A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Driving
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Solution to noisy vehicles



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old March 11th 05, 03:53 AM
Daniel J. Stern
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 11 Mar 2005, Jim Yanik wrote:

> > The old-car problem is easy to factor out of the question: Cars made
> > before 19XX are exempt, same as is done with seatbelts, sidemarker
> > lights, airbags and all other now-mandatory equipment. They're not the
> > ones causing the problem;

>
> Bull;I've got a neighbor with an old Pontiac with a really loud rumbly
> exhaust that wakes me up at 3AM,also triggers my auto alarm. The
> mufflers are not stock,either.


OK, how many old Pontiacs are there that are making a problem?

> Then there are motorcycles.LOTS of them,all noisy.Some are actually
> *painful* when they pass my car if I have the window down. EVERY one of
> them should be cited.


Agree.
Ads
  #52  
Old March 11th 05, 03:53 AM
Daniel J. Stern
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 11 Mar 2005, Jim Yanik wrote:

> How many cars these days come stock with a -noisy- exhaust system?


Define "noisy".
  #53  
Old March 11th 05, 09:38 AM
Skip Elliott Bowman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 15:26:13 GMT, "Skip Elliott Bowman"
> > wrote:
>
>>> I see subtlety is once again lost on certain members of this group...

>>
>>Is this what you call subtlety (your words below)?

>
> Congratulations! You are obviously a Magna Cum Laude graduate of the
> Jaybird school of affected obtusity.


I see you snipped out the pertinent ( incriminating) passages, Scott.


  #54  
Old March 11th 05, 02:31 PM
Big Bill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 11 Mar 2005 00:51:56 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote:

>Big Bill > wrote in
:
>
>> On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 19:46:39 -0500, "Daniel J. Stern"
> wrote:
>>
>>>Just to save you some time, here's another equally-useless attempts at
>>>exhaust noise control laws:
>>>
>>>"No vehicle shall have an exhaust tailpipe or outlet that is of a larger
>>>size than original equipment". Terrific, what if I install a system on my
>>>'71 Volvo that has a 2-1/4" tailpipe, but is *quieter* than the original
>>>system with its 1-7/8" tailpipe? Bzzt, doesn't work.
>>>
>>>Next idea?

>>
>> As I understand it, California has (or had) rules that actually would
>> prevent a user from making his vehicle pollute *less* than the stock
>> setup.
>> You can't (or couldn't) put on a dual exhaust with dual cats on a
>> vehicle that had a single cat as stock, because it modified the stock
>> emissions setup.
>> Germany also has very strict rules on replacement parts; there you
>> really can't put on a muffler that is deemed to not act as the stock
>> muffler. And don't try putting on different handlebars on your bike if
>> it's registered in Germany; that's stictly illegal.
>> Such rules do exist. :-(
>>

>
>Would the dual cats actually reduce emissions? They might never heat up
>enough to do their job.


You just install catsd that match the needs.
There are cats for 4-cylinder cars, and others for 6 cylinder cars,
and others for 8 cylnder cars. And among these, they are designed to
match the needs of the individual engine design. It'as not difficult
to approximate the needs os, say, one bank of a V-8.
>
>On one hand,I like to modify my car as much as the next guy.
>OTOH,I really dislike the noise coming from some cars and motorcycles.
>Especially late at night,when they wake me up from a solid sleep,even with
>windows closed,right thru the walls.
>
>I honestly do not believe there -has- to be a "objective
>standard",especially as measuring it on a passing car presents problems.
>Maybe just a "reasonable man" standard.


Ah, yes. An "objective standard".
But that specifically does away with the idea of an exhaust being
"annoying", or "excessivly loud", which are subjective.
And, as a rule, that's what is required: an objective standard.
>
>Also,police already are unwilling to give citations for most
>infractions,getting them to write up noisy cars/trucks/MCs is fantasyland.
>And most states no longer do vehicle inspections where such things would be
>caught.


--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
  #55  
Old March 11th 05, 02:33 PM
Big Bill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:26:29 GMT, "Skip Elliott Bowman"
> wrote:

>Sign it, stamp it, implement it. Many communities already have restrictions
>on the use of air brakes in residential neighborhoods, so it's not like
>there's no precedent.


No, they don't.
They have restrictions on exhaust brakes, often known as "Jake
Brakes".
Air brakes are entirely different.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
  #56  
Old March 11th 05, 02:37 PM
Big Bill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 18:27:27 GMT, "Skip Elliott Bowman"
> wrote:

>"Big Bill" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:26:29 GMT, "Skip Elliott Bowman"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>"Big Bill" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On 9 Mar 2005 17:36:06 -0800, "Furious George" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> OK. Define "noise pollution" for us, ****forbrains.
>>>>>
>>>>>It's either unpleasantly loud or it isn't. If it is too loud, then no
>>>>>one really cares why it's too loud.
>>>>
>>>> That's a non-starter.
>>>> Define "unpleasantly loud" in terms that would stand up in court.
>>>
>>>How's this: "Noise level not to exceed X number of decibels at a distance
>>>of
>>>X feet/meters/yard from the source of the noise." Example: 65 db at 75'.
>>>It's just an example; don't jump on those numbers as gospel.

>>
>> But that has nothing to do with "unpleasantly loud". Instead, it's a
>> definition of a noise level that's illegal.
>> If you try to define "unpleasant" you are getting into a subjective
>> area. Measuring dB isn't subjective, it's objective.

>
>I addressed this issue in 2 other previous posts.


Then stick with it; don't continue to say that we should base laws on
subjective things.
>
>>>List exemptions, like military aircraft taking off from the airport,
>>>sirens
>>>on emergency vehicles on call, etc.

>>
>> What, they aren't "unpleasant"?

>
>The former can't be helped; the latter is necessary.


But "unpleasant" nonetheless.
>
>>>Include landscaping and construction equipment in the restrictions
>>>regarding
>>>time of day/length of noise duration.
>>>
>>>Sign it, stamp it, implement it. Many communities already have
>>>restrictions
>>>on the use of air brakes in residential neighborhoods, so it's not like
>>>there's no precedent.
>>>

>> But that's ot a definition of "unpleasantly loud".
>> You're ignoring that trying to use subjective terms as "unpleasantly
>> loud" has been already ruled as too vague.

>
>I ignored nothing, Bill. You're mistaken. This is an issue to be clarified
>in the house committee; assuming it gets that far. If a law is signed, the
>legislature has to find a way to implement it in a workable manner. What
>constitutes "Unnecessarily Loud" and enforcement (along with a fiscal impact
>statement; now there's a hope) will be defined then if it hasn't already.
>

No, the judicial branch has to find a way to implement it. The
legislature makes the rules, the judicial implements them.
The definitions must be in the rule/law. The judicial can't just make
it up as they go.
Wait, let me rephrase that; the judicial isn't supposed to make it up
as they go.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
  #57  
Old March 11th 05, 02:40 PM
Big Bill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 11 Mar 2005 00:53:18 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote:

>Big Bill > wrote in
:
>
>> On 9 Mar 2005 17:36:06 -0800, "Furious George" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> OK. Define "noise pollution" for us, ****forbrains.
>>>
>>>It's either unpleasantly loud or it isn't. If it is too loud, then no
>>>one really cares why it's too loud.

>>
>> That's a non-starter.
>> Define "unpleasantly loud" in terms that would stand up in court.
>>

>
>The "reasonable man" standard.
>Police are already trusted with many infractions just on their word.


Bu tthe police isn't allowed to say, "That muffler was just too loud;
I didn't like it."
The police must be able to defend their "judgements". If their
citastion is based on somethijng as vague as "too loud" with no
measurements to back it up, it will be dismissed in court.
>
>And the same should go for auto sound systems.


What? Someone says it's "too loud", so the user should get fined?
No, it simply doesn't work like that.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
  #58  
Old March 11th 05, 02:40 PM
Big Bill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 20:16:44 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
> wrote:

>On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 09:15:28 -0700, Big Bill > wrote:
>
>>On 9 Mar 2005 17:36:06 -0800, "Furious George" >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>> OK. Define "noise pollution" for us, ****forbrains.
>>>
>>>It's either unpleasantly loud or it isn't. If it is too loud, then no
>>>one really cares why it's too loud.

>>
>>That's a non-starter.
>>Define "unpleasantly loud" in terms that would stand up in court.

>
>I know it when I hear it.


You forgot the ":-)".

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
  #59  
Old March 11th 05, 04:26 PM
Jim Yanik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in
.umich.edu:

> On Thu, 11 Mar 2005, Jim Yanik wrote:
>
>> > The old-car problem is easy to factor out of the question: Cars made
>> > before 19XX are exempt, same as is done with seatbelts, sidemarker
>> > lights, airbags and all other now-mandatory equipment. They're not the
>> > ones causing the problem;

>>
>> Bull;I've got a neighbor with an old Pontiac with a really loud rumbly
>> exhaust that wakes me up at 3AM,also triggers my auto alarm. The
>> mufflers are not stock,either.

>
> OK, how many old Pontiacs are there that are making a problem?


There are many old auto enthusiasts that like the "rumbley" sound.
(that's probably where the ricers got the idea from for their 'fart cans')

>
>> Then there are motorcycles.LOTS of them,all noisy.Some are actually
>> *painful* when they pass my car if I have the window down. EVERY one of
>> them should be cited.

>
> Agree.
>




--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
  #60  
Old March 11th 05, 04:28 PM
Jim Yanik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in
.umich.edu:

> On Thu, 11 Mar 2005, Jim Yanik wrote:
>
>> How many cars these days come stock with a -noisy- exhaust system?

>
> Define "noisy".


Paraphrasing a USSC Justice said about porn;"I know it when I hear it".
If it's noticeable among other auto traffic,then it's noisy.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NTSB Wants Black Boxes in Passenger Vehicles MoPar Man Chrysler 62 January 14th 05 03:44 PM
why will we attack after Susanne pulls the noisy barn's printer Sheri General 0 January 11th 05 12:59 AM
i dine noisy tags through the polite shallow forest, whilst Sharon locally changes them too Stoned Gay Badass General 0 January 11th 05 12:44 AM
Salvage Registration [email protected] Technology 2 December 30th 04 03:10 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.