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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Motorhead Lawyer wrote: > Larry Bud wrote: > > John Harlow wrote: > > > Tired of noisy Harleys, rice burners, fart cans and stereos? > > > > > > Tax $500 per DB per year over stock values. > > > > Why over stock values? How about an objective measure of dBs at a > > particular distance... > > It would be nearly impossible to get objective measurements. Talk to > an SCCA Sound Marshal sometime. All kinds of things influence the > sound gathered from passing cars. It matters which way the pipe end is > pointed (Why some Fart Cannons point *up*?). It matters how humid the > day is (louder because water vapor is denser than air). It matters how > warm the day is (usually more humid and louder). It even matters if > it's raining (also louder; presumably from better reflections off of > water as opposed to pavement). There's no way a LEO could do a proper > and objective job of this ... not that it would matter. Right, > Jaybird? 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. > -- > C.R. Krieger > (Been there; done that) |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
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. -- C.R. Krieger (Wondering why I even bother) |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"Motorhead Lawyer" > wrote in message
oups.com... > > 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. > -- > C.R. Krieger > (Wondering why I even bother) CR, I wonder if you take language and attitude like this into court and/or staff meetings. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Motorhead Lawyer" > wrote in
oups.com: > > 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. > -- > C.R. Krieger > (Wondering why I even bother) > Taking the manufacturer's (stock) muffler off and installing a noisier one. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
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. > -- > C.R. Krieger > (Wondering why I even bother) |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"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? You're not a litigator, are you Daniel? Because your arguments have more and bigger holes than an Alan Smithee film. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
... > On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 21:10:29 GMT, "Skip Elliott Bowman" > > wrote: > >>> OK. Define "noise pollution" for us, ****forbrains. >>> -- >>> C.R. Krieger >>> (Wondering why I even bother) >> >>CR, I wonder if you take language and attitude like this into court and/or >>staff meetings. > > Irrelevant. USENET is not a professional forum, just as the locker > room at the gym is not a professional forum. If someone uses the term > "****forbrains" in a casual venue, so the **** what? Oh wow--and all this time I thought your name was Scott...and a free lecture to boot. Wednesday is Bargain day on r.a.d.! > P.S. I see you're still trying to pick fights... Anyways, I noticed both you and Daniel (if that's your real name) dodged the question. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
... > On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 03:37:51 GMT, "Skip Elliott Bowman" > > wrote: > >>>>> OK. Define "noise pollution" for us, ****forbrains. >>>>> -- >>>>> C.R. Krieger >>>>> (Wondering why I even bother) >>>> >>>>CR, I wonder if you take language and attitude like this into court >>>>and/or >>>>staff meetings. >>> >>> Irrelevant. USENET is not a professional forum, just as the locker >>> room at the gym is not a professional forum. If someone uses the term >>> "****forbrains" in a casual venue, so the **** what? >> >>Oh wow--and all this time I thought your name was Scott... > > This is USENET - anyone is free to jump in at any time and answer any > question they wish. Don't like it? Then get the **** out. And to think--this is the second time you've accused *me* of trying to pick a fight...Pot, meet Kettle... >>> P.S. I see you're still trying to pick fights... >> >>Anyways, I noticed both you and Daniel (if that's your real name) dodged >>the >>question. > > I can't speak for C.R. - you'll have to ask him yourself. Wow. And here I thought that's just what I was doing before you jumped to his defense. Where's all this hostility coming from, Scott? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NTSB Wants Black Boxes in Passenger Vehicles | MoPar Man | Chrysler | 62 | January 14th 05 02:44 PM |
why will we attack after Susanne pulls the noisy barn's printer | Sheri | General | 0 | January 10th 05 11:59 PM |
i dine noisy tags through the polite shallow forest, whilst Sharon locally changes them too | Stoned Gay Badass | General | 0 | January 10th 05 11:44 PM |
Salvage Registration | [email protected] | Technology | 2 | December 30th 04 02:10 AM |