Streetsblog New York City

Lexus has suspended sales of its GX 460 after Consumer Reports issued a "don't buy" warning earlier this week. Apparently the luxury SUV's electronic "stability control" system can fail to correct drivers taking turns too quickly, resulting in a rollover risk. Times car blog Wheels reports:

Mr. Champion [Consumer Reports auto testing director] said that the problem came to light at the magazine's test track in East Haddam, Conn., while looking for "any nasty habits that might catch a driver out." He explained, "We want a car to be benign."

Speaking of nasty habits, the problem might well have come to light during this commercial shoot. Far from presenting the GX 460 as benign, Lexus hawks it as the nimble vehicle every upwardly-mobile mom needs to whip through city streets teeming with urban dangers (and cleared of urban traffic, natch). Strap in, precious, we're goin' to lacrosse practice!

So we have a carmaker promoting its product as a street-legal racing machine, and a consumer watchdog group telling the public it should not be driven as advertised -- or better yet, not driven at all.

We've tapped this vein before, but until "Closed Course/Professional Driver/Do Not Attempt" marketing goes the way of the "healthy" cigarette ad, supposed fail-safe features -- mostly designed to protect those inside the car -- will continue to be so much window dressing. Like those pedestrians in Batmom's peripheral vision.

It looks like one car maker has figured out an intriguing way to market its product to a city audience: Just don't show it at all. In fact, try to sell it by appealing to the innate desire for the very qualities your product squeezes out of city neighborhoods.

That's what Nissan has done with its New York City promotion for the Leaf, an electric car slated for mass production later this year. Nissan marketing teams hit the streets earlier this week with a faux Park(ing) Day concept. Instead of filling curbside space with sod and benches, they put out some bucket seats and signs pointing to journey-to-zero.com, a flash site that I found too irritating to navigate.

As far as I can tell, this attempt to sell cars by co-opting one of the signature awareness-building strategies of the livable streets movement does not display any actual cars, or even show the image of a Nissan Leaf. It's a car-free PR campaign for cars.

(Obligatory disclaimers: Replacing internal combustion with electric batteries is great. But the zero emissions hype is way overblown, the city-destroying space-hogging problem doesn't disappear with the fossil-fuel powered engines, and electric cars can be driven just as recklessly as conventional cars.)

Apparently, the promoters got a few people to sit in these things when they rolled them out on Wednesday. But really, they need to absorb a few lessons from the Park(ing) Day masters. The sitting arrangement inside a car is inherently anti-social. Staring at a headrest and the back of someone's scalp just doesn't translate to an urban public space.

Maybe that's why the people organizing this campaign also felt compelled to hire some folks to hand out flowers. You need a little public space programming to give people a reason to stop and memorize the journey-to-zero URL.

If you want to see one of these set-ups for yourself, the Nissan promoters will be putting out their bucket seats again all day tomorrow. They have 20 spots reserved. I don't have the exact locations but I'm told there will be four each at Union Square, the Bowery, SoHo, and Tribeca. No word yet on how much the city got paid for all this highly desirable curbside real estate.

So I think it's time to coin a phrase. What's the livable streets equivalent of greenwashing?

You might have seen it making the rounds over the last couple of days -- the new Mercedes ad in which a bike messenger challenges a driver in one of the company's luxury vehicles to a race from Harlem to the Fulton Ferry landing in Brooklyn.

There are many irritating things about the ad, including the lousy acting and the roundabout route the car takes (why the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway and not the FDR?). At more than seven minutes (it's in two parts on YouTube), it's also tediously long.

But worst is the perpetuation of that old stereotype, the "maniac" bike rider. The driver says at the beginning that he thinks the contest will be unfair: "Sure, he gets to ride like a bat out of hell and we have to follow the traffic rules."

And of course, that's the way it goes. No doubt, the risk-taking footage is fun to watch, and some local blogs have posted favorably about the ad (even Bike Snob NYC is mild in his critique).

But Mikael Colville-Andersen at Copenhagenize has it right when he says the Mercedes spot is an effective attack on the idea that riding a bicycle in a major city could ever be comfortable or normal:

Read more...

We've wrung hands before over the seeming disinterest of the "progressive" left in reducing automobile dependence. But it was still a shock to see Daily Kos enshrouded in advertising for Auto Innovation, a project of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.

A self-described "leading advocacy group for the automobile industry on a range of public policy issues," the purpose of the Alliance seems mostly to sell the public on how keen carmakers are on using technology to advance the cause of environmental stewardship (though the mythological "green" car of the future, whatever it is, remains tantalizingly out of reach). The group's presence on Kos makes the usual MSM buy look subtle.

So what's the angle here? Are car manufacturers afraid of losing the lefty base? Aren't car-ad bereft Free Republic readers just as interested in innovations like soy seating foam?

Concerns arose not long after it hit the market. External studies seemed to confirm what industry insiders feared: The product could pose a public health risk. But as sales soared, whistleblowers who didn't leave their jobs were forced to keep quiet. Companies maintained a posture of denial as a mountain of damning evidence, some of it from their own investigations, kept growing. Bowing to pressure, some consented to warning labels and other notices, but still insisted that claims of product-related injuries and deaths remained unproven.

It's a familiar story. And in the latest installment of its "Driven to Distraction" series, the Times lays out in detail how, in this case, it was the mobile phone industry that continued to market its product for use in a manner long believed to be hazardous to its customers and the population at large. The result: As far back as seven years ago, the Times reports, "drivers using cellphones were causing 2,600 fatal crashes a year in the United States and 570,000 accidents that resulted in a range of injuries, from minor to serious." Now a lawsuit, among the first of its kind, has been filed against Samsung and Sprint Nextel by a woman whose mother was killed by a distracted driver in Oklahoma City in 2008.

Of course a key issue is the line between provider and motorist responsibility. The driver in this case, who pleaded to misdemeanor negligent homicide, does not blame the cellular industry. "It's our choice if we're going to talk on the cellphone while driving or walking down the street or in the office," he said. "The cellphone companies don't say you should talk on the phone and drive."

Read more...

The first time I saw this ad I thought my eyes and ears were deceiving me. But no, there it is: a young woman holding a cellphone toward the camera as "nüvifone" maker Garmin beckons viewers to "communicate while navigating."

"With my nüvifone, I can take calls from my friends while I'm driving to them," she says as she's shown piloting an SUV with two passengers, one of whom accepts an incoming call on a phone mounted to the windshield. (Note to Garmin: Hands-free is not brain-free.)

Maybe the most egregious aspect is the "Do not drive while distracted" disclaimer -- which pops up as the young woman is depicted driving while distracted.

What the ad doesn't show: The driver plows her SUV through one of the pedestrian-populated shots that follow, and bystanders whip out their nüvifones to call 911, text their friends and photograph the carnage.

Toyota wants you to know that it's here for you. And not just as a car maker, as the company explains in this spot, ironically entitled "Community."

Like GM before them, Toyota wants to make sure you realize just how much their company means to you. Here's our voice-over:

"We acknowledge you are coming to despise automobiles, but your nation depends on our industry for so many jobs that, even if we only manufactured cardboard cut-out cars that you had to carry down your few remaining walkable Main Streets, you'd still need us, America."

Accompanying the ad is the aggressively cloying and patently manipulative "Beyond Cars" web site -- which if nothing else should serve as an irresistible culture-jamming target. What do we see, Toyota? For starters, we see a world where your product doesn't kill people.

And you? What do you see?

Today was International Walk to School Day, and according to this Audi commercial, if you participated you're a big loser.

In all seriousness, this has to be one of the most obnoxious spots we've featured on Streetsblog. Basically, per Audi: If you take transit, you're a glutton for punishment; if you ride a bike, you're a hapless weenie.

But Audi owners? They're just like you: "trying to do their part" for the environment. Only they do it by driving a $30,000, fossil fuel-burning, CO2-emitting private automobile. Though it is "clean diesel" -- you can pretty much drink that stuff, right?

And judging by how the A3 is portrayed zipping along a curvy mountain road, leaving lesser vehicles in its wake, you'd best stay out of the way while Audi drivers go about saving the planet. Weenie.

According to Movieline (via New York Mag), Jay Leno's new prime time show, set to debut on NBC in September, hasn't exactly been generating a lot of buzz. But since nothing says funny like a grisly hit-and-run, this promo, co-starring Fred Armisen of "Saturday Night Live," should turn things around.

Though I'm pretty sure Leno has never gotten as much as a chuckle from me, I understand where the humor is supposed to be here. Yet for some reason the laughter isn't coming.

Somewhere, though, I imagine pedestrian-hater Robert Novak is yukking it up.

The government's Cash for Clunkers program officially begins today, but car dealers have been running ads like this one for a while already. They have to keep the public informed: Now you can trade in your old car and buy a brand-new SUV or pick-up truck with a hefty assist from Uncle Sam.

Here we have the government spending a billion dollars on about 250,000 vouchers for individual car buyers. Ostensibly, the purpose is to save some jobs and cut some emissions. Meanwhile, we're in the middle of a budget crisis affecting transit agencies serving 22 million Americans. Green jobs and emissions-reducing transportation are on the line. When DOT Secretary LaHood holds his press event on Monday touting the roll-out of Cash for Clunkers, someone should ask him how the Obama administration can justify this dubious car industry subsidy while hanging transit riders out to dry.