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?
I know when they passed legislation requiring motorcycle helmets to be worn, they didn't specify "where", so people were strapping one to their knee or hanging it from an elbow.
Perhaps you can do the same thing, and sell glazed drinking glasses, stick one in your cup-holder, you're golden?
"Flame away, I wear asbestos underwear"
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.'"
I say it's a win-win situation.
[places pinky finger to mouth]
An .. Aerial !!!!
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
I've spent the past several years designing and prototyping a new type of eco-friendly air conditioning for automobiles that solves both these problems. By using the intrinsic velocity of an automobile and cutting-edge gas dynamics, I've discovered that the inside of a car can be cooled merely by adding an additional aperture to the side of the vehicle. This aperture can even be temporary, thanks to an innovative sliding glass mechanism that preserves visibility and allows a variety of different settings to suit the user's preference. A slight decrease in aerodynamics and therefore fuel efficiency, as well as a tendency for papers to blow around in the back seat, is the only downside.
I wondered why General Motors dropped the Oldsmobile brand.
Infuriate left and right
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? ]=-
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.
Did you know that some of that old glazing material was Abseto in old homes... I wonder what crap they want put on our windows now; that in 30 years we'll find out causes cancer, autism, allergies, Liberal Rage Disorder, NIMBY Rightwing Syndrome, a taste for Bud Light, and a yearing for Married With Children reruns...
I am a firm beliver in colored glass+copper foil+lead with two sheets of clear wire reinforced safety glass on the outside.
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
Whoa, wait a minute... short-sighted, ineffectual, over-reaching, burdensome laws... IN CALIFORNIA? As a California native, I am shocked, SHOCKED!
Hopefully, this implementation of it won't peel or bubble.
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!
The problem is, this is how California effectively legislates for the entire nation. The auto industry won't sell 2 different versions of their cars (that would cost too much money, having to have different assembly lines to satisfy the laws of a single state), they will just change the assembly line and install this glass on all new cars regardless of where they are destined. So in effect California is going to create a nationwide mandate and degrade wireless signals inside of cars nationwide. Also, they will raise the cost of cars nationwide, for something they admit has a 12 year ROI. The fact that it costs $250 but takes 12 years to save $250 in gas is pretty insane.
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
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.
and see the nice little FAQ they have. http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/coolcarsfaq.pdf Will my GPS still work? Yes. Many automobile manufacturers currently equip their vehicles with external antennas to ensure proper functioning of factory installed GPS devices. For aftermarket GPS devices, deletion windows, or areas without reflective coatings, will be created in the windshield and the location of these windows noted in the owner’s manual. ARB tests showed that placing the GPS device or the external antenna within the deletion window allows the device to operate as effectively as in a car with no reflective glass.
..marijuana really isn't illegal at the federal level
NO, that's wrong. It's a SCHEDULE I drug along with opium, Heroin, LSD and a long list viewable here:
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/csa/812.htm#c
The complex litany of penalties is viewable here:http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/csa/841.htm#a
There was a Marihuana Tax Act... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marihuana_Tax_Act_of_1937:
Excerpt From Wikipedia
In 1969 in Leary v. United States, part of the Act was ruled to be unconstitutional as a violation of the Fifth Amendment, since a person seeking the tax stamp would have to incriminate him/herself. In response the Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act as Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. The 1937 Act was repealed by the 1970 Act.
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
Really? California has always had a separate standard for pretty much everything, and you can buy pretty much any car in any state with the "California Emissions Package". In California that this "option" is required of any new car purchased there.
The car manufacturers have, by and large, been making "California" versions of their vehicles for years. Some other states (like Maine) mandate the same package rather than going to the effort of developing their own standards.
So California is legislating, in effect, for themselves and a handful of other states. But certainly not for the nation.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
>But should be up to the customer.
No. It should be up to society. Some people are just too thick at act responsibly. And car manufacturers are hardly going to build cars for 'a few stupid idiots' - they will design a car and market it hard, and try to sell as many as possible. Regulating will take away the option to make cars suitable for the dumb.
That's not how we do things in the USA. People are free to buy the products they want - and it is their responsibility to select appropriately. If you live here and you don't like it, I suggest you leave and go somewhere where freedom is frowned upon, like the UK for example.
I drive very few miles. I drive a vehicle that does about 10MPG. I chose it because it's very very safe, extremely comfortable, and it was inexpensive compared to many other options. Because I drive very few miles, even at 10MPG I am using far less fuel and producing far less emissions than my neighbor who drives much further every day in their fuel efficient vehicle.
We don't need jerks like you mandating what everyone does just so you can feed your own self-righteous sense of self worth.
Putting moderation advice in your
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.
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.
That doesn't really logically follow. I'm sure most Californians wouldn't vote to confine gays to a lifetime in a small cage, and wouldn't vote to allow chickens to marry.
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.)
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."
CARB "scientists" aren't really considered as scientists by real scientists.
Shoot, even one of the "scientists" from CARB faked his credentials.
CARB's also behind MTBE which nationally was mandated by the Federal Clean Air Act of 1990 but was predated by California's own state law, California Clean Air Act of 1988.
And as early as 1986, there was a scientific report that stated that MTBE was a "bad cookie" (finding the exact copy is a tad difficult but it is referred by the USGS in a 1993 report)
A major local (to the Bay Area) opponent to CARB is Dr. Bill Wattenburg (an older version of his site is here)
And apparently, CARB wants to require particular" paints (PDF) and barring any scientific/engineering breakthrough, that probably means dark colored cars (black, dark blues, etc.)
And dang, CARB's budget for 2009-2010 is over 600 million, just the imagine how many teachers would have been spared lay-offs...or how many professors, TAs, faculty at UC/CSU schools would have been spared from furloughs.
Not to forget the CARB vs Diesel fiasco
I wonder if this is going to affect ezpass toll systems, which use battery powered RFID transponders: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-ZPass
Actually, the government does a LOT more than roads, schools, and police. I think if it were that simple, we wouldn't all be up in arms about the government and what they are doing.
I think, perhaps, its time you grow up and start thinking about the real role of government nowadays and quit taking notes from your 7th grade civics class. The role of government in ordinary lives is FAR larger than it has been at any point in our country (sans WWI and WWII). I got news for you kid, it ain't just roads, schools, and police they are getting into....
The parent is correct, but a bit terse. I thought I'd elaborate a bit:
"Federal Reserve Board data shows that:
* More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.
* Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
* Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics."
- http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html
The stats don't back up the idea that any public institution or law bears the brunt of the responsibility for problematic lending.
It also doesn't make much sense. Take the fingers pointed at the CRA. It didn't force banks to make risky loans. They could deny an application based on income, credit rating, or any other relevant factors. What it *did* force them to avoid was "red-lining": denying loans based on the current living location (used as a proxy for the applicant's race). A person's race and living location might have some correlation with risk of defaulting, but as we all know here on slashdot, correlation is not causation, and a responsible financial institution would deal with the more directly relevant information: an individual's income/asset information and their credit history.
Here's some other links:
http://www.ptmortgage.com/blog/2008/10/01/pointing-fingers-was-it-cra-and-minority-lending-that-caused-the-mortgage-mess/
http://debatebothsides.com/showthread.php?t=73500
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=did_liberals_cause_the_subprime_crisis
http://www.frbsf.org/news/speeches/2008/0331.html
http://www.ccc.unc.edu/news/news.021809.php
http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/Commentary/2000/1100.htm
http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/ls564.htm
Wikipedia also has a summary.
Tweet, tweet.
Since you have to pay for the glass up front, but can distribute the cost of the fuel over the entire 12 years, you have to take interest into account when determining the ROI. Specifically, you would need to save about $290 over 12 years, minimum, to break even on a $250 up-front investment at the extremely conservative savings-account return of 1.30% APR.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
My VW has special glass that prevents the interior from
heating up and it works *great*. Park the thing on blacktop
all day in the hot summer sun and the interior barely gets
warm at all. Orders of magnitude more comfortable than cars
with regular glass. I assume the glass is low-e although VW
didn't describe it as such.
The glass is no darker than normal factory tinted glass.
The garage door opener remote works fine.
For those of you whining about the heavy hand of government,
there are many far worse problems than requiring decent
glass in cars. Many of these problems are discussed in
slashdot so you ought to be aware of them.
> we do not have thermostatic regulators on cars that vary
> the work of the compressors
Maybe yours doesn't but mine does.
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.
My Mercedes already has glass like that and it doesn't pose a problem with any of those electronic gadgets. Plus, there is a couple of "clear" areas on the windscreen where you can stick the antenna's if needed.
My first though was from Men in Black:
Edwards: Why the big secret? People are smart. They can handle it.
Kay: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.
When actually confronted with the condition that the government must tax to raise money to spend for programs, and every dollar out means a dollar in, just like your family budget. It takes some reasoning because nobody thinks of it that way (I don't know why, really). But let them vote on things and they'll spend far more money than they'll ever pay in taxes, and they'll still rail against taking any more money from them.
I say we start charging people for school, and let the market sort it out. You'd be amazed how many people couldn't afford to send their kids to school, even if you set their taxes at zero.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
To counter this dodge, the fees are VERY steep (and in some cases it is just plain forbidden) if you attempt to bring a car into California and register it with less than 7500 miles on it. Heaven help you if your tags run out on the prior state before you hit 7500 miles.
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
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 poster is indeed wrong that the CRA was the problem, but what you and other left wingers gloss over was the point that Fannie Mae was at fault.
Fannie could write commercial paper to lend based on the implicit guarantee by the US government. So Fannie did exactly that, and really went crazy with it. This money, they used to lend to people with questionable ratings and at interest rates that were, in effect, a subsidy.
Banks, of course, were not "forced" to make the same sorts of loans. They had the choice of either not writing the same junk and lending to the same people as Fannie, or losing the entire mortgage business to the government.
Conservatives did rail on about this for a long time. First off, of course, was the government subsidy of the mortgage business distorting the housing market. But even worse, is that the high returns caused by MBS drowned out investment in other sectors, for decades, so, thanks to the government program, America invested in building houses while other nations built things like manufacturing centers, etc. But of course, those warnings were dismissed and repeatedly by the left using its usual ad-hominem attacks. Opposition to Fannie Mae was mean spirited, racists, etc... Of course, left wing policies have so screwed up minorities in the USA economically that one should argue the left is racist, but I digress...
In any case, the fact of the matter is, if you have a government subsidizing a quasi public institution, you create a bubble for it, screw up investment in the economy at large, and of course, Democrats, undeterred by the total destruction of our housing market, are about to do it to health care.
It's just stupid.
Or is it?
Frankly, I would be willing to bet that the left -deliberately- ignores dangers created to the private sector by the federal programs because if the private sector is destroyed, we can all be socialized. It's like, all you hear from the left is this rhetoric about how free enterprise is evil,
So, in my mind, I would think you lefties would at least be honest revolutionaries and say that yes, your programs will eventually replace the private sector with the public sector and you are in favor of it. It's what you want, why lie about it?
This is my sig.
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!