Michael McAleer answers your queries
From P Casey, Dublin:
I've been doing business with the same dealer for the past 20 years. Now he has lost his franchise. Does this mean that he was doing something wrong? He is now selling privately imported cars and expanding his used sales. I'm loath to go back if there's a hint that he is not up to standard.
Our reader provided us with the name of this dealer and we can assure him that the only reason he lost the franchise was that he wasn't in a position to invest the required capital in the business. This is yet another result of the new EU block exemption rules.
The rules mean car-makers can set precise standards across the EU, requiring dealers to conform to specifications on showroom size and appearance, along with the number of spare parts carried and parking places. In some cases it goes right down to the number of coffee machines and the colour of floor tiles on which cars are displayed.
Most Irish dealers have moved with the changes. Investment by Irish dealers in showrooms and service areas in the past two years has been about €1 billion. For some the investment meant moving to entirely new premises.
From a purely financial position, manufacturers are in a stronger position. When a dealer decides to sell his business, the franchise is not necessarily guaranteed to travel to the new owners. That's a hefty financial hit on assets and, for some, it represents too much of an investment in an increasingly competitive business.
Your dealer just didn't have the space to convert to required standards. The choice was to move to the suburbs or to stay put and go independent.
For motorists, all this means that dealers are keen to see a return on their hefty investment. Someone has to pay for the fancy new tiles. The EU Commission argued that its new rules would improve standards across the board, but in the end motorists will pay for the glistening steel and glass palaces.
From George Reynolds, Annamoe, Co Wicklow:
Brian Farrell of the National Safety Council is quite correct (MOTORS last week). We tend not to understand speed as a factor in accidents. However, a knowledge of braking distances is useless in communicating this to road users for two reasons: (1) the distances vary with vehicle, surface and visibility, apart from a simple wet or dry scenario; (2) even if these distances were true, most people can't estimate distances such as 57 and 45 metres (the dry stopping distances for 70 and 60 km/h respectively).
Ask anyone to estimate 30, 50, 70 and 100 metres and then check it with a metric tape. Then do it again in the dark.
Judgement of safe speeds is a psychological perception based on experience, knowledge of one's vehicle and prevailing road/weather conditions. Most drivers will pick a reasonable speed quite naturally and it's annoying to have to have an unreasonably low limit, such as 60km/h on a dual carriageway with crash barriers and no side-roads.
It's probably poor judgement, and not just speed, that causes most crashes. This could explain why campaigns to reduce speed have not reduced accidents numbers.
You're quite right about poor judgement, but most people don't equate distances with the reality of the road. It's not until you're in an emergency braking situation that you realise how long it takes to stop a car. Even with the latest technological aids, drivers must understand the physics of stopping two tonne of metal from 50km/ph, 60km/h - or higher.
If you doubt that most people have poor judgement of stopping distances, consider how close some motorists drive to the car in front. So, the points Brian Farrell makes are important.
It's difficult to educate drivers on stopping distances - as you say, putting such knowledge and understanding into action needs the personal judgement of the driver every time. Getting it wrong can be costly.
Part of the problem is over- confidence in car and driver ability. Remember, judgement can be impaired by a bad day at the office, by stress, worry or fatigue. It's sobering to think you share the road with people you wouldn't trust with a sharp pencil, let alone a mobile metal mass.
From Lisa Ryan, UCD:
Fuel figures for the Nissan Murano (MOTORS last week) seem to be mixed up - the combined value is given for both L/100km and MPG as higher than the urban and extra urban fuel economies. This can't be right.
You're right - the figures should have read: Urban - 16.4 mpg (17.2 L/100km); Extra urban - 29.7 mpg (9.7 L/100km) and 22.9 mpg (12.3 L/100km). The error occurred in the production process. Apologies for the mix-up.
Send your queries to
Motors Help Desk, The Irish Times, Fleet Street, Dublin 2 - or e-mail them to motorshelp@irish-times.ie