15 ms·
California targets loud exhaust with sound activated cameras
- showerst 4y agoI hope this tech catches on, we have a ton people who like to tear around my neighborhood at 4AM in cars with exhaust mods. A few times it’s been loud enough to wake up my infant, at which point I’d probably vote to upgrade it a capital crime…
- bsedlm 4y agoI hope you're joking. because otherwise, neo-surveillance fascism here we come.
- lettergram 4y agoI’m pretty sure there is no stopping it at this point. People give up the rights not just for security but for a minor increase in comfort at this point.
- XorNot 4y agoWhat right is being given up? They're already committing a crime in a public area, this is just enforcing it. What about the citizens of a neighbourhoods right to quiet enjoyment of their property?
- neoromantique 4y ago>What right is being given up? Any reasonable expectation of privacy. Not all cars are committing a crime when driving past, but every car driving-by will be logged. At least that is already a status quo in most of Europe, unfortunately.
- mikeyouse 4y agoALPR is a completely different technology that exists completely separately than traffic enforcement cameras. It’s completely possible to ban widespread ALPR usage and maintain automatic enforcement with speed / noise cameras.
- toomuchtodo 4y agoThere is no expectation of privacy in public in the US.
- neoromantique 4y agoI mean, yeah, but having your movement constantly tracked by government is still unsettling. I feel the right way to handle that(and traffic infractions in general) is through culture, not surveillance.
- toomuchtodo 4y ago> I feel the right way to handle that(and traffic infractions in general) is through culture, not surveillance. We’re well past a polite society as a solution. Regulation and governance around collected data, with accountability for transgressions, is the path to success.
- neoromantique 4y agoSo, like Chinese social credit system? Thanks, but no thanks, I'd like to avoid living in a literal dystopia for as long as I possibly can.
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
- robonerd 4y ago> We’re well past a polite society as a solution. Isn't that a bit fatalist? Perhaps our society has degenerated, but who's to say things can't get better? Things have gotten better before. Society used to be very rude and brutish, but then got better. It could get better again, without having to build a techno-surveillance authoritarian monster with capabilities the Stasi could only dream of...
- wanderingstan 4y agoThese are “rights” I and many will be glad to give up, just as I’m glad to surrender my “right” to park in public parks, my “right” to pee in a public pool, and so forth. The airspace/sound space is a common good and should be protected.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- recursive 4y agoIt will be worth it. I would also accept banning internal combustion engines instead.
- showerst 4y agoI’m absolutely joking about the death penalty. I’m not at all joking about the auto ticket. If we won’t enforce it why make it illegal? And with a nuisance violation, what’s the difference between sticking a cop there and a camera? I’m not in favor of camera tickets for anything serious or judgement based, but sounds like a nice minor deterrent for nuisance.
- foolfoolz 4y agobecause it’s the same path to speed cameras and a bunch of other stuff watching you all the time. why not just give out “average speed” tickets like the uk does? it’s illegal to go over the speed limit. if we won’t enforce it, why make it illegal?
- yongjik 4y agoHonestly "average speed" tickets are a great idea, and I'm not sure why you speak as if it's bad. These "bunches of stuff" aren't watching you "all the time," they're watching you when you are on a public road, paid for by other taxpayers. If anyone's upset that the government is enforcing traffic rules, they're free to build or rent a private circuit and drive there in whatever way they please. Capitalism for the win.
- teakettle42 4y agoThe only thing that makes the vast landscape of laws palatable is that they are not all enforced, all the time, without fail. I seriously doubt you’d be able to get through a single day without breaking the law. While I’d prefer to have fewer laws on the books, I’ll settle for having limited enforcement. Not everything that’s illegal is immoral, unsafe, or harmful to others. The context and specifics of a situation often matters. Your dystopian authoritarian ideals admit no room for autonomy — individual or otherwise — to apply situational context.
- hiptobecubic 4y agoYou're conflating "all laws" with "one specific, concrete, obviously meaningful law with tons of research behind it and for which violations can be almost perfectly reliably classified."
- dsizzle 4y agoSo speed cameras are fascist?
- freedomben 4y agoThey make lots of mistakes that hurt innocent people, and you have to go to court and prove your innocence. Also they don't consider any situational context. Sounds pretty fascist to me. At least in most jurisdictions they're required to send you the photo now, so when it's clearly not you driving it's a lot easier to get them thrown out by the judge. Still pretty shitty to have to take time off to go to court for something you didn't do.
- fnordpiglet 4y agoI’m not sure you’re using fascism appropriately here. I think you’re meaning “bad and I disagree with it,” but fascism does have an actual political meaning. Sorry to nitpick, but over using fascism as a word dilutes the actual meaning which is limited, an actual movement, and very scary stuff.
- aaaaaaaaata 4y ago> fascism does have an actual political meaning Is it anything like "tracks my plate and toll RFID chip all around town without any suspicion of crime"?
- astura 4y ago>Sounds pretty fascist to me. Dude, "fascist" does not mean "something I think is bad."
- Symbiote 4y ago> when it's clearly not you driving In this case, don't you just tell the police who is driving? "This is my wife/son/carsharing-app-renter" That is the case in the UK, anyway. You must either confirm you were driving, or say who else was driving. (Example: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6298333/speeding-ticket https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6298333/spee... )
- oh_sigh 4y agoWhat kind of problems are you predicting? Have they appeared in England, which is a fairly similar country to the US, but is much more open to using mass CCTV infrastructure?
- micromacrofoot 4y agoI can’t have an open trash fire in my yard either, we need rules about pollution when we live together
- BurningFrog 4y agoWe're already on camera all the time in public. There will only be more cameras in the future. Given that, I see no reason to not use the cameras for something good.
- version_five 4y agoA police or bylaw officer could also do their job and enforce the rules. It doesn't need some kind of automated enforcement to solve it, and doesn't come with the same dystopian automated surveillance and ticketing.
- toomuchtodo 4y agoThe automated solution is objective (versus the well known subjective application of law enforcement) and efficient (no breaks, no sleep, no pensions). No law breaking, no ticket.
- version_five 4y agoOur law enforcement system was not designed to be automated. It works (because of how it has evolved, not by explicit design) on the threat of enforcement. So people "breaking the law" - and I'm thinking here of traffic laws and other minor offenses - are basically free to weigh their own risk tolerance for the penalty against the chances of being caught. This has flaws, but it preserves some notion of freedom while generally pushing people in the "right" direction to control behaviors society doesn't want. Laws and penalties are commensurate with that, ie there are countless traffic laws all drivers break every day, because they are there to guide and penalties are rare. That is much different than mandatory automated enforcement that would or could penalize everyone every time they broke a law. If we went there, all laws would have to be revisited to understand what is an appropriate threshold and penalty so that we could preserve some kind of personal autonomy. But what would happen in practice is that everyone would get the fines. Then there is the whole question of discretion and personalization. For most people here, I'm sure this falls on deaf ears, but I hope you see my point. I don't believe in technocracy and a world where our behavior is enforced that way is horrifying. Anyone who likes that idea could move to China or Singapore to try it out
- porknubbins 4y agoI agree with your point in general it would be borderline tyrannical to track and punish every harmless violation of traffic laws, but in the case of vehicle modifications its not a momentary behavior, its a choice to permanently install something. I love motorsports and high power bikes and cars but would love to see these annoying loud exhausts off the public streets.
- renewiltord 4y agoI think it would be neat if we place these at each street corner and fine every dog owner whose dog barks louder than the sound limit at the time.
- mikeyouse 4y agoYes please. All of the straight pipe truck idiots, “loud pipes save lives” motorcycles and other various inconsiderate morons just ruin quality of life in cities. In places like SF, it won’t discriminate (exclusively) by class either. One of the worst offenders in my old neighborhood was some deplorable in a modified Lamborghini SUV.
- woodpanel 4y agoI've long wondered when somebody would make way for this use-case. But still: Downvoted for the class-hate. Why do people have to make it about political camps instead of just engaging with basic comapssion for those whose communities/homes are close to the roads? You'd be amazed by the diversity of groups affected by it: Live in a "marginalized community"? It's probably a backup for traffic planners to divert cargo through (i.e. train lines, highways, airport close by). Live in a scenic area? Enjoy the exhaust pipes of road-trippers every weekend. etc.
- tragictrash 4y agoThe OP was saying that the people with loud cars aren't always driving a POS civic, his example was a personal experience with a Lambo. His point was also literally the same thing you are saying.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- hooloovoo_zoo 4y agoHonestly I would pay to have an enforcement zone set up near me.
- ignu 4y agoI used to live on a semi-busy street. About once an hour a motorcycle would drive by so loud it would set off multiple car alarms that would then blare for ten to fifteen minutes. This might sound very annoying. But after countless months of this your mortal coil just dissolves into an entity of pure hatred and you completely transcend the material plane.
- iamhamm 4y agoI’m glad I live in a rural area where we don’t need to worry about getting random tickets mailed to us.
- jahewson 4y agoThey’re not random.
- silisili 4y agoNoise is much, much different in a rural area. An old friend of mine was in a 'biker gang' of sorts and when I visited his farm, the bikes were loud, but didn't really seem to bother me. First time I went to Chicago, walking around downtown, a few bikers came by and I can only describe the noise as head pounding, ear piercingly loud. Acoustics are weird in that way.
- iamhamm 4y agoThat’s a good point. When I haven’t been into a city in a while, it’s always jarring. I suppose some of the acoustics are related to the sounds hitting buildings and doing the canyon effect. I live in the high desert and the incredibly dry air (usually <15% humidity) doesn’t propagate sound much.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Johnythree 4y agoIn my small rural village, there's an idiot with a noisy car who's bellowing exhaust wakes everyone, every morning at 6:00am. The noise literally carries for miles.
- iamhamm 4y agoCurious- do you live some place wet/humid? I was just noting to another reply that in the high desert where I am, we are normally <=15% humidity and sound doesn’t really carry much and the local explanation is the low moisture content.
- nullc 4y agoI wish we'd do something like a revenue neutral noise pollution registration fee, where the top 25% loudest things on the road pay a higher fee which is used to give a discount to the bottom 49%... creating an incentive to drive noise pollution levels continually down.
- spoonjim 4y agoI don't want rich people to be able to buy their way into making an infernal racket.
- nullc 4y agoWe shouldn't let a fear of someone enjoying a benefit we feel they don't deserve get in the way of improving noise levels for others. The high/low tax I propose isn't about preventing the worst offenders: it's about pulling the overall fleet noise levels down. The noise pollution we suffer from isn't exclusively from a few infernal racket makers -- other measures (like the articles cameras) are needed for nuisance cars. Even if you're only concerned about the worst of the worst, lowering the average levels should make it easier to act against the worst of the worse through lower limits and harsher penalties because they'll be more separated from ordinary vehicles.
- spoonjim 4y agoYes, "both" is a good idea. A tax + a progressive penalty.
- recursive 4y agoIt's hard to measure loudness that way. Many cars seem to be capable of being quiet or loud. Which way do you think they'll be during certification?
- nullc 4y agoThat wouldn't be fatal: if you bring down the typical levels it becomes easier to lower the bannable levels. The noise pollution we experience doesn't just come from the loudest cars at their loudest times-- though that has an outsized effect-- it comes from all but the absolute quietest.
- dsizzle 4y ago> Some cars and many motorcycles, depending on the road and driving style, will easily exceed the 95 and 80 decibel limits straight from the factory. Based on Car and Driver testing, examples include the 2016 Porsche 911 GT3 RS (108 decibels) and the 2019 Chevrolet Corvette ZR1 and 2019 McLaren 720S Spider, both at 99 decibels. Seems crazy to me that manufacturers are selling cars that are basically designed to be a nuisance.
- antisthenes 4y ago> Based on Car and Driver testing, examples include the 2016 Porsche 911 GT3 RS (108 decibels) and the 2019 Chevrolet Corvette ZR1 and 2019 McLaren 720S Spider, both at 99 decibels. At which speed and mode of operation? Is that during hard acceleration or during cruise? What range from the car?
- _fat_santa 4y agoThat's most likely the peak, so whenever the car is going full throttle.
- showerst 4y agoWith the exception (arguably) of the vette, those are uncommon high end sportscars. Much like with the speed limit, the owners are expected to be a little more cognizant of law abiding.
- _fat_santa 4y agoDepending on where you go they can be very common. Drive around Beverly Hills or any of the nice parts of LA and you will see 911's and other high end cars more often than you would a Honda Civic.
- mkr-hn 4y agoI expect them to treat fines like fees.
- 4y ago
- asah 4y agoNYC too: https://www.thecity.nyc/2022/2/24/22949795/new-york-rolling-out-noise-law-listening-tech-for-souped-up-speedsters https://www.thecity.nyc/2022/2/24/22949795/new-york-rolling-...
- gfaster 4y agoI know Paris is doing something similar as well, which is definitely in line with their recent efforts to cut back on cars in the city
- throwaway743 4y agoI can only hope it goes into effect in my neighborhood. It's pretty hard to go a day without wearing headphones throughout just to think straight
- colechristensen 4y agoI really wish human enforcement would happen instead of robotic police state starter edition. There really aren't that many violators and it's not like speeding where anybody does it, just revoke the registration of any car caught going a certain amount over and make them tow it on the spot and pass an inspection before it can be legally back on the road. It's usually just one dude in the neighborhood that has an obnoxious car.
- xapata 4y agoRevoking registration seems excessive. Also, I'd expect someone who modifies the exhaust pipe to be able to pass an inspection and revert the modification immediately after.
- XorNot 4y agoPeople get killed all the time in having in-person police interactions. No one has ever been killed by speed camera enforcement.
- Handytinge 4y agoThis is very, very rare in western countries outside of the US.
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
- version_five 4y agoThis is so offensive. The idea that we should be ruled by unseen masters who enforce their desires through machines because actuall personal interaction would be dangerous for us. Anyone who subscribes to this needs to take a good look at their values system and understanding of what it means to be part of humanity.
- micromacrofoot 4y agoI’d personally rather deal with the unforeseen masters instead of the armed guy with 6 months training and an anger problem
- mistrial9 4y agoThe office space near campus here has some expensive business suites, and by casual chat one day, I found that not one or two, but a whole corner of one floor was rented out to a company making automated traffic cameras, and most of the people in the office were speaking some Slavic language I had never heard before .. this is California. It is obviously a profit center. whoever owns the right to these automated systems, owns a money-printing machine and everyone involved knows it.
- stefan_ 4y agoWell, let's just limit cars to the speed limit automatically then. They have had GPS for 20 years, it seems about time. No surveillance, no dollars. Same as we can and should set strict sound limits at homologation.
- xapata 4y agoI dunno, seems reasonable to let people pay to violate some ordinances. Maybe one day you're in a hurry and you don't mind paying the speeding tax.
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago> dunno, seems reasonable to let people pay to violate some ordinances That's literally what a zoning variance or an oversize load permit is.
- stefan_ 4y agoIt's not a tax, it's the law.
- timbit42 4y agoOne of the reasons for speed limits is to prevent death. Deciding to pay a fine isn't an acceptable reason to speed.
- mlyle 4y ago
- xapata 4y agoMy dream come true!
- throwaway0a5e 4y agoI live on a hill by a major state highway intersection in an area where jake brakes are allowed. This is also within olfactory distance of the water treatment plant. It's great because none of the people who cheer on this sort of dystopian "use the state's monopoly on violence to enforce the pettiest of petty laws" wind up living here. Edit: Since apparently these things need to be said, because HN, imagine your living situation isn't stable and you don't get the fine because it was mailed to your last apartment or you simply fail to pay it, what happens then, and how is that different than if you had stiffed anyone other than the state?
- robbrown451 4y agoIf you get a bill in the mail, how does "monopoly on violence" come into play?
- Gigachad 4y agoIt’s just a buzzword phrase free marketers use for every situation where the government does something. I do wonder what the alternative they would prefer be though. Would they rather an individual be able to hire a private gang to collect the noise violation payment at gunpoint?
- dangloveletter 4y ago
- perryizgr8 4y agoCan you choose to ignore the bill without any threat of state sponsored violence? If no, thats your monopoly on violence right there.
- robbrown451 4y agoNever heard of violence upon someone for not paying a ticket. They might have their credit affected, their wages garnished, their vehicle registration suspended, and so on, if they continue to ignore bills. That isn't violence, but it is consequences. But I'm curious how you'd prefer it be handled. What if I don't pay rent? Should I be allowed to live there forever, simply because no one, not even the police, is allowed to physically remove me from the property if I refuse to pay and refuse to leave? I wonder how this ideal world you imagine actually works.
- karaterobot 4y agoI can't understand why the enforced decibel level is 95 for cars and 80 for motorcycles. Motorcycles are probably, by percentage, the worst offenders for this, but it seems like a decibel from one vehicle is as loud as a decibel from another, so I wonder why there's a double standard. The biggest argument against this seems to be the creeping surveillance state. I agree with that, and it would indeed be better if this was enforced by 'old-fashioned' police and their old-fashioned ears. But they don't, for whatever reason, and I wish they would. It's frustrating. And it's not that I like being surveilled, but I think speed trap cameras and red light cameras are generally worse than this (because you can accidentally go over the speed limit, but you can't accidentally install a loud aftermarket exhaust pipe) so this isn't as much of a problem for me as it seems for some people. At one level I'll even appreciate the sweet revenge on the inconsiderate people whose unnecessarily loud vehicles have been annoying me for decades.
- robonerd 4y agoI think the limit should be the same for both, but I bet the difference is motivated by the pack behavior of motorcyclists. Loud cars usually travel alone, but loud motorcycles often travel in packs of dozens which may continue passing your house for a minute or two, which feels like an hour...
- kube-system 4y agoA group of 90 decibel bikes is not going to sound anywhere near like a bunch of straight piped Harleys inside you house. It will sound like you’re next to a hair salon. Hair dryers are 90 decibel.
- robonerd 4y agoAs I said, 95 decibels seems like a reasonable enough limit for motorcycles. But I suspect lower limit for motorcycles is motivated by people getting fed up with motorcyclists particularly. The worst motorcyclists have earned a horrible reputation for all motorcyclists, I think this lower limit is a consequence of that.
- WalterBright 4y agoThere are far more annoying leaf blowers than loud cars.
- blamazon 4y agoYou'll be glad to know then that California is banning the sale of new gas powered leaf blowers in 2024. https://www.route-fifty.com/public-safety/2021/11/california-become-first-state-outlaw-gas-powered-lawn-mowers-and-leaf-blowers/186568/ https://www.route-fifty.com/public-safety/2021/11/california...
- betwixthewires 4y agoWell you'll be thrilled to know that those are illegal in California as well.
- rektide 4y agoDC banned gas powered leaf blowers, that finally went onto effect over the new year. It's great!! Your city can to. It's super. Someone woke me up this week with a gas leaf blower & I didnt quite drag myself dowm there to give him a verbal warning. But I will be doing that soon, I think! I wish DC would enforce noise pollution against cars. I live on a particilarly bad street, to the point where I somewhat deserve it, but it's still a tiny residential street. People just love tearing up the streets & dosrupting neighbors after a long long night. I dont even know if we have laws against it, but there's definitely no enforcement. Automated systems sound lovely. They dont tend to be super late night, but DC also has swarms of dirtbikes/atv's, loud as heck, and the police officially are not to respond, are told to do nothing, for passerby & rider safety. We should definitely do something about the cars but, & we do nothing, but it's notable to me that civil behavior is generally unenforceable, at least as it appears now.
- userbinator 4y agoIt's always seemed very odd to me that California is known both for its hot-rodding culture that encourages vehicle modifications, and at the same time has extremely strict emissions laws. That said, as an enthusiast of vehicle performance improvements myself, there's a huge variance in how exhaust sounds are perceived even if they're the same volume. To me, high-pitched screaming is far more obnoxious than low-frequency rumbling.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Gigachad 4y agoHigh frequency sounds will bounce off your walls and windows though. Especially if you have double glazed windows, it’s only the low rumbles that get through.
- nopenopenopeno 4y agoIn my city, there was a big criminal operation stealing catalytic converters from cars parked on the street during lockdown. A lot of cars are still missing them and we all know who drives those cars: poor people living paycheck to paycheck. As long as we have so much poverty and wealth inequality, I will aggressively oppose brutal laws with such out-of-touch priorities as noise pollution.
- Gigachad 4y agoDriving without a catalytic converter is already illegal and for good reasons. It makes more sense to crack down on theft than to allow people to drive around pumping out cancer causing pollution and huge amounts of noise.
- 0des 4y agoDown here if it rides, it rides. Cat or not.
- nopenopenopeno 4y agoI personally think it makes more sense to crack down on poverty, but by your own logic you should start by cracking down on theft instead of punishing those living in poverty.
- kevin_thibedeau 4y agoWho gets the ticket if a law abiding driver is in frame with a scofflaw? Exhaust noise regulations are generally based on a specific distance and orientation at ground level. How are they going to prove that they met those conditions? 95dB for cars but only 80dB for motorcycles. I doubt my 15 year old bike meets that with its stock exhaust. Regardless, now a car can trip the camera and the blame falls on someone driving a quieter vehicle.
- Manuel_D 4y agoI can imagine that they'd take multiple samples. E.g. do you see the same car in the same sound-triggered photo N number of times? An abiding car would have to be exceptionally unlucky to get confused with the loud vehicle.
- Johnythree 4y agoThis. Your car only gets flagged if it is recorded on multiple occasions. And even then, it is not a fine, but is required to visit a testing station.
- gfaster 4y agoFrom how I see it, if your bike is loud enough that it is in violation of noise ordinances then you should take it to a shop and mod it if you expect to be driving around other people. Also, if I had to guess, the reasoning for the limit for cars being higher is that past about 20(?)mph the tire noise makes up for the majority of the noise (which is proportional to weight)
- kevin_thibedeau 4y agoVehicles in stock configuration can't be forced to comply with newer laws. That's why you can drive without seatbelts in a car that's old enough. Same with tire pressure monitoring and backup cameras.
- gfaster 4y ago
- explaingarlic 4y agoOn the topic of driving legislature and enforcement in general, I hate the sentiment of speed limits. It's a mishmash of trying to reduce fatalities by making person-and-vehicle collisions happen at a slower speed that is for some reason applied to the motorway. For anyone that has gone 155mph on the Autobahns unlimited section, it becomes blatantly obvious that modern high end cars are meant to do that sort of speed, and there's nothing that scary about it when you have 6 lanes and keep a few hundred meters of braking distance. The fact that 90mph would get your license taken away in the U.K. makes me sick considering that almost all little crapbox cars sold in Europe happily break that limit (even if they're screaming in 5th gear).
- timbit42 4y agoYes, let's let evolution take its natural course and rid society of such drivers.
- explaingarlic 4y agoRhetoric. No significant link between deaths and the unlimited speed on the Autobahns exists (and such data would be subject to scrutiny immediately, given that deaths on the motorway go up with socioeconomic factors, the amount of sun in a given year etc). You are, however, wasting your life behind a wheel for longer than you need to be. Really senseless, and it puts you on the level of those who deny the efficacy of vaccines for the sake of satisfying their fear.
- gfaster 4y agoI'm really happy to see governments finally waking up to the problems caused by noise pollution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_from_noise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_from_noise). Another thing that I have maintained for quite some time is that car horns should be at as loud inside the car as out. It's kinda crazy to me that we're ok with people making such loud noises while being completely isolated from them.
- bluefirebrand 4y agoI guarantee that would cause hearing damage. I get what you're trying to accomplish, disincentivize people against honking excessively, but it's a bit like trying to prevent stabbings by only selling knives without handles. I think we should be looking into more effective ways for people to communicate among vehicles, honestly.
- ryukafalz 4y ago> I guarantee that would cause hearing damage. You shouldn't be using your horn often enough to do that anyway, and if a single honk is loud enough to damage your hearing in this case, it's also loud enough to damage the hearing of a pedestrian walking near you. I say do it. It'd be a strong disincentive to use your horn unnecessarily.
- zamadatix 4y agoIt'd be nice to see horn volume tied to speedometer or outside noise level (maybe some already are?). After all it's meant to be a safety device not a device you can stick your ear next to comfortably in any scenario. If you're going 70 and want to signal to the guy left of you to not merge into you "it's too loud for a pedestrian to safely stand right next to" isn't very relevant (in both perspectives). At the same time if you're going <5 mph on a comparatively quiet backed up street there is no reason it has to be the same volume as the first case.
- bobbylarrybobby 4y agoMaybe if drivers didn't want their hearing damaged they'd push for horns that were quieter outside the car too. After all the parent's comment merely says that horns should be as loud inside the car as outside — not louder. Currently, horns are externalized and so drivers don't care how loud they are. By internalizing the cost, they'd care enough to lower it. Or go deaf. Their choice. But at least it's a choice they'd care about.
- spike021 4y agoI would rather California work harder on enforcement against smoking tobacco everywhere. In my city it's illegal to smoke in city parks, yet people do it inside my neighborhood parks nearly every day. Many times when young families with children are around and inhaling it second-hand.
- robbrown451 4y agoThat's a different problem with different possible solutions. Just because we work on one thing doesn't mean we have to stop working on another. Presumably this one is a lot easier to address inexpensively with a bit of tech. Smoking not so much. For one thing, people don't wear license plates.
- zbrozek 4y agoThey do wear their face, however, and governments seem to be all-in on using that too.
- robbrown451 4y agoOk, well, they aren't doing it for this, so what are we complaining about again? The issue of loud vehicles can be addressed without resorting to things like facial recognition. Facial recognition, due to the obvious privacy concerns, should probably be reserved for much more serious things, such as catching fugitives or detecting violations of restraining orders and the like. Not people smoking outside. Maybe it shouldn't be used at all. So I don't understand the complaint.
- zbrozek 4y agoI'm merely pointing out that the lack of human license plate isn't much of a barrier.
- WalterBright 4y agoSometimes around here, a B-17 will fly over (I know the sound). They're loud, but I love every decibel.
- erulabs 4y agoPasadena?
- WalterBright 4y agoSeattle area.
- zbrozek 4y agoI look forward to tens of thousands of fines being sent out whenever an aircraft goes by.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- arthurcolle 4y agoplease do this in miami, everytime I hear revving my heartrate goes up 9 bpm
- traveler01 4y ago
- pkulak 4y agoI personally know three people who have had their catalytic converters stolen in the last two months. I hope there's an exception for trying to get back home after some degenerate has stolen $600 of palladium off your exhaust system! That said, I still 100% support this bill. Noise pollution is a real thing, and it sucks. "Cities aren't loud, cars are loud."
- 0des 4y agoEvery time I hear a prius like that I feel so bad, because you just know someone sawed their cat off.
- whycombinetor 4y agoBubb Rubb and Lil Sis would disapprove. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUXow3d3-b0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUXow3d3-b0
- WalterBright 4y agoI like the sound of a properly built V8. They should be exempt from that law. If it's a 4 cylinder machine with a fart exhaust, those should be banned. 12 cylinder Ferraris should also be worshiped, not fined. An air-cooled VW Bug with a stinger exhaust should get a special exemption, too, just for being California cool.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- tomohawk 4y agoDifferent pavements have different noise characteristics, and poor pavement decisions probably contribute the most to noise. Will the state fine itself for loud pavement? Do they even have a standard they would hold themselves to for loud pavement? I'm all in favor of reducing exhaust noise, but without going after loud pavement, it is a waste of time.
- jefurii 4y agoWhat I want is a sound activated rotten-egg launcher or paintball gun for the obnoxious cars on my street.
- charlie0 4y agoA much better way of handling this issue in CA is just to add a sound test when getting a smog check. Pretty much all cars get smogged and while it won't stop everyone, it will deter many from installing such systems.
- Manuel_D 4y agoThe issue is that people can just swap out an exhaust before the smog test. I only smogged my car once having lived there for 9 years. Maybe twice? But still, whoever has the skills to install an aftermarket exhaust also has the skill to reinstall it, probably.
- bsagdiyev 4y agoWill not work. All 49 state legal mods come off before smog and go right back on after. Some exhausts have a removable insert in the tip that restricts flow but also dampers the noise. Also the penalty for modification when I got pulled over and hood popped back in high school was a $400 state referee ticket. I could take my car to a state ref to get signed off or pay the fine. The motor was swapped and 100% illegal per California of course I just paid. It's just lip service with a racket on top. Quick edit: the swapped engine actually blew cleaner than the original engine before anyone chimes in there. If California cared about emissions they would only judge a car on what it blows out the tailpipe, not what is in it.
- daveoc64 4y agoTests like that happen in the UK, but any illegal modifications are removed or disabled before testing.
- wellthisisgreat 4y agoWhat about loud music blasting from cars? To the level that makes the car alarms go off?
- rosnd0 4y agoWhat about overly sensitive car alarms? IME those tend to be the worst offenders.
- i_am_proteus 4y agoWhat prevents someone with a horn-in-a-can or a portable loudspeaker from abusing this system, causing random passing motorists to receive citations?
- wanderingstan 4y agoThe article specifies that citations are only sent after multiple infractions. You’d have to Track the same “random motorist” over multiple days and enforcement zones. Not going to happen.
- blahblarblar 4y agoI wish this applied to fire trucks. I’ve been woken up too many times by a fire truck blasting their horn at 2am when there’s no traffic in the street, waking up 200+ people in the process.
- kylehotchkiss 4y agoNear me in Southern California, it’s cameros/corvettes (I call these cheap sports cars) and trucks with out of state plates. Generally not the modified Nissans/Hondas. Bring it on with these rules! Sick of walking down the street and hearing a car going 40 sound like a race car going 150. Loud exhaust is nothing more than people trying to compensate for not getting the attention they crave in other venues in life. Same with trucks with massive/unpractical lifts. You don’t get any off road benefits above a few inches and the lift just becomes about looking intimidating which is not a part of American culture I enjoy having to deal with
- mensetmanusman 4y agoAs common decency dilapidates, I wonder if we will just use technology to find and shame. The ‘war on noise’ is probably just the beginning. Why wouldn’t you deploy this technology to stop littering, etc.? The end result might be Singapore and beyond:)