<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Today&#8217;s Headlines</title>
	<atom:link href="http://la.streetsblog.org/2009/10/13/todays-headlines-404/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://la.streetsblog.org/2009/10/13/todays-headlines-404/</link>
	<description>Covering Los Angeles&#039;s livable streets movement</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 14:06:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Damien Newton</title>
		<link>http://la.streetsblog.org/2009/10/13/todays-headlines-404/comment-page-1/#comment-38721</link>
		<dc:creator>Damien Newton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:52:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://la.streetsblog.org/?p=14871#comment-38721</guid>
		<description>You are correct.  I have updated the headline appropriately.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You are correct.  I have updated the headline appropriately.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rich Wilson</title>
		<link>http://la.streetsblog.org/2009/10/13/todays-headlines-404/comment-page-1/#comment-38711</link>
		<dc:creator>Rich Wilson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:49:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://la.streetsblog.org/?p=14871#comment-38711</guid>
		<description>SB 598 actually lets repeat DUI offenders get their license back significantly sooner if the install an interlock.  90 days as opposed to 12 months for a 2nd time offender.

http://gurwitzlaw.com/blog.php?module=fullnews

Hardly a &#039;crackdown&#039; IMO.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>SB 598 actually lets repeat DUI offenders get their license back significantly sooner if the install an interlock.  90 days as opposed to 12 months for a 2nd time offender.</p>
<p><a href="http://gurwitzlaw.com/blog.php?module=fullnews" rel="nofollow">http://gurwitzlaw.com/blog.php?module=fullnews</a></p>
<p>Hardly a &#8216;crackdown&#8217; IMO.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rich Wilson</title>
		<link>http://la.streetsblog.org/2009/10/13/todays-headlines-404/comment-page-1/#comment-38701</link>
		<dc:creator>Rich Wilson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:44:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://la.streetsblog.org/?p=14871#comment-38701</guid>
		<description>Um, &quot;Gov. Signs Bill to Increase Penalties on Drunk Drivers&quot;... The actual article says &quot;Both laws involve the installation of ignition interlock devices&quot;

I don&#039;t see anything about penalties.  In fact, one of the bills, SB 598 is hardly a crackdown.  It gives repeat offenders the chance for a restricted license if they agree to install interlock devices on their vehicles.  No matter what the restriction, a restricted license is hardly a &#039;crackdown&#039; vs. no license.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Um, &#8220;Gov. Signs Bill to Increase Penalties on Drunk Drivers&#8221;&#8230; The actual article says &#8220;Both laws involve the installation of ignition interlock devices&#8221;</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t see anything about penalties.  In fact, one of the bills, SB 598 is hardly a crackdown.  It gives repeat offenders the chance for a restricted license if they agree to install interlock devices on their vehicles.  No matter what the restriction, a restricted license is hardly a &#8216;crackdown&#8217; vs. no license.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

