Last week, Toyota faced their first jury trial for unintended acceleration of a Toyota product. The plaintiff, Amir Sitafalwalla, claimed that his 2005 Scion accelerated out of control when he attempted to shift the car into park, ultimately getting up close and personal with a tree. His attorney tried to argue that an unsecured floor mat was to blame, despite the fact that the Scion in question was excluded from the floor mat entrapment recall. His attorney also unsuccessfully tried to blame the Scion’s Electronic Throttle Control System, despite having no evidence to back up his allegations. In a rare display of courtroom sanity, the jury deliberated for less than an hour before returning a verdict that favored the defendant, Toyota.

While the victory for the Japanese automaker is significant, I’d stop short of saying it sets a precedence. The car in question was never part of recalls for unintended acceleration, and the accident itself dated back to 2005. A lawsuit wasn’t even filed until 2008, which is unusual in cases where a victim has the public interest at heart. Given the virtual disappearance of ongoing unintended acceleration claims against Toyota, I’d like to think the hysteria is largely behind us. We’ll know for sure the next time a suit against Toyota for UA is brought before a jury.

Source: Left Lane News

Chrysler's latest "Imported From Detroit" logo.

Here’s a free piece of advice: if you’re a boutique clothing retailer, it’s best to not rip-off the slogan from a major automaker, especially when that slogan has brought them unexpected success and media attention. When they ask you nicely to “cease and desist”, and to donate proceeds from merchandise sales to charity, your best response is to say “yes” and act quickly. When it comes to taking on the juggernaut that is Chrysler’s legal department, you have no hope of winning. In fact, I’ll wager a bet that they have more lawyers on staff than you have employees, and they’ll bleed you dry of resources before you can say “trademark infringement.” What’s this about? Read on to find out.

After Chrysler’s huge success with the “Imported From Detroit” tagline, which premiered at great expense to the automaker during the Super Bowl, clothing retailer Pure Detroit allegedly printed up a batch of “Imported From Detroit” clothing. Worse, the retailer allegedly billed themselves as the “exclusive provider” of Imported From Detroit clothing, and emphasized the slogan’s popularity in their advertising. Chrysler says they’ve made several attempts to resolve the matter outside of the legal system, and that Pure Detroit has rejected Chrysler’s request that a portion of their proceeds be donated to charity. Ironically, the brand has pulled the merchandise from their website, but continues to sell it in their retail stores.

If the case does go to court, the trademark filing dates will be the deciding factor. Chrysler applied for a trademark on “Imported From Detroit”, relating to automobiles, on November 23. They refiled the trademark, relating to clothing, on January 18, and then filed a third blanket trademark request on February 8. The only chance that Pure Detroit has is to prove their clothing line pre-dates Chrysler’s trademark filing of January 18, or ideally of November 23. That’s not likely, and I’m guessing that this will ultimately get settled out of court.

Source: Detroit News

Not too long ago, getting a speeding ticket was the kiss of death for your car insurance. Rates were jacked up, through the roof if you had the misfortune of being a single male under the age of 30. If you had a company car, you usually got a threatening letter telling you that even one more ticket would result in you taking the bus, since you were obviously too high-risk to be trusted with company property. Things aren’t quite that bad today, since insurance companies look at a lot more things than just points on your license; in fact, today your credit rating is probably looked at with more focus than any minor offenses on your driving record. Still, points add up and no one wants to pay a dime more for car insurance than they need to. The state of South Carolina knows this, and they’ve got a plan to boost revenue at your expense.

Today, getting popped for speeding up to 10 miles per hour over the limit results in fines ranging from $15 to $25. It also gets you points on your license, but South Carolina is looking at changing how minor speeding infractions are fined. If the bill sponsored by state representative Todd Rutherford goes through, up to ten miles per hour over the speed limit won’t be a point-earning offense (officially, it will be listed as “careless driving”). Instead, it will be a $150 fine, with the proceeds being split between state and the municipality issuing tickets. While that idea sounds great on paper, it also opens the door to aggressive speed enforcement, since every town will see this as a chance at bottomless revenue. Forget the unwritten rule that says police will look the other way if you’re not intentionally hammer-down (“nine is fine, but ten you’re mine”), and be prepared for tickets like “33 in a 30” (and yes, I actually DID get one of those). In the long run, your insurance rates won’t go up, but your wallet will be just as empty.

Source: Fox News, via Left Lane News

According to an unscientific pole conducted by State Farm insurance last November, 19% of drivers, nearly one in five, admit to surfing websites while driving. Worse, they admit to doing at least once per week, and even recognize that it isn’t a good idea. Even more sobering is the 35% who admit to texting while driving, or the 74% who make and receive cell phone calls behind the wheel. State Farm suspects the numbers aren’t accurate, since the drivers surveyed were mostly in their 30s; opening up the survey to a larger demographic is planned for this year. If the respondents are accurate, prepare to be alarmed at the results.

While the majority of respondents admit to surfing while stopped at lights, others freely admit to “webbing while driving”. Take 38 year old Sean Black for example, who claims, “I don’t read in depth stuff, but I Web and drive… I’m not saying it’s the smartest thing in the world… but I guess I do it anyway.” When asked what it would take to stop, his response was typical: “The easy answer would be an accident or near-accident, but part of me wonders, depending on how bad it would be, if even that would do it. I think it’s one of those things where you just don’t think anything’s going to happen.” In other words, this asshole is going to keep up his selfish behavior until he kills someone; with luck, it’ll only be himself.

It’s ironic that there are very specific state laws covering the carry of a concealed handgun, yet very little is done to regulate potentially deadly behavior behind the wheel. In Florida, for example, you can face up to 3 years in prison for threatening someone with a weapon (called “felony menacing”, if I remember correctly) yet you’re free to threaten them with your car as you text or surf behind the wheel. Just as improper handling of a loaded gun can get people killed, indifferent handling of your car can do the same thing. Double standard, much?

Source: USA Today, via Autoblog

In a move that won’t sit well with automakers, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that car manufacturers can be sued even if their vehicles meet all applicable safety standards. The case in question was brought against Mazda by the family of Thanh Williamson, who was killed when their 1993 Mazda MPV was involved in a head on collision with another vehicle. Williamson’s husband and daughter, who were in the front seats and were restrained by lap and shoulder belts, survived the crash. Williamson was in a rear seat, which provided a lap belt only, and died of severe abdominal injuries and internal bleeding. The NHTSA did not require shoulder belts for all rear seat occupants in 1993 model year vehicles, and stated in the 1980s that the cost of requiring shoulder belts for rear seat passengers wasn’t justified by the benefits.

In their decision, the Supreme Court stated that automakers aren’t immunized by federal regulation, which set a minimum standard only. While Mazda was compliant with federal vehicle standards, the court argued that the “significant objective” of the NHTSA regulation was to increase vehicle safety, and not to give manufacturers a choice of providing a shoulder belt in the rear seat. As shoulder belts for all rear seat occupants weren’t mandated until the 2007 model year, the case opens the door for a potential flood of lawsuits.

As tragic as the individual case may be, no one forced the Williamson’s to buy a vehicle that lacked rear shoulder belts, and no one forced Mrs. Williamson to occupy that particular seat. The net result of this case will be more lawsuits against a variety of manufacturers, most of whom will settle the cases out of court to avoid publicity and the potential for a huge jury award. Grieving families (and their attorneys) will get paid, while the price of new cars will once again climb for the rest of us.

Source: Detroit News

Image: Agência Brasil

Ask a dozen drivers which city and state has the worst speed traps, and I’ll guarantee that you get a dozen different answers. All of them will probably relate to the last place they got pulled over, which isn’t exactly a scientific methodology. Luckily for us, the National Motorists Association keeps track of stuff like this, and they’ve just released their latest study. Per the NMA’s Chad Dornsife, “Speed limits are supposed to be based on factual studies of traffic and what the majority of motorists deem as a safe speed. Now, the posted limit has become a revenue generator—not a safety device.” Dornsife’s group estimates that speeding tickets generate up to $6 billion in revenue in the United States, and chances are better than average that you’ve contributed to that amount throughout the years. Read on to find out which cities are the worst offenders.

10. Los Angeles, CA, with 151 speed traps

1. Houston, TX, with 373 speed traps

The best advice I can give after reading the list is, “don’t speed in Texas”, and “don’t speed in any tourist destination cities”. You should also avoid speeding in cash-strapped cities like Los Angeles and Chicago, who are more than happy to separate you from your hard earned cash. As for Jacksonville, I’m not sure I’m buying it. Sure, we have speed enforcement on residential streets and on some highways, but I can count the traffic stops I’ve seen over the last four years on one hand. We’re too busy trading gunfire to worry about things like speed limits, and the police take this into consideration.

Source: Yahoo Autos, via Autoblog

Paul Weigand doesn’t like to be told what to do by authorities. The Wichita man, who claims to have a fear of “being trapped in a burning car”, refuses to wear a seat belt, at least in a conventional manner. To comply with the letter, if not the intent of the law, Weigand fashioned a belt from an old automotive seat belt and buckle. While the device may have been effective at holding his pants up, it offered no protection in the event of a crash. His interpretation of the law was put to the test when he was recently ticketed for failing to wear a seat belt.

In a rare display of common sense, the judge upheld the ticket and fined Weigand $30 plus $96 in court costs. Ironically, the judge agreed that the law fails to specify an “attached” seat belt, but levied the fine for non-compliance with the intent of the law.

There is zero doubt that seat belts prevent injury and save lives, and if Weigand truly does have a fear of being trapped in a burning car I have a simple solution: don’t drive. Take the bus, buy a bicycle or if you really want to live on the edge learn to ride a motorcycle. Irrational fears can be effectively treated with medication, or sometimes just good old fashioned psychoanalysis. Now that Weigand’s fifteen minutes of fame are over, perhaps he can concentrate on restoring his mental health.

Source: Kansas City Star via Neatorama

Even in race trim, this will NOT be on pole in Monaco. Image: Ford Motor Company

Just in case you have any confusion on the matter, allow me to clear it up: Ford’s F-150 is the best selling pickup truck in America, renown for its durability and value. Ferrari’s F150 (note the difference in spelling) is the latest F1 race car from Maranello, and it probably won’t be famous for durability or value. On the other hand, the Ferrari F150 will get around an FIA-approved road course in a whole lot less time than a Ford F-150 pickup, but won’t do you any good if you need to haul sheets of plywood. You can’t even tow a small trailer with the Ferrari, which makes it useless for weekend runs to Home Depot (not that it’s street legal in any country, anyway).

The Ferrari F150, useless for the home handyman.

Now that we’ve cleared things up, it’s not so cut-and-dried at a corporate level. When Ferrari announced that they’d call their new F1 car the Ferrari F150 (to honor the 150th anniversary of Italy’s reunification), Ford asked them politely to change the name to avoid brand confusion. Ferrari did the Italian thing, and ignored Ford’s sternly worded request; even worse, they registered the internet domain name “ferrarif150.com”, which Ford took as a slap in the face. You can guess what came next: Ford filed a lawsuit against Ferrari requesting that they cease and desist from using the F150 name and abandon the FerrariF150 domain. Ford’s seeking unspecified damages, but the cybersquatting alone could potentially result in a $100,000 judgment for Ford.

Ford values the F-150 brand as much as the Mustang brand, and the F-150 name has been in use since 1975. Ford registered F-150 as a trademark in 1995, so it looks like things won’t end well for Ferrari. Anne Marie Gattari, a Ford spokeswoman, told The Detroit News, “This is an important trademark for us and we’ve spent many years and lots of advertising resources on establishing this name and getting the trademark. It’s one we take very, very seriously. It’s one of our flagship vehicles.”

I suppose I understand Ford’s position, but Ferrari’s use of F150 is a whole lot different than if a Chinese start-up built a low end pickup and called it the F150. No one can reasonably confuse a Formula One car with a full size pickup, and it’s not like Ferrari built a road-going car with the same name. I’m sure the courts will work it out (likely in Ford’s favor), but in the mean time Ford gets to enjoy a bit of additional exposure for the F150 brand.

Source: The Detroit News

Buried deep in the bottom of the news last week was the fact that the EPA gave its approval for E15 fuel to be sold alongside current gasoline and gasoline / ethanol blends. If you own a motorcycle, use gas-powered lawn equipment and drive cars older than the 2007 model year, this is potentially bad news. Why the concern? There are several reasons, but the big one is that fuel formulated with 15% ethanol may damage plastic and rubber components used in automotive fuel systems prior to 2007. In motorcycles using plastic fuel tanks, there is already significant evidence that E10 formulations cause the plastic to distort, creating the potential of a fuel leak and associated fire. If you’re the owner of a small gas station or convenience store, the news gets even bleaker.

Since E15, like diesel fuel, can’t be used by every car on the road, station owners may be required to install separate tanks just for E15 fuel. Installing new underground tanks (and, presumably, more pumps) is a major financial burden, particularly when the product in question has limited demand. Worse, what happens when you need gas in your bike (or pre-2007 car) and find that only E15 is available? Do you roll the dice and hope that one tank won’t cause permanent damage? Will that even be an option, since E15 is technically not “approved” for pre-2007 vehicles?

You can call me an alarmist, but a group of engine manufacturers (the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, the National Marine Manufacturers Association and the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute) recently sued to block the approval of E15 fuel. If they’ve got concerns that E15 may not be safe to store in existing underground storage tanks, or use in outdoor power equipment or older engines, maybe you need to be concerned as well.

Source: New York Times

Participants in a rider safety course.

In years past, California teens could legally operate a motorcycle, with a learner’s permit, at the age of 15 years and 6 months. There were no requirements for training and no limits to the horsepower of the bike ridden: in other words, prior to your 16th birthday, you could get your permit and then go plunk down cash on a BMW S1000 RR or a Suzuki Hayabusa. Motorcycle dealers, reeling from the virtual collapse of the powersports market, certainly weren’t going to say “no” to a new rider with cash in hand.

That changed with the introduction of “Jarrad’s Law” on January 2, 2011. Named for a California teen killed while learning to ride on a Suzuki GSX-R, the new law requires riders under age 21 to undergo 15 hours of rider training prior to receiving their learner’s permit. The bill wasn’t written by a stodgy legislator; instead, the bill was authored by the brother and a friend of Jarrad Cole, who looked to find some positive outcome from Jarrad’s death.

The bill mandates training but stops short of restricting engine size or horsepower available to new riders. In that regard, it’s unlike tiered licensing used by countries in the EU and Asia. Still, opponents see it as just another restriction of personal freedom; supporters (myself included) see it as a step in the right direction. I’ve lost my share of friends on bikes, and none of them had formal training that could have enhanced their ability to predict and avoid dangerous situations. What could possibly be wrong with requiring new riders to display a minimal standard of competency before we turn them loose on the roads?

Source: Hell For Leather