The National Motorists Association has posted a compilation of stories from six US cities where yellow lights were shortened to increase municipal revenues. In intersections with and without cameras to bust red light-runners, in towns from California to Tennessee, local authorities have been quietly violating various state's laws regarding minimum yellow-light duration. These underhanded schemes have been uncovered by private citizens, local TV stations, newspapers and even judges, and as the NMA's conclusion to the roundup states, these six cases could be simply the tip of the iceberg: "These are only the cities that have been caught; it's likely that this happens much more than the general public has been led to believe. Many cities avoid the bad publicity involved with shortening yellow lights by installing the cameras at intersections with inadequate yellow light times from the beginning. If you or a family member receive an unjustified red-light violation ticket, it may be worth your time to check the yellow light duration at the intersection where the ticket was given out."

According to The Scotsman, speed cameras fines fell by as much twenty percent in some areas of Scotland. In most parts of the country, the number of drivers being caught by cameras has dropped for the third year in a row. The director of the Scottish Safety Camera Program says he knows why: "There has been a fall in speeding fines detected by cameras because of better adherence to the speed limits by drivers." Math-savvy anti-camera groups claim crash rates diminish naturally over time "due a phenomenon known as regression to mean." Bruce Young of the Association of British Drivers says it's simpler than that. "Drivers are increasingly aware of both fixed and mobile camera locations." Neil Greig, the of the Institute of Advanced Motorists' Motoring Trust, says who cares? Speed cameras rock! "In our view the best safety cameras slow 100 percent of the traffic down and catch zero per cent of drivers." In any case, over the past two years, Scottish police [automatically] issued 114k fines, generating some £6.8m ($13.4m) for the Treasury.

Citing environmental concerns, state Environment Minister Rainer Loske has enacted a plan to limit Bremen's section of the Autobahn to 120 km/h (about 75 mph). Loske reckons that the speed limit will cut tailpipe emissions by five percent. In the future, the limit would [somehow] reduce emissions by 15 percent. I think Garfield (the cat, not the dead president) put it best: "Big fat hairy deal." As one of TTAC's most environmentally conscious contributors (i,e, "a perfect example of a hypocritical hyper-car loving tree hugger"), let me be the first to condemn this idiotic bullshit misguided mandate. Bremen could achieve the same greenhouse gas reductions by stipulating that drivers keep their tires properly inflated. Also, how much is this limit actually saving if it turns a two-hour trip into a three-hour journey? My guess? Not much. The good news: Bremen only has jurisdiction over 60 km of Autobahn. If you were traveling at 300 km/h, it would take just five minutes to surmount. Sigh… The limit goes into effect today, April 9, 2008. How do you say "slippery slope" in German?

The New York state legislature has shot down NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg's proposed $8 congestion charge on vehicles entering Manhattan. Wired News reports that the proposal which was to be a career-capper for Bloomberg was doomed by heavy-handed tactics by the Mayor's office. En route to telling state legislators that "You're either for this historic change in New York or you're against it," Bloomberg's transportation commissioner, Janette Sadik-Khan was pulled over by state police for speeding and improperly using her lights and sirens. This obviously affected how representatives received the proposal. "When [she] was coming up here telling me I can't drive," said Bronx Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz, "she was busy being driven in a city-owned car by a chauffeur, speeding, getting a ticket with her lights and sirens on." Bloomberg called the rejection "a special kind of cowardice," which, in an ironic twist, is almost exactly what opponents called the revenue-building measure when justified by global carbon emission levels.

Reuters reports London mayor Ken Livingstone, currently locked in a battle for re-election, is seeking to further alienate motorists from his campaign by saying that if re-elected he would institute a 20mph speed limit in all residential portions of London. Reuters reports that Livingstone's follow up to a proposed hike in congestion charges is justified as a life-saving measure. "I'll work with all London boroughs to designate all residential streets as 20 mph zones," said Livingstone in a public statement. "Nine out of ten pedestrians will be killed if hit by a car traveling at 40 mph," Livingstone asserts without citing anything in the way of sources, "but only one in forty will die if hit at 20 mph." And we thought the federal double nickel was bad in the 70's and 80's.

I'll give TTAC's Canadian readers the bad news first: As the summer driving season approaches, gas prices in Canada are nearing record highs established in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. The good news? CTV reports that a recent ruling in Ontario has reversed a ticket issued to a Montreal artist who was charged with driving in unsafe car through downtown Toronto. Michel De Broin took his 1986 Buick, removed the engine, suspension, gearing, electrical systems and floorboards and replaced it all with tea-candles for headlights and a "shared propulsion" pedalling system, where all passengers in the car can contribute to its advancement by pedalling (top speed is 15 km/h, or about 9 mph). Justice Patrick Marum ruled that the Crown had failed to prove the car was dangerous, and the charges of operating an unsafe motor vehicle that De Broin faced were summarily dropped. Take that, Tata! If this ruling sets a precendent, Canada has moved ahead in the race to bring legal, zero-emissions cars to North America.

Speedtrapped.com and tripleblaze.com (among others) have offered maps of reported speedtrap locations for some time, but it seems the war on speeding tickets has gone mobile. A new "Speed Trap Sharing System," going by the uninspired name of "Trapster," offers live updates of local speed traps (as reported by users) sent to a free smartphone program as well as your Google MyMaps account.  You can report speedtraps anonymously, and receive mobile alerts when you drive near a reported trap, possibly giving you a drop on Johnny Law. The boys in blue don't even mind so much, creator Pete Tenereillo tells AP Wired News, because the mobile service "inevitably encourages drivers to slow down." No word from any actual cops yet. If this is all sounding a bit fawning, keep in mind that the system is still in beta testing. As of this writing, the Trapster front page has a notice reading "A message to our users: Service troubles, our most sincere apologies…" If they can fix the bugs though, and keep it free… this could be pretty cool. (Hat Tip: El Jalop)

On April 1st, 2008 significant modifications to road safety regulations in the Canadian provinces of Québec and Nova Scotia went into effect. CTV.ca reports that handheld cellular phones are now verboten while at the wheel, though hands free devices are still tolerated. Nova Scotia will begin ticketing the offense immediately, while Québec has allowed for a three-month grace periods in which offenders will only receive stern warnings and moralizing sermons. The first offense in Nova Scotia will cost $165, while costing $80-$110 and three demerit points in Québec. Still not satisfied, road safety advocate Jean-Marie de Koeninck argues that "[h]ands-free is just as dangerous. (But) by forbidding the hand-held it does send a signal that there is a problem with the cellphone, there's a problem with concentration". Meanwhile, the same traffic safety bill in Québec also doubled all speeding fines , with new suspension of license provisions for those caught traveling at 40 km/h over the limit in under-60 zones, 50 km/h in 60-90 over zones, and 60 km/h over in 100+ zones. All in the name of safety, presumably.

For illegal immigrants looking to obtain "documentation" here in the U.S., getting a driver's license in Maine is a good place to start, according to WMTW. Back in March, Brazilian Guilherme Malaquias, whose tourist visa expired almost two years ago, drove another Brazilian illegal immigrant from Massachusetts up to Biddeford, Maine, where they were arrested after attempting to obtain a drivers license. But wait, there's more: According to the Bangor Daily News, a federal immigration agent claims Malaquias has allegedly transported other illegal immigrants on day trips from Massachusetts to Maine to get licenses. The Biddeford case is similar to one that transpired last month, when Anderson Dos Santos, a Brazilian from New Jersey, was arrested at the motor vehicle bureau in Augusta after he allegedly brought two women to Maine to get driver's licenses. Dos Santos told court officials that "Maine is known among Brazilians for having lax rules for issuing drivers licenses." Maine requires neither proof of citizenship nor proof of residency from applicants, but the state legislature is "considering" the idea of changing the rules to require proof of residency. Little wonder that the Feds are "pushing" Maine to conform to the Real ID Act of 2005, which establishes new national standards for state-issued driver licenses.

I know we're not exactly safe on the moral high ground here. Eagle-eyed readers will be sure to scan TTAC's archives for any and all admissions that the reviewer drove at extra-legal speeds. (My entirely fictional take on the Porsche Carrera GT.) But it's clear from Edmunds' blog of their current road trip that they have no compunctions telling the world that they're driving the new Nissan GT-R at monumental speeds on public roads. The "Making Time" video of the GT-R's speedo shows Senior Writer Ed Hellwig pushing the car to somewhere between 165 and 170mph on a Western highway. In fact, the blog contains numerous off-hand (if not downright boastful) references to law-breaking velocities, including a flippant description of getting pulled-over for [a reported] 91mph. There's a video of Bonneville Salt Flats' hoonage sans helmet with the comment "that was only 130." I know many of you will view any objections to this type of journalism as sanctimonious codswallop, but doesn't the fact that impressionable teens idolize the GT-R oblige Edmunds to show a bit more journalistic responsibility? And aren't they criminally liable for that video?

The Los Angeles Times is calling it "a significant blow for environmentalists and transportation activists." On Thursday, California's Air Resources Board (CARB) voted to "slash" the number of emission-free vehicles automakers must sell in the state by 70 percent. The panel adopted new rules that would require the largest companies selling cars in the state to produce 7.5k electric and hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles from 2012 to 2014. (Down from the 25k under rules set in ‘03.) In addition, carmakers will be called upon to make about 58k plug-in hybrid electric vehicles in the same period. CARB also decided overhaul its entire Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) program, to align it with tougher greenhouse-gas emission standards. CARB board member Daniel Sperling says "it's my view that both plug-in hybrids and [emission-free vehicles] are tremendous stretches for the industry." But Chelsea Sexton, the executive director of Plug In America says "It's a huge blow, they sent the message to the carmakers that they can always get what they want from the board." And here's the kicker: GM asked for "special consideration" for the Chevy Volt. GM's executive director for environment, energy and safety argued that the Volt will have a longer range than rival plug-in hybrids so, you know, cut us some slack. The board granted that request, valuing extended-range plug-in hybrids more highly than shorter-range models. GM has yet to sell a single Volt, but hey, why let the facts get in the way? 

According to King5, cameras set up to catch "red-light runners" in Puyallup, WA, are working quite well. "Perhaps a little too well," says city manager Gary McLean. Even though each camera-equipped intersection has warning signs, McLean says the number of drivers caught by the cameras has been a revelation. "I think everyone's been surprised at the number of people getting the warning notices." After the cameras went into operation on March 1st, more than 2.5k "red light runners" were caught; an average of more than 100 per day. However, no drivers have received the $124 ticket slated to go along with the offense. City leaders are extending the ticket-free "warning period" through the end of April so drivers "can get used to where the cameras are." And it's not about the money: "It's about correcting behavior and public safety," says McLean. "It's not about revenue. Because, trust me, plenty of people are still going to violate the law and those fines will be imposed, but for the public listening to us now, we hope they hear this and correct it." Meanwhile, the city of Bellevue, WA will soon be adding cameras at six intersections, along with three new speed cameras, The expected annual take? $827k.

Jessica Morgan enjoys riding the Bay Area Rapid Transit System (BART) to work in San Francisco, and she wants to take her mind and her car off the road. Problem: she can't find parking at the BART station. On weekdays, more than half of BART's 46k-plus parking spaces are filled by 8 A.M.. Some 45 minutes later, some 73 percent of the spaces are taken, according to data analyzed by the Contra Costa Times. "Lately, there are times when I've just given up and got on the freeway," says Morgan. Yet building parking lots is a costly and planning permission intensive proposition. The Dublin-Pleasanton station is finally unveiling a 1.2k car garage that cost the city $42m. (That's $28k per parking space.) Meanwhile and elsewhere, aspiring mass transit users are– gasp!–  parking illegally. So BART's Board of Supervisors voted to raise fines for permit violations from $25 to $40. "We're hoping the higher fines will eliminate some parking poachers." But, for revenue sake, not all. 

News of someone stealing a car and leading police on a wild-ass chase is fairly common. However, KPRC in Houston, TX reports that just such an incident in southeast Texas has an unusual twist: reporter Mariza Reyesthe says the driver of this stolen car was "barely old enough to see a PG-13 movie, much less have a drivers' license."  Montgomery County sheriff's deputies say a 13-year-old boy stole a car from his girlfriend's parents' home in Willis, TX, at about 2 A.M. Police chased him on the North Freeway southbound, with Harris County deputies joining the chase at about 3:45 A.M. The Houston police joined the fray when the chase entered that city. The pursuit ended on I-45 (Gulf Freeway) when the teen sideswiped another vehicle and crashed into a concrete barrier. The driver of the other vehicle was not injured. The teenager was arrested and could face charges of reckless driving, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and driving without a license. I wonder what Caitlin Flanagan would say about this young man's "dangerous night" out?

Yesterday, we reported that Dallas, TX is having problems with its red-light camera revenues. Apparently, Orlando, Florida's town fathers don't read TTAC. WFTV reports that city commissioners have approved a contract to pay a Georgia company $500k a year to install and maintain red-light revenue raisers at ten different intersections. "We're really doing this as a means of public safety," Mayor Buddy Dyer insists. "And most of the statistics show many accidents are caused by running red lights." Really? I don't think so. Anyway, if it's all about the children, why does the deal hinge on whether or not cities will be allowed to issue tickets to those caught by the cameras? In fact, if the laws aren't changed, the cameras won't be installed. Perish the thought.