When I read testimonials like this one, by a sheriff’s department patrol sargeant, I think GPS navigation is a “must have” safety device for anyone who spends a significant amount of time driving to new destinations:

While driving Code-3, this feature is outstanding and a real safety factor. I can concentrate on my driving and traffic conditions without having to worry about looking for street signs while driving at high speeds. The electronic voice clearly advises me of everything I need to know about driving to my destination.

Knowing your location during a high-speed pursuit is no easy task, especially when zig-zagging through unfamiliar streets in the dark. The StreetPilot III makes this possible at all times. You never know when you will need help. If you do not know your location, your beat partners may not find you in time. This can be the difference between life and death.

I cannot believe all the years I worked without such a valuable tool. The StreetPilot III should be standard equipment in every police vehicle in America. It makes the job easier and safer.

I agree. In fact, I recently purchased the Garmin i5, a diminutive gadget with some amazing navigational capabilities. First of all, my driving experience with the i5 has been favorable and I must agree with the law enforcement officer that it allows one to concentrate on driving and traffic conditions instead of slowing everyone down to locate and read barely visible signs or figure out how to merge across six lanes and exit in a 1/4 mile. Second, the 2.75″ height of the i5 not only impressively compact, but small enough that it can be attached almost on the dash itself, below the field-of-view through my windshield.

But here’s the problem, California has passed a law (Vehicle Code Section 26708(a)) that clearly states:

No person shall drive any motor vehicle with any object or material placed, displayed, installed, affixed, or applied upon the windshield or side or rear windows.

Obviously there have to be exceptions to this law, given all the rear-view mirrors or even windshield wipers attached to windshields. Indeed, the rest of the wording proceeds to outline where and how stickers and all the common and necessary items now should be placed:

Signs, stickers, or other materials which are displayed in a 7-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield farthest removed from the driver, signs, stickers, or other materials which are displayed in a 7-inch square in the lower corner of the rear window farthest removed from the driver, or signs, stickers, or other materials which are displayed in a 5-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield nearest the driver.

I do not imagine the highway patrol is going to be carrying a tape-measure on their utility belt, but with wording so exact you never know. Here’s another interesting exception:

(11) An electronic communication device affixed to the center uppermost portion of the interior of a windshield within an area that is not greater than 5 inches square, if the device provides either of the following:

(A) The capability for enforcement facilities of the Department of the California Highway Patrol to communicate with a vehicle equipped with the device.

(B) The capability for electronic toll and traffic management on public or private roads or facilities.

That does not seem to allow for navigation equipment. I do not know if I should be more disappointed in the car manufacturers for not having a compliant space on the dashboard (they tend to fill it up with any number of gadgets of their own), in Garmin for not providing a California compliant mounting bracket (one that doesn’t touch the windshield) as standard issue, or in the state of California for not making an exception for navigation devices that enhance safety.

On the other hand, back to the 2.75″ height of my i5, the fact that the device it attached to the windshield seems entirely irrelevant to me. I have placed the device so low, just out of personal preference, that it literally sits no more than a cm from the dashboard itself. Were I to take the windshield bracket away and place the i5 on a dashboard mount, it would most likely bring the i5 up higher and into the field-of-view. So to comply with the spirit of the law it actually makes more sense to leave it mounted to the windshield, although the letter of the law clearly forbids the windshield mount. I supposed I could mount the device in the lower left corner, below the 7″ legal limit, but this seems far less safe than a position that is centered just below the hood’s horizon. Moreover, this requires me to drag a cable across the steering column, which just seems dangerous to me.

At the end of the day, I’ve been looking for other brackets and positions, but nothing stands out (pun intended) as a safer alternative. And so I have to wonder if others have been having the same concern. Fortunately the Mercury News has in fact done a little legwork and provided this answer to their readers:

Officer-Bob-The-CHP-GPS-GUY says it’s illegal to mount a GPS system to the windshield:

“You may only put things in the very lower left or right corner, and you are restricted to only a couple of inches at those locations. The GPS will exceed those limits. Get a brand that will permit a remote antenna to be connected. Then mount the GPS to the dash, below the windshield. The remote antenna will eliminate the GPS signal problem.”

But, he adds:

“The Pod-style GPS (TomTom is one popular brand seen on TV) needs to have clear access to GPS signals and may not be usable due to mounting them to the windshield. Most Pod styles do not have a remote antenna connection. Most of the small portable receivers by Magellan or Garmin have the capability to connect a remote antenna which can be placed on the dash or on the roof of the car.

“I’ve tested a few just by laying them on the seat next to me and they work most of the time. A problem with all moving GPS is that if you get under trees, behind tall buildings or in a tunnel the signal may weaken.”

Obviously the CHP officer is wrong about the legally allowed height (couple = 2, the law says 7 square), he is wrong about the GPS size (couple = 2, i5 = 2.75, the law says 7 square) and way off-base with his suggestion to put a device on the seat. Does anyone else in the world think that looking at a map on their seat is safer than staring straight-ahead through the equivalent of a heads-up-display (HUD)? I feel sorry for the officers who are forced to risk their lives with impractical GPS placement in order to comply with a ridiculous law against using any portion of the windshield, even if it’s below the level that the hood itself obscures. Imagine the air force telling its pilots that all jets will now have critical information now displayed conveniently in their lap, for safety.

This is the real problem with policy and enforcement. Sometimes the policy is written so poorly that the letter can actually do damage to the spirit, and our overall safety declines.

Ann Arbor from the 1970s to the 1980s suffered from a large amount of toxic chemicals filtering from a corporation into the water supply.

The groundwater contamination began in 1976, when dioxane was used as a solvent by Pall Life Sciences’ predecessor, Gelman Sciences, Inc., as part of its process of manufacturing medical filters. The waste stream from this process included wastewater contaminated with dioxane. This wastewater was stored in open lagoons and began to enter the soil below and around the lagoons.

The 1980s and 1990s saw a flurry of lawsuits regarding who would have to deal with the problem, with very little or no cleanup at the time. Now, the city has a very real problem with its water supply and very few comforting answers for residents about where the toxic “plume” is headed and what can be done to protect their water supply:

PLS [Pall Life Sciences, a medical filter manufacturer and source of pollution] projections show the plume continuing on an eastward pathway toward the Huron River, which is approximately 8,000 feet from the current leading edge of the plume. If projections are correct, the point of entry into the Huron River would be downstream of the city’s water supply intake at Barton Dam. PLS has projected that the 85 ppb contour of the leading edge will reach the Huron River in 12 years, and domestic wells in 24 years. (PLS Limited Feasibility Study 1/04)

The problem seems to be that, if projections are only slightly incorrect, the point of entry could be upstream of the intake supplying 80% of the city’s water supply, and cover many of the city’s wells. What is the cost of containment/cleanup versus the cost of treating cancer, or cleanup ten years from now?

Where is Godzilla (or the Lone Ranger) when you need him to battle the evil plume? But seriously, this is a crisis worth reviewing as clean water becomes an increasingly scarce resource and there are no easy answers. One thing stands out, however: corporations get an easy break when the government follows a neo-con policy to privatize all the profits while socializing the risks.

The Guardian has a nice write-up of the issues surrounding pet RFID tags. They point out the compatibility issues with varying standards and readers, and claim that a bigger market wouldn’t have the same interoperability challenges:

Finbar Heslin, a vet in the Irish Republic who has worked to try to streamline Irish microchipping standards, says part of the problem is that RFID chips have been developed for a different market. “The idea behind microchipping is excellent. The downside is that you’re taking the technologies from the logistics industry and trying to apply them to animals.”

Logistics is a huge market for RFID and so there is a greater incentive to adhere to standards. “But with animals, the RFID market is small, and there are no standards, even across Europe,” says Heslin.

In both Britain and Ireland, the situation has been what he calls “a free for all”, because distributors weren’t licensed and cheap, non-ISO chips were sometimes brought in from abroad.

I’m not so sure about that. Even huge lucrative markets see the same interoperability hurdles and a lack of consistency across vendors. I brought up something similar back in early October 2005 on Schneier’s blog, specifically with regard to the debate in Congress about how and when to upgrade America’s animals.