Texas' 85-MPH toll road opens weeks ahead of schedule

While it takes some municipalities months just to fix a pot hole, apparently all you need is a little revenue stream to get road construction done at a rabbit's pace. After years of work, the final portion of the Texas State Highway 130 toll road has been today weeks ahead of schedule. The newest segments have gotten this new toll road national attention over the last several months for having a posted speed limit of 85 miles per hour along its 41-mile length from just south of Austin to I-10 near Seguin, Texas.

The road was constructed with no cost to the taxpayers by the SH 130 Concession Company, but almost as an added gift to local residents for finishing early, the tolls for the new portion of Texas SH 130 are being waived until November 11. After that, passenger cars and trucks will be charged $0.15 per mile, which adds up to a little over six dollars to drive the length of the new 41-mile, 85-mph stretch. The entire SH 130 toll road now spans 91 miles and acts as a bypass of Austin. Even better, the toll road uses a cashless system that can read either the TxTag decal or the car's license plate, which eliminates pesky toll booths and makes speedy transit even more convenient for motorists. 

 

Credit : Autoblog

America's cell phone laws, state by state

Memorial Day weekend is one of the premiere road trip holidays. According to the American Automobile Association, more than 30 million people will hit the road this weekend, averaging 642 miles each. That means, for many, crossing state lines. And nowadays, that's more confusing than ever. Speed limits may vary, but at least those are posted. Cell phone laws, however, are much more confusing.

For example, if you were driving from Michigan to Florida, you could legally text while driving in Ohio and Florida, where there are no laws banning it. But in between, it's illegal, as 38 states have laws against texting while driving.

There are 10 states where you couldn't hold my phone to my ear, as these states ban drivers from using hand held devices and require hands-free cell phone use.

Younger drivers, those with learners permits or under 18, may face stricter enforcement in some states, though it's unclear exactly how a cop can figure out someone's age at 70 miles per hour.

Of course, some cities have their own laws, as well, banning everything from texting while driving to dancing with girls. Make sure you know those laws as well. Or, just stay home, no one really wants to go to Bomont anyway. To see exactly what your state's laws are regarding cell phone use while driving, check out the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety listing or scroll through the maps in our gallery above. 

 

Credit : AutoBlog

Transportation Secretary LaHood Won’t Back Ban on Phones for Drivers

In a public split, transportation Secretary Ray LaHood sharply disagreed with a proposal by the top U.S. transportation safety investigator for a ban on hands-free calling while driving.

“The problem is not hands-free,” LaHood told reporters at the department’s headquarters, according to a Detroit News report. “That is not the big problem in America.”

Still, LaHood extends an olive branch to NTSB chairwoman Debbie Hersman, saying, “Anybody that wants to join the chorus against distracted driving, welcome aboard,” but continuing that “If other people want to work on hands-free, so be it.”
NTSB Chairwoman Deborah Hersman has said the rationale being the safety board’s recommendation is the act of talking on the phone itself causes the distractiont.
Driving is, indeed, a serious activity that requires all of your attention. According to the Department of Transportation’s December 8 release, distracted driving caused 3,092 fatalities in 2010.
The National Transportation Safety Board last week asked states to ban cellphones while driving in response to a deadly collision in Missouri last year that the agency blamed in part on a driver who was texting while driving.
However, Officer Tom Nichols of the Port St. Lucie, Fla., police said a law written like the NTSB suggests would be difficult to enforce because so many variables would be at play.

“If you identify someone who has a hands-free set hooked up to their ear that doesn’t mean they are talking on the phone,” he said. “They could be talking to a passenger. They could be talking to a child in the back. They could be singing.”

Ohio Appeals Court Strikes Down GPS Vehicle Spying

Fifth District Ohio Appeals Court ruling meant to influence higher courts against allowing warrantless GPS vehicle tracking.Although the US Supreme Court is expected to settle the issue of GPS tracking of motorists soon, a three-judge panel of the Ohio Court of Appeals, Fifth District ruled 2-1 earlier this month against the warrantless use of the technology. The majority's decision was likely designed to influence the deliberations of the higher courts. On November 8, the US Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the GPS case US v. Jones. The Ohio Supreme Court is also considering Ohio v. Johnson in which the Twelfth District appellate court upheld warrantless spying.

The present case began on January 14, 2010, when Franklin County Sheriff's Department Corporal Richard Minerd's investigation of a burglary brought him to a white Honda Civic in an apartment complex. Minerd slapped a battery-powered GPS tracking unit under the bumper that allowed real-time tracking of the vehicle's location, speed and direction of travel. Minerd did not seek a search warrant before acting.

Nine days later, the Civic appeared at the location of a robbery, and Minerd was able to follow the car back to the home of David L. White, who was caught with the stolen property. The Fifth District considered the question of whether it is ever acceptable for government agents to attach such devices to privately owned vehicles without a warrant.

"We respectfully disagree with our brethren in the Twelfth Appellate District," Presiding Judge W. Scott Gwin wrote. "We find for the reasons which follow that under the facts of this case a warrant was required before placing the GPS tracking unit on the suspect vehicle and to continuously monitor the tracking signal."

The panel majority took issue with the idea that attaching devices on the bumper of vehicles was ordinary conduct one could expect from any member of the public. The judges expounded on the importance of the Fourth Amendment in securing individual privacy against arbitrary government intrusion and concluded their colleagues were wrong in suggesting one has no expectation of privacy when parking on the street.

"When a person parks his car on a public way, he does not thereby give up all expectations of privacy in his vehicle," Gwin wrote. "There is no way to lock a door or place the car under a protective cloak as a signal to the police that one considers the car private... Upon observing a stranger underneath one's automobile, it is reasonable to believe that most citizens would sound an alarm. A response to the effect of, 'Well, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in the undercarriage of your car so any stranger can crawl under there and attach a GPS tracking device' would be met with righteous anger and disbelief. A citizen would justifiably feel that his or her property has been defiled; her privacy breached and his personal security compromised."

Since the GPS unit allows surveillance capabilities far beyond anything that could be accomplished with traditional spying methods, the majority dismissed the argument that the device only captured information that could have been observed with visual surveillance. Without enforcing a warrant requirement, police could install permanent tracking devices on anyone's car whether or not criminal activity is suspected.

"We find that the GPS tracking device, remaining constantly in place, performs a search of much more substantial and therefore unreasonable duration and scope," Gwin wrote. "The installation of the device without consent upon private property is a 'search' subject to Fourth Amendment warrant requirements, in the sense that it is an unreasonable governmental intrusion upon the individual's constitutionally guaranteed right of personal security, personal liberty, and private property."

Governor Signs Tow Truck 'Move Over' Law

A year ago, a “move over” law was passed in New York requiring vehicles to move away from police cars, ambulances or other emergency vehicles if they can during emergency pullovers.

Now, Governor Cuomo has signed into law a similar law applicable to tow truck operators who are on the scene of emergencies.

The law was sponsored in the Senate by John Bonacic (R- Mt. Hope). It was requested by Judge Matthew Parker of Wawarsing, in Ulster County, whose son, Kyle, a tow truck operator, was killed by a tractor-trailer while he was responded to a call from a motorist in 2003.

“He pushed to have this done so his son’s life was not in vain and might help other future tow truck operators provide a margin of safety,” Bonacic said.

Assemblyman Kevin Cahill (D-Kingston) carried the same bill in his house, but it was rejected for seven years until it finally passed during this session.