[bpans2]

Braap Braap: California Wants To Punish Loud Cars Braap Braap: California Wants To Punish Loud Cars

Don’t they have other things to take care like homeless, wild fire, etc? And what is the non-sense that low income car owners are excepted?
🤦🏾‍♂️

 

[timborama]

Gotta love laws that aren’t applied uniformly...

“To make it easier on drivers, city governments will have to offer fine waivers for low-income car owners, as well as payment plans and deferment options.”

 

[2old4this]

I know what I am about to get a lot of hate for this but…

When we bought our cars, we knew about the 95db rule. Nevertheless, our cars were not loud enough, so we’ve decided to remove cats/mufflers, did straight pipes… We knew it was against the rules but we did it anyways (probably because there wasn’t a good way to enforce the rule.) Now the technology is here to detect our loud cars, and enforce the rules.

Don’t get me wrong, I do like (love?) the loud v10 sound, but deep inside, I know it is wrong. It sucks but I (personally, my opinion) really don’t see this any different from enforcing any other traffic rule.

 

[drgmt]

I think the issue here is more the mentality they if you are less well off or even belong to a group defined as a disadvantaged minority then the rules apply differently. Applying rules differently is a straight path to destruction for any civilised society.

 

[torqueit]

Meanwhile, thugs go into stores with calculators adding up the value of what they steal knowing if they keep it under $950 bucks, they most likely won't get prosecuted, and if they do, it's only a misdemeanor. Seems like CA has more pressing problems.

 

[cdd]

a disadvantaged minority then the rules apply differently. Applying rules differently is a straight path to destruction for any civilised society.

The rules have been applied differently for hundreds and hundreds of years - just usually to the disadvantage of the disadvantaged. So now that the poor are getting a break we should apply the rules uniformly? Seems weird to me.

 

[timborama]

The rules have been applied differently for hundreds and hundreds of years - just usually to the disadvantage of the disadvantaged. So now that the poor are getting a break we should apply the rules uniformly? Seems weird to me.

Being applied differently is not the same as being written differently. This new law being written differently, and clearly could be considered overt profiling ( clear targeting those with money). Crack down on those motorbikes as well hopefully.

 

[cdd]

Being applied differently is not the same as being written differently. This new law being written differently, and clearly could be considered overt profiling ( clear targeting those with money). Crack down on those motorbikes as well hopefully.

I would submit that is a distinction without a difference. If a rule is written a certain way, but not uniformly applied, it might as well have been written so that it applies only to the targeted population. Is it okay to apply the law differently, but not okay to write the law differently? IANAL

And any suggestion that somehow the law in general targets or is tilted against rich people is laughable - not sure if that's what you were intending to convey.

 

[Diablosangelis]

I would submit that is a distinction without a difference. If a rule is written a certain way, but not uniformly applied, it might as well have been written so that it applies only to the targeted population. Is it okay to apply the law differently, but not okay to write the law differently? IANAL

And any suggestion that somehow the law in general targets or is tilted against rich people is laughable - not sure if that's what you were intending to convey.

I would argue the distinction is critical. We are all supposed to be equal under the law. If the law is written equally and unequally enforced by fallible and manipulatable human beings in the justice system, that is a problem that needs solving (but will likely always exist to some degree). If the law is written unequally, we are ceding a fundamental precept of US legal and social standards.

That said... depending on your interpretation of US law, automated enforcements systems are already violating a fundamental standard of our legal system (right to face your accuser) and some jurisdictions forbid them on that basis.

And your last statement seems to contravene the article directly: if there are waivers for low income folks, but the fine is up to $1300 dollars and there are stock vehicles (typically expensive ones - specifically mentioned are hellcats and McLaren 720s) that violate the noise limitation... it does suggest this is being used as a revenue stream primarily targeted at enthusiasts, who generally are going to be individuals of moderate to high financial means.

Is that wrong? As with most ethical and moral questions, that answer is subjective.

All that said, it is most likely that the law will be written in an "equal" manner, and the waivers and payment plans will be enforced on a policy level. It is not uncommon for penalties to be based on ability to pay, which again is a subjective judgement as to whether that is "unfair" or "unequal". If the fine was written as a percentage of income over the poverty level, that's arguably an "equal" penalty. There's plenty of grey area in the law.

Obligatory I am not a lawyer.

 

[bavarianstance]

This is just the tip of the ICEberg as the war on the internal combustion engine accelerates. Soft rev limiters, turbos, hybridization and more and more restrictive exhaust systems, etc.

There'll come a time where NA ICE vehicles are relegated to the museum and special track day events. Enjoy it while you still can folks.

 

[2old4this]

depending on your interpretation of US law, automated enforcements systems are already violating a fundamental standard of our legal system (right to face your accuser) and some jurisdictions forbid them on that basis.

I was under the impression that one can challenge even the automated enforcement tickets. Speed camera tickets are they way anyways.

if there are waivers for low income folks, but the fine is up to $1300 dollars and there are stock vehicles (typically expensive ones - specifically mentioned are hellcats and McLaren 720s) that violate the noise limitation...

That I have a problem with (I don’t know if anyone cares but…)
I see a lot more Hondas with modified exhausts than Hellcats and McLarens (I am not dissing Hondas. Every other 18-year-old boy with a Honda seem to “upgrade” his car with a loud exhaust.) They have to be included in the enforcement of this law.

There'll come a time where NA ICE vehicles are relegated to the museum and special track day events.

I think you are right. Not a bad/good thing either; it is just progress.

 

[ExpertRanch]

I read the article.

• It is a test of 5 cities (not named).
• The sound meters will be attached to traffic cameras.
• The probability of being able to litigate a sound violator is very low. If anything it targets low income (rusted /gapped exhaust pipes, hole in the exhaust or no exhaust and no money for a lawyer).
• The decibel ratings have not changed -- 95db for auto. Not really enforced. (side note, also in place for motocross bikes of which I have many.. and I have never seen then enforce this at the track where they KNOW they all are)
• Ferrari currently ships with factory exhaust OVER 95db. (I guarantee Gavin Newsome won't outlaw Ferrari's, well at least not his own).
• McLaren also ships to CA with factory exhaust over 95db.

Bottom line... this, like pretty much every other thing in the news today is a political football. Mostly to scare people into buying electric... of which most of the elite have lots of stock and are allowed to routinely engage in insider trading with no consequences.

I wouldn't worry to much.

 

[ezmaass]

On the list of problems in CA, where does, "some cars are too loud" fall in relation to other problems the state has been unable to solve... such as its growing homeless population, fleeing businesses, crippling taxes, unaffordable homes, wild fires, soaring crime, etc.?

When you can't solve real problems, invent some new ones to tackle instead?

 

[ExpertRanch]

On the list of problems in CA, where does, "some cars are too loud" fall in relation to other problems the state has been unable to solve... such as its growing homeless population, fleeing businesses, crippling taxes, unaffordable homes, wild fires, soaring crime, etc.?

When you can't solve real problems, invent some new ones to tackle instead?

Yeah we got dropped by our insurance for home owners because we live more than 5 miles from a Fire Station. Basically if you want welfare, you're good to go in CA. If you own anything, produce income, or in any way can take care of yourself financially, they want to take it from you. Honestly, if we didn't have so many business ties to this state, we would already be gone.

 

[2old4this]

On the list of problems in CA, where does, "some cars are too loud" fall in relation to other problems the state has been unable to solve... such as its growing homeless population, fleeing businesses, crippling taxes, unaffordable homes, wild fires, soaring crime, etc.?

When you can't solve real problems, invent some new ones to tackle instead?

This is simple politics; when you face issues you can’t fix, you divert the attention to something else (it is very similar to what Texas did two winters ago. After, losing power for 5-6 days, the governor made it illegal to enforce mask mandates. That stoped discussions about power issues in the state. Smart!)

However, you are right, there are several issues, not just in CA, but everywhere in the US. And we are not interested in solving them, because they are really hard to solve.

• Homeless is indeed an issue. Low income (no income) people do prefer California’s climate to Texas’ scorching heat.
• Crime rates are rising. Our solution is to arm ourselves (yours truly included.) We tried everything and nothing is working (we’ve even tried letting kids take guns to schools. Even that didn’t work. Go figure!) The degree of our weaponization change but CA has the most restricted gun laws, and Texas has the least. And yet, crime rates are bad everywhere (If you don’t believe me, I highly encourage all to refer to the Firearm Death Rates by States.)
• Don’t get me started with wildfires, and tornados, and hurricanes. If I do, we have to talk about climate change (or the lack of.) We don’t want that because we have no idea how a 50+ guy will get a new job on a totally new field.
• Fleeing businesses is a simple reality. California enforces higher minimum wages, and corporate taxes. Other states don’t. So, they move from CA to TX, Who can blame them? They don’t want to pay taxes or higher wages. (Incidentally, I just Googled “what was XXX's income tax rate?” Replace XXX with Tesla, Google, Amazon, Faceboook, etc)

But then again, I have been in Oklahoma, Alabama, Indiana, and have seen how some people live. They really don’t have anything, and have no hope for getting anything. Their school systems are subpar, so they can’t break the cycle either. Obviously, there are some exceptions, some can get to collages. Unfortunately, they cannot afford the tuition (I had/have engineers in my teams who used student loans. It takes a very long time for them to repay the loans back, and the new generation is not determined enough to wait that long.)

In the meantime, our politicians are dealing with loud exhausts, or abortion laws, or immigration reform, Because we let them.

</rant> Sorry!

PS
With that, I take my hat and show myself out.