Despite plenty of data that shows that drinking and driving leads to the deaths of thousands of motorists each year, consuming alcohol and getting behind the wheel is still a big problem in America. A study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration shows that eight percent of Americans admit to drinking and driving at least once in the past year. That's about 17 million drivers. A quarter of all respondents say they have gotten behind the wheel within two hours of having one or more alcoholic beverages.

To help combat this growing problem, NHTSA is launching its annual Drunk Driving. Over the Limit. Under Arrest. campaign. The campaign will be supported by $13 million in NHTSA-supplied ads and a big time crackdown by local law enforcement leading up to the Labor Day weekend. NHTSA chief Ray LaHood underscores the fact that drinking and driving is still a genuine threat to drivers everywhere, adding, "We are going to continue doing all that we can to stop drunk driving and the needless tragedies that result from this reckless behavior."

Perhaps the most disturbing trend involves 16-20 year-old drivers. While most weren't inclined to admit to drinking and driving, the ones who did fess up often admitted to consuming six or more alcoholic beverages in one setting. That's obviously not a good trend, and NHTSA says that its data shows that people who drink more tend to drink and drive more.

Source: AutoBlog

The attorneys leading a class-action lawsuit against Toyota say they have uncovered internal Toyota documents showing that some at the company were aware as far back as 2003 of the problem of unintended acceleration in cars the company made.

In a revised complaint against the automaker filed Monday in U.S. District Court in California, the plaintiffs' attorneys say that in a 2003 field report a company technician wrote up a case of sudden, unintended acceleration.

"The author requested immediate action due to the 'extremely dangerous problem' and [said] 'we are also much afraid of frequency of this problem in near future,' " according to the lawsuit.

Source: WashingtonPost

Texting and driving is risky in more ways than one. It's not only a distracting habit, but it's also illegal now in most states.

Delaware became the 30th state to ban drivers from texting or even holding cell phones when Gov. Jack Martell signed legislation last week that would levy fines on handheld cell phone use.

A week earlier, Massachusetts enacted a law entailing a $100 fine for a first texting-and-driving offense. The fine rises to $250 for a second offense, and $500 for a third.

Since July 1, it has been illegal in Michigan to text or check e-mail while driving.

U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood welcomed the latest bans on texting while driving.

Nearly 6,000 people were killed on American roads in 2008 in accidents caused by distracted drivers, according to the Transportation Department. It said the highest proportion involved teenage drivers.

Source: Detroit News

The automatic Camaro SS ships with "just" 400 hp. The reason why might come as a shock to some, but the automatic SS ships not with the Corvette-sourced LS3, but instead the LS3-based L99, essentially an LS3 with variable valve-timing and cylinder deactivation. As such, the Callaway SC572 is based on the LS3 and with the help of a supercharger makes 572 hp, while the Callaway SC552 uses a supercharged L99 and makes "only" 552 ponies. Yeah, we're smirking, too.

What a difference a blower makes. As mentioned, horsepower is up by 146 ponies in the SC572 and torque rises by 121 to net 541 lb-ft. That's beyond tire-shredding power and close to what the long-rumored LSA-stuffed Z28 Camaro would bring to the performance table, if not a smidge more. However, we wouldn't be surprised to learn that Callaway's horsepower rating is a bit on the conservative side. The SC572 pulls and pulls hard, delivering the kind of straight-line acceleration that you want from anything with four wheels. The numbers bear this out: the run from 0-60 mph happens in a supercar quick 3.9 seconds and Callaway claims the quarter-mile is dispatched in a Shelby GT500-smacking 11.9 seconds at 120 mph. The forward oomph is simply wonderful. Full read in the jump!

As is the shifter. In the SC572 we drove, Callaway wisely replaced the balky, inaccurate stock shifter with a short-throw setup. Then it did a really smart thing and replaced the cartoony (and gigantic) stock knob with the unit from a Corvette. Talk about night and day. The shifts are quick, notchy and tight – exactly what's needed in a serious performance car. Even if you have no interest in what Callaway's selling, any current Camaro owners out there would be crazy not to install this short throw kit in their rides.

Back to the serious performance car part. Again, and not to beat on the ailing horse, the new Chevy Camaro just doesn't handle as well as it should. There's a rumor floating around auto-journo circles that after the negative press about the Camaro's handling at launch, Chevy turned to a third party suspension expert to see if a quick-fix to the Camaro's suspension issues could be sorted out. According to said rumor, the engineer took the Camaro out for exactly one lap, pulled in and said something to the effect of, "Sorry, but you built a crap car." Even if that's nothing but urban legend, turning a sedan (the 2010 Camaro is based on the Pontiac G8's Australian-designed chassis) into proper sports coupe isn't as easy as it sounds. As Callaway general manager (and Reeves' son) Pete Callaway explained to us, Callaway is interested in a total engineering solution, and not just a geezed up motor.

Luckily for us and Callaway, their brand-new 20,000 square foot factory happens to be right next door to Eibach. As such, the SC572 is loaded front and rear with Eibach suspension pieces. The results are spellbinding. Gone is the floaty, imprecise near-wafting of the stock car. Instead the SC572's steering is tight, direct and even provides some feedback. Specifically, you're able to dial in the correct amount of lock and sit in amazement as the SC572 tracks true to the course you've dictated. Across tight switchbacks – the kind of back-to-back turns that overwhelm and flummox the stock suspension – the SC572 is not only happy, but eager to shift its formidable weight back and forth. As in any nose-heavy vehicle, the tendency is to initially understeer, however, a well-planted rear-end and some judicious use of the throttle keep the car planted and tracking true. It's awesome, really, especially considering what Callaway had as a starting point. The ride's even pretty good, which is another point of amazement when you realize how savage the SC572 can be when you fully open the taps. In case you were wondering, yes, Callaway did see fit to give the SC572 some serious stoppers: six-piston calipers clamping onto huge 15-inch rotors in front and four-piston calipers on 14-inch rotors at the rear. And yeah, they work as good as the specs would suggest.

We also drove the Callaway SC552, an automatic rendition of Callaway's mega-Camaro. Because the Roots-style TVS2300 supercharger is blowing air into GM's L99, the package produces 20 less horsepower (552 hp) though the torque figure (541 lb-ft) remains the same. The other big difference between the SC572 and SC552 is the suspension. Specifically, the SC572 comes with fixed dampers while the red SC552 we took out features double-adjustable (both compression and rebound) dampers at all four corners.

Even though 20 ponies among friends shouldn't be noticeable, it quickly became apparent that the SC552 just didn't have the brain pan-shattering acceleration that the manny tranny equipped SC572 has in spades. Now we're not going to claim that our butt-ometer is so finely tuned as to pick out this seemingly minor discrepancy. Instead, we'll blame it on A) the relatively slow-shifting GM slushbox and B) the less furious nature of the L99 when compared to the the fiercer LS3. That said, the SC552 is still wicked fast. It's just that we drove the cars back-to-back and the automatic version sure felt slower. But isn't that always the case?

As for the adjustable suspension, the way Callaway had the SC552 configured didn't come across as laser-precise as the non-adjustable SC572. Again, the SC572 is the best handling new Camaro we've ever driven. Of course, given time we're sure a very similar (if not identical) tune could be dialed in, but the fixed dampers are so good out of the box we're left wondering why you'd bother. Forced to stereotype the two cars, the SC572 is a sports car. Psychotically fast, yet with impressively sane handling to go with all the gumption. Plus you get that super-sweet shifter. The SC552, then, is the muscle car. Fast enough to win 99.99-percent of all red light encounters, yet a little sloppy when the going gets twisty. But, hey, life is all about choices.

Now comes pricing, and as you might have guessed, turning a toad into a prince will lower your net worth. The SC572 package starts at $16,990 for the engine mods that include the supercharger, a patent-pending liquid-to-air intercooler, beefed up injectors, high-flow intake and less restricted exhaust. You also get half a dozen Callaway body and engine bay mods, plus a frankly impressive three-year/36,000 warranty. The short throw shift-kit will set you back just $450 (again, well worth it). However, the suspension parts are pricier. Specifically, $2,990 for the standard coil-over kit and $4,990 for the same kit with adjustable dampers. The big brake kit is probably the most eye-popping option on the list – $8,190. Worth it? Sure, though there are no doubt cheaper options. If you're still feeling liquid, there are other packages like the Power Window Hood (essentially a clear window over the engine like the ZR1) for $3,950 or the $3,980 Sport Interior Group. And if you want it, Callaway will trim the car out in real carbon fiber for $19,995. They make the carbon fiber themselves.

We'd take our Callaway Camaro spec'd out like the silver SC572. Put another way, we'd love to take home the SC572 that we drove, as it's truly epic. Engine, shift-kit, suspension, brakes and lighter nine-spoke alloys would ding our wallets to the tune of $31,615. That's in addition to the cost of a Camaro SS, another $32,000 or so. We're talking around $64,000 for a Chevy Camaro. Worth it? Does the Pope do smoky burnouts in Vatican City? He would if he drove a Callaway SC572.

Source: AutoBlog

As should be expected by anyone following automotive news, Toyota has been named as a defendant in more than 320 state and federal level law suits as a result of its recent recall troubles. Thus far, 228 suits have been filed in federal court, and 99 in various state courts.

The first of the law suits against the Japanese manufacturer came last fall, when the troubles with unintended acceleration first came to light. Some plaintiffs have also put forth the assertion that Toyota’s electronic throttle control system is to blame, but this has been vehemently denied by Toyota.

Plaintiff claims vary from typical injury and death suits, to breach of warranty, fraud, and even claims of economic injury, as values of certain vehicles fell after the recalls became big news.

A key decision in these case, is the decision as to whether to establish the millions of Toyota owners as a single class, thus effectuating a class-action suit. Toyota has made the claim that those owners who have not experienced malfunction ought to be excluded from such a class.

It is estimated by attorneys that if Toyota were to settle the case against it for even modest amounts, the cost to the company would be at least $3 billion. Toyota has already paid a record setting fine to the NHTSA in the amount of $16.4 million as a result of the 52 fatalities having been connected to Toyota’s acceleration issues.

Source: eGMCarTech

Mississippi was one of the dozen remaining hold outs until some idiots in a blown car decided to take some police on a high speed chase that ended in the death of Trooper Steve Hood. As such, NOS is now illegal in Mississippi street cars, and is the 39th state to pass such a law.

As far as the specifics go, no one's sure exactly how the law is written. We know (for instance) that in California you can have a nitrous oxide system in your car and the bottle can even be hooked up, however said bottle must be 100% empty. In other states you're not allowed to have the bottle screwed in. Still, in others, a NOS system is illegal period.

A little advice for the Mississippi residents from the folks at Bangshift.com: "Seeing as though this is a law fresh in the minds of law enforcement and represents an emotional event for the Mississippi State Troopers, we'd stow our bottle well away from the mount when headed to the race track."


Source: AutoBlog

Yet nine months after saying, "I do," Schaumburg has called the whole thing off, citing no improvements in safety and a flood of angry-motorist grief, after red-light cameras at the village's lone picture-snapping intersection netted more than $1 million in tickets.

The dissolution of this once-happy union between a town and its red-light system is not a first for Illinois -- Bolingbrook turned off all its cameras in 2007 -- but it shows the red-hot debate over red-light cameras, even in cities that have already signed on the dotted line. In fact, it is often only after the cameras -- and their copious tickets -- arrive that the revenue-versus-safety arguments begin in earnest.

In Schaumburg, the problems started almost on Day One. More in the jump!

"We felt like, 'Wait, something is wrong here,' " Village Trustee Marge Connelly said before the board voted unanimously Tuesday night to terminate its contract with RedSpeed, Illinois' largest red-light camera company.

"We're not condoning running red lights, but in our case this was not the right way to handle it."

What was "wrong" in Schaumburg's case began with trying to do something right, several trustees said, recalling their unanimous vote last September. "From the outset this was all about safety," said Trustee George Dunham.

"Our board never went into this intending to collect a lot of revenue," said Ken Fritz, the village manager. "We felt that if it really improved public safety, it was good, and if it helped us with revenue, that was good too."

When Schaumburg first signed on to the red-light camera business last year, officials could hardly wait to get started, which is why they chose Meacham and Woodfield Roads as the first of their 10 planned camera locations. That intersection wasn't chosen because it had a lot of accidents -- the spot isn't even in Schaumburg's top 10 -- but because all of the intersection's approaches are in the village's boundaries and are local roads. This let village officials deploy the cameras much faster, avoiding the state approval needed for cameras on state roads.

Almost immediately, that selection paid off, literally, as cameras there flashed as fast as a paparazzi pack, mostly nabbing drivers for making right turns on red without a complete stop. In just 2 ½ months, the cameras spit out about 10,000 tickets, each a $100 violation.

"I was shocked, frankly, that the number of violations were so high for the right on a red light," Connelly said. "A lot of people were just confused about that intersection."

And they were angry: Shoppers snared as they visited nearby Woodfield Mall vowed to take their business elsewhere. (Marc Strich, the mall's general manager, said he kindly directed shoppers to the Village Hall.) Other motorists complained too. In response, village officials told RedSpeed to stop processing right-turn-on-red violations and only forward ones when drivers turned left on red or went straight through the intersection on red.

RedSpeed did just that until May, when the company told police officials "that because it was so labor-intensive to go through all violations compared to the number sent to us for final approval, they did not feel the time spent by their personnel was justified," wrote Chief Brian Howerton in a June memo, recommending that the village terminate its RedSpeed contract.

By the end of that month, RedSpeed was forwarding only left-turn-on-red violations, which totaled just 12 for all of May. Such a small haul hardly justified the camera and ticketing system, which from start to finish cost the village about $400,000 in fees to RedSpeed.

In that same period, "I would guess the village received about $550,000 to $600,000 net revenue," Fritz said.

Schaumburg officials stated Tuesday night that they terminated the RedSpeed contract because crash data, prepared by the Police Department in June, revealed that the intersection does not have a problem with running-red-light accidents nor did it have one in 2008 when the cameras were installed. That fact angers Brian Costin, president of the Schaumburg Freedom Coalition, a citizens group that campaigned against the cameras last September. "I think Mayor [Al] Larson and the board did not do their due diligence," he said.

Schaumburg getting out of the red-light camera business does not mean Illinois cities are no longer interested in signing up for the systems: On Monday, River Forest's board voted to conditionally hire RedSpeed to install two traffic cameras along Harlem Avenue.

But that board also voted 3-2 to endorse a two-tiered fine structure that would give a break to motorists ticketed for making a rolling right turn on red. Trustee Steve Hoke alluded to recent Tribune stories that found the overwhelming majority of camera-generated tickets were for making illegal right turns on red, even though traffic-safety experts say such infractions rarely lead to serious damage or injuries.

RedSpeed sales consultant Michael Lebert told the board he didn't know whether the company would agree to Hoke's plan, noting that RedSpeed operates cameras for nearly 60 Illinois municipalities, all of which charge $100 per ticket, the maximum allowed under the state's red-light camera law.

He also warned that such a fine structure could pose a technological challenge and lead to errors.

Source: Chicago Tribune

I think he was right.

Ahh, the revenue maker: ticketing for no front plate. Only enforced by the states who need some extra money. In this video, a guy finds the cop who ticketed him for no front plate in his personal Mustang, also having no front plate. Such bs!

The Cadence-and-Camaro saga continues. Cadence, which makes interior parts for the Camaro, declared bankruptcy last August. GM sued the supplier to recover the specialized tooling machines it could need in order to continue Camaro production - or will it need to have the machines made again. GM also refrained from paying Cadence $4.9 million that Cadence says it is owed for "parts, labor, and equipment."

Cadence has now countersued The General, not just to get the money, but because that money is an integral part of Cadence's liquidation plans. Without it, Cadence maintains there will be "substantial harm to Cadence's bankruptcy estate." The pre-production Camaros are already in the works, and we have no idea how this development will affect the production version of the car. This battle can't be good for either company, but it's especially bad news for all of the Camaro faithful who are patiently awaiting the return of their king.

Source: AutoBlog

The gearhead "Tonight Show" host is being sued for his $180,000 auction purchase of a classic car that once belonged to a Macy's heir.

The daughter of late hot-wheels enthusiast John Straus says the owners of the E. 76th St. garage that housed the 1931 Model J Duesenberg for more than 50 years schemed to get Leno the car through a phony auction.

"It was a sham," said Nathan Goldberg, a lawyer for Straus' daughter, Wendy Lubin. "It was designed by the garage company to provide Jay Leno with an unlawful private sale."

The car had been in the Straus family since 1931, when Straus' dad, Herbert, had it delivered to the family's home in Red Bank, N.J. Full story after the jump!

John Straus bought the Duesenberg from his mother, and in the early 1950s put it and a 1930 Rolls Royce in the Windsor - Garage on the upper East Side.

"This car meant a lot to this family," Goldberg said. "It was a precious family heirloom."

The suit, filed Wednesday in Manhattan Supreme Court, accuses the Windsor Garage owners of ¬taking advantage of John Straus' dementia to cook up the 2005 sale to Leno, who lusted after the Duesenberg.

"Leno knew this car was not for sale, and Straus had made that clear to him," said Goldberg, adding that it is worth more than $1.5 million.

A lawyer for Leno and the garage said the cars went on the block only after Straus became "extremely delinquent" in paying his storage fee.

"Mr. Leno bought the car in good faith," lawyer Bruce Bronster said.

The garage's director of maintenance ended up with the Rolls, the suit says, when the company in 2005 refused to accept a $36,000 check from the ailing Straus for garaging the cars.

"They took advantage of a man suffering from a debilitating illness," Goldberg said.

Nonsense, Bronster said.

"The allegations will be proven in a court of law to be untrue," he said.

In the 2007 book "The Hemi in the Barn," Leno told how he concocted a tale to keep other prospective buyers away after Straus refused to sell it to him.

The suit says the car is in Leno's Big Dog Garage in Burbank, Calif., with a slew of other classic cars and custom motorcycles.
Straus, whose grandparents co-owned Macy's and perished aboard the Titanic, died in May at age 87.

"Even to his dying day, when he was approached by car enthusiasts about the Duesenberg, he would become entranced," Goldberg said. "That car was a part of his family."

Source: NY Daily News

General Motors Corp. is cracking down on workers and retirees who it says have improperly extended employee discounts to non-relatives and have cost the automaker more than $450,000. Lawsuits filed by GM say company audits found the discounts had saved buyers anywhere from $1,000 to almost $9,000.

The Detroit News says it isn't clear how many lawsuits have been filed. The newspaper is reporting that some of the lawsuits were filed after this month's announcement by GM that it is temporarily extending such discounts to everyone on almost all of its 2008 and some of its 2009 models.

GM spokesman Tom Wilkinson says the timing of the lawsuits and the extended discounts was coincidental. He says that while such uses of employee discounts might have been overlooked in the past, the company now is closely watching its costs.

Source: USA Today