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.

The other day, we caught– but didn't have time to blog– a story about golf cart safety from the Associated Press. "The Ohio report, published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, said about 148,000 people have been treated for injuries related to golf carts since 1990. The UAB [University of Alabama] found there were some 48,255 golf-cart related injuries between 2002 and 2005 alone, or an average of about 1,000 each month." Bone fractures and head injuries were among the most common injuries. And, here's the kicker: "About half of the injuries occurred on golf courses or in other sports venues, such as football stadiums. The rest were on streets or residential property." So when I read an article in this morning's Detroit News about an entrepreneur hawking golf carts to beat gas prices, I was sure they'd mention the potentially lethal downside. Nope. "The cart, he said, is not only cheaper but fun to drive too. Now he's making plans to furnish similarly "pimped out" carts to others who want to cut their gasoline bills. Auld is working with a golf cart manufacturer to make and sell the street-legal vehicles to the public, starting next month." Donorcarts? [Note to Jennifer Youssef: Google is your friend.]

The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) was supposed to present new roof-strength rules to Congress by July 1. The Detroit News reports that the NHTSA wants more time. A letter from chairman of a Senate Commerce subcommittee on auto safety apparently prompted the hurry-up-and-wait. "We encourage you to extend your deadline to ensure a proper rule making that would maximize safety and significantly reduce deaths and injuries for passengers and drivers in vehicle rollover accidents," wrote Mark Pryor. One might assume that Pryor is concerned that the NHTSA proposal to strengthen roof-crush strength to 2.5 times the vehicle wait might create top-heavy vehicle which would roll over more frequently. Nope. Pryor is simply demonstrating his party's fealty to the trial lawyer lobby, by opposing language which would limit rollover lawsuits in state courts. Whether or not those limits are valid is subject to debate. That requiring stricter roof-crush standards would increase car prices and rollover frequency while reducing efficiency is not. Here's hoping these facts sink-in during the NHTSA's extra deliberation time.

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."

As I highlighted in the Chevy Express review, I believe the vehicle is inherently unsafe. The Ford E-Series and Dodge Ram Van (RIP: 2002), aren't much better. From 1990 to 2006, over 2700 people have died in extended van accidents, they majority of which were rollovers (seat belt use is an important variable). In 2002, The National Transportation Safety Board wrote an open letter to Bill Ford and Rick Wagoner, stating "Heavily loaded 15-passenger vans are particularly susceptible to rollover… Simulations conducted for the NHTSA research illustrated the adverse effects that a fully loaded 15-passenger van can have on the vehicle’s handling properties and rollover propensity. Fully loading or nearly loading a 15-passenger van causes the center of gravity to move rearwardand upward, which increases the vehicle’s rollover propensity and could increase the potential for driver loss of control in emergency maneuvers." Ford and GM declined to make a $300m (per design) modification to the rear end to enhance van safety. They did, however, add stability control systems, as requested. While NHTSA stats show the accident and fatality rate for these vehicles are falling, it's still proportionately higher than for other passenger vehicles. Both the Ford and Chevy score a measly two and three stars respectively in roll-over tendency. These are outmoded designs whose active safety is woeful inadequate– especially when you consider their cargo.

Forbes' Jerry Flint has some strong words for Detroit. But first… "Yes, Asian car companies cheated. They kept us out of their countries and kept their currencies weak. Yes, our government changed the rules so foreign brands could sell in domestic dealer showrooms, making it cheap for them to attack this market. Yes, our unions helped by ignoring the destruction they were causing until it was almost too late. State governments helped by giving foreign carmakers huge tax breaks when they build plants. Then there was bad luck, or whatever it is that has pushed gasoline prices to $4 a gallon." BUT "the blame has to fall on Detroit's executives. They didn't know enough about their own business to build better cars than the foreigners did, and they were unprepared for a change that was sure to come, sooner or later." BUT "That's not the issue. If we want a home-owned industry, our government will have to help for a change instead of piling on, treating the automobile and the industry like devils." OK, so, how much is this boondoggle going to cost me? Nothing! All we have to do is "halt immediately all new regulations–safety regulations, emission regulations, bumper regulations, mileage regulations." Where do I sign?

Here's another feature to put in the category of cool stuff Ford offers that won't sell cars– alongside movable pedals, SYNC and a Tron-inspired keyless entry system. The Blue Oval Boyz are now offering subscription-free 911 service. If the SYNC system detects a crash, airbag deployment, emergency fuel cut off and so on, its automatically calls 911. Ford has contracted with the "National Emergency Number Association" to deal with the details. Although the system's unlikely to get anyone to darken the dealership door, props. The biggest bonus to this kind of service: the resell to existing owners. As any salesman will tell you, once someone survives totaling their newish car, they frequently go straight out and buy another one of the same. This is nice 'n all. But what we all want really is the EcoBoost twin turbo engine.

WardsAutomotive reports from the floor of [their very own] Automotive Interiors Show that electronics supplier Continental AG is in love with Vegas, baby. "What happens outside the car should also happen inside the car,” company rep Brian Droessler told the throngs. Huh? "The Internet in cars is coming," Droessler explains. "People want it.” So what about safety? "Continental’s new dual-mode display screen situated in a vehicle’s center stack. Based on the angle of the viewers, the screen shows one image to the driver and another to the front-seat passenger, without either person seeing what the other is viewing." In other words, the driver can look at maps and arrows while the passenger watches a Savannah Sampson movie. (Needless to say, the display system will be available in the U.S. in 2010.) No seriously. Safety is serious. Hence another Ward's article on in-car info overload. "Twenty-two percent of car accidents or near-accidents are due to non-driving related distractions, says Steve Polakowski, executive director-advanced interiors and electrical/electronics systems for Magna International Inc.’s Decoma International subsidiary." But really, we heart toys! Hence another article on a new sat nav system that predicts traffic jams, and routes (BMW?) drivers accordingly. Mixed messages? Nah. Just caring and sharing. [NB: equal time was given to fans of Eric Stromer.] 

Today is Friday so I'm keeping this one short. Reading through the Ask the B&B from earlier, I noticed that the person asking was leaning towards a Subaru Tribeca because it's safe. Yes, but it's also hideous!! For certain, one of the very ugliest cars made during an ugly time. I might opt for a lacerated spleen rather than be seen in one of those. I really might. And it's an SUV, too. As the reader was asking about a vehicle for her two kids, she's probably thinking that SUVs are safer. They aren't, as you're more likely to lose control and fall off a mountain in an SUV than a car. Sure, if you run head-on into a Brink's truck the larger bulk of the SUV will insulate you more than a car. But in a car you can proactively avoid the accident, rather than reactively absorbing the impact energy. And finally, just to kick it up a notch, have safety ratings ever influenced your purchases? Put another way, you like one car better than the other but the former gets four safety stars to the latter's five — what do you do?

The Detroit Free Press reports that Toyota has finally responded to months-old accusations that its Tacoma pickup suffers from "unintended acceleration." Reading ToMoCo's letter to ToMoCo tells the National Highway Transport Safety Administration (NHTSA), it's clear they're treating them with all the contempt engendered by the Audi 500 debacle. "Toyota believes that it is likely that many of the consumer complaints about the general issue of unwanted acceleration… as well as many of the complaints about this subject that have been received by Toyota, were inspired by publicity… Even taking (the accusations) at face value, it is clear that the majority of the complaints are related to minor drivability issues and are not indicative of a safety-related defect." NHTSA has been investigating some 32 complaints of the deus-ex-machina defect in 2004 – 08 Tacomas. Toyota held its own investigation of 12 pickups that had supposedly suffered from unintended acceleration back in October, concluding that the machines harbored "no mysterious brake-circumventing defects." In fact, having prepared for this possibility, Toyota programmed its drive-by-wire system to report an error in case the accelerator pedal and throttle are mismatched. And no such error codes have not been found on any Tacomas reported to have driven themselves into stationary objects. 

The Detroit News is reporting that sales of motorcycles and scooters are way up– a sort of positive-spin story to balance out the doom and gloom of gas prices and some bad finances for other Detroit-based businesses. Yes, many motorists are so loving the low cost and high mileage of their scooters and motorcycles. You know why they get great mileage? Low weight. Why such low weight? Because they're just engines with wheels. We have safety standards for cars for a reason– including crumple zones, federal crash test performance, brakes, airbags and seat belts. Scooters and motorcycles are allowed on the roads merely because they have been grandfathered into legality. If there was no such thing as a motorcycle until now, and someone invented them, you can be sure they wouldn't be road legal. There's a reason EMTs like our own Stephan Wilkinson call motorcycles "donor cycles" and would like to see them disappear. And speaking of EMTs, what's the impact going to be on ambulances and emergency rooms as cycles become more widespread?

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? 

AM-online reports the European Commission has unveiled new safety rules that– it says– could save 5k lives a year. Oh, and help cut fuel consumption. If the rules are approved by the European Parliament, all new cars sold in the Eurozone from 2012 will be equipped with tire pressure monitors, electronic stability control (ESC) systems and low-resistance tires. The Commission expects the measures to add €100 – €300 to the price of a new car. But hey, the extra cost would be more than offset over the car's lifetime by savings on fuel. As we Germans say, the Teufel is in the details. Tire pressure monitors are sensible; so many people waste fuel and (through longer braking distances) endanger others when they drive with flabby rubber. But, at the same time, tests have shown that low resistance tires can result in significantly longer braking distances. The Commission contends that, in normal driving conditions, ESC can reduce the number of accidents by around 20 percent. The science on compensatory behavior is not yet clear enough to make that claim; some studies show people drive more dangerously when they have ESC. What was that about die Straße to Hölle?