Reuters reports that French "vandals" (where are the Goths when you need them?) celebrated the New Year by torching 372 cars. More specifically, Parisian miscreants transformed 144 cars into autos flambée, while pyros in the rest of France set 228 cars alight. Apparently, this is something of a result, law and order-wise. Last year, 397 cars served double duty as New Year's Eve sparklers. Hey, when in France… "Cars are burned fairly regularly in France and the image of vehicles in flames in poor suburbs became symbolic of riots in 2005 when angry youths set fire to thousands of cars." To cope with the new trend, French authorities have taken to banning the sale of gas in containers during public holidays and periods of public unrest. The Reuters article made no mention of insurance fraud, but you gotta wonder…

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) sets Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards and collects fines from manufacturers who fail to meet their provisions. NHTSA recently updated their website with a list of CAFE fines the agency collected for model year '06 scofflaws. DaimlerChrysler's $30,257,635.50 penalty covers Mercedes models both imported and domestic, and represents an enormous jump from last year's cost of doing business ($16,895,472). In fact, the now defunct DaimlerChrysler's fine is the largest single amount NHTSA's ever collected, eclipsing BMW's massive penalty in 2001 ($27,985,925). That's not to say that BMW got off lightly for their '06 models; the Sultans of Stuttgart forked over $5,056,012.50 for not meeting the required fleet-wide federal mpg standard. BMW's whack just "beats" Porsche's '06 model year CAFE fines ($4,599,864.50). No wonder Porsche was trying to change the new law to get an exemption as a low volume automaker. Speaking of which, Ferrari shelled-out $842,160 to the feds for their fuel-sucking models' mpgs. As the new standards get tougher, the Germans and Italians are going to have work harder to make the grade, or dig deeper into their corporate coffers. Oh, and if you think about it, guess who really pays these fines? 

I don't pretend the understand the reasoning behind the NAACP's (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) decision to fight Cincinnati's plans to install red light cameras. According to the Enquirer, "Several NAACP members Thursday said they don’t like the idea of the cameras because it would infringe on their civil rights." And they kind of, you know, hinted that prospective camera placement might be racially biased: "NAACP member Elizabeth Sanford said she thinks the cameras may unfairly target some neighborhoods more than others." But hey, the NAACP will certainly earn some brownie points for this campaign. Given the cameras' dubious safety benefits, their Big Brother implications, and the fact that East Cleveland and Steubenville have punted their town's dreams of red light camera revenue, the NAACP's petition is likely to succeed. As thenewspaper reports, the NAACP will thusly thwart the Cincinnati City Council's cunning plan to end-run Mayor Charlie Luken's red light camera veto by slipping the measure into their annual budget. Anything for a buck, eh?  

The Tribune (via CNN) kicks ass and names names, detailing a panoply of rental car “scams.” We're talking hidden riders, new fees and plain old cheating. For example… When a flight delay made Amy Villa late for her rental car pickup, Alamo exercised its contractual rights and revised the rate upwards; from $268 to $400. OUCH! Renter Penny McLain was whacked with a gas charge despite filling the gas tank as required (anything less than a pegged FULL needle isn’t full). ZAP! Rental companies are charging customers for damages inflicted on their sleds by previous customers. OOOOF! Drop-off fees are on the rise. Hertz used to allow frequent renter Warren Atwood to pick up a car in LA County and drop it off in Orange County without incurring a “drop off” fee. Not anymore. KA-POW! Holy read the fine print Batman! Caveat emptor old chum, caveat emptor.

What does the word "draconian" mean to you? The Telegraph reports that tough new government guidelines allow UK judges to impose a two-year jail sentence on motorists caught driving whilst using a hand-held mobile phone. The shift reflects a punitive upgrade. iDistraction moves from "careless driving" (£5k and up to nine points on a motorist's license) to "dangerous driving" (unlimited fine, two years in gaol and a license suspension). Motorists nabbed entering a sat-nav destination, spinning through an MP3 player menu or texting could also face prison sentences. But distracted drivers shouldn't 't worry too much, as "prosecutions will be brought if by using the equipment a motorist is judged to have posed a danger to other drivers, such as causing another car to swerve." C'mon? Swerve? What if the swerve is the result of the other driver using an iPod? What are we talking here, cell mates? Hang on folks, cause "drivers who kill while using mobile phones could be charged with causing death by dangerous driving, which carries a 14-year jail term. In extreme cases they could be charged with manslaughter for which a life term can be imposed." Oh, and UK police now check phone records after accidents to see if the driver was making a call at the time of the crash. Fair enough?

Pistonheads had a chuckle last week when we read that F1 legend Michael Schumacher took the helm of his cab so that he and his family wouldn’t miss their flight home. The retired racer dashed 30 kilometers to the aerodrome in Coburg mit wife and kids in a nine-seat Opel minivan. The exotically named cabbie involved, one Truncer Yilmaz, reported that the journey went pretty much as you'd expect. “He drove at full throttle around the corners and over-took in some unbelievable places.” Cool, eh? According to AFP, the Bavaria police aren't amused; they've begun an official inquest into Mr. Toad's Wild Ride. “That was an offense against the Personnel Transport Act,” the Coburg traffic authority told German tabloid, Bild. “We will have a hearing with the taxi driver to resolve the matter.” (Jackboots at dawn?) Meanwhile, Herr Yilmaz is looking to cash in on his passenger's infamous exploits. In addition to receiving a €100 tip, Yilmaz has put his“Schumi taxi” up for sale.  So far, he claims he has at least ten interested buyers, with one bid in excess of €63k. “I need the money,” the cabbie explained.  “Because of the Schumi-Ride I could be in big trouble with the police.” Stimmt?

The profusion of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras amongst police forces has given privacy campaigners a tough "sell." How can you explain the possible abuse of a system that simply does a MUCH better job of what cops are supposed to be doing anyway (i.e. checking license plates for stolen vehicles and any outstanding warrants on the driver)? News10 reports that the privacy people may have an easier time fighting ANPR, now that Sacramento's Arden Fair Mall is using the system to scan vehicles entering and exiting its premises. Mall Security Supremo Steve Reed says chill, it's no biggie [paraphrase]. "The information from the cameras would only be shared with Sacramento Police and in those cases, only plate information would be passed on to law enforcement. Other personal information about shoppers, their vehicles or their purchases is not included." Whew! And guess who's footing the bill for these ANPR cameras with their self-enforced privacy limits? You are! "The cameras were paid for by a U.S. Department of Homeland Security grant to help keep a close watch on all the comings and goings at the busy shopping hub." How many other malls have federally-funded ANPR cameras? Can the feds get the info too? TTAC's investigating.

The Shelby American Automobile Club has been keeping the flame alive for Shelby-built and badged vehicles for 33 years. Now its namesake wants them out of the picture. As of January 1, Shelby's yanked their license to use the club's name (which Shelby trademarked), AND he wants all club's registry data going back to 1996, AND he wants to see the club's financial records. The automotive equivalent of Howard Beale, Peter DeLorenzo, sees the move as nothing but a logical extension of Carroll Shelby's long history of unbridled greed. "Shelby has once again confirmed for everyone what he's been about since Day One," the Autoextremist writes. "And it's not about the legacy of the Cobra or 'protecting' his name or anything like that. It's not about the championships or the men and women who helped him achieve racing history. No, it's about the money, pure and simple." As Autoblog reports, Shelby has fired back. In a press release, the Texas racer accuses the club's managers of selling loaned memorabilia, failing to provide financial reports or proof of liability insurance, licensing Shelby products without the old man's permission and, get this, not even paying the $1 per year licensing fee. It all sounds credible enough– until you remember the shambles that is Carroll Shelby's Childrens' Foundation. Do as I say, not as I do? 

Last week the credibility of the UK's anti-speeding jihad took a knock, when "Top Traffic Cop" Meredydd (Med) Hughes received a 42-day driving ban for excessive speed (90 in 60). After it was revealed that the camera-crazed cop had two previous speeding convictions, road safety groups criticized the sentence as overly-lenient. But that's nothing as compared to the brouhaha surrounding revelations by the BBC that twenty-six speeding cases against Med's fellow South Yorkshire officers were dropped on a "technicality." The Sun reports that the cops in question refused to admit they were behind the wheel. Oh, sorry, I mean they  couldn't be sure IF they were in the car caught speeding. "Bob Pitt, South Yorkshire branch secretary of the Police Federation, said: 'This is not necessarily a matter of our members refusing to come forward. There will be a lot who have used a police vehicle fleetingly who didn’t realise they had gone through a speed camera and genuinely are unable to say they were the driver at the time.'" Not necessarily a matter of one rule for some, one rule for others. Got it. Of course, if a civilian is caught by a speed camera, the law forces the registered keeper to name the driver at the time of the infraction, or face a fine and imprisonment.

The Newspaper reports that the National Highway Transportation Safety Agency (NHTSA) is using federal gas tax revenue to fund competitions to see which police departments can write the most speeding tickets. The National Law Enforcement Challenge, as it's called, rewards speeding ticket-happy police departments with federally-funded tricked-out "pursuit vehicles," like the ever popular Hemi-fied Charger. To earn maximum points, the po-po must have a zero-tolerance (i.e. no warning) anti-speeding policy in place. NHTSA argues that writing more tickets promotes safer driving, but the statistics beg to differ. Traffic fatalities in one participating state, South Carolina, are up for the year. While some departments are attempting to use positive reinforcement to reward good behavior, increased fines (and subsequent revenues) appear to be the order of the day. And the list of winners' "creative" ticketing is downright scary. 

New York regional media are reporting a terrible tragedy from late last night. A car was speeding on the highway when it struck the guard rail and subsequently flipped over (drivers frequently react to hitting the guard rail by jerking the wheel in the opposite direction; creating the flip). Two passengers were killed and the other three are critically injured. And the entire accident was the avoidable result of several very bad decisions. The car was a Dodge Charger SRT8. With 425 horsepower and rear-wheel drive, it's hardly suited for high-speed driving in bad weather. Its owner, the driver, is a 17-year old kid with a junior license (he shouldn't have been driving the car at all under NYC law at that time of night). What's worse, the junior license was suspended. It's unclear whether the Charger SRT8 had popular summer tires. Side airbags are optional on the SRT8, though they'd have done nothing to prevent the roof from collapsing. The wrong car for the wrong person in the wrong weather. Should anything be done?

Pretty soon, citizens of Fairfax, California could be jailed for the heinous crime of washing their car. Fairfax is one of a number of cities the Wall Street Journal says is looking at drastically restricting or outright banning car washing at home or by charities. Santa Monica, California has already drafted a plan to ban car washes as fund raisers, stating they are "one of the biggest water wasters and pollution-generating events of this type." There isn't much concern over commercial car washes because some recycle water and others use the municipal sewer system to handle runoff. The Journal neglects to mention how much water the commercial car washes use, but then again, people who want to wash their own cars don't have an industry behind them lobbying to keep the focus off of them.

No woman no cry? Actually, as The New York Times reports, a lot of people were left in tears when Ryan Holle lent his Chevrolet Metro to a friend– who used it to drive himself and three men to a drug dealer's Florida home, where they murdered the dealer's 18-year-old daughter. After Holle admitted to the police that he had foreknowledge of the burglary and possible murder, he was convicted of first-degree murder. At his trial, prosecutor David Rimmer defended his application of felony murder rules with the rationale in the headline above. The Times highlights the debate over the legal principle, and the difference between American states that adhere to felony murder rules and other country's views on the legal consequences for criminal accomplices. Although the Times fails to mention the fact, one our law enforcement employed readers reckons the stricture helps police get "wheelmen" and "friends of a friend" to cough-up names in capital cases. 

Pistonheads reports that the UK's anti-speeding Holy War continues apace. Actually, it continues to gather force. "The [above] figures were released by the Government in response to a parliamentary question and showed that in some areas speeding fines had increased tenfold." In general, the '05 stats represent a doubling of the number of speeding camera tickets issued from '97, and slightly more than a fourfold increase in ticket revenues over the same time period. Ostensibly, that's not the point. Supposedly, the cameras are designed to improve road safety (as if you didn't know). On that score, The Department for Transport clings to its pro-camera rationale like an eighteenth century English bureaucrat defending America's tea tax. "The best safety camera is the one which takes no fines at all, but succeeds in making everyone slow down. Independent research shows a 42 per cent reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured at camera sites – that means more than 100 fewer deaths each year." To which Paul Smith of the SafeSpeed anti-camera pressure group says bollocks [paraphrasing]. "We have only seen a seven percent improvement in [road deaths in] the last eight years. This is absolutely terrible performance and it is perfectly clear to me that 'bad road safety policy' is responsible."