WFAA reports that the Dallas City Council will “consider” creating a commission to "to help ensure that camera-enforced intersections are selected without regard to the ethnic or socioeconomic characteristics of the area in which the intersections are located." A little history… In September of 2007, the Dallas city council approved 40 more red light cameras (for a total of 100), more than doubling the size of their contract with Affiliated Computer Services ("We believe the impossible is possible, and that giving up is not an option). In 2007, Dallas City Council member Angela Hunt asked her colleagues to delay the vote; she believed council members did not have adequate information on whether the cameras caused more rear-end collisions at intersections. In the end, the need to fill Dallas’ city coffers ruled the day: had the council delayed the vote, they would have been forced to plug a $140k hole in the ‘07 – ‘08 budget. Why? Revenue from the additional, yet-to-be-approved cameras was already included in the City Manager’s budget proposal. Meanwhile, Lubbock Texas turned off its red-light cameras on Feb. 15th, after a study showed an increase in rear-end collisions at all intersections in the Panhandle city. And now you know the news.

File this one under "no good deed goes unpunished." Boston.com reports that Ford donated four piston assembly patents to The National Institute for Strategic Technology Acquisition and Commercialization (NISTAC), took a $27m tax deduction, licensed the technology back from NISTAC, terminated the agreement, and then continued using the patents paying nobody nothing. One potential issue: does NISTAC own the patents? It claims it's the "replacement" organization for Mid-American Commercial Corp, which received the original dontation. As you might imagine, all this philanthropy went down before Ford hocked its future to stay in business. Ford made the piston patent donation back in 2000– and 44 more besides, on seven separate occasions, to institutions including the University of Michigan and the National Center for Manufacturing Sciences. 

The mainstream media may have forgotten that last week's Plastech parts embargo threatened to throw Chrysler into Chapter 11, and that the agreement saving the automaker from that fate expires this Friday. But we haven't. And neither has Crain's Detroit Business. According to the paper, a U.S. bankruptcy judge is set to hear arguments to [ultimately] determine who owns the tooling that makes the parts that Chrysler needs to survive. Chrysler says mine, mine, mine. "The automaker alleges that its right to the tools was gained through two prior bailout agreements. In those agreements Chrysler gave the supplier $6.9 million and sped payment of an additional $10.7 million." Plastech says bankruptcy obviates those claims. To wit: pulling the tooling from Plastech plants would hamstring their ability to secure life-sustaining, long-term financing. The most probable outcome is an extension of the interim agreement, but you never know. Meanwhile, here's a factoid that might explain Plastech's hang-tough strategy: the parts maker, owned by Vietnamese immigrant Julie Brown, is the largest minority owned company in the North American automotive supply chain.

The Tahoe Hybrid. From gas friendly to gas-free. FlexFuel. The plug-in electric – gas Chevy Volt. The [entirely theoretical] hydrogen fuel cell Cadillac Provoq. It's clear that General Motors has finally embraced a low-emissions, scarce fossil fuel future. Provided, that is, you're as gullible as a Barry Bonds supporter. While GM is pushing itself as the second coming of Al Gore, The General's CEO sent a very different message to the National Automobile Dealers Association in San Francisco. According to Yahoo! News, Rick Wagoner asked GM's immense network of dealers to aggressively oppose state-specific greenhouse gas legislation that exceeds the restrictions mandated by the U.S. Congress. While Wagoner's influence may be falling in Washington, his dealers still have a lot of pull at the state level. "Dealers are very effective in the political process because we don't have a plant in every state," Wagoner boasted. "We have dealers in every state." Wagoner's biggest fear: California and its copycat states' air quality rules will trump federal regs, as they already do in several areas (including diesel particulate standards). If the need for "50-state compliance" extends into CO2, "We're not going to be able to accomplish everything that we otherwise could," Wagoner noted, vying for TTAC's understatement of the year award.

“Technology, alone, cannot solve this question of how to reduce emissions from cars. Reducing CO2 emissions from cars should be a shared responsibility.” And there you have it: Wolfgang Hennig's rationale for urging the European Union (EU) to spend more of its members' tax dollars to teach drivers how to emit less C02 (via their car, not personally). Wards Auto reports that Ford of Europe's "eco-driving manager" isn't alone in this "why don't you pick on someone else for a change" strategy. "The European Automobile Manufacturers Assn. says eco-driving training can lead to an immediate reduction in fuel consumption of up to 25%." So.. we're talking about government intervention in how you drive your car? Uh-huh. "The EU is leaving it up to the individual governments to run their own voluntary schemes, which if successful could lead to the EC including rules and standards on eco-driving in future legislation." But… how? "Isuzu Motors Ltd. has a new range of commercial vehicles equipped with an onboard computer system that records the use of the accelerator, gearshift, brake and clutch. Data is downloaded into a laptop, showing each driver how they perform on the road and acting as the basis for tailored eco-driving lessons." There's more, but it freaks me out. 

Filming yourself speeding has become an problem of pandemic proportions in Great Britain. Or at least that's what it would seem, based on the way the constabulary in England and Wales are reacting to the videos of highway hoonage on YouTube and other sites. Equating the videos to slasher flicks and pornography, the Old Bill wants the government to pass laws banning them. Apparently, the home-made vids "encourage more young people to speed and in turn, more young people to get killed." In Fife, Scotland, Chief Inspector Alex Duncan actually spends time scouring YouTube looking for the videos. He says if he can identify anyone in the footage, they'll persecute prosecute them. Even more Big Brotherish, Duncan hints at a wider probe. "What really scares me is how many people are doing this and not putting it on websites where we can find it." YouTube says it won't ban the videos, but if police think a post is evidence of a crime, they should "get in touch with them." While TTAC doesn't condone lawbreaking, and we accept the police's right to investigate criminal matters, we defend freedom of speech and personal privacy in all its permutations. And the video here was shot on a derestricted section of the German autobahn. In case you were wondering.

Attention residents of The Green Mountain State! Has your legislature got a deal for you! In return for your vital organs, you could drive free for the rest of your life! While a lot of states have organ donor boxes on their driver's licenses (which we at TTAC encourage you to tick), Vermont wants to sweeten the pot. So the pols have ponied-up a bill that would waive the cost of the driver's license fee for anyone agreeing to part with their parts once they depart. The Burlington Free Press does the math. By participating in the program in your mid-30's, you could save up to $400, provided you live to your late 70's. Of course, finding any organs still fit to be transplanted in a 78-year old donor isn't their problem. That's why the transplant surgeons get paid the big bucks. [thanks to Gord Mack for the link]

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is under fire from California. Golden State regulators are trying usurp the federal agency's power to set fleet-wide fuel economy averages by classifying CO2 as a pollutant. Rather than fighting the move– debating the "facts" of global warming in the Supreme Court– the EPA is signaling its desire to weasel cut some kind of compromise. While it's unlikely the EPA will do anything to upset Congress' "35 by 2020" mpg applecart, Wardsauto.com reports that the EPA Air Quality Supremo Margo Oge stepped-up to the microphone at the Automotive News shindig and told automakers that "we must bring about an end to the horsepower arms race among auto makers and replace it with another different kind of a race, a race to produce the most affordable and desirable, low carbon-vehicle each year.” New industrial revolution, must reduce greenhouse gas emissions, college kids are green, yada yada yada, California wins but WE'LL handle it. Meanwhile, someone should tell Oge that the horsepower wars are already done; automakers are competing with each other to green-up and meet the EU and NTSA's new fuel economy regs (e.g. GM's Ultrav8tracide and Voltmania). Still, thanks for the career-boosting rhetorical carrot. 

According to the Federal Highway Administration, drivers over 75 years old have the second-highest fatality rate after teens. CNN’s “When Dad Should Stop Driving” (what about mom?) warns that taking the keys away from an aging parent raises “tricky issues of independence and role reversal.” Marion Somers, author of Elder Care Made Easier (note: not “Easy”), provides a list of 10 question for sibs considering seizing the keys from Mom or Dad. Unfortunately, a lot of them apply to most drivers (e.g. "Does he or she do well driving locally but struggle at higher speeds or when directions are needed?"). She suggests a gradual curtailment for the old folks, rather than a single, indigestible dish of cold turkey (e.g. no children in the car, no highways, no driving above 45 mph). Somers knows of what she speaks. She says convincing her father to surrender the car keys was “one of the most serious and complicated issues that I've had to deal with." In the end, Dad’s “lady friend” was happy to pick him up for their dates. Which is nice, and all, but how old was she?

Thank you United States Congress, for not clarifying who has the ultimate authority when it comes to setting fuel economy standards. And thank you President Bush, for not holding Ms. Pelosi and Co.'s feet to the proverbial fire on this point re: the new Energy Bill– as you'd promised when you sent the bill's framers back to highlight and delete taxes on the oil industry. 'Cause here we are at the inevitable result: California and its 15 clean air groupies (Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington) suing the EPA to claim the right to regulate automotive CO2 emissions and, thus, fuel economy. According to the Governator (via The New York Times), the EPA refusal to grant The Golden State the necessary waiver is, as Californians like to say, some heavy shit. “It is unconscionable that the federal government is keeping California from adopting new standards." Arnie's apoplexy inspired Gloria Bergquist, vice president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, into double negativity. “Congress approved an energy bill that will result in 30 percent reduction in carbon dioxide over the next 12 years… So it isn’t a question of California not having a reduction.” It isn't?

Do this job long enough and your BS detector gets quite the workout. But rarely does an article telegraph the discrepancy between PR plans and the incipient rush of cold reality in such obvious terms. Lisa Taylor is the testy spinmeister in question: spokeswoman for the Kansas Department of Agriculture. Or the U.S. Department of Transportation. Either way, she's promoting a pilot project that will allow Kansas gas stations to install pumps that dispense a variety of ethanol blends and "let consumers choose what blend they want." Yup, you heard right; a Sunflower state motorist will be able to choose between E10, E20, E30, E50 or E85 depending on, well, who the Hell knows? Anyway, as the Kansas City Star rightly reports, it's just a theory. The state is simply lowering regulatory hurdles, rather than subsidizing the "pour your own" ethanol pumps. In fact, only 28 stations in Kansas sell E85, and not a single one of them is a deep-pocketed nationally-branded franchisee. So, as you might expect, The Star reveals that "so far no sites for the test have been announced." Which triggered Ms. Taylor's ire. We're betting she doesn't get the last laugh on this one.

Forgive us for saying so (i.e. we would still appreciate a test drive), but the Mercedes SLR McLaren could well be the Maybach of exotic cars. We're not saying the $495k (base) roadster's design, price or marketing was inherently flawed, but it's well known that McLaren designer Gordon Murray was unhappy with the front-engined, mid-weight layout from the git-go, and bristled at having to accommodate so much GT-ness (i.e. weight). Curmudgeons were less than impressed with the SLR's brake-by-wire system and its inability to make it into the finals of "Dancing with the Supercars." And then Paris Hilton bought one. And was photographed in it. And drove it drunk. And was jailed for same. Anyway, WardsAuto brings us up-to-date with the ill-fated SLR, revealing that the model's twin exhausts mean it can't be registered in five U.S. states (?). We also learn that "Mercedes declines to say precisely how many of the super cars will be built at the McLaren factory in Woking, U.K. But Greg De Smith, a marketing specialist for the product, says it will be 'substantially fewer' than 500 units." The number reflects Mercedes realization that it will not hit its initial target of 500 SLRs per year for seven years. A blessing in disguise for collectors, or the world's fastest albatross? 

Manitoba is set to become the second province of Canada to adopt the same emissions standards as California. CTV News reports that Manitoba premier Gary Doer– fresh off winning his third election– is hot (so to speak) to make the Canadian province Kyoto compliant. "[Cars] represent 33% of our challenge," says the former corrections officer. Earlier this month, Québec became the first province to adopt California's stringent auto regs, setting average emissions targets that must be attained as early as 2010 (CAFE by any other name?). Doer suggests that Manitoba's measure is only a first step on the way to more stringent federal standards. He notes that having provinces and states enact tailpipe standards produces a piece-meal approach to Kyoto and, thus, reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Readers are invited to gloss over the fact that pollution of any kind has a global scope, not a national one.

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? 

Oregon's Mail Tribune reports that the Beaver State will now offer motorists a chance to warn other motorists not to run over bicyclists. For an extra $10 on top of the usual license fee, Oregonians can buy a plate with the design pictured here, safe in the knowledge that an undisclosed percentage of the proceeds go to Portland's Bicycle Transportation Alliance. If drivers don't want to share the road with anyone– Oregon is survivalist central after all– they can affix plates benefiting the Elks, Masons, square dancers and firefighters. Military vets also get their own plates: Purple Heart recipients, members of the First Marine Division, disabled veterans, former prisoners of war, and five others). Graduates of seven Oregon universities are also allowed to flaunt their education on their tags, but not if they went to Southern Oregon University (for some strange reason). All of which begs a question: whatever happen to having one damn plate design per state? Setting aside the law enforcement implications of multiple iterations, a single design with a single motto provided a unifying state identity for its residents. Anything for money, eh?

[A list of all 50 states' plates– without minor variations– here ]