Autoblog

After wiping the egg off his face for approving legislation earlier this year that banned cell phone use yet still allowed texting behind the wheel, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger hurriedly signed legislation today banning drivers from sending, writing, or reading messages on electronic devices. If you are one of those text-messaging morons in the fast lane, no need to worry as the law doesn't go into effect until January. Even when it does, the fine for a first offense is only $20 (what, a mere 5 gallons of gas?), and the second offense is just $50. Considering it is still legal to type in a phone number on a keypad while driving... um, we haven't the foggiest idea on how they are going to actually enforce this law in the first place.

[Source: Los Angeles Times]

If residents in several cities in Clark County, Washington want to get their cars clean, they could soon be forced to do it at retail car washes. According to an employee at the Washington state Department of Ecology, the state wants "people to make the connection of 'what goes on the street goes into the creek.'" And soapy car wash residue is something they don't want in the creek.

The state wants the cities to come up with a way to keep any water that isn't rain water from getting into the environment without being treated. The cities, about a dozen in all, say that's crazy, and have threatened to sue the state for trying to enact measures that exceed federal Clean Water Act.

The state suggests that if people still want to clean their cars, that they don't use soap with phosphorus, and wash their cars on gravel or grass where the water will be filtered by the soil. That's ironic, because part of the state's measure also requires sprinkler water to be captured and treated. Residents could always try the state's other option: don't use soap at all.

[Source: Next Autos, Photo CC | Credit: Koop]

With the European Union tightening restrictions on carbon emissions, danger has been spelled out in big bright letters for the sportscar-makers we know and love. The bulk of the world's best supercar manufacturers – including Ferrari, Lamborghini, Lotus, Aston Martin and Porsche – reside in Europe, but while industry executives continue to campaign for exception and protection, things don't look good. There are, however, a few solutions that could keep the exotic automakers in business and unmolested.

Firstly, both automakers and lawmakers agree on the need to reduce weight, which helps neither emissions nor performance. However, weight reduction itself won't bring the supercars below the 120g/km target touted by the EU. One possible solution would be to give niche automakers an exemption, noting that the few cars they produce are rarely driven anyway. According to Lamborghini CEO Stephan Winkelmann, exotic automakers like his "are representing Europe to the world" and "are a species to protect", much like an art form. That's something we car lovers can appreciate, and if it strikes a cord with the lawmakers it could help some of the smaller independent automakers like Aston Martin and Lotus, but it won't help the likes of Ferrari and Lamborghini, which are part of bigger auto groups Fiat and Volkswagen, respectively. Fiat CEO Sergio Marchionne has argued that it would be unreasonable to force low-polluting little Fiats like the Panda and the 500 to bear the burden of their more polluting cousins from Ferrari and Maserati simply because they happen to be under common management.

At the end of the day, these exotic sportscars are not the big problem, though they do make easy targets. If European Union bureaucrats ignore the former and focus on the latter, Europe's most famous automakers could be legislated right out of business.

[Source: Reuters]

California joined thirty-two other states today when a new law banning unlimited cellphone use in automobiles went into effect at midnight. The new rules prohibit drivers from holding cellphones to their ears while talking, yet they are still allowed to dial the phone to place the call... and freely text message. While the law won't likely have a huge effect on many adult drivers who have become accustomed to using speaker-phones and hands-free devices such as Bluetooth-enabled earpieces (as if that really helps), it is the young drivers who face tough new rules. The law in the Golden State now bans drivers under the age of 18 from using any kind of mobile device while driving. All drivers face the same slap-on-the-wrist if caught. The first offense is only $20, with the fee bumped to $50 for additional convictions. Of course, that number will rapidly increase if other infractions or penalties are applied.

[Source: Los Angeles Times, Photo by David McNew/Getty]

My son asked what would happen if his finger were in the path of the electric window when it closed. I suggested we stick a piece of Red Vine licorice in the window to find out. The results weren't pretty, though to this day I'm still finding tiny bits of red licorice stuck in the channels of the window frame. Boys...

In a move aimed at preventing incidents like these in vehicles, a bill was sent to President Bush earlier this week with brand new safety regulations for automakers. Under the new bill, power windows would be required to automatically reverse themselves if resistance is encountered from a finger or, say, a Twizzlers. Some high-end automakers already include this type of window safety system in their vehicles, thought they are not currently mandated industry-wide.

A second provision says that there must be a minimum standard for driver visibility to the rear of the vehicle, presumably to help parents avoid backing up over Timmy's Big Wheel... or Timmy himself. Automakers could meet this new rule with additional mirrors, cameras, or sensors to the vehicle. New uses for Infiniti's Around View Monitor come to mind. The third and final provision is designed to prevent accidental shifting of vehicles out of park, and would likely turn your floor-mounted shifter into the auto-equivalent of a child-proof lighter.

The entire auto industry is reportedly behind the legislation and it's obviously already passed both houses of Congress, so analysts expect the President to sign it without any changes. While these new laws will undoubtedly make vehicles less dangerous for children, an alert driver still remains the most important piece in the safety puzzle.

[Source: Automotive News, sub. req'd]

In a survey of 30 congressional districts in the Midwest and Southeast, it was "found that nearly nine out of ten voters want mandatory increases in fuel efficiency." In fact, to be specific, they want the House of Representatives to pass the same CAFE standards as the Senate passed two months ago: 35 mpg for cars and trucks by 2020, and chose that over a slightly less strict competing bill. Even more startling: 85% of the respondents wanted compliance brought up to 2018.

Having said that, we can't help but think the results are slightly skewed. If the survey question wasn't entirely loaded, there were at least a couple of rounds in the cylinder. Essentially, respondents were asked to agree with one of two statements: carmakers should not have to make cars with better gas mileage because if they do it will make everything worse for America and you won't be able to buy an SUV, or, carmakers should have to make cars with better gas mileage because it will make everything better for America and you'll save money and we won't rely so much on foreign oil. Let me see...

According to the survey, voters apparently saw no negative consequences from mandating higher CAFE standards, with up to 81% believing that vehicles would remain just as powerful, just as safe, workers wouldn't lose their jobs, and the need to innovate would invigorate the economy. There is undoubtedly a desire for more fuel efficient vehicles, with a lot of room on all sides for the various parties to come up with workable solutions that benefit the most and harm the least. There could also, however, be surveys that do a better job of highlighting that fact.

[Source: Green Car Congress]

The NHTSA revealed the final rules on the mandatory installation of electronic stability control (ESC) to help prevent rollovers on all vehicles by the 2012 model year (September 2011). The legislation applies to all vehicles under 10,000 pounds, and was ushered in without dissent by automakers. Carmakers that produce less than 5,000 cars per year will be given more time to phase in the technology.

With their increased propensity to roll over, 90% of SUVs already feature ESC, but only 40% of 2007 model cars do. Given the disproportionate fatality rate for rollovers – only 2% of auto accidents result in rollovers, but rollovers account for 40% of fatalities – having all cars equipped with ESC is estimated to reduce rollovers up to 84%, save up to 10,300 lives, and prevent up to 238,000 serious injuries per year. When it comes to single vehicle crashes, SUV rollovers could drop by 59%, with passenger cars dropping 34%.

The threshold test will be conducted at 50 mph, using a steering robot to swerve the vehicle in a predetermined pattern while the vehicle is moving at 50 mph. According to the NHTSA, the test is severe enough to cause most vehicles to spin out without ESC. Mandated equipment includes an indicator light to warn drivers about problems with the ESC.

Since ESC employs computer-controlled selective braking, all cars must also be equipped with ABS, which is a direction automakers were headed in anyway. The cost to automakers will be in the area of $985 million, but the cost-per-vehicle will only be $111, a small premium for a life saved. The cost of property damage is also expected to drop by up to $450 million per year.

One glaring weak spot is the roof. While the NHTSA has been reviewing roof strength since the '90s, proposals have been opposed by safety advocates as too weak and manufacturers as too strong.

Exceptions to always-on ESC could off-road vehicles, use on track days, driving in deep snow, and mismatched tire sizes (e.g., using a spacesaver spare). Ford and GM have indicated they expect to beat the mandatory deadline by a year.

[Source: Detroit News]

Four US Senators took to the microphone yesterday to accuse Detroit of "stonewalling" and "getting into a bunker mentality" when it comes to providing vehicles with better fuel economy. Dianne Feinstein, Dick Durbin, Olympia Snowe, and Lincoln Chafee are sponsoring a bill they call "Ten in Ten" that would call for increasing the fleetwide Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) to 37 MPG by 2017 - trucks and all. Also included is a requirement for on-board mileage displays by 2013. The proposal is said to save up to 2.5M barrels of oil each day. Manufacturers who could not comply with the new standards would be allowed to purchase credits from those who exceed the fleet mileage requirements.

Chrysler's VP of communications Jason Vines has already fired back, stating that the proposal isn't technically feasible and that automakers would already be making mainstream vehicles with better fuel economy if they could. Toyota's Jo Cooper also voiced concerns about the proposal, stating that the increased requirements don't "sound like much, but that's a huge leap forward".

[Source: Detroit News]

According to the Nutraingredients.com, there is currently a heated debate between the food industry and biodiesel advocates in Europe over the use rapeseed oil. The European Union seeks to increase the percentage of biofuel used in transportation from the current 2.5-pct to 5.7-pct by the year 2010 and rapeseed oil is a major source for the alternative fuel.

It's also a source for many food products such as margarine and sauces. Food industry organizations, such as the International Margarine Association of the Countries of Europe (IMACE), point to the already high price commanded by rapeseed oil in the marketplace. They argue that increasing the biodiesel requirement will negatively impact them and consumers. The biodiesel industry replies that the food industry has the ability to replace rapeseed oil in their products. As for the high price, the industry goes on to say that legislation will have to be implemented anyway to keep biodiesel prices comparable to regular diesel.

Consumer reluctance to purchase imported rapeseed oil has only served to compound the issue.

[Source: Nutraigredients.com]