Back in early February, we reported that Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell was asking for funding for a pilot program of speed-detection cameras along a "treacherous" stretch of I-95. "Those who choose to break the rules of the road need to learn the hard way," said Rell. Today, The Hartford Courant is reporting "a high-profile defeat" for the Gov. Invoking fears of Big Brother, a legislative committee has rejected her plan after "an unusual philosophical discussion" over the rights of drivers and the power of government. The majority say the public's right to privacy outweighs the risks to public safety from speeding. State Rep. Ernest Hewett said "The camera will take a picture, and 10 seconds later, someone will get into a catastrophic accident. This is about revenue." Rep. Linda Orange said the bill was well-intentioned, "but it does violate civil rights." Representative James Shapiro says "Cameras aren't proven to make any one safer." What's more, "State surveillance of our law-abiding citizens is not an area in which I am looking for Connecticut to lead. A lot of other right-thinking people have made that judgment, and that's why these cameras have not caught on. Placing importance on our civil liberties is an American characteristic. Benjamin Franklin said the man who trades his liberty for temporary security deserves neither."  

According to MSNBC, this not-surprising stat comes from a six-year study investigating the deaths of 10k child passengers. Do the math, and it gets even scarier; car crashes are now the leading cause of death for teens. The specifics are depressingly predictable. "More than three-quarters of the fatal crashes occurred on roads with speed limits higher than 45 mph, and nearly two-thirds of the young passengers were not wearing seat belts." Who doesn't wear seat belts? Sure, every blue moon you run into someone that claims they survived a crash because they weren't wearing a seatbelt. But then the conversation quickly changes to tin foil hats and anal probing at the hands of alien abductors. Personally, I disagree with one of the study's recommendations– raising the minimum age for a learner's permit to 16-years-old. My dad taught me to drive when I was 12, and I feel I'd be an even safer driver if I had learned earlier. Anyhow, assuming that raising the driver's permit age will stem fatal teen-driver accidents, what about the other 4600 children killed with adults behind the wheel?

Rising food prices, sinking water tables, deforestation leading to increased CO2 levels, billions in taxpayer subsidies; what else could you possibly have against ethanol? How about this [via Yahoo! News]: "Ethanol fires are harder to put out than gasoline ones and require a special type of firefighting foam. Many fire departments around the country don't have the foam, don't have enough of it, or are not well-trained in how to apply it, firefighting experts say. It is also more expensive than conventional foam." Unlike many of the effects of America's rush to ethanol, this is a danger you can see. Have seen. "In the last three months of 2007, three major fires pointed up the danger. In western Pennsylvania, nine ethanol tanker cars derailed and triggered a blaze that tied up a busy rail line. In Missouri, a tanker truck carrying several thousand gallons of ethanol and gasoline crashed near the state Capitol, killing the driver. The flames spurred the evacuation of two elementary schools and forced the state to rebuild a badly damaged bridge. And in Ohio, a train heading through the northeastern part of the state to Buffalo, N.Y., derailed and burned, forcing more than 1,000 people from their homes." Now how much would you pay? [thanks to David Holzman for the link]

[TTAC interview with HAZMAT expert Jack Currie below] 

So, where were we? Right. After a bit of the usual FoMoCo stonewalling, Ford recalled almost 11 million vehicles (beginning with the 1992 model year) to repair fire hazard flaws in their cruise control and anti-lock braking systems. More specifically, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) determined that the fuel rail cross-over hose in said vehicles may crack, which could cause a fuel leak. Consumeraffairs.com quotes NHTSA: “Fuel leakage in the presence of an ignition source could result in a fire." (Ya think?) And now The Blue Oval Boyz are back for round two, fixing the fix that didn't fix the problem. "Safety Recall 08S01" tells owners of 225k supposedly fire-proofed Fords that their rides "may have been repaired using a fused Jumper Harness containing circuit polarity that is not compatible with your vehicle."  In bullshit free form, please? My circuits (and lincolnsonline) tell me that this recall added a fuse to the ground wire, not the "hot" power wire. Oops. Oh, and another 57k vehicles have been added to the original recall. Meanwhile, CNNMoney reports that NHTSA has opened an investigation into similar fires involving a brace of 2007 model year Chevrolet Tahoes. If this turns out badly for GM, they're looking at a recall encompassing at least 400k vehicles. 

Canada.com reports that Transport Canada has concluded a pilot study of a GPS-based speed governing system that may intervene to cut throttle inputs in speeding cars based on their location. T-Can researcher Paul Boase breaks it down: "The technology has the ability of just saying, OK the posted speed limit is 50, so we'll let you go 55, that's it". Though the vehicle could be fitted to any new vehicle, Boase suggests its primary application should be for repetitive speeders who need a little "help" maintaining a safe cruising speed. So… what about those rare moments when breaking the law is actually the safer thing to do? What if an emergency vehicle comes up behind you? What if you need to speed to duck out of the way of someone who has crossed over the median? What if you're driving a woman in labor to the hospital? A manual override makes the device useless, but no override makes its dangerous. Nevertheless, the idea grabbed the attention of the Alberta's transportation ministry, which is highly interested in the research.

When it comes to engaging in non-essential secondary activities whilst behind the wheel, I think it's fair to say both sexes are equally guilty. Women do their make-up, men pick their noses and scratch themselves, and life goes on. However, hair is one area where women out-do men for dangerous distractions. Yep, The Vancouver Province c/o Canada.com reports any haircut, including Kate Moss' famous bang-fest (get your mind out of the gutter) may reduce peripheral vision and interfere with driving. Citing a UK study, the Province lays down some scary numbers: 190k women in the UK have copped to a near-miss due entirely to hairstyle malfunctions. Additionally, 67 percent of survey respondents currently wear a hairstyle that may let hair fall over their eyes. But here's the kicker: "57 per cent of women confess to taking their hands off the wheel to rearrange their hair or push it off their face, leaving them temporarily out of control of their car." I don't know about you, but next time I see that blonde in a Lexus RX primping at 85 mph, I'm getting the fuck out of her way (and hopefully not crashing into Mr. Bigshot, busily blackberrying away while delegating the task of handling the road entirely to his BMW 5-series). 

According to a study by the Texas Transportation Institute, urban congestion drains the U.S. economy of 4.2 billion man hours and 2.9 billion gallons of fuel per year. The Wall Street Journal reports that the I-95 Corridor Coalition is tackling the problem with Inrix. The subcontractor will gather real-time traffic data (via satellite) on over 2.5k miles of highway, including I95 from New Jersey to North Carolina. Inrix will then beam the data to state transportation departments, who will offer it to motorists via the Internet, mobile alerts and road signs. North Carolina Department of Transportation engineer Jo Ann Oerter figures her employer receives timely traffic data for only one percent of the state’s roads. "We'll be able to see where traffic is building and work within our system to say these are routes you should avoid.” While Inrix will also sell the data to GPS providers for automatic traffic avoidance, we’re guessing Oerter’s union job is safe. 

Pistonheads insist that Toyotas are a snooze to drive. Toyota agrees. Stockhouse reports that ToMoCo has developed a system that measures driver's eye apertures to see if they're awake and paying attention. The system's camera and image-processing system monitor the positions of the driver's upper and lower eyelids. OK, here's the tricky bit. Toyota says it's integrated the eye thingamabob with its Pre-Crash safety Nanny. Apparently, without the eye system, Pre-Crash lets you know a crash is ABOUT to happen. With Big Brother scanning your eyes, Pre-Crash lets you know an accident COULD happen. Anyway, it's just another damn thing electronic gizmo that can go wrong, that your dealer will have to replace rather than repair. Toyota says they will  offer the system on selected domestic (Japan) models "in the near future."

TTAC's Samir Syed has already discussed the revolutionary nature of Tata's new Nano. Just-auto [sub] reports that Automotive News Europe [sub] is reporting that Tata Motors is looking to spread the love. At the new car's launch, Tata Motors' group chairman Ratan Tata said his company will export their "people's car" into the Eurozone. Eventually. Tata will restrict Nano sales to India for the first two years– or more– before starting exports. To Africa, Latin America and southeast Asia. After that, they'll shoehorn in some bigger engines (the base Nano has a 33hp 624cc two-cylinder powerplant) and add some more "advanced features." Hang on. Can the new "people's car" meet strict European emissions and safety regulations? "When we go to Europe, we will conform to all existing regulations," insisted Girish Wagh, head of the 500-member Nano product development team. Responding to a question, he added" "Yes, I said when."

Pickup trucks may not be the deathtraps the NHTSA and IIHS tests make them out to be. Forbes reports research done by Virginia Commonwealth University that compared crash test ratings against data on fatal crashes. They found that while cars with higher crash test ratings show fewer fatalities than those with lower ratings, the same wasn't true for pickup trucks. In the NHTSA and IIHS tests, trucks are crashed into stationary barriers while in the real world, most crashes are vehicle-to-vehicle. In those cases, researchers postulate, the ladder frame in the pickups act as a "battering ram," allowing it to withstand an impact from a smaller, lighter vehicle better than when striking a stationary barrier. Of course, the IIHS dismisses the idea, saying they have no evidence that ladder-frame construction has any effect on crashworthiness. After all, why let real-world facts get in the way of laboratory results?

Smart cars that keep themselves in the proper lane, maintain the correct following distance and sense driver fatigue are so passe. Now, thanks to researchers at Purdue University, your smart car can have smart tires. Reuters reports the net technology incorporates sensors that can detect problems like cuts, leaks, imbalance and improper mounting. A chip inside the tire probes the layers of the tire and relays information. The developer plans to patent the technology and license it to tire makers. He said it would cost the manufacturers about $1 per tire, but expects it'll add about $50 to the cost of a tire by the time it gets into consumers' hands. How smart is that?

Forbes reports the House Energy and Commerce Committee has passed a bill requiring federal regulators to devise clever caveats that make power windows safer, eliminate blind spots in jumbo-sized SUVs and pickups, and keeps vehicles from rolling away (and over young 'uns). What any of that has to do with energy or commerce is anybody's guess. Anyway, committee chairman John Dingell said the bill would "help protect these young victims by instituting common-sense safety provisions in the design of cars." Why nothing was said about instituting common-sense safety training for the drivers is another mystery for the ages. Sorry– there I go digressing again. Right. Where was I? Oh yes… Jacqueline Gillan, vice president of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, added "nobody should have to back out of the driveway without seeing what's behind them." Well, no one should get in their car to back out of their driveway without first looking to see if there's anything in the driveway, either. Damn! At any rate, the National Highway Traffic Safety Admission has to create the new regulations within three years of the bill's enactment– too late to save Jamie Lynn Spears' first baby.

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?

I know it sounds like I'm being sensationalistic (perish the thought) and making this up (never!), but there's no other way to interpret NIKE's decision to feature "car jumper" Chris Bryant in a national TV ad set to air at 4pm today (Monday) on the Ellen Degeneres show. The ad, which can be seen HERE, shows Bryant, uh, jumping cars. After jumping cars in shoes of his own design, he says "You know what I'm going to say the next time someone asks me why I do what I do? Why don't you?" Now it should be said that the cars are stationary, but one of them is parked in the middle of a street. And what's the deal with glamorizing such a patently dangerous practice? (Anyone remember what a Lotus Esprit did to a car jumper's foot on Ye Olde That's Incredible!?) The Akron Beacon Journal reports that we're late to the Chris Bryant car jumping hoe-down, as today will mark the former busboy's third appearance on the show. Anyway, we've tried to reach NIKE's press office for comment, but they're out to lunch. And now… they're back. Podcast with Dean Stoyer, U.S. Media Relations Director for NIKE below.