I've compalined about them before, but here's some proof - not selecting insurance and meals on cheap flights prooved rather difficult! The legistaltion changes, but they always find a way to shuffle the fees and squeeze more out of consumers.
Friday, 27 April 2012
Sunday, 22 April 2012
TV licencing in the UK
TV licencing is a scheme in the UK that has had me half scratching my head, and half in stitches on the floor in laughter ever since I've lived in the UK. Essentially the whole scheme relies on individuals who posses a TV subscribing the 150 pounds per year in order to legally view broadcasts. As a student (clearly not possessing a TV), I came into this fantastic body by means of severally increasingly urgent letters. From what I could deduct their reasoning went something like this:
Clearly no one had sat down and looked at the reasoning - doing nothing vs declaring no TV has essentially the same consequences, aside from calling an expensive 0845 number. I clearly didn't bother calling them. Until the 5th or so letter.
This really does beg the question though - why persist with such an archaic system? Sure you can no subscribe by Internet, but surely financing the many letters, UK call centre, and home visit inspectors takes up a massive wallop of the 150 pound fee?
Surely the most efficient way to deal with this fee - which essentially goes to the BBC - would be to take it out of the income tax purse. No one would notice it, and for the amount that gets spent on administration, I'm sure it would be much less than the 150 pounds or so that they currently charge. So why isn't hits being done? I personally think it's down to a cultural phenomenon that I like to call the 'small change economy' of Britain - where people like to pay for EXACTLY what they use - right down to the small change lent to a colleague for a snack, or the 20 mins parking at 40p per hour.
The irony of the whole system is that TV licencing are currently trying to advertise (in a TV campaign) just how easy it is to maintain a 'mum and 3 kids lifestlye' and still pay the licencing fee.
The further Irony is that in order for an inspector to determine whether a property needs a TV licence, they have to inspect it - something the lawful occupier can remove from them - yes, as I'm learning nearly everything in the UK is up for negotiation if you push hard enough!
But what use is this system anyway, when I can watch whatever I want whenever I want on unlimited Internet.....
- Subscribe - no more letters, and no inspection
- Declare that you have no TV - no more letters for a while, and the threat of an inspection just in case
- Do nothing- the threat of more letters and potentially an inspection
Clearly no one had sat down and looked at the reasoning - doing nothing vs declaring no TV has essentially the same consequences, aside from calling an expensive 0845 number. I clearly didn't bother calling them. Until the 5th or so letter.
This really does beg the question though - why persist with such an archaic system? Sure you can no subscribe by Internet, but surely financing the many letters, UK call centre, and home visit inspectors takes up a massive wallop of the 150 pound fee?
Surely the most efficient way to deal with this fee - which essentially goes to the BBC - would be to take it out of the income tax purse. No one would notice it, and for the amount that gets spent on administration, I'm sure it would be much less than the 150 pounds or so that they currently charge. So why isn't hits being done? I personally think it's down to a cultural phenomenon that I like to call the 'small change economy' of Britain - where people like to pay for EXACTLY what they use - right down to the small change lent to a colleague for a snack, or the 20 mins parking at 40p per hour.
The irony of the whole system is that TV licencing are currently trying to advertise (in a TV campaign) just how easy it is to maintain a 'mum and 3 kids lifestlye' and still pay the licencing fee.
The further Irony is that in order for an inspector to determine whether a property needs a TV licence, they have to inspect it - something the lawful occupier can remove from them - yes, as I'm learning nearly everything in the UK is up for negotiation if you push hard enough!
But what use is this system anyway, when I can watch whatever I want whenever I want on unlimited Internet.....
Friday, 9 March 2012
Application specific marketing in retail
An interesting observation I've made recently is that of application specific branding and marketing in the sale of consumer products. Once upon a time it was possible to simply buy products for what they were, and use them for any number of non-specific purposes. Now it seems with the advent of a 'time poor' society, and lifestyle TV shows, we the consumer need to be sold helpful 'kits' in order to get the job done. The kind of store that exemplifies my point best is hardware super-stores such as B&Q in the UK, and Bunnings in Australia.
The last few times I've visited these places (a necessary evil), I've been searching for relatively simple products such as black plastic sheet, tie-wire, and a standard size bolt - on all occasions I've encountered ridiculous trouble trying to find them. In a traditional hardware store this was easy, 2-3 aisles of hardware, a tools section, garden section, and a timber yard. All the above items naturally fall into the hardware section, so would take all of 2 mins to find, even with help from a store employee. In B&Q black plastic, going by the 'applications' system, could have been bagged as a drop-sheet for painting, or as a garden bed weed-proof matt. No suitable versions were found in the entire warehouse. Similarly, tie-wire could have been in the gardening section, in the fasteners and chain section,or in the car section, or equally in one of those silly randomly distributed end-of-aisle discount bins. It was found in the garden section described as being "useful for tying up plants in the garden or greenhouse" - clearly not applicable to the odd jobs I wanted it for then…. Don't even get me started on trying to find an M8 x 60mm bolt in these places - it would no doubt come in a pack of 3-15 and be hidden at the back of set screws - 20 minutes of searching revealed nothing last time I attempted that one.
So while it's a hassle to find what you are looking for in these stores, If you actually have an idea of the product (not application) what you want, another problem altogether is product proliferation. Proliferation seems to be abundant, not just with similar products, but with the same product marketed ever so slightly differently for different applications. WD40 made a notable appearance in the tool, automotive, and paint sections, not to mention the checkout 'opportunity' stands at B&Q last time I visited. And I wonder why I feel like banging my head against the wall when I leave…..
Ironically, for a style of marketing that is supposed to save the consumer time, it always seems to take 10x longer to find what you are after in these places, as not even the staff have any idea where a specific product lives. Really at the end of the day, these places are setup to extract maximum consumer (read bogan) cash by sending customers on the longest possible journey (read walk past as many 'bargains' as possible).
Naturally these principles apply to supermarkets and the like, but my personal frustration never quite reaches the same level, even when I walk past 3 different branded and sourced versions of the same 1.5 g pack of oranges for 1.99.
The last few times I've visited these places (a necessary evil), I've been searching for relatively simple products such as black plastic sheet, tie-wire, and a standard size bolt - on all occasions I've encountered ridiculous trouble trying to find them. In a traditional hardware store this was easy, 2-3 aisles of hardware, a tools section, garden section, and a timber yard. All the above items naturally fall into the hardware section, so would take all of 2 mins to find, even with help from a store employee. In B&Q black plastic, going by the 'applications' system, could have been bagged as a drop-sheet for painting, or as a garden bed weed-proof matt. No suitable versions were found in the entire warehouse. Similarly, tie-wire could have been in the gardening section, in the fasteners and chain section,or in the car section, or equally in one of those silly randomly distributed end-of-aisle discount bins. It was found in the garden section described as being "useful for tying up plants in the garden or greenhouse" - clearly not applicable to the odd jobs I wanted it for then…. Don't even get me started on trying to find an M8 x 60mm bolt in these places - it would no doubt come in a pack of 3-15 and be hidden at the back of set screws - 20 minutes of searching revealed nothing last time I attempted that one.
So while it's a hassle to find what you are looking for in these stores, If you actually have an idea of the product (not application) what you want, another problem altogether is product proliferation. Proliferation seems to be abundant, not just with similar products, but with the same product marketed ever so slightly differently for different applications. WD40 made a notable appearance in the tool, automotive, and paint sections, not to mention the checkout 'opportunity' stands at B&Q last time I visited. And I wonder why I feel like banging my head against the wall when I leave…..
Ironically, for a style of marketing that is supposed to save the consumer time, it always seems to take 10x longer to find what you are after in these places, as not even the staff have any idea where a specific product lives. Really at the end of the day, these places are setup to extract maximum consumer (read bogan) cash by sending customers on the longest possible journey (read walk past as many 'bargains' as possible).
Naturally these principles apply to supermarkets and the like, but my personal frustration never quite reaches the same level, even when I walk past 3 different branded and sourced versions of the same 1.5 g pack of oranges for 1.99.
Are automotive diesel and gasoline engines converging in design?
A look at what engines are currently being offered by auto manufactures would seem to reveal that the once completely segregated designs of diesel and petrol engines are now headed towards pretty similar territory.
Starting with diesel engines, in the not too distant past – compression ratios were high (22+:1) in order to attain sufficient temperatures for compression ignition, this, along with the fact that low pressure injectors didn't do the best job of charge mixing consequently meant they were quite harsh, noisy, and overbuilt. With injector material advances, electronic control, and improved fuel qualities, common rail injection systems have improved in-cylinder charge mixing, resulting in lower compression (16-18:1), lower peak pressures, and structuraly lighter engines. Now, as it stands with 4th generation common rail, combustion is that smooth that engine blocks can even be made from cast aluminium, as more commonly done on gasoline blocks.
Diesel combustion and technology has progressed light years in the last decade with the introduction and advancement of common rail injection systems, and it would appear that this route of increasing injection pressures and adding further events per cycle is approaching the point of diminishing returns. What is interesting however, is that engine designs are heading further and further into gasoline territory with 2-stage turbocharger systems – mostly in the name of extending the engine torque curve, and improving bottom-end response. BMW has to be a field leader with this, first with their 2.0 twin turbo with a modulated 2-stage steup, and now the tri-turbo diesel.
Conversely, looking at emerging trends in gasoline engines, there seems to be a shift to downsized turbocharged direct injection engines, namely the fiat group twin-air, and the ford focus 1.0. From an efficiency and emissions standpoint, this idea makes sense - reduce and engines size to reduce friction, inertia and pumping losses, whilst also running the smaller engine at a more efficient running point more of the time. Once again it is a game chaining technology that has been the key enabler - gasoline direct injection seems to be on par with common rail developments in the diesel engine. Direct injection improves in-cyclinder charge mixing, enabling higher compression ratios and higher boost pressures. In it's second generation, GDI is even headed towards centralised injectors - similar to that in a diesel engine.
While downsized engines represent a practical concept in both engine and overall vehicle efficiency improvements, it is ironic to see that the torque curves from these engines is somewhat narrower (just like a diesel engine) when compared with a non-boosted variant. Looking at several 1.6L current production European engines from for and the PSA group, the trend is pretty clear. Unfortunatley for clarity, I'm not too bothered to go and graph them separately on the same scale, so the manufactures graphics will have to do.
Since downsizing essentially demands more load from a smaller engine, and a steeper torque curve, this necessitates higher mean pressures in cylinders, and hence higher bearing, piston, con-rod, etc mechanical loads. Interestingly lessons are being borrowed from diesel engines here in rod design for stiffness and block construction (the new 1.0 Ford ecoboost uses a cast iron block). Components also experience higher thermal loadings owing to these higher combustion pressures, meaning other diesel technologies such as piston ring oil cooling are coming into vogue.
While looking at other measures pursued by manufactures in looking for efficiency in newer gasoline engines, it is interesting to note the trend in shifting to longer bore/stroke ratios, and longer l/r ratio’s for con-rods – trends that are heading towards conventional engine design for diesel engines - essentially these parameters mean a longer stroke, and slower piston speeds. For comparisons sake, we can use the same engines (and the 1.0 ecoboost) as used for the torque curves to look at the bore / stroke ratio:
PSA DV6 1.6 diesel = 0.85
PSA TU5 1.6 gasoline = 0.95
Ford ecoboost 1.6 gasoline = 0.97
Ford ecoboost 1.0 gasoline = 0.88
From these figures, we can see that the latest 1.0 engine is heading pretty close to diesel territory.
In terms of compression ratio, It would appear that in general engines are able to utilise 10% more compression than in port injected engines. Interestingly, it appears that Mazda may be pushing this a notch further at 14:1 for their SKYDRIVE-G engine series. Interestingly, their diesel (SKYACTIVE-D) drops compression to 14:1 - in a strategy similar to the Toyota Prius's 1.8, with valve timing matched to give a higher expansion ration than compression ratio - thus giving a longer duration combustion.
An overall architecture similarity comparison gives the following now common features in engine architecture shared between gasoline and diesel engines:
· 4 valvers per cylinder
· Central direct injectors
· Turbocharged
· b/s l/r ratios approaching
· throttle-less
· compression ratio’s approaching
· piston ring cooling
· torque curve shape
· engine block construction
Interestingly, while we are seeing a convergence in design of both major IC engine architectures, it seems the perfect mix of the two, HCCI (homogeneous charge compression inanition), is some while away from being realised. In theory, HCCI engines make the best of both worlds, homogeneous in-cylinder charge, coupled with compression ignition ensures the smoothest combustion process possible, however in practice this would require a variable compression ratio to cover the speed and load range encountered in automotive powertrains. HCCI has been the subject of much research, and I'm yet to see anything convincing, so it's a small irony that gasoline and diesel engines are converging towards it in production variants.
Starting with diesel engines, in the not too distant past – compression ratios were high (22+:1) in order to attain sufficient temperatures for compression ignition, this, along with the fact that low pressure injectors didn't do the best job of charge mixing consequently meant they were quite harsh, noisy, and overbuilt. With injector material advances, electronic control, and improved fuel qualities, common rail injection systems have improved in-cylinder charge mixing, resulting in lower compression (16-18:1), lower peak pressures, and structuraly lighter engines. Now, as it stands with 4th generation common rail, combustion is that smooth that engine blocks can even be made from cast aluminium, as more commonly done on gasoline blocks.
Diesel combustion and technology has progressed light years in the last decade with the introduction and advancement of common rail injection systems, and it would appear that this route of increasing injection pressures and adding further events per cycle is approaching the point of diminishing returns. What is interesting however, is that engine designs are heading further and further into gasoline territory with 2-stage turbocharger systems – mostly in the name of extending the engine torque curve, and improving bottom-end response. BMW has to be a field leader with this, first with their 2.0 twin turbo with a modulated 2-stage steup, and now the tri-turbo diesel.
Conversely, looking at emerging trends in gasoline engines, there seems to be a shift to downsized turbocharged direct injection engines, namely the fiat group twin-air, and the ford focus 1.0. From an efficiency and emissions standpoint, this idea makes sense - reduce and engines size to reduce friction, inertia and pumping losses, whilst also running the smaller engine at a more efficient running point more of the time. Once again it is a game chaining technology that has been the key enabler - gasoline direct injection seems to be on par with common rail developments in the diesel engine. Direct injection improves in-cyclinder charge mixing, enabling higher compression ratios and higher boost pressures. In it's second generation, GDI is even headed towards centralised injectors - similar to that in a diesel engine.
While downsized engines represent a practical concept in both engine and overall vehicle efficiency improvements, it is ironic to see that the torque curves from these engines is somewhat narrower (just like a diesel engine) when compared with a non-boosted variant. Looking at several 1.6L current production European engines from for and the PSA group, the trend is pretty clear. Unfortunatley for clarity, I'm not too bothered to go and graph them separately on the same scale, so the manufactures graphics will have to do.
 |
| 1.6 Ford / PSA 110BHP turbo diesel (3rd generation common rail, aluminum block) |
 |
| 1.6 PSA 110BHP N/A gasoline |
 |
| 1.6 Ford 150 PS turbo down-sized turbo gasoline |
While looking at other measures pursued by manufactures in looking for efficiency in newer gasoline engines, it is interesting to note the trend in shifting to longer bore/stroke ratios, and longer l/r ratio’s for con-rods – trends that are heading towards conventional engine design for diesel engines - essentially these parameters mean a longer stroke, and slower piston speeds. For comparisons sake, we can use the same engines (and the 1.0 ecoboost) as used for the torque curves to look at the bore / stroke ratio:
PSA DV6 1.6 diesel = 0.85
PSA TU5 1.6 gasoline = 0.95
Ford ecoboost 1.6 gasoline = 0.97
Ford ecoboost 1.0 gasoline = 0.88
From these figures, we can see that the latest 1.0 engine is heading pretty close to diesel territory.
In terms of compression ratio, It would appear that in general engines are able to utilise 10% more compression than in port injected engines. Interestingly, it appears that Mazda may be pushing this a notch further at 14:1 for their SKYDRIVE-G engine series. Interestingly, their diesel (SKYACTIVE-D) drops compression to 14:1 - in a strategy similar to the Toyota Prius's 1.8, with valve timing matched to give a higher expansion ration than compression ratio - thus giving a longer duration combustion.
An overall architecture similarity comparison gives the following now common features in engine architecture shared between gasoline and diesel engines:
· 4 valvers per cylinder
· Central direct injectors
· Turbocharged
· b/s l/r ratios approaching
· throttle-less
· compression ratio’s approaching
· piston ring cooling
· torque curve shape
· engine block construction
Interestingly, while we are seeing a convergence in design of both major IC engine architectures, it seems the perfect mix of the two, HCCI (homogeneous charge compression inanition), is some while away from being realised. In theory, HCCI engines make the best of both worlds, homogeneous in-cylinder charge, coupled with compression ignition ensures the smoothest combustion process possible, however in practice this would require a variable compression ratio to cover the speed and load range encountered in automotive powertrains. HCCI has been the subject of much research, and I'm yet to see anything convincing, so it's a small irony that gasoline and diesel engines are converging towards it in production variants.
Tuesday, 21 February 2012
Airline debit card fees
If you booked a low cost flight in Europe, I'm sure you are familiar with the low cost airlines 'optional extras' that tend to include things like buying a seat, and paying by a credit / debit card other than that operated by the airline. Well seems just as legislation is due in the UK to crack down on these things, with particulare reference to Ryan Air - at the bottom of the pile, I was a little suprised to see the following piece of marketing shite from slightly better Easy Jet
So while I might not be paying any more - there is a massive 9 quid in admin fees, and further 4.95 if I we were to pay by credit card. So while Ryan Air is in the shit for charging 6 a head, it looks as though companies are going to be getting away with admin fees like this for some time to come.
So while I might not be paying any more - there is a massive 9 quid in admin fees, and further 4.95 if I we were to pay by credit card. So while Ryan Air is in the shit for charging 6 a head, it looks as though companies are going to be getting away with admin fees like this for some time to come.
Wednesday, 25 January 2012
Speeding - a multi faceted gold mine for revenue
Having been through the process of losing my licence before, I'm thoroughly convinced that not too many places milk the motorist for petty speeding offences as badly as the Australian traffic police. Compared with the majority of Europe (excluding those that scale fines according to income), Australia must be 3-4 times more expensive. Clearly the approach being played by the police is cracking down on speeding as a means of accident reduction, while I dispute that as a direct cause (not a contributing factor) of the majority of accidents, it is indeed cheap and easy to police, and it's easy to make money out of. In actual fact I have a strong suspicion that poor driver training, poor spatial awareness, road rage, drink driving, and poor roads are bigger contributors, but all of these are pretty hard to tackle in the short term.
By contrast in the UK, I've done 20,000 - 30,000 miles and not been booked, breath tested, or even pulled over, Nothing! The country has gone that far up the path of pursing speeding as the course of accidents (or revenue raising, you decide), that now, as with the high density of CCTV cameras, this is mathced on the roads by a ridiculous density of speeding cameras, sometimes up to 1 per 100 metres! Incidently though driver education lags behind that of mainland Europe, and now Australia. So after 18 months incident free, my other half scored a low level speeding ticket from a fixed camera. No big deal, however the irony lies in how the fine was dealt - 3 points and 60 pounds - fair for the offence, but all this was served up from the "West Yorkshire Casualty Reduction Partnership". Yep thats what i'd call the West Yorkshire Police trying on a bit of marketing lingo to disguise revenue raising if ever I saw it.
Names aside, what was more Ironic was that for a further 15 pounds, she was able to attend a road safety awareness course, and have the points waived. This was pushed particularly hard, given that it was printed on a cardboard flyer next to the crummy government recycled paper fine notice, and mentioned in no less than all 3 pieces of correspondence to date. Further, one would think that this type of offer would be offered to repeat of high-level offenders - the ones who are just about to lose their licence. Here is what I suspect - knowing what I know about insurance premiums in the UK, and the fact that all demerit points have to be declared, I suspect that the cost of the course and the time to attend it must be worth it compared to what the average premium increase would be. This then is very clever marketing
By contrast in the UK, I've done 20,000 - 30,000 miles and not been booked, breath tested, or even pulled over, Nothing! The country has gone that far up the path of pursing speeding as the course of accidents (or revenue raising, you decide), that now, as with the high density of CCTV cameras, this is mathced on the roads by a ridiculous density of speeding cameras, sometimes up to 1 per 100 metres! Incidently though driver education lags behind that of mainland Europe, and now Australia. So after 18 months incident free, my other half scored a low level speeding ticket from a fixed camera. No big deal, however the irony lies in how the fine was dealt - 3 points and 60 pounds - fair for the offence, but all this was served up from the "West Yorkshire Casualty Reduction Partnership". Yep thats what i'd call the West Yorkshire Police trying on a bit of marketing lingo to disguise revenue raising if ever I saw it.
Names aside, what was more Ironic was that for a further 15 pounds, she was able to attend a road safety awareness course, and have the points waived. This was pushed particularly hard, given that it was printed on a cardboard flyer next to the crummy government recycled paper fine notice, and mentioned in no less than all 3 pieces of correspondence to date. Further, one would think that this type of offer would be offered to repeat of high-level offenders - the ones who are just about to lose their licence. Here is what I suspect - knowing what I know about insurance premiums in the UK, and the fact that all demerit points have to be declared, I suspect that the cost of the course and the time to attend it must be worth it compared to what the average premium increase would be. This then is very clever marketing
The national car insurance scam
When I first moved to the UK, I was under the impression that securing auto insurance (of all things!) would be a relatively straight forward endeavour - I mean there are that many similarities between how things are administered in Australia and the UK, that auto insurance would likely be one of them.
My first quote for a car similar to what I was already driving back home came in at a whopping 3k online. Thinking I was missing out on something big style, I visited a broker, where the best I was offered was £1900 - more than twice the value of the car receiving the cover in the first place! Perhaps more surprisingly was being told that this was infact a good deal! Further digging online halved this price again, but the amount of input variables required by these companies when quoting I found to be simply astounding - the occupation list alone was about as extensive as that of the tax office. After handing over a substantial wad of cash, I was under the impression that this was the end of the hassle, and next years bill would be loads cheaper in any case, as I'd be accruing 'valuable' UK driving history.
Moving house 2 months later, well you could hardly call it moving when it was 5 doors down on what was once the same street, the insurance company decided that they were accepting additional risk and charged an additional £50 for the move. While I can appreciate that it may have been closer to a more dangerous area, I would hardly call 5 doors statistically significant - and herein lies the problem - If insurance companies sense any kind of additional risk that can be quantified on any scale they will charge for it! Clearly uncontrollable factors such as manner of parking, gang activity, and other incompetent drivers activity, and an individuals pre-disposition to making a claim (to name a few) would be more significant contributing factors to an insurers risk, but since auto insurance is administered via a call centre, the odds of actually having an intelligent conversation are out the window.
To Illustrate just how out of touch call centre operators selling insurance are, I'll give an example of how I tried to negotiate my premium increase down from the £50 increase. The only factors left to change were where I could leave my vehicle overnight (street, driveway, or garaged). I had them all quoted, and was surprised that the most expensive was indeed having it garaged! The explanation: "People who have expensive cars garage them". Once again a demonstration of lack of critical thinking - In reality it's likely that these expensive cars are actually targeted by organised thieves, and are not simply kids out stealing whatever they can break into. Putting things into context - I was driving a family car in South Yorkshire at the time - clearly not a target for organised crime, and much more likely to be stolen by joy riders. Clearly if they are going to use such a high-level model on quoting insurance premiums, they should occasionally apply the odd reality check! Incidentally I didn't have any of these options available to me living in a flat - hence also demonstrating the lack of operator engagement or any kind of thought, when you can check all this on google street view!
Further to this, I've been charged indiscriminately for minor policy upgrades. Firstly I wanted to add another driver for a week - fair play, I get charged. To add 1 more day of coverage to this, I'm charged for a whole extra week - cover I don't need, but I'm still paying for. I've also borrowed a car from the dealer while mine has been getting serviced - only to be told that I'd need to get it added to my policy for £20 per day! And that no, I couldn't remove my car from the policy, as it would need to be insured too. Clearly this would have incurred a lot of administration costs to do so, but the stupidity remains - my car getting serviced would have been covered by the dealers property / professional insurance, and it would hardly have been possible for me to be driving both at once in any case. Further the car I did end up borrowing had the power of a lawnmower - reduced risk if anything! And for all this they wanted £25! for 1 Day. Just to go the full trifecta, I'll add one more example. Recently I had to add business cover for my partner on the policy (the fact that they can charge for usage type on it's own is a crime), and as I'm the policy holder, I had to upgrade too - yes thats right, more fees for additional features that i'm never going to use!
These 3 examples illustrate the rigid nature to which insurance companies enforce and monitor usage - any changes, you bet they will charge you for them! Sure they also demonstrate a clear lack of analytical thought on the operators behalf too, but what is slightly worrying for me is that for an industry such as this which is essentially a service sector, the customer is treated like crap. I mean if you walked into a car dealership and spent the same order of money as we are talking about here on accessories, then had the hide to ask for a discount or say take 2 car matts instead of 4, I'm sure they'd come to the party to please you owing to the amount of money spent.
So we have seen by the previous price hike that insurance companies blindly apply statistics to any kind of circumstances change, all without the slightest reality check, so long as it adds up in there favour - so what happens when it doesn't? Recently I changed from an Australian to UK licence, and was told before doing so that my premium would be discounted. Clearly this makes sense, as a UK licence means that points from traffic offences actually count, rather than being lost in international waters. Funnily enough though this made no difference to my premium, despite a pretty significant incentive to slow my driving down, had I been inclined to fully exploit the benefits of possessing a foreign licence.
Being fed up of paying for minor changes - which incidentally are a legal requirement of being insured driving in the UK - I decided to look into the regulations on the industry. I'd heard many times on the phone to my insurer about who they are regulated by in the legal blurb, and for all the legal crap that they sugar coat it with, essentially my insurer (and all others i presume) are regulated by the FSA, while the industry is self regulated by an industry association. A small but significant point- this only regulates them in terms of selling financial products, not in terms of how they can charge for policy differences. Sure they do provide a high level of financial cover - if you ever actually need it - and this is what is required by the government, but for the vast majority of people this remains a facility seldom used. I believe that the way this industry conducts itself is a shining example of self regulation, and a strong case for government to step in, and ensure these companies limit their profits and cut down on scamming the public. The irony here is that this is perhaps one of the better microcosms for the current attitude of UK society - that self regulation promotes competition and is good for business. That it may be, but at what price to the consumer? Sure it can be a hefty financial price, but few Brits ever consider what I like to call the administration cost - the lost time spent checking for discounts, updating the companies on minute circumstance details, and wondering which car they should buy based on how much the insurance is going to be. I'm honestly surprised that few seem to want to do anything about the state of affairs given the supreme waste of time it generates, not to mention the family feuds it must cause for all those but the super wealthy who are not bothered by a few thousand pounds expenditure on the rolls.
Whilst on the cost of insurance to the average Joe - it must be significant, given the fact that there are of order 500K drivers on this small island presently driving without cover - this must be of order 2-3 % of cars on the road if we estimate that there is roughly half the population owning and driving cars. I'm sure this number is liable to grow, as we are presently watching unemployment climb, and auto insurance has gone up 40% or so in the past year. Hold up 40%! Thats ridiculous. So while there is currently a government inquiry into the price of auto insurance, the public is repeatedly fed the message by insurers that the price of insurance is driven up by un-insured drivers. Interestingly the fine for being uninsured is £500 max ,and the cheapest car you can get is only a few hundred, so when you compare this to nearly £1k for an insurance policy for someone living a less than desirable area, you can see if you are barely scraping by financially, its a risk thats going to look more and more attractive as the economic situation worsens, and insurance premiums rise. Incidently, it is often that in impoverished areas where people struggle to pay the bills that auto insurance is also at its highest.
So Insurance was something I'd never be making use of - that was until someone decided to key my car in a supermarket carpark under full view of CCTV. While it would be any sane person's view that catching the petty theif who did this (along with several other cars at the same time) would be the primary concern of the insurance company, supermarket, and police - sadly it was not. My partner was shown CCTV footage of the car parked in the car park at the supermarket, so she made a police report in the hope that they would have access to the footage and get on the case. Several days later the police notified us that the the supermarket had no sign of our vehicle on CCTV footage. For me that just didn't add up, so a trip to the supermarket revealed that their corporate policy was to only release footage to insurance companies - not even the Police! From this series of events, I'm left to conclude that the supermarket probably did have the footage, and that it's highly likely they are in bed with the insurance companies - financially it adds up. If the perp was to be prosecuted without me making a claim, there is no upside for the supermarket - perhaps apart from having retained a customer, however knowing the state of affairs with the accident and injury claims side of auto insurance that was revealed some months ago, it would not be too much of a stretch to assume a similar state of affairs here.
One more nail in the coffin of poor customer service was when it came to renewal time. One would think that for a business that customer retention would be a high priority, given the administration time and costs involved in transferring customer information between companies, so you can imagine my surprise when discovering my renewal price was £250-300 more than a 'new customer' price from the same insurer with identical policy conditions! This does nothing to retain a customer, and it clearly is poor business when the onus is on the customer to check the pricing, and even poorer when the discrepancy is so great. Alas though, as with the case with the supermarket, it would appear that customer retention is a long lost concept in the UK.
Fundamentaly it's a pretty poor state of affairs in the UK when there is little to no transparency in policy pricing, or even any common sense behind it. The industry is one of the few of its kind left that is not administered online, rather it relies on call centres - I suspect in part this is so the consumer is unable to spend too much time comparing the relative costs of policy options in order to get a discount. In essence it is the complexity and lack of clarity in the system that allows them to charge to the hilt, legaly and without a so much as a reality check. To further Illustrate the state of affairs one can purchase "No claims bonus protection" along with a policy - i.e. paying an extra premium to retain ones no claim history in the event of a claim - Hold up thats effectively taking out insurance on your insurance!
To avoid this pile of nonsense, it would be my suggestion to charge based on 4 simple factors: accidents, claims, driving history, and vehicle class only. Other factors that are charged for at present - which indeed may or may not be actual significant factors - are likely discrimination under European Law. Earlier last year, a case was heard in Luxembourg as to why there was discrepancy between men and womens insurance premiums - this was ruled illegal under EU law, so naturally premiums will rise to parity! Furthermore 3rd party cover should be assumed on any vehicle if the driver has permission - the amount of drivers who are restricted to a single car, and for example could not driver their drunk friends car home from the pub, is simply ridiculous owing to current legislation. Government regulation would also likely make insurance affordable for those who presently do not see the financial benefit (i.e. those who choose to drive uninsured), meaning fairer cover for all in the long run.
My first quote for a car similar to what I was already driving back home came in at a whopping 3k online. Thinking I was missing out on something big style, I visited a broker, where the best I was offered was £1900 - more than twice the value of the car receiving the cover in the first place! Perhaps more surprisingly was being told that this was infact a good deal! Further digging online halved this price again, but the amount of input variables required by these companies when quoting I found to be simply astounding - the occupation list alone was about as extensive as that of the tax office. After handing over a substantial wad of cash, I was under the impression that this was the end of the hassle, and next years bill would be loads cheaper in any case, as I'd be accruing 'valuable' UK driving history.
Moving house 2 months later, well you could hardly call it moving when it was 5 doors down on what was once the same street, the insurance company decided that they were accepting additional risk and charged an additional £50 for the move. While I can appreciate that it may have been closer to a more dangerous area, I would hardly call 5 doors statistically significant - and herein lies the problem - If insurance companies sense any kind of additional risk that can be quantified on any scale they will charge for it! Clearly uncontrollable factors such as manner of parking, gang activity, and other incompetent drivers activity, and an individuals pre-disposition to making a claim (to name a few) would be more significant contributing factors to an insurers risk, but since auto insurance is administered via a call centre, the odds of actually having an intelligent conversation are out the window.
To Illustrate just how out of touch call centre operators selling insurance are, I'll give an example of how I tried to negotiate my premium increase down from the £50 increase. The only factors left to change were where I could leave my vehicle overnight (street, driveway, or garaged). I had them all quoted, and was surprised that the most expensive was indeed having it garaged! The explanation: "People who have expensive cars garage them". Once again a demonstration of lack of critical thinking - In reality it's likely that these expensive cars are actually targeted by organised thieves, and are not simply kids out stealing whatever they can break into. Putting things into context - I was driving a family car in South Yorkshire at the time - clearly not a target for organised crime, and much more likely to be stolen by joy riders. Clearly if they are going to use such a high-level model on quoting insurance premiums, they should occasionally apply the odd reality check! Incidentally I didn't have any of these options available to me living in a flat - hence also demonstrating the lack of operator engagement or any kind of thought, when you can check all this on google street view!
Further to this, I've been charged indiscriminately for minor policy upgrades. Firstly I wanted to add another driver for a week - fair play, I get charged. To add 1 more day of coverage to this, I'm charged for a whole extra week - cover I don't need, but I'm still paying for. I've also borrowed a car from the dealer while mine has been getting serviced - only to be told that I'd need to get it added to my policy for £20 per day! And that no, I couldn't remove my car from the policy, as it would need to be insured too. Clearly this would have incurred a lot of administration costs to do so, but the stupidity remains - my car getting serviced would have been covered by the dealers property / professional insurance, and it would hardly have been possible for me to be driving both at once in any case. Further the car I did end up borrowing had the power of a lawnmower - reduced risk if anything! And for all this they wanted £25! for 1 Day. Just to go the full trifecta, I'll add one more example. Recently I had to add business cover for my partner on the policy (the fact that they can charge for usage type on it's own is a crime), and as I'm the policy holder, I had to upgrade too - yes thats right, more fees for additional features that i'm never going to use!
These 3 examples illustrate the rigid nature to which insurance companies enforce and monitor usage - any changes, you bet they will charge you for them! Sure they also demonstrate a clear lack of analytical thought on the operators behalf too, but what is slightly worrying for me is that for an industry such as this which is essentially a service sector, the customer is treated like crap. I mean if you walked into a car dealership and spent the same order of money as we are talking about here on accessories, then had the hide to ask for a discount or say take 2 car matts instead of 4, I'm sure they'd come to the party to please you owing to the amount of money spent.
So we have seen by the previous price hike that insurance companies blindly apply statistics to any kind of circumstances change, all without the slightest reality check, so long as it adds up in there favour - so what happens when it doesn't? Recently I changed from an Australian to UK licence, and was told before doing so that my premium would be discounted. Clearly this makes sense, as a UK licence means that points from traffic offences actually count, rather than being lost in international waters. Funnily enough though this made no difference to my premium, despite a pretty significant incentive to slow my driving down, had I been inclined to fully exploit the benefits of possessing a foreign licence.
Being fed up of paying for minor changes - which incidentally are a legal requirement of being insured driving in the UK - I decided to look into the regulations on the industry. I'd heard many times on the phone to my insurer about who they are regulated by in the legal blurb, and for all the legal crap that they sugar coat it with, essentially my insurer (and all others i presume) are regulated by the FSA, while the industry is self regulated by an industry association. A small but significant point- this only regulates them in terms of selling financial products, not in terms of how they can charge for policy differences. Sure they do provide a high level of financial cover - if you ever actually need it - and this is what is required by the government, but for the vast majority of people this remains a facility seldom used. I believe that the way this industry conducts itself is a shining example of self regulation, and a strong case for government to step in, and ensure these companies limit their profits and cut down on scamming the public. The irony here is that this is perhaps one of the better microcosms for the current attitude of UK society - that self regulation promotes competition and is good for business. That it may be, but at what price to the consumer? Sure it can be a hefty financial price, but few Brits ever consider what I like to call the administration cost - the lost time spent checking for discounts, updating the companies on minute circumstance details, and wondering which car they should buy based on how much the insurance is going to be. I'm honestly surprised that few seem to want to do anything about the state of affairs given the supreme waste of time it generates, not to mention the family feuds it must cause for all those but the super wealthy who are not bothered by a few thousand pounds expenditure on the rolls.
Whilst on the cost of insurance to the average Joe - it must be significant, given the fact that there are of order 500K drivers on this small island presently driving without cover - this must be of order 2-3 % of cars on the road if we estimate that there is roughly half the population owning and driving cars. I'm sure this number is liable to grow, as we are presently watching unemployment climb, and auto insurance has gone up 40% or so in the past year. Hold up 40%! Thats ridiculous. So while there is currently a government inquiry into the price of auto insurance, the public is repeatedly fed the message by insurers that the price of insurance is driven up by un-insured drivers. Interestingly the fine for being uninsured is £500 max ,and the cheapest car you can get is only a few hundred, so when you compare this to nearly £1k for an insurance policy for someone living a less than desirable area, you can see if you are barely scraping by financially, its a risk thats going to look more and more attractive as the economic situation worsens, and insurance premiums rise. Incidently, it is often that in impoverished areas where people struggle to pay the bills that auto insurance is also at its highest.
So Insurance was something I'd never be making use of - that was until someone decided to key my car in a supermarket carpark under full view of CCTV. While it would be any sane person's view that catching the petty theif who did this (along with several other cars at the same time) would be the primary concern of the insurance company, supermarket, and police - sadly it was not. My partner was shown CCTV footage of the car parked in the car park at the supermarket, so she made a police report in the hope that they would have access to the footage and get on the case. Several days later the police notified us that the the supermarket had no sign of our vehicle on CCTV footage. For me that just didn't add up, so a trip to the supermarket revealed that their corporate policy was to only release footage to insurance companies - not even the Police! From this series of events, I'm left to conclude that the supermarket probably did have the footage, and that it's highly likely they are in bed with the insurance companies - financially it adds up. If the perp was to be prosecuted without me making a claim, there is no upside for the supermarket - perhaps apart from having retained a customer, however knowing the state of affairs with the accident and injury claims side of auto insurance that was revealed some months ago, it would not be too much of a stretch to assume a similar state of affairs here.
One more nail in the coffin of poor customer service was when it came to renewal time. One would think that for a business that customer retention would be a high priority, given the administration time and costs involved in transferring customer information between companies, so you can imagine my surprise when discovering my renewal price was £250-300 more than a 'new customer' price from the same insurer with identical policy conditions! This does nothing to retain a customer, and it clearly is poor business when the onus is on the customer to check the pricing, and even poorer when the discrepancy is so great. Alas though, as with the case with the supermarket, it would appear that customer retention is a long lost concept in the UK.
Fundamentaly it's a pretty poor state of affairs in the UK when there is little to no transparency in policy pricing, or even any common sense behind it. The industry is one of the few of its kind left that is not administered online, rather it relies on call centres - I suspect in part this is so the consumer is unable to spend too much time comparing the relative costs of policy options in order to get a discount. In essence it is the complexity and lack of clarity in the system that allows them to charge to the hilt, legaly and without a so much as a reality check. To further Illustrate the state of affairs one can purchase "No claims bonus protection" along with a policy - i.e. paying an extra premium to retain ones no claim history in the event of a claim - Hold up thats effectively taking out insurance on your insurance!
To avoid this pile of nonsense, it would be my suggestion to charge based on 4 simple factors: accidents, claims, driving history, and vehicle class only. Other factors that are charged for at present - which indeed may or may not be actual significant factors - are likely discrimination under European Law. Earlier last year, a case was heard in Luxembourg as to why there was discrepancy between men and womens insurance premiums - this was ruled illegal under EU law, so naturally premiums will rise to parity! Furthermore 3rd party cover should be assumed on any vehicle if the driver has permission - the amount of drivers who are restricted to a single car, and for example could not driver their drunk friends car home from the pub, is simply ridiculous owing to current legislation. Government regulation would also likely make insurance affordable for those who presently do not see the financial benefit (i.e. those who choose to drive uninsured), meaning fairer cover for all in the long run.
Sunday, 6 November 2011
UK Border control - Inconsistency, poor service and the list goes on
Well I've meant to write about this one for a while! Ever since I first travelled to the UK as a student, I can recall on one hand the number of times I haven't had trouble of some kind crossing the borders. I've been a few places in my time, and I can't recall anywhere (yes even the US) that has such needlessly strict and inconsistent border security.
The whole saga started around July 2008, I had plans of bike racing and camping in the European summer, then starting a year of student exchange in the UK that Autumn - not too much of a biggie visa wise, a quick call to the UK embassy in oz ($10 flat fee no less though!), and it was revealed that I could apply for the visa in Vienna or Paris in person - far easier than sending all the stuff to Canberra for 6 wks +! Besides It could not have been processed in time if I was going to race world champs on the bike and then make it to the UK.
Halfway through the summer though, things got a bit fishy - a few email, calls to both embassies, and even a visit to Vienna, I realised that these places had suddenly become like black holes - you could send your documents into them for an application, but no information would return out of them. Turned out that they also didn't take applications unless you resided in that country - contradicting the supposedly sound advice I paid for out of Canberra. Several years later, I found out that the whole UK Border agency / Forreign office / whoever was responsible, was in the process of being privatised for visa applications .
Unable to make sense of the situation where information was not freely given up, I chanced the border at the Eurostar terminal in Paris, knowing I'd be able to get a 6 month student visa there. Or so I thought! I got as far as having my passport stamped, but just as it was about to be handed over they questioned why I had 9 months worth of courses on my offer letter from Uni- I reiterated that It was my original intention to stay for 2 semesters worth of study, and that the only reason I didn't have the proper visa was that I had been fed a load of crap by the embassy in Canberra, and hey it's not every year you qualify to race at world champs is it? My finger prints were taken, and I was assured the consulate in Paris would process my application. With this, I set off, unsure of pretty much anything - I'd already had all my bikes shipped off to the UK and dropped off my rental.
Arriving at the address of the consulate, I found that it had not been there for sometime, I was given another address, and the search continued. At the supposed consulate I found that it was merely a place to submit visa applications for those in the country - It was little wonder then that my attempts to get in touch with them were unsuccessful! Distraught, I had uni doctor up 6 months worth of paperwork. Just in case I was barking up the wrong tree, I went and asked at the border what they'd need - apparently they wanted a full letter couriered over from the University! I retired for the night - it had been a pretty average day to say the least. Finding a hostel would be easy I thought , at least that would go my way. It didn't, and I travelled to 2 before I was successful.
The next day I took my chances printing an online version, and I was through. Happily I didn't pay for my attempts, as a fire in the Eurostar meant they were handing out replacement tickets and refunds more readily than an oversubscribed American commuter flight. Sadly though this is not where the trouble finished. Travelling to Belgium a few months later, I was taken aside at the border - my visa had been backdated 6 months rather than forward - rookie error on their behalf! After this hassle, I wrote, explaining the whole lot to the home office in the UK, and even offered to come down and have the whole lot verified - no chance, If the good times were to continue, I'd be going home for christmas. This was far from straightforward, with my application returned for not signing it (after it head sat in the que for 3 weeks on someones desk no less, no phone call no nothing!), Getting it back, and a few weeks later, I find out my passport has made it's way back to the very office in London I had offered to visit! 7-8 weeks after returning home, I was on my way back to the UK.
18 months later, and I had my YMS visa in my hand, this time ready to go before leaving Oz. Entering though the same border in Paris, there was not a single problem! But that was only temporary - Some nasty prick in Manchester decided that my student visa (which I was clearly no longer using!) had not been verified properly in 09' by stamping it - clearly not my problem! Several months later, and one of his colleagues tells me that my current YMS visa is not verified properly since it never got stamped - talk about inconsistency - they were probably even colleagues! Somewhere between these two inconsistencies, I was questioned about my work - the bloke reckoned that I was only allowed to work for 12/24 months on my visa - I called his bluff and asked for the proof - when you have had as much shite as I have you don't skim over the fine print! I was allowed through…. only if I was careful about how long I worked! I later looked at the legislation, and it was another case of this being true …. about 07/08' - once again the border security people are out of date!
So lets look at the list of blatant errors from the British Border Agency and Consulates:
The whole saga started around July 2008, I had plans of bike racing and camping in the European summer, then starting a year of student exchange in the UK that Autumn - not too much of a biggie visa wise, a quick call to the UK embassy in oz ($10 flat fee no less though!), and it was revealed that I could apply for the visa in Vienna or Paris in person - far easier than sending all the stuff to Canberra for 6 wks +! Besides It could not have been processed in time if I was going to race world champs on the bike and then make it to the UK.
Halfway through the summer though, things got a bit fishy - a few email, calls to both embassies, and even a visit to Vienna, I realised that these places had suddenly become like black holes - you could send your documents into them for an application, but no information would return out of them. Turned out that they also didn't take applications unless you resided in that country - contradicting the supposedly sound advice I paid for out of Canberra. Several years later, I found out that the whole UK Border agency / Forreign office / whoever was responsible, was in the process of being privatised for visa applications .
Unable to make sense of the situation where information was not freely given up, I chanced the border at the Eurostar terminal in Paris, knowing I'd be able to get a 6 month student visa there. Or so I thought! I got as far as having my passport stamped, but just as it was about to be handed over they questioned why I had 9 months worth of courses on my offer letter from Uni- I reiterated that It was my original intention to stay for 2 semesters worth of study, and that the only reason I didn't have the proper visa was that I had been fed a load of crap by the embassy in Canberra, and hey it's not every year you qualify to race at world champs is it? My finger prints were taken, and I was assured the consulate in Paris would process my application. With this, I set off, unsure of pretty much anything - I'd already had all my bikes shipped off to the UK and dropped off my rental.
Arriving at the address of the consulate, I found that it had not been there for sometime, I was given another address, and the search continued. At the supposed consulate I found that it was merely a place to submit visa applications for those in the country - It was little wonder then that my attempts to get in touch with them were unsuccessful! Distraught, I had uni doctor up 6 months worth of paperwork. Just in case I was barking up the wrong tree, I went and asked at the border what they'd need - apparently they wanted a full letter couriered over from the University! I retired for the night - it had been a pretty average day to say the least. Finding a hostel would be easy I thought , at least that would go my way. It didn't, and I travelled to 2 before I was successful.
The next day I took my chances printing an online version, and I was through. Happily I didn't pay for my attempts, as a fire in the Eurostar meant they were handing out replacement tickets and refunds more readily than an oversubscribed American commuter flight. Sadly though this is not where the trouble finished. Travelling to Belgium a few months later, I was taken aside at the border - my visa had been backdated 6 months rather than forward - rookie error on their behalf! After this hassle, I wrote, explaining the whole lot to the home office in the UK, and even offered to come down and have the whole lot verified - no chance, If the good times were to continue, I'd be going home for christmas. This was far from straightforward, with my application returned for not signing it (after it head sat in the que for 3 weeks on someones desk no less, no phone call no nothing!), Getting it back, and a few weeks later, I find out my passport has made it's way back to the very office in London I had offered to visit! 7-8 weeks after returning home, I was on my way back to the UK.
18 months later, and I had my YMS visa in my hand, this time ready to go before leaving Oz. Entering though the same border in Paris, there was not a single problem! But that was only temporary - Some nasty prick in Manchester decided that my student visa (which I was clearly no longer using!) had not been verified properly in 09' by stamping it - clearly not my problem! Several months later, and one of his colleagues tells me that my current YMS visa is not verified properly since it never got stamped - talk about inconsistency - they were probably even colleagues! Somewhere between these two inconsistencies, I was questioned about my work - the bloke reckoned that I was only allowed to work for 12/24 months on my visa - I called his bluff and asked for the proof - when you have had as much shite as I have you don't skim over the fine print! I was allowed through…. only if I was careful about how long I worked! I later looked at the legislation, and it was another case of this being true …. about 07/08' - once again the border security people are out of date!
So lets look at the list of blatant errors from the British Border Agency and Consulates:
- Canberra Consulate 08 - Advises that student visas can be applied for in-person anywhere - despite the process changing several moths before to outsourced processing, and only being done from the applicants home country or regional centre.
- Paris Sept 08 - Advised that I could apply for a visa at the consulate - it had moved, and definitely would not process my application due to the above outsourcing.
- Paris Sept 08 - My visa is stamped with the wrong year - making it expire 6 months prior to the date it's validated
- Aug 11' - I'm told I cant work for more than 12 months on my 2 yr visa - these conditions expired on the YMS visa ~ 3 years ago
- Nov 11' the border people can't work out if visas are DEFINITELY supposed to be stamped or unstamped.
Clearly all these errors point to a few basic things that need to be verified. Border staff need better training on what is and isn't current legislation - particularly since this is the legislation that they enforce! Secondly - don't privatise a government function, and if it is done, at least make sure everyone is on the same page, so they don't give false information to applicants.
Finally, I thought we as Australians were part of the Commonwealth? I reckon the above is pretty excessive given we still have the Queen as our head of state!
As a postscript, a quick search of t'internet did not reveal too much - It appears that sometime in Feb 08' that visa applications started to be outsourced for the UK, but naturally the Border Agency has no information on this! I did however find this - seems i've got plenty of company!
Finally, I thought we as Australians were part of the Commonwealth? I reckon the above is pretty excessive given we still have the Queen as our head of state!
As a postscript, a quick search of t'internet did not reveal too much - It appears that sometime in Feb 08' that visa applications started to be outsourced for the UK, but naturally the Border Agency has no information on this! I did however find this - seems i've got plenty of company!
Sunday, 23 October 2011
Utes in the UK
Utes or Pick-up trucks are traditionally thought of as an Australain / US cultural icon, however I have a sneaking suspicion that the UK is cottoning on - well at least the marketing people have cottoned on to the envy the average UK citizen has for their less spatially constrained english speaking counterparts.
Marketing Utes in Australia and the US is a pretty simple affair - it just needs some pretty decent power figures, and the thing will sell itself. In the UK, it would seem they are trying to sell a lifestyle:
So what are all these manufacturers getting at? It would seem that all these branding editions conjure up images of new world ruggedness - perhaps the marketing people got it right - all these special editions mentioned above are THE most expensive version of each respective vehicle - yet they are the most numerous on UK roads in terms of non-govt utility vehicles. Says a lot about people's aspirations in the UK I think!
Marketing Utes in Australia and the US is a pretty simple affair - it just needs some pretty decent power figures, and the thing will sell itself. In the UK, it would seem they are trying to sell a lifestyle:
- Ford are offering the Ranger - also offered in Australia - available in the UK as the 'Thunder' edition
- Nissan have the Navara - again the same as what is offered back home, but with an 'Outlaw' edition offered -
- Mitsubishi have marketed their L200 consumer ute as the L200 Warrior - what we in Australia call the Triton
- Toyota, as pretty much everywhere, have the Hilux, with the top model in the UK branded as 'Invincible'
So what are all these manufacturers getting at? It would seem that all these branding editions conjure up images of new world ruggedness - perhaps the marketing people got it right - all these special editions mentioned above are THE most expensive version of each respective vehicle - yet they are the most numerous on UK roads in terms of non-govt utility vehicles. Says a lot about people's aspirations in the UK I think!
Monday, 8 August 2011
English Society - drowning in a sea of charity and 'awareness'
English love charity - there is little questioning this, when you hear the sheer volume the topic occupies in general conversation. But just how far does this love extend? Doing a little digging - according to the charity commission there are 162,119 registered charities in Just England and Wales at the time of writing. That is quite substantial for a population just shy of 60 million. Thats more than one charity per 400 people!
By contrast in Australia there are something like 10,200 registered in a population of 23 million (thats about one charity per 2300 people then). Interestingly the figures I have obtained for Australia were part of an article in The Age on the very crux of this post - surely there is a butt load of duplication going on if there are this many charities - surely there cannot be THAT many endemic causes out there? Happily the article also mentions the role of government - particularly that in many of the model societies of Northern Europe it is seen as the role of government to assume many of the roles typically catered for by charity elsewhere.
Sticking with the two nations above, it is interesting to read at The Guardian that Australia actually donates MORE to charity. Clearly then, there must something going on with competition for awareness and donations between charities in Britain - potentially casuing people to donate smaller amounts when they do donate. With the national profile that charity holds among the people, It would nearly be inconceivable for a person NOT to donate to a charity when asked. I hypothesise then that the typical UK citizen donates to charity in the same manner one should eat when dieting 'often, but small'. Why the small donations then? Charity is ingrained nature in the culture. Saying no to charity is one of the biggest faux pas on this tiny island.
I was recently asked at work to donate 10 pounds to sponsor a colleague - the majority of the other people in the office made rubbish excuses or donated pitiful amounts. Perhaps it is my Australian heritage, but i'd rather be honest, so i told the guy upfront that I simply didn't want to sponsor him. I think the whole office stopped and stared, you would have heard a pin drop. But that is the crux of it - with loads of charities floating about, there are far too many impromptu collections, which the population somewhat begrudgingly deposits pitiful amounts into.
Think you can get away from these in an anonymous environment? Take a walk onto any of the UK's high streets on any given day and there will be a 95% that you will run into a chugger. These people are crazy invasive, and really begs the question - if they can pay out of work students to hassle passer by's into coughing up a monthly direct debit donation, then how much money are charities which support these practices actually spending on the cause?
Monetary matters aside, charities are also there to lobby governments and raise awareness of issues. This is usually a fair point, but picture the thousands of charities jockeying for awareness among 162k of them. Sure raising awareness is always a good thing, but this could be achieved so much more efficiently if the interested parties did a simple search and found an existing, related charity to support. But then again, as mentioned in The Age article above, there usually are some pretty big egos involved! Namely the kind that feels obliged to dedicate a charity to someone they know who died of x,y,z illness. If only these people would stick to dedicating park benches!
So not only is charity questionably ineffective (in terms of awareness and finances) when their number per cause is proliferated, but there are other inefficiencies in the system. Namely gap years. Ask any English person who has attended university, and chances are they took one of these. Moreover, unlike their Australian counterparts, they probably took it in aid of charity. But is this really effective? I recently looked at joining an Engineering organisation which operated in the 3rd world with gap-year style projects - mainly from what i had seen of it's achievements through friends in Australia. It's a pity for me to say this, but my local branch in the UK looks like it offers far less in real projects and looks more like a CV builder under the guise of a charity. From speaking with many of my peers it would seem this is normal - that there are indeed many charities like this that exist just for building CV's and for facilitating a year away from organised society under the guise of doing something positive.
Further to charity projects providing an opportunity for lost university age students to pilfer a year abroad, yet still build their cv, is the culture of volunteering in corporations. With corporate culture it seems short of having children, there is little lenience to those who have ambitions of additional time away from the desk. That is unless you do it for charity. It all makes sense to me now - hearing of how the English have conquered the outdoors, how people have rowed across oceans cycled the world or similar schemes on a much smaller scale - all in the aid of charity. Perhaps this is me being cynical, but i reckon a fair load of them are doing this as an excuse to get out of work. I mean really, the majority would probably be able to donate more cash if they stayed at work and donated the proceeds from the same time period. Perhaps it's also that British people feel social guilt for just doing an adventure for adventures sake?
So there is a take home message at the end of this one - if I die of mysterious causes please do not start a charity in my name, and should I ever decide to pack it in and go walkabout - I'll be doing it off my own batt. You might say i'm a scrooge, but one day, when i'm earning more, i might just donate a massive chunk of cash to a deserving mob - that ought cut through all the pesky admin costs!
By contrast in Australia there are something like 10,200 registered in a population of 23 million (thats about one charity per 2300 people then). Interestingly the figures I have obtained for Australia were part of an article in The Age on the very crux of this post - surely there is a butt load of duplication going on if there are this many charities - surely there cannot be THAT many endemic causes out there? Happily the article also mentions the role of government - particularly that in many of the model societies of Northern Europe it is seen as the role of government to assume many of the roles typically catered for by charity elsewhere.
Sticking with the two nations above, it is interesting to read at The Guardian that Australia actually donates MORE to charity. Clearly then, there must something going on with competition for awareness and donations between charities in Britain - potentially casuing people to donate smaller amounts when they do donate. With the national profile that charity holds among the people, It would nearly be inconceivable for a person NOT to donate to a charity when asked. I hypothesise then that the typical UK citizen donates to charity in the same manner one should eat when dieting 'often, but small'. Why the small donations then? Charity is ingrained nature in the culture. Saying no to charity is one of the biggest faux pas on this tiny island.
I was recently asked at work to donate 10 pounds to sponsor a colleague - the majority of the other people in the office made rubbish excuses or donated pitiful amounts. Perhaps it is my Australian heritage, but i'd rather be honest, so i told the guy upfront that I simply didn't want to sponsor him. I think the whole office stopped and stared, you would have heard a pin drop. But that is the crux of it - with loads of charities floating about, there are far too many impromptu collections, which the population somewhat begrudgingly deposits pitiful amounts into.
Think you can get away from these in an anonymous environment? Take a walk onto any of the UK's high streets on any given day and there will be a 95% that you will run into a chugger. These people are crazy invasive, and really begs the question - if they can pay out of work students to hassle passer by's into coughing up a monthly direct debit donation, then how much money are charities which support these practices actually spending on the cause?
Monetary matters aside, charities are also there to lobby governments and raise awareness of issues. This is usually a fair point, but picture the thousands of charities jockeying for awareness among 162k of them. Sure raising awareness is always a good thing, but this could be achieved so much more efficiently if the interested parties did a simple search and found an existing, related charity to support. But then again, as mentioned in The Age article above, there usually are some pretty big egos involved! Namely the kind that feels obliged to dedicate a charity to someone they know who died of x,y,z illness. If only these people would stick to dedicating park benches!
So not only is charity questionably ineffective (in terms of awareness and finances) when their number per cause is proliferated, but there are other inefficiencies in the system. Namely gap years. Ask any English person who has attended university, and chances are they took one of these. Moreover, unlike their Australian counterparts, they probably took it in aid of charity. But is this really effective? I recently looked at joining an Engineering organisation which operated in the 3rd world with gap-year style projects - mainly from what i had seen of it's achievements through friends in Australia. It's a pity for me to say this, but my local branch in the UK looks like it offers far less in real projects and looks more like a CV builder under the guise of a charity. From speaking with many of my peers it would seem this is normal - that there are indeed many charities like this that exist just for building CV's and for facilitating a year away from organised society under the guise of doing something positive.
Further to charity projects providing an opportunity for lost university age students to pilfer a year abroad, yet still build their cv, is the culture of volunteering in corporations. With corporate culture it seems short of having children, there is little lenience to those who have ambitions of additional time away from the desk. That is unless you do it for charity. It all makes sense to me now - hearing of how the English have conquered the outdoors, how people have rowed across oceans cycled the world or similar schemes on a much smaller scale - all in the aid of charity. Perhaps this is me being cynical, but i reckon a fair load of them are doing this as an excuse to get out of work. I mean really, the majority would probably be able to donate more cash if they stayed at work and donated the proceeds from the same time period. Perhaps it's also that British people feel social guilt for just doing an adventure for adventures sake?
So there is a take home message at the end of this one - if I die of mysterious causes please do not start a charity in my name, and should I ever decide to pack it in and go walkabout - I'll be doing it off my own batt. You might say i'm a scrooge, but one day, when i'm earning more, i might just donate a massive chunk of cash to a deserving mob - that ought cut through all the pesky admin costs!
Tuesday, 26 July 2011
What applies to business applies to life?
We all know by the sheer volume of DIY and property shows that have originated in the UK that there must be some thing of a knack for business and project management ingrained in the average citizen. Applying high levels of advanced planning to this kind of project usually pays dividends. Naturally English have thought to apply the same levels of diligence to other facets of life.
On favourite pastime of the English is to plan Holidays. Whether this is related to a sense of project management, or ingrained desire to leave cloudy Brittani for some sun remains to be seen. I'm not just talking about planning a holiday, I'm talking about planning a holiday to the max, all included in a nice package - complete with payment plan (should one chose). Thing is Brits book these package holidays that far out, that anything could happen in the mean time. The travel company could go bust. Their personal circumstances could preclude them being able to make the trip. etc. Naturally all this leads rather conveniently to another rubbish financial product - travel insurance - the kind that includes all that extra crap that covers these eventualities. So why do Brits do it? Why do they pay through the nose for all manner of questionably unnecessary holiday extras (when in all likeliness they are just going to get drunk at night and lie on the beach all day), then take out a ridiculously priced insurance policy on the whole shebang, and potentially ice it off by paying for it on personal finance. I reckon it has to be a desire to plan ones pursuits in life like a business - planning months or years ahead in business is common practise, and progress in business often comes with coughing up cash in regular payments. Perhaps on the one hand it looks like holidays in the sun is all they have to look forward to, or to brag to colleagues to!
So you don't believe me on all this holiday stuff - go and open a British tabloid (or even a flashier broadsheet) newspaper - these are loaded with holiday 'packages'. Funny thing about these holidays is that if the protagonists involved simply got educated on their destination rather than the deals, i'm sure they could snag even better offers on accommodation and activities. Furthermore a bit of freedom never hurt anyone - booking later, and booking activities/ accom when you use them may cost a little more, but also leaves more options open. Potentially it may even be cheaper given the opportunity to haggle with poorly occupied hotels.
Holidays are not the only thing English people like to plan as if they were running a business. As i have touched on before, they also like to purchase assets ina similar manner to businesses - in payments - also known as finance. Finance is not really a new concept to an Australian such as myself, Aussie Bogans have been maxing out mortgages and credit cards for decades - not to mention buying furniture on x months interest free terms.
What is staggering by comparison is the manner in which English employ yet another rubbish financial product. I'll give two examples of acquaintances of mine. The first earns a reasonable salary for someone his age, and decided to treat himself to a new car, on finance of course. All and good i suppose, if it enables you to get to work reliably in order to earn money. Nope, he has a new performance car that cost about 10k - yet today he complains about social commitments to going out for dinner - but surely for a once a month event that is cheaper than the interest he pays per week !
Another ludicrous example of finance is yet another acquaintance of mine who intends to buy a 1k bicycle frame. on finance. over 2 years. Few things here - you would want to be bloody good to pay that much for a frame - I've represented my country in the sport, and by current steed which sees probably 5k miles a year cost 80 quid. On this form i would not dream of spending any more. Thing is this bloke hasn't turned a pedal in 2 years! Then he intends to put a race bike on Finance? They are usually obsolete / worn out within that pay off period!
Not only do English love to pay for things in instalments, they also like to 'pre-buy' - in a similar manner that a business does when setting up or launching a new product. The classic English example is buying a car prior to having a licence. Yepo i know someone in this boat too. He's just bought a near new car on finance - a few months prior to actually being able to drive it!
Whats the moral to all this? Don't run your life like a business. The key thing about buying things in advance and in payments in business is the capital cost of these things, and the fact that they are purchased in order to pay for themselves by value adding to the business. Critically anything bought with personal finance is likely to depreciate in value, and is not likely to earn it's keep. clearly then, business concepts should not be applied to individual lives! Perhaps this is also where it needs to begin when it comes to the debt crisis too?
On favourite pastime of the English is to plan Holidays. Whether this is related to a sense of project management, or ingrained desire to leave cloudy Brittani for some sun remains to be seen. I'm not just talking about planning a holiday, I'm talking about planning a holiday to the max, all included in a nice package - complete with payment plan (should one chose). Thing is Brits book these package holidays that far out, that anything could happen in the mean time. The travel company could go bust. Their personal circumstances could preclude them being able to make the trip. etc. Naturally all this leads rather conveniently to another rubbish financial product - travel insurance - the kind that includes all that extra crap that covers these eventualities. So why do Brits do it? Why do they pay through the nose for all manner of questionably unnecessary holiday extras (when in all likeliness they are just going to get drunk at night and lie on the beach all day), then take out a ridiculously priced insurance policy on the whole shebang, and potentially ice it off by paying for it on personal finance. I reckon it has to be a desire to plan ones pursuits in life like a business - planning months or years ahead in business is common practise, and progress in business often comes with coughing up cash in regular payments. Perhaps on the one hand it looks like holidays in the sun is all they have to look forward to, or to brag to colleagues to!
So you don't believe me on all this holiday stuff - go and open a British tabloid (or even a flashier broadsheet) newspaper - these are loaded with holiday 'packages'. Funny thing about these holidays is that if the protagonists involved simply got educated on their destination rather than the deals, i'm sure they could snag even better offers on accommodation and activities. Furthermore a bit of freedom never hurt anyone - booking later, and booking activities/ accom when you use them may cost a little more, but also leaves more options open. Potentially it may even be cheaper given the opportunity to haggle with poorly occupied hotels.
Holidays are not the only thing English people like to plan as if they were running a business. As i have touched on before, they also like to purchase assets ina similar manner to businesses - in payments - also known as finance. Finance is not really a new concept to an Australian such as myself, Aussie Bogans have been maxing out mortgages and credit cards for decades - not to mention buying furniture on x months interest free terms.
What is staggering by comparison is the manner in which English employ yet another rubbish financial product. I'll give two examples of acquaintances of mine. The first earns a reasonable salary for someone his age, and decided to treat himself to a new car, on finance of course. All and good i suppose, if it enables you to get to work reliably in order to earn money. Nope, he has a new performance car that cost about 10k - yet today he complains about social commitments to going out for dinner - but surely for a once a month event that is cheaper than the interest he pays per week !
Another ludicrous example of finance is yet another acquaintance of mine who intends to buy a 1k bicycle frame. on finance. over 2 years. Few things here - you would want to be bloody good to pay that much for a frame - I've represented my country in the sport, and by current steed which sees probably 5k miles a year cost 80 quid. On this form i would not dream of spending any more. Thing is this bloke hasn't turned a pedal in 2 years! Then he intends to put a race bike on Finance? They are usually obsolete / worn out within that pay off period!
Not only do English love to pay for things in instalments, they also like to 'pre-buy' - in a similar manner that a business does when setting up or launching a new product. The classic English example is buying a car prior to having a licence. Yepo i know someone in this boat too. He's just bought a near new car on finance - a few months prior to actually being able to drive it!
Whats the moral to all this? Don't run your life like a business. The key thing about buying things in advance and in payments in business is the capital cost of these things, and the fact that they are purchased in order to pay for themselves by value adding to the business. Critically anything bought with personal finance is likely to depreciate in value, and is not likely to earn it's keep. clearly then, business concepts should not be applied to individual lives! Perhaps this is also where it needs to begin when it comes to the debt crisis too?
Sunday, 10 July 2011
Electric cars
Earlier this week I had the opportunity to go to an event run in aid of recruiting young people to the automotive industry on behalf of work. Initially I was amused that work would be supporting this (I work for a manufacturer of industrial diesel engines), given that the event promotes a ‘green’ electric car future – naturally I felt even odder driving a massive yank tank there in the middle of the UK countryside!
Seeing some of the other manufacturers there, it really is hilarious the state of affairs with electric cars – Peugeot were offering a ‘zero emission’ vehicle. Pitty is the way they package it; customers are able to swing into a dealership and borrow a gasoline powered car, should the electric car not be fit for purpose for a longer journey – essentially going against the whole idea in the first place! Hearing the sales bloke crack on about it to a rather educated skeptic who was having a good dig, it would seem that you would be spending a significant amount of time at that bloody dealership – the electric thing is targeted at commuters who have a significant amount of time during the day to charge the car at work.
Nissan was also there with an electric car – with a claimed range of 100 miles. The guy selling the thing clearly had a massive chip on his shoulder – accelerating the thing madly in front of people – so electric cars produce peak torque from the word go? All well and good that is – until it comes to battery life! Yep the guy ran it flat and had to plug it into a diesel generator for several hours in order just to make it home! BUT had he had a diesel engine in the car itself, it could have been running for a mere fraction of that time, and with a fraction of the transmission losses! Thing is too, in the UK market, these things would most likely be charged from the national grid – which is largely coal fired. Not really an improvement over a light duty internal combustion engine given the the compromises.!
This all got me thinking, so I did a bit of research on Peugeot’s offering – the iOn – offered new for a shade over 33k GBP with a 93 mile tank range. Interestingly you can score yourself a 207 wagon for a shade over 13k that has a diesel donk capable of 67 combined MPG – I’d be taking the up front saving and banking on that – particularly with 800 mile or so tanks! Don’t even get me started on the energy or materials required to make either of them – I’m pretty sure the conventional car uses a ton less energy and rare earth metals to manufacture.
Overall I think this excitement over electric cars as a solution to commuting raises a very fundamental issue – the massive trend in society towards commuting. Fundamentally if resources on this planet are to be conserved this is one of the first places to look! People should not be so hung up as to where they live – driving hours per day for work to enjoy so called ‘lifestyle’ benefits is a joke – can anyone seriously enjoy these benefits during the week when they are working massive hours, and then stressing themselves driving back in the evening?
Similarly, in this day and age it is lunacy that employers in specialized industries insisit on the ‘bums on seats’ mentality – imagine if those with family lives already setup away from their new employer do not necessarily want to drive to work everyday – well it’s here folks – in most parts of the civilized world internet is now fast enough to effectively enable this – with the ability to dial into meetings, and sharing data. If we are to improve our carbon footprint – why are countries such as Australia not supporting the rollout of high-speed broadband. This nicely brings me to my next point of capital investment.
Another reason why commuting culture is so damn prevalent is the lack of viable alternatives – in countries like Australia there are no regional railways, or any other suitable transport networks to travel long distance apart from the car for commuting – In Britain it is a similar problem – even with ridiculous fuel prices, it is often cheaper to drive than take the non-subsidized public transport. What needs to happen to get public transport up and rolling is capital investment in infrastructure, and long- term government subsidized fares It works in the rest of continental Europe, but of course Business is king in Britain, so the public naturally gets a short tax break, and otherwise raped.
Of course the best solution must be a bicycle or walking – no emissions, and a bit of exercise to boot. I’ll keep riding mine – It takes less time than the train to cover 30 miles per way, it’s less stressful than the car, and it means I can eat whatever I like. Now I just have to wait for my ankle to recover so I can start doing it again!
So for starting on electric cars, I have ended up quite a while off. In essence the very problem these things set out to solve, are already technologically solved – what needs to happen is a cultural and political shift to crack down on car commuting, to ensure that the alternatives become reasonable and culturally acceptable.
Thursday, 26 May 2011
Uk society – The price of complacent consumerism
Having spent the last week purchasing a number of things, it has brought forward the issue of price discrepancy in the UK. Now classically the UK has always had the 'high street price' for everything, as opposed to internet / second hand / stolen car boot stereotype - thing is this stereotype is still there, but there are other even nastier price discrepancies. I guess the one I experienced last week (but fortunately didn’t pay) was the price for not doing ones research:
- Few tools at the LBS (local bike shop) - internet price £19 + 9 - upon rocking up at the till £23 + 11 - they claim that they have separate 'internet' and 'bricks and mortar' prices in order to pay overheads. Fair play, but they also offer a price-matching service - which essentially means the onus is on the customer to highlight this discrepancy to them.
- 10 mins later, a few bits of camping gear at Decathlon - 3 items, all heavily discounted. The guy rings it up at retail - and was not too happy when i told him what it was all discounted, and about 40% cheaper. And its not the first time this has happened at Decathlon for me!
- A few days later i was getting quotes for a car service - I was quoted £185 by the manufacturer, and found my local dealer wanted to charge £320, and was surprised when i told them they were dreaming
So the lesson from those 3 above -always check the market / listed value of items when doing anything involving spending your own cash in the UK. Those are a few personal examples, but how far does the price discrepancy thing go in the UK?
Cafe's seem to love charging separate prices for eat-in and take-away items – siilar to the bike shop example. This is only of the order of 10%, so their reasoning of paying for overheads is perhaps a little weak. The only other i can think of is perhaps limited space, and paying for the luxury - although places that are not limited by it still have the split pricing - perhaps this is where it originated, then it became culturally accepted and here we are. Cafe's also love to discriminate with pricing when it comes to location. The same chain cafe will charge nearly twice the price at a train station in the UK as it would elsewhere - but then again the UK does have a major obsession with convenience (and associated charges).
Purchasing a car of late, the classic eat-in / take out style discrepancy rasied it's head again - I visited several cars that were £500-1000 cheaper on the net as they were on the lot. These were not expensive cars either - at £3-5 k, that discrepancy makes up a fair saving. Thing was, since i had come in as an internet customer, most of them were happy to disclose the 'actual' selling prices of the other cars on the lot, as opposed to the listed price. It must be an idiot who pays list price at these places. Same thing happened when i was looking at cameras – a Mamiya 7 with lens was advertised at £600-800 depending on condition. I walked in and casually asked about one, and was told that i would be £1400 for any in stock. Needless to say nicholas camera is a massive rip-off.
Naturally with material goods showing such a massive financial disparity, the same could be assumed for financial products - and you would be right. I think this is perhaps one of the few facets of the market that consumers here have clued up to - and now big business is on the bandwagon with a mass influx of comparison websites - these things are absolutely insidious, and are closely related to rubish financial products / ad campaigns i have written about on here before. One of the greatest ironies here is that the general British population seems chuffed that they can save £10 on their car insurance through a comparison website – yet be bled dry by shifty retailers on material purchase - all because they have not done their research.
I have written in the past that the Australian economy has suffered from being closed to competition - but i now am convinced that the British market is suffering the opposite problem - the market is flooded, and it takes a lot of consumer awareness to pay the appropriate price here. Now i find myself yearning for a regulated market like France, Switzerland or Germany. It's a funny sensation in these countries, i've even bought vanilla slice for 7.50 CHF and not felt ripped off - i'd probably feel robbed if i paid that in the UK - but that’s the joys of a 'free' economy.
As a postscript, I picked my car up from it's service yesterday, where i was told the clutch pedal needed replacing for £150 (the source of the problem is actually a 50p bushing), and that the cambelt would need changing (£360), despite being only 95k miles into it's 144k mile service life. There were a few more sus charges i avoided, but hey I work in the Automotive design industry - what would the average punter do?
Friday, 13 May 2011
Uk Society - Scrap value
It would seem in the consumer world in the UK at present everything is gifted with an ultimate value - scrap value. In ordinary times perhaps this would not be significant, however at present it’s a fortune.
One poignant example is that of cars – when a car reaches a certain age it would seem that the average English person would rather weigh up a vehicles value in pure scrap terms – if the scrap price is higher than the cost of repair or selling the car, you can bet that they will be weighing it in ASAP for scrap, and if not the value they are after? Simply an improvement on what the scrap man was offering. You could say i was somewhat snookered into this when my trusty 106 quit on me with a dropped rod (and a small fire) a few months back, but i digress.
While the automotive sector is the main focus of scrapping, it is not just limited to that though. Gold is also high on the scrap list – with gold shops aplenty offering to buy items on weight. I suspect this however is a sign of the times along with pay-day loans more than anything though!
Not only is scrap limited to high value or high volume metals. The other day i had the cassette changed on my road bike at a shop – the guy was most excited that he would not only receive proceeds for fixing my bike, but also the proceeds for cashing the cassette in for it’s scrap value.
It would then seem that the scrap man can be seen as ridding the world of all its nasty leftover evils. Not so it would seem when you consider what else seems to get thrown through the UK’s scrap recycling system. All manner of public amenities seem to be stolen and put through it, including manhole covers and railway cables. The latter first came to my attention with a poster while on the train one morning.
So the scrap man is the omnipresent remover of all evil, and the great market yardstick in the UK, but how would this place survive without him? The outer Hebridies in Northern Scotland provide a clue to this – there all manner of things are left to rot in fields after they have outlived their economic lives. I suspect though in such a cut throat economy that the cost of collection has traditionaly outweighed the value of these items. Yes, sadly the mass obsession with scrap is an economic one, and a reflection on the countries deep-rooted capitalism and class structure, rather than one on environmentalism, with the current interest due to high scrap value and a dead economy. If I was a budding scrap enthusiast, I’d be setting up business in the outer Hebs.
Wednesday, 6 April 2011
Part 2 - why nuclear power is not the silver built
With a move to an energy economy with less dependance on carbon, many tote nuclear power as the solution due to the lack of carbon emissions. But what about the rest of it (Plant failure issues completely aside)?
The waste is problematic to say the least. One source I read a while ago suggested that in the US there was an area set aside for the centralized storage of spent fuel rods in sealed drums – however there was a few problems with this – first the heat form the sheer mass of fuel, and secondly the longevity of the storage containers. Presently fuel is stored at the plant as an alternative. Some suggest jettisoning fuel into space, while other suggest dropping it into an oceanic trench – the first would require prohibitive amounts of energy (probably from carbon sources too), and the second would no doubt have an impact on oceanic ecosystems.
Next when considering nuclear power is the useful life and commissioning phases of a plant. Useful life is of the order of 40 years with commissioning and decommissioning phases each of the order of 5-20 years. That’s a bloody long time to muck about for the amount of useful life a plant gives! Not to mention extending plant life can be risky when it comes to issues such as metal fatigue (on internal pipework), and concrete cancer. Never the less, this has been done on a lot of nuclear plants in The States.
When looking at alternatives, it must be said that as a member of the imeche, I found it interesting to read the amount of members willing to condemn wind power in the UK on the basis of the elctrical gride nearing capacity in early December 2010 due to low wind conditions and high demand due to the extreme cold. I must pose this question – did the lights go out? Nope. Not a failure in my mind. This does not suggest a failure of wind power and the immediate need for nuclear, what this does demonstrate however is the need for a robust grid. I dare remind those engineers that ‘robust’ when referring to a power grid means the ability to deliver energy under all manner of operating conditions. Clearly a wind power grid is not robust then, but neither is a uniquely nuclear grid. No single power source on its own can be a silver built or the basis of a robust grid. What does build a robust system though is diversity.
How best to build a robust grid? Firstly there is a need for a variety of input sources – namely solar, tidal, hydroelectric, and wind power are all sensible options. None of these come anywhere near being robust on there own when compared with nuclear or coal/gas, individually but in combination it is hardly likely that a region is going to be dry, cloudy, and still at the same time. How best to manage these as a national grid? I personally believe that the majority of energy sources could be managed by the individual in a de-centralized grid of solar and wind power. This has several advantages, albeit not so obvious. When people are charged with managing their own resources they exhibit individual agency, and actively involve themselves in the situation – the individual can witness the direct cause and effect of their actions – i.e. leaving too many lights on will run the house out of stored power and the lights will stay out, or they will have to start paying for grid power. Essentially a de-centralized grid would make people more aware of how much energy they are using and graphically illustrate to them how to better manage their consumption. The second advantage is that the need for a heavy duty supply grid is secondary. Interestingly, prior to the wind power saga brought forward by the imeche they claimed that Britain is in need of a more robust power distribution grid. If it is to survive a warmer future. I do not believe that global warming will significantly change weather in Britain – it has a cool, unstable maritime climate to begin with. More importantly, a robust distribution grid would not rely on stronger lines between user and power generation, but multiples of these – the very kind that would come from a de-centralized grid.
So why are we not seeing de-centralized grids at present? Well that is sadly because it is not yet financially viable for the masses. The thing that drives the nuclear and coal power industries is capital investment, and good financial terms from governments. Home power rebates come and go, but the loans offered to build coal and nuclear power plants are still being paid off. It is a pity to note that the same financial terms are cringed at when it comes to large scale wind farms!
I clearly believe that an individually managed de-centralized grid made up of renewables poses our best solution to the un popularity of carbon based fuels, and the hassles associated with nuclear power, but there is one major thing not typically considered – overall demand. With the rise and rise of computing, smart phones, and plasma tellies, not to mention population rise there is an ever increasing demand for power. So in the mean time, don’t bother with the GPS – use a map or your memory, read a book – the information will probably be more accurate anyhow, and don’t bloody breed too much!
Nuclear power – an alternative view
Fukishima seems to have brought out both polarities in the nuclear power camp. One clearly for it – with the view that the situation is quite minor given the massive damage ithe plant sustained; the other seems to immediately condemn nuclear power as having the potential to reign absolute chaos in the event of plant failure.
So whats my take on all this? I’m no nuclear physicist, so speculating on a safe amount of radiation for humans to tolerate is not my forte. I do however think there are some critical things all those bipolar parties are missing in the nuclear debate.
Those who are for nuclear power will probably cite the official toll from Chernobyl, and the fact that people continued working there for years in other reactors on the same site – but what about the conditions they were working in? They clearly would not have been eating food farmed in the exclusion zone, and would most probably have been sheltered to a massive degree within the concrete reactor buildings – as opposed to being in the vicinity of the fallout from the failed reactor. They were not living in the exclusion zone either.
On the other hand, those against nuclear energy seemingly impose a zero tolerance on any un-natural radiation. Arguably this tolerance is not really a cause for concern in most cases, owing to natural radiation from solar events, x-rays and medical imaging, and limited time of exposure. It would seem that both polarities here missing a critical parameter in their arguments - time of exposure. What this boils down to is this – it is possible to briefly experience high doses of radiation (as in an X-ray, or tourism to Chenobyl ), but you sure as hell would not want to live for a significant amount of time in the presence of it.
So total exposure is the main concern when it comes to radiation, but what about the impact on society? What about management efforts and finance as well? Some say that an incident at a chemical plant may be more problematic than a nuclear plant failure, but herein lies the difference. While a chemical plant may have a large scale immediate impact (in terms of fatalities and short term disaster management), the disaster will usually be under control relatively quickly in comparison with a nuclear disaster - at Chernobyl the construction of a second sarcophagus is presently under construction (25 years later no less) to prevent further leaks. No doubt the monitoring of such a situation will continue a long way into the foreseeable future.
Even in terms of shorter term response, the sheer volume of those involved in the cleanup of Chernobyl cannot possibly be matched by any other disaster caused by man – there were an estimated 800,000 ‘liquidators’ involved in the Chernobyl cleanup. But it does not end with the sheer numbers. An individuals cumulative exposure must also be measured, and equipment handled and stored appropriately in order to prevent further contamination. Sure the japanese disaster is no Chernoby - the containment is much more rigorous, however the crisis has now continued for some weeks and is still not fully under control. In essence the management of such a disaster is on-going and arduous.
Finally when It comes to a disaster such as this, the fear of radiation contamination plays on one of our most baser instincts of ‘fear of the unknown’ – whether or not this is perceived or a real threat is irrelevant to the anxiety it may cause an individual.
Perhaps humans can tolerate higher levels of radiation – what we cannot push for in the future however is over-dependance on one source of energy – let alone one that demands so many resources should something go wrong.
Saturday, 26 February 2011
UK society – concerns over net immigration
News item of the week in the UK is that net immigration is up – That is essentially that fewer British are migrating and more international students are coming here. Funny really, how the conservative government is paranoid about figures like these and is focused on getting this down in order to ‘improve’ the economy. But first, lets dig a little deeper and see what the root causes are. British love to live abroad. Unfortunately this requires significant savings on the individuals behalf to buy up large tracts of rural ‘sunshine’ destinations as in France and Spain. So Bung economy = less Brits that can afford to jump ship.
On the immigration side of things, Universities are pitching to international students on an unprecedented scale, much the same as in Australia. Why? Well there is a lot more money to be made by churning out degrees to foreign students who pay more than 3x that of the local students, and generally take less rigorous and less difficult to teach topics.
So is this net immigration a bad thing for the economy? Doesn’t appear so from here – the Brits who would have left the country are still spending their hard earned here, and international students are literally pouring cash into the universities. It surely has something to do with Public sentiment then – given the massive general resentment about foreigners taking British jobs – apparently 75 % of then population would like to see a decrease in net migration as published on the bbc. This in itself presents an interesting topic - the majority of jobs critical to the British yobs existence are usually taken by Asians. Yep there are not too many white people manning the Taxis at 3 in the morning, or the Kebab shops, or even the local off-licence.
The really interesting bit about the issue of net migration in Britain is that of imposing a cap on numbers does not impose a limit on the number of European migrants. Funny thing is that typically European immigrants far outnumber the others So apparently 57% of the British population is for a restriction on immigration – yep that includes Aussies. But I’m pretty sure if you asked the same people if Britain should limit immigration from Australia they would first question whether or not we needed visas – since we are part of the commonwealth and all. Another debate unto itself….
At he end of the day it would be interesting to see how the average British person who opposes immigration would progress without it – none of their favourite conveniences would be so cheaply and readily available, and perhaps the economy would be in even deeper shit. Oh and they might turn around to find that a cap is placed on the number of working holiday visas granted to Australia for the - since limtis on these are reciporical.
Thursday, 17 February 2011
English society – understatement
We all know the English like to understate their humour, but how about the rest of it? Well there is certainly a minefield to negotiate when it comes to the daily grind! One must be very careful when expressing their opinion, for not only must one interpret the coments of others with the possibility of understatement, but if comments are made without out it - all maner of things may be blown out of proportion by the poor Englishman on the receiving end. Fortunately there are several tell tale signs that you may be offending your fellow Englishman – listen for frequent smatterings of “to be honest”, and “to be fair” – the frequency of these – particularly “to be honest” is crucial. When these have reached fever pitch, there is only one option for the Englishman “to be frank…”. When you hear this, run for the hills, the shit has hit the fan!
So after dealing with this kind of situation – how does one progress to avoiding it? Negation! Not only negation, but double negatives! Yep turn a positive sentence the other way round with a negation at the end. The first time I heard this I was convinced that the English were just trying to knock off European ‘class’ by saving the crux of the sentence to the end. Nothing so flash here, they are just being polite. I find this most amusing given the love English profess for their own language and using correct grammar! They even take this to the point of contracting the wrong part of the sentence, but that’s a long way off course for what I’m getting at here.
One final word, remember understatement is a two way street – so next time if there is even the remotest possibility of something slightly negative being said about you – it probably is! Hit em back with a few lines of “to be honest’” and you should be on a level pegging.
Thursday, 27 January 2011
Recession?
For those not familiar – Europe is in a bit of trouble at the moment. Some may remember a little over a year ago Mr Cameron proclaimed that Britain was out of the woods. I beg to differ somewhat - a few little reminders have recently caught my eye in the local media:
· In Rotherham, South Yorkshire 100 drain covers have been nicked in the last 2 weeks – to be sold for scrap metal!
· Youth unemployment in Barnsley, South Yorkshire is at 35%
· Manchester Police are facing cuts of 3000 jobs over 3 years
· Doncaster council is cutting 800 Jobs
· The Ministry of Defense cannot afford to commission it’s fleet of new spy planes – so they are being scrapped before they are even commissioned!
· In a similar vein the government decided that it could not afford to commission an aircraft carrier – so it decided that it was ‘strategic’ to share it with the French
Then again there are plenty of other bizarre things going on in Britain with regard to finance and jobs:
· A litre of petrol costs £1.30 and a haircut can be had for £3
· A sound 10 year old car can be had for £500-600 – yet the insurance will more than likely be more
· For many unskilled jobs it is possible to earn more money by claiming government benefits than to work!
· Fixed speed cameras are thought to be more effective than police – yet it is thought that only 10% are actually operational. Interestingly after 8,000 miles driven since moving I have only seen my first traffic police car yesterday
The best way to high quality B&W prints?
On face value these days it would seem that it digital is the only way forward with photography. How many of us ask this question simple question: what is the final output of the image? It’s likely that this answer will be a print, well for anyone who is half serious about photography – but how often are digital files ever printed? Moreover if printing is the final destination a decent quality digital camera costs a few grand when compared with an entire 35mm setup which can be had for a few hundred – top lenses included. So perhaps 35mm is a good starting point –its cheap, and the resolution can be even higher than digital if one chooses to use slow speed b&w films. A lot of film addicts remain convinced that the best images come from these often far-out difficult to source slow films, with odd developer combinations, development timed to the nearest second and exposed to the nearest 1/20 of a stop. And while this may be true – i cannot help but think these guys have thrown a few basic principles out the window such as simple scientific method – this kind of accuracy is really excessive – not to mention the lack of repeatability! Chances are too you are buying a product that is already on a very short rope, and probably costs the earth. Not only are these products difficult to source, but require a lot of testing to get it ‘just so’ – yet another cost! Then there is the quality - generally with a mainstream larger film supplier they will be ISO 9001 quality certified – meaning you get film of a more consistent quality every time. Not to mention if you are out and about you stand half a chance of being able to buy a few rolls, or if you cannot be bothered to develop the results you stand a greater chance of finding a lab that is experienced with your particular choice of film.
So how do you get quality from film if 35mm is either difficult / complicated / expensive with slow speed films, and digital is now beating all the higher iso regular stuff? Trouble is most people into these kind of films use scanning as their means to make a print – yet another cost – either to buy a scanner that will cut it quality wise – or to pay a lab that will no doubt charge according to the file size. If you are going down this route – you might as well cut the middle ground and buy a digital. Otherwise wet darkroom becomes a very viable alternative when you consider that for around $100 of consumables and about the same in second hand equipment you can make around 20-50 high quality prints. That’s pretty cheap, when you consider the cost of scanning and printing digitally. Not to mention the quality is usually better. But how to improve this quality? This is really rather simple – more surface area.
At present with a massive switch to digital by the pros a few years ago, a medium format outfit can be had for about $USD300-500. Not expensive really if you spent your film testing / scanning budget on that and gave up testing! A few more things about the ‘professional’ format – there is good reason why it carries this name. With films having the capacity for 8-16 pictures – each film really is about the perfect length, no chance of forgetting what was on the film as typically happens with 35mm. Not only that, but due to the modular nature of most MF systems, it is possible to change film type mid-roll by simply changing the film back. Also contrary to popular opinion that there is not much kit to lug around - 3 primes and a body is less kit than the typical digital/35mm bloke who carries 2-3 zooms, spare batteries and a flash. Its also less likely to be nicked.
In the darkroom there are more advantages to be had over 35mm.MF negs can easily be contact printed onto 10x8” paper unlike 35mm, not to mention you can actually see what is on the neg pretty easily. Also the format is ‘right’– 35mm is 3:2 – not the most desirable format for a final print, while 645, and 6x7 fits nicely into 4:5. This means when you are taking 35mm you are drawn into composing to the less than optimal frame.
So at this point in the argument you may think I am about to dive in and spruik for large format. Not so. While I personally love LF, there is little major advantages to be had over MF – the equipment is a lot heavier and demands a tripod for any kind of shooting. Enlargements require more expensive enlargers, and sorting out film is a whole other battle.
At the end of the day taking good pictures usually has far more to do with talent, timing and lighting than anything else. Use what you got – but if you wanna get the best results for your hard earned in black and white prints – i reckon you cannot look past MF.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)