Road Safety

A deadly problem: should we ban SUVs from our cities?

Activists, including one wearing a Angela Merkel mask, outside the Frankfurt International Auto, holding signs reading ‘gas guzzling vehicles off the road’ and ‘Stop petrol and diesel’.

More junk journalism from The Guardian. Why can’t the paper make sensible commentary on the auto industry? Essentially it pushes a narrative that we should ban SUVs, a long term growth market for automakers because they advertise the segment too much. Shame on trying to act in the interests of shareholders. The article encourages the movement to push for a ban of SUVs in cities. Why? The socialisation of transport!

The article makes the early assertion that passengers are 11% more likely to die in an SUV accident than a regular passenger car. Unfortunately, it cited an article written 15 years ago. In that time, SUVs have evolved leaps and bounds. A far greater proportion of SUVs are made using a monocoque chassis as opposed to the old ladder frames. Even those SUVs with ladder chassis hold 5-star safety NHTSA ratings in 2019:

2019 Jeep Grand Cherokee – 5 star (ladder) vs 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee – 3 star

2019 Ford Expedition – 5 star (ladder) – 2004 Ford Expedition – 5 star

2019 GMC Acadia – 5 star (ladder) – 2007 GMC Acadia – 4 star

2019 Toyota RAV4 – 5 star (monocoque) – 2004 Toyota RAV4 – 4 star

2019 Mazda CX-9 – 5 star (monocoque) – 2007 Mazda CX-9 – 4 star.

Some may recall in the early 2000s when the Ford Explorer/Firestone tyre rollover incident killed 261 people. Since then, carmakers have installed so many safety items – passive and active. Automatic braking, lane departure detection, forward collision warning, electronic brakeforce distribution (which prevents rollovers). SUVs are safer than ever, including pedestrian facing features.

Never mind the huge leap in safety. Let’s shame the automakers and buyers instead.

The Guardian noted, “In Germany, in 2018 they spent more on marketing SUVs than on any other segment; they actually spent as much as they spent on other segments together” says Stephan von Dassel, the district mayor of Berlin-Mitte. “This is not some accident that people suddenly are really into these cars, they are heavily pushed into the market.”

Wow, so carmakers actually made a sensible advertising budget allocations and convinced new buyers to voluntarily select their SUVs. Those wicked capitalists. They should be burnt at the stake for being in touch with their customers. Perhaps politicians could learn from the carmakers about being in touch with their constituents?

The Guardian then noted the following,

In Europe, sales of SUVs leapt from 7% of the market in 2009 to 36% in 2018. They are forecast to reach nearly 40% by 2021. While pedestrian deaths are falling across Europe, they are not falling as fast as deaths of those using other modes of transport.

So even though the sales of these vehicles have skyrocketed, pedestrian deaths are falling. Reading the paper published by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, stated

“A total of 5,987 pedestrians were killed in crashes in 2016, accounting for 16 percent of all crash fatalities. The number of pedestrians killed each year has declined 20 percent since 1975…”

Surprisingly, The Guardian waits till the end to point the finger at the pet issue facing SUVs – emissions.

“Transport, primarily road transport, is responsible for 27% of Europe’s carbon emissions. A decade ago the EU passed a law with a target to reduce carbon emissions to 95g/km by 2021 but a recent report by campaign organisation Transport and Environment highlights what is calls it “pitiful progress”. “Sixteen months from before the target comes into force carmakers are less than halfway towards their goals,” the report adds. The car industry faces hefty fines in Europe of €34bn in a few months for failing to meet emissions targets.”

Related image

How is it that diesel engines, the increasingly preferred powerplant in SUVs, have had emissions cut 97% over the last 25 years? That is monumental progress.

Yet why have legislators tried to ban petrol and diesel cars and looking to force adoption of dirtier EVs which have done 150,000km equivalent CO2 emissions before leaving the showroom? Because ideology distorts reality. Even Schaeffler AG, an auto supplier, admitted it is almost impossible for automakers to comply with the different demands of over 200 cities in Europe with EV rules. No common standards and the quest of woke city councils trying to outdo each other on being climate-friendly. Then governments need to consider the 5% of total tax revenue that fill the coffers they would be giving up, although already in the US, Illinois is looking to impose a $1,000 a year EV tax.

Shouldn’t the EU and other countries face the realities that consumers (taxpayers) like the utility these SUVs provide for their individual needs over and above saving the planet? Shouldn’t politicians realise that consumers make conscious decisions when making the second largest purchase for the household?

One can absolutely bet that if some maker came out with a Hummer sized EV, these cities that want to ban SUVs from driving in them would grant the monster truck an exemption and special parking zones.

Julia Poliscanova, director of clean vehicles and e-mobility at Transport and Environment, says regulators must step in to force car manufacturers to produce and sell zero-emission and suitably sized vehicles, for example, small and light cars in urban areas.”

What if consumers don’t want to buy small and light cars? Force car makers to produce cars their customers don’t want? That is a winning strategy. If carmakers must sell zero-emission vehicles, why on God’s earth are politicians with absolutely no engineering pedigree dictating technology to the experts? Why not let necessity be the mother of invention? If carmakers can get fossil fuel-powered vehicles to be zero-emission and keep their brand DNA at the same time, imagine the billions that could be saved on reckless waste rolling out often unreliable charging infrastructure? Maybe then carmakers could build cars its customers wanted and make money to literally fuel the economy. Politicians would still be able to virtue signal! Win-win.

Maybe the modus operandi is to socialise transport. Poliscanova said, “Smart urban policies are also key to drive consumers towards clean and safe modes…Mayors should reduce space and parking spots for private cars and reallocate it to people and shared clean mobility services.

That is the ticket – force everyone off the road. That is a sure vote winner!

The thrill of the charge

CM has often made reference to the uselessness of EV police vehicles. The idea is that a fossil-fueled vehicle is ready to go ASAP. This radio transcript from Freemont Police in San Jose serves to highlight the biggest flaw of using EVs. When an emergency is in progress will, “sorry, in our quest to save the planet you’ll have to wait another 3 hours before we can attend to your domestic violence dispute. Bear with us. The car is on the charger” cut it?

Note the police in the Democratic People’s Republic of Victoria has selected Teslas for police cars.

Yet we already have so many beta test examples to reject the use of EVs.

In 2016, the LAPD bought $10m worth of BMW i3s to show its commitment to climate abatement. Sadly, the cars went largely unused as they were unsuited for police work.

CBS reported,

LAPD Deputy Chief Jorge Villegas said of the purchase, “Money well worth itIt’s all a part of saving the Earth, going green … quite frankly, to try and save money for the community and the taxpayers.”

But sources say some personnel are reluctant to use the electric cars because they can only go 80-100 miles on a charge. And the mileage logs we obtained seem to back that up.

From April 2016 when the project started through August 2017, we found most of the electric cars have only been used for a few thousand miles…And a handful are sitting in the garage with only a few hundred on them.

One in service since May 27, 2016, had just 400 miles on it!

That’s an average use of 6 miles a week!

With the monthly lease payment of a little more than $418, this one costs taxpayers over $15 a mile to use!… It just doesn’t make any sense!”

CM one posted this question to someone from the NSW St Johns Ambulance with respect to discussions about EV ambulances. He said unequivocally,

We have Webasto heaters in our cars in the colder areas. Running off the diesel they can operate 24/7 if needed. If we don’t have them some of our equipment doesn’t work like our tympanic thermometers, the blood glucose reader and then there is the problem of having cold fluids in the car. This is a problem if we are giving them an IV because we can make a patient hypothermic if it’s cold. Then there’s just the general environment inside the cab. It needs to be warm in winter.

That is the point. Emergency services need to be able to operate on call. 5 minutes to fill up with gasoline or diesel means that efficient utilisation and dispatch is guaranteed for at least 500km+.

If end users have to weigh having their lives saved or rescue the planet, it is a no brainer which they will choose. We already know that Tesla P100Ds have done 167,000km in CO2 before they’ve left the factory. “To Protect and serve after a fast charge” should be emblazoned on the doors.

NSW Chair pleads for a truce

Could it be that those who are fed up with political correctness have proved their pockets are way deeper than Rugby Australia (RA) ever imagined? For the Rugby NSW Chair Roger Davis to pipe up that, “the game is paying too high a price for RA to be proved right in this matter” speaks volumes. Sounds like fear that RA might lose.

The ACL suspended the Folau fund raising as it went over $2m in two days. Now he can comfortably fund an excellent team of silks to prosecute the case against RA. Plenty more ammunition behind that one imagines too. RA is outgunned unless Qantas intends to deploy shareholder capital?!?

Once again, this has moved way beyond Folau’s contractual dispute. People are fed up with the lecturing from the left. Regardless of whether one agrees with what he said or not or the GoFundMe stunt, the people have spoken with their wallets. They don’t want to have corporates tell them how or what to say or behavioral awareness officers at the games marshaling their stress outlets.

Rugby Australia’s problems started way before Folau’s tweets. The attendance and performance of the Wallabies stems from the incompetence at the top. The numbers are abysmal. The identity politics obsessed board which keeps a coach despite the worst track record in the team’s history. Australia will be lucky to make the play offs.

As David rightly said, It’s not about rights or wrongs now, it’s about pragmatics. I don’t think rugby should be defining freedom of religion rights or freedom of expression rights. I don’t think it’s our job,

Exactly. Which is why $2m was lined up to let RA know it should drop all of the gender and identity political garbage period and focus on who pays the bills – the fans.

Woke Vic Police should have called the LAPD before selecting EVs

2fc237cb65e0a67e8ee4f94b76247581.jpeg

Victoria Police is renowned for its commitment to inclusion and diversity. Who could forget the push for segregated sessions in the recruitment drive? Stands to reason the coppers have introduced the Tesla Model X to the fleet to show “green” credentials. The point of a police car is instant dispatch when required to attend to a crisis situation, from thwarting a terrorist in the Melbourne CBD or rushing to a domestic dispute. It won’t look good when the police have to wait for the fast charger at the base to provide enough juice to make it the scene of the crime. Now that Hazelwood coal-fired power plant has been closed, good luck waiting on renewable energy to charge these cars for practical police use. Don’t be surprised when the shortcomings force a rethink.

What will they tell Victorians? “Sorry, in our quest to save the planet you’ll have to wait another 3 hours before we can attend to your domestic violence dispute. Bear with us. The car is on the charger!

In 2016, the LAPD bought $10m worth of BMW i3s to show its commitment to climate abatement. Sadly, the cars went largely unused as they were unsuited for police work.

CBS reported,

LAPD Deputy Chief Jorge Villegas said of the purchase, Money well worth itIt’s all a part of saving the Earth, going green … quite frankly, to try and save money for the community and the taxpayers.”

But sources say some personnel are reluctant to use the electric cars because they can only go 80-100 miles on a charge. And the mileage logs we obtained seem to back that up.

From April 2016 when the project started through August 2017, we found most of the electric cars have only been used for a few thousand miles…And a handful are sitting in the garage with only a few hundred on them.

Like this one in service since May 27, 2016, with just 400 miles on it!

That’s an average use of 6 miles a week!

With the monthly lease payment of a little more than $418, this one costs taxpayers over $15 a mile to use!… It just doesn’t make any sense!”

CM one posted this question to someone from the NSW St Johns Ambulance with respect to discussions about EV ambulances. He said unequivocally,

We have Webasto heaters in our cars in the colder areas. Running off the diesel they can operate 24/7 if needed. If we don’t have them some of our equipment doesn’t work like our tympanic thermometers, the blood glucose reader and then there is the problem of having cold fluids in the car. This is a problem if we are giving these IV because we can make a patient hypothermic if it’s cold. Then there’s just the general environment inside the cab. It needs to be warm in winter.

That is the point. Emergency services need to be able to operate on call. 5 minutes to fill up with gasoline or diesel means that efficient utilisation and dispatch is guaranteed for at least 500km+.

If end users have to weigh having their lives saved or rescue the planet, it is a no brainer which they will choose. We already know that Tesla P100Ds have done 167,000km in CO2 before they’ve left the factory. “To Protect after Charging” should be emblazoned on the doors.

Ding dong the switch is dead

Morgan Stanley has finally lowered its bearish scenario on Tesla from $97 to $10. CM wrote in October 2017 that the shares based on production of 500,000 vehicles was worth no more than $28 (refer to report page 5). That was based on rosy scenarios. Sadly CM thinks Tesla will be bought for a song by the Chinese. Maybe $4.20 a share instead of $420 “funding secured” levels.

The stock breached $200 yesterday for the first time since late 2016.

Morgan Stanley analyst, Adam Jonas, has still kept its base case scenario at $230 per share. His bull case is $391.

Where is the conviction? To drop a bear case target by 90% must surely mean the base case is far lower than presently assumed.

Jonas must assume the bear case is actually the base case. Sell side brokers love to hide behind scenario analysis to cop out having to get off the fence. His compliance department probably prevents him from realizing $10 is his true heart.

Tesla was always playing in a market that it had no prior experience. It is not to say the products didn’t have promise. The problem was the execution. Too much senior management turnover, missed targets, poor quality and too many Tweets from Musk.

The amount of bad press arising from a lack of service centers has driven customers to moan on social media at its amateur approach. The fragile dreams of being an early adopter are being shattered. Cash burn remains high and deliveries remain low. Some pundits think Tesla orders are under real pressure in 2Q 2019.

The recent all share deal with Maxwell Technologies has seen those holders -20% since the transaction a few weeks ago. CM argued how a company with such revolutionary technology could sell itself for all shares in a debt-ridden loss making like Tesla? If the technology was of real value PE funds would have snapped it up or at the very least made a bid in cash. That none was made speaks volumes about what was bought.

All of the arguments hold true in the above link, “Tesla – 30 reasons why Tesla will be a bug on a windshield

Tesla below $200 after a successful cap raise is not a good sign. It’s the faithful slowly tipping out. Await another imaginary Musk-inspired growth engine to be announced shortly to try prop up the stock price. Yet the momentum will continue to sink. The market is losing confidence in Musk. The 1Q results were diabolically bad.

Major holder T Rowe Price has stampeded out the door. The stock is too risky. Musk is a brilliant salesman but he has bitten off more than he can chew.

CM always thought that Toyota selling its Tesla stake was a major sign. Acknowledging that under the hood the company possessed no technology that Toyota didn’t already own.

Watch the free fall. The Tesla stock will be below $100 by the year end.

(CM does not hold Tesla stock)

Japan has the best drink driving laws – socialized punishment

NSW Police will take away one’s license for breaking drink-driving laws (even at low end) after May 20.

Japan has the best method of all. The driver is fined up to ¥1,000,000 ($14,000) and up to 5 years jail. Passengers are fined up to ¥500,000 ($7,000) and up to 5 years each for allowing the same person to drive while intoxicated. Socialized responsibility!

In 1993 Japan had 1,480 excess alcohol related road fatalities. In 2017 it was 213 (-85%). Against total road deaths of 10,650 and 3,904 respectively. Therefore drink driving fell from 14% to 5.5% of all road deaths in Japan.

In 1993 there were around 80 fatalities in NSW. In 2017 it was 42. Perhaps a socialized drink driving fine schedule would cut it further than just losing one’s license. Against total road deaths NSW had 581 and 405 respectively. Or 14% to 10% of all road mortalities over the same period.