Jil McIntosh

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.

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.

Senior Drivers: "Driving is a privilege, mobility is a right"

Recently I attended the Aging Driving Mobility Forum, where experts from numerous fields and from across North America came together to try to find solutions for aging drivers. You can find my report, on Canadian Driver, by clicking here.

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.

Safety first!

In today's Toronto Star, I have a short piece on seven tips for vehicle safety. You can find it by clicking here.

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.

Drivers: we're all getting older

I spent the morning at a symposium on aging drivers, and it certainly opened my eyes. I'll be putting together a full article on it, but even before I get into that, it's given me a lot to ponder.

I watched my grandfather lose his license, and my father-in-law, and it was not an easy experience for either of them. The symposium touched on a lot of issues, such as restricted licensing rather than simply taking the license away; how to realize when you're no longer able to drive, and the need to self-regulate; issues surrounding alternatives, such as lack of public transit, especially in a rural area such as where I live; and whether elderly drivers are overrepresented in crash statistics.

Time catches up to you before you even realize it's there. Yesterday, I was 25, or so it seems; the reality is that I'll be 50 next winter. I like to think I'm as sharp as I ever was, especially since I've had the opportunity to take numerous driving and racing instructions thanks to my job. But when I stop and look at it with an objective eye, I do notice that I don't drive as fast as I used to, and I tend to wait a couple of seconds longer to be sure that traffic has cleared before I make my turns. I also find that I make more "final checks" than I used to do -- and I know it's because I'm making sure I haven't misgauged the speed of oncoming cars.

So given that, will I know when the time comes? Will I be smart enough to say that I'm not fit to do this, or will I be the senior citizen who needs intervention before I'll give up a license I no longer deserve to hold?

It's a tough thing, this getting older, especially since we all feel that we're the first people to ever go through it. When my grandfather was 95, he was interviewed by a magazine, and he said that he didn't recognize the old, wrinkled man he saw in the mirror. I was 33 at the time and didn't understand what he meant. It was a bit of a shock the day I looked in the mirror and did.

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.

Airbags: They help, but they can harm

The weather's getting nicer in my neck of the woods, and that means that people are shedding their winter boots in favor of lighter footwear, including sandals.

That also means that I've already seen my first teenage passenger riding the oh-so-cool way, with shoes off and feet up on the dash. My blood runs cold every time I see teenagers foolish enough to do this, and parents behind the wheel dumb enough to let them.

Here's the reason: behind that dash panel is an airbag. Hit something, and that airbag inflates within about 40 milliseconds. In effect, that bag is coming toward you at the rate of 150 to 250 miles per hour. (In metric, 240 to 400 km/h -- or, for short, damn fast.)

Imagine putting your legs out in front of you, and then ramming them into a wall at 150 mph. That, in effect, is what the airbag will do. If you're lucky, it'll only break your legs. If you aren't, it'll push your thigh bones through your pelvis. You might walk again, but don't count on it.

Sure, I was young once, and I rode with my feet on the dash. I was also stupid as hell back then, and my dash didn't contain the equivalent of a shotgun shell.

Chances are good these drivers will never hit anything, and their teenage passengers will hop out, all in one piece, and life will be good. But as they say, it only takes a second for a crash, and it doesn't even have to be your fault. It will, however, be your burden.

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.

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.