Reversing cameras show the driver what’s behind the vehicle using a small video screen on the car’s dashboard. They are an expensive option on many new vehicles but are widely available as accessories for between $110 and $700. They can usually be fitted by any competent home handyperson, or a professional installation may cost between $100 and $200.

AA general manager Mike Noon says:

“The AA encourages families with young children to consider options to improve driveway safety like reversing cameras, parking sensors or installing safety mirrors on their driveways.

If families are considering upgrading their car, the AA recommends choosing a model with reversing cameras or parking sensors. If these aren’t fitted then installing a good quality aftermarket camera or driveway mirrors may be an option although none of these replace the drivers’ responsibility to check the way is clear every time before reversing.”

Dog & Lemon Guide editor Clive Matthew-Wilson says:

“A small child may be invisible to the driver of a reversing vehicle. The most cost-effective solution to this problem is to remove the blind spot behind the vehicle using a reversing camera.”

Hamish Wilson from Consumer New Zealand says:

“ The problem is simple: the drivers of most modern cars can’t see what’s directly below the rear window of their vehicles. Parking sensors help: they beep as the driver reverses towards an object, but parking sensors only tell the driver that something is behind him, not what and where. We support the use of reversing cameras as the most effective means of preventing driveway reversing accidents .”

Plunket NZ spokesperson Sue Campbell says:

“Adults must drive carefully wherever children are around. However, the reality is, children do unexpected things and the adult driving a reversing car doesn’t always notice in time. Plunket supports the use of reversing cameras on all vehicles, especially vehicles operated around young children.”

Jaimes Wood, chief executive of St John, says:

“All-too often we are called to tragedies involving children hit by reversing cars. We support any moves that will result in a reduction of needless deaths and injuries.”

• Reversing Cameras Help Prevent Driveway Deaths
• St John Backs Call for Reversing Cameras

Jaimes Wood, chief executive of St John, says:

“All-too-often we are called to tragedies involving children hit by reversing cars. We support any moves that will result in a reduction of needless deaths and injuries.”

Reversing cameras show the driver what’s behind the vehicle using a small video screen on the car’s dashboard. They are an expensive option on many new vehicles but are widely available as accessories for between $130 and $700. They can usually be fitted by any competent home handyperson. A professional installation may cost between $100 and $200.

The Dog & Lemon Guide, Plunket Society and Consumer New Zealand have already issued a joint call for the wider use of reversing cameras.

Dog & Lemon Guide editor Clive Matthew-Wilson says:

“A small child may be invisible to the driver of a reversing vehicle. The most cost-effective solution to this problem is to remove the blind spot behind the vehicle using a reversing camera.”

Hamish Wilson from Consumer New Zealand says:

“The problem is simple: the drivers of most modern cars can’t see what’s directly below the rear window of their vehicles. Parking sensors help: they beep as the driver reverses towards an object, but parking sensors only tell the driver that something is behind him, not what and where. We support the use of reversing cameras as the most effective means of preventing driveway reversing accidents .”

Plunket NZ spokesperson Sue Campbell says:

“Adults must drive carefully wherever children are around. However, the reality is, children do unexpected things and the adult driving a reversing car doesn’t always notice in time. Plunket supports the use of reversing cameras on all vehicles, especially vehicles operated around young children.”

Reversing cameras, which show the driver what’s behind the vehicle using a small video screen on the car’s dashboard, are an expensive option on many new vehicles but are widely available as accessories for between $130 and $700. They can usually be fitted by any competent home handyman, or a professional installation may cost between $100-$200.

Reversing cameras warn the driver if a child is behind the vehicle.

Dog & Lemon Guide editor Clive Matthew-Wilson says:

“A small child may be invisible to the driver of a reversing vehicle. The most cost-effective solution to this problem is to remove the blind spot behind the vehicle using a reversing camera.”

Hamish Wilson from Consumer New Zealand says:

“The problem is simple: the drivers of most modern cars have very poor visibility through the rear window of their vehicle. Parking sensors can help: they beep as the driver reverses towards an object, but parking sensors only tell the driver that something is behind him, not what and where. We support the use of reversing cameras as the most effective means of preventing driveway reversing accidents.”

Plunket’s National Child Safety Advisor, Sue Campbell says:

“Adults must drive carefully wherever children are around. However, the reality is, children do unexpected things and the adult driving a reversing car doesn’t always notice in time. Plunket supports the use of reversing cameras on all vehicles, especially vehicles operated around young children.”

The government also ignored various major studies showing that fines don’t deter the highest risk groups on the road.

Dog & Lemon Guide editor Clive Matthew-Wilson – whose road safety research was awarded by the Australian Police Journal – says:

“I hate to say: ‘I told you so’, but I did warn the government at the time that its cellphone ban probably wouldn’t work. Now let’s focus on what will work.”

Instead of fining drivers who use handheld cellphones, Matthew-Wilson believes the police should have the power to temporarily seize cellphones being used by drivers while a vehicle is in motion.

Under Matthew-Wilson’s proposal, every police car would carry a pre-printed receipt book and a few pre-paid padded postal envelopes. Instead of issuing a ticket, the officer would instruct the offending driver to write his or her address onto the envelope. The officer would then place the cellphone into the envelope, seal it and drop the envelope into the nearest mailbox. The offender would get his/her cellphone back by registered mail in a few days.

The officer would also note the offender’s details, and after two offences the cellphone would be permanently seized.

Matthew-Wilson says that simply banning cellphones won’t work because many users are prepared to risk a fine rather than miss a call. However, says Matthew-Wilson, most cellphone users would hate to lose their cellphone – even temporarily – and this fear would eventually modify their behavior.

“Cellphone use by drivers is banned in many countries, yet drivers continue to use their cellphones regardless. Clearly, we need to move beyond simply giving drivers tickets to taking their cellphones away.”

“What cars and cellphones have in common is that they give the owner freedom. Take away that freedom and you give drivers a powerful incentive to modify their behavior.”

Clive Matthew-Wilson, editor of the car buyers’ Dog & Lemon Guide, was commenting after the government announced that it is considering making it unlawful for adults to give alcohol to young people at private functions without their parents’ consent.

Matthew-Wilson says:

“This proposed legislation, however well-intentioned, is doomed to failure. A child could forge a letter of consent from his parents, just as children regularly forge notes to their teachers.”

“Also, this proposed law change assumes that parents are responsible and organized. At the bottom of the social scale there are many parents who think it’s normal to be blotto as often as possible and these parents think it’s perfectly reasonable to share their alcohol with children.”

“While I was in a South Auckland house, I saw a mother feed wine to a two-year old child until the child got drunk and threw up. The mother thought this was amusing. If we were talking about heroin or methamphetamine, that mother would be behind bars tonight, yet where a drug like alcohol is concerned, the government rarely acts.”

“Supplying alcohol to underage drinkers in a manner that is likely to lead to tragedy is no different to supplying methamphetamine in a manner that is likely to lead to tragedy. The same penalties should apply.”

“I’m not talking about penalising a parent who gives a child a glass of wine at a restaurant. I’m talking about penalising any adult who knowingly gives a child alcohol in circumstances that are clearly likely to lead to self-harm or criminal behaviour by that child.”

“It’s ridiculously easy for young teenagers to get drunk, and the consequences are often disastrous. The alcohol these teenagers are drinking comes directly or indirectly from adults; that’s a fact. If you can slow down this supply, you can lower the numbers of dead and
injured teenagers.”

Alcohol is directly implicated in around one quarter of road deaths and 35% of all types of injury. A study of 12 -17-year-olds by the Alcoholic Liquor Advisory Council showed that one quarter of 14-17-year-olds drink heavily and regularly.

Matthew-Wilson added:

“Young teenagers, especially in large groups, are frequently incapable of making informed decisions about booze. However, the adults who supply these teenagers with alcohol are perfectly capable of making informed decisions and should pay the price if the teenagers offend as a result of drinking.”

A 2005 survey of 64 youths by health promoter Sandy Keen, who works for the public health unit in Napier, indicated most had obtained alcohol through their parents or other adults they knew.

See also:

• Victims of Circumstance (PDF)

“The car industry is selling a false image of efficient, environmentally-friendly electric cars powered by ‘green’ energy. In reality, electric cars often aren’t very efficient and aren’t very green.”

The report was highly critical of the iconic Tesla electric sports car, which has become the international symbol of chic, environmentally-responsible motoring.

“The Tesla is actually not very efficient at all. Most of Tesla’s publicity focuses on the efficiency of its electric motor. What they don’t tell you is that its batteries are heavy, inefficient and that Teslas are frequently powered by electricity from highly polluting power stations.”

“Despite what most people believe, a high percentage of the world’s electricity is produced using dirty fuels like coal. This isn’t going to change anytime soon; in fact, the widespread introduction of electric cars will probably increase the world’s reliance on coal in order to keep up with the increased demand for electricity.”

“Claims that electric cars are ‘emissions-free’ are simply a lie; they merely transfer the pollution from the road to the power station. Not only will electric cars not reduce emissions, they may actually increase emissions, because burning coal to make electricity to power an electric car creates more pollution than if you simply powered the same vehicle using petrol.”

“Renewable energy sources may be growing fast, but they’re still a tiny percentage of the world’s electricity supply and they’ll stay that way for the foreseeable future, because renewable energy sources tend to be far more expensive than fossil fuels.”

The report compared the Tesla electric sports car to a petrol-powered Lotus Elise sports car. Because the Tesla is essentially an electric version of the Lotus Elise, it was possible to directly compare the electric and petrol versions of the same vehicle.

“In four of the five countries we surveyed, the Tesla electric car was less efficient and more polluting than its petrol sibling. Only in New Zealand – where the majority of electricity is produced by hydroelectric generation – was the Tesla ‘greener’ than the Elise. However, a New Zealand scientist recently predicted that if the New Zealand car fleet was replaced with electric cars, the country would probably need to build coal power stations to meet the increased demand.”

The report suggests that China is likely to be the main beneficiary of the electric car movement. Due to massive government investment, China is likely to be the first country to mass-produce electric cars at prices that are competitive with conventional petrol and diesel engines. However, these cars are likely to be produced using environmentally destructive materials, in factories that are powered by non-renewable and heavily polluting forms of energy.So what’s Matthew-Wilson’s solution to the global energy crisis?

“There’s no quick fix to either the energy shortage or climate change. In the longer term, we’re all going to have to use less energy, and that means smaller houses, less plastic junk that we don’t really need and less wasted trips in our cars.”

“Most of the world’s alternative energy industry is based on quick fixes to the current system. In reality, most of this technology either isn’t economic, doesn’t work, or simply doesn’t exist and isn’t going to exist anytime soon.”

“It disturbs me to see politicians and business leaders on television promoting fantasy technology using fantasy economics.”

“If we make decisions based on the wrong assumptions, we’re just going to make things worse.”

Experts praise The Emperor’s New CarA number of leading scientists and energy experts have praised The Emperor’s New Car report.Internationally-respected energy expert Robert Rapier says:

“Like most people, I used to believe in a future fleet of highly efficient electric vehicles, powered by renewable energy. But I also believe in hard facts, and this report strongly suggests that the truth may be very different than the ideal I had imagined; that electric cars will be actually be dirtier than the vehicles they’re supposed to be replacing.”

Vehicle scientist Chris Coxon, the former technical chair of the Australian New Car Assessment Program, says:

“Matthew-Wilson’s skeptical scientific analysis raises serious questions about the most basic assumptions behind the electric car movement. Many people will disagree with his conclusions, but you can’t ignore the sheer weight of facts that he has gathered to support his case.This report is not only scientifically sound, it is clearly written and well researched. Using nothing but scientific data, Matthew-Wilson has effectively pulled the rug out from under the electric car movement.”

Professor John Storey, a physicist with the University of New South Walesin Australia, says:

“I don’t agree with all of the report’s conclusions, but I do believe that the report is well researched and well-documented, with verifiable references.  It is certainly scientifically credible.”

Gary Bold, honorary Associate Professor of Physics at the University of Auckland says:

“Matthew-Wilson’s report is the first, reasonably non-technical but exhaustive survey of the complete energy-related issues surrounding electric car technologies that I’ve seen.   It’s supported by a host of hypertext-linked references to his sources, which alone make the document a valuable resource.  He quotes numbers and makes comparisons.  The conclusions he draws are convincing. Read it and judge for yourself”.

• The Emperor’s New Car (article, PDF format)
• Tesla Elise Comparison (spreadsheet, XLS format)

Editor Clive Matthew-Wilson says:

“Tourists regularly have serious accidents because they get confused over which side of the road to drive on. The obvious thing to do is to remind them regularly in their native language.”

Matthew-Wilson says the signs should be placed every few kilometres and should also encourage drivers to let faster vehicles pass.

Editor Clive Matthew-Wilson says:

“Aside from the ban on using cellphones while driving, which is widely ignored, the police aren’t really doing anything they weren’t doing before.”

“ A more plausible explanation is that the highest risk group, which is young working-class males who live at the edge of the law – are less likely to be employed, therefore they are driving less, therefore they are a less of risk to themselves and others.”

“You only have to look at the number of vehicles running out of petrol on Auckland motorways to get confirmation that the recession is dramatically affecting people’s driving habits.”

A major report by Australian road safety researchers (see attachment) noted:

“ some researchers have argued that particular instances of major fluctuations in crash numbers can be explained entirely in terms of changing economic conditions”.

Matthew-Wilson adds:

“New Zealand’s road safety strategy should be based on science, not wishful thinking.”

Editor Clive Matthew-Wilson says:

“The Christmas period, including New Year’s Day, is always a high accident period. This year New Year’s Day falls on a full moon. Assuming that the studies linking antisocial behaviour and the full moon are correct, it would be a wise idea not to be on the road around New Year’s Day.”

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/173920.php

Matthew-Wilson adds:

“I’m not saying you can blame car accidents and crime on the full moon. I am saying that numerous scientific studies have shown a clear link between lunar cycles and alcohol consumption, road accidents, and crime. However, numerous scientific studies have also shown that there’s no link at all between lunar cycles and behaviour. Personally I keep an open mind.”

The evidence on both sides is compelling: scientists at Georgia State University studied 694 volunteers and noted an average 26% increase in alcohol intake at the full moon.

http://news.independentminds.livejournal.com/1098748.html

Research by British insurance company Churchill Insurance Group showed that car accidents occur 14% more often on average during a full moon.

http://io9.com/5086250/does-the-full-moon-really-make-people-crazy

However, numerous other studies have concluded that there is no link whatsoever between accidents and the full moon.

http://www.skepdic.com/fullmoon.html

Matthew-Wilson does not try to explain the apparent contradiction between studies.

“It’s a bit like the debate over whether wine drinkers live longer: there’s highly credible research suggesting they do and highly credible research suggesting they don’t. In the end, only time will tell which side is right.”

http://blakecreedon.wordpress.com/2009/10/17/wine-myths/

“One thing that is certain: the Christmas to New Year holiday period is always a more dangerous time to be on the road, regardless of the lunar cycles. It’s probably best to err on the side of caution if you’re considering a road trip around the New Year.”

Editor Clive Matthew-Wilson says:

“A car with its headlights on is easier to spot than a car with its headlights off. It’s that simple.”

Matthew-Wilson pointed to World Health Organisation statistics showing that vehicles using daytime running lights have a crash rate 10-15% lower than those that do not.

“The evidence that vehicles are safer with their lights on is overwhelming. The European Commission has ruled that all new cars operating in the EU must have daytime running lights from February 2011.”

A report by Chris Coxon, the former head of the Australian ANCAP crash test programme, concluded:

“There is clear evidence that a policy requiring daytime headlight use would result in a significant reduction in the road toll. Because of the body of reputable research supporting this view, we have reached the conclusion that the New Zealand and Australian governments should institute a daytime headlight use policy without delay. A further incentive to this policy is that it would come at virtually no cost to the government and a minor cost to the motorist.”

Coxon also concluded that there would be little or no increase in fuel consumption as a result of daytime headlights.

Matthew-Wilson added:

“Many accidents occur because the vehicle was not seen. In the rain, mist or low light conditions, lights help identify the presence of moving cars. They also tell you if the car ahead is coming towards you or moving away from you – something that is not always obvious, especially if the car is in your lane.”

“You can’t control the other idiots on the road, but you can help protect yourself by being more visible to other motorists.”