Solution to noisy vehicles

Big Bill > wrote in
:

> On 11 Mar 2005 00:53:18 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote:
>
>>Big Bill > wrote in
m:
>>
>>> On 9 Mar 2005 17:36:06 -0800, "Furious George" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> That's a non-starter.
>>> Define "unpleasantly loud" in terms that would stand up in court.
>>>
>>
>>The "reasonable man" standard.
>>Police are already trusted with many infractions just on their word.
>
> Bu tthe police isn't allowed to say, "That muffler was just too loud;
> I didn't like it."
> The police must be able to defend their "judgements". If their
> citastion is based on somethijng as vague as "too loud" with no
> measurements to back it up, it will be dismissed in court.
>>
>>And the same should go for auto sound systems.
>
> What? Someone says it's "too loud", so the user should get fined?
> No, it simply doesn't work like that.
>

Considering that operating a motor vehicle on public roads is a -privelege-
,and not a right,a subjective "reasonable man" standard for noise would be
or should be good enough.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim Yanik wrote:
> Big Bill > wrote in
> :
>
> > On 11 Mar 2005 00:53:18 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote:
> >
> >>Big Bill > wrote in
> m:
> >>
> >>> On 9 Mar 2005 17:36:06 -0800, "Furious George"
>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> 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.
> >>>
> >>> That's a non-starter.
> >>> Define "unpleasantly loud" in terms that would stand up in court.
> >>>
> >>
> >>The "reasonable man" standard.
> >>Police are already trusted with many infractions just on their
word.
> >
> > Bu tthe police isn't allowed to say, "That muffler was just too
loud;
> > I didn't like it."
> > The police must be able to defend their "judgements". If their
> > citastion is based on somethijng as vague as "too loud" with no
> > measurements to back it up, it will be dismissed in court.
> >>
> >>And the same should go for auto sound systems.
> >
> > What? Someone says it's "too loud", so the user should get fined?
> > No, it simply doesn't work like that.
> >
>
> Considering that operating a motor vehicle on public roads is a
-privelege-
> ,and not a right,a subjective "reasonable man" standard for noise
would be
> or should be good enough.
>
> --
> Jim Yanik
> jyanik
> at
> kua.net

The 'reasonable man' standard is normally applied in cases where there
is some evidence, testimony, etc to back it up. A cop saying 'too
loud' is nothing but his opinion and the court has no way of
determining if the cop's definition would be that of a 'reasonable
man'. No, it won't work for a noise ordinance.

Harry K

"Jim Yanik" .> wrote in message
.. .
> "Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in
> .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.

Defining porn is subjective. Noise levels can be quantified mathematically.
That's why that SCOTUS justice (Harry Blackmun?) wasn't able to come up with
any judgment better than that. In fact, even in that case the justices had
to qualify their opinion--they could not nail down a hard definition of
porn. The best they could do is exclude some of the previously existing
loopholes.

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. That won't be too hard to do, except the automakers' and
motorcycle lobbies will fight them tooth and nail.

> 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. That won't be too hard to do, except the
> automakers' and motorcycle lobbies will fight them tooth and nail.

Which automaker or motorcycle manufacturer (except for harley) would care?

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, John Harlow 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. That won't be too hard to do, except the
> > automakers' and motorcycle lobbies will fight them tooth and nail.
>
> Which automaker or motorcycle manufacturer (except for harley) would
> care?

None of them. It's not the automakers who would fight tooth and nail; it's
SEMA and the motorcycle "safety" advocacy groups.

"John Harlow" > wrote in message
...
>> 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. That won't be too hard to do, except the
>> automakers' and motorcycle lobbies will fight them tooth and nail.
>
> Which automaker or motorcycle manufacturer (except for harley) would care?

All of them, every single automaker that uses an internal combustion engine.
Any law that proposes any change in how they do business (from research &
development to production to marketing) gets them in a serious uproar. Look
at how long it took automakers to install padded dashboards and airbags for
examples. There are hundreds upon hundreds of lobby firms just in
Oregon--what do you think it's like in DC?

Ask your state legislator or senator what it's like to deal with lobbies--or
as Fox News refers to them: "Special Interest Groups".

>> Which automaker or motorcycle manufacturer (except for harley) would
>> care?
>
> All of them, every single automaker that uses an internal combustion
> engine. Any law that proposes any change in how they do business


These laws wouldn't apply to their stock, quiet vehicles.

"John Harlow" > wrote in message
...
>>> Which automaker or motorcycle manufacturer (except for harley) would
>>> care?
>>
>> All of them, every single automaker that uses an internal combustion
>> engine. Any law that proposes any change in how they do business

> These laws wouldn't apply to their stock, quiet vehicles.

True, it wouldn't apply to the vast majority of their products. They would
fight it as a matter of principle. They just don't like being told what to
do, even when it's in their best interests, or their customers', or both.

Don't take my word for it, John, even though I've seen it with my own eyes.
Ask your state representative, state senator, or congressman.

In article . net>, Skip Elliott Bowman wrote:
> All of them, every single automaker that uses an internal combustion engine.
> Any law that proposes any change in how they do business (from research &
> development to production to marketing) gets them in a serious uproar. Look
> at how long it took automakers to install padded dashboards

Ford, 1950s before any such law. Their failed marketing of safety.

1956 Lifeguard safety package, including

* deep-dish, energy-absorbing steering wheel,
* double-grip, impact-resistant door latches,
* double ball and shatter-resistant, interior rear-view mirror
* optional padded instrument panel and sun visor
* factory installed, front and rear safety belts (first U.S. manufacturer)

(
http://www.ford.ca/english/LearnAbou...st/default.asp )

> and airbags for examples.

Airbags were first installed in GM (and Chrysler?) vehicles in the early
1970s, close to 20 years before the mandate. The automakers found these
safety devices had safety problems and correctly fought their use based
on that data. Once mandated, their fears were realized.

"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> In article . net>, Skip
> Elliott Bowman wrote:
>> All of them, every single automaker that uses an internal combustion
>> engine.
>> Any law that proposes any change in how they do business (from research &
>> development to production to marketing) gets them in a serious uproar.
>> Look
>> at how long it took automakers to install padded dashboards
>
> Ford, 1950s before any such law. Their failed marketing of safety.
>
> 1956 Lifeguard safety package, including
>
> * deep-dish, energy-absorbing steering wheel,
> * double-grip, impact-resistant door latches,
> * double ball and shatter-resistant, interior rear-view mirror
> * optional padded instrument panel and sun visor
> * factory installed, front and rear safety belts (first U.S.
> manufacturer)
http://www.ford.ca/english/LearnAbou...st/default.asp )

This was an option installed at extra cost, was it not?

>> and airbags for examples.
>
> Airbags were first installed in GM (and Chrysler?) vehicles in the early
> 1970s, close to 20 years before the mandate. The automakers found these
> safety devices had safety problems and correctly fought their use based
> on that data. Once mandated, their fears were realized.

The problem wasn't with the airbags per se; it was with their design. IMHO
the design of the airbags was the party line used for delay, but the real
factor was cutting into profits.

Thanks for the info on the Big Three, though.