What I did on my weekend
I’ve said to some people that I was being given a car or three. Here’s the only one of them worth saving:
I’ve named it Harvey. You can learn more about Harvey over at my car blog.
Biodiesel is cool
Ricky writes that various companies in Australia are getting into biodiesel. Cool. The news.com.au article he writes about says that biodiesel is made from “plant oil or animal fat” which is true, but the problem with that is producing the raw material cheaply enough to make it worthwhile. By “cheaply” I don’t mean inexpensively in dollar terms but in energy terms.
According to “The Answer is Biodiesel” (also here) by Michael Briggs from the University of New England’s Biodiesel group, biodiesel is a lot better in Overall Energy Balance than the current vogue in alternative energy cars, hydrogen.
Briggs says (and shows) that producing biodiesel in large-scale commercial production is quite simple and efficient, particularly if the raw material comes from algae ponds rather than crops. It’s an interesting idea and one that’s convinced me that biodiesel is significantly better than hydrogen.
Future Car will “talk”. Will say: “oops”
The Adelaide Advertiser is reporting on a conference/sales event that will showcase “smart” technology for cars.
The technology, being jointly developed in Adelaide, will be demonstrated this week on the Clipsal 500 track in Victoria Park, along with a range of traffic advances in an industry-only peek into the future.
Experts say the advances have the potential to dramatically slash the road toll and ease congestion – and could within a generation lead to cars that drive themselves.
Sounds great, doesn’t it, concerned motorists? But, what is this miracle technology?
Among innovations on show will be the Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) system being developed by Melbourne firm MoTeC in partnership with Datalink and Adelaide-based Tenix Electronics.
ISA combines three systems to let cars know at what speed they should be moving – GPS for location, video recognition of speed signs, and devices inspeed signs which transmit information to passing cars.
So, the car will get information about prescribed speed limits from various sources. Now, nigh on ten years ago now (eek!), I was given some sage advice from my Dad, which I will now present for the elucidation of you, concerned motorist. That advice is this: You will often find that the safest speed is lower than the speed limit.
But back to the wonderful technology. How will this technology be implemented?
MoTeC spokesman Alex Caldwell said the technology was affordable and it would be up to governments as to how far it was implemented.
Because governments are always able to make sound, informed, decisions about new technologies.
“You could use it so a simple warning noise sounds to alert a driver the car is over the limit,” he said.
“On the other hand, you could have legislation so the sign can `order’ a speeding car to slow to the legal limit regardless of the driver.”
Other advances on show include red lights which “order” cars to stop, sensors to keep a defined gap between cars to prevent rear-end crashes, and video cameras that sound an alert if a drowsy driver’s eyes start to close.
Notice the unctirical nature of the article, concerned motorist? The “advances” include such wonders that remove agency (or the ability to act) from the driver and give it to the computer inside the car and, since governments will (in some distopian future) legislate for this technology the agency is intended to pass from the computer to the government who are looking after the motorists interest. This delegation of agency is supposedly to give governments the power to make things “safer” on the road.
Australian Automobile Association executive director Lauchlan McIntosh said:
“I can see an era of driverless cars happening in my lifetime. We should not accept that we have five people killed on our roads every day when we have the technology to prevent it.”
Obviously, I think this is a bad idea. Getting back to that sage piece of advice: You will often find that the safest speed is lower than the speed limit. The reason that advice is so important in this arguement is that any system that rigidly enforces compliance with the posted speed limit brings with it the implication that it is always safe to travel at the speed limit when that is not the case. These sort of systems could (will) reconfigure people’s perceptions of what it means to be a driver. Instead of being an active driver, engaged with the road conditions, other motorists and road users and activities happening near the road, such a system could, and, in my opinion, will, transform drivers into disengaged passive participants in their own demise.
