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 |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
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? Go take a ride in the Dodge SR/T4. A cat and a Big Damn Pipe all the way back. No muffler at all. Straight from the factory. Personally, I love it. =;^) -- Ol' C.R. |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |