Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Car Glass Rules Could Impair Cell, GPS and Radio Signals In CA

timothy posted about 5 years ago | from the micromicromicro-managing dept.

Transportation 762

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.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

! surprising (5, Insightful)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 5 years ago | (#29797747)

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.

Re:! surprising (5, Insightful)

Zcar (756484) | about 5 years ago | (#29797777)

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

Re:! surprising (4, Insightful)

EraserMouseMan (847479) | about 5 years ago | (#29798091)

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?

Re:! surprising (5, Insightful)

Korin43 (881732) | about 5 years ago | (#29798289)

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*

Re:! surprising (5, Interesting)

Rei (128717) | about 5 years ago | (#29797879)

The thing is, Jeep (and others, like GEM) are appealing to CARB for a waiver, and will probably get one. It was an oversight, not something deliberate.

Re:! surprising (1, Flamebait)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 5 years ago | (#29797957)

...I'm wondering if they have to apply it to Motorcycle fairings as well... knowing California, they likely did.

Re:! surprising (-1, Offtopic)

creimer (824291) | about 5 years ago | (#29798019)

Uh, huh. Like passing the medical pot law in California while knowing full well that the federal law under the Bush regime will triumph over state law. "But, your honor, this must be an oversight?!"

Re:! surprising (1)

gnick (1211984) | about 5 years ago | (#29798137)

That was no oversight - That was a well-deserved, "Up yours, we don't have the resources to waste on your stupid crusade."

As implied above, how deeply this particular oversight sinks will be determined by waiver applications from folks like Jeep and Harley Davidson.

Re:! surprising (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29798165)

There are 13 states with medical marijuana laws, and the US government just revealed new policy discouraging putting resources into prosecuting people who violate federal (but not state) marijuana laws

Re:! surprising (1)

mhajicek (1582795) | about 5 years ago | (#29798175)

It was an oversight, not something deliberate.

The law of unintended consequences rears it's ugly head all too often in legislation. It would be nice if legislators followed the "first: do no harm" rule.

Re:! surprising (0, Offtopic)

Mooga (789849) | about 5 years ago | (#29797889)

I just want to know if this will help prevent Skynet from becoming self-aware.

Re:! surprising (4, Funny)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 5 years ago | (#29797939)

...my Jeep has air conditioning: the TD2-50 A/C system

(using it is pretty easy, too: take off the top and both doors, then go 50mph).

Re:! surprising (1)

ottothecow (600101) | about 5 years ago | (#29798267)

Of course, in most cars, the AC is more efficient than having the windows open past a certain speed.

The added turbulence from the openings puts more strain on the engine than the AC.

Re:! surprising (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29797947)

Well, driving with the windows down increases fuel consumption. So if the new glass reduces the need to do this it could still be a good thing for cars without air conditioning.

If the glass is expensive, manufacturers might provide an option for 'aftermarket' air conditioning in order to take advantage of the loophole allowing people to use cheap glass on non air conditioned cars. If it isn't expensive, what's not to like. The radio/telephone issue is minor in comparison.

Most cars have the radio aerial installed outside for starters, and many cars have plastic panelling or fenders that the antennae could be installed behind.

For most people, this is probably a good thing. But legislation is always a blunt tool - if the car companies had taken meaningful steps to increase fuel efficiency of their own accord, perhaps this law wouldn't have been necessary.

Re:! surprising (3, Insightful)

thepooh81 (1606041) | about 5 years ago | (#29798309)

I used to live in Phoenix, Arizona. There's no feasible amount of tint or blocking the sunlight that's going to stop those poor bastards that lack AC from rolling the windows down in the summer. Keeping the windows might have hot air blowing in your face but it's stopping the air in your car from turning into an oven.

It can honestly get up to 150 degrees in a car with the windows rolled up very fast (15 minutes). I would see stories all the time about people that were new to the area leaving their dogs (or lord forbid their kids) in the car only to come out to find their loved one needing to go to the emergency room or dead.

Granted this is about CA but there are plenty of areas that get really hot in CA as well (some even more-so)

You mean ... (5, Insightful)

bryanp (160522) | about 5 years ago | (#29797751)

... people will have problems using cell phones while driving?

Oh darn. That's just horrible.

Re:You mean ... (3, Informative)

Stile 65 (722451) | about 5 years ago | (#29797769)

Passengers can also use cell phones, you know. Some people carpool. Also, I don't know about you, but I like to listen to the radio while driving.

Re:You mean ... (4, Insightful)

dwillden (521345) | about 5 years ago | (#29797815)

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.

Re:You mean ... (4, Informative)

Spectre (1685) | about 5 years ago | (#29797845)

Never owned an Oldsmobile then? Many of them have the FM antenna embedded in the windshield glass.

Ahh, that explains that ... (2, Funny)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | about 5 years ago | (#29797907)

I wondered why General Motors dropped the Oldsmobile brand.

Re:Ahh, that explains that ... (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about 5 years ago | (#29798101)

It was a right pain, sure enough. Made replacing or repairing the windshield a pain, and turned radio antenna problems into windshield problems (and vice-versa).

Re:Ahh, that explains that ... (3, Funny)

3dr (169908) | about 5 years ago | (#29798233)

That's a good example of tight coupling. Clearly, the antenna and windshield should have been communicating over a well thought out interface. Instead, the implementation of one was entirely dependent on, nay, entrenched in, the implementation details of the other.

Re:You mean ... (1)

Rei (128717) | about 5 years ago | (#29797989)

Why not just mount the antenna under the moulding over the A-pillar? Or about a dozen other places in the car? This regulation isn't about retrofitting old cars; it's about new cars. Heck, they don't even make Oldsmobiles any more.

While some of the other complaints may be valid, concerning radio, it seems a pretty dumb complaint.

Re:You mean ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29798045)

so what? it would be easy to re-design around that...this is for new vehicles only, so they can re-design things in ways that make sense

Re:You mean ... (1)

amRadioHed (463061) | about 5 years ago | (#29798237)

You know they probably won't do that anymore if they're required to use shielded glass.

Re:You mean ... (1)

Stile 65 (722451) | about 5 years ago | (#29797863)

What Spectre says above. My Toyota Avalon has an antenna embedded in the windshield glass.

Re:You mean ... (1)

dwillden (521345) | about 5 years ago | (#29797959)

Okay, hadn't seen those but the radios still have an antenna that if currently embedded in the glass could be restored to an external location with ease.

My point was that the complaint about standard and Sat radios was a non-issue.

Re:You mean ... (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 5 years ago | (#29797903)

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.

My new Honda Odyssey supposedly has it built into the windshield, although I can't spot it.

Re:You mean ... (1)

Skater (41976) | about 5 years ago | (#29798055)

In my Impala, it's in the back window. It just looks like more lines on the defroster grid. It wouldn't surprise me if that's where it is on your Odyssey, too.

Re:You mean ... (2, Informative)

nacturation (646836) | about 5 years ago | (#29798059)

Try the rear window. Those defroster lines that "don't work"? Yeah, that's your radio antenna.

Re:You mean ... (1)

KillerBob (217953) | about 5 years ago | (#29797855)

I dunno about you, but my car's radio has an antenna that's outside the glass. Yes, they're making radios that are silkscreened onto the rearview window, and my car is one of those, but the radio also has a small antenna on the roof for sattelite radio. There's absolutely no reason that the FM radio can't use that antenna, too.

As for cell phones, I don't see the problem. It's very rude to be talking on your cell phone while you're in a car with somebody else, and it's incredibly dangerous to be talking on the phone while you're driving.

I see the hindering of GPS receivers as a bad thing, but with so many cars having GPS receivers these days, it's a bit of a moot point. Those GPS receivers have antennas that are outside of the car's glass, too. There's absolutely no reason for the radio/GPS antenna to be inside, behind the glass of the cabin. Not when there's access to a wiring harness behind it which can easily carry a link to an antenna that's outside of the passenger compartment.

Re:You mean ... (1)

Stile 65 (722451) | about 5 years ago | (#29797897)

As above, my car's radio antenna is embedded into my windshield glass.

As for talking on a cell phone while carpooling, I carpool for lunch with coworkers and sometimes one of us (one of the non-drivers, usually) does need to take a call from work and the rest of us understand as we all work in the same place.

Re:You mean ... (0, Troll)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | about 5 years ago | (#29797967)

GPS, AM, FM are on different frequencies. You must live a sheltered life and not have had the opportunity to see many antennas and compare them.

Many many passengers talk on cell phones to get directions. Some even answer the driver's cell phone. You must live a sheltered exist with few friends who would do that for you.

There is a general trend away from purpose built GPS navigators and toward GPS applications on smart phones. You must live a sheltered life with little contact with the technical world.

Re:You mean ... (5, Informative)

KillerBob (217953) | about 5 years ago | (#29798277)

GPS, AM, FM are on different frequencies. You must live a sheltered life and not have had the opportunity to see many antennas and compare them.

Actually, I worked in military communications, and have *built* AM/FM transmitters and antennas, as well as cellular networks. I can tell you from experience that while they work on different frequencies, it's entirely possible to connect an appropriate antenna to a wiring harness to bring the signal inside what's effectively a Faraday cage.

Many many passengers talk on cell phones to get directions. Some even answer the driver's cell phone. You must live a sheltered exist with few friends who would do that for you.

I turn my cell phone off when I'm driving, actually. Probably has something to do with that military background, and that desire to have all of my focus on driving when I get behind the wheel. *shrugs*

There is a general trend away from purpose built GPS navigators and toward GPS applications on smart phones. You must live a sheltered life with little contact with the technical world.

See above. And you must have lived a very sheltered life to have not come in contact with cars that have in-dash navigation systems....

Re:You mean ... (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about 5 years ago | (#29798071)

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

I don't know about you, but my car radio has its antenna on the *outside* of the car.

Re:You mean ... (4, Insightful)

El Gigante de Justic (994299) | about 5 years ago | (#29797795)

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.

Re:You mean ... (3, Insightful)

Duradin (1261418) | about 5 years ago | (#29797857)

Or they'll just plug into an external cell antenna.

Re:You mean ... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29797913)

htttp://downloaddefilmes.info

films free today ! visit !

Re:You mean ... (0, Flamebait)

ground.zero.612 (1563557) | about 5 years ago | (#29797991)

... people will have problems using cell phones while driving?

Oh darn. That's just horrible.

... people will have problems using cell phones after being critically injured in a car accident? Oh darn. That is just horrible.

Oh, and GP is facetious totalitarian prick.

Re:You mean ... (4, Funny)

jbeaupre (752124) | about 5 years ago | (#29798193)

Not a problem. The glass will be scattered in you lap, permitting excellent reception again.

Re:You mean ... (2, Funny)

Culture20 (968837) | about 5 years ago | (#29797999)

... people will have problems using cell phones while driving?

When Arnold says he'll "take swift action" [latimes.com] he MEANS IT!

Re:You mean ... (1)

poetmatt (793785) | about 5 years ago | (#29798005)

actually, it's more like "it'll be so damn dark (if you read the article) that it will be impossible to see at nighttime".

Re:You mean ... (2, Interesting)

lorenlal (164133) | about 5 years ago | (#29798245)

That's what I'm trying to figure out... If you reflect 60 percent of the "sun's energy," doesn't that mean that only 40% of light from outside is let in? And if it's dark... doesn't that make night driving pretty damn dangerous?

Re:You mean ... (2, Interesting)

Wireless Joe (604314) | about 5 years ago | (#29798189)

Brittany Lafoy [wten.com] probably cares. The story doesn't say if she had a phone with her or not, but imagine if she had been trapped in her car for two days, with a working cell phone that was unable to make calls because the windows blocked her signal. It's not unreasonable for an external areal to break off in a crash, so that's not a 100% solution either.

Re:You mean ... (1, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | about 5 years ago | (#29798203)

This is a bit sensationalist; your car's radio has an outdoor antenna, and guess what? If you put a boom box in a car (say, its radio broke, happened to me once) you're not going to get very good reception anyway. The car's radio has an antenna OUTSIDE THE CAR so its reception won't be affected. Unless this glass cuts 100% of radiation, your garage door opener will work, and in any case most cars these days have an opener built in (presumably connected to the car's outside antenna).

The only thing that should be affected is cell phones, and I, for one, could do with a lot fewer idiots paying attention to their phone call than to the road.

Who owns the patents? (5, Insightful)

danking (1201931) | about 5 years ago | (#29797767)

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

Re:Who owns the patents? (5, Informative)

Rei (128717) | about 5 years ago | (#29798079)

Low-E glass was introduced in 1979. I.e., any patents that may have been around for it at the time no longer exist.

There probably are "newer, better" types of Low-E glass that are still patented, but Low-E glass in general is not.

Did they specify WHERE the glass has to be? (5, Funny)

Spectre (1685) | about 5 years ago | (#29797799)

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?

Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29797801)

Less glazed glass in da hood [youtube.com] .

Yours In Yaznogorsk,
K. Trout

CARB, necessary evil (4, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 5 years ago | (#29797811)

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.

Re:CARB, necessary evil (2, Insightful)

mustafap (452510) | about 5 years ago | (#29797881)

>Who cares why your car gets good or shitty mileage?

Er, everyone who has any sense at all?

Re:CARB, necessary evil (3, Insightful)

hol (89786) | about 5 years ago | (#29798161)

But should be up to the customer.

If you want something that gets 10 mpg, go ahead and buy it. Just don't come looking to me for a handout when you can no longer afford the gas. Yep, history spoke against me last year, yep, were 70,000 dollar Hummer drivers got their handouts.

Same with a 50 mpg car. Who cares how it gets there, as long as it meets all emission regulations and safety standards. When people who know nothing about automobile technology mandate what needs to be used, they'll be no better off than the software industry - beholden to marketing, lobbying and politics, and ... never mind

Re:CARB, necessary evil (3, Insightful)

mustafap (452510) | about 5 years ago | (#29798275)

>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.

It IS simply mandating a standard... (1)

nweaver (113078) | about 5 years ago | (#29798081)

Its mandating a standard behavior for the glass in the non-visible part of the spectrum, that has a conequesnce of keeping your car from getting so F@#)(*@# hot in the sun.

Re:CARB, necessary evil (1, Troll)

minion (162631) | about 5 years ago | (#29798123)

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.

Perhaps John Holdren is right, and we just need to sterilize the drinking water. Lets start with California, because obviously people = pollution, therefore we should just get rid of people.

Re:CARB, necessary evil (1, Insightful)

Rei (128717) | about 5 years ago | (#29798273)

First off, what your car emits, I have to breathe.

Secondly, the reason they're mandating this is because the EPA doesn't take into account the energy to cool down a car that's been sitting in the sun when it assigns MPG ratings, so manufacturers have little incentive to reduce that problem, even though you have to burn a lot of extra energy to cool the car down when you get in.

If it keeps people from yapping on their cellphone (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29797819)

I say it's a win-win situation.

We can only hope California goes out of business (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29797835)

As all insolvent institutions must, unless someone can come up with legislation that repeals the laws of gravity. Or perhaps that state can start printing money.

Re:We can only hope California goes out of busines (2, Insightful)

sqrt(2) (786011) | about 5 years ago | (#29798347)

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.

Hmm I wonder ... (5, Funny)

OzPeter (195038) | about 5 years ago | (#29797841)

I think that I smell a market for some bendy bit of wire that sits on the outside of the car and funnels the radio waves to the inside compartment . I might call it ...

[places pinky finger to mouth]

An .. Aerial !!!!

Re:Hmm I wonder ... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29798021)

I think that I smell a market for some bendy bit of wire that sits on the outside of the car and funnels the radio waves to the inside compartment . I might call it ...

[places pinky finger to mouth]

An .. Aerial !!!!

I thought that was banned because of the wind resistance, and hence more fuel consumption it caused.

Re:Hmm I wonder ... (1)

metlin (258108) | about 5 years ago | (#29798205)

Umm, glue it/tape it to the surface of the vehicle. Who said an antenna has to stand upright?

Re:Hmm I wonder ... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29798321)

Totally off topic, but I Am An RF Engineer, and you bothered me.

Umm, glue it/tape it to the surface of the vehicle. Who said an antenna has to stand upright?

Let's see now... Maxwell [wikipedia.org] ?

(The first sentence of that article should be enough.)

At last, a sensible idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29797861)

A refreshingly sensible idea. I hope it sticks.

Welcome to California... (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | about 5 years ago | (#29797869)

...bar none the home of the absolute dumbest government in Known Space.

I'm not exaggerating. You see these... creatures on the news, and you wonder how they escaped from whatever home for the mentally ill failed to contain them.

It's the inescapable end result of gerrymandering and fanatical Party loyalty. People wonder why I rail against ideology. What happens in Sacramento is prime exhibit #1.

Re:Welcome to California... (5, Insightful)

NoYob (1630681) | about 5 years ago | (#29798015)

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.

I've developed a new type of air conditioning (3, Funny)

Tobor the Eighth Man (13061) | about 5 years ago | (#29797883)

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.

Re:I've developed a new type of air conditioning (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Codger (96717) | about 5 years ago | (#29797987)

Bring back vent windows! They were very effective in the days before AC, and I miss them.

Re:I've developed a new type of air conditioning (2, Funny)

Kamokazi (1080091) | about 5 years ago | (#29798039)

Wow, that sure beats my 'Ventilation Hammer' idea!

Re:I've developed a new type of air conditioning (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29798041)

Yes your post is funny and all, but you realize that at highway speeds rolling the windows down is LESS eco-friendly than running the A/C, right?

Re:I've developed a new type of air conditioning (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29798329)

[citation needed]

While I disagree with the state requiring it... (1, Interesting)

mongoose(!no) (719125) | about 5 years ago | (#29797887)

... I really would appreciate having this kind of glass in my car. If there is one thing I hate most about the summer, it's having my car being boiling hot inside when I return. I know this glass wouldn't be perfect at reducing the "greenhouse effect" in the car, but it's something I'd be willing to pay to put on my own car. Besides, I don't see what's so bad about not being able to use a cell phone in a car, or blocking GPS (people should learn to read maps more often).

economy options (1)

burgessms (464499) | about 5 years ago | (#29797899)

So - I'll just have to leave the windows down when I'm chatting on the phone, stopped in traffic, trying to find a GPS route around, with my cool air conditioning on. Unless they interlock the AC relay to only engage between 30-45mph, and ambient air is 65F or cooler.
  I don't suppose I could instead get the ECM shielded against EMP could I ? Or maybe a engine that runs on hot air from CARB ?

So it's only a matter of time . . . (1)

jbus07 (1659917) | about 5 years ago | (#29797927)

. . . before wireless carriers and GPS makers begin making billions on selling special antennas you have to wire up, mount externally, and plug into an already overworked battery. Seems to me people would rather crank their engines harder than have their battery conk out in the middle of their commute because they needed to power a mobile cell tower to make an outgoing call.

Re:So it's only a matter of time . . . (1)

Culture20 (968837) | about 5 years ago | (#29798121)

. . . before wireless carriers and GPS makers begin making billions by assisting law enforcement in ticketing speeders.

This is /. Get your paranoia straight.

Re:So it's only a matter of time . . . (1)

natehoy (1608657) | about 5 years ago | (#29798163)

In-car cell repeaters have been around for a long time, and they generally run off the CAR battery, not the cell one.

I'm also amazed at this - I would think simply dictating fuel mileage would be sufficient, and this technology would eventually catch on based on its own merits and not due to a legislative mandate.

Besides, if you want to reduce heat in a car, a simple white (and recyclable) cardboard foldy thingie placed on the dashboard seems to make a huge difference. Not to mention, wouldn't the color of your car and/or a cheap solar-powered fan have a far more profound effect on internal temperatures than special glass?

Re:So it's only a matter of time . . . (1)

Smelly Jeffrey (583520) | about 5 years ago | (#29798249)

The battery can be removed once the vehicle's engine is running. Its purpose is to be a store of energy for starting the vehicle. The alternator is the device that provides the electric power needed while the engine is running.

perverse incentives (2, Interesting)

minstrelmike (1602771) | about 5 years ago | (#29797949)

So what's going to actually happen is that folks will roll down all their windows when they take a call while driving and then roll them back when they hang up their cell phone. Because they are talking, they'll forget to turn off the A/C so this new regulation combined with actual physics means more energy will be used.

But it's California so it's got to be a good idea since the intentions of the populace are correct.

Fuel Economy (3, Insightful)

NinjaPablo (246765) | about 5 years ago | (#29797951)

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!

I must be an idiot (4, Insightful)

kenp2002 (545495) | about 5 years ago | (#29797953)

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...

Re:I must be an idiot (1)

fhuglegads (1334505) | about 5 years ago | (#29798361)

A lot of antennae are embedded in the rear glass running vertical making them look like they are part of the rear defroster.

This was known as ... (1)

PPH (736903) | about 5 years ago | (#29797977)

... illegal window tint. The ricers were just ahead of their time.

Re:This was known as ... (2, Funny)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about 5 years ago | (#29798177)

Hopefully, this implementation of it won't peel or bubble.

I guess this article had its intended effect... (5, Insightful)

divisionbyzero (300681) | about 5 years ago | (#29797993)

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.

Re:I guess this article had its intended effect... (3, Funny)

pi_rules (123171) | about 5 years ago | (#29798029)

Not sure this really effects Detroit all that much. I think they only sold 6 cars last year.

Now the "foreign" manufacturers that set up shop south of Michigan? They might actually care.

Re:I guess this article had its intended effect... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29798139)

Those 6 cars were returned.
They were bought by local governments wanting to show "We're buying made in the US." Then they found out they were buying "Made in Canada, Mexico, and China."

Re:I guess this article had its intended effect... (1)

thered2001 (1257950) | about 5 years ago | (#29798339)

This was covered in Car & Driver a couple months ago (before it passed.) At the time, I seem to recall it was only going to be required for dark-colored cars. Or was it that dark-colored cars were also going to be banned or surcharged? (Damn, it sucks to get old and have an afternoon vodka-drinking habit.)

STATIST ALERT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29798357)

As someone who does not automatically blame the government for everything, divisionbyzero, you hereby stand accused of being a statist of the worst sort. How do you plead? I will assume guilty, since you are a statist and cannot be expected to think as rationally as me. So you are a guilty statist.... the punishment for this is to read The Fountainhead a thousand times. We cannot have anyone questioning the fundamental rights of corporations around here!

Department of Redundancy Department (1)

R2.0 (532027) | about 5 years ago | (#29798011)

Glazed glass?

On a more pertinent note, this is what happens when you move away from a performance spec - instead of just saying "Fuel efficiency shall be X" and letting the makers figure out how to do it, they feel compelled to tell the makers HOW to get better mileage - with expected results.

Surprising (4, Insightful)

c (8461) | about 5 years ago | (#29798047)

> 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.

Quick Solution (1)

mtxmorph (669251) | about 5 years ago | (#29798061)

Roll down the windows? :)

BTW (2, Funny)

kenp2002 (545495) | about 5 years ago | (#29798067)

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.

If I lived in Cali... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29798119)

If I lived in California and I wanted a brand new vehicle then I'd just go to a nearby state to buy one without this bullshit. I wonder if this will have a negative impact on auto sales in the state?

Re:If I lived in Cali... (2, Interesting)

pavera (320634) | about 5 years ago | (#29798325)

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.

Re:If I lived in Cali... (3, Insightful)

vijayiyer (728590) | about 5 years ago | (#29798335)

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.

In California? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29798127)

Whoa, wait a minute... short-sighted, ineffectual, over-reaching, burdensome laws... IN CALIFORNIA? As a California native, I am shocked, SHOCKED!

Then you know... (1)

Fuzzums (250400) | about 5 years ago | (#29798173)

"Even more surprising is that it requires this glass even for jeeps that have soft covers, plastic windows, and no air conditioning."

Then you know "somebody" in the car glass industry had a very good friend at a high place :)

Attention People of California (3, Insightful)

grasshoppa (657393) | about 5 years ago | (#29798227)

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.

Hence raising California's albedo..... (1)

magbottle (929624) | about 5 years ago | (#29798239)

making even more likely to attract alien invasion....

"garble garble...Ooooooh....shiny"

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?