People collect classic cars for all sorts of reasons, but there are 4 types of people who you will most likely find wandering around dealerships, pitching a tent at weekend conventions and scanning through the classifieds looking for great deals.
1. Reggie Restorer
Restorers are the ones like to boast about that “wreck” they picked up twenty years ago and converted to a first class machine that would make any classic car enthusiast drool. These individuals tend to pay next to nothing for the cars they purchase because they’re almost scrap metal when they find them. They usually get their enjoyment from spending hours tirelessly working away at the cars, gently coaxing them back to life with their dedication and knowledge of engineering. No project is too big for these guys, which is precisely why it isn’t a calling for the faint of heart.
2. Captain Collector
Collectors have a lot of money to spend on their vehicles, and they are usually in it for the prestige and the love of driving some of the most expensive classic cars in San Diego. It is quite usual to find at least five or more vehicles standing in the garages of collectors, and they’re always looking to acquire something else. A collector often has one or two cars that they are really proud of, which don’t get driven very often, while the others are taken out every other weekend to show them off.
3. Percy Perfectionist
These collectors tend to pride themselves on the condition of their vehicles, rather than the diversity or the cost of their purchases. You’ll most likely find perfectionists busy waxing their vehicles into the early hours of the evening, while in the morning it’s not uncommon to see them cycling to work for fear that they might damage their vehicle in some small way.
4. Tommy Race Track
While some people like to keep their collection locked up in a garage, others like to fix old cars up so that they can take them out on the racetrack and give others a run for their money. You will find just about every collectable on the market on one of these tracks, including amalgamations of various makes and models.
Collectors come in all shapes and sizes, but it is a love for vehicles that they all have in common, and this makes for some interesting characters. Click here for more information on Classic Cars San Diego.
Monday, August 12, 2013
Monday, August 5, 2013
Keyless entry / ignition systems suck
I really don't like keyless entry systems - you know - the key fob that isn't really a key, but is a wireless transmitter that talks to the car based on proximity. I'm talking about the passive ones that allow the doors to unlock when you touch the handle. Inside the car they typically replace the ignition key with a push button. They fundamentally break the centuries-old cause and effect cycle that humans have with keys, and that is this : key makes contact with lock, lock opens.
I'm not convinced that keyless entry systems are solving any particular problem. They do create trouble though. First, and most trivial, they're incredibly difficult to get accustomed to. Every time I rent a car with these things, I poke and scratch the dash trying to find somewhere to put the key. Then, realising it's a keyless system, I drive off and when I come to get out, spend a moment or two fumbling around the dash and steering column looking for the key again. Despite renting dozens of cars with this feature, I still cannot break that association.
I now own a car with one of these except mine isn't passive. I have to push a button on the fob to open the doors - OK I'm fine with that - but the ignition is wireless pushbutton. So - erm - what do I do with the key fob when I'm in the car? These things are not small - they don't fit easily in trouser pockets especially if you have a wallet in one and a cellphone in the other. You can't use the cellphone pocket - the phone gets scratched and messes with the key signal and the wallet pocket is full. Shirt pocket? Not really - they're too heavy. Leave them in the cup-holders perhaps? No because then you will forget them. If you're a woman (or an 80's guy with a man-bag) you can keep the key fob in your bag, which is certainly more convenient, but still not ideal. With the traditional ignition key, the key is inserted into the ignition barrel when you drive - you don't have to find somewhere to put it.
The next problem isn't so trivial - the proximity system is very insecure if your parking spot is close to your house (like in the garage attached to it). I've found most passive proximity keys have enough range that it's perfectly possible to open the door, get in and drive off leaving your keys behind. This happens once you've broken the cause and effect cycle, and become used to the idea that you no longer have to have the key in your hand to unlock the car. One day you will forget to put it in your pocket, and then you're screwed. Why? The keys are momentary, meaning that the car doesn't constantly query the key. It can't as that would kill the fob battery in a matter of days. So instead, when some critical even happens - starting the car, unlocking the door - that is when the car queries the key. After that, it's never queried again. So this is why you're screwed and how you end up on a tow truck: the place you keep your keys at home is close enough that the car can 'see' the key fob whenever it wants. One day you leave the key at home, go to get in the car and it lets you. Similarly you can start the engine because the key is still in range. So you drive off and the first time you stop the car and get out, you've cemented your fate. When you come to use the car again, you'll be on the phone to your other half, or the tow truck driver, because the key is well out of range - it's still at home. Worse - if it's a fully passive key, once the engine is off and the door has been opened and closed, it will likely lock you out too.
The extension of this issue has to do with crime. If you live in an area of high car crime, someone can steal your car without even needing the keys - then drive off and work on the system at their leisure somewhere else. That's not supposition - it's happened three times near where I live in the last year. The stories have been in the news sporadically.
Through empirical testing, I've found that Nissan's keyless entry system has a range of about 20m. Chevy's system works out to about 25m. Others I've tested sit in the mid-range, between 15m and 20m. That doesn't sound like a lot but for example if you're parked at your favourite fast food joint, chances of you actually being more than 20m away from your car are slim, so effectively, it's sitting outside ready for anyone to touch the door handle, hop in and drive off.
The only vehicles I've found that gets close to solving the problems of keyless systems are Citroën, Mini and some Audis. In their systems you have to place the fob in a slot in the dash for the car to start. That maintains the cause and effect cycle of keys in locks, which I don't think is a bad thing.
So far at least, I'm finding keyless ignition and entry systems to be creating new problems we don't need, and solving old problems we don't have.
I'm not convinced that keyless entry systems are solving any particular problem. They do create trouble though. First, and most trivial, they're incredibly difficult to get accustomed to. Every time I rent a car with these things, I poke and scratch the dash trying to find somewhere to put the key. Then, realising it's a keyless system, I drive off and when I come to get out, spend a moment or two fumbling around the dash and steering column looking for the key again. Despite renting dozens of cars with this feature, I still cannot break that association.
I now own a car with one of these except mine isn't passive. I have to push a button on the fob to open the doors - OK I'm fine with that - but the ignition is wireless pushbutton. So - erm - what do I do with the key fob when I'm in the car? These things are not small - they don't fit easily in trouser pockets especially if you have a wallet in one and a cellphone in the other. You can't use the cellphone pocket - the phone gets scratched and messes with the key signal and the wallet pocket is full. Shirt pocket? Not really - they're too heavy. Leave them in the cup-holders perhaps? No because then you will forget them. If you're a woman (or an 80's guy with a man-bag) you can keep the key fob in your bag, which is certainly more convenient, but still not ideal. With the traditional ignition key, the key is inserted into the ignition barrel when you drive - you don't have to find somewhere to put it.
The next problem isn't so trivial - the proximity system is very insecure if your parking spot is close to your house (like in the garage attached to it). I've found most passive proximity keys have enough range that it's perfectly possible to open the door, get in and drive off leaving your keys behind. This happens once you've broken the cause and effect cycle, and become used to the idea that you no longer have to have the key in your hand to unlock the car. One day you will forget to put it in your pocket, and then you're screwed. Why? The keys are momentary, meaning that the car doesn't constantly query the key. It can't as that would kill the fob battery in a matter of days. So instead, when some critical even happens - starting the car, unlocking the door - that is when the car queries the key. After that, it's never queried again. So this is why you're screwed and how you end up on a tow truck: the place you keep your keys at home is close enough that the car can 'see' the key fob whenever it wants. One day you leave the key at home, go to get in the car and it lets you. Similarly you can start the engine because the key is still in range. So you drive off and the first time you stop the car and get out, you've cemented your fate. When you come to use the car again, you'll be on the phone to your other half, or the tow truck driver, because the key is well out of range - it's still at home. Worse - if it's a fully passive key, once the engine is off and the door has been opened and closed, it will likely lock you out too.
The extension of this issue has to do with crime. If you live in an area of high car crime, someone can steal your car without even needing the keys - then drive off and work on the system at their leisure somewhere else. That's not supposition - it's happened three times near where I live in the last year. The stories have been in the news sporadically.
Through empirical testing, I've found that Nissan's keyless entry system has a range of about 20m. Chevy's system works out to about 25m. Others I've tested sit in the mid-range, between 15m and 20m. That doesn't sound like a lot but for example if you're parked at your favourite fast food joint, chances of you actually being more than 20m away from your car are slim, so effectively, it's sitting outside ready for anyone to touch the door handle, hop in and drive off.
The only vehicles I've found that gets close to solving the problems of keyless systems are Citroën, Mini and some Audis. In their systems you have to place the fob in a slot in the dash for the car to start. That maintains the cause and effect cycle of keys in locks, which I don't think is a bad thing.
So far at least, I'm finding keyless ignition and entry systems to be creating new problems we don't need, and solving old problems we don't have.
Monday, July 29, 2013
Better to be in a religious group than to be a biker if you want petrol in England now.
England : the epitome of a broken country. The topic of this week's post is to do with the wildly varying standards of what is and is not acceptable for drivers when it comes to that most basic task - filling up your vehicle with petrol.
With the price of petrol being so high now, it's inevitable that there are a lot of drive-offs - where people fill-up but don't go inside to pay. To combat this, petrol stations in the UK all now have numberplate readers that read the numberplate of each car as it stops to fill up. The numberplates are displayed on a big screen on the forecourt, in some cases, so you can see your vehicle has been identified. If you drive off without paying, the numberplate is given to the police and the case goes from there.
What they don't tell you is that your face is also being photographed for use by facial recognition systems and the PNC (police national computer). It's why, in a lot of places, the petrol station attendants won't activate a pump for a motorcyclist until they've taken their helmet off. That on it's own is a pretty big problem but it gets bigger when you understand something else; it criminalises motorcyclists simply because of the mode of transportation they've chosen. Don't believe me? If you're in a religious organisation that requires you to wear a burka or yashmak, or any other form of facial covering, you won't be asked to remove your facewear. So it's OK to discriminate against motorcyclists, but it's not OK to discriminate against religious groups for the same reason?
All this discrimination and assuming drivers are naturally guilty (because every numberplate is recorded and sent to the nationwide ANPR database and tracking system, even if you don't drive off without paying), could so easily be averted with the simplest of changes - pay at the pump.
Since moving to the US, I've come to realise what a stroke of genius this is. You don't have to go inside to pay. You don't have to hang around inside a foul-smelling 'convenience' store, in a queue of equally irritated people waiting for an untrained minimum-wage attendant to figure out what the buttons on the till mean. You can be in and out quickly, with minimum fuss and there's never any drive-offs, because the pumps will not dispense anything until a valid credit or debit card has been swiped through them.
For those who don't have cards, or don't want to use them in this way, the system still works because you go inside and pre-pay before they activate the pump - again - no drive-offs - although now you're back inside that hellhole of a store. It's so simple I'm at a loss to understand why the UK went with the over-engineered technology approach. It costs more, it's discriminatory and it's unnecessary. I suspect it's more to do with the desire to have cameras everywhere than it is to do with the prevention of fuel theft. After all, there's so many CCTVs in the UK (1 CCTV camera for every 14 people at the last count in 2009) that they're the most surveilled nation in the world.
The only real downside of pay at the pump is that the pumps, like ATMs, are outside all the time, meaning they're ripe for criminals to rig with card skimmers. But even the most basic awareness of this possibility is enough to thwart that. Don't ever use the debit option - always use the credit option, then you're not typing your PIN into the keypad. If anything, you might be typing a zip code in. If you do accidentally do debit, cover the keypad with your other hand while you type in your PIN. Basic precautions like this - the same ones you should be using at every cash machine - are so easy to do that it really ought to be of no concern to you whether you run your card through a petrol pump to get product.
With the price of petrol being so high now, it's inevitable that there are a lot of drive-offs - where people fill-up but don't go inside to pay. To combat this, petrol stations in the UK all now have numberplate readers that read the numberplate of each car as it stops to fill up. The numberplates are displayed on a big screen on the forecourt, in some cases, so you can see your vehicle has been identified. If you drive off without paying, the numberplate is given to the police and the case goes from there.
What they don't tell you is that your face is also being photographed for use by facial recognition systems and the PNC (police national computer). It's why, in a lot of places, the petrol station attendants won't activate a pump for a motorcyclist until they've taken their helmet off. That on it's own is a pretty big problem but it gets bigger when you understand something else; it criminalises motorcyclists simply because of the mode of transportation they've chosen. Don't believe me? If you're in a religious organisation that requires you to wear a burka or yashmak, or any other form of facial covering, you won't be asked to remove your facewear. So it's OK to discriminate against motorcyclists, but it's not OK to discriminate against religious groups for the same reason?
All this discrimination and assuming drivers are naturally guilty (because every numberplate is recorded and sent to the nationwide ANPR database and tracking system, even if you don't drive off without paying), could so easily be averted with the simplest of changes - pay at the pump.
Since moving to the US, I've come to realise what a stroke of genius this is. You don't have to go inside to pay. You don't have to hang around inside a foul-smelling 'convenience' store, in a queue of equally irritated people waiting for an untrained minimum-wage attendant to figure out what the buttons on the till mean. You can be in and out quickly, with minimum fuss and there's never any drive-offs, because the pumps will not dispense anything until a valid credit or debit card has been swiped through them.
For those who don't have cards, or don't want to use them in this way, the system still works because you go inside and pre-pay before they activate the pump - again - no drive-offs - although now you're back inside that hellhole of a store. It's so simple I'm at a loss to understand why the UK went with the over-engineered technology approach. It costs more, it's discriminatory and it's unnecessary. I suspect it's more to do with the desire to have cameras everywhere than it is to do with the prevention of fuel theft. After all, there's so many CCTVs in the UK (1 CCTV camera for every 14 people at the last count in 2009) that they're the most surveilled nation in the world.
The only real downside of pay at the pump is that the pumps, like ATMs, are outside all the time, meaning they're ripe for criminals to rig with card skimmers. But even the most basic awareness of this possibility is enough to thwart that. Don't ever use the debit option - always use the credit option, then you're not typing your PIN into the keypad. If anything, you might be typing a zip code in. If you do accidentally do debit, cover the keypad with your other hand while you type in your PIN. Basic precautions like this - the same ones you should be using at every cash machine - are so easy to do that it really ought to be of no concern to you whether you run your card through a petrol pump to get product.
Monday, July 22, 2013
The drones are coming. Slowly.
Long-time readers of my blog will know the disdain I have for auto-driving cars, but this week I wanted to try to expand a bit further on the issues with them right now.
Look at the limitations of drone cars right now. We'll use Google as an example as they're one of the most advanced in this area. The cars cannot drive on a route that has not already been driven, catalogued and stored as GPS data by Google's engineers. (ie. it cannot navigate on its own). And when I say "catalogued" I do mean "catalogued" - the engineers have to enter every street sign, lamp post, intersection and road marking and 'teach' the computer what they all are. For every road. Ultimately that's why Google has Streetview - it's not so we have a fun way to look at the world, it's so they can collect this data for everywhere their car could ever drive.
It can't merge on or off freeways - that has to be done by hand. It has trouble in traffic that isn't single lane. It can't deal with unexpected events (unexpected debris in the road, for example) because it's not sentient - it's a programmed series of instructions that cannot adapt unless the code has been supplied for every eventuality. That in itself is an impossible task.
It can't drive if one or more of the cameras is covered (think wet leaves sticking to the windshield on an autumn day).
It can't drive in the snow because the world doesn't look like the pristeen clear, sunny day the car expects. It can't drive in heavy rain because the rain and road spray introduce enough data distortion into the cameras and radars that they don't work. More to the point, in heavy spray, adaptive cruise doesn't work for the same reason - radar doesn't work well in precipitation (think of the TV weather radar - it's reflecting off water, basically).
Can these problems be overcome? For the most part, probably. Adapting to changing and unexpected road conditions is the thing that engineers cannot code around. That's either going to require a very fast-learning AI, or it's going to become the achilles heel of drone cars. People do seem to have a hard time understanding why this type of project is so difficult. After all, we've had autopilot in aircraft for decades, right? Yes, but aircraft operate in a fundamentally different environment. TCAS systems talk aircraft-to-aircraft to avoid collisions. Aircraft don't find themselves nose-to-tail in the sky, they don't have to deal with pedestrians walking off the kerb, or cars, trucks, motorbikes, segways, street furniture, signals, illogical road layouts, faded paint or any of the millions of other variables that car and driver have to.
I'm not just picking on Google here. All the manufacturers who are trying this tech have the same problems to a greater or lesser degree. Volvo and Mercedes can't even get their auto-braking systems to work reliably, and unless it's bombproof, 100% reliable, nobody is going to want it in their cars. Hunt around YouTube for videos of the various public and very embarrassing tests where manufacturers have demonstrated their auto-braking systems mowing down cardboard pedestrians, driving through foam brick walls and in one very prominent case, burying the car under the back of a real truck with some considerable force.
If you still think I'm being pessimistic, think of this : drive-by-wire cars - in particular some Toyotas. That's a single system - a throttle. Not a complex series of computers, sensors, cameras and radars. It's a pair of potentiometers a length of wire and a servo motor. And yet this very system has been accused of causing 89 deaths in Toyota vehicles - a figure Toyota deny and have now been accused of covering up evidence about. If (and it's a big IF), it turns out that their unintended acceleration woes were caused by an electrical fault in something as simple as throttle-by-wire, and if they're spending millions covering it up, can you seriously imagine any manufacturer taking responsibility for deaths caused by fully autonomous drone cars?
I for one am not looking forward to a future where drone cars are the norm. In fact, as a daily driver and motorcyclist, I can't imagine a more bleak or dangerous place to live. However if you really are pining for the day when you'll be able to eliminate all personal responsibility and get in a vehicle that just drives you to where you want to be, I have good news. That day is already here. It's called a taxi. Or a bus. Or tram. Or train.
Footnote : Forbes did a short writeup on similar issues back in March - a one-page worthwhile read if you have another three minutes : Forbes and the Google car
Look at the limitations of drone cars right now. We'll use Google as an example as they're one of the most advanced in this area. The cars cannot drive on a route that has not already been driven, catalogued and stored as GPS data by Google's engineers. (ie. it cannot navigate on its own). And when I say "catalogued" I do mean "catalogued" - the engineers have to enter every street sign, lamp post, intersection and road marking and 'teach' the computer what they all are. For every road. Ultimately that's why Google has Streetview - it's not so we have a fun way to look at the world, it's so they can collect this data for everywhere their car could ever drive.
It can't merge on or off freeways - that has to be done by hand. It has trouble in traffic that isn't single lane. It can't deal with unexpected events (unexpected debris in the road, for example) because it's not sentient - it's a programmed series of instructions that cannot adapt unless the code has been supplied for every eventuality. That in itself is an impossible task.
It can't drive if one or more of the cameras is covered (think wet leaves sticking to the windshield on an autumn day).
It can't drive in the snow because the world doesn't look like the pristeen clear, sunny day the car expects. It can't drive in heavy rain because the rain and road spray introduce enough data distortion into the cameras and radars that they don't work. More to the point, in heavy spray, adaptive cruise doesn't work for the same reason - radar doesn't work well in precipitation (think of the TV weather radar - it's reflecting off water, basically).
Can these problems be overcome? For the most part, probably. Adapting to changing and unexpected road conditions is the thing that engineers cannot code around. That's either going to require a very fast-learning AI, or it's going to become the achilles heel of drone cars. People do seem to have a hard time understanding why this type of project is so difficult. After all, we've had autopilot in aircraft for decades, right? Yes, but aircraft operate in a fundamentally different environment. TCAS systems talk aircraft-to-aircraft to avoid collisions. Aircraft don't find themselves nose-to-tail in the sky, they don't have to deal with pedestrians walking off the kerb, or cars, trucks, motorbikes, segways, street furniture, signals, illogical road layouts, faded paint or any of the millions of other variables that car and driver have to.
I'm not just picking on Google here. All the manufacturers who are trying this tech have the same problems to a greater or lesser degree. Volvo and Mercedes can't even get their auto-braking systems to work reliably, and unless it's bombproof, 100% reliable, nobody is going to want it in their cars. Hunt around YouTube for videos of the various public and very embarrassing tests where manufacturers have demonstrated their auto-braking systems mowing down cardboard pedestrians, driving through foam brick walls and in one very prominent case, burying the car under the back of a real truck with some considerable force.
If you still think I'm being pessimistic, think of this : drive-by-wire cars - in particular some Toyotas. That's a single system - a throttle. Not a complex series of computers, sensors, cameras and radars. It's a pair of potentiometers a length of wire and a servo motor. And yet this very system has been accused of causing 89 deaths in Toyota vehicles - a figure Toyota deny and have now been accused of covering up evidence about. If (and it's a big IF), it turns out that their unintended acceleration woes were caused by an electrical fault in something as simple as throttle-by-wire, and if they're spending millions covering it up, can you seriously imagine any manufacturer taking responsibility for deaths caused by fully autonomous drone cars?
I for one am not looking forward to a future where drone cars are the norm. In fact, as a daily driver and motorcyclist, I can't imagine a more bleak or dangerous place to live. However if you really are pining for the day when you'll be able to eliminate all personal responsibility and get in a vehicle that just drives you to where you want to be, I have good news. That day is already here. It's called a taxi. Or a bus. Or tram. Or train.
Footnote : Forbes did a short writeup on similar issues back in March - a one-page worthwhile read if you have another three minutes : Forbes and the Google car
Monday, July 15, 2013
Guest post : How the Queen's Face Keeps Me Safe
I was at work the other week when I 'overheard' a conversation. A colleague of mine was discussing whether or not he should invest in new tyres or a new surround sound system in his living room. Admittedly, being beaten on FIFA by a 14 year old somewhere in the world, shooting the enemies on Call of Duty or watching Die Hard or other explosive, action packed films with no plot are all undoubtedly experiences that would be enhanced by the addition of unnecessarily large speakers.
I assumed, possibly incorrectly, that my opinion would be highly valued on this matter. I mean, why wouldn't it be? Right? I asked my colleague if he was sure of his need for new tyres. If he hadn't had his tyres checked and was just working on the basis that it had been a certain length of time since he had bought new ones, he may no longer have a decision to make. I continued to impart my wisdom upon the fortunate individual, or unfortunate depending on your view.
We went out to the car park on our lunch break, armed with nothing more than a 20p coin. If you look at a 20p coin you will see the outer area, around the Queen's face, is a raised margin. I turned the steering wheel so that we could measure the tread of the entire wheel; a lot of people forget the inside of the wheel which is no less important just because you can't see it. You should always check several spots on the tyre, having one weak spot can lead to aquaplaning and other serious accidents.
Many people don't know what tread achieves. Tread lifts the water off the road surface while you drive. Without tread none of your tyre would be in contact with the road, you would actually be in contact with a thin layer of moisture that sits between the road and your car. This is what is commonly known as aquaplaning.
Anyway, back to my story before I get an even higher sense of self importance and superior knowledge (If only I had knowledge on a subject that could earn me early retirement!)
I proceeded to place the 20p coin in the tread, showing my colleague that if you can't see any of the raised margin on the face of the 20p (pictured) then your tyre is still in good condition with regards to tread and wear. I would recommend separate testing for pressure and visual checks on damage that wouldn't be picked up by placing the Queen's face on your tyre!
Turns out he had no need for new tyres and subsequently I have formed a friendship with said colleague. The friendship has nothing to do with the fact he has new speakers and a gaming experience that is far superior to mine, I swear!
Jamie Doutt is a new blogger with a keen interest in anything to do with cars. He has a particular passion for road and tyre safety.
I assumed, possibly incorrectly, that my opinion would be highly valued on this matter. I mean, why wouldn't it be? Right? I asked my colleague if he was sure of his need for new tyres. If he hadn't had his tyres checked and was just working on the basis that it had been a certain length of time since he had bought new ones, he may no longer have a decision to make. I continued to impart my wisdom upon the fortunate individual, or unfortunate depending on your view.
We went out to the car park on our lunch break, armed with nothing more than a 20p coin. If you look at a 20p coin you will see the outer area, around the Queen's face, is a raised margin. I turned the steering wheel so that we could measure the tread of the entire wheel; a lot of people forget the inside of the wheel which is no less important just because you can't see it. You should always check several spots on the tyre, having one weak spot can lead to aquaplaning and other serious accidents.
- Last year 1168 people were injured in accidents where faulty tyres were a contributory factor.
- 36 deaths through accidents, where on evaluation, the tyres were considered to be unsafe and in need of replacement
- The tyre is the only point of contact between you and the road
Many people don't know what tread achieves. Tread lifts the water off the road surface while you drive. Without tread none of your tyre would be in contact with the road, you would actually be in contact with a thin layer of moisture that sits between the road and your car. This is what is commonly known as aquaplaning.
Anyway, back to my story before I get an even higher sense of self importance and superior knowledge (If only I had knowledge on a subject that could earn me early retirement!)
I proceeded to place the 20p coin in the tread, showing my colleague that if you can't see any of the raised margin on the face of the 20p (pictured) then your tyre is still in good condition with regards to tread and wear. I would recommend separate testing for pressure and visual checks on damage that wouldn't be picked up by placing the Queen's face on your tyre!
Turns out he had no need for new tyres and subsequently I have formed a friendship with said colleague. The friendship has nothing to do with the fact he has new speakers and a gaming experience that is far superior to mine, I swear!
Jamie Doutt is a new blogger with a keen interest in anything to do with cars. He has a particular passion for road and tyre safety.
Monday, July 8, 2013
Unclean at any speed
A short post this week, with a link to an article I urge anyone interested in electric cars to read : Unclean at any speed. This article deals with the sobering truth that swapping from petrol powered cars to electric ones is like swapping one brand of cigarettes for another. In terms of the overall 'green' credentials that electric cars tout, they're really not that much better for the environment once you take into account the pollution caused by the manufacture and disposal of the car, it's electrical systems and batteries, and the pollution at the power generating facilities.
The last paragraph in the article sums it up nicely: "Should environmentally minded people really revere electric cars? Perhaps we should look beyond the shiny gadgets now being offered and revisit some less sexy but potent options—smog reduction, bike lanes, energy taxes, and land-use changes to start. Let’s not be seduced by high-tech illusions."
So by all means buy an electric car, but don't kid yourself that the primary reason for doing is to be 'green'.
The last paragraph in the article sums it up nicely: "Should environmentally minded people really revere electric cars? Perhaps we should look beyond the shiny gadgets now being offered and revisit some less sexy but potent options—smog reduction, bike lanes, energy taxes, and land-use changes to start. Let’s not be seduced by high-tech illusions."
So by all means buy an electric car, but don't kid yourself that the primary reason for doing is to be 'green'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)