On 28 July, the Department for Transport (DfT) announced it had completed its National Travel Survey 2004. In line with the Government's scaremongering line - that we're all travelling too much and gridlock is imminent - the DfT's interpretation of the report was predictably negative. But the truth is there was no shortage of pleasantly surprising findings. So it's a pity the DfT was on a downer and, I believe, inaccurately reported some of its own facts and figures.

For example, the first claim is that "the average annual distance travelled by residents in Great Britain rose by five per cent to 6,800 miles in 2004". But after carefully studying the full report for several hours, the facts weren't so depressing. The truth is we each did an average of 6,762 miles last year (that's motorists and non-motorists). So we travelled less in 2004 than at the end of the last century and the start of this one.

In the next breath, the DfT talked about "a 12 per cent increase in the average length of trip". But where this figure comes from is a mystery. truth is, our average journeys in 2004 were actually shorter than in 2003, and identical in length to those in 2002. What's more, the number of trips last year was at its lowest level for a quarter of a century... and that's something the DfT - surprise, surprise - failed to highlight.

Ah, but there are far more of us driving cars, I hear you argue. However, the DfT figures don't back up this view, as the number of people with driving licences is lower in 2004 than 2003. Car ownership isn't rocketing at the rate many would have you believe, either, with the number of one-vehicle households staying at 44-45 per cent, as it has done for the past couple of decades. Homes with two or more cars increased year on year from the mid-Eighties to the early 2000s but again, the trend seems to be in reverse. There are now fewer houses, comparing 2004 with 2003, with multiple cars.

Besides, owning or having access to several vehicles doesn't mean they're all being driven at once, or that the number of miles a person drives each year goes up! A motorist who has a handful of cars can only drive one at a time, and leaves the rest at home where they cause no pollution or congestion. The DfT confirmed that in the past decade or so, annual car mileages have dropped from 9,690 to 9,020.

Also, the DfT confirmed what we know but the car-haters refuse to admit - that motorists aren't driving round in circles for the hell of it. We use our cars more for work than anything else. In other words, they're vital tools that allow us to earn a living. And guess what? The number of commuting miles we did last year was down on 2003.

Whether you're doing your job, shopping, giving friends a lift or pursuing leisure activities, don't feel guilty for using your car - as journey numbers, distances travelled, mileages and the number of people holding licences are all down, not up.

Mike Rutherford
Article from: Auto Express

Worrying yourself sick about the ever-rising cost of refuelling your car? Scared the £1 litre is coming to your local petrol station, and that it won't be long before you'll be forking out the best part of £100 to fill the tank? Stop right now. Don't waste your time or emotions. And if you're assuming this advice is from a man who rarely has to pay for his own fuel, you're wrong.

True, on roads, tracks, frozen lakes and in remote deserts I often test cars whose tanks have been filled by the manufacturers. But I also spend time driving around in a wide variety of gas-guzzling and frugal models which run on fuel I've paid for. It's impossible to estimate how much I've personally spent over the decades. But the last thing I'm prepared to do is beat myself up over the fact. And although it's entirely up to you, my humble advice is that you shouldn't feel bad either.

However, we'd all be daft if we didn't at least review exactly how much fuel we're consuming, what we pay and how we can reduce both. Why not start by imposing a non-negotiable rule on yourself that you will never brim your tank at expensive motorway service stations? Such places are for the occasional 'get out of jail' gallon, nothing more.

And really try to get into the habit of topping up when you're passing your favourite, relatively cheap forecourt (although don't go too far out of your way). In my neck of the woods, I find that a Sainsbury's outlet is consistently unbeatable, but don't assume every supermarket site charges less than its traditional forecourt rivals. And learn to go a little easier on your pedals. It's the oldest tip in the book, but remember it and consumption really can drop by 10 per cent with very little adverse effect on overall journey times.

Longer term, think bigger; do your research, take as many test drives as you can and make a firm commitment to turn your back on cars which rely on gasoline. Thoroughbred sports models for wealthy petrolheads are one thing. I don't have a problem with these and can perfectly understand them. But frankly, I can't believe there's still demand for standard cars in unleaded or, worse still, super unleaded guise. Such vehicles are near-redundant, because they're all available as perfectly acceptable diesels, offering savings of around 30 per cent in fuel consumption, expenditure and convenience.

Yes, pump prices and fuel taxes have been hiked massively in recent years, and that's thoroughly depressing. But you can easily relieve this by reminding yourself that technology has improved at an even greater rate. Many diesel family cars are now able to do 40-50mpg in real world conditions, and nearer 60 if your right foot is disciplined.

If you don't like digging deeper into your pockets to meet higher annual fuel bills, don't do it. All you have to do is accept petrol - like the audio cassette and overtaking in Formula One - has had its day. The cleverest motorists are now dieselheads.

Mike Rutherford
Article from: Auto Express

It's time for manufacturers of four-wheel-drive cars to organise themselves, establish a fighting fund and take a tougher legal and public relations stance against those who - sometimes illegally, sometimes not - wage war against them, their vehicles and their SUV-owning customers.

I'm not going to name any of the warring activists in this column, because that would only give them the free - and often dangerously misleading - publicity they seek for themselves as they pathetically jump on to the anti-4x4 bandwagon.

So far, we've had everything from a factory production line being trespassed on, sabotaged and stopped, to privately owned SUVs being vandalised, issued with fake parking tickets, or drivers of off-roaders being verbally abused and spat at.

The latest stunt is a seemingly respectable bunch of college types, described as scientists, researchers and doctors, grabbing cheap headlines by suggesting that these vehicles should carry health warnings. Why? Because, it is argued, if they're involved in collisions with pedestrians, they cause more injuries than conventional cars.

Where would we be without academics stating the blindingly obvious, eh? Thanks to their words of wisdom and proposed four-wheel-drive health warnings, I now know I stand a better chance of survival if I'm run over by a small, light Citroen C1 city car than a large, high, heavy, GM Hummer on/off roader. They'll be telling us next that a blow from a cricket ball is more damaging than being hit by a shuttlecock.

So, given that 4x4s are often (but not always) bulkier, weightier and more robust than two-wheel-drive cars, they will often (but not always) hurt you more if you step in front of one and come into contact with it or, alternatively, the driver is at fault and makes contact with you. Fine, I accept all that.

But why do the 4x4-haters identify only the vehicles they loathe, while conveniently ignoring others which are far more dangerous? Why don't they study the relative safety of ALL vehicles? I suspect that they're not interested, as off-roaders would do rather well. Not as well as (in order of 'pedestrian-friendliness') bicycles, mopeds, scooters, motorbikes, two-wheel-drive cars and small car-derived vans. Better, though, than black taxis, large vans, buses, coaches, trams, lorries and even trains, which occasionally cross public streets where pedestrians walk. I'd also add specialist vehicles, such as milk floats, refuse trucks and street-sweeping and/or drain-clearing lorries.

I make that about 17 different types of vehicles which are on the streets with the potential to be in collisions with pedestrians, and a very real ability to hurt them to one degree or another. Why the anti-4x4 activists, the academics and road-safety experts don't admit to all this, I don't know. Maybe they'd like to drop me a line and explain themselves, and the wholly incomplete messages they're feeding the public.

Mike Rutherford
Article from: Auto Express

I object to the anti 4x4 lobby for the reasons mentioned in the article above plus it's a free country and it is the right of every individual to own and drive what they want.

S'pose I'm an anti anti 4x4 person 

In the final days of 2005, I was part of an ITV1 news debate which included anti-car campaigners who - surprise, surprise - didn't approve of a stretch of M25 near Heathrow Airport getting extra lanes. The predictable allegation was that our green and pleasant land is being concreted over by LA-style 12-lane superhighways.

And - surprise, surprise - I took the opposite view, believing that some motorways should be widened... especially if they were deliberately built too narrow in the first place, as the London orbital was. After all, around 99.9 per cent of Britain is not M-way!

But enough of the arguments and counter-arguments. Neither side is going to change its opinions - so I'm attempting to set a new climate in 2006 by concentrating less on the tired old slanging matches and focusing more on fresh new solutions.

For example, I reckon the strip of cordoned-off transport land near Heathrow should be made about four times wider than it is now. Not to extend the so-called superhighway to 48 lanes - far from it. No, I'd like this broad stretch of land to become Phase One of an all-vehicle transport corridor for Britain. And yes, I really mean all types of vehicle.

The inside lanes could be for motorcycles, followed by one or two wider tracks for lorries and large vans. After that would be a lane or two for buses and coaches, plus a few more broad enough to accommodate the masses: cars, car-derived vans and taxis capable of and willing to do 70mph. Those which can't must join a slower lane or leave the corridor. Obviously, drivers and riders will need hard shoulders inside and occasionally outside. And instead of slip roads, there would be on/off ramps for the appropriate lanes.

Still within the corridor could be separate light and heavy railways and, possibly, tram lines. Next door to these come dedicated cyclist lanes and pavements. Pedestrians would need to be protected from fast-moving road and rail traffic by strong crash barriers, security fences, trees and so on. But because their paths would run alongside rail and tram lines, they'd have easier access than anyone else to stations and platforms.

Above that will be the flight path where aeroplanes and helicopters could travel - in one direction, at least. Tube trains may run under the corridor, although tracks on the surface would be cheaper to lay and maintain. Underground parking is a further option.

I said my traffic corridor could accommodate every type of vehicle and traveller imaginable, and it does. Implemented properly, it would work so efficiently that bikers and drivers wouldn't be tempted to divert on to country lanes and residential streets.

Through excessive road user taxation, drivers and motorcyclists have already paid up front for their own toll-free lanes in a future DRRAC (Dedicated Road, Rail and Air Corridor). From the same tax overspend, we can also pay for the footpaths, plus the cycling and public transport lanes and tracks. Why not? Let's just get on with it.

Mike Rutherford
Article from: Auto Express

I'm not sure what appals me most - the way Rachael Farthing was treated by a traffic cop, or the sorry incident's confusing and alarming aftermath. Last week, Rachael, 44, was lost, worried and unsure which Midlands motorway route to take. So, when she spotted a stationary patrol car situated on the hard shoulder, she parked up in front of it, popped out of her motor to ask directions - and was promptly nicked by the sad officer whose assistance she sought.

Now you might conclude that she deserved the fine she got if she didn't have a map, sat-nav system or enough common sense in order to get her on to the right stretch of M-way. But as someone who regularly drives in the region for Pulling Power, filming and visiting Midlands car firms, I can honestly say that I, too, get extremely confused by some of the local signs. They are atrociously inadequate.

Nobody can convince me that the police got it right the day they fined Rachael, or afterwards when Sergeant Andrew Moss of Central Motorway Police was reported as saying: "Motorists are only permitted to stop on the hard shoulder if they break down or witness a serious accident." Are you sure about that, Sarge? Is it really the case that you can only stop when your vehicle conks out or you see a 'serious' prang? Bizarrely, the RAC Foundation went even further, and was quoted as saying: "Motorists do need to be aware that it is against the law to stop on the hard shoulder."

I've never heard such nonsense.  Contrary to what a pair of Midlands bobbies and the misguided RACF say, I believe it's legitimate to bring your vehicle to a halt on the hard shoulder, or distress lane as I call it, for a number of reasons. Off the top of my head, I can think of the following 10 occasions when I have done absolutely the right thing by stopping, somewhat distressed, in such lanes. 1. After copping a stray stone which shattered my windscreen. 2. After being involved in a 'minor' accident. 3. After successfully avoiding a potential accident. 4. After being attacked by vandals throwing objects from an overhead bridge. 5. After hearing a child passenger choking in the seat behind me. 6. After seeing a nutter driving the wrong way up the road towards me. 7. After being pulled over by the police. 8. After being caught short because there were no motorway loos during a painfully slow, three-hour drive. 9. After being hit with a mystery illness while driving and ending up being rushed to hospital for a lengthy stay. 10. After doing my good citizen bit by aiding officers who were struggling to contain a non-accident, but difficult situation.

We all know the hard shoulder is a potentially dangerous place to halt your car. But are the police and RACF really trying to convince us that a driver can't stop for genuine reasons such as the 10 listed above? Or for the reason demonstrated by Rachael Farthing? If they are, they're doing themselves - and us motorists - a terrible disservice.

Mike Rutherford
Article from: Auto Express

I have interviewed some of the biggest and most notorious motor industry chiefs wherever and whenever I have bumped into them. The chairman of Hyundai chatted at length to me when we were both trying to have a day off at the Taj Mahal in India. The boss of Chrysler talked shop while he sat on a bull in South America. And one of the world's top car designers once revealed all about his employer and his future products as we propped up a Tokyo bar at 5am.

I suppose it's a sad sign of the times that when the world's press descended on the LA and Detroit motor shows in the past couple of weeks, the PR minders handling certain twitchy industry big shots formally warned journalists that they weren't doing interviews.

But thankfully, General Motors' global product guru Bob Lutz still believes he has a corporation and cars to sell. And sell them he does. GM is still the largest car firm on the planet. And, in a quiet Californian haven where I recently shared a few pots of coffee with him and his family, Lutz also assured me that the quality of his cars isn't bad, either. He said: "We actually match Toyota and the goal is to better it."

But does he really believe deep down that humble Vauxhalls are screwed together better than Japan's finest? "Yes I do. I do now," he said. "I think the newest models, such as the Astra, are sensational and will be highly reliable and extremely durable. Vauxhall has really got its act together. We have gone from being arguably the worst six or seven years ago." Incredibly, he admitted: "Okay, so the Signum didn't exactly work, because you could argue it's a wonderful car which answers a question nobody asked. But if you've got a weak brand you're trying to bring back, the way to do that is to sell unique cars for which there's no alternative in the more established names. That way you're forcing customers to your products and once they're there, they love it."

Lutz went on to insist that these days, nobody is guaranteed a job in the car industry, especially when trading conditions are so tight and financial losses so huge - as they are currently experiencing at GM. He told me: "We always tell our workforce that the best guarantee is high quality, low cost and constant pressure for improved productivity because, let's face it, the whole western industrialised system is in a battle for survival against the growing Asian powerhouse."

He also believes that Britain is a more attractive place to make cars than Germany. He continued: "It has been used to success in the last 40-50 years or so, but is having a real problem dealing with the new reality. For most of that same period, Britain has been slapped around, is used to being in constant economic turmoil and is sort of nicely attuned to the realities of the world." In other words, Vauxhall workers in the UK seem comparatively safe, which is good news - even if it could be at the expense of their German counterparts at Opel.

Mike Rutherford
Article from: Auto Express

The more I see and hear about speed incompatibility, the closer I come to the conclusion that this is one of the greatest, most under-estimated and least understood dangers on the road. I don't have any fancy statistics to back up my claims and fears. But, having travelled about a million road miles in 60-odd countries over the past three decades - and based on my gut feeling, survival instincts and accidents I've had or seen - it's my belief that it is not speed which kills. Rather, it's vehicles travelling at widely differing speeds that are to blame.

A police spokesman got it right earlier this month when he said drivers and riders sharing the road with the idiot motorist nicked for driving at twice the motorway limit could not be expected to be 'in tune' with the sheer velocity of his car. As realists, we anticipate vehicles behind us to be doing 70mph, 80mph or even 90mph. But we're not ready to cope with something bearing down on our rear bumpers at nearer 150mph. Such colossal differences in speed are dangerous but, thankfully, quite rare.

However, there are daily A-road scenarios where a motorist is travelling three or four times faster than another wholly legal driver. How come? Because one is doing 70ish in a car and the other 20ish aboard a mobile crane, low-loader, knackered old conventional van or lorry, JCB, milk float or moped. It's madness.

A mismatch of vehicles of widely differing weights and sizes is dangerous enough. Throw into the mix that their protective bumpers (assuming they have any) are at different heights, and deaths and injuries are inevitable. Then remind yourself that the slowest vehicles - bicycles - are still allowed to share the same lanes with the fastest - powerful cars and motorbikes - and major disasters can and will happen.

Just like the one in Wales a couple of weeks ago. First there was a driver with inadequate skid training. He was in a car with legal but inadequate (all-weather) tyres. He drove on black ice and his relatively fast-moving car hit some slow-moving cyclists who had inadequate protection. Four of them died, others were seriously injured. It was the worst incident of its type for 40 years.

The driver wasn't speeding or drunk, and the general feeling (which I don't accept!) is that it was 'merely' a tragic accident for which no one should be blamed. But I fear such incidents will continue while cyclists, and even pedestrians, travelling at less than 10mph are allowed to share the road with motorised vehicles doing 70mph or more.

Just as there should be fast lanes for cars and bikes, plus slower channels for commer-cial vehicles, cyclists need their own even paths while pedestrians must have pavements to themselves. Only then can tragic speed-incompatibility accidents be eliminated. I for one will never choose to cycle or walk on an A-road again.

Mike Rutherford
Article from: Auto Express

The anti-motorist, pro-railway pressure group known as Transport 2000 has shown its true colours. When its director, Stephen Joseph, was on the TV recently, banging on about the evils of the car, my on-air response was to inform millions of viewers that Mr Joseph actually travelled to the BBC studio that morning courtesy of a door-to-door luxury limousine.

And he had another VIP limo ride booked so that he could exit Television Centre quickly, comfortably and without having to brave the early morning chill. Furthermore, I couldn't resist pulling my return rail ticket out of my pocket and explaining that I - one of those evil, planet-destroying motorists - had chosen to travel by train that day.

I wasn't trying to embarrass him or lose him his job. My aim was to expose the simple and very real fact that even the most committed, highly rewarded, professional car-loathers use motors some - or all - of the time.

Michael Palin is the latest Transport 2000 representative (he calls himself President) to be found guilty of hypocritical words and acts. The excruciatingly awkward problem for the comedian-cum-TV presenter is that the organisation over which he now presides says as part of its official mission statement that it "seeks movement towards a society that relies less on cars, lorries and planes". And this philosophy clashes with Palin's personal and professional travel habits, which involve him choosing - nobody forces him, after all - to sometimes do more air travel in a year than most ordinary people might do in a lifetime.

The allegations are - and neither Palin nor Transport 2000 seems to deny them - that he has done hundreds of thousands of miles in polluting aeroplanes, such as the trips he made for his Himalaya BBC TV series, for example. In the opening paragraph of a statement he recently wrote and that Transport 2000 published, Mr Palin acknowledges his dilemma. He confesses: "I am someone who cares deeply about the environment and also someone who has, over the last 17 years of making travel programmes, been busy polluting this environment in almost every conceivable form of carbon emitting vehicle."

He also admits that he "flies and drives" around the globe, although he hopelessly attempts to clear his conscience by claiming to use "dog-sleds and dug-out canoes whenever possible". How far he actually travels in them he doesn't say.

Even Transport 2000 publicity shots show Palin perched astride a bicycle or shod with walking boots, telling owners of all-wheel-drive vehicles to "take the bus". Michael Palin the comic, presenter and author, I admire. President Palin of Transport 2000 is a different animal. He fails to practise what he preaches!

Mike Rutherford
Article from: Auto Express

I've just spent several days and nights driving Jaguar's new XK through heavy rain, ice, snow, strong winds and bright sunshine. Conclusion: there's very little wrong with the car. But it's not perfect. The boot on my test vehicle wouldn't close properly, the rear wing-mounted aerial was more 1976 than 2006, the two back 'seats' were hopeless and there are a few design touches I'm not happy with. Those gripes aside, the new XK is considerably better than I had expected. Based on my initial impressions and all-weather driving over 96 hours, I'd give it 88 out of 100.

Since the car seems truly sorted, the next step is for the company to get its administrative butt in gear. It has to put a stop to this nonsense about being bought up by Renault or whoever. It must make a commitment that production is staying in Britain. And finally (for now, at least), it has to start making money. With its high - but not unreasonable - showroom price tag, the XK offers a much needed profit margin which the loss-making manufacturer and its less-than-ecstatic dealers should exploit.

Just as importantly, the brand's image must change. Thanks to brilliant marketing and product placement, Audis are rightly seen as cooler than BMWs or Mercs. I saw Johnny Depp in one the other day, and Kylie Minogue shortly before that. Who are the high-profile Jaguar users? Pete Doherty from Babyshambles (in trouble over drugs), Inspector Morse (John Thaw is dead), John Prescott (a 'dunce', according to Britain's biggest-selling daily newspaper) and Alan Shearer (with respect, yesterday's man).

The world's hottest couple - Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie - should be given or loaned Jaguar XKs anywhere and any time they want them. The Beckhams must be handed one or two. Madonna might also be on the list, along with any other A-list celebs with influence, credibility and, preferably, iconic status. Top footballers, rugby players and cricketers must be put on notice that they'll each receive an XK if they lift their respective World Cups for England in the months and years ahead.

Jaguar XKs racing Porsche 911s at the Le Mans 24 Hours is essential, with English champions old and young, such as Nigel Mansell and Dan Wheldon, at the wheel. And since countless other firms are guilty of cynical but successful badge engineering, Jaguar should follow suit.

Some Range Rovers could be grabbed from the production lines of sister company Land Rover. After modifying, refining and 'Jaguarising' them, they should be finished in British Racing Green. If BMW, Mercedes and Audi can casually enter the off-road market when they have no real right to be there, surely Jaguar can, too... with a class-leading, English-built, Range-Rover-based all-terrain luxury limo that might just outsell and unsettle the German competition. And one last thing - a way must be found legally to mount a retractable Leaping Cat on the bonnet of every new Jag.

Mike Rutherford
Article from: Auto Express

The United Arab Emirates was the venue for the Volvo C70's official world debut on public roads, and although I really don't get what the UAE is supposed to be about - all it has is sun, sand and sea - I am at least grateful that I was allowed in and, more importantly, out of Dubai.

No such luck with the Jaguar XK launch in Cape Town. Along with some American journalists and many other press guests from around the world, I wasn't permitted to enter South Africa. I won't bore you with the full story, but suffice to say that the South Africans didn't like the look of my current, valid passport.

As if I care. Thanks to the inhospitable South African regime, I got to take the XK convertible for a spin back in Britain in all weathers - and on roads I know well. Driving this machine with the roof down in deep mid-winter also taught me a few things that not many others outside the company know at this early stage. For example, the XK's heater and heated seats aren't able to warm occupants properly, even those like me who wore layers of winter clothing during the domestic test drive.

So, between South Africa unapologetically refusing to accept me at the end of January and Eastern Europe rolling out the red carpet next week when I drive the Jeep Commander on ice in a one-elk town uncomfortably close to the Russian border, I popped into the USA for the global press launch of Audi's intriguing Q7 4x4. 
Arizona, with its inviting mountains and deserts, seemed like the perfect venue for the German firm's first hardcore on and off-roader to be compared with blatant rivals such as the BMW X5 and Mercedes M-Class, plus less obvious competitors including Land Rovers and top-end Jeeps. But, formally at least, the Audi wasn't allowed on any surfaces more punishing than smooth tarmac, pebbled car parks outside restaurants or mountain trails topped with loose gravel. Talk about over-cautious...

Don't get me wrong, it's a fine car. The maker claims it's the longest, widest, roomiest, most powerful, fastest, best value and most technologically advanced premium SUV on the market. Shame about the weird exterior design, which gives the newcomer a brutally macho presence from some angles, and a delicate appearance from others.

One of several unique features on the Audi is a clever, and effective, Side Assist system. This provides the driver with visual and audible warnings if he or she ends up with an unwelcome vehicle in the blind spot. And it's particularly relevant in places such as Arizona, where it's not uncommon for a vehicle cruising at 50mph to be 'overtaken' by another doing 50.1mph, a lengthy manoeuvre which means it can sit beside you - unsighted - for several minutes. As they say in Arizona, y'all have a nice day! But if you're part of the Q7's exterior design team, you really don't deserve one.

Mike Rutherford
Article from: Auto Express

If you live in, work in or drive through Surrey, you'll know that parts of it are infested with roadside cameras. You'll also be aware that even twitchy ruling politicians eventually recognise excess. That's why they're now talking about a freeze or reduction in these roadside devices in this and other parts of Britain. What's not so well known is that some of these fixed cameras are being replaced by hand-held units. And guess who's holding them? Local residents, assisted by local cops.

Before I go further, I must declare that I'm all for highly trained professionals curbing road users when they drive or ride inappropriately fast. I want traffic police on the street. I believe in a fair cop. And when fixed cameras are in the right places (such as the one outside the Chessington World of Adventures entertainment complex in Surrey), they are right and proper. Also, I approve of caring citizens shopping uncaring law-breakers.

But pointing a speed gun at your neighbours and their vehicles, then reporting them to local bobbies? I'm not so sure. However, in parts of Surrey a comparatively tiny band of residents is enthusiastically doing just that. The volunteers endure a training programme which lasts all of three-and-a-half hours, after which they are armed with speed guns and clad in official-looking garments which suggest they're proper cops. Oh dear. Who, exactly, are these people? How carefully are they vetted? What are their motives? What becomes of community relations when an angry driver confronts one of these volunteers after being 'caught' for speeding in Letsbe Avenue?

If two neighbours are in dispute over barking dogs or overgrown conifers, couldn't one try to get even by drawing his powerful speed gun weapon? Or might some of these volunteers be driver-hating, anti-road, pro-rail fundamentalists who finally have an oppor-tunity to fight the enemy with the apparent sanction of local cops? We, the road users, don't have the answers to these questions and neither, I suspect, does Surrey Police.

After unpaid residents grass up neighbours and other drivers or riders to paid-for officers at police HQ, the cops will then formally 'target' the alleged offenders. Again, it's not clear how far this targeting will go. For sure, there will be scary warning letters from the police. Possibly even court action. But should magistrates consider evidence gathered by volunteer amateurs with unknown motives and 210 minutes' training?

One of the police spokesmen for this controversial new scheme in Surrey says it's a bit like Neighbourhood Watch. More like Neighbourhood Wars. What's going to happen next? Volunteer schemes involving residents recording and reporting drivers parking incorrectly? Failing to keep their cars clean? Snacking at the wheel or drinking a glass of wine or beer at the village pub before driving home? Whatever happened to proper policing carried out by genuine, professional, front-line policemen and women?

Mike Rutherford
Article from: Auto Express

The text books say otherwise, but my winters always start on 1 December and end on 28 February. So, for me, that means it is now the first day of Spring. Hallelujah! Goodbye de-icer, hello sunglasses. And the feelgood factor continues with the Geneva Motor Show this week - plus, the clocks go forward at the end of the month, resulting in lighter evenings and fewer road accidents.

But unless you're determined to thoroughly depress yourself, I'd also urge you not to dwell on some of the shenanigans that occurred during the February just gone, particularly the end of it. Not content with pushing up the price of driving licences (and virtually everything else motoring-related), the Government is now said to be considering "recalling" from us those documents which entitle us to drive. Apparently, the idea is that because we're responsible people whose details are in the infamous DVLA computer, we'll be among the first to have identity cards foisted on us.

Now, I don't mind if all of us have ID cards. But I do object to the notion that legal drivers - in the main a large, respectable bunch who volunteer information about themselves - should be made to carry the cards before non-motorists, some of whom can deliberately operate outside the "system". It's discrimination against us, isn't it?

There might be a whiff of blackmail, too, because - as I understand it - anyone who refuses to exchange their existing licence for a costly new ID card-cum-driving permit may find that they have broken new laws. Will they be hauled before the magistrates? Is the insurance policy they've paid for declared void? Is their car confiscated? Who knows? One thing is for sure, though: the comprehensive kicking that road users have received from this, and previous, governments is continuing. And the methods being used to hurt us are becoming increasingly brutal.

February also saw more nails being driven into the Longbridge coffin, as MG Rover's new owner, Nanjing Automotive, virtually retreated to China, where it pays its workers a few pennies an hour instead of the pounds Midlands employees, not unreasonably, expect. At the same time, there's news that the comical and, in my experience, unreliable Smart car may be built in Coventry... with an MG badge. Oh dear.

Meanwhile, the miserable month will also be remembered for troubled Jaguar trying to squeeze Government ministers into freebie XJ saloons, which can't find proper buyers. When I recently said in this column that the company needs glamorous, credible drivers and passengers, I wasn't exactly thinking of old duffers such as the caravanning Margaret Beckett, useless Patricia Hewitt, car-hating Alistair Darling and, inevitably, the thuggish John Prescott, who has already done more harm to Jaguar's name and image than any other individual I can think of.

Mike Rutherford
Article from: Auto Express

When I first heard the news that Europe wants Britain to drop miles in favour of kilometres before the 2012 Olympics, my reaction was lukewarm.

Then, when it emerged that has-been British politician and former Labour party leader Neil Kinnock is behind the plan, I adopted an approach of outright hostility. Not because I'm a little Englander (my father is English-Scottish, my mother Italian, my sister now American, my wife Asian and my kids a bit of all the above), not because I'm blinkered, not because I refuse to accept change and not because I believe the mile is somehow superior to the kilometre.

No, my objection is that the unelected Lord Kinnock is, in his old age, attempting to stick his nose in where it doesn't belong. Kinnock is the latest in a long line of marginal politicians dabbling in subjects they don't understand and getting the priorities all wrong. In the real world, the people who really matter - road users - aren't asking for Britain to adopt the Continental Europe system. They're not even thinking about it. That's because they've got more important things on their minds - such as the millions of crashes and countless deaths and injuries which occur within the boundaries of Europe and beyond. They wonder why State-sponsored motoring taxes and scams (such as the London and Durham congestion tax schemes) are allowed to continue. And how our French, Spanish and Italian cousins are allowed to charge us big money to drive on their motorways, while they pay nothing to use ours.

Perhaps Neil Kinnock might like to address the problem of left-hand-drive trucks, with inadequate rear and side view mirrors, crashing into smaller vehicles in Britain, while, at the same time, right-hookers are causing the same carnage on the European mainland. I'll even do his work for him and tell him that this problem could be solved overnight if the authorities at the port of Dover were given powers to prevent left-hand-drive lorries with poor mirror systems entering England, while their French counterparts did exactly the same to right-hand-drive lorries in France. But road signs? "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is a saying that Lord Kinnock has apparently forgotten.

Meanwhile, the media reported that Nanjing Automobile Corporation has signed a 33-year deal to lease the former MG Rover facility at Longbridge. But what many of the press failed to point out is that Nanjing has only committed itself to a comparatively small corner of the jinxed Midlands site. Furthermore, it also has a six-month get-out clause, which enables it to walk away from the whole situation if the funds required to start producing vehicles at the echoing plant can't be raised.

If I told you I'd just signed a 33-year lease to occupy Buckingham Palace, subject to me finding the money to pay for the deal, you'd be entitled to think I'd never come up with the cash and, therefore, should never be handed the keys to the main gate.

Mike Rutherford
Article from: Auto Express

Tokyo stages the craziest car exhibition on earth. Detroit organises the roughest, Frankfurt the biggest, LA the sunniest, Barcelona the friendliest and Paris the nearest. But Geneva is simply illogical. This is one of the most ungrateful, money-grabbing, mercenary cities I've ever visited. Having attended my 20th show I am seriously questioning what this once great, but now complacent city actually offers the car industry - still the largest manufacturing business in the world.

True, Geneva has an adequate, although soulless, concrete exhibition centre in a field which sits miles from the city centre. But Switzerland has a reputation for being environmentally-holier-than-thou and, with that in mind, prides itself on not being a ghastly, polluting, car-producing nation. That in turn means it contributes nothing to global motor manufacturing. So why do the world's vehicle makers reward this all-take-no-give country with an important show of its own? It makes about as much sense as staging a gardening expo in a land that doesn't have any grass.

How can anybody justify staging a major car festival in a country where they aren't built, public transport rules, motors are despised and drivers treated with contempt whether they're forced to pay for annual motorway passes - even when visiting for only a few hours - or stuck in jams deliberately created by daft bus priority schemes?

Then there are Geneva's horribly expensive and worn-out taxis. And hoteliers effectively hold a gun to the heads of weary show visitors needing a bed for a night or two by telling them that they're welcome - but only if they pay to take over rooms for the week. Extortion is the word that springs to mind. Add in generally high prices, out-of-control graffiti, naff stores and armies of jack-booted 'security guards' on streets, and you have what is the modern Geneva.

Like Turin, it has had its day - Europe needs a new, fresh, vibrant motor show venue. Unlike Switzerland, it must be within the European Union, a mass vehicle producer, a significant contributor to the car world and capable of hosting an exhibition offering visitors balmy days and nights - which Geneva can't do in February or March.

Enter the British International Motor Show in London, in July. The halls sit alongside the Thames, there are links to motorways and A-roads, and the ExCeL venue is minutes away from hotels, restaurants, cafés, pubs and coffee shops to suit all pockets.

Admittedly, the London congestion charge is a form of theft, but it doesn't yet extend to the Docklands area of the capital. The crumbling Earls Court and barn-like Birmingham NEC are toast. The ExCeL centre must pick up the pieces and re-establish Britain as a major league international motor show venue. Five hundred miles away, twitchy Geneva organisers are getting worried. And with good reason.

Mike Rutherford
Article from: Auto Express

Noticed how many sensational road 'accidents' have made it into the newspapers lately? The Cardiff-based Western Mail even took the step of recording, diary-style, the incidents that killed or seriously injured people in its region over a week-long period: there was a biker who lost control; a cyclist in collision with a vehicle; a woman whose car hit a wall; a man struck by a car while getting into a taxi; a lady riding on the back of a motorcycle and a passenger in a Mitsubishi.

So what caused these shunts? The Western Mail didn't offer any answers in its article, titled Lethal Weapon. But it let Martin Macarthur, from charity RoadPeace, have his say. "It's normal to be overtaken by cars at 100mph-plus," claimed the road safety campaigner. His allegation couldn't have been more damning - that it's not unusual for vehicles in Britain to bomb around at a ton or more. Intentionally or otherwise, he also seemed to suggest speed and speed alone - in cars - is the only cause of road accidents.

If only it was as simple as that. Take those six tragic incidents mentioned above. The biker lost control on a bend. Was he travelling too fast or did he encounter a bus in the middle of the road? Maybe he crashed after hitting some spilled diesel? The cyclist died when he was in collision with a lorry. Speed-related fatality? I doubt it. More that big trucks and little bikes shouldn't share the same narrow lanes.

The lady whose car hit a wall was reportedly "taken ill at the wheel" before the shunt. So was it poor health, rather than speed here? The bloke climbing into the taxi was 78, and leaving a club when a Mazda ploughed into him. Was the speeding driver to blame, or was the crash caused by an ageing pedestrian, a badly parked cab, or the cops who were apparently following the Mazda? I'm not passing judgement, just asking.

And the girl on the back of the motorbike. She was only 17 years old. Can we assume that the person piloting her was of a similar age, and therefore short of riding experience? Was his passenger wearing adequate protective clothing and headgear? Isn't it time to admit that the pillion seat is no place for anybody to sit, least of all a teenage girl literally hanging on for dear life?

As for the Mitsubishi passenger who died, he was in a relatively slow light commercial vehicle, and there's no evidence that speed caused the crash. In other words, as far as speed is concerned, don't be too quick to blame it for all road accidents.

An inappropriately fast off-duty cop, Fabian Wright, was jailed the other week after his Audi ploughed into a Ford Ka, killing the Ford's 16-year-old passenger. Another straightforward 'speed kills' case, you might conclude. Or maybe not. I would argue that his speeding infringement is not the main issue. Surely it was his unforgivable red light jumping and dangerous driving, not his speeding, that did the killing?

Mike Rutherford
Article from: Auto Express

Been commuting to the Midlands for much of the month, doing everything from paying my respects to MG Rover to filming the next series of Pulling Power.

The 135 miles I did from Kent to the Ascari supercar factory in Banbury, Oxon, for example, took only two hours and three minutes, and cost £15 in fuel. True, I had to be out of the house well before the morning rush hour, but that's the price you pay to exploit free-flowing roads. You might arrive a few hours early, so be productive and use the car as a mobile office. Or simply recline the seat, put on an eye mask and grab some sleep, as you would if you were on a plane.

But there is a downside to hitting the road desperately early. It's called desperate radio. When I'm driving alone at unsociable hours, I need to listen to a steady stream of mainstream news, debate and intelligent conversation, sprinkled with humour. I also require regular updates on local traffic and weather. Not too much to ask, is it? So why is it that, early in the morning when I'm on the road with millions of other drivers, radio output is dominated by farmers, financial types, football fanatics or insomniacs who take part in inane late-night/early-hours chat shows and quizzes?

The Cheltenham Festival and Commonwealth Games stole additional hours of valuable early morning/late-night airtime recently. And although I wish we could, we can't forget the deadly dull regulars such as Farming Today, Wake Up To Money, the Shipping Forecast, World Business Report... all specialised programming going to comparatively small groups of professional people. Meanwhile, the wider public is being robbed of the general news coverage that's worth listening to, has widespread appeal and - important, this - helps keep us all awake and alert when we're at the wheel.

If the journalists, researchers and presenters at the BBC, for example, can't be bothered to rise early to dig up, write and read out all the interesting national and international news stories of the day, they could at least recite reports from papers. But if the Beeb insists on broadcasting specialist programmes when most people up and about appear to be drivers, why not give birth to a new crop of programmes? How about Driving Today, Wake Up To Motors, the Motoring Forecast and World Automotive Report?

Start The Week could be renamed Start The Engine, the Food Programme would become the Car Programme and Woman's Hour could become a more democratic Driver's Hour aimed at both ladies and men. Book at Bedtime could feature tips from the Highway Code, workshop and service manuals. File on Four has got to be changed to 4x4, and Yesterday in Parliament would make better listening if it was reinvented as Yesterday At The Auctions. Maybe they're not such crazy ideas. After all, every day 50 million drivers and passengers use cars, trucks and vans in Britain - and they crave news and comment they can relate to.

Mike Rutherfrod
Article from: Auto Express

Too often we hear about the alleged harm 4x4s do to the planet. But how often does anyone get positive stories about how effective these workhorses are when it comes to carrying people and cargo on a variety of unpredictable surfaces and in all weathers? I was in North America last week, struggling like millions of others with the thick snow and ice sitting on roads which had been left largely untreated by the local authorities.

What were we supposed to do? Grab shovels and dig our way through, searching for bus stops where we'd wait in sub-zero temperatures for public service vehicles with no seatbelts? Or would it have been more acceptable to pay a dollar a minute to ride around in filthy yellow cabs for a week? Alternatively, I could have opted for a simple two-wheel-drive car. But in such tricky conditions, I feared I'd end up down a ditch or in the path of an oncoming truck, so I opted for a 4x4.

My experience, common sense and belief that it's always a sound idea to have exactly the right tool for the job led me to conclude that a sophisticated all-wheel-drive car would be the safest, most appropriate machine for my needs. Traction at all four corners, anti-lock brakes and a state-of-the-art electronic stability control system would help prevent me from coming off the road, sliding towards another car or, worse still, running out of control and into a pedestrian.

At the very least, the utility vehicle I was using made me feel safer, more confident and less stressed. But at best, and I do not exaggerate here, it helped save my life in the occasionally lethal weather conditions which are not uncommon in this and other parts of the world - even in the spring.

But the day before I headed back home to Blighty, a CNN presenter told me - via the telly in my frost-bitten hotel room - that people who drive 4x4s are "morons". And there was me thinking I behaved in a proper, grown-up way by tackling unforgiving weather and roads in a car designed to cope with such potentially dangerous hazards. Yet here was the presenter of a financial programme informing us that millions of people like me are guilty of moronic behaviour. Words such as "pariahs" and "jerks behind the wheel" were also used on the broadcast, which attempted to portray those who use off-roaders as the scum of the earth.

During one of my final snow-jammed days in the US, I got chatting to a bloke who was heading to an ice hockey game. His wife was sitting next to him in the car, the kids were on the row behind them and a demountable motorhome was safely bolted on to the back. He told me that while it's a recreational family vehicle at weekends, it lugs him and his work-related materials around in the week. But at the end of the day it was still a 4x4. So is he a moron? Pariah? Jerk? Owner of an obnoxious car? I think not.

Mike Rutherford
Article from: Auto Express

BMW is very good (3-Series saloon cars, diesel engines, MINI), naughty (occasionally high prices, dumping Rover), smart (look at its annual profits) but not very funny, as its recent 'joke' announcement demonstrated.

On April Fool's Day, the 'Head of Mandate Avoidance', Dr Hans Uphoo-Gotit, revealed measures to combat imminent roadside cameras designed to catch drivers going too slowly. I could barely manage a smile, never mind a chuckle. It just wasn't funny. While the Bavarian company has its strong points, comedy isn't one of them.

But this is an extremely clever firm that's often ahead of the game. The woman who effectively owns Germany's best and most highly respected auto maker has surrounded herself with committed car and bike guys who are passionate about driving and riding, and comprehending the real dangers of travelling too fast... or not quickly enough. When it mischievously announced on 1 April: "Police chiefs have warned that slow driving has become nearly as great a hazard as speeding on Britain's roads today," rather than making a joke, it was accurately predicting the future. I hope.

Some US states are spot-on when they tell drivers how quickly and, equally importantly, how slowly they're permitted to go. The signs are brilliantly simple and easy to understand: the top line typically reads 'MAX 65MPH' and the bottom one, 'MIN 50MPH'. We urgently need the same sort of no-nonsense approach in Britain. And BMW might just have started the long-overdue debate with its spoof press release.

It's like this. Inappropriately slow vehicles are responsible for far too many accidents. How often have you seen a car inviting carnage by crawling along a motorway slip road at 30mph then joining lane one at 35? Or a truck that expects every other vehicle to scatter as it leaps from lane one to lane two at a little more than 50mph while nearby cars, vans and bikes are travelling about 50 per cent faster?

Motorists trying to extract maximum fuel economy by doing around 50mph on a free-flowing but busy motorway also have the potential to create accidents, especially when they hog lane two. Then there are the milk floats, mobile cranes, JCBs, tractors, street cleaners and countless other underpowered or knackered vehicles whose velocity is dangerously incompatible with most other machines on the road. Do keep reminding yourself that the Government's lazy and fatuous Speed Kills message is flawed: inappropriately fast or slow speeds are the real problem.

As it's a highly responsible, cash-rich company - and creator of the slow-speed-obsessed Dr Hans Uphoo-Gotit - I've taken the liberty of writing to BMW, requesting that it helps fund some serious research and further debate into the cause and effect of vehicles travelling at dangerously incompatible speeds. If I get a response, whether it's funny, serious or somewhere in between, I'll share it with you.

Mike Rutherford
Article from: Auto Express

Would you believe it? Emotional Renault and laid back Toyota are having a corporate punch-up.

The French firm formally declared hostilities when it issued a hugely provocative statement alleging that a petrol-electric hybrid power unit such as that in the Toyota Prius is "much more costly and no greener" than a diesel engine in a Renault Mégane. What's more, it claims its car costs up to £5,050 less than the Japanese offering.

That means an early score of 1-0 in favour of Renault, I reckon. Make that 2-0 after the French brand pointed out that by saving more than £5,000 on the asking price, a buyer can afford a holiday to Barbados. Toyota hit back by saying that, at £17,760, its base Prius T3 does cost more than a Mégane boasting the closest equivalent spec (the 1.9 dCi 130 Expression auto). But, says Toyota, that model, at £16,450, doesn't get the stability and climate control the Prius enjoys. Let's call it 2-1 at this stage.

Although Renault talks of its model having the "same fuel economy" as the Toyota, official figures show the Prius will average 65.7mpg combined against 62.8mpg for the Mégane (2-2). In town, it returns 56.5mpg to the dCi's 51.4mpg (3-2 Toyota).

"Same VED tax band, too," claims an optimistic Renault. But Toyota insists its Prius costs marginally less in road fund licence fees (4-2), while anyone driving one in central London is exempt from the £8-per-day congestion tax. Half-time score: Japan 5, France 2.

The Mégane has a higher top speed (5-3), but the Prius is quicker from 0-60mph (6-3). French bosses also say the complexity of the Prius' hybrid power "adds greatly to servicing costs". But Toyota insists its car's first check costs £110, with the second £180. The Mégane's first service is said to be around £220 and its second £420 (7-3).

Renault concludes that hybrids are an interesting novelty, "but don't achieve anything a Mégane dCi can't achieve". Not true - 8-3. Toyota's more measured conclusion is that the Prius is "roomier, quicker, more fuel efficient, cleaner, costs less to service and will probably work out cheaper to own". Final score: 9-3.

When governments declare war on things and people (and make no mistake, the UK administration is warring with motor cars and the people who use them), there are bound to be casualties. First, it was Ford which halted car production in Britain. Next, MG Rover hit the headlines, when it collapsed. Now, I'm sorry to see it's Peugeot's Ryton plant near Coventry that's gone belly-up - and with it, the jobs of 2,300 staff.

The Labour Government isn't entirely responsible - but you can certainly chuck some of the blame at its door. Choose to war with the motor vehicle and you choose to war with the motor industry, and all the people who work in it.

Mike Rutherford
Article from: Auto Express

What can British, German, American and Japanese car makers currently do that the French can't? Design and build prestigious, limo-like saloons fit for royalty, presidents, Hollywood movie stars... and discerning car nuts.

Jaguar, Rolls-Royce, Bentley, Audi, BMW, Mercedes, Lexus and Cadillac have all mastered the art. But Renault couldn't with its awkward Vel Satis. And neither can Peugeot with the 607, which feels more like a giant, if humble, repmobile.

Then there's Citroen: consumer champ, maker of modest vehicles and a no-hoper in the luxury saloon car league thanks to its less than pretty C5. I feared the soon-to-be-launched C6 would be equally underwhelming. But I couldn't have been more wrong.

After walking around Citroen's brave new flagship for five minutes, I knew I was staring at the prettiest large luxury saloon (or is it a coupé?) I've seen for years. After another five in the cabin, it was clear that although its look and feel are not up to Audi's class-leading standards, it surpasses Mercedes' current level. So far, so good.

The C6's tech spec, including a head-up display unit, is as good as - if not better than - that in 'superior' rivals. The diesel engine is as refined as anything in a Jaguar. Indeed, the 2.7 HDi V6 version is so eerily quiet it's hard to believe it's not a petrol.

And it's good for 30mpg-plus, which for a car as colossal as this is astonishing. The ride is excellent and journeys can be as lazy or as involving as you want thanks to the six-speed transmission, with its idiot-proof auto mode or more demanding sequential change. Frankly, I don't know who will be brave enough to buy one new at £30,000 or so. But if you have the foresight to think long-term, start saving now for the purchase of a 36-month-old C6, which you'll be able to pick up in 2009 for not very much at all.

I find it hard to believe that 20 per cent of homes in the UK have at least three cars on their drives, or more likely on the drive, grass verge and on the street with two wheels on the pavement. But there's no getting away from the fact that many parents and their late teen and beyond 'children' do need a car apiece. What's wrong with that?

The problem is not that several people living in the same home want a car each. Politicians and planners are the real villains. If they had been doing their jobs properly, they'd have ensured that every newly built small flat or house included at least one on-site parking space or garage, family homes a minimum of two, while larger houses had even more. But we're a small country with limited ground space, I hear you cry. So build car storage facilities beneath houses and flats and construct double and triple-deck garages, surround them in plants and shrubs, and allow these mini multi-storey car parks to bring some real greenness to otherwise drab neighbourhoods.

Mike Rutherford
Article from: Auto Express

At the end of the day, our politicians are all the same, aren't they? They tell you sleaze is over for good and that they're working hard for you, but it's never long before they're hitting the headlines for something they'd rather you didn't know about.

Here are a few names that have come up in the press over the last week or two: Tony Blair, Charles Clarke, Patricia Hewitt, Neil Kinnock and John Prescott. I've met them all on a personal, one-to-one level.

Talking cars with Tony Blair was a surreal experience not helped by the fact that his eyes looked mad, his mood was unnervingly edgy and his words were nonsensical. He doesn't seem to know one end of a vehicle - or a manufacturer - from another.

I only met Clarke briefly when we shared a TV studio for a few minutes. He is possibly the most unfriendly man I've ever had the misfortune to sit alongside. Conversely, Hewitt is warm but unconvincing. You may remember her making a fuss about an allegedly sexist British Motor Show poster at a time when UK car makers were on their knees. And her recent years as Trade and Industry minister were so ineffective that she must take some of the blame for the death of MG Rover's Longbridge plant, the imminent closure of Peugeot's facility in Coventry and the implosion of Blackpool's TVR factory.

Kinnock cynically made a professional friend of me and the newspaper for which I was working (the biggest seller in Britain) about a decade ago. He persuaded us to publish his 'expert' views on road safety, but how hollow they now look. This is a man with a background in transport-related politics, yet the courts have decided his recent actions at the wheel are so bad, he's been fined heavily and banned from driving. This is no way for a senior politician fast-approaching pensionable age to behave, is it?

Talking of OAPs, it's none of our business if John Prescott, 67, uses his spare time to cheat on his wife of 45 years with Tracey Temple, who's young enough to be his daughter. Neither should we be surprised that he allegedly "leapt" on Tricia McDaid. Or that he acted "disgustingly" in the company of Helga Forde. These are, on the face of it, private matters between him and the women who found themselves in the same places as him.

But the fact is those were work or work-related places. Sexual activity reportedly took place between him and Temple during working hours in at least one Government office and in Prescott's plush living quarters, funded by the taxpayer. Official cars were used to ship the mistress around. They also enjoyed saucy phone conversations, hotel quickies and boozy parties. Were these indulgences also paid for by us, the public?

Prescott was guilty of gross misbehaviour in the office when, as Transport Secretary, he screwed up the roads and shafted Britain's 50 million car users. And evidently he's still misbehaving now when he's paid handsomely by us to do his job - whatever that is.

Mike Rutherford
Article from: Auto Express

You might have thought that new Conservative leader, David Cameron, would do the sensible thing and keep his nose clean while giving his troubled Labour colleagues just enough rope to hang themselves with, as their poll rating slumps to a 14-year low. But oh no, Chopper Dave - read on and it'll make sense - seems to be doing his best to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, thanks to some classic transport-related cock-ups on the part of him and his spin doctors.

First he bleats on about the melting ice caps. Then he helps them melt by taking an aircraft to a part of the Arctic which happened to provide the right backdrop for the publicity photograph he craved to prove his 'green' credentials. In addition to the return flights, there were almost certainly large cars to and from the airports and restaurants, plus hotel rooms that needed to be lit and heated so that he got the caring, sharing photo he was after. All things considered, the trip almost enabled the environment-obsessed Tory leader to create his own personal greenhouse effect.

Back in Blighty, he was again off to work on his bicycle. Fair enough. If adults clue themselves up on the facts, decide the risks are worth taking and still choose to use one the most dangerous modes of transport going, that's fine by me. But my admiration for David Cameron, the committed, brave, eco-friendly cyclist, turned to disgust when I learned that a large, chauffeur driven, official limousine follows him in his cycle tracks. And with him go his papers, a clean and dry pair of shoes and, presumably, a fresh shirt to replace the sweaty top he inevitably ends up with at the end of his bike rides through the muggy, dirty streets of London. While he gets a free car and driver as part of his job package, the rest of us are presumably expected to get our own chauffeur and wheels to follow us on our bikes?

And if he shot himself in both feet with his melting glacier and pushbike stunts, how about the revelation that when he recently chose to visit Chorley in Lancashire to congratulate newly elected councillors, he travelled by helicopter - a machine that typically produces around 10 times as much carbon dioxide as a car?

And talking of cars, guess what motor he had lined up when he stepped out of the chopper? Only a Bentley. He's asking for and getting labels such as gross hypocrite and being accused of not practising what he preaches with these kinds of stunts. Instead of jumping on the environmental bandwagon, taking part in cynical and damaging PR exercises and, worst of all, adopting one rule for himself and another for the rest of us (helicopters and Bentleys are OK for him, but not for me and you), Chopper Dave might like to consider some more immediate issues. How about the 3,000-plus road deaths annually, tolls, the £5 gallon, gas-guzzling buses and trains running near empty outside of the rush hour, the legality of the dubious congestion tax scams in London and Durham, that sort of thing?

Meanwhile, Sir Menzies Campbell, the Lib Dem leader, has just been asked what three practical things he suggests each of us do to help save the planet. "Drive less, fly less and buy less," was the reply from the long-distance commuter who lives in Scotland, but works in the deep south of another country called England. So my question to him is: If you don't drive, fly or buy railway tickets how, exactly, do you get to work?

Mike Rutherford
Article from: Auto Express

'm not asking you to approve of the crime committed by Joy Rees. But you might like to show her some sympathy. And more importantly, you should learn some valuable lessons from the mistakes she made inside and outside her car.

The 39-year-old single mum was caught on camera doing 51mph in a 40 zone. That's the sort of misdemeanour most of us have been guilty of at some point. Difference is we didn't go to jail for exceeding the speed limit by 20-something per cent. Joy did - and here's how.

In short, she's been found guilty of perverting the course of justice. She copped a speeding ticket and instead of taking it on the chin, paying the £60 fine and accepting another three points on her licence, she pretended that a distant relative - her former sister-in-law Joanne Aikens, a resident of San Francisco - was driving the car. Bad move. The UK authorities were unconvinced by Joy's story. And they were deeply unimpressed when she forged Joanne's signature. The damning photographic evidence provided by the forward-facing speed camera in Plymouth, Devon showed that Joy was behind the wheel at 2.02 on the afternoon of 18 July 2005. A few more enquiries proved that at precisely this time, ex-sis-in-law Joanne was nowhere near Britain, let alone the camera lens. Oops!

What Joy Rees did was wrong, but comprehensible. Many of us, Transport Minister Stephen Ladyman included, have joked about or even half-considered allowing 'friends or loved ones' to inherit some of our tickets. But then we come to our senses, we feel ashamed that such criminal thoughts entered our heads and we take our punishment of points and fines. Or in the case of Joy Rees, we don't. And that's why she's just been locked up for six months. Sounds like a harsh sentence, doesn't it? Especially for a young mother trying to bring up a son on her own, while doing an important job as a community nurse. For all we know, she might have been rushing to pick up her boy or treat a needy patient at 2.02 on 18 July. Those of us living in the real world don't have a big problem with you speeding, Joy. But we think you're daft for trying to wriggle out of a comparatively harmless £60 fine and three points.

As you read this, Joy Rees is almost certainly scared and sobbing in jail. Her driving offence was merely run of the mill, her attempt to blame someone else for her excessive speed wrong, but she already knows that, she'll never dare lie to the authorities again and I'm sure she'd happily volunteer to do several hundred hours of community service (or even unpaid nursing work) in return for an immediate release.

In recent days, Joy Rees hasn't been the only one in the news for committing transport-related crimes. She's a harmless, productive, valuable, tax-paying woman who's been incarcerated after a few misguided moments of madness. And at the same time as she was shown her prison mattress, the welcome mat was rolled out for violent, dangerous, international hijackers who committed heinous crimes of armed terrorism in UK airspace and on our soil as they petrified passengers on a Stansted-bound plane. Unbelievably, these guys have not been ordered to go to jail or even returned to their country of origin, after entering ours illegally. Now that's what I call a proper perversion of the course of British justice. Whatever happened to the credible Britain that used to have the world's best and most highly-respected legal system?

Mike Rutherford
Article from: Auto Express

Last year Bob Lutz, the motor industry legend who's now the public face and voice of General Motors, personally assured me that Britain is a better place than Germany to build cars.

Now, during the first half of 2006, his corporation has had to choose between axing nearly 1,000 British Vauxhall workers or a similar number of German Opel employees... and it's the Brits rather than the Germans who've been dumped. How come these Ellesmere Port jobs are the ones to be sacrificed? Especially after Lutz told me that the UK has the edge over Germany as a manufacturing country.

"Germany is tougher than Britain. Without a doubt Britain is a better place to make things," he insisted when we spoke in Los Angeles.

"Germany has been used to success in the last 40-50 years or so and is having a problem dealing with the new reality. Britain is now the sort of country that's gotten its act together.  It's nicely attuned to the realities of the world after losing its indigenous motor industry." Not that any of the above can be consolation for Vauxhall, Ellesmere Port and its hundreds of sacked workers.

In other parts of the world, we've already seen GM kill off its small brands which mean something locally, but next to nothing on the international stage. With that in mind, I directly asked Lutz if he still needed the comparatively tiny Vauxhall marque, which carries little weight outside its native Britain? "Well, we do and we don't. If you could wave the magic wand and bring it all under one brand - let's say Opel - without a short-term dramatic decrease in sales, I think we'd do it, because it makes all the sense in the world."

But thankfully he says that all things considered, he sees no reason to dump the Vauxhall badge. At least not "for the time being", thereby giving himself a clever get-out clause to change his mind at any time in the future! He also admits the value of the Vauxhall brand in the UK is not as good as he'd like it to be, and not as strong as it was 15-20 years ago. And in a further chilling warning to GM's western car factories, the vice president of global product development had this to say.

"It's clear that both in the US and Europe we're under dramatic pressure from the Asians... whether it's the South Koreans, Japanese or, one step removed, the Chinese. And ultimately it's those economic forces that close your plants for you. Nowadays you cannot guarantee anybody's job in a western industrialised company. The competition is so tough. There is no guarantee for anybody." Lutz is one of the straightest-talking senior executives in the global car industry. But the fact is that since my exclusive interview with him a few months ago, his corporation has incurred and formally announced an eye-watering $10.6 billion annual loss.

Talk of industrial action at Ellesmere Port will play into GM's hands, as a cash-strapped corporation can justify closing a plant whose employees choose to sabotage production and sales. The suggestion by part of the union movement that new Vauxhalls should now be boycotted is equally suicidal. "Too little, too late," were the words I muttered to myself as Chancellor Gordon Brown and former Transport Secretary Alistair Darling put in pathetic appearances at Ellesmere Port after nearly 1,000 jobs were axed. I hope I'm wrong, but I reckon the best long-term hope for the workers left there is to accept that the Vauxhall brand will eventually die and that their future rests in building GM's Opel products, and perhaps a few Chevrolets, too.

Article from: Auto Express

Government wrong on parkers' rights

The Government's recent conversion to motorists' parking rights is too little, too late.

They’ve sat in their ivory towers for nearly a decade. They’ve done very little and said even less.

Last month, MPs in the Labour-dominated House of Commons transport select committee pretended they were on the motorist’s side, by declaring that the parking fine ‘system’ is in a mess.

Bonuses for wardens were condemned. Councils were accused of sharp practice. Administrative chaos, inconsistencies, over-zealousness and injustices were all acknowledged. And the promise from Westminster was that the people of Britain deserve and will receive improvements. But not until next year – on the eve of the General Election.

Cynical or what? Had committee members researched their subject by daring to venture out in to almost any high street and chatted to car users living in the real, parking fine-obsessed world? If they had, they would have sensed something has been going wrong for some time.

Instead, they’ve sat in their ivory towers for nearly a decade. They’ve done very little and said even less. Meanwhile, as they’re putting themselves into self-induced comas, we on the outside have paid billions in parking fees, fines, excess charges, tow-away fees and related rip-offs. Sure, the parking gestapo may be ordered to make a tactical withdrawal in the run-up to the next election, but I’ll bet that another offensive will be launched when the next Government – Labour, Conservative or Lib Dem – is installed. The giant financial rewards are just too great. Picking the pockets of parkers in this way is so damn easy.

In British towns and cities in the late Nineties and early 2000s I’ve seen no State-sponsored men in scary uniforms targeting drug dealers, out-of-control drunks, thugs, vandals and people armed with spray cans and illegal weapons. But in my neck of the woods, I see these aggressive ‘enforcers’ on the streets 13 hours a day, nicking people who’ve committed the most minor parking offences. Does a council tax-paying resident who’s not blessed with a drive or garage really deserve a hefty fine because his car remains on a single yellow a few minutes beyond the fatuous 8am deadline? Is an employee trying to earn a crust really deserving of financial penalties totalling scores or even hundreds of pounds, just because he or she got held up at work, and couldn’t help overrunning their time on a meter?

I no longer understand this country, its deranged laws and warped sense of justice. John Prescott is the closest we’ve had to a Godfather of Transport over the last decade. The misery this man from Wales has inflicted on British roads, drivers, cars and the fast-disappearing pleasure of motoring is incalculable.

Yet collectively, we pay over a billion pounds a year to the State, its agents and entrepreneurial parking enforcement accomplices, as we commit a few minor and largely insignificant parking transgressions. I warn you now, despite what the sleepy stooges on the select committee suggest to the contrary, enforcement will become even more rigorous in the years ahead.

Government and councils have worked out that although their mercenary attendants are cheap to employ, and rake in far more in profit than they cost to feed and clothe, there is even more money to be grossed by outing these unskilled people. They’re already being replaced by powerful cameras outside shops, near schools and in residential areas with on-street restrictions. The roadside devices will be as unforgiving and inflexible as Gatsos, and potentially could be even more profitable. Much more than this and I’m leaving Britain and going into exile.

Article from: Auto Express

Mike Rutherford shames the train-obsessed politicians and environmentalists:

The huge, expensive social engineering experiment designed to bludgeon people out of cars and on to trains has ultimately failed

It's an admirable thing when people passionately believe in something, show unflinching commitment to the cause and have the courage of their convictions. But it's equally important for them occasionally to hold their hands up, stop digging their heels in and start conceding that they've got something wrong. There's no shame in being realistic, acknowledging failure, accepting defeat. And that's exactly what the rail industry and train-obsessed politicians and environmentalists should be doing right now.

Here's why. The huge, expensive, constitutionally outrageous, decade-long social engineering experiment designed to bludgeon people out of cars fitted with plush carpets and on to trains featuring vomit-stained flooring has ultimately failed. True, there has been limited success, if you can call it that, as drivers beaten over the head by the State have been bullied into leaving their motors at home and taking the train as a costly alternative. That's because cars are, and always will be, responsible for the overwhelming majority of passenger journeys in Britain (and other advanced nations), while trains are not.

Trouble is, the railway fundamentalists are in denial. First, they fail to understand there's only one winner when air-conditioned, self-drive personal mobility machines running 24 hours a day door-to-door are compared with soiled, airless, seatbelt-free wagons that rarely go close enough to homes or workplaces. Next, they try to shoehorn people into carriages which don't have the capacity to accommodate them. Stop and consider the madness of this Government-inspired programme that displaces motorists from cars where they're safely strapped in, then transfers them to trains where there's barely enough room to stand.

So overcrowded have some trains become, even outside the rush hour, that ministers have, disgracefully, given entrepreneurial rail companies the OK to abandon off-peak fares. An outfit calling itself Network Rail modestly says that it owns and operates Britain's rail infrastructure. NR's chairman is ex-Ford boss Ian McAllister (the man who was in charge when the blue oval closed the Dagenham plant in Essex), and he wants an extra £8billion of OUR money for HIS Network Rail - in addition to the scores of billions it has already had or is about to get from us. One of NR's proud boasts is that it "aims to reduce broken rails to 280 per year by 2008". Or to put that another way, it will "aim" for one busted rail for every working day of the year. Wouldn't a zero failure rate be a more desirable and safer goal?

Meanwhile, train and bus-infatuated London Mayor Ken Livingstone, who's besotted with public transport, is widely reported as admitting that his overcrowded underground network is a "death trap". His comments were made exactly a year after the day in July 2005 when 52 people were slaughtered and scores of others injured by unchecked bombers terrorising Livingstone's 'safe' bus and underground network.

From the comfort of their ivory towers or the back seats of their chauffeur-driven limousines, politicians, rail entrepreneurs and so-called environmentalists pretend that there has never been a better time to travel by train and bus. I wish they would be more honest, admit that the game's up, acknowledge how uncomfortable, costly and inconvenient their trains and buses are... and how, at the same time, already-reliable cars have become safer and more affordable to buy and run.

Article from:  Auto Express

What follows is my last word on the British International Motor Show, 2006. Or my last 587 words, to be precise. On the three days and one evening I attended the expo in London's Docklands, I saw nothing but satisfied British and international journalists, cautiously optimistic motor industry personnel and, most important of all, happy punters.

A disabled driver friend of mine summed up the event perfectly when he said the two main show halls and countless stands looked small, but were big enough. And easy to get around, too. It was, he told me, the most exciting and easy-to-negotiate car expo he'd attended in decades. I can't disagree.

But the ExCeL arena is far from complete. Its public transport links are flawed and much of the surrounding area is shoddy. Even the bits that are finished have their problems. Just how difficult is it to make the newly installed air-conditioning system work in the recently built show halls? Why does the 'light railway' to and from the venue cost so much to use? And what are the local council and ExCeL's entrepreneurial owners collectively doing to rid the area of the bomb sites, derelict buildings, rubbish dumps and general decay embarrassingly within eye-shot of the venue?

These are simple and easy problems to solve. The air-con needs a boost, the lightweight trains must drop their heavyweight fares and local landowners should clean up their act before the 2008 British Motor Show. A few flower beds plus a major tree-planting programme wouldn't hurt, either. I suggest sponsorship so that a leafy Alfa Avenue, BMW Boulevard and Chrysler Crescent are quickly adopted. Since motor showgoers tend to drive, more ExCeL road signs and priority routes are needed so greater numbers of visitors can travel there by car and park for a fiver. Better river access should be provided next time, too.

I used one of London's best-kept secrets, the (free) Woolwich car ferry to get me and my 4x4 across the Thames from north east to south east. So how about people in places like Oxford on one side of the capital and Southend, Essex, on the other travelling along their respective sections of the river by watercraft? Maybe ticket holders with boats or jetskis could enjoy free mooring space for a day, too. And given that ExCeL will inevitably need to expand, who is going to be brave enough to build a new, gloriously hi-tech hall on the water in 2008? My money's on the VW Group, which could display all its brands (VW, Audi, Seat, Skoda, Lamborghini and Bugatti) on a giant glass floating stand... with a test track on deck!

Other countries are already twitchy about the success of the inaugural ExCeL event, and that's a good sign. For example, the organisers of the Tokyo Motor Show, which doesn't take place until late 2007, seem worried that the new-look British expo might just get in the habit of stealing some cars originally destined to make world debuts in the Far East. And they're right to be concerned.

One last thing. Can we halt the debate over where the BIMS should be staged? Just as Edinburgh is the undisputed home of the Fringe, Cardiff is the ultimate rugby union city, F1 lives and dies at Silverstone, Birmingham is the curry capital and Manchester is our best-known footballing town, the British Inter­national Motor Show belongs to London. Sorry, but you can't argue with that. I forbid you.

Article from:  Auto Express

MG Rover and Longbridge continues to be abused, even after its death

If I ever write a book about Longbridge and the firm that lived and died at that Midlands car factory-cum-morgue, it will be called: MG Rover: Murder or Suicide? As the corpse remains warm and the post-mortem is still ongoing, it's far too early to know the answer. But my provisional conclusion is that the irresponsible parents known as the Phoenix Four were responsible for malnourishing the factory so badly, it had to be put on a life-support machine. And that's when the equally cruel Whitehall Two allowed the MG Rover company to be subjected to involuntary, state-sponsored, unjustifiable homicide.
 
Stephen Byers tipped MG Rover down the drain. And Patricia Hewitt, the shallowest politician I’ve ever met, flushed it into the sewer

The Four are the directors of Phoenix Venture Holdings, who ran the MG Rover business from 2000-2005 and received £40million for their trouble. The Whitehall Two are Stephen Byers and Patricia Hewitt, successive Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry at the time. Executioners-in-chief would have been a more appropriate title for these useless politicians, who simply failed to show enough interest in the company, its 6,000 workers and the countless thousands of other employees in support industries.

A few days ago the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee publicly stated that in their hands, the Department for Trade and Industry was too distant from the Longbridge motor manufacturing business. "The DTI never managed to get close enough to the company to develop comprehensive plans," the Committee revealed, adding that "serious gaps" between the Department and the firm existed, despite the DTI knowing Rover was extremely vulnerable.

I assumed that, a couple of years ago, the DTI was doing everything to protect the factory, its premises and above all its workers. But the Public Accounts Committee now tells us: "As the company's position deteriorated, the DTI's contingency planning during 2004 focused on preparing for its collapse." In the final months of that year, the Department "stepped up its planning for a possible collapse". Surprise, surprise, by spring 2005 MG Rover died a painful, premature death. We're talking about a massive business that wasn't faultless or blameless, but was at least turning over a healthy £1,700million a year (the 2003 annual gross revenue figure) while flying the flag for Britain and providing quality jobs and salaries.

Yet the non-driving, non-caring Byers, who wouldn't know one end of a car from another, tipped MG Rover down the drain. And Hewitt, the shallowest politician I've ever met, flushed the company into the sewer. History books will show they did next to nothing - but probably just enough - to rid England of its one and only homegrown volume car producer.

Dumped and dead MG Rover allegedly still has at least one Chinese 'owner' talking about building cars in China, plus a few in the Midlands. But when it can employ local workers for less than 50p an hour and it will have to pay Brits considerably more, don't be surprised if Longbridge has already built its last motor.

Another intriguing development is that there are some Americans who claim MGs will be built in big numbers in the USA, now that the Yanks have somehow grabbed some of the valuable Long-bridge bits and, according to them at least, left the dross behind. In death as in life, MG Rover and Longbridge continue to be abused. They have no chance of resting in peace.

Article from: Auto Express

Another weighty car-related document from the House of Commons. Another waste of paper...

By Mike Rutherford

Another week, another weighty car-related document from the House of Commons. This one is called Reducing Carbon Emissions from Transport, and having wasted a couple of days wading through it, I can tell you it's not worth the lives of the CO2-absorbing trees that have been felled for the 500 pages it's printed on. This publication is obscenely anti-car, dangerously misleading in parts and concentrates on only a relatively small sector of the pollution problem.
 
Planes, trains and ships pollute big – so how can MPs suggest measures aimed at discriminating against drivers?

The members of the Environmental Audit Committee, who endorse the report, bang on about road, rail, air and water transport accounting for only 33 per cent (allegedly) of UK carbon emissions. But hang on! Why get so excited about machines responsible for less than one-third of pollution when over two-thirds of emissions have nothing to do with transport? Barking up the wrong tree I call it.

The report claims that road vehicles are responsible for around 95 per cent of domestic transport emissions. But I reckon this is utter nonsense. How can all those gas-guzzling planes, passenger and freight trains, cargo ships and ferries collectively be responsible for only five per cent of transport pollution?

After all, the committee itself admits that "flying is a big contributor to carbon emissions and therefore to climate change". It also says trains "consume significant amounts of power" and that emissions from ships can be so incredibly high that, in the case of Holland for example, they represent "more than the entirety of emissions from land-based transport". In other words, planes, trains and ships pollute big time, and so MUST be responsible for considerably more than the five per cent of the UK's transport emissions problem. For the nine Labour, five Conservative and two Lib Dem MPs on the committee to suggest otherwise is unforgivable.

Also shameful is their conclusion that "it may be necessary to implement measures which DISCRIMINATE in favour of buses relative to cars". So there you have it in black and white: MPs - the people who represent you and me - are putting forward the idea that car drivers should be discriminated against. Isn't discrimination one of those dangerous, hateful, ugly activities that should have had its day? If anything, an all-party group of elected MPs should be saying that we must not discriminate against anybody, never mind 50 million law-abiding men, women and children who use cars on a daily basis.

Conservative MP Tim Yeo is the chairman of the committee responsible for the report and its often vile sentiments and proposals. One of these is that the annual vehicle excise duty for some motorists "would rise dramatically to £1,800 a year", with remaining drivers falling into brackets between £300 and £1,500, or in the case of the handful of ultra-low emission vehicles, nothing.

Hours after the publication of his car-hating document, Yeo looked me in the eye and banged on endlessly about the damage that motorists do to the planet. He also expressed arrogant distaste for drivers who don't buy 'clean' models such as the Toyota Prius. I asked him what he drives. "A 10-year-old BMW," he replied. So I said: "Why don't you, with your generous salary as an MP, have the courage of your convictions, set an example and buy a Prius for yourself?" To this he retorted: "Because I can't afford one," before climbing into his large, thirsty and comparatively dirty German luxury performance car.

It's worth reminding the anti-4x4 crusaders of the damage they've caused in recent months. Law-breaking fundamentalists have attacked owners of four-wheel-drive vehicles, while an international environmental pressure group has illegally invaded Land Rover's factory. Apart from this blatant act of industrial trespass, the ecomental activists committed further crimes by halting the firm's production line. Far from condemning such disgraceful commercial terrorism, Government ministers have jumped on the bandwagon and made their own cheap and damaging comments about perfectly legal SUVs.

Meanwhile, London's Mayor Ken Livingstone has repeated - to me, personally - that drivers of such all-wheel-drive cars are idiots, adding that he intends to impose a £25-a-day congestion tax on them. A leading London university carried out a "study" which concluded that people behind the wheel of SUVs are complacent and use their mobile phones irresponsibly. And a national newspaper recently ran a front page headline declaring that 4x4s are the enemy of the people.

The icing on the cake is that in early August, Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour MPs sitting on the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee proposed that buyers of large cars with all-wheel-drive should pay £1,800 for their annual road fund licences, and that owners of smaller vehicles with the same 4WD technology must pay £1,200 a year. And the result of all these vicious attacks on 4x4s, the companies who make them and the men, women and children who legally use them? Surprise, surprise - some motorists seeking an easy life are now frightened of buying them. The inevitable consequence of this is that the vehicles aren't selling well which, in turn, means legitimate British businesses are suffering. More importantly, the manufacturers are asking themselves if they and their all-wheel-drive cars have a future in a world - or at least a United Kingdom - in which everybody from so-called environmentalists to politicians to newspaper headline writers are publicly victimising the fine products they make.

Land Rover, for example, is an iconic English brand that puts Britain on the international stage and does a great job designing world class, all-wheel-drive machines, using thousands of workers in the Midlands. A firm such as this is a huge asset to our nation, our economy and our job market. And when its exciting new Freelander goes on sale soon, we should be reminding ourselves that, as with the Discovery, it has another potential world-beater on its hands. Furthermore, we might like to celebrate the fact that its owner, Ford of America, has generously allowed Land Rover production to continue in England and not be transferred to another part of the world where labour rates and taxes are much lower and politicians friendlier. I hope I'm wrong, but I wonder if irreversible damage has already been done.

Ford of America seems justifiably fed-up with the grief that its Land Rover operation gets from over-the-top politicians, ecomentalists and other 4x4 haters in Britain. Why are these cynics hindering the work of the firm? When will they be satisfied? When Ford says enough is enough and sells the firm to the Chinese? Or would the 4x4 saboteurs prefer an all-out closure of the Land Rover business? They need to step forward and give us some answers on what on earth it is they are trying to achieve.

Since the Little Hitlers in our local parking Gestapo have driven us out of our city centre by issuing tickets until 10pm, I've just had a night in with the lads. We downed a few beers and were subjected to my friend Al's new 42-inch plasma TV, which looks hilarious hanging on the wall above his Georgian fireplace. But what I saw on Channel Five that evening was even funnier. The tragi-comedy was called MacIntyre's Big Sting, and was hosted by a poor man's Roger Cook, whose unintentionally laughable act was to perform undercover investigative reporter impersonations.

The naive Donal MacIntyre started by plonking a new, unlocked Audi in a grotty inner city street with a computer on its seat. He seemed horrified that a passing teenager should steal the laptop. Evidently, Big Mac hasn't grasped what the rest of us have: if valuables are left on display in unmanned cars, buildings or anything else with open doors, they'll be stolen. In crime-ridden Britain in 2006, I'm afraid that's a certainty.

Equally obvious is the fact that although it's right and proper for broadcasters to warn potential victims of the sort of illegal activities they may be subjected to, it's wrong and improper to give detailed verbal and visual instruction on how such crimes are carried out. Donal MacIntyre seemed unaware of this golden rule. And in doing so, he - unintentionally, I presume - gave potential criminals a comprehensive 'how to' lesson in what sneaky specialist tools and practices they need to adopt before stealing cars.

Next, he parked a locked Audi in an iffy street and virtually invited known thieves and vandals to steal from it by leaving things lying on the passenger seat. Surprise, surprise, they smashed their way into the car, grabbed their haul and, because this was television, were caught on film doing it. Again, the host seemed shocked that a gang of bored youths spent a part of their otherwise empty lives committing crime in broad daylight.

But MacIntyre expressed no surprise or criticism when, after seeing the video footage, the British 'justice system' effectively let two of them off and fined the other a pathetic £60. That's the real story here: even when criminals are caught red-handed with crystal clear evidence in the form of professionally recorded film, they receive punishments of nothing or next to nothing.

Ironically, on the same day as MacIntyre's programme went out, it was revealed that family man Peter Woodhams, who remonstrated with youths throwing stones at his Ford Focus in East London, was stabbed for daring to protest. The police did nothing to apprehend or prosecute the culprits, never mind protecting Peter. And that disgraceful inaction was a major factor in why he was shot shortly afterwards and left to bleed to death on his doorstep in front of his fiancée and young son. A day later, three schoolgirls were stabbed by a man after having a discussion with him on a bus in sleepy Bridport, Dorset.

Donal MacIntyre might now like to probe into why Peter Woodhams is the latest in a line of people to die after standing up to car thieves or vandals. He could also investigate the growing trend of defenceless public transport passengers being brutally attacked. And when he's finished, perhaps Mac the Investigator can go undercover and mix with a few crooks and cops in an attempt to discover why police, magistrates and the legal system are collectively failing motorists such as Mr Woodhams or the children on the bus in Dorset?

America selectively targets car manufacturers for production of harmful emissions. Erm...

Two of the world's great car capitals, Paris and Los Angeles, have a lot in common at this time of year. They're the only places staging major international motor shows in autumn 2006. And des­pite what they might say to the contrary, both are heavily reliant on cars and would be worse off without them. When motor expos and related activities occur in these cities, several things go through the roof, including visitor numbers, credibility on the world stage, gross incomes and tax revenues.
 
If California wants to sue the firms which do most damage to air quality, that’s fair enough. But car makers are minor offenders.

There's nothing, apart from food and wine, that Parisians enjoy more than an argument - especially if it involves foreigners. So we shouldn't be surprised that some politicians there have jumped on the bandwagon and put the boot in on 4x4s. It's an unimaginative but devious move. You see, France's big three car makers - Peugeot, Citroen and Renault - are all based in Paris, and none sells an SUV. For every English, German, Japanese, South Korean or US-built off-roader that can be bludgeoned off the city's streets, it's likely a locally built hatch, saloon or MPV will replace it. How very clever. How very cynical. How very French!

Conversely, LA is behaving in a daft, provocative and very un-American manner. Or, to be more precise, the state of California is, as it is suing US-based firms GM, Ford and Chrysler, together with Japan's Toyota, Nissan and Honda. The charge? They're all responsible for damaging the local people and environment.

Might this allegation have something to do with the fact that although these companies have vehicle production plants in America, there are very few car making jobs in profit-obsessed California? I think so.

But what the selfish, 'I'm all right, Jack' Golden State forgets is that if the US car producing industry is in good shape, the whole of America benefits. The efforts of the above brands directly provide employment for hundreds of thousands of taxpaying workers in the States. And the same six corporations indirectly create millions more jobs for Ameri­cans in dealerships, workshops, finance houses, insurers and so on.

Then there's the little matter of auto shows. LA stages the big one in a few weeks' time, but there are countless smaller expos in California. As a regular visitor to LA for nearly 30 years, I can confirm it's a place that's verging on in..sanity. But now it's lost its marbles altogether. As I understand it, GM, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, Nissan and Honda are being sued, while German and South Korean firms with US plants are not. Neither is Ferrari, even though it sells more of its 13mpg cars in California than anywhere else in the world.

How about the builders and operators of filthy buses, trains, motorcycles, boats and the ships and aircraft that are very much part of California's industrial scene? As are the highly polluting cement works, Hollywood studios, factories, major construction sites, ranches, shops, skyscrapers, homes and other buildings whose enormous energy requirements cause more harm than the humble car exhaust pipe.

It's fair enough for California to work on the 'polluter pays' principle by suing the companies, organisations and individuals who do most damage to air quality. But to target half-a-dozen car makers with US factories is to pick on a minor group of offenders. These six brands and their products create less than 20 per cent of America's harmful emissions. Which means that other firms, individuals and government depart­ments are responsible for more than 80 per cent of the pollution problem. I rest my case.

Mike Rutherford blushes in Paris and explains why France and Japan are favoured hosts for car sales

I must have done more than 100 motor shows in a dozen or more countries, but it wasn't until this month's Paris expo that I was left blushing like a naughty school boy. As briefly mentioned in this week's Rumour Mill column, a little company called Acrea was to blame. It has a funky little green (by nature and colour) convertible that you might expect a bearded, humourless eco-warrior to be responsible for marketing. But no, that job fell to a beautiful young woman with supermodel features and the warmest smile in the French capital. Not that many people were looking at her face! She stood up - proudly - in the doorless and roofless car, and boy, did she pull in the crowds. Why? Because she was, er... naked.
 
Kia has set a new industry warranty standard by providing future buyers of its Cee’d with seven years’ peace of mind

Actually, that's not entirely true. She was wearing thin, bio-degradable green paint and make-up. And nothing else. An onlooker accurately quipped that if any company or woman tried such a publicity stunt in politic­ally correct Britain, the female and firm in question would probably be thrown out of the exhibition and the show closed down. But in Paris, more than anywhere else in the world (with the possible exception of Tokyo), sex is unashamedly used to sell motors. Whatever your views on cheap, provocative, glamour girl-led gimmicks to draw attention to exhibitors and their products, they seem to be doing the trick, because it's currently a two-way battle between France and Japan for the title of the planet's most popular car exhibition.

I'd have guessed that the US's Detroit show would have attracted the most visitors, but it pulls in only 800,000 people, while Geneva does worse with nearly 700,000. Frankfurt attracts almost a million, while the Paris figure is regularly around 1.4 million. But Tokyo has the edge, with more than one-and-a-half million visitors squeezing through the turnstiles. By now, you've already seen the important news and pic­tures from the French capital. But, for me, the most significant announcement came from Kia, which is proving itself to be the most improved and fastest-expanding car brand in the world. Not content with signing up some top global motor industry talent, it is putting the finishing touches to its first European plant. And, best of all, it has just announced a seven-year warranty on the range of Cee'd cars the new factory will build.

But before I congratulate the firm for introducing this 84-month guarantee, I should remind you that it is subject to a 100,000-mile limit, so high-mileage drivers might be better off with a five-year unlimited-mileage warranty from Hyundai or even a similar three-year deal from Daihatsu, MINI, Mitsubishi or Smart.

And in an ironic twist, all other models in the Kia range will also be covered for 36 months with no limit on distance when the seven-year/100k Cee'd offer kicks in. But credit where credit's due. Kia has thrown down the gauntlet, given future buyers of the Cee'd seven years' peace of mind and, in the process, set a European industry standard for warranties. The cover is transferable from owner to owner, too.

Kia Europe boss Jean-Charles Lievens is an experienced ca