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.'"

22 of 762 comments (clear)

  1. ! surprising by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:! surprising by Zcar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or to California. Really. Expecting something to come out of the California government to make sense?

    2. Re:! surprising by EraserMouseMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      or government in general...

      Seriously, does anybody really think that government is made up of the country's smartest people? That being said, why do some people think it's a great idea vote people into office who will tax us to come up with these half-witted "solutions" that don't even make any noticeable difference?

    3. Re:! surprising by Korin43 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because the evil idiots in government are better than the evil idiots who run scary corporations! *ignore the fact that they are the same people*

    4. Re:! surprising by cabjf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      At least there's a benefit for shareholders in the scary corporation scenario.

    5. Re:! surprising by camperdave · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Like someone once said: If a person wishes to rule, that person should in no way be given any power.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    6. Re:! surprising by UltraAyla · · Score: 5, Insightful

      yes, because roads, schools, and police aren't beneficial at all. grow up.

    7. Re:! surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I see your burglary and raise you an armed robbery.

      I was robbed at gunpoint several years ago. Within 15 seconds of the asshole leaving, I called 911 and was immediately connected to a 911 operator. Within 90 seconds there was a police officer on the scene. Within 3 minutes the place was swarming with cops. Within 6 minutes the asshole was sitting in the back of a car in handcuffs. Did I mention this was in the middle of a snowstorm. With 10 inches already on the ground?

      Having said that I have been harassed by the police on multiple occasions because I looked like someone who might have drugs on them.

      People are people, and they will always act like people, even if we give them special titles like Police Officer. Just don't confuse people being people with THE GUBBERMINT IS INCOMPETENT, because only people can be incompetent.

  2. You mean ... by bryanp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... 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
    1. Re:You mean ... by El+Gigante+de+Justic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unfortunately, instead of meaning people will stop using their phone, they'll probably just fumble around with it more instead to restart their calls.

          Or they'll resort to texting which (supposedly) doesn't require as strong of a signal as voice calls.

    2. Re:You mean ... by dwillden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Also, I don't know about you, but I like to listen to the radio while driving.

      Every car radio I have ever seen had an EXTERNAL antanna.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    3. Re:You mean ... by BobMcD · · Score: 4, Insightful

      OR they'll roll down the window to make the call, heating up the car in the process, then run the AC on full blast to level it out afterwards.

  3. Who owns the patents? by danking · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My question is, who owns the rights to this technology they are going to enforce everyone to have?

  4. CARB, necessary evil by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.'"
    1. Re:CARB, necessary evil by lennier · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "what we call a "Nanny State." That's a Bad Thing."

      Why? A political catchphrase is not an argument, nor is it a description of an actually-existing thing. It's just a shout with no verbal content.

      Think about this: real nannies exist for a reason. Real states also exist for a reason. There are certain situations where people collectively come to the decision that they don't *want* to tolerate certain types of destructive behaviour, because they cost us all. Any healthy group does this, because normal healthy humans are social creatures. We *like* to modify our behaviour so that it doesn't have stupid outcomes for the group. We call this "learning to socialise". The only people who think that a human must be an absolutely self-sufficient, take-nothing, give-nothing, hardcore screw-my-neighbour loner, are psychologically damaged individuals who haven't learned how to live with others.

      It's one thing that such a syndrome exists. It's another that this psychological dysfunction has become a hugely powerful political movement. We don't need to bow down to this false idea of the heroic egotist fighting the mass of zombie sheeple trying to crush his freedom. Instead, look at each case on its merits and realise that collective problems do exist, society is not a bad thing, and that centralised responses sometimes are the right response and sometimes aren't.

      So instead of just throwing a content-free slogan around, how about arguing why in *this* specific case, *this* kind of regulation is the wrong response to a serious societal problem?

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
  5. I must be an idiot by kenp2002 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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? ]=-
  6. I guess this article had its intended effect... by divisionbyzero · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:Welcome to California... by NoYob · · Score: 5, Insightful
    and CA is a prime example of why voter control of taxation and spending is a horrible idea.

    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.
  8. Surprising by c · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > 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.
  9. Or any committee by tjstork · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Or any committee by timeOday · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The private sector could easily do something this stupid.

      The private sector is already doing something much more stupid - namely, failing to use this glass for the 99% of car windows for which it makes sense. By comparison, requiring it in the 1% of cases (Jeep windows!) where it's not necessary is a little unfortunate but insignificant.

  10. Re:I've developed a new type of air conditioning by mcgrew · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, according to the computer, it's better to use A/C with windows up.

    This was too quick and easy for TV, so they decided to stage a seven hour marathon, race-til-you're-empty duel, with Jamie driving an SUV with A/C on and Adam driving an SUV with windows down. Though, once the safety inspector intervened, it was no longer a seven-hour marathon, it was a bit slower (45mph instead of 55mph), and a lot shorter (only 5 gallons each).

    Jamie's A/C car ran out of gas first -- Adam's windows down SUV ran for another 30 laps -- completely contradicting the computer mpg estimate. Computer estimate based on air flow into the engine, so it would appear that it is unable to properly model the difference between A/C and windows down.

    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.