Author archive
Hidden Speed Cameras: Safety vs Revenue.
It’s a contentious issue and one that changes a simple conversation into full blown arguments: speed and speed cameras, safety device or revenue raiser? First up, what EXACTLY is speed? According to Wikipedia:
In kinematics, the speed of an object is the magnitude of its velocity (the rate of change of its position); it is thus a scalar quantity. The average speed of an object in an interval of time is the distance travelled by the object divided by the duration of the interval; the instantaneous speed is the limit of the average speed as the duration of the time interval approaches zero. Like velocity, speed has the dimensions of a length divided by a time; the SI unit of speed is the metre per second, but the most usual unit of speed in everyday usage is the kilometre per hour or, in the USA and the UK, miles per hour. For air and marine travel the knot is commonly used.
Or more simply, A cyclist who covers 30 metres in a time of 2 seconds, for example, has a speed of 15 metres per second. Basically velocity over distance in a time frame. In Australia, we measure our speed as kilometres per hour, so fifty kilometres per hour is fifty thousand metres of distance travelled every 3600 seconds. This equates to be 13.888 metres every second. 80 k’s per hour is 22.222 metres per second and 11o is 30.555 metres per second. Ok, we’re clear on that?
There are those that say that if you don’t speed then you won’t receive an infringement. True, undeniably true but it sidesteps what the argument is all about. There’s also the ubiquitous and well worn “speed kills”. Let’s put this into one context: if a driver travels at 60kilometres per hour in a rated zone of fifty kilometres per hour, that driver is, technically, speeding. If the driver is doing the same speed, sixty kmh in an 80 kmh zone, the same speed remember, they’re not speeding. So, according to convention, the media, the police etc, the first is dangerous yet, somehow, that same velocity over distance per time isn’t….back to “speed kills”….which speed, exactly?
Our residential roads are zoned at 50 kmh. Our highways are zoned at either 100 kmh or 110 kmh. Travel at 80 kmh in a 60 kmh and you’re speeding BUT in order to achieve a speed of 100/110 kmh you not only have to reach 80 kmh but EXCEED that speed. So what is dangerous, 80 in a 60 or passing that formerly dangerous speed to one that is deemed safe????
Ok, we’re told that speed kills. It’s a blanket statement, exactly like “the customer is always right”. The problem is the caveat part of those statements is missing. Speed doesn’t kill, it’s the sudden stop. This is where physics comes into play, with an object in motion possessing kinetic energy. That kinetic energy has to be dispersed when that object stops; also, a little more physics. You may have heard of “G force”; from Wikipedia:
G-force (with g from gravitational) is a measurement of acceleration felt as weight. It is not a force, but a force per unit mass and can be measured with an accelerometer. Since such a force is perceived as a weight, any g-force can be described as a “weight per unit mass” (see the synonym specific weight). The g-force acceleration acts as a multiplier of weight-like forces for every unit of an object’s mass, and (save for certain electromagnetic force influences) is the cause of an object’s acceleration in relation to free-fall
Under normal and everyday circumstances, a human is experiencing a G force load of 1G. Deceleration also involves G force and the higher the deceleration the higher the G force. To be slightly technical: The expression “1 g = 9.80665 m/s2“ means that for every second that elapses, velocity changes 9.80665 meters per second (≡35.30394 km/h). This rate of change in velocity can also be denoted as 9.80665 (meter per second) per second, or 9.80665 m/s2. For example: An acceleration of 1 g equates to a rate of change in velocity of approximately 35 kilometres per hour (22 mph) for each second that elapses. Therefore, if an automobile is capable of braking at 1 g and is traveling at 35 kilometres per hour (22 mph) it can brake to a standstill in one second and the driver will experience a deceleration of 1 g. The automobile traveling at three times this speed, 105 km/h (65 mph), can brake to a standstill in three seconds. For humans, death or serious injury occurs with a G force rating of >25G. So, clearly, it’s neither speed (to keep it simple, let’s presume a constant velocity therefore a G force of 1G) nor acceleration (as even the space shuttle was kept to an acceleration G force of less than 3G), that kills people, it IS the sudden stop. To use a somewhat graphic yet famous example, the crash that took the lives of Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed was estimated to have a G force factor of 70G to 100G….
The Bathurst 1000 event over the weekend of 11-13 October 2013 saw a number of crashes, including young drivers Tim Slade and Chaz Mostert. It was estimated that the G force shunts for both was around 30G. Now, here’s the rub; the vehicles they are driving are built and engineered with what is considered high speed in mind. Also, the safety mechanisms we take for granted, primarily airbags, are removed BUT they have super strength seatbelts in a configuration known as a four point harness. Relative movement or slackness of these belts is hugely minimal compared to the seatbelts in cars (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/seatb.html) therefore their bodily movement will be severely reduced. As a result, a combination of that primary safety factor and car construction aided in reducing serious injury, to the point both drivers reported bruising and some aches, but nothing worse.
So speed kills? No, it doesn’t. Clearly, obviously, provably. Therefore the argument for restricting speed limits and using speed cameras has serious opposition. Therefore the argument for speed cameras to stop speeding is invalid. An example: a driver is travelling a road zoned at 110 kilometres per hour in dry conditions and 100 percent visibility (the caveat). It’s raining, it’s foggy and it’s dusk. Visibility, even with headlights on (a safety factor badly overlooked) is 10 metres. Remember that 110kmh is 30 metres PER SECOND. Is it safe to travel at 110 even though that’s what the signs say that driver can do? But if that driver DOES travel at 110 they aren’t breaking the law and therefore not subject to receiving an infringement. But is it SAFE? By no sensible reasoning should this be seen as safe. Road limits are set for the presumption of 100% visibility for the direction of road travel and road design and the surrounding area and in many areas they are too low.
So: speed cameras are used to restrict excessive speed, with posted limits set under what is presumably the best conditions, with one unassailable fact, the biggest chance factor of all: how good is the driver? Anyone that races at Bathurst is there because, not only can they race, they can handle speeds that the authorities would have us believe is dangerous. Remember, the majority of the year sees the track a residential road, with a posted limit of just 60 kmh. If speed kills, then why are all the drivers that raced this year still alive? No, it’s not a petty and frivolous question, as we are told, repeatedly, speed is dangerous…..but to who? Certainly not Mark Winterbottom, certainly not Warren Luff, certainly not Andy Priaulx. Speed cameras are used to control speed, they don’t control bad drivers. Well trained and educated and AWARE drivers are so much more safer to deal with and they can deal with speeds others can’t. There is no justification for speed cameras in many locations but yes, in some places they should be mandatory.
According to the Bureau of Statistics, in 2010, a staggering 44.2% of fatal crashes were a single vehicle crash, whilst 42% were multiple vehicle. The inescapable fact is these crashes have one common cause or factor and it’s not speed. It’s a bad driver. In the same year, at speeds of up to just 60kmh, the equation was 28.3% of fatalities occurred in that grouping, whilst in the sixty five to ninety zone it was 22.4%. What’s more frightening is the change of numbers in the Northern Territory; in 2009 it was 13 people per 100000 that were in a fatal crash. In 2010, it jumped to 21. Those numbers increased almost year by year after the unlimited roads were changed to a maximum of 130 kmh. Time of the crashes is also an important factor: in 2012 there were more fatalities in NSW between 12 and 1 pm (30) than at any other time of the day, with Victoria not far behind at 18 between 1 and 2pm. Neither could hardly to be said it’s peak hour traffic yet Allianz Insurance says the most common form of crash is the nose to tail. Guess when these are likely to happen? That’s right, peak hour.
Speed doesn’t kill. Speed cameras do nothing to reduce the reason people die in a crash: the sudden stop. The Victorian police say they’re going to hide their cameras so the operators don’t get hurt by the occasional twit that’s just been nabbed speeding, presumably because 1) they’re a twit for not slowing when the sign says there’s a camera or 2) didn’t slow because they were too busy looking at their speedometer. It’s commendable but I’m sure you can understand the cynical laughs from those that can do what the law, ostensibly, wants everyone to do. Drive, rather than steer, a vehicle.
Tail's Still Wagon.
It’s pretty much accepted that Australian ingenuity created the “ute”; what’s forgotten is the country’s love affair with the humble station wagon. It’s also overlooked at how many are still available.
First and foremost is the Holden Commodore Sportwagon. The Commodore has had a wagon for every model since the range was released wayyyyy back in 1978. With the release a couple of months ago of the VF, Holden took the somewhat unusual step of releasing all models at once, whereas previously the wagon was shown later. Unfortunately, there wasn’t funds to redevelop the wagon and ute rear.
Ford had a wagon version of the Falcon pretty much from the start; the Territory effectively killed that much to many fleet buyers annoyance whilst Toyota canned their Camry wagon when they released the Aurion whilst Mitsubishi never released a wagon version of the 380, the car that superseded the Magna. 
BUT, Ford has the Mondeo wagon, Toyota may yet re-release a Corolla wagon for Australia (shown overseas) and Mitsubishi had a Lancer wagon until 2007. Other brands have wagons too with various names such as Tourer, Estate or Shooting Brake, with BMW, Audi, Chrysler, Mercedes-Benz, Subaru, Mazda, Hyundai, Volvo, Volkswagen, Skoda and even Jaguar with their XF Sportbrake.
There’s always been benefits of having a non-SUV load carrier, with the extra space for day to day tasks such as shopping but room for kids stuff like prams, bikes, even the humble family pooch. The exterior design has varied from blocky, to what looks like an add-on to the very stylish.
Unfortunately, with the rise of the SUV the demand for a low riding wagon is slowly dropping off here in Australia and in the US whilst remaining steady in the UK and European region. They’re useful, practical, better for many people than a SUV or sedan so consider that when next you go looking for something with practicality and room.
Still Holden On…But For How Long?
Holden’s call for extra funding has been answered in the most unexpected way; the answer was no yet they look like they will get their funds request. Confused?
As it stands, it appears the Federal Government has had a change of heart and will NOT go ahead with the proposed funding cuts of around a half billion dollars. This isn’t good news for just Holden, it’s good news for Toyota and Ford AND all of the businesses that supply the automotive industry. Holden also hadn’t put forward a formal request for extra funding by the end of 2013 as they were expected to do, as Industries Minister Ian Macfarlane’s office confirmed recently. Current funding for Holden was approved and locked in by the previous Government, which was intended to give Holden the strength to manufacture two cars through to 2022. Says Mr Macfarlane after the walk through at Holden’s Elizabeth, South Australia factory: “There’s money there,” he said. “The Labor Party’s added money through to 2020, which we haven’t touched and I’m not going to touch – that’s all there for keeps. It’s in the forward estimates, it’s been through the budgetary process, it’s been legislated, there’s at least $1 billion. The more, the better, as far as I am concerned, because I don’t want the industry to close down, I want them to keep going.”
This would indicate that although the Government had said they’d withhold $500million, it wasn’t mentioned that there would still be the same amount on offer anyway. This comes from an interim investigation that Mr Macfarlane has requested into the state of the industry to be completed within three months with a more detailed report to follow by the end of the first quarter of 2014. Should that report be as Mr Macfarlane clearly hopes, then there will be funding put forward with that coming from the surplus due to an underspend of allocated funds, thanks to the downturn in production over the last couple of years. This also apparently backs Holden’s original call for extra funding due to a change of market conditions since their original funding request was signed off by state and the Federal Governments in 2012.
Ship Out Or Else: Holden Told To Increase Exports
New Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane has given Holden a blunt piece of advice: export more if you want more support. With the red lion brand finding public support dwindling thanks to its near sighted attitude, it’s advice Holden itself are probably well aware of.
Macfarlane has said he’d like to see Holden with an export rate of around 30%; currently the numbers are 17% against Toyota’s 72% which begs the question: are Toyota making a better product or have a better export market situation? The local arm of General Motors has tried exports before and currently has the Caprice being sold into the US as a 
police vehicle. It was also sold into the Middle East successfully yet doesn’t appear to have been continued as a market, with the exchange rate a telling indicator. In 2005 Holden shipped out over 60, 000 vehicles to the US and Middle East, about 38% of its production. Aiding that was having the dollar buying just 71c US. Now it’s more in the region of 95c…. Counting against Holden currently is the economic value of the dollar, plus the expectation that, from 2016 onwards, the two vehicles it will build here in Australia will also be built for and by overseas markets, further cruelling a long term export market.Toyota loses around $2500 on each Camry exported but, crucially, with such a high number of imported Toyotas sold, makes that back on those imported sales. MacFarlane says: “I know (Toyota is) doing it at a loss, I’d like to stop that happening,” said Mr Macfarlane.“But that shows real dedication to me to Australia. That’s what Toyota are about.” Toyota has also just completed its one millionth export Camry.
Holden is also copping flak for importing wheels from the US for its high end Redline models whilst ROH Wheels, once a major supplier and 
located just 25 kilometres from Holden in Adelaide sits waiting. Toyota sources all of its rolling stock from ROH; Holden insists it’s to do with the higher than expected demand for their new VF Commodore and, in particular, the Redline, as there’s now a three month waiting list. It’s also better news for the struggling company, with demand for the Commodore firmly placing the range into the top five sellers in Australia.
Another issue with Holden is the increasing non local componentry in the Commodore; the Falcon is 70 percent locally supplied whilst Toyota is 65%…the Commodore is around fifty percent whilst the success story that is Cruze is even lower, at just 30%. In just the last week, a number of staff from Holden’s purchasing and admin sections were let go and this is on top of a number of design and engineering staff at about the same time. Coming into play is the new government’s forthright attitude and its confirmation of restructuring car industry funding. Says Mr Macfarlane: it will make good on its pre-election promise to cut $500 million from the $5.4 billion set aside for car manufacturing industry assistance.“We’re not giving back the $500 million, so I’ve got to come up with a solution there,” said Mr Macfarlane. “And then we’ve got to have a long term plan which will be ‘The End’, in capital letters, in black, six feet high, ‘This is all we’re ever going to give you’. That’ll be the end. I won’t be seeing car companies after that.”
It’s not shaping up to be a smooth road for the red lion.
Level 2, 9 Help Street