Solution to noisy vehicles

"American Idle" > wrote in message
...
> On 20 Mar 2005 18:16:36 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote:
>
>>L Sternn > wrote in
m:
>>
>>> On 20 Mar 2005 02:04:38 GMT, 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!".
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it's time we proved them wrong. If someone has a loud bike,
>>>>> run them off the road.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Today I encountered a jacked-up pickup truck with knobby,off-road
>>>>tires that made so much racket,you could hear it coming a hundred feet
>>>>away,what a drone! It sounded like a jet engine approaching at ground
>>>>level!
>>>
>>> Yep - I've seend and heard those also. I wonder how much a set of
>>> tires like that costs. Probably not cheap. It'd be a shame if
>>> someone slashed them.
>>>
>>
>>I'm more concerend about the reduction in stopping distance and the
>>reduction in vehicle handling.
>
> Are you losing a lot of sleep over this??

I would, but the damned car alarms are keeping me up, so I'm not sleeping
anyway <g>. (Okay. cheap shot. Sorry)

Paul R

"PaulR" > wrote in
:

>
> "John David Galt" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jim Yanik wrote:
>>> Well,it's not my fault people do not care about their neighbors
>>> enough to check on an alarm.If it were a common problem of false
>>> alarms,then action (alarm adjustment) should be taken,and would in
>>> my case,as I detest falses,too.I don't want to get up any more than
>>> the next person.
>>>
>>> But vehicles should not be so noisy as to trigger alarms.
>>
>> If an alarm is capable of being triggered by noise (other than
>> specific sounds such as glass breaking), that alarm is too sensitive
>> to have any business being used in a residential area.
>>
>> Car alarms should be required to be silent, since bystanders never
>> pay attention to them anyway, even when annoyed or awakended by them.
>> Let the alarm summon the car owner by pager, so he can arrive in
>> time to catch Mr. Thief in the act. If he's not willing to go and do
>> that, screw him.
>
> What would your thought be to having this treated as a high priority
> by the police; but with a large fine ($1000?) if a false alarm?
> Payoff in having a good alarm, and penalty for having a bad one.
>
> Paul R
>
>
>

There are not enough police to do their usual priorities,so getting them to
check on car alarms is not realistic,even if the fine were $1K for a false.

Few if any people with car alarms expect police to respond if one goes off.
(THEY have common sense)

Car alarms are meant to draw attention that the crooks do not want,thus
discouraging them. Unfortunately,too many people choose to not get involved
with things that do not directly affect themselves.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"PaulR" > wrote in
:

>>
>> Actually,it's more "I do not want to get involved" on the part of
>> people today. They will watch a woman get killed and not call police.
>>
>>
>>
> There's a BIG difference between a rape or murder in progress and
> someone heisting a hunk of tin.
>
> I'm not advocating car theft, but there is a difference.
>
> Paul r
>


Just extreme examples I used.They WILL also watch a car being stripped or
towed or driven off and not call police.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

> Few if any people with car alarms expect police to respond if one goes
> off.
> (THEY have common sense)
>
> Car alarms are meant to draw attention that the crooks do not want,thus
> discouraging them. Unfortunately,too many people choose to not get
> involved
> with things that do not directly affect themselves.
>
True.

I can't speak for anyone else, so this is just for me.

The amount that I'm willing to get involved depends on MY perception of risk
to myself and benefit I can be to the victim.

I am (I hope) more willing to get involved in a crime of violence, IFF (if
and only if) I feel I can make a difference. (Getting shot and NOT
preventing the rape accomplishes nothing). I am less willing to accept risk
for a crime against property. I do not expect you to risk your life to
defend my car.

Paul R

In article >,
L Sternn > wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:14:28 -0600,
>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>>L Sternn > wrote:
>>
>>>And apparently, it takes a VERY long time for some people to realize
>>>that most of the cries of "wolf" these days are actually real.
>>
>>ROTFL. You work for a car alarm company, right?
>
>Right. Don't you think if I did, I'd be saying the Brand X car
>alarms are not susceptible to false alarms?

Perhaps you're an installer for multiple brands.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article >,
Jim Yanik .> wrote:
>L Sternn > wrote in
:
>
>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:11:14 -0600,
>> (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>
>>>>"Some idiot"? As in only 1 car alarm in the whole complex would go
>>>>off in a thunderstorm?
>>>
>>>You misunderstand: it didn't go off just for thunderstorms. This
>>>one went off when it was merely raining. And it would keep going off
>>>every few minutes as long as it was raining.
>>
>> So it probably shorted out - it's still a rare exception rather than
>> the norm.
>>
>> Why don't you tell us how many cars in the lot NEVER had a false alarm
>> despite having an alarm system.
>>
>>
>
>What's he think about how auto alarms are now common as STANDARD
>EQUIPMENT(OEM) in many new cars? B-)
>
>That's an indication that people want them,value them.

Yep, MFFYs do.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

On 20 Mar 2005 23:48:36 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote:

>American Idle > wrote in
:
>
>> On 20 Mar 2005 18:16:36 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote:
>>
>>>L Sternn > wrote in
:
>>>
>>>> On 20 Mar 2005 02:04:38 GMT, 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!".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it's time we proved them wrong. If someone has a loud bike,
>>>>>> run them off the road.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Today I encountered a jacked-up pickup truck with knobby,off-road
>>>>>tires that made so much racket,you could hear it coming a hundred feet
>>>>>away,what a drone! It sounded like a jet engine approaching at ground
>>>>>level!
>>>>
>>>> Yep - I've seend and heard those also. I wonder how much a set of
>>>> tires like that costs. Probably not cheap. It'd be a shame if
>>>> someone slashed them.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I'm more concerend about the reduction in stopping distance and the
>>>reduction in vehicle handling.
>>
>> Are you losing a lot of sleep over this??
>>
>
>More over my spelling errors than his crappy tires and jacked-up unsafe
>vehicle.
>
>-concerned-,not 'concerend'.
>
>But if the idiot vehicle is behind me,I get very concerned.

That looks like a typo, but you should be careful about throwing
stones.

After all, "More over" may pass your spellchecker, but I'm pretty sure
you meant "moreover".

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 13:21:33 -0600,
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:

>In article >,
>L Sternn > wrote:
>>On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:14:28 -0600,
>>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>
>>>In article >,
>>>L Sternn > wrote:
>>>
>>>>And apparently, it takes a VERY long time for some people to realize
>>>>that most of the cries of "wolf" these days are actually real.
>>>
>>>ROTFL. You work for a car alarm company, right?
>>
>>Right. Don't you think if I did, I'd be saying the Brand X car
>>alarms are not susceptible to false alarms?
>
>Perhaps you're an installer for multiple brands.

Or perhaps I just live in today's reality rather than that of 15 years
ago.

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 02:52:22 GMT, "PaulR" >
wrote:

>
>>
>> I'd be a fool not to have an alarm.
>>
>don't park it next to Beekman hospital.
>

WTF are you talking about

"PaulR" > wrote in
:

>
>> Few if any people with car alarms expect police to respond if one
>> goes off.
>> (THEY have common sense)
>>
>> Car alarms are meant to draw attention that the crooks do not
>> want,thus discouraging them. Unfortunately,too many people choose to
>> not get involved
>> with things that do not directly affect themselves.
>>
> True.
>
> I can't speak for anyone else, so this is just for me.
>
> The amount that I'm willing to get involved depends on MY perception
> of risk to myself and benefit I can be to the victim.
>
> I am (I hope) more willing to get involved in a crime of violence, IFF
> (if and only if) I feel I can make a difference. (Getting shot and
> NOT preventing the rape accomplishes nothing). I am less willing to
> accept risk for a crime against property. I do not expect you to risk
> your life to defend my car.
>
> Paul R
>
>
>

Nor do I. You might at least LOOK and see what's going on,and if something
suspicious is occurring,call the police.And YELL that you're calling the
police. If they see you calling on a cellphone,they will probably flee.
Maybe make notes as to what you saw.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net