Archive for February, 2018
Speed Doesn’t Kill People; People Kill People (aka There Are No Bad Speeds, Just Bad Driving)
In the past fortnight, I’ve seen the results of two smashes on the open road, one at least of which left a driver with serious injuries. In one, a late-model SUV had been driving in a downpour and had rolled completely onto its side, collecting another vehicle in the process. In another – the more serious of the two, where I and my family were some of the first people on the scene and hung around with a bunch of others to help before the emergency services arrived – a fairly new Mini (probably a JCW Clubman ) had drifted across the centre line on the open road and gone straight into an older Mitsubishi campervan. Both cars were a real mess, although the driver of the campervan was in better shape and was able to walk away from the accident, albeit with a nasty bruise on the leg that made her limp and a few cuts from broken glass (I know this because I was the one who did the first aid check on her). The driver of the Mini was trapped under a caved-in windscreen and was screaming her head off (we found out later she had a badly broken arm and possibly some internal injuries). The campervan was in pieces and there was diesel (thank heavens it wasn’t the more inflammable petrol!) all over the road. It was traumatic enough for me and my family, who had been setting off for a quiet weekend away. It was worse for the two drivers concerned and their passengers.
How do we get the road toll down? Is the answer to reduce the speed limit?
It’s a tough and controversial question. On the one hand, we’ve got all the cops and the safety experts telling us to keep our speed down, and spending tons of taxpayer money to get the message out there (as if we haven’t heard it since goodness knows when). On the other hand, we have better roads and cars with better safely systems, so is it really realistic to insist on a speed limit that was set back when you were lucky if a car had seatbelts in the rear seat?
Of course, the more cynical type of driver is going to note that the speed of a vehicle is something that is very easily detected by speed cameras and radar traps, and fining drivers in the name of safety is an easy way for the government to pick up a bit of extra money… which they will spend on marketing campaigns to tell us to slow down, etc. Of course they’re not going to change the speed limit when keeping us to it is such a good cash cow.
However, let’s leave the issue of fines and money aside and look at the actual issue.
The main reason why the powers that be focus on speed is not just because it’s something that’s easy to measure. It’s because of the physics. Anything travelling at a high speed will have a lot of kinetic energy that requires a lot of force to maintain in the face of friction, and when that object travelling at high speed stops, that energy has to go somewhere. In the case of a deliberate slow-down, friction will take up a lot of the energy (and, in the case of regenerative braking, turn it into electrical potential energy). In the case of a fast and unintended stop (i.e. a crash), all that energy is transferred all at once into not just the vehicle itself, what it’s hit and the road, but also what’s inside that vehicle.
If all is going well, the raw speed of a car is not a problem. If it were speed per se that killed, you’d expect that the German authorities would have noticed this by now and changed the rules about the limitless autobahns. According to a news report from last year, fatal accidents on German roads had reached an all-time low since it kicked itself back into gear after the war in the late 1950s. The number of accidents, however, has increased. The rate of fatal accidents has dropped dramatically since the 1970s in Germany, and they say that it’s thanks to better car safety design (the rivalry between German makers like Mercedes and Swedish companies like Volvo as to who’s got the best safety systems seems pretty intense), as well as things like insisting on seatbelts and motorbike helmets. A lower legal limit for blood alcohol also helped curb road deaths. The fact that cars have got faster and more powerful over this time and roared along the autobahns at 250 km/h as often as possible doesn’t seem to have played a role.
If things do go wrong, however, then the speed of a vehicle makes the consequences a lot worse. It’s a situation like you get with guns and pitbulls. A gun used responsibly in the right way by the right people is fun and is a useful device for removing pests or putting meat on the table. However, if someone loses their temper and goes on the rampage, a gun will do worse damage in the hands of a maniac than, say, a knife, chainsaw or wooden club. Pitbulls, Staffordshire Bull Terriers and Rottweilers can be soppy, affectionate and obedient animals when well trained, but if you mistrain or mistreat one (or make the mistake of attacking its owner), then they’ll do a lot more damage than a Chihuahua or a Labrador (which, in fact, are a lot more likely to bite people – they just don’t make headlines when they do, as they don’t cause much carnage). The same goes for speed. Staying in your lane and going along a deserted bit of open road at 120 km/hr or even higher is not going to be a problem. However, if you go around the corner way too fast for the conditions, try to do this sort of speed in heavy traffic, drift out of your lane into an oncoming vehicle, go over a patch of gravel or ice, or hit a roo (or any combination of the above), then the results are going to be a lot worse than if you had been going at, say, 50 km/h.
Those protesting gun control will argue that it’s not guns that kill people; it’s people who kill people. Similarly, owners of Rotties, Pibbles and Staffies will protest breed-related legislation by arguing that there are no bad dogs; there are only bad owners. It’s just the same with speed limits. It’s not speed that kills; it’s bad driving that kills. Bad driving, notice, not bad drivers. Even The Stig, Mario Andretti, Peter Brock and Mark Skaife have off moments, as they’re only human.
So what’s the answer to the problem of getting the road toll down? How are we going to prevent people getting injured the way that Mini driver was injured? There are no easy answers – it’s definitely not as simple as just saying that we need to keep the speed down. In fact, I’m going to have to devote more than one post to this topic and analysing all the factors. With the help of your comments, perhaps we’ll find the answers.
Air, Apparent.
A band called “The Hollies” released a song in the mid 1970s called “(All I Need Is)The Air That I Breathe“. We humans breathe air. It’s made up of 78% nitrogen which is an inert (doesn’t react with anything) gas, oxygen at 21%, 0.93% argon and various other gases. CO2 or carbon dioxide is measured to be around 0.04%. It’s the oxygen and CO2 that we carbon based lifeforms worry about the most. But what does it mean when it comes to those other living, breathing things called cars?
Bugger all actually. Cars breathe in air via intakes or through air filters in pre- fuel injected cars via carbies. At the other end comes out CO2 and a smattering of other gases, and that’s the cycle of life. BUT, have you ever tried to push a car with a flat tyre? Yup, air inside comes out and makes rolling a car near nigh impossible. So we fill them with air and away we go.
Air, I hear you ask? But that nice man at the service and tyre shop said I should get nitrogen in my tyres, right? Well, in a way, by using air you’ve already got nitrogen. 80%, remember?
But he said it’ll reduce wear and tear on my tyres? Well, no. The biggest cause of wear and tear on tyres is how we drive the cars that use them. If we also don’t check the pressures, so if the tyres are over or under inflated, either of these contributes to wear and tear. When air goes in (80% nitrogen, remember) and the pressures are right, then wear and tear should only be dependent on how you drive.
He also said that nitrogen improves ride quality? Ride quality is dependent on tyre pressure, springs and shocks working properly, road surfaces…you get the picture. So if your air filled tyres are at the right pressure, then ride quality remains the same irrespective of 80 or 100 percent nitrogen.
I’m sensing a pattern here. He also said that by using nitrogen it’ll make the tyre run cooler? Hmm, a toughie….ah…nup. It’s the moisture content of the air, so in fact, if you use dry normal compressed air, it’ll also run cooler., as long as, again, it’s at the correct pressure and the tyre isn’t overloaded.
So, the bottom line, if I’m charged five or ten bucks per tyre to get nitrogen in, I’m just wasting money? In a nitrogen filled nutshell, yep. Don’t waste your money and say no to nitrogen.
Hyundai Santa Fe Unveiled For 2018
Hyundai have released some details of its new for 2018 Santa Fe. Notable changes include a restyled front end, linking the big SUV to its slightly newer and smaller brethren, the Kona. There’s the upper level LED driving lights, mid level headlights that are in a separate cluster and set deep into their own scalloped section on the extremeties of the bumper. A restyled “Cascading Grille” is also featured. At 4770mm in length, a breadth of 1890mm, and an increased wheelbase, the Santa fe stamps itself firmly as the leader of Hyundai cars.
Inside it’s a complete makeover, with a sweeping line to the upper dash section, air vent designs not unlike those found in upper level European luxury cars. The dash and console are broader in look, with a more concise and intense look to the centre touchscreen and climate control section.
Safety details in full haven’t yet been released, however it is known that Rear Cross-Traffic Collision-Avoidance Assist is on board. It will recognise oncoming traffic from the side and wil automatically apply brakes if required.
More details will be released by Hyundai closer to its expected launch in late February and is due in Australia in mid 2018. 
Peugeot and Citroën Australia Introduce Five-Year Warranty
Peugeot and Citroën Australia (PCA) will introduce a five-year, unlimited kilometre warranty with five-year roadside assist for all Peugeot and Citroën passenger vehicles. That warranty applies from the date of the first registration of the vehicle. Even better, it’s transferable should an owner decide to move their new car on to a new owner. The new warranty will commence immediately and be retrospectively applied to any MY18 vehicles already sold.
The Managing Director of Peugeot and Citroën Australia, Anouk Poelmann, said that the new warranty gives Australian’s confidence in purchasing a Peugeot or Citroën and reinforces the commitment both PCA and Groupe PSA in France have for the Australian market.
“When Peugeot and Citroën arrived in Australia – almost 80 and 100 years ago respectively, reliability and durability was the key to the brand’s early success and today that focus has not changed. From design to engineering and manufacture, efforts at all levels of the business have focused on quality, durability and reliability – and this new five-year warranty underscores our confidence in the new-generation of Peugeot and Citroën product.
Peugeot 5008
Peugeot and Citroën are some of the oldest and most storied marques in Australia and we at PCA and Groupe PSA are determined to make the next chapter one full of confidence and growth,” said Poelmann.
The program will bring together warranty, roadside assist and servicing plans under the PEUGEOT PRESTIGETM banner, while naming of the Citroën program will be launched at a later date.
Level 2, 9 Help Street