Driving in Manhattan Won't Be Free Much Longer

In 2003, London instituted a £8, or about $16, "congestion charge" on any cars that entered central London. The aim was to clear some of the traffic and clutter from the center of the city, encourage public transportation use, and reduce air pollution. To many, including London's mayor, Ken Livingstone, the plan was so successful that the city expanded the size of the zone in February to roughly double its size and encompass a larger portion of the city. Although at the time of the initial implementation, 40% of Londoners supported the surcharges, 60% of them did in 2006.

Mr. Livingstone touts many successes of the charges:

• In 2002, the average vehicle traveling through the city moved at an average of 8.7 miles per hour; in 2003 it jumped to 10.5 miles per hour
• There are 16.4% fewer vehicles entering the city since 2002
• There is 16.4% less carbon dioxide emissions in the city than in 2002
• Traffic accidents with injuries fell from 2,296 in 2002 to 1,629 in 2005
  

The tolls work like this: When you drive through the marked toll zone between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. (or 6:30 p.m., depending on the zone), hundreds of cameras photograph your car's license plate. A computer matches your license plate number against a database of license plates that have paid the toll. Drivers have until midnight on the day they entered the toll zone to make payment (which can be done online, via text message, over the phone, or in convenience stores), or they face fines, which are sometimes very hefty. Residents who live within the toll zones receive a 90% discount. The system costs the city about $184 million per year to run, but generates $430 million in revenue (that's a 57% profit margin).

They are not without opposition, even in London. Small business owners are concerned that the charges dissuade potential customers from shopping at their stores if they are within the toll zone. Privacy advocates hate the idea of the government tracking every car's movements through the city.

Now, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg would like to implement a similar plan in Manhattan, below 86th street. Under Mr. Bloomberg's proposal, any car entering the area between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. would be charged $8. Forget for a moment that the city is asking the federal government for between $200 million and $500 million for this initiative. Also forget for a moment that 55% of New Yorkers already use public transportation to commute to work. And finally, forget the fact that recording vehiclular movements Big Brother style goes counter to the loss of privacy that most Americans will tolerate. Those are all major issues with this initiative, to be sure. But what about the fact that Manhattan is an island? I mean, until amphibious cars are mainstreateam, the only way to get a car into Manhattan is via bridge, tunnel, or ferry, and nearly every way into Manhattan requires payment of a toll. So wouldn't it be exponentially simpler to just add $8 onto tolls for vehicles entering Manhattan? The toll collection infrastructure - whether in the form of ferry tickets, E-ZPass, or human toll collectors - is already there.

The other thing that fundamentally bothers me about this idea as a car enthusiast is that, as if increasing traffic, increasing gas prices, and increasingly inconsiderate fellow drivers aren't already conspiring to remove most of the fun from the driving experience, New York is basically trying to eliminate automobiles, at least to the largest extent they are able. That just doesn't sit right with me.

I've only personally driven in Manhattan twice that I can recall; otherwise, every other time I have visited, I've either ridden the train or the ferry, so this concept doesn't directly affect me. However, the idea is catching on in other cities, and it's only a matter of time before a city near me - or you - tries to implement "congestion charges." Say goodbye to automotive freedom and hello to bureaucracy.

Death Wish? Buy a Brilliance BS6

Last week, photos and video started circulating online of the horrific crash test results of the Chinese Brilliance BS6 sedan. The car was tested using the well-recognized Euro-NCAP (New Car Assessment Program) offset frontal crash test at 40 miles per hour by ADAC, a German auto club.

In cars that ace these tests, the passenger compartment stays almost completely intact with no intrusion of the floor into the driver's footwell or the instrument panel into the driver's face. The best cars often still have functioning driver's doors, yet sacrifice so much of their front end absorbing the crash energy that the occupants get out of the car relatively unscathed.

Instead, the poorly-named Brilliance BS6 saw the pedals intrude into the driver's space by 18 inches, and the dashboard by 7 inches. The driver's door wouldn't open without the technicians using a huge crowbar, and the rocker panel bent almost 90 degrees, stopped only when it hit the floor. The base of the windshield moved to the same vertical plane as the top of the windshield was before the crash, and the driver was left sharing space with steering wheels, windshields, and the front end of the car. He or she would have almost certainly been killed instantly.

ADAC also tested another BS6 for side impact protection (this is also in the video linked above). In this test, the side impact cart intruded past the width of the door into the passenger compartment (over 12 inches) and whipped the driver's head so severely that he would have almost certainly been killed.

Naturally, the car earned the minimum rating, one star, on a five-star scale.

If you're keeping score at home, Chinese vehicles undergoing western crash tests have both failed miserably (the earlier being the Landwind SUV, which fared so poorly it was withdrawn from the European market).

So far, the Luxembourg-based distributor for the BS6, HSO Motors, has sold 350 of the €19,000 cars, and has said that dealers should offer to repurchase the cars from owners who are concerned about its crashworthiness. However, one dealer quoted in Automotive News said, "For price-conscious customers who are careful drivers, this safety issue does not have priority." He also said that he would continue selling the car.

Great - so if you're sure you won't be in an accident, you're OK in a Brilliance. But I always thought that most accidents sort of happened, you know, accidentally. I've been in two of them in 16 years of driving, and I didn't plan them ahead of time. I really didn't expect them to happen, frankly. Sometimes, they're unavoidable.

For its part, the manufacturer doesn't believe that the poor crash test results will hurt sales. The company also accused the German media of "viciously playing up" the ADAC test results. Brilliance also said that they agreed to cooperate with ADAC on the BS6's safety, and expect the car to earn three stars within a year. Brilliance also would like to find a partner to help it crack the US market, and said in April that it would like to sell cars in the US, including the BS6, no later than early 2008.

Personally, I don't plan to set foot in a Chinese car that will be moving (I'd feel reasonably safe in one in a static display at an auto show) until I'm convinced that the safety of these vehicles has improved to modern standards. I'd take a good used car - or a new Renault/Dacia Logan/Nissan Aprio - any day over a Chinese car with questionable occupant protection capabilities. But, if you have a death wish, you can always buy one of these and drive into an offset barrier at 40 miles per hour. You won't be around to tell us about it.

Further Idiocy From Ford

Courtesy of Bloomberg -

Ford Motor Co. thinks it finally has a chance to crack the small-car market, and not a moment too soon.

This fall Ford will begin selling the second generation of the Focus, a compact that hasn't fared well against some of the stiffest competition in the auto world. The new model, available with an optional interactive speech-recognition system developed with Microsoft Corp. and called Sync, will have to offer young shoppers a clear advantage over a Honda or Toyota, aside from a discounted price.

I swear, my head is about to explode Scanners style if I have to read any more shit like this from retarded automakers.

'A chance to crack the small-car market' ??? How idiotic is that statement? Ford CRACKED the small-car market back in 2000 with the original Ford Focus. It was class leading, it looked great for the time, it hit all the right buttons, it was a quantum leap over the Escort/Contour that it replaced in the lineup. It was an honest to goodness valid and in a lot of cases, BETTER alternative to the Civic, Corolla, Sentra, et al. And they shit the bed by not updating it significantly for almost EIGHT YEARS. Absolutely shit the bed. No ifs, ands, or buts. And now they're touting this new Focus as some sort of 'chance' vehicle for them.

The best part about all this? It's still not an all new Ford Focus! It's still riding the same platform, while the Mazda 3 gets all the latest goodies.

Incredible.

Buick, Saab, and Cadillac- Why Can't GM Make A Real Luxury Car?

When you're a huge multinational corporation with multiple brands like GM, it enables you to really break things down into bite sized niches. Companies like BMW, which will live and die by its 'driver' mantra, or even Toyota, which has one brand name and depends on quality perceptions, either need to undertake huge marketing efforts to crash into a niche they weren't in before, or introduce/acquire new nameplates to achieve the same goal. Either way generally results in a lot of money spent, oftentimes with very little to show for it.

GM on the other hand, has a plethora of brands to choose from. Most with some sort of niche already attached. When you drive a Chevy, you're driving dependable American steel with a good value quotient. When you drive a Pontiac, you're driving dependable American steel with a good value quotient... and VERVE! When you drive a Hummer, you're driving a badass American icon with no respect for the sanctity of oil.

But when you drive a Buick, Saab or Cadillac, what are you driving?

Well, Buick is easy. You're driving a bad car. A bad car targeted at 75 year old blue haired individuals with a fondness for the past, but not enough wallet to shell out for a Cadillac DTS. And while Buick professes to be changing, 3800 Series engines mated to FWD 4 speed automatic flagships belies their true intentions. Quick, what's more laughable- Buick saying they're going to challenge Lexus, or a post by Admiral Viscen? Tough call. Even the appointed saviour of the brand, the effervescent and tangy Buick Enclave, is simply a rebadged Acadia/Outlook that looks like a Rendezvous if you squint hard enough.

The second on the list, Saab, is a bit harder to pin down. When you're driving a Saab, you're apparently driving-

a)a Pontiac G6/Saturn Aura/Cadillac BLS
b)a Subaru Impreza
c)a Chevrolet Trailblazer

or

d)a piece of dung

At least you get a turbo or two thrown into the mix. But somehow, Saab is even worse off than Buick. At least Buick has an image of some sort, even if it's laughable. Saab has settled nicely into the 'pretentious guy who can't afford a real European marque but still wants to look like he can because he lives in San Francisco' niche. Congrats on that Saab!

Last but not least, you've got the big grandpappy of the crew- Cadillac. What a revival huh? 6 years ago, left for dead, with a smoldering carcass of a Catera being presided over by the ghostly ashes of an Allante. And then Art & Science came around and everything was perfect again. Or was it? Your honour, I present to you Exhibit A, as portrayed in the picture leading off this column. Dear idiots- shut up, I know that interior has either a)been replaced or b)been phased out as of next year. But I'll go even one step further and colour myself unimpressed with the new CTS in almost every facet except for the new mug. Everything rear of the A-pillar is an uninspired mess. Everything inside is derivative of Infiniti/Lexus/Mercedes. Minus the nuance and subtlety one expects of those brands. Oh, I'm sure it will have soft touch materials and everything will click with a gentle softness. But hey Cadillac, why would I buy a fat pig CTS when I can get an Infiniti/Lexus/BMW/MB/Audi/et al that does everything it can do, but better? As if I'm supposed to be impressed by a 300 HP V6 engine. Or a lack of luxury features common in entry level Nissans. Don't even get me started on the abomination that is the STS (when not in V trim). Or the XLR with it's boy racer aspirations not befitting a luxury car. Or the hideous Escalade which somehow manages to mess up features that Hyundais were offering 5 years ago. The only Caddy of note is the SRX, and recent news indicates that's the one that's on the chopping block. Go figure. The problem with Caddy is, they're putting the cart in front of the horse- talk of the 'standard of the world' isn't just premature- it's a twinkle in the eye of a glory hole patron. When Cadillac figures out how NOT to follow everyone else, then perhaps they'll be the standard of the world again. Until then, they'll just be a 3rd rate Mercedes/BMW/Infiniti/Lexus/Audi knockoff.

No Virginia, GM can't make a luxury car... but the TOYOTA TUNDRA IS STILL TEH SUXXORS!