Articles by Richard Read

The good news is that our cars are safer than they've ever been. The bad news is that our safer cars are doing a much better job of trapping occupants during accidents. A few months ago, we told you about the new and improved Jaws of Life that have been designed to extract vehicle occupants after collisions. Now, Mercedes-Benz is working to facilitate that process, too. Its solution: QR codes. You probably know QR codes as the square, "quick reference" bar codes found mostly on ads in magazines. If you own a smartphone, you might even have an app that scans QR codes and pulls up additional information on various products (though there's a good chance you've never used it). Recently, someone at Mercedes-Benz had the very bright idea to use QR codes to relay rescue information. This eliminates the need for emergency responders to track down a vehicle's "rescue sheet", which details the location of airbags, electric cables, batteries, tanks, and other elements. Having that information at the ready speeds rescue times and ensures that no rescuers get injured in the process. According to a press release, as of this year, all Mercedes vehicles will carry two QR stickers, one of which will be located on the fuel tank flap, with the other found on the B-pillar on the opposite side of the vehicle. As the automaker points out, "it seldom occurs that both these parts are badly damaged at the same time in an accident, and they are furthermore easily accessible from the outside". In a rescue situation, responders can scan the QR code with a smartphone or tablet, giving them instant access to the data they need to make the rescue go as smoothly and safely as possible. There are many ways to use new technology to improve rescue times, but this is by far one of the smartest, simplest, and least expensive applications we've seen. Mercedes-Benz deserves credit for thinking of it, and other automakers would be wise to follow suit -- including placing their own QR codes in the same locations. By the way: if you own a Mercedes-Benz, Smart, or other Daimler-made vehicle, you can download a rescue sheet for your own car by clicking here.  www.thecarconnection.com

In 2010, Toyota recalled millions of vehicles for "unintended acceleration" issues, which generated lots of negative press for the automaker and put the brakes on Toyota sales. Though the recall has fallen out of the headlines, it's still the subject of a huge class action lawsuit working its way through federal court. According to a report in Detroit News, that case could be settled within the next month, and up to $1.65 billion hangs in the balance. A QUICK RECAP The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in the US began receiving complaints about sudden acceleration in Toyota vehicles as far back as 2002, but it took the 2009 deaths of California Highway Patrol Officer Mark Saylor and three of his family members to bring the issue to the public's attention. Numerous investigations, accusations, speculations, hoaxes, and conspiracy theories later, some conclusions were reached. In 2011, NHTSA revealed that it found no electronic flaws on Toyota vehicles that might've resulted in sudden acceleration. However, there were problems with the design of Toyota's accelerator pedals, which had caused them to become trapped beneath floormats in some cases. Toyota has been reluctant to accept blame in the matter and maintains that its electronics systems were never at fault. Earlier this year, however, the company settled out of court on a wrongful death case related to sudden acceleration. And now, Toyota is hoping for a repeat performance in one of the largest class action lawsuits in automotive history. THE LOOMING SETTLEMENT One month from today, US District Judge James Selna will determine whether a $1.65 billion settlement in that class action case is fair to plaintiffs. If he rules in Toyota's favour, much of that cash will be distributed to current and previous Toyota, Lexus, and Scion owners, reimbursing them for the loss in resale value their vehicles suffered following the recall. Settlement funds will also be allocated to: Legal fees accrued by Toyota owners ($200 million) Research into active safety features ($15 million) A media campaign aimed at driver education ($14.2 million) A study of defensive driving and proper use of existing safety systems ($800,000) www.thecarconnection.com  

We all remember what it was like to be a kid, trapped in the back seat, cutting up with brothers or sisters or schoolmates. Our parents would turn around and give us "that look", promising all sorts of punishments if we didn't keep still. Occasionally, they'd pull over to the side of the road, which was the most ominous threat of all. (In their defence, though, pulling over was often the only way to get our attention.) Given those memories, it might seem that the biggest driving distraction for parents would be their unruly children. But as it turns out, that's no longer accurate. Researchers at the University of Michigan in the US recently spent eight months conducting a study at two of the state's hospitals. Between October 2011 and May 2012, the team interviewed parents and caregivers of children ages one through 12 who'd been brought to the emergency rooms at those facilities. During the interviews, respondents were asked how often they'd performed certain distracting activities while driving within the previous month. According to a press release, "these behaviours included talking on the phone (hands-free or handheld), texting/surfing the Internet, self-care (grooming, eating) child care (picking up a toy, feeding their child), getting directions (navigation system, map) and changing a CD or DVD." A total of 618 adults participated, with 575 completing the full survey. Most drivers had succumbed to at least four of the ten distractions suggested by the study's researchers. But while child-care did rank high on the list, it wasn't number one. Here are the top six results, in reverse order: 6. Texting 5. Entertainment 4. Directions 3. Self-care 2. Child-care 1. Phone calls That's right: though roughly 70 per cent of drivers said that they'd been distracted by child-care duties within the past month, even more -- about 75 per cent -- had taken or made calls behind the wheel. While there is no parent-specific data for Australia, a 2012 study by the National Roads and Motorists Association found that a massive 88 per cent of driver admitted to taking or making a phone call while behind the wheel, and 69 per cent said they had texted while driving. The NRMA research also found 40 per cent of drivers used apps on their phone -- such as those to check the weather or news -- 38 per cent admitted to taking photos, and 25 per cent updated their social media status or tweeted while on the move. While that might seem surprising, here's one thing that's not: the US study found people who said that they'd never been involved in a motor vehicle collision were significantly less likely to engage in distracted driving behaviours. Also worth pointing out: drivers who hadn't buckled up their kids were 2.5 times more likely to report being distracted by child-care. (Duh, they're called "restraints" for a reason.) For reason yet to be determined, those folks were also more likely to have texted from behind the wheel than their law-abiding counterparts. www.thecarconnection.com  

As automakers go, Terrafugia is a niche company. In fact, let's call it "super-niche": manufacturers like Tesla may cater to a very limited subset of buyers, but Terrafugia's target market is even narrower.That's because Terrafugia makes flying cars. They're not as cool-looking as the rides you've seen in movies and comic books since you were a kid, but they are cars, and they do fly -- and Terrafugia's latest model goes one step further.That model is called the Terrafugia XF-T. As you'll see in the video clip posted above, it expands on the company's existing Transition vehicle by offering helicopter-like rotors, which allow the XF-T to take off and land vertically.According to the folks at Terrafugia, flying the XF-T "should be statistically safer than driving a modern automobile". That's in part because the XF-T "will be capable of automatically avoiding other air traffic, bad weather, and restricted and tower-controlled airspace". (Terrafugia offers no details on exactly how that technology works, so for now, we'll just have to take the company at its word.)Some of us look at Terrafugia and shrug, convinced that this is, quite literally, a whole lot of pie in the sky. But Terrafugia appears in it to win it -- and has been pushing hard on developing their folding-wing Transition model. Though the Transition has been significantly delayed in rolling out to consumers, it has been approved by the US Department of Transportation and by the Federal Aviation Administration. In short, the Transition won't be a high-volume vehicle, but it's clearly on its way. For now, we'll assume that the company feels equally strongly about the XF-T.Others take Terrafugia more seriously. The thought of skies filled with flying cars fills them with dread -- and maybe it should. Terrafugia says that learning to use the XF-T "should take an average driver no more than five hours". We hope that's over and above the time required to learn piloting skills, which would add a not-so-whopping 20 hours to the process (according to a cached copy of the company's FAQ page). Yeesh.And to others, the XF-T sounds like just what the doctor ordered. If you're in that number, though, you should know that development is expected to take between eight and 12 years. In other words: cool your jets.www.thecarconnection.com

Drivers' excuses probably have little bearing on whether they're ticketed when they're pulled over. But of course, that doesn't mean that drivers will ever stop offering alibis.The folks at Insurance.com recently surveyed US motorists about the excuses they've given police officers. Here are that survey's top 11 responses, along with some helpful translations: 1. I couldn't see the sign telling me not to do it.(Translation: "If you'd cut back the trees, I'd have known this was a school zone!")2. I'm lost and unfamiliar with the roads.(Translation: "Please, take pity on poor little me!")3. I didn't know it was broken.(Translation: "Really, I've been meaning to get it fixed!")4. Everyone else was doing it.(Translation: "Yo, why are you picking on me?")5. I'm having an emergency situation in my car.(Translation: "Officer, I just spilled coffee in my lap, and it's VERY hot!")6. I missed my turn/exit.(Translation: "Obviously, I need to get where I'm going, right?")7. I had to go to the bathroom.(Translation: "Surely it's okay to zip through intersections when you have to pee?")8. I didn't do anything dangerous.(Translation: "Hey, it's not like I was doing doughnuts on a pre-school lawn!")9. I was on my way to an emergency.(Translation: "And my emergency is far more important than any emergencies I might've just caused!")10. My GPS said it was the right thing to do.(Translation: "It was peer pressure, okay?")11. I'm just helping out; I wasn't even supposed to be driving.(Translation: "Which would you prefer: me cruising five miles over the speed limit, or my drunk friend here plowing through a red light?")To make things even more interesting -- and contentious -- surveyors kept track of respondents' gender. So, the breakdown of folks who used those 11 excuses looks like this:1. I couldn't see the sign telling me not to do it.Men: 38%Women: 62%2. I'm lost and unfamiliar with the roads.Men: 35%Women: 65%3. I didn't know it was broken.Men: 39%Women:  61%4. Everyone else was doing it.Men: 56%Women: 44%5. I'm having an emergency situation in my car.Men: 67%Women:  33%6. I missed my turn/exit.Men: 54%Women:  46%7. I had to go to the bathroom.Men: 35%Women:  65%8. I didn't do anything dangerous.Men: 71%Women:  29%9. I was on my way to an emergency.Men: 55%Women:  45%10. My GPS said it was the right thing to do.Men: 82%Women:  18%11. I'm just helping out; I wasn't even supposed to be driving.Men: 90%Women: 10%As Insurance.com points out, men seem to prefer excuses that foreground their altruism (as in, "Hey, I was just helping a friend), blame their GPS device, or insist that they didn't really do anything terrible. Women, on the other hand, were more likely to claim ignorance, to admit that they were lost, or to blame their bladders.Do these findings jibe with your own favourite excuses? Or do you even bother making excuses when pulled over? Let us know in the comments below.www.thecarconnection.com 

These days, there's an app to suit nearly everyone -- apps for the fuel-conscious, apps for coffee-lovers, apps for actual lovers. But what about an app for people who are tired of having their cars beat up in parking lots? Mi Alerts may be just what the doctor (or mechanic) ordered. Mi Alerts is a little more complicated than some apps we've seen in previous weeks, but that's to be expected. Mi Alerts needs to sense impacts and to take photos of the vehicle that's hit your car. As a result, Mi Alerts requires more work to install. This video shows how to attach the Mi Alerts base device under the bonnet of your car and how to attach a front-facing video camera. There are a few wires to juggle, and the camera isn't quite as small (or elegant) as we'd like, but it seems to do the trick. Additional cameras can be placed along the rear and sides of your vehicle, though the video doesn't explain how those connect with the base device. Once that's done and you've downloaded the Mi Alerts app, you'll be ready to go. Among the service's many features:  Impact alerts: If your car is hit, you'll receive a notification on your mobile device. Mi Alerts rates the impact, so you'll know if it's severe or if someone simply tapped your bumper on the way out of their parking space. Photos and videos: When your car is hit, the Mi Alerts camera takes a photo of the offending vehicle. It also records a short video for verification. GPS locator: The Mi Alerts base device includes a GPS locator, which will come in handy if your vehicle is stolen, if it's towed -- or if you just can't find it in the parking lot. Info exchange: If the vehicle that hits your car is also equipped with a Mi Alerts system, you'll receive relevant contact info via the Mi Alerts app. Think of it like leaving a note on someone's windscreen, but much faster. Driving habits tracker: Like other devices we've seen, Mi Alerts can track things like speed, braking, and such. The company is in talks with insurance companies to provide discounts for Mi Alerts users who maintain good driving habits. However, since Mi Alerts likely relies on GPS, it may be less accurate than services that pull data directly from a car's onboard computer, meaning that insurers may be reluctant to sign on. Mi Alerts is in pre-production, and it has launched an IndieGogo campaign to raise funds for the first set of devices. As you'll see from the overview video posted above, the company plans to develop similar systems to protect your home, and tracking devices for pets and children. If you're interested, now's your chance to get in on the ground floor. www.thecarconnection.com  

Sometimes, inventions are revolutionary. When the iPhone debuted in 2007, the world let out a collective gasp, as if to say, "Yes, that's just what I've been wanting!"Sometimes, inventions are dull. Ginsu knives and the ShamWow do things that other products do, they just claim to do them better. Meh. And sometimes, inventions are complete head-scratchers. In Japan, there's a whole category for such creations called chindōgu: inventions that seem clever on paper, but in practice become completely ridiculous. We'll let you guess which category the "safety belt t-shirt" falls into.The safety belt t-shirt is, quite simply, a white t-shirt that features a black strap running diagonally across the chest. It's meant to fool Chinese police officers into thinking that the driver is wearing a seatbelt.That's important because just as in Australia, drivers in China are required to wear seatbelts. Those who don't must pay a fine of 50 yuan, or around $8.00, and have two points (out of a total 12) deducted from their driver's license.Funny thing is, the t-shirts themselves cost up to 50 yuan. And obviously, they offer zero protection in the event of an accident. Which raises an important question: why not just wear the damn seatbelt?Another funny thing: the Chinese weren't the first to think of this. In fact, a quick search of shopping sites reveals an assortment of safety belt t-shirts on sale in America. You'll have to decide for yourself whether they belong in your closet.www.thecarconnection.com 

Many people confuse fiction with reality. Soap opera stars, for example, complain about being harassed at grocery stores for things their characters have done, as if viewers can't distinguish between an evil stepmother on daytime television and a woman squeezing grapefruit in the produce aisle. In Australia, a letter to multiple newspaper editors complained that a soap opera star shouldn't appear on the cover of TV Week so soon after the death of his wife in the series, The Sullivans. Periodically, this kind of problem enters the public arena. In his highly publicised critique of single mom Murphy Brown, former US vice-president Dan Quayle seemed to forget that Brown was a completely fictional character. Not to be left out, Quayle's boss, George H.W. Bush, famously said that "America should be more like the Waltons and less like the Simpsons", neatly overlooking the fact that both families were completely artificial concoctions whipped up by the entertainment industry. Now, a group of US women collectively called One Million Moms have launched a campaign against insurance giant Geico, alleging that the company's "new commercial plays with the idea of bestiality". Geico always uses animals in its ads, but this one has the group outraged. LET'S GET IT OINK In the ad embedded above, Geico mascot Maxwell the Pig finds himself stranded at a scenic overlook with a female companion. She clearly wants to get some of her lipstick on that pig, but he's more interested in reporting his car's breakdown on the Geicosmartphone app. Is it hilarious? No, but it's lighthearted, like a short, unfinished romantic comedy. It shouldn't be taken any more seriously than the Kermit/Miss Piggy romance on The Muppet Show or Captain Kirk's interspecies dalliances on Star Trek.  How anyone could miss that is beyond us -- unless of course One Million Moms is staffed by Vulcans with only the dimmest understanding of humour. That said, if folks are going to take this commercial so literally, there's plenty to complain about. Frankly, we're a little appalled that One Million Moms missed this stuff: 1. There's a pig driving a car. That's probably illegal in most states, and yet Maxwell's ladyfriend seems unperturbed. (The same goes for the trooper in a different Geicoclip.) 2. That pig is naked. Which is potentially illegal. 3. Since he's in the buff, Maxwell's probably not wearing shoes on his wee cloven feet. There aren't any state or local laws that forbid anyone from driving barefoot, but most people frown upon it. And if there's one thing that One Million Moms knows how to do, it's frown. 4. This pig can talk. Which means there's a good chance that he's the product of a previous -- and consummated -- human/swine coupling. If so, Maxwell's just a product of his environment. One Million Moms should instead focus its anger on Maxwell's mom and dad. 5. This pig can navigate a touch screen. We sometimes have trouble doing that with our comparatively thin fingers. And yet the folks at Geico want us to believe that Maxwell can type and play games with his hooves? Preposterous. 6. The car is smoking, but Maxwell hasn't bothered to turn it off.  That seems unsafe. Or at least unwise, no? On the upside, the unnamed woman never touches Maxwell, which is good, because that's kind of a no-no in the book of Leviticus, which One Million Moms probably follows to the T. Except maybe the part about poly-cotton blends. And in retrospect, the commercial could've been much, much worse. Maxwell could've been stranded with the Geico Gecko (or perhaps Gordon Gekko), which would've promoted same-sex interspecies relationships and might've caused a rip in the fabric of advertising space-time. We should thank our lucky stars.  

Back in November, voters in the US states of Colorado and Washington legalised the recreational use of marijuana. And despite US federal laws prohibiting pot possession, American President Obama has said that arresting users in those two states isn't a top priority. Which is fine, but now, law enforcement officials have to set specific limits on what counts as driving under the influence for marijuana smokers. Though several states have legalised medical marijuana, none had established an acceptable THC blood content level for drivers. Basically, any motorist found driving with THC in their system was guilty of driving under the influence -- even if that THC came from legally sanctioned medicinal marijuana. With the passage of Initiative 502, however, Washington state set an official threshold of 5 nanograms of THC per millilitre of blood. Though the bill's authors insist that level is based on significant scientific evidence , some claim that it's completely arbitrary. How does 5 nanograms of THC affect drivers? CNN wanted to find out, so the network found an open test course in Washington state and three drivers willing to devote their lungs to an afternoon of "scientific" research. You can judge CNN's findings for yourself by watching the clip below. Some outlets like the New York Post think it represents a huge fail for stoners; others like LA Weekly, see the pot-smokers performing pretty well. Our take? We admit that the test subjects make a few flubs on the course. However, we also note that CNN has to get them well above the legal THC threshold to see any effect on their driving -- and by the time they reach that point, all three recognize that they shouldn't be behind the wheel. Would drinkers who'd surpassed three (or more) times the legal blood alcohol limit have performed so well? www.carconnection.com   

Pretend for a moment that you've just come home after a brutal day at work and found a car parked in front of your apartment building with its lights on. What do you do? a) Spend 30 seconds looking up and down the street for any sign of the owner, hoping to alert him/her of the problem. b) Leave a note on the car offering to help jump-start the vehicle if necessary. c) Forget about it and head inside for a few hours of Miller Time. None are perfect solutions (although "c" isn't too bad). But if you and the car's absent owner were registered for CurbTXT, you'd have a fourth option: d) Send the owner a text message to say that he/she left the lights on. CurbTXT is an alert service available to anyone with a cell phone. (Since it's text-based, it doesn't require an app or a smartphone, so the potential audience is pretty broad.) Users register online, providing their phone number and license plate number (if they have one). CurbTXT then sends you a sticker to place on your car, which lets the world know that you're a member. CurbTXT members can send one another anonymous text messages simply by referencing a vehicle's license plate. For example: "IDIOT309 Sorry to bother you, but you're blocking my driveway", or "IDIOT842 Your car alarm has been going off for two hours. Kill it before I do". It's a lot like Bump, the social network for motorists that started in the US a couple of years ago. And CurbTXT comes with the same set of potential problems: It could encourage stalkers. It leaves you open to harassing messages. Between Facebook, Twitter, and a bajillion other services, no one wakes up hankering to join another social network. Thankfully, CurbTXT seems much easier to use than Bump and offers some added layers of protection. For starters, it's less of a social network and more of an alert service -- much like the kind you may be signed up for through your local power company or mayor's office. As a result, you may go for weeks without hearing a peep from CurbTXT. Also, CurbTXT offers easy opt-outs for text messages. If you find that you're receiving too many, you can simply reply with the word "Stop", and the messages will come to an abrupt halt. And if someone starts harassing you, you can have them blocked from your phone or banned from the service entirely. At the moment, CurbTXT is free, and in theory, it should work anywhere you can receive text messages. However, the company's marketing efforts are focused on San Francisco, and until that changes, the number of users outside SF is likely to be small, which minimizes the service's effectiveness. Does this sort of service interest you? Frighten you? Leave you asking, "What's the point?" Let us know your thoughts in the comments below. The Car Connection