Solution to noisy vehicles

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Cartlon Shew wrote:
>
>
>>If [safety features] were an extra cost today, would you get [them]?
>
>
> I'll take that question.
>
> Seat belts, retractable 3-point with pretensioners, all seating
> positions: Yes
>
> Steering column, safety collapsible: Yes
>
> Beams, door side impact guard: Yes
>
> Restraints, driver and passenger head, high-rise: Yes
>
> Airbag, front, driver: No
>
> Airbag, front, passenger: No
>
> Airbags, side, front and rear passenger: No
>
> Occupant impact-protection, vehicle interior, incl. recessed controls,
> knee bolsters, etc: Yes
>
> Suspension, ECE type approved: Yes
>
> Steering, ECE type approved: Yes
>
> Brakes, ECE type approved: Yes
>
> Tires, ECE type approved: Yes
>
> Lighting and signalling system, exterior ECE type approved: Yes
>
> Buzzer, warning, seat belts: No
>
> Buzzer, warning, key in ignition: No
>
> Interlock, shift/ignition: No
>
> Interlock, shift/brake: No
>
> Lamps, daytime running: No
>
> What'd I leave out?

5 MPH bumpers: No (although I believe they are now 2.5 MPH, yes?)

nate

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

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Nate Nagel wrote:

> 5 MPH bumpers: No (although I believe they are now 2.5 MPH, yes?)

2.5mph in the US, 8km/h (5mph) in Canada. And I agree with you: No.

Now, here's a tougher question: If offered the option, would you have a
vehicle conforming to the US or to the ECE fuel system integrity standard?

Consider:

Federal and Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 301 ("Fuel System
Integrity") requires a fuel-loss test in which a vehicle is struck from
the rear, by a mobile barrier traveling at 48 km/h, after which the
vehicle must lose no more fuel than 30 ml per minute in a 360-degree
rollover. An amendment requiring the speed to be increased to 80 km/h was
proposed in 2002 and is expected to be finalised early next year in
response mostly to Ford's halfassed fuel tank designs.

The equivalent ECE regulation (No. 32) requires a rear-end impact speed of
only 35 Km/h.

Which is the better regulation?

Obviously the North American regulation is the more stringent one, because
it requires vehicles to be designed such that they don't lose fuel when
struck at higher speeds than the comparable ECE regulation requires. But
just as it's easy to have a regulation that's insufficiently stringent,
it's easy to have one that's unnecessarily stringent.

Are vehicle fires more common in crashes with ECE vehicles than with DOT
vehicles? Is the DOT regulation unnecessarily strict (therefore
unnecessarily expensive to comply with, therefore making new vehicles
unnecessarily expensive and restricting consumer choice)? Or, is the ECE
regulation inappropriately lax (therefore allowing too many people to get
hurt or killed)? I don't know, and the answer to that question is the only
proper way to assess which regulation is best.

DS

In article >, Nate Nagel wrote:
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:

>> What'd I leave out?
>
> 5 MPH bumpers: No (although I believe they are now 2.5 MPH, yes?)

Those aren't a safety item. They are a consumer regulation. The idea was
that people paid too much for bumping into things so there had to be no
damage below certain speeds. It fits into things like regulations on the
switches, arm rests, that sort of thing. Not really safety, just minimum
product design standards.

Brent P wrote:

> In article >, Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>>Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
>
>>>What'd I leave out?
>>
>>5 MPH bumpers: No (although I believe they are now 2.5 MPH, yes?)
>
>
> Those aren't a safety item. They are a consumer regulation. The idea was
> that people paid too much for bumping into things so there had to be no
> damage below certain speeds. It fits into things like regulations on the
> switches, arm rests, that sort of thing. Not really safety, just minimum
> product design standards.
>

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.

nate


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

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

>
> 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.

Paul R

On 11 Mar 2005 15:28:06 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote:

>"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in
n.umich.edu:
>
>> On Thu, 11 Mar 2005, Jim Yanik wrote:
>>
>>> How many cars these days come stock with a -noisy- exhaust system?
>>
>> Define "noisy".
>
>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.
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.

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

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 11:45:33 -0500, "Daniel J. Stern"
> > wrote:
>
>>> The standard should be 'not to exceed db--- (whatever) at --- feet.'
>>
>>At idle? At 3000 rpm? When the gas pedal is floored for 1 full second and
>>released?
>
> Ever.
> --
>
Agreed!. WHY the car is loud is unimportant. The FACT that it's loud is
the issue. If it's loud at 3000 rpm, don't let it go 3000 rpm, or change
the exhaust. It's the old story of my right to swing my fist ending where
your nose begins. If YOUR noise is intrusive, then you can't do it. Yeah,
we need to draft the laws carefully, so jackasses don't find loopholes, but
the basic idea should still hold.

Loud cars are a child's cry for attention. Acceptable in a child. But nont
in an adult who presumes to drive.

Paul R

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?

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

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 16:43:47 GMT, "Skip Elliott Bowman"
> wrote:

>> No, the judicial branch has to find a way to implement it. The
>> legislature makes the rules, the judicial implements them.
>> The definitions must be in the rule/law. The judicial can't just make
>> it up as they go.
>> Wait, let me rephrase that; the judicial isn't supposed to make it up
>> as they go.
>
>The fact is, Bill, the judicial branch has absolutely nothing to do with
>creating or implementing laws. They interpret and decide on laws already in
>place. It's the legislative branch that introduces and creates laws and
>defines their parameters. If the legislative assembly implements a law in
>an unjust way, or passes an unjust law, then it goes to the courts. It's
>then that courts decide whether or not the law is unconstitutional on the
>state or federal level.

I think that's what I was saying.
>
>The only way a judge or justice can get in the way of a law that hasn't yet
>passed is if someone brings a lawsuit over its wording in a legislative or
>ballot proposition.
>

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