Jim Kenzie's The Driver's Seat

Let It Snow, redux

Second big snowstorm in two weeks here in The Big Smoke.

Did we collectively learn anything from the first one?

Apparently not.

Good job it happened on a Saturday and not a work day.

Driving home from the Auto Show this afternoon/evening - yes, it took that long - the Gardiner was closed completely, and the 401 was 20 km/h from Yonge right through to Highway 10.

I only actually saw one collision on the westbound 401, near the on-going construction between 427 and Dixie. It appeared to already be moved off onto the left shoulder of the Collectors (I was in the Express).

It didn't look too bad, maybe two cars by the time I got there, with tow trucks and at least one fire engine already on the scene.

But that didn't seem to be what was slowing people down.

We just can't drive in snow.

You can tell the people who have proper winter tires.

Not only because they usually have them mounted on black steel rims so as to protect their nice shiny alloys from the rigours of winter driving.

But because they can keep moving.

Yes, there were still a few people without their proper headlights on.

But the one thing I noticed moreso than ever today, and of course it hearkens back to my longest-standing pet peeve - people driving slowly in the left lane.

Folks, it's the old heat-kitchen thing - if you can't handle the pace, get the hell out of the way, and let those of us who have proper tires (and know how to drive) get home in time for dinner...

 

Still Think You Don't Need Winter Tires?

Judging from the chaos on the roads today, a lot of people still don't.

I was in a big four-wheel drive SUV which only had no-season tires on it (a sharply-worded e-mail is in the works...) and even that got stuck a couple of times.

I know there's no point in whining to you people (my audience) about all the stupid drivers out there - you know this, and (I hope...) you aren't among them.

But so many people spinning out, everywhere!

I heard from one reader that several ramps off the 407 were blocked this morning because drivers who were presumably still doing the usual buck-forty on that road despite the obviously limited traction and visibility found out when they hit the off-ramp that - hmm-mm, my brakes and steering don't seem to be working as well this morning...

No s__t, Sherlock.

On Highway 25 heading up the Escarpment towards my house this 'prevening', to use Big Bang Theory's Sheldon Cooper's term, there are two lanes northbound, to accommodate the big trucks climbing the hill. But the Jim-Only lane was not being travelled in, hence was still snow-covered, so only the left lane was clear enough for traffic.

That didn't stop several cars - a red four-door Jeep Wrangler, a black Ram pick-up and a black Infiniti EX Crossover among those I personally witnessed - from diving out into the on-coming downhill lane to pass me and several other vehicles, including an eighteen-wheeler which was struggling to, literally, make the grade.

Yeah yeah, brave guys - we all got four-wheel drive too. Remember; mostly what that does is let you have your crash at a higher speed.

Seriously; what is SO important that you have to save four seconds getting home? At the risk of a very serious head-on crash? For which you would be 100 percent at fault?

The best us sane people can do is to back off, and let them go have their crash with somebody else.

Or a guard rail.

Oh yes, one more thing, one more time - just because your dash lights are on doesn't mean your taillights are on. With most Daytime Running Lights systems, they aren't.

So nobody coming from behind can see you. Particularly critical in inclement weather like today's.

Not sure about your car? How about doing a walk-around before leaving home tomorrow morning and find out?

Better still, just develop the proper habit - fire up your car, then fire up your full headlights.

All the lights on, all the time.

Simple.

Safe.

No-brainer...

 

Craziness in the Inner City

Had occasion to drive in downtown Big Smoke yesterday, in the afternoon rush hour.

Yikes.

Do half the smokers left in this city work at King and Bay? Must be the stress of working there.

Or maybe driving there.

Among the many egregious bits of driving I witnessed was when I was westbound on King Street, in a line of maybe five or six cars all of which were preparing to turn right on York Street.

The light was red, so we had to wait for northbound traffic to clear.

Except for someone in a black Lexus RX350 whose timetable was obviously so much more important than anyone else's.

So from the left lane on King, (s)he ran the red light, turned right cutting in front of all us other patiently-waiting cars, and rocketed up York.

Geez - where are the cops when you need them?

Probably out writing speeding tickets in front of a cemetary somewhere.

If ever there was a case for red light cameras, this was it.

Driving in Fog is not like Operating in The Cloud

It was foggy, wet and miserable in the GTA this past Monday.

(I actually wrote this then, but never got around to posting it...)

And - an old beef, I know - about 90 percent of the cars on the road did not have their lights on, just their Daytime Running Lights.

Which meant of course that especially on the highway, you couldn't see them until you were right on top of them.

I really wish I could pull people over and ask them, "Did you notice that the car ahead of you just now did not have any taillights on? That you could barely see it in the haze and the road spray? Doesn't it make you even the slightest bit curious whether other drivers are saying the same about your car?" 

I mean, what were these people thinking about as they drove through this mess?

Or are they in a fog in the metaphoric sense too?

Some of you folks out there are much savvier about this whole InterWeb FaceTube thing than I am.

Somehow, that set of media has managed to make cats and hamburgers world-wide phenomena.

Geez; it has made Justin Bieber the world's Number One Twit.

Isn't there some way we can use modern information technology to get the message across:

TURN ON YOUR FRIGGIN' LIGHTS!

OK, so maybe turning on your lights isn't 'cool', hence isn't worthy of attention by this cohort of our population.

But I don't know that there's anything all that cool about standing at the side of the highway exchanging insurance information with the guy who just rammed into the back of your car.

Or, waiting for an ambulance.

I must say, it was considerably better in the evening Monday. Maybe people understood that after 5 p.m., it is supposed to be 'dark', and lights might be a good idea.

But there are always a few. Just last evening, 7:15 p.m., 401 eastbound at the airport, a guy in a newish Subaru Legacy (I think; obviously, it was hard to see...) was cruising along, nearly invisible from behind. As I drove up to then past him, I flicked my lights off and on (in the new Range Rover, you can actually do that; you can't in most new cars) and tooted my horn to try and indicate that he had a problem.

I could see his dash lights were on which, as I have noted several times, should not be allowed when DRL is active by Transport Canada regulation because of exactly this reason - it fools you into thinking your real lights ARE on.

He pulled on his turn signal lever to flash his high beams at me. Not sure what he thought he was trying to communicate to me.

But he never turned on his real lights.

Since Transport Canada doesn't seem to think this is an issue, and I've received lots of feedback from you to indicate that I'm not alone in thinking this IS an issue, I am appealing for help.

I assume you all know how to fix this for ourselves - always run with full lights on, all the time.

You do, don't you?

I do. Always have, since I first started to drive.

It's the only sensible thing to do

But how do we fix this for the Great Unwashed out there?

Sometimes, you just wanna kiss a cop right on the lips...

OK, so not often - unless she's like the Oklahoma State Trooper I 'met' during my search for this video...

But I digress...

The original version of this clip was accompanied by a voice-over of the young male driver whose female passenger actually shot it. The commentary, shall we say, was not fit for a family blog.

I can barely access YouTube, let alone edit the sound on a video clip. Someone with way more skills in this field than I possess has done that job for me, adding what I think is the theme song from 'Jaws'.

The hand-held, presumably cameraphone video is also very jumpy in places. Hang in there; it's worth it.

I am not able to identify which state the state trooper is from.

So (s)he is safe from my osculatory intentions.

All I know is that THIS is what traffic patrol officers in every jurisdiction in the world should be doing way more of.

Check it out here.

 

Road Signs for my Present, Your Future

I don't wear these Coke-bottle-bottom lenses on my face for decoration.

Sure, my 'corrected' eyesight is easily good enough for a Driver's Licence.

Even for a Racing Licence.

But do I see as well as I'd like to be able to see?

No.

I'd love to be able to read a newspaper from across the room, as someone once (I think incorrectly) said English racing great Stirling Moss could do.

And I'm too chicken, too astigmatic (and too cheap) for LASER treatment.

I'm obviously not alone here either. As our population ages (beating the only available alternative), our vision is collectively going to get worse before it gets better.

Which makes me wonder why municipalities don't make it easier for drivers to find out where they are going.

One thing they could do is be a whole lot smarter about where they position road- and street-naming signs.

Let's say, for example, you're headed south on Erin Mills Parkway in Mississauga. You see a major intersection way up ahead.

Is that Eglinton Avenue?

Can YOU tell from this photo?

If you can then YOU'RE Stirling Moss - fifty years ago.

Because the sign indicating it IS Eglinton Avenue is located only on the far side of the intersection itself.

By the time you get close enough to realise this, and if you want to turn left, then (assuming of course you're in the right lane where logic, courtesy and the law require you to be) you've got three lanes plus (in this case) two left-turn lanes to negotiate, all in about a hundred meters of 60 km/h road.

Not good.

Why isn't there a sign a few hundred metres back up the road, indicating that this up-coming intersection is in fact Eglinton? You'd have plenty of time to react.

Not everybody can afford a car with SatNav, with Doris of the Dashboard telling you where you are at every moment.

Sure, you'd still want the sign at the intersection itself.

But more advance warning?

It would make a huge difference.

I'm not picking on Mississauga here. Every municipality in the GTA - frankly, almost everywhere in the world - is guilty of this to some degree.

What makes it particularly frustrating is that not half a klick away, just around that left-hand turn, they have done exactly that. If you're headed west on Eglinton approaching Credit Valley Road, here's what you see:

Could hardly be clearer.

Well, they could put a sign on a pole in the centre median too, as they do in some instances.

Here, they've even put the house number range on the sign, so if you know the exact address you're looking for, you know which way you have to turn.

It is clear then that somebody within the Mississauga transportation department (road sign division...) knows how this is supposed to be done.

My question: why aren't they consistently doing it correctly?

Of course, if they'd just eliminate these stupid, sprawling, horribly dangerous, traffic-light-controlled multi-lane intersections altogether and replace them with roundabouts, the problem (and dozens of others) would cease to exist.

But no municipality within the GTA is smart enough to figure that out; I admit, I'm aiming low here, hoping that a few more properly-positioned road signs can at least alleviate the danger.

It would be a start.

 

Even Rick Mercer is After My Job

Motoring TV has been on TSN for 25 years.

For 24 of those, I've been doing Kenzie's Korner, beefing about something or other.

Did we steal the idea from Don Cherry?

Hm-mm - no comment.

Did we steal the 'walking rant' concept from Rick Mercer, initially with This Hour, and now his own Rick Mercer Report?

I dunno - how long has he been doing that? I'm too tired to do the math.

Let's just say that all three of us have fun doing what we do.

Now, since I got my PVR, two things - I never see TV ads any more, or the boring parts of sports events (I've got the quickest fast-forward digit in town - I can watch a baseball game in 20 minutes); and, I can catch up on older stuff I haven't seen.

So while some of you may have seen this particular Rick Mercer Rant when it first appeared back in 2008 (or caught it on one of many car fori on this InterTube thingee where it has been posted) it was new to me when I stumbled across it recently. Maybe it'll be new to you too.

We'll forgive him for calling them 'snow tires' - they're 'winter tires' because they work better in winter even when there is no snow.

But the rest of it?

Spot on.

Check it out here.

 

Another MASSIVE Failure of Democracy

I've been involved in the Automobile Journalists Association of Canada (AJAC) Car of the Year evaluation process from the very beginning.

And while I haven't always - often haven't, in fact - agreed with all of the selections, I still believed it was the most thorough, most objective process of any such program anywhere in the world.

But today, I am really shaking my head.

The finalists for the Canadian Car of the Year were announced this morning at the Montreal Auto Show.

They are:

Honda Accord

Hyundai Elantra GT

Porsche Boxster

Worthy cars all.

But where is the Cadillac ATS?

This is the obvious overall Car of the Year, and has already been chosen (and in some cases announced) as such by several other competitions, some of which have some significance (the North American Car of the Year; others to come), others which don't (I won't dignify them with a mention).

But even the latter have got it right.

We have got it horribly wrong.

I'm not completely alone here; even some of GM's competitors expressed surprise that the ATS didn't make the Top Three.

The way it works in the AJAC competition is that to be eligible for the Overall title, a car has to win its category at the AJAC Test Fest, which took place last October. The ATS did (beating among others the BMW 3 Series, the perennial benchmark in the global sport sedan segment). Of course, Accord, Elantra GT and Boxster won their respective categories too.

Then the voting AJAC members cast another ballot ranking the category winners. It is weighted thus: Merit (40%); Value (20%); Environment (10%), Safety (10%); Market Significance (10%); Emotional Appeal (10%).

Given that all the cars have 'merit' - they wouldn't have got this far if they didn't - it's hard to see how there could have been much of a swing there.

Likewise value. Now, the Accord and Hyundai obviously cost less than the Cadillac, but the Boxster costs more - a lot more. And has two seats versus four or five, etc.

Environment? As I have said many times before, the modern automobile simply isn't an issue when it comes to the environment. But even so, there can't be that much difference among these cars on this count either.

Likewise safety. All cars must pass the same crash tests, and the Cadillac offers some unique and significant safety advances the other don't, such as the ''crash warning seat" (which as a member of the AJAC Best New Technology panel, I figured would be the overall winner but my colleagues on this panel didn't even vote for it to make the Top Ten cut...).

So, how could there have been much of a swing on safety?

The remaining two categories are where I figured the Caddy would have a strong showing.

Accord has 'market significance' because it sells in big numbers, in a big segment.

But a 'Car of the Year' should not be chosen based solely on sales. That'd be like the Oscar going to Texas Chain Saw Massacre XVII simply because it sold the most tickets.

A Car of the Year should somehow 'move the marketing goalposts', make some sort of a statement. And for a domestic manufacturer to take on the best of the foreign competition in the compact sports sedan segment and do so well (cf beating BMW 3 Series in the AJAC event), surely that is an amazing feat.

The Boxster was already among the top sports cars in its class, and sells in pretty small numbers overall. So how could it have scored that well here?

The Elantra? A hatchback version of the car that won last year's overall title?

Hardly significant at all.

True, the Boxster would score highly in Emotional Appeal. But so should have the Cadillac.

Accord and Elantra? Emotional Appeal?

Come on.

So it is a complete mystery.

And so I guess it shall remain because the ballots and vote tallies are kept secret.

Maybe that's how it should be, to save some of the individual electors from even greater embarrassment.

BTW, the finalists for Utility Vehicle of the Year are Ford Escape and Hyundai Santa Fe. No arguments from me there.

 

Bill Blair, Photo Radar, and Cash

[NOTE: This started off as a little blog posting. It evolved into something rather longer. Sorry 'bout that...]

Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair says photo radar should once again be up for consideration because, as his spokesperson Mark Pugash said, "...police officers are a very expensive resource to use for something which technology can do, and much more economically.”

Mr. Pugash added that the force isn’t looking to increase revenue.

No, of course not.

Regular readers would not expect this to go without comment from my own self, especially if they know that former Ontario premier Mike Harris - the guy who killed photo radar in 1995 - personally gave ME credit for getting him elected on this very issue, because I had brought the manifold flaws in this program to light through my stories in Wheels.

(Geez Mike; don't blame ME for getting you elected. My teacher friends have never forgiven me. They might not have known when they had it so good. But I digress...)

The reason I was opposed to photo radar then, as I am opposed to it now, is quite simple: it doesn't work.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Messrs Blair and Pugash, but the point is supposed to be to make our roads safer, yes?

Nothing to do with revenue, as Mr. Pugash confirms.

And the statistical evidence to back up this claim?

ZERO.

How is that possible? 'Everybody' knows that if we drove slower, we would kill fewer people.

Turns out, just as 'everybody' knows by merely looking out their window that the world is flat, 'everybody' is wrong on this score too.

Our fastest roads - our divided highways - are, by any statistical measure, our safest roads, because of superior design and engineering.

There is ZERO statistical evidence that any amount of speed limit enforcement we can even begin to afford will have any measurable effect on the speed we actually drive. If it did, why would they have to keep doing it?

And even if we DID drive slower, there is also ZERO statistical evidence that it would positively affect collision frequency or severity.

Sure, speed can be a contributing factor to the severity of a given crash - I'm not arguing the laws of physics here.

But according to police 'accident' reports, speed is way WAY down on the list of driver actions that lead to collisions.

And never mind that over fifty percent of the photos taken by this technological solution during the former photo radar 'experiment' never resulted in a charge being laid; according to data collected and provided to me by various detachments of the Ontario Provincial Police, in areas where photo radar was most often implemented, traffic deaths actually increased during this time frame, and by substantial measure.

I am not saying - I have never said - that photo radar caused these increases, or even contributed to them.

It is simply yet another piece of evidence that speed limit enforcement:

Simply,

Does,

Not,

Matter.

Now, we know that our federal government ministers are proud that they don't let facts get in the way of their decisions.

Are our provincial and municipal governments falling into that same abyss?

In a vastly previous lifetime, I worked for Procter and Gamble, at the time (possibly even now) one of the best-managed, most profitable companies in the world.

It had a cost reduction program called 'Methods', which encouraged every single employee to examine every single procedure he/she performed, and ask, "If it were not for what 'Basic Cause' could this cost be eliminated?"

In other words, don't start by looking for ways to do things cheaper; start by looking to see if you need to do this thing at all.

Pure common sense, isn't it?

But the one thing we know about common sense is that it isn't very common.

Especially amongst politicians.

So, maybe the way for Bill Blair to save some money on his budget is to tell his officers to stop speed limit enforcement altogether.

It costs huge amounts of money.

We know that.

We know (or are at least told) that the fines accumulated (by the provincial government, as must be repeated, NOT by the Toronto police department) do not begin to cover the expense.

And it is spectacularly ineffective in achieving its stated objective.

If that isn't a cost crying out for elimination, what is?

We also know from various experiments in Holland and elsewhere that eliminating ALL urban traffic controls - lane markings, stop lights, stop signs, pedestrian crossings, everything - can curb the number of collisions, injuries, and deaths.

Cost ELIMINATION, not cost REDUCTION.

And better results.

Who could possibly argue against that?

Assign those existing expensive officers to tasks that actually can make our roads safer, such as moving patrol cars with videotape cameras to catch unsafe driving actions in court-acceptable form, to get lousy and unsafe drivers off the road.

If you still want a technological solution, take the money saved and put it into technology which can return additional benefits.

I'm even all for red-light cameras, because they DO indisputably catch people doing what is among the most dangerous acts possible in an urban traffic environment.

Better still, (again, indisputably) build more roundabouts, which - like divided highways - reduce the possibility of serious collisions due to their superior design and engineering.

And of course, roundabouts do not need red-light cameras.

Yes folks, it really IS that simple.

The people in charge just have to realize that this particular Emperor is not wearing any clothes.

 

Life Lessons Learned

I attended the funeral of the mother of a childhood friend today, at the Morley Bedford Funeral Home on Eglinton Avenue, just west of Yonge.

As I pulled in to the driveway, the attendant asked if I could back into my parking space, as it made it much easier to get out afterwards.

As it always does, of course, which is why I always do. But especially I imagine in the tight confines of this small lot.

Safer to enter the space too, because you drive past the spot before you enter it to ensure there's no danger lurking there.

Great to know they are educating their guests on this oh-so-obvious, oh-so-simple, oh-so-without-cost-or-any-other-downside safe driving technique.

The only sad part is that they HAVE to educate people about it. Surely everyone knows by now that this is the only logical way to park?

Unless of course you have a 'pull-through' space as you often have in larger lots; I still see people all the time pull half-way into a pull-through, leaving themselves the need to back out again if the empty space in front of them is filled by the time they get back.

What are they thinking?

I guess it is clear - they AREN'T thinking...

Is it any wonder they keep running into each other?