California to ban black cars. Wait, wat?!? (homes, quality of life)

[happ]

Originally Posted by revelated

Fortunately, they've backed off of such a decision for now, so it's moot for now. Doesn't mean it won't come back up.

I'd like to just mention a few things that California has apparently not bothered to realize.

- We get the most sun year round, yet basically ban window tinting. If they would lift that ban for all shades except limo and mirror tinting, that would help in cooling interiors. Some are so afraid of tickets that they would rather blast the A/C. Mind you, tinting doesn't completely stop the heat, but it definitely helps. I think allowing a 50% tint of the full front window would also help.

- California, especially southern California, has done so much buildout that there's really very little greenery left. By greenery I'm talking about trees. Carbon dioxide contributes greatly to the heat. Trees take that out of the air, provide shade, and help to cool areas down. In San Diego in particular, all you see are a bunch of buildings - buildings that reflect the heat against the cars and make things seem hotter than they should be.

- This goes back to the argument about combustion engines. There became a need for alternatives. The same is true for A/C technology. Instead of trying to keep people from using it, how about forcing the automakers to make it more efficient? Transfer the energy source to solar power - since standard A/C is used when it's hot and the sun's out, it seems a natural fit. Fix it so that the defroster does not draw from the A/C. There are ways to get around the problem.

Thanks for the thoughtful response & staying on topic

I have a black car & prefer that color but not if it is ultimately not efficient. Right now gas prices are relatively low but we know from recent experience that driving can be very expensive.

Mayor Villaraigosa has promised the planting of 1 million trees though is having trouble reaching that goal. And the new street trees are no longer palms but shade trees. I am very excited by the prospects of affordably using solar power\ batteries much more within the next 10 yrs.

I think the window tinting regulations are because the police want better visibility into who is driving the car.

[NewToCA]

Originally Posted by Mach50

Personal choice that wastes and drives up costs for the rest of us though?

If your neighbor runs their water in the lawn all day, would you say there needs to be regulation to stop that "decision"?

Partially, but you do it through the free enterprise process. Just to toss out an example, water could be billed at $.01 per gallon per household for the first 1,000 gallons per month, and $.02 per gallon thereafter. That builds in the cost of water to the usage. Another method would be a sliding process, where the cost goes up for each 200 gallons used per month, with the first 200 being free. There are many ways to price this stuff, and encourage smart usage.

For black vehicles, I don't see the issue though.

[happ]

Sounds like the entire issue is a distortion via Rush Limbaugh

"Respectable news organisations, including the Washington Post, yesterday ran a story saying that the state of California is planning to ban black cars as they absorb too much heat and make people use their air conditioning too much. Outrage and righteous indignation abounded and spread from blogger to newsdesk and back again.

Which would be fine if the story wasn't almost completely bunk. The California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board Cool Cars project does seek to reduce the amount of fuel burned to run air conditioning systems in the Dodges and Buicks of the golden state, but it has nothing to do with colour.

So-called 'cool paint' has a coating that is transparent to visible light but reflects infra-red, so less heat is passed to the interior. Tests carried out showed that it reduced the temperature in some parts of the car by as much as 30F and cut the amount of fuel used to maintain the same temperature by almost 30 per cent on sunny days, of which California has many.

The initial presentation, before the tests, contained the words 'jet black remains an issue', but the tests did not show it to be a problem and the regulations are all about reflectivity, not colour.

This didn't stop Rush Limbaugh telling his millions of listeners that they should buy a black car now, as they soon won't be available, or TechCrunch readers leaving 150 comments about how ridiculous it is. Slow down all of you; no one is banning black cars.

There is something that the hysterical mass missed. The car that the tests were run on was a Cadillac STS, a normal American family car run by insurance agents and pharmaceuticals salesmen all over the country. The tests proudly proclaimed that city fuel economy went from 15.4 miles per gallon with full air conditioning to 16.1 with the reflective paint, or one less than the colossal BMW X5 SUV.

I think the Californians have more to worry about than their air conditioning".

Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

[revelated]

Originally Posted by happ

Thanks for the thoughtful response & staying on topic

I have a black car & prefer that color but not if it is ultimately not efficient. Right now gas prices are relatively low but we know from recent experience that driving can be very expensive.

Mayor Villaraigosa has promised the planting of 1 million trees though is having trouble reaching that goal. And the new street trees are no longer palms but shade trees. I am very excited by the prospects of affordably using solar power\ batteries much more within the next 10 yrs.

I think the window tinting regulations are because the police want better visibility into who is driving the car.

Here's the thing about tint. You CAN see inside a car with any tint except for the two I mentioned: limo tint, which even if you're right up on the window you can't hardly see anything as it blocks light transfer almost completely, and mirror tint, which does the same thing but opposite; it reflects light almost completely. It's what you see on some buildings and is not designed for vehicles, because it can blind other drivers.

Additionally, that theory that they can't see in and that's the only reason is debunked by the fact that the law allows you to have even limo tint on the back and/or rear passenger windows. Police cruisers park behind someone they've stopped, meaning it's illogical to allow dark tinting on the back window. If I were going to shoot a cop, I'd just tint the back super dark, get stopped intentionally, turn, aim and shoot. The officer would be down before they heard the shot. It's especially worse if it were an SUV driver, because they could jump into the back seat without the officer ever realizing it, and fire off shots.

That's not why they ban tinting. That may be their excuse, but it's not the true reason. The window tinting ban is a legacy law that nobody has bothered to go back and evaluate, period. If they sat down and asked themselves what the law really accomplishes, they'd find it doesn't accomplish much of anything. But it's also not that critical, therefore it gets no time on the table.

[jdavid93225]

Originally Posted by Mach50

Personal choice that wastes and drives up costs for the rest of us though?

How would my choice of a black vehicle drive up costs for you? I would be the one paying for the extra fuel to run the A/C if I used it, not you.

Originally Posted by Mach50

If your neighbor runs their water in the lawn all day, would you say there needs to be regulation to stop that "decision"?

That would be for the water company to resolve, not the legislature.

[ShadowCaver]

That study seems to miss the mark, IMHO. I'd like to see a study done something like this:
- have various classes represented: subcompacts, compacts, standard, minvans, trucks, and SUV's
- break each class into three main exterior colours: light, medium, dark
- break each of those colours into three interior colours: light, medium, dark
- three identical vehicles in each manner within each class, three of each colour, three of each interior [yea, we are talking a fleet of cars here! ]
- spread the cars out in a random pattern, upon equal ground surface
- perform the test in cloudy days and in sunny days - repeated minimum of three times each
- take temp measurements at floor, seat, and ceiling levels, front and back
- perform the above w/ vehicles orientated all in same direction, w/o benefit of shadows from nearby autos
- monitor the temp changes from morn to dark in all vehicles
- etc...
Anyhow, that would help determine what role the colour of the exterior paint AND the colour of the interior both play in how much the temp rises... and the more temp increase, there should be a likewise increase in amount of energy needed to cool the rig to a constant comfortable temperature. The above study would only compare currently available standard paint colours - but add in the new reflective styles, in various shades too, and then have a very robust study.

btw, love page 8 of that study,,, just when is 16:30am???

Lastly, for years, lol, had thought of solar powered air vents, but would need to have some means to detect moisture and have some automatic means to close 'em when rain/storm would hit.

[J double R]

something else to look into (yeah, i'm a car enthusiast and explored as many avenues of this as i could, via both research and knowledge of my own) is the engine itself. The catalytic converter (sometimes known as the "cadillac converter" by ignorant types) is a means of reducing emissions, and is federally mandated. This method of emissions control works ONLY when heated to proper operating temperatures, which means that while the engine and catalytic converter is cold, it is not doing the same job it would be doing when heated correctly. A black car which absorbs heat, would result in a typically warmer car, overall, which would expedite the heating of the engine and exhaust system, which would reduce the amount of time required for the catalytic converter to begin working properly, thus reducing emissions sooner, no?

My theory on this is that any increased emissions caused by increased use of the AC system is balanced by the shorter warm-up time of the emissions system.

[DMenscha]

Originally Posted by J double R

A black car which absorbs heat, would result in a typically warmer car, overall, which would expedite the heating of the engine and exhaust system, which would reduce the amount of time required for the catalytic converter to begin working properly, thus reducing emissions sooner, no?

Except for the fact that the catalytic converter is at least 2 feet away from any painted surface and definitely not exposed to sunlight for pre-heating.(unless you've done something terribly wrong!)

Just for fun, start your car up cold and then reach under and put your hand on the CC. I'll bet you won't be able to keep it there very long

[SOON2BNSURPRISE]

Yes the market will fix itself if allowed to do so.

Regulations are imposed not to protect the people but to impose a law on the people that would not normally get passed if it were to go through correct channels to become a law. Most of the regulations that are on the books have no business being there, and if they had to go through the process of becoming law would probably end up becoming a memory instead. Regulations are an attempt by lawmakers to eliminate freedoms that we the people would normally have.

Let them eat cake and drive Black cars if they like.

[happ]

Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE

Yes the market will fix itself if allowed to do so.

Regulations are imposed not to protect the people but to impose a law on the people that would not normally get passed if it were to go through correct channels to become a law. Most of the regulations that are on the books have no business being there, and if they had to go through the process of becoming law would probably end up becoming a memory instead. Regulations are an attempt by lawmakers to eliminate freedoms that we the people would normally have.

Let them eat cake and drive Black cars if they like.

I'm sorry to point out that you are way behind the times. The lack of regulation has put our nation into a depression. The control of the environment has been a repeated demand of the people of California to clean up the air\ never drill again off our coast\ slow growth\ improve infra-structure\ implement water restrictions\ upgrade transportation via rail & not just freeways, etc. I am always amused by some comments that have no relation to reality. There is no power than what Californians allow. That's why the Coastal Commission was created & why they have total control of the coastline [exactly what Californians voted for decades ago].

The government is US the people.