Showing posts with label Cars. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cars. Show all posts

Wednesday, 26 March 2025

Jeremy Clarkson v Elon Musk [updated]


Elon Musk (a sensitive wee chap) sued Jeremy Clarkson back in 2008 for a review of a Tesla. Clarkson won. Now, he's flipping the bird as well.
“The sudden pan-global decision to uncrowdfund Tesla and to break the door mirrors off as many of its cars as possible is not funny. But also, it’s kinda hilarious. Especially if you’re me. ...
    “Things are so bad that a friend of mine who was trying to save the world (and a few quid on the congestion charge) has now fitted a sticker to his Tesla saying he bought it before he knew Musk was an idiot ...
    "I said [in my review] it was unreliable, which it was; that it was ridiculously expensive, which it was; and that because it weighed more than most moons, it didn’t handle very well. Which it didn’t.
    "Musk was very angry about this and sued us for defamation, claiming I had a problem with electrical cars and had written the piece before even setting foot in the car.
    "He lost the case, and the appeal, and he’s never really got over it. He still claims I was biased and that we pretended his car had broken down when it hadn’t. Even though it had.
    "I should really have sued him back, but I feared he’d call me a paedo, so instead I just waited on the river bank for his body to float past. And now it has."

More background here:


UPDATE
"Tesla is being forced to change the name of its so-called 'Full Self-Driving' driver assistance feature in China.
As spotted by Electrek, the Elon Musk-led company is now going by the name "Intelligent Assisted Driving" in Chinese on its website. ...
    "The software itself appears to be suffering from some potentially dangerous flaws. Drivers had been testing the software — before it was paused — on public streets in China, racking up a huge number of fines. Chinese Tesla owners have found that the system is misinterpreting bike lanes as right turn lanes, running red lights, and hogging bus lanes illegally ...
    "The carmaker has already run afoul of regulators for its misleading naming convention — after all, as Tesla admits on its website, the "Full Self-Driving" feature doesn't make good on its promise of fully autonomous driving and requires drivers to be ready to take over at all times.
    "In 2022, the California DMV alleged that Tesla put out 'untrue or misleading' advertisements on its website in relation to its Full Self-Driving and Autopilot tech...
    "For almost a decade, Tesla has been marketing its driver assistance software using misleading language.
    'That's likely already had severe consequences. US regulators have linked the carmaker's software to hundreds of collisions and dozens of deaths, warning that Tesla's marketing is lulling its customers into a false sense of security."

To be clear, as one tester shows — whatever Musk tells the market to inflate Tesla's share price — the cars are neither self-driving nor autonomous. So be careful out there. [Main test section starts 8:10]



Monday, 25 September 2023

"The average cost of second-hand electric cars is plummeting by a 'phenomenal amount'"



Pic from Mail
"The average cost of second-hand electric cars [in the UK] is plummeting by a 'phenomenal amount' as they sit for 'months on end' without any buyers.
    "'Research by online motor marketplace 'AutoTrader' revealed the average price for a used EV has dropped by 21.4 per cent this month, compared to a year ago.' ...
    "The second-hand electrical vehicle (EV) is between a rock and a hard place!
    "Increasing numbers are now coming onto the market, corresponding to the increasing number of new sales in recent years.
    "Yet at the same time, there seems to be little appetite from buyers. Most new EVs go either to Business/Fleet purchasers, or rich virtue-signallers. Neither sector is interested in buying second hand EVs."

~ Paul Homewood, from his post 'Values Of Used EVs Plummet, As Dealers Stuck With Unsold Cars'

Tuesday, 15 June 2021

Labour's coal-powered cars ...


"The really crazy thing about Labour’s electric car incentives is we don’t have the electricity generating capacity to power them other than burning more imported coal at Huntly."
          ~ Kiwiwit, on Twitter


Wednesday, 27 August 2014

The Moral Case for Self-Driving Cars

Guest post by Ronald Bailey

Tesla, Nissan, Google, and several carmakers have declared that they will have commercial self-driving cars on the highways before the end of this decade. Experts at the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers predict that 75% of cars will be self-driving by 2040. So far California, Nevada, Florida, Michigan, and the District of Columbia have passed laws explicitly legalizing self-driving vehicles, and many other states are looking to do so.

The coming era of autonomous autos raises concerns about legal liability and safety, but there are good reasons to believe that robot cars may exceed human drivers when it comes to practical and even ethical decision making.

More than 90% of all traffic accidents are the result of human error. In 2011, there were 5.3 million automobile crashes in the United States, resulting in more than 2.2 million injuries and 32,000 deaths. Americans spend $230 billion annually to cover the costs of accidents, accounting for approximately 2 to 3% of GDP.

Proponents of autonomous cars argue that they will be much safer than vehicles driven by distracted and error-prone humans. The longest-running safety tests have been conducted by Google, whose autonomous vehicles have traveled more than 700,000 miles so far with only one accident (when a human driver rear-ended the car). So far, so good.

Stanford University law professor Bryant Walker Smith, however, correctly observes that there are no engineered systems that are perfectly safe.

Wednesday, 25 June 2008

Driving in international waters

hilux5 I didn't see this on Sunday, but Sus emailed to tell me how bloody good it was:

Don't know if you watched Top Gear last Sun night, but if you didn't, the guys raced each other to the [Magnetic] North Pole.  That is, Jeremy & James in a seriously modified 4WD using GPS raced Richard on a dog-sled with one of the world's leading dog-sledders and her team.  It was amazing and insane and almost impossible.  At one stage it took J&J 20 solid hours to travel one mile through hills of solid ice.

These are Clarkson's closing comments, word for word:

"As James tucked into his ruined Spam, we thought a little bit about what we’d actually achieved.

"We’d set out to prove that polar exploration could be easy, but it isn’t. It’s brutal and savage. The fact is though, that two middle-aged men, deeply unfit and mostly drunk, had made it, thanks to the incredible machine that took us there.

"They’d said we’d never get to the (North) Pole because of the damage the car has already done to the ice cap. Perhaps then, that’s what we proved most of all.

"Really, the inconvenient truth is … it doesn’t appear to have even scratched the surface." (end)

All this, and on the BBC, too!

Good old You Tube -- the episode is already online.

Now remember, if you will, that this was not  for the most part driving across land.  These guys were driving across the Arctic Ocean -- the same Arctic Ocean that worry-worts say is thawing "dangerously" -- the World Wildlife Fund, for example, who declared back in April " that Arctic sea ice is melting so fast that it may soon reach a tipping point where irreversible change takes place..."   Well, no, actually. As Christopher Brooker notes in the Telegraph, and this is the reason Clarkson's trip was so (relatively) easy, is this simple fact:

What the WWF omitted to mention was that by March the ice had recovered to 14 million sq km (see the website Cryosphere Today), and that ice-cover around the Bering Strait and Alaska that month was at its highest level ever recorded. (At the same time Antarctic sea ice-cover was also at its highest-ever level, 30 per cent above normal).

There's  an inconvenient truth you can think about over your ruined warmist spam.

UPDATE:  Check out the production notes on the episode here and here,for answers to all those important questions.

Monday, 23 June 2008

Gekko drives by

Aston Martin DB9 Convertible At the end of last week an Aston Martin DB9, a Bentley Continental and a late model Mercedes owned by former Blue Chip magnate Mark Byers were put up for auction. Bryers himself didn't show up to see his cars auctioned off; he was out playing golf. In Scotland.

Corporate trustees joke that "the acquisition of a status symbol like a jet, a Rolls-Royce or Ferrari by a company's top executive is one of the early warning signs of impending insolvency." Big swinging dicks who've built empires based on borrowed money consume other people's capital on toys, hookers and fine living, and then, once the credit on which they've splurged has disappeared, they head off to pastures (and creditors) anew -- leaving behind them a trail of creditors to pick up the pieces that still have to be paid for. Paid for with real money.

Not just the money of hurting creditors -- your money, as we'll see.

Blue Chip's modus operandi was simple, as former Blue Chip flunkie Stewart Goldstone explained in The Herald: "Bryers' answer to keep ahead [of the game] was "to go faster and faster", to sell more while "borrowing from Peter to pay Paul"."

It sounds just like a pyramid scheme, doesn't it -- and it was: A whole pyramid based on lies and phony credit that destroyed the real capital of real people.

200px-1Gordon-gekko Bryers appears to subscribe to the child's view of economics personified by Gordon Gekko in Oliver Stone's ignorant snorefest, Wall Street. Says Gekko in a speech written by an economic illiterate:

"It's not a question of enough, pal. It's a zero sum game, somebody wins, somebody loses. Money itself isn't lost or made, it's simply transferred from one perception to another... We make the rules, pal. The news, war, peace, famine, upheaval, the price of a paper clip. We pick that rabbit out of a hat while everybody sits around wondering how the hell we did it. Now you’re not naïve enough to think that we’re living in a democracy, are you, Buddy? It’s the free market, and you’re part of it."

Actually, that's not the free market at all that Stone is describing, and this isn't the way the free market works. Stone has an excuse for peddling this crap -- he's an ignorant Marxist -- but those who worship Gekko as the personification of capitalism need a lesson:

Gekko is not your God.

Capitalism is not a zero sum game.

At least learn that much. Economics is the science of wealth creation -- do you hear me, of the creation of genuine wealth -- which in its most basic free market form is the production of actual goods that stand in a direct causal relationship to the satisfaction of our needs and wants.

In short, it's wealth creation, not the destruction of other people's capital. It's production, not passing around money from "one perception" -- or one con man -- to another.

And deals aren't a matter or one person stealing from another -- somebody winning and somebody losing. In every deal done without fraud (something the likes of Mark Bryers knows little about), we both receive something we want more in exchange for something we want less. For example, when I buy a bottle of milk for four dollars from my local dairy, it's because I want the bottle of milk more than I want the three dollars, and the shop owner wants the four dollars more than she wants the bottle of milk. We both win, just as we do in every honest deal, which is why rational economists call trades like this the "double thank you moment." The principle is the same whether it's a bottle of milk we're talking about, or a whole shipload of refrigerated dairy products, and it's deals such as this one on which world trade is based.

It's deals such as this that Gekko is not talking about.

Oliver Stone is not talking about a free market -- he's talking about the mixed economy created by the politicians in which there are crevices for cockroaches like Gekko to flourish. As far as Stone is concerned, it's these crevices that define capitalism, but there's no reason to make Stone's vapid view your own. If you're angry at vermin like Mark Byers and Rod Petricevic and their ilk, then get angry where it matters. Get angry that cockroaches like this are only able to exist because we don't have a free market where it really matters: in money. In the words of George Reisman, "Get angry

not at the existence of a market economy and the way the market economy works but at the presence in the market of a vast gang of dishonest bidders and dishonest buyers, a gang that bids and spends dollars created out of thin air in competition with their earned dollars." [Emphasis in the original.]

Despite all the securities law and regulations on financial markets, there's a fraud right at the centre of it all that makes a mockery of all the regulators. These dishonest bidders aren't using earned dollars to blow up their bubbles -- they're overwhelmingly using this credit created out of thin air.

What allows this destruction of your capital and the presence of these dishonest bidders is very simple: there is not a free market in money. In the present setup, governments and their central banks create counterfeit capital that eventually destroys real capital. Various explanations are given for this creation, the most idiotic being the preservation of price stability -- but it's an idiotic claim, since it's the creation of all this bogus credit that creates all the inflation that central banks are supposed to be fighting.

It's important to understand that inflation is not rising prices. It's so important that I'll say it again: inflation is not rising prices. In the normal course of events, prices rise and fall according to supply and demand, and it is important for the smooth functioning of the economy that these price signals are left unmolested.
Rising prices right across the board however are more accurately the symptom of inflation. Inflation itself is the injection of currency or credit into an economy by government, ahead of productivity and production. It is the inflation of the money supply. On the back of this injection of paper into the purchase of production, producers charge higher prices for their products in response to the extra “demand,” other producers raise their prices to compensate, the labour force seeks to do likewise, and the spiral has begun. Those who raise their prices at the beginning of the spiral come out ahead (as do those who get first use of each new tranche of paper), but when the spiral is really underway one raises prices simply to keep up, and those on fixed incomes are left behind.

The direct relevance of that quote to the likes of Mr Petricevic and Mr Byers (and Mr Gekko) is that each new tranche of paper pumped out by the central banks is injected into the economy by the likes of Mr Petricevic and Mr Byers (and Mr Gekko). It's them who gets first use of each tranche of paper, before prices have risen -- going "faster and faster", to sell more and more while "borrowing from Peter to pay Paul".

In fact, it's overwhelmingly their spending of credit created out of thin air that is the direct driver of inflation -- -- and in the case of Mr Byers where it inflates first is in the markets for fast cars and faster women -- and of the destruction of real capital that is the result.

Now I hasten to point out that not everyone who borrows money is a parasite - far from it. And not every corporate raider using borrowed money is dishonest -- most of them take honest advantage of companies that are under-using their assets, and they use these resources in new ways to create new wealth. That's a good thing. No, what I'm talking about is the scum who use the opportunity of all the counterfeit capital washing around to consume the real capital of others in frauds and malinvestments like those of Mr Byers, Mr Petricevic and (in an earlier decade) Mr Hawkins. Scum like these exist in every culture, but in the present mixed economy in which the use of credit created out of thin air is encouraged, the scum rise to the top on a wave of phoney money -- their smoke and mirrors concealed by the fraud at the heart of central banks and their monetary inflation. Their bad money drives out the good, and is eventually paid for out of the genuine savings created by hard work.

If you want to get angry at these dishonest scum, get angry at those who are responsible for the scam: the politicians and the central bankers who've made fraud a central feature of the banking system.

Friday, 9 May 2008

Day Out

Here's a neat website.  If you're heading out and about around New Zealand, then head to DayOut.Co.NZ, type in your location or intended location and the sort of things you'd like to do and BINGO!  It's all laid out there for you.  Brilliant. 

Perfect for those long scenic drives in your classic car.

Thursday, 1 May 2008

Dear Judith

L1050511 Did anyone else hear the vice-minister of transport confess on T.V. last night when questioned about the new 'Parliamentary BMWs': "I don't know anything about cars."

Dear Judith. It's easy to see why she’s got the job she has. [Hat tip Riko]

Monday, 28 April 2008

White elephants on the hoof

With all the investment on public transport in Auckland over recent years -- tens of millions of dollars spent creating 'bus lanes' that throttle Auckland's roadways and slow down traffic; hundreds of millions of dollars on the Britomart Transport Centre for the several dozen people who use it; hundreds of millions of dollars on upgrading rail lines and railway stations for those same several dozen people; $150,000 per car spent on a busway on the North Shore that is mostly empty while neighbouring motorway lanes are clogged -- after all those hundreds and hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars poured down these various black holes of unprofitability, the result has been ... no increase at all  in patronage of public transport*.

You'd think there'd be a lesson there, wouldn't you, one that the "planners" of Auckland's public transport and the "guardians" of taxpayers' money might like to consider?
------------------------------------------------------------------
*Result is from figures discussed this morning on RadioNZ, and here at Liberty Scott's last month.

UPDATE 1: By the way, those without an "ideological commitment to buses" might care to know that buses  need to carry eight passengers to be a better use of road space than a car, and twice as much as that to be more environmentally friendly.  Info here at Liberty Scott's.

UPDATE 2: Looks like the only trains the gummint wants to see running are trains that are gummint-owned and unprofitable.  Story here.  Comment here at, naturally, Liberty Scott's.

Wednesday, 9 April 2008

Why Aucklanders don't use public transport

I had a lunch meeting today; an old friend I hadn't seen for some time had a proposition, something involving talking to her graphics/drawing class about what technical drawing used to be like when it was still called that, and why drawing up houses and presenting them to clients is so much fun.  I look forward to it.

Anyway, the car being in for a clutch makeover, I figured I'd use the bus to get from here to my St Lukes meeting.  I checked the whizzbang Maxx website -- a fun website showing what to use to get from A to B, which even sometimes matches the transport you find in the field -- to find out how to get from here to there using Auckland's celebrated public transport.  You put in your location and your destination and your favoured time of arrival, press several buttons and then watch as it whizzes and whirrs and tells you the quickest way to be whisked across this city by public transport.  I plugged in my info and waited for my answer:  Walk, it said. 

True story.  The favoured method of public transport 4386m across Auckland (yes, the website even knows the distance to the nearest metre) was my own two feet.

You have to laugh.  I did.

Monday, 17 March 2008

Refreshing!

Imag65g5e3 This morning's Auckland Today business magazine has Marc Ellis discussing his business philosophy:

We're about freedom of choice.  We are becoming quite PC as a nation and run the risk of being dumbed down to the lowest common denominator.  This type of society is based on fear.  We are informed as to what is and is not appropriate by the Government and they attempt to ostracise those who run against the tide.I like to make decisions for myself.  I don't like being told that I shouldn't lie in the sun, shouldn't drink more than seven servings, shouldn't drive a car quickly and shouldn't let my kid walk to school for fear of stranger danger.  Life has the risk of becoming dull and boring if you subscribe to every rule being set by the minority and it creates people who cannot think outside the square.  Is that skill not what this country was founded on?

toon2Refreshing, and all too sadly true.  Here's a cartoon:
 

[Hat tip Sus and Whale.  Cartoon is by Body from the Herald]

Tuesday, 26 February 2008

"Global warming is a total crock of shit."

lutz-volt Not my words, but those of an American auto executive who momentarily grew a pair.  Bob Lutz, Vice Chairman of General Motors America, told reporter Glenn Hunter in a "closed door lunch" that hybrid cars like Toyota's Prius “make no economic sense” because their price will never come down," and added, according to Hunter:

Global warming is a “total crock of shit...  I’m a skeptic, not a denier. Having said that, my opinion doesn’t matter. [With GM's new battery-driven Volt hybrid, pictured with Volt, right], “I’m motivated more by the desire to replace imported oil than by the CO2 (argument).”

It took a while, but the brief report of his heresy in an industry magazine soon attracted apoplexy and abuse in equal measure, and as usual industry leaders ran for cover like timid chooks in a storm. And then in the normal course of things, Lutz backed down too.  Well, sort of.  On his GM blog, Lutz told readers to judge GM by its actions -- including the Volt hybrid that will help "lessen, and eventually even eliminate, the environmental impact of the automobile"-- rather than his words.

General Motors [he says] is dedicated to the removal of cars and trucks from the environmental equation, period. And, believe it or don’t: So am I! It’s the right thing to do, for us, for you and, yes, for the planet.

But he was right, wasn't he. It is a total crock of shit. Lutz made that comment at the end of a January that "experienced the sharpest January-to-January global temperature drop - three quarters of a degree Celsius - since records began in 1880."   No wonder it snowed in Jerusalem (twice) and there were blizzards in places like Greece and Crete and Turkey, and heavy snows in China that caused about ten billion pounds worth of damage. 

No wonder even the European Union are quietly climbing off the global warming train and becoming a foot-dragging follower instead of the loud leader it has been, announcing this week it is now "ready to exempt" Europe's steel, chemical and power industries from the European carbon-trading regime.

No wonder, since as climate scientist Richard Lindzen explains in a recent Op-Ed, "there is no case for climate alarmism" -- and it this rapidly collapsing case that is paradoxically causing "the astounding upsurge in alarmism of the past two years."

The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations.

Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the Goebbelian substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after twenty years of media drum beating, many others as well.

Given that the evidence ... strongly suggests that anthropogenic warming has been greatly exaggerated, the basis for alarm due to such warming is similarly diminished...  [O]ne may reasonably ask why there is the current alarm, and, in particular, why the astounding upsurge in alarmism of the past two years. When an issue like global warming is around for over twenty years, numerous agendas are developed to exploit the issue....

[Given all the vested issues at stake], one can readily suspect that there might be a sense of urgency provoked by the possibility that warming may have ceased. For those committed to the more venal agendas, the need to act soon, before the public appreciates the situation, is real indeed.

teirneygraphicnew533 UPDATE 1: How do the IPCC's predictions for temperatures in the years 2000 to 2007 look against the reality?  Well, as Roger Pielke Jr. says, any way you want them to look really.

Pielke's describes his graph at right showing the IPCC's predictions (in brown) against a range of temperature records as "a feast for cherrypickers."

In the Prometheus blog, where you can read the details of his computations, he writes: “One can arrive at whatever conclusion one wants with respect to the IPCC predictions. Want the temperature record to be consistent with IPCC? OK, then you like NASA. How about inconsistent? Well, then you are a fan of RSS. On the fence? Well, UAH and UKMET serve that purpose pretty well.”

Pielke's graph fits nicely with a graph that appeared in the IPCC's fourth and latest report measuring the record of predictions that appeared in the three previous reports against their own chosen temperature record for the periods of those predictions.  Even with the luxury of choosing their own record and drawing their own trend line, their predictions look about as useful as Britney Spears's childcare advice.

"The science is settled"?  Who are you kidding.  Given the disparity between predictions and records -- and even between records -- then as Piekle suggests, it's barely even possible to see what actual measurable predictions climate scientists are even making.

Absent an ability to rigorously evaluate forecasts, in the presence of multiple valid approaches to observational data we run the risk of engaging in all sorts of cognitive traps -- such as availability bias and confirmation bias. So here is a plea to the climate community: when you say that you are predicting something like global temperature or sea ice extent or hurricanes -- tell us is specific detail what those variables are, who is measuring them, and where to look in the future to verify the predictions. If weather forecasters, stock brokers, and gamblers can do it, then you can too.

UPDATE 2Tim Blair checks out some more unsettling "science is settled" revelations from a few years back:

Remember the “secret Pentagon report” on global warming from a few years back? The secret report that wasn’t secret? Here’s one of the report’s predictions, as understood by Britain’s Observer newspaper:

        As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.

That was written four years ago - before the Great Upheaval of ’05. Caused by the rising.

Monday, 11 February 2008

A sea of classic cars

                                    MG-Show

I had a great weekend, I really did, and thanks very much for asking.  Friday we barbecued, Saturday we plotted, and Sunday I had a fantastic time at the Ellerslie Classic Car show.

The day at the car show started far too early (dropping off my car at 7am with matchsticks under my eyelids), and ended in style later in the afternoon driving home in the clouds of delightfully scented exhaust smoke belched out behind this classic 1932 MG 'M' Type 'whale-tail' Midget -- the first true MG Midget, and the first of a long line of MG sports cars!

MG-J2Midget_in_TrafficMG-J2Midget 

The J2's owner epitomises the day.  Here were people delighting in the technology of pleasure and the sea of beautiful cars designed with fun in mind, and pictured here are some of my own favourite machines on display.

Ferrari212Ferraris and more Ferrari 212 amid a small sea of lesser Ferraris.

AC CobraAston Martin and AC Cobra.AstonDB5 

Formula Fiat FiatSpider Colin Waite's Formula 1 Fiat, and a Fiat Spider like the one I once owned (in every way, that is, but for colour and condition).

AlfaTwo beautiful Alfa Spiders. Alfa-Red

Here Moggy A Healey or Two A small wave of Morgans and a tidal flow of 'Big Healeys.'

Lotus EliteA Lotus Elite ... and a Mercedes Sport waiting for its rebirth. MercedesSportOneDay

A Carman's KarmannSting in a Karmann's tail A Karmann Ghia with the '1500' badge on the boot, but the full-throated sting of a Chevrolet Corvair in the tail...

J2 Porsche Speedster, MGA and another J2.Porsche Speedster MGA and driverr

A sea of MGs in front of the main stand, including amongst them my own 1967 Midget, and dozens of MGBs, MGAs, Ts, and pre-1956 lovelies.  Just beautiful.

T_and_AMG's_a_crowd As_and_Ys_and Midgets As

Monday, 4 February 2008

$150,000 per car!

12_bus_180 After four years of delaying traffic the North Shore busway gets its first proper use today. With its opening the government has spent nearly $300 million of your money in order to get 2000 cars off the Northern motorway every day. That's $210 million, plus the cost of bus stations and buses.  That's $150,000 per car!

Couldn't they have invested our money in a few private taxis instead?  Or a viable second crossing?

That's $300 million to keep an empty lane open next to the Northern motorway's clogged lanes just so that (as Liberty Scott says) a near-empty bus can whiz by every three minutes. At that price, the bloody thing deserves to be better used.  It won't be -- not unless, as Scott suggests, it becomes a tollway.

As a tollway, it could charge vehicles a premium to bypass congestion, like the 91 express lanes in California. The tolls would be high, and vary according to demand, and would ensure free flow conditions remain. However, the tolls could ultimately pay for the road (except that past road users have already paid for it). An even better option would be to sell it, let bus companies pay for the right to use it, along with other road users. People could hardly moan about there not being an alternative, the government owned "free" motorway beside it would remain available.

He has another even more radical solution for North Shore's drivers to consider: see 'Auckland's Northern Busway Opens, But...' - LIBERTY SCOTT.

Sunday, 9 December 2007

MG day out

MGA MGA MBGRV8

MGTDWent out before brunch this morning along the waterfront to an MG Car Club concourse at St Heliers.  Great to see so many fine machines  on display still giving so much driving pleasure. 

Especially great to see them before the weather packed in.

Here's the beautifully presented MG TD on the left that won the overall concours prize, with some modern thing next to it ( I'm told it's an MGF).  And down to the right there is a  MGAsuperb 1958 MGA Twin Cam -- a rare and special beast that still gets around the country -- that won the 'Show and Shine' prize.  My own Midget is there behind it on the right .  And at the top there are two more beautifully presented MGAs, with an MGRV8 next door, and  a Magnette saloon behind.

A fine sight on a not so fine Sunday morning.

Tuesday, 18 September 2007

Nanny can't drive

Oswald and Lindsay Mitchell together bust the rapidly developing myth that teenagers' driving is out of control, is getting worse, and urgently requires restrictions.

Trouble is, while there's been an increase in headlines that suggest teenagers' driving is getting progressively worse, and there's been a concomitant increase in hysteria over teenagers' driving, the statistics show a completely different story about teenage driving itself. As Lindsay points out, if safe driving is your criteria then the statistics on young drivers are actually getting better, not worse.
The performance of 15-19 year-old drivers has improved significantly. Twenty years ago they accounted for 16.9 percent of accidents involving fatalities. Last year they made up 11.7 percent. An even bigger drop applies to 20-24 year-olds from 22.2 to 11.9% percent. Perhaps some attention should be paid to older age groups.
So despite the headlines, the driving of teenagers is actually getting better -- a disturbing sign for those who look for a bit of spirit in the next generation.

However, if it's bad driving you want, then Oswald points out where attention should really be paid: to the group making the most noise about imposing restrictions on other people's driving. That's right, it turns out that as a group the country's worst drivers are those driving politicians' self drive cars. And the biggest irony? Annette King, leading the charge against bad young drivers today is also responsible for "the most serious smash" in this 2001 report:
her car was in a head-on accident in December 2000 and was written off. The driver of the other car was in intensive care for six days.
So perhaps the minister should be looking closer to both home and House before casting stones further afield at young drivers who (unlike King's family and parliamentary colleagues) are becoming increasingly responsible.

Friday, 14 September 2007

Under-regulation on naked streets

Speaking of rolling back the state -- or at least, beginning the process of getting nanny state off your back and out of your face -- submissions are now being heard on Rodney Hide's Regulatory Responsibility Bill, which surprisingly has the support of the two major parties. So far.

Making her own submission on the Bill, Lindsay Mitchell has a good analogy on what the Dutch call “Naked streets":
In a nutshell the naked streets policy, originated in the Netherlands but adopted in some parts of Britain, involves removing road-markings, street signs, traffic signals etc. Counter-intuitively this has reduced speeds and accidents. Why? Simply because people become more careful and cautious when they aren’t being told what to do.

The ‘naked streets’ policy is a great analogy for remedying over–regulation in all sorts of areas.
It rather reminds me of a story used by the head of (I think) Chrysler to demonstrate the counter-intuitiveness of safety regulation.

Which car would be driven in the safest, most cautious manner, he asked: Car A which has air bags, ABS brakes, ride control, a roll cage, a crumple zone and every other safety feature known to man to ensure driver and passengers can pass through everything short of the second coming without harm? Or Car B, which has drum brakes, poor suspension and a steel spike directed at the driver's forehead?

Do you get the point?

Tuesday, 7 August 2007

"Walking does more than driving to cause global warming..."

Another paean today to the Law of Unintended Consequences, or as I've said it before: It Ain't Easy Being Green. The gentleman saying it here today is Dominic Kennedy who noted in last week's Times that "Walking does more than driving to cause global warming, a leading environmentalist has calculated." How 'bout that! Here's the argument behind the calculation:
Food production is now so energy-intensive that more carbon is emitted providing a person with enough calories to walk to the shops than a car would emit over the same distance. The climate could benefit if people avoided exercise, ate less and became couch potatoes. Provided, of course, they remembered to switch off the TV rather than leaving it on standby.

The sums were done by Chris Goodall, campaigning author of How to Live a Low-Carbon Life, [described by New Scientist as "the definitive guide to reducing your carbon footprint"] based on the greenhouse gases created by intensive beef production. "Driving a typical UK car for 3 miles adds about 0.9 kg of CO2 to the atmosphere," he said, a calculation based on the Government's official fuel emission figures. "If you walked instead, it would use about 180 calories. You'd need about 100g of beef to replace those calories, resulting in 3.6kg of emissions, or four times as much as driving.

"The troubling fact is that taking a lot of exercise and then eating a bit more food is not good for the global atmosphere. Eating less and driving to save energy would be better."

Mr Goodall, Green Party parliamentary candidate for Oxford West & Abingdon, is the latest serious thinker to turn popular myths about the environment on their head.

Catching a diesel train is now twice as polluting as travelling by car for an average family, the Rail Safety and Standards Board admitted recently. Paper bags are worse for the environment than plastic because of the extra energy needed to manufacture and transport them, the Government says.

Fresh research published in New Scientist last month suggested that 1kg of meat cost the Earth 36kg in global warming gases. The figure was based on Japanese methods of industrial beef
production but Mr Goodall says that farming techniques are similar throughout the West [although obviously not all the west].

What if, instead of beef, the walker drank a glass of milk? The average person would need to drink 420ml - three quarters of a pint - to recover the calories used in the walk. Modern dairy
farming emits the equivalent of 1.2kg of CO2 to produce the milk, still more pollution than the car journey.

Cattle farming is notorious for its perceived damage to the environment, based on what scientists politely call "methane production" from cows. The gas, released during the digestive
process, is 21 times more harmful than CO2 . Organic beef is the most damaging because organic cattle emit more methane.

Michael O'Leary, boss of the budget airline Ryanair, has been widely derided after he was reported to have said that global warming could be solved by massacring the world's cattle. "The
way he is running around telling people they should shoot cows," Lawrence Hunt, head of Silverjet, another budget airline, told the Commons Environmental Audit Committee. "I do not think you can really have debates with somebody with that mentality."

But according to Mr Goodall, Mr O'Leary may have a point. "Food is more important [to Britain's greenhouse emissions] than aircraft but there is no publicity," he said. "Associated British Foods isn't being questioned by MPs about energy.

"We need to become accustomed to the idea that our food production systems are equally damaging. As the man from Ryanair says, cows generate more emissions than aircraft. Unfortunately, perhaps, he is right. Of course, this doesn't mean we should always choose to use air or car travel instead of walking. It means we need urgently to work out how to reduce the greenhouse gas intensity of our foodstuffs."

Simply cutting out beef, or even meat, however, would be too modest a change. The food industry is estimated to be responsible for a sixth of an individual's carbon emissions, and Britain may be the worst culprit.
Interesting stuff, no? Kennedy finishes up with a grab bag of eco-myths that he takes to with relish:
  • Traditional nappies are as bad as disposables, a study by the Environment Agency found. While throwaway nappies make up 0.1 per cent of landfill waste, the cloth variety are a waste of energy, clean water and detergent.
  • Paper bags cause more global warming than plastic. They need much more space to store so require extra energy to transport them from manufacturers to shops.
  • Diesel trains in rural Britain are more polluting than 4x4 vehicles. Douglas Alexander, when Transport Secretary, said: “If ten or fewer people travel in a Sprinter [train], it would be less environmentally damaging to give them each a Land Rover Freelander and tell them to drive.”
  • Burning wood for fuel is better for the environment than recycling it, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs discovered.
  • Organic dairy cows are worse for the climate. They produce less milk so their methane emissions per litre are higher.
  • Someone who installs a “green” lightbulb undoes a year’s worth of energy-saving by buying two bags of imported veg, as so much carbon is wasted flying the food to Britain.
  • Trees, regarded as shields against global warming because they absorb carbon, were found by German scientists to be major producers of methane, a much more harmful greenhouse gas.
The moral of the story? It's not easy appeasing Gaia. Or trying to.

Thursday, 5 July 2007

The Prius: Unsafe at 100mph

This is what Al Gore's son looks like.It's a mug shot. He was arrested driving his "environmentally sound" Toyota Prius at the environmentally unsafe speed of 100mph, requiring several severely environmentally unsafe gas guzzling police patrol cars to haul him over and arrest him for bad driving, possession of several varieties of recreational pharmaceuticals and the crime of being as stupid as his father.

UPDATE: Tim Blair suggests carbon-rich Live Earth is dying on the vine, with either problems or no shows in Turkey, Johannesburg, Rio, Hamburg and New Jersey. And Big Al has just arrived in England for their Earth bash, burning carbon all the way and setting off summer hailstorms across England. The Gore Effect is still at work.

Tuesday, 12 June 2007

Nanny State Has Gone Berserk!

Nanny State Has Gone Berserk!
Nanny tells us . . .


We may not discipline our children
We may not let them eat tasty food
We must pay for hysterical advertising that treats adults like children
We must not watch advertising that treats us like adults
We may not drive fast cars in industrial areas at night
We may not climb tall ladders
We may not act in ways that Nanny deems "anti-social"
We may not buy vitamins and minerals without a prescription from Nanny
We may not drink alcohol in public places
We may not smoke cigarettes at work or in the pub
We may not smoke marijuana anywhere
We may not ride a bicycle without a helmet
We may not walk a poodle without a muzzle
We may not buy fireworks that go ‘Bang!’
We may not put up bright billboards or sandwich boards around our cities
We may not cut down trees on our own property
We may not repair our own property if Nanny says we can't
We may not plant trees on our own property without Nanny’s approval of the type of tree
We may not paint our houses in colours of which Nanny disapproves
We may not build houses at all where Nanny says we can’t
We may not advertise for young female employees
We may not open for business on days Nanny specifies
If we do open for business, we must act as Nanny's unpaid tax collectors
We may not fire staff who steal from us
We may not fire staff, whatever their employment contract says
We must surrender our children to Nanny’s factory schools
We must pay for teachers that can’t teach and for centres of education that aren’t
We must believe that Alan Bollard knows what he’s doing
We must believe that our money is not our own
We must not call bureaucrats “arseholes”
We must not offend people paid to boss us around with our money
We must answer stupid questions when Nanny asks us
We may not spend our own money in ways of which Nanny disapproves
We may not defend ourselves against people who try to kill us
We must pretend that snails are more important than we are
We must pretend that murderers are people too
We must pretend that totalitarian Islamists do not want us dead, that Castro’s hospitals are not abattoirs, and that Che Guevara was a humanitarian
We must apologise to tribalists for things we didn’t do
We must not offend criminals for things they did do
We must apologise to conservationists for things we need to do
We must apologise for success
We must ignore failure
We may not build new power stations that actually produce real power
We must not offend Gaia by driving big cars and enjoying overseas holidays … unless we’re a cabinet minister
We may not end our own lives when we choose
We must pay for art we don’t like and TV shows we don’t watch
We must pay middle class families to become welfare beneficiaries
We must pay no-hopers to breed

Are we all going mad … ?
Time to throw Nanny from the train.
Tell Nanny to “Go to hell!”
And start living like a goddamned adult!