Selected letters will be edited for publication in one or more of Open Road’s three media products:
Many of us who live in the ACT region are delighted when pundits such as NSW Roads Minister Eric Roozendaal sneer at Canberra as being “boring”. It’s true that some of the less thoughtful lobby groups, notably the building industry, are calling for a bigger population, but most of us think Canberra is about the right size, full of interest and entertainment, and we’d like to keep it that way. So if Roozendaal discourages emigration to Canberra, that’s fine!
On the same subject (Sydney’s traffic congestion), you suggest NRMA experts are full of good ideas to free up our roads. But the most obvious idea – which the experts failed to mention – is don’t live in Sydney. Sydney is congested, polluted, over-crowded, and (probably) beyond saving. I make no judgement as to whether it is “boring”, but sitting motionless in Sydney traffic fumes is not my idea of fun.
N. Goldie, via email
A discussion of Sydney-Newcastle traffic problems is worth little unless it asks the question, what is the plan for the train service?
The train line carries roughly the same peak hour load as the adjacent freeway and, unlike the freeway, could easily carry twice as many. The freeway is now being widened at huge expense, which does no more than band-aid the traffic problem for a few years.
Meanwhile, the railway – which could help take pressure off the freeway – has hardly changed since the 1880s, and the fastest trains are now slower than they were in the 1930s.
Unfortunately, the NSW government has no plans to improve the passenger train service and, amazingly, did not say one word about it in its recent submission to the Commonwealth’s new Infrastructure Australia body. It seems uninterested in integrated transport planning for road and rail for the whole corridor.
A French style very fast train would probably be unaffordable because of the rugged terrain. On the other hand, a moderately fast train, based on the present route and rolling stock with a few key realignments, could do Newcastle to Sydney City in 90-100 minutes. That is faster, and offers higher capacity, than will ever be possible by road.
G. Dawson, Narrabundah
Why must we continue to suffer the inefficiency of poorly designed and programmed traffic lights when the technology is readily available for them to work much better?
For instance, the number of intersections where a red arrow prevents motorists from making right turns, even though there is a clear view for hundreds of metres, and no oncoming traffic. There is a large section of the motoring public who believe, perhaps correctly, that many road rules are designed for the lowest common denominator. If this is true, and the RTA doesn’t believe the majority of drivers can make right turns safely, why does it issue them with licences?
If the efficiency of traffic lights was measured by the percentage of time traffic flows freely throughout the day, or by the amount of time motorists spend waiting unnecessarily, it would be far less than 50 per cent. And yet it is simply poor design and programming causing the problem. It can be fixed, but the people responsible will not admit it.
N. Chappell, via email
I am writing to express my disdain at the advertising article ‘Piggy-back on a Big Bird’ in the July/Aug issue. As part of the NRMA Africa Safari Culture tours, Ms Ratjens first rides an ostrich then sits down to eat one. Great cultural experience!
Africa is a land of great diversity and tourists are visiting to experience the glorious landscapes, inspiring cultures and magnificent wildlife. Most travellers show respect to the land, the people and the animals and return home changed by their experiences. This pathetic show is beyond belief and degrades both the bird and Ms Ratjens.
To think the NRMA promotes this inane behaviour makes me sick. Try to do better next time! There is plenty of opportunity.
Otherwise, love the magazine...
S. Thomas, Sydney
I can’t understand why David Naylor found it necessary to drive from Balmain to the city (Open Road July/Aug) when there is a convenient and pleasant alternative in the form of the ferry with connections to bus and train at Circular Quay for those who don't fancy the short walk to the CBD.
P. Cooney, Wentworth Falls
I had a company car that I used during the day. Before that, I took the ferry. -DN
Every week there are claims supporting different technologies as the means of reducing our motoring carbon footprint. Each of these claims explicitly or implicitly bags the other contenders. For instance, hydrogen-powered fuel cells seem wonderful because they emit nothing but water, but then we learn that to obtain the required hydrogen requires massive amounts of power, almost certainly provided by coal-fired electricity generators.
We need facts if we are to make informed decisions. The recent, welcome arrival of the Green Vehicle Guide enables us to compare the carbon footprints of existing vehicles, but does not address the claims of rival future technologies.
What is missing is one table listing the carbon footprint of each technology assuming the car is driven, say, 150,000km, roughly equal to 10 years driving for most people. The table should list the different categories of vehicle (small, medium and large cars and 4WDs) and show the carbon footprint of each assuming the different technologies (petrol, diesel, ethanol, hybrid, electric, hydrogen).
In order to understand the footprint of the hydrogen technology, you allow for the carbon footprint involved in ‘refining’ the hydrogen. So that you can compare apples with apples, you therefore also need to know the footprint involved in refining the other fuels.
Furthermore, as one of the arguments against hybrids is the environmental cost of producing and replacing the batteries, the footprint involved in manufacturing the vehicles would ideally also be included.
Currently we are poorly informed. Ignorance may be bliss, but our grandchildren won’t thank us for it.
How about it? Can you help us?
D. Hulme, Lindfield
I was disappointed to read the article ‘Speed blamed for highway deaths’ and see that the NRMA has joined most newspapers in the area of sensational journalism in regard to road safety.
While the aim of the NRMA, representing members and road users, should be to lobby for improved government funding for our roads, a true and balanced story must be told.
Why is it that the NRMA / media hates to criticise and, dare I say, blame the road users?
The answer is easy… it’s easier to always blame the road. The road doesn’t talk back!
The index to this article was ‘The Killer Highway’ see page 34. On page 34 the headline was ‘Speed blamed for highway deaths’.
Some reporter seems to be a little confused.
D. Pearson, via email
In fact, the reference to ‘killer highway’ was taken from the story – that’s what locals in the passage between Yallah and the Victorian border dubbed it.
The letter by B. Withey, ‘Gasses ain't gasses’ (Open Road July/Aug) is misleading, and should have been followed by an editorial comment.
To quote from a letter written by Phil Westlake, industry development manager, LPG Australia, published in the November 2006 edition of Silicon Chip magazine:
“LPG in Australia is produced from the extraction from ‘wet’ natural gas or from the refining of crude oil. Over 80 per cent of the Australian LPG production comes from the wet gas extraction process and only around 20 per cent is sourced from the refineries. Major naturally occurring LPG production sources include North West Shelf, Bass Strait and the Cooper Basin.
Australia currently exports around 3 billion litres of LPG (annually) and this is forecast to grow to over 4 billion by the end of 2008 on the back of further developments in natural gas production.”
On the basis of the information quoted above your comment should have outlined the tremendous capacity Australia has for supplying vast amounts of LPG to the motoring public.
It would be a topical subject if the next edition of Open Road covered the delay in having LPG fitted to existing vehicles, due to the increasing number of private motorists requiring an LPG installation, particularly in the Sydney area.
D. Jeanes, Tweed Heads
I found Bill McKinnon's article 'Petrol vs Diesel' (Open Road, July August 2008) to be an interesting read. While it was focusing on small to mid-sized cars, I believe Mr McKinnon may have misled his readers into believing the stated figures were representative across all passenger vehicles.
My husband and I have recently purchased a 125kW diesel VW Passat and the numbers certainly add up in favour of diesel in our case. The 125 kW diesel (the most powerful diesel in the range) comes with the same price tag as the 2.0-litre petrol (an engine that requires premium unleaded), however, using VW’s stated ADR 81/01 fuel consumption figures (6.7 & 8.7L/100km diesel/petrol) and Mr McKinnon’s statistics of 15,000km per year with fuel prices of $1.80 and $1.60 respectively for diesel and petrol, the diesel comes out in front by a handsome margin. Even a 30c per litre margin still means the diesel is over a $100 a year cheaper on fuel. My husband’s employment has him driving weekly Canberra to Newcastle and return and the car is achieving an average consumption of 5.1L/100km, so we are more than happy with our purchase. This is all accomplished with a 16 per cent reduction in CO2 emissions over the petrol engine too!
Undoubtedly technology improvements will continue to gain better fuel consumption and emission discharge statistics from petrol engines, but the same will also be pertinent to diesel engines.
C. Green, Conder
In his article Bill McKinnon comments on the higher cost of diesel cars but overlooks their higher resale value. I recently traded a six-year-old turbo-diesel for 47 per cent of its new price – you won’t get that much back on a typical petrol car. Unfortunately diesel is currently about 12 per cent dearer than ULP in Australia, but most of the cars Bill recommended run on premium unleaded which costs nearly as much as diesel. Many diesels have particle filters so his comments about diesel particle pollution don’t apply to them. I tow a caravan with a 2.0-litre turbo-diesel and use 7.5L/100km while towing. Hybrids can’t tow anything and 2.0-litre petrol cars generally have less torque and can't match that economy. The Civic and Corolla have half the torque of a 2.0-litre turbo diesel at twice the revs.
G. Cozens, via email
I read with interest your article comparing fuel/running costs in the July issue.
In it you state that an Astra automatic, at $1.60 a litre, would cost between $11.20 and $12.48 to drive 100km, dependent upon diesel or petrol.
I imagine this would have been a standard road test, with just a driver and no heavy luggage. My Falcon wagon, similarly laden, will travel 100km for $7.30.
Now, an Astra is a nice little car but distinctly lacking in space, carrying capacity, towing ability, pulling power and long distance comfort. I won’t bother to guess what the consumption would have been if it was fully laden with passengers and luggage. But my Falcon, with the luggage for a long holiday, plus golf clubs, plus my caravan on the back – and towing at maximum highway speed limits – would still cover 100km for $12.41.
Of course, I run it on LPG (charged out for this example at 73c a litre) – a readily available fuel, for which the majority of cars can be successfully converted. That conversion cost is currently offset by the $2000 government rebate and any excess cost is more than covered by the vehicle’s increased resale value. As it’s a Falcon, the cargo space sacrificed by having to move the spare wheel is not worth worrying about. My higher actual consumption is also offset by LPG’s 20 per cent lower emission rate.
I am therefore puzzled why your comparison did not include LPG in order to present a properly balanced picture. But then if it had, it would have been forced to conclude that kilo-for-kilo carried and by capacity for work, an Australian-made, 4.0-litre LPG powered Falcon is actually a far better choice.
D. Halliday, Dorrigo
Shame, shame, shame. It’s a pity Bill McKinnon didn’t do more research and few sums himself (Open Road, July/Aug).
We have traded a petrol guzzling SUV for a VW EOS Diesel. In a word it’s fantastic! The stated fuel consumption is a measly 6.0L/100km for the manual, compared to the petrol version at 8.4L/100km. I travel over 40,000km per year, so I think I’m saving quite a few litres and trips to the service station. And, far from being more expensive to purchase, the VW diesel costs $2,000 less that the petrol variant so I think my maths add up to value. Add the lower CO2 emissions, and diesel must clearly be the winner. Now, if we can just get that over-inflated bowser price down ... that would be motoring nirvana! Buy a diesel – you’ll love it!
G. Morris, Gosford
I wish to register my dismay at the article on ‘Petrol vs Diesel’ by Bill McKinnon in the July/August issue of Open Road.
When the magazine arrived and I saw the front page I was eager to read the article as I am currently assessing whether to switch to a small diesel or stick with petrol.
If the intent of the article was to weigh up the pros and cons of petrol and diesel, as the magazine cover and the article title suggested, it failed.
Firstly the list of cars given were all petrol, so there was no comparative data to assess and the example of the Astra would appear to have been chosen as a worst case diesel example.
From my own research to date most European diesel cars indicate fuel economies of less than 5L/100km or is the European Standard Test completely different to the Australian Standard Test.
Secondly, while there is a substantial price difference between the price of standard ULP and diesel, most of the vehicles shown in the article, including the Astra, use 95 octane petrol or higher which reduces the price difference with diesel.
Thirdly, I was under the impression that the issue of pollution, especially particulates, had largely been addressed in modern European engines.
I have not owned a diesel before and would genuinely welcome and encourage a properly researched and balanced article on this issue, as I am sure many other members would.
G. Lindsay, Lake Macquarie
See the Sep/Oct issue of Open Road for Bill’s counter-argument in favour of diesel.
The article ‘Petrol vs Diesel’ in the July/August Open Road contains some good information, but it shows a failure to understand the real cause of the problem. Concentrating on the cost in dollars rather than the cost to the environment is what got us into our global warming mess in the first place. The relative prices of petrol and diesel change over time so today’s cost gain may be tomorrow’s loss.
What consumers and manufacturers need to concentrate on is simply producing less carbon dioxide or burning less fuel. That is what the government’s Emissions Trading Scheme is supposed to achieve, so in the future using less fuel will also be the way to spend fewer dollars.
C. Bell, Kambah
Further to the letter ‘Inspection insanity’ in Torque back of July/August 2008, I agree with B. Blakemore that five years is too long for the first inspection of light vehicles. Further, in the ACT cars (possibly other vehicles but I am not sure) are not required to have any form of inspection at any time in their life unless found to be un-roadworthy (say if police pull the driver over and find a bald tyre). This means ACT vehicles can be death traps and will generally not be found out.
While I can understand the NRMA response regarding owner responsibility to maintain vehicles, it is painfully obvious said responsibility is frequently ignored. Annual inspections are therefore necessary, and the various state governments are failing in their responsibility by not making them mandatory every year.
J. Evans, Macgregor
Last month our rental car in Vancouver BC was a brand new Camry Hybrid – a lovely car that used around 23 litres over 325 km or 7.1L/100km. Why does Australia have to wait until 2010 to have this car?
D. Winkelmann, via email
I recently purchased a new 2008 Toyota Corolla Ascent sedan from a large Toyota dealership in Sydney. Shortly after taking delivery I noticed the absence of side door trim protectors. The dealership advised me Toyota no longer installs the protectors. I then inquired how I could go about having them installed. To my dismay I was advised that non-standard black protectors (the car is white) could be installed at a cost of $295. This would be on top of all the other additional car costs I had already paid.
I am wondering if this is a new trend for all new cars, and if so, what affect it will have on those small insurance claims for damaged doors when other doors are opened on them in carparks?
R. Patrick, via email
In reading the July/August Open Road I noticed the article ‘Break the oil shackles’. In this you refer to the NRMA’s Jamison Group and I'm left wondering if the group has missed a technological opportunity. I think they should be looking for a replacement to the internal combustion engine rather than just looking for an alternative to oil.
With the price of petrol forecast to be $8 per litre in the foreseeable future and the world already experiencing food shortages, in part because farmland is being turned over to the production of bio-fuels rather than food, maybe the internal combustion engine has had its day.
D. Haggar, via email
Alternative technologies are indeed a key recommendation in the report. See the Sep/Oct issue for full details.
Last year I checked the RTA’s price on personal number plates – $500 per year plus a $50 order fee. No way was I going to pay that. Earlier this year the price dropped to $470, this week it’s down to $430 with a $30 order fee.
How much money has the RTA lost through greed? Charge one upfront fee and I will order a set.
P. Body, via email
As a pensioner I do not pay a registration fee. Adding an additional price to petrol will only force many pensioners into further poverty.
All these ideas, but no thought goes into other people’s situations. Maybe this R. Quarterman could donate about 30 litres to my vehicle so I could survive.
May I suggest he live on $270 per week, pay rent and food and still be able to afford to pay an extra 20c a litre for petrol.
I would hope people could give thought to people in all circumstances and not just their view.
T. Carroll, North Gosford
This 20c per litre tax may suit yourself and R. Quarterman – you are not on a pension but a lot of us are. And at present with the price of petrol, food and other household charges and expenses, some of us are doing it tough – any suggestions?
R. Amlot, Grays Point
I find this a very narrow view.
Has the writer and those that decided the best letter, thought of the pensioners and people on low incomes? As it stands free registration on one vehicle is one of the few concessions made to pensioners who are now more than ever struggling to make ends meet.
An increase in the fuel tax would not be fairer – it would push up on many commodities which we all use and many who do not even own a car would subsidise others, some who may run two or more vehicles.
It would be better to lobby to keep this cost at a minimum and call for the tax to be spent on providing better public transport – who knows who will find themselves having to use it in the future.
Petrol will never be cheap again and anyone who thinks it will is fooling themselves. Nobody likes paying tax but it is meant to be used for the overall benefit of the people, not just one group who own cars.
T. Chalmers, Central Coast
Regarding R. Quarterman’s idea of replacing rego fees with further fuel tax (Winning Letter, Jul/Aug ’08), there are certain aspects, which may be beneficial, but unfortunately I cannot see it working in reality.
The main sticking point I see is that rego fees are state tax, but fuel levies are federal tax, and there’s no way the State Government would give up revenue to the Federal Government.
Also I happen to be a wheelchair bound part pensioner. As such, I am exempt from paying rego, I therefore would be financially penalised under this system, when I am reliant on my vehicle for transportation and am thus forced to drive more kilometres out of necessity, not choice.
Would this system protect persons in my situation if implemented?
M. Alston, Ermington
These were just some of the dozens of missives we received about our winning letter. Naturally, working out how pensioners would be compensated is just one of several issues that would need to be addressed if such a fuel tax was adopted.
I have noticed all attention is focused on young drivers, especially L and P platers, and how they are involved in the majority of accidents. I am on my P plates and would like to share something that happened to me while I was on my Ls.
I was driving home with my mum in the passenger seat. A camper van trying to overtake got level with my car and edged into my side of the road. I was doing under 80km/h so they should have been able to get past me.
It happened so fast that all I could do was veer left and slow down, because if I hit the brakes the car behind would have run into me. Mum gave me credit for keeping my cool and trying to avoid a potential accident.
When the camper finally picked up speed and was fully on the left hand side of the road, I noticed it was an unrestricted driver.
I wouldn’t have thought an ‘experienced’ driver would do a manoeuvre like that, almost causing an accident.
Thank goodness there were no oncoming cars.
It goes to show that being a good driver isn’t just about experience – it’s also about how you behave on the road. All drivers deserve respect, not intimidation.
R. Farley, via email
My husband and I have become aware of more and more speeding motorists on our roads. We've always tried to be careful, but recently we purchased a new car with cruise control, so we KNOW what speed we're doing. My husband commented that maybe we'd better get our speedo checked, as we seem to be the slowest car on the road!
It doesn't matter what the speed limit is – other cars just go whizzing by, in our town or out on the open road. On the freeway, where we are limited to 110km/h, we are frequently passed even by large transports who we thought were limited to 100km/h. What a joke!
Then there was the man who complained because he’d been booked time and again by a speed camera for exceeding the speed limit. He said it wasn't fair. Whose fault is it? Nobody actually asked him to speed. If there’s a speed limit, it is there for our safety and protection.
How I wish there were more police patrols on our roads. I would love to see some of these people booked. A few expensive fines might stop them. But then again, maybe not.
Please slow down.
A. Bruckard, via email
We are appalled at pedestrians’ apparent lack of common sense when crossing the road at marked crossings.
In almost every instance they do not look towards oncoming traffic before crossing. The may well have the right of way, but many people are struck by cars charging through crossings when overtaking other vehicles. We have had two friends hit by cars rushing through.
Often pedestrians cross with eyes down or looking straight ahead. Don’t they care what happens?
B. & G. Maina, Banora Point
To reduce the road toll, we have mandatory use of seatbelts, breath testing and helmets for both motorcyclists and cyclists.
‘Crash Course in Road Trauma’ (Open Road July/Aug) says “road trauma causes 70 per cent of all brain injuries”.
Why not mandatory wearing of helmets for vehicle occupants? I can hear the outcry now from the civil libertarians.
K. Piddick, Port Macquarie
What price safety? On a recent night drive from Port Stephens to Newcastle, I spotted no less than 19 cars with only one headlight and one with no lights at all.
Makes one wonder the price of a bulb.
B. Johnston, Kahibah
I would like to see motorists pressured/encouraged to turn on park lights after sundown. It involves a slight flick of the wrist and immediately you are seen as a presence on the road. The bulk of motorists never utilise their parkers anymore. Also, please have a ban placed on those bright and threatening blue headlight bulbs.
J. Knoll, Woongarrah
I refer to yet another question concerning the use of fog lights when no fog is apparent. I still believe some correspondents are confusing daylight running lights with fog lights. I believe running lights are allowed at all times and in all conditions. Incorrect adjustment is probably to blame for their dazzling effect. Perhaps a short article to clear the fog surrounding this issue is in order.
B. McLeod, Chatswood
I would like to suggest an alternative to the destruction of homes and parkland across the Sutherland shire and beyond to make way for the F6 – a tunnel from Kurnell to La Perouse.
Captain Cook Drive could easily be expanded to motorway width, with the entrance to the tunnel beginning before the start of the existing houses, thus eliminating noise and congestion concerns for the current residents. The proposed corridor starting at Loftus could be re-routed to join Captain Cook Drive at Taren Point road, a little to the south of the proposed merger.
The northern side of the tunnel portal at La Perouse has easy access to Foreshore Road, Botany Road and Bunnerong Road leading to Anzac Parade and the suburbs of Pagewood, Kingsford and the University of NSW, then on to the city.
You could also link Caringbah or Cronulla station by a short tunnel that emerges on Captain Cook Drive and then runs parallel with the motorway under the water to La Perouse, where it joins the existing freight line at Port Botany/Banksmeadow and the main line at Sydenham.
Unfortunately federal/state funding arrangements are such that we might have to sell off all the power stations and the harbour bridge to pay for it!
K. Harris, Gymea Bay
Construction of Sydney’s ‘missing road links’ is great, but why is the emphasis always on new road development?
If government departments and motoring organisations are truly trying to fix Sydney’s congestion, a comprehensive look should be taken at the existing road infrastructure.
Huge benefits can be made to traffic flow, congestion problems and travel time by finding where the current road system fails.
Many changes could be quick and NOT involve vast amounts of money.
Perhaps some of the proposed $25 million for Sydney could be spent on the following:
The above suggestions would go a long way to keeping many of us drivers a lot happier.
M. Robinson, Sefton
Sit up pollies and take a look at Open Road July/August, page 32. And while you’re at it, follow the lead of many councils and change the speed limit to 50km/h across all urban areas except freeways. Results: Big fuel saving in a time of increasing scarcity, smoother traffic flow, better driving (as motorists will not be constantly searching for elusive speed limit signs and trying to work out when schools are in), and reduced severity of accidents and injuries.
The downside: Reduced revenue to the State from speed cameras and radar traps because there is only one rule and we would all know it.
What are you waiting for? It’s self-evident.
P. Mitchell, Gladesville
The article ‘Fix the Jam’ provides food for thought.
Why do we in NSW build two-lane tunnels and motorways such as the M7?
Why at the convergence of the M5 and M7 do we allow the road to go from four lanes to three lanes to two lanes in less than 1km, creating one of the worst bottlenecks in Sydney?
This section of the Hume Highway needs to be three lanes until Narellan Road with heavy vehicles banned from the right lane at all times.
Surely it is about time the planners actually did just that – plan. Don’t just build for now, but for the future too.
P. Gibbs, Yass
HAVE YOUR SAY ON MOTORING at: mynrmacommunity.com/motoring.
SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:
E-mail: open.road@mynrma.com.au
Mail: The Open Road
NRMA Publishing
Level 1, 9 George Street
North Strathfield NSW 2137
Fax: (02) 8741 6697
