California Requires TinFoil Hats On Vehicles Starting In 2012

[Duckster]

California's latest requirement for the auto industry -- advanced window glazing to keep vehicles cooler -- could prevent drivers from making phone calls, listening to satellite radio or using garage door openers. It also could lead Chrysler Group LLC to stop selling its soft-top convertible Jeep Wrangler in the Golden State. The standard for sunroofs is so tough that automakers warn the glass would have to be "effectively black."

-- snip --

The regulations take effect in 2012, with a three-year phase-in and requires that by 2014 all vehicles prevent 45 percent of the energy from the sun from entering a vehicle and 60 percent by 2016.The regulation applies to all new vehicles weighing 10,000 pounds or less.The board will review the second phase of the regulation next summer. By the end of this month, the board plans to publish its completed regulation. The public gets 15 days to comment with the final package to be completed by May 2010.

Source: http://www.detnews.com/article/20091...radios++phones

[Harmonious Discord]

As written that will be great for lawyers. Most of the heat around California is because of the sun, and not stuff like radioactive decay or tectonic plate movement.

[silenus]

If it prevents people from using their phones in the car, I'm all for it. And as pointed out in the piece, satellite radio uses an external antenna, which wouldn't be bothered a bit by the new requirements.

[Mindfield]

Originally Posted by silenus

If it prevents people from using their phones in the car, I'm all for it.

I'm not so sure the family trapped in their vehicle after a collision/rollover would share your sentiment.

[Jake]

Good point, Mindfield.

[cmyk]

Originally Posted by Mindfield

I'm not so sure the family trapped in their vehicle after a collision/rollover would share your sentiment.

My thoughts exactly (even if the accident was caused by someone talking on their phone).

[Earthworm Jim]

Originally Posted by cmyk

My thoughts exactly (even if the accident was caused by someone talking on their phone).

Anyone got a breakdown of the number of accidents caused by drivers yakking on phones vs. the number of lives saved by trapped passengers who were able to successfully dial out??

I'm thinking it's an ∞:0 relationship, but I could be wrong

[Bryan Ekers]

I assume if the window is open, one can still dial out.

Are there many serious collisions in which all the windows are still intact?

[Polycarp]

The thing that concerns me is legitimate traffic stops -- a policeman should be able to see into the vehicle through the closed window to assure himself that the occupants are not attempting to train weapons on him. Depending on ambient conditions and the degree of glazing, this can be a serious problem.

One cop killed on a routine traffic stop that went bad -- or, conversely, one innocent civilian reaching for his billfold killed by a nervous and trigger-happy cop -- is in my mind sufficient grounds to oppose this as a mandate.

[brad_d]

Passengers use cell phones, too. Something that prevents cell phone use by anyone in the car is very much throwing the baby out with the bathwater, IMO.

This is the first I'd heard about this, and I don't like it.

[Mindfield]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

I assume if the window is open, one can still dial out.

Are there many serious collisions in which all the windows are still intact?

I'm not sure that's a relevant question; even if the number is one, it's too many.

Originally Posted by brad_d

Passengers use cell phones, too. Something that prevents cell phone use by anyone in the car is very much throwing the baby out with the bathwater, IMO.

This is the first I'd heard about this, and I don't like it.

Very much this. Cell phone signals would also prevent GPS signals (unless you get yourself an external antenna), would (as you pointed out) prevent anyone else in the car from using their cell phone for any reason -- including data, not just voice, which would also rule out laptops with 3G modems, etc.

I don't think this cunning plan was thought all the way through.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Mindfield

I'm not sure that's a relevant question; even if the number is one, it's too many.

Then how many pollution deaths are you willing to tolerate? If Californians keep consuming gasoline at the current rate, which includes running their car air-conditioners full-tilt, there will be more pollution, more cancer, more death...

Spare us this "one is too many" crap until you've thought the question through.

[Dangerosa]

Originally Posted by Polycarp

The thing that concerns me is legitimate traffic stops -- a policeman should be able to see into the vehicle through the closed window to assure himself that the occupants are not attempting to train weapons on him. Depending on ambient conditions and the degree of glazing, this can be a serious problem.

One cop killed on a routine traffic stop that went bad -- or, conversely, one innocent civilian reaching for his billfold killed by a nervous and trigger-happy cop -- is in my mind sufficient grounds to oppose this as a mandate.

You can't have heavily tinted windows in Minnesota for this reason. We bought a car that had been previously owned in Florida and the dealer had to reglaze all the windows.

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

Then how many pollution deaths are you willing to tolerate? If Californians keep consuming gasoline at the current rate, which includes running their car air-conditioners full-tilt, there will be more pollution, more cancer, more death...

Spare us this "one is too many" crap until you've thought the question through.

Not a problem. The state is on the fast track to going bankrupt so it will eventually sort itself out.

[Mindfield]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

Then how many pollution deaths are you willing to tolerate? If Californians keep consuming gasoline at the current rate, which includes running their car air-conditioners full-tilt, there will be more pollution, more cancer, more death...

Spare us this "one is too many" crap until you've thought the question through.

That is not an equivalent comparison. Pollution is a problem that is endemic to every industrialized nation, has been since the industrial revolution, and it is a problem that governments are attempting to correct through green initiatives -- albeit too little and too late, frankly.

This issue is in large part a solution seeking a problem. While it's a halfway decent idea to reduce the need to use A/C in cars, thus providing greater efficiency and mileage in automobiles (though really only good for warmer climates), it introduces other aspects that are idiotic. Jamming cell phones in cars is not the way to prevent distracted driving by drivers using cell phones while on the road. That's just punishing good drivers for the behaviour of the bad ones, not to mention introducing safety risks. Not everyone has an on-board service like OnStar (I'd wager a pretty small percentage of people do), so if a situation arises where a cell phone could be a critical link in a crisis situation, it would be rendered impossible (or at least very inconvenient) with this initiative.

Police cell phone usage by drivers, and come down hard on them by all means. But this is not the answer.

The heavy tinting issue with regard to law enforcement approaching a vehicle is also a good point; it is illegal in Canada to have obscuring window tints as well.

[Bryan Ekers]

The law enforcement issue may indeed be the deal breaker and we can count on actual highway patrol officers to describe the risks in approaching vehicles that they can't see into. It's somewhat less justifiable to consider something purely hypothetical and since it might come true, once, to use that hypothetical as an argument. Has there ever been a case of someone trapped in a car who couldn't phone out because of his windows, which were all intact and unopenable?

[Sailboat]

Currently there's an ad running on the radio that says built-in OnStar is better than cell phones because you tend to lose your cell phone in a crash and won't be able to use it to call for help.

I don't know how many trapped rollover families a) can find a cell phone and b) haven't got a broken windshield the signal will pass through.

For anecdotal evidence, no one in our family could find our glasses after our own head-on collision (which was severe enough that the other driver was killed).

[Magiver]

Californians deserve what they get for electing these clowns. If people can't use their cell phones then they will roll down their windows and use more air conditioning to compensate. It will waste more gas than it saves. It is truly a solution in search of a problem wrapped in unintended consequences.

At best this will benefit the window tint industry (at California consumer's expense).

[Duckster]

Let's not forget that this is a regulation covers new, and one must assumed current vehicles on the road, being phased in in 2012. So while there would be an after-market in converting glass of existing vehicles, it stands to reason car manufacturers will have to install the new glass in new vehicles if they wish to sell in California.

Unless car manufacturers plan to offer a two-tier product line (one for cars sold in California and one for the rest of the country) should we expect this state regulation to impact other car buyers in other states? And what if you move to California? Is there a grandfather clause or will you be required to change the glass in your vehicle if you bring it with you?

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by Duckster

Let's not forget that this is a regulation covers new, and one must assumed current vehicles on the road, being phased in in 2012. So while there would be an after-market in converting glass of existing vehicles, it stands to reason car manufacturers will have to install the new glass in new vehicles if they wish to sell in California.

I see no reason why it can't be done at the dealership with window tint. There's no reason to drag the rest of the country into this.

[picunurse]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

I assume if the window is open, one can still dial out.

Are there many serious collisions in which all the windows are still intact?

Are you sure there will BE windows?

[Machine Elf]

Originally Posted by Dangerosa

You can't have heavily tinted windows in Minnesota for this reason. We bought a car that had been previously owned in Florida and the dealer had to reglaze all the windows.

+1. About 20 years ago my dad (in MN) bought a used Corvette from Texas that had heavily tinted windows. Some time after that we saw a news piece about the law, which requires tinted windows on a car to transmit no less than 50% of incident light (BTW, you'd be surprised how light such a window appears to the subjective eye); the piece said that at that time only three state troopers in the Twin Cities area had the equipment in their car to test windows during roadside stops. My dad instructed me that if I ever got stopped in that car, I should roll the windows down before the cop reaches the side of the car.

Fast forward a couple of years later, to when my dad gets pulled over in the Corvette. He rolls the windows down. The officer walks up and asks my dad to put the windows back up. Turns out he's one of those few who possesses the test equipment; the windows pass something like 10% of incident light, earning my dad a $50 ticket. D'OH!

[cerberus]

...and it will take about 15 seconds for the market to crank out a widget that will give a cell phone an external link to signals ... I think my UConnect actually uses the external antenna on my car. But it should be an easy post market fix to link internal cell phones to external antennae.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by Duckster

Let's not forget that this is a regulation covers new, and one must assumed current vehicles on the road, being phased in in 2012. So while there would be an after-market in converting glass of existing vehicles, it stands to reason car manufacturers will have to install the new glass in new vehicles if they wish to sell in California...

No, it covers new vehicles, according to the story linked to in the OP. Existing vehicles will not need to be retrofitted unless they pass some other law.

The article suggests that the regulations require a specific metallic wondow coating which will cause all these dire consequences. From what I can find, this is simply not true. I found the California Air Resouces Board Proposed Regulation online and nowhere does it specify the materials required to achieve the goals. The goals are about reducing the solar energy transmitted inward through windows, period.

It moght be that the cost assumptions were done using this metallic glazing. It might be that metallic glazing is the cheapest way the industry can meet the standard. It might be that somebody else controls the patents of better technology to meet the goals and the industry doesn't want to use it for that reason.

Perhaps there are newer proposed regulations I haven't found, and if anyone can find them, I would love it if they would post a link. But until then, I'm assuming what I found is it, which invalidates the entire point of the article.

I will also point out that the story is all about the auto industry's response to the law. The auto industry has been claiming for decades that any and every new restriction or requirement for automobiles is going to destroy the industry.

So I would take all of this with a boulder of salt.

It is also filled with the dreaded weasel words 'could' and 'may'. It may, it may not. It says, for instance, "Garmin's initial testing said the signals from GPS devices were degraded." It doesn't say by how much, or even if the degradation was enough to affect the performance of their GPS. And I would bet you that if actual performance was affected, they would have said so LOUDLY.