Did you know that all drivers in Germany are potentially subject to an Idiotentest? Well, “Idiot Test” is the popular term; technically it’s called the Medizinisch-Psychologische Untersuchungen (Medical-Psychological Test) and it’s administered to some 100,000 Germans each year by the Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen (Federal Highway Research Institute). The point is, if a German driver does something colossally stupid, like run a red light, wreck while racing, or get caught driving drunk,  the Bundesanstalt makes him or her take a test to determine that they are medically and psychologically capable of driving safely. If you fail, either get sent back to (mandatory) driving school, or you lose your license (and gain the sneaking suspicion that your high school counselor was right, and you really are an idiot). Anyway, while you’re pondering the pros and cons of this system compared to America’s lassez-idiot approach, consider this: the number of idiot tests administered to German drivers was up three percent last year, the first time in years that the number went up. Apparently you can’t keep automotive idiocy down. (Read More…)

The Auto Prophet brings up a point that completely escaped our discussion of General Electric’s EV mega-buy:

By gobbling up EVs, GE certainly helps to jump-start the industry, but they also gobble up future tax credits that consumers would have gotten, unless GE opts to forego the EV tax credit. Which would be bad business.

Yup, GE’s huge EV buy will be good for GE… but it won’t be so great for the 25,000 Americans whose tax credit will slurped up in the process. After all, the credit expires after a manufacturer sells 200k qualifying vehicles, so every credit GE uses brings GM and Nissan that much closer to the day they have to ask consumers to pay full price for their pricey EVs. No wonder GM is already pushing for an extension of the credit past 200k units.

We’ve heard a lot of arguments on all sides of the bailout, but we had yet to hear anyone call for prolonged government ownership and involvement in General Motors… until now. What follows is a letter from Ralph Nader, former NHTSA boss Joan Claybrook, Center for Auto Safety honcho Clarence Ditlow and Public Citizen president Robert Weissman, urging the Obama administration to suspend GM’s IPO and take firmer control of the government-owned automaker’s decisions on a number of issues including lobbying, employment and the environment. Because, despite appearing to be stuck in the 70s, Nader and company have never heard of British Leyland. Taste the madness below.

Dear President Obama,

The U.S. government bailout of, and acquisition of a majority share in, General Motors was anexceptional action, taken in response to exceptional circumstances. The U.S. stake in GM obviously poses novel managerial challenges to the government. The appropriate response to those challenges, however, is not to run from the responsibility through passive ownership and premature sale at a loss to taxpayers.

(Read More…)

With news reports filtering in about an industry-mounted offensives against the Motor Vehicle Safety Act and proposed increases to CAFE standards, we thought we’d take a look at how much the industry spent in the recent midterm election cycle. According to Opensecrets.org, the chart above shows the biggest spenders in “Automotive,” and industry sector that includes OEMs, suppliers, rental companies and just about anything else related to four-wheeled motorized transport. Charged up by the bailout-era dealer cull, it’s not surprising that NADA took the top spot, and with a hotly-contested Korea free trade agreement under negotiation, the AFIT PAC is a logical number two. But Enterprise beating out Ford? Didn’t see that one coming. Still, the contributor breakdown for the “Auto Manufacturer” sector is even more interesting…

(Read More…)

America’s Baby Boom generation turns 65 next year, which means it’s only a matter of time before America’s roads are clogged with self-satisfied drivers in total denial about their rapidly deteriorating vision, reaction time and decision making abilities (Gosh, is there anything as satisfying as generational bashing?).  Everyone knows that old drivers are bad drivers, but they’re also more likely to be injured due to their physical frailty. Drivers over 70 are three times as likely as those aged 35-54 to sustain a fatal injury in a crash, and the National Transportation Safety Board is worried enough about the prospect of an aging demographic bulge to hold a conference on the topic in DC. According to the DetN, conversation there centers on a number of potential measures for curbing the impacts of aging drivers, including “Michigan lefts,” which move left-hand turns out of major intersections, traffic circles, and improved safety equipment like inflatable seatbelts. But the real elephant in the room is restrictions on licensing, including mandatory eye testing, restrictions on license renewal by mail, shorter renewal periods, and even additional testing for drivers over a certain age.

Needless to say, Americans tend to think of driving as a right rather than a privilege, but if states restrict license rights for new drivers, there’s no question that senior drivers should face some kind of oversight. Especially in the context of tragedies like the Santa Monica Farmers Market incident. But how much? And what kind? And at what age?

Another state court of appeals on Friday saw no problem with police attaching a GPS tracking device to an automobile without first obtaining a warrant from a judge. Idaho’s second highest court denied the appeal of Filip Danney who was convicted on marijuana charges based on evidence gained from the spying device.

In March 2007, Ada County Detective Matt Taddicken received an anonymous tip about Danney and decided to investigate. Two months later, he went to Danney’s work and placed a GPS tracker on Danney’s parked car. Within a few days, the device showed Danney was returning to Boise from a trip to Arcata, California. This was enough to have Taddicken order Danney stopped and searched. Ada County Sheriff’s Office Deputy Matthew Clifford claimed that Danney failed to “signal for five seconds prior to changing lanes,” and used this as a reason to pull him over. While Danney was detained, a drug dog was brought in to search the vehicle. The dog found the marijuana.

(Read More…)

Yes, our recent acquisition of complete 2009 fleet sales data came a little late in the game, but we’re still finding all kinds of fun facts buried in it. For fans of limited government, perhaps the most interesting revelation is that the government fleet sales data shows that American governments (it’s unclear whether these are state, local or federal agencies) bought some sweet cars last year. Some sweet, expensive cars. Let’s take a look at some of the most surprising government fleet purchases of 2009, accompanied by our guesses for how each purchase was used.

(Read More…)

Automotive News [sub] reports that the new GOP majority in the house of representatives will likely mark a shift in the political dynamic between the industry and the US government, as Republicans shift from noisy protest of government support for the industry towards orchestrating reductions in industry regulation. And, according to the Alliance of Automotive Manufacturers, the first victim of the new Republican House could be the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a set of sweeping regulations aimed at preventing recall scandals like the Toyota unintended acceleration fiasco that took place earlier this year. House Republicans plan on holding hearings on that bill, which has passed committees in the House and Senate but has not yet faced a full vote by either full body. Says National Auto Dealers Association lobbyist Bailey Wood

There will be much more oversight, and the process will slow down

But House Republicans will also face their own challenges. With Democrat JerryBRown winning California’s gubernatorial race, national lobbyists will have a harder time resisting ever-increasing emissions standards, as California is the sole state with authority to independently regulate auto emissions. Though Republicans are likely to support the industry’s resistance to increased fuel economy standards, they will require help from the White House in order to, as the AAM’s Dave McCurdy puts it

rein in some of the more exuberant tendencies in California

With battles brewing over safety and emissions legislation, 2011 is shaping up to be an interesting year for followers of the politics of automobiles.

A federal class action lawsuit seeks to take advantage of last month’s California Supreme Court’s red light camera decision. The high court let stand a lower court ruling that invalidated citations on the ground that the city of Santa Ana’s failed to provide the legally required warning periods before activating the automated ticketing machines (view ruling). Motorist Robert Plumleigh was forced to pay $480 on March 17, 2008 after a camera accused him of turning right at a red light at one of the sixteen intersections where the city failed to provide the required thirty-day warning period. He wants Santa Ana to refund all illegally issued tickets. US District Court Judge Cormac J. Carney on Wednesday gave Plumleigh’s lawyers an extra thirty days to file for class certification.

(Read More…)

Nearly three out of every four Anaheim, California residents voted Tuesday to ban the use of red light cameras in the city. Twenty-five miles away in Gardena, the police chief warned the city council in February that the devices lack public support. Gardena began using automated ticketing machines five years previously. As the contract came up for renewal, city councilmen asked during a Finance Committee meeting for the police chief to report on the public perception of the camera program. Chief Edward Medrano’s assessment was brutally honest and did not tend to support the notion that the program was put in place to reduce accidents.

(Read More…)

Perhaps one of the least-covered elements of the auto industry restructuring has been the numerous tax advantages GM has earned as a government-owned automaker. Unlike most bankruptcies, GM was allowed to hold onto some $16b of net operating loss credits (tax-loss carry-forwards), which can be used to offset future tax bills. Typically, companies that restructure in bankruptcy lose existing carry-forwards as the price of wiping out debt, but because the government is invested in GM, it decided to allow old tax losses to flow into the new company even as debt was left behind. In the latest update on this story, The Wall Street Journal notes that some $18.9b of GM’s carry-forwards were from the old company, and that the firm has a whopping $45.4b in future tax savings. And because carry-forwards can be banked up to 20 years before they are spent, GM will have to make massive profits before it starts actually paying taxes to the federal government. The government’s position:

the profit-shielding tax credit makes the bailed-out companies more attractive to investors, and that the value of the benefit is greater than the lost tax payments, especially since the tax payments would not exist if the companies fail

Which is all well and good, but the reality is also that this practically doubles the taxpayers’ cost of bailing out GM. As a policy this makes sense for the reasons given (assuming the bailout was a foregone conclusion), but it would be nice if this “hidden charge” were at least noted on the bill.

The public rejected the use of photo enforcement in five more municipal referendum elections Tuesday. America’s fourth-largest city, Houston, Texas, was home to the most hotly contested vote. The group Citizens Against Red Light Cameras, run by brothers Paul and Randy Kubosh, gathered enough signatures to force the issue onto the ballot against the wishes of the city council and in spite of a legal attack from camera operator American Traffic Solutions (ATS).

(Read More…)

Today is election day, the time when good Americans process all the negative advertising they’ve seen over the previous months and decide on the lesser of several evils. But the best thing about election day isn’t the sense of civic pride or even the knowledge that you’ll be able to avoid political ads for at least a few months afterwords. The greatest thing about elections is that, for one moment, the nation gets a snapshot of itself, a picture of what really matters to us as citizens. So this seems as good a time as any to ask you, TTAC’s Best And Brightest, how you feel about the potency of the Auto Bailout as an issue. After all, the bailout is currently caught in limbo; impossible to undo, at yet still far from resolution, good or bad. If anything, the latest indicators show that the GM bailout was fairly compromised, in the sense that the new company will be worth about what the taxpayers put into it (in the $50b range).

But does it matter at all how much taxpayers get out of GM’s (and eventually Chrysler’s) IPO? And if so, is it important that GM repay the taxpayers completely, or do the bailed-out firms need only to be sustainable for a certain period to make the bailout a success? As I see it, the question isn’t so much one of politics. After all, the rescue is hardly the definitive political issue for any citizen not directly affected by it (a relatively small group compared to the American electorate). The real issue seems to be whether political opposition to the bailout will affect sales at GM and Chrysler, and whether achieving certain financial or taxpayer payback goals will eliminate any such political impacts on sales. Do the bailouts affect your relationship with GM and Chrysler, and if so, what do you need to see in order to leave the bailout in the past?

A lawsuit against Mazda is moving to the United States Supreme Court, reports Bloomberg, challenging whether automakers should have been required to install shoulder belts in all of its seats prior to current regulations requiring the improved belting systems took effect in 2007. The case centers on a 2002 accident in which Than Williams was killed when a Jeep Wrangler hit her family’s 1993 Mazda MPV. The Williams MPV had only lap belts because shoulder belts weren’t required by federal law until 2007. A California court has already barred the lawsuit from coming forward, arguing that federal regulations supersede any local rulings, and that then-legal seatbelts should protect manufacturers from personal injury liability. However a recent case casts some doubt on the precedents in the Mazda case…

(Read More…)

As Automotive News [sub] reports, GM has gone ahead and finalized the 500 dealer cuts that made up its bankruptcy-bailout-era dealer cull, despite resistance from some 22 members of the US House of Representatives. And despite the congressional pressure, a damning SIGTARP report, and an ongoing criminal investigation, GM hasn’t changed its tune about cutting dealers, telling AN [sub] that delaying dealer cuts

would only divert our collective attention at a critical time and would ignore the independent decisions of arbitrators and individual settlement agreements between GM and its dealers

Meanwhile, just what affect has the dealer cull had on surviving dealerships? Are they thriving? Well, not exactly…
(Read More…)