WomanOnWheels.ca

Who will be left behind as automotive technology advances?

The auto industry seems to be moving at breakneck speed toward electric and autonomous cars, but not everyone will be able to come along for the ride. Who's going to be left behind? Read more in my opinion piece at AutoTRADER.ca.

Today's rant: When you're turning right, LOOK to the right!

If your head turns to the right, you should be turning it that way, every time you make a right-hand turn. And far too many drivers don't, and so far too many pedestrians and cyclists get hurt. See what I'm talking about in my rant over at AutoTrader.

Do you believe these nine driving myths?

Do you think you should never move vehicles after a crash? That the middle lane is the "driving lane"? Or that you should always be polite on the road? If you do, check out my list of nine driving myths over at AutoTrader.

Drivers versus the World: We ain't always the bad guys

Yesterday, I played tour guide in Toronto for some visiting relatives. The city was packed, as the city always is, and it wasn't always easy to drive there, as is always the case.

I almost hit two people: one a pedestrian, the other on a bicycle. And I came away angry as hell, because each of them did something stupid that put them in my path.

The pedestrian was a jogger, running along the sidewalk toward a curve in the road where I, a driver, had to veer left. It is a confusing intersection, because cars make that turn and then come to a stoplight (for those familiar with Toronto, it's the Don Valley Parkway exit onto Bloor, which takes you around the curve to Castle Frank). But that doesn't excuse what this woman did.

Although there is a sidewalk, pedestrians should be on the opposite side if they want to cross, because then they're not jaywalking across a three-lane road where cars are not required to stop before making the curve. But jaywalk is exactly what my jogger did. Fortunately, I spotted her on my left, running toward the road. I also noted that she was looking straight across at the opposite side, instead of to her right to see if there was a car about to flatten her.

Just as I figured she would, she ran right out and directly in front of my car. Since I'd anticipated her doing that, I was already on the stoppers. If I hadn't already been braking, I would have hit her.

A little while later, I was making a right-hand turn, on a green light. There were a lot of pedestrians in the area (Spadina and Nassau) and so I checked to my left, as well as to my right. That's when I saw a cyclist coming, and realized that even though he was looking at a red light, he had absolutely no intention of stopping. I did, which avoided him smashing into my driver's door.

In both instances, if I hadn't anticipated these people doing something incredibly stupid, there wouldn't have been time to hit the brakes and avoid the collision. In both instances, I blew my horn. I scared last night's dinner out of the jogger; she wasn't paying attention and had no idea she'd run into traffic. The cyclist, whose bag indicated that he was delivering food for some app-based service, didn't bat an eye. It was obvious he didn't give a fiddler's fart about traffic rules, or how close he came to being a statistic.

And what would have happened in each case, if I hadn't looked both ways, and hadn't anticipated what these people were going to do? The papers would have reported tragic cases of pedestrians or cyclists versus traffic. People would have brought flowers to the site, or set up a ghost bike. Activists would have wrung their hands about how vulnerable road users don't stand a chance in the city.

I would have been The Bad Guy. Because no one would have asked, "Well, who set it up for that collision to happen?"

People: it's a city. There is traffic. There are a lot of drivers who are at fault, who turn right while looking to the left, who run red lights, who turn in front of cyclists. As drivers, we have to look in every direction, no matter what, no matter if the light's green or if we're not required to stop. We have to anticipate situations, not react to them. We have to drive as if everyone is going to walk against the light, or dart out into traffic, or ignore the rules.

But vulnerable road users -- pedestrians and cyclists -- have to do their part, too. Take the damn headphones out of your ears and listen for traffic. Put down the goddamn phone and watch where you're going. Obey the lights. Obey the signs. Because if you don't, you're going to meet up with someone in a car. And believe me, no matter who's at fault, you're going to lose.

Something to think about ...

When I was filling up at a self-serve station today -- which is about the only kind you can find anymore -- I noticed this on the pump. There is often only one person behind the counter at the gas station, and it's not really a good idea for him to run out and pump gas while leaving an entire store full of goods with no one to watch it.

It really made me think about what some people have to go through just to function in this world. If you're able-bodied, tell me the last time you had to make an appointment to put gas in your car. It makes me realize how lucky I am, and how we still have a long way to go to make our society viable for everyone.

Hey, automakers! Who's driving your car?

Today was press day at the Canadian International Auto Show in Toronto, the day that automakers hold press conferences to introduce their new models. It's where I shot this photo. Honda presented the new 2016 Pilot by having models posing as a family load hockey gear into the cargo area, put the children in the back seat, and then "drive" to the arena.

And as soon as they were finished loading the vehicle, I knew exactly what would happen. And I was right. Mom went to the passenger side, and Dad got behind the wheel.

Now, I'm not picking on Honda specifically. Everybody does this. When it's Mom and Dad, it's Dad behind the wheel. When it's Guy and Gal, it's the guy who's in control. Every single time there are two people in the car, and one is female, she's the one in the passenger seat.

The only time you ever see a woman driving in TV commercials, on billboards, in print ads, or in the auto shows is when she's the only person in the car, or everyone else in the vehicle is too young to drive.

A minor complaint? In the grand scheme of things, yes. But I'm bloody tired of it. Automakers, you give us the lip service about how you know we buy half the cars out there, and we're so important to you. Well, if we were, you'd give us a shot behind the wheel every now and again. How about just once, Dad grabs the right-hand door handle, and Mom gets to drive? If we're so important to you, then every now and again, show us that we are.

 

C'mon, people, THINK!

I was at the grocery store today when I spotted the newest thing in "stick figure families," those ridiculous decals that people put on the windows of their vehicles.

These figures had names.

Okay, so the adult figures were simply "Mom" and "Dad." But each of the three children was identified by name, along with the appropriate interests: one was a hockey player, one a dancer, and one was a baby still in diapers.

So let me guess what would happen if I walked up to said family in the store and said, "Hey, Jimmy, how's hockey going? Say, Emma, how are you doing in ballet class?" And I'm a woman. Imagine a man doing that.

C'mon, people, think. You worry about your children, you tell them not to talk to strangers, you drive them everywhere so they'll be safe, and then you tell the whole world their names and what they like to do? (I've even seen one where the child figures had their ages under them.) There's cute, and then there's dumb. Guess which one this is.

Hey, OnStar, I'm lost again ...

I'm driving a GM car this week, and so I used the OnStar Turn-by-Turn Navigation system to find a destination. I'm guessing all the Canadian operators were busy, because I got through to someone with a strong Southern accent.

I wanted to go to Georgian College in Barrie, Ontario. After I told her how to spell Barrie, she searched and couldn't find the street address, so I suggested she plug in the name of the college. Success, and my directions were downloaded ...

... except that instead of going to Georgian College, I got sent to Georgina Street, in a subdivision on the other side of town. When another operator finally got me going in the right direction, I was late for my appointment. This newest generation of OnStar is a lot better than the old one (which couldn't find my house, even though it hasn't moved in the last 60-plus years) but it still isn't always perfect. Paper maps still rule.

Chrysler wants to shake up workers ...

Chrysler Group CEO Sergio Marchionne - who came to the company when Fiat took the reins - is not happy with unionized auto workers.

Speaking at the Detroit Auto Show, Marchionne said that the current union system of hourly wage increases isn't going to cut it, and instead, he wants a system of profit-sharing.

A Toronto Star story reports that Marchionne said the cost of building vehicles in Canada must fall to meet what workers are paid in the United States. "The Canadian system needs to be as competitive as the American side," Marchionne said, and added that it is difficult for him to explain to American workers why Canadian employees are paid more money.

Fair enough. So I have a question for you, Mr. Marchionne. As a Canadian consumer, how do you explain that I can buy a Canadian-built Chrysler 300 on the U.S. side of the border for $28,170, but in Canada it starts at $32,995? Why does a U.S.-built Ram 1500 cost $21,475 in the United States, but it's $26,770 in Canada? If it's difficult to explain accounting to the workers, how about some information for the buyers?

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.

E85 ethanol: Really, what's the point of reporting?

J.D. Power and Associates regularly sends out updates on how vehicle sales are doing in Canada. And like forecasting companies across Canada and the U.S., it reports on how many "flexible-fuel" vehicles - those that can use E85, a fuel that's primarily made up of plant-based ethanol - are sold.

Last year, for example, sales of flex-fuel vehicles increased almost twofold, to 13.2 percent of the market. And I say, so what?

The number of hybrids sold is an important indicator of how consumers are looking at alternative vehicles. (For the record, hybrid sales dropped, concurrent with stabilized gas prices - backing up what I've always said, that for most people it's about cash, not climate change.) The number of flex-fuel vehicles sold means nothing, and I hope that people aren't looking at those sales numbers and thinking that the tide is turning.

The fact is, any vehicle on the market that will run on E85 fuel will also run on gasoline; it just means that it has special seals and pumps that the ethanol can't corrode. That 13.2 percent didn't buy the car because it ran on E85, but because the car met their needs and it just happened to have the yellow fuel-filler cap. And almost every one of those vehicles will run exclusively on gasoline, because in most places in Canada, it's impossible to find a station that dispenses E85. I think there are a handful in all of Ontario. According to Petro-Canada's website, that gasoline giant doesn't even carry it.

At least the ecoAuto program is over - the one that gave rebates to fuel-efficient vehicles, including flexible fuel models. You could get $1,000 back from the feds if you bought a vehicle that could run on E85, because you were saving the planet, at least in theory. I wonder if any car that qualified for the rebate has ever had a drop of E85 run through its guts.

Sure, it's chicken-and-egg - you don't get E85 without the cars, and you don't get the cars without E85. But don't tell me that sales of flex-fuel vehicles are rising, because it means squat. Tell me when there's a possibility I might be able to put some of this corn-based fluid into its tank. That is when the numbers will actually make a difference.

Some advice for aspiring auto journalists and photogs ...

 Prior to their opening to the public, the auto shows have "press days" where the automakers present their new models to be photographed for the various newspapers, magazines and websites.

In the last little while, I've noticed something that really bugs me: more and more media folk who think they're the only ones at the show, and who make it very difficult for the rest of us to take our pictures. I hate to generalize, but for the most part, they tend to be young and relatively new at the game. Guys, if you want to be considered professionals, you need to remember that - as Red Green says - we're all in this together. So please:

Look around you. See me there, pointing my camera at the car, waiting for you to move away from it? I realize we can't constantly be doing 360-degree sweeps every moment we're near a fender, but use some common sense. Don't stand beside the all-new model to have a conversation with your buddy.

Get your photo, then get out. Don't stand beside the car while you check all 30 photos on your camera screen. Take a couple of steps back out of my frame to do it. The car will still be there if you need to shoot a couple more.

Don't hog the car. I understand that your site needs a lot of detail shots. Still, take a look around. If you're halfway through shooting every nut and bolt, and you see me there waiting to take one quick shot of the whole car, then step back, let me get my picture, and then go back to your work.

Close the car up when you're done. Shut the door or trunk once you've finished inside, so I don't have to do it before I get my shot.

Stay at your place in the scrum. At the unveiling, you'll notice that we've all staked out spots, checked our camera angles, and are waiting for the car to come out. We don't move when it does, and you shouldn't either. Don't stand up, move forward, hold your iPhone over your head or do anything that will put you in front of our lenses when that car comes out. We want a shot of the car, not you.

Think about what you're doing and how it affects others. You may think you're special, but you're not. You're just one of hundreds of journalists who are also trying to get the perfect photo. We all get in each other's way occasionally, but we say "I'm sorry" and we try not to do it again. Trust me: the only way you'll be treated as a professional is if you act like one, and it starts right here.

 

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.

Somebody please buy NHTSA a dictionary ...

... so it can look up the meaning of personal responsibility.

I'm speaking of a final ruling announced today by the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that will produce a law that begins phasing in in 2013 and will be required on all new vehicles under 10,000 pounds by 2018. Under the new rule, vehicle manufacturers will have to develop a countermeasure that prevents an unbelted driver or passenger from moving more than four inches outside the side window in the event of a crash.

An unbelted driver or passenger. One who has ignored the simplest, most common piece of safety equipment on a vehicle, the one that helps to prevent deadly crash ejection without the need for extra mandated countermeasures.

Feh. As far as I'm concerned, you ride without your seatbelt, the onus is on you. You get thrown out of the vehicle, well, there's only so much the rest of the world can do to save you from yourself. Ever wonder why cars are always becoming more expensive? Quite simply, it's because there are too many stupid people driving them, and too many government agencies willing to try to keep up with them.

NHTSA's camera proposal: More Band-Aids on an untreated wound

In the news: the U.S. government is proposing a ruling that would require all vehicles 10,000 pounds and under to have a device that expands the view behind the vehicle. NHTSA says that it "believes automobile manufacturers will install rear-mounted video cameras and in-vehicle displays to meet the proposed standards." Short of hiring someone to sit on the bumper and call out when he sees something, or making the entire rear end out of glass, I can't imagine what else NHTSA "believes" the automakers would use.

The ruling, if it goes through (and does anyone think it won't?) will require all vehicles to be compliant by the 2015 model year. It's one more mandated device in a list of devices NHTSA requires. Some really are good ideas as far as mandatory requirement goes, others questionable: seatbelt buzzers, airbags, tire pressure monitoring systems, anti-lock brakes, electronic stability control. This latest proposal stems from a situation where a man backed over his two-year-old son in the driveway. Children, who are generally small enough that they're hidden behind vehicles, make up a disproportionate number of such fatalities. (Why elderly people, who are slower but usually taller than children, make up the second-largest group is harder to figure out.)

But as NHTSA plunges forward with its ruling, it also says, "drivers must remember that no technology can, or should, replace full attention and vigilance when backing up." And that's the key to all of these mandated devices: NHTSA is putting on Band-Aids when it should be treating the festering sore under them.

Simply put, we are nations of bad drivers, and neither the U.S. nor the Canadian government is willing to really put some teeth into the issue and start at the beginning. I can look on utility poles in the city and see sheets of typing paper advertising driving schools that guarantee I'll pass my test, starting at just $99. I don't even need to go to driving school before showing up for my examination (in fact, I never did). I never need to go to any advanced driver training once I've passed my test (and it was only when I did get advanced training that I realized I hadn't been a good driver).

As the participants on Canada's Worst Driver prove, it is possible to get a legal driver's license without actually being able to drive. I have a friend who drove a total of eight blocks and had to back up once in order to pass her test and get her license. And unless you do something catastrophic in a vehicle, or live to be 80 and reach mandatory retesting, you'll never be asked to prove your ability again.

If NHTSA and other government agencies really wanted the roads to be safe, they would put as much concern into safe drivers as they do into safe cars. They would tighten up licensing regulations, set limits on who is qualified to teach, set strict minimum requirements for ability, and require drivers to learn about car control, which is not the same as learning just enough to pass the exam.

The agencies would crack down on cell phone use -- you'll never convince me that allowing just-as-dangerous hands-free calls wasn't due to lobbying on the part of automakers and electronics companies that had sunk so much money into on-board Bluetooth -- with serious penalties, rather than the $155 slap on the wrist that drivers face in Ontario. They would crack down on coffee shops and burger joints that let drivers pull up to a window and then head out to the street with food and drink in hand. And they would pay attention to the single most important safety item on any vehicle: its tires. Mandate winter tire use and pull cars off the road when they have insufficient tire tread.

 On the other hand, maybe NHTSA is working toward safer roads with all these mandates. Once cars are filled with all of the required electronic devices, they'll be so expensive that no one will be able to afford one, and we'll all be on public transit where we won't be able to smash into each other.

 

Hey, truck drivers: Keep your crap to yourself!

This is the grille of this week's ride. It's a clear sunny day today, the roads are as dry as the Mojave desert, and this car was spotless when I took it out. I was planning on getting some pictures while it was still squeaky clean.

What you're seeing is the result of a couple of kilometres behind an evacuation pumper truck that was slowly leaking some kind of muddy fluid (I don't want to think about what it had evacuated) from a hose on the back. Between traffic front and back, I had no choice but to follow the truck. Which brings me to today's rant: I'm bloody sick and tired of being the recipient of stuff that does not stay in or on the vehicles it is meant to stay in or on.

I realize that construction areas, job sites and other similar areas are dirty places. And I realize that it isn't always possible to scrub a vehicle before it leaves such a place. On the other hand, I don't see why it's acceptable that my trip down the highway will involve little chunks of cement banging against my windshield from a cement truck, or chips in my paint courtesy of the gravel truck ahead of me, or my new wash job lasting less than an hour because fluid is leaking out of a truck.

"It can't be helped" should not be an excuse. I pay good money for glass, paint and car washes, and even if the construction company really needs to get that new block of houses built, I don't see why I should have to bear the brunt of the operation. I don't know what the answer is to keeping all this debris off the road, but there should be one -- and since they're the ones causing the problem, I think it's up to these trucking companies to find the solutions.

 

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.

See the U.S.A. in your Chevro--oops, Camry ...

In a new report released today, Cars.com says that, for the second year in a row, the Toyota Camry is the "Most American" vehicle on the road, with the Honda Accord close behind.

The site determines how "American" a vehicle is by where it's made, how popular it is with U.S. buyers, and the percentage of its parts -- by cost -- that are made in the U.S. or Canada. (Although the editors are fine with looking north, south doesn't count, and several vehicles are left off the list because they, or a majority of their parts, are produced in Mexico.)

For the record, the ten in order are Camry, Accord, Ford Escape, Ford Focus, Chevrolet Malibu, Honda Odyssey, Dodge Ram 1500 (except for the single cab, made -- horrors! -- by those folks south of Texas), Toyota Tundra, Jeep Wrangler and Toyota Sienna.

Yes, I used to have an "eat your foreign car" sticker on my vehicle, a long time ago, before I learned that vehicles are no longer domestic or foreign. Toyota Corollas and Honda Civics are made not too far from where I live in Ontario; the Chevrolet Aveo comes from Korea. Almost all automakers, be they Japanese, German or Korean, have some sort of a manufacturing presence in North America. And the "domestics" have been shipping components to their North American plants from all over the world for years. Your Ford, GM or Chrysler may have been built here, but it probably contains parts from China, Thailand, Korea, India or anywhere else you can drop your finger on a map.

I believe that countries need a manufacturing base to be healthy, which is why the U.S. and Canada are going steadily downhill, morphing from countries that make goods, into ones that simply retail them. But I also see the big picture, and nothing makes my blood boil faster than someone who waves off "import" companies by saying, "Yes, they make the cars here, but then they send all that money back to a foreign country."

News flash: if you're in Canada, every car company is based in a foreign country. We haven't had a truly Canadian company since about, oh, 1920 or so. Every company is putting money back where it's building the cars, whether it's in wages to employees, investments in the facilities, or business taxes (just don't get me started by whining about government funds used for bailouts -- GM and Chrysler just took the money up front, while other companies quietly accept billions in tax credits from state governments hungry for the jobs). Buy the car that's right for you, and if it's made in a plant near you, all the better for your local economy. They're not sending your money away: they're spending it right where you live, no matter what badge is on the trunk.

CAA and Tim Hortons: Heart's in the right place, brain is out to lunch

In the news: CAA and Tim Hortons are teaming up, "protecting the planet one kilometre at a time," according to the press release. Eco-driving tips will start showing up on tray liners and television screens inside Tim Hortons coffee shops.

The tips include keeping the tires properly inflated, removing excess weight, reducing highway speeds, avoiding hard braking and jackrabbit stops, and combining trips.

See anything missing?

C'mon, think hard.

Okay, here it is, CAA and Tim Hortons. Want to save gasoline, reduce emissions, and maybe help make our roads safer to boot? Ban the bloody goddamn drive-through windows.

CAA and Tim Hortons: joining together to help save the planet, but still missing the big picture by a country mile.

Paying attention: No longer part of driving?

I had an interesting conversation last week about driving, and one that bothered me, because I know it's not an isolated attitude. I was a radio guest, answering questions about what drivers should do if their vehicles start accelerating unexpectedly, as described under Toyota's recall.

I started off by saying that drivers - all drivers, not just those in Toyotas - should be always scanning the road and the mirrors, so that if any emergency situation pops up, they know what's around them and where they can safely move. That's just common sense: if you have to change lanes, you're already aware that, say, you can go to the left, but not to the right.

"But not everybody can do that," the radio host said. "You've got the children in the car, and they've got your attention."

I said that driver attention is part of safety, and no matter who's in the car, the driver should always be scanning and looking ahead, and knowing exactly where he or she is in relation to traffic.

"Yeah, but you've got one kid in the front seat, and he's arguing with the two in the back seat, and you're paying attention to them," he said.

What I really wanted to say was then park the goddamn car and throw away the keys, because you shouldn't be driving, but I had to bite my tongue and continue on with specifics for the Toyota recall. I did, however, keep shaking my head for the rest of the day. No, I'm not a parent, and I don't know what it's like to play referee in a vehicle. On the other hand, I am a driver. And I do know that even a moment's inattention when you're doing 50 mph could mean that ... well, in a worst-case scenario, you might come out of the crash without any children needing your attention anymore.

Why all the CAFE in the world won't make a difference ...

 My local landscape is changing again. A farm here has moved out all of its horses, the survey stakes are in the ground, and the "presentation center" is being erected to sell the cookie-cutter houses that will go up on the land. This is now a regular occurrence in the rural area where I live.

If it's like every other subdivision around here, it will consist of hundreds of single-family houses (and will be named for the farm/creek/forest/orchard it destroyed). Any non-house land use will be restricted to schools, parks, and perhaps a church. There will be no stores or businesses within the maze of cul-de-sacs. Public transit may run up and down the main street outside, but not within the development itself. If you want a quart of milk, you'll need to get into your car and drive to get it.

My area isn't unique. This is happening in areas all over North America, and it's why fuel economy standards and hybrid cars and electric vehicles are never going to be enough. For some reason, we only look at the puzzle pieces, and we never try to put them all together.

We complain about pouring tax dollars into truly improving public transit. We let various municipalities work against each other, rather than harmonizing their systems, effectively preventing the seamless bus and train service that we need to get from one end of a huge metropolitan area to the other. We've gutted our railways, making highways the only options between towns. We refuse to give up portions of our roads to bicycle lanes, making it dangerous and inconvenient to use them as serious transportation.

Our municipal governments bend over backwards to (or more likely in front of) developers, giving them access to huge tracts of unserviced rural land, while city lots surrounded by infrastructure stay vacant because it's not as easy to build on them. Adding insult to injury is zoning that prevents people from being able to work or shop within walking distance of their houses. If you want to live in a subdivision, you have to own a car.

And yet, the only ones held accountable in all of this are the automakers, who are under ever-increasing government pressure to squeeze out another quarter-mile per gallon, and keep in another gram of CO2.

We've put a Band-Aid on the bruised finger. The problem is, we then just keep hitting it with the hammer.

Some Automotive Musings ...

Over the years, through more cars than I can count, I've noticed many little things. For no reason other than because they popped into my head, I've tossed them all together here. See what you think.

- I suspect that many vehicles have numerous cubbies primarily for the sake of the salesman, especially if they're in the back of hatchbacks. I'm talking about the tiny bins hidden between the main under-floor bin and the back of the wheel well, or pockets in the liftgate, or the little storage areas you uncover when you pull a plastic panel off the cargo area's side. I don't believe anybody actually puts stuff in them. Rather, when the salesman's walking you around the vehicle in the showroom, it's one more thing he can uncover, to oohs and aahs of potential customers who marvel at how many hidden compartments this thing actually has.

- I think tire pressure monitoring systems, or TPMS, are among the most unnecessary auto technologies thrust upon us. I've had at least a half-dozen false warnings due to changes in temperature so far this winter. They let drivers believe that it isn't necessary to check their tires, because "the car will tell me" -- even though the systems are designed to warn at a level that may be dangerously low. That level was set when the government listened to the automakers, who wanted one simple percentage across the board, and not the tire manufacturers, who wanted individual warnings for vehicle and tire combinations based on safe pressure. The U.S. government has mandated TPMS. Transport Canada says it won't unless the systems are proven worthwhile. So far, we don't have TPMS up here. What does that tell you?

- Artico leather, Alcantara suede, Escaine leather -- how fancy they all sound. I wonder when the auto brochure writers will figure out that we know they're fake cowhide.

- And am I the only one who firmly believes that the vast majority of "spy shots" -- upcoming models supposedly snapped by photographers who somehow gained access to the vehicles at test tracks or hidden locations -- are actually released by the automakers themselves? C'mon, folks, there's no way on earth the carmakers are dumb enough to let the paparazzi in on it if they really meant to keep it quiet.

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.

Why, yes, I knew that ...

I make a habit out of reading the owner's manual of every car I test-drive. It's mostly to learn about the car, and partly to assemble my annual "Auto Funnies" column -- 2007 is here, and 2008 is over here.

These manuals are intended to inform people who don't know anything about their cars. So I could only shake my head when I read this in the Toyota Prius' manual:

Your vehicle must use only unleaded gasoline.Select octane rating 88 (Research Octane Number 92). Use of unleaded gasoline with an octane rating lower than 88 may result in engine knocking. At minimum, the gasoline you use should meet the specifications of ASTM D4814 in the U.S.A. and CGSB3.5-M93 in Canada.

Why, yes, thank you, that's much clearer!

GM-town mayor vs. GM-town taxpayer: Camaro 1, Saturn 0

There's a tempest brewing in Oshawa, home of General Motors of Canada -- and me. The mayor, John Gray, can buy a car as one of the perks of the job. He purchased a V8-powered Camaro. Oshawa is the only plant anywhere that builds it.

That isn't sitting well with some people, including Oshawa resident Bill Steele, and the story's here in the Toronto Star. Steele wants Gray to raffle off the Camaro, which cost $38,000, and buy a hybrid or "an economical car for the future," and give the remaining money to a food bank.

(Full disclosure: I know John Gray on a first-name basis, but only through chatting with him at various car shows. His Worship has a fondness for Chevrolet Corvairs and owns a few of them -- presumably not directly funded by taxpayers -- and while I seldom agree with his political policies, he's a really nice guy on a personal level.)

Steele's argument is wrong on a number of levels. First of all, he says that he doesn't want part of his taxes going to buy a sports car that "gets 17 miles to the gallon." Now, Gray may well drive it hard and affect the fuel numbers, but cars are measured by official figures, and on paper, the V8 Camaro gets a combined 26 mpg (Imperial): 21 in the city, 36 on the highway. Steele gets nowhere fast by pulling random numbers out of his butt.

Gray can't buy a hybrid made in Oshawa, unless he picks up one of the last Chevrolet Silverado or GMC Sierra hybrid pickup trucks built in that city before GM shut the truck plant down. Such a truck is rated at 27 mpg in the city, but only 29 on the highway -- nowhere near as good as Gray's 36-mpg Camaro. And GM cancelled its only other hybrid, the Chevrolet Malibu -- built not in Oshawa, but in Kansas -- because no one was buying them.

Steele argues that Gray's vehicle choice is out of sync with Oshawa's bleak unemployment picture. Well, here's a news flash: Oshawa's employment rate improves considerably when people are working, and more people work in Oshawa when General Motors is running at full tilt. The plant there currently produces the Chevrolet Camaro and Chevrolet Impala, and that's it. Gray put another order on the assembly line when he took delivery of his car. Steele's used, nine-year-old Saturn never put a dime into Oshawa's manufacturing economy; it wasn't built in Canada. (And given that he also slams Gray's choice on environmental grounds, I wonder what kind of fuel economy and emissions he gets from a $200 "grey and rust" car.)

The mayor of an auto town needs to drive the car that auto town builds. Gray could have chosen an Impala -- which, in its smaller-engine configuration, gets only 5 mpg better than his Camaro -- which would have blended into the traffic scenery like a white dog in a snowstorm. He could have waited for the hybrid that rumor has it the Oshawa plant will build, but GM hasn't even confirmed it, much less given a date. Instead, the mayor bought a car that turns heads wherever he goes, and has many people saying, Hey, that's way-cool, and it's built right here.

My taxes helped pay for John Gray's Camaro, as well. But unlike Bill Steele, I think it was money well spent.

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.

Now it's special glass for California ...

I never thought I'd say this, but from an environmental standpoint, I feel a bit sorry for the automakers.

The state of California has become the environmental hotbed, setting mandates that have required companies to produce vehicles that meet specifications unique to the state. I'm sure every car company breathed a long sigh of relief when the U.S. federal government finally agreed that California's fuel and emissions standards would apply everywhere. As one automaker told me, "We'll meet whatever you want -- just give us one number for everybody."

And just when the playing field was equal again, California looked at glass. So starting in 2012, all new vehicles sold in the state must have window glass that reflects at least 45% of the sun's energy. And by 2016, the glass must reflect 60% of heat-producing rays. The theory is that cars will be cooler, air conditioning won't have to work as hard, and fuel use and emissions will benefit.

Which means that, once again, automakers will have to outfit vehicles specifically for California. And the state estimates that the cost for the windows will average $70 for the 2012 standard, and $250 for the 2016 standard. It's expected that the annual gasoline savings will be $16 and $20 a year respectively.

That's a lot of money to add to the price of a car, and I wonder where it's all going to stop. In the U.S., cars will now have to have airbags, vehicle stability control, anti-lock brakes and tire pressure monitoring systems by law. And yet, buyers still flock to vehicles that start around $10,000, because that's all they have to spend.

It's not going to be California's mandates that help clean the air; it's going to be the fact that no one will be able to afford to drive. And in a state that was developed primarily around single-occupancy vehicles, how will the less-well-off ever get around?

After the rebound: who's left to buy anything?

In the news today, a new report suggestions that Canada's auto parts manufacturers will lose money in 2009, but will start to turn a profit in 2010, and should be back up to full speed, money-wise, by 2013. This will all come about due to some major structural changes, including shedding 36,000 jobs in 2009.

Read that slowly. Thirty-six thousand jobs.

Along with making more profit because they don't have to pay so many of those pesky wages, Canada's auto parts manufacturers will come back to the brink due to the anticipated rebound in car sales, according to the report.

But every time I turn around, there's a press release telling me how many jobs are being shed in the name of returning to viability. A few hundred here, a couple of thousand there, 36,000 in this particular release.

There's no question that many -- perhaps most -- companies in the auto industry have been overstaffed for many years, back when no one thought the gravy boat would ever run dry. But when your profitability depends on massive numbers of people buying items that can cost a year's salary or more, and you've taken away their jobs, well, just who is left to buy your product?

Europe and China collaborate on cars ... hmmm.

In the news today: the European Automobile Manufacturers' Association (ACEA) and the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers (CAAM) have signed a cooperation agreement.

According to the press release, the agreement will allow both sides "to exchange information on automotive industry trends in China and Europe and, particularly in China, to work more systematically on a coordinated approach regarding regulatory developments of common concern."

Now, that can mean a lot of things, but the word that comes to my mind is homologation. I'm thinking across-the-board standards that could result in a few new developments. Chinese cars that could be exported and sold in Europe. European-brand cars that could be built in China and then sold in Europe. And since you can buy a European-built car in North America, could the ultimate step be that not only will all of our T-shirts and kitchen goods and toys sold in Canada be made in China, but all of our cars, as well?

People used to ask if cars made in China would ever come to Canada. The question now is -- when?

What's missing from a "complete community"

On my way home today from an event, I passed the site of an upcoming subdivision. The cornfield and its topsoil have been scraped away, and the maze of cul-de-sac roads is starting to go in.

There were three huge signs around the property, announcing that it will be a "Complete Community!" They were "Complete Community - Schools," "Complete Community - Nature," and "Complete Community - Parks."

That ain't complete, says I.

A complete community enables people to do more -- to shop and, if at all possible, to work. On one hand, we bemoan the fact that our roads are stuffed to capacity, our air is filled with vehicle exhaust, and people spend hours of each day commuting. And on the other hand, we create these sprawling "horizontal apartments," where a car isn't a luxury but an absolute necessity. On this side, we're telling the auto companies to make tiny cars to help save the environment. And on that other side, we do absolutely nothing about improving the environment, every time we scrape another farmer's field down to the raw clay, and put up a self-contained ghetto in its place.

Women at work: Some Canadian sole

This coming Tuesday, I'm going to be helping to build a house with Habitat for Humanity, on an all-women event that will feature head office and dealer staff from Kia Canada. I'm really looking forward to it.

I need to wear steel-toed work boots, and while H-4-H has boots to lend, the selection is naturally limited. I'd always wanted a pair for the odd time I'm messing around with work at home (and work boots are just so downright cool), so I figured this was a good excuse to buy myself a pair.

And since I'm one for putting my money where my mouth is, I wanted made-in-Canada boots. Shouldn't be so hard, huh?

Ha.

I went to Zeller's, which advertises itself as a Canadian company. The choices came from China, Vietnam and Cambodia.

I went to Mark's Work Wearhouse, again, another Canadian company. This one threw a pair from Bangladesh into the mix.

I went to Canadian Tire. Check out the first part of that name. Not only were all the boots made offshore, but they were all for men. Canadian Tire does not carry any workboots for women.

Now, in fairness, I might have easily found some at the specialty workboot shop in town, but they'd closed for the weekend, and I'm not going to have a whole lot of time on Monday. So, more out of curiosity than anything, I stopped in Wal-Mart. Yes, Wal-Mart, that great American tradition.

And I bought one of the two Canadian-made brands of boots that they had for sale.

As they say, go figure.

Fiat and Chrysler: Blame Canada?

In the news: Fiat chief Sergio Marchionne said that he's not sure if a deal will go through to merge with Chrysler -- not unless the unions make some substantial cuts to labor costs, and most notably, Canadian unions. Chrysler's U.S. chiefs have already taken swipes at the CAW, and now Italy is doing it, as well.

And the inner conspiracy theorist in me says: is there more to this than just the cost of labor?

Keep this in mind: Barack Obama has said he will free up $6 billion for Chrysler, but only if a deal with Fiat is cemented by April 30, 2009. Marchionne has said he won't ask the government for an extension if it doesn't happen by then.

Now, I like Chryslers as much as anybody; I've got three in my driveway, one of them a 2008 model. But I still think that if any of the Detroit Three are going to fold in this crisis, this is the one that'll go down, with the buzzards left picking out prime pieces like Jeep, Hemi and Caravan.

And I really don't think Fiat cares that much about selling its technology to Chrysler, not in the big picture. Fiat wants distribution, and it will only get that by moving in with an established automaker that already has a dealership network in place. I doubt it matters which one. But it will make a difference if the American car-buying public sees Fiat as the foreigner that took down Chrysler. They might not be buying the cars, but it's still an American company, and there's that matter of pride (and jobs, of course).

So here's my theory. Fiat wants into the U.S., and Chrysler's the one most willing to talk. If Fiat decides the deal isn't in its favor, Chrysler doesn't get its $6 billion, and that will pretty much be the beginning of the end. Blaming U.S. auto workers won't earn Fiat many friends among American buyers, either. But if it blames Canadians -- if Canadian auto workers were the reason the deal failed and Chrysler came down -- then Fiat will still have a fighting chance to hook up with someone else and bring its cars over. It wasn't their fault. And all those Americans who lost their direct or indirect jobs when Chrysler folds will look to the north, and lay the blame as well.

GMC Terrain: It's a what?

  General Motors has just announced it will unveil the 2010 GMC Terrain at the New York auto show.

In its press release, the company calls it a "crossover SUV." Say what?

Really, this is getting goofy. First it was SUV, tagged to vehicles that were neither sporty nor truly utilitarian. Then, when those fell out of favor, they became crossovers, although I'm not quite sure exactly what it was that they were crossing over.

And now, we have a hybrid -- oops, that's taken, too -- of a "crossover SUV." So has it crossed over from being sporty? Or has it crossed the line for utility? Or is it just that someone figured he'd touch every possible customer base with this vehicle?

This all reminds me of the people who ridiculously insist that their dogs are "Labradoodles" or "Goldendoodles" or "Cockapoos." Folks, you do not have a new breed of dog -- you have a mutt of known parentage. Equally, let's get real with "crossover SUV." Try too hard to be all things to all people, and you'll just come off looking silly.

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.

I'm flapping mad about a flag!

  In the news: a member of the Ontario Parliament received a new batch of provincial flags, and noticed they weren't up to their usual quality. The flags are normally ordered from a local, family-owned company. But when he checked the tag, he discovered the new flags were made in China.

It seems the Toronto company lost the contract when the government discovered it could save $5.00 per flag by ordering the imports. And while the folks responsible fumbled helplessly in an attempt to explain (one said that the politicians didn't have to buy their flags directly from the government and could get them elsewhere...), the Premier of Ontario defended another decision to buy Asian-made shirts for the Ontario Provincial Police.

Y'know, I'm not an economist ... but why am I seeing the obvious, and these great leaders of ours cannot?

I have to scan the news wires every day, and every day, there's a report of more companies laying off workers or closing their doors. These are firms that will no longer be paying business taxes, and maybe not property taxes. These are workers who will no longer be paying income tax, and who will probably require some form of unemployment insurance (I refuse to use the ridiculous new "employment insurance" name -- you don't need it if you're employed, folks) or welfare. And in some cases, the government hands over bailout money to keep the company going.

Let's say the Legislature ordered 10,000 flags. The difference between the Canadian and Asian flags comes out to $50,000. According to a couple of government documents I found, the welfare payment for a single person without dependents is $7,000. So that $5.00 per flag could help fewer than eight people who might have lost their jobs because their company lost the government contract.

And those workers, now jobless and depending on government assistance, will be far less likely to go shopping and support other workers, whose jobs will then be on the line.

To bring this out to an automotive theme, governments -- not just here, but around the world -- are giving automakers scads of money to keep the assembly lines running.

But if they don't start with the basics, who's going to be left working to actually buy a car? You need to spend money to make money, and in this case, you need to spend money to save money. A flag or a cop's shirt may not seem like a big deal. But when you look at the big picture, it's not a billion dollars that will save GM, Ford and Chrysler. It's everyone saying that spending five bucks on a flag is more important than saving five bucks on a flag. You can pay me now, or you can pay me later.

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.

When "sold" really means "it's still for sale"

  Here's today's riddle: how can something that's sold still be for sale? The answer: easy, if it's a car.

Chrysler just announced that it convinced its dealers to take their quota for the month, which on the surface looks like things are going well. I'm surprised at how many people don't know just how the sales numbers work.

In short, when the auto companies release their sales figures each month, those aren't necessarily vehicles that are sitting in driveways with their satisfied new owners. Rather, some of those cars -- and I'd hazard a guess that some months it's most of those cars -- are sitting on a dealer's lot somewhere. As soon as a vehicle rolls off the assembly line and gets driven out the factory door, it's counted as a sale. The fact that it may not carry a license plate for another several months doesn't matter.

Here's how it works. Automakers may talk about "our customers", but they don't sell cars to the public. None of them do. Instead, they sell cars to their franchised dealers, who then turn around and sell the cars to the customer. The automaker's customers are the dealers. The dealers' customers are you and me.

The dealer usually pays for them through third-party financing, such as a bank, and carries the interest on them. That cuts into profits, so the longer the car sits, the less money the dealer makes. That's why you can usually cut a far better deal on an in-stock unit, especially one that's been around for a while; the dealer wants it off the lot, and more importantly, off the books.

I used to work in dealerships, and we could always tell when the company wanted to look good, usually near the end of the month: the delivery truck would show up with a load of vehicles we hadn't ordered, but which we had to take. (Kick up a fuss about it, and then when you really wanted a vehicle, especially a hot model that everyone was buying, you'd discover you'd been moved to the back of the line.) Then, when the sales figures came out, the manufacturer would be crowing about how well sales were going. And we'd shuffle the stuff already on the lot and try to make more room. You never knew if they were on a roll and we'd get even more to add to the ones we still hadn't been able to sell.

The only good Commie ... ?

  Some of my friends here in Canada are planning a vacation in Cuba. It's warm, it's fun, it's relatively inexpensive, and they asked several couples if they'd like to go along ... including us.

I can't go.

I can't go because, due to the circumstances of my birth, I hold both Canadian and American citizenship. And while the Canadian customs officials would send me off with "have a good time" and then greet me with "welcome home," I'm not about to risk the trouble it would cause with American officials the next time I show the U.S. passport I'm required to use when crossing into the country.

Why the difference? Because Cuba is a Communist country, and the U.S. has embargoed it for that reason.

Fine and good. But why, then, do GM and Ford own plants in China? Why are the North American automakers counting on the booming Chinese market to boost their bottom lines? Why is it forbidden that I ever set foot in Communist Cuba, but that companies with their head offices in the United States of America are okay to do business in Communist China?

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.

Buy our stuff ... just don't expect us to buy yours

  Chrysler's on the move. It's scheduled a series of "town hall meetings" that will target seven states in three days, urging people to understand the importance of the U.S. domestic auto industry and how its possible collapse could be a disaster.

Chrysler president and vice-chairman Tom LaSorda was in Toledo today, where he said, "Chrysler has deep roots in Toledo, the birthplace of Jeep. The Jeep brand's military heritage is a reminder of why America needs a strong manufacturing base if it is going to continue to be a world leader. A strong U.S.-based automotive industry is also the backbone of the nation's economy."

I won't argue with him on that; we can't get by strictly on an economy based on sales and service. We need factories to act as the roots to build us up again. We need the work. We need the money.

But I live in an auto factory town, and I can tell you this: the busiest parking lot in the city belongs to Wal-Mart. Take a look sometime at the manufacturer's tags on items at Wal-Mart. I'll bet that in many cases, you couldn't even find the country of origin on a map.

And that brings me to my point: according to the union, if we're working with our hands, if we're building things in a factory, we're all brothers and sisters. So why aren't the auto workers demanding goods made in the country where they live? Sure, they'll cost a bit more than the same product from China or Indonesia or Cambodia. But doesn't one hand wash the other? If you're going to expect your neighbors to buy the cars you build so you'll still have a job, shouldn't you be buying the products they make, so they'll still have a pay stub next Friday as well?

Now why didn't the Big Three execs think of this?

  In the news: Bishop Charles H. Ellis III, of the Greater Grace Temple in Detroit, is reaching out to all auto industry workers this Sunday in the wake of all the bad news surrounding the Big Three and how it will affect residents.

"The future of numerous businesses and thousands of individuals are hanging in the balance as we await the outcome of Congress' decision regarding the aid being sought by the automotive industry," the Bishop said. "It is my firm belief that the religious community should engage its most potent weapon during this most dire hour, and that is Prayer and Consecration."

According to the press release, the service is aimed at all persons employed in the auto industry, from executives to UAW workers to suppliers, and even business people who depend on the industry.

But wait, there's more! During the service, Bishop Ellis will bring a special message entitled "A Hybrid Hope".

Still, I think it's a lost cause, given that God has never been one to "buy domestic", and I'm surprised the Bishop isn't aware of this. It's right there in Acts 1:14 -- the Apostles met in an upstairs room, and then these all continued with one Accord.

Hang on ... the government's making SENSE?

In the wake of the Detroit Three zipping over to Washington to plead a case for a bailout (and I still can't believe anyone pulling down a salary as a spin doctor didn't foresee the private-jet fiasco), Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have sent them a letter outlining what they'll need to do in order for their request to be considered.

Much to my shock, the government's demands make sense. Mark that one on the calendar; people will be talking about that for centuries to come.

Among the things the automakers need to do:

- Provide forthright, documented assessment of the current operating cash position, short-term needs, and how they'll meet long-term needs;

- Provide varying estimates of the terms of the loan, tied in with assumptions of current, improved or worse sales rates;

- Report and share information with any government mechanisms designed to safeguard the loans;

- Ensure the taxpayers get paid back first;

- Address health care payments and pension obligations;

- And my favorite, bar the payment of dividends and excessive executive compensation, including bonsues and golden parachutes by companies receiving taxpayer assistance.

The only other question: why the hell didn't the auto execs fly into Washington with such a plan already tucked under their arms? I think we've all applied for loans, whether through credit cards or the bank, and we pretty much know what the loans officer is going to ask us. I've never run a multi-billion-dollar company and know I can't. But sometimes it scares me when I realize just how out-of-touch these folks on the upper floors can be.

So should the government bail out the Detroit Three?

Yes.

Okay, so you want more than that. Yes, I think it's necessary, because of what North America would look like without them -- and I don't just mean directly. I live in a GM town -- one where the automaker has closed an on-site subsidiary and a truck plant so far. It's tough enough for outlying businesses just when the plants close down for two weeks each year on summer holidays. You should see it when a plant closes for good.

When people think about auto companies, they think about men and women bolting parts together on the line. They don't think about how much further that goes. The feeder plants that make the parts, and all the people they employ. The company that supplies the cafeteria, and the company that provides them with the bread and beans and bagels. The companies that make the shipping containers, the work gloves, the bathroom tissue, the companies that deliver it, the companies that take it away. It's almost impossible to comprehend the amount of material in an auto plant that isn't even related to the cars, and all of that comes from somewhere.

Certainly you can say that the Detroit Three helped bring this on themselves, but that doesn't make things any better. You can castigate a welfare mother for birthing a new baby, but that doesn't change the fact that mother and baby need to eat to stay alive. The three automakers should have become leaner and meaner 25 years ago, but they didn't. That was then, but we have to fix it now.

Don't think they aren't trying; for the most part, these three are turning out the best and the most fuel-efficient vehicles they've ever made, but it takes time. I'm very tired of opening the paper each day and seeing yet another letter to the editor where someone says, "GM needs to immediately start making the Volt/microcars/cars that run on coffee." Quite simply, you do not convert auto production in a day, or a week, or a month, or in many months. The cars coming off the line right now were designed and engineered years ago. Flexible manufacturing helps immensely, but the reality is that an all-new vehicle needs to be tooled, dies must be made, parts must be sourced, the supply chain must be adjusted, people must be trained, advertising must be focused, dealers must be prepared, and that's just the big stuff. I've talked to designers. It takes weeks just to come up with a door panel that can be readily produced in bulk, doesn't hit on the power switches, and fits the outside door that someone else designed. And that's just one part in a car that has thousands of them.

GM, Ford and Chrysler get it; don't think for a moment that they don't. They know what they've done wrong, and what the Japanese and Koreans have done right. But while they've been focusing their operations to bring us better and more fuel-efficient vehicles in the shortest timeframe possible, the goalposts moved.

There must be bailout money, and it's got to be freed up now, before it's too late. Automakers operate on something called economy of scale. If vehicle production drops below a certain number, the company can't survive. It's happened before; we now only know names like Studebaker, Kaiser, Pierce-Arrow and Packard because of antique-car shows. It could very easily happen again, and it could very easily happen very soon.

Put strings on the bailout. Tell Mulally, Wagner and Nardelli that they'll get their operating cash, but they'll draw no more than a manager's salary until the books are in the black again. That's tough love to someone hauling down $20 million a year, but look on the bright side: do you want to be the hero who saved the ship, or the rat who went down with it? Then, when the strings are in place, open the purse, and open it wide.

Can we afford to do it? We can't afford not to do it. Go rent Michael Moore's Roger and Me. Take a good look at the scenes of Flint. I mean a really long, good hard look at those scenes. Now think about what it would be like to live like that in your neighborhood. And if you think it wouldn't happen that way, then believe me: you're just not giving it enough thought.

Here's my Collision Avoidance Technology run-down ...

  In the news: Nissan has announced that it will demonstrate its new "All-Around Collision Free" vehicle at the World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems in New York next week. This slick unit has all the acronyms: BCP (Backup Collision Prevention), SCP (Side Collision Prevention), DCA (Distance Control Assist) and LDP (Lane Departure Prevention).

Basically, the car checks to make sure you aren't changing lanes into the side of another vehicle; that you don't back up into oncoming traffic; it taps the brakes if you're coming up too quickly on the car in front; it makes sure you're staying in your lane; and if you don't, it helps bring the car back over.

Pretty slick stuff, and I'm sure a lot of money was poured into it. But in the interest of safe, low-cost motoring, I've designed my own group of safety acronyms to help get you through traffic with as little rearranged metal as possible. My "Super Safety" car includes PDTGCP (Put Down the Goddamn Cell Phone), AYMP (Adjust Your Mirrors Properly), WWYG (Watch Where You're Going), TDTS (Turn Down The Stereo), LBW (Look Both Ways), and YNTOCOTRSBWPA (You're Not The Only Car On The Road, So Bloody Well Pay Attention).

There. Safe, secure, doesn't need a warranty, and doesn't cost an extra dime. That, my friends, is an Intelligent Transport System.

Cell phones: Let's just get the damn things banned already

  Here in Ontario, the provincial government is proposing a ban on hand-held electronic devices used while driving. That includes talking on cell phones and sending text messages when a driver is behind the wheel.

You know what's coming, don't you?

Some of the letters to the editor in today's Toronto Star bristle with indignation. Why are they focusing just on this, writers ask. What about people who drive while listening to loud music or ebooks? What about talking to passengers, eating, putting on makeup or smoking cigarettes? In effect, why is the government picking specifically on cell phones?

I want to stuff a cell phone into these people where you won't even be able to hear it ring. Yes, someone eating a hamburger while driving can be dangerous, too. So cell phones should get a pass just because the government hasn't proposed banning every possible distraction in an automobile?

Here's the deal: it's a car, not a phone booth. Drive now, talk later. This cell phone ban can't come soon enough for me, and I'm only disappointed that the government isn't including handsfree communications in that as well (although I suspect that, given the number of new cars that come factory-equipped with Bluetooth connectivity, there would be strong-arming from the automakers -- doesn't mean it shouldn't be banned, but I know how political pressure works). I've yet to see anybody who drives as well while yapping on a cellphone as he or she does when not. I drove while talking on a cell phone once, and vowed never to do it again when I hung up and realized I had absolutely no recollection of the last three minutes at 90 km/h on the road. No phone call, ever, is worth my life or the lives of the other drivers around me.

Chevrolet Volt: And the hits just keep on coming

  I was in Detroit for GM's hundred-year anniversary celebration, where the company rolled out the production version of the Volt. It's Chevrolet's extended-range electric car, which drivers will plug in to get a 40-mile range on battery power; if you need to go beyond that, there's a small gasoline engine that doesn't power the wheels, but runs the electric motor. GM first introduced it as a concept in 2007 and says it'll be built in November 2010.

The moment it rolled out on stage, the bloggers and the chat rooms exploded. And y'know, I'm no fan of corporations, but I have to admit that I feel for GM on this one. It seems that no matter what you do, you just can't make some people happy. Check out a few message boards and you'll see what I mean.

GM was castigated for dropping the EV1 program. People were furious that the company discontinued its electric car program. And now it's back with one, that addresses the EV1's drawback of range, and people still aren't happy.

The company did its research and found that the average American commuter trip is 40 miles. But if you go beyond that, there's a gas engine to get you a few hundred more miles, either to a wall socket or another gas station. And yet I've heard complaints of "but not everybody drives just 40 miles." Hit. Head. Here.

People complained that the Volt concept's styling was too "out there" to be taken seriously. So the company designs a more conventional (and to my eye, attractive) design, and people are complaining that it's too bland.

There are complaints about the price, even though GM hasn't yet said what it will cost. Yes, price will make or break this car. Do these people honestly think that the company doesn't know that?

And already I've heard complaints that it's an "untried technology". What, and the Prius and Insight were just new versions of hybrids that we'd been driving for the last 50 years? Yes, the battery is new, the system is new, the car is new. Perhaps these folks haven't realized that no matter what it is, from computers to refrigerators to ballpoint pens, somebody had to take a chance on the first ones.

What's wrong with the Volt that makes these people immediately hate it, even though it's been rolled out just once? Simple. It doesn't have Toyota on the nameplate.

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.

Oh, please ...

In the news today: Lexus is coming out with an all-wheel-drive version of its top-line LS 460 model.

In his comment on the vehicle, a Lexus spokesman said, "The all-wheel-drive system is designed to ensure excellent traction performance and driving stability for our Lexus guests, regardless of the climate and road conditions."

Lexus guests.

Okay, here's how it works. When you invite me to your house, tell me to pull up a chair, bring me a drink and maybe offer me some nibbles, I'm a guest.

When I walk into a dealership, sign the paperwork, and pull a minimum of eighty thousand clams out of my pocket to purchase a car, I am a customer.

When you invite me into the dealership, bring me a drink and some nibbles, and then you give me the car ... then, and only then, will I be your guest.

Where the money goes ...

In today's news: Toyota USA's charitable foundation has given over $317,000 to a school environmental program, part of the $100 million it earmarks for charitable donations to education.

Thus begins my rant for today: people who won't buy import cars because "they send all that money back to Japan".

I just got back from a tour of the Subaru plant in Lafayette, Indiana, where the company builds the Outback, Legacy, Tribeca and the Toyota Camry. The president was obviously from Japan, but none of the hundreds of workers I saw appeared to be. Rather, they all looked like local, corn-fed Indiana men and women. When it was quitting time, they went out to the parking lot and got into their vehicles (which were overwhelmingly Chevrolet trucks), which I'm guessing they bought with their Subaru wages. They were probably going home to houses bought with their pay. Maybe they'd stop on the way and do some shopping with money they'd received in return for their labor at Subaru, too.

Last week I drove along Ontario's Highway 401, past the massive Toyota plant that's being built in Woodstock. The construction workers didn't look like they'd been imported from Japan. I doubt the truckloads of construction materials came from overseas, either. And once the plant is operational, I don't believe the workers screwing the cars together will be brought over from the land of the rising sun. Instead, Toyota will be paying Canadian wages, supporting Canadian suppliers, paying Canadian taxes, and signing local contracts for everything from the toilet paper in the bathroom to the food in the cafeteria. And I'll go out on a limb and say that the almost inconceivable mountain of money it took to build that plant came from Canadian sales of Toyota products. Who knows? Maybe some of it even came in from Japan.

Hate the imports if you like; that's your prerogative. Just don't hide it behind this crap about none of that money being spent here.

And for that matter, don't forget to use your favorite line when you buy your GM, Ford or Chrysler vehicle. Using the prevailing logic, the Big Three take the profits of every vehicle sold in Canada and immediately ship them back to their head offices in Michigan -- sending your money back to a foreign country.