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
  #101  
Old March 12th 05, 02:52 PM
SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

like I said, any pig tries and gives me a ticket for a noisy vehicle and
there's going to be one less pig on this planet.

if pigs have time to harrass taxpayers then they have time to get the crime
rate to zero, I am tired of their bull**** excuses.

"G R Jenks" > wrote in message
news:0cBYd.4214$uk7.3703@fed1read01...
> 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

>>
>>

>
>



Ads
  #102  
Old March 12th 05, 07:18 PM
Jim Yanik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

John David Galt > wrote in
:

>>> 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.


More appropriate to use that expanding foam insulation in a can,and a short
piece of plastic aquarium tubing;a good squirt up the muffler,and they need
to buy a new muffler.No damage to the car,motor,just the offending part.
It may even quiet it down to reasonable.

I'd have to buy the stuff by the case.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
  #103  
Old March 13th 05, 08:43 AM
Big Bill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 02:03:05 GMT, "Skip Elliott Bowman"
> wrote:

>"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?


Absolutely right! My error. :-(
>
>> 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.
>


--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
  #104  
Old March 14th 05, 04:15 PM
Matthew Russotto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
  #105  
Old March 14th 05, 04:16 PM
Matthew Russotto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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).
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
  #106  
Old March 14th 05, 11:28 PM
Motorhead Lawyer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Skip Elliott Bowman wrote:
> "Motorhead Lawyer" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > 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.


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 ...

"Staff meetings"? What's that?
--
Ol' C.R.
(Sole practitioner)

  #107  
Old March 14th 05, 11:32 PM
Motorhead Lawyer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 15:26:13 GMT, "Skip Elliott Bowman"
> > wrote:
> >
> >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.


"Affected obtusity"! That's it (more correctly, 'affected
obtuseness')! Geez, my daughter's been doing that lately! But then,
she's eight ...
--
Ol' C.R.

  #108  
Old March 14th 05, 11:38 PM
Motorhead Lawyer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Skip Elliott Bowman wrote:
> "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.


Daniel isn't, but I am. So far, he's a lot more correct than you are.
We're still waiting for *your* definition - (Dare I say it?) - with
*bated* breath.
--
Ol' C.R.
(*Baits* another trap)

  #110  
Old March 14th 05, 11:48 PM
Motorhead Lawyer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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?
--
Ol' C.R.

 




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 11:07 AM.


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