a Pennsylvania Republican and an Illinois progressive plan to introduce an amendment in today's House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee markup hearing to prohibit federal highway funding for states using automated license plate readers for any purpose other than tolling

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee will mark up the underlying bill—a $580 billion, five-year reauthorization of federal surface transportation programs—at 10 am ET on Thursday.

The amendment runs a single sentence: “A recipient of assistance under Title 23, United States Code, may not use automated license plate readers for any purpose other than tolling.”

The amendment is brief, but its reach would be vast. Title 23 funds roughly a quarter of all public road mileage in the US, including most state and county arteries and many city streets where ALPR cameras are becoming ubiquitous. Conditioning that funding on a ban of the technology would, in practical effect, force any state, county, or municipality that takes federal highway money (essentially all of them) to either remove the cameras or restructure their use around tolling alone.

https://www.wired.com/story/a-bipartisan-amendment-would-end-police-license-plate-tracking-nationwide/

the DOJ says retailer violated federal law protecting servicemembers by repossessing cars without required judicial approval

Federal officials accused CarMax of violating the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) by seizing vehicles owned by members of the armed forces without first obtaining court approval.

"Federal law prohibits businesses from repossessing service members’ vehicles without a court order," Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon said. "The Department of Justice is proud to defend the rights of those who serve in our military and will continue to vigorously enforce the laws that protect them."

between March 1, 2018, and at least Oct. 24, 2023, affecting at least 28 service members. Each is entitled to a minimum payment of $15,000, plus lost equity in the vehicle and interest on that amount.

In addition to compensating affected service members, the company will pay a $79,380 civil penalty to the U.S., according to the DOJ.

CarMax – which did not admit or deny the allegations – agreed to revise its policies and procedures to better protect the rights of U.S. service members.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/carmax-pay-420k-resolve-doj-allegations-over-servicemember-vehicle-repossessions

the city of Chicago systematically overcharged residents for city stickers and other parking violations for more than a decade.

This class action lawsuit involves more than 1 million tickets issued between 2012 and 2022, most of which involved city stickers.

The lawsuit stems from an Illinois law that prohibits the city from assessing more than $250 in fines and penalties for standing, parking or compliance violations. According to the suit, the city assessed as much as $400 for city sticker violations.

"The problem with the city of Chicago is... it can't help itself when it comes to ticketing revenue," said the plaintiffs' attorney, Jacie Zolna.

Zolna says it has been an eight-year battle in court, and at no point did the city of Chicago try to settle or compromise on this lawsuit.

Zolna pointed to a November 2022 City Council Finance Committee meeting when a city attorney appears to admit that its ticketing practices were found to be in violation of the state imposed $250 limit.

"It would be illegal for us to fine... to issue these fines under the court's ruling. So, if we did issue them, we would expose ourselves to litigation," said City Attorney Mark Siegel.

The city of Chicago's Law Department says it's evaluating all legal options, including an appeal. However, as attorneys for the plaintiffs point out, an appeal would just go up to the appellate court that ruled against the city three years ago.

https://abc7chicago.com/post/city-overcharged-residents-sticker-chicago-parking-ticket-years-judge-rules/18645632/

the Marion County Record newspaper... do you remember that 2023 constitutional rights violation? When the local cops raided, seized, and tried to silence the small town newspaper? The county was found responsible for the behavior of it's police dept and will apologize and pay a 3 million dollar settlement

“The sheriff’s office wishes to express its sincere regrets to Eric and Joan Meyer and Ruth and Ronald Herbel for its participation in the drafting and execution of the Marion county police department’s search warrants on their homes and the Marion County Record,” the sheriff’s statement this week said.

The raid triggered a fresh chapter in a national debate about press freedom, focused on Marion, a town of about 1,900 people approximately 150 miles south-west of Kansas City at a time of a disturbing rise in threats, intimidation and violence towards journalists in the US.

It began when a confidential source leaked evidence that a local restaurant proprietor, Kari Newell, had been convicted of drunk driving but continued using her car without a license. The Record never published anything related to the information because its staff reportedly suspected the source was relaying information from Newell’s husband during their divorce.

Nonetheless, after police notified Newell that the information was going around, she alleged at a local city council meeting that the newspaper had illegally obtained and disseminated sensitive documents, which was not true. Newell, who later acknowledged the drunk-driving arrest as well as driving with a suspended license, insinuated that the leak was meant to jeopardize her license to serve alcohol and harm her business, and had police remove reporters for the Record from the meeting.

The newspaper responded with a story to set the record straight. Then came the police raids, authorized by a search warrant alleging identity theft as well as unlawful use of a computer. Items seized by police included computers, cellphones and reporting materials found at the newspaper’s offices as well as the homes of its reporters and co-owners.

Joan Meyer collapsed and died of a heart attack aged 98 the day after the raid of her home, which had left her unable to eat or sleep and “stressed beyond her limits”.

Marion’s police chief at the time, Gideon Cody, is scheduled to go to trial in February in Marion county on a felony charge of interfering with a judicial process, accused by the two special prosecutors of persuading a potential witness to withhold information from authorities when they later investigated his conduct.

https://marionrecord.com/
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/11/kansas-marion-newspaper-police-raid-payment

A Washington state trial court has shot down local municipalities’ effort to keep automated license plate reader (ALPR) data secret.

"The Flock images generated by the Flock cameras...are public records," the court wrote in its ruling. "Flock camera images are created and used to further a governmental purpose. The Flock images created by the cameras located in Stanwood and Sedro-Woolley were paid for by Stanwood and Sedro Wooley [sic] and were generated for the benefit of Stanwood and Sedro-Woolley."

The contract language notwithstanding, officials in Washington attempted to restrict public access by claiming that video footage stored on Flock’s servers and requests for that information would constitute the generation of a new record. This part of the argument claimed that any information that was gathered but not otherwise accessed by law enforcement, including thousands of images taken every day by the agency’s 14 Flock ALPR cameras, had nothing to do with government business, would generate a new record, and should not be subject to records requests. The cities shut off their Flock cameras while the litigation was ongoing.

If the court had ruled in favor of the cities’ claim, police could move to store all their data — from their surveillance equipment and otherwise — on private company servers and claim that it's no longer accessible to the public.

In 2017, the California Supreme Court sided with EFF and ACLU in a case arguing that “the license plate data of millions of law-abiding drivers, collected indiscriminately by police across the state, are not ‘investigative records’ that law enforcement can keep secret.”

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/11/washington-court-rules-data-captured-flock-safety-cameras-are-public-records

A veteran music photographer has lost his lawsuit with the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame over the museum using a copy of his image of Van Halen

The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame used his copyrighted black-and-white photograph of Van Halen as part of an eight-foot-tall display about famous guitars. 

The museum neither licensed the photo nor provided credit or a source when exhibiting the photo.

The museum maintained that it had “transformed” Zlozower’s photograph from a promotional band image into a “historical artifact to underscore the importance of Eddie Van Halen’s musical instruments.”

The federal judge ruled that although the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame made a “nearly exact” copy of a portion of Zlozower’s photograph, it qualified as “fair use” under copyright law. 

While the judge agreed with Zlozower’s argument, he found that the image had been used for a purpose that was different from the original.

Judge Boyko stated that Zlozower’s original photograph was intended “to promote” Van Halen and highlight “the band’s fun-loving nature,” while the museum’s display sought to illustrate the importance of Eddie Van Halen’s guitar in “the history of rock and roll.”

“Looking at plaintiff’s photographs and defendant’s exhibit side-by-side and in light of copyright law, the court finds that defendant’s use adds new meaning and is transformative,” Boyko writes, according to Billboard’s report. “This is true although the copying is nearly exact.”

“The court concludes that defendant’s use of plaintiff’s copyrighted photographs is fair use.”

Judge Boyko’s ruling supported the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame’s argument that it had “transformed” Zlozower’s work from a promotional band photo into a “historical artifact to underscore the importance of Eddie Van Halen’s musical instruments.” The museum says its use of the image was part of a broader effort to “educate the public about the history of rock and roll music.”

https://petapixel.com/2025/11/13/photographer-loses-lawsuit-after-museums-use-of-his-image-is-ruled-fair-use/

So... we can use copywritten images for education, nice! 

"transformative use of the Photographs, in furtherance of its non-profit mission to engage, teach, and inspire through the power of rock & roll, was of a limited nature that was reasonably necessary to contextualize the historical musical instruments on display in the Museum Exhibits, had no effect on the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work, and consequently qualifies as permissible fair use for which there can be no liability under 17 U.S.C. § 107."

This really pulls the rug out from under the photographers though... I don't see how they can recover legally from a judge saying that their photos can be used by a museum without permission

By the way, this photographer has been photographing the most famous musicians for decades, and has about 800 magazine covers, he's sued at least 60 businesses for using his photos, and if the precedent is now that they can as long as it's educational? This and all the other paparazzi are going to have no recourse if someone else uses their photos without permission

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, ruled in a 2021 case - Marano v. Metropolitan Museum of Art - that the museum's use of a photograph of Eddie Van Halen was protected by the fair use doctrine.

The Met's use of the photo was transformative because its purpose was to highlight the unique design and historical significance of the guitar itself within the context of rock and roll history, rather than to serve as a concert photograph of the band, which was the photographer's original intent. 

The use was considered noncommercial since the museum's website was freely accessible to the public, despite the physical museum charging an admission fee. 

The court emphasized that the fair use analysis is highly fact-specific and context-dependent, and the ruling did not grant museums unfettered rights to use copyrighted material without permission.

https://www.kibz.com/rrhof-vs-evh-photo/

https://www.law360.com/media/articles/2410161

https://www.sonicperspectives.com/news/judge-rules-rock-roll-hall-of-fame-did-not-violate-copyright-over-eddie-van-halen-photo/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/691490c3022e931cd45c6c30

But I can not find the image in question online. 

I was looking through the news, and was astonished to see back to back articles contradict each other on the topic of bicycle safety in intersections

should cyclists be required to follow the same traffic rules as motorists, or should we recognize that these rules do not always reflect the reality of cycling in a city?

the risks associated with different modes of transport are incommensurate. 

A car that runs a red light can cause serious or even fatal injuries. 

A cyclist, on the other hand, is unlikely to cause the same degree of damage. 

 Treating two such different modes of transport the same way, therefore, amounts to implicitly favoring cars, something akin to imposing the same speed limit on pedestrians and trucks.

Since 1982, cyclists in Idaho have been able to treat a stop sign as a yield sign and a red light as a stop sign. Several American states (such as Arkansas, Colorado, and Oregon) and countries, such as France and Belgium, have adopted similar regulations.

https://theconversation.com/cyclists-may-be-right-to-run-stop-signs-and-red-lights-heres-why-268724

Drivers zooming on and off the Williamsburg Bridge in Lower Manhattan are running red lights and creating a harrowing situation for pedestrians and cyclists trying to use the busy intersection — but cops are not only turning a blind eye, but directing their focus towards cyclists instead.

The cops are able to take advantage of the poor design and issue tickets to every cyclist that approaches the intersection.

the NYPD has set up a checkpoint to issue criminal summonses to cyclists as part of Mayor Adams and Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch's criminal crackdown on biking that started in April.

The checkpoints ticketing cyclists on Delancey as part of the criminal crackdown has been documented on Reddit and observed by Streetsblog, most recently on Oct. 3. 

Most drivers who put New Yorkers’ lives at risk with their anti-social behavior will face no consequences for their actions — indeed in 2024, the NYPD averaged fewer than two speeding tickets per precinct per day, according to the agency's own stats.

And the red-light-ticket-writing-rate at the Seventh Precinct — where the notorious intersection is located — is even worse: Just 1.5 red light tickets were written per day in that entire precinct.

“This is the city we live in: Pointless enforcement of bikes, no enforcement of cars"

https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2025/11/11/drivers-run-reds-but-cops-ticket-cyclists-at-dangerous-delancey-intersection

A pilot is fighting to recover his 1946 Stinson following an emergency landing over Red Lake Nation tribal territory in northern Minnesota, on Minnesota Highway 1, because the Red Lake Tribal Police impounded the aircraft, citing a violation of the tribe’s 1978 Resolution No. 59-78.

 
What's that all about? 

in the late 70s, amid opposition to proposed low-altitude military training routes, the tribe passed a resolution to prohibit “the flying of any airplanes over lands of the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians at an altitude of less than 20,000 feet.” of high speed aircraft. 

A 1948 Stinson is neither military, nor high speed. And I doubt the treaty ever mentioned aircraft, or airspace.

So, since they could seize the airplane because it landed where they could seize it, they did, and possibly only to serve notice that their laws will not be ignored... 

in the once a century unique opportunity to stand their ground, and make the news. Maybe even get the jurisdiction law of airspace vis a vis tribal sovereignty examined in a new light... it sure as hell has seen a lot of changes since the 70s, just see Oklahoma. 

Well... now the issue of who sets the laws above a reservation will hit a court, or maybe a couple, as tribal jurisdiction over airspace has possibly never come up before. The FAA is the only authority on airspace over the USA, unless, maybe, over military airspace. I dunno about that. 

Federal law, under Title 49 U.S. Code §40103, grants the U.S. government “exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States” and recognizes a public right of transit through navigable airspace. 

Current VFR sectional charts show a published T-route above the reservation, but no other special use airspace or advisories are depicted. T-routes are typically confined between 1,200 feet above ground and 18,000 feet mean sea level.

The Red Lake Nation is the only closed reservation in Minnesota and exercises full jurisdiction over its lands and maintains its own courts and law enforcement, a status derived from treaties the tribe signed with the U.S. government. The tribe is the only reservation in the state that holds all of its lands in common. The tribe limits who can visit or live on the reservation, and its members are not subject to state criminal and civil jurisdiction on its lands.

Red Lake Nation said it welcomes "engagement with the FAA and governmental peers to clarify Tribal protocols for emergency landings and Tribal laws and resolutions governing overflight, so that future incidents may be handled with greater transparency, cooperation, and mutual respect."

https://avweb.com/aviation-news/tribe-seizes-plane-minnesota-emergency/

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2025/11/04/red-lake-nation-seized-roseau-mans-plane-after-emergency-landing

https://www.facebook.com/darrin.smedsmo

This oughta be interesting to see how it turns out... I doubt airspace jurisdiction has been brought up in courts more than once or twice since WW2

The state of North Carolina has passed a law to “protect the right to race.” Basically, you can’t move next to a race track and complain about the noise to get it shut down.

Specifically, Article 10 of the NC state legislature’s House Bill 926 is about “Racing Facility and Racetrack Nuisance Immunity.” After defining what a race track is and specifying that this rule applies to “within a three-mile radius of the perimeter of the property or contiguous group of properties where a racing facility is located,”

there are about 40 tracks spread across the 53,819 square-mile state of North Carolina

https://www.thedrive.com/news/north-carolinas-right-to-race-law-will-help-keep-tracks-open

Miss Seat Belt of 1966.... thank you Raymond!

 Why so many Miss Seat Belt promotions? 

Because car makers were not required to install seat belts until 1966, and the govt put a lot of pressure on the public to start putting them in old cars, for safety, after that, but didn't make it a law to use them every time you drove, until the 80s. 

New York started in 1984, with only the front seat occupants. By 1996, all states required the use of the seat belts. 

A lot of people REFUSED to wear the seat belt then, because so many people had survived crashes by being thrown free of the smashed/crashed car, and they know they would have died if they had been wearing a belt. Yes, my uncle Tom survived smashing his 55 Chevy because he was thrown free. 

Well, don't fall asleep at the wheel, and you won't crash. 

Ya know? 

https://www.weirduniverse.net/blog/categories/category/cars

The Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles has agreed to relax its restrictions on what can go on personalized license plates after facing a federal lawsuit

The government organization violated the right to free speech and equal protection under the law by rejecting personalized license plate requests.

Ohio began allowing personalized license plates in 1973 but did not adopt clear rules for evaluating the appropriateness of messages until after a 2003 lawsuit, when the BMV clarified it's ban

https://www.nbc4i.com/news/local-news/central-ohio-news/ohio-bmv-relaxes-personalized-license-plate-restrictions-after-federal-lawsuit/

Willoughby Hills, an Ohio town that charged drivers a fee to contest traffic fines, has just learned that other people won't put up with unconstitutional civil rights trampling, employed while taking advantage of being able to give speeding tickets to the drivers on the interstate that runs through town, in a 60 mph zone.

Willoughby Hills boldly carried on a policy in which drivers wishing to fight a traffic camera fine had to hand over a $25 ‘filing fee’ simply to log an appeal.

“The Constitution protects the right to due process of law before citizens are deprived of their property, including money,” said attorney Bobbi Taylor, who represented the group. “Forcing someone to pay a fee to prove their innocence goes against this principle,”

the police chief of Willoughby Hills Police Department claims the fee came from the municipal court rather than the city, and staunchly denied the scheme incentivized officers to pump out traffic violation tickets.

Because cops with blacked out cruisers are well known to be completely against any policy or procedures that anyone could be skeptical about

https://www.carscoops.com/2025/08/greedy-ohio-town-just-had-its-cash-grab-speeding-scam-shut-down/

It's all about fund raising, and when it's taking place on the interstate, it's to get the money from out of towners. 4 Million dollars in one year. 

lawbooks around the world are full of all manner of peabrained rules and regulations when it comes to anything and everything automobiles.

* Only numerically labeling a speedometer to 85, but having the graticules to 140, because a law was passed that forbid the numbers to be larger than 85. 

Seriously? Just because the numbers are there, or not, doesn't influence a driver to go faster, but the NHTSA in 1979 was certain, we were under the spell of the numbers... not just reacting to the idiotic national 55 mph speed limit

* In North Carolina, repeat DUI offenders, who have their licenses taken away permanently, would simply buy a moped to get around with. 

And keep on driving drunk. 

In North Carolina, a two-or-three wheeled vehicle “with a step-through architecture” (meaning, not full doors, and not fully enclosed), that also has bicycle-style pedals and could at least sort of be propelled by them, with an engine that is 50cc or smaller in displacement, and is speed-limited to a maximum of 30mph on the straightaway with “no external shifting device” (i.e., no shift lever/pedal/etc, so GY6-style-CVT-only) is classified as a moped, and mopeds are not considered “motor vehicles” for the purposes of state law, so, ....  they were legally available to use on anything up to and including a highway with no on-ramps or off-ramps (public roadways/etc and highways that are not “access-controlled highways”) with no license, no title, no registration, and no insurance.

* Smog inspections are not all about the tailpipe emissions, they are checking the computer. So, if you've recently had to change your car battery, like I once did, and then went to get a smog inspection, you are failed because the computer memory isn't full enough. 

* the President can no longer drive a car, even after leaving elected office!

* Radar detectors, even if obsolete, will always be illegal in Virginia, where the govt was upset about speeders, and more upset that they could evade police speed traps. Now? They simply use WAZE or some other app to find where the cops are sitting using laser speed detectors

* trucks/suvs are rumored to be excluded from passenger car window tint regulations. That law was made in the 80s, before the majority of vehicles sold and driven, turned out to be trucks and SUVs

* Probably the stupidest, to me, is the requirement that car doors have interior locks... when Vipers didn't have roofs or windows when it was first introduced

Car and Driver pointed out that it was required by federal law to have door locks despite not having outside door handles, roll up windows, or even anything that could reasonably be called a roof.

* Modern cars have crash standards, and if they can't pass that, they aren't allowed to be sold in the USA, right, hence the cars from Mexico that I've posted that aren't sold in the USA... BUT motorcycles have no crash standards, and the logic of them being legal, but not a cheap, inexpensive, 10,000 dollar Asian or Mexican market vehicle? Boggles my mind

https://www.theautopian.com/whats-the-dumbest-automotive-law-or-regulation/

The California Supreme Court (told the butt heads who want to shut down offroading at the dunes) that the court declined to hear a petition from the California Coastal Commission (CCC) (buttheads, every damn one) seeking to ban off-highway vehicles (OHVs) at Oceano Dunes.

The  California Supreme Court decision to decline to hear the petition reaffirms the previous ruling by the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court, which found that the CCC's attempt to prohibit OHV use contradicted the Local Coastal Plan (LCP).

The move is a significant victory for OHV enthusiasts.

The Commission’s attempt to ban OHV use at Oceano Dunes contradicts the plain language of the certified Local Coastal Plan (LCP).

It further stated: “Here, we conclude the Commission did not have the authority to phase out OHV use by unilaterally amending the Oceano Dunes [development permit] because the LCP permits such use. The LCP states that one of its goals is to “ ‘maximize public recreational opportunities’ ”— including OHV use—at Oceano Dunes.”

Aside from maintaining the free country aspect of using some SAND that has no other useful function, (we have a really big damn desert between the coasts if anyone can ever figure out what to do with SAND) for having FUN with dunebuggies, it's a fact that the LAW about the damn California Coastal Commission was CLEAR about the legal use for the dunes was specifically for maximizing public recreational opportunities and specifically OHV use—at Oceano Dunes. 

Plus OHV recreation generates a half a billion dollars annually for the local economy.

https://kmph.com/news/local/california-supreme-court-upholds-off-highway-vehicle-use-at-oceano-dunes

There's no doubt in my mind that the coastal commission is made up of a bunch of rich people who want to make a lot of condos and apartment buildings, so they get richer, either with kick backs from developers, or pay raises based on tax income increasing, or some other boondoggle. Govt people, they simply don't leave recreational areas be, and instead focus on corporate pollution and code enforcement 

Oceano Dunes is about 1/2 way between San Diego and San Fransisco

The Supreme Court revived an industry effort to axe California’s stricter vehicle emissions standards Friday

In a 7-2 decision authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the Supreme Court ruled fuel producers have legal standing to sue over California’s clean car standards approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), allowing the challenge to continue.

"the justiciability of the fuel producers’ challenge to EPA’s approval of the California regulations is evident" said Justice Brett Kavanaugh

“If invalidating the regulations would change nothing in the market, why are EPA and California enforcing and defending the regulations?” Kavanaugh wrote for the majority.

“The whole point of the regulations is to increase the number of electric vehicles in the new automobile market beyond what consumers would otherwise demand and what automakers would otherwise manufacture and sell,” he added.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5360759-supreme-court-california-emissions

a court found that holding a cell hone and looking at the mapping application on the phone without “active manipulation,” was not violating the hands free “operating” a cellphone as outlined by state law, but THEN some asshole govt lawyer appealed and the appeals court disagreed. It's now a court result that holding a phone, and looking at the map ap, is illegal. MFSOBGD BS!

The original court found 'there must be something equated to carrying out a function, actively using or manipulating the phone while holding and driving,” court documents read. “This may include talking, listening, emailing, browsing the internet, playing video games, or otherwise engaging with the smartphone. Merely observing GPS directions on the phone does not constitute the kind of active use or manipulation to trigger an infraction under the statute.”

I agree, it's not like looking at a Rand McNally while driving was illegal, or using the damn car radio, or changing a cassette or CD was illegal - though I won't argue that they take your eyes off the road. So does eating a burger, drinking, and reaching for those items from the cupholder or passenger seat, chatting with a passenger and occasionally looking at them... this isn't behavior that causes cars to collide, or leave the road. It's merely being relaxed at the wheel, and experienced at driving, and able to maintain your cars direction, lane use, and velocity, while doing other things. 

the California Court of Appeal for the sixth appellate district concluded that the term “operating” under the aforementioned law “prohibits all use of a handheld phone’s functions while driving, including looking at an application on the phone.”

 That the state law prohibits the handheld use of cellphones while driving applies to holding phones operating as navigation systems.

https://fox5sandiego.com/news/california-news/holding-a-cellphone-for-navigation-while-driving-is-illegal-california-court-rules

Damn! More govt bullshit in order to ticket tax vehicle operators with traffic cameras! Using a map is not TALKING on a phone, it's not as damn distracting!  

I just thought you oughta know about this. I doubt it's going to make mainline news

A Chinese firm has a 37% stake in Pirelli, and the tires have Cyber Tire technology, which includes a sensor that collects data for safe driving. Suddenly, that tire, fall afoul of the US GOvt.

the U.S. Department of Commerce finalized a rule that will “prohibit the sale and import of connected vehicle hardware and software systems” from China and Russia, to safeguard America from national security risks associated with the exploitation of U.S. connected vehicle supply chains.”

the Pirelli sensor collects data to help with safe driving “whether it’s winter or summer, prescribed pressure, load index and speed rating – as well as current running information, such as temperature and pressure.”

The company went on to say “data supplied from the sensors is processed by software created by Pirelli that is integrated into the car’s electronics.” Some of this can be shown on the car’s interior displays, while other information is used by the “car’s electronics to calibrate the driver alert systems based on the exact characteristics of the tires and their status.”

Bloomberg and Reuters are reporting sales of Cyber Tire technology, as well as vehicles equipped with these tires, could be restricted in the future.

This is because China’s Sinochem has a 37% stake in the Italian tire company. However, it’s possible automakers could apply for an exemption to use Cyber Tire technology in their vehicles.

All of this sounds like a messy situation and the clock is ticking. Software restrictions will go into effect for the 2027 model year, while hardware restrictions will follow for the 2030 model year.

https://www.carscoops.com/2025/05/us-threatens-action-over-pirelli-tech-hidden-in-your-cars-tires/

Louisiana House committee voted 6 to 5 against a bill to remove the state's annual vehicle inspection sticker requirement. This demonstrates either the corrupt nature of politicians, or just how effective the lobbyists are

Bagley, who is making his third attempt to eliminate the program, said 39 other states have done away with inspection stickers, including "all Republican states," he said. The latest state to eliminate inspection stickers was Texas beginning this year.

The inspection is clearly just a money grab, as most vehicles are less than 15 years old, most "inspection stations" just take the money for the "inspection" and slap a new sticker on. 

Since the fact is, the police are supposed to ticket for anything that is actually unsafe about a vehicle, the inspection stations are not necessary

https://www.shreveporttimes.com/story/news/2025/04/28/louisiana-lawmakers-reject-bill-to-eliminate-vehicle-inspection-stickers/83328309007/news

North Carolina's Transportation Committee has passed a bill to extend the number of years a driver’s license is good for, a couple more years, to ease the pressure the state DMV system is currently facing.

Legislator Jay Adams has been clear: this measure seeks to reduce the stress of citizens and prevent them from being punished because of the system itself. It’s not about giving away licenses or allowing people without licenses to drive, but about accepting that the current system is unable to cope with the problems it's created with "Real ID" (wasting the DMV's time and citizens, to bring a birth certificate and social security card to the DMV to get ANOTHER version of a drivers license that DOES NOTHING for driving, or licensing to drive) being required to fly airlines INSIDE the USA. 

In other words, the govt, in it's wisdom and effort to stay busy, created a boondoggle, that wasn't well planned, or well executed

https://unionrayo.com/en/farewell-driver-license-extension-usa

A Denver attorney has successfully fought a $75 "toll lane weaving" ticket in court, potentially opening the door for others to challenge similar penalties.

"I got a Notice of Civil Penalty and it said that I had committed a safety violation by weaving in and out of the toll lane on C470," Josh Bowlin, a trial lawyer, said.

Despite paying the actual toll, he was still penalized for how he entered the lane.

Bowlin decided to challenge the ticket after reviewing the statute that the Colorado Transportation Investment Office (CTIO), a division of the Colorado Department of Transportation, was citing.

"It was called a safety violation," he said. "But you look up the statute that the tolling authority was citing, and it says that they can issue a civil penalty for toll evasion, and I thought to myself, well, I wasn't trying to avoid paying the toll."

In the first nine months of toll lane weaving enforcement, CTIO issued more than $40 million in citations to drivers accused of crossing double white lines, to cross into a toll lane or entering or exiting a lane outside of a marked entrance or exit.

To fight their tickets, drivers, without any formal legal training, have to file a lawsuit against the state – serving a summons to the Attorney General’s office, finding witnesses, submitting evidence and navigating a range of pre-trial hearings.

“They have to go to court and initiate the lawsuit and figure out how to bring the tolling authority into the court system, which is difficult.”

His legal training and 15 years as a trial lawyer were useful arguing his case in a February trial that lasted for about four hours. During that hearing, an attorney from the state questioned Bowlin on the stand and called several witnesses from CTIO and the companies that run the toll lane enforcement program. Bowlin didn’t call any witnesses and instead argued the law – that the citation sent cites a statute on toll evasion, which he argued he didn’t break.

After a month of deliberating, the judge ultimately ruled in Bowlin's favor.

"The judge eventually held even if entering across that lane might be some kind of traffic infraction that you might be able to get pulled over by a sheriff's deputy or something like that, that it wasn't the kind of thing that the tolling authority could just send this notice of civil penalty out and collect $75 for," he said.

CTIO, a division of the Colorado Department of Transportation, stated they "will continue to operate the program as we have in the past." (because the State made 40 million dollars with this program already, in just 9 months) 

https://www.9news.com/article/money/consumer/steve-on-your-side/colorado-attorney-defeats-toll-lane-ticket-eyes-class-action-lawsuit/73-94de12f9-3c13-4705-a49d-a8332f39d507