Customer Service Division

A true incident. It's been told before, but not on this site.

I bought my first car as a student and somehow kept it going for about eight years until the old banger finally died in a blaze of glory (but that's another story). Anyway, I decided that my next car would be better. So on the recommendation of work colleagues, I went to the local dealer and bought a new one. Well it was not 100% new, but it was only a few months old, I was only the second registered owner, the first was someone at the manufacturer. However, just like a new car at the time, it came directly from the dealer with a fully comprehensive one year warranty.

And so, every 10,000 miles, I religiously got the car serviced at the same main dealer that had sold me the car. The servicing was expensive compared to my local garage, but I wanted the best option for my first new car. No initial concerns. However, driving the car out of the garage after the 30,000 mile service, after barely 28 months of ownership, there was clearly a major problem - running was uneven with a distinct lack of power. I drove back. And there, after a while waiting to be seen, a mechanic changed one of the spark plugs. In the car park!

The car was now drivable, though certainly not ideal, and I brought it back for the next service early, as soon as it hit 39,000 miles. The same dealer serviced it, detected no problem. I got the next service done at the same place, again trusting the selling dealer. Yet pretty soon after that, the engine lost all power again. The dealership had the cheek to charge me a fortune to "diagnose" the problem, and they promptly informed me that one of the cylinders was showing almost zero compression. Only solution, an entirely new engine.

Of course I wasn't happy. But despite all sorts of calls and incidents raised, both to the dealer and the manufacturer, I received not a penny in compensation. Refusing to continue to support that dealer, I eventually bought and fitted a new engine from a local garage. Ironically, I had plenty of contacts in the marketing department of the manufacturer - but all I got were offers of help and zero actual help. The line from the dealer was that I should contact the manufacturer. The line from the manufacturer was that the new car only had a one year warranty, so tough. Technically true. But if that was good customer service, if that was encouraging loyalty and positive recommendation, then …

Light and Sound

Discussed at lunchtime today - the less controversial subject: I generally think people should keep their music to themselves, leakage from home or vehicle is just noise pollution.

Insight is sometimes simply finding a new relationship between old variables. So like Jessica Hagy with her Indexed cards:

Stimulating the MPG-spot

The opening line of a recent high profile article, you'll probably have seen these results elsewhere too:

A study commissioned by a phallically named insurance company proves beyond all doubt that the unbridled roar of an Italian supercar turns women on but the soft purr of a fuel-efficient econobox doesn't stimulate anyone's MPG-spot.

It's from a respected source, Wired. It specifically says "proves beyond all doubt".

David Moxon subjected 40 men and women to the sounds of a Maserati, Lamborghini and Ferrari, then measured the amount of testosterone in their saliva. He found everyone had higher levels of the stuff -- a measure of their arousal -- after hearing the revving exotics, but the amount the women had was off the charts.

According to a woman who actually read the study: "Testosterone increases in a number of situations besides arousal. For example, when a person is feeling aggressive, their testosterone goes up. I don't know about anyone else, but loud engine noises annoy the crap out of me. So were the people with higher testosterone levels fantasizing about sex in the greedmobiles or were they fantasizing about taking a sledgehammer and beating them into little, tiny, noiseless pieces?"

The study was commissioned by the ultra-exclusive British insurer Hiscox (we swear we're not making this up), which was curious to know how people respond to high-end luxury cars.

The research was funded by a company that specialises in high performance vehicles. If the results encourage more people to buy small volkswagens then less revenue for the insurer. If it appears to encourage high performance sales, even slightly, then potential win for the study sponsor. It's about the most prejudiced sponsor you could imagine. It's like a study funded by a vitamin pill salesman suggesting that people who take vitamin pills are more healthy.

"We knew owners of luxury cars felt a connection with the sound of their vehicles," says Steve Langan, managing director of the insurance company. "We have now scientifically proven the physical attraction people feel when it comes to cars."

Scientifically proven? Bullshit.

Wacky Taxes

Where I completely agreed with the economic adviser to George W Bush. Five quotes from Greg Mankiw:

1. voters are worse than ignorant about basic economic principles of good policy. Ignorance, at least, would have the virtue of being random and so perhaps would average out to zero in a large population. Instead of being merely ignorant, voters hold onto systematically mistaken beliefs.

2. To many economists [and to me], the basic argument for increased use of Pigovian taxes is so straightforward as to be obvious. But as George Orwell once put it, "We have now sunk to a depth where the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men."

3. A carbon tax would provide incentives for people to use less fuel in a multitude of ways. By contrast, merely having more efficient cars encourages more driving.

4. even if God came down today and told us that global warming was a complete hoax, the case for a much higher Pigovian tax on gasoline would survive, for the simple reason that every time you get in your car and drive, you inconvenience other drivers with increased road congestion and you put them at increased risk of being in a traffic accident.

5. dispel a common fear about higher Pigovian taxes, such as taxes on carbon or gasoline--that they will fall disproportionately on the poor.

Exactly what I said.

I should point out that although "I completely agreed with the economic adviser to George W Bush" in this particular case, George W Bush did not agree at all. Obviously. Because although I too get criticism for the same views, the economic advice was perfectly sensible.

Big Car Small Car

There are still a lot of big cars in America. A colleague in charge of certain North American automotive metrics today pointed me to a recent study from Duke University's Fuqua School of Business that proved the regularly quoted mpg figures are often misleading.

Simple numerical facts. As usual here, considering my own example instead of copying that from the study:

First car is a typical one, one that does 30 mpg. Could increase by 10 mpg to give 40 mpg.
Second vehicle is a large SUV. It does 15 mpg. Could increase by 10 mpg to give 25 mpg.

Where is the bigger benefit? Both increase by 10 mpg so benefit is the same, right? Wrong.

First increases mpg by 33%, second increases by 67%, so the second gives twice as much benefit, right? Wrong.

Say the SUV increases only by 33% like the first case, 15 up to 20 (corresponding to 30 up to 40). The benefit is the same, right? Wrong.

If the SUV increases only from 15 to 18 mpg, it still saves more fuel than increasing the car's mpg from 30 to 40. I've said it before: However far the journey.

The Europeans have been using litres per 100 km for years. It just makes more sense.

Fuely Truckers

Sorry for the spoonerism. But clearly I don't go with the flow here.

As the tanker strike wound on yesterday, the enterprising owner of a fuel station changed forecourt price to align demand with the change in supply. It was exactly the same procedure that he had been doing for the other 364 days of the year. Exactly the same procedure that every other fuel station manager also does all the time. Exactly what every businessman needs to do to survive.

But fuel price watchdog petrolprices.com put out the nonsensical statement: "Putting the price up so much at a time when drivers in the South West are being hit worst by strikes is inexcusable."

The tabloids deliberately stoked up the hysteria, then did everything possible to prevent sensible mitigation of its consequences.

The undercover economist got it right. The nation got it wrong.

Honk if you support us

Obviously I touched a nerve with the last note. It was intended. In survey after survey, the vast majority of people always respond positively when asked "would you prefer lower fuel taxes?". But it's a really stupid question if phrased that way, without presenting an alternative, like compensating higher taxes elsewhere.

And I've said before that the notes here consciously try not to reflect popular opinion anyway. They should make you think different, if only for a moment.

The reason that truckers block roads is because they find it easy to block roads. A different economic change could cause disproportionate hurt to equal numbers of office cleaners, care assistants, supply teachers, airline pilots, organic farmers, whatever, but they can't all disrupt the whole country so easily. And they don't find it so easy to hoodwink the public with nonsensical survey questions.

And even when a road is not completely blocked, the go-slow or lane restriction always causes jams. Drivers slow down to avoid or gawk. No you prat, I'm not honking because I support your selfish bullying tactics, I'm honking because I want you to get out of the bloody way.

I'm reminded of a joke, this one.

Flint off the Free man

You know I don't like speed cameras. Or to be more precise, I think that speed camera penalties are disproportionately harsh. For most people.

This week, Andrew Flintoff was caught on apparently driving at 87 mph in a 50 mph area. However he was cleared on a technicality.

The lawyer who defended him is the same guy who defended Jeremy Clarkson - his car was caught doing 82 mph in a 50 mph area.

The same lawyer successfully defended Alex Ferguson, David Beckham, Tiff Needell, Wayne Rooney, Colin Montgomerie, and many others who can afford fees reported to be up to ten thousand pounds per day.

The lawyer's name. Nick Freeman. This is not the time to scoff at the aptonym. This is the time to scoff at what he said: "He is very relieved to have the matter disposed of ... now he can concentrate on his cricket."

Because main headline on BBC cricket page today: Injury dashes Flintoff Test hopes.

Ford Fiesta smashes Porsche 911

Not the result of any particular road test, but something I saw at the Pharyngula site.

According to the BBC story :

Jack Higgs, 93, was uninjured when his Ford Fiesta hit a Carrera II then flipped over onto a Porsche 911 outside a showroom in Penarth, near Cardiff.

Mr Higgs said he could not explain how he managed to lose control of his 13-year-old car and smash into the Porsches.

"It was a miracle I got out alive and I put it down to the power of prayer and God looking after me."

"But that's it - the end of my driving career, I'm never driving again."

I will not comment here upon the obvious dementia of thinking that his prayer made any difference whatsoever to the world outside his brain. But seeing the main protagonists in this incident - the doddery old man, the ancient old Fiesta and the two flash Porsches - I obviously thought of the old old joke:


The old guy in his ancient battered little Ford Fiesta breaks down and pulls to the side of the road. Fairly soon a yuppy in his new Porshe 911 sees him by the side of the road and offers to help. The old man doesn't want to leave his car. So the dude offers to tow it. The old guy is a bit nervous, he doesn't like going fast. But the guy reassures him "don't worry, I'll stick to 50. And if you want me to slow down then just flash your lights, if you want me to stop then just honk the horn".

So slightly nervously in the case of the old man, they set off. At first the Porsche owner tootles along at 50 as promised. Then he is overtaken by another Porshe owner doing 70. The yuppy does not like this and catches up. The other driver doesn't like this and speeds to 90. The first driver retaliates and accelerates to 90 too. Pretty soon they are neck and neck roaring down the highway at 150 miles per hour.

They flash past an unmarked police car. The cop radios in to base: "You'll never guess what I saw, two brand new Porsches racing side by side at 150 miles per hour..." The dispatch interrupts "that's no surprise, we see that sort of thing all the time". "That wasn't the strange thing" says the cop "right on their tail was an old geezer in a battered old Ford Fiesta. He's flashing his lights, he's tooting his horn, but they still won't let him past!"

Can we fix it?

A bad workman always blames his tools.

I changed a tyre on my car today. Just started driving down the road, almost immediately noticed the telltale shudder and drift.

It would have been easy to call the AA to fix it, but it would also have been borderline dishonesty. I don't have their "home start" service. I could have crept an extra few yards to get far enough away to claim roadside assistance. I could have used a card based at a distant address. But I did not.

It was bloody hard work though: Taking all the junk out of the boot to remove the surprisingly heavy "space saver" wheel and jack. Reading four pages of car manual that was warning of apocalypse unless I removed all the skirting, checked the road was level, made the wheel perfectly straight and placed the jack to the correct millimetre. Marvelling at how such a tiny piece of steel could hold up a ton. Fighting with the wheel nuts that seemed to have been tightened by titans. Fighting even more to release the wheel from the hub, eventually resorting to smacking it around with a hammer - that was actually a bit dangerous when the whole car was supported by aforementioned tiny jack on a road that was anything but level.

Eventually managed it. The tyre was clearly beyond repair. So I stopped at Kwik-fit on the way to work for a new tyre. Hydraulic jacks and electric wrenches, job done in seconds.

Jeremy Clarkson Data Theft

The most famous motoring writer in England, Jeremy Clarkson tends to elicit extreme opinion. To use the old cliché, you either love him or you hate him. For example, his views on the environment are just selfish denialism but his views on health and safety have much insight, like I recall an assertion that we could greatly reduce traffic accidents if all cars had compulsory airbags that were made of titanium spikes.

Today I learned that JC published a very similar article to one of my recent notes, although I presume that he was paid a lot more for his one. We were both extremely sceptical of the furore surrounding the missing bank details. After all, if you want to help anyone to give you money, to avoid paperwork, a simple way to enable this is to give them your bank account number. Passwords and extra security should only be necessary to withdraw from an account.

Unfortunately, according to an unreferenced Autotrader article sent to me today, JC has been stung. He claims that someone set up a direct debit from his account using only the details printed in his newspaper column.

I believe that a part of Clarkson's argument is typical anti-government ignorance: "The bank cannot find out who did this because of the Data Protection Act and they cannot stop it from happening again." That seems hysterical nonsense.

But if the main thrust of the article is true, then I am worried.

Fuelling national hysteria

As I've just written on speed cameras, I may as well get this out of the way before the tabloids start encouraging the selfish bastards to start blockading roads again. So time to spell out the same basic economics.

Yes, taxes make up a large proportion of fuel price. But if we are to reduce tax, then we have a choice between lowering tax most for those who earn the least, or lowering tax most for those who generally drive the most expensive vehicles.

Taxing fuel rather than other things has other secondary effects such as discouraging urban sprawl and encouraging high street rather than mall shops, reducing traffic congestion while encouraging walking and cycling. Sorry about that.

There are winners and losers in every choice. But we should choose wisely.

Speed Cameras

It is an easy topic. There are very obvious rants here. Everybody seems to feel so strongly about this.

Half of you seem to hold the top gear view. Speed cameras are evil. The maximum safe speed is rarely the set limit. It is not necessarily safe to drive at 54 and dangerous to drive at 58 down an open dual carriageway. It is the arbitrary application of the offence (this law does not apply to foreign drivers, unlicensed cabs, fleet operators, diplomats, joyriders) and the disproportionate penalty (a quarter of your license). Worst of all, they always seem to be set up just so that they can get the maximum revenue instead of really to save lives.

And half of you seem to hold the green view. Speed is dangerous. It is unarguable that hitting an animal at 40 is more likely to kill it than hitting one at 30. So the cameras are a necessary evil. And if you don't want to lose your license, then just obey the laws.

But as usual, the reason why I write here, I think you are all wrong! Well actually all the points above are true, so maybe you are all correct ...

Because even though I broadly subscribe to top gear, I think the authorities should have the courage to admit (even encourage) the revenue raising functions. The money should go to those who most need it.

The faster that you speed, the more environmental damage caused, the more you should pay. I say fair enough. It is only going above a different speed that it is dangerous, dependent on the pictorial or witness evidence of traffic and pedestrian and weather conditions. That different limit could be higher, could be lower. But it depends on the conditions, and points should only be taken if driving is shown to be dangerous.

Sorry lorry tax attacks

I guess my previous post was not obvious enough. There is only so much explanation you can do in about a hundred words. But even the little clarification in the comment didn't seem to clear it up.

What I learned in economics class was that road taxes should contribute to not only the cost of resurfacing but also towards external costs such as pollution, congestion, noise, and in general any external disruption to those affected by the road.

And comparing lorries with cars, even if we assume that the relative weight on the tarmac is ten to one, the relative weight of knock-on disruption is much more than ten to one.

How often does a shed load from a car close off the entire motorway? How often does a jack-knifed car close all three lanes? There is a certain amount of revenue to be collected, there are arguments for raising or lowering that. But to reflect disruption effects, proportionately the lorry drivers should pay more. Car drivers and other taxpayers should pay proportionately less.

So I do not agree that we'd all end up paying more. It's just redistribution of society's charges to more accurately reflect society's costs.

If it's still unclear, then I can always bring in some maths ;)

Lorry tax

There was a major accident on the London orbital motorway today. Two huge lorries were involved. The entire clockwise section around junction six was closed off for ten hours. Luckily I escaped today, I drive home anticlockwise. But this type of incident is not uncommon. A few weeks ago there was a major shed load on my stretch.

The lorry drivers often complain about road and petrol taxes. Firstly, a point I have seen in print before, why shouldn't a forty ton trailer pay forty times as much as a one ton car, it causes forty times as much damage to the road.

The second point, I haven't yet seen in print. Not every lorry driver has accidents. But when one does, the disruption caused is orders of magnitude greater than the disruption caused by the typical car accident. Either we charge the unfortunate. Or we make the lorries pay more to compensate.

Jake Bullett, part two

A while ago I compared being a manager with being a traffic light. The analogy remains valid, a good traffic light should help you to go where you need to go with minimal disruption.

But I do not like traffic lights. To be more precise, I do not like the fascist implementation of traffic lights currently prevalent in the UK.

Except at peak time, they slow traffic and cause congestion, they do not relieve it. If you come to a junction and there is no-one there, why shouldn't you cross it? If you wait, traffic just stacks up behind you.

I hope this blog is never only a complaint, there should always be a positive suggestion. Every light-regulated junction should be more like the flashing yellows in the US - of course you must be careful, at some points you may have priority, at others you may need to pause briefly to enforce a look around. But if there is no-one crossing, then surely it is better to move on rather than let traffic stack up behind you.

It's hard to be objective about this. My wife got a hefty fine and a quarter of her driving license was removed because she did not wait unnecessarily at an empty crossing. A few months later, perhaps overconcerned about this, she braked hard at another traffic light where it would have safe to continue, and a heavy 4x4 ploughed into the back of her. Unfair? Dangerous? Criminal?

The value of clear space

These are short paragraphs, words should have room to breathe, but I also value clear space in a more physical manner.

For example, if you keep a non-running non-classic car on your driveway, it simply gets in the way.

Perhaps your argument is that if you eventually found the time to get it going again or tart it up a little then you might be able to make a few bucks out of it.

But why wait for that time instead of disposing of it now? Think of the value of the freed space. Don't people pay a lot of money in search of extra living space?

Isn't the value of that space likely to be more than any notional value you might get from selling what is a basically a ton of scrap?

Quite apart from the aesthetic value of seeing a ton of slowly rusting metal outside your door for months on end.