For years, drivers from every U.S. state and Canadian province have reported speed trap locations to the National Motorists Association’s National Speed Trap Exchange. As families squeeze in vacation time together this Labor Day weekend, before the school year begins in full swing, the roadways will be a very busy place for travelers.

With the combination of heavy holiday traffic, federally-funded ticketing campaigns, and financially-strapped local and state governments, motorists have good reason to feel like they have dollar signs painted on their vehicles.

To help families avoid a depressing and expensive holiday traffic ticket experience, the NMA has identified two cities in each state and province using data directly from the National Speed Trap Exchange.

The first city listed has the most user-reported speed traps regardless of population size, while the second has the most speed traps for cities with populations of 100,000 or less.

To see which cities in your state made the list, click through to the full press release on our press page.

• The Worst Speed Trap Cities In The United States
• Watch Your Wallet When Driving Through These 10 States
• 7 Ways To Shut Down A Speed Trap
• Jericho, Arkansas: Pay Your Ticket Or Get Shot
• Speedtrap.org Redesigned: A New Focus On Usability

By James Baxter, NMA President

The report is in from Baytown, TX, on the results of the city’s red light ticket camera program.

The camera proponents are going to be hard pressed to lavish praise on the results:

• 40 percent increase in total accidents
• 75 percent increase in injury accidents
• 37 percent increase in “t-bone” right angle crashes
• 83 percent increase in rear-end collisions

These disastrous results should really be no surprise. Independent studies (no financial interest) of the automated intersection ticketing programs have repeatedly shown an increase in rear- end collisions, more injuries, and contrary to the claims of ticket camera proponents, no reduction in right-angle crashes.

But, tomorrow, just as sure as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west there will be a government official or clueless reporter making the claim that red light cameras improve traffic safety.

Baytown officials are being presented with a petition to put ticket cameras to a vote in November.

If these officials are really concerned about the well-being of their constituents they won’t wait until November to put the cameras down the road.

If they do wait until November, the voters would be well served to treat incumbent officials as they do the red light camera program and put them down the road too.

• Red-Light Cameras Do Not Reduce Right Angle Crashes
• City Manipulates Report To Make Ticket Cameras Appear Useful
• Peoria Reevaluates Ticket Camera Program After Accidents Double
• Los Angeles Red Light Cameras Lead To Increased Accidents
• Bernie Madoff & Red-Light Cameras

By Jim Baxter, NMA President

Recently, groups opposed to the use of ticket cameras have discovered that companies that promote and profit from the installation of ticket camera systems have been setting up fake organizations, or “front groups” to convey the illusion that there are local citizen groups who favor automated ticketing of motorists.

There is also the attempt to imply that these citizen based organizations are solely concerned about improving traffic safety.

Despite a seemingly blind mainstream media, it has been obvious to even casual observers that organizations like “Stop Red Light Running” were just shills for the ticket camera industry.

Until recently, the formation of local pro-camera ticket groups, was not recognized as a centrally orchestrated campaign to sell or protect ticket camera installations. However, recent discoveries and comparisons show that 15 or more websites for a like number of different communities are the creation of one company with ties to Automated Traffic Solutions (ATS), a leading purveyor of ticket camera systems.

Of late these front groups have been used to oppose local referendums where residents are given the opportunity to vote for the removal of ticket cameras. This opposition includes the funding of legal challenges and P.R. campaigns.

It is not illegal or unethical for a private company to attempt to protect its financial interest.

Where the line is crossed, in this instance, is the creation of the pretense that there is organized community support for ticket cameras and that support is based on safety concerns.

There’s no doubt that there are individuals who have been duped into believing that ticket cameras can reduce accidents.

After all, hasn’t that been what elected officials, police chiefs and government “experts” have told them. ”It’s just the ‘rabble rousers’ who are mad because they got a ticket that are objecting to the cameras.”

But, whenever community organizations have evolved, they have consisted of local people who know a “public-private” snow job when they hear it and also know ticket cameras are about raising revenue and safety be damned.

These real community organizations are the ones that speak the truth and they want ticket cameras gone.

Image Credit (Snake Oil Bottle)

• 9 Cities Where Citizens Voted To Ban Ticket Cameras
• Bernie Madoff & Red-Light Cameras
• FCC Conspires To Protect Ticket Camera Corporation
• Tennessee Ticket Cameras: Can You Solve This Puzzle?
• Short Yellow Light Times No Longer Going Unnoticed

By Jim Baxter, NMA President

Given the frequent disconnect between citizens and their elected representatives, there is often a great deal of difference between what the government is doing and what the public wants the government to do.

This is most evident when the government passes and enforces laws that primarily benefit the government, expand its powers, and rewards public employees; this at the expense of everyone else.

In some states and among many local communities, the general public can circumvent unresponsive elected officials through a petition process where unpopular laws are repealed or popular laws passed, by a vote of the citizenry. It’s also a process where majorities can throttle unpopular minorities.

No state is more notorious for its “Initiative and Referendum” antics than is California.

Every election cycle sees multiple issues placed on the ballot, many involving millions of dollars in costs for collecting petition signatures, promoting, or opposing, referendums and follow-on legal battles.

At the other end of the spectrum are small villages with a few hundred residents where 100 signatures can put an issue on the ballot.

Recently, the dichotomy between government interests and citizen interests has come to a head over the use of ticket cameras and other automated devices intended to generate traffic citations. (Not news to anyone who even occasionally reads this blog.) Contrary to official proclamations that these ticket machines are being used to enhance traffic safety the general public knows they serve no purpose but to generate revenue for government coffers.

Eventually, regular elections will eliminate many of the elected and appointed parasites that promote this form of government extortion. Still, for many activists this is not fast enough — nor explicit enough — to forcefully stop the scourge of ticket cameras.

They have taken to circulating petitions to put this issue in front of the voting public — even in jurisdictions where referendums are not allowed on the ballot!

So, is this the route you might want to take in your state or your local community?

First, take a reality check.

• Is it legally possible to place an issue on the ballot through petition?
• If it is, what are the legal requirements?
• Does the language of the proposal have to be approved before it can be placed on the ballot?
• Who can circulate the petitions and how many signatures are necessary?
• What form must the petition take and what information must be gathered from each person signing the petition?
• When can the petitioning begin and when must it be completed?

Once you have a handle on the legalities and requirements it’s time to assess your capabilities and resources.

• How many supporters do you have right now?
• How much money do you have to work with right now?
• Do you or any of your supporters have experience with gathering petition signatures, connection with the news media, affiliations with other groups that could lend a hand, computer skills, or the capability to provide seed money to get the project off the ground?

Many people are not aware that large petition campaigns, usually at the state level, involve paid signature-gatherers. Sometimes devoted volunteer groups can get the job done, but that’s the exception to the rule. Gathering hundreds of thousands of signatures is a major undertaking involving thousands of people and, potentially, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars.

Local community petition efforts are a different matter.

A few hundred or a few thousand signatures may be all that is required to get an issue on the ballot. This is a more feasible goal for a group of dedicated volunteers.

However, always keep in mind the 90-10 rule. Ten percent of the members will end up doing 90 percent of the work. This is not an exaggeration.

The last point; Don’t start down this road unless a sober and frank analysis indicates that you have, or will have, the resources and capabilities to gather the signatures and jump through the legal hoops that will put your issue on the ballot.

Failure to do so will not only be wasteful, expensive, and frustrating for everyone involved, it could also be harmful to your original goal. Your failure will be viewed as a victory for the opposition.

• 8 Questions About Traffic Tickets That Politicians Never Answer
• Tyranny Of The Minority: Why Bad Traffic Laws Get Passed
• Traffic Tickets Are Big Business
• Due Process For Traffic Ticket Defendants Threatened
• FCC Conspires To Protect Ticket Camera Corporation

Did they deserve to die? You decide!

1) Saturn Sky

Based on GM of Europe — AKA Opel’s — GT, the Sky (and its late lamented Pontiac stablemate, the Solstice) was a stunning car to look at; much more dynamic and stylish than, say, a Mazda Miata.

But unlike the Miata — which was a great car to drive — the Sky and Solstice weren’t.

For one, the engine sounded terrible — like a high-miles economy car four fitted with a cheap aftermarket “fart can” muffler. While other sports car engines sang when revved, the Sky’s cleared its throat like a phlegm-laden old trucker.

Handling was clunky, too.

But the worst offense was the ’69 MGB body integrity. The Sky’s convertible soft top fit poorly and leaked both air andwater, which dribbled down onto the door side panels. It was impossible to hold a conversation without shouting at speeds much above 60 mph. The power window switches were located so far back on these panels it was almost impossible to use them while driving. Ditto the cupholder, which was mounted on the very rear of the center console, making it all-but-unusable while the vehicle was moving. The gas gauge was dime-sized and buried a foot deep in the gauge cluster, making it a guessing game how close you might be to empty.

Verdict:
A pretty car whose comely exterior hid numerous unattractive flaws. Looks alone won’t cut it — and didn’t.

2) Hummer H2

You could make a case for the H1.

It was a civilianized version of the military Humvee — and if you needed an unstoppable off-roader, it fit the bill.

But the H2 was nothing more than a Chevy Suburban with a Tonka Toy Hummer truck shell draped over it. And thus, a fraud. A big, stupid, ugly, pointless, gas-guzzling, terrible-handling — and not even good for off-roading — fraud.

Circa 2003 I got one to test drive. I called up three buddies and we headed out to try the thing off road. At the entrance to the area where we intended to do some mud-bogging, there was a puddle maybe three or four inches deep and about three or four feet in diameter. I drove over it at a moderate speed. Immediately, multiple lights on the dash went off and the engine dropped down into “limp home” mode. It ran, but barely. Unable to get the H2 going faster than about 25 mph, we creeped it home on a very busy Northern Virginia highway, a half-mile of angry motorists stacked up behind us.

I wrote “I love global warming” with my finger in the dust on the liftgate glass.

The H2 was good at just two things: Defrauding the public and creating a rolling eyesore.

Verdict:
As preposterous as an “estate home” McMansion on a quarter-acre lot.

3) Pontiac Vibe

Technically, the Vibe still lives, because Toyota is still making them.

The Vibe was never really a Pontiac but rather a “badge-engineered” Toyota Matrix re-sold under the Pontiac label. (And the Vibe/Matrix was of course itself merely a Corolla draped with ugly, mini-dumpster bodywork. )

That alone made it worthy of retirement. Why bother? Buying a “Pontiac” Vibe was a lot like buying the same blue bottle of store-brand NyQuil sold right next to the real stuff, except you didn’t get the one advantage of buying the store-brand stuff — namely, a lower price. The “Pontiac” Vibe was actually priced above the Toyota Matrix — on the rickety theory that people would be willing to pay more for a Toyota if it was sold through a Pontiac dealership, with all the prospects for great customer service that came with it.

Genius!

Verdict:
The Most Pathetic “Pontiac” since the Daewoo-sourced LeMans of the 1980s.

4) Saab

This one’s a mixed bag.

Not all that long ago, Saab was an up-and-comers car, a peer of BMW. Circa mid-late 1980s, a Saab 9-3 convertible was among the coolest things on four wheels. It was a car you bought yourself after graduating law school — or getting that first real job. Saab, the company, was much better placed than its crosstown rival, Volvo — which at the time was still known mainly for its stodgy, boring, god-awful slow PETA staff cars that no one with any life force still pumping within them wanted any part of.

Then GM bought the company. And systematically strangled it.

By 2008 — when everything began to go sour — Saab was already ghosted. An afterthought. Not even spoken of in the same sentence as BMW.

Or even Volvo.

Its cars were staid — or weird. And overpriced, too. Most of the flair that had characterized previous Saab models had been systematically sucked out of them, leaving a lineup of slightly oddball-looking things with often-iffy reliability and BMW-level MSRPs with Lumina-level plasticky interiors.

Verdict:
Saab’s downfall parallels the story of Randy “The Ram” Robinson in the movie, “The Wrestler.” It’s a train wreck, but you can’t stop watching it.

5) Mercury

AKA Ford’s Pontiac.

There was a time when, like Pontiac, Mercury had something worthwhile to offer. In fact, it operated as a quasi-independent automaker only loosely associated with parent company, Ford. It sold unique or at least different enough models — not rouged-up Fords with higher price tags. Its cars also had great names like Marauder and Turnpike Cruiser (as opposed to Mariner and Mystique).

What you got was higher-class performance; nicely trimmed out cars that moved when you stomped on the gas pedal but which also had an adult demeanor lacking in most Fords.

Fast forward to the recent past and what greeted the prospect upon entering a Mercury showroom?

Ford Explorers (and Escapes and Crown Vics) with … wait for it, now … higher price tags.

Verdict:
Mercury’s been dead for years but just didn’t know it. Now it does.

Comments?
www.ericpetersauto.com

• Best Family Station Wagons: A Buyer’s Guide
• Turn High Gas Prices In Your Favor: Buy A Gas Hog
• The Best Used Cars For Older Drivers
• The Return of the Blue Light Special
• 2009 Automotive Preview

The list was culled from the archives of TheNewspaper.com, a valuable source of information for drivers across the country. A short summary is included with each ruling and clicking on the title will take you to a more-full featured article.

1) Maryland Attorney General Upholds Right to Video Traffic Stops
Maryland attorney general rules that state police were wrong to charge motorist with felony for recording his traffic stop.

2) Oregon Appeals Court Overturns Car Impound On Driver Property
Cars cannot be seized from the driveway of the owner without a warrant, according to Oregon Court of Appeals.

3) Texas: Court Rules Home Offers No Escape From DUI Arrest
Texas appeals court rules that making it home is not enough to escape a drunk driving charge.

4) Minnesota Appeals Court: Avoiding Police Justifies Traffic Stop
Minnesota Court of Appeals rules that legal driving away from a police officer is suspicious.

5) California Court of Appeal Publishes Red Light Camera Hearsay Decision
California Court of Appeal declines traffic camera company request to depublish Santa Ana appellate decision.

6) Tennessee Court Rules Overturns Turn Signal Traffic Stop
Tennessee Appeals Court rules police must show failing to signal caused a hazard to initiate a traffic stop.

7) Indiana Appeals Court: Pulling Gun During Traffic Stop Requires Cause
Indiana Court of Appeals rules that police officers should not pull their gun during a routine traffic stop.

8) Massachusetts Court: Cops Powerless Outside Jurisdiction
Massachusetts Appeals Court rules cop unable to arrest for traffic misdemeanor outside his jurisdiction.

9) Oregon Appeals Court Throws Out DUI Eye Test
Oregon Appeals Court throws out common field sobriety test known as vertical gaze nystagmus.

10) New Mexico Supreme Court Overturns DUI Without Driving
New Mexico Supreme Court rules that driving under the influence of alcohol charges requires proof of driving or intent to do so.

11) Ohio Supreme Court Upholds Speeding Ticket By Visual Guess
Police officers in Ohio can issue speeding tickets based on sight, state supreme court rules.

12) Florida Attorney General Rules Photo Tickets Are Public Records
Red light camera tickets in Florida turns sensitive, private information into a public record.

13) West Virginia Supreme Court: DUI Does Not Require Proof Of Driving
Drunk driving fines may be imposed without proof that the accused ever drove, the West Virginia Supreme Court ruled.

14) Wisconsin: Slow Driving Not Cause For Traffic Stop
Wisconsin Appeals Court rules that slow driving does not create a pretext for a traffic stop.

15) Louisiana Supreme Court: Phone Tips Justify Traffic Stop And Search
Motorists in Louisiana can be stopped and searched based on anonymous phone tips, the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled.

16) Hawaii Supreme Court Strikes Down Another Speeding Ticket
Police speedometer calibration testimony inadmissible without proper foundation, Hawaii Supreme Court rules.

17) Oregon Supreme Court Upholds Motorist Blood Draws
Police in Oregon can draw blood from motorists accused of drunk driving without making any attempt to obtain a warrant.

18) Minnesota Supreme Court Rules DUI Possible in Inoperable Vehicle
Minnesota Supreme Court upholds drunk driving conviction on a man asleep behind the wheel of an undriven, possibly inoperable vehicle.

19) Ohio Appeals Court: Driving With Caution Is Not Suspicious
Ohio Appeals Court rules that police cannot stop a driver for exercising caution at a flashing yellow light.

To keep up-to-date with the latest motorist-related news, bookmark the NMA’s news feed and keep reading this blog.

• Watch Your Wallet When Driving Through These 10 States
• The 10 Biggest Injustices Against Motorists In October
• 6 Dumb Traffic Laws That Should Be Repealed
• Forget Due Process. We’ll Just Wing It.
• Minneapolis Refuses To Refund Illegal Ticket Money To Citizens

By Eric Peters, Automotive Columnist

The other day, our truck overheated because most of the engine coolant seeped out through a leaky hose. But my wife did not notice it immediately. She just happened to glance down at the instrument cluster and saw the temperature gauge needle was pegged at the “H” side of the scale.

Luckily for the truck — and our bank account — she happened to notice this before any damage was done. But it could just as easily have gone the other way (badly) had she not happened to look at the instrument cluster and failed to notice the abnormal gauge reading in time.

This is the problem with gauges: You have to be paying attention to them!

The truth of it is, though, that people sometimes don’t. And that can be very bad news for your car (and your wallet).

It wasn’t too long ago that — for the most part — only sporty/performance-type cars came equipped with a full array of gauges to monitor engine functions like oil pressure, water temperature and voltage.

Other cars — most cars — came with a speedometer and a fuel gauge, with warning lights for everything else.

The reasoning went that the relative handful of people who bought sporty/performance-type cars (in those days) tended to be more actively involved in their driving and thus, monitored the condition of their cars as they drove. In competition (such as weekend club racing, for example) it is essential to know exactly how hot the engine is running, what the oil pressure is at all times — and so on.

Hence, the gauges.

And because the typical sport-enthusiast driver tended to frequently scan his car’s gauges, the gauges were extremely useful to have.

Warning lights, on the other hand, were made fun of as “idiot lights.”

If a car had warning lights but not gauges, it was considered most un-hip indeed. So, over the past 20-something years, almost every car on the road has become “sporty” — and even minivans now have gauges rather than warning lights.

The problem is that many of the drivers driving these now-sporty cars aren’t so “sporty” themselves. They don’t frequently scan the gauges — and would probably be better served by warning lights, un-hip though they may be.

Or at least, by having warning lights in addition to the gauges, as a back-up.

Even better yet, by a buzzer and a light that both go off as soon as the car’s engine gets too hot or the oil pressure drops below a safe level. The gauges could be left in place for the sporty look they give the dashboard. But the addition of a small flashing red LED light within each gauge — and a buzzer — could save people a lot of trouble.

And they’d be a lot more useful than the aggravating and functionally useless seat belt buzzers and lights that now come annoyingly standard in nearly every new car made.

Some new cars even have buzzers that come on when the car is put in reverse — but give their drivers no real warning if the engine’s about to spit its pistons through the hood because of overheating or no oil pressure.

Someone should call this to the attention of the powers that be. I’d argue that avoiding a grenaded engine is much more important than pestering drivers to buckle up! the microsecond they sit down in the car.

While we’re waiting for the automakers to see the light — and install lights (and buzzers to make sure people notice overheating engines, etc.) in new cars, make it a point to pay attention to your car’s gauges as you drive.

Because they wont do you any good if you don’t.

Comments?
www.ericpetersautos.com

• 7 Things New Cars Ought To Have But Usually Don’t
• Don’t Overreact To These Common Car Problems
• Vehicle Maintenance Tips: Extend Your Vehicle’s Life
• Road Rules To Live By
• 10 Practical Tips For Avoiding Traffic Tickets

By Eric Peters, Automotive Columnist

2011′s shaping up to be a pretty good year for cars, even if the economy’s still got a hangover. Here’s a look at what’s on deck. And here’s to hoping we can afford to buy some of ‘em!

1) COMPACTS/ECONOMY CARS

2011 Chevy Cruze (base price $16,275)

Chevy hopes the Cruze will have the Right Stuff to meet segment leaders like the Honda Civic and Toyota Corolla on equal terms — unlike previous efforts such as the so-so Cobalt (and the downright awful Cavalier).

The Cruze is all-new “premium” compact economy sedan equipped with standout features like 10 (count ‘em) air bags, including a driver’s knee air bag as well as front seat and rear seat side-impact bags, a six-speed manual transmission, air conditioning and 40 mpg highway fuel economy potential — if you choose the ECO version. It comes with low rolling resistance tires and a 1.4 liter turbocharged engine designed for maximum economy with acceptable on-demand acceleration (0-60 in about 9.2 seconds).

The only obvious downsides to this car are its fairly high $16k-ish base price — expensive for the segment — and the fact that at least for now, the Cruze is only available in sedan form while many of its competitors are also available as coupes or hatchback wagons.

But given the features you get (such as standard rear seat side-impact air bags, which aren’t even available as extra cost options in the competition) the price may well be worth paying.

2011 Honda CR-Z (base price, $19,200)

Can hybrids be fun as well as fuel-efficient? That’s the question Honda hopes it can answer with the new CR-Z coupe.

The compact two-seater has a drivetrain that’s similar to the late ’90s-era Insight hybrid, but it’s set up to do more than just get really good gas mileage, as the Insight was.

A slightly larger, significantly stronger 1.5 liter gas engine (vs. 1.3 in the old Insight) supplemented by an electric motor/battery pack together produce 125 hp. A six-speed manual transmission is available, too. The CR-Z’s six-speed manual transmission is a rare, sporty feature to find in a hybrid — almost all of which come with a CVT automatic as the only available transmission.

Official stats weren’t available at the time of this report, but Honda claims the CR-Z will be capable of 40 mpgs on the highway and close to that in city-type driving, too (where its electric-assist drivetrain is most efficient).

This isn’t as impressive as the old Insight’s 60-ish mpg, but the CR-Z is much more fun to drive and even has a reasonably sized trunk/cargo area (25 cubic feet) which is a vast improvement over the Insight’s 16 cubic foot trunk capacity.

The only potential downside is the two-seater layout, which will probably limit the CR-Z to being a single-person’s car, a commuter car — or a second car.

2011 Mazda2 (base price $13,980)

With money tight and people (rightly) freaked out that gas prices could shoot back up to $3 per gallon (or more) at almost any time, it’s likely we’ll soon be seeing more and more European-style, value-priced subcompacts like the new Mazda2 on American roads.

The 2 weighs just 2,300 pounds and is only about twelve feet long, nose to tail. To get a sense of that, compare the 2 to the “compact” sized Toyota Corolla, which weighs almost 2,800 pounds and is nearly two feet longer overall (178.7 inches vs. 155.5 for the Mazda).

But though it’s small outside, the 2 still manages to be reasonably roomy inside — with five-person capacity and more front seat head and legroom (39.1 inches and 42.1 inches, respectively) than a physically larger (on the outside, at least) compact sedan like the Corolla (38.8 inches and 41.7 inches). Back seat legroom is tighter in the 2, but still serviceable for carrying most average-sized adults — and the car’s trunk space (28 cubic feet) is more than twice as much as the best-selling Corolla’s 12.3 cubic foot trunk.

The one downside to the flyweight, Mini Me-sized Mazda 2 may be that it’ll feel a bit outclassed on American highways — where the slipstream of passing semis may require a firm grip on the wheel.

2011 Ford Fiesta (base price $13,320)

Anyone over 40 today knows what economy cars used to be like yesterday. But while the new Fiesta is inexpensive, it’s far from being low-rent. Build quality (fit and finish, materials used, overall sense of put-togetherness) is better than the best mid-priced cars of the Bad Old Days. And equipment that wasn’t even available on high-end cars back then — such as a capless fuel filler system, electric-assist power steering, push-button ignition, dual-clutch six-speed automatic, voice-activated “Sync” connectivity for audio and communication — is either standard in the ’11 Fiesta or available optionally. You can even get seat heaters in this thing — another unusual feature to find in this price range.

Another plus is the Fiesta’s two available bodystyles — sedan and five-door hatchback wagon. Ford says it’ll get 40 miles-per-gallon on the highway, too.

The only fly in the pie is that GPS isn’t available. However, Ford may have decided to skip this feature because aftermarket units are becoming more popular than factory-installed systems. They’re also less expensive, not hard-wired to that specific car and can be swapped out for a newer,more up-to-date model much more easily.

2011 Scion iQ (base price $14,215)

The two-seat Smart Car apparently wasn’t so smart, mainly because it barely had room for two people and was just too rickety-feeling to take out on the highway. Scion’s new iQ has room for four, which may just be smart enough to make this pint-sized urban commuter-car work.

Just ten feet long, the iQ could be the ideal city transport module. It’ll fit into motorcycle-sized parking spots and tuck into tight alleys and other places no other car — even a “compact” — could hope to negotiate. The Smart Car could do all that, too — but it barely had enough room inside for the driver and one passenger, which gave it about the same practicality as a motorcycle.

The iQ may not be a family hauler, but with a pair of rear seats, you can carry more than one passenger — or groceries.

The iQ doesn’t arrive at dealerships until late 2010, so performance/mileage figures weren’t officially available at the time of this writing. But Toyota is talking high 30s in city driving, so highway mileage ought to be well into the mid 40s.

2) FAMILY CARS

2011 Suzuki Kizashi Sport (base price $18,999)

The Kizashi is a brand-new model for Suzuki and the automaker’s first serious attempt to compete head-on against established players in the mid-priced, family sedan segment such as the Nissan Altima, Honda Accord, Ford Fusion, VW Jetta/Passat and so on.

It comes standard with a high level of luxury and convenience features, including push-button start/keyless ignition, projector beam headlights, a premium stereo with USB port and nine speakers and dual zone climate control — for less than $19k, sticker. Equipped with the optional driver-selectable all-wheel-drive system that can be toggled from 2WD to AWD by pushing a button (which saves you fuel and wear and tear by letting you turn off the AWD when you don’t need it) it’s still just over $21k.

Not many competitors can touch that.

Suzuki also offers reassuringly long-lived 100,000 mile powertrain warranty coverage.

The only obvious potential downsides are the lack of an optional V-6 engine and the “generic brand” status of Suzuki, at least when it comes to cars (Suzuki is well-established as a premium motorcycle brand but hasn’t yet become a major player on four wheels).

Still, the wealth of features at such a lowball price — especially the neat 2WD/AWD system — make the Kizashi a pretty appealing prospect, even if Suzuki hasn’t yet got the Blue Blood bona fides of Honda or Toyota.

2011 Hyundai Sonata (base price $19,195)

As recently as five years ago, a car like the ’11 Sonata would not even have been conceivable. As a Hyundai, anyhow.

This all-new mid-sized sedan looks as slick as George Clooney in a tux. Its standard 198-hp four-cylinder engine (200 hp with the optional dual exhaust) puts out close-to-V-6 power, too.

This car’s chief virtue, though, is its limousine-like cabin. Check out the Sonata’s astounding 45.5 inches of front seat legroom and compare it to the Camry’s 41.7 inches and Malibu’s 42.2 inches.

That is a big difference.

But there’s a downside. That living-large front seat roominess comes at the expense of backseat passengers. There’s noticeably less rear seat legroom in the Sonata (34.6 inches) than in either the Malibu (37.6 inches) or the Camry (38.3 inches). Hyundai is banking on most customers worrying more about the room up front than out back. And the room in back is still in line with the competition — and adequate for all but the largest (and tallest) adults.

The car’s nearly 17 cubic foot trunk is among the largest in the segment, too.

2011 Buick Regal (base price $26,245)

The ’11 Regal is a new model for Buick, though not for GM. The same basic car is sold in Europe under the Opel banner as the Insignia. It’s about the same size as a Toyota Camry or Honda Accord but (according to Buick) is aimed more at slightly smaller, more athletic (and higher-priced) near-luxury sedans like the Lexus IS250 and Acura TSX.

It has a larger trunk than the Camry or Accord and delivers excellent gas mileage (30-plus on the highway) courtesy of a 2.4 liter, 182 hp engine with direct fuel injection. A six-speed automatic is standard equipment but later in the model year, Buick will offer an optional six-speed manual transmission — which will make the ’11 Regal the first stick-shift Buick in decades.

A 220 hp turbocharged 2 liter engine – also with direct fuel injection — is optional.

Overall, this is (by far) the most engaging-to-drive Regal since the ’80s-era rear-wheel-drive muscle coupes that also bore the Regal name. It comes standard with 18 inch rims and performance tires, not 15s with whitewalls and pop-off wire wheel covers. The steering actually seems connected to the road — and the suspension will hold the line if you lean on it hard in a corner.

It’s sportier than a Camry for about the same money — and it’s a bargain compared to the Lexus IS250 ($32,145) and Acura TSX ($29,310).

2011 Chevy Malibu (base price $21,975)

The Malibu has been an American family car favorite for decades, even as the underlying chassis has evolved from rear-wheel-drive (’70s and ’80s) to the current front-wheel-drive layout.

While some things have changed, much remains familiar — most notably the Malibu’s easygoing nature. Even the V-6 version, which is among the quickest cars in this segment (0-60 in the mid 6 second range) has a relaxed, big car feel to it.

One reason for this is the Malibu’s relatively long wheelbase (112.3 inches), which is nearly as long as the $50,000 Mercedes E-Class (113.1 inches) and significantly longer than the 107.4 inch wheelbase of the Ford Fusion, the Malibu’s main domestic-brand competition.

Big cars feel “big” — planted and solid — in part because they have longer wheelbases than stubbier cars. The Malibu has that appealing big car highway car ride esteemed by several generations of Malibu buyers. Its looks, meanwhile, are red state conservative — and very American. It is a squared-off, masculine lug of a car.

Many traditional car buyers want exactly that — and the ’11 Malibu delivers.

2011 Kia Cadenza (base price $26,195)

Kia is becoming the new Hyundai as parent company Hyundai (seller of V-8 powered, rear-wheel-drive luxury rollers like the $55k Equus sedan) rapidly becomes the new Lexus.

The Cadenza is an all-new mid-large front-wheel-drive sedan intended to undercut competitors like the Toyota Avalon (and Buick LaCrosse) on price while matching or surpassing them on features and equipment. It is a larger car than the model it replaces — the Amanti — and also larger than its primary target, the $27,945 Avalon, with more wheelbase (112 inches vs. 111 inches for the Toyota) and more head and legroom inside for passengers.

Buyers can choose either a 162 hp four-cylinder or 286 hp V-6, the latter outgunning the Avalon’s 276 hp, 3.5 liter V-6. Six-speed automatics will be teamed with both engines. The Cadenza will also offer high-end audio, communications and safety equipment comparable to what you’d expect to find in cars priced well over $30k.

The Cadenza will arrive at dealerships later this fall.

3) SUVs/TRUCKS

2011 Nissan Juke (estimated base price $18,500)

Kia enjoyed an unexpected monster hit last year with its “attitude” crossover SUV, the Soul. This year, Nissan’s hitting back with a similarly snarky compact crossover SUV of its own, the 2011 Juke.

It’ll be hard to miss, with its aggressive pontoon-style fender flares, hood-mounted projector-beam headlights (backed-up by 747-sized fog lights built into the lower front fender), “shaved” rear door handles and swooped-back roofline like a ’50s Greaser.

It’ll backup its tough-guy looks with a standard 180 hp turbocharged 1.6 liter four with direct injection (massively one-upping the Soul’s standard 122 hp engineand its optional 142 hp engine) teamed with either a CVT automatic or six-speed manual transmission.

Front-wheel-drive and all-wheel-drive versions will be available.

Expect the Juke to start showing up at Nissan dealerships around September.

2011 Mahindra Scorpio (estimated base price $19,500)

One thing that’s mostly missing from the American SUV market is a diesel-powered SUV. And one thing that’s completely missing (since Jeep retired the diesel-powered Liberty) is an affordable diesel SUV.

That’s the angle India’s Mahindra Motors is hoping to play up with its Scorpio, a medium-compact-sized (about the size of a Toyota RAV4) four-door/five-passenger 4WD SUV equipped with a 2.6 liter turbo-diesel four-cylinder engine. The Scorpio’s mill produces in the neighborhood of 300 lbs.-ft. of torque, which is comparable to the output of a large V-6 or small V-8, while delivering a consistent 20-something miles-per-gallon average fuel economy. That would be a significant improvement over the mid-low teens posted by similar real-deal 4WD SUVs equipped with V-6 or V-8 gas engines.

The very high torque output at low engine speed (peak output is realized at appx. 1,800 rpm) is ideal for serious off-roading, or fording through heavy snow. It also gives the Scorpio a best-in-class tow rating of 5,000 lbs. For comparison, the current Jeep Liberty (non-diesel) has a max tow rating of just 3,500 lbs., which is about the same as many mid-sized front-wheel-drive cars.

Downsides are that Mahindra’s a new face in the US and dealers will be few and far between for the first few years.

2011 Chevy Orlando (estimated base price $22,000)

Minivans are out; at least traditional full-size minivans are out. But the people-carrying functionality of a minivan-like vehicle is still very much in, as the popularity of car-based crossover SUVs attests.

The Orlando will be among the latest things in a compact crossover SUV when it arrives at dealers sometime in the spring/summer of 2011. That means tight packaging on the outside (it’ll only be a few inches longer overall than the Cruze sedan on which its based — and smaller outside than the current Chevy Traverse) yet still manage three rows of adult-friendly seats on the inside and room for seven passengers using a system Chevy calls Flex-7. That’s a “2-3-2″ configuration, with a fold-flat (into the floor) third row and second row seats that can be slid forward and backward, to maximize cargo capacity or legroom, as you prefer.

The concept car Chevy displayed for the media had a neat, full-length panorama glass roof and a 2.0 liter turbo-diesel engine but expect the U.S. version to come with a gasoline engine — probably a version of the “Eco” four-cylinder used in the Cruze.

Initially, the Orlando will be front-drive-only, but all-wheel-drive will probably be available optionally later on in the production run.

2011 Land Rover Evoque (base price $37,000 )

The Evoque will be Land Rover’s first two-door model in many years; it’ll also be more street-oriented than the traditionally off-road-intend Land Rovers of the recent past.

This is a bow to practicality — and reality. As capable off-road as Land Rovers have always traditionally been, the fact is few of them ever see much real off-road use. But the heavy-duty frames and rugged suspension set-ups necessary to deal with theoretical off-road driving make a real-world, street-driven vehicle heavy, gas-hungry and not-so-great-handling.

The Evoque, in contrast, will be the smallest, lightest and most fuel-efficient Land Rover model the company has ever produced.

Thematically, it’lll be similar to the Batmobile-looking Acura ZDX. Which means, style and curb appeal share equal billing with functional considerations. It will be slightly smaller than the current LR2 and set up to seat only four people in a more intimate, sports-coupe-like layout. The rear area will be mostly for cargo though fold-away jumpseats may be offered.

The standard powerplant will be the same basic 3.2 liter engine used in the current LR2, producing 230 hp. It’s possible a hybrid gas-electric version will be available, too — though probablynot before 2012.

Scheduled launch for the Evoque is late 2010 or early 2011.

2011 Ford Explorer (estimated base price $29,500)

The name is the same but that’s about all that carries over. For 2011, the Explorer changes from a truck-based frame and chassis with a rear-drive based 4WD system to a car-based unibody chassis and front-wheel-drive (with all-wheel-drive available optionally). The really huge news, though, is under the hood — where there’s a 2.0 liter, 230 hp turbo four in place of the formerly optional V-8, which has been retired for good.

A 3.5 liter, 285 hp liter V-6 is standard.

Ford sees no future for old-school (truck-based, V-8) SUVs, at least not as mass-market vehicles. For the Explorer to survive, it needs to become more fuel-efficient, both to make customers more likely to buy one in the face of $4 per gallon fuel (which could return at any time) and also to please Uncle Sam, who’s demanding that all new vehicles, trucks and SUVs included, return 35.5 miles-per-gallon by 2016.

The ’11 Explorer will feature an advanced form of stability control called Curve Control designed to automatically correct for driver error (such as carrying too much speed into a corner) by modulating engine power to the drive wheels and applying braking force to keep the vehicle on track. It’s similar to current electronic stability control units but Ford says it works 10 percent faster and more effectively.

The optional AWD system will feature driver-selectable terrain-sensing (setting for rain, snow, gravel, etc.) similar to the systems used in Land Rover models.

Third row seating will still be available — and the new unibody design should allow for a roomier interior.

4) SPORT/PERFORMANCE CARS

2011 Mini coupe (base price $19,900)

Other than the New Beetle, no modern car did retro better than the BMW-sourced Mini Cooper. But unlike the New Beetle — which VW is canceling after the 2010 model year — the Mini’s not frozen in time. VW couldn’t figure out a way to update the New Beetle without changing it into something else. Mini, on the other hand, expanded the Cooper’s appeal and kept it current by adding a wagon version last year (the Clubman) and is getting ready to launch a new two-seater version for 2011.

Unlike the original Mini — which came in both an efficiency-minded regular version and a souped up S version with turbocharged engine — the ’11 Coupe will be sold in hot rod form only. It will be powered by a max-effort 211 hp version of the Mini’s 1.6 liter turbocharged engine with “overboost” capability; basically, the same engine used in the top-of-the-line John Cooper Works Minis. The coupe’s exterior bodywork will be substantially different, too — with a low-cut roofline and fastback-style rear glass. The roof section is made of aluminum and that along with the lower mass of the two-seater layout should make this the quickest (and best-handling) factory-built Mini to date.

The car should hit dealers around April-May of next year. A convertible version is reportedly in the works for later in 2011.

2011 Ford Mustang V-6 (base price $22,145)

Pony cars like the Mustang (and Camaro) used to come two ways: The V-8 performance version — and the Rental Car Special version. The V-8 model had the goods to back up the looks; the base/V-6 version was all looks and no goods.

Well, that’s changed some. The ’11 Mustang’s standard 3.7 liter V-6 puts out an almost unbelievable 305 horsepower. For perspective, the new Mustang’s 3.7 liter six is nearly 100 hp stronger than the “High Output” 5.0 liter V-8 used in ’80s-era Mustang GTs, and close to as potent as the DOHC 4.6 V-8 used in ’90s-era Mustang Cobras.

Oh yeah; it also gets 31 miles per gallon on the highway.

A six-speed manual transmission is paired with the mighty V-6 (with a six-speed automatic available optionally). The standard ‘Stang also comes fitted with 17-inch wheels and performance tires, limited slip axle and the same basic suspension set-up as the even hairier (412 hp) V-8 GT.

More power is always good, but with the ’11 Mustang, it’s no longer necessary. The base car runs as hard as the V-8 versions used to, gets much better gas mileage and costs a lot less to buy and insure.

It’s no wonder Ford is making money, even in the middle of this spectacularly soggy economy.

2011 Cadillac CTS-V coupe (base price $62,165)

The CTS-V sedan is already one of the fastest and fiercest things on four wheels (and with four doors) around. Six-point-two liters of supercharged, Corvette-sourced V-8. Zero to 60 in less than four seconds. But four doors is not what everyone wants. So come spring 2011, Cadillac will add a coupe version of the CTS-V to the lineup, with all the same go-fast gear but wrapped up in a sportier, two-door bodyshell.

This layout will give Cadillac a BMW M6 killer (as well as an M5 sedan slayer).

It will also be the quickest, fastest, most powerful vehicle GM has ever produced — excepting the Corvette Z06. (Just barely.)

A six-speed close-ratio manual transmission or six-speed automatic with sport shift mode will be available, along with form-fitting Recaro sport buckets and metallic/carbon fiber or wood inlays for the interior.

GM says the CTS-V coupe should be arriving at dealerships in early spring of 2011.

2011 VW Golf R (estimated base price $34,500)

Everyone likes the VW GTI; but it’s 200 hp rating just doesn’t seem like all that much. Next spring, VW will step it up a bit.

No, wait — a lot.

The new Golf R will leapfrog the current GTI (and the old R32) with a 265 hp turbocharged 2.0 liter engine, dual-clutch Direct Shift Gearbox (or conventional six-speed manual) and permanent all-wheel-drive. With 15 more hp than the old R32, the Golf R should be significantly quicker (expect 0-60 in about 5.5 seconds vs. low sixes for the R32) and with a revised/updated chassis and “active” suspension with multi-mode settings (“normal,” “comfort” and “sport”) it should ride and handle even better, too.

But the most welcome news may be the Golf R’s available manual gearbox. The R32 only offered the DSG “clutchless automatic” — which delivered race driver shifts but just wasn’t as much fun as handing the gear changes (and working the clutch) yourself.

VW hasn’t said yet whether the new R will be a limited-run model like the R32 (only 5,000 were built annually) so if you’re interested in one of these, don’t wait too long to visit your local VW store.

2011 Scion tC (base price $18,800)

As Toyota has evolved into a family car/economy car brand, it began to lose ground to Honda and others when it came to younger buyers looking for something with more curb appeal and personality.

Enter Scion, Toyota’s youth-targeted spin-off.

The tC coupe gets a full makeover for 2011, centered around a brand-new 2.5 liter, 180 hp engine (vs. 2.4 liters and 161 hp previously). The engine features electrically-driven power steering to cut parasitic drag and boost performance and economy. Eighteen-inch wheels and a six-speed manual transmission will be standard — along with a large, panaroma-style sunroof.

This will be the most aggressive Scion to date and marks the evolution of Scion from “sporty Toyota” to emerging performance brand in its own right.

Comments?
www.ericpetersautos.com

• Best New High Mileage Vehicles For Seniors
• The 16 Most Fuel-Efficient New Cars
• 2009 Automotive Preview
• The Anti-Hummers: Fuel-Efficient Smaller Vehicles
• 10 Highlights Of The 2010 Model Year

By James Baxter, NMA President

Having gone through another siege of “unintended acceleration” hyperbole, and with the same outcome (the purported victims had their foot on the gas pedal instead of the brake) it would seem that this subject has been well vetted. Don’t bet on it. Too many parasites are waiting in the bushes hoping for a sympathetic victim or horrendous crash where the finger of blame will be pointed at a car that couldn’t be stopped.

These ethically challenged opportunists range from self-serving attorneys to government agencies. For example, in the current debacle involving Toyota and rogue floor mats, NHTSA turned its own ineptitude into an excuse to go to Congress to seek more money.

They want Congress to force the auto makers to add $9 to the cost of every new car that would then be given to NHTSA. Guess who really pays the nine bucks.

This is not to say that new technology or a simple component flaw would never cause unintended acceleration, or some other unexpected vehicle gyration. But instead of creating a new sci-fi bogeyman why not first discount the factor that caused this problem the last four times it cropped up?

Here’s what NHTSA knows, or should know about unintended acceleration:

All past investigations have shown that driver error, usually, mistakenly, pushing on the accelerator thinking it is the brake pedal, is the pre-eminent cause of unintended acceleration.

The brakes in modern vehicles can overpower the engine and stop a vehicle even when the engine is at full song. The ignition key will still shut off an engine, even one with its own mind. Clutches and neutral gears will disengage the engine from the wheels, regardless of the floor mat location. And finally, what people say, in fact what they vehemently believe is often wrong.

Given that set of facts, why was the official knee jerk reaction at NHTSA to look for gremlins in the electronic throttle systems?

After all the tantrums, accusations, and public crucifixion of Toyota they find “the throttle was wide open and the brakes were not applied.”

• Sticking Gas Pedals: Not Just Toyota Affected
• Bernie Madoff & Red-Light Cameras
• Help Decide How NHTSA Spends Your Tax Dollars
• Move Over, Slow Down, And Crash!
• Tired Of High Gas Prices? Don’t Ask The Government For Help

By Eric Peters, Automotive Columnist

Is anyone happy with the way our traffic system works?

We have what you might call a least common denominator, “one size fits all” licensing system that arguably serves no one well.

Example:

Drivers with experience and above-average skill (demonstrated by passing a more difficult driving test, or having successfully earned a certificate from a high-performance driving school such as Bondurant or Skip Barber, etc.) could probably be trusted to drive considerably faster than currently posted maximum lawful speeds of 70-75 mph (which is what speed limits were circa 1970) without endangering themselves or others.

In practice, of course, they already do.

But despite their ability to drive faster safely, they’re lumped in with the least competent via dumbed-down speed limits that put them in almost constant jeopardy of being radar-trapped into a $150 piece of payin’ paper.

On the flip side, marginal and outright incompetent drivers are not treated as such by the system. Jut the opposite. They are often rewarded — or at least, encouraged to think they are “good drivers” by dint of the fact that they don’t “speed.”

That they often tailgate, wander across the double yellow, blow through red lights — and so on — hardly seems to matter since for the most part, these offenses are not the focus of traffic safety enforcement. “Speeding” is the major no-no, even though driving faster than a number painted on a sign may have no bearing whatever on how safely (or not) you happen to be driving.

Since so little is expected of all drivers, the general level of skill is very low. This almost certainly makes it less safe out there than it ought to be — and easily could be.

But how to reconcile the good drivers with the bad ones — or at least, to not punish the good drivers just because they transgress against laws intended for the benefit of the not-so-good drivers?

A tiered system of licensing — with “fast lanes” on highways set aside for those who have passed more demanding proficiency requirements — could make driving safer and more pleasant for everyone. Such a system exists already in countries like Germany and the results have been hard to argue with: Germany enjoys a generally higher average skill level for its drivers (because getting a license over there is not an easy thing, as it is here) and an accident/fatality rate that is better than ours, despite often much faster rates of travel.

In a tiered system, there are two categories of driver’s license: The Basic and the Expert (with a Learner’s for teenaged/first-time drivers).

In order to get your Basic license, you’d have to pass a written test proving that you know the rules of the road such as what the passing lane is for, who goes first at 4-way stops and so on. In addition to the written part, an actual on-road “road test” would be next — one that actually requires the subject being tested to prove basic competence behind the wheel in real-word driving conditions. The test would take at least 30 minutes and involve driving on secondary roads and highways, merging with traffic, parallel parking and so on.

This alone would result in a major uptick in the ability of the typical American motorist, simply by dint of weeding out the people who haven’t yet mastered the skills needed to safely operate a motor vehicle. Currently, most states require nothing more demanding than a few turns around some cones in the DMV parking lot — or a cursory drive around the block. This is outrageous given the responsibility that comes with driving a motor vehicle.

Successful passage of an actual road test in real-world conditions — as is the practice in many European countries — ought to be a mandatory minimum before any person is allowed onto public roads. But of course, it’s not. We literally let almost anyone who can insert a key into the ignition switch and pull the lever into “Drive” get a license — and not just a Basic license, but an “open class” license with no restrictions placed on the person whatsoever.

It’s interesting that the self-styled “safety advocates” who complain endlessly about “speeding” rarely, if ever, focus on our frighteningly lax driver’s licensing procedures. A “speeder” is arguably less dangerous than a person who timidly creeps into fast-moving traffic or constantly wanders across the double yellow in curves or who parks in the far left lane at exactly 55 mph, refusing to yield to faster-moving traffic.

But back to tiered licenses.

After a person acquires their first or Basic license and drives without incident for say two years, he would be eligible for an Expert endorsement (like the current “m” endorsement required to operate a motorcycle in many states). Additional training — such as successful completion of a high-performance driving school – could be the basic requirement for the “expert” endorsement, along with a DMV record free of any record of at-fault accidents or convictions for things that genuinely reflect careless or dangerous driving, such as DWI.

The holder of an Expert endorsement would be allowed to operate his vehicle on dedicated fast lanes with higher maximum speed limits — or even no formal speed limits at all, as on the German Autobahns.

Unsafe? Scary? Not really.

The Germans are very strict about their training and licensing requirements — but once an applicant has made the cut, the German authorities leave it up to him to judge what speed is safe. And it works quite well. The accident/fatality rate on the Autobahns — where cars routinely cruise at 100 mph — is lower than it is on our Interstate highways, where it is rarely legal to drive faster than 70 mph.

A tiered licensing system and fast lanes could accomplish several worthwhile things:

* It would give all drivers something to strive for — encouraging the acquisition of a higher level of skill behind the wheel. This would tend to lift the quality of the driving pool in general, which would make the driving environment safer for everyone.

* It would end the revenue-motivated harassment of drivers who are able to safely handle high-speed driving but who are currently subject to being ticketed merely because they happen to be driving faster than a number painted on a sign.

* Police could devote their energies to identifying and weeding out the genuinely dangerous drivers — tailgaters, people who refuse to yield to faster-moving traffic, drunks, the reckless, etc. This would do much to increase highway safety. It would also go a long way toward rebuilding the diminished stature of the highway patrol in the minds of many motorists, who have become very cynical about law enforcement as a result of radar traps and “speed enforcement” in general.

It’d be a pretty cool thing for all concerned — if it could ever be realized.

Comments for Eric?
www.ericpetersautos.com

• How To Objectively Identify Unsafe Drivers
• Should The Driving Age Be Raised To 18?
• A "Reasonable And Prudent" Approach To Speed Limits
• Is New Technology Creating Bad Drivers?
• Speed Limits: It’s 1974 All Over Again!