Monday, December 23, 2013
Seriously? You're reading my blog this close to Christmas?
I'm an atheist but even I enjoy Christmas. Go and be with your family. Eat too much, give extravagant gifts and hope someone buys you a Porsche 911 for Christmas. I didn't even type this today - I typed it three weeks ago and scheduled it to publish today. Get off the damn computer and go and do something Christmas-y :)
Monday, December 16, 2013
Speeding myths again
Come the winter months, come the tired old mantra about speeding being the cause of so many accidents. Every time you see a police officer interviewed on TV, they always say the same thing: "slow down".
Ugh.
Ok folks - look - speeding is not the prime cause of accidents. Not in any weather, not by a considerable margin, not by any way of looking at the numbers that you choose. Generally speaking, in Europe, America and Australia, speeding is only the contributing factor in 7% of road accidents. Dangerous maneuvers, inattention, failure to maintain control, "pedestrian entered roadway without looking", "looked but didn't see", drunk driving, drug driving, distracted (cellphone) driving, and mechanical failure all cause more accidents than speeding. This is backed up by dozens of studies done across the globe, all of which get buried really quickly every time they're published. Why? Because it's easier to catch and prosecute someone for speeding than it is to prosecute for dangerous or distracted driving.
Automated speed cameras are designed to raise revenue with very little financial outlay. They are impartial, unbiased, have zero subjectivity, and if the local cops are a bit bent, are easy to hack to issue tickets to people driving at the speed limit (happens a lot - google it).
What do I mean by subjectivity? It's OK to cut in and out of lanes, dodging trucks and pissing off everybody else in pouring rain, with bald tyres and one headlight out, because the police generally can't catch you, and won't catch you when you're doing that. And no automated system can. But zip past a speed camera on a completely empty three-lane road at 90mph at 2:30am and cha-ching! Cash for the police, points on your licence. Which is the most dangerous? Obviously not the empty road at zero-dark-thirty.
Study upon study has found that speed cameras do not deter drivers, and in some cases actually make the roads more dangerous. Even at the most optimistic level, they don't make any road any safer, and nothing illustrates this more than getting a speeding fine in the mail. I got one last year from Switzerland. I was there in December on business in a rented car, and in February I received a fine here at home in the US, to be paid to the Swiss police. Issuing a fine through the mail does not make a road safer. All it does is raise money. The worst part in this particular case was that I wasn't even driving - I wasn't even in the country. It was a corporate rental with two names on the rental receipt - mine being at the top - but my colleague (the second-named driver) was driving it as he stayed on an extra week.
The take-away from all this is simple : better driver training, more attention behind the wheel, less distractions and steeper fines and prosecution for dangerous driving. That will cut accident rates. But those are all expensive and complicated to implement, and don't raise cold hard cash. So we have to deal with the idiotic mantra that "speed kills" (it doesn't), so for the time being, buy a radar detector and/or GPS speedtrap locator (or use Waze on your smartphone), drive as quickly and safely as the traffic allows, and be vigilant.
You can find my entire page on this topic here : Speeding facts vs fiction, including links to various reports on how dangerous speed cameras are.
Ugh.
Ok folks - look - speeding is not the prime cause of accidents. Not in any weather, not by a considerable margin, not by any way of looking at the numbers that you choose. Generally speaking, in Europe, America and Australia, speeding is only the contributing factor in 7% of road accidents. Dangerous maneuvers, inattention, failure to maintain control, "pedestrian entered roadway without looking", "looked but didn't see", drunk driving, drug driving, distracted (cellphone) driving, and mechanical failure all cause more accidents than speeding. This is backed up by dozens of studies done across the globe, all of which get buried really quickly every time they're published. Why? Because it's easier to catch and prosecute someone for speeding than it is to prosecute for dangerous or distracted driving.
Automated speed cameras are designed to raise revenue with very little financial outlay. They are impartial, unbiased, have zero subjectivity, and if the local cops are a bit bent, are easy to hack to issue tickets to people driving at the speed limit (happens a lot - google it).
What do I mean by subjectivity? It's OK to cut in and out of lanes, dodging trucks and pissing off everybody else in pouring rain, with bald tyres and one headlight out, because the police generally can't catch you, and won't catch you when you're doing that. And no automated system can. But zip past a speed camera on a completely empty three-lane road at 90mph at 2:30am and cha-ching! Cash for the police, points on your licence. Which is the most dangerous? Obviously not the empty road at zero-dark-thirty.
Study upon study has found that speed cameras do not deter drivers, and in some cases actually make the roads more dangerous. Even at the most optimistic level, they don't make any road any safer, and nothing illustrates this more than getting a speeding fine in the mail. I got one last year from Switzerland. I was there in December on business in a rented car, and in February I received a fine here at home in the US, to be paid to the Swiss police. Issuing a fine through the mail does not make a road safer. All it does is raise money. The worst part in this particular case was that I wasn't even driving - I wasn't even in the country. It was a corporate rental with two names on the rental receipt - mine being at the top - but my colleague (the second-named driver) was driving it as he stayed on an extra week.
The take-away from all this is simple : better driver training, more attention behind the wheel, less distractions and steeper fines and prosecution for dangerous driving. That will cut accident rates. But those are all expensive and complicated to implement, and don't raise cold hard cash. So we have to deal with the idiotic mantra that "speed kills" (it doesn't), so for the time being, buy a radar detector and/or GPS speedtrap locator (or use Waze on your smartphone), drive as quickly and safely as the traffic allows, and be vigilant.
You can find my entire page on this topic here : Speeding facts vs fiction, including links to various reports on how dangerous speed cameras are.
Monday, December 9, 2013
Winter tyres and why you should use them
Up here in the northern hemisphere we're well into the cold season now, and I do get asked from time to time what my thoughts are on snow tyres. I've posted about this before but it's timely to mention it again.
Snow tyres are denoted by an M+S sign on the sidewall, or an embossed snowflake symbol. They differ from all-season or summer tyres in two main ways. First, the rubber compound is much softer, and second, the tread has a lot more siping in it (the thin cuts in the tread). The softer rubber compound means the tyre can maintain its flexibility at much lower temperatures, and the extra siping allows the tyre to have a lot more surface area for gripping loose surfaces. Packed snow is where you'll really notice a difference with winter tyres. Whilst they won't perform like summer tyres on a dry road, they'll outperform any summer or all-season setup with ease. 4-wheel drive or all-wheel-drive isn't enough in these sorts of conditions, and when it comes to braking, it doesn't matter if you have 4WD or AWD - what matters is whether or not the tyres can cope.
Where I live we regularly get snowy, icy winters, and even when the main roads have been plowed, the side streets are often a mess of rutted, packed down snow. For me, it makes complete sense to have snow tyres. But what about if you live somewhere like England where you only really get snow on the roads a couple of times a year? Snow tyres are actually still a worthwhile investment because they're also much better in lower temperature conditions. So even if the road isn't covered in snow, if it's cold and wet - in icy winter's morning in the UK for example - there's still a lot of benefit to be had.
The one thing to be careful of with snow tyres is the time of year. Generally speaking, unless you live somewhere with extremes of weather, you shouldn't run these tyres much after April, or before November. In warmer weather, the soft compound will wear extremely quickly. It's not unsafe, but it is burning money for no reason (the extra tread complexity and grip reduces your mpg). The ideal setup is a set of snow tyres for the winter months, and regular tyres for the rest of the year. It might seem expensive but think about this : the winter tyres will last 4 or 5 winters because they're not getting much use. So whilst paying for them this year will cost you some cash, for the next 4 years you've basically got 'free' winter tyres.
For most drivers, the idea of extra tyres for one season is a really hard sell. But just try it. I guarantee once you've done it once, you'll never go back to using all-season, or summer tyres in the winter months.
Snow tyres are denoted by an M+S sign on the sidewall, or an embossed snowflake symbol. They differ from all-season or summer tyres in two main ways. First, the rubber compound is much softer, and second, the tread has a lot more siping in it (the thin cuts in the tread). The softer rubber compound means the tyre can maintain its flexibility at much lower temperatures, and the extra siping allows the tyre to have a lot more surface area for gripping loose surfaces. Packed snow is where you'll really notice a difference with winter tyres. Whilst they won't perform like summer tyres on a dry road, they'll outperform any summer or all-season setup with ease. 4-wheel drive or all-wheel-drive isn't enough in these sorts of conditions, and when it comes to braking, it doesn't matter if you have 4WD or AWD - what matters is whether or not the tyres can cope.
Where I live we regularly get snowy, icy winters, and even when the main roads have been plowed, the side streets are often a mess of rutted, packed down snow. For me, it makes complete sense to have snow tyres. But what about if you live somewhere like England where you only really get snow on the roads a couple of times a year? Snow tyres are actually still a worthwhile investment because they're also much better in lower temperature conditions. So even if the road isn't covered in snow, if it's cold and wet - in icy winter's morning in the UK for example - there's still a lot of benefit to be had.
The one thing to be careful of with snow tyres is the time of year. Generally speaking, unless you live somewhere with extremes of weather, you shouldn't run these tyres much after April, or before November. In warmer weather, the soft compound will wear extremely quickly. It's not unsafe, but it is burning money for no reason (the extra tread complexity and grip reduces your mpg). The ideal setup is a set of snow tyres for the winter months, and regular tyres for the rest of the year. It might seem expensive but think about this : the winter tyres will last 4 or 5 winters because they're not getting much use. So whilst paying for them this year will cost you some cash, for the next 4 years you've basically got 'free' winter tyres.
For most drivers, the idea of extra tyres for one season is a really hard sell. But just try it. I guarantee once you've done it once, you'll never go back to using all-season, or summer tyres in the winter months.
Monday, December 2, 2013
To those who think texting and driving is somehow OK....
Some claim this ad is sensationalist and violent, and shouldn't be shown to children. If anything I think it understates the accident itself because people who are cossetted in their 'safe' cars seem to have lost sight of the fact that accidents DO happen. They think that texting and general cellphone use whilst driving is OK because they think that they can multitask. They're wrong. Until this message gets across to people, and until the police and local authorities actually start penalising people for doing it, ads like this are the best shot of trying to get people to understand.
Yes, it's a re-post, but it's been 4 years since I posted it last, and given the sheer idiocy of drivers with their cellphones nowadays, I thought it was worth bringing up again.
Yes, it's a re-post, but it's been 4 years since I posted it last, and given the sheer idiocy of drivers with their cellphones nowadays, I thought it was worth bringing up again.
Monday, November 25, 2013
The one-eyed monster
Come the darker commutes, come the people who are so lazy they can't even change a light bulb. You don't typically notice it until September time, but they're there. The one-eyed monsters - cars running on one sidelight and one full-beam. I've never really understood this. The drivers obviously know one light is out because they're trying to compensate by using the other light on high beam. Day after day, week after week I pass the same four or five cars like this. Why can't they stop at the car place (that they drive past every day, incidentally) and buy a bulb for less than the cost of a fast food lunch? It would take 5 minutes to fix the problem and they'd be able to see much better and wouldn't be pissing off all the other drivers on the road.
I think I know the answer to this. For a long time there was the myth of the unchangeable headlight bulb. "Oh you can't change the bulb - you need a whole new headlight" was the story. That might have been true for one model year of one Talbot made at some point in the 70's, but in all the cars I've worked on in the last 25 years, I've yet to see a single one with a 'sealed' headlight unit.
The modern equivalent, of course, is that "it's so difficult to change the bulb that you need the dealer to do it". When people say that, what they mean is "I'm too damn lazy to try to figure it out". Yes it might involve a scraped knuckle, or undoing a screw to move a piece of plastic out of the way. Yes you might get dirty hands, and yes, reaching around to get the bulb swapped over could be awkward but it's very do-able.
Let's put it like this: unless you've had to change the right side headlight bulb in a 1985 Audi ur-Quattro, you don't really have a leg to stand on in the "too difficult" debate. For the record, the air filter box had to come out to swap the bulb on that side. During manufacture, the box was put in before the engine so the lower bolt was only accessible from underneath the car with a very long ratchet wrench. In addition, the fuel injection system was bolted to the top of the filter cover, so that had to come off first. To get that off you had to loosen the injector rail and to loosen the injector rail you had to take off the cold-start injector and the rocker cover vapour scavenger hose. Once all that was done you still only had about a 30% change of being able to change the bulb. The only true solution was to take off the intake manifold too.
I think I know the answer to this. For a long time there was the myth of the unchangeable headlight bulb. "Oh you can't change the bulb - you need a whole new headlight" was the story. That might have been true for one model year of one Talbot made at some point in the 70's, but in all the cars I've worked on in the last 25 years, I've yet to see a single one with a 'sealed' headlight unit.
The modern equivalent, of course, is that "it's so difficult to change the bulb that you need the dealer to do it". When people say that, what they mean is "I'm too damn lazy to try to figure it out". Yes it might involve a scraped knuckle, or undoing a screw to move a piece of plastic out of the way. Yes you might get dirty hands, and yes, reaching around to get the bulb swapped over could be awkward but it's very do-able.
Let's put it like this: unless you've had to change the right side headlight bulb in a 1985 Audi ur-Quattro, you don't really have a leg to stand on in the "too difficult" debate. For the record, the air filter box had to come out to swap the bulb on that side. During manufacture, the box was put in before the engine so the lower bolt was only accessible from underneath the car with a very long ratchet wrench. In addition, the fuel injection system was bolted to the top of the filter cover, so that had to come off first. To get that off you had to loosen the injector rail and to loosen the injector rail you had to take off the cold-start injector and the rocker cover vapour scavenger hose. Once all that was done you still only had about a 30% change of being able to change the bulb. The only true solution was to take off the intake manifold too.
Monday, November 18, 2013
Diminished value
Regular readers might remember the unfortunate circumstances surrounding my new car back in the summer. Three weeks after taking delivery of it, a woman who was paying more attention to the kids in the back of her minivan than she was to - you know - driving, ran into me causing a wreck. It was a fixable wreck, fortunately, but about the biggest issue on my mind at the time was this : the CarFax report for my car was now going to reflect an accident, and thus when I eventually come to sell or trade it, it's going to be worth less.
So I did a little research and there's a term used by the insurance companies called 'diminished value' or 'diminishment of value'. It reflects what the insurance company deems to be the difference in value of the car before and after the accident. Ie. when you go to sell it - that loss you make should be covered by a diminished value claim.
I'm not sure what it's like in Europe - it's been a decade since I lived there - but in the US it's only law in certain states that the insurance companies pay out these sorts of claims. Where I live, it's not law, so I figured I'd ask, expecting to get nothing. I called the woman's insurance company right up front and asked about it and they said they'd investigate a diminished value claim once all the repairs had been made and I was back in my vehicle. True to their word, a week after my car was returned to me, I had a call and they said they were processing the claim, despite not being legally obliged to do so. I think in my case it was likely because the car was essentially brand new. Either way, they told me it would be a percentage of the cost of the repair.
The week after that, they called me again and gave me the valuation. I'm not going to tell you what it was, but I'm more than happy with it and it's four times what I was expecting once I discovered they were likely to fill the claim. I had to sign a release, meaning that I cannot pursue them for any more damages based on this particular accident and claim, but that's standard stuff.
So what did I learn? Well at one point in the process I did actually speak to a lawyer to ask if it was worth pursuing the diminished value claim, and he advised me not to bother because it would be an uphill battle in this state. That's why I was prepared to get nothing, so when I did get a payment, I was more than happy.
I feel at this point I really ought to mention the insurance company given that they get nothing but a bad reputation : State Farm. In my case they dealt with me fairly and politely and didn't quibble about anything. I didn't particularly want any of this to happen, but in the end, it all appears to have worked out nicely. In reality, that's all you want from an insurance claim.
So I did a little research and there's a term used by the insurance companies called 'diminished value' or 'diminishment of value'. It reflects what the insurance company deems to be the difference in value of the car before and after the accident. Ie. when you go to sell it - that loss you make should be covered by a diminished value claim.
I'm not sure what it's like in Europe - it's been a decade since I lived there - but in the US it's only law in certain states that the insurance companies pay out these sorts of claims. Where I live, it's not law, so I figured I'd ask, expecting to get nothing. I called the woman's insurance company right up front and asked about it and they said they'd investigate a diminished value claim once all the repairs had been made and I was back in my vehicle. True to their word, a week after my car was returned to me, I had a call and they said they were processing the claim, despite not being legally obliged to do so. I think in my case it was likely because the car was essentially brand new. Either way, they told me it would be a percentage of the cost of the repair.
The week after that, they called me again and gave me the valuation. I'm not going to tell you what it was, but I'm more than happy with it and it's four times what I was expecting once I discovered they were likely to fill the claim. I had to sign a release, meaning that I cannot pursue them for any more damages based on this particular accident and claim, but that's standard stuff.
So what did I learn? Well at one point in the process I did actually speak to a lawyer to ask if it was worth pursuing the diminished value claim, and he advised me not to bother because it would be an uphill battle in this state. That's why I was prepared to get nothing, so when I did get a payment, I was more than happy.
I feel at this point I really ought to mention the insurance company given that they get nothing but a bad reputation : State Farm. In my case they dealt with me fairly and politely and didn't quibble about anything. I didn't particularly want any of this to happen, but in the end, it all appears to have worked out nicely. In reality, that's all you want from an insurance claim.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)