WomanOnWheels.ca

Safety tips: Straight from the experts!

Well, from almost all the experts. At Sympatico Autos, I have a collection of safety tips from 19 experts in the field ... and one final one from the gentleman pictured here. Yes, Red Green was kind enough to take some time out of his touring schedule to send along some words of wisdom. Check it all out by clicking here.

How are your children riding in your car?

Summer weather is here, and that brings with it the annual rash of dash-foot riders. Front-seat passengers - usually younger, and usually female - take advantage of flimsy footwear to ride with their feet up on the dash.

It makes my blood run cold to see this. If you do this, stop it immediately. And parents, if you let your children do this, smarten up - now!

That dash panel contains an airbag, which can deploy in even a minor collision. It goes off with incredible force (it even sounds like a gunshot) and sends out a rock-hard bag at more than 200 km/h.

If your passenger is sitting as in the photo, that bag will send her knees into her face. It will push her thigh bones into her pelvis. The doctor will pick the bones out, and then probably tell you that she will never walk properly again.

People don't realize how stupid it is to ride like this. I blame a few things - the belief that "it won't happen to me," that "we're only going a short distance," or that people underestimate what airbags do, since they're either played for comic effect as fluffy pillows in the movies, or they've only seen them deploying slowly and gently in crash-test films. (They look that way because it's extreme slow-motion; in reality, they deploy so quickly that you can't see it happen.)

Sit up straight. Wear your seatbelt properly. Driving and riding is possibly the most dangerous thing we will ever do, and yet we treat it like it's nothing. Sure, it's cool to put your feet on the dash. It's even cooler to be safe.

In the news: Snow closes driver testing ...

It's a rather unpleasant day in the Greater Toronto Area today: wet snow, rain, and some wind to blow it all around. I've been out running errands, and while there is a fair bit of slush on the roads, it's not as bad as it looks. Traction is actually pretty good, especially if you have winter tires.

But while I was waiting at the dentist's office for my appointment, I watched the news report on television. Driving tests in the area have been cancelled today.

Yes, you heard that right. There's some snow in the air, there's some slush on the ground, and so it's too nasty for the next group of drivers on our roads to be out there. Say what? This is Ontario. This is Ontario in winter. It snows here. And if you can't safely drive in Ontario in winter in the snow, you are a hazard on the road to yourself and other drivers.

We should be testing drivers in snow, and if they get their licenses in summer, it should be conditional on them coming back in the bad stuff (or on a skid pad if necessary) and proving they can handle it just as well as they can handle dry pavement. Closing up shop just because there's snow on the ground? Hell, why not just test them on a video driving game, and give them a license based on that?

A cell phone that warns you? No, we need one that slaps you ...

In the news today: a U.S. company has developed a cellphone application that taps into GPS and navigation systems to warn drivers if they are approaching such dangers as stop signs, train tracks, school crossings or hazardous conditions while they are talking on the phone.  If you get a text message, the application will remind you to "pull over to text" rather than do it on the fly.

What's next? An application that reminds you to breathe in and out? It's the next logical step, because if you need something like this, you're too stupid to breathe.

What is needed is a cellphone application that slaps you in the head if you pick up a call or send a text while you're driving. Yes, I know all the whiny arguments - "People are going to do it anyway, you might as well make it as safe as possible." Hell, a few of them are still going to drink and drive - should we open the driver's door for them?

Here's my app. You get caught talking on a cell phone in the car, the phone is confiscated, you get a fine of several thousand dollars, and you get several points on your license. This stuff kills people. When you have a call that's more important than that, get back to me. Just don't do it while you're behind the wheel.

Teens stop drinking - but are the roads any safer?

 My friend and colleague Lorraine Sommerfeld has an excellent opinion piece in the Toronto Star this weekend on teenagers drinking and driving. You can read it by clicking here.

In Ontario, the rule is "zero is zero" - young drivers can't have any alcohol in their systems, or they risk license suspensions and can even get sent back to beginner status if they're still on a graduated license. According to Lorraine, they're listening, and that's quite a change from many of their parents, who believe you can still drink until your eyeballs float and then get behind the wheel.

That said, though, are we just trading one problem for another? How many of these young drivers call their parents or take a cab when they've had a beer - but then, when they're completely sober behind the wheel, reach for their cell phones or start typing text messages?

Unsafe driving is unsafe driving. While we're never going to entirely eliminate drunk driving, we've done a pretty good job over the years of taking it from something you brag about, to something you avoid doing. Now we need to work on phone calls and text messages. Get rid of the ridiculous $125 fine that drivers face in Ontario. Take it into the thousands, and tack on demerit points and license suspensions. Make it very expensive and very inconvenient to be caught talking on the phone or tapping away on a device when you're behind the wheel. Get rid of Bluetooth in cars, and turn them back into vehicles instead of phone booths.

Drunk driving kills people. Distracted driving does exactly the same thing. I remember one pundit who said that, given the awful choice, he'd rather see someone tipsy behind the wheel than talking on a phone. As he pointed out, at least the drunk is attempting to drive.

Parents: The greatest danger to children

 Sadly, it's old news, but it's worth repeating: children making their way to school are in danger from the very people who are supposed to be protecting them. Parents in cars pose a major danger to children when they drop their precious cargo off for the day.

A new Canadian survey found that 43% of children are driven to school by their parents, versus 34% who walk there. Among the comments from people responding to the survey were, "I've been close to being hit in the parking lot," "(Drivers) do not stop at stop signs," and "(Drivers) do not respect the school zone areas or the crosswalks."

I believe it. I've driven past the school up the road during the drop-off or pick-up times, and I've come close to being hit as well by parents yapping on the phone, jostling for the closest position, or simply not paying attention. A couple of years ago a local woman even had her car impounded after she drove more than 50 km/h over the speed limit in a school zone - after she'd dropped off her child!

C'mon, people, think! You're not just responsible for the children you're dropping off, but all of their classmates, too. Put down the coffee cup. Put down the phone. Pay attention. Your children are inside learning. You should be outside doing the same.

Cell phone laws: It's time to put some teeth into them

Today, for the second time in as many days, I had to take evasive action to avoid getting my fender destroyed by a brain-dead moron driver yapping on a cell phone. I am seeing more people on these damn things now that they're illegal than when they were not. And I'm absolutely sick and tired of it.

You cannot talk on a cell phone and efficiently drive a car. Period. Don't tell me you can, because you cannot. You may be able to make the car go forward, and turn and stop, but your driving abilities are compromised. And that puts both you and me in danger.

In Ontario, the fine for talking on a hand-held cell phone is $155. That's a joke. Put some real deterrent into it. If you're caught yapping, it should be a $1,000 fine and two demerit points. Confiscate the phone, too. And we need this type of punishment now, not when enough people who are too dumb to know the difference between a vehicle and a telephone booth have gone through enough red lights and done enough damage.

Winter driving with GT Radials

It's no secret that the right tires make all the difference when you're driving in winter weather. GT Radial sent me to Quebec City to check out its tires; you can read my report on Autos.ca by clicking here.

IIHS: Better truck guards can save lives

 

If you hit a tractor-trailer with your car, you're going to lose. Still, the U.S. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) wants to increase your chances with better truck guards. And frankly, I was surprised at the news, because I didn't realize how bad some of them are.

These so-called "underride guards" are the metal cages that you see on the backs of the trailers; they're intended to prevent a car from sliding under, which will in turn put the trailer square into the passenger compartment. Canadian standards for these guards are stronger than U.S. ones, but don't be too smug: while a Canadian-spec guard did a good job of protecting a vehicle's occupants in a straight-on crash test, it didn't fare so well in an offset crash, and the driver would pretty much have been decapitated.

You can read all about it by clicking on the IIHS website, and then go to the upper right-hand side and watch the video.

If you've ever tailgated a tractor-trailer, I'm guessing that film will make you think twice about it next time.

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.

Driver education: The key to reducing vehicle fatalities

There's an interesting study out today by the British Institute of Advanced Motorists, or IAM, on young drivers. Driver fatalities are down among young people, but they're still high. Drivers and passengers age 16 to 19 have the highest fatality rate, and young drivers are responsible for one-third of all pedestrian fatalities. Not surprisingly, the death risk to young drivers is reduced by half with every five years of driving experience they accumulate.

What caught my eye in the report was mention of Austria, which has an interesting system for young drivers. Once they get their licenses, they must have contact with a qualified instructor three times during the next 12 to 18 months, with an assessment drive included. The driver must then visit a Road Safety Centre, where he or she must handle the car on a wet surface, speed into a corner, and then learn the effect of speed on stopping distances. There are discussion sessions that talk about peer pressure and its effect on young drivers, and finally, there's an "eco-drive" assessment.

The result? According to IAM, fatalities of young male drivers in Austria has been reduced by thirty percent.

That's huge. And that means safer roads for everyone. Is it costly? I'm guessing it is. But I'm also guessing that it's a damn sight cheaper in the long run.

Old cars and safety: These are the good old days

I'm still getting letters over an opinion piece I wrote in the Toronto Star about how old cars are a lot of fun, but they're nowhere near as safe as the cars built today. The newspaper illustrated my story with pictures from a crash test performed by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), in which it banged up a 1959 Bel Air against a 2009 Malibu to show how far cars had come in the 50 years the IIHS had been around. (You can see the video here.)

What surprised me was how many readers said the test "wasn't fair," because the cars didn't hit precisely head-on. The reality is that the standard is what's known as the "frontal offset," where the cars hit with each vehicle's front quarter at the middle of the other vehicle's hood. It's done this way because this is how most so-called "head-on" collisions occur. The cars don't hit each other directly face-to-face. Rather, one driver veers across the line where he's hit by oncoming traffic, often by drivers who are swerving to avoid him, making the possibility of a straight-on hit even less likely.

The Bel Air's driver probably wouldn't have fared much better in a direct head-on that these readers might have considered to be more in the car's favor anyway. In old cars, it's the "secondary collision" that was often responsible for death or serious injury. Since these cars didn't crumple up, crash force was sent straight into the cabin, where the driver was crushed by or crashed into the interior panels. New cars "disintegrate," as one reader put it, because they're supposed to do that. By crumpling up, they help prevent crash energy from reaching and deforming the cabin.

Fewer people are killed on U.S. roads these days, and it certainly isn't because we're all much better drivers. It's primarily because cars are doing a better job of protecting us.

None of that will probably get through to most of these readers, of course; you stand a better chance standing between a bear and her cubs than you do when you criticize old cars. Hey, I love old cars. I've played with them for almost 30 years now, and as you can see by clicking on the link to the right, I still own a couple. I'm also realistic about how time marches on. A 2009 car is vastly superior, safety-wise, to a 1959. And in 2029, we'll look back and say my goodness, look how far we've come in twenty years.

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.

 

My new favorite word ...

Courtesy of UrbanDictionary.com: Intexticated.

Used to describe someone stupid enough to text while they're driving a car.

Bloody brilliant, say I.

Leave the phone alone!

There's a new Canadian campaign underway, Leave the Phone Alone, which targets drivers of all ages who still think it's a good idea to talk on a cell phone or text while moving two tons of machinery through traffic.

We have a toothless law in Ontario that only results in a fine, without demerit points, and while it initially made a slight difference, it seems that many drivers are back to dialling and texting while they're behind the wheel. That's just plain dumb.

I'd like to see all calls banned, hand-held or hands-free, but at least we're moving in the right direction with a campaign like this.

You can check it out, sign up for the pledge and get a window sticker by clicking here.

 

I'm a driving autobot!

 I'm currently at "Testfest," the annual event where members of the Automobile Journalists Association of Canada meet to drive and assess the newest vehicles and name the Canadian Car and Utility Vehicle of the Year winners.

This year, the event also included a chance to test one's fuel efficiency skills on a driving simulator. And since my right foot can be pretty light when I need it to be, I thought I'd try it out.

Well. I got about halfway through, and then without any warning, my stomach said enough was enough. I can tend toward carsickness (when I'm a passenger), and the moving screens were too much for me. Fortunately I was able to compose myself a few seconds before total embarrassment. But - and this still floors me - I didn't just turn my head and get up.

Instead, automatically and without even thinking about it, I hit the brakes and pulled the car over to the curb, and I didn't turn my head until I came to a complete stop on the side of the road. On a video game. Talk about having the rules of the road firmly planted into your skull.

Look ahead: It might help save your life

I was in Pennsylvania for the Hershey automotive flea market last week, and on Sunday morning, set out from an overnight stay in Wilkes-Barre for the rest of the drive home. It was about 8 a.m.

Getting onto Interstate 81, I looked ahead and saw a tractor-trailer pulled over to the side of the road, and cars scrambling around it as it moved back into the driving lane. My first thought was that the truck had been stopped, the driver was now starting off again, and other drivers were moving around to make room ... until I realized there was a car making a U-turn in front of me.

Fortunately there was no one directly behind me, so I was able to slow down enough that the driver finished the turn without me T-boning her. I don't know if she was drunk, although she did looked confused; in my rearview mirror I saw her pull off to the side, and then drive up the shoulder to the off-ramp. I didn't get the plate number and was already past the exit, so there wasn't much point in calling the police.

I've certainly heard many times of people going the wrong way on the highway, but this was the first time I'd ever actually seen it happen, and I hope to hell it's the last time I ever do. I learned long ago to look as far ahead as possible on every road, and it's a rule that can save your life. Be careful out there, folks: there's danger around every corner.

 

Drive Safe: Oh, if only they actually did ...

In the "Go Figure" category for today: why is it that people who have "Drive Safe" or "Baby on Board" stickers on their vehicles seem to be the worst bloody drivers on the road?

Trip across the top of the city this morning. Drive Safe sticker in middle lane of the otherwise empty highway (strike one). After a mile or so of this, a tractor-trailer is coming onto the highway via the on-ramp, followed by a line of cars. Drive Safe slows down to below the speed limit (strike two). The tractor-trailer moves into the empty space in the right-hand lane. Drive Safe slams on the brakes and stays right beside it. (Strike three. You're out.)

A few miles later, I come across Baby On Board. In the middle lane of the otherwise empty highway (strike one). There isn't any child actually in the vehicle (strike two). As I come up in the right-hand lane, Baby On Board decides it isn't safe to be anywhere near me, and moves into the completely unoccupied far left-hand lane. (Strike three. You and your baby, wherever it is, are out.)

In other news: Trucks are big, and water is wet

A recent Canadian survey has come to a most astonishing conclusion: the majority of drivers polled said that they don't think passenger car driver training teaches them enough about sharing the road with big trucks.

No ship, Sherlock.

Almost 36% didn't know how much room they should give a big truck, and almost 23% had no idea about the truck's blind spots. It's not news, really; drive the highway sometime and see how many people are absolutely clueless when it comes to driving alongside with tractor-trailers. I know truck drivers aren't always saints, but whenever I hear about a truck crash, my first reaction is, "So what stupid stunt did the car driver pull?"

I'm not surprised that people think driver training is inadequate, because it is. Far too many new drivers come out of the license bureau with that magic piece of paper in their hands, and with absolutely no idea how to handle a skid, hold the steering wheel, change lanes, merge, back up, or even park. And unless something catastrophic happens, or they become elderly enough, that's the last time they'll ever have to show anybody that they have anything even faintly resembling care-and-control from the driver's seat.

Ford just announced a new electronic feature, coming out on most of its vehicles by 2015, that will slow you down if you try to take a curve too hard. I say, once it brings the vehicle to a safe halt, it should then put a little robotic arm into the driver's back pocket or purse, pull out the wallet, rip up the license, and then not start again until the driver has proven he or she has learned that handling two tons of automobile isn't something you ever take lightly.

Even a smartphone can't fix dumb

A new survey by J.D. Power found that people who own so-called "smartphones" are far more likely to want communication devices in their vehicles, giving them the ability to connect those phones into the vehicle's systems.

According to the survey, thirty percent of the smartphone owners surveyed said they check emails or send text messages while they're behind the wheel. They also said they'd like the car to read their email messages to them, or flash their text messages on a screen.

I don't know why they're called "smart" phones, because they sure seem to make dummies out of these people using them. The phones are smart. But it's obvious that some of their owners are stupid as hell.

Lemon-Aid: A few too many acidic complaints?

A little while ago, Iinterviewed Phil Edmonston, author of the popular Lemon-Aid books that outline all that can go wrong with specific vehicle models. In the process, I received his latest book. While I'd skimmed it prior to the interview, I finally sat down and read it in depth.

What's wrong with these cars? Plenty, and most of it sounds legit. Edmonston gets his information from manufacturer bulletins, NHTSA reports, and from letters from readers who are (presumably) not happy with their vehicles. For each model, Edmonston lists his own ratings, the vehicle's strengths and weaknesses, and then a "Safety Summary" that includes reader complaints. Among them, you'll find gems like the ones below. Having worked in the service department of car dealerships for many years, I can assure you that Edmonston isn't making these up. That said, while they're few and far between compared to the number of complaints that seem legitimate, I really don't see why these are counted as black eyes against the vehicle:

"If a passenger's head is resting near the door lock  button when the door is unlocked, the force of the spring could cause injury."

Manufacturers won't cover rodent damage as warranty.

Buffeting when the rear window is opened is an "aerodynamics flaw."

In crosswinds, vehicle veers left and right.

"Outside rearview mirrors don't show the rear bumper area when backing up."

Windows aren't adequately cleaned off when raised and lowered. (Folks, they're window channels, not squeegees!)

Emergency trunk release doesn't glow in the dark because it doesn't receive enough sunlight. (Edmonston notes that the owner climbed into the trunk to check it. I suppose the owner would be happier with a constantly-live wire and a battery-draining light in there.)

"While parking my car in my garage, I had put it in Park and took my foot off the brake pedal, my 2007 Honda Accord sedan lunged forward hitting my drywall, solar water heater, washer and dryer, then it jumped back and stopped. I was so stunned as I didn't know what was happening here. Instantly the car decided to go in Reverse at an accelerated rate down the hill of my driveway hitting the concrete side of my neighbor's garage, their car, and bounced forward up the hill to hit my house again and stopped at the crest of the hill." (Yes, it could be legit. But it's definitely straining my credibility meter.)

A check light comes on if the gas cap isn't tightened three clicks.

Expensive xenon headlamps are enticing to thieves.

Annoying beep when the seatbelt isn't buckled.

LED taillights blur the vision of drivers behind the car.

Wind can blow the doors shut.

Convertibles have a rear quarter blind spot.

If the rear seats are folded down to carry more cargo, the front seats can't be moved backwards.

Steering wheel gets too hot in direct sunlight.

Rocks break windshields.

"Fire may ignite around the fuel filler nozzle." (So exactly what is located there that would spark?)

And my favorite, a complaint against Volvo: "Airbag sensors are housed in the wheel rims." This owner came to this conclusion when he scrubbed two tires against the curb and the airbags deployed. Ah, those tricky Swedes.

 

 

Regular driver testing: The time is now

I was having lunch in a restaurant on Sunday, and my table overlooked the parking lot. I noticed a lovely white Cadillac there, circa 1990, driven by an older woman. She talked to a man there for a while, and then drove out.

Following my meal, I caught up with her again about a block away. Someone had backed a Honda CR-V out of a driveway, and it was obvious that neither Cadillac nor Honda driver had seen the other, possibly because there was a parked car in the way. It broke my heart to see that otherwise immaculate Cadillac: the passenger headlight was  broken, and the car was heavily gouged down its side all the way to the back bumper. Given its age, it's probably a writeoff.

Two things should not have happened. The Honda driver shouldn't have backed out blindly, and the Cadillac should not have been scraped from stem to stern. Assuming the driver hadn't been able to avoid the crash entirely, the Cadillac shouldn't have sustained much more damage than just its lights and possibly its front fender. This was a driver who didn't react once her car was hit. Rather than slam on the brakes, it appears that she continued to drift along. Her car was stopped easily 70 feet up the block from where the impact had occurred.

I don't know why the Honda driver backed out blindly: given the seat height in those vehicles, he or she should have been able to catch a glimpse of the Cadillac over the compact car parked at the curb. I don't know why the Cadillac driver didn't stop: perhaps a distraction in the car, perhaps looking the other way, perhaps old enough that her reaction time isn't sufficient anymore.

No matter what, this didn't have to play out the way it did. When are our governing bodies going to stop worrying about emissions tests on five-year-old cars, and stop ticketing tuner car owners for having little blue lights on their windshield washers, and focus instead on first passing only competent first-time drivers, and then periodically testing all drivers, regardless of their age?

This time it was only sheet metal, but either one of those vehicles could have instead been a bicycle or a motorcycle. And somewhere, a family might well have received that knock on the door, and a police officer on the other side going over the words he has to say.

More on cell phones ...

A public service announcement on distracted driving:

 

NHTSA vs Toyota: Faster than a speeding bullet!

In the news today: the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, or NHTSA, plans to seek the maximum penalty of $16.375 million against Toyota for its sticky accelerator pedals. The government agency claims that the automaker didn't send notification of the safety defect on time; such notices must be sent within five business days.

NHTSA is saying that Toyota knew about the problems as early as September 29, 2009, and if that's true, then there should be stiff penalties: you can't keep quiet about safety recalls.

But what I found unusual is that NHTSA launched its investigation into the scope and timeliness of the recalls on February 16, 2010. And on April 5, 2010, having received 70,000 pages of documents from Toyota, NHTSA has decided to demand the penalty.

Counting weekends and holidays, that's 49 days. When in your life did you ever see a government agency move that fast?

On top of it, NHTSA is saying that September 29 is the day that Toyota sent recall repair procedures to 31 European countries and to Canada. Except that Toyota Canada says it received no such communication on that date.

I've heard a lot of rumblings about conspiracy theories -- that the U.S. government, having a substantial stake in two domestic automakers, wouldn't mind levelling or even tilting the playing field a little. And for the most part, I've treated such conspiracy theories as wishful thinking from the tinfoil-hat crowd.

Still, after just a month and a half of investigation, and NHTSA's statement that it's still looking through the 70,000 pages of documents, and an accusation that the Canadian arm says is incorrect ... well, if Toyota is guilty of the charges, it needs to have that and more levied against it. But it sure does seem like the U.S. government is accelerating more rapidly than I think I've ever seen before.

 

Cell phones: Hands-free is just as dumb as hand-held

There's a new report out by the U.S. National Safety Council that looks at cell phone use and how it affects driving. And no surprises here, at least not to me: it doesn't make any difference if you're talking on a hand-held or a hands-free device. It isn't the medium, it's the message.

According to the report, people talking on cell phones go into what researchers call "inattention blindness" -- they're looking at the road ahead, but they're not seeing what's there. That includes traffic signals, pedestrians and other vehicles. There's even a couple of photos from a Transport Canada study that show the area where drivers look, and it's a considerably smaller window when a cell phone is involved.

I believe what the study says. I talked on a cell phone when driving -- once. The call took about four minutes, and I was driving on a rural road. When I hung up, I realized that I couldn't remember anything that I'd seen during the call. That included a traffic light -- I couldn't remember if it had actually been green when I went through it.

The sad thing is that studies aren't going to make a difference. Hell, laws don't completely change things -- I've seen fewer drivers on hand-helds since the law against them went into effect here, but there are still people out there yapping away with these things jammed against their heads. (A $155 fine isn't enough -- there should be penalty points on the license as well.) As long as drivers think they're so important that they can't be disconnected, things won't change. All I can hope is that these self-centered asses stay as far away from my vehicle as possible.

Oh, and if you want to read the report, it's here. If you're one of those people who thinks there are things more important than paying attention when you're driving, you'd do well to read it.

Runaway cars: Not just Toyota's problem, it seems

There's an interesting report out today by Edmunds.com on the issue of unintended acceleration -- the problem Toyota is famously facing right now. The company looked at NHTSA data for the "Big Six" -- Chrysler, Ford, GM, Honda, Nissan and Toyota -- and found that every one has consumer complaints filed against them for unintended acceleration.

Toyota has the dubious distinction of leading the pack, though -- Edmunds says the number of complaints filed against it exceed the rest of the Big Six combined.

And while you might be tempted to say that it's because of the media exposure, it seems that there's more to it than that. Edmunds analyzed complaints filed before and after September 30, 2009 - since Toyota announced its safety advisory regarding potential floor mat interference on September 29, 2009. Looking at 2005 to 2010 models, Edmunds found 601 complaints filed after the advisory went out and the media scuffle began. But in nearly five years prior to the advisory, Toyota had 532 complaints.

Toyota's rate of complaints was the highest, at 4.81 per 100,000 vehicles sold. Ford was second at 3.12, followed by Chrysler at 1.72, Honda at 1.46, Nissan at 1.07, and GM at 0.81.

What's going on here? I expected the numbers to jump when the media got hold of the story, especially since some of it bordered on the ridiculous (people sobbing on camera in front of vehicles not connected to any of the recalls, and the Toronto Star running a photo of a woman who now carries a rosary in her car after it jumped a curb) and all manner of Nervous Nellies and Lawsuit Larrys came out of the closet. But the numbers didn't change all that drastically from the years when no one made a fuss about it, and now it seems that Toyota isn't alone.

Maybe cost-cutting has gone too far. After all, we've got expensive systems like anti-lock brakes and electronic stability control and TPMS mandated or about to be mandated on every vehicle; we've got power accessories and fancy stereos pretty much across the board; and people still want their cars to cost $15,000. You don't get something -- or in this case, everything -- for nothing, and maybe that's the root of the problem.

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.

Hey, automakers! We're not dummies!

Y'know, blaring to us what you want us to know, while keeping quiet on what ain't quite as flattering, is something I call "error of omission." And now it seems Suzuki is guilty of it.

Its all-new Kizashi sedan was crash-tested by NHTSA, and as a result, the company sent out a press release. Under the heading 2010 Suzuki Kizashi Earns Highest Safety Ratings in NHTSA NCAP Crash Tests, the release said this:

American Suzuki Motor Corp. today announced that the 2010 Suzuki Kizashi (pronounced "Kee-Zah-Shee"), the company's first entry into the all-wheel-drive sport sedan segment, earned the highest possible ratings in the U.S. Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) crash tests. The Kizashi was awarded a five-star rating in both the frontal and side-impact crash tests for all seating positions.

The NCAP rates vehicles to determine crashworthiness and rollover safety. The safety ratings are gathered during controlled crash and rollover tests conducted at NHTSA's test facilities, with five stars indicating the highest safety rating and one star the lowest.

The release followed up with information on the car, but not another word about those rollover tests. So I went to NTHSA's website and discovered that while Kizashi did indeed earn five stars for front and side impact, it only earned four in the rollover test. That's pretty much the norm, but that's not the same as earning the highest five-star safety rating overall.

Suzuki isn't alone; a couple of years ago, I caught Dodge pulling the same stunt with the IIHS ratings, which I wrote about here, and I'm sure there are many others who have been equally quiet about less-spectacular portions of their final scores. That's not the way to sell us on a car, fellas. I'm definitely not impressed.

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.

Electronic stability control: Now in Canada

The Canadian government has announced that, as in the U.S., electronic stability control will be mandatory on all new vehicles as of August 2011. Transport Canada says that vehicles so equipped are involved in fewer severe collisions involving loss of control.*

This means that anti-lock brakes will also be standard, along with airbags, new roof standards, and in the U.S., tire pressure monitoring systems. I fully expect curtain airbags and active head restraints to be added in future, too.

Our roads won't be safer because cars are equipped with all these systems. Our roads will be safer because no one will be able to afford a car anymore, and there won't be as many people actually driving.

*And all of this is after-the-fact, because the governments will never mandate the two things that would truly make a huge dent in the number of vehicle collisions and fatalities -- real driver training with periodic re-testing, and properly-maintained, season-specific tires.

Texting while driving: You need to watch this ...

... and then you need to share it with anyone who thinks that it's possible to drive a car and text (or operate a cell phone) at the same time. I've always said that it's no good showing people pictures of crashed cars; we need to show them pictures of crashed people. It isn't the way it looks in the movies. This is what happens in a serious auto crash.

Keep it simple ...

Every now and again, something comes along that's so simple, so straightforward, and yet so important, that it just boggles when you realize that no one thought of it before. This time around, it's the Checkpoint.

It's a piece of plastic, three inches long, and it fits over the wheel nut on a truck tire. The first time I saw some of them on a truck, I thought they were purely decorative, like little neon-colored flags.

But they're not. Rather, loose wheel nuts are a serious problem on any vehicle, but especially on one this big. And while I'm sure engineers have been working on sensors and computers to tackle the problem, someone got the bright idea to stick a little plastic flag on each wheel nut, and if the point of the flag isn't pointing in exactly the same direction it was yesterday, then that wheel nut has backed off.

Simple bloody genius.

Stability control: Safety feature, or just part of the engine?

Now here's an interesting thing. Because I compile an annual automotive Buyer's Guide, I have to check every standard and available feature on every model from every automaker.

The automakers generally divide the lists into sections: exterior, interior, engine and transmission, tires and wheels, audio, and safety. Without fail, the safety list includes such things as airbags, anti-theft alarms, rear child locks, three-point belts, active head restraints and child seat anchors.

But here's an odd thing. While I've never made up a definitive list, I have noticed a bit of a pattern. It seems that if electronic stability control and traction control are standard equipment on the vehicle, these are listed under the safety items. But if they're optional, then likely as not, they're found in the engine and transmission list. Which is not exactly where I'd expect them to be. Hmmm. You don't think the auto company wants us to look at the long list of safety features and realize that we have to pay extra for stability control ... do you?

Cell phones: No longer welcome in Ontario

Great news today: Ontario has passed legislation that will ban the use of hand-held devices to talk, text or email while driving. The new law could be in effect as early as this fall.

That means you, guy who turned a corner last week, kept turning, and came very close to hitting me head-on, because he was too busy reading his BlackBerry to straighten the wheel. That means you, guy in front of me the other day, who kept drifting from one lane to another, and then sat at a green light as he dialed his phone. And that means you, woman who slowed to 20 km/h in a 60-km zone as she checked to see who was calling.

The law isn't perfect, because it still allows hands-free devices, and I firmly believe that it isn't just the device but the call itself that's the problem. But this is a huge step in the right direction. (What's the difference between a cellphone call and a stereo, or talking to a passenger in the car, you say? Well, I'm guessing if you've ever had to try finding your way in a strange neighborhood, you've automatically turned down the stereo, because you don't need the distraction. And while your passenger will shut up when a car swerves in front of you and you have to make an evasive move, your buddy on the other end of the line just keeps gabbing.)

I once read a tongue-in-cheek letter by someone who said he'd rather see a drunk driver than one on a cell phone, because at least the drunk is trying to drive. It's a car, not a phone booth. Thank you, Ontario.

Bitter antifreeze: Why isn't everyone doing it?

  In the news today: British Columbia has mandated that as of January 2011, all antifreeze sold at the retail level in the province will have to contain an additive that makes it extremely bitter. This is to prevent pets and wildlife from being poisoned, as regular antifreeze is sweet and they tend to lick it up if they find some that's leaked out of a car.

My question: why did it take so long to do something so simple? And why is it only B.C. (and Washington State, Oregon and California)? Why isn't this a federal mandate from sea to shining sea, and right now? The stuff is deadly. It shouldn't be tasty as well.

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.

Ford's MyKey: Guidelines for young drivers

  I had an opportunity to see a demonstration of Ford's MyKey, the new system that sets limits on what a young driver can do with the car's speed, audio controls and seatbelts. It's up on Canadian Driver, and you can find it by clicking here.

Cars: Much deadlier than we thought

Yes, we know that cars are inherently dangerous. We crash them into things, and we end up injured or dead. But it turns out that that isn't the only way we can hurt ourselves with them.

There's a new study out by NHTSA, Not-in-Traffic Surveillance, that compiles stats on how people hurt themselves when they're not actually driving on the road.

NHTSA estimates that in the U.S. in 2007, 1,747 people were killed and 841,000 injured in incidents other than on-road collisions. These include 1,159 fatalities and 98,000 injuries in "non-traffic crashes", such as single-vehicle crashes on private roads, collisions with pedestrians on driveways, and two-car crashes in parking lots.

It also includes some 588 fatalities and 743,000 injuries unrelated to crashes. The majority of them were cars falling on people (folks, there is a huge difference between a jack and a hoist, and you should learn all about it) and non-intentional carbon monoxide poisoning.

But wait, there's more! According to the survey, an average of 88 people are killed each year falling from their vehicles; 57 die in vehicle fires, and 44 are "struck by object". Some 37 die of excessive heat when left in the vehicle, while 14 perish from excessive cold. Poisoning in the vehicle from a source other than carbon monoxide claims nine people, exploding tires take out seven, electrocution takes four; three each drown or are closed in the trunk, and two die of radiator fluid burns.

Injuries? Among those severe enough to require medical attention are an annual 148,000 hurt by closing doors, 88,000 by overexertion (either loading cargo or pushing a car that won't run), and a total of 92,000 fall in, out or against the vehicle. Fires and muffler burns claim 3,000 each, 2,000 get hurt by closing windows, and 1,000 each by tire explosions and battery acid burns. 

The report didn't mention how many people hurt themselves fainting when they see the final price of the car after all the taxes, freight and extras are added on, but nevertheless, it seems that that vehicle that appears to be sitting harmlessly in your driveway is actually out there plotting ways to get you. Be careful. It's an automotive jungle out there. 

The power of marketing

  Never underestimate the power of marketing. Volvo has produced some very important safety innovations over the years -- this is the company, after all, that gave us the three-point seatbelt, and had a full contingency of active and passive safety features before most of us knew what the terms meant.

But I just read a new survey by Consumer Reports, which asked readers to judge new vehicles based on a number of factors. Almost every automaker offers every safety feature found on the average Volvo, at least on some or most models. Yet when it came to safety, Volvo led the category by 71 percent. The second-place company? Ford -- at nineteen percent. Yes, Volvo are good, solid, safe vehicles, but a difference of 52 percent? Come on, people ... get a grip.

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.

Ford MyKey: Sounds like a plan to me

  Ford has announced a new feature, MyKey, which will be standard equipment on the 2010 Focus and eventually be added to other models as well. It sounds like a plan whose time has come.

MyKey lets the owner program the vehicle so that when a specific key is used, it limits the vehicle's top speed and the maximum volume of the audio system. The idea is that parents can set these limits before their teenagers drive the car.

Teenagers need to drive in order to gain the experience that will make them safe drivers, but all too often, I see young drivers who are too young to have much seat time, and they're driving far too fast and with the stereo blasting. I call that a recipe for disaster, and the number of crashes involving young drivers under these conditions is just too high.

My hat's off to Ford, and I hope the technology eventually makes its way onto every car on the road.

Safety: It's no accident!

  I gave a presentation to a church group this morning on auto safety. It's become a very important issue with me, especially as I drive the highways and see so many people driving while they're distracted, driving in the wrong lanes, or just doing dumb things that affect all of us.

The handout I gave is available to the right here, under the new "Auto Safety" list.

Note to Volvo: Maybe you need better drivers for customers

Volvo sent out a press release today about the Weavers, a Kentucky family who "should be on a survival TV show". The company intended the release to emphasize that Volvo makes safe cars.

To me, the release told me that some people who drive Volvos should spend a little extra for some advanced driving control lessons. (Keep this in mind: driving lessons teach you how to drive. Driving control lessons teach you how to control the car, which is far more important.)

First up is son Jeremy, who was 17 years old and delivering pizzas in his first car, a Volvo 240. According to the release, "On his normal delivery round on one rainy evening he was unlucky enough to veer off the road. His car slid down a 10m slope and was brought to a halt by heavy trees."

Now, maybe Volvo operates in a different world, but on my planet, you're not "unlucky enough" to veer off the road. You veer off the road because you are no longer in control of the vehicle. I have driven on a lot of rainy evenings. Oddly enough, I've yet to be "unlucky enough" to veer off the road.

Next up is mother Nancy, who was giving her daughter's family a ride to the airport. "Enroute, traffic on the highway suddenly ground to a halt and Nancy lost control of the car; it flipped at approximately 100 km/h."

Okay, so Volvo got it right on this one: she lost control of the car. But flipping it because traffic stopped in front of her? How close was she following, and how far ahead was she looking?

I'll give them the final one: a storm blew down a tree that landed on their 1985 Volvo. Some things you just can't anticipate. But in this case, two out of three ... well, it's bad, and I'm guessing probably preventable. Remember, there are no accidents, only crashes.

More on the fatal Ontario crash ...

A little while ago, I commented on a case here in Ontario where a 20-year-old driver put a car into a river, killing himself and two other passengers. Today, the paper speaks with the driver's father regarding the crash.

According to the man, his son and three friends consumed a total of 31 drinks in three hours at a restaurant. Speed was also cited as a factor in the crash; the driver already had several charges on his record and was in danger of losing his license due to speeding violations.

So what does his father think needs to be done? "Parents need to lobby the government to make changes," he said.

Apparently, father now wants "zero tolerance for speeding" and said that if "the licence was revoked for one speeding incident, then word would quickly get around that you can't speed and (keep) your license."

Now, keep in mind that we're talking about a young man with enough speeding violations that he was close to having his licence yanked. So how did father answer when asked what he would have done differently as a parent?

"I would not have bought him the car that I did ... When he asked me for the car I argued with him incessantly and I finally gave in and wish I hadn't."

The car he bought for his son wasn't just any run-of-the-mill sedan, but a 340-horsepower Audi S4. Given to a young man with relatively little driving experience and, apparently, enough speeding tickets to plaster his bedroom wall.

According to the article, father told his son "don't drink and drive and don't speed. I know that I have said this to Tyler over 100 times. Obviously that doesn't work."

Apparently, focusing on the speeding part didn't, either. "As I said, I told Tyler not to speed ... Just because his friends talked about speeding so much. I was just shocked at the amount that the boys discuss cars and how fast they are and how much they like racing."

But apparently not shocked enough to withhold payment on a 340-horsepower Audi S4, it seems.

And what do people need to do? "People need to take a stand against this with the government."

Well, yes, of course, when it's obvious that they can't take a stand right in their own garage.

European drivers: Another view

Following my vacation in Munich, Germany, I wrote this article on my impression of drivers in that city, whom I found much better at the task than those in my neck of Canada.

The other day I was speaking with a man who lives in Munich and I discussed my thoughts. As with any situation, I only saw one side, and he gave me insights into the other. While he does agree that European drivers are more attentive than North American ones overall, he said that the city's public transportation network, while far superior to ours, could use some money spent on it, and that he much prefers the way that we can turn right on red lights here, rather than having to wait for a signal.

But one major difference he noted between Germans and Canadians is that, in his words, German drivers are "more aware of other drivers". This came about when we were turning left onto a multi-lane street, and a driver turning right from the opposite direction turned right across two lanes and into ours, cutting us off. His observation was that Canadian drivers are insulated from the rest of traffic; they only look ahead, they only think about themselves, and they don't think about the consequences of their actions. "Here, someone will sit in my blind spot for several kilometres," he said. "Drivers in Germany don't do that, because they know it isn't safe."

Paying heed to what he said, I observed traffic around me and discovered that he is indeed right. Drivers are looking straight ahead, instead of checking their mirrors and glancing out of their side windows. They turn corners without checking for pedestrians. They open doors without looking for bicycles. They blow their horns and flip the finger when another driver offends them, and then by the next block, they're performing the same mindless move and upsetting another driver. As Red Green used to say, we're all in this together. Keep your stick on the ice.

The jaw drops ...

In the news today: Ontario's Alcohol and Gaming Commission is investigating whether staff at a club might have played a part in a recent crash that killed three young men when the driver put an Audi S4 into a river. Police have stated that alcohol and speed were factors in the crash.

The 20-year-old driver had several traffic charges already on his record. The sole survivor of the crash said that he was praised by his friends for driving the S4 at high speed, and that she reached over and turned up the already-loud stereo when her favorite song came on. According to newspaper reports, the Audi S4 belonged not to the driver, but to the driver's parents.

According to an article in the Toronto Star, the father now says that, "In retrospect, it is obvious I would've wanted the Joe Club to take away the keys or stop serving..." But while he doesn't think closing a bar or restaurant is the solution, according to the story, he does support "zero blood (alcohol) level for new drivers until (age) 21-25, and zero tolerance (for) speeding infractions to age 21. In both those cases I feel the licence should be revoked and every kid will really think before drinking or speeding when driving," he said.

Let's do the math.

The driver was 20 years old.

According to this article, he had so many speeding violations that he was in danger of losing his driver's license.

And yet his father apparently lent his son a 340-horsepower vehicle under circumstances that he now says should have been grounds for revoking the young man's license, with zero tolerance.

I don't get it. I simply don't. I wonder how much money the lawsuit will initially name...

Safety: Start at the beginning

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

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

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

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

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

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

Europe: Observations and comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Look, Ma, no hands!

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

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

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