Slashdot Mirror
Car Glass Rules Could Impair Cell, GPS and Radio Signals In CA
An anonymous reader writes "The California Air Resources Board (CARB) just passed a new regulation that requires glazed glass in automobiles that is supposed to reduce the need to use air conditioning. The catch is that the same properties that block electromagnetic sunlight radiation also block lower frequency electromagnetic radio waves. That means radios, satellite radios, GPS, garage door openers, and cell phones will be severely degraded. Even more surprising is that it requires this glass even for jeeps that have soft covers, plastic windows, and no air conditioning.'"
You must be new to bureaucracies.
... people will have problems using cell phones while driving?
Oh darn. That's just horrible.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
My question is, who owns the rights to this technology they are going to enforce everyone to have?
The CARB should be barred from mandating equipment, and simply mandate emissions standards. Who cares why your car gets good or shitty mileage? Let's just see them have mandated emissions and, if necessary, mileage; we already have both, of course. But at the same time, the CARB has done amazing things for California's air quality; there's more Chinese pollution in LA now than the local stuff. Which highlights the NEXT phase of the problem... but we're not done here, yet.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
So to reduce fuel consumption, they're enacting a law that is going to force people to roll down their windows to get cell, radio and GPS signals, therefore increasing drag and fuel consumption? Yay!
SmashTech - No smashing of tech involved
I must be an idiot but my radio antenna is outside my car connected with a cable to my radio. Why would glazed glass be an issue. not only that but unless your car is made of plastic isn't the frame of the car in fact a passive antenna since it isn't grounded? (I could be wrong here, too many years since school). Feel free to correct me but since the windows are not contigious isn't this an issue of weaker cell phone signals and with more states passive anti-cell phone while driving laws isn't this a moot issue?
I must be old and cranky or just plain stupid but how is this a bad idea? A cooler car, less gas burned in AC, and potential to stop an alien laser weapon long enough to duck before it melts through the glass seems like a good idea. While we are at it can we require bulletproof glass to boot in the wind shield and rear windows since they always seem to get shot up in the movies but no one ever takes a shot from the side...
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
Bring back vent windows! They were very effective in the days before AC, and I miss them.
No sig? Sigh...
It has everyone complaining about the stoopid government but did you notice that this was printed in a Detroit newspaper? Gee, I wonder why people in Detroit would care about a new type of glass in a car window that adds extra cost to a vehicle? You just got played due to your knee-jerk anti-government attitude. Regardless of whether you agree with the manufacturers or the government you should realize when you are being manipulated by the media.
More spending: they vote YES.
Raise taxes to pay for that spending: the vote NO
Have a windfall in tax revenues? Got to spend it! Can't save it for future budgetary shortfalls!
California is the most democratic state in the Union and look what happens. There's a reason why we're set up as a Republic.
It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
> Even more surprising is that it requires this glass even
> for jeeps that have soft covers, plastic windows, and
> no air conditioning.
The alternative would be to leave a loophole in a rule intended to be followed by automotive corporations. Historically, that hasn't worked out so well.
c.
Log in or piss off.
Your government is defective. Huge budget deficits, stealing from local cities and counties and flawed regulations being rammed through the legislative process.
Living here, I vote we rip up the state's constitution and start fresh. The first step is ousting the assholes currently in charge.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
[citation needed]
They don't allow you to do that here in California - you can't just bring a 49 state car here. This state is run by egomaniacs who have no concept of finance.
I bet that they didn't even think about whether the cost of the glazed glass pays for the fuel it saves.
California really does feel like a separate country. They place zero value on personal freedom here.
I live in California, Sacramento no less, and one of two things is going to happen eventually. Taxes are going to have to be raised, or massive cuts to services will happen. The problem is that there is no political will to do either because people want the government to do all this wonderful stuff for them, but they don't want to pay for it. There's an incredible entitlement complex in California but there's also this idea that no matter how much money you make it should always be the MORE wealthy who should have to pay for everything.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
It is absurd. We also voted to require that chickens have enough room to walk around when they're being raised to be killed and eaten, but we voted against allowing same sex marriage. We care more about animals than gay people, strangely enough.
It's amazing that the problems of having the population vote directly for tax increases and spending wasn't immediately apparent. The average person is pretty ignorant and shouldn't be allowed that much direct control.
I almost always vote for raising taxes and against spending increases, but I can't do much against the masses of idiots who think the money will just appear from somewhere else.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
Seriously, does anybody really think that government is made up of the country's smartest people?
The private sector could easily do something this stupid. It's just that, we have only one government, and in the private sector, stupid businesses are supposed to fail, unless they happen to be banks.
This is my sig.
If the state of California believes they need to regulate negative externalities resulting from the operation of internal combustion engines, then they should tax the operation of internal combustion engines across the board.
Instead, we have an authoritarian government telling us what light bulbs we can screw in, what size of televisions we can own, and now the brand of auto glass we use.
What we have here is government singling out specific groups, behaviors, and industries with coercive power in a manner that is anathema to individual liberty.
Economic liberty is a civil liberty.
The important isn't necessarily which kind of social institution you're bringing to bear on a problem, it's whether or not it's adaptable and accountable to the people it touches.
I disagree, because there are powers invested in government that aren't invested in any other organization. The government may make my actions illegal, imprison, and/or kill me. Other organizations can't, unless the government gives them the allowance to do so. Therefore, the government is the group that most critically requires limitation.
(By the way, I just metamoded, and your comment popped up. I gave it a thumbs up.)
Yes voter control of taxation and spending is a horrible idea, it's ALMOST as bad as politicians controlling spending and taxation.
For reference see: Federal Government, United States
If you ever move to California, do exactly that. Then try to register it as a resident.
I've never lived in California, but I have a hard time believing they would allow such a loophole. I expect the conversation would go something like this:
You: "Hi, I just bought a car and I'd like to register it, please."
DMV: "Great. Congrats. So let's see the paperwork, please." (shuffles paperwork). "Hmm, you a resident of California?"
You: "Yes"
DMV: "OK, you are aware that you needed to buy the California package as a resident of California for a car you intend to use here, right?"
You: "Yes, that's why I drove across state lines, to avoid that and California's use tax on vehicles."
DMV: "Ah, I think we have the problem sorted! OK, great, we can register that for you. Just take it to a local shop and pay the extra $250 for the gear we require, plus of course $1000 labor to install it, and please be aware this probably voids your warranty, though that's between you and the auto manufacturer. Then, remit the California use taxes that a California dealer would have been aware of and withheld for you, as opposed to the Nevada use taxes you paid which I'm sure Nevada is thrilled for the donation you just gave them."
All you'd be doing is driving across state lines and, in effect, donating a second dose use tax to another state and upgrading the vaseline with expensive sand.
When I moved from Tax-Free New Hampshire to Kentucky some years back, I had to pay use tax on the Kelly Blue Book value of all of the cars I "imported" into Kentucky, even though the cars were purchased BEFORE I WAS A RESIDENT and I had paid all of the fees (only none of them were called "use tax") when I purchased the vehicles originally. The total came to well over two thousand dollars for a 4-year-old car and a 2-year-old car.
When I moved to Maine, I had to show proof of payment of that use tax to Kentucky and, as a new resident, I was allowed a one-time exemption for my two vehicles since I had paid Use Tax in another state whose rate was as high as or higher than Maine's. If Kentucky's had been lower, I would have been on the hook for the difference. I was also informed that if I purchased a car outside the state once I became a resident, I'd have to pay full Maine use tax. Fortunately, Kentucky and Maine have "reciprocal agreements" in place, because if I'd moved to some states I would have owed use taxes all over again.
Neither of my cars had the California Package, which Maine requires, but I was still allowed to import them because they were not purchased in Maine and I was not a resident at the time of purchase, so the law did not apply to me. However, I would have trouble registering a new car purchased in another state if it lacked that package.
Better option: Don't move to California. Or declare your legal residence as Florida and register your cars there, then buy a mailstop address there. IANAL, so that may or may not be technically legal in your state.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
I wonder if this is going to affect ezpass toll systems, which use battery powered RFID transponders: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-ZPass
However, often the mythbusters' methodology is shaky, and from this short synopsis (I haven't seen that episode) this was one of those cases.
At 45 mph you will indeed get better mileage with the windows down (on most cars, YMMV). That's the first methodology fault. The faster you go, the more pronounced the drag. Under 40 you're better with the windows down, over 50 you're better off with them up. Nobody drives 45 on the interstate -- in fact, that's the minimum speed on most highways.
The second is, you have two different drivers with two different driving styles. The one who is able to keep closer to a steady speed is going to get the best mileage. If they had set the cruise control to 70mph and done the test, the computer would have matched the results.
Free Martian Whores!
The glass blocks cell signals? Cell phone antennas are weak anyway. You can buy external antennas that mount on your card (like police use) and either re-broadcast inside the vehicle or plug directly in (if your phone has a plug).
Wilson Electronics is one manufacturer of this kind of equipment. (My company is a dealer.)
Honestly I'd like to see vehicle manufacturers give an option to have this kind of equipment built in to a vehicle.
Hey, I'm just going by current examples. Medicare is broke, Social security is broke. You can not ignore the fact that in the US the big public welfare programs have all been horribly mismanaged. Yet for some reason people want to do try the same thing again insanely expecting a different result. What can be accomplished with a public option that can't be done through legislation and regulation? At least that way the government won't be stuck with the bill. What's wrong with people paying for their own insurance, making their own choices? The US has a long tradition of letting the private sector lead and I'd say that in general this approach has served us rather well.
The insurance market in the US is very segmented and it's hard for companies to compete nationwide. I would point out that in Schweiz people are forced by law to all pay the same monthly premium for the same coverage. It's a very regressive system that burdens the poor far worse than the wealthy. We need regulation that increases competition, opens markets and allows nonprofits to compete. No public option is necessary. We also need tort reform to rein in malpractice costs. People can choose limited tort auto insurance which reduces their rates if they agree on limits to liability suits. No reason this can't be done for medicine except for political pressure from lawyers.
When I was a kid, we went to the doctor and he charged a minimal fee for the visit. Insurance companies got into the act and fees went through the roof. Then they forced unfavorable contracts on the doctors where we now have to pay a minimal fee directly to the doctor for the visit...AND a huge monthly premium to the insurance company. I would point out however that the insurance companies are by and large solvent - not to say I necessarily agree with their business practices. Open up the markets, increase transparency and let people make their own choices and the private sector takes care of itself.
The US is a FAR larger and more diverse market than these small European countries. The political climate also seems to be less dynamic and less responsive to the public good. Both major political parties are essentially fronts for large special interest groups. There is no rational reason to assume that a negotiation between one party beholden to the insurance industry and the other party beholden to the law lobby will agree on anything that is in the public good or even remotely workable. A public "option" that has it's hand perpetually in the taxpayer's pocket will forever crush consumer choice and control over the quality of their insurance and health care.
I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
The lobbyist that got this written (or wrote it himself) did not work for society, he worked for a specialty glass corporation. Why would he want rules for the betterment of society when instead he could have rules for the betterment of his patron? And of course, he'll still use the betterment of society as his argument.
I totally understand that. My argument is that it obviously shouldn't be the way it works, even if it is the status quo.
You aren't, of course, advocating that they should run the country, are you?
Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!