traffic light changes according to the amount of vehicles waiting. It should save fuel too, because stops are shorter and enables engine shut-down combined, with a “wake up call” to let drivers know green is on the way. A pilot project will begin in 2009. I asked AKTIV’s Walter Scholl if people fear Big Brother. “We consider data protection crucial. So all car data will be anonymized, and deleted as soon as you leave a junction.” But isn’t it so that the more gadgets people use, the less attentive they drive? “We have a working unit concentrating on ‘safety and attentiveness,’ and we need to attain empirical evidence that our system doesn’t distract from the task of driving.” Isn’t this technical overkill? Why not just replace traffic lights with traffic circles / roundabouts? “Good question… Roundabouts help, but there will always be many situations where lights are better and safer. In addition, our system will help reduce the amount of street signs as well as other distractions”. I’d like to hope so.

CNN reports that The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued a second recall for Ford; Lincoln and Mercury vehicles that may (more or less) spontaneously combust, thanks to a defective cruise control part. “NHTSA remains concerned that many owners have yet to respond to multiple safety defect recall notifications from Ford. Of the 12 million vehicles involved in the recall, nearly five million have not yet been brought to Ford for repair. The vehicles contain a defective cruise control switch that could lead to a fire at any time, even while the vehicle is turned-off, parked and unattended.” NHTSA promises that “repair parts are immediately available.” That’s a step-up from the initial recall, where a lack of parts meant that many Ford dealers were simply disconnecting the cruise control switch. [Click here for a NHTSA Press Release with a full list of vehicles involved.]

What is a safe car? A car that prevents a crash, a car that protects the car's passengers, or something else? Safety testing groups around the world have their own, varying definitions. Euro-NCAP (the European benchmarking organization, or New Car Assessment Program), has decided it needs a new standard which will integrate several safety factors. I spoke with Cordelia Wilson of Euro-NCAP: "Consumers have told us they find the present system of star ratings which differentiates according to adult passenger crash protection, child passenger protection and pedestrian protection, confusing. A modern SUV will often get five stars at adult protection and one star at pedestrian protection, but how good is it in sum? So starting in 2009, we intend to introduce a fairer, clearer system which rates overall safety performance". Will car makers continue to advertise with excellent results in selected areas, but conveniently forget to mention when they score dismal results in others? "We won't use stars anymore. Instead, you can expect a percentage rating which will integrate adult safety, child safety, pedestrian protection, and 'safety assist', meaning electronic devices such as ESP". SUV makers are said to be horrified, since while perceived safety is a strong SUV selling point, they are normally lousy at pedestrian protection. Let me guess: Honda is happy about these changes in the benchmarking rules, while BMW and Land Rover are having a fit? "You said that, not me".

Crash tests have shown that contemporary cars are pretty safe at middling speeds. You can hit a wall at 40 mph and walk away with a few bruises. But what happens at higher speeds? German automotive club ADAC crashed a five-star (Euro-NCAP) car at 50 mph and the results were not pretty. The Renault Laguna III is way up there is terms of safety, as good or better than any other passenger car (no Freedom Fries jokes here please, I've driven a Laguna and it's good). In this video, a grey Laguna hits a solid barrier at 40 mph, after which its occupants could exit unharmed (if dummies could walk). Taken to 50 mph, the orange Laguna is close to doing a Dianamobile. The A-beam collapses and the door sill folds. Physics rule; at double the speed, crash energy increases to the square, so even a relatively small increase in velocity can cause havoc. Passengers of the orange Laguna would suffer serious injury, despite being equipped with the works: chest airbags, seatbelt tensioners, and knee airbags. At the tested speed, the crumple zone is used up. Any faster and the car would basically fall apart. ADAC: "Appropriate speed can save your life". Which is not exactly news, but seeing the evidence is more, uh, "visceral" than just knowing the facts.

You'd think "just-in-time" production techniques wouldn't extend to, say, Korea (Aveo) or China (Equinox engine). But you'd be wrong. And The National Association of Automakers view new anti-terrorism legislation– that's been six years in the making— as a threat to their business. "The U.S. Customs and Border Protection Bureau wants shippers to collect 10 new categories of data for U.S.-bound cargo 24 hours before it's loaded on ships in foreign countries," The Detroit News reports. "As well as to provide data about the physical location of cargo aboard a U.S.-bound vessel and status messages that report container movements… Automakers say the rule could upset the delicate 'just in time' shipping of parts to arrive at auto factories as they are needed for vehicle production, which saves the companies the cost of stockpiling parts… The automakers argue the rules would do little to make the country safer." And might be extended to Canada and Mexico. "Automakers argue in their letter that 'there is a better way,' saying that CBP [Customs and Border Protection] should focus 'on importers, exporters and countries that pose a risk.'" Isn't that exactly what they're trying to do?