That's what The Star-Ledger columnist Bob Braun (via nj.com) concluded when he drove the same 55-mile route two times: once keeping pace with traffic, and once at just above the 65-mph speed limit. If you've driven on the highway anywhere lately, I don't need to tell you the outcome (but I will anyway). Keeping pace with traffic, Braun drove 80 – 85 mph and had no cause for concern. Driving 68 mph, he was passed by almost everyone, tailgated and found himself in dangerous situations more than once. He quotes Charles Lave, University of California at Irvine economist: "I find that there is no statistically discernible relationship between the fatality rate and average speed, though there is a strong relationship to speed variance. Variance kills, not speed." Perhaps the lawmakers need to be reminded of this fact as they consider lowering speed limits in the name of saving fuel. (An aside: does that mean the more fuel-efficient a car is, the faster it'll be allowed to go?) If our elected representatives are stupid enough to drop the national speed limit back to the double nickel, accident rates will go up as the variance between those who want to get there in a reasonable time and those who drive the speed limit increases. It makes more sense to raise the speed limit for safety's sake. As Braun points out, "if everyone uniformly sped, or, if everyone obeyed the limits, then we'd be safer." And you know the majority aren't going to obey the limits.

As someone who worked at Cable News Network from Day one to Day 3,650, I understand the true "news pyramid." At the top: international news. In the middle: local news. At the bottom (the foundation): what's going bad in your refrigerator. So I'm not really all that surprised that our largely U.S. audience couldn't give a rat's ass about the fact that the U.K. is rapidly becoming Orwellian, or even bother to wonder what Eric Arthur Blair was on about. Still, the anti-speeding jihad has opened the door to some truly frightening policing. The latest example [via Pistonheads]: "The number plates of speeding drivers will be flashed up on new ‘smart signs’ in a bid to shame them into slowing down… When fully operational, the system will flash up the number plate of any vehicles exceeding the speed limit as a visual reminder to drivers to slow down. The system includes a large trailer-mounted variable message sign and remote speed and Automatic Number Plate Recognition detection units." Privacy? "The agency said the data gathered will not be used for enforcement and the system does not record any personal data, therefore complying with the Data Protection Act." Call me a tin foil hat wearer, but do Brits really buy that?

Automotive News reports that members of GM's national dealer council purchased more than 107k GM shares on July 14. The store owners claim the million dollar move was a symbolic gesture to "show support and confidence in GM's future." No really. "We firmly believe in GM and that we have the best products to sell," proclaimed Duane Paddock, co-chair of GM's national dealer council and owner of Paddock Chevrolet in Kenmore, N.Y. "Our fuel economy is the best story in the industry and the best way to do it [the show support thing] was to buy an investment stock." Paddock says he added $100k worth of GM shares to his $200k position. [Reporter Jamie Lareau neglected to ask if that 200 large represented his original investment or a recent valuation.] The dealers made the purchase the day before Rick Wagoner's cost-cutting announcement. The day after Wagoner's chin wag, GM stock rose 16.6 percent, closing at $11.48. Today, GM stock surged another 11.9 percent, closing at $12.85 a share. It has to be asked– if not by the SEC then by us– was this really an It's a Wonderful Life-style gesture or was it insider dealing dressed-up for the media?

Mr Lieberman, and Mr Mehta, I have to concede defeat. There will be no running of the Audi V8 Uber-quattro at the Texas event, as I now posess a lump of modern art sculpted by Mother Nature herself, instead of an all-dominating all-wheel drive wonder. Recently, a fire started in the fields next to the Audi due to a severe lightning storm. The flames swept across the fields like the opening lines to "Oklahoma!" and turned the Audi into a Renault Fuego, complete with a fried fringe on top. The carbon fiber hood melted to form a really interesting mold of the now carbonized engine. At least the old Audi Fox GTI survived intact, an even more irreplaceable Teutonic masterpiece. I guess I can't be too despondent, as I have also learned the military will not let me compete, as I will be deploying to the Middle East shortly, where I will spend some much needed time flogging Nissan Urvans, and loathing over Hyundai Trajets. Good luck Sajeev, take video and pictures of the Lincoln of the Apocolypse to share with me, and the Best and Brightest.

OK, we get it. If you're texting your BFF <3 whilst driving, cause an accident and kill someone, you do hard time. But if I read the Pistonheads story correctly, that's up to seven years. In other words, it's a maximum– not a minimum– sentence. And why pick on texting? Doesn't The Land of Hope and Glory have a general charge of "causing death by dangerous driving," or some such thing? Not yet, they don't. "Ministers now want to see the two new offences – causing death by careless driving and causing death while unlicenced, disqualified or uninsured – pushed through as soon as possible." Again, what's with a separate anti-texting caveat? "The council said it wanted to send a ‘clear message’ to those who text while driving that it will not be tolerated." Uh, OK. But I'm little concerned about the Council throwing the book at killer drivers with a history of "bad driving." "Very serious cases, where drugs, alcohol or persistent bad driving are involved, could warrant a jail term of up to 14 years, the [Sentencing Guidelines] council said." ?4U. Is it prima facie if you accidentally kill someone but have a bad driving record?

According to The Gainesville Sun, Mark Sexton was the director/actor for the local Hippodrome State Theatre. In August 2004, Alachua County hired Sexton as their official, part-time spokesman, at a salary of $50,298 (now $59,475). After a couple of tropical storms, County Manager Randall Reid authorized a county-paid car for Sexton AND "unlimited use" for his personal Prius. So now… "The accident happened on Christmas night 2006. Sexton was on vacation in Miami when he struck Miami Beach resident Felix Lopez while Lopez – who was dressed as a woman – was crossing the street. A police report states the officer was unable to determine who was at fault and that no injuries were reported at the scene. Sexton did not tell county officials of the accident until about a month later, when a legal notice was sent to the county. Lopez has since sued the county. Commissioners discussed whether to defend Sexton in the suit and eventually decided to do so. Sexton said he had consulted an attorney and threatened to sue if the county did not defend him." Needless to say, this is just one example of the nationwide scrutiny suddenly facing government workers' use of taxpayer-funded vehicles (e.g. LA County's $433m fleet of 12,780 vehicles) now that gas prices have soared. As for Sexton, "he doesn't remember how much gas was in the tank when he left for Miami but added he is pretty certain he bought gas with his own money during the trip." And no, this is not the plot of a Carl Hiassen novel.

If not for pencil-necked Oklahoma, Kansas would share a border with Texas. But the two states shared a laugh today, as the Kansas City Star told its readers about a couple of flat-footed Dallas cops who've been driving around with a gigantic stash of coke. At least technically, the Class A drug wasn't theirs. "An officer cleaning the car at a patrol station Wednesday discovered the nearly 50 pounds of cocaine hidden in hydraulically controlled compartments. 'These compartments have recently been more and more popular with drug operations,' said Deputy Chief Julian Bernal, commander of the Narcotics Division. Dallas police put the two-door, 2004 black Infiniti into police service May 7 after seizing it at a drug house, where they also found a 1999 Honda." And the Honda's important because…? "The Honda was sold at auction. Bernal said police planned to contact the person who bought the Honda to find out whether drugs are hidden in that car, too. They are also trying to find out who owned the cocaine they have been driving around." Sounds like a plan to me.

New Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards are enshrined in federal law. It's 35mpg by 2020, or a 4.5 percent annual increase. So why would The Big 2.8, Toyota and Porsche renew their efforts to raise the bar? Especially as someone might be looking for federal loan guarantees… As mob boss Carl Rojeck said in "My Favorite Year," "the fighting is in rounds." Now that the The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) writing the fine print, the kvetching starts afresh. To switch movie references, "Can you squeal like a pig?" The Detroit News reports that The Big 2.8 have filed paperwork urging NHTSA's pen pushers to "roll back proposed 4.5 percent annual increases in fuel efficiency requirements between 2011-15." Apparently, "the new rules will force them to slow the rollout of some advanced vehicles." Huh? Wouldn't it make them speed-up? Go figure. GM: We can't build enough Volts [more on that in a separate post]. Toyota: the 2011 requirements are "too aggressive." Ford: the proposal "seems to impose a disproportionate share of the burden on domestic manufacturers." Chrysler: ""It will cost Chrysler LLC thousands of dollars per vehicle in additional technology, not hundreds of dollars." Porsche: We might have to "leave the U.S. market until such time they develop new vehicles with advanced propulsion systems." Hyundai: bring it on! 

I'm not sure I'd want The New York Times brokering a deal for me. In this case, the Gray Lady's Op Ed folk are suggesting that New York City's Taxi and Limousine Commission acquiesce to cabbies' demands for a $1 per trip fuel surcharge. In exchange, the paper calls for a free ride IF a cabbie talks on his or her cell during a fare. It sounds sensible enough– until you consider the fact that there is already a law against cabbies on cell phones (even hands-free) whilst working. In other words, the NYT wants the government to bribe taxi drivers to comply with an existing regulation. Surely the time to do the carrot stick thing was before the law was enacted. "New York did raise taxi fares two years ago, which helped drivers’ incomes, at least until the price of staying on the road quickly climbed to more than $4 a gallon at area stations. According to drivers’ advocates, costs have risen as much as $1,000 a month for some drivers." If The Big Apple's "giving" taxi drivers an extra grand, they should look for some sort of new concession. Suggestions?

It's not even 9am, and it looks like we have a theme for the day: irresponsibility. Reuters reports that "A special edition of the [Top Gear] programme, aired in July last year, featured the show's three presenters in a race to the Magnetic North Pole. Two of them, Jeremy Clarkson and James May, were driving a heavily-modified Toyota [Hilux] pick-up truck and were shown drinking gin and tonics as they did so. It prompted one viewer to complain that the footage was 'grossly irresponsible.'" The show's producers had one word for the allegation: bollocks [paraphrasing]. They claimed they'd filmed the segment in an uninhabitable area of the North Pole. Just in case the Inuit population took offense that that suggestion, the BBC's Bad Boyz pointed out that they were in (on?) international waters "where no drink driving laws existed, and that the presenters were not shown to be drunk or out of control." Not to mention “that at present in the UK, it’s legal to drink a small amount of alcohol and still drive.” So that's alright then. Actually, no. "The BBC Trust upheld the complaint [made in APRIL] saying that drinking while driving "could be seen to glamorise the misuse of alcohol." So.. that's that then. Oh wait; the complainant was also peeved that the programme featured a bit about “parts of the anatomy and injuries to them that could shock." That's a reference to a frostbitten penis to you and me. Over to you Autoblog…

According to their press release, GMAC Insurance wants to "help you cut costs on the road." To that end, they offer the same five gas-saving tips offered by every auto-related PR firm in the entire country. Oh, if you've got an inactive OnStar button in your car (ah, but is it REALLY inactive?), you can also reduce your motoring expenses by signing-up for their Low-Mileage Discount. Providing you live in one of 34 non-paranoid, insurance industry-dominated states, doing so earns you some time money off for good behavior not driving. Here's how it works: "With the subscriber's permission, the odometer reading from his or her monthly OnStar Vehicle Diagnostics email is forwarded to GMAC Insurance. Based on those readings, the company will adjust the premium using discount tiers corresponding to miles driven. Information sent from OnStar to GMAC Insurance pertains solely to mileage, and no additional data is gathered or used for any purpose other than to help manage transportation costs. Customers who drive more than 15,000 miles per year are not penalized. In fact, all OnStar customers receive an insurance discount simply for having an active OnStar subscription." So, unlike OnStar, GMAC Insurance is promising NOT to provide law enforcement officials with OnStar data; you know, if you're suspected of a crime or in the event of a crash. And if you believe that, GM's got a high mileage hybrid SUV they'd like to sell you.

Ah, to be the head of a "managed" economy! Let's say you want to clean-up Bejing's foul air for the Olympics, so athletes don't retch, collapse and die of asphyxiation in front of billions of international onlookers. Simple. First, ban 300k cars in a single stroke. Sorry, your car is illegal. Drive it between now and September 1 and we'll confiscate your car and throw your ass in jail. "The next stage," ABC News [AUS] reports. "Will be for all private cars to be banned on alternate days using an 'odds and evens' number plate system. This will start on July 20 and is expected to take 45 per cent of cars off the streets." That's 45 percent of the 50 percent of Beijing traffic that remains after the first ban. Next? "Factory closures and a halt to major construction will also occur during the same period." Anything else? Raise gas prices. "State-owned oil companies, now subsidizing fuel prices, have been losing hundreds of million of dollars," The Detroit News reports. "Today, Chinese drivers pay $2.85 for a gallon of gas versus $4 in the U.S." Tomorrow, more. China's leaders will work on kicking-out foreign automakers eventually. But that's enough for today, yes?

The Easton, Pennsylvania City Council is set to pass a town ordinance that would seize the cars of "johns" cruising through their town looking for prostitutes. The Morning Call reports that the new law would apply to any vehicle used ''to solicit prostitution or to engage in an act of prostitution or to solicit or engage in sexual activity.'' We're not talking about impounding (so to speak); the ordinance would allow the city to keep or sell the confiscated vehicles. Councilwoman Elinor Warner introduced the ordinance, which was last mooted a decade previous. She has no doubts that the law will scare off the mobile sex trade that's been plaguing the city for years. In an unfortunate choice of words, she claimed it would attack the demand side of the equation and ''spread the love around, and make it hard on the johns as well.'' Warner's City Council colleagues have no problem with silly little things like constitutionality. Councilman Roger Ruggles told the paper that state law already allows police to seize vehicles used in drug deals. ''I don't see much of a difference." I wonder what kind of car he drives…

Eric Peters' blog at the National Motorists Association explores efforts to make breathalyzers mandatory on all U.S vehicles. Peters zeros-in on the Driver Alcohol Detection System For Safety (DADSS), a $10m taxpayer-funded partnership between the  industry-funded Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety (ACTS) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. DADSS is hot for new, "less intrusive" breathalyzers; specifically gizmos that measure blood alcohol content (BAC) through the driver's skin (via steering wheel-mounted sensors). While acknowledging America's 9k annual drunk driving deaths, Peters is not pleased at the prospect of treating every motorist like a convicted drunk driver, He's also displeased that consumers would be expected to shoulder the additional costs of this new "standard equipment." More proof that freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.

Thankfully, we haven't heard much about restoring Richard Nixon's national 55mph speed limit. Meanwhile… The Washington Post provides a first-person report by Honda Insight driver and proselytising hypermiler Glenn Conrad of Columbia, Maryland. Conrad states that he was not kicking ass but definitely saving gas just after midnight on an open road on the way to Baltimore – Washington International Airport. He says he was keeping his speed between 50 and 65mph (depending on the grade) in the far right lane. One of Maryland's Finest proceeded to pull Conrad over. Ten miles later (just kidding), the cop handed Conrad a warning for traveling below the legal minimum speed (50 mph). The officer stated that he often caught drunk drivers driving slowly, but didn't "offer" Conrad a breathalyzer. Conrad is plenty P.O.ed. "It seems that to be a good American, I have to drive faster. I need to use more gas. Go figure." Conrad just wishes the cop had given him a proper ticket, so he could argue his case in court. Next time. So beware hypermilers: no good deed goes unpunished.