Today, as you know, is July 1st. To celebrate, California and Washington State have passed laws mandating handsfree devices; stick a phone to your ear and get a fine. Not just a fine of course. You have to (at least in CA) pay a gas surcharge fee, as well. These laws won't do a damn thing to increase safety; the supposed reason why they were passed. Here's my thinking… When you want to call someone, you still have to dial. Sure, lots of phones have voice recognition. With my supposed "smart phone" I say, "Call mom mobile" and get back, "Calling Tom Vogel." But here's the real cincher. This morning, for the first time, I used a handsfree device. I loved it. Normally when I'm driving I try to get off the phone as quickly as possible. I need a hand to shift gears and my arm gets tired. But with the ear dongle, I talked for half an hour– way longer than I normally would if I were holding a phone to my ear. So, does my State feel that the physical act of holding my hand to my ear is the danger? Because methinks these new laws will have more people driving and talking longer. Your thoughts?

The great state of North Carolina recently began issuing license plates beginning with the letters W, T and F. Reasonable, grown-up adults who received these plate numbers at first didn't even bat an eye at the text-slang exclamation adorning their license plates. Until their children started giggling. AFP reports that one North Carolinan with the WTF plates "wasn't hip to the Internet-age significance of her new license plate," but "developed this real self-consciousness" after catching her grandchildren laughing at the hilarity of it all. Rather than enjoying a good ROTFL, this elementary school teacher just did what everyone else in elementary school does when kids mock them on the playground: run crying to the state government. Thanks to one plateholder's stunning lack of a sense of humor, the state of North Carolina is now recalling all of the 9,999 "WTF plates" issued. Including WTF-5505 which was being used by the DMV as a media prop for stories about the state's switch from blue plate lettering to red. The NC DMV has pledged to thoroughly vet every future license plate combination to weed out any inappropriate text-message acronyms (at taxpayer expense). Note to DMV: AYSOS?

A federal district judge has dismissed an auto-industry request to delay implementation of California's new emissions standards. The LA Times reports that the Alliance of Automotive Manufacturers' request to delay the 30 percent reduction by 2016 time line was slapped down by Judge Anthony W. Ishii. He ruled the petition was "without support in law, logic, or grammar." (Apparently the grammar police have a grammar court in California.) The shellacking extends the industry's losing streak to three, having already lost battles against California standards in Vermont and Massachusets. But don't count your carbon footprint just yet; California still has to win a lawsuit against the EPA before implementing the new standards. Except that the waiver was denied against "the unanimous recommendation of the (EPA's) legal and technical staffs." That's right, the EPA's own lawyers think they'll be forced to grant California the waiver. In other words, do start counting your carbon footprint. Meanwhile one of the best things about California: you don't have to live there.

With fuel expenses that rival Joan Rivers' botox bill, a lot of smaller towns are feeling the budget crunch. USA TODAY reports the Holly Springs, Georgia, police department is doing something about it. No, they're not switching to biofuel or putting their officers on bicycles. Starting July 1, if you're stopped for speeding in this Atlanta suburb, you'll be charged a $12 "fuel surcharge" for the gas the po-po used to catch you. (They didn't say if they'd increase the surcharge by the number of cars used to run you down.) Police chief Ken Ball expects the surcharge to add between $19.5k and $26k to the city's coffers. Looks like Atlanta's next; Monday, the  city council approved a proposal to add $10 to $15 to tickets for speeding and other moving violations within their borders. Don't smirk if you live elsewhere, though– Ball says he's been "inundated" by calls from other cities wanting a copy of the ordinance.

From the birthplace of George Orwell, now the most-watched nation in the world, comes news of a car that has nanny-cams of its own. Car Magazine UK tells us that the new Vauxhall/Opel Insignia will offer a camera system that can read traffic signs, and  alert the driver when they have violated them. GM's Traffic Sign Recognition system uses a Hella-sourced (not in the Nor-Cal slang sense) wide-angle camera, that can take 30 photos per second at a range of up to 100 meters. It can recognize traffic signs, and by comparing them to an on-board database, it can tell if the driver is violating their edicts. When you drive your Insignia at 25 mph in a 20 mph zone, expect a "reminder" to flash on your dashboard, removing any doubt that you are, in fact, breaking the law. Though the proliferation of remote speed-control cameras in Britain give this option some merit there, less repressive societies will doubtless provide much weaker markets for GM's new technology. Still, when we heard that GM would "democratize technology" with its newly-upmarket Opel/Vauxhall brands, the last thing we expected was an option that facilitates continuous government intrusion into the driving experience. Sounds more like they've "totalitarianized technology."

Back when Daimler was flogging Chrysler, Canada's Magna Corporation was supposedly hot to acquire the [soon to be ailing] American automaker. Given today's news– Chrysler is suing Magna for damages over defective seat heaters–  look for Frank Stronach's boys to help Chrysler out of a jam– by kicking Cererbus' bitch down the stairs. The background… For some time now, ambulance-chasers have been lining-up to suck some cash from Chrysler after heated seats in 1999 and '00 Chrysler minivans [allegedly] burned some butts. In a latter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in '04, "DaimlerChrysler said it had received 221 customer complaints about minivan seats overheating. Of those complaints, 26 were allegations of minor injuries and 33 were alleged fires. Five complaints resulted in lawsuits." That was then. As Automotive News [sub] reports, Chrysler spinmeister Michael Palese now says his employer had "only one reported case of injuries caused by the defective minivan seats." Chrysler's lawsuit demands that Magna take responsibility (i.e. pay for) for the recalls, after Magna "disputed any obligation to reimburse Chrysler for costs incurred in remedying the allegedly [?] defective heated seat assemblies." Palese was plenty testy on the advisability of suing a key supplier: "We're not a charity. If we deserve compensation or consideration, we will pursue it." As will the lawyers suing Chrysler, whether they deserve it or not.

Yeah, that sucks. But hey, they're banking billions while they count worry beads. And increasing production by half a million barrels of crude per day won't exactly hurt Saudi income. PLUS it wins the Saudis friends in the U.S., which still has a couple of aircraft carrier groups here and there. The New York Times reports that the reported increase comes on top of another reported increase. "Saudi Arabia is currently pumping 9.45 million barrels a day, which is an increase of about 300,000 barrels from last month." The Times theorizes that the Saudis largesse is based on the possibility of diminished demand (as above) and the threat that "current prices are also making alternative fuels more viable, threatening the long-term prospects of the oil-based economy." Yes, well, the increase will add one percent to world oil supplies. Meanwhile, The Gray Lady claims bipartisan Congressional support is "growing" for a bill allowing the Justice Department to "engage in antitrust proceedings" against OPEC accusing them of "curbing supplies to drive up prices." Good luck with that.

The congressional crazy train just keeps on rolling, as haggling over changes to roof-crush standards have taken [another] turn for the surreal. Needless to say, lawmakers never stopped posturing long enough to question the safety value of making vehicles more top-heavy. In fact, they launched a whole new round of stupid. In response to the administration's attempts to write limits on future rollover lawsuits into the new rules, Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark) told Bush to drop the lawsuit-limiting language or "you'll get a reaction from Congress that you won't like." Pryor and his equally hysterical colleagues failed to realize (or admit) that limits on lawsuits are actually the responsible choice– once you accept that increasing roof crush standards requires automakers to build top-heavy vehicles more likely to roll over. This rush to righteous anger over Bush's perceived pandering only further marginalizes the much-needed debate over the actual benefits of reinforced roofs. With the NHTSA facing a July 1 deadline for new rules, don't hold your breath for that action. 

Automotive News [sub] dutifully reports that the auto industry's lobbying group are arguing that proposals to strengthen vehicle roofs conflict with recently-increased CAFE standards. [Never mind the fact that heavier lids are dubious from a safety point of view.] In testimony before the Senate, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers' shills argued that roof-strengthening measure sought by safety advocates could hurt the fuel economy of large pickups and SUVs by up to ten percent. But since CAFE increases (along with those crazy gas prices) basically herald the demise of mainstream "large pickup and SUV" ownership, it seems that the AAM is barking up the wrong tree. Meanwhile, lawmakers are playing-up to telegenic emotional outbursts from "victims" of "heartless car companies" during their public hearings. While all of us know someone who's been killed or seriously injured in a car accident, automotive regulations should be based on proper scientific analysis of the full implications of existing and proposed regulations– research into which the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration excels. Those who criticize NHTSA's new roof crush standards– requiring roofs to support 2.5 times the vehicle's weight (up from the current 1.5 times)– should consider the possibility that not all government agencies work against the public interest. Besides, if this is such a serious problem, why are convertibles still exempt from ALL roof crush standards? 

Several European countries are introducing severe taxes and penalties against vehicles with high CO2 emissions (read: SUVs). Auto Motor und Sport reports that Porsche Cayenne S buyers in the Netherlands will have to pay a luxury tax of about €38k at purchase. Finland's surcharge plans are relatively moderate at €26k, as are France's €10k– especially when you compare them to Norway's penalty of 54 friggin' thousand Euros. That means the Cayenne S is effectively twice as expensive in Norway as in Germany. The UK's €23.7k surcharge for Porsche's turbotractor is nothing to sneeze at, either. France also plans to introduce a yearly CO2 tax which, for the Cayenne, will amount to €3k; Austria is following suit with €5k per year. According to CSM Worldwide (a consultancy), the market for SUVs is collapsing in several European countries. This year, sales of large SUVs were down 46 percent in France and down 40 percent in Spain. It looks like Porsche has a bit more legal action in store; merely going to court against London's road-pricing autocrats won't cut the mustard. Perhaps Porsche was smart to buy those VW shares after all. 

PistonHeads reports police in Manchester have raise their surveillance efforts in the world's most surveilled country to the next level. They're recording information on every one of the 600k cars that enter the city on a daily basis. When you drive into Manchester on one of twelve major routes, Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras record your car's registration and color and the time of entry. The system automatically checks your information against national databases to see what heinous crime someone driving your car may have committed. The police and/or various government agencies store the information for five years "to fight terrorism, crime and car theft." The UK has the same system in place in The City (London's financial district) following a 1993 terrorist attack in Bishopsgate. Let the "if you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to worry about" arguments begin.

Well friends, by the time you read this, an era will have ended. A delicious era I might add. That's right, starting today– Black Thursday– taco trucks in unincorporated parts of Los Angeles will be required to move every hour, effectively putting them out of business. Since this insanity was first proposed SaveOurTacoTrucks.org has been leading the crusade to save the roach coaches with a battle cry of, "Carne Asada is Not a Crime" and lots of informal protests where folks show up and… eat tacos. Sadly, it was to no avail. Last night marked the final protest. I'd already written to my useless supervisor Gloria Molina and expressed my outrage at the banning of the trucks. I even tried arguing that forcing the trucks to move every hour was environmentally irresponsible. But all I got back was a form letter thanking me for my "quality of life" concerns. Failure in hand (so to speak), I figured the least I could do is head down to East LA and eat (more) tacos. The quiet, peaceful gathering was attended by about 100 taco and taco truck lovers (half of whom I suspect of being food bloggers). The worst part? The five carne asada tacos I ate were frigging scrumptious– I'm still salivating some two hours later. And now they're gone, all gone. As far as protests go, I haven't had this much fun since I marched with Mario Savio against Proposition 187 back in 1994. Hasta la vista trocas.

File this under "News That Effects Me Personally." As in, "Those city hall pricks are taking tacos out of my mouth." Where I live in North Eastern LA, there are– or rather were— six taco trucks with a one mile stretch along the same road. As The New York Time rightly reports, each one offers uniquely delicious fare. Except for that one up on 51st — their tacos suck. But the other five, man… So here's the dirt straight from the hungry horse's mouth. Restaurants are complaining (and have been complaining) that the "roach coaches" are stealing customers because their food is so cheap. My new mortal enemy, county supervisor Gloria Molina, is pushing through the ordinance that will require taco trucks to move every hour. Effectively putting them out of business. Why? Henchman Gerry Hertzberg claims the trucks represent a "big quality of life issue." Whatever that means. Taco truck owner Jose Naranjo puts it best, "We are poor people feeding other poor people." Yeah, and me! The ordinance goes into effect today. This is a total tragedy as one truck in particular serves-up the best carne asada tacos in all of Los Angeles. And trust me, I've looked. Anyhow, I wrote Molina a letter and signed the save our taco trucks petition. Though I fear you can't fight city hall. Tasteless jerks. 

Finance and Commerce reports that it was a close-run thing– 20 to 18. But despite strenuous lobbying by Minnesota's ethanol industry,  the state's finance committee recommended adopting California's controversial car emissions standards. For one year. John Tuma, a lobbyist for the Minnesota Environmental Partnership, was a happy camper. Ish. "[For now,] consumers are going to be paying for vehicles that are not as fuel efficient as they could be so they will be paying more at the gas pump. And [there will be] more global warming pollution for a year. But it puts [standards] in place and that’s a step forward." [The bracket brigade in in da house!] Chris Radatz, director of public policy for the E85 FlexFuel-lovin' Minnesota Farm Bureau, is not so happy with The Gopher State's Clean Car Act. "“We’re depending on a state to set standards that has a whole different infrastructure,” Radatz said, referring to CA's lack of corn juice pumps. To placate the E85 crowd, a last-minute amendment stipulated a [taxpayer-funded] study of how the bill would affect the availability of flex-fuel vehicles. Availability as in sales? You betcha! Look for this legislation to fall on the floor and flop like a fish. 

That's provided Senator Clinton gets elected president. No, no. Just kidding. (I think). According to the Detroit News, "The U.S. Transportation Department today will propose a sweeping increase in fuel economy standards, requiring passenger cars to average 35.7 miles per gallon and light trucks 28.6 mpg by 2015." That's average folks. So for every 14mpg non-hybrid Escalade (should such things exist) that GM sells (should such a thing exist), they'll have to sell a light truck that achieves 42.2mpg. Maybe. But first, the hype. "Transportation Secretary Mary Peters will unveil the proposed regulation at an Earth Day event in McLean, Va., at a Federal Highway Research facility. Peters will make the announcement against a backdrop of vehicles from the large automakers, including Detroit's Big Three. A source who saw her prepared remarks said Peters plans to call the proposal 'ambitious but achievable.'" So, a nice photo op and some props for a lame duck Prez, then. But here's the real deal: "The proposal also reforms the way fuel economy numbers are set for passenger cars. Instead of one overall number, the proposal sets a series of requirements based on the size, or attributes of the car. It's not clear how the attributes will be defined or how the system will differ from a similar reform of light truck fuel rules in 2006."