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
  #41  
Old March 10th 05, 07:13 PM
Big Bill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
>
>List exemptions, like military aircraft taking off from the airport, sirens
>on emergency vehicles on call, etc.


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

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Ads
  #42  
Old March 10th 05, 07:27 PM
Skip Elliott Bowman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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.

>>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.

>>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.


  #43  
Old March 10th 05, 09:38 PM
Daniel J. Stern
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, John Harlow 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; it's the kidzzz with their Honda Civiczzzz,
> > Dodge Neonzzzz, Chevrolet Cadavalierzzzz, etc.


> And the harleys and modified jap bikes.


....and BS groups with names like Motorcycle Riders Safety Foundation are
onhand to bleat "Loud pipes save lives! Loud pipes save lives!".
  #44  
Old March 11th 05, 01:51 AM
Jim Yanik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

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.

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.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
  #45  
Old March 11th 05, 01:53 AM
Jim Yanik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

And the same should go for auto sound systems.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
  #47  
Old March 11th 05, 02:00 AM
Jim Yanik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, N8N wrote:
>
>> OK, just to be argumentative, how would you allow for vehicles like
>> an Avanti (factory duals, glasspacks, no crossover) or a 60's
>> Corvette or Cobra with factory sidepipes? Whatever standard you
>> picked, if it made the busybodies happy, some stock vehicles would
>> suddenly become illegal.

>
> 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.

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.

> it's the kidzzz with their Honda Civiczzzz,
> Dodge Neonzzzz, Chevrolet Cadavalierzzzz, etc.




--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
  #48  
Old March 11th 05, 02:01 AM
Jim Yanik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, John Harlow 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; it's the kidzzz with their Honda Civiczzzz,
>> > Dodge Neonzzzz, Chevrolet Cadavalierzzzz, etc.

>
>> And the harleys and modified jap bikes.

>
> ...and BS groups with names like Motorcycle Riders Safety Foundation are
> onhand to bleat "Loud pipes save lives! Loud pipes save lives!".
>


Not riding motorcycles saves lives!
(irony)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
  #49  
Old March 11th 05, 03:35 AM
Harry K
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


N8N wrote:
> Harry K wrote:
> > Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> > > On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Jim Yanik wrote:
> > >
> > > > > OK. Define "noise pollution" for us
> > >
> > > > Taking the manufacturer's (stock) muffler off and installing a

> > noisier
> > > > one.
> > >
> > > That's a nonstarter. If Chrysler will no longer sell me a muffler

> for
> > my
> > > 1962 Dodge, and so I install a Walker or Goerlich aftermarket

> > replacement,
> > > and it's even fractionally louder than the original 1962 item, my

> car
> > > flunks your poorly-thought-out standard of "noise pollution". If

I
> > install
> > > a muffler on my truck that's louder than the original BUT no

louder
> > than
> > > some other vehicle with a factory muffler, my truck flunks your
> > > ill-considered standard of "noise pollution".
> > >
> > > And if the standard is "no noisier than original equipment", then

> > who's
> > > going to collect and maintain the necessary database of noise

> levels
> > from
> > > all the different OE variants of all the different models of all

> the
> > > different cars over the years? And what's the standard, is it

"when
> > the
> > > car is brand new"? Is it "When the car is 3 years old"? Is it

"When
> > the
> > > car is driven by at 30mph, measured at street level 10 feet

away"?
> Is
> > it
> > > "When the car is revved in Neutral, measured 2 feet from the

> > tailpipe"?
> > >
> > > And what kind of sound meters are we going to equip cops with to

> > measure
> > > exhaust noise objectively? You and I both know what's too noisy

and
> > what's
> > > not, but that's unconsitutionally vague and leaving it to the

> > discretion
> > > of individual cops is fraught with unintended consequences.
> > >
> > > 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?
> > >
> > > DS

> >
> > The standard should be 'not to exceed db--- (whatever) at ---

feet.'
> > Why it exceeded the level has no bearing on it. If it could pass

> when
> > new but now doesn't - fix it or pay the ticket.
> >
> > I agree that standards based on size or brand of original equipment
> > would be a nonstarter.
> >
> > Harry K

>
> OK, just to be argumentative, how would you allow for vehicles like

an
> Avanti (factory duals, glasspacks, no crossover) or a 60's Corvette

or
> Cobra with factory sidepipes? Whatever standard you picked, if it

made
> the busybodies happy, some stock vehicles would suddenly become
> illegal.
>
> I've always wondered, but never had the chance to find out, what
> happens when you try to register an Avanti in a state where

glasspacks
> are illegal?
>
> nate


No matter how you set the standard it is possible to come up with an
exception, usually very rare (like your examples). Standards
could/would and does work as shown by places that have them. If you
felt you were unfairly ticketed you have the option of explaining it to
the judge...hah, good luck with that. The point is if you are going to
have an ordinance, you have to have a standard and one that does not
leave it to the descretion of the LEO as to whether or not it was
violated. Doesn't mean he -has- to issue a ticket, just that -he-
doesn't have to decide was it or was it not a violation. There are a
multitude of noise ordinances across the country, most of them not
enforced IME.

Harry K

  #50  
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:

> > ...and BS groups with names like Motorcycle Riders Safety Foundation
> > are onhand to bleat "Loud pipes save lives! Loud pipes save lives!".


> Not riding motorcycles saves lives!


Amen! *clink*
 




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 08:11 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.