GREENer HOUSE

Our morning got off to a curious start, to my mind. When my 17-year-old finally awoke, my wife asked if she wanted to come along for a jog.

“No,” she replied, “I have an extra maths lesson in one hour.”

“That’s fine,” I said, to my wife. “You run, and I will walk her to maths.” (1.8 km away)

“Walk?,” exclaimed my wife, “She doesn’t have time for that; she has tons of homework.”

If the humour of this conversation does not immediately occur to you, perhaps you should exercise your mind. Our culture has compartmentalized each aspect of our lives so completely that exercise is a specialized activity done purely for its own sake and worth the time it requires. Traveling to school, work, shops, friends or errands is a separate activity, to be done as quickly as possible, by car. Using a slower mode of transport is a waste of time, even if it involves exercise. But my calculations show that traveling more slowly actually saves me time, in two ways.

I jog for exercise and pleasure and cycle to get around and also for pleasure. It horrifies me to see people who will ride a bicycle all the way to the Magaliesburg on a Saturday morning for fun, get home, shower and hop in the car to get to the post office. I’ve seen this happen.

My longest regular ride is to a weekly voice lesson. It’s a 7.5 km trip by car that takes 15 minutes, or a cycle of anywhere from 25 to 35 minutes. On the morning of my voice lesson, I skip my usual one-hour jog, saving the same time that it will take me to cycle in both directions. Jogging and then driving would together take an hour and a half. Cycling takes one hour. 60 + (15 x 2) – (30 x 2) = 30. I save a half hour.

That’s not all I save. I don’t keep track, but I figure that sometime this year I will have made my hundredth cycle to my lesson. 100 x (7.5 x 2) = 1,500. That’s 1,500 kms of driving I have saved—farther than Johannesburg to Cape Town—and 150 litres of petrol worth well over a thousand rand. The environment has been spared more than 350 kg of carbon dioxide.

Let’s exercise our maths some more. A health study following more than 5,000 people over 40 years concluded that exercise equivalent to walking for 30 minutes a day for five days a week adds 1.3 to 1.5 years to your life.  Do those regular walks for 30 years, and you will spend 234,000 minutes walking, (30 x 5 x 52 x 30 = 234,000) but will have added 735,840 minutes to your life. (1.4 x 60 x 24 x 365 = 735,840.) So the averages tell me that the 20 minute stroll to her maths lesson added perhaps an hour to my daughter’s life. 735,840 ÷ 234,000 x 20 = 62.89. And, she later reported, “It was a pleasant walk.”

1 + 1 = 2.

I keep track of my fuel economy with every fill-up. It’s a little obsessive, I know, but I’ve learned quite a lot from seeing the differences in economy between cars, drivers, seasons, tyres, etc. There is good research to show that when people are aware of consumption, they tend to reduce it. It’s also good to know whether the fuel economy gauge in your car is accurate. In my experience, the gauges always make your fuel consumption look better than it really is.

I’ve made the process very simple for myself by creating an Excel spreadsheet that instantly calculates kilometres per litre and litres per 100 kilometres, with a running average for the last ten fill-ups. Now I’m making it simple for you, too, with a downloadable blank spreadsheet that has all of the formulas to make those calculations. All you have to do is reset your trip odometer at each fill-up, record the number of kilometres on the till slip—which already has the litres printed on it—and enter those two numbers on the spreadsheet.

To have your own copy of the spreadsheet, click on this link:

FuelEconomy

You should then be offered the option of opening it directly in Excel or saving it. Either option works, but if you choose to open it directly and then wish to save it—using Save As—you must be very careful to save it in the folder where you keep spreadsheets. It will not automatically opt for the My Documents folder.

After using it, if you’re not pleased with the fuel economy you see, try my 10 Unconventional Tips for Saving Petrol.

Note: FuelEconomy.xls was scanned with a fully updated version of Norton AntiVirus 2009 immediately before it was uploaded to GreenerHouse. No viruses or other security risks were found. That said, GreenerHouse promises not to take credit for your improved fuel economy if you promise not to make GreenerHouse responsible for any troubles with your computer or your spouse arising from the use of this file.

With petrol breaking the R10 barrier today, I’m sure the newspapers will be hauling out the AA’s list of fuel-saving tips yet again. We’ve all read them least a dozen times. The list is generally sound: use the correct tyre pressure, don’t accelerate too quickly, etc., etc., etc. Our eyes are glazing over, however. It’s time for a new list. It’s time to push the envelope.

The fuel consumption numbers in the literature for new cars (and now on windshield stickers in South Africa) are useful for comparing between cars. But few people can keep their fuel consumption that low on the streets. The official stats are derived under very controlled conditions that don’t really reflect the habits of typical drivers.

I hate to brag, but I do consistently match or beat the official fuel consumption figures for the cars I drive. You can, too. Follow me.

[Lawyer's note: Use these tips at your own risk. GreenerHouse is not responsible for your prang. Safety first.]

1. Don’t brake.
2. Hold your right foot in the air
3. Watch your rev counter
4. In town, windows down
5. Ride the roller coaster
6. Drive your spouse’s car
7. Change your clocks
8. Know your numbers
9. Rearrange your “To Do” list
10. Drive farther . . .

1. Don’t brake

Ok, if a ball rolls out into the street with a child running behind it, slam on the brakes, but most braking is an unnecessary waste of energy. You must learn to feel guilty every time you brake, converting all of that good momentum your engine has given you into wasted friction and heat, requiring you to accelerate all over again.

Not braking requires planning ahead, allowing space in front of your vehicle and exercising patience. A typical example is a street with speed bumps. Most drivers accelerate after each bump and brake before each bump. It makes no sense. The bumps are there because the people who live on that street convinced the government that cars should drive slowly for the safety of the neighbourhood’s children and pedestrians. Settle into the speed at which your car can handle the bumps and stay there. Unless you’re heading downhill, you shouldn’t have to brake.

Look way ahead to the traffic lights and let your car slow naturally well in advance of a red light. People are always in a hurry to sit at a red robot, wanting to give the poor smash-and-grabbers a sporting chance. Don’t worry about the guy behind you flashing his headlights. You’re saving him petrol and a smashed window, too. Smile and wave.

If you have to brake at the bottom of a hill or before a curve, it probably means that you were accelerating unnecessarily a few moments before. Slow down in advance—it’s not safe to brake on a curve, anyway—and keep your foot off that darned brake.

(more…)

The Mail & Guardian has now put the full, uncut version of my diesel article on their website. Click here to read it.

If you’ve read my article in today’s Mail & Guardian, you already know that diesel is not quite the panacea to South Africa’s environmental problems that the advertisers would have you believe. South African diesel fuel is still much dirtier than the diesel available elsewhere, and so are our diesel cars. So they play a large part in the smog and particulate pollution in South African cities. The last two-fifths of the article were supposed to explain why diesel vehicles are also not quite the solution to global warming that some think they are, either. But that part of the article was lopped off at the last minute before printing, for some reason. Here’s the rest of the story . . .

. . . These problems are all local, however, and some would argue that the far-reaching impact of global warming means that some diesel pollution must be tolerated. But diesel’s potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions is regularly overstated. BMW’s X5 brochure, for example, notes that their diesel model uses “up to a quarter less fuel than its competitors,” including the equivalent petrol X5. It adds that this “of course, means a reduction in the greenhouse gases responsible for global warming.”

One little-known reason for diesel’s superior efficiency, however, is that the fuel is denser than petrol, with more carbon. As a result, litre-for-litre it gives off more earth-warming carbon dioxide when burned. So in measuring the grams of CO₂ per kilometre, Britain’s Vehicle Certification Agency finds that the X5 3.0sd diesel is only 11 percent better for the atmosphere than the petrol version, despite having 25 percent better fuel economy. Fuel consumption “is only really useful in terms of amount of money you’re going to spend on fuel,” notes Frank Schwegler, president of South Africa’s National Association for Clean Air, “but greenhouse-gas emissions is quite a big factor to consider.”

For now, finding a car’s CO₂ emissions per kilometre at a dealership requires scrutinizing the fine print of a technical specifications sheet, if the figure is there at all. Starting in mid-2008, however, all new cars in South Africa will have to display this number—as well as litres per 100 kilometres—based on standardized measurements that can be compared between brands.

In the meantime, the Union of Concerned Scientists suggests that car shoppers should adjust a diesel car’s litres-per-100-km figure upward by 18 percent. Comparing the resulting figure with the fuel economy of a petrol vehicle puts the two on an equal footing as far as greenhouse-gas emissions are concerned.

Even after those adjustments, diesel engines remain somewhat more efficient than their petrol counterparts. And with cleaner Euro 3 and Euro 4 compliant vehicles arriving now in showrooms, some environmentally conscious consumers may decide to tolerate diesel’s local pollution—or the high cost of effective emission controls—in exchange for the lower greenhouse gas emissions. As if that decision was not complicated enough, a more vexing quandary faces diesel buyers at the filling station.

Since Sasol’s coal-to-liquids plant in Secunda is the largest source of ultra-low-sulphur diesel in South Africa, opting for 50 ppm sulphur diesel over ordinary 500 ppm actually quadruples the chances that the fuel in the pump is coal-based.

Sasol’s Fischer Tropsch coal-to-liquids process is an incredibly dirty way to make an incredibly clean fuel. Every drop of diesel that the company makes from coal is so low in sulphur—approximately 10 ppm—that it could be sold in virtually any country in the world.

But the Secunda facility emits about 60 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year. That’s barely less than the greenhouse gas emissions for all of Israel and its 7 million people. In making a litre of coal-to-liquids diesel or petrol, Sasol sends well over three kgs of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, far more than a car will emit while driving on that litre.

Sasol already supplies half of all the ultra-low-sulphur diesel sold in South Africa, and it is the best situated to increase supply as demand rises. Bizarrely, Sasol has to sell most of its clean diesel as regular 500 ppm sulphur diesel for a lower price; demand for 50 ppm is not yet high enough. As sales of “green” diesel cars grow, Sasol can sell that same fuel for more money as ultra-low-sulphur to take a dominant market share in the 50 ppm segment.

It will be a sad irony when most of the millions of tons of greenhouse gases spewed by Sasol to make diesel is paid for by the drivers who bought the most “environmentally friendly” cars.

Even the complete version of my article on diesel fuel leaves some open questions. Before you ask, here are my answers:

So which car should I buy?

If the answer were simple, I would have fit it into the article. The conundrum is this:

Diesel cars emit somewhat less carbon dioxide. (Not as much less as you thought, but less nonetheless.) But diesel cars emit more local pollutants. But the newest, clean, Euro 4 diesels driving on ultra-low-sulphur fuel emit acceptable levels of local pollutants. But half of all the ultra-low-sulphur diesel in South Africa is made in a way that emits huge amounts of carbon dioxide.

You can’t win.

You also can’t use diesel as an excuse to buy a bigger, more powerful vehicle than you need. That’s exactly what the car companies are trying to get you to do. (See question below: “Why are SUVs cleanest?”) I think that most city dwellers, especially those on the Highveld, should buy the most fuel-efficient petrol car they can find that suits their needs. If you can afford it, the Toyota Prius is ultra-clean for both local pollutants and greenhouse gases.

If you live in a rural area in the Highveld, where local air pollution from traffic is not as much of an issue, you might consider buying a diesel vehicle and running it on normal, 500 ppm sulphur diesel. You are most likely to avoid coal-based fuel that way and will reduce your contribution to global warming. (Note that if your manufacturer says you must use ultra-low-sulphur fuel, it could damage your vehicle to use 500 ppm sulphur diesel.)

If you live in KwaZulu-Natal, most of your fuel comes from petroleum. With the coal issue set aside, diesel makes more sense. Look for the vehicle—petrol or diesel—with the lowest CO2 emissions that suits your needs. In KZN cities, you should only buy a diesel if it meets Euro 3 or Euro 4 specifications and fill it with ultra-low-sulphur diesel.

Cape Town is even more complicated. Fuel retailers generally buy from the nearest refinery, but Sasol transports ultra-low-sulphur diesel all the way from Secunda to its filling stations in Cape Town. I wouldn’t buy it. BP stations get their ultra-low-sulphur diesel from the Durban refinery that BP owns with Shell. I don’t know about the others.

Does a diesel make economic sense?

The Diesel Dilemma, a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, concludes that:

Gasoline vehicles are more cost-effective than diesel for reducing oil use and lowering global warming pollution.

By that, they mean that if the extra expense it takes to make a clean diesel engine were put toward greater efficiency in petrol vehicles, the petrol vehicles would save more oil and greenhouse gases than diesel cars. Unfortunately, other than hybrids like the Prius, few petrol cars have benefited from that kind of attention toward fuel economy.

Looking at clean diesels available in South Africa, the BMW X5 sd costs an astounding R68,000 more than its petrol equivalent the X5 si. Even after 150,000 kms, you would be R47,000 poorer, at October’s fuel prices. The diesel Honda CRV, which has perhaps the most advanced diesel engine on earth, emits 10 percent less carbon dioxide than a similar petrol CRV and costs R20,000 more. After 150,000 kms, you would be only halfway toward recouping that differential.

I’m not a great believer that every expenditure for the sake of the environment must pay for itself. If someone in Durban really needs a 4×4 soft-roader and is willing to pay the extra money for the sake of the earth, they should buy a diesel CRV. I’m just not sure how many people out there really need a 4×4 soft-roader.

Smaller diesel cars may have a smaller price differential, but few if any small diesels in South Africa today are clean enough to meet Euro 4 emissions standards. In 2008, some will be available, and perhaps they will pay for themselves over time. They certainly will make more sense for the environment than a 3-litre diesel powerhouse with a lot of emissions controls on it.

Why are diesel SUVs cleanest?

The cleanest diesel engine BMW has brought to South Africa is in its giant X5. Honda’s cleanest diesel is on the 4×4 CRV. VW’s only Euro 4 vehicle in South Africa so far is the Touareg SUV. Volvo has put its best diesel emissions controls on the 4×4 XC. What’s going on here?

I put this question to Jan Lotter, the product planning manager for BMW South Africa. He laughed, and said that I had made a good observation. Then he said:

There’s a growing awareness of SUV consumption; people are talking about carbon footprints, environmental impact. This is a little more of an investment to make them more acceptable.

I think he’s right. It’s a last-ditch effort to keep people who are starting to feel that it’s environmentally unacceptable to drive a 4×4 to Sandton City from buying a smaller, less expensive car.

Lotter made another salient comment:

The unfortunate thing about diesel is that it is still expensive. With the invention of common rail diesel technology, and going to higher and higher pressures [to make diesel engines cleaner] it becomes difficult to introduce entry-level diesels.

BMW has a small, Euro 4 diesel car that can even beat Toyota’s Prius in fuel efficiency, the 118d. But it isn’t sold in South Africa.

Does it really make a difference whether I buy coal-based fuel?

One could argue that avoiding coal-based ultra-low-sulphur diesel from Sasol’s Secunda plant does nothing for the environment. Fuel is in short supply in this country and Sasol will keep producing to capacity. The company may end up selling the fuel as regular diesel and it may end up selling the diesel somewhere else, but Secunda’s emissions are not going to decline just because fewer people buy ultra-low-sulphur diesel in the interior.

This argument has some validity, but I would make three counter-arguments:

1. Sasol makes more profit selling their diesel as ultra-low-sulphur diesel. The more profit they make on diesel, the more likely they are to go ahead with the second coal-to-liquids plant, which is now in the feasibility-study stage. Such a plant would be a disaster for South Africa’s greenhouse gas emissions.
2. If ultra-low-sulphur diesel becomes in short supply, the government may be more favourably inclined toward another coal-to-liquids plant.
3. It might just bother your conscience to think that the source of all those greenhouse gas emissions killing polar bears and ruining the crops of African farmers is sloshing around in your fuel tank.

Don’t you have anything nice to say about Sasol?

Sasol does an impressive job of reporting emissions data and was willing to let some of its experts talk to me openly for this story. The refinery owned by BP and Shell, by contrast, would only answer questions by email and mostly didn’t answer questions at all. Sasol’s greenhouse gas emissions are edging down relative to their total production, partly because they are using more gas from Mozambique, which is less polluting than coal. There, I managed to say something nice about Sasol. (But if you haven’t read the M&G article yet, their Secunda plant has roughly the same greenhouse-gas emissions as Israel.)

Don’t you have anything nice to say about BMW?

I’m afraid that BMW’s marketers set themselves up for criticism by portraying a big SUV as a solution to global warming. That said, the company is working on some very interesting technologies for improving the fuel consumption of both petrol and diesel vehicles. In 2008 we may see the first BMWs that cut the engine instead of idling at a stop light and use the energy from braking to recharge the battery.

It has always bothered me that South Africans take such an interest in topping off their petrol tanks when fueling. Some have elevated it into a kind of sport. I once watched a man bouncing up and down on his bumper in an effort to slosh the fuel around in his tank and squeeze a bit more in. I’m convinced that petrol attendants have some fancy mathematical formula they use when topping off to get the amount due to a suitably un-rounded number that will maximize their tip when customers say, “keep the change.”

The loser in this game is the air we breathe. Petrol vapours are carcinogenic, and, given a little time and sunshine, they create smog. Overfilled fuel tanks are likely to leak, especially if parked in the sun. Topping off greatly increases the likelihood of a spill, and even a minor spill is bad news. Just a shot-glass (30 ml) of spilled petrol gives off the same volume of smog-forming VOCs (Volatile Organic Compounds) that a car emits when driving 90 kilometres.

The issue is so serious that in the U.S., nearly every fuel pump you see at filling stations has a “Don’t Top Off” sign on it. Some U.S. States even sponsored a “Don’t Top Off” week, to get the message across. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has a whole web page devoted to the subject.

It’s a lot easier to do the right thing if you know it has some direct impact on your wallet, so these campaigns also emphasize that overfilling means paying for petrol your car might never use. Yesterday I read another reason that continuing to add fuel to a tank after the pump has automatically shut off could cost you money. The New York Times ran an article about the tricks some car-owners have used to keep their vehicles going after 200 000, 300 000, and even 400 000 miles. (These are miles, not kilometres.) The Times offered this advice from Toronto mechanic Vladimir Samarin, who has a car-care Web site at www.samarins.com.

Mr. Samarin also warned drivers not to overfill their fuel tanks. “Otherwise you could get fuel into the vapor canister,” he said. If that happens, the charcoal in the canister could find its way into the fuel lines and cause damage. “When you get that first click of the gas pump, stop refueling.”

Of course it would be nice if the government or the petrol retailers could take the lead in this issue. As far as I can tell, they have done nothing. Until they do, tell your petrol-station attendant that his tip will be bigger if he stops at the click.

You can’t always be certain that doing your bit for the earth will save you money, but driving less will. I ran some figures through a spreadsheet and figured that for each 100 kms not driven, a typical person could save R129*, or more than a rand a kilometre. Of the R129, R55 is petrol savings, the rest is wear and tear on the car.

An article in the latest Mail & Guardian suggests that staying at home could save a person even more with a new auto insurance policy from Hollard Insurance. I don’t have any personal experience with Hollard or this particular policy, but the writer, Maya Fisher-French, says that for every kilometre she doesn’t drive in a given month, she saves 21c on her premium. She claims that as a light driver, Hollard’s Pay As You Drive policy is saving her R460 a month.

If I add another 21c savings for each of my 100 kms not driven, my total savings would be up to R150. Imagine how driving habits might change if we had to pull R150 from our wallets every time we drove 100 kms.

I can’t personally vouch for the Pay As You Drive policy, but I will say this: if a company is pricing its product in a way that gives clear incentives for doing the right thing, that company is itself doing the right thing.

*These were the reasonable-but-not-terribly-scientific assumptions I used. Fuel consumption: 10l/100km. Fuel price: R5,50. A car that loses R100 000 in value after driving it 200 000 kms. R3 500 tyres that last 40,000 kms. R1 500 service every 10 000 kms.

I borrowed my neighbour’s Honda CRV yesterday when my car was in for a service. It has automatic transmission with an overdrive on/off button at the end of the shift lever. As I started driving, I noticed a light on the dashboard telling me that the overdrive was off. This got me thinking about the buttons, levers and switches in various cars that should be labeled “waste petrol/save petrol” but are instead given other, less clear labels that drivers may not understand. It did turn out that the owner of the CRV had very little idea what the overdrive on/off button was for. (It also turned out that the overdrive was off because I had inadvertently bumped the button, but I won’t let that get in the way of an informative rant.)

Overdrive switches on automatic transmission cars are far less common than they used to be, but in many makes of cars their replacements have been even more frightening. Overdrive is simply the highest gear on an automatic car, the one at which the wheels are turning faster than the engine. The point of optimum fuel efficiency is the slowest speed at which your car can comfortably drive in this highest, overdrive gear. (Or the highest gear on a manual transmission car.) Losing that gear by turning overdrive off increases petrol consumption by 20 percent or more for highway driving. The only legitimate reasons to turn overdrive off is for engine braking when heading down a steep hill on a highway, or if the automatic is temporarily shifting back and forth repeatedly between top gears, but many people leave overdrive off for extended periods.

In some cars, turning the overdrive off also tells the automatic transmission to let the engine rev higher before shifting into 2^nd and 3^rd gears as well—and so fuel efficiency declines at all speeds. This is the approach used today in many cars that have a switch, button, or lever for “sports mode.” At this setting, the transmission will delay shifting up at every gear, though they will eventually reach the highest gear. The higher revolutions-per-minute will make the engine noisier and less fuel efficient, and the automatic shifting becomes jerkier. (The car will also accelerate faster, but if your main goal is fast acceleration, I’ve already lost you.)

Volvo mercifully has done away with its hideously labeled “Economy/Sport” switch. To a hormonal male, it might as well have read “Pansy/Tough Guy.” Mercedes labels the switch, “Comfort/Sports,” which at least makes economical driving sound a little bit appealing. BMW and Volkswagen have a Sports mode on all of their automatics.

Toyota has done away with Overdrive-Off without replacing it with a Sports mode, and the other manufacturers should follow their lead, in my opinion. I’m generally a timid guy, not suited to the life of an eco-saboteur who would ram a whaling boat or dynamite a logging truck, but if I’m driving someone else’s car, I do them a favour and switch Sports mode off. See if they notice.

The tragic death of South African pop star Lebo Mathosa, after her 4×4 rolled over several times, serves as an apt opportunity to review the myth of SUV safety.

I won’t get into the damage that 4×4s and their emissions do to the environment. No one buys one of these vehicles for the sake of the earth. Nor can I argue with those who find driving an SUV to be psychologically necessary.

According to an article in the New Yorker on SUVs:

… internal [auto] industry market research concluded that S.U.V.s tend to be bought by people who are insecure, vain, self-centered, and self-absorbed, who are frequently nervous about their marriages, and who lack confidence in their driving skills.

There’s not much more I can add to that.

I do acknowledge that there are people who regularly drive on roads that are not passable in normal 2-wheel-drive sedan cars. I just hope that they leave their 4×4 vehicles in the garage as much as possible when they get back to town.

What worries me, though, is that some people are buying 4×4s under the illusion that they are safer than cars. Because they are large and high, they feel safe, but those same characteristics give them the disadvantage when it comes to steering, braking and rolling over.

The definitive work on the subject is a book by Keith Bradsher, “High and Mighty: SUVs: The World’s Most Dangerous Vehicles and How They Got That Way.” A review of Bradsher’s book in the Economist magazine says that SUVs:

… have a kill rate at least three times higher than cars. Poor driving dynamics make them liable to roll over: around 12,000 Americans were killed in SUV roll-overs during the 1990s.

Anyone buying an SUV to haul around their kids should know about a study released this year looking at 4,000 children involved crashes of SUVs and cars. Here are some quotes on the study from the New York Times:

“Our sense was that most people have been assuming [SUVs] were safer and, frankly, we were, too,” said the senior author of the study, Dr. Dennis R. Durbin of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia . . .

. . . But with S.U.V.’s, the new study reports, whatever benefits that come with the added weight are erased by the higher risk of rolling over . . .

. . . While rolling over is a danger for both kinds of vehicles, rollovers occurred twice as often in S.U.V.’s, the study found, and children were three times as likely to be injured in rollovers than in other kinds of accidents.

Even if the vehicle does not roll over, many SUVs are built with a rigid design that makes them more dangerous in a crash. The New Yorker article, by Malcolm Gladwell, makes a telling comparison, though it unfortunately does not use South African vehicles in the example:

In a thirty-five m.p.h. crash test, for instance, the driver of a Cadillac Escalade—the G.M. counterpart to the Lincoln Navigator [a large 4x4]—has a sixteen-percent chance of a life-threatening head injury, a twenty percent chance of a life-threatening chest injury, and a thirty-five-percent chance of a leg injury. The same numbers in a Ford Windstar minivan—a vehicle engineered from the ground up, as opposed to simply being bolted onto a pickup-truck frame—are, respectively, two per cent, four per cent, and one per cent.

Why all the quotes from American and European publications? I simply do not see much written about this issue in South Africa. The myth of 4×4 safety is still strong here. The tragedy is the number of people, perhaps including Lebo Mathosa, who thought they were doing themselves a favour by buying a 4×4, who felt safe and secure right up until the moment of their death.