Solution to noisy vehicles

On 11 Mar 2005 15:34:19 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote:

>Big Bill > wrote in
:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
>Considering that operating a motor vehicle on public roads is a -privelege-
>,and not a right,a subjective "reasonable man" standard for noise would be
>or should be good enough.

Sorry, too many courts disagree with you.
That's what "unconstitutionally vague" means.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On 11 Mar 2005 12:36:07 -0800, "Furious George" >
wrote:

>
>Big Bill wrote:
>> 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.
>
>Most police officers are equipped with two sophisticed measuring
>devices known as E.A.R.s For the tiny minority of police officers with
>malfunctioning ears (like Sue Thomas) a "too loud" reading actually
>means the offending vehicle is MOTHER****ING WAY TOO LOUD. Thus when
>in doubt the E.A.R. system gives the motorist the benefit.

And yet, courts don't recognize E.A.R.S. as being properly calibrated
devices, enabling the LEO to determine when a noise law has been
violated.
>
>> >
>> >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"

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

"Big Bill" > wrote in message
...
> On 11 Mar 2005 15:28:06 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote:

>>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.
>
> That was William Potter.

Do you mean Potter Stewart? I don't recall a SCOTUS justice named William
Potter?

> What makes that quote memorable is that it epitimizes the idea of
> subjective judgements. That it was spoken by a SC Justice makes it all
> the worse. By the time one gets to the Bench of the USSC, one is
> supposed to have left such idiocy behind.

Normally yes--IMHO it illustrates the difficulty of defining such a
subjective issue.

"Big Bill" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 21:07:45 GMT, "Skip Elliott Bowman"
> > wrote:
>
>>"John Harlow" > wrote in message
...
>>>>> If it were an extra cost today, would you get it?
>>>>
>>>> It's a safety feature required by federal law, and its cost is
>>>> included in MSRP. So this question is moot.
>>>
>>> That's like saying "no no wood could a woodchuck chuck because a
>>> woodchuck
>>> can't chuck wood". It's an irrelevant answer to the question.
>>>
>>> IF the friggnin woodchuck COULD chuck wood, what would it's capacity be?
>>
>>That's like saying, "If we had some ham we could have some ham and eggs,
>>if
>>we had some eggs." It's a vicious circle.
>>
>>John , I see your point. Speculation is fun, and can keep us warm and
>>occupied on long, cold winter nights. But we have to deal with facts.
>>And
>>the fact is, we don't have a choice if we want to have a car--it has to
>>have
>>seat belts, padded dash, and other working safety features (with a few
>>exemptions for historic vehicles).
>>
> I think you meant to say "We don't have a choice if we want a *new*
> car..."
> Right?

I'll buy that.

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...

> I see subtlety is once again lost on certain members of this group...
>
> --

You said "member"

Huh huh.....

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

> The one across the street from my bedroom.
>
> The numbers aren't the issue. The fact of vehicles with unreasonably loud
> exhausts (or engines, or stereos, or etc. etc.)
>
> It's people yelling "Notice me, notice me" like four year olds who are
> obviously not responsible enough to drive on roads that are shared by (and
> pass by the houses) of all of the other, sane, people.

Wouldn't it be a shame if somebody went over and opened the drain on his
radiator one night.

John David Galt wrote:

>>> OK, how many old Pontiacs are there that are making a problem?
>
>
>> The one across the street from my bedroom.
>>
>> The numbers aren't the issue. The fact of vehicles with unreasonably
>> loud exhausts (or engines, or stereos, or etc. etc.)
>>
>> It's people yelling "Notice me, notice me" like four year olds who are
>> obviously not responsible enough to drive on roads that are shared by
>> (and pass by the houses) of all of the other, sane, people.
>
>
> Wouldn't it be a shame if somebody went over and opened the drain on his
> radiator one night.

Y'know, it's comments like that that really make me want to move as far
away from my fellow man as possible. For all we know this old Pontiac
could just have a close-to-factory exhaust setup with some turbo
mufflers and the OP is just overly sensitive. The *stock* exhaust on
the Fabulous BeaterPorsche(tm) is not exactly quiet, does that give you
the right to drain my coolant? (if it does, I reserve the right to
punch you in the side of the head. See where this goes?)

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

In article >, Nate Nagel wrote:
> Brent P wrote:

> I agree, but I included it because it is sometimes touted as a safety
> feature by the misguided - while a good idea in principle, sometimes it
> can force the front and rear of the car to be unnecessarily rigid, if
> the engineers build in too much safety factor it could conceivably
> negatively affect the crumple zones.

There have been different ways of doing this. One is the bumper 'shock',
a kind of shock absorber device that mounts the bumper to the car. They
are supposed to be one use only, but often do allow the bumper to just
pop right back out. Another is a mount much like that of a collaspable
steering column. (front bumper of my mustang has these) So basically the
bumper is by itself, when the speed is exceeded it just goes along for
the ride and the crumple zones behind it work properly.

Now this one will probably get daniel going... my mustang's passenger
side fog light had an encounter with a large rock, well actually the
bottom of the bumper did. Anyway the bottom of the flex bumper was pushed
up into the fog, light breaking the plastic housing and pushing on the
steel bracket that mounts the lamp to the bumper. The bracket is made of
a rather heavy gage steel and is quite rigid. However, the inner bumper
is made of a much lighter gage sheet metal. So what happens is the
bracket just transfers the force to the inner bumper and slightly dents
in the inner bumper instead of damaging the fog lamp bracket, which was
far too robust to be damaged. And of course the mounting angle is off
because of the dent. Thankfully I could get in behind it and push it back
into shape and I used a shim for what I couldn't push back. Bought a new
fog lamp housing... still need to get an 899 bulb, but for some reason
they are rather overpriced around here. More than I paid for one 9007
xtravision....

"Big Bill" > wrote in message ...
> 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. :-(
>
> --
> Bill Funk
> Change "g" to "a"
Germany~
Unlocked Car, or Home Door was "Promoting a Crime Charge";
It was Unlawful to idle a cold vehicle more then thirty seconds before vehicle starts driving "Sound Nuisance Law";
If on Probation or convicted, act like an angel, because "Convicted Person are not people and thus under no protection of the Law..." Convicts acted good, because anyone could shoot and kill them and no crime was committed; "Sex Crime Convictions, 1 time, three years hard labor; 2 Conviction Castration; 3 conviction lobotomy.";
The Police would wave a little red flag at your vehicle, and you must stop for inspection or parts, license, and exhaust system... If a person failed to stop, they used an Uzi and shot you to stop you... no pursuits.; Anything an Ofcr did on duty could not be contested by court; Ofcr requests blood sample, you had to agree... if not... they hit you in the head and take the blood from there. Germany had so many interesting laws and lower crime rates then the US.

Another Interesting thing: Leading Murder Weapon in the US is a CAR;
Canada is the Chain Saw.

Grant

This is sad to see a person so messed up, and hate everything.
Yet, would cry for protection if getting there ass kicked.
Well, Take your chance, I live in LV now... Shoot, and if you miss... She
looses a head!

"SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> not only that, but if a ****ing pig tries to give me a ticket for a noisy
> car, there's going to be a DEAD pig.
>
> "Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
> n.umich.edu...
>> 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
>
>