Sudden Unintended Acceleration Made Simple

By The Lost Motorcyclist, March 2010

Ironically, the invention of the first motor vehicle was seen as a solution to the old problem of runaway acceleration. Back in the days of the cowboys, it was a real problem to halt a runaway team of horses. The brakes were just a stick rubbing on the wheel to stop the coach from running into the back of the horse on a downhill. One solution of course was to climb on the backs of the galloping horses, and walk your way to the front and grab the head of the lead horse, who usually had the bit between his teeth. Another way was to use a gun, but that involved killing one or more of the horses. It was better than killing all the passengers.

I noticed during the congressional hearings, that some representatives asking questions were completely unaware that runaway acceleration has always been with us. Runaway acceleration is not an exclusive Toyota problem, and reappeared soon after the horseless carriage was invented. It also does not apply only to Toyota. Just two weeks ago my sister had a case in her 2003 Honda Civic.

Even in the days of horses, runaway acceleration was an intermittent problem, and so it is often with computer controlled cars. You cannot fix a problem that is rare, intermittent, and leaves no trace, in the way you can fix a problem of outright failure like a fallen bridge. Intermittent problems are very difficult to fix, because they usually function correctly when being analysed.

Highly publicised intermittent problems tend to encourage false reports, which further hampers the investigation. Eyewitness accounts can be inaccurate and misleading.

You can't solve an intermittent problem by completely tearing apart one or more cars. From a purely scientific, logical point of view, you should sort the problems into various categories, and resist the temptation to blame evil spells or magic.

A runaway acceleration reports might fall into one of these categories:

• Driver pressed accelerator instead of brake by mistake
  
• Accelerator got caught in floor mat or under some other object left on floor (such as 500 page drivers' manual)
  
• Accelerator mechanism stuck at pedal hinge
• Stuck linkage or cable (if old style connection) to the throttle on the engine
  
• stuck/iced throttle plate on the engine
• Software logic error glitch within the engine management computer (if new fly by wire system)
• External radio frequency interference upsets engine management computer
• Driver accidentally set cruise control on high speed
  
• Cruise control fault resulting in acceleration
• Driver had an accident by own fault, but sincerely believes the car "ran away" on its own
• Driver had an accident by own fault, is consciously lying, in order to avoid responsibility
  
• Driver deliberately rammed something, and is using runaway acceleration as an excuse
• The accident is blamed on runaway acceleration but is clearly something else (e.g. swerving suddenly off the road)
• Nothing at all happened, but driver reports it to seek attention, or to hurt the car company, or to make a political statement
  

The various safety backups failed to prevent the accident
- There was no time to try to control the car (close quarters)
- Brakes failed to slow car at all
- Brakes initially worked, but eventually gave out and burned up
- Brake/throttle interlock failed (if so equipped)
- Shifting car to neutral was not possible/not tried
- turning engine off was not possible/ not tried.
- Car driver panicked no action was taken
- driver panicked in stressful situation, acted irrationally and made things worse

Picture: I photoshopped it to look like a runaway stagecoach with the outrider preparing to stop the horse by other means.

The Long Distance Motorcycle

A long distance motorcycle is something that you cannot find in a store. In fact, it seems there is no real definition of what a "long distance" even means. To some, it may mean burning an entire tank of gas without stopping for a snack, to others it is nothing less than one complete circle of the globe. I'm going to go with this rule for long distance riding: at least one overnight stop where you carry on going further the next day. I don't usually do that unless I'm serious about getting somewhere I can't get to in one day.

For long distance riding you would need to start with a bike that can keep up with traffic on the major highways, because if you really want to get somewhere in North America, you probably will have to deal with freeways at some point. That might mean a minimum of 400cc or thereabouts, if solo, and maybe 500cc if two up. And you would want a bike that is reliable and has a reasonable dealer network and parts supply. Because even if you can't find a dealer, you should be able to get parts couriered to you anywhere in the USA or Canada, then get a general purpose mechanic to do the work. Smaller bikes, and less reliable bikes can of course be used, but be aware that this would be called an "Adventure", to be written up for the edification of others, not as a normal way to do long distance motorcycling.

Beneficial features on a long distance bike, are comfortable seating position, comfortable seat, and big gas tank. And not too much vibration.

Next, think about luggage. You have to figure out what you're taking with you, and hopefully you will keep it light. But make sure you bring at least spare clothes in case you get soaked, rain gear, and some extra motorcycling gear, as you will be pretty sure to need it. Make sure your luggage is waterproofed and windproof, and securely attached.

Finally consider some weather protection. When you are far from home, you cannot avoid meeting unexpected weather. A windshield or fairing in front of you. Then splash guards for knees and feet are very helpful.

In the preparation, I think it is best to get the bike ready a week before leaving, and do some riding to test it before you go. Just don't be fiddling with it up to the last minute.

Every bike I have ever had, with the exception of the Honda CD175, has been used for long distance motorcycling. But none of them ever broke down far from home, although I had to troubleshoot problems a few times and do a bit of minor repair work along the way. For example a BMW saddlebag hinge cracked and was replaced in South Dakota. A two-stroke muffler plugged up in Saskatchewan. The BMW developed an oil leak in the rear brake in northern Quebec. I blew a few fuses because of electric vests in two different bikes. I had to stop early one night because of rain water on the spark plugs of my Honda CBX.

I had to be rescued once when my Honda CD175 threw a cam chain. I was not on a "long distance" ride, so Mary Ann could come to get me with a car and trailer in less than a day. But it did happen at about the furthest distance from home I had ever ridden that bike.

The BMW K1100LT went the furthest, and in the toughest conditions, of any bike I had, but it was also the only one to have a sudden catastrophic failure. At least it had the good grace to do it at the top of a hill where I was within coasting distance of home.

Pictures: Tisdale Saskatchewan in the '70's, when rape was rape, not "canola". Second picture is the scene of the rescue in Grand Bend, Ontario. The dead Honda had thrown a cam chain and it took me all winter to repair the engine. Next spring, it was back on the road with every single internal part of the engine replaced, except the cam chain. That's one difference between how shade tree mechanic and a pro would work.

Downsizing the Motorcycle

Even though many motorcycles today are bigger than they need to be, a topic that is rarely dealt with in magazines is downsizing your motorcycle. Over the last 40 years, I have most often either doubled the horsepower or doubled the price each time I bought a new bike, with the exception of the current one, the Vulcan 900. I'm not counting my vintage bikes, where I am buying more for nostalgia than for transportation. Unlike all my other purchases, the Vulcan 900 was a downsize of the BMW K1100LT in price and horsepower, by about half, although it is still about the same weight.

I think that if there was the right bike out there, I may be tempted once again to double up on the the horsepower. But after the BMW, nothing looks that much better to me. The newer BMW's are not so superior to the 1992 K1100LT to make it worth trading up again. Now maybe if they had a really exciting looking 6 cylinder sport touring bike, I might be tempted, but that bike may be several years off if it ever does appear in the showrooms.

Frugality is one of many reasons for wanting to trade down, and none of the other reasons for downsizing are really exciting either. My wife had bought her own bike a year earlier, and it made more sense for me to get a smaller bike just because I would not need to carry her with me on long trips, and I was sure I wouldn't need anything like a new BMW to keep up with her Burgman.

Getting old is another reason to get a smaller bike, if you have trouble reaching the ground, or swinging a leg over the seat, or holding it up. Sometimes people get stiff as they get older, and a lot of bikers are getting older these days.

Where the Vulcan may still fall short of the BMW is a road like I-75 in Detroit. There, the Vulcan, which felt so smooth and steady at 100 kph, would vibrate and feel unstable at about 140 kph. But on this road, the BMW's tingling vibration would smooth out, and you could begin to appreciate the steering, which is just the right balance between being stable in the wake of the big trucks, and flickable around the frequent potholes and debris. The BMW throttle, which was difficult to modulate at 100 kph, was perfectly suited to matching the bike's speed to the speed of the surrounding traffic on I75. With a little extra twist, it would accelerated or decelerate with the amount of force needed to merge into other lanes. Normally you would not need even need the brakes unless there was a traffic jam ahead.

On the moderate speed roads around Kitchener, the BMW's handlebars would buzz at 100 kph. The throttle twist grip had to be almost shut, and tended to jerk the bike with the slightest movement either opening it up or closing it down, which was kind of annoying. The Vulcan on the other hand, was designed to ride at these moderate speeds. Modulating the Vulcan's throttle at 100 kph is effortless, and the speed never creeps up without warning. The Vulcan's lazy gear changes are so smooth as to be almost unnoticeable. Even the vibration is just a gentle reminder that the engine was running, instead of a harsh buzz.

The Vulcan is not a corner carver. If you hit a bump in a corner, you need to correct the steering a bit. Every once in a while, I scrape the floorboards on a corner, a reminder to slow down. These things never ever happened in all the time I had the BMW. But since I only meet one high speed curve every half hour or so around here, this is not a problem. And even if I was on a trip with a lot of curves, the Vulcan is more than adequate to keep up with any normal traffic.

The Kawasaki also happens to be a cruiser, your feet are up forward, and the handlebars reach back, which makes it easy to lean on a backrest.

I don't think I miss the horsepower and the speed. I have had no speeding tickets yet with the Vulcan, but it's only been three years. Traffic in Southern Ontario is slow enough that the Vulcan 900 can easily get past it if I want to, especially if I am riding solo. But I hardly ever need to do that if Mary Ann is riding with me on her Burgman. The BMW would need an autobahn or mountain roads with high speed traffic (or sparse traffic) to really have fun, and Mary Ann would have to be a passenger to make full use of the horsepower.

Announcements of interest:

1. The runaway Toyota Prius in California that got so much press attention turns out to be another "Bubble boy" stunt on closer inspection.
http://www.hobbub.com/news/james-sikes-is-a-liar-runaway-prius/

2. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is running a six part series on WW2 propaganda.
http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/lovehatepropaganda/series-info.html

3. The March Equinox is Saturday, but day and night will be equal length in Kitchener on Wednesday. The explanation is here:
http://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/march-equinox.html

Picture: A family motorcycle ride a couple of years ago. Paul and Mary Ann didn't have motorcycle licences then. The newest bike in the picture is the 1986 Suzuki 400, and it is the only one that is gone today.

Pink Dump Trucks and Runaway Toyotas

I went for another motorcycle ride today, the warmest day so far. It was 14c when I left home. I turned back at New Hamburg, and took Bleams road back to Kitchener. In New Hamburg I saw a rare sight, a dump truck painted all pink. The driver was a man, I did check.

One thing that prompted the trip was this feeling that I should enjoy life as much as possible before I die. I always get that feeling after my regular checkup with my doctor, which I had at 2:30 PM today. This time there was nothing wrong with me, although the doctor did suggest eating more fruits, fiber and vegetables and fewer Tim Hortons donuts. Otherwise my probability of having a stroke is 13%, I did not inquire further about this alarming statistic. So today I ordered a raisin bran muffin as a compromise. And a large decaf. I don't usually order large, but with my last coffee, I won a free large coffee, and I had to cash in my winnings.

On the way home, I was stopping for a traffic light, and as I came to a stop, the car to my left suddenly accelerated and went through the light just as it turned red. It was a new Toyota Camry, what a coincidence. But I highly doubt that this was a case of UNintended acceleration. I might even call that "INtended acceleration". Why is it that Toyota drivers think they can get away with this stuff just because the newspapers and TV are filled with stories about unintended acceleration? I wonder if I was driving my Toyota, and I went through a red traffic light, and then either got stopped by the police, or had an accident, would I have the nerve to blame it on "Sudden Unintended Acceleration"? I don't think so.

While I'm on the subject of unintended acceleration, I am really surprised that there is still a debate about whether brakes are stronger than the engine. Some people think the engine is stronger than the brakes, some people think the engine is stronger in the short run, but brakes are stronger in the long run. Some people believe that to stop a car, you need assistance from the engine, which provides some drag when your foot is OFF the throttle. And another weirdness, some people think that all car brakes are "Hydraulically assisted". I think what they mean is that the brakes are "Hydraulically actuated" which is a totally different thing. Assisting means adding some force to the braking pedal, as in "power brakes". Actuated means transmitting the force of your foot directly to the brake hydraulically.

It is shocking how much ignorance is out there about car driving. But there are people reading while driving, which is about a hundred times dumber than not knowing the physics how brakes work.

So once again, I come to the rescue of Toyota. With dry pavement, the stopping distance of a car from 60 mph is 150 feet. I'm working in the old non metric system, since apparently in almost all cases of unintended acceleration, the driver only seems to understand feet and inches. The accelerating distance of a car, from 0 to 60 mph is 370 feet. The stopping is done mostly by the brakes, the acceleration is done by the motor. And the shorter the distance, the more power, whether it is braking 60-0 or accelerating 0-60. Now obviously, acceleration varies enormously, from an overloaded Toyota Yaris (longer distance) to a Turbo Porsche (shorter distance). So that gives you room to dispute the fact that according to distance alone, the brakes are twice as powerful as the engine. However in all cases, acceleration is limited by the power of the motor. But the brakes are limited by the traction of the tires. That's right, in order to be as powerful as the brakes, you would need a car with four wheel drive that is also capable of smoking all the tires from zero up to sixty mph. A car with enough engine power to spin even one tire, leaving a black streak on the road is rare. But to lay down four strips of rubber for 150 feet is likely going to require over 1500 hp. I have never seen a car that could do it. But the majority of cars can lay down a four wheel skid mark from 60 mph to zero.

And now for the long term. The engine can continue to put out that power until the gas tank runs dry, about 400 km. The brakes can continue to absorb that power for only about 1 km. until they burst into flames. Which means, if the engine takes off on its own, get that car stopped using the brakes in less than 1 km. If not, the other 399 km could get exciting.

Picture: Pink dump truck I got off the internet. I didn't have my camera with me to snap the pink truck I saw, and why bother when I can find a picture of anything imaginable on the internet?

First Two-Bike Ride of 2010

It was Mary Ann's first ride of the season. Our plan was to ride to Port Dover on Tuesday March 9, and have a Perch dinner at Knechtel's. Of course her Burgman started up immediately. It took only two stabs at the starter button to fire up and keep running after almost four months sitting in the garage just waiting.

We have had a run of nice weather, the only thing I don't like is that the snow is still melting and causing a bit of water in some places on the road. So the bikes are getting a little spray on them. Otherwise, plenty of sunshine and warm enough that I don't need handlebar muffs or an electric vest. There are a number of other bikes out too.

On our trip down there was one situation where once again I came up behind a slow moving farm tractor in a village, pulling trailers with piles of stuff (I don't remember what) that blocked my view of the road. I pulled out to pass, and tried to not make Barry's mistake last year of exceeding the speed limit and running into a radar trap. This time I went around nice and slow, but immediately ran into a four way stop. It's hard to know what to do about tractors pulling trailers blocking the road. Some people follow along for miles at very slow speeds, adding to the confusion, some drivers go around at the first opportunity.

When we got to Port Dover, we almost had another accident. I put my helmet in the underseat compartment of the Burgman when we parked at Knechtel's and started to take off my jacket. Mary Ann had to take my helmet out again just for a minute to get hers in, and placed it on top of the seat, but then the seat moved and the helmet started to fall off. They say right in the instructions for the helmet, don't place the helmet on the seat. Apparently if it falls off and the shell cracks the pavement, you should replace it. And naturally, they always fall off if placed on a seat, even if it's only for one second. Luckily I caught it, it's really bad luck when you have the same helmet for 7 years and never drop it, then the third ride with a brand new helmet, down it goes.

Knechtel's was almost full at 12:15, and Mary Ann figures it must be a popular place with the locals. A perch dinner costs $10.00 and includes a salad bar, four pieces of perch, fries and coleslaw. It doesn't sound like much, but it really does taste good.

We left our bikes parked and went for a walk along the beach after dinner. As we walked along, we were passed by a guy on cross country skis. That's because for some reason there is a shelf of ice and snow between the sandy beach and the open water of Lake Erie, that you can actually ski on. We explored around the town a bit, and ended up at Tim Horton's for a coffee and donut. That's where you usually meet the motorcyclists on weekends, but even during the week it seems some riders like me, who are able to get out. Mary Ann is not usually interested in standing around talking about bikes, but when I'm there by myself I do that instead of walking on the beach.

On our way back to Kitchener, I was feeling kind of tired, so we stopped for a rest in Paris where the railway tracks go over the river. I usually like to go down the embankment where I can lay down on some concrete slabs that feel as comfortable as a Lazy Boy recliner, but Mary Ann stopped me and brought a sign to my attention that says "Do not pass this point". So instead I found another slab that was just as comfortable, except that it was actually a historical marker for the site. Mary Ann was horrified, but as I pointed out, there was no sign saying I could not use the historical marker as a backrest.

We decided one more stop for coffee in Paris before heading home. I'm not used to coffee any more, as I almost stopped drinking it because of my bladder stone, which has now been removed. So I found out one medium Tim Horton's coffee at 3 PM managed to wake me up and keep me awake until 2 AM.

Pictures, the Port Dover cemetery, and the Paris Green Lane Tim Horton's.

A Review of the Scorpion EXO 1000 Helmet

On Friday I bought a new Scorpion EXO-1000 helmet, and now I have done some actual riding with it. 

This helmet is built like a tank. The outer shell is a bit larger than the typical helmet. For comparison, I can't fit this helmet in the rear position under the seat of a Burgman 400.  All my other helmets will fit.  It weighs 1820 g. My HJC Symax flip-up helmet was only 1667 g., and that was probably my heaviest helmet until the EXO 1000. The new helmet Mary Ann bought, the HJC IS-16 also with a flip down sun shield, was 1653 g. I have done several rides now to Port Dover (90 minutes), and the extra weight does not bother me. It's just an extra 150 g. or so. Much of that increase in weight is due to the Snell certification, which seems to usually add about 100 g.

Another interesting feature is the air pump system. There is a warning label on the underside of the chin bar to emergency personnel, to deflate the cheek pads before attempting to remove the helmet. And even if they do, this helmet is a bugger to get off. It may loosen with time, but right now, if some medical emergency people have to remove this helmet, I am done for. Of course, there is a technological solution for this problem too. Just buy a "Shock Doctor Helmet Removal System" and install it in the helmet. Once you install this accessory in your helmet, the Emergency Team will be able to squeeze an air bulb to pump the helmet safely off your head without aggravating your spinal injuries. I suppose one day this may be mandatory, and 10 million helmets might have to be recalled to retrofit the system.

Now for the internal sun visor which I tested yesterday in brilliant sunshine, with white snow and wet roads. For a while I also was riding directly into the sun, and the shield is not dark enough for that. No shield ever is. One solution for the setting sun is to have a black tape strip across the top of the face shield, and then you can tip your head to just block the sun. To handle the reflection off the wet road, polarized glasses work well. The helmet's built in flip down sun shield is a light smoke colour. A dark smoke colour shield is available on Amazon.com for under $30.

The one feature that I didn't like the look of before the ride, was the lever that props up the face shield a few millimeters to allow some air to circulate. It also functions as the face shield lock, which I did not use or need yet. But when I was actually riding, the prop worked perfectly to open the shield just a crack. While riding, I can easily find the lever, even with my winter gloves. You can pop it back down easily by pressing the shield.  This works to clear fog on the shield while moving.  Yes, the faceshield has anti-fog coating, but it only works down to about 7 degrees C when there is also rain and high humidity. 

The anti fog coating works reasonably well. It's the first time I have been able to fog up my eye glasses before the face shield. 

On my Vulcan with the handlebar windshield, the flip down sun visor all by itself was enough wind protection with the face shield up for short runs at lower speeds.

I don't know if it may be too hot for some people (we don't get really hot weather here), but at 10c the top vents actually make the top of my head cold. The rest of the vents don't seem to make any difference when sitting behind the handlebar windshield.

This is a heavy, large helmet with lots of features and a Snell safety rating. I like the look of it, it has a modern shape, with a compound curved face shield (horizontal and vertical) and tasteful graphics. So far, the extra weight seems to be worth carrying.

Picture: Me, wearing the Scorpion helmet, and the Vulcan in Paris, Ontario. Tuesday March 9, 2010.

The Subliminal Message of The Hurt Locker

This is a spoiler alert, in case you have not seen this movie and still want to see it.

The main reason we decided to go and see "The Hurt Locker" was simply out of surprise that this movie won the Oscar for best film and best director. Mary Ann and I both wanted to get an idea why it won and Avatar lost out.

"The Hurt Locker" is shot in a documentary style, to give a realistic effect, with very shaky camera work. Luckily I got used to to the jiggling camera after a few minutes

I have read several movie critics who went after Avatar for being too simplistic. So let's judge "The Hurt Locker" by the same standard, for it's over-simplifications, and not be fooled by the shaky camera work into believing this is reality.

After watching the whole movie, I'm trying to remember even one Iraqi killed by mistake. On one hand the movie goes to great length to give the impression of gritty realism, even at one point showing a soldier taking a piss, and yet somehow misses the most tragic reality of this war and many others. It is a fact that you can't easily tell the innocent civilians from the bad guys, and sometimes you end up killing innocent civilians to save your own life. So if you're not going to bother with the ugly fact of collateral damage, then don't bother showing people pissing to make your movie look real.

How many times in the movie was it likely, and realistic, that an innocent civilian would be shot? Let's start with the first bomb (remember I said spoiler alert). The soldier spotted the guy with a cell phone and shouted that he should put the phone down. He might or might not have been trying to detonate the bomb with the phone. It turn out he was actually detonating the bomb that killed their Sargent, and he did not respond to calls to put the cell phone down. Why didn't they shoot him? I guess we are to believe that the soldiers don't shoot people unless they have proof someone is a bad guy. This one even turned out to actually be detonating the bomb, but his life was spared because they were not sure. I do not think that is realistic. Doesn't anyone listen to the news?

In the second bomb defusing episode, an innocent taxi driver ran through a road block, ignoring shouts to stop. He drove right up to the guy in the bomb suit and stopped. Still nobody shot him. The bomb guy pulled out his pistol, threatened the taxi driver with it and told him to back away. He didn't move. At this point I'm wondering if the movie is trying to make a point about the real care and affection the Americans have for the ordinary Iraqi citizen. Anyway, after a few more threats, and shooting out the windshield the driver finally got the idea that his presence was unwelcome and he backed up, and was taken into custody by the US Forces. In reality, I believe he would have been so riddled by bullets that he would never have made it past the road block, or anywhere near the bomb disposal expert.

There is even an incident illustrating the politeness of the Americans. While stuck in traffic with their Humvee, the bomb squad is yelling at the driver in front of them to move aside. When he doesn't, they throw a plastic water bottle at the car. Yes, in Toronto rush hour traffic that would provoke some road rage. But youtube is full of videos of military Humvees in Baghdad ramming cars, and even some shooting of drivers of other cars that get too close. In fact, the sign on the back of their humvee says something like stay back 200 feet or you will be shot. It doesn't say "Or we will throw a plastic water bottle at you". As someone actually says at one point in the movie "You don't need to throw a wrench, you're allowed to shoot people here".

At another tense moment an Iraqi with a camcorder is standing on a balcony filming the bomb disposal unit working on a car bomb. It's as if the camcorder guy is not afraid of being shot, and nobody shoots him, though they are seemingly worried about it.

Out in the desert the the Bomb Unit meets up with an SUV driven by a bunch of armed men, dressed as terrorists. Nobody gets shot, everybody is really calm. Then they discover that these men are "Special Forces" or maybe mercenary bounty hunters disguised as terrorists. SO they are on the same side. I think we know already of several cases of friendly fire, where people were actually killed in situations far less alarming than the meeting portrayed in this film. But again it is simply taken for granted that no "friendlies" are ever shot and killed. What else would you expect in a war where not even innocent Iraqis are shot and killed.

The last sequence of the movie, an Iraqi man has bombs strapped to him, and is pleading for help in removing them. I wonder if the bomb disposal specialist would really would go over and try to defuse that bomb. Anyway, he does, putting his own life in jeopardy to save an anonymous Iraqi man in who has been booby trapped with a bomb. Even when he sees the bomb has a timer and only 2 minutes left, and there are several case-hardened padlocks that need to be removed, he keeps working to the last possible moment, then apologises profusely, and runs for cover. Too late, as he is hurt by the explosion, but not critically.

I almost forgot to mention the obligatory stereotypical liberal, the psychiatrist who is made to look an absolute fool in the movie. I'm fairly sure this character is thrown in for no other reason than to give a thrill to the Rush Limbaugh and and Mark Steyn fans.

This movie is full of situations that make you think the American occupation forces would never harm innocent Iraqi people, making you think they would never shoot Iraqis just in case they might be a threat. I believe this runs counter to everything I have seen about the Iraq war or the Afghan war or the Vietnam war. If the occupation forces could treat the local people with such care, winning the war would be inevitable. But the reality is that in these insurgencies, the terrorists or freedom fighters, or whatever you want to call them, can use the civilians as cover. That's what makes the guerrilla wars difficult, and unless people understand that, they will remain confused about why the war turns out badly. Without the basic understanding, invasions will continue, always with the hope that they will win the next one.

There were plenty of other situations that stretched the imagination, but I would not count as outright propaganda. For example, putting out a car fire with one extinguisher. (and it's a car bomb at that). I don't want to go heavily into weapons and equipment capability, I'll leave that to people who have experience, but I suspect that some of the usual stretching of the truth takes place.

So the Oscar went to a relatively obscure film, "The Hurt Locker" instead of Avatar. And there was a lot of criticism about the liberal "peace" message of Avatar, and its oversimplified message. It's especially annoying to go to "The Hurt Locker" and find out it is a piece of propaganda with a hidden message "Americans don't kill innocent people, only terrorists do that". "The Hurt Locker" has the opposite of the message of Avatar, but certainly no more realistic, despite all the jiggling camera work.