Solution to noisy vehicles

Furious George wrote:
> Motorhead Lawyer wrote:
> > Furious George wrote:
> > > Motorhead Lawyer wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It would be nearly impossible to get objective measurements.
> >
> > > Why would any of that stuff matter? It either emits noise
> pollution
> > or
> > > it does not. If it emits noise pollution then ticket it.
Humidity
> > is
> > > not a valid excuse.
> >
> > 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.

*Sheesh* - here we go again:

Define "unpleasantly loud" for us, SFB. A nice firm definition that'll
hold up in court, if you don't mind.
--
Ol' C.R.

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

Correct. And, what I see in many communities is a stupidly misguided
sign that says, "Engine Braking Prohibited". Anybody want to guess
what I do as I roll by that one in my BMW? On my Shadow? =;^)
--
Ol' C.R.

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Motorhead Lawyer wrote:

> Skip Elliott Bowman wrote:

> > CR, I wonder if you take language and attitude like this into court
> > and/or staff meetings.

> Only the attitude. I know how to call someone a ****forbrains politely.
> It's just way shorter and somewhat more entertaining this way. You *do
> not* want me to start writing like a lawyer does here ...

I do! I do!

> "Staff meetings"? What's that?

Apparently, young Mr. Bowman thinks you're an underling at Lawfirm and
Lawfirm, Inc.

(Matthew Russotto) wrote in
:

> In article >,
> Jim Yanik .> wrote:
(Matthew Russotto) wrote in
:
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> Jim Yanik .> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>Taking the manufacturer's (stock) muffler off and installing a noisier
>>>>one.
>>>
>>> So taking a quiet car and changing the muffler in a way that makes it
>>> louder, but not as loud as some other car which comes stock with a
>>> noisier muffler, is noise pollution?
>>
>>How many cars these days come stock with a -noisy- exhaust system?
>
> Unless they're all exactly the same, some come with a noisier exhaust
> then others.

That's a non-answer.These days,cars are quiet.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

(Matthew Russotto) wrote in
:

> In article >,
> Jim Yanik .> wrote:
>>
>>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 you should be fined for noise pollution (for the auto alarm).

It usually only triggers the warning chirps.
And it would not be noise pollution,as the alarm WAS triggered by
something.(not going off on it's own,with no external influence.)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Motorhead Lawyer wrote:

> Big Bill wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:26:29 GMT, "Skip Elliott Bowman"
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>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.
>
>
> Correct. And, what I see in many communities is a stupidly misguided
> sign that says, "Engine Braking Prohibited". Anybody want to guess
> what I do as I roll by that one in my BMW? On my Shadow? =;^)
> --
> Ol' C.R.
>

Downshift? <G>

nate

(snap crackle pop)

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

"Jim Yanik" .> wrote in message
.. .
> (Matthew Russotto) wrote in
> :
>
>> In article >,
>> Jim Yanik .> wrote:
>>>
>>>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 you should be fined for noise pollution (for the auto alarm).
>
> It usually only triggers the warning chirps.
> And it would not be noise pollution,as the alarm WAS triggered by
> something.(not going off on it's own,with no external influence.)
>
A car alarm went off outside a hospital in NYC. By the time the police were
done with the car (a Bimmer), the driver's door had been ripped off and all
of the wires had been ripped out from under the dash. Needless to say it
silenced the alarm. Note that the alarm went sounded, but the owner never
appeared.

Request: Don't flame me. I didn't rip the door off or rip out the wiring.
I'm just reporting the story.

Paul R

"Motorhead Lawyer" > wrote in message
oups.com...

<snip>

> We're still waiting for *your* definition - (Dare I say it?) - with
> *bated* breath.
> --
> Ol' C.R.
> (*Baits* another trap)

Please don't say you don't know the difference between 'bated' and baited'.

"Motorhead Lawyer" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Skip Elliott Bowman wrote:
>>
>> Here we have a comparatively easy job: motor vehicles operating on a
> road,
>> not to exceed this particular decibel level in normal,
> well-maintained
>> operation.
>
> Just because I didn't check in for a few days doesn't mean I *won't*.
>
> You still persist in *ignoring* my experience-based assertion that many
> factors that are *not* easily controlled, especially in field testing,
> affect noise readings. The same identical vehicle could pass one day
> and fail the next. So how do you propose to *fix* that?

Okay, I'll make it simple. A Honda Accord revved to 3500 rpms is not going
to make as much noise as a Harley at idle. Do you see where we are going
with this, C.R.? Or do you want more detail?

"Motorhead Lawyer" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Big Bill wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:26:29 GMT, "Skip Elliott Bowman"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >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.
>
> Correct. And, what I see in many communities is a stupidly misguided
> sign that says, "Engine Braking Prohibited". Anybody want to guess
> what I do as I roll by that one in my BMW? On my Shadow? =;^)

I don't know what you do, but I could take a stab at what you don't do: give
a crap about the neighborhood residents who might be sensitive to excess
noise; hence the sign.

Actually, I think you do give a crap: "How can I annoy as many people as
possible and come off as having the mentality of a 15 year-old boy at the
same time?"