|
A colleague was stopped by the Police last week – “a random tyre check, sir” – when he was driving a borrowed car. The tyres were fine but when asked for his insurance details, it transpired that he’s not covered to drive other people’s cars. Apparently, more and more insurers are withdrawing this third-party cover and not bothering to make it clear to the customer. “Not a lot of people know about it yet, sir,” said the weary policeman. “We have this problem a lot.” I’ve checked my own policy and it says that “the Policy Holder is insured whilst driving any motor car not belonging to him and not hired to him… (blah, blah)”. I assume him covers her? It’s the usual thing. |
Check out the latest posts
Archive for October, 2007
| Suck, squeeze, bang, suck. |
|
The European Parliament has today voted in favour of a CO2 limit of 125g/km for all new cars built in Europe. The good news is that MEPs have recommended the deadline for this target be extended by three years, until 2015. British MEP, Chris Davies, told the motor-industry magazine, Automotive News, that the target was a realistic one for manufacturers to achieve. In an interview with the magazine, he stated: “There are some people who want the industry to be punished but I don’t think the EU is in the business of punishing companies and that is not a sensible starting point,“ he said, adding: “The targets we have set are not unambitious and I think we have given industry a bit more time to achieve them at an economical cost.“ Mr Davies and his MEP colleagues have offered no advice as to how these targets might be achieved, although there is some talk of ‘supplementary measures’ involving fuel and tyre suppliers. It’s simple enough, Mr Davies, all we need do is re-invent the Otto cycle, so that instead of the familiar ‘suck. squeeze, bang, blow’, engines will go ‘suck. squeeze, bang, suck’, and draw back into themselves, and thus consume, the very emissions about which there is so much fuss. It would be a novel form of perpetual motion and surely not beyond the wit of mankind: we have after all invented phone-in TV quiz programmes: a device for consuming vast sums of money in order to fund phone-in TV quiz programmes that consume vast sums of money in order to fund…. |
| We was robbed |
|
|
I didn’t actually see the final race in the Formula One championship but I gather it ended just as Mr Ecclestone planned it. However, I understand there have been cries from the McLaren of “We was robbed!” and nothing is therefore confirmed. Once upon a time, it was only MPs you couldn’t trust. Now it seems that fans of F1, along with fans of the Tour de France, athletics and horse racing are waking up to the sad fact that nothing is at it seems. |
| Three Times Table |
|
|
I was chatting to a friend about the estimate on his car’s restoration… never mind the initial figure (an eye-watering 20k, as it happens), you just KNOW that the final bill is going to be about three times as much. Because it always is. And it was. Why do garages never, ever, come in under (or even bang-on) estimate? My brother decided that he loves his Alfa 156 Sportwagon so much that he’d have the oil-guzzling engine reconditioned, instead of buying a new car. He also thought that recycling his car in this way was the most environmentally friendly thing to do. Garage estimate: £600-800. Actual cost: £2300. Multiplied by three, again. Why? What unexpected circumstances cropped up? Alien landings? A warp in the space-time continuum? No, nothing. Let’s face it, Mr Garage Owner, it was just a really bad estimate, wasn’t it? Shouldn’t garages pay for their lack of expertise (or worse) when it comes to estimating so very, very badly? Why are we, the customers, always the ones to make up the shortfall when their estimates are so wide of the mark? |
| Steyr case |
|
“Unfortunately you will not get even one single star in the EuroNCAP evaluation by implementing our ‘Sliding Collision’ system.” This rather depressing statement was made recently by Matthias John. Head of Advanced Development at Magna Steyr, which has developed this live-saving active-safety system. The Sliding Collision system is intended to mitigate the severe structural damage caused during so-called ‘offset collisions’ when opposing off-side front wheels lock together and cause deformations in the car’s body structure that lead to a massive decrease in the cabin survival-space. Magna Steyr’s system would prevent the wheels locking and instead reduce the impact to little more than a glancing blow, with minimal body deformation. The prototype Sliding Collision design comprises a bar behind the front bumper that, when struck by the front wheel of one car, is automatically propelled outwards (presumably by a pyrotechnic device) in front of the wheel of the other car. In this way it is impossible for the wheels to become locked, says Magna Steyr. (A schematic representation of Sliding Collision in action can be found on the Magna Steyr website.) A further development involves a device attached to the steering tie-rod, which, when triggered, turns the front wheel away from the point of impact. Unfortunately, there are cost and weight implications – the bete noir of motor manufacturers – and that is likely to hinder the introduction of Sliding Collision hardware. In the words of Mr John: A joint initiative of all car manufacturers, automobile associations and users is necessary to boost the readiness for implementing ‘Sliding Collision’ in order to save lives”. Some legislative pressure would not go amiss, either, which sounds like a matter for your MEP. You can find all the British MEPs on the europarl website, along with their email addresses. Why not state the case? Change happens, and it could start with you. |
According to a recent report in the The Economist, the Dutch firm TomTom has recently teamed up with Vodafone in a partnership that has sinister implications. TomTom’s Personal Navigation Devices (PNDs) will soon offer real-time traffic information that will allow PND users to avoid traffic jams, in the way that many car satellite navigation systems already allow. The TomTom system will abstract information from the Vodafone network to determine the median speed of traffic in given areas and if it falls below a pre-determined threshold, divert instructions will be implemented. The secret lies in the tracking of all mobiles within Vodafone’s network. The system can tell how fast the mobile ‘phone within the car is travelling by the time it takes to move from one transmission cell to the next. And if Vodafone knows, who else might be sold the information? It could become yet another fiendish means of enabling speed-over-distance surveillance, at little cost to the Exchequer. Imagine driving down the A3 at 85: no GATSOs, no Trafpol, no Talivans; you’re home and dry. Or so you think. Then you get a text message: u r nkd. Soon there will be no hiding place. |
| These fuelish things |
|
|
So, Greedy Gordon has decided to fleece us further by implementing the fuel tax increase he promised us back in April. Odd that, a politician keeping his promise. With crude oil now at $83 per barrel, and interest rates creeping up, even greater pressure on our personal budgets is just what we’re all crying out for right now. What’s the betting that when the PM calls an election next year, he’ll try to sweeten us all up with a small cut in the duty on fuel? He’ll have already enjoyed an extra 2p per litre flowing into his coffers for six months – except it’s not 2p per litre – it’s actually 2.3p per litre. Not only do we all fork out fuel duty (which is a tax), but we also pay VAT on that duty (which is a tax). So we’re paying a tax on a tax! If you pay 95p for a litre of unleaded, nearly 64p of that goes straight to the Treasury! Unsurprisingly, the antis are saying the latest increase isn’t enough, and that we should be forking out at least a fiver for every litre we put in our tanks. Predictably, Transport 2000 (largely funded by public transport operators and now known as the Campaign for Better Transport) is saying the increase is welcome – as long as the extra money raised is spent directly on public transport. Hmm, let me see – I bet that’s exactly why Gordon Brown has instigated the rise – to spend all the extra cash on buses. Of course we’re told that such increases are essential if we’re to stop the world overheating, but the Government knows only too well that it’s convenience, not price, which dictates the mode of transport we choose. That raises the issue of whether or not mankind has really had any effect on the Earth’s climate, but that’s one for another day methinks… |
