We have it on good authority that an incomprehensibly large nuclear reactor hangs in the sky over California. Apparently, the rays of energy cast by this "sun" bombard parked vehicles with such furious heat-energy that natives of the region regularly cook whole hams in their vehicles. Sometimes, drivers of these vehicles require the use of a dedicated in-car "air-conditioning" system.
To prevent the usage of such wasteful systems, the always-sensible California Air Resources Board has been working on a set of rules known colloquially as "cool cars." Cute, huh?
Anyway, the state gave initial approval of the new rules, which include the use window glazing to keep car interiors cool, last year. The Detroit News reports today that the California Police Chiefs Association, California State Sheriffs Association and the Crime Victims United of California have a bit of a bone to pick with the new rules. Namely, that the glazing could degrade the signals put off by ankle monitoring bracelets (anklets?) worn by felons. Oh right, that. Further, there are concerns about cell-phone signal degradation too, which wouldn't be such a bad thing except if someone needs to call 911.
According to the News, the rules will likely be amended in the coming weeks before a final version is issued. The final rules must be in place by May 7. The regulations will begin to be phased in by 2012 and by 2016 are intended to reduce the amount of energy from the sun entering the car by 60 percent. Or residents could simply move to Detroit.
redliner says:
09:46 AM, 03/ 9/10
Ford was way ahead of these eco-lawmakers...
http://tinyurl.com/synusoncep
redliner says:
09:49 AM, 03/ 9/10
^opps^
Link fixed :)
http://tinyurl.com/synusoncept
bankerdanny says:
10:16 AM, 03/ 9/10
Only in CA. One would think with the impending bankruptcy of the state that legislators would have more important issues to deal with.
carguy622 says:
11:04 AM, 03/ 9/10
Can't call 911 from inside the car? How will I be able to contact my loved ones in my runaway Toyota?
carlisimo says:
11:40 AM, 03/ 9/10
The “cool cars” concept comes from what we in the building industry call “cool roofs.” Light-colored, well-insulated roofs have a significant effect on building energy use so it seemed logical to see if it would work with cars. We still have moderate smog issues in some valleys, even if it’s nothing like we had 20 years ago.
The criticism doesn’t seem very well supported. I mean look at it, they’re saying the coatings “could” degrade signals, would have a “possible” impact on 911 calls, “may” make it impossible to use EZ pass systems… seriously? C’mon, it’s not a valid argument until you’ve shown that the coatings DO have an effect. I could as lazily say that people with tinted windows (even the silvery coatings) don’t seem to have problems, so maybe there’s no effect at all.
At the very bottom of the article they mention the only organization that seems to have done any studies, and those came up negative.
06scooby says:
01:39 PM, 03/ 9/10
I find this funny since in California you aren't allowed to tint the front side windows!!
stovt001 says:
01:46 PM, 03/ 9/10
@06Scooby - the point isn't efficient results. California is all about imposing regulations for the sake of making more laws while flashing their "green" credentials. It is the same mentality that drives people to buy a car filled with nickel mined from the earth in a very damaging manner, shipped all over the world for processing and manufacturing and then shipped back to the US so that they can call themselves green.
@bankerdanny - now you understand why we're bankrupt here. California is like a drug addict, willing to sacrifice anything and go completely broke for that next fix. In this case, they're addicted to ruling over their citizens in a manner most communist dictatorships would find a bit repressive.
brn says:
01:57 PM, 03/ 9/10
bankerdanny: "Only in CA. One would think with the impending bankruptcy of the state that legislators would have more important issues to deal with."
That's what drives me nuts about CA and their budget deficit. They're billions of dollars in the hole, yet they keep moving forward with programs like this. I will continue my rant that if CA was forced to limit their operations to what would be normal (in good times) for any other state, they wouldn't have a deficit. Yet, I'm sure my Federal tax dollars are going to bail them out.
06scooby: "I find this funny since in California you aren't allowed to tint the front side windows!!"
That's a safety issue. They expect you to be able to see out of your front and (forward) side windows at night.
firstwagon says:
02:22 PM, 03/ 9/10
"It is the same mentality that drives people to buy a car filled with nickel mined from the earth in a very damaging manner, shipped all over the world for processing and manufacturing and then shipped back to the US so that they can call themselves green."
Why do people keep repeating this urban myth?
stovt001 says:
06:07 PM, 03/ 9/10
What's the myth? Batteries take nickel. Nickel must be mined. It must be turned into a battery. The battery must be shipped to where the car is assembled. In the case of the beloved Prius, it is assembled in Japan, then shipped here. That is a lot of shipping.
hybris says:
06:26 PM, 03/ 9/10
California is such a strange land.
carlisimo says:
06:51 PM, 03/ 9/10
stovt001: "the point isn't efficient results. California is all about imposing regulations for the sake of making more laws while flashing their "green" credentials."
I can understand if you disagree with their goals or their methods, but it's kind of silly to think the above. I'm in the building industry and I think Title 24 energy-saving regulations have been well thought-out and will improve the state in the long run. Much of it was in response to the electrical power crisis we had a few years ago; using what we learned to prepare for potential crises of other forms of energy seems only logical.
jederino says:
10:47 AM, 03/10/10
Legislators (particularly in CA) love imposing stuff that others have to do, while they can't even balance a budget or plan intelligently for the next 10 years.
firstwagon says:
03:24 PM, 03/10/10
"What's the myth?"
Lets see....
"mined from the earth in a very damaging manner"
Nickel mining is no more damaging then any other type of mining and a lot less damaging then most. Despite what I have heard in several versions of this myth it is not stripped mined in Subury. It is deep mined (currently they are down more then a mile).
Half a century or more ago processing it was very toxic because it was done in the cheap and easy way. They burned it out. It left the Sudbury area looking like the moon. It hasn't been done that way since before any of us were born. None of the nickel in a Prius battery was refined in this manner.
" shipped all over the world"
True but the size, number and weight of batteries is minor by a shipping scale. If it was really a concern then people should be far more concerned with entire cars being shipped from Japan or Germany not to mention the countless billions of tonnes of consumer products that we all buy from Asian.
The reality is there is more nickel being mined in Sudbury, shipped to Korean, used to make stainless steel and then shipped back to North American as skins of major appliances then there is in Prius batteries (metal alloys like stainless steel is the number one use of nickel by a huge margin).