The U.S. Government is trying to get rid of our racecars!

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by funwheeldrive

I never said the exhaust law had anything to do with emissions, I was responding to the guy who implied that just because CARB wasn't enforced that the air quality would be poor.


Oh I know. I was just highlighting the main topic in case anyone forgot.


We are talking about a $1000 fine for a little bit of NOISE. No harm is being done to anyone. I doubt anyone ever went deaf from a Mustang GT with an aftermarket exhaust. Menawhile, people shit all over the streets of SF for free and no one bats an eye.

It can be little or it can be so loud that it is setting off car alarms and waking up the whole neighborhood. Needing action on one issue doesn’t negate the action taken to combate another. I voted to support housing and aid to the homeless this last election. Did you?


I understand the logistics of things like catalytic converters and maintaining air quality in highly populated areas, but CARB as a whole is a joke and a massive money grab. It's possible to have clean air without so many unnecessary laws and guidelines. But then again, California loves that kind of stuff.

Oh yea? Which ones are unnecessary? Actually, CARB sets emission standards that eventually become stanadards for all cars. In that sense, they improve air quality everywhere in the US. If you find the laws governing car modifications extreme here then there are 49 other states available to live in.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by mav1178

People really need to read the law and not just base judgment on what other people post.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...01720180AB1824

It simply just means the officer(s) have more discretion at enforcing this. The law states that you cannot have an exhaust system more than 95db, and as long as you understand your rights to own a car with an exhaust system in compliance with VC 27151. Nothing about the passed legislation changes VC 27151. If you read the details about "disqualifying conditions", it's really more of the same stuff that is already enforced.

27151: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...ctionNum=27151

Too many enthusiasts think they can do whatever they want but don't take the time to understand their rights. At least CA doesn't have those useless vehicle inspections that are even more of a joke.

I think you missed something. It isn't giving them the option of issuing a correctable violation or pursuing something more. It specifically says in paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) that violating existing exhaust laws is grounds for exclusion from getting a fix-it-ticket.

--------

Paragraph (1) of section (a) basically says that a fix-it-ticket for items like registration or license violations or equipment violations should be issued.

Paragraph (2) of section (a) basically says that if someone gets arrested for a registration violation then an officer can issue a fix-it-ticket or issue a notice to appear in court, where the violation could be corrected--"appear and correct".

Section (b) says a fix-it-ticket or "appear and correct" tickets shall be issued except in the following situations: Paragraph (4) when someone gets a citation for violating exhaust laws part of subdivision (a) of Section 27150 or of subdivision (a) of Section 27151, which states that cars must have a reasonable exhaust and the next section clarifies that no exhaust should be applied or modified that exceeds a 95 decibel limit.

Section (c) says "the officer may take other appropriate enforcement action", which means a citation can be issued, or an arrest made, or an impound, etc., but essentially it is restating Section (b) with clarification that in absence of being REQUIRED to issue a fix-it-ticket or an "appear and correct" ticket, the officer may proceed as they feel with other forms of enforcement.

-------------

The officers can always ignore the law and let you go, but the amendment specifically states that a correctable violation is NOT to be issued. There are no grounds for the officer to issue a correctable violation for an exhaust violation of their own choosing.

[funwheeldrive]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Oh yea? Which ones are unnecessary? Actually, CARB sets emission standards that eventually become stanadards for all cars. In that sense, they improve air quality everywhere in the US. If you find the laws governing car modifications extreme here then there are 49 other states available to live in.

How about the fact that you can have a car that puts out less emissions than the majority of the cars on the road, but because you fail the visual inspection you fail the entire smog test, regardless of what comes out of your tail pipe?

If you think providing free stuff to the homeless is considered helping and not enabling then you are in for a surprise. We don't need to focus on getting the homeless free/cheap housing, we need to focus on getting them sober and in control of their own lives first. But hey, maybe if we throw enough tax payer money at a problem it will eventually go away right? That seems to be California's mantra. Pretty sad that California makes more than most countries yet one in three of the people living there are in poverty. No wonder people are leaving California more than almost any other state. People are sick of being nickle and dimed without any real improvement to infrastructure or public transportation. Enjoy your annual fires, overpriced homes, and shitty 91 octane.

I was born and raised in California. I left last year and am never coming back.

[why?]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Oh yea? Which ones are unnecessary? Actually, CARB sets emission standards that eventually become stanadards for all cars. In that sense, they improve air quality everywhere in the US. If you find the laws governing car modifications extreme here then there are 49 other states available to live in.

actually carb makes everything worse, especially air quality. If they actually gave a crap they'd be going after trucks, busses, and relieving the insane traffic california is known for. That would solve air quality issues a ton more than attacking enthusiasts.

[WolfpackS2k]

This is law allows officers to slap you with a $1000 fine if they think "in their judgement" that your exhaust is louder than 95 dB. They don't even have to use an instrument to measure it.

Complete horseshit.

[funwheeldrive]

Years ago I got a fix-it ticket in California for my Neon Srt-4's exhaust. When I tried telling the officer that my car didn't come with a muffler from the factory he called me a liar.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by funwheeldrive

How about the fact that you can have a car that puts out less emissions than the majority of the cars on the road, but because you fail the visual inspection you fail the entire smog test, regardless of what comes out of your tail pipe?

If you think providing free stuff to the homeless is considered helping and not enabling then you are in for a surprise. We don't need to focus on getting the homeless free/cheap housing, we need to focus on getting them sober and in control of their own lives first. But hey, maybe if we throw enough tax payer money at a problem it will eventually go away right? That seems to be California's mantra. Pretty sad that California makes more than most countries yet one in three of the people living there are in poverty. No wonder people are leaving California more than almost any other state. People are sick of being nickle and dimed without any real improvement to infrastructure or public transportation. Enjoy your annual fires, overpriced homes, and shitty 91 octane.

I was born and raised in California. I left last year and am never coming back.

They don't want you modifying emission equipment because it works as a system. They don't do sniffer or load testing anymore for OBDII cars, so only a visual for OEM or CARB components and an OBDII readiness.

I work in the ER. People don't choose to be homeless. The vast majority are addicts and people with mental health issues. It is a FACT that we could house the homeless in shelters and low cost housing while providing social support in the form of addiction counseling and social services that manage their medications and employment than leaving these people on the street and continuing to burden the hospitals, law enforcement, city cleanup, park cleanup, etc.

We had one lady that had 106 rolling visits just to our ER in a year. Even at $500 a visit minimum (guessing conservatively), for less than $60,000 we could have paid for cheap housing and a social worker to manage her psych meds, job, counseling, etc.

How do you propose to get them sober and in control of their own lives while they are in tents on the streets and under bridges? Please educate us.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by why?

actually carb makes everything worse, especially air quality. If they actually gave a crap they'd be going after trucks, busses, and relieving the insane traffic california is known for. That would solve air quality issues a ton more than attacking enthusiasts.

Evidence for your first statement? Asserting claims with out evidence or with out facts that everyone can agree upon is non-sensical.

https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onrdie.../multirule.pdf

https://www.overdriveonline.com/carb...rting-in-2020/

The new “health-based requirements” will need to be met before a driver is allowed to register his or her truck through the Department of Motor Vehicles, CARB says. A new enforcement tool used by the DMV beginning in 2020 will automatically block 2010 and older trucks from registration.

Remember too that many buses use natural gas or are electric, and regardless, a single bus can remove fifty cars off the road when full of passengers.

https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2018...ion-bus-fleet/

California moved Friday to eliminate fossil fuels from its fleet of 12,000 transit buses, enacting a first-in-the-nation mandate that will vastly increase the number of electric buses on the road.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

This is law allows officers to slap you with a $1000 fine if they think "in their judgement" that your exhaust is louder than 95 dB. They don't even have to use an instrument to measure it.

Complete horseshit.

Law enforcement officers are not judge and jury. Challenge the ticket. Just because there is not a fix-it-ticket or appear-and-correct option (giving you the ability to fix the problem or swap the exhaust after the fact) that doesn't mean the ticket can't be challenged, that you are now guilty until proven innocent. Go to court and if the officer shows up then present your case. Go with your proof that your exhaust is legal and has no means of being louder.

I have a Greddy Supreme Sp which is rated at like 84db. I can take a picture of the exhaust, print a picture of the website for the exhaust and something to show the officer too, so he/she can verify I didn't swap the exhaust, and the ticket will likely get thrown out. I can also use a decibel app to note the noise level to show the judge.

The other reality that was discussed is that the officer needs to be able to issue a ticket for loud exhausts for cars that can switch their exhaust note with the flip of a switch like how the newer Mustang GTs can. The car is always capable of being legal and illegal, so if a driver is making excessive noise because his exhaust note is set to track then it will be up to the officer to say that they believe the driver was having their exhaust note in an illegal setting--case closed--fine issued.

[funwheeldrive]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

They don't want you modifying emission equipment because it works as a system. They don't do sniffer or load testing anymore for OBDII cars, so only a visual for OEM or CARB components and an OBDII readiness.

According to the BAR any car 1999 and older is subject to sniffer test still, so that includes a fair amount of OBD2 cars.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I work in the ER. People don't choose to be homeless. The vast majority are addicts and people with mental health issues. It is a FACT that we could house the homeless in shelters and low cost housing while providing social support in the form of addiction counseling and social services that manage their medications and employment than leaving these people on the street and continuing to burden the hospitals, law enforcement, city cleanup, park cleanup, etc.

We had one lady that had 106 rolling visits just to our ER in a year. Even at $500 a visit minimum (guessing conservatively), for less than $60,000 we could have paid for cheap housing and a social worker to manage her psych meds, job, counseling, etc.

How do you propose to get them sober and in control of their own lives while they are in tents on the streets and under bridges? Please educate us.

I've worked in medical centers for over ten years. People don't chose to be homeless, but they DO choose to get high or to get drunk, even if that means sacrificing money that would otherwise be spent on food or shelter. Addiction is incredibly strong and I've seen people literally drink themselves to death even with their friends and family begging them to stop. You can't make an addict stop abusing, they need to make that decision for themselves.

With enough tax payer money is it possible to provide free shelter, food, social work, medication management and whatever else to drug addicts? Sure, but wouldn't that money be better spent on public schools, foster children, veterans, or the elderly?

Places like San Francisco were afraid to enforce their own laws and instead of trying to control the homeless population they enabled it, and now the problem is exponentially worse because of it. And now, they want the taxpayers to bail them out for their lack of foresight.

Mental illness is also a factor, but many of the people with mental illnesses on the streets are like that because they fried their brains with drugs/alcohol. Many of these people are grown adults who are capable of making their own decisions, even if they are terrible desicions.

If these people want aid then they should be required to register with the state, pledge their sobriety at the risk of being booted out, and be obligated to contribute in whatever way possible. But the reality is that many of these people don't want to quit and would rather live in tents if it means having the freedom to get high.

What do you do with all those people who refuse to quit doing drugs? Still reward them with shelter, housing, and medical care until their destroy their bodies completely?

You say you had a woman roll in the ER 106 times. Obviously she didnt learn her lesson, even with case managers, social workers, nurses, and doctors all trying to educate her and provide her with community resources that are already in place. This might sound morbid, but would the world really be worse off if we had just let her die after her first overdose instead of treating her for the same thing 105 more times? If addicts know that they are just going to get saved over and over repeated and given food and shelter no matter what, what motivation is there for anyone to quit? Maybe if we made people more accountable for their bodies and their personal health we would be in a better place.

[MRCA1ST]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Law enforcement officers are not judge and jury. Challenge the ticket. Just because there is not a fix-it-ticket or appear-and-correct option (giving you the ability to fix the problem or swap the exhaust after the fact) that doesn't mean the ticket can't be challenged, that you are now guilty until proven innocent.

Not sure if things have change since I lived out in the PRC but tickets had to paid before being challenged in court - damn close to guilty until proven innocents IMO

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by funwheeldrive

According to the BAR any car 1999 and older is subject to sniffer test still, so that includes a fair amount of OBD2 cars.

Assuming of course a person doesn't live in a smog exempt area of California. Even then, the point is the process is streamlined and standardized to the highest standard they can come up with; CARB creates a process for parts to get an EO number. They put the burden of regulating emission equipment on them and not on smog technicians. As we have seen with the diesel gate issues, it isn't hard to fool a sniffer or dyno test with an ECU tune.

With enough tax payer money is it possible to provide free shelter, food, social work, medication management and whatever else to drug addicts? Sure, but wouldn't that money be better spent on public schools, foster children, veterans, or the elderly?

No. You don't get it. Providing for the homeless saves money.

Mental illness is also a factor, but many of the people with mental illnesses on the streets are like that because they fried their brains with drugs/alcohol. Many of these people are grown adults who are capable of making their own decisions, even if they are terrible desicions.

I'm pretty sure you don't understand mental illnesses or what it is like for these people who have fried brains with a statement like that.

What do you do with all those people who refuse to quit doing drugs? Still reward them with shelter, housing, and medical care until their destroy their bodies completely?

Saying "reward them..." just demonstrates how you view these people and solving this crisis.

Please read/watch/educate. HOMELESSNESS:

https://www.npr.org/2015/12/10/45910...cent-heres-how

https://endhomelessness.org/study-da...s-money-lives/

https://la.curbed.com/2017/12/5/1673...r-health-study

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nys6iebjHw[/ame]



ADDICTION:

https://www.thefix.com/dr-carl-hart-...-drug-policies

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9HMifCoSko[/ame]

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by MRCA1ST

Not sure if things have change since I lived out in the PRC but tickets had to paid before being challenged in court - damn close to guilty until proven innocents IMO

http://www.courts.ca.gov/9581.htm

We also hold people convicted of murder in jail before their trial unless they are granted and can make bail. They still are innocent until proven guilty, but yea, we begin by acting as if the allegations are valid.

That is/was correct. The fine was paramount to bail. Pay the bail, get a court date, the officer needs to prove you're guilty, bail is returned if you are found not-guilty. Financial hardship can be claimed if you have proof of hardship.

The new rule is intended to end the practice of requiring drivers to pay the ticket, which is technically bail, before they can contest it in court. Judges will still be able to charge bail if they have reason to believe the person won't show up for trial.

https://www.latimes.com/local/califo...608-story.html

[MRCA1ST]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

We also hold people convicted of murder in jail before their trial unless they are granted and can make bail.

I guess I consider those accused of traffic/modification violations slightly less dangerous to the public than someone accused of murder - who you might not want out on the streets while awaiting trial. Either way, every other state I have been ticketed in had a court date on or before the fine due date.