Jil McIntosh

Plant a tree: It's the new thing to do

Volkswagen has announced that it will build a new plant near Chattanooga, Tennessee, to produce a midsize sedan designed for the North American market.

From the press release: Environmental responsibility is a core value of the Volkswagen Group ... As an expression of this shared commitment, the state of Tennessee, Volkswagen and Chattanooga-area organizations are partnering to distribute two saplings for every tree displaced by the project. The new trees will be planted by local school children.

The cockles of my heart are warm enough to toast bread right now. Call me a cynic (go ahead, I'll wait), but we're building a manufacturing facility to produce 150,000 gasoline-burning vehicles each year, obviously knocking down some forests to do so, and schoolchildren putting in some saplings is going to make it all better? Frankly, I'm getting a little tired of carbon credits and tree plantings and all the other "feel-good" stuff that tries to make industry look much better than it is. As far as I'm concerned, "green" is the color of my living room walls, and "greening" is not a word. I think I'd have more respect for them if they just said look, it's business, it's going to affect the environment but it's the best we can do. Honesty is always the best policy.

Safety: Start at the beginning

In the news: Volvo has announced a new goal. The Swedish automaker is aiming for "zero accidents" and is determined that by 2020, "no one should be killed or injured in a Volvo."

A lofty if impossible goal, which the company is addressing by analyzing data and outfitting its vehicles with numerous safety features, including those that monitor the driver's drowsiness, the distance to the vehicle up ahead, and devices that eventually could auto-brake and auto-steer around other vehicles or pedestrians.

To its credit, Volvo says that it follows the principle that "the driver should be in command", and that the various devices are only assistants. But the flaw I see is that Volvo is giving the driver far too much credit. The only way absolutely no one will be killed or injured in a Volvo is if absolutely no one is ever actually in a Volvo.

Rather than cars that steer and brake themselves, here's what I'd like to see: people who drive the cars. That means no cell phones, no coffee cups, no hamburgers, no text-messaging. It means far better driving tests than we presently use to determine if someone's safe enough to be behind the wheel. It means periodic testing, and more access to skid schools and defensive driving courses. And it means people using the gray matter between their ears as more than just stuffing in their skulls.

Here in Ontario, three young men were killed in a single-car crash when their Audi S4 -- actually, an S4 belonging to the father of the 20-year-old driver -- went through a guardrail and plunged into a river. Between them, the three -- two of them 20 years old, one 19 -- had fifteen traffic charges over a three-year period. The lone survivor of the crash has said they had all consumed alcohol, and when the driver sped up, one of the passengers told him that was "great driving". The survivor admitted to turning up the already-loud stereo just before the crash.

As they say, ya can't fix dumb. I admire Volvo's ideal; I don't want to see anyone die in a car crash. But sometimes, even the most sophisticated vehicle simply can't save people from themselves.

Europe: Observations and comments

I've just returned from a "busman's holiday" in Munich, where I was supposed to be on vacation. But that never happens, of course, because there is always a story around the corner.

Unlike many of my journalist colleagues, I don't travel much outside of my own continent, and this was only my second trip to Europe, which is probably why I was so wide-eyed. It'll all make its way into a newspaper story soon enough, but here are some of my observations:

- Unlike here, diesel is still cheaper than gasoline in Europe, but that's all relative. Keep in mind that a Euro was about $1.50 Canadian at the time when you look at the prices in the photo. Even so, I saw more large cars than I expected in Munich, which is probably due to that city's relative wealth. But small vehicles still make up the majority, including delivery vehicles which are far more compact than the big trucks we use in the cities here. The Ford Transit Connect can't get here fast enough.

- Munich drivers drive. They don't talk on cell phones, drink coffee, eat hamburgers, put on makeup, read the newspaper or play with the stereo when they're piloting cars. In nine days, I saw two -- count 'em, two -- drivers talking into phones. Both of them were parking at the time, and both of them did a terrible job of it. I also didn't see any collisions, didn't see any gridlock-blocked intersections, didn't see anyone run a red light, and saw very few cars with any dents in them. Are European drivers perfect? Of course not. But from what I saw, they're sure a hell of a lot better than what we have over here.

- The cops drive BMWs and Mercedes. With stick shifts, if the model comes with one. As do the taxi drivers.

- Bicycles aren't children's toys or exercise machines, they are serious transportation. That picture at the top is of one of the myriad bicycle lanes in the city. Where the streets are large enough, there are three separate areas: cars on the asphalt, bicycles on a paved section of the sidewalk nearest to the road, and pedestrians on the inside of the sidewalk. (If you forget while walking and meander onto the bike lane, be prepared for the ringing bells; they don't stop for you or go around, because it's your responsibility to move.) On the largest streets, there's an electric tram right-of-way in the centre as well. No doubt because they're respected as road users, cyclists obey the rules: they stop for red lights, they stay off the pedestrian area, and they don't drive wherever it suits them -- from sidewalk to curb to turn lane to sidewalk -- as cyclists so often do here. Each bicycle has a light and a bell, and they use them.

- Germans may grumble about their public transit system, but by North American standards, it's incredible, with above-ground and underground city trains, electric trams, buses, and a train system that connects cities across the country. I got off the plane, got onto a train in the airport, and was in the city center thirty minutes later, at a cost of nine Euros. Try doing that from Pearson International to Union Station in Toronto, which is the equivalent; you're looking at two subway trains and a bus.

- Urban density also plays a part; I didn't see any single-family houses anywhere in the city center. Apartment buildings have stores and offices on their lower floors. People walk. Nowhere, even on the smallest side alleys, was I ever the only person on the street.

- And no wonder they walk. I ordered a salad in a restaurant; it turned out to be a dozen slices of sausage, topped with onions, dressing, and half a lettuce leaf, and it came with a giant pretzel. In for a penny, as they say, and of course I ordered a good German beer alongside. Hey, I wasn't driving.

Biofuel goes bankrupt: who knew?

In the news today: ethanol plants in the U.S. are going bankrupt.

According to a news report on Reuters, soaring feedstock prices, rising construction costs, tight credit markets, and ethanol prices that haven't kept up with the soaring cost of gasoline are to blame for about a dozen U.S. ethanol plants filing for bankruptcy protection.

It also seems that, while gasoline companies are required by law to mix renewable fuels into the fossil stuff, they don't want to pay very much for it, and so the ethanol producers aren't getting enough to cover their costs.

This would all be deliciously ironic if it weren't for the fact that corn is in just about every product we eat or even touch these days. I've read about downward spirals from the times before my time -- the Depression, the Dust Bowl. It sure feels weird to look around and realize I'm in the middle of one.

Another low-fat potato chip comes to showrooms

In the news: Chrysler has launched the Aspen Hemi Hybrid. The Dodge Durango version will be coming, too.

So this is what Chrysler has chosen for its first entry into the hybrid market. Not a juiced-up version of the Caliber, or an auto-stop Sebring, or even a big vehicle that would make sense, like a work truck, which companies and contractors are going to have to buy even if gas goes to four bucks a litre. No, this technology goes into a giant SUV that's already a low-volume model and undoubtedly will continue to be, even with the $1,000-per-year fuel savings that the company claims it will provide.

I really hate to rag on the domestic automakers, because I want to see North America with a solid manufacturing base -- it benefits all of us, no matter how far removed we are from the auto industry. But they just seem to miss the point so often. This hybrid is just one more low-fat potato chip: not as bad for you as a regular potato chip, but if you really want to lose weight, reach for an apple or figure out if you're actually hungry instead. We've got the technology. Let's use it for good, not stupid.

Everything is relative ...

Some rambling thoughts on cars and driving for a Tuesday morning. Not necessarily right, not necessarily wrong, just ... observations.

Everything is relative: My everyday driver is a V8-powered, full-size pickup truck. That's bad these days. A family up in town owns a Prius and a Yaris. That's good these days. They have three children (one still in disposable diapers), a house that's approximately 2,800 square feet, central air conditioning, and up until the pesticide ban took effect out here, a Weed-Man sign on the lawn warning that it had been sprayed with poison. I have no children, my house is 900 square feet, I don't have air conditioning, and my gardens have been completely organic for the last 15 years. Hmmm.

What you can and can't do for fun: Going out for a couple of hours "just for a drive" is now frowned upon, because it wastes fuel and contributes to global warming. The RV and boating associations run regular ads on television urging people to take up these activities because they're fun. Hmmm.

That was how much?: There was a letter in today's paper regarding the blockade the CAW set up at General Motors here in Oshawa over the truck plant closing; the writer said that the autoworkers must obviously be paid too much money if they could afford the gas to drive slowly up and down the street for a couple of hours. Perhaps. But I can drive some 50 km on what I'd pay for a burger, fries and soda at the local fast-food joint. You seldom hear anyone complain that an autoworker's making too much money because he can afford to buy lunch at McDonald's. Hmmm.

Remember, Evian is "naive" spelled backwards: The gas station up the road is currently charging $1.34 per litre for regular gasoline. Go into the store attached to it, and the cheapest bottle of water is $1.00 for half a litre. I remember when there used to be conspiracy theories about backyard mechanics who'd invented special carburetors that would allow cars to run on H2O, but the auto and oil companies got wind of it and had them destroyed and the inventors hushed up. We never realized at the time just how lucky we were that they did.

What's that again?

Every now and again, Transport Canada will send me a list of the latest recalls; apparently, the agency gets the notice from the auto manufacturer and just runs it verbatim. So I'm not sure if it was someone at the government or someone at Cadillac, but taking a few bucks out of the kitty to purchase a dictionary might not be a bad idea:

No remedial action is required due to the unlikely-ness of such an occurrence.

Look, Ma, no hands!

I was on the highway today, driving at approximately 110 km/h. I was passed by a young woman in a Cadillac Escalade. I'd say she was about 25 and trying very hard to be Paris Hilton.

She had her cell phone jammed up against her left ear. In her right hand she held an open bottle of water, and the only contact she had with a vehicle doing a minimum of 115 km/h was the side of her hand resting against the bottom of the steering wheel.

Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Julian Fantino says speed kills. I dunno. I'm not afraid of someone doing 140 km/h in a capable car when they're paying attention. But I'm bloody scared to death of supermodels who seem to think that driving is fourth or fifth on the list of important things to remember when you're piloting two tons of steel at 32 meters per second. And what terrifies me even more is that Ms. Hilton Wannabe probably doesn't even comprehend that she's doing anything wrong. I wish you could fix dumb, but it doesn't look like it's possible anymore.

Note to the cops: It ain't the speed, it's the stupidity

 In the news today: Ontario Provincial Police chief Julian Fantino ain't happy. It seems that the media -- more specifically, my colleague at the Toronto Star, Jim Kenzie -- has been on his case about Section 172 of the Highway Traffic Act, better known as the "street racing legislation".

In short, if you're caught doing 50 km/h (31 mph) over the posted speed limit, the cop takes your license and your vehicle away on the spot. For seven days, sans judge and jury. It's just him, you and the towtruck.

That's even though Fantino, in a press release sent out today, said that "It is our job to lay the charges; once that happens, it's up to the judiciary system beyond the police to deal with each case individually."

Okay, but even letting that go, I can't agree with Fantino when he then says, "OPP officers are doing a great job of apprehending the most dangerous drivers." Because that all depends on your definition of who the most dangerous drivers are.

Fantino says it's someone driving at 150 km/h in a 100 km/h zone. I say it's someone driving at 100 km/h on a highway with a cell phone stuck to her ear. I say it's someone driving 60 km/h with a hamburger in one hand and a coffee in the other. I say it's someone who's been allowed to take the family vehicle out at midnight, even though he's only been driving for six months, and he's taking along all his friends.

Much of Fantino's effort is the result of a deadly crash in June 2007, when a truck driver went for the shoulder and was killed rather than take out vehicles around him. He had to take action when a speeding driver cut him off. No question: that driver should have been nailed to the wall. But one thing that very few people seemed to notice was a comment from a witness, who said that she saw three cars race past her in the right lane, according to a newspaper report, and then cut across to the left lane just moments after she let the tanker merge into the centre lane in front of her.

Read that again slowly. It doesn't exonerate the man who cut in front of the truck and caused the collision. But if our witness -- who apparently thinks she did nothing wrong, and the police seemingly agree -- had been in the right-hand lane where she was supposed to be, my guess is that the three cars would have continued up the highway in the left-hand lane, and that truck driver would have finished his route safely.

Here's my suggestion, Commissioner Fantino: put your men out there looking for the real problem drivers. Look for the ones who aren't paying attention; who don't know which lane to drive in; who don't obey amber or red lights; who don't know what "right of way" means; and in short, who need to go back to driving school.

Speed makes the result of a collision worse, but it doesn't cause the collision. Stupidity causes collisions. Bone-headed moves cause collisions. Hit on those folks, Commissioner, and the 150 km/h guys will still be breaking the law, but chances will be good that nobody will die. One early morning a few years ago, I hit 220 km/h on a deserted stretch of Highway 407. I knew my car, I knew my ability, and save for the illegal speed, I didn't do anything dumb. I'm still here. I wonder how that is.

R.I.P., Oshawa Truck Plant

Well, it's official: GM plans to close its truck plant in Oshawa, Ontario in 2009. Funny that that news apparently wasn't passed along when the company negotiated a new contract with the union a couple of weeks ago.

Even more troubling is a blurb in the Toronto Star newspaper today: 2005: Ontario invests $235 million with GM's Beacon project, $60 million of which goes to universities for R&D and the balance to GM for its Oshawa operation. The agreement includes minimum job levels at the truck plant.

I think it's time that Ontario had a second look at that particular piece of funding, methinks.

What's That Again?

In the news today: Ontario has announced it is now issuing its license plates in both English and French, in keeping with the fact that some 550,000 Francophones live in the province. The provincial slogan, Yours to Discover, can now also be ordered as Tant a Decouvrir.

So here's what the Francophone Affairs Minister had to say about it: All Ontarians now have the opportunity to show, on our roads and wherever else their travels take them, that Ontario is proud of its French culture and language.

"Wherever else their travels take them?"

Take note: if the guy beside you on the airplane is sitting in his car with the new license plates bolted to the bumper, it's just because he's really proud. Honest.

 

Saving Gas: Common Sense

 In the news today: the European Commission has launched a campaign to promote more energy-efficient driving. Over 45,000 fuel stations in 29 countries will take part in the campaign, distributing leaflets that explain fuel efficiency and "responsible driving behavior" to motorists.

"To reach our ambitious targets of CO2 reduction and energy savings, we have to make a big effort in all sectors," said Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs. "In certain cases this will require high-tech solutions, but in others we just need to apply some common sense. This campaign provides a set of simple tips to reduce CO2 emissions and save money, simply by driving more intelligently. Learning a few tricks will help (European Union) citizens to keep more fuel in their tanks, more money in their pockets and more CO2 out of the atmosphere."

Common sense. That's a phrase I hear bandied about a lot in North America, but it's usually mated to "technologies" or "plans"; I very seldom hear it in the same breath as citizens.

Last weekend I participated in a fuel efficiency driving challenge, which had me driving 250 km or so in a four-cylinder Honda. I won the fuel contest, averaging 6.8 L/100 km against the vehicle's published rate of 8.3 L/100 km. I sweated over every light, every hill, every unnecessary rpm, but I saved the equivalent of $2.03 per 100 km by the day's gas prices -- which is quite a savings when you add it up over the 20,000 km or so that the average vehicle travels in a year. No special technology, no fancy propulsion system, just a light foot and some common-sense driving. (And the realization that I would have saved even more fuel by not making an unnecessary trip.)

This is the part of the equation that's so often left out, and I applaud the European Commission for having the guts to target it. It's partly the car you buy, but more importantly, it's the way you drive it. North America doesn't want to hear that; North America wants the easy solution. North America wants to eat low-fat potato chips when it should be reaching for apples, or even deciding if it's hungry. Common sense: possibly the most uncommon element on the planet these days.

Now that proper word use and spelling are no longer necessary ...

I carved this out of a press release I read today. I wish I could say it was the first time I'd ever received something like this, but it's becoming all too common. It's obvious that Spell-Check has its limits, and someone really should dip into the dictionary to learn the meaning of "unique":

The lineage of Zukor's Packard is rather unique: it's first two owners have stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.

Webster wept ...

What you say ... and what you don't ...

  In the news today: the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) crash-tested the Dodge Grand Caravan.

Here's what was on the IIHS' website: Front and side crash test ratings are GOOD but rear protection is MARGINAL.

Here's what was in the press release that Chrysler (U.S.) made available to the media: The all-new 2008 Chrysler Town & Country and Dodge Grand Caravan earned "good" ratings, the highest ratings available from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), in both frontal offset and side crashworthiness tests.

And save for an enthusiastic quote from the minivan department's vice-president, and an assurance that Chrysler's concerned about safety, that's it.

Rear protection crash tests determine whether seat and head restraints have been properly designed to minimize the risk of neck injury in a crash. It still isn't high on a lot of automakers' lists: the Grand Caravan finished mid-pack, behind the top "Good"-rated Hyundai Entourage, Kia Sedona and Honda Odyssey, but ahead of the "Poor"-rated Toyota Sienna, Nissan Quest and Chevrolet Uplander.

But while the rating itself is important, the real story here is what Chrysler said ... or rather, what it didn't say. "Error of omission", I call it, and I think it's just as newsworthy.

Premium fuel: yes or no?

This was the sight that greeted me at the gas pump today when I filled up a vehicle. Fortunately, my ride called for 87 octane, which was "only" $1.25 per litre. The premium stuff represented a jump of 12 cents a litre. That would have added about eight bucks to my total.

The Internet's awash in articles on whether most cars really need premium. Few will come out and actually say you can run the lower-grade stuff, liability being what it is, but the general consensus seems to be that if it isn't turbo- or supercharged, the lower grade should see you through.

Things were different way back when, before cars had computerized fuel management systems and knock sensors, and using a lower grade could damage a higher-performance engine. Today's cars can make up the difference by dialing back a little, which shouldn't be too much of an issue to the average driver. I don't know about you, but I doubt I'd be able to tell if my car was producing 300 horsepower instead of 302.

I have another unproven pet theory, and it has to do with prestige and image. Many of the premium-brand manufacturers call for high-test across their entire product lines, regardless of engine size or horsepower. Call me a conspiracy theorist if you will, but I wonder if the thinking is that premium fuel = premium car ... and a car that takes "regular" fuel is, well, just a regular vehicle. In other words, it ain't the car that needs the expensive fuel, but the owner's ego.

Gas pump advertising: make it stop!

As if it isn't bad enough that I'm paying $1.25 a litre for 87-octane fuel, I now also have to listen to a television commercial while I pump my gas.

If you haven't seen one of these things yet, count your blessings, but trust me: it'll be coming to a station near you. It's a screen atop the pump that comes to life as soon as the pump turns on and gets ready to dispense fuel. While $62.83 quickly drained from my gasoline card to fill a Volvo tester, I got to listen to extremely annoying ads shilling pizza, bottled water, and something to do with the Olympic team.

Enough already. I can turn off my radio or television if I don't want to listen to an ad. The same courtesy should be extended when I'm at the pump. If I want to know about the price of pizza or whatever the Olympic team is doing, I'll make an effort to find out. In the meantime, I'd like the gas companies to shove these infernal advertising devices up their pipelines. Hard. Oh, and considering that these advertisers have paid Esso good money for the privilege of annoying me ... why isn't the gas any cheaper?

No dogs allowed ... for safety's sake

In the news: there's a bill pending in California that would make it illegal to drive with a dog on your lap.

I don't have a dog -- I live in a house owned by a cat -- but while I think it's sad that we have to legislate common sense, I hope this one passes swiftly, and then spreads rapidly to other jurisdictions.

I've seen plenty of dogs, both small and larger than expected, wedged in behind the wheel in the driver's lap, and I have to wonder what people are thinking. Collision avoidance can require rapid wheel movements that these drivers simply can't make because Rover is in the way.

Beyond that, an unrestrained dog is unsafe for both pet and people. If the airbag deploys and a dog is in the front seat -- whether on the driver's or the passenger's lap -- the airbag will undoubtedly kill the dog. In the back seat, the dog will be thrown violently about, either injuring itself or becoming a projectile that injures human passengers. In short, the safest place for a pet is in an approved car harness that locks into the seatbelt, or in a pet carrier.

Many people complain that their dogs don't like being confined that way in an automobile. So what? I'm sure there are plenty of children who'd love to stand up on the seat unrestrained. Would you let him have his way just because he doesn't like the seatbelt? Or do common sense and safety trump the wishes of someone incapable of comprehending the danger? Do everyone a favor -- when you buckle up, buckle up your dog as well.

Why I don't like car auctions

Last year, at a cruise night, someone came up and looked at my 1947 Cadillac. "That's worth about $80,000, right?" he asked.

That's about four times its value, but rather than give him a deal at $65,000, I asked what made him guess so high. Well, he said, one went at Barrett-Jackson the other night for that.

I don't like car auctions. They're too big, too noisy, and after a half-dozen go over the block, far too monotonous. But what I really don't like is that I think they're detrimental to the old-car hobby. Just as celebrity chefs have sent trendy fish to near-extinction, car auctions have sent otherwise ordinary vehicles into the stratosphere, from which they seldom return. Instead of people driving their cars to shows and cruise nights, piling in the family to go for an ice-cream run, and having fun with the old-car hobby, buyers have become speculators. They treat these machines like mutual funds, storing them away until the next sucker pays $150,000 for a 1958 Chevrolet and they bring them out in the hopes of getting rich.

Look around you: old-car owners are old. When I ask what it'll take to keep this hobby going into the next decade, the answer's always the same: "We need younger people to get involved." But if you're determined that your hot-rodded '32 Ford won't change hands for less than $75,000 -- because that's what they're all asking in the National Street Rod Association's classifieds -- what younger person do you think is going to buy it? And if they do invest that much into it, where do you think they're going to drive it?

I saw it in the money-soaked 1980s, when cars ran on cash instead of gasoline; it wasn't uncommon for speculators to buy and flip them without even seeing them. In 1982 I turned down a 1959 Cadillac at $5,000 because it was overpriced; five years later, they were trading at $60,000. Not every car that crosses the auction block is ridiculously priced, but these are soft-porn TV shows, and they're going for the money shot. If you can get someone to pay you eight times what your car is worth, well, good for you. But then don't complain when you go to a "classic" car show, and a Chrysler K-Car is the oldest thing there.

Long-term oil solutions: why bother?

In the news today: U.S. Senator Peter Domenici of New Mexico has introduced legislation that he says will dramatically increase domestic production of oil and natural gas, "in order to lower prices and make America less dependent on foreign sources of oil."

The bill will allow oil exploration and extraction in such places as Alaska, the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans at the edge of the Outer Continental Shelf, and development of oil shale in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah.

According to a press release, "By expanding production offshore and in Alaska, the legislation will produce up to 24 billion barrels of oil -- enough to keep American running for five years with no foreign imports."

In case that number got by you, I'll repeat it. Five years.

"The bill I'm introducing today will produce up to 24 billion barrels of oil through common sense measures to open up areas offshore and in Alaska for exploration," Domenici said.

Yes, you read that right. He actually said common sense measures. Apparently, in Domenici's world, it makes perfect sense to drill oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and irreparably change it for the sake of five years' worth of fuel.

Back to the press release: Domenici pointed out that had President Clinton not vetoed exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in 1995, when oil was $19 a barrel, America would currently be receiving over one million barrels a day from Alaska.

Damn that Clinton. If only he'd given more consideration to people and less to those stupid wolves and caribou, we'd be able to drive our SUVs anywhere and anytime we please. What, didn't Bill even stop and question why Ford calls it an Explorer?

Our gasoline situation: who's to blame?

I paid $1.226 for a litre of 87-octane gasoline yesterday. And I know it's only going to get worse. If we don't see $1.40 by the height of the summer, I'll be very surprised.

And yet, in response to the headline in my newspaper today -- GM will eliminate another shift at its truck plant, here in the town where I live -- there is shock and anger. That's understandable, because this will have an effect from the assembly line right down to the checkout clerk at the grocery store. But really, didn't anyone see this coming?

I wasn't old enough at the time to understand all of the complicated politics behind it, but I do remember the OPEC crisis of 1973. I recall seeing the news reports of the lineups, the alternate days, the stations out of gas. Back then, the Big Three were almost exclusively making large cars, and people laughed at those who bought the weird little Japanese cars. Once the crisis hit, they weren't laughing anymore, and that was the beginning of Japan's surge into the North American market. By the time the Big Three got into smaller cars, it was too late to push them back (and the fact that the cars Detroit built were crap didn't help, either).

But as we all know, history is in the past, and slowly, the cars got bigger again. This time around, though, both domestics and imports played the game. Each next-generation model was bigger, heavier and more powerful than the one it replaced, until the model got so bloated that it didn't fit into the segment anymore and the company had to introduce an all-new one to slot under it.

All of the automakers are hooked on the huge profits SUVs provide for them, and they've done a good job of convincing people they need them to be safe, be stylish, and be able to carry seven people (even though they probably never will). The buyer has lapped it up, and only now is realizing that not enough other people are buying small cars/taking transit/conserving energy so there will be enough left over to fuel the barges. And the automakers then justify it by saying that they're only giving the buyers what they want. Well, I want a panda-bear rug for my living room, too, but there's something about the "greater good" that prevents it.

Still, after having pointed fingers (and, in true North American style, not at myself), the question remains: can Detroit, and now Japan and Korea, react swiftly enough to this fuel crisis to bring appropriate cars to market in time? And when they do, and it all dies down, and everyone's in a smaller vehicle, will the next generations of those models stray from their diet, and start the cycle all over again?

A busy day in the paper today ...

I have three stories in today's Toronto Star newspaper.

The cover story, on upcoming old-car shows, can be found here. My thanks to photographer Richard Spiegelman who had a 1957 Chevrolet picture -- I couldn't find one anywhere in my files.

Earlier, I'd written a rant here on airbag safety, which I massaged and turned into an opinion piece. It's in the paper here.

And finally, I have a review of the Mitsubishi Lancer, which you can access by clicking here.

Religion in government ...

Totally unrelated to automobiles, I have an opinion piece in today's Toronto Star (coincidentally, the Sunday edition) on prayer in the Ontario legislature. You can find it here.

Betcha can't drive just one ...

This is a low-fat potato chip.

It's the Cadillac Escalade Hybrid, but it just as easily could be the Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid, or the Lexus RX400h, or the upcoming hybrid SUVs from Dodge, or full-size hybrid sedans like the Lexus LS600hL or GS450h.

All of them use hybrid systems to improve their fuel mileage and reduce their emissions, and that's a good thing. But all of them have hybrid systems inside very large, very heavy (and, so far, very expensive) vehicles. And I'm betting that the majority will carry one or two people at the most, and maybe the odd bit of cargo that won't come close to the vehicle's capacity.

Hence, the low-fat potato chip, a food-like object that could only be invented in North America: when confronted with the problem of excess weight and poor dietary health, we buy versions that are slightly less bad for us, rather than reach for an apple or even question if we're hungry at all. Likewise, rather than buy a smaller vehicle, or walk more, or combine our trips so we drive less, we buy the large-by-huge SUV with the slightly better propulsion system. All the taste, a bit less fat, and the smug feeling that yes, we're making the planet a better place, one battery-powered gargantua at a time.

We're all in the same boat ...

I was watching television last night. I know it's spring because I caught the annual commercial for Discover Boating Canada. It's a cute one, really, with all manner of dogs enjoying boat rides.

Save for a couple of the sail variety, almost all of them are powerboats.

I expect that any day now, Go RVing will start its annual campaign as well, telling people to hit the open road in their motorized campers.

I have friends who own powerboats, and friends who own RVs, and while they thoroughly enjoy their time away with them, they also tell me how much money they spend in fuel to run them.

Now, to set the record straight: I'm not fond of boats or RVs, but that's not my point here. I understand that many people are, and more power to them.

On the other hand, if a car company sponsored a series of ads suggesting that the family should get into a car or SUV and hit the open road for the sole purpose of going for a drive because it's fun ... just what do you think the reaction from the green-thinking public would be?

How about giving us what we really want?

I noticed a press release from Chrysler yesterday. In the US, the company is launching a campaign with the tag line of If you can dream it, we can build it.

Let's see what the release says people are dreaming about:

As a chassis rolls out of the plant and down the road, all kinds of people in all kinds of places start adding what they want on a vehicle including MyGig™ with navigation, dual DVD system and Swivel ‘n Go™ seating system.

Now, maybe there are a few people who are dreaming about twin movie screens and minivan seats that face backwards. But I suspect that even more people want things that are even simpler. Things like better interiors, with more care spent on fit-and-finish, and less cheap-looking plastic. Better fuel economy, especially in excessively thirsty vehicles like the Dakota and Durango. Less-expensive versions of utility machines, such as pickup trucks. And possibly most important of all, a good-quality, inexpensive subcompact that can compete with vehicles like the Toyota Yaris and Chevrolet Aveo -- a segment Chrysler has promised us (with a Chinese-built car) but has yet to enter.

I want to see Chrysler do well, because a strong, mostly-domestic automaker is good for our economy. But strong companies start with strong foundations. It's fine to have the odd gimmick, but only when it's added on to a well-built, good-looking, fuel-efficient, realistically-priced vehicle with a reputation for bulletproof quality and reliability. That's my dream, Chrysler. Now build it.

Thought for today ...

A couple of things I wish more folks would figure out:

It's a crash or a collision. It's not an accident.

The vehicle does not go out of control. The driver loses control of the vehicle.

Thank you.

In today's paper ...

I have a review of the Dodge Dakota in today's Toronto Star; you can find it here.

I also turned a rant on tuner cars originally published here into a piece for the paper, which is available over here.

Simple is good

This is the dash of the Mercedes-Benz GL-Class, which begins my rant for the day: why does expensive need to mean complicated?

I'm not singling Mercedes out here, not by any means -- it was just the picture that was handy. I could have selected a vehicle by almost every automaker out there, because almost all of them are guilty.

I remember the days when an expensive car had pretty much the same controls as a cheaper car; they were just better quality. Now, an expensive car practically guarantees that you've got to memorize a manual the size of an encyclopedia, and chances are good that there will be a few controls you'll eventually forget how to use.

In many cars, if you want to change the heater vent mode, or switch your stereo, you've got to page through a series of computer screens to get to the one you want. On many cars, there are rows upon rows of identical buttons. On one truck I drove, I counted all the buttons, starting at the driver's armrest and going over to the passenger's door. There were 83 of them. That's not a misprint: eighty-three buttons. On a vehicle that many people drive at 120 km/h.

And on top of that, so many of these systems are absolutely non-intuitive. Why is it that one manufacturer's navigation system is simple enough that I can use it without a manual, and others require me to all but take a course in how to work it? Why can't the engineers grab someone from the front office, sit them down cold in front of it, and then, if they can't work it right off the bat, make it easy?

The funny thing is that I've driven a few high-end sports cars, the type that'll do 300 km/h without breaking a sweat. And it seems that the faster they can go, the simpler their controls. So why is it that a car that's meant to be driven on a racetrack, alongside other trained drivers who are concentrating equally on the task, is simple to use, and one that's meant to be driven in rush-hour traffic looks like an airplane cockpit?

Here's the deal: if it's something I do infrequently, such as setting the rolling locks, then hide it away in a vehicle information centre (that is, in turn, easy to figure out). If it's something I'm going to be changing regularly while I'm driving, like the heater mode or the stereo volume, make it a honkin' big dial in the middle of the dash. A safe car isn't just the one with sixteen airbags. It's the one that lets me work the controls while keeping my eyes on the road.

A topsy-turvy world ...

Twenty years ago, if you'd told me this was going to happen, I would have laughed out loud. This is a ribbon-cutting ceremony that took place in Georgia yesterday. It's the beginning of a Kia assembly plant.

It's an upside-down auto world in which we're living these days. Ford, GM and Chrysler are cutting back shifts and closing plants in North America, and at the same time, they're opening facilities in China, in Thailand, in India, in Korea, in Romania, and in yesterday's news, in Uzbekistan (I'll admit, I had to look that one up on a map).

And while the domestics are moving overseas, here at home we've got Toyota and Honda expanding in Ontario, Hyundai in Alabama, BMW in North Carolina, Nissan in Tennessee, and Mitsubishi in the improbably-named town of Normal, Illinois.

You really have to sit back and wonder where everything's going, and where it's going to end. It's obvious that labor costs are playing a part in this, although I'd imagine even the poorer workers in the South (because no one's building these plants in rich cities) are making more than workers at plants in Thailand and India, which tells me tariffs are part of this too. And I would expect that eventually these plants will start to outsource some of their production materials, just as the Big Three have done. The domestic auto plant in the city where I live used to build its cars almost from scratch. Now many components are coming in already built up, from independent companies that make the parts for the price the automaker's willing to pay.

And while we all want a car that doesn't cost much, there's a flip side to all of this. Maybe unionized auto workers do make too much. But at the same time, many of them pay as much in taxes as someone greeting customers at the local big-box store takes home in a year. When it comes to the quality of municipal services, I'd rather have a tax base of overpaid auto workers than a tax base made up solely of "would you like fries with that?". Think about who pays for your police, fire, schools, health care and social programs next time you complain about wages.

These days, I don't know what to think. Every new ground-breaking ceremony gives me hope, and every idled plant and reduced shift makes me worry. I'm guessing that a few decades ago, the people who made television sets in Canada and the U.S. wondered what was going to happen to their industry. I don't think I have to tell you how that went.

More sharing the road with trucks ...

A little while ago I mused here on what it's like to drive a cargo van on the highway surrounded by clueless car drivers. I finally took my rant and turned it into a story for The Toronto Star. You can find it here.

Why can't tire companies sell safety?

You've got to wonder what the engineers were smoking when they came up with the formula for measuring tire size. They stuck not one but three systems in there. Decipher a P205/55R16 tire and you've got metric (it's 205 millimetres wide), a fraction (the sidewall is 55% of the tread) and Imperial (its diameter is 16 inches). Now there's genius at work. But I digress ...

I took this picture in Colorado last year, where I participated in a driving course to prove the superiority of winter tires in these conditions. (Note: they're winter tires, not snow tires, and they're vastly better than all-seasons even on dry pavement in winter temperatures. But that's a rant for another day.)

One thing I've never been able to figure out is why tire manufacturers have never been able to sell safety the way car manufacturers have done. The automakers have done an incredible job. They've got consumers demanding safety systems when they haven't a clue how they work. Years ago I taught a series of "how your car works" clinics, and without fail, whenever I got to ABS and ESC and airbags, I'd get blank stares from people who'd willingly paid extra (they were all options back then) to get them on their vehicles. That goes to show you the power of that marketing.

But tires? Show me an average car owner who doesn't buy tires primarily on price, and when he does, it's a grudge purchase because his old ones are worn out.

Here's a fact: the only things keeping your vehicle on the road are four rubber contact patches that add up to an area roughly the size of a sheet of typing paper. There isn't a safety feature on your car, from anti-lock brakes to airbags, that isn't there for the purpose of trying to get your butt out of the fire after your tires have lost their grip on the asphalt.

And yet the essential importance of having good-quality, season-specific, well-maintained tires as the very cornerstone of vehicle safety has bypassed almost every motorist on the road.

I just don't get it. Maybe it's the advertising -- save for a couple of ultimately ineffective ads, like the baby riding in a tire, the whole this is where safety starts message doesn't seem to be there. Maybe tires have been around so long that there's no way you can make them new and exciting, the way the fancy auto technology can be. All I know is that when I see a newer Volvo wearing bald tires in the winter, as I did a couple of days ago, the message just isn't getting across. And as long as it doesn't, we're going to be left with cars that have to try to do what their tires simply couldn't.

Sharing the road with trucks

This Dodge Sprinter is my ride this week. Too bad there aren't any mountain roads where I could take it out and carve some corners.

What I do have around me are a couple of highways, and that's how I got this tiny creature home yesterday. If you ever had faith in most of your fellow drivers, pilot something like this for a while and then get back to me.

You'll notice that there are no side windows. That didn't stop a dozen drivers from sticking beside me with their front wheels pretty much even with my rear ones, for several kilometres at a stretch.

The brakes are good, but this is still a lot of truck to stop. I stayed in the right-hand lane (which is generally the empty one, since few people have any clue where they're supposed to drive), but even that wasn't enough for a couple of people who had to cut me off, pulling in front of me with a car length to spare, because they'd been over in the left lane and now had to get over to their exit ramps.

And you'd think something this big would be easy to spot, but no, I had to try out the horn on one cell-phone gabber who started to drift into my lane. Honey, if I can keep this thing steady between the white lines on a very windy day, surely to heaven you can do the same in a Cavalier.

I know not every tractor-trailer driver is a saint, but whenever I hear about a collision involving a big rig, my first thought is always: what stunt did the driver in the car pull?

I'd love to see all passenger-car drivers required to take a big, windowless van like this out on the highway for a couple of hours and see exactly what it's like, and then maybe they'd learn. Too many people are absolutely clueless when it comes to sharing the road with tractor-trailers. If you're not willing or able to drive properly around the trucks, stay the hell off the highway. Period.

Where's Elmer when you need him?

That's Elmer the Safety Elephant. He's still around and today he wears a ball cap and sneakers, but that's how I remember him from the days that he was a major presence in my school. The police would regularly visit schools and teach road safety -- look both ways before you cross the street, obey traffic signals when you're riding your bike, don't play around parked cars.

We could use him these days. Drivers seem to be getting worse, but then, so are pedestrians.

I live in a rural area, and I think I'm the only one who remembers Elmer's rule for that: when there are no sidewalks, you walk facing traffic.

It seems the police remember that rule, too; in today's news, police have charged a 62-year-old woman in Sarnia, Ontario for walking on the wrong side of the road after she was struck by a pickup truck. I'm sorry she got hit, but pedestrians have to take responsibility for road safety just as drivers do, and I applaud the police for taking a stand here.

How many times have you seen parents run across the road, even though there are traffic lights nearby, with their small children in tow? How many ride their bicycles through red lights, or not bother to use hand signals? If you don't obey the rules of the road yourself, how do you expect your children are going to learn? Elmer's good, but he can't do it all on his own.

Time Marches On

This is my pride and joy, my 1947 Cadillac known affectionately as Lucille. She's one of a few older vehicles I've owned, along with the 1949 Studebaker I still have, and long-departed models including a 1948 Chevrolet and 1962 Pontiac Acadian. I learned to drive on a 1972 Plymouth Scamp, and there was one at the Antique Automobile Club of America's show last year, so I guess that qualifies these days, too.

I love old cars dearly, but I'll say this: I'm realistic, too. Whenever I take Lucille out and park her somewhere, I'm guaranteed that someone will come up and say, "They don't make 'em like that anymore."

And my immediate reply is, "That's not a bad thing."

I don't know what it is about old cars, but they sure bring out the rose-colored glasses in a lot of people. Save for the odd Amish wannabe, I can't think of too many people who would prefer shovelling coal into the furnace over tapping the thermostat, or hauling ice to the icebox instead of opening the refrigerator, or biting on a bullet as opposed to surgery in a modern hospital. But mention automobiles, and as far as these people are concerned, there hasn't been a single improvement in the industry since Henry Ford brought out the Model T.

Too many people in the old-car hobby are blinded by nostalgia. Sure, I make my living with new cars, but that's not the reason why I think they're so much better. It's because they are.

People rap on Lucille's thick fenders and say, "These new cars just crumple up when you hit them." Well, that's because they're supposed to; they absorb the crash energy instead of passing it through to the occupants, unlike the the old cars where you hosed the blood off the dash and sold 'em to the next guy. People say you can't fix a new car in your garage anymore, and that's true, but you're also not doing the numerous repairs that older cars needed, like tune-ups twice a year. And as for their longevity, well, most old cars had a three-month warranty. Some manufacturers now guarantee their vehicles for ten years. 

And as for the hobbyists who say all new cars look the same ... if you've gone to the trouble of learning that a groove in the bumper differentiates a 1946 Olds from a 1947, but you'll proudly proclaim that you can't tell a 2008 Buick from a BMW, that's just wilful ignorance.

Don't get me wrong -- there's nothing fundamentally wrong with nostalgia. When the time machine's invented, you can put a martini in my hand and ship me back to the Las Vegas strip, circa 1960, with a ticket for a Rat Pack show. It'll be great fun, and yes, pick me up at the door in whatever land yacht is available. But when I finally come back home in the middle of winter, you can leave that lovely model's vacuum wipers, manual choke, four-wheel drum brakes, single-chamber master cylinder and bias-ply tires back in the garage where they belong.

So who gave them the keys?

Note to the government, the police, the media, old-car enthusiasts, new-car enthusiasts, and to the general public at large: This is not a tuner car.

Okay, some background. In Ontario, where I live, all of the above regularly get into huge kerfluffles regarding tuner cars and the propensity of their drivers to engage in either planned or impromptu street races. When the heat gets hot enough, the government instructs the cops to go round up as many Hondas and Toyotas with tomato-can exhaust pipes as they can find. At one point, in the most ridiculous media stunt I think I've ever seen, two seized tuner cars were crushed by a bulldozer, with the warning that more would follow. (To the best of my knowledge, they haven't.)

So I opened my newspaper today, and found that three teenagers in my area were charged yesterday with street racing, after three vehicles tore off from a light and one of them hit a tree and landed on a fire hydrant. According to the paper, "Officers found a 1997 Chevrolet Venture minivan on its side ... about 12:10 a.m. yesterday. ... Police seized the van and two other vehicles, a 1996 Pontiac Torrent and 2006 Pontiac Grand Am."

Two of the drivers were 17, the other 18. Now, unless things have changed drastically in the many years since I was a teenager, a full-size minivan generally tends to belong not to the teenager, but to the teenager's parents. That was also the case in 2006, when a Toronto taxi driver was killed by two young men driving Mercedes-Benz cars owned by their parents. In fact, when I read about crashes caused by street racing, full-blown tuner cars don't really seem to make the list all that often. Here's a thought -- maybe it ain't the car.

Maybe parents should be asking where Junior needs to go with two tons of steel and very limited driving experience late on a Friday night. And if he doesn't have an ironclad reason, maybe he shouldn't be getting the keys.

Here's the harsh reality. Street racing is like drunk driving: we can reduce it, but we're never going to eliminate it entirely. We can crush cars, we can ban nitrous, we can tell the cops to pull over cars with little blue lights on their windshield washers, and we'll still get testosterone flowing when the light turns green and it looks like your minivan can take his minivan. We need to stop with the kneejerk reactions and work on realistic solutions that don't involve herding up the Hondas whenever a BMW hits a tree.

If you're of a certain age and grew up in southern Ontario, you probably remember the reminder on Buffalo's Channel 7 every night: It's eleven o'clock. Do you know where your children are?

Do you?

From the sublime to the ridiculous

Today, in Geneva, Infiniti has unveiled its latest FX model, which should arrive in North America this June. It has technology. Oh, man, does it have technology.

It watches the road ahead and hits the brakes in case you're too busy sipping your coffee to notice that the car ahead of you has stopped. It warns if you're drifting out of your lane -- a common enough occurrence with people on cell phones -- and if you don't listen to it, it'll get its point across by jerking the wheel. And it'll keep its distance from other vehicles when the cruise control is on, so you don't have to go to the trouble.

But this is the one that really gets me: it features the "industry's first appliance of Distance Control Assist." According to Infiniti, it helps reduce the stress of driving in heavy traffic by intuitively helping to release the throttle and apply the brakes to maintain a safe distance from the vehicle ahead.

Here's my advice: if you're that stressed that you can't drive your own car in traffic, do the rest of us on the road a favor and take the friggin' bus.

Sustainable transportation: Lots of little steps

I picked up a copy of The Oprah Magazine the other day in a waiting room. A number of celebrities had been asked what would make the planet a better place. Along with world peace and happiness, one woman said, "A Prius in every driveway."

I almost threw the magazine across the room.

Few things anger me more than the simplistic answer, endlessly parroted. It's not just hybrids, although they have a cheering section all their own. Depending on who you ask, the solution to our transportation woes is ethanol, or hydrogen, or plug-in electrics, or bicycles, or the bus.

I used to believe that, one day, there would be a single perfect solution that would replace petroleum overnight. Now I realize it's going to be a combination of solutions, each with pros and cons carefully weighed -- and not all of them are necessarily going to have four wheels.

We need to look at plug-in hybrids for those who commute shorter distances, and flexible gasoline-electric architecture (such as that used in the Chevrolet Volt) for those who can't easily get to an electrical outlet. We need to realize that some people can fit their family into a Smart, and some need a minivan.

We also need everyone to get on board. A politician can talk sustainable transportation all he likes, but as long as he allows developers to build houses on cul-de-sac mazes and put big-box stores in the middle of parking lots, he's an ass. City planners need to add bicycle lanes and give public transit a higher profile. And parents need to stop bemoaning the quality of the air while they're queuing up to drive Junior five blocks from school to home.

The solution isn't going to be a Prius in every driveway. It's going to be a Prius in this driveway, a diesel-powered sedan in that one, a bicycle in that one, and the last house on the block won't even have a driveway because the homeowner can walk to work. As long as we think there's only one piece to the puzzle, we haven't a hope in hell of solving it.

Well, that was quick ...

The federal government has decided to get rid of the ecoAUTO rebate program, only a year after it put the scheme in place. Hang on, let me open my wallet a bit wider. It cost money going in, and it'll undoubtedly cost money going out.

I'd like to say it was a good idea in theory, but it never really was. The plan was that the government kicked back rebates, ranging from $1,000 to $2,000, to people who bought brand-new vehicles that met specific fuel economy standards.

There were the usual problems that spring up when ideas are conceived in haste and implemented at leisure. Apparently, it took more than six months from the time the program got underway until the application forms were ready, and even when buyers could finally apply, there were long waits. According to an article by Carol Goar of the Toronto Star, only 30,000 of the 50,000 people who sent in their applications had received their money as of mid-February.

Much of my objection to the program was in the discrepancies. The Dodge Caliber, for example, doesn't meet the fuel economy requirements for passenger cars, and so there's no refund. But the similarly-sized Jeep Compass, which is mechanically identical and gets the same fuel mileage, is classified as an SUV, and so you get $1,000 back.

And there's a rebate for some flexible-fuel vehicles, which can run on E85, a fuel made of 85% grain-based ethanol and 15% petroleum gasoline. Sounds good, except that at last count, two gas stations in Ottawa appear to be the only ones from St. John's to Victoria that sell it. So you get $1,000 back because your vehicle could potentially save the planet, if you could only fill it with the right juice.

In her article, Goar also notes that while the government will no longer be handing you money back for buying a fuel sipper, it will still be collecting the "green levy" on gas guzzlers, which Goar says generates some $110 million per year. Hey, maybe the feds will spend that cash on improved public transit, bicycle lanes, incentives for car companies to build more fuel-efficient vehicles, and better urban planning to eliminate housing developments that make car ownership necessary in the first place. Yes, I think that's exactly what they'll do.

It's easy looking green