Mileage, Safety, Affordability: Pick Two
- Thread starter Clocker
- Start date
Fushigi
Storage Is My Life
I haven't read the article, but my first thought is F*** the cost. While I firmly believe the MPG desires of both the EPA & California are achievable, I would not do so at the cost of reduced (or not increased) safety.
Increases in purchase price will be at least partially offset over the life of the vehicle by reduced fuel costs. And people who keep their cars longer will reap even more savings v. those who trade in every 3-4 years.
Increases in purchase price will be at least partially offset over the life of the vehicle by reduced fuel costs. And people who keep their cars longer will reap even more savings v. those who trade in every 3-4 years.
Bozo
Storage? I am Storage!
:joker:Good article.
You want safety; driver education. Real driver education on the proper handling of a car. This would include skid pads and closed course instruction.
Ban the use of cell phones while operating a motor vehicle. In Pa you now have a 50% chance of being killed by someone talking on the phone while driving (according to a report on our local news). An automatic loss of your license for a year plus a huge fine if caught.
Severe penalties for causing an accident. Run a red light and hit someone, lose your license for a year or longer. Go to jail?
It's about time we start making people responsible for their actions. Not build Tanks and make the manufacturer responsible for your stupidity.
Clean air: I'm for that. But letting each state have their own regulations, that's absurd. What if I would move from Montana to California, would I have to get a new car. Who is going to pay for it? The tax payers of California??? Can you imagine the logistic nightmare of the automakers with deliveries and parts distribution. The price of everybodies car would double.
A few years ago Ford wanted to install some sort of air filter on the radiator of their cars. It would remove nasty shit from the air as you drove. Older cars could be retro fitted. Nope, California would allow it for some reason. Probably because the polititions weren't going to get anything out of it.
I think we need a little common sense, not the California knee jerk reaction that we get from the polititions.
Bozo
You want safety; driver education. Real driver education on the proper handling of a car. This would include skid pads and closed course instruction.
Ban the use of cell phones while operating a motor vehicle. In Pa you now have a 50% chance of being killed by someone talking on the phone while driving (according to a report on our local news). An automatic loss of your license for a year plus a huge fine if caught.
Severe penalties for causing an accident. Run a red light and hit someone, lose your license for a year or longer. Go to jail?
It's about time we start making people responsible for their actions. Not build Tanks and make the manufacturer responsible for your stupidity.
Clean air: I'm for that. But letting each state have their own regulations, that's absurd. What if I would move from Montana to California, would I have to get a new car. Who is going to pay for it? The tax payers of California??? Can you imagine the logistic nightmare of the automakers with deliveries and parts distribution. The price of everybodies car would double.
A few years ago Ford wanted to install some sort of air filter on the radiator of their cars. It would remove nasty shit from the air as you drove. Older cars could be retro fitted. Nope, California would allow it for some reason. Probably because the polititions weren't going to get anything out of it.
I think we need a little common sense, not the California knee jerk reaction that we get from the polititions.
Bozo
ddrueding
Fixture
Unless the speed limits go up, I see no need for even safer tanks. I agree with Bozo that driver education is the way to go. How much better milage would a Mk.V VW Golf get if it weighed as much as a Mk.1? (half the weight). The absurd number of airbags and crumple zones in my car and the weight they add lead to a significantly longer breaking distance and increase my likelyhood of being in an accident.
No thanks.
No thanks.
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
Maybe California wouldn't always be out of step with the rest of the USA if the remainder of the country wasn't so unbelievably backward. 35MPG? In 12 years?! WTFF is wrong with the United States (excepting California)?
ddrueding
Fixture
A whole lot. I used to hope we actually run out of gas before global warming gets too bad, then I heard talk of going to coal for everything if that happens...WTF?
mubs
Storage? I am Storage!
Humans are just too greedy, selfish and stupid. They'll make themselves extinct sooner than later. Then it'll be just furry critters & friends.
Stereodude
Not really a
Why is it that more gov't interference in private industry is the solution to problems created by gov't interference in a private industry? Wouldn't the solution be less gov't interference?
jtr1962
Storage? I am Storage!
What's really interesting is that it is real problem here is not one of engineering, but rather of legislation and societal expectations. I can illustrate this best by comparing the US and Japanese expectations and design philosophies regarding railways. The same line of thought has carried over to automobiles. In Japan there is zero tolerance for railway accidents. They just plain do everything humanly possible to prevent them from happening. The systems are designed to deal with human error and still have a safety margin. As a result there is little or no need to worry about designing crashworthiness into railway vehicles. Japanese trains are very light even by European standards. However, in practical terms that doesn't matter because crashes on modern lines are all but impossible. In over 40 years of operation there has not been one passenger related fatility on their Shinkansen system. There conventional lines don't have this perfect record, but then again many were designed many decades ago. Despite that, the safety record on these other lines is good enough that crashworthiness really doesn't matter.
Now let's take the US. FRA regulations regarding crash loading have resulted in severely obese trains here in the US. The Acela express is so heavy it has track hunting problems at even 150 mph. I can never be used at its design speed of 165 mph as a result. These same regulations result in the LIRR's recent M7 EMUs weighing in at something like 125,000 pounds compared to the 90,000 pound M1s they're replacing. Most of the reason for these ridiculous crash requirements stems from US passenger trains running into freight trains on a somewhat regular basis. Since both vehicles are operating on a guideway completely under the control of the signal system, this is something which can be eliminated by design. Instead, we choose to keep using antiquated safety systems and tolerate a certain number of crashes (and design for them unfortunately). Same thing with level railroad crossings, something which should be done away with completely given the number of train-car collisions.
Now let's apply this to automobiles. For some reason we tolerate 50,000 fatalities, 2 million injuries, and billions in property damage on our roads each year. We've had the technology to compensate for many types of human error for years, but instead have chosen to accept crashes, and design cars like tanks as a result. Even so, the toll on the roads is still enormous. Crashes happen with such regularity nobody even notices. Fatal car crashes should be so rare they make the national news when they happen. However, that's not the case.
So what can we do to make this zero crash tolerance policy a reality? The best way to do so is obvious-remove the driver from the equation. A system of embedded magnets combined with GPS enables cars to drive themselves given the power of today's computers. For those who say we aren't there yet, well if we had started doing the necessary R&D 20 years ago as a national priority, we would have been there. We could certainly be there is 5-10 years if we started now. Given the sheer volume of traffic these days, and the ever increasing number of driver distractions, I see less and less reason to allow human control. Add to that the fact that many (most?) inherently lack the spatial and cognitive abilities to operate an auto in a safe manner regardless of training.
Failing making cars self-driven, the second most obvious solution is to raise the bar for getting a license much higher. Basically raise it high enough so the 50% of drivers who cause 99.9% of accidents won't have the capability of obtaining a license. Get those who lack inate driving ability off the roads for good. This will have many advantages. IT will increase the professionalism among remaining drivers, allow higher speeds which require all your concentration (forget talking on a cell phone), and decrease the number of cars on the road (too many cars are another reason for accidents). Doing all that means we can design much lighter, flimsier, but more efficient cars, yet still have way fewer fatalities than now.
A third way is to just set up our society in such a way that auto use is optional for many or most people. This is a long term solution, not a short term one, but it really makes more sense than the other two. Lots of people die in cars because lots of people need to ride in them. Once you give people viable alternatives, many will choose not to drive or not to even own a car. This will decrease traffic for those who do drive, and in turn reduce fatalities. In the 1950s we saw the auto as some sort of panacea. We even went to the point of designing communities where auto ownership was necessary to get around. Big mistake. The problem will probably correct itself as many suburban roads deteriorate to the point of uselessness due to lack of funding. There's nothing wrong with cars serving a niche function in society. Why on earth we set things up so they're the primary mode of transport for many people is completely beyond me. The US isn't competitive any more because people spend more per capita on transportation yet still have an inferior system. Private transportation never was and never could be the answer. It results in too much waste and duplication. From a utilization standpoint, a car which sits idle 22 or 23 hours of the day is a gross waste of a capital asset. Most of the cost of auto ownership is depreciation, not operating costs, as a result.
As an aside, the way we're embracing hybrids, which are basically a half-way house between ICE and electrics, I don't see that mpg regulations will matter in 10 or 12 years. Plug-in hybrids are the next logical step, followed by pure electrics. If Detroit chooses not to make them I'm sure China or Japan will. And I'm equally sure the public will embrace them. Much easier to plug your car in when you get home than to wait at a filling station, and pay obscene sums for fuel. And far less to break down in an electric as well.
Now let's take the US. FRA regulations regarding crash loading have resulted in severely obese trains here in the US. The Acela express is so heavy it has track hunting problems at even 150 mph. I can never be used at its design speed of 165 mph as a result. These same regulations result in the LIRR's recent M7 EMUs weighing in at something like 125,000 pounds compared to the 90,000 pound M1s they're replacing. Most of the reason for these ridiculous crash requirements stems from US passenger trains running into freight trains on a somewhat regular basis. Since both vehicles are operating on a guideway completely under the control of the signal system, this is something which can be eliminated by design. Instead, we choose to keep using antiquated safety systems and tolerate a certain number of crashes (and design for them unfortunately). Same thing with level railroad crossings, something which should be done away with completely given the number of train-car collisions.
Now let's apply this to automobiles. For some reason we tolerate 50,000 fatalities, 2 million injuries, and billions in property damage on our roads each year. We've had the technology to compensate for many types of human error for years, but instead have chosen to accept crashes, and design cars like tanks as a result. Even so, the toll on the roads is still enormous. Crashes happen with such regularity nobody even notices. Fatal car crashes should be so rare they make the national news when they happen. However, that's not the case.
So what can we do to make this zero crash tolerance policy a reality? The best way to do so is obvious-remove the driver from the equation. A system of embedded magnets combined with GPS enables cars to drive themselves given the power of today's computers. For those who say we aren't there yet, well if we had started doing the necessary R&D 20 years ago as a national priority, we would have been there. We could certainly be there is 5-10 years if we started now. Given the sheer volume of traffic these days, and the ever increasing number of driver distractions, I see less and less reason to allow human control. Add to that the fact that many (most?) inherently lack the spatial and cognitive abilities to operate an auto in a safe manner regardless of training.
Failing making cars self-driven, the second most obvious solution is to raise the bar for getting a license much higher. Basically raise it high enough so the 50% of drivers who cause 99.9% of accidents won't have the capability of obtaining a license. Get those who lack inate driving ability off the roads for good. This will have many advantages. IT will increase the professionalism among remaining drivers, allow higher speeds which require all your concentration (forget talking on a cell phone), and decrease the number of cars on the road (too many cars are another reason for accidents). Doing all that means we can design much lighter, flimsier, but more efficient cars, yet still have way fewer fatalities than now.
A third way is to just set up our society in such a way that auto use is optional for many or most people. This is a long term solution, not a short term one, but it really makes more sense than the other two. Lots of people die in cars because lots of people need to ride in them. Once you give people viable alternatives, many will choose not to drive or not to even own a car. This will decrease traffic for those who do drive, and in turn reduce fatalities. In the 1950s we saw the auto as some sort of panacea. We even went to the point of designing communities where auto ownership was necessary to get around. Big mistake. The problem will probably correct itself as many suburban roads deteriorate to the point of uselessness due to lack of funding. There's nothing wrong with cars serving a niche function in society. Why on earth we set things up so they're the primary mode of transport for many people is completely beyond me. The US isn't competitive any more because people spend more per capita on transportation yet still have an inferior system. Private transportation never was and never could be the answer. It results in too much waste and duplication. From a utilization standpoint, a car which sits idle 22 or 23 hours of the day is a gross waste of a capital asset. Most of the cost of auto ownership is depreciation, not operating costs, as a result.
As an aside, the way we're embracing hybrids, which are basically a half-way house between ICE and electrics, I don't see that mpg regulations will matter in 10 or 12 years. Plug-in hybrids are the next logical step, followed by pure electrics. If Detroit chooses not to make them I'm sure China or Japan will. And I'm equally sure the public will embrace them. Much easier to plug your car in when you get home than to wait at a filling station, and pay obscene sums for fuel. And far less to break down in an electric as well.
jtr1962
Storage? I am Storage!
Because money talks-the same wonderful companies which sell us gasoline also have their hands in coal and natural gas. Why do you think those two things are being pushed heavily? And why do you think there is a push for fuel cells and the so-called "hydrogen highway"? Same reason-centralized control of energy supplies. Fact is big energy companies are afraid of solar panels and electric cars. Both things effectively leave them out of the equation. That's also incidentally why I feel both things will happen sooner rather than later. Most people these days hate the energy companies. They'll be all over any way to give them the proverbial middle finger.
ddrueding
Fixture
I actually thought hydrogen would be a good distributed fuel. Quality is a no-brainer, storage is relatively easy, and I'd read about solar panels that converted to hydrogen as they went.
jtr1962
Storage? I am Storage!
The problem with hydrogen is the inefficiencies inherent in the process. You get far less energy using the hydrogen in a fuel cell than you spend making it. I think you only get out about one-third of what you put in. Grid electricity charging a battery is way more efficient (I think overall about 80-85%). And we already have the distribution system for electricity in place-namely the electrical grid. I have no idea how much a hydrogen distribution system will cost but it won't be cheap. Remember that this stuff is close to absolute zero. There's a huge energy cost transporting it and storing it. In conclusion, hydrogen brings no advantages to the table so IMHO it's not worth pursuing other than for use as rocket fuel.
ddrueding
Fixture
Hydrogen is an energy storage medium. It is inefficient in the production, but it will hold that same amount of energy forever (unlike batteries). It only has to be maintained near absolute zero if you want it in liquid form, it can be stored in a larger volume and pressure as a gas without refrigeration.
My thoughts on "big energy" are that the distribution system is the problem. We need to break that up, and allow individuals to produce, store, and consume their own power from solar/wind/etc.
Batteries are more efficient when storing a smaller amount of energy for a shorter amount of time, but it is theoretically more cost effective to store larger surpluses of energy for a longer time frame in hydrogen.
This is based on my research of the topics, and I am not a scientist. If I am wrong, I would love to know more.
My thoughts on "big energy" are that the distribution system is the problem. We need to break that up, and allow individuals to produce, store, and consume their own power from solar/wind/etc.
Batteries are more efficient when storing a smaller amount of energy for a shorter amount of time, but it is theoretically more cost effective to store larger surpluses of energy for a longer time frame in hydrogen.
This is based on my research of the topics, and I am not a scientist. If I am wrong, I would love to know more.
50% more MPG in the city but it costs more and is very safe. I used to work for this guy...
http://www.jaylenosgarage.com/video/video_player.shtml?vid=236922
http://www.jaylenosgarage.com/video/video_player.shtml?vid=236922
If fuel in AU was as cheap as it was in the US for almost two decades, I doubt it would be any different. After all, who doesn't want to get as much of a vehicle as they can for the money? I can remember buying gas for $0.95 per gallon in the late 80's. Cheap gas made it possible for American's to drive big high capability vehicles that are thirsty. Also, big trucks are so safe and easy to fix after an accident that the savings on insurance just about made up for the extra gas burned every year. I have both a car and a truck in my house so I'm speaking from first hand experience.
Also, I live in Michigan where we have some of the worst automobile rates in the USA thanks to government mandated "no fault" insurance. So much for government involvement benefiting the people and being efficient.
ddrueding
Fixture
Why would a hydrogen vehicle explode?
jtr1962
Storage? I am Storage!
There's talk of using hydrogen as an energy storage medium for home electrical generation. The reason this might work is because solar panels currently aren't very efficient. If a process can be found to allow solar energy to dissociate water into hydrogen and oxygen more efficiently than electricity from a solar panel can, then it might make sense. It might also make sense if the needed equipment was inexpensive. That being said, solar panels are getting more efficient and cheaper. Also, batteries are getting better. Most of the time self-discharge is a non-issue due to the short time frames between charging and use. Usually you want to store power generated during the day for using at night. Hydrogen can allow that also. One thing maybe in favor of hydrogen is that adding capacity is as simple as making another tank. Also, some fuel cells use the hydrogen in hydrocarbons, so cold storage isn't required as it would be with liquid hydrogen. I'm not discounting hydrogen entirely, but it's not looking as good for it at this point with cheap, better solar panels on the horizon, and better batteries.
I do agree that the future will be about decentralized production, storage, and distribution of energy. We've already seen a lot of other things go from the corporate to the individual level (i.e. desktop publishing, photoediting, and lately video). I personally like the idea of "living off the grid".
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
I hear you, Clocker. A Ford or a GM (or for that matter a Renault or a Nissan) can only build the cars that people want to buy, Commercial suicide is not good business! Crazy fuel pricing leads to bad cars.
Back about 30 years ago, Australia switched to import parity pricing. Although we had cheap fuel coming out of the ocean off the Victorian coastline, we added tax to make it the same price as the Saudis were charging.
Politically it was not popular, but people soon got used to it, and within a decade the whole country changed its car-buying habits. We would up with smaller cars that were roomier on the inside, more practical, easier to park, more comfortable, much bettr to drive, and just as fast as the clumsy, heavy iron monsters that we were driving not so long before. And, of course, we were getting close to double the fuel economy.
Unfortunately, little by little, governments have reduced the tax on fuel over the years, and it is now much too cheap again, with the inevitable result: big, ugly cars are in fashion again here.
Politicians are morons.
Back about 30 years ago, Australia switched to import parity pricing. Although we had cheap fuel coming out of the ocean off the Victorian coastline, we added tax to make it the same price as the Saudis were charging.
Politically it was not popular, but people soon got used to it, and within a decade the whole country changed its car-buying habits. We would up with smaller cars that were roomier on the inside, more practical, easier to park, more comfortable, much bettr to drive, and just as fast as the clumsy, heavy iron monsters that we were driving not so long before. And, of course, we were getting close to double the fuel economy.
Unfortunately, little by little, governments have reduced the tax on fuel over the years, and it is now much too cheap again, with the inevitable result: big, ugly cars are in fashion again here.
Politicians are morons.
Stereodude
Not really a
I don't know about that Tony. Seems to me you fine folks in Oz have all the cool cars, like the Holden SS's with the big V8's and manual transmissions.
Fushigi
Storage Is My Life
Yeah, I was just thinking of the new Pontiac G8 which is a Holden.
But the more amazing thing is that a government reduced a tax.
My father drove a Renault in the '80s. I won't claim it was the most spacious or safe thing but he got 50MPG consistently. With over 100K miles he gave it to me and I drove it like hell and still got 40MPG. I've wondered why powertrain efficiencies haven't kept pace such that a modern compact like a Cobalt or Civic couldn't do the same. Engines are better and trannies are way more efficient than back then, but we don't seem to be reaping rewards. Is MPG per pound getting worse?
But the more amazing thing is that a government reduced a tax.
My father drove a Renault in the '80s. I won't claim it was the most spacious or safe thing but he got 50MPG consistently. With over 100K miles he gave it to me and I drove it like hell and still got 40MPG. I've wondered why powertrain efficiencies haven't kept pace such that a modern compact like a Cobalt or Civic couldn't do the same. Engines are better and trannies are way more efficient than back then, but we don't seem to be reaping rewards. Is MPG per pound getting worse?
Stereodude
Not really a
Well... There are four main things at play here.
1) Vehicle weight has gone up considerably to meet the constantly evolving safety standards
2) Emissions have been been given higher priority than gas mileage. All the things done to a motor to reduce emissions aren't helping the gas mileage.
3) The HP wars. A Honda civic used to have ~70HP. Now it has ~140HP. You burn more fuel to make more power. You "need" more power to make up for #1.
4) Cars are getting bigger. A current model US Honda Civic is larger than the Accord from the early 1980s. A current model Nissan Sentra is larger than the Maxima from the early 1980s. The same thing with the current Corolla vs. a Camry from the early 80s.
It's all connected...
People buy what they want, and it's clear they don't want the same type of cars the gov't is trying to legislate the automakers into building.
Fushigi
Storage Is My Life
I've got to leave for a bit, but compare that Renault to a Chevy Aveo. The Aveo still only gets about 70% of the MPG and I can't see the Aveo being that different in size/weight.
ddrueding
Fixture
This one I don't understand. Either the fuel is being combusted for power or it is going out the back end, no? The only way to reduce the amount going out the back is to burn it more completely in the engine (hence, more power)? Or is it something in the delayed valve timing?
Stereodude
Not really a
You think Catalytic converters don't rob power from a motor? There's the extra weight from all the extra stuff needed to meet emissions. Additives in fuel, etc, etc, etc...
ddrueding
Fixture
Honestly didn't know. Though I do love cars, I was never a gear-head. I'll read up on it when I get home.
Pradeep
Storage? I am Storage!
Have they really reduced the tax on fuel? Last I remember Little Johnnie stopped the automatic annual indexation of fuel taxes/excise, but it's still the vast cost component of a liter of petrol in Aus.
Don't even get me started on the additional 10% GST on top of the fuel taxes. Double-dipping, gotta love it.
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
Not even close, Pradeep. Fuel excise is currently about one quarter of the cost per litre. ($0.38) It was around double that in the past. We are now paying the price for this idiocy: bigger cars, worse balance of payments, overcrowded roads, higher carbon emissions, and so on.
jtr1962
Storage? I am Storage!
The problem in a word is aerodynamics. See here for an interesting discussion. Somewhere along the line car makers suddenly decided to make boxes. Mentioned in the article was someone who put some aerodynamic add-ons to a Honda Civic EX, boosting the mileage from 40 mpg to 70 mpg in the process.
With all we know about aerodynamics getting in excess of 100 mpg @ 100 mph would be trivial if we wanted to. I'm not sure why car makers suddenly adopted boxes and had commercials to make them seem appealing. Perhaps because boxes cost less to manufacture? Whatever the reason it was a collossal mistake. Even if a highly aerodynamic vehicle cost $10K more, the savings in operating costs would easily pay for this over the life of the vehicle. Let's say an average sedan these days gets 20 mpg. If aerodynamics can boost that to 100 mpg, you save 4000 gallons of fuel for every 100,000 miles of driving (not to mention less wear on the powertrain). Even at $1 a gallon, the fuel savings pay for the extra manufacturing cost. As a bonus, top speeds go into the stratosphere. An EV1 with minor addons managed in excess of 180 mph on a 65 HP electric motor.
I'll also add that aerodynamics are nothing new. The Tatra had a Cd of 0.21 in 1935. Nowadays I think it's an insult to call a car with a Cd of 0.3 "aerodynamic". And 0.3 is good by today's standards. A lot of vehicles are over 0.4. The Hummer is 0.57. By comparison the fastest human powered vehicles are around 0.01. If you can make a vehicle which a 400 watt human motor can propel at 80 mph, then you can certainly make much more efficient cars. This isn't just an issue for gas cars, either. An aerodynamic electric will be able to get far more range out of its batteries than a box.
If the reason for abandoning aerodynamics was reduced manufacturing costs then it was a shortsighted decision. If the reason had to do with aesthetics then it was astonishing. Besides being purely subjective (I think boxy vehicles are totally disgusting) you don't even see the outside of your vehicle other than when you're entering or exiting. Anyone who is foolish enough to burn extra fuel just to put on a show for everyone else needs to have their ego deflated, not to mention their head examined.
Not related to aerodynamics, but here's an interesting perspective on safety. From the article:
"Clarke observes that while cyclists are uniquely vulnerable, society tolerates traffic fatalities in general. "Despite seat belts, anti-lock brakes, air bags, crumple zones and any number of silver-bullet devices, 43,000 people are killed in crashes in the United States every year," he says. "I worked for four years as a highway contractor for the Federal Highway Transportation Department, which always said that safety was its number-one priority. But if that were true, we wouldn't kill so many people, including 5,000 pedestrians and 700 cyclists per year. In other countries, they've been more active about taking those words seriously."
The United States has the highest traffic-death rate (15 per 100,000 residents) of all developed democratic countries. Several European nations-for example, Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland-have slashed their annual traffic-fatality figures over the past few decades, largely through "traffic-calming" measures that forcibly reduce the speeds of motor vehicles. In places such as Germany and the Netherlands, traffic regulations are actually biased in favor of cyclists and pedestrians-in the event of a bike-car collision, the legal burden is on motorists to prove that they weren't at fault, and Dutch drivers are financially liable even if cyclists are at fault."
ddrueding
Fixture
15 per 100k doesn't sound too bad to me. Lower the weight of the cars and increase the speed limit until it hits 50 or so (0.05%).
ddrueding
Fixture
Anyone know whether it is legal to drive with both ears covered? Headphones or the like?
Stereodude
Not really a
It should be if it's not.
ddrueding
Fixture
I agree, but that wasn't the question. My dad drives a convertible with a crappy stereo. Anyone know?
jtr1962
Storage? I am Storage!
See here.
"California Vehicle Code: "No person operating any motor vehicle or bicycle shall wear any headset covering, or any earplugs in, both ears. The prohibition of this section does not apply to any of the following..." Exceptions include hearing aids."
I can understand the reasoning for bicycles since hearing can help you detect vehicles coming up behind you. Most cars though are so insulated you barely hear the engine, let alone cars many feet away. There is a good reason to avoid headphones though-they can damage hearing. People have a tendency to turn them up much louder than regular speakers. I've been on the subways where I was getting a headache listening to somebody else's music from their headphones a few feet away. I can only imagine how loud it sounded to them.
"California Vehicle Code: "No person operating any motor vehicle or bicycle shall wear any headset covering, or any earplugs in, both ears. The prohibition of this section does not apply to any of the following..." Exceptions include hearing aids."
I can understand the reasoning for bicycles since hearing can help you detect vehicles coming up behind you. Most cars though are so insulated you barely hear the engine, let alone cars many feet away. There is a good reason to avoid headphones though-they can damage hearing. People have a tendency to turn them up much louder than regular speakers. I've been on the subways where I was getting a headache listening to somebody else's music from their headphones a few feet away. I can only imagine how loud it sounded to them.
Fushigi
Storage Is My Life
IIRC Indiana banned driving-while-headphoned in the late 70s/early 80s when Walkmen first became popular.
In essence you're ability to hear emergency vehicle sirens, honking horns, and any other audible indicators of changing traffic conditions is greatly impaired.
In essence you're ability to hear emergency vehicle sirens, honking horns, and any other audible indicators of changing traffic conditions is greatly impaired.