9 ms·

While that’s all true, why is being in a car a special case? If I’m at home without power, I can’t access online information sources any more than I could if I

While that’s all true, why is being in a car a special case? If I’m at home without power, I can’t access online information sources any more than I could if I were driving somewhere without cell data coverage. Should building codes require my house to have a radio installed? No one is legislating that tents have built in radios, but if I’m camping I’m in even more need of emergency information than if I’m already in a car and driving. Someone might rightfully tell me that it’s my responsibility to take a radio with me while I’m camping. Why does Toyota have to provide me with a radio while driving? I ham a ham extra license. I like radio and see its value. I think it would be more appropriate to tell people to pack an AM radio in the disaster bag we’re all suppose to keep in the trunk.

giantg2 2y ago
I think it's more like a radio in a plane. You sometimes have travel advisories and signs telling you to tune to an AM frequency when flashing. A radio in the trunk doesn't do you any good and could lead to a real mess if everyone had to pull over to use it. If you're already putting FM radios and stuff in the car, it shouldn't be a problem to put an AM radio in. If interference is an issue, then they should be working to clean that up with better shielding.
- LorenPechtel 2y ago
  And the intended purpose is emergency use. It doesn't matter if the audio isn't spectacular, all that matters is that a human voice be understood. And note that AM is much more forgiving of terrain than FM. You can still be shadowed but the lower the frequency the less likely you are to be shadowed from the transmitter.
wslh 2y ago
> If I’m at home without power... You can use a crystal radio for that case [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_radio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_radio
- onion2k 2y ago
  While you're not wrong that a crystal radio does work without power, you do actually need to have a crystal radio in order to use one. There are probably more homes with a charged USB power bank that could power an FM or DAB radio than homes with a crystal radio or the means to build one.
  - wslh 2y ago
    Yes, it is not generally available but as an anecdote I mentioned crystal radios because I don't know that from my technical school or university degrees but thanks to my grandfather who didn't go to an university.
- kstrauser 2y ago
  I’d personally use one of the ham radios charging on my bookshelf. If I were to ask my wife to pause while I whipped up a crystal radio, I’d likely be the first casualty of the disaster.
sneak 2y ago
Most people don’t have those bags. We mandate seat belts in cars when they could be aftermarket, too.
- eru 2y ago
  Yes, for exactly the same argument. It seems like you understand the point? (In practice, I like any car I ride to have seat belts. But I support the argument that since there's no externalities from other people not using seatbelts, we shouldn't force them to have some. And in any case, the orthodox way to deal with externalities is via a tax, not via a ban.)
  - kelnos 2y ago
    > But I support the argument that since there's no externalities from other people not using seatbelts, we shouldn't force them to have some That argument is wrong. There are absolutely externalities to allowing other people's car rides to be less safe for them, even if no one else is injured or killed because of it. Every injury or death makes health care more expensive for everyone, even in a place like the US that don't have socialized health care. The costs of these emergencies are largely borne by health and car insurance companies, and those costs mean everyone's premiums are going to be just a little bit higher. Also consider the effects on family (or friends) when someone dies (or is much more severely injured) because they weren't wearing seat belts. Maybe the breadwinning spouse dies or becomes disabled, and now the remaining family has to go on welfare. Maybe it was a single parent who died, and the kids end up in the foster system. In the disability case, insurance (which might be Medicare) companies will have to pay for rehabilitation and possibly care for the rest of the person's life. Hell, just the emotional anguish of a loved one dying in a situation where it was easily preventable is an externality worth trying to eliminate.
    - eru 2y ago
      > Every injury or death makes health care more expensive for everyone, even in a place like the US that don't have socialized health care. The costs of these emergencies are largely borne by health and car insurance companies, and those costs mean everyone's premiums are going to be just a little bit higher. Insurance is a bet between you and the insurance company. If you decide to engage in extra risky behaviour, then a competent insurance company will charge you extra. (Or rather, more PR friendly but equivalent: your insurance company will offer you a discount, if you can prove that you are exercising, don't smoke and always wear a seatbelt, etc.) Realised average accident rates for certain parts of the population can help you fine tune your risk models, but they aren't mathematically required. That's why insurance companies can profitably insure one-off events just fine. Eg have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prize_indemnity_insurance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prize_indemnity_insurance for example where you can get bespoke insurance for your one-off novelty promotion. Golf course A making their golf holes wider won't affect the hole-in-one insurance premium that Golf course B has to pay. Of course, that's all unless there's some regulation that forces insurance companies to set premiums a certain way. But then, blame that price control regulation. An insurance company that prices risks accurately will outcompete an insurance company that solely relies on population averages. The latter will overcharge less risky people who drive with a seatbelt on (so they will move to the competition), and will undercharge risky people without seatbelts, and thus lose money on them. > Also consider the effects on family (or friends) when someone dies (or is much more severely injured) because they weren't wearing seat belts. Maybe the breadwinning spouse dies or becomes disabled, and now the remaining family has to go on welfare. Maybe it was a single parent who died, and the kids end up in the foster system. In the disability case, insurance (which might be Medicare) companies will have to pay for rehabilitation and possibly care for the rest of the person's life. Hell, just the emotional anguish of a loved one dying in a situation where it was easily preventable is an externality worth trying to eliminate. You are proving too much here. Yes, this argument could apply to driving without a seat belt. But it could apply just as much to any driving at all. Or to lazing on the couch instead of exercising, or to living in the New Mexico instead of Maine, or to drinking or smoking, or working as a lumberjack. --- Just to be clear, on the object level I'm ok with smoking bans (instead of just high taxes) and laws requiring seatbelts. But that's just because they are convenient for me. They aren't properly justified.
dhon_ 2y ago
Cars radios are battery powered so will continue to work during power outages, and large enough that adding an AM radio + antenna is not really an issue - unlike a mobile phone. Seems like a good way to ensure most of the population has access to emergency broadcasts. Edit clarified car radios are battery powered
- kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
  I'd bet good money that many phones have an FM radio tuner that isn't usable only because they follow one misguided company and won't make a headphone jack available.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - Terr_ 2y ago
    Recently I was surprised by not-finding any phone-accessories that are basically a USB-C plug, a little blister of inline electronics, and then more wire for an AM/FM antenna. (And an app to control the tuning/presets, etc.) It seems like something that ought to be technically doable, but perhaps the market isn't there compared to just selling standalone little radio-things?
    - mikepurvis 2y ago
      I'd expect so. It's basically like an analog TV capture card for your computer— but the use cases are even more limited as it's hard to imagine your phone being the platform on which you'd want to record stuff off the air. I guess it could make sense if the phone is driving your wireless earbuds or you want to change stations using Siri, but yeah other than that, I dunno.
      - Retric 2y ago
        Seems like the market would be people without unlimited internet. Audio takes up a fair bit of bandwidth over time so being able to listen to your personal music or the radio in your earbuds might be considered useful.
hansvm 2y ago
Regulations (ignoring riders, graft, and other political inefficiencies) are made with consideration for relative costs, compliance, ease of enforcement, ... Forcing manufacturers to keep an AM antenna hooked up to the infotainment they're already including is pretty cheap, easy to enforce, and will have high compliance. Moreso because they already have the engineering expertise for doing so. It also forces at least one AM radio into the hands of >90% American households, and since for most disasters there's some kind of an evacuation you'll likely be in your car rather than your home. Could we draw a line in the sand somewhere else (e.g., building codes)? Sure. It'll be a higher cost solution that grandfathers in most homes as not having an AM radio though. Could we mandate disaster bags? It'll probably devolve into a cottage industry of the cheapest thing that's maybe legal with low compliance of households even buying something to that standard, but sure, we can do that too. A "greedy" (as in greedy algorithms) utilitarian perspective might be valuable here though. Instead of bikeshedding, does this bill help make people safer at an appropriate cost? If so, pointing to other lines in the sand is reasonable insofar as we want to make the law better, but not to refute the law in the first place. If not, we ought to be able to point to those reasons instead of other lines in the sand.
dataflow 2y ago
> while I’m camping If >1/3 of Americans lived in tents every day and >90% of them were in tents every year, then you can bet they'd have more such regulations around tent living, yes.
fitsumbelay 2y ago
This is the result of conservative/Right leaning interests lobbying Congress for years, because a substantial amount of AM radio programming in metro areas is conservative talk and religious programming. The connection to car audio systems is likely because drivetime is where stations and shows make their money. To polish the point to a blinding glare: this is freedom loving/rule hating American conservatives leveraging the government to force businesses to incur expenses because politics and feelings
Dalewyn 2y ago
>why is being in a car a special case? Because this is about America, a large and sprawling country where most residents can be safely assumed to own a car and would use it in the event of an emergency or disaster. Obviously if you have the foresight to have a (AM!) radio in your home and your camping gear that's even better.
kelnos 2y ago
Part of the point is compliance. If we were to decide that all homes must have an AM radio, you're not going to get great compliance. I would likely put off buying one because it doesn't feel necessary "right now", and I'm sure if there was a requirement for builders to actually build the radio into the home, old homes (read: nearly every single current home) wouldn't be required to have a retrofit. > I think it would be more appropriate to tell people to pack an AM radio in the disaster bag we’re all suppose to keep in the trunk. I don't have a disaster bag in my trunk, and I know exactly two people who do (they are volunteer SAR people, so big surprise there). You'll get very little compliance for this requirement. And if you want to try to enforce compliance, doing so will be incredibly expensive. And that brings us to the other part: cost. Every (or nearly ever) car out there in the US today already has an AM radio, from my 2-year-old car to some restored antique from the 1960s. Most people don't have a standalone AM(/FM) radio these days, and basically no one has one built into their home. Can you imagine how expensive it would be to require all homes in the US be retrofitted with a built-in AM radio? Even requiring homeowners to purchase a standalone AM radio would be massively expensive. Especially when compared to the cost of $0 to require that all cars have them in it... because they already do! And for car makers planning to drop the AM radios: it will be at most a few tens of dollars added to their cost to continue to include them. A cost they can continue to pass on to their customers.
- seanmcdirmid 2y ago
  > I don't have a disaster bag in my trunk, and I know exactly two people who do (they are volunteer SAR people, so big surprise there). You'll get very little compliance for this requirement. And if you want to try to enforce compliance, doing so will be incredibly expensive. In Germany, the inspector would fail you pretty quickly. Consequently compliance is very high, and somehow not very expensive.
  - klez 2y ago
    You mean you have such a requirement in Germany? I'm intrigued. Tell me more please. Or where you talking about what would happen if such a mandate existed?
toast0 2y ago
> While that’s all true, why is being in a car a special case? If you are in an emergency that requires evacuation, and you have means to evacuate, there's a good chance that means will be a car. In such an evacuation, having a universal way to communicate would be pretty useful. Although, it's not clear that people would know to listen to it. Also, plenty of existing travel advisory systems rely on AM radio, so it's a mess if a new generation of cars can't tune to AM 530 when lights flash. The vast majority of existing cars in the US have an AM radio receiver, and there's a generation of classic cars that never upgraded to FM radio.
evanjrowley 2y ago
Many cellphones could receive AM and FM radio through the 3.5mm headphone jack, before it was eliminated from most devices. It was possible, but people just never talked about it. You can't even find search results because the idea is so alien to most people in search engines. Example: https://xdaforums.com/t/diy-fm-antenna-with-3-5mm-audio-jack.1774962/ https://xdaforums.com/t/diy-fm-antenna-with-3-5mm-audio-jack... If only we had legislation to bring those back...
- vel0city 2y ago
  AM radio reception on a headphone wire is pretty bad. I've had a few small radios designed to get commercial AM/FM using the headphones as antennas; the reception is almost always very miserable. Meanwhile commercial FM is like ~3.5M wavelength; you're pretty close to a quarter wave with a normal headphone wire (~3ft).
  - carlmr 2y ago
    >you're pretty close to a quarter wave with a normal headphone wire (~3ft) You mean half-wave, right?
    - boomlinde 2y ago
      3.5 m is almost 12 feet, so 3 feet is almost a quarter wave.
      - carlmr 2y ago
        Ah, my bad, didn't convert feet properly in my head. Not used to it.
        vel0city 2y ago
        I'll take half the blame for using such measures interchangeably in a single sentence. The metric system is the tool of the devil! My car gets forty rods to the hogshead and that's the way I likes it!
dehugger 2y ago
Because people use their cars to escape disasters and being able to provide information like "I5 is deadlocked for miles, find an alternate route if you are fleeing from $catastrophe" is critical.
tw04 2y ago
I assume you’ve never driven across the middle of the US? Basically every state has emergency broadcast channels for significant snowstorms. Without AM radio, you’d pretty much be screwed. Sitting in your house you have all sorts of options that aren’t available when you’re 30+ miles from the nearest town without any significant supplies on hand in your car.
- kstrauser 2y ago
  Terrible assumption; I’ve driven all over the place. It just strikes me as odd that feds want to say a car must have AM and it’s not the driver’s responsibility to provide one themselves. I’m not far from places where you’re legally required to use tire chains in bad weather. You have to provide your own.
  - USiBqidmOOkAqRb 2y ago
    Would it be also odd if feds said that a house must have a smoke alarm during its sale? Both of these items you probably wish to never be thankful to. Also, in grand scheme of things, AM tuner is probably a fraction of a dollar. Optimizing it out is weird.
zo1 2y ago
Because it's Yet Another Step in the wrong direction, and will be used as justification down the line to get rid of AM/Radio/Analog Radio a bit more or entirely. Keeping it around, or in a car, may be the wrong or inefficient way of solving the problem of comms in an emergency. But it does mean that we "force" the lingering of the tech in some way, so as to not let it be dismantled in the relentless march of whatever is causing these kinds of things to disappear. It's a quirk or random fact of history that they got put into cars but not houses, but that doesn't mean we should get rid of it. It's smart and reasoning people like you and me that look at this and think "ugh, no need to have it in a car, we can have it in a bug out bag and it'll make cars cheaper, etc". But that kind of thinking is wrong for society past a certain point. Before we know it, we'll own nothing, we'll rely on Daddy Government for everything, and we'll be happy! Maybe they'll let us own a Digital Government-Issued Codec-Infused Satellite Radio®, so they can reach us at all times.
- habinero 2y ago
  I really don't think mandate to include a -- let's be generous -- $1 AM radio in a car in case of emergencies will lead to communism.
  - consteval 2y ago
    These people act as those cost analysis doesn't exist. It costs close to nothing to provide a radio, but the benefits can be huge. Our government should step in when it makes sense. We determine if it makes sense via cost analysis and risk analysis. This is why the communism slippery slope argument doesn't work. For example, banning public smoking along with other measures have saved millions of lives in the long run. Of course smoking is a personal choice, but it's also addictive and dangerous. It is sometimes beneficial to override people's "personal choice" if the benefit is big enough and the cost low enough. Ultimately, pretty much everyone is now grateful public smoking is gone.
  - zo1 2y ago
    My intention was not to say that including the radio is going to lead to communism? I'm actually advocating for us to keep the radio in.
m4rtink 2y ago
In the eastern block cable radio[0] was used explicitly like this - even though it normally worked as a normal radio, but as the receivers were powered by the cable & the system presumably had battery backup, it could be used in an emergency/apocalypse scenario. And it also had the added benefit of being easier to control, as the receivers could not be used to listen to western radio like regular radio receivers. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_radio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_radio
Moto7451 2y ago
> why is being in a car a special case? Cars are expensive to modify if possible at all. My recent make Audi and Porsches, aside from being completely unreliable, have no ability to have a third party head unit due to module coding lock in. Gone are the days of slapping a double din head unit where the LCD and AC controls went and wiring up to the CAN bus and analog audio cables. However, it’s cheap to add in/enable a feature on a chip that’s already installed. Similarly at home there’s probably already an AM radio somewhere even if you don’t think you have it. My home theater system has an AM radio. I have a clock radio somewhere. An older phone does AM radio. And unlike a car, an AM/FM radio is a $20-50 expense.
netdevnet 2y ago
> While that’s all true, why is being in a car a special case? This is about US policies. The US has a high dependence on cars so it makes sense that it is being singled out
- FrustratedMonky 2y ago
  And cars are used for evacuations. Where communications is important. Really, if you are isolating in your house, and loose power. What are you doing? A lot of people would need to go out and sit in the car with the AM radio to get any information. I suppose to make it fair, every house should also be required to have an AM radio. Maybe just to prevent digital lock in. I'd hate to be in an Emergency, and suddenly I can't get any information because all I have are digital devices, An app on the phone, and the app was discontinued, or no longer supported.
  - netdevnet 2y ago
    This will be interesting as young people don't listen to the radio as much as they used to. So you probably want to enforce a check on having am radio and that it actually works because young folk won't notice it not working as they won't be using it. This means that the enforcement will likely fall at least partially on the car owner. I wonder how younger folk, who have less financially stability and are not as interested in the radios as the previous gen, will react to this potentially new requirement. This being the US, I would expect the kind of people that argue against socialised healthcare to also argue against on the basis that each person should be capable of purchasing a $10 am radio receiver and keeping it with themselves, their emergency bag or their car for emergencies without needing the state to play nanny
    - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
      Maybe just make it part of the car inspection. The car already has to have things like headlights and wiper blades checked to be working to get a license.
      - 2y ago
1over137 2y ago
>While that’s all true, why is being in a car a special case? If I’m at home without power... We're talking about the USA here. Probably a higher fraction of Americans have a car than have a home!
- FrustratedMonky 2y ago
  Turn it around. If where you are at, nobody has cars. And you loose power. Does everyone just huddle at home with zero information while some tidal wave is coming at you? If you say, well we keep a battery powered Radio handy at home. (and we are so prepared we replace the batteries every year) Well, then that is the answer. Cars already have radios, so keep the AM option available.
ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
I'd consider that ensuring that mobile phones have AM reception would be better as some people don't own a car. Consider the case when you have a music festival and thousands of people are camping away from their car if they have one - almost everyone would have a mobile phone either on them (especially if they're using it to buy drinks) or in their tents.
- immibis 2y ago
  IIRC AM radio requires an antenna, and even the smallest type is thicker than a phone. Not that I'd complain about thicker phones at this point. Older phones used to be able to play FM, requiring a headphone cable to be used as an antenna.
  - ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
    AM radio does require an antenna of some description, but usually the signal received through even a tiny bit of metal will be more than sufficient. The problem is usually dealing with locally produced noise (e.g. someone using a microwave or switching lights on and off) rather than trying to pick up a weak signal. For the purpose of emergency broadcasts, maybe using both AM and FM would make sense.
- gosub100 2y ago
  In this era of SDR radio, I'd be surprised if cell phones don't already have the capability with just a firmware update. I suspect the main reason phones don't allow broadcast radio is to create demand for streaming services.
rdtsc 2y ago
> While that’s all true, why is being in a car a special case? Legislation is about cars specifically? Many already have AM radios. So it’s not about forcing motorcycles, houses, bus stops or bicycles to add radios just to keep the feature in the cars. However that is not the only point of the proposal. It might be about the economics of running all the AM stations. So it’s a lobbying effort from that front. The emergency part just sounds more wholesome.
sybercecurity 2y ago
>I think it would be more appropriate to tell people to pack an AM radio in the disaster bag we’re all suppose to keep in the trunk. From dealing with so-called "policy wonks" over the years, having a solution that requires people take action ahead of time and buy something new to replace something they had in the past is a non-starter. They most likely won't listen to anything after that. They are extremely risk-adverse in general so any change is seen as bad unless proven otherwise. It's easier (in their mind) to just force things to stay the way they are since they don't trust people to make decisions.
- loup-vaillant 2y ago
  > having a solution that requires people take action ahead of time and buy something new to replace something they had in the past is a non-starter Do we have studies that test this hypothesis? Did people actually fail to replace the old thing by the new, or did it turn out okay?
  - dymk 2y ago
    Yeah, how many bug out bags do you own? How many people do you know have one?
    - stickfigure 2y ago
      How many people would actually know to try the AM band in an emergency? How many people even still know how to turn their radio to an AM band? And know what station to listen to? I think this number is waaaay smaller than anyone thinks. Especially with modern buttonless car systems.
      - SamBam 2y ago
        Where I am in Mass, highways often have big billboards saying "Tune to 1610 AM for emergency info" or whatever.
        2y ago
xutopia 2y ago
Why a car should be a special case is that that is what people will hop into in an emergency. Great to have it with you in those circumstances.
xpe 2y ago
Let's think about the implied argument behind "why is this is a special case?". It is one thing to see this argument is deployed in a sincere effort to seek the truth and/or some better form of governance. It is another thing when this argument is simply a convenient thing to say to get what one wants. There is often a nice antidote to the "why is this a special case?" argument that consists of two questions: 1. "What is your alternative?", and 2. "Is this alternative going to solve the problem better than what I proposed?" In other words, if you don't like the current special-casey-ness of this policy, what alternative will you support that we can _actually_ put into practice? If the person/organization does not actually support some workable alternative that will solve the problem better, that is quite telling! It suggests that solving this particular issue is not really a priority for them. Some people really are pedantic in the sense that they care about some logical consistency criteria more than solving particular problems. When one sees this in an individual, one might suspect various forms of confusion, poor prioritization, and maybe even some mental pathologies. When one sees this in an organization, particularly one making a public "argument", one should probably suspect they are deploying whatever argument suits their purpose, which is often just to derail progress on something they don't like. Of course the meta-issue here is far from simple. It would be better if laws were enacted at the right level of abstraction, using some semblance of reasonableness. I often groan at the patchwork of laws that we see here in the US. But don't forget that in a democracy, the will of the people is far from rational, and the political will is even more mercurial. Very often one is better off taking what you can get rather than waiting for something better that may never materialize. P.S. I find these sorts of discussions are interesting (in a sense), because it is hard to say to what degree someone is trotting out whatever logic simply suits their purpose. I've found this applies both to established interesting making "arguments" in public as well as individuals of all ages trying to defend what they have already decided is the best course of action. (Both are tiresome, frankly -- a part of human nature that I find rather counterproductive -- a suboptimal strategy that we've landed on.)
- xpe 2y ago
  interesting -> interests
kawfey 2y ago
People don't prepare, so either pressuring or mandating congress to keep AM a standard is necessary. There is already mature roadway infrastructure that provides localized announcements via AM - tunnels, bridges, mountain passes, low-vis areas, flood prone passes, hurricane evacuation corrodors, etc. I would imagine the cost of pressuring automakers to keep AM pales in comparison to the cost of updating public emergency communication infra. I'm also a ham but I'm also a person who sometimes forgets there's an air compressor beneath my trunk floor.
johannes1234321 2y ago
Car is something where a regulation can be done effectively. Saying "each household has to have one" is a lot harder to implement. For cars there is a limited amount of manufacturers and imports can be checked, too. Also there are regular inspections for cars. And then there is a big density of cars, thus even for people who don't own a car it's likely there is a vehicle not far. Thus it is quite efficient place to regulate.
lizknope 2y ago
I have a windshield glass breaking tool and seat belt cutter in my car. It also has a flashlight and an AM/FM radio. It has two AA rechargeable batteries but also has a hand crank. I can remove the batteries and use the hand crank at a reasonable speed to power the radio. I actually used it 20 years ago during an ice storm when there was no power for 5 days. I was able to hear news reports about where power was on and drive to a relatives house because the cell network was overloaded.
- neuralRiot 2y ago
  I live in a hurricane area, and in my “emergency kit” i have a small am/fm radio that runs on 4 AA batteries, i did a mod and soldered a USB cable so it can be used with battery packs.
diebeforei485 2y ago
There is the stupid underlying assumption that most people have cars, which is not true in the city where I live (only half of households do). I do have an emergency AM/FM/WB radio at home that I take on camping trips.
llm_trw 2y ago
>And what if I'm Amish and don't want to use electricity? So much the worse for being you.
K0balt 2y ago
Off the top of my head… cars are perfect, Independent, mobile, distributed, self contained radio platforms. Travellers in cars need timely, relevant information during large scale disasters. Travellers in cars are frequently in areas that are underserved by other communication systems. Cars are already nearly universally equipped with sound systems that include 99 percent of the components to make a good AM radio, and the cost of adding this capability to existing designs can be less than a dollar plus the antenna. While following popular guidelines for emergency preparedness is a great idea, this is an opportunity to create a public good and a means (listeners) to maintain the required infrastructure for a robust, improvisable, resilient, nation-scale emergency communication system that will be there regardless of the level of preparedness of the average, clueless individual.
antonvs 2y ago
> While that’s all true, why is being in a car a special case? We’re talking about the USA. Cars are not special cases, they are the central case around which society is structured, at the expense of many other things.

giantg2 2y ago

I think it's more like a radio in a plane. You sometimes have travel advisories and signs telling you to tune to an AM frequency when flashing. A radio in the trunk doesn't do you any good and could lead to a real mess if everyone had to pull over to use it. If you're already putting FM radios and stuff in the car, it shouldn't be a problem to put an AM radio in. If interference is an issue, then they should be working to clean that up with better shielding.

LorenPechtel 2y ago
And the intended purpose is emergency use. It doesn't matter if the audio isn't spectacular, all that matters is that a human voice be understood. And note that AM is much more forgiving of terrain than FM. You can still be shadowed but the lower the frequency the less likely you are to be shadowed from the transmitter.

wslh 2y ago

> If I’m at home without power... You can use a crystal radio for that case [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_radio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_radio

onion2k 2y ago
While you're not wrong that a crystal radio does work without power, you do actually need to have a crystal radio in order to use one. There are probably more homes with a charged USB power bank that could power an FM or DAB radio than homes with a crystal radio or the means to build one.
- wslh 2y ago
  Yes, it is not generally available but as an anecdote I mentioned crystal radios because I don't know that from my technical school or university degrees but thanks to my grandfather who didn't go to an university.
kstrauser 2y ago
I’d personally use one of the ham radios charging on my bookshelf. If I were to ask my wife to pause while I whipped up a crystal radio, I’d likely be the first casualty of the disaster.

sneak 2y ago

Most people don’t have those bags. We mandate seat belts in cars when they could be aftermarket, too.

eru 2y ago
Yes, for exactly the same argument. It seems like you understand the point? (In practice, I like any car I ride to have seat belts. But I support the argument that since there's no externalities from other people not using seatbelts, we shouldn't force them to have some. And in any case, the orthodox way to deal with externalities is via a tax, not via a ban.)
- kelnos 2y ago
  > But I support the argument that since there's no externalities from other people not using seatbelts, we shouldn't force them to have some That argument is wrong. There are absolutely externalities to allowing other people's car rides to be less safe for them, even if no one else is injured or killed because of it. Every injury or death makes health care more expensive for everyone, even in a place like the US that don't have socialized health care. The costs of these emergencies are largely borne by health and car insurance companies, and those costs mean everyone's premiums are going to be just a little bit higher. Also consider the effects on family (or friends) when someone dies (or is much more severely injured) because they weren't wearing seat belts. Maybe the breadwinning spouse dies or becomes disabled, and now the remaining family has to go on welfare. Maybe it was a single parent who died, and the kids end up in the foster system. In the disability case, insurance (which might be Medicare) companies will have to pay for rehabilitation and possibly care for the rest of the person's life. Hell, just the emotional anguish of a loved one dying in a situation where it was easily preventable is an externality worth trying to eliminate.
  - eru 2y ago
    > Every injury or death makes health care more expensive for everyone, even in a place like the US that don't have socialized health care. The costs of these emergencies are largely borne by health and car insurance companies, and those costs mean everyone's premiums are going to be just a little bit higher. Insurance is a bet between you and the insurance company. If you decide to engage in extra risky behaviour, then a competent insurance company will charge you extra. (Or rather, more PR friendly but equivalent: your insurance company will offer you a discount, if you can prove that you are exercising, don't smoke and always wear a seatbelt, etc.) Realised average accident rates for certain parts of the population can help you fine tune your risk models, but they aren't mathematically required. That's why insurance companies can profitably insure one-off events just fine. Eg have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prize_indemnity_insurance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prize_indemnity_insurance for example where you can get bespoke insurance for your one-off novelty promotion. Golf course A making their golf holes wider won't affect the hole-in-one insurance premium that Golf course B has to pay. Of course, that's all unless there's some regulation that forces insurance companies to set premiums a certain way. But then, blame that price control regulation. An insurance company that prices risks accurately will outcompete an insurance company that solely relies on population averages. The latter will overcharge less risky people who drive with a seatbelt on (so they will move to the competition), and will undercharge risky people without seatbelts, and thus lose money on them. > Also consider the effects on family (or friends) when someone dies (or is much more severely injured) because they weren't wearing seat belts. Maybe the breadwinning spouse dies or becomes disabled, and now the remaining family has to go on welfare. Maybe it was a single parent who died, and the kids end up in the foster system. In the disability case, insurance (which might be Medicare) companies will have to pay for rehabilitation and possibly care for the rest of the person's life. Hell, just the emotional anguish of a loved one dying in a situation where it was easily preventable is an externality worth trying to eliminate. You are proving too much here. Yes, this argument could apply to driving without a seat belt. But it could apply just as much to any driving at all. Or to lazing on the couch instead of exercising, or to living in the New Mexico instead of Maine, or to drinking or smoking, or working as a lumberjack. --- Just to be clear, on the object level I'm ok with smoking bans (instead of just high taxes) and laws requiring seatbelts. But that's just because they are convenient for me. They aren't properly justified.

dhon_ 2y ago

Cars radios are battery powered so will continue to work during power outages, and large enough that adding an AM radio + antenna is not really an issue - unlike a mobile phone. Seems like a good way to ensure most of the population has access to emergency broadcasts. Edit clarified car radios are battery powered

kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
I'd bet good money that many phones have an FM radio tuner that isn't usable only because they follow one misguided company and won't make a headphone jack available.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- Terr_ 2y ago
  Recently I was surprised by not-finding any phone-accessories that are basically a USB-C plug, a little blister of inline electronics, and then more wire for an AM/FM antenna. (And an app to control the tuning/presets, etc.) It seems like something that ought to be technically doable, but perhaps the market isn't there compared to just selling standalone little radio-things?
  - mikepurvis 2y ago
    I'd expect so. It's basically like an analog TV capture card for your computer— but the use cases are even more limited as it's hard to imagine your phone being the platform on which you'd want to record stuff off the air. I guess it could make sense if the phone is driving your wireless earbuds or you want to change stations using Siri, but yeah other than that, I dunno.
    - Retric 2y ago
      Seems like the market would be people without unlimited internet. Audio takes up a fair bit of bandwidth over time so being able to listen to your personal music or the radio in your earbuds might be considered useful.

hansvm 2y ago

Regulations (ignoring riders, graft, and other political inefficiencies) are made with consideration for relative costs, compliance, ease of enforcement, ... Forcing manufacturers to keep an AM antenna hooked up to the infotainment they're already including is pretty cheap, easy to enforce, and will have high compliance. Moreso because they already have the engineering expertise for doing so. It also forces at least one AM radio into the hands of >90% American households, and since for most disasters there's some kind of an evacuation you'll likely be in your car rather than your home. Could we draw a line in the sand somewhere else (e.g., building codes)? Sure. It'll be a higher cost solution that grandfathers in most homes as not having an AM radio though. Could we mandate disaster bags? It'll probably devolve into a cottage industry of the cheapest thing that's maybe legal with low compliance of households even buying something to that standard, but sure, we can do that too. A "greedy" (as in greedy algorithms) utilitarian perspective might be valuable here though. Instead of bikeshedding, does this bill help make people safer at an appropriate cost? If so, pointing to other lines in the sand is reasonable insofar as we want to make the law better, but not to refute the law in the first place. If not, we ought to be able to point to those reasons instead of other lines in the sand.

dataflow 2y ago

> while I’m camping If >1/3 of Americans lived in tents every day and >90% of them were in tents every year, then you can bet they'd have more such regulations around tent living, yes.

fitsumbelay 2y ago

This is the result of conservative/Right leaning interests lobbying Congress for years, because a substantial amount of AM radio programming in metro areas is conservative talk and religious programming. The connection to car audio systems is likely because drivetime is where stations and shows make their money. To polish the point to a blinding glare: this is freedom loving/rule hating American conservatives leveraging the government to force businesses to incur expenses because politics and feelings

Dalewyn 2y ago

>why is being in a car a special case? Because this is about America, a large and sprawling country where most residents can be safely assumed to own a car and would use it in the event of an emergency or disaster. Obviously if you have the foresight to have a (AM!) radio in your home and your camping gear that's even better.

kelnos 2y ago

Part of the point is compliance. If we were to decide that all homes must have an AM radio, you're not going to get great compliance. I would likely put off buying one because it doesn't feel necessary "right now", and I'm sure if there was a requirement for builders to actually build the radio into the home, old homes (read: nearly every single current home) wouldn't be required to have a retrofit. > I think it would be more appropriate to tell people to pack an AM radio in the disaster bag we’re all suppose to keep in the trunk. I don't have a disaster bag in my trunk, and I know exactly two people who do (they are volunteer SAR people, so big surprise there). You'll get very little compliance for this requirement. And if you want to try to enforce compliance, doing so will be incredibly expensive. And that brings us to the other part: cost. Every (or nearly ever) car out there in the US today already has an AM radio, from my 2-year-old car to some restored antique from the 1960s. Most people don't have a standalone AM(/FM) radio these days, and basically no one has one built into their home. Can you imagine how expensive it would be to require all homes in the US be retrofitted with a built-in AM radio? Even requiring homeowners to purchase a standalone AM radio would be massively expensive. Especially when compared to the cost of $0 to require that all cars have them in it... because they already do! And for car makers planning to drop the AM radios: it will be at most a few tens of dollars added to their cost to continue to include them. A cost they can continue to pass on to their customers.

seanmcdirmid 2y ago
> I don't have a disaster bag in my trunk, and I know exactly two people who do (they are volunteer SAR people, so big surprise there). You'll get very little compliance for this requirement. And if you want to try to enforce compliance, doing so will be incredibly expensive. In Germany, the inspector would fail you pretty quickly. Consequently compliance is very high, and somehow not very expensive.
- klez 2y ago
  You mean you have such a requirement in Germany? I'm intrigued. Tell me more please. Or where you talking about what would happen if such a mandate existed?

toast0 2y ago

> While that’s all true, why is being in a car a special case? If you are in an emergency that requires evacuation, and you have means to evacuate, there's a good chance that means will be a car. In such an evacuation, having a universal way to communicate would be pretty useful. Although, it's not clear that people would know to listen to it. Also, plenty of existing travel advisory systems rely on AM radio, so it's a mess if a new generation of cars can't tune to AM 530 when lights flash. The vast majority of existing cars in the US have an AM radio receiver, and there's a generation of classic cars that never upgraded to FM radio.

evanjrowley 2y ago

Many cellphones could receive AM and FM radio through the 3.5mm headphone jack, before it was eliminated from most devices. It was possible, but people just never talked about it. You can't even find search results because the idea is so alien to most people in search engines. Example: https://xdaforums.com/t/diy-fm-antenna-with-3-5mm-audio-jack.1774962/ https://xdaforums.com/t/diy-fm-antenna-with-3-5mm-audio-jack... If only we had legislation to bring those back...

vel0city 2y ago
AM radio reception on a headphone wire is pretty bad. I've had a few small radios designed to get commercial AM/FM using the headphones as antennas; the reception is almost always very miserable. Meanwhile commercial FM is like ~3.5M wavelength; you're pretty close to a quarter wave with a normal headphone wire (~3ft).
- carlmr 2y ago
  >you're pretty close to a quarter wave with a normal headphone wire (~3ft) You mean half-wave, right?
  - boomlinde 2y ago
    3.5 m is almost 12 feet, so 3 feet is almost a quarter wave.
    - carlmr 2y ago
      Ah, my bad, didn't convert feet properly in my head. Not used to it.
      - vel0city 2y ago
        I'll take half the blame for using such measures interchangeably in a single sentence. The metric system is the tool of the devil! My car gets forty rods to the hogshead and that's the way I likes it!

dehugger 2y ago

Because people use their cars to escape disasters and being able to provide information like "I5 is deadlocked for miles, find an alternate route if you are fleeing from $catastrophe" is critical.

tw04 2y ago

I assume you’ve never driven across the middle of the US? Basically every state has emergency broadcast channels for significant snowstorms. Without AM radio, you’d pretty much be screwed. Sitting in your house you have all sorts of options that aren’t available when you’re 30+ miles from the nearest town without any significant supplies on hand in your car.

kstrauser 2y ago
Terrible assumption; I’ve driven all over the place. It just strikes me as odd that feds want to say a car must have AM and it’s not the driver’s responsibility to provide one themselves. I’m not far from places where you’re legally required to use tire chains in bad weather. You have to provide your own.
- USiBqidmOOkAqRb 2y ago
  Would it be also odd if feds said that a house must have a smoke alarm during its sale? Both of these items you probably wish to never be thankful to. Also, in grand scheme of things, AM tuner is probably a fraction of a dollar. Optimizing it out is weird.

zo1 2y ago

Because it's Yet Another Step in the wrong direction, and will be used as justification down the line to get rid of AM/Radio/Analog Radio a bit more or entirely. Keeping it around, or in a car, may be the wrong or inefficient way of solving the problem of comms in an emergency. But it does mean that we "force" the lingering of the tech in some way, so as to not let it be dismantled in the relentless march of whatever is causing these kinds of things to disappear. It's a quirk or random fact of history that they got put into cars but not houses, but that doesn't mean we should get rid of it. It's smart and reasoning people like you and me that look at this and think "ugh, no need to have it in a car, we can have it in a bug out bag and it'll make cars cheaper, etc". But that kind of thinking is wrong for society past a certain point. Before we know it, we'll own nothing, we'll rely on Daddy Government for everything, and we'll be happy! Maybe they'll let us own a Digital Government-Issued Codec-Infused Satellite Radio®, so they can reach us at all times.

habinero 2y ago
I really don't think mandate to include a -- let's be generous -- $1 AM radio in a car in case of emergencies will lead to communism.
- consteval 2y ago
  These people act as those cost analysis doesn't exist. It costs close to nothing to provide a radio, but the benefits can be huge. Our government should step in when it makes sense. We determine if it makes sense via cost analysis and risk analysis. This is why the communism slippery slope argument doesn't work. For example, banning public smoking along with other measures have saved millions of lives in the long run. Of course smoking is a personal choice, but it's also addictive and dangerous. It is sometimes beneficial to override people's "personal choice" if the benefit is big enough and the cost low enough. Ultimately, pretty much everyone is now grateful public smoking is gone.
- zo1 2y ago
  My intention was not to say that including the radio is going to lead to communism? I'm actually advocating for us to keep the radio in.

m4rtink 2y ago

In the eastern block cable radio[0] was used explicitly like this - even though it normally worked as a normal radio, but as the receivers were powered by the cable & the system presumably had battery backup, it could be used in an emergency/apocalypse scenario. And it also had the added benefit of being easier to control, as the receivers could not be used to listen to western radio like regular radio receivers. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_radio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_radio

Moto7451 2y ago

> why is being in a car a special case? Cars are expensive to modify if possible at all. My recent make Audi and Porsches, aside from being completely unreliable, have no ability to have a third party head unit due to module coding lock in. Gone are the days of slapping a double din head unit where the LCD and AC controls went and wiring up to the CAN bus and analog audio cables. However, it’s cheap to add in/enable a feature on a chip that’s already installed. Similarly at home there’s probably already an AM radio somewhere even if you don’t think you have it. My home theater system has an AM radio. I have a clock radio somewhere. An older phone does AM radio. And unlike a car, an AM/FM radio is a $20-50 expense.

netdevnet 2y ago

> While that’s all true, why is being in a car a special case? This is about US policies. The US has a high dependence on cars so it makes sense that it is being singled out

FrustratedMonky 2y ago
And cars are used for evacuations. Where communications is important. Really, if you are isolating in your house, and loose power. What are you doing? A lot of people would need to go out and sit in the car with the AM radio to get any information. I suppose to make it fair, every house should also be required to have an AM radio. Maybe just to prevent digital lock in. I'd hate to be in an Emergency, and suddenly I can't get any information because all I have are digital devices, An app on the phone, and the app was discontinued, or no longer supported.
- netdevnet 2y ago
  This will be interesting as young people don't listen to the radio as much as they used to. So you probably want to enforce a check on having am radio and that it actually works because young folk won't notice it not working as they won't be using it. This means that the enforcement will likely fall at least partially on the car owner. I wonder how younger folk, who have less financially stability and are not as interested in the radios as the previous gen, will react to this potentially new requirement. This being the US, I would expect the kind of people that argue against socialised healthcare to also argue against on the basis that each person should be capable of purchasing a $10 am radio receiver and keeping it with themselves, their emergency bag or their car for emergencies without needing the state to play nanny
  - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
    Maybe just make it part of the car inspection. The car already has to have things like headlights and wiper blades checked to be working to get a license.
    - 2y ago

1over137 2y ago

>While that’s all true, why is being in a car a special case? If I’m at home without power... We're talking about the USA here. Probably a higher fraction of Americans have a car than have a home!

FrustratedMonky 2y ago
Turn it around. If where you are at, nobody has cars. And you loose power. Does everyone just huddle at home with zero information while some tidal wave is coming at you? If you say, well we keep a battery powered Radio handy at home. (and we are so prepared we replace the batteries every year) Well, then that is the answer. Cars already have radios, so keep the AM option available.

ndsipa_pomu 2y ago

I'd consider that ensuring that mobile phones have AM reception would be better as some people don't own a car. Consider the case when you have a music festival and thousands of people are camping away from their car if they have one - almost everyone would have a mobile phone either on them (especially if they're using it to buy drinks) or in their tents.

immibis 2y ago
IIRC AM radio requires an antenna, and even the smallest type is thicker than a phone. Not that I'd complain about thicker phones at this point. Older phones used to be able to play FM, requiring a headphone cable to be used as an antenna.
- ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
  AM radio does require an antenna of some description, but usually the signal received through even a tiny bit of metal will be more than sufficient. The problem is usually dealing with locally produced noise (e.g. someone using a microwave or switching lights on and off) rather than trying to pick up a weak signal. For the purpose of emergency broadcasts, maybe using both AM and FM would make sense.
gosub100 2y ago
In this era of SDR radio, I'd be surprised if cell phones don't already have the capability with just a firmware update. I suspect the main reason phones don't allow broadcast radio is to create demand for streaming services.

rdtsc 2y ago

> While that’s all true, why is being in a car a special case? Legislation is about cars specifically? Many already have AM radios. So it’s not about forcing motorcycles, houses, bus stops or bicycles to add radios just to keep the feature in the cars. However that is not the only point of the proposal. It might be about the economics of running all the AM stations. So it’s a lobbying effort from that front. The emergency part just sounds more wholesome.

sybercecurity 2y ago

>I think it would be more appropriate to tell people to pack an AM radio in the disaster bag we’re all suppose to keep in the trunk. From dealing with so-called "policy wonks" over the years, having a solution that requires people take action ahead of time and buy something new to replace something they had in the past is a non-starter. They most likely won't listen to anything after that. They are extremely risk-adverse in general so any change is seen as bad unless proven otherwise. It's easier (in their mind) to just force things to stay the way they are since they don't trust people to make decisions.

loup-vaillant 2y ago
> having a solution that requires people take action ahead of time and buy something new to replace something they had in the past is a non-starter Do we have studies that test this hypothesis? Did people actually fail to replace the old thing by the new, or did it turn out okay?
- dymk 2y ago
  Yeah, how many bug out bags do you own? How many people do you know have one?
  - stickfigure 2y ago
    How many people would actually know to try the AM band in an emergency? How many people even still know how to turn their radio to an AM band? And know what station to listen to? I think this number is waaaay smaller than anyone thinks. Especially with modern buttonless car systems.
    - SamBam 2y ago
      Where I am in Mass, highways often have big billboards saying "Tune to 1610 AM for emergency info" or whatever.
      - 2y ago

xutopia 2y ago

Why a car should be a special case is that that is what people will hop into in an emergency. Great to have it with you in those circumstances.

xpe 2y ago

Let's think about the implied argument behind "why is this is a special case?". It is one thing to see this argument is deployed in a sincere effort to seek the truth and/or some better form of governance. It is another thing when this argument is simply a convenient thing to say to get what one wants. There is often a nice antidote to the "why is this a special case?" argument that consists of two questions: 1. "What is your alternative?", and 2. "Is this alternative going to solve the problem better than what I proposed?" In other words, if you don't like the current special-casey-ness of this policy, what alternative will you support that we can _actually_ put into practice? If the person/organization does not actually support some workable alternative that will solve the problem better, that is quite telling! It suggests that solving this particular issue is not really a priority for them. Some people really are pedantic in the sense that they care about some logical consistency criteria more than solving particular problems. When one sees this in an individual, one might suspect various forms of confusion, poor prioritization, and maybe even some mental pathologies. When one sees this in an organization, particularly one making a public "argument", one should probably suspect they are deploying whatever argument suits their purpose, which is often just to derail progress on something they don't like. Of course the meta-issue here is far from simple. It would be better if laws were enacted at the right level of abstraction, using some semblance of reasonableness. I often groan at the patchwork of laws that we see here in the US. But don't forget that in a democracy, the will of the people is far from rational, and the political will is even more mercurial. Very often one is better off taking what you can get rather than waiting for something better that may never materialize. P.S. I find these sorts of discussions are interesting (in a sense), because it is hard to say to what degree someone is trotting out whatever logic simply suits their purpose. I've found this applies both to established interesting making "arguments" in public as well as individuals of all ages trying to defend what they have already decided is the best course of action. (Both are tiresome, frankly -- a part of human nature that I find rather counterproductive -- a suboptimal strategy that we've landed on.)

xpe 2y ago
interesting -> interests

kawfey 2y ago

People don't prepare, so either pressuring or mandating congress to keep AM a standard is necessary. There is already mature roadway infrastructure that provides localized announcements via AM - tunnels, bridges, mountain passes, low-vis areas, flood prone passes, hurricane evacuation corrodors, etc. I would imagine the cost of pressuring automakers to keep AM pales in comparison to the cost of updating public emergency communication infra. I'm also a ham but I'm also a person who sometimes forgets there's an air compressor beneath my trunk floor.

johannes1234321 2y ago

Car is something where a regulation can be done effectively. Saying "each household has to have one" is a lot harder to implement. For cars there is a limited amount of manufacturers and imports can be checked, too. Also there are regular inspections for cars. And then there is a big density of cars, thus even for people who don't own a car it's likely there is a vehicle not far. Thus it is quite efficient place to regulate.

lizknope 2y ago

I have a windshield glass breaking tool and seat belt cutter in my car. It also has a flashlight and an AM/FM radio. It has two AA rechargeable batteries but also has a hand crank. I can remove the batteries and use the hand crank at a reasonable speed to power the radio. I actually used it 20 years ago during an ice storm when there was no power for 5 days. I was able to hear news reports about where power was on and drive to a relatives house because the cell network was overloaded.

neuralRiot 2y ago
I live in a hurricane area, and in my “emergency kit” i have a small am/fm radio that runs on 4 AA batteries, i did a mod and soldered a USB cable so it can be used with battery packs.

diebeforei485 2y ago

There is the stupid underlying assumption that most people have cars, which is not true in the city where I live (only half of households do). I do have an emergency AM/FM/WB radio at home that I take on camping trips.

llm_trw 2y ago

>And what if I'm Amish and don't want to use electricity? So much the worse for being you.

K0balt 2y ago

Off the top of my head… cars are perfect, Independent, mobile, distributed, self contained radio platforms. Travellers in cars need timely, relevant information during large scale disasters. Travellers in cars are frequently in areas that are underserved by other communication systems. Cars are already nearly universally equipped with sound systems that include 99 percent of the components to make a good AM radio, and the cost of adding this capability to existing designs can be less than a dollar plus the antenna. While following popular guidelines for emergency preparedness is a great idea, this is an opportunity to create a public good and a means (listeners) to maintain the required infrastructure for a robust, improvisable, resilient, nation-scale emergency communication system that will be there regardless of the level of preparedness of the average, clueless individual.

antonvs 2y ago

> While that’s all true, why is being in a car a special case? We’re talking about the USA. Cars are not special cases, they are the central case around which society is structured, at the expense of many other things.