Hmmm. Got the weight wrong by 100 tonnes. That’s a large error. Trying to save fuel they set thrust at just enough for ambient conditions and runway length… or so they thought. I can understand how this happened.. it’s easy enough to do some calculations and punch the worgn, umm, wrong keys in the wrong order… but why don’t sophisticated airliners actually weigh themselves? They could (easily, I would have thought, with some sensors in the hydraulics) measure weight and the balance of that weight fore and aft on the undercarriage, before committing to a thrust value. In fact I thought they did do that?
The wrong calculation was made when pre-take-off calculations were made prior to departure, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau reported. It was found that the calculations were based on a take-off weight that was 100 tonnes below the actual take-off weight of the aircraft. The result was a thrust setting and take-off reference speeds that were lower than those required for the aircraft’s actual weight.
There have been many, many incidents like this where the results were more drastic, including navigational blunders blamed on similar human error. So why isn’t it automated, with a human over-ride?
Hmmm. Got the weight wrong by 100 tonnes. That’s a large error. Trying to save fuel they set thrust at just enough for ambient conditions and runway length… or so they thought. I can understand how this happened.. it’s easy enough to do some calculations and punch the worgn, umm, wrong keys in the wrong order… but why don’t sophisticated airliners actually weigh themselves? They could (easily, I would have thought, with some sensors in the hydraulics) measure weight and the balance of that weight fore and aft on the undercarriage, before committing to a thrust value. In fact I thought they did do that?
The wrong calculation was made when pre-take-off calculations were made prior to departure, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau reported. It was found that the calculations were based on a take-off weight that was 100 tonnes below the actual take-off weight of the aircraft. The result was a thrust setting and take-off reference speeds that were lower than those required for the aircraft’s actual weight.
There have been many, many incidents like this where the results were more drastic, including navigational blunders blamed on similar human error. So why isn’t it automated, with a human over-ride?
It seems like a strange, leaky system (or cistern?), this post-Olympic drug-doping-dripfeed. We get told there are a number of athletes suspected, but we can’t say who because we have to be absolutely certain. And so we speculate about who may be involved. And then we get told that a cyclist is involved, and that it’s the talented Italian one-day rider, Rebellin. I guess that was both not a surprise, as he seems able to pull rabbits out of hats at times, and a shock, as why would he want to sully his brilliant career?
The Italian Olympic Committee (CONI) has opened an investigation into Davide Rebellin as a result of a positive doping control at the 2008 Olympics in Beijing. It has immediately prohibited the Italian, 37, from competing and called him to Rome for a hearing on May 4 at 12:00.
Rebellin will defend the accusations. The Italian Olympic Committee saw it as a virtue to name names early, rather than keep everything in the dark:
“We are the only Olympic committee that has released a communiqué. We are the only ones who communicated all of this with transparency. Today the Corriere della Sera newspaper wrote that ‘CONI lost a silver medal, but won the transparency battle,’” a spokesman for the Italian Olympic Committee (CONI) told Cyclingnews.
And then, having been prompted by the Italians, more names emerge:
Stefan Schumacher is the second cyclist confirmed to have tested positive for Erythropoietin (EPO) derivative CERA at the 2008 Olympics in Beijing. The German cycling federation (Bund Deutscher Radfahrer, BDR) confirmed the news of its cyclist Wednesday afternoon.
No suprise that Schumacher is caught again, of course. Allegedly, pending hearings and all that jazz. And it doesn’t end with cycling, either:
Bahrain’s Rashid Ramzi, the 1500-meter champion and his country’s first gold medalist in track, was among three track athletes—and a half-dozen Olympians in all—snagged in the latest game of cat-and-mouse between cheaters and those who try to nail them.
Allegedly, of course.
If all of that has some stamp of authority, there’s also this story about the T-Mobile team from 2006, based on absence rather than proof, and assumption rather than evidence:
How many of the T-Mobile Team went to Freiburg University Clinic for a blood transfusion during the Tour de France 2006? The German news magazine Spiegel reports that an independent commission investigating the case believes that three riders went to the clinic, but also uncovered further evidence that seven riders within the team may have had some sort of blood “manipulation”. The magazine states that the commission “assumes” that Andreas Klöden, Matthias Kessler and Patrik Sinkewitz travelled to the clinic for blood transfusions on the night of the first stage of the 2006 Tour de France. There is no mention of whether the remaining four non-German riders on the team participated in the trip.
It all sounds very flimsy, indeed. And all denied, of course.
It seems like a strange, leaky system (or cistern?), this post-Olympic drug-doping-dripfeed. We get told there are a number of athletes suspected, but we can’t say who because we have to be absolutely certain. And so we speculate about who may be involved. And then we get told that a cyclist is involved, and that it’s the talented Italian one-day rider, Rebellin. I guess that was both not a surprise, as he seems able to pull rabbits out of hats at times, and a shock, as why would he want to sully his brilliant career?
The Italian Olympic Committee (CONI) has opened an investigation into Davide Rebellin as a result of a positive doping control at the 2008 Olympics in Beijing. It has immediately prohibited the Italian, 37, from competing and called him to Rome for a hearing on May 4 at 12:00.
Rebellin will defend the accusations. The Italian Olympic Committee saw it as a virtue to name names early, rather than keep everything in the dark:
“We are the only Olympic committee that has released a communiqué. We are the only ones who communicated all of this with transparency. Today the Corriere della Sera newspaper wrote that ‘CONI lost a silver medal, but won the transparency battle,’” a spokesman for the Italian Olympic Committee (CONI) told Cyclingnews.
And then, having been prompted by the Italians, more names emerge:
Stefan Schumacher is the second cyclist confirmed to have tested positive for Erythropoietin (EPO) derivative CERA at the 2008 Olympics in Beijing. The German cycling federation (Bund Deutscher Radfahrer, BDR) confirmed the news of its cyclist Wednesday afternoon.
No suprise that Schumacher is caught again, of course. Allegedly, pending hearings and all that jazz. And it doesn’t end with cycling, either:
Bahrain’s Rashid Ramzi, the 1500-meter champion and his country’s first gold medalist in track, was among three track athletes—and a half-dozen Olympians in all—snagged in the latest game of cat-and-mouse between cheaters and those who try to nail them.
Allegedly, of course.
If all of that has some stamp of authority, there’s also this story about the T-Mobile team from 2006, based on absence rather than proof, and assumption rather than evidence:
How many of the T-Mobile Team went to Freiburg University Clinic for a blood transfusion during the Tour de France 2006? The German news magazine Spiegel reports that an independent commission investigating the case believes that three riders went to the clinic, but also uncovered further evidence that seven riders within the team may have had some sort of blood “manipulation”. The magazine states that the commission “assumes” that Andreas Klöden, Matthias Kessler and Patrik Sinkewitz travelled to the clinic for blood transfusions on the night of the first stage of the 2006 Tour de France. There is no mention of whether the remaining four non-German riders on the team participated in the trip.
It all sounds very flimsy, indeed. And all denied, of course.
I don’t know why I was reading an article on lost baggage, but this extract links to a Forbes report on the decreasing rate of lost items on US carriers, and the disproportionate “success” of low-cost airlines in not losing stuff:
The data seems to reveal some good news for travelers: Airlines are mishandling fewer bags than they used to. In 2007, fliers reported between six and eight bag screw-ups per thousand. In 2008, that number fell to 4.88 per thousand. But it may be that the numbers have come down because fewer people are flying in the economic downturn, and travelers are schlepping fewer bags.
What interested me most was the reasoning. Note that we are talking about a rate of loss per thousand passengers, not absolute values, therefore thinking that “the numbers have come down because fewer people are flying in the economic downturn” doesn’t make any sense. That quibble aside (a big one, really) the fact that – for various reasons – people are checking fewer baggage items per trip does make a difference. To be fair to the writer, mention is also made that the low-cost carriers have fewer connection points (ie opportunities to lose stuff) and generally discourage check-in baggage anyway, hence better results. You can’t lose what you don’t have.
I’d still like to read the full report, if only to help grasp what this statement means:
The December data alone show sharp improvement. Though the number of passengers only fell by 2.5 million from 2007 to 2008 (5.3%) the number of baggage reports plummeted 27%.
So this is “December data alone”, which sounds like one month, yet the figures quoted “from 2007 to 2008″ are for what seems to be a full year? And suddenly we appear to be reading about a percentage decline in absolute values, rather than the previously quoted “per passenger” values. If we are comparing December 2007 with December 2008, as I suspect, then it could indeed be good news for December travellers. Did they check-in fewer items? Did they choose to fly more direct flights? Did they forget to report what they lost? Did airline staff simply try harder for Christmas? 27% is a big fall – almost unbelievably so, even year-on-year.
Not that I really care, I was just sidetracked. Hmmm, I wonder what the lost-item recovery rate per thousand passengers is?
I don’t know why I was reading an article on lost baggage, but this extract links to a Forbes report on the decreasing rate of lost items on US carriers, and the disproportionate “success” of low-cost airlines in not losing stuff:
The data seems to reveal some good news for travelers: Airlines are mishandling fewer bags than they used to. In 2007, fliers reported between six and eight bag screw-ups per thousand. In 2008, that number fell to 4.88 per thousand. But it may be that the numbers have come down because fewer people are flying in the economic downturn, and travelers are schlepping fewer bags.
What interested me most was the reasoning. Note that we are talking about a rate of loss per thousand passengers, not absolute values, therefore thinking that “the numbers have come down because fewer people are flying in the economic downturn” doesn’t make any sense. That quibble aside (a big one, really) the fact that – for various reasons – people are checking fewer baggage items per trip does make a difference. To be fair to the writer, mention is also made that the low-cost carriers have fewer connection points (ie opportunities to lose stuff) and generally discourage check-in baggage anyway, hence better results. You can’t lose what you don’t have.
I’d still like to read the full report, if only to help grasp what this statement means:
The December data alone show sharp improvement. Though the number of passengers only fell by 2.5 million from 2007 to 2008 (5.3%) the number of baggage reports plummeted 27%.
So this is “December data alone”, which sounds like one month, yet the figures quoted “from 2007 to 2008″ are for what seems to be a full year? And suddenly we appear to be reading about a percentage decline in absolute values, rather than the previously quoted “per passenger” values. If we are comparing December 2007 with December 2008, as I suspect, then it could indeed be good news for December travellers. Did they check-in fewer items? Did they choose to fly more direct flights? Did they forget to report what they lost? Did airline staff simply try harder for Christmas? 27% is a big fall – almost unbelievably so, even year-on-year.
Not that I really care, I was just sidetracked. Hmmm, I wonder what the lost-item recovery rate per thousand passengers is?
But then again I find everything interesting. I can even sit and watch grass growing. (It’s quite relaxing.)
With Windows 7, it’s putting the legacy Win32 API genie back in the bottle — or more precisely, tucking it inside a custom-integrated virtual machine where it, and its notoriously hard-to-kill XP underpinnings, can coexist peacefully alongside newer, hipper versions of Windows.
If you have chosen to stay with Windoze XP then you’ll have an opinion on Vista (and not a good one). And being a pragmatist you’ll recognise that at some point you’ll want to bite the bullet and install Windows 7 instead (or maybe give it all the flick and go to Linux, or even switch to that overpriced UNIX-derived proprietary product named after a fruit). So knowing what Microsoft is planning is not just interesting but perhaps essential if you want to keep running some legacy apps into the future.
But then again I find everything interesting. I can even sit and watch grass growing. (It’s quite relaxing.)
With Windows 7, it’s putting the legacy Win32 API genie back in the bottle — or more precisely, tucking it inside a custom-integrated virtual machine where it, and its notoriously hard-to-kill XP underpinnings, can coexist peacefully alongside newer, hipper versions of Windows.
If you have chosen to stay with Windoze XP then you’ll have an opinion on Vista (and not a good one). And being a pragmatist you’ll recognise that at some point you’ll want to bite the bullet and install Windows 7 instead (or maybe give it all the flick and go to Linux, or even switch to that overpriced UNIX-derived proprietary product named after a fruit). So knowing what Microsoft is planning is not just interesting but perhaps essential if you want to keep running some legacy apps into the future.
abstract_s2742
Originally uploaded by gtveloce
I really should stay away from Photoshop and its ilk… but once more I caved in and have plastered layer upon layer, cutaway and hand-drawn some lines and shading, coloured it all in and voila! No idea what it is, but it now exists. And to me that’s the essence both of humanity and art, good or bad. We create it in our heads and bring it to life.
abstract_s2742
Originally uploaded by gtveloce
I really should stay away from Photoshop and its ilk… but once more I caved in and have plastered layer upon layer, cutaway and hand-drawn some lines and shading, coloured it all in and voila! No idea what it is, but it now exists. And to me that’s the essence both of humanity and art, good or bad. We create it in our heads and bring it to life.
Well this is interesting. Back in “my” day (being old and all) it was amateurs vs professionals and the restraint of trade was simple. If you earned money from cycling you got barred from the Olympics; and if you joined the local cycling club and it happened to be a pro club you may as well have joined a different universe. But that’s all gone now and “amateurs” don’t really exist, instead elite athletes are professionals whether they like it or not, and it’s “all in”. Unless you run a significant yet smaller road race or tour, in which case the cycling world’s governing body, the UCI, can impose its will and stop top-level teams from competing. I guess there’s good and bad in that rule, but I do like Chris Horner’s comment:
On Monday, Horner said the enforcement of the UCI rule was “wrong.” “It’s a pro race, you should be allowed to race your bike. If we are skipping ProTour races to do a non-ProTour event, then it makes sense. But you should never, never, never just not allow a rider to race his bike. … every man should be afforded the right to work.”
The opposing view may be that a ProTour team will simply scoop up all the winnings, leaving the other guys (also just trying to do their job) picking up the leftovers.
Filed under horner, protour by Rob.
Well this is interesting. Back in “my” day (being old and all) it was amateurs vs professionals and the restraint of trade was simple. If you earned money from cycling you got barred from the Olympics; and if you joined the local cycling club and it happened to be a pro club you may as well have joined a different universe. But that’s all gone now and “amateurs” don’t really exist, instead elite athletes are professionals whether they like it or not, and it’s “all in”. Unless you run a significant yet smaller road race or tour, in which case the cycling world’s governing body, the UCI, can impose its will and stop top-level teams from competing. I guess there’s good and bad in that rule, but I do like Chris Horner’s comment:
On Monday, Horner said the enforcement of the UCI rule was “wrong.” “It’s a pro race, you should be allowed to race your bike. If we are skipping ProTour races to do a non-ProTour event, then it makes sense. But you should never, never, never just not allow a rider to race his bike. … every man should be afforded the right to work.”
The opposing view may be that a ProTour team will simply scoop up all the winnings, leaving the other guys (also just trying to do their job) picking up the leftovers.
Filed under horner, protour by Rob.
You could be forgiven for believing that a $10,000 racing bike is at the cutting edge of what could be achieved with today’s technology and materials science, but in fact the UCI, as the governing body for world cycle racing, punishes innovation with tight control over aerodynamics, weight and frame geometry (in pursuit of sporting ‘fairness’ and consistency). Bikes could look a lot different, weigh less and slip through the air much more easily, if designers were let off the short leash that is the UCI’s double-triangle standard (just click there and search on ‘frame’, then come back here). In short, they’d go faster for less effort.
And you could also be forgiven for thinking that bike racers are the first to embrace new ways and materials, when in fact they tend to stick with “what works” when it comes to finishing a long ride. As a group they let someone else test it out (usually George Hincapie) and demonstrate a clear, sustainable advantage before jumping on board. It took a relatively long time for the global peloton to embrace clipless pedals, for example, let alone carbon fibre frames (mine dates back to ’90, and yes, that’s when I finally embraced clipless pedals, too). It’s not just about the cost, or the regulations, it’s “tradition” as well. One has to look like a bike racer, and be ‘in the know’. For example you still hear otherwise quite sensible people repeat the mantra that ‘steel is real’, despite arguably better materials being available for frame-building. And then they pull on their woollen jerseys and tighten their toe clips before riding into the sunset… ahem, maybe not.
So it comes as a bit of a shock to see RFID transponders, those handy little gadgets that adorn the race bikes of the professsionals, drifting into the admittedly elite end of the local Sydney racing scene. OK, it’s the State Crit Championships, but it’s still a bit of a jump up from the traditional number on a fabric or vinyl square, attached with safety pins: ALL RIDERS, PLEASE NOTE THAT TRANSPONDERS WILL BE USED AT THIS EVENT. IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO ATTACH YOUR TRANSPONDER IN THE CORRECT POSITION IN ORDER TO BE PLACED IN THIS EVENT. Note that they saw fit to SHOUT about it, ’cause some of those bike riders will be in a state of shock.
We can expect to see similar transponders used more regularly at state open level, gradually drifting down to club level. They remove the need for sharp eyed observers (a hard-to-find resource) and eliminate (I hope) the ‘but-I-thought I won it’ close-finish dispute. In a big bunch gallop it may be the only way to truly pick out who won. They are also light, the widely-used Chip-X being around 15g.
In fact these transponders, also used in warehousing, logistics and on toll roads, by the way, open up a whole world of data collection and analysis. Not just for bike racers but for anyone – or anything – involved in circuit racing. You can collect timing data on every lap for every participant, for example, and post updates live, either on the web or to a mobile device (like a cell phone). So if you are coaching or managing a team you can see how your charges are going, and perhaps later analyse where they went wrong, without needing to even watch the whole race. (Check out MyLaps, to see what is already happening.) Of course GPS can do that, too, and you probably have that integrated with your power meters anyway, but as a cheaper option it’s not bad. We’ve already seen how a mix of these types of devices (especially GPS) can be used to plot the course of a road cycling race, too, in real-time, on the Web. You can also easily imagine such a live datastream being used to animate a super-realistic avatar of, say, Cadel Evans, as he takes on Lance Armstrong‘s avatar in a virtual Le Tour, live on screen. It could be the future of live cycling ‘vision’ on a converged television-Internet platform, without needing the cameras and helicopters, if we wanted it to be… or the basis for a training program, or a game…
So there you go, cycling at the cutting edge. Mind you, it’s all been done before. For example the aviation industry has been using transponders since WWII, although they were somewhat larger, heavier objects at that stage. It just takes a while for these things to shrink, get cheaper, and percolate both down – and sideways. That’s innovation.
You could be forgiven for believing that a $10,000 racing bike is at the cutting edge of what could be achieved with today’s technology and materials science, but in fact the UCI, as the governing body for world cycle racing, punishes innovation with tight control over aerodynamics, weight and frame geometry (in pursuit of sporting ‘fairness’ and consistency). Bikes could look a lot different, weigh less and slip through the air much more easily, if designers were let off the short leash that is the UCI’s double-triangle standard (just click there and search on ‘frame’, then come back here). In short, they’d go faster for less effort.
And you could also be forgiven for thinking that bike racers are the first to embrace new ways and materials, when in fact they tend to stick with “what works” when it comes to finishing a long ride. As a group they let someone else test it out (usually George Hincapie) and demonstrate a clear, sustainable advantage before jumping on board. It took a relatively long time for the global peloton to embrace clipless pedals, for example, let alone carbon fibre frames (mine dates back to ’90, and yes, that’s when I finally embraced clipless pedals, too). It’s not just about the cost, or the regulations, it’s “tradition” as well. One has to look like a bike racer, and be ‘in the know’. For example you still hear otherwise quite sensible people repeat the mantra that ‘steel is real’, despite arguably better materials being available for frame-building. And then they pull on their woollen jerseys and tighten their toe clips before riding into the sunset… ahem, maybe not.
So it comes as a bit of a shock to see RFID transponders, those handy little gadgets that adorn the race bikes of the professsionals, drifting into the admittedly elite end of the local Sydney racing scene. OK, it’s the State Crit Championships, but it’s still a bit of a jump up from the traditional number on a fabric or vinyl square, attached with safety pins: ALL RIDERS, PLEASE NOTE THAT TRANSPONDERS WILL BE USED AT THIS EVENT. IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO ATTACH YOUR TRANSPONDER IN THE CORRECT POSITION IN ORDER TO BE PLACED IN THIS EVENT. Note that they saw fit to SHOUT about it, ’cause some of those bike riders will be in a state of shock.
We can expect to see similar transponders used more regularly at state open level, gradually drifting down to club level. They remove the need for sharp eyed observers (a hard-to-find resource) and eliminate (I hope) the ‘but-I-thought I won it’ close-finish dispute. In a big bunch gallop it may be the only way to truly pick out who won. They are also light, the widely-used Chip-X being around 15g.
In fact these transponders, also used in warehousing, logistics and on toll roads, by the way, open up a whole world of data collection and analysis. Not just for bike racers but for anyone – or anything – involved in circuit racing. You can collect timing data on every lap for every participant, for example, and post updates live, either on the web or to a mobile device (like a cell phone). So if you are coaching or managing a team you can see how your charges are going, and perhaps later analyse where they went wrong, without needing to even watch the whole race. (Check out MyLaps, to see what is already happening.) Of course GPS can do that, too, and you probably have that integrated with your power meters anyway, but as a cheaper option it’s not bad. We’ve already seen how a mix of these types of devices (especially GPS) can be used to plot the course of a road cycling race, too, in real-time, on the Web. You can also easily imagine such a live datastream being used to animate a super-realistic avatar of, say, Cadel Evans, as he takes on Lance Armstrong‘s avatar in a virtual Le Tour, live on screen. It could be the future of live cycling ‘vision’ on a converged television-Internet platform, without needing the cameras and helicopters, if we wanted it to be… or the basis for a training program, or a game…
So there you go, cycling at the cutting edge. Mind you, it’s all been done before. For example the aviation industry has been using transponders since WWII, although they were somewhat larger, heavier objects at that stage. It just takes a while for these things to shrink, get cheaper, and percolate both down – and sideways. That’s innovation.
Local frog_0027
Originally uploaded by gtveloce
Well it’s nice to get visitors. These guys (Litoria Peronii) seem to like our roof gutters, but will settle for the back deck as well (which is where this guy was lurking the other night)….
Local frog_0027
Originally uploaded by gtveloce
Well it’s nice to get visitors. These guys (Litoria Peronii) seem to like our roof gutters, but will settle for the back deck as well (which is where this guy was lurking the other night)….
In hindsight, it may have been the wrong time to attack… but then again, who was going to bridge the gap if he didn’t? As Cadel says, “Funny, usually people tell me I don’t attack…”.
Post-race it’s always easy to pull things apart and make declarations about what would have happened if…. but until we can set up some parallel universe and trial all of the options, we’ll never really know. At 5th, Evans was ahead of some big names. (Worth noting too that Simon Gerrans had another good race, finishing 8th.)
And come July we’ll get to see Cadel defend his now traditional 2nd place in Le Tour. He may even attack!
In hindsight, it may have been the wrong time to attack… but then again, who was going to bridge the gap if he didn’t? As Cadel says, “Funny, usually people tell me I don’t attack…”.
Post-race it’s always easy to pull things apart and make declarations about what would have happened if…. but until we can set up some parallel universe and trial all of the options, we’ll never really know. At 5th, Evans was ahead of some big names. (Worth noting too that Simon Gerrans had another good race, finishing 8th.)
And come July we’ll get to see Cadel defend his now traditional 2nd place in Le Tour. He may even attack!
Obviously this is a new way to define the word rational – in the context of ‘improved fuel consumption’ for a $Aus155K car this motoring journo states that “in the case of the CaymanS… its emotional appeal remains overwhelming, its improved economy rationally pleasing.“
Exactly how a rational person can be pleased about a slightly improved rate of gas guzzling when they have shelled out a small hill of cash is beyond me. OK, it’s laudable that they have done something positive about the fuel consumption, but (as the writer noted) this is a self-indulgent, emotional purchase, not a rational one.
Obviously this is a new way to define the word rational – in the context of ‘improved fuel consumption’ for a $Aus155K car this motoring journo states that “in the case of the CaymanS… its emotional appeal remains overwhelming, its improved economy rationally pleasing.“
Exactly how a rational person can be pleased about a slightly improved rate of gas guzzling when they have shelled out a small hill of cash is beyond me. OK, it’s laudable that they have done something positive about the fuel consumption, but (as the writer noted) this is a self-indulgent, emotional purchase, not a rational one.
I can’t verify this statement for accuracy, but here it is, from Forbes mag: A handful of car models, such as the Jeep Wrangler and the Smart, are maintaining their sales despite the general auto collapse. But the only full-sized companies that are holding their own are Korea’s Hyundai and Kia, and Subaru. I think he’s looking at the US market, but let’s look more widely at why these brands are successful.
First up, the Smart makes sense in these difficult times, although I do wonder which model is holding up best. I suspect it’s the tiny, cultish FourTwo. It’s both an economical, sensible city car and a niche hit. Just search YouTube for the whacky variations and mods you’ll find for that diminutive sub-compact. Because it’s a bit – or a lot – different, it stands out in the market – whilst garnering some respect via owner Daimler. And it doesn’t hurt that it has green cred attached to it, either. If you drive one of these cars you are definitely making a statement, like it or not. Although it’s had a rocky road at times, it’s now doing exactly what the brand was created to do. It could be a car for the times.
Of course the Jeep Wrangler is another cult hit in a niche market, albeit a very different one to the Smart. Indeed it’s almost exactly the opposite in every aspect, with street cred based on roots going back 65 years or so to the original general purpose vehicle. It thus couples a spared-back historical military style (think ‘MASH’) with a go-anywhere, thumb-your-nose-at-climate-change sort of “freedom” feel. Again, it makes a clear statement about you and your beliefs, or so we may think. Whilst it may not be the most economical car in the world it has a style and a practicality about it that has led to a self-perpetuating following.
On the other hand Hyundai and (Hyundai-owned) Kia are upstart Korean mass producers of a range of increasingly well-built but clone-like cars with little innovation in style, packaging or performance. Like the Smart brand they were created as a product line, rather than evolving out of the bicycle or horse-driven coachbuilding industries, car racing or from post-world-war reconstruction like many ‘traditional’ European (and Japanese) brands. As such, being late to the party as it were, they have leveraged the manufacturing lessons (and technical input) of companies like Ford and Mitsubishi and designers like Giugiaro to create a line of carefully targeted, inoffensively-styled lower-cost cars. They have also got a sizable local market to fall back on (something the Aussie car makers can only dream of). Whilst they lack the street cred of more traditional brands, their lower unit cost of production has meant that they can sell harder to gain market share, at times burdening each individual vehicle sale with thousands of dollars worth of advertising. To the company’s credit they have continually reinvested in quality, style and dynamics, largely closing the gap on the class leaders whilst maintaining their cost advantage. So they have achieved market visibility, acceptance and a lower price point against their competitors. No wonder they are holding their own – surely they are now ‘stealing’ market share from Toyota, GM and the like.
Which brings me to Subaru, famously the ‘ugly duckling’ of Japan’s auto industry. Subaru does have a legacy (US-market pun intended!) to draw upon, having evolved out of Fuji Heavy Industry’s history of aircraft and motor scooter production. In many ways the company has paralleled the traditional car makers with their deep technological and evolutionary roots whilst keeping themselves firmly rooted in the “but strangely different” category. They have also indulged in some ‘cred-creation’ via motor sports, especially rallying. However their main claim to differentiation has been their strangely awkward approach to exterior car design and their dogged determination to hang on to horizontally-opposed ‘boxer’ style engines. Coupled with the more recent leveraging of their rallying heritage via a marketing-lead commitment to all-wheel-drive, Subaru has ended up making a name for themselves across a range of seemingly opposing niches. For example their WRX model achieved notoriety both as a world-class rally winner and the car of choice for Australian bank robbers; whilst their Outback model leveraged quirky styling, solid reliability and a bit of Aussie bushbashing charm. (Australia being both a key test market and the source of Paul Hogan, an advertising hit for Subaru in the US.) And as the Forbes article states, it helps sales in snowy or slippery climes if you offer traction built-in. In all, a strange brew.
There is a common theme to all of these brands. Firstly, none are the market leaders, although each may have a model in the top 3 in a segment, somewhere – so they are the underdogs in a way. (People like underdogs, generally, as long as they deliver.) Secondly, they successfully occupy – perhaps dominate – one or more sizable niches. But can they maintain these positions during challenging times? Indeed it will be interesting to see how the car market evolves over the coming months and years, given the spectacular changes afoot. This is a time of financial drama coupled with a game-changing conversion to alternative fuels. Whilst we may get another 50 years out of petrol, we will see increasing opportunities for new players to come in and undermine both the current oil-based fuel refiners and the current vehicle manufacturers. Hybrids and electric cars are just the start. Deep pockets will be needed to fund this shift.
Likely as not we will see struggling companies like Ford, Chrysler and GM partly consumed by – or partnered with – competitors like FIAT, Toyota and VW. And we will doubtless see the rise of Indian and Chinese manufacturers, playing a similar game as the Korean makers have done, leveraging huge local markets first before staking global claims. Whilst the big fish like VW and Toyota will probably maintain their overall positions, the niche players will be joined by companies on the way down, looking to hang on – somewhere, anywhere – and newcomers on the way up. Will trendy quirkiness be enough for Subaru and Smart? Will the up-to-now agile and lower-cost Korean makers cement their current Top 5 position and move up, or will upstarts like India’s Tata consume the ground underneath their metaphorical feet?
I can’t verify this statement for accuracy, but here it is, from Forbes mag: A handful of car models, such as the Jeep Wrangler and the Smart, are maintaining their sales despite the general auto collapse. But the only full-sized companies that are holding their own are Korea’s Hyundai and Kia, and Subaru. I think he’s looking at the US market, but let’s look more widely at why these brands are successful.
First up, the Smart makes sense in these difficult times, although I do wonder which model is holding up best. I suspect it’s the tiny, cultish FourTwo. It’s both an economical, sensible city car and a niche hit. Just search YouTube for the whacky variations and mods you’ll find for that diminutive sub-compact. Because it’s a bit – or a lot – different, it stands out in the market – whilst garnering some respect via owner Daimler. And it doesn’t hurt that it has green cred attached to it, either. If you drive one of these cars you are definitely making a statement, like it or not. Although it’s had a rocky road at times, it’s now doing exactly what the brand was created to do. It could be a car for the times.
Of course the Jeep Wrangler is another cult hit in a niche market, albeit a very different one to the Smart. Indeed it’s almost exactly the opposite in every aspect, with street cred based on roots going back 65 years or so to the original general purpose vehicle. It thus couples a spared-back historical military style (think ‘MASH’) with a go-anywhere, thumb-your-nose-at-climate-change sort of “freedom” feel. Again, it makes a clear statement about you and your beliefs, or so we may think. Whilst it may not be the most economical car in the world it has a style and a practicality about it that has led to a self-perpetuating following.
On the other hand Hyundai and (Hyundai-owned) Kia are upstart Korean mass producers of a range of increasingly well-built but clone-like cars with little innovation in style, packaging or performance. Like the Smart brand they were created as a product line, rather than evolving out of the bicycle or horse-driven coachbuilding industries, car racing or from post-world-war reconstruction like many ‘traditional’ European (and Japanese) brands. As such, being late to the party as it were, they have leveraged the manufacturing lessons (and technical input) of companies like Ford and Mitsubishi and designers like Giugiaro to create a line of carefully targeted, inoffensively-styled lower-cost cars. They have also got a sizable local market to fall back on (something the Aussie car makers can only dream of). Whilst they lack the street cred of more traditional brands, their lower unit cost of production has meant that they can sell harder to gain market share, at times burdening each individual vehicle sale with thousands of dollars worth of advertising. To the company’s credit they have continually reinvested in quality, style and dynamics, largely closing the gap on the class leaders whilst maintaining their cost advantage. So they have achieved market visibility, acceptance and a lower price point against their competitors. No wonder they are holding their own – surely they are now ‘stealing’ market share from Toyota, GM and the like.
Which brings me to Subaru, famously the ‘ugly duckling’ of Japan’s auto industry. Subaru does have a legacy (US-market pun intended!) to draw upon, having evolved out of Fuji Heavy Industry’s history of aircraft and motor scooter production. In many ways the company has paralleled the traditional car makers with their deep technological and evolutionary roots whilst keeping themselves firmly rooted in the “but strangely different” category. They have also indulged in some ‘cred-creation’ via motor sports, especially rallying. However their main claim to differentiation has been their strangely awkward approach to exterior car design and their dogged determination to hang on to horizontally-opposed ‘boxer’ style engines. Coupled with the more recent leveraging of their rallying heritage via a marketing-lead commitment to all-wheel-drive, Subaru has ended up making a name for themselves across a range of seemingly opposing niches. For example their WRX model achieved notoriety both as a world-class rally winner and the car of choice for Australian bank robbers; whilst their Outback model leveraged quirky styling, solid reliability and a bit of Aussie bushbashing charm. (Australia being both a key test market and the source of Paul Hogan, an advertising hit for Subaru in the US.) And as the Forbes article states, it helps sales in snowy or slippery climes if you offer traction built-in. In all, a strange brew.
There is a common theme to all of these brands. Firstly, none are the market leaders, although each may have a model in the top 3 in a segment, somewhere – so they are the underdogs in a way. (People like underdogs, generally, as long as they deliver.) Secondly, they successfully occupy – perhaps dominate – one or more sizable niches. But can they maintain these positions during challenging times? Indeed it will be interesting to see how the car market evolves over the coming months and years, given the spectacular changes afoot. This is a time of financial drama coupled with a game-changing conversion to alternative fuels. Whilst we may get another 50 years out of petrol, we will see increasing opportunities for new players to come in and undermine both the current oil-based fuel refiners and the current vehicle manufacturers. Hybrids and electric cars are just the start. Deep pockets will be needed to fund this shift.
Likely as not we will see struggling companies like Ford, Chrysler and GM partly consumed by – or partnered with – competitors like FIAT, Toyota and VW. And we will doubtless see the rise of Indian and Chinese manufacturers, playing a similar game as the Korean makers have done, leveraging huge local markets first before staking global claims. Whilst the big fish like VW and Toyota will probably maintain their overall positions, the niche players will be joined by companies on the way down, looking to hang on – somewhere, anywhere – and newcomers on the way up. Will trendy quirkiness be enough for Subaru and Smart? Will the up-to-now agile and lower-cost Korean makers cement their current Top 5 position and move up, or will upstarts like India’s Tata consume the ground underneath their metaphorical feet?
Well that’s a simplification, but you’ll see what I mean in a second. Miranda is a well-known right-leaning columnist for the Sydney Morning Herald, in case you want context. She quite reasonably (in a democratic freedom-of-speech kind of way) states an opposing view to that of the reportedly vast majority of climatologists, i.e. that there is no believable evidence of humankind’s involvement in the current experience of climate change. But she does it in such an unreasoning way that it’s funny. Well I think she’s funny – often the funniest read in the whole paper. (I’m sure she doesn’t actually believe what she writes, either – and neither does this commenter (via Deltoid’s blog): I used to get annoyed reading M. Devine’s drivel until somebody told me that they had been told by MD herself that she doesn’t really believe what she writes, she only writes to be provocative. Nowadays, it’s impossible for me to take her seriously. Bravo and cheers to that.)
Anyway, getting back to last Saturday (yes, I know, I’m slow off the mark again) she rambled on a bit like this: The global warming scare campaign is reaching fever pitch. We have had one eminent Australian scientist claim this week to the senate inquiry on climate policy that global warming has already killed people in Australia.
Well there’s a dramatic start, eh? This opinion piece makes it obvious that she doesn’t believe it (even if she really does), but it seems obvious enough to me that if there is climate change (an assumption based on copious evidence), and things are hotting up and drying out, that people who are exposed to that increased heat and dryness will also be exposed to ever-mounting heat stress, worsening drought, increased risk of bushfire severity, frequency and longevity and so on. It seems pretty obvious to me that – sadly – some people will have died ‘from climate change’ already. Now you can argue the toss over it, endlessly, as we can’t run some sort of parallel, controlled experiment with another identical Earth and see what would have happened without humankind’s atmospheric interference. Sometimes you just have to go with a probability. (I can almost hear the shrill cries, ‘but that’s not science!’ For goodness sake sit down and read on.)
Anyway, she gets better. “It seems that when it comes to convincing the Government to take drastic, jobs-killing, economy-crushing and ultimately futile unilateral action on climate change, the ends justify the means.” Well that’s an emotionally-charged overstatement of the situation, as what the Rudd government has proposed is no more economy-crushing that introducing, say, a 10% GST on the basis of an ideological whim. (Oh sorry, that was labelled “tax reform”. Much, much more important than cutting back on carbon emissions.) Indeed if we do have a choice between frying the planet or not, I’d vote to take a bit of pain for a significant (probable) gain.
Miranda of course “believes” it’s all futile, so why waste our time, money and effort? She says that “since Australia accounts for just 1.4 per cent of global emissions, even if we shut down all industry and move into caves, how would any theoretical effect on climate be more than negligible?” Well there’s a 1.4% improvement right away, if we took Miranda’s sage advice. Now you could view it as a start, or as an indication of global commitment (albeit a ludicrous commitment at that – I’m not moving into a cave anytime soon). Or you could just say that 1.4% is too small to worry about and just give up. It’s a glass half full vs glass half empty sort of thing, isn’t it?
That aside, Ms Devine doesn’t quite understand what pollution is, so I will attempt to help her out (not that she doesn’t actually know this already). She states that the whole debate is over “so-called ‘carbon pollution’“. Well it’s broader than that as it’s really about greenhouse gas emissions (first point worth making) and these emissions are called ‘pollution’ because we (ie humankind) are deliberately exhausting these gases into the atmosphere in an uncontrolled and up to recently unmonitored way. Nature hasn’t decided to do this, we have. Be it oil, coal or whatever, point is that we are choosing to burn the stuff in vast quantities and simply allowing the exhaust to vent, no questions asked. Now we may not be able to see it, but I think we all can agree it’s being added to the atmosphere, and dissolving into our oceans. Even if we don’t believe it’s a problem, it’s still pollution. As it happens plenty of people actually believe that it is causing a problem, and others simply believe that it’s a waste of resources and a potential risk into the future. So hey, why not slow down or even plan to stop this pollution? Seems reasonable risk management to me.
Of course it’s not just this so-called “carbon pollution” that’s thought to be causing our climate change problem, it’s land-clearing as well. Thought I’d mention that.
I’m getting to the point now. Miranda has discovered a geologist with an opinion that she likes: University of Adelaide geologist, Dr Ian Plimer, writes in his new book, Heaven And Earth, Global Warming: The Missing Science, scientists are usually “anarchic, bow to no authority and construct conclusions based on evidence … Science is not dogmatic and the science of any phenomenon is never settled.” Well yeah, evidence.. tick. Prepared to keep reviewing the data.. check. I think we are all on the same page (although I sense that Miranda and Ian Plimer may disagree). Attempting to stir up controversy in effort to publicise book… check. Ooops, sorry.
Note that we have a respected geologist here, not a climatologist. So it’s someone who understands that the Earth’s processes work over a very, very long period of time. Not just 10 years, or even a hundred. To quote: “From the geologist’s perspective he says our climate has always changed in cycles, affected by such variables as the orbit of the planet and our distance from the sun, which itself produces variable amounts of radiation.” Well, yes, I think we have copied that already and dealt with it. But there’s more: “One of the lessons of 500 million years of history, he says, is that there is no relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature.” Here we go, focusing on carbon dioxide again (admittedly it is the main player, and we do have some pre-exisiting dispute over the issue). Indeed it’s not as simple as emitting a gas and finding it simply stays there.. in fact it gets absorbed by plants, takes part in various chemical reactions and gets dissolved in the oceans – another unfortunate side-effect of this man-made pollution of the planet. There’s even a notable lag between historical emissions and temperature change, such that it looks like temperature is the driver of change, rather than carbon dioxide. But the explanations are sound and well aired: in short the issue has been addressed and rebutted many times. There is nothing new here, so why pretend that it’s somehow a revelation?
Ah yes, selling newspapers and books. (To be fair, Plimer may add some revelation to the discussion, but Devine has opted not to disclose it. Secret knowledge.)
More interestingly, Plimer, as a geologist familiar with long cycles of slow geological change, reportedly makes a stunningly naive comment: “Governments are planning to structurally change their nations’ economies where most people will suffer from increased taxes and costs … based on the opinion of the fabulous five whose computer models have not been able to accurately predict the cooling that has occurred since 1998″. Whoa, I thought we were talking hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years? Now, suddenly, just 10 or so years matters! This is a geologist talking?
The rest of the article reads like a very biased book review by a worshipping fan, although it’s also worth noting that a point is made that the “crucial section 5″ of the IPCC report is “based on the opinions of just five independent scientists”.. Well maybe so, but it’s been reviewed and signed off by many, many more. In any case, should we discard the opinion of these 5 independent scientists on the basis of the opinion of just one (admittedly heroic) geologist?
Phew, I finally got to the point. Independence. And without even hinting that a geologist – not any particular geologist, mind, but any geologist speaking out on climate change in particular – needs to clearly enunciate any vested or conflicting interests they may have in regard to work done for, say, mining companies, or in relation to any interest in ongoing mining exploration. (It seems likely that geologists may have a genuine interest in continuing the status quo, and that should be made clear.) Not that it need inhibit them from stating their case and advancing an opinion, but we all look at things through the filters of our lives and it helps to keep an open mind on such things. Like Miranda does.
Well that’s a simplification, but you’ll see what I mean in a second. Miranda is a well-known right-leaning columnist for the Sydney Morning Herald, in case you want context. She quite reasonably (in a democratic freedom-of-speech kind of way) states an opposing view to that of the reportedly vast majority of climatologists, i.e. that there is no believable evidence of humankind’s involvement in the current experience of climate change. But she does it in such an unreasoning way that it’s funny. Well I think she’s funny – often the funniest read in the whole paper. (I’m sure she doesn’t actually believe what she writes, either – and neither does this commenter (via Deltoid’s blog): I used to get annoyed reading M. Devine’s drivel until somebody told me that they had been told by MD herself that she doesn’t really believe what she writes, she only writes to be provocative. Nowadays, it’s impossible for me to take her seriously. Bravo and cheers to that.)
Anyway, getting back to last Saturday (yes, I know, I’m slow off the mark again) she rambled on a bit like this: The global warming scare campaign is reaching fever pitch. We have had one eminent Australian scientist claim this week to the senate inquiry on climate policy that global warming has already killed people in Australia.
Well there’s a dramatic start, eh? This opinion piece makes it obvious that she doesn’t believe it (even if she really does), but it seems obvious enough to me that if there is climate change (an assumption based on copious evidence), and things are hotting up and drying out, that people who are exposed to that increased heat and dryness will also be exposed to ever-mounting heat stress, worsening drought, increased risk of bushfire severity, frequency and longevity and so on. It seems pretty obvious to me that – sadly – some people will have died ‘from climate change’ already. Now you can argue the toss over it, endlessly, as we can’t run some sort of parallel, controlled experiment with another identical Earth and see what would have happened without humankind’s atmospheric interference. Sometimes you just have to go with a probability. (I can almost hear the shrill cries, ‘but that’s not science!’ For goodness sake sit down and read on.)
Anyway, she gets better. “It seems that when it comes to convincing the Government to take drastic, jobs-killing, economy-crushing and ultimately futile unilateral action on climate change, the ends justify the means.” Well that’s an emotionally-charged overstatement of the situation, as what the Rudd government has proposed is no more economy-crushing that introducing, say, a 10% GST on the basis of an ideological whim. (Oh sorry, that was labelled “tax reform”. Much, much more important than cutting back on carbon emissions.) Indeed if we do have a choice between frying the planet or not, I’d vote to take a bit of pain for a significant (probable) gain.
Miranda of course “believes” it’s all futile, so why waste our time, money and effort? She says that “since Australia accounts for just 1.4 per cent of global emissions, even if we shut down all industry and move into caves, how would any theoretical effect on climate be more than negligible?” Well there’s a 1.4% improvement right away, if we took Miranda’s sage advice. Now you could view it as a start, or as an indication of global commitment (albeit a ludicrous commitment at that – I’m not moving into a cave anytime soon). Or you could just say that 1.4% is too small to worry about and just give up. It’s a glass half full vs glass half empty sort of thing, isn’t it?
That aside, Ms Devine doesn’t quite understand what pollution is, so I will attempt to help her out (not that she doesn’t actually know this already). She states that the whole debate is over “so-called ‘carbon pollution’“. Well it’s broader than that as it’s really about greenhouse gas emissions (first point worth making) and these emissions are called ‘pollution’ because we (ie humankind) are deliberately exhausting these gases into the atmosphere in an uncontrolled and up to recently unmonitored way. Nature hasn’t decided to do this, we have. Be it oil, coal or whatever, point is that we are choosing to burn the stuff in vast quantities and simply allowing the exhaust to vent, no questions asked. Now we may not be able to see it, but I think we all can agree it’s being added to the atmosphere, and dissolving into our oceans. Even if we don’t believe it’s a problem, it’s still pollution. As it happens plenty of people actually believe that it is causing a problem, and others simply believe that it’s a waste of resources and a potential risk into the future. So hey, why not slow down or even plan to stop this pollution? Seems reasonable risk management to me.
Of course it’s not just this so-called “carbon pollution” that’s thought to be causing our climate change problem, it’s land-clearing as well. Thought I’d mention that.
I’m getting to the point now. Miranda has discovered a geologist with an opinion that she likes: University of Adelaide geologist, Dr Ian Plimer, writes in his new book, Heaven And Earth, Global Warming: The Missing Science, scientists are usually “anarchic, bow to no authority and construct conclusions based on evidence … Science is not dogmatic and the science of any phenomenon is never settled.” Well yeah, evidence.. tick. Prepared to keep reviewing the data.. check. I think we are all on the same page (although I sense that Miranda and Ian Plimer may disagree). Attempting to stir up controversy in effort to publicise book… check. Ooops, sorry.
Note that we have a respected geologist here, not a climatologist. So it’s someone who understands that the Earth’s processes work over a very, very long period of time. Not just 10 years, or even a hundred. To quote: “From the geologist’s perspective he says our climate has always changed in cycles, affected by such variables as the orbit of the planet and our distance from the sun, which itself produces variable amounts of radiation.” Well, yes, I think we have copied that already and dealt with it. But there’s more: “One of the lessons of 500 million years of history, he says, is that there is no relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature.” Here we go, focusing on carbon dioxide again (admittedly it is the main player, and we do have some pre-exisiting dispute over the issue). Indeed it’s not as simple as emitting a gas and finding it simply stays there.. in fact it gets absorbed by plants, takes part in various chemical reactions and gets dissolved in the oceans – another unfortunate side-effect of this man-made pollution of the planet. There’s even a notable lag between historical emissions and temperature change, such that it looks like temperature is the driver of change, rather than carbon dioxide. But the explanations are sound and well aired: in short the issue has been addressed and rebutted many times. There is nothing new here, so why pretend that it’s somehow a revelation?
Ah yes, selling newspapers and books. (To be fair, Plimer may add some revelation to the discussion, but Devine has opted not to disclose it. Secret knowledge.)
More interestingly, Plimer, as a geologist familiar with long cycles of slow geological change, reportedly makes a stunningly naive comment: “Governments are planning to structurally change their nations’ economies where most people will suffer from increased taxes and costs … based on the opinion of the fabulous five whose computer models have not been able to accurately predict the cooling that has occurred since 1998″. Whoa, I thought we were talking hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years? Now, suddenly, just 10 or so years matters! This is a geologist talking?
The rest of the article reads like a very biased book review by a worshipping fan, although it’s also worth noting that a point is made that the “crucial section 5″ of the IPCC report is “based on the opinions of just five independent scientists”.. Well maybe so, but it’s been reviewed and signed off by many, many more. In any case, should we discard the opinion of these 5 independent scientists on the basis of the opinion of just one (admittedly heroic) geologist?
Phew, I finally got to the point. Independence. And without even hinting that a geologist – not any particular geologist, mind, but any geologist speaking out on climate change in particular – needs to clearly enunciate any vested or conflicting interests they may have in regard to work done for, say, mining companies, or in relation to any interest in ongoing mining exploration. (It seems likely that geologists may have a genuine interest in continuing the status quo, and that should be made clear.) Not that it need inhibit them from stating their case and advancing an opinion, but we all look at things through the filters of our lives and it helps to keep an open mind on such things. Like Miranda does.
Filed under Lange, strychnine by Rob.
Filed under Lange, strychnine by Rob.
The old-world media love to beat this stuff up:
Last year three of the highest speeds recorded on Queensland roads occurred on the M1, including two at Stapylton of 243km/h and 237km/h and one at Helensvale, of 235km/h.
Let me guess, they were probably young males in one of (a) turbocharged grey market Nissan Skylines; (b) another brand of after-market hotted up Japanese car or (c) high-end US-style V8 sedans (what some of us imagine to be “Aussie” cars, simply because we build or assemble some part of them here). But they could just have easily have been white-shoed cardigan wearers in their Maseratis, Ferraris or Astons. Except they aren’t as news-worthy, unless of course they are a “celebrity” or a politician responsible for road safety.
Of course it goes without saying that the police are “exasperated“. And naturally it’s downplayed as just lucky that there have been “no fatal crashes on the motorway so far this year.
We can all draw the pictures in our minds, of these criminally insane law-breakers tearing around at stupidly excessive speed, but truth be told every motorist exceeds the posted speed limit at some point in their driving lives. Perhaps not by these speeds, but certainly by non-trivial amounts. Perhaps you choose to do it, I don’t know. But whereas here in this article we are looking at just 3 incidences of clearly deliberate and excessive speeding on one motorway, the majority of otherwise law-abiding “speeders” are equally deliberately going 10, 20 or 30 kilometres an hour over the limit, usually on potholed suburban streets littered with intersections, driveways, cyclists and pedestrians to boot. Now whilst we can easily say that “if they crash (at these extreme speeds), they’ll likely die – police” we can also quite justifiably say that far more people are taking equally life-threatening risks on a daily basis. Sometimes they do it deliberately, sometimes by carelessness or ignorance. But tell me, why focus on the extreme “hoons” when the greater risk is all around us?
Why indeed do we make, sell or modify road-registerable cars that can easily double the speed limit? And why do we spend so much money replacing narrow, curvy roads with straighter, safer and faster multi-lane motorways? If we seriously wanted to reduce speeding we’d govern cars and restrict traffic flow (ok, we do that now – they are called traffic jams). Fact is, humans like to get places faster, not slower, and they enjoy some degree of personal risk-taking; indeed some of our community simply enjoy living closer to the edge.
None of which is particularly helpful in reducing death or injury on our roads, or saving us from our wasteful, unsustainable selves. But it does give us something to read in the press.
The old-world media love to beat this stuff up:
Last year three of the highest speeds recorded on Queensland roads occurred on the M1, including two at Stapylton of 243km/h and 237km/h and one at Helensvale, of 235km/h.
Let me guess, they were probably young males in one of (a) turbocharged grey market Nissan Skylines; (b) another brand of after-market hotted up Japanese car or (c) high-end US-style V8 sedans (what some of us imagine to be “Aussie” cars, simply because we build or assemble some part of them here). But they could just have easily have been white-shoed cardigan wearers in their Maseratis, Ferraris or Astons. Except they aren’t as news-worthy, unless of course they are a “celebrity” or a politician responsible for road safety.
Of course it goes without saying that the police are “exasperated“. And naturally it’s downplayed as just lucky that there have been “no fatal crashes on the motorway so far this year.
We can all draw the pictures in our minds, of these criminally insane law-breakers tearing around at stupidly excessive speed, but truth be told every motorist exceeds the posted speed limit at some point in their driving lives. Perhaps not by these speeds, but certainly by non-trivial amounts. Perhaps you choose to do it, I don’t know. But whereas here in this article we are looking at just 3 incidences of clearly deliberate and excessive speeding on one motorway, the majority of otherwise law-abiding “speeders” are equally deliberately going 10, 20 or 30 kilometres an hour over the limit, usually on potholed suburban streets littered with intersections, driveways, cyclists and pedestrians to boot. Now whilst we can easily say that “if they crash (at these extreme speeds), they’ll likely die – police” we can also quite justifiably say that far more people are taking equally life-threatening risks on a daily basis. Sometimes they do it deliberately, sometimes by carelessness or ignorance. But tell me, why focus on the extreme “hoons” when the greater risk is all around us?
Why indeed do we make, sell or modify road-registerable cars that can easily double the speed limit? And why do we spend so much money replacing narrow, curvy roads with straighter, safer and faster multi-lane motorways? If we seriously wanted to reduce speeding we’d govern cars and restrict traffic flow (ok, we do that now – they are called traffic jams). Fact is, humans like to get places faster, not slower, and they enjoy some degree of personal risk-taking; indeed some of our community simply enjoy living closer to the edge.
None of which is particularly helpful in reducing death or injury on our roads, or saving us from our wasteful, unsustainable selves. But it does give us something to read in the press.
Here we go, another speculative old-media story that will test run another half-baked idea.
In short, it’s a good idea that surely would get plenty more people off the roads and into trains, buses and ferries (but presumably not onto Sydney’s private light rail, which would have to be compensated). And it’s also a bad idea that would suddenly flood an already strained system with more frustrated commuters… imagine the queues, the packed trains and buses… potentially driving many of these new public transport users back into their cars. If you think the public (and the old media) complain about the lack of on-time running now, imagine what will happen with thousands of extra ‘customers’!
Every trip will take longer as these extra travellers get on an off, so timetables will go out the window. (OTOH buses will have less overall traffic congestion to deal with, so that will compensate to some degree.) The current so-called ‘peak hour’ won’t double, but it will extend by perhaps 30% or so. People with a disability will find it harder to get on and off at these times, and perhaps the aged, kids and pregnant women will be deterred, too. Perhaps some public transport will become more of a shuttle service to cope, but with many services converging on the CBD and a limited range of terminals that just won’t work… it will clog up, logjam, and shut down.
Here’s the story that got me onto this topic: PREMIER Nathan Rees is being urged from within his own government to make public transport free for everybody as part of a radical bid to win the next election.
As the article says, fares don’t cover the cost of public transport – they simply add to the pricing mechanism (which includes the queue and the uncomfortable seats) and assist with matching demand with a limited supply. If you take away the cost of a ticket many more people will jump onto the system and – unless someone waves a magic wand to up the capacity – break it. The deterrant to use – and perhaps over-use – will be extended queuing or the next (uncomfortably packed) bus or train.
The cost of running the system will also rise – even without adding any new services, the extra loadings will cause additional regular maintenance and add more wear and tear to roads and track. So the real cost to the community will not be just fares foregone but the extra maintenance plus more frequent replacement of components and complete vehicles/rolling stock; and probably extra labour to deal both with the extended queues and the safety requirements of packed station platforms. And so on. It won’t be cheap.
On the other hand, whilst not everyone can use public transport – sometimes it just doesn’t go where you want to go – it will remove lost of private vehicles from the roads. And that can’t be a bad thing. Some savings will also be made by removing ticket sellers and inspectors, plus the back-end systems that must manage and account for the cash (won’t the unions love that). But they will be re-assigned to other work. Perhaps.
If we are to offer free – or even much cheaper – public transport then we need to plan and do this properly. We need to build a system that can cope with the extra users. Which has been the sticking point for the last decade at least. Exactly how do you make these sorts of massive investments in, for example, new trainlines, when you are under pressure to “fix” hospitals and education and all the rest? Successive state treasurers have been unable to do it. What will it take?
Of course we could just trim the fares gradually whilst we phase in new infrastructure. And won’t the media love that – another bright new shiny public transport plan doomed for the dustbin as we realise just how expensive that new trainset will be.
Filed under transport by Rob.
Here we go, another speculative old-media story that will test run another half-baked idea.
In short, it’s a good idea that surely would get plenty more people off the roads and into trains, buses and ferries (but presumably not onto Sydney’s private light rail, which would have to be compensated). And it’s also a bad idea that would suddenly flood an already strained system with more frustrated commuters… imagine the queues, the packed trains and buses… potentially driving many of these new public transport users back into their cars. If you think the public (and the old media) complain about the lack of on-time running now, imagine what will happen with thousands of extra ‘customers’!
Every trip will take longer as these extra travellers get on an off, so timetables will go out the window. (OTOH buses will have less overall traffic congestion to deal with, so that will compensate to some degree.) The current so-called ‘peak hour’ won’t double, but it will extend by perhaps 30% or so. People with a disability will find it harder to get on and off at these times, and perhaps the aged, kids and pregnant women will be deterred, too. Perhaps some public transport will become more of a shuttle service to cope, but with many services converging on the CBD and a limited range of terminals that just won’t work… it will clog up, logjam, and shut down.
Here’s the story that got me onto this topic: PREMIER Nathan Rees is being urged from within his own government to make public transport free for everybody as part of a radical bid to win the next election.
As the article says, fares don’t cover the cost of public transport – they simply add to the pricing mechanism (which includes the queue and the uncomfortable seats) and assist with matching demand with a limited supply. If you take away the cost of a ticket many more people will jump onto the system and – unless someone waves a magic wand to up the capacity – break it. The deterrant to use – and perhaps over-use – will be extended queuing or the next (uncomfortably packed) bus or train.
The cost of running the system will also rise – even without adding any new services, the extra loadings will cause additional regular maintenance and add more wear and tear to roads and track. So the real cost to the community will not be just fares foregone but the extra maintenance plus more frequent replacement of components and complete vehicles/rolling stock; and probably extra labour to deal both with the extended queues and the safety requirements of packed station platforms. And so on. It won’t be cheap.
On the other hand, whilst not everyone can use public transport – sometimes it just doesn’t go where you want to go – it will remove lost of private vehicles from the roads. And that can’t be a bad thing. Some savings will also be made by removing ticket sellers and inspectors, plus the back-end systems that must manage and account for the cash (won’t the unions love that). But they will be re-assigned to other work. Perhaps.
If we are to offer free – or even much cheaper – public transport then we need to plan and do this properly. We need to build a system that can cope with the extra users. Which has been the sticking point for the last decade at least. Exactly how do you make these sorts of massive investments in, for example, new trainlines, when you are under pressure to “fix” hospitals and education and all the rest? Successive state treasurers have been unable to do it. What will it take?
Of course we could just trim the fares gradually whilst we phase in new infrastructure. And won’t the media love that – another bright new shiny public transport plan doomed for the dustbin as we realise just how expensive that new trainset will be.
Filed under transport by Rob.
It really should be put to rest, this idea that the younger you are the more adaptable, motivated and interested you are in today’s technology. It’s assumed that new tech uptake is aligned (magically) with your label: ie Baby boomers vs Gen X or Y or even Next; when these are really just vaguely useful pop culture demographic labels with little or no correlation with anything, other than age and raw number.
Take this for example: Radwanick concluded that current assumptions about who might use a technology first might need to be reconsidered. “Not only teenagers and college students can be counted among the technologically inclined,” she said. “With those age 25 and older representing a much bigger segment of the population than the under 25 crowd, it might help explain why Twitter has expanded its reach so broadly so quickly over the past few months.”
Rather than assume that the young will drive new tech uptake, look instead at the real drivers (and/or impediments to uptake) like access, need, wealth, depth of responsibilities and available time. These things can occur at almost any age, and to varying degrees – but we can generalise a bit about who typically has a need for a short-message, quick contact microblogging service; who has the time, or lack of time to use it; and who has the connectivity and hardware platforms to make it happen. And who’s mature enough to appreciate it, too.
Quick and dirty assumptions don’t always stack up.
It really should be put to rest, this idea that the younger you are the more adaptable, motivated and interested you are in today’s technology. It’s assumed that new tech uptake is aligned (magically) with your label: ie Baby boomers vs Gen X or Y or even Next; when these are really just vaguely useful pop culture demographic labels with little or no correlation with anything, other than age and raw number.
Take this for example: Radwanick concluded that current assumptions about who might use a technology first might need to be reconsidered. “Not only teenagers and college students can be counted among the technologically inclined,” she said. “With those age 25 and older representing a much bigger segment of the population than the under 25 crowd, it might help explain why Twitter has expanded its reach so broadly so quickly over the past few months.”
Rather than assume that the young will drive new tech uptake, look instead at the real drivers (and/or impediments to uptake) like access, need, wealth, depth of responsibilities and available time. These things can occur at almost any age, and to varying degrees – but we can generalise a bit about who typically has a need for a short-message, quick contact microblogging service; who has the time, or lack of time to use it; and who has the connectivity and hardware platforms to make it happen. And who’s mature enough to appreciate it, too.
Quick and dirty assumptions don’t always stack up.
Tyler Hamilton has achieved far more in cycling than most of us, and at 38 he can feel proud of what he has done athletically. Many will say he underachieved, and that may be true… He has also incurred the wrath of officialdom and his peers, firstly for succumbing to blood doping, and now for what seems a fairly innocuous and desperate attempt to restore his mental health at a time of personal pain. Whilst we all go through pain and loss in our lives, not all of us take medication to deal with it, nor do all of us need it. We can’t see inside Tyler’s head and feel his pain, or know why he weakened and took a product that he knew would in all likelihood end his cycling career. But he did it, and he accepts his fate. Having denied the blood doping, he now is open about the DHEA. It’s almost trivial, but in some way it’s fitting that by his own hand he moves on.
His latest offence and some background:
“Hamilton claims he took the suggested dosage for two days prior to the out-of-competition urine test. USADA’s legal limit of DHEA found in the urine is 100ng/mL. Hamilton’s urine sample was tested at UCLA where lab technicians found 130 ng/mL of DHEA in his urine sample. Dr. Paul Scott, founder of Scott Analytics, reviewed the testing procedure for the B sample…
“Dr. Charles Welch, at Mass General hospital in Boston diagnosed Hamilton with clinical depression in 2003. He was prescribed Celexa as an anti-depressant for the next six years. According to Hamilton, he took amounts double the prescribed dosage for two weeks in January when his mental health declined further after his mother was diagnosed with cancer.”
Tyler doesn’t need further pain with this result, he needs some distance from pro cycling and continued support from family and friends. I hope he gets exactly that.
Tyler Hamilton has achieved far more in cycling than most of us, and at 38 he can feel proud of what he has done athletically. Many will say he underachieved, and that may be true… He has also incurred the wrath of officialdom and his peers, firstly for succumbing to blood doping, and now for what seems a fairly innocuous and desperate attempt to restore his mental health at a time of personal pain. Whilst we all go through pain and loss in our lives, not all of us take medication to deal with it, nor do all of us need it. We can’t see inside Tyler’s head and feel his pain, or know why he weakened and took a product that he knew would in all likelihood end his cycling career. But he did it, and he accepts his fate. Having denied the blood doping, he now is open about the DHEA. It’s almost trivial, but in some way it’s fitting that by his own hand he moves on.
His latest offence and some background:
“Hamilton claims he took the suggested dosage for two days prior to the out-of-competition urine test. USADA’s legal limit of DHEA found in the urine is 100ng/mL. Hamilton’s urine sample was tested at UCLA where lab technicians found 130 ng/mL of DHEA in his urine sample. Dr. Paul Scott, founder of Scott Analytics, reviewed the testing procedure for the B sample…
“Dr. Charles Welch, at Mass General hospital in Boston diagnosed Hamilton with clinical depression in 2003. He was prescribed Celexa as an anti-depressant for the next six years. According to Hamilton, he took amounts double the prescribed dosage for two weeks in January when his mental health declined further after his mother was diagnosed with cancer.”
Tyler doesn’t need further pain with this result, he needs some distance from pro cycling and continued support from family and friends. I hope he gets exactly that.
Here we go again… another post-once, post-to-many service. At first
glance it’s slick, but without the finer control of some:
http://posterous.com/
Posted via email from gtveloce’s posterous
|
|
