Too Dangerous to Drive

On Tuesday 19th July 2016 I was driving our VW Polo. The car -- for an as-yet-unknown reason -- diconnected the engine from the wheels. The car rolled, with no available power, onto a busy road.

I could have been killed. My wife, in the passenger seat, could have been killed.

Why did the car disconnect engine from wheels? I have no way of knowing. Will it happen again? I have no way of knowing.

Our VW Polo is too dangerous to drive.

====

It was mid-morning on 19th July. My wife and I were driving west along Cromarty Road, towards Empire Avenue. The engine was running smoothly. There were no warning indicators.

At the end of Cromarty I stopped at the stop sign. Waited for a gap in the traffic. Prepared to turn left onto Empire.

Foot off the brake, onto the accellerator. We started moving forward...

There were two flashing areas on the driver display panel: A spanner icon flashing near the outside temperature display; the D1 -- drive gear one -- was flashing.

I suddenly realised that we were moving forward -- but rolling. It's a slight downhill from Cromarty onto Empire. We were rolling forward. The engine was not turning the wheels.

We were lucky not to be killed. Lucky that no car on Empire ran into us. We were rolling out onto a busy road. We were very lucky:

Lucky one: I'm a cautious driver. I had waited for a large gap in the traffic on Empire.

Lucky two: I had the good sense to turn left harder than planned, to move as close as possible to the left edge of the road. The car following us out from Cromarty had room to pull around us, on our right.

====

I had seen those flashing lights before -- but had not realised what the car was doing...

Once, on Lakeside Road, the spanner had flashed and the gear indicator (D4, I think it was) had flashed. I had thought, it's stuck in D4, not changing gear. In fact -- as I now understand it -- the engine and wheels had disconnected, the car was simply rolling forward. On that level road, at 30 to 40 kph, I had not realised that the car was simply rolling. With no drive power to the wheels.

Other experience with the flashing symbols had taught me, shift from Drive to Sports mode and the car will drive on, the lights will stop flashing. Or, switch from Sports to Drive... The flashing could happen in either mode, in any gear.

I was not thinking clearly. I simply thought that the car was stuck in one gear, failing to change into a more suitable gear. That has happened in the past.

The car is less than half way from one service to the next. I planned to take it in to be checked. I did not understand how dangerous it is.

On Empire I rolled and stopped. Changed from Drive to Sports, the flashing stopped. We drove -- with no further problem -- out and back home again.

I was nervous but we were alive.

====

Once the car was in the garage -- I refused to drive it any further. What if it failed on the Freeway? What if it rolled to a stop while trying to merge on an even busier road?

Our VW Polo is too dangerous to drive.

====

I called the RAC. RAC Roadside Assistance checked what they could: no indications of a fault. I had the RAC tow the car to the VW service centre where we had bought it.

My wife has looked in the car user manual. She found no description of a fault which causes the flashing spanner with the flashing gear indicator.

It is now Thursday 21st July. After a full day in the service centre, we have had no call, no information from the VW dealers. I did try to phone their service department, the phone went to, on hold.

I will try again tomorrow. And update this post with any further information.

====

Are you a nervous driver of a VW Polo? This may help your nerves... or not:

Our car is a 2011 VW Polo Comfortline petrol automatic.

If you drive the same make and model -- watch out for a flashing spanner icon along with a flashing gear indicator. If you see those flashing icons... I hope you're very lucky.

====
Dr Nick Lethbridge / Agamedes Consulting
====

"Don't take life so seriously. It isn't permanent." … Tibetan philosophy
   

Origins of the Grumpy Old Man

When Oi were a lad, Oi remember... You young 'uns don't know t' meaning of... etc etc.

What is it that turns an angry young man, into a grumpy old man? It's not just age. It's memory. And it's phrasing.

One day, when I was a young lad -- even too young to be an angry young man -- an old codger made a comment.

"Don't hear many people whistling as they walk," he commented. Then spoiled it by adding, "... these days."

From a cheery old bloke, he was instantly transformed into... a grumpy old man. I had never heard the phrase yet I recognised the signs. Grumpy old man, I would have thought, if the phrase had then been in common use.

"Don't hear many people whistling while they walk." Anyone could say that. Anyone could support that. Or disagree with it. It's just a comment. An observation of perceived fact.

Then add, "These days."

You are now comparing "today" to some day in the far distant past. You have identified yourself as, a grumpy old man.

Or woman.

In this best of all possible worlds, it is not acceptable for any person to compare "today" -- unfavourably -- to the days of their youth.

"I remember when smog over Perth was a rare event. It was worth a story on the front page of the local paper. With explanations of an 'inversion layer' holding down the smoke. But from the hills you can see a permanent cloud of smog over Perth... these days." Grumpy old man!

"I could drive from home to the airport in 30 minutes. I allow an hour... these days." Grumpy old man!

"I played in the bush and rode my bike a few miles to school. There's no bush and the traffic is too dangerous... these days." Grumpy old man!

And -- as a grumpy old man -- I can be safely ignored. I can be labeled, categorised, dismissed. In this best of all possible worlds.

New ideas are safe. Especially if they have been tried, somewhere else.

Smog? We'll invent air cleaners for cars. Sure, they're expensive. But don't you dare point out that a smaller population drove fewer cars, ran fewer industries, had less smog! That's grumpy old man talk.

Traffic congestion? We'll build more roads! It's been tried everywhere else around the world, so it must be good! Sure, it hasn't worked, anywhere else in the world. We just have to accept the congestion that comes with a larger population demanding more cars to drive pointlessly to more and more distant points of interest. Remembering a less congested past is just... grumpy old man talk.

Just for a change...

Let's listen to the grumpy old men.

And women.

No, we can't turn back the clock. Perhaps, though, there were some good points in their past. Perhaps there were some things -- space to live and play, peaceful neighbourhoods, clean air -- which were good. So what?!

So perhaps we can aim for some of those good points. Rather than running as fast as we can in order to stay where we are... Rather than destroying today in the hope that we can (or will be willing to) fix it tomorrow.

Yes, this is the best of all possible worlds. Yet we've lost some of the pleasures of the past. Perhaps we can stop running and consider, Where do we really want to go? Surely, anything is possible these days...

Oh, damn! I've just made it obvious that I'm a grumpy old man.

Please ignore me.

Ancient Legal Practice

"Two men charged over a $320 million methylamphetamine haul ... had their charges sensationally dropped..." (Magistrate dismisses $320m meth charges", The West Australian, 12 March). Police provided all of their evidence as softcopy. In a compact format that allows quick searches by the computer literate.

The criminal lawyer demanded hardcopy. Paper. The stuff that wastes trees, that weighs a ton. That cannot be searched by less than a very large team of underpaid but overcharged legal assistants.

The magistrate spat the dummy. Blamed police for his and the lawyers' inability to deal with current technology. Dismissed all charges !

Proof positive that the legal profession is at least twenty years behind the real world. And a partial explanation of the ridiculously high cost of hiring a lawyer.

====

"I reached for the stars but their bodyguards pushed me away." ...per Ginger Meggs
  

Hobbyhorse Reporting

International Women's Day. Coming soon, to a state near you. Not to Western Australia though -- it's not sponsored by Channel Seven so it barely rates a mention in the Seven-linked (ie owned) daily newspaper.

But that's another rant. Today, it's hobbyhorse.

You know, as in, I want to talk about the particular hobbyhorse that I'm riding. As in, I'll see the world in light of my favourite hobbyhorse. As in, why should I look for reasons beyond my particular hobbyhorse.

Specifically, Gemma Tognini's opinion piece Women's Day no sacred cow (The West, 1 March 2016).

Referencing the COAG Reform Council's educational report, "Tracking Equity, comparing outcomes for women and girls in Australia", Tognini writes, "[In Alice Springs] Just 17 per cent of Aboriginal girls have finished Year 12, compared with 61 per cent of other females in the town." She then writes that this is about "disenfranchised girls and young women" and lack of "gender equity".

Whoooaaa !

What are the equivalent figures for Aboriginal boys ?!

If Aboriginal boys are finishing school at the same rate as other boys then yes, this is gender inequity. If Aboriginal boys finish school at a lower rate than other boys then this is... some other problem. Yes, a problem. But a problem which will not be solved if it is not correctly identified.

We need to compare like with like. And identify the actual inequities... Or, at least, look for the causes of the differences.

And now, I'll get up on my own hobbyhorse...

First, not everyone needs higher education. They need the opportunity for higher education. That's equity. The ability to read and write and understand, is probably good for the individual. It is definitely good for the society in which they live. But higher education is not an absolute, universal requirement.

Second, a report with "comparing outcomes for women and girls" in its title will be looking at outcomes for women and girls. It will not (necessarily) relate those outcomes to those for men and boys. The report will be looking at social equity not gender equity.

Third, what we really have -- in my opinion -- is a lack of socio-economic equity.

If your parents are doctors you will grow up with doctoring. You are not likely to become a boilermaker. If your parents are boilermakers, the parental influences are less likely to lead you into studying medicine. You absorb and tend to follow the interests and activities of the subset of society in which you grow up.

If your parents are successful self-made millionaires, you will grow up with some understanding of what it takes to make money. You are also more likely to be educated at expensive schools, to play expensive sports, to join expensive clubs... and to gather a circle of acquaintances who will be good connections as you start work. If your parents are base level wage slaves -- you may never learn how to get out of the low wage rut.

Your possibilities are driven -- though not controlled -- by the socio and economic aspects of your upbringing.

To provide equal opportunity to all people from all socio-economic backgrounds -- that is a real challenge. It requires positive attitude from people requiring the opportunities. It requires positive acceptance from those who control the opportunities.

Get off your very small hobbyhorse. Recognise that inequity is universal, that equity is -- or should be -- for everyone. That equity requires opportunity and acceptance...

Acceptance of the need to strive for what we want, opportunity to attempt that which supports our striving.

Acceptance of the need to look beyond our own socio-economic peers, to accept that anyone could have the skills, ability and desire to benefit from the opportunities which we control.

Acceptance of the need for equity of equal reward for equal outcomes. Regardless of the [insert name of hobbyhorse here] of the person with who we are dealing.

Populate and perish

Populate and Perish...

Have I mentioned the 2-3-4 rule for population management ?

First, let's assume that economists are short-sighted. That prosperity through growth lasts only until we are destroyed by over-crowding. That limit may be a long way ahead... maybe.

Meanwhile, to take an example, Perth, Western Australia is over-populated. We restrict the use of water because there is not enough water to support the population. Forty years ago a smoggy day would be front page news. Twenty years ago we were blaming the hippies in the hills and their wood fires. Now we barely notice the blanket of smog which permanently shrouds our city.

Would you like a house with a garden ? Too bad ! Too expensive. The only use for a garden is to sub-divide, to make money at the expense of space for living. Apparently the public "demands" smaller and smaller living spaces. In reality, we can't afford space because increasing population drives up house prices.

Global warming ? Who cares ! Over-population itself is destroying our quality of life.

No need to wait for the economists' mad dreams to turn to a Soylent Green nightmare... We are already living in a polluted, congested purgatory.

Because we are over-populated.

So what do we do to manage our population ?

Okay, I have some sympathy for China's one-child policy. At least they recognise the problem. At least China has attempted to manage their population problem. But Australia is not China... We claim to be a democracy.

So we need to encourage people to have less children. A couple of children ? Fine, if you must. Just don't expect the Australian taxpayer to fund your efforts to out-breed the rabbits.

That's where the 2-3-4 rule comes in.

It's from a book... which I read years ago... So my apologies if I don't do it justice:

Each person is entitled to be part of a family group -- adult and their children -- of 2, 3 or four people. That group will be supported by standard social services. Beyond that, no support.

For example: Two adults may form a family group and have zero, one or two children. That would make a family group total of two (the adults), or three, or four (two adults and their two children). The family group will have full access to whatever social services are available: education, health, basic living allowances and so on.

One more child, and the family group is now five... The third child -- number five of the family group -- is outside the 2-3-4 rule. So -- for that third child -- no free lunch. If the parents (or anyone else) can pay for all services, no worries. That's freedom. The government -- the taxpayers -- will pay zero support to that fifth member of the family group.

More children ? Same story. Individuals may pay for themselves or for their children. the government will not.

Another example: Two couples have one child each (one child per couple). Each couple -- each family group -- is now at "three" for the 2-3-4 rule: two adults, one child, a family group of three. The couples separate, two of the adults meet and marry. In this new couple, each adult is already at "three". The new couple -- the new family group -- may now have just one more government-supported child.

Example: The new couple have their one child. Each adult is now at "four". Each adult has now reached the limit of their government-supported children... They separate. One of the adults marries again, marries a person with no children. This new couple cannot have government-supported children ! One adult is at two (part of a family group of two adults) but the other is at four... The first adult may have two children -- but not with the second adult. If this couple has children, those children are outside the 2-3-4 rule. The parents will need to pay for all education, health, social service costs for all children of this latest family group.

Oh, and parents are responsible for their own children.

The government provides whatever services it provides -- to people within the 2-3-4 rule. (Strictly speaking I suppose it should be the 1-2-3-4 rule. Anyone can choose to remain single and childless.) Children outside the 2-3-4 rule may need government services. If so, the parent or parents are responsible for the costs. Parents become debtors to the government, for government services provided to non-2-3-4 children.

Population growth is destroying our standard of living. It is destroying the environment, simply by expanding over all the available space.

The 2-3-4 rule sets a universal standard, without exerting absolute control. The rule encourages restraint rather than excess. The "penalties" may be made more or less severe... as long as it is clear that following the rule offers personal benefit.

The 2-3-4 rule is simple. It sets a standard -- or, at least, it defines society's expectations.

We need to set society's expectations to a managed population. Before an unmanaged population sinks under its own weight.