2010 Toyota Prius Iv Solar Heated Leather Navigation Bluetooth Rear Camera Wow! on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ed Begely, Jr's RAV4 EV taken off eBay, moved to Craigslist

You may recall earlier this month that noted environmentalist and celebrated actor Ed Begley, Jr. was auctioning his own 2002 Toyota RAV4 EV on eBay. Bidding got up to $13,655 without meeting the reserve, and the auction ended on June 12 without a sale. Now, though, the well-loved electric Toyota has found its way to Craigslist with a new, set price of $17,500. The car sold for $42,000 in 2002, and has been maintained by the same dealership where Mr. Begley purchased it. The odometer shows 119,000 miles, but its battery was replaced in 2011, and shouldn't need to be replaced for another seven or eight years. Begley appears to have taken great care of his RAV4 EV, and it shows just your average cosmetic wear and tear on its white and charcoal interior. It gets about 85 miles on a full charge, and comes with the white decal that lets solo drivers use the HOV lane in California. As with the eBay deal, had that gone through, the buyer will get a chance to meet Ed Begley, Jr., and can even have him autograph the inside of the RAV4 EV's hood. Many of you may be curious as to what Begley's next daily driver will be. According to the actor's own Twitter account, he'll continue using electrons to get around, this time in a leased Nissan Leaf. As an actor, Ed Begley Jr. is known for many roles, including an Emmy-nominated role on St. Elsewhere. He also appeared on Arrested Development, Six Feet Under, Veronica Mars and in the films Pineapple Express and This Is Spinal Tap. In his decades as an environmentalist, he has appeared in his own web series On Begley Street, created his own line of environmentally friendly cleaning products, is in an ongoing competition with Bill Nye to have the lowest carbon footprint, has authored books and has been active in numerous environmental organizations.

Poor headlights cause 40 cars to miss IIHS Top Safety Pick rating

Over the past few months, we've noticed a number of cars and SUVs that have come incredibly close to earning one of the IIHS's highest accolades, the Top Safety Pick rating. They have great crash test scores and solid automatic emergency braking and forward collision warning systems. What trips them up is headlights. That got us wondering, how many vehicles are there that are coming up short because they don't have headlights that meet the organization's criteria for an "Acceptable" or "Good" rating. This is a revision made after 2017, a year in which headlights weren't factored in for this specific award. This is also why why some vehicles, such as the Ford F-150, might have had the award last year, but have lost it for this year. We reached out to someone at IIHS to find out. He responded with the following car models. Depending on how you count, a whopping 40 models crash well enough to receive the rating, but don't get it because their headlights are either "Poor" or "Marginal." We say depending on how you count because the IIHS actual counts truck body styles differently, and the Infiniti Q70 is a special case. Apparently the version of the Q70 that has good headlights doesn't have adequate forward collision prevention technology. And the one that has good forward collision tech doesn't have good enough headlights. We've provided the entire list of vehicles below in alphabetical order. Interestingly, it seems the Volkswagen Group is having the most difficulty providing good headlights with its otherwise safe cars. It had the most models on the list at 9 split between Audi and Volkswagen. GM is next in line with 7 models. It is worth noting again that though these vehicles have subpar headlights and don't quite earn Top Safety Pick awards, that doesn't mean they're unsafe. They all score well enough in crash testing and forward collision prevention that they would get the coveted award if the lights were better.

Senator pushes for up to life sentence for auto execs found to delay recalls

Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill (shown above) has had it with automotive execs stalling when it comes to recalls. The Missiourian has proposed a new bill, the Motor Vehicle and Highway Safety Enhancement Act, which aims to improve the automotive safety following the high-profile fiascos involving General Motors and Toyota. Aside from a doubling of the budget for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration over the next six years and the removal of the $35-million limit for fining automakers, the plan includes a provision that would punish auto executives if it's discovered they knowingly delayed recalls. How will it punish them, you ask? Oh, you know, just life in prison. The bill "gives federal prosecutors greater discretion to bring criminal prosecutions for auto safety violations and increases the possible penalties, including up to life in prison for violations that result in death," McCaskill's office told The Detroit News. If a delayed recall led to serious injuries, meanwhile, execs could still face a 15-year stint behind bars. As for that change in the fine structure for automakers, the removal of the limit is complemented by a hefty increase in the per-vehicle fine, from $5,000 to $25,000. With this change, GM could have been on the hook for $55 billion (with a "b") in fines for its bumbling of the ignition switch recall, rather than just $35 million. The News says, though, that NHTSA has "wide discretion" in handing out the fines. Considering a $55-billion fine is enough to sink any automaker, it is unlikely that such a monumental sum would be handed out. Still, the potential threat of such a death sentence should be enough for any automaker to sit up and take notice. "With millions of Americans behind the wheel every day, and more than 33,000 killed on our roads each year, we've got to do more to keep our cars and the roads we drive them on safe," McCaskill said, according to The News. "Painful recent examples at Toyota and GM have shown us we also must make it easier to hold accountable those who jeopardize consumers' safety. For too long, auto safety resources have remained virtually stagnant while cars and the safety challenges they present have become more complex." What do you think? Do you agree with McCaskill's proposed bill? Should the punishments for automakers and execs be more or less harsh? Have your say in Comments. News Source: The Detroit NewsImage Credit: J.