So we were all robbed of Top Gear this weekend because that dinosaur of broadcasting - the BBC - doesn't understand the very show it produces. Yes, Jeremy Clarkson shouted and swore at a producer. Maybe he hit him - that bit is still unclear. If I'd worked all day in the cold and rain, with the expectation of a hot meal at the end of it, I think I would have had the same reaction if the person who's job it was to arrange that meal had (for whatever reason) not done so. But for the BBC to react the way it has is symptomatic of a larger problem - they've had it in for Clarkson for a year or so now and they're looking at this as the golden opportunity to get rid of him.
The BBC demonstrably don't understand Top Gear. They said this weekend that it would survive without Clarkson. They indicated that Dancing With The Stars survived a change of host, and that was proof enough. The difference is - people don't watch a dancing show for the presenters - they watch it for the dancing. Top Gear's success hinges on the presenters as well as the cars. Proof of that can be seen in the failed Japanese, American and Australian versions of the show. Despite the same format and the same filming and editing quality, the 'talent' was just not there.
So what to do? The obvious choice would be for Jeremy Clarkson, Richard Hammond and James May to abandon The Olde Worlde and offer their services to Sky or Netflix. The show wouldn't be called Top Gear but those of us who understand the show would follow them to wherever they end up. For sure, both of those companies would give an arm and a leg to have the hosts come to their networks, to the point where they stated this weekend that they would pay Hammond and May out of their contracts with the Beeb. The BBC claim that the three of them wouldn't have the freedom to do what they do now if they were beholden to a commercial TV station with advertisers to satisfy. Again - the BBC don't understand the power of Top Gear. Despite the idiocy of the show, manufacturers are clamouring to get their products on there. They know that any publicity is good publicity, even if three middle-aged farts hate the car.
The worst outcome could be that Top Gear is cancelled, and Clarkson, Hammond and May go their own ways never to do another motoring show. If that happens, we can all look back on this week as the week that the BBC demonstrated that they had no idea how to handle their single biggest intellectual propery. 350M viewers, 170 countres, magazines, DVDs, specials and all the other ancilliaries. Financially speaking, if Top Gear goes away, the BBC will have to shut down at least one of its other TV stations (likely BBC4) and at least one of its radio stations as it simply doesn't have the cashflow with TG out of the picture.
#bringbackClarkson
Monday, March 16, 2015
Monday, March 9, 2015
Top Gear made a valid point.
Everyone loves to hate Jeremy Clarkson, especially the Daily Mail with their not-so-secret hate campaign against him. But every once in a while a jewel of information pops out that is both funny and actually true.
A couple of weeks ago, Top Gear asked why the speed limit on motorways in England is still 70mph. The answer it seems is because of the decades-old advice that states that it takes 315ft to come to a complete stop at 70mph. Maybe in the 60's that was true, when cars had drum brakes, cross-ply tyres and flimsy frames. But as Clarkson pointed out, in modern ABS-equipped vehicles with independent suspension and radial tyres, the stopping distance from 70mph is nothing like 315ft - even in the wet. Less still if you have any of the current crop of brake assist technologies.
The point was well made when they indicated that to actually take 315ft to stop, you could be cruising at over 120mph nowadays. The point was made in typical Top Gear fashion but it was an important topic nevertheless. The highway code has not updated it's guidance on stopping distances for decades, and the speed limits on modern roads are not commensurate with modern driving practices or vehicle design. Maybe it's time we all revisited that particular topic.....
A couple of weeks ago, Top Gear asked why the speed limit on motorways in England is still 70mph. The answer it seems is because of the decades-old advice that states that it takes 315ft to come to a complete stop at 70mph. Maybe in the 60's that was true, when cars had drum brakes, cross-ply tyres and flimsy frames. But as Clarkson pointed out, in modern ABS-equipped vehicles with independent suspension and radial tyres, the stopping distance from 70mph is nothing like 315ft - even in the wet. Less still if you have any of the current crop of brake assist technologies.
The point was well made when they indicated that to actually take 315ft to stop, you could be cruising at over 120mph nowadays. The point was made in typical Top Gear fashion but it was an important topic nevertheless. The highway code has not updated it's guidance on stopping distances for decades, and the speed limits on modern roads are not commensurate with modern driving practices or vehicle design. Maybe it's time we all revisited that particular topic.....
Monday, March 2, 2015
Once again, higher speed limits = lower accident rates
A couple of months ago, our local roads authority (UDOT, in Utah) decided that the speed limit on the motorways should be raised from 65mph to 70mph. At least up in the north of the state. The press and media were full of hysterical women screaming "won't somebody think of the children" and dire warnings from random people interviewed on the street about how it was going to be a bloodbath, a massacre, a dark day for road safety etc etc blah blah blah. The highway patrol were remarkably quiet about it - the one spokesman who did get interviewed said they would reserve judgement.
Well - as has happened pretty much everywhere this has been tried - guess what? Accident rates have fallen. The same happened in southern Utah when the limit was raised to 80mph. The same happened in Switzerland, the Netherlands, Spain, Greece, Sweden, Norway and all the other locations where enlightened authorities have realised that it's not the speed that is the problem, it is the DIFFERENCE in speed that is the problem, especially on motorways.
Now I know this isn't a popular view - the truth often isn't. But the facts speak for themselves and the theory behind it is simple and sound. It is this: A huge percentage of drivers are already breaking the speed limit and driving at 75. The law-abiding drivers are doing the posted limit - 65. This means the largest speed differential between the average driver and the law-abiding driver is 10mph. Raise the limit to 70 and the faster drivers don't suddenly all do 80 - they keep going at the speeds they're used to - 75. The difference is that the law-abiding drivers are now doing 70 and the differential has been cut in half to 5mph. That gives you a lot more time to react when everyone is travelling at speeds that are more closely matched. In areas where the limit was raised to 80, the speed differential has effectively become zero. In those areas, people were already doing 80, now the law-abiding drivers are doing the same speed.
Meanwhile back in England, they're crusading to lower the limit from 70mph to 50mph on the motorways. Although that's nothing to do with safety and everything to do with making money through automated speed cameras.
Well - as has happened pretty much everywhere this has been tried - guess what? Accident rates have fallen. The same happened in southern Utah when the limit was raised to 80mph. The same happened in Switzerland, the Netherlands, Spain, Greece, Sweden, Norway and all the other locations where enlightened authorities have realised that it's not the speed that is the problem, it is the DIFFERENCE in speed that is the problem, especially on motorways.
Now I know this isn't a popular view - the truth often isn't. But the facts speak for themselves and the theory behind it is simple and sound. It is this: A huge percentage of drivers are already breaking the speed limit and driving at 75. The law-abiding drivers are doing the posted limit - 65. This means the largest speed differential between the average driver and the law-abiding driver is 10mph. Raise the limit to 70 and the faster drivers don't suddenly all do 80 - they keep going at the speeds they're used to - 75. The difference is that the law-abiding drivers are now doing 70 and the differential has been cut in half to 5mph. That gives you a lot more time to react when everyone is travelling at speeds that are more closely matched. In areas where the limit was raised to 80, the speed differential has effectively become zero. In those areas, people were already doing 80, now the law-abiding drivers are doing the same speed.
Meanwhile back in England, they're crusading to lower the limit from 70mph to 50mph on the motorways. Although that's nothing to do with safety and everything to do with making money through automated speed cameras.
Monday, February 23, 2015
Californians and lane discipline.
Lane discipline on motorways is something that seems to confuse a tremendous number of people. The rule is pretty simple: use the inner-most lane(s) and only use the outer lane(s) when passing. Not sure that's so hard to remember. I think part of the problem is that people think the outside lane is called the 'fast' lane, and it's not. You can drive plenty fast in the inside lanes.
What was enlightening to me recently though was just how regional this is. We were driving from Salt Lake City to Palm Springs and once we got south of Vegas, there was a noticable change in driving style. The motorway is two lanes either direction, and without fail, the Nevada vehicles would pull out, pass and pull back in, whilst the California vehicles would be sitting in the outside lane even on totally empty sections. (Utah vehicles would be stuck on the hard shoulder, crashing into other vehicles, driving backwards etc - the usual Utah crapshoot)
Fortunately in the US, you can overtake on both sides, so passing on the right was quick and simple. (Ok technically that's illegal in many states but the chances of being pulled over for doing it are absolute zero.)
I have trouble understanding the mindset of the drivers who just sit hogging the outside lane. It's the same everywhere - worse in Europe because not only is it illegal to overtake on the wrong side, but the police take such a dim view of it that you can lose your license in some countries if you're caught. But to see such a stark example of it made me wonder if there's some peculiarity about California drivers or the way they're taught. We passed hundreds of CA plates on open sections, on the right, as they were dawdling in the outside lane going 5 under the limit.
What was enlightening to me recently though was just how regional this is. We were driving from Salt Lake City to Palm Springs and once we got south of Vegas, there was a noticable change in driving style. The motorway is two lanes either direction, and without fail, the Nevada vehicles would pull out, pass and pull back in, whilst the California vehicles would be sitting in the outside lane even on totally empty sections. (Utah vehicles would be stuck on the hard shoulder, crashing into other vehicles, driving backwards etc - the usual Utah crapshoot)
Fortunately in the US, you can overtake on both sides, so passing on the right was quick and simple. (Ok technically that's illegal in many states but the chances of being pulled over for doing it are absolute zero.)
I have trouble understanding the mindset of the drivers who just sit hogging the outside lane. It's the same everywhere - worse in Europe because not only is it illegal to overtake on the wrong side, but the police take such a dim view of it that you can lose your license in some countries if you're caught. But to see such a stark example of it made me wonder if there's some peculiarity about California drivers or the way they're taught. We passed hundreds of CA plates on open sections, on the right, as they were dawdling in the outside lane going 5 under the limit.
Monday, February 16, 2015
The history of the car battery
I came across an interesting infographic a couple of weeks ago that I thought was worth sharing - the history of the car battery. Although it's more of a 'history of car electrical systems' too. Worth reading because it has some useful information in it but it might also jog a few people's memories about the age of their current battery. They don't last forever and if you live somewhere with extremes of temperature, you'll be lucky if a modern car battery lasts 5 years. It's not that they're badly manufactured, more that modern cars put such a tremendous strain on the electrical system with all the entertainment systems, heated seats, power-this and power-that, and car battery design hasn't changed much in the last few decades. Anyway - the infographic : The history of the car battery.
Monday, February 9, 2015
Captain Risky
A short post this week - in fact no post at all. Just enjoy this Australian ad spot for an insurance company...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)