<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd">
<channel>
<title>Autoblog</title>
<link>http://www.autoblog.com</link>
<description>Autoblog</description>

<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2009 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only.</copyright>
<generator>Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/</generator><item><title><![CDATA[ACLU throws its weight around in... battle for Colorado vanity plates?]]></title><link>http://www.autoblog.com/2009/04/25/aclu-throws-its-weight-around-in-battle-for-colorado-vanity-p/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.autoblog.com/2009/04/25/aclu-throws-its-weight-around-in-battle-for-colorado-vanity-p/</guid><comments>http://www.autoblog.com/2009/04/25/aclu-throws-its-weight-around-in-battle-for-colorado-vanity-p/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/government-legal/" rel="tag">Government/Legal</a>, <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/lifestyle/" rel="tag">Lifestyle</a></p><a href="http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_12213302"><img hspace="4" border="1" align="right" vspace="4" alt="" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/04/aclu_tofu.jpg" /></a>If you LVTOFU, the ACLU might go to bat for your right to let the world know you love tofu. A <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2009/04/08/womans-love-of-tofu-too-obscene-for-vanity-plate/">Colorado woman was recently turned down</a> by the state's DMV when she wanted a plate reading "ILVTOFU." The Department of Revenue said the letters "FU" are a banned combination, and cited a statute that allows rejections if plates are "offensive to the general public" or "offensive to good taste and decency." If loving tofu is wrong, we don't want to be right...<br /><br />And the ACLU wants none of it. The organization has requested records from the Department of all of the rejected plates, probably with an eye to bringing a case if they find infringement of free speech. At issue is the boundary of First Amendment rights and state ownership of the license plate. An Oregon DMV rep said his state probably would have denied the plate -- Oregon turned down the plate "VINO" -- a Nevada DMV rep said his state probably would have approved it.<br /><br />Even more odd is the list of <a href="http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_12097797">banned 3-letter combinations</a> on Colorado license plates. "Die," "gat," and "pee" we can understand. But "hot," "USB," and "moo"? Makes us think that Coloradoans have different meanings for their words than the rest of us...<br /><br />[Source: <a href="http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_12213302">Denver Post</a>]<p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2009/04/25/aclu-throws-its-weight-around-in-battle-for-colorado-vanity-p/">ACLU throws its weight around in... battle for Colorado vanity plates?</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.autoblog.com">Autoblog</a> on Sat, 25 Apr 2009 11:51:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href=http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_12213302>Read</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2009/04/25/aclu-throws-its-weight-around-in-battle-for-colorado-vanity-p/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/forward/1527525/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2009/04/25/aclu-throws-its-weight-around-in-battle-for-colorado-vanity-p/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>aclu</category><category>colorado</category><category>government</category><category>ilvtofu</category><category>legal</category><category>license plate</category><category>LicensePlate</category><category>lifestyle</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Jonathon Ramsey]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 25 Apr 2009 11:51:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[NHTSA requires disclosing "black box" details]]></title><link>http://www.autoblog.com/2006/08/22/nhtsa-requires-disclosing-black-box-details/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.autoblog.com/2006/08/22/nhtsa-requires-disclosing-black-box-details/</guid><comments>http://www.autoblog.com/2006/08/22/nhtsa-requires-disclosing-black-box-details/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/recalls-tsbs/" rel="tag">Recalls</a>, <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/safety/" rel="tag">Safety</a>, <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/tech/" rel="tag">Technology</a></p><p><a href="http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060821/vehicle_black_boxes.html?.v=2"><img border="0" align="right" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2006/08/286_control1.jpg" alt="" /></a>Starting in 2011, automakesr will be required to inform consumers if their new vehicle includes an event data recorder, or "black box". Such devices have recently come under fire from privacy advocates, as manufacturers have been somewhat less than forthcoming about information on the devices. </p>
<p>The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) will also require that any data recorder be capable of gathering <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2006/08/07/nhtsa-creating-universal-standard-for-automotive-black-box/">at least 15 pieces of information</a>, but stopped short of requiring that the devices be installed on every new vehicle. Currently, over 60% of new vehicles include black boxes that are triggered by the deployment of a vehicle's supplemental restrain systems. </p>
<p>As expected, no one seems satisfied with NHTSA's ruling. Public Citizen's Joan Claybrook was quite unhappy after hearing that the recorders will not be required across the board, while representatives of the American Civil Liberties Union did not like the fact that certain issues regarding the use of crash data were not addressed. </p>
<p>[Source: AP/Yahoo!]</p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2006/08/22/nhtsa-requires-disclosing-black-box-details/">NHTSA requires disclosing "black box" details</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.autoblog.com">Autoblog</a> on Tue, 22 Aug 2006 11:04:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href=http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060821/vehicle_black_boxes.html?.v=2>Read</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2006/08/22/nhtsa-requires-disclosing-black-box-details/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/forward/657284/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2006/08/22/nhtsa-requires-disclosing-black-box-details/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>aclu</category><category>air bags</category><category>airbag</category><category>black box</category><category>crash</category><category>edr</category><category>event data recorder</category><category>NHTSA</category><category>privacy</category><category>public citizen</category><category>restraints</category><category>safety</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Eric Bryant]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 22 Aug 2006 11:04:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Ford considering amending employment policy's sexual orientation clauses]]></title><link>http://www.autoblog.com/2006/04/05/ford-considering-amending-employment-policys-sexual-orientation/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.autoblog.com/2006/04/05/ford-considering-amending-employment-policys-sexual-orientation/</guid><comments>http://www.autoblog.com/2006/04/05/ford-considering-amending-employment-policys-sexual-orientation/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/trends/" rel="tag">Trends</a>, <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/etc/" rel="tag">Etc.</a>, <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/government-legal/" rel="tag">Government/Legal</a>, <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/hirings-firings/" rel="tag">Hirings/Firings/Layoffs</a>, <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/ford/" rel="tag">Ford</a></p><p><img hspace="4" src="http://www.autoblog.com/media/2006/04/fordlogo1928.jpg" align="right" vspace="4" border="0"alt="" /></p>
<p>Ford's shareholders are to reportedly consider changing the company's equal employment policy languageto exclude any mention of sexual orientation. The move is expected after the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission(SEC) rejected the automaker's bid to keep the matter from its proxy statement. As of right now, the BlueOval's policy includes clauses that specifically outline the company's pledge not to discriminate basedupon sexual orientation, but a request by shareholder Robert Hurley has&nbsp;submitted the proposal forconsideration.</p>
<p>Ford has apparently been petitioning the government agency to exclude the issue, arguing that its inclusion willhurt the automaker's chances of wooing potential employees at certain universities (that require sexualorientation to be included in recruiting companies' policies), also fearing that backlash stemming from such achangeover could hurt sales to GLBT supporters.</p>
<p>The proxy statement goes out this Friday, at which point shareholders will vote on the issue. The result isexpected to be made public on May 11 at Ford's annual meeting.</p>
<p>[Source: Associated Press via Detroit News]<br /></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2006/04/05/ford-considering-amending-employment-policys-sexual-orientation/">Ford considering amending employment policy's sexual orientation clauses</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.autoblog.com">Autoblog</a> on Wed, 05 Apr 2006 11:02:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href=http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060405/UPDATE/604050444/1148/rss25>Read</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2006/04/05/ford-considering-amending-employment-policys-sexual-orientation/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/forward/605666/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2006/04/05/ford-considering-amending-employment-policys-sexual-orientation/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>ACLU</category><category>Blue Oval</category><category>BlueOval</category><category>Employment</category><category>Equal Opportunity</category><category>EqualOpportunity</category><category>Ford</category><category>Gay</category><category>GLB</category><category>GLBT</category><category>Lesbian</category><category>SEC</category><category>Trans-Gender</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Chris Paukert]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 05 Apr 2006 11:02:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Minneapolis judge orders 'lights out' for traffic signal cameras]]></title><link>http://www.autoblog.com/2006/03/16/m/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.autoblog.com/2006/03/16/m/</guid><comments>http://www.autoblog.com/2006/03/16/m/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/trends/" rel="tag">Trends</a></p><p><a href="http://www.kmsp.com/news/story.asp?1652534"><img alt=""src="http://www.autoblog.com/media/2006/02/1e1c45d2-0b59-485e-ba9b-19ed72cd59b5.jpg" align="right" /></a>A Minneapolis,Minnesota area judge has given red-light cameras a taste of their own medicine. Hennepin County District Judge MarkWernick has put the red light on the county's automated&nbsp;traffic signal&nbsp;cameras installed this past July. </p>
<p>The judge found legal fault with the county's 'Stop On Red' program, which (like virtually allred-light camera programs) tickets the owners of the offending vehicles, not the drivers themselves. As Minnesota statelaws put the responsibility for light violations on the driver, Wernick threw out the challenging ticket, saying thatMinneapolis lacks the authority to make law an ordinance that would hold vehicle owners responsible.</p>
<p>The motorist who brought the case to court was represented by an American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) volunteerattorney, Howard Bass, who argued that the ordinance was unconstitutional, though Judge Wernick didn't comment onthat facet of their case.</p>
<p>The city is mulling whether to appeal the decision, but the case could set an important legal precident nationwide,as it is estimated that as many as 160 other cities employ red light cameras.</p>
<p>[Source: Associated Press via KMSP Fox 9 News]</p>
<p>(Top&nbsp;tip, Jenni!)</p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2006/03/16/m/">Minneapolis judge orders 'lights out' for traffic signal cameras</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.autoblog.com">Autoblog</a> on Thu, 16 Mar 2006 08:00:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href=http://www.kmsp.com/news/story.asp?1652534>Read</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2006/03/16/m/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/forward/599903/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2006/03/16/m/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>ACLU</category><category>Hennepin</category><category>Mark Wernick</category><category>MarkWernick</category><category>Minneapolis</category><category>Photo Cop</category><category>Photo Radar</category><category>PhotoCop</category><category>PhotoRadar</category><category>Red Light</category><category>Red Light Camera</category><category>RedLight</category><category>RedLightCamera</category><category>Speed Camera</category><category>SpeedCamera</category><category>Stop On Red</category><category>StopOnRed</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Chris Paukert]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 16 Mar 2006 08:00:00 EST</pubDate></item></channel></rss>