WomanOnWheels.ca

Gas is expensive, so here's how to reduce how much you use

Gas prices are at record levels in some places, and it doesn't look like they're going to go down anytime soon. What to do? Check out my tips for saving fuel at AutoTRADER.ca.

Do you know these fun facts about fuel?

Do you know how the gas pump knows to shut off, or why you shouldn't use your cell phone at the pump, or why the price is nine-tenths of a cent? Find out in my "How It Works" column at the National Post (Driving.ca).

What happened when the U.S. ran out of gas?

Back in 1973, the oil-producing nations in the Middle East shut off oil shipments to countries that supported Israel -- and that included the United States. The result was gasoline price spikes, shortages, and in some cases, stations that had no fuel to sell at all. It lasted five months and gave import automakers the foothold they needed to change the American automotive landscape. Find out more in my "Rearview Mirror" column in the National Post.

Headline of the day ...

I just received a press release from Environment Canada. The headline is in big, bold letters - Harper Government Improves Fuel Efficiency of Canadian Vehicles.

Wow.

I write a lot of technology columns, and that means I spend time talking to automakers about fuel efficiency. They dedicate a lot of money to this. I've been to R&D labs where people spend all their time working to shave half a kilogram off car parts to improve fuel mileage. I've talked to engineers who are up to their armpits in engines every day, figuring out how to coax a little more energy efficiency from them. Even companies that make tires and oil are working on their products so they'll help contribute to the improvement.

Why they bother I don't know, because Stephen Harper is taking care of the problem.

Now, if you read the fine print, what the government has actually done is proposed stricter regulations for fuel efficiency. By 2025, we're told, new cars will consume 50 per cent less fuel. It's all on the automakers, of course, because the government wouldn't dare suggest that consumers change their driving habits - which in many cases could pretty much achieve the same goal tomorrow, on the cars we're driving today.

Still, it's good to know that, judging by the headline, our men and women in Ottawa are making such a substantial improvement to our vehicles. And they didn't even have to put on a lab coat. Amazing!

The price of driving: Once again, let somebody else fix it

There's a new poll out today, commissioned by Consumer Reports, that asked Americans what they want done about how much it costs them to drive their cars.

I think you can guess what they said. Of those polled, 93% wanted better fuel efficiency in new cars, and 77% said that auto manufacturers should make more efficient cars and the government should increase and enforce the fuel standards. Some 80% want federal fuel efficiency standards that will enforce a national fleet-wide standard of 55 mpg (4.3 L/100 km) by 2025.

Uh huh. Y'know, for a nation that spends most of its time arguing that the government should get out of their lives, it sure goes out of its way to welcome it in when it suits a need. And for a nation that collectively believes that those who aren't as well-off need only pull up their bootstraps a little more, why aren't drivers trying harder?

A great many households would find that their current vehicles would get amazingly better fuel efficiency and lower operating costs without even breathing the word "hybrid." Go out on the highway and see how many drivers fly past you. Watch them accelerate when the light turns green as if there's a checkered flag at stake. Ask them if they know what a tire pressure gauge is. Sit at the drive-through and count the cars idling there. Look at how many automakers have dropped their compact trucks because everyone wants one big enough to have its own zip code. Go out into farmland and watch the developers scrape off the topsoil, and then put in thousands of houses that can't be accessed without a vehicle. Go by the school and see how many parents drive their children three blocks to get there.

The poll also found that 56% are "considering" hybrids or electric cars for their next purchase, and 72% are likely to do so if they're more available over the next 15 years. They say they're also more willing to spend more for a fuel-efficient vehicle.

I say they're lying. Look at a list of the best-selling cars in the U.S., and count the number of compacts and subcompacts on it. You'll probably only need one finger, two at most. There are already vehicles out there that are far more fuel-efficient than the ones Americans are most likely to buy, and most of them cost less. So why aren't these people buying them? And if they won't buy a less-costly small model, why on earth should I believe they'll buy a far more costly small model just because it has an electric motor under the hood?

It comes down to this: Americans (and Canadians) think the government should mandate fuel-efficient cars, and the automakers should build them. The problem is, drivers want other people to actually buy them. Drivers want other people to drive more fuel-efficiently. Well, as long as we wait for other people to make the difference, be prepared to keep pulling out your wallet.

One million electric vehicles by 2015: Not as long as gas is cheap

The U.S. Department of Energy has released a new report, One Million Electric Vehicles by 2015, which backs up President Obama's stated goal of ... well, guess how many EVs will be on the road by what year. The report says that the goal is "ambitious" but "achievable." Of course, I wouldn't expect the report to conclude anything else, but I'm not buying it, not the way it's written. I'm certainly no expert, but I'm not seeing it.

First, there's the o'er-the-ramparts-we-watched aspect of it. "This is a race America can win," says DOE secretary David Sandalow, "if we answer the President's call to out-innovate, out-build, and out-compete the rest of the world."

Sure, you need the all-American aspect of it to lead the troops, and I'm the first to say that a country only becomes strong when it has a solid manufacturing base. America needs to build these vehicles at home. But as soon as you make it a race to beat everybody else, you've severed your ties with the people who can help you. The Japanese were building viable hybrids when American companies were still trying to figure out four-cylinder engines. Why start at the very beginning, when you can work in conjunction with people who know what they're doing? Contrary to popular redneck belief, Nissan won't be sending every penny it makes on the Leaf back to Japan. That cash will stay in Smyrna, Tennessee where the car will be built, going home with the workers, going into the local tax coffers, working its way into the community.

Getting plant capacity up to one million electric vehicles isn't a problem, the report says, and it's correct on that. We can probably pop out many more than that every year. What we can't do as easily is find people to buy them. So the government is offering a rebate of up to $7,500 on each one, and offering grants to communities that prioritize electric vehicle deployment.

The problem is that the government won't do the one thing that is needed to advance the deployment of electric vehicles - raise the price of gasoline. Because that will be political suicide, and everyone in Washington knows it.

Why do Europeans buy little cars with little engines? Because gasoline costs a fortune over there. As long as gasoline is cheap, people will buy the relatively inexpensive vehicles that use it, rather than the relatively expensive vehicles that don't. People do the math. If the premium on that electric or hybrid car is more than what it saves in fuel, most won't buy it. Despite the whole "green" movement, and sending children to school to learn about rain forests, and putting cans out to the curb for recycling, most people will put their coins ahead of their carbon footprint. If a car costs too much, it doesn't matter how little it spews out the exhaust pipe, if it has one at all.

I wonder what One Million Electric Vehicles by 2015 cost to produce. I could have saved them a bundle and written it up in the time it takes to say it: If you want people to buy alternative vehicles, raise the price of gas until it's worth their while. Sure, there will always be people who buy Volts or Leafs because they're cool and techy and neat. But as long as gas costs less than bottled water, it will be a long, long time, if ever, before you find a million of those folks willing to open their wallets.

Small car sales: it ain't the car, it's the fuel

After fears that it might follow companies like Hudson and Studebaker into that good night, General Motors has reported a profit of $1.33 billion. In fact, all of the Big Three seem to be turning around; in Canada in July, sales of domestic nameplates were up 18%, while import nameplates as a whole dropped by 3%.

In the U.S., according to Edmunds.com, it's big trucks that are leading the resurgence -- the vehicles the Big Three do better than anybody else.

It's an inescapable fact: the vehicles people are buying are the vehicles that the letter-writers and the government don't want those companies to make. You can cite gas prices, you can cite greenhouse gas emissions, you can point a finger out to BP's mess in the Gulf, but the fact remains: given a choice, consumers buy big vehicles. And those big vehicles drive the automotive industry's wheel.

The size of vehicles moving off dealer lots is in direct proportion to what's on the gas station sign across the street. Prices go up, little cars go up. Prices go down, little cars go down. And whenever gas prices hike up, the letter-writers bemoan the fact that car companies aren't making enough little cars. I suspect these people have no clue how the auto industry actually works, because I think they seriously believe that auto companies work like the local bakery: white flour's expensive today, we'll make brown bread, and see what's costly tomorrow.

Most of the letter-writers have it backwards. Don't tie the auto industry to the price of gas; tie the price of gas to the auto industry. Why does Europe buy small cars? Because gas is four times what it costs here. If the government were really serious about fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions, it wouldn't even be talking to the automakers about what they're going to build. It would be talking to the gasoline companies about what they're going to charge.

Why are the oil companies so quiet?

What do plug-in hybrids, fuel cell vehicles, battery electric vehicles and extended-range vehicles all have in common? They use little or no gasoline.

What do Exxon, Shell, Husky, Irving, BP et al have in common? They all make their money selling gasoline.

So why are they so quiet?

I remember a few decades back when conspiracy theorists were determined that someone had invented a car that would get 100 miles to the gallon, but the oil companies had squashed it. It was out there, all right, but the oil barons would never let it get to market, and so they spent enough money and threw around enough weight to ensure that the only person who could sit in one was Jimmy Hoffa.

Now, instead of just a whisper of a high-mileage car, we've seen them, and some people are actually out there driving them.

It's not a rhetorical question. I'm actually befuddled -- why is this happening so smoothly? Or do the oil companies really know that, deep down, that it's all window dressing, and the few thousand alternative fuel vehicles that will actually be sold aren't going to make any kind of a dent?

CARS is over: back to big-car reality

Well, the honeymoon's over. According to a new report by J.D. Power and Associates, the end of the U.S. Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS) -- the "Cash for Clunkers" program -- has resulted in a return to the status quo.

Specifically, compact cars held 28% of the market in August, when consumers could receive substantial rebates for buying fuel-efficient vehicles. In September, with the program no longer in effect, compacts now hold only 19% of the market. Premium vehicles and large pickups have returned to the levels they held prior to the rebates.

Which goes to show you a number of things. People say the environment is important, but only to the point that it doesn't personally affect them. Gas is expensive, but it obviously isn't expensive enough to make people change their minds. And most importantly, the rush by the Detroit Three to put as many tiny cars onto their dealer lots as possible -- whether to satisfy the letter writers or the government, or both -- could turn out to be the most expensive error they've made in a long time.

New-car buyers: Keep it simple, keep it cheap

Earlier this week, research firm AutoPacific released the results of an interesting new survey. When asked if they would consider buying a Chinese car, even without knowing the specific brand or vehicle, 15% of U.S. respondents said they would. Another 11% said they'd consider one from India. What makes that extremely surprising is that only 16% said they'd consider a vehicle from Korea, and that country's been selling cars in North America for 25 years.

This is what many of us in the auto review field, and even those in the business of building and selling cars, don't always comprehend: the way most buyers think. To us, because we're enthusiasts, the important stuff includes horsepower, handling, ride quality, panel gaps, and features and options. To the average consumer, it's price, reliability, fuel economy, and maybe airbags and stability control. Period.

My sister-in-law just traded in her beat-up, 17-year-old minivan, and only because repairing the air conditioning was a major expense. She went into the dealer with three demands: a/c, good price, hatchback. That's it. She didn't even realize the gearshift surround hadn't been completely snapped into place until I pointed it out and fixed it. And any reviewer or auto exec who smirks at that is completely out of touch with most of the buying public.

Just as I have no more interest in my computer than I want it to boot up every time, connect seamlessly to the Internet, and not eat my work, the vast majority of car owners just want something that starts every time, stops when they hit the brakes, plays music, blows hot and cold air, and goes into the shop as little as possible, at a price they can afford.

The AutoPacific survey found that most respondents ranked reliability and durability highest, and had little interest in vehicle dynamics such as braking, acceleration, and handling. We in the business pick apart the Chinese cars at the auto show, and wonder if they'll ever make inroads over here. Well, we said that about the Korean cars, too, and look what happened. The global market is coming. Underestimate the new imports and overestimate the average customer at your own risk.

How do you destroy an engine? The government knows!

How do you destroy an engine? Well, if you're the U.S. government, you use sodium silicate.

As you're no doubt aware, the U.S. has passed a "cash for clunkers" law that will give rebates to people who trade in old, thirsty vehicles and buy new, fuel-efficient ones. Since the whole idea is to get these old cars out of circulation, the program includes recycling them. But if someone takes that old engine out of the car and continues to use it, the whole point of the program is lost.

According to the website Cash For Clunkers, car dealers taking in these old vehicles will have to give each car a "lethal injection" in order to render it permanently inoperable. It seems that NHTSA wrestled with several options -- after a bit of whining in its final ruling that Congress never gave a definition of an "engine block" (follow that link to page 38) -- including parting out the engine components, destroying the oil filter threads, drilling a hole in the block, and running the engine without oil.

Finally, it determined that car dealers must do the equivalent of an oil change, but after draining the block, they add two quarts of sodium silicate, at a cost of about $7.00, and run the engine until the stuff dries up inside.

The stuff you learn on the Internet. Perhaps, as the website suggests, we should be buying shares in sodium silicate companies: it sounds like it's about to take off.

Super high mileage? File it with snake oil ...

  I was watching an episode of Mythbusters today, with Adam and Jamie testing various devices to obtain ultra-high fuel economy. They used purchased items or home-made tricks obtained via the Internet.

I never believed that magnets on the fuel line or the "300-mpg carburetor" ever worked, and indeed, they didn't. I've heard from several readers who firmly believe that adding acetone to gasoline would make a substantial difference. I was skeptical about that, and the Mythbusters test -- on a dyno -- dispelled it. It simply doesn't work.

All of this got me thinking about the conspiracy theories I hear from readers about how Big Oil and Big Auto are in bed with each other, which is why we'll never get truly high fuel economy -- B.O., it seems, is paying off B.A. to deep-six any plans of a truly efficient car, which would cut into oil profits.

Okay, I'm open to conspiracy theories -- yes, I do think there was a gunman on the grassy knoll, and don't get me started about September 11. But in this case, I think it's all just science-fiction. Yes, I do think there's give and take between the two sides -- you can't tell me they don't meet and discuss all this stuff.

But here's something to think about. When the Ford Model T was around, it accounted for more than half of all car sales worldwide, because it was inexpensive, innovative and accessible. Fast-forward to now. If an auto company could come out right now with a conventional, inexpensive, gasoline-powered midsize sedan that got 100 mpg, how many do you think it would sell? How huge of a chunk would its market share be? And what oil company, no matter how big, could offer enough money to keep it off the streets? Here's the reality, folks: the 100 mpg car doesn't exist because we don't have the technology to make it exist. If we did, there isn't a competitor on the planet that could keep it from being built.

Why we can't have a $2,000 car in North America

  So now the Tata Nano has been launched, and by the summer, buyers in India will be able to purchase a vehicle that, in base form, sells for the U.S. equivalent of about $2,200. And already, people are asking why we can't have a similarly-priced car over here.

I've always said "be careful what you wish for." Because sometimes, you get it -- or in this case, you don't.

The base Nano is two grand partly because it's a four-wheeled motorcycle with a roof. The list of features, according to Tata Motors, is a two-cylinder engine, three exterior colour choices, single-tone seats, and a fold-down rear seat. That's it. You can move up to a heater and air conditioning, but they're not on the base model.

It has seatbelts because they're mandatory in India, and that's probably the only reason. It doesn't have airbags, which are mandatory in Canada. It doesn't have anti-lock brakes or electronic stability control, which will be mandatory in a couple of years. It doesn't have a tire pressure monitoring system, required on vehicles in the U.S. It has only a single wiper blade and one exterior mirror.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety in the U.S. has just added roof strength tests to its list of requirements for a vehicle to earn its "Top Safety Pick" award, and the government is expected to pass a ruling requiring stronger roof pillars. Which means that, once again, cars will become more expensive to produce.

Now, just to be sure, I don't think cars should be unsafe. All of the safety features on vehicles can be a good thing, as long as you don't think they're a substitute for a safe, well-trained driver who concentrates on the road instead of the cell phone or the coffee cup. (And don't get me started on the fact that the IIHS says that stronger roofs help keep people from being ejected from the vehicle if they're not wearing seatbelts. You don't deserve fancy safety features if you're too stupid to use the simplest and cheapest one in it.)

But is the government the reason why we can't have a $2,000 car? Not really. I've already had my fill of people who complain about the Smart because "it isn't safe," based on its size. I can only imagine what would happen if the Nano came over here, completely unchanged from the model that's sold in India. The people who complain just want the $2,000 price tag. They definitely wouldn't take the $2,000 car that goes with it.

What's more important: driving to work, or a Bruce Springsteen concert?

  In the news today: Tony Clement, Canada's Industry Minister, is going to have the federal government look into Ticketmaster. Allegations are that the concert ticket seller moves tickets into a secondary company, that then charges hundreds of dollars more for them. Clement is responding to people who are angry about tickets for Leonard Cohen and Bruce Springsteen disappearing and then resurfacing at higher cost.

Well, Tony, pull up a chair. Because I'm angry too.

According to the Toronto Star, Tony Clement said, "I can assure this House that the government will not stand idly by when there is potential that companies are engaged in uncompetitive practices that are hurting consumers."

I'll wait for y'all to read that again. Tony Clement will not stand idly by when companies are engaged in uncompetitive practices that are hurting consumers.What a man of the people he is.

So, Mr. Clement, where the hell are you when Esso on one corner puts gas up three cents a litre, and Petro-Canada on the other corner immediately changes its sign to reflect exactly the same price?

Where the hell are you when a dozen eggs are $2.39 at A&P, and they're $2.19 at Sobey's, and they're $1.99 at Price Chopper, but gasoline is eighty-four cents a litre at every service station within the entire city?

Where the hell are you when CAA-Quebec sends out its regular press releases for its Gas Watch, where it figures out the competitive price for gasoline, and then reports on stations that are charging more?

Where the hell are you when gasoline companies raise the pump price immediately when barrel prices rise, but say it'll take weeks to bring them down again when barrel prices plummet?

Where the hell are you, Tony Clement? Ticketmaster shouldn't be gouging people on concert tickets, I'll grant you that. But when a few thousand people are trying to get into a Bruce Springsteen concert, versus the millions of Canadians who have to drive to work every single day of the week, I should think that you might just use a couple of your brain cells and figure out where your priorities as a government watchdog should really lie.

Low gas prices: They're going to hurt as much as high ones

  

In my neck of the woods, gasoline prices have dropped to 73 cents per litre. That's the lowest it's been in many years, and half of what it hit during the summer.

And while I appreciate it when I'm pumping the stuff into my tank, I think that in the not-too-distant future, if it stays that way, it's going to create as much havoc as the high prices did.

Look at what happened: gas prices soared, and critics and the public pounded on the Detroit Three. Where are your small cars? Where are your hybrids? Why aren't you building what the public needs in the face of gas prices?

So General Motors rolled out the Volt, and announced that even in the face of possible bankruptcy, it would continue to spend research and development money to get it to market on schedule. Chrysler brought out three electric vehicle concepts and said it will choose one for production as early as next year. Ford brought out the Fusion Hybrid and has promised an electric car by 2011.

And they're not the only ones. Toyota's bringing Prius production to the U.S. Nissan has promised electric vehicles. Honda's got a fuel cell, a natural gas car, and a new hybrid is on its way. Mercedes has clean diesel, and BMW has hydrogen.

And then gas stays cheap. Memories are short. And buyers refuse to pay the premium for these vehicles, and they sit on the lots collecting dust -- while the critics and the letters-to-the-editor folks wonder why carmakers don't build the vehicles people want to buy.

Fuel figures: Ever wonder why you can't match them?

  Every time I take out a test car, I do a mileage check on it. I start with a full tank, drive it for a week, fill it up, and then do the math. And much of the time, I don't achieve the vehicle's official mileage figures.

I always thought that the official figures were achieved by taking out the vehicle on a cloudless day, dropping by the racetrack to find the smallest jockey there, and having him drive it on a glass-smooth road. But it turns out that, compared to the way it's actually done,that would be too realistic.

Instead, according to Natural Resources Canada, here's the story. First of all, the government only compiles the figures (and then prints them in a guide that you can find online at ecoENERGY, or as a hard copy by calling 1-800-387-2000, or dropping by most new-car dealers who will give you one at no charge).

Instead, it's the car manufacturers that do the actual testing, in laboratory conditions (which, in fairness, eliminates outside variables). They use a procedure standardized to government specifications, on a two-wheel chassis dynamometer, with a new vehicle that's got about 6,000 km "run-in" on it. Four-wheel and all-wheel-drive vehicles are tested in two-wheel drive mode, and then the tests are "adjusted to reflect the increased weight and engine load using 4x4 and AWD systems," according to the government's website. On all ratings, "other adjustments are made to reflect the average fuel consumption of vehicle configurations, options and sales mixes sold in Canada," although it doesn't specify exactly what the adjustments are. The automaker submits the figures, and only if they seem truly out of whack does the government get involved in the procedure.

In any case, the automaker has to provide figures for both city and highway use. So on the city course, the test simulates a 12-kilometre, stop-and-go-trip, with an average speed of 32 km/h, and a top speed of 91 km/h. The test runs for 23 minutes and includes 18 stops, with about four minutes of that test time spent idling to represent waiting at traffic lights. The test begins from a cold engine start, similar to starting a vehicle after it has been parked overnight during the summer. When the test is completed, it's done again with a hot engine start, and the first eight minutes of the test are repeated, to simulating restarting a vehicle that has been warmed up, driven, and then stopped for a short time.

Now we're on to the highway, which simulates a 16-kilometre trip, with an average speed of 77 km/h, and a top speed of 97 km/h. The test begins from a hot engine start, and runs 31 minutes, with the speed varying to simulate different kinds of highway and rural roads.

There you have it: slightly over an hour for everything, at a top speed that is not even the posted maximum speed limit on a Canadian limited-access highway.

Remember that, all you readers who write in on a fairly regular basis to complain that my week-long, 200-km-or-so, real-world-driving fuel figure isn't "realistic." I'm already over the official tests long before I even get the car home.

Gas prices: Who let the inmates run the asylum?

  In the news today: gasoline in the Toronto area jumped by some 12.9 cents in one night as "oil refiners brace for a possible disruption by Hurricane Ike as it rampages through the Gulf of Mexico", according to the paper.

Read that again. Prices rise because of a possible disruption.

Tell me again why price-fixing is illegal in every industry save for petroleum.

Tell me why oil company executives and the politicians who are kneeling in front of their open trousers aren't in jail.

Tell me why the gasoline that's already in tanks in the ground at the service station, purchased at the going rate when it was pumped in there, suddenly rises by almost 13 cents per litre because the oil companies might have a disruption.

Beyond that, I'd sure like someone to tell me how -- because I can't figure it out for myself -- raising the price of the petroleum already at the station is going to do anything to help the situation in the Gulf of Mexico. What effect does it have on any possible disruption? Perhaps if I pay an extra 25 cents a litre, Ike will shift its pattern and leave the oil rigs alone? Hey, if I spend an extra buck a litre, do you think that'll save any houses in Galveston?

Yes, I know, it's all about speculation and futures and George Bush's friends being able to buy yet another gold-plated bathroom faucet. But when the Farmer's Almanac predicts an unusually dry summer, loaves of bread don't jump fifty cents the day after the magazine hits the newsstands. And even when Gustav started coming towards Florida, I didn't see my local store hiking the price of a bottle of orange juice.

I think what makes me the angriest is that our politicians can stand there and with straight faces, tell us that there's no collusion. I've been in a gas station and watched the attendant take a phone call and then switch the sign to match the newly-raised price of the competitor's station across the street, and yet the oil companies can tell me, with straight faces, that they don't collaborate on the prices. That's the point when I'd love to fill the back of my pickup truck with full gas cans and ram it right through Stephen Harper's front door. Okay, so this is what you're going to charge me for gasoline -- I can live with that. What none of you seem to understand is that it's not just the prices. What the public is truly sick and tired of is the fact that you're all bald-faced liars. We can handle the truth. We just can't handle you.

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.

Gas taxes: who will pay to repair our roads?

  In a recent issue of AutoWeek magazine, Kevin A. Wilson -- possibly the most observant and common-sense auto writer on the continent -- brought up a point I'd not considered: as gasoline consumption drops, who's going to fund our roads?

Gas taxes don't just sit in the general coffers; they're used to build and maintain roads. If there's no money for maintenance, no one fixes the cracked pavement. Our roadbeds collapse and our bridges fall down, and eventually, the highway system deteriorates to the point that it starts destroying our cars.

As Wilson points out, cars that get better fuel economy use less gasoline, and electric cars don't use any liquid fuel at all. Less gas = less tax money = who's going to foot the bill for our roads? It's not justification for buying a gas guzzler by any means, but right now, while we're on the cusp of dramatically reducing our fuel consumption, we'd better spend just as much time figuring out how the infrastructure is going to be financed. A car that gets 60 mpg isn't much good if there's no place to drive it.

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.

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.

Electric vehicles: More than just the car

I just read a news report, a follow-up to Nissan's earlier announcement that it will sell a completely electric vehicle in the U.S. and Japan in 2010. The company has embarked on a full-scale study in Kanagawa Prefecture to set up a charging network and incentives program that can possibly be repeated nationally and even globally.

That's a huge report, and it's one that I hope to see with many more automakers.

Up front: I'm a fan of electric vehicles, and I think they're going to have an important place in the overall goal of sustainable transportation. But I also think that many of the people who champion them are not looking at the big picture overall.

I've spoken to many supporters, who tell me that people will simply plug the cars in at home, or plug them in at work, and that's the extent of their vision of infrastructure. The problem is that many of these supporters live in single-family homes, and work at small companies where running a few extension cords from the building isn't an issue.

But many more people live in apartment buildings, or in older city areas where they have to park on the street. Many work at large complexes or factories, where a few thousand cars might occupy the parking lot. Suddenly, the situation isn't so simple as these devotees like to think it is.

Any new technology is going to be chicken-and-egg; early motorists had to buy their gasoline from hardware stores, because gas stations had yet to be developed. By working on the hen as well as the egg, automakers and governments can help to make this happen. Maybe, in future, parking meters will charge the cars parked beside them. Maybe apartment parking lots will include stand-alone charging systems. Maybe, if they do, the electric car will be more than just a conveyance for a lucky few, and instead, become a feasible option for many.

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?

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?