And just as I think driving a hybrid requires a change in driving behaviour over that of a gasoline-fed vehicle, I can now tell you that driving a Plug-In hybrid requires a change in driving behaviour from driving a hybrid.

Let me start off by saying that my daily driving grind is not ideal for a Plug-In Hybrid, let alone an electric vehicle.

I’m in a Plug-In Prius. I start off every morning (and every evening, since I’m plugging it in at work) with a reported 22.5 km of EV mode. It takes about three hours to get a full charge.

I find under ideal road conditions, I can drive maybe 17 km before the engine kicks up (with a reported 2.5 km potential still in the battery, which it uses for acceleration boost or some engine shut down time later on).

I find myself going out of my way to insure I maximize those EV kilometres (trying to go 20 km before getting on the highway, rather than my usual 10, for example). Doing that, I add maybe 2 km to my usual 67 km commute route.

I was able to squeeze out 23.8 km in EV mode during one evening commute (brake regeneration tops up the battery as you go) but the best I managed on my morning commute was 20.8 (again after some topping up by the engine along the way).

So, my average of 22.3 km after each charge isn’t too far off the onboard estimate, but if I’m topping as I go along, I should readily surpass the fully-charged-battery estimate.

This morning I did manage to get to my gym (exactly 10 km away, probably with a downhill bias) in EV mode. And though I thought it would be close getting back home, it only made it 3.2 km before the engine fired up. I managed to get another km out of it on a long downhill (about 1% grade) but the 14.2 km total is not close to the 22.5 km it promised me when I pulled out of the driveway.

Part of that is because of temperature, but the other half is that you can see the EV range count down as the car accelerates. Over the past couple days of about -9 Celsius temps, the car made it to the gym without even going into EV mode (and almost all the way back home). And, once on a 200 metre uphill (about 3% grade) during my evening commute, I lost 1.2 km of EV range.

I have a weekend of city driving (with very few extreme hills) ahead of me, so I’ll get a better handle on how the Plug-In Prius behaves in its element.

Thousands of people are safely transported in these types of vans every day in North America (likely tens of thousands, around the world), and one tragedy should not be cause to ban their use.

We don’t ban airplanes after one falls out of the sky; we don’t ban cruise ships after one runs aground; and we shouldn’t ban ground transportation after a crash.

What we should do is perform a thorough investigation into the cause and fix the problems, as we do with aircraft and boats involved in similar tragic incidents.

The initial investigation in this case suggests there has been a long-list of complaints about rural roads that often rely on stop signs for safe traffic control. With road and weather conditions being good, there is also the probability that speed and/or failure to stop may have been a factor.

The biggest cause of crashes involving any vehicle is human error, and no amount of vehicle banning is going to fix that. Only education and training can do that.

If those unfortunates hadn’t been travelling in that van at that instant in time, maybe we wouldn’t have 10 people killed in one vehicle. But if indeed one of the drivers of the two vehicles involved is found to have done something wrong, we could just as easily have eight killed in a minivan, seven or six in an SUV, or five in a compact car.

And would we then be expecting those vehicles to be banned? Or do we draw the line at nine fatalities?

Stick to your designated zones and we'll all get along just fine. SUPPLIED IMAGE: SHUTTERSTOCK

Most of the complaints, of course, came from pedestrians used to crossing the street wherever they chose and have traffic stop for them, and from cyclists used to behaving like motorists or pedestrians, according to their needs at that instant.

It’s been a constant complaint of mine that pedestrians shouldn’t be crossing in the middle of a road stretch when they can walk a little farther and cross safely at a crosswalk or controlled intersection. In most cases, the pedestrian rushes across the street at peril and then continues in the direction of the safe crossing anyway.

Sorry, Mr. Don’t-Police-Have-Anything-Better-To-Do-Than-Hassle-Ordinary-People; you don’t get any sympathy from me.

The other notable complaint came from a cyclist who attempted to cross a multi-directional intersection. This intersection has traffic going on several lanes in four directions, with medians on both avenues. The lights stop and let traffic go in several stages, resulting in cars usually having to wait several cycles before they get a chance to proceed. Pedestrians on the other hand, are allowed to cross half the road to the median and wait until they get the go ahead to complete the crossing.

The cyclist apparently decided to ride his bike across to the median and then wait for the traffic to clear. He didn’t complete his crossing, though, because a nice policeman pulled him over for illegally crossing an intersection.

Now I know the argument is that bicycles are part vehicle and part pedestrian, so they can ride on the road when it suits them and jump up on the sidewalk when needed.

And honestly, I don’t have a problem with that provided that when you jump on the sidewalk, you also jump off the bike and walk it across. Same as if you want to turn left at an intersection and simply ride your bike along the crossing zone and then take off in your intended direction. Get off the bike; walk it across the two sides of the right-angled triangle and then jump back on and go.

If that cyclist comes to a stop at the light, gets off his bike and walks it across to the median, he wouldn’t be having that conversation with the police officer.

Sorry, Mr. I’m-a-Persecuted-Cyclist; but you (finally!) got what was coming to you.

If everybody sticks to their designated zones, a lot of our transportation-infighting problems go away. You want bike lanes for cyclist safety because cars won’t “share” the road? Fine, but stick to those lanes when you’re riding around and leave the regular road lanes to motorized vehicles. You want to ride your bikes on sidewalks? No can do! Get off them and walk. I really couldn’t care less that it slows you down or kills your momentum.

Now, there were also tickets issued to drivers stopping their vehicles in front of coffee shops, putting on their four-way flashers and running in for 30 seconds (which often, and not surprisingly, turn into five minutes) to get their double-doubles on their way into the office. Understandably, they weren’t happy because “technically” they weren’t parked.

But, when you’re stopped in a “No Stopping (during designated rush hours)” zone, you’re car better be moving while the barista is preparing your Latte.

“Can you speed it up there buddy? My car is halfway down the block …”

Your collection of pens doesn't scare me! Well, maybe a little bit.

This has to be one of the most hated things for every driver in Ontario’s capital (and a lot of other cities around the world for that matter). Parking in lots is criminally expensive, while parking on the street can only be paid for a couple of hours at a time, and it’s often very difficult finding a spot.

Needless to say, parking tickets with hefty fines typed out on them can be found on countless windshields around the city on any given day, at any given time.

This makes a recent Reuters story all the more difficult to swallow. The news agency reports that authorities in Potsdam, Germany are giving out parking tickets with a fine of exactly zero euros. What’s more, the tickets actually contain the message “Glueck gehabt!!!” (Lucky you!!!).

You have to be kidding me.

The German city is simply aiming to admonish its drivers without hitting them where it really hurts – their wallet.

I wish I could say going the guilt route would work on Torontonians, but there’s not a Leafs-chance-of-winning-the-Stanley-Cup it would. Drivers would see fine-free tickets on their windshields and laugh all the way to their next illegal parking job.

Instead, we’ll continue paying through our collective nose – even for legal parking – while Potsdammers (?) get the paper equivalent of a stern finger-waving.

But when you have a couple dozen journalists of various driving abilities, representing various media covering various industries and interests, you don’t have time to cycle different tires through one vehicle.

Luckily, we’re testing winter tires on surfaces that change practically minute to minute (ice gets stickier in sunlight, and compact snow changes consistency with a fresh dusting), so you just want everybody to notice a difference in the way identical cars perform under similar conditions.

And so we found ourselves on the wintery, undulating motorsport landscape known as Mecaglisse, in Quebec’s recreational playground of the Laurentians, trying out the third generation of the Michelin X-Ice against competitors like the Nokian Hakkapeliitta, Bridgestone Blizzak, Goodyear Ultra Grip, Toyo Observe and several others.

Driving on a track is fun. Driving on a track in winter is a blast. First up for our group of nine is a near quarter mile oval with elevation changes. The test involves three laps followed by a quick change into a near identical Mazda3 on a different set of tires; repeat four times for each driver. Skies were overcast, parts of the course were icy, others were loose or compacted snow. Our group mutually agreed the X-Ice was the class of the group, but of interest was the car we picked as worse of the group was actually rated second best by a group the day before, when skies were clear and temperatures were 10 degrees lower.

A walk down a path took us to sheer ice acceleration, followed by a speed-steadying zone and then a braking chute, again in identical cars. Differences were measured in deviation from a straight line under full throttle launch, and braking distance in car lengths. The cars were more closely matched than we imagined but the drive back to the launch line was a series of icy switchbacks that highlighted lateral grip (or lack thereof).

Then we were off to a “road” course of compacted snow, again in identical cars and tires shaved down to 4/32 of an inch (to simulate a tire at the end of its useful life). We got to experiment with our car control and found the X-Ice was probably second best in the group. The difference, though, is that the Michelin was likely representative of a six year old tire, whereas all the others would have been in year three.

After a marketing presentation on the new X-Ice, we ended up with a couple fun exercises – driving different vehicles on different Michelin winter tires, so we could get a sense of how tough winter driving is not just for a full-sized pickup with an empty bed, but also for a four-wheel drive compact sport utility, front wheel drive hatchback and all-wheel drive luxury sedan; and finishing off on an icy skid pad with two rear wheel drive representatives (a pickup and a sedan), so we could try our drifting skills.

We came away with an appreciation of not just the excellence of the Michelin X-Ice in comparison to other tires people are buying, but also for the necessities in footing and judgement required for winter driving.

Not scientific by any means, but a learning experience just the same.

A new perspective

This past Sunday my friend and I decided to attend the Montreal International Auto Show at the Palais des Congrès in Old Montreal.

2012 Montreal International Auto Show

Consensus: we like.

Granted I’m not a car enthusiast to the extent of my journalist buddies in Montreal and Toronto. We bypassed all the oldies and “behind the glass” type of hot cars (with the exception of the Aston Martin section, which I completely drooled over), all to reach the main exhibition room on Level 2.

And then we went crazy.

My friend was in conversation with the representatives of Infiniti almost immediately while I was roaming around getting into every car I had ever wanted to sit in. What actually passed through my head was something like, “Oh what about this one? Oh no no no…this one!” I was surprised at how quickly my perception changed.

Prior to the show I was completely ga-ga over the new Range Rover Evoque, which in terms of design, is beautiful. Sitting in it however … I had the feeling that, although the car itself is high, I was still positioned too low. I also couldn’t see much of the back from my rear-view mirror, and although the front was spacious, the rear seats felt cramped.

Range Rover LR2

Range Rover LR2

So I jumped into the next car, the Range Rover LR2, which I believe is an older model, but it was really comfortable. Turning a blind-eye to the design, the cabin was spacious and high enough for my comfort level, and I had better visibility. Now I only need to drive the beast. (I say beast since I nearly tripped on my way out. No worries though – there was only a couple hundred people around).

I also popped into the Audi Q5 (like!), Audi A4 (like!), the Volvo S60 (classy, though I felt a bit too young for this car), the Mini Cooper (cute), the Chevrolet Volt and Sonic, and several others. I did notice the Jaguar XKR-S, and just because it was a Jaguar (and it was behind two little posts), I felt the need to walk over to it and open the door (as if I had done this a million times before), and take a seat inside.

Of course that was the scenario in my head; the reality was something like this: I walked up to the Jag and opened the door with all the coolness in the world only to find that I couldn’t open it! So I got frustrated and tried again … and again, and again more forcefully until a few people around me started to notice my behaviour. That’s when I noticed the sign that said the car was locked. Yea…so I did the next best thing to snapping my fingers: I waved my hand at a representative to open the door, and eventually I got my chance to sit inside. Somehow it didn’t feel as cool as I thought (or maybe I didn’t feel very cool!).

BMW 3 Series

BMW 3 Series

By the end of the day I ended up in the BMW section where after sitting in several models my friend fell in love with the new BMW 3 series – and I cannot deny that this car is stylistically beautiful inside and out. A deafening silence follows as you close the doors (remember, this is an auto show – so there is noise galore), while the vehicle is comfortable and is the definition of classy.

His decision rests between the new BMW 3 series and the Volvo S60. We will see what he decides.

In the end, I was surprised to see that my choice (budget included) fell with the Kia Soul. I like the feeling of sitting high, the visibility was great, it was comfortable and spacious, and I love the Jeep-like feeling. I also think it’s cute, but hey, I’m a girl.

Kia Soul

Then GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz even said it: “Just because we make good quality cars – the Malibu is a good car – does it mean it has to be so damn boring?”

Honda Accord coupe

Back then, people were pointing to the two big Japanese nameplates as offering cars that inspired people to buy, whereas the two big Detroit brands did not.

Chevrolet coupe past and future

But look how things have changed …

Toyota Camry Hybrid

This week at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit, you can see what was and what will be. And one thing is clear – Honda and Toyota are just cruising along, offering the same old same old. Ford and GM are taking some chances.

The Japanese seem to think past excellence will trump all other buying criteria, hence an incoming Accord coupe concept that looks very much like the outgoing Accord coupe. The North Americans seem to think a new generation of buyers demand a new generation of products, shirking the plainness of cars like the Cobalt coupe for the potential excitement of a yet-unnamed compact coupe concept.

The big nameplates like the Toyota Camry seem content to just keep doing the same old thing or improving very little. Up and coming nameplates like the Ford Fusion know they can leap-frog the competition with a little flash.

Cars nowadays are not only pretty good; they’re very similar when you try to compare one to the other. Sometimes, the only thing that gives one the edge over another is the eye of the beholder.

Ford Fusion

Personally, I’m beholding a lot more excitement from Ford and GM than I am from Honda and Toyota.

Production in China already exceeds that of America and sales will soon also surpass that on this side of the Pacific. And coming on strong is India, which is already the source of several models sold here.

And manufacturers know on which side their bread is buttered. At a recent Chevrolet event, a media conference was held in a horseshoe of five of the company’s newest vehicles – the Colorado pickup, the Cruze compact sedan, Spark and Sonic sub-compact hatchbacks, and the Malibu mid-sized sedan.

Four of the products were developed in Asia, and all of them were introduced at events outside the U.S., even the pickup … long a North American indigenous species.

And even future trends are meant to appeal more to drivers from other parts of the world. As evidence, we present the plug-in electric vehicle (hybrid or dedicated electric) – touted by many as the saviour of our motoring generation – which requires expensive hook-ups to work most efficiently in North American homes (sure you can plug it directly into the 110V wall outlet, but if you want to halve your charging times, you’ll want to shell out for the “recommended” 240V aftermarket installation), but can quick charge directly by being plugged into the European 230V wall sockets.

It’s as if North America has become simply an afterthought.

During my usual day to day driving, I averaged 4.8 litres per 100 km, over about 330 km. The next 800 were spent almost exclusively on the highway to pick up my son and friends from their college. The average was 6.5 L/100km, upping my average over the week to 5.6. Another 100 km cruising around the city brought it back down to 5.4.

A couple things might have conspired against me – on the way to pick up my kid, I was driving into a head wind. On the way home, I had a cabin full of passengers and a cargo hold full of luggage (probably an additional 550 lbs., at least) – but it still vividly illustrates a hybrid’s strengths and weaknesses.

The North American Car and Truck of the Year finalists were announced this week, and on the car side of things, the three models prove value and fuel efficiency are becoming ever more important to today’s North American consumer.

I’m a fan of all of them – the Ford Focus, Hyundai Elantra and Volkswagen Passat, but although it could really go either way, I have to put my pennies on the Passat taking first place. I’m more impressed with that vehicle every time I drive it, and I’m a little surprised it didn’t win its category at the Canadian Car of the Year testing back in October of this year.

If I had to pick a second choice, it would be the Focus, but again, this year’s pick could go any way.

In the truck category, I would be extremely surprised if the Range Rover Evoque didn’t win. It’s up against the BMW X3 and Honda CR-V, which are fine competitors, but there’s just been so much praise heaped on the stylish Evoque that I can’t see anything but it winning.

We’ll find out who the winners are in January at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit. Bookmark this blog so you can mock me in the comments section when my picks prove to be wrong!