State vs aftermarket exhaust

[Hotsauce]

There is no way the officer can issue a noise ticket without a measurement, just like he can't issue a speeding ticket without comparrison of your speed to a calibrated device.

Just to say that your truck is louder than others is a purely subjective observation, and in no way accurate.

For a noise ticket to be issued he needs a dB meter AND calibration records for it.

John C.

[kpaske]

There is no way the officer can issue a noise ticket without a measurement, just like he can't issue a speeding ticket without comparrison of your speed to a calibrated device.

That's obviously not true, because he got a ticket, and (as far as we know) the cop didn't use any sort of measuring device. The fact is, it happens all the time in Maryland. Read my previous posts for several other real world examples.

WG - I'm surprised you are going to court at all. Unless the rules have changed all you need to do is go to the Glen Burnie MVA and have the State PD inspect it. It's free (unless you're guilty, of course) and you can do it on your own schedule. I personally wouldn't bother wasting a day in court without first trying to settle it the easy way.

[psychos2]

In NY it is against the law to modify your stock exhaust. I have been pulled over a few times and have not had anyone tell me my exhaust was too loud. They pull me over to tell me I was going too fast!! But they have never mentioned my exhaust and they were standing next to the vx while it was running. shawn

[Hotsauce]

In NY it is against the law to modify your stock exhaust. shawn

If this were true, there would be no Mieneke or Midas shops in NY. It is illegal to modify from the cat forward unless theparts have an exemption number, but catback is wide open.

John C.

[AlaskaVX]

Up here we do have laws about what dB your exhaust can reach. They issue those things left and right but I have never been hasseled with the PV.

[psychos2]

If this were true, there would be no Mieneke or Midas shops in NY. It is illegal to modify from the cat forward unless theparts have an exemption number, but catback is wide open.

John C.

Hotsauce, I disagree ! My brother in law is a state trooper. They consider those mufflers to be the same as stock. Here is copy of the law:

" 31. Mufflers and exhaust systems. Prevention of noise. Every motor
vehicle, operated or driven upon the highways of the state, shall at all
times be equipped with an adequate muffler and exhaust system in
constant operation and properly maintained to prevent any excessive or
unusual noise and no such muffler or exhaust system shall be equipped
with a cut-out, bypass, or similar device. No person shall modify the
muffler or exhaust system of a motor vehicle in a manner which will
amplify or increase the noise emitted by the motor or exhaust system of
such vehicle above that emitted by the muffler or exhaust system
originally installed on the vehicle and such original muffler and
exhaust system shall comply with all the requirements of this section. "

Here is a link to the Laws Of NY site : http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/me...MMONQUERY=LAWS
I think that says it all. In NY it is a no no !!! shawn

[psychos2]

Here is a copy of the maryland law:

§ 22-402. Mufflers; prevention of noise; discharge of smoke; maximum period of idling.






(a) Mufflers.- Every motor vehicle with an internal combustion engine shall be equipped with an exhaust muffler system in good working order and in constant operation to prevent excessive or unusual noise, and no person may use a muffler cutout, bypass, or similar device on a motor vehicle on a highway. Noise levels in excess of those adopted by the Administrator under § 22-601 of this title are excessive.




(b) Prevention of noise.- A person may not use on the exhaust or "tail pipe" of a motor vehicle any extension or other device to cause excessive or unusual noise.

And here is what the administrator says:

§ 22-601. Motor vehicle operation - Establishment of sound level limits.






(a) Administrator to establish limits.- With the endorsement of the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of the Environment and after a public hearing following 60 days' notice, the Administrator shall adopt regulations that establish maximum sound level limits for the operation on the highways in this State of each type of motor vehicle or combination of vehicles.




(b) Scope of limits.- In establishing limits under this section, the Administrator shall:




(1) Consider any noise emission regulations established under federal law for motor carriers engaged in interstate commerce; and




(2) Set the limits at the most restrictive level that, through the application of the best available technology at a reasonable cost, is consistent with attaining the environmental noise standards adopted by the Department of the Environment.

shawn

[WormGod]

Here is a copy of the maryland law:

§ 22-402. Mufflers; prevention of noise; discharge of smoke; maximum period of idling.

(a) Mufflers.- Every motor vehicle with an internal combustion engine shall be equipped with an exhaust muffler system in good working order and in constant operation to prevent excessive or unusual noise, and no person may use a muffler cutout, bypass, or similar device on a motor vehicle on a highway. Noise levels in excess of those adopted by the Administrator under § 22-601 of this title are excessive.

(b) Prevention of noise.- A person may not use on the exhaust or "tail pipe" of a motor vehicle any extension or other device to cause excessive or unusual noise.

And here is what the administrator says:

§ 22-601. Motor vehicle operation - Establishment of sound level limits.

(a) Administrator to establish limits.- With the endorsement of the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of the Environment and after a public hearing following 60 days' notice, the Administrator shall adopt regulations that establish maximum sound level limits for the operation on the highways in this State of each type of motor vehicle or combination of vehicles.

(b) Scope of limits.- In establishing limits under this section, the Administrator shall:

(1) Consider any noise emission regulations established under federal law for motor carriers engaged in interstate commerce; and

(2) Set the limits at the most restrictive level that, through the application of the best available technology at a reasonable cost, is consistent with attaining the environmental noise standards adopted by the Department of the Environment.

shawn

Ya Shawn, I saw that much, but the "excessive or unusual noise" (makes me think of BubRubb with with wizzah goes WOO WOOOO!) part is vague. It points you in the direction of another state code. And as even the 2 shops said that I went to, they figured the cop just went by a typical "local noise ordinance". But, you can see just how vague it is, especially since there was no meter present at the scene.

Last night I talked to me *cough*EX*cough* who is in a local law firm. She was going to look into it some more for me and see about even getting my inspection fee "reimbursed". I never underestimate the power of lawyers.... especially dirty ones.

As for going with the catback on the WRX, its still in the air. I did cancel my order for it, but its still something I would like to do. My WRX is FAR from a ricer and will never be one, as I have a STRONG hatred for that PepBoys circus crap. With the Cobb SS catback, the WRX sounds more like the PV thanks to the Boxer engine anyways, but with the current "exhaust" issue at hand, I want to finalise this little journey of mine first.

I AM PIONEER! MY JOURNEY SHALL MAKE A MARTYR OF ME! *we all know i will end up at the bottom of a river with concrete shoes*

[WormGod]

That's obviously not true, because he got a ticket, and (as far as we know) the cop didn't use any sort of measuring device. The fact is, it happens all the time in Maryland. Read my previous posts for several other real world examples.

WG - I'm surprised you are going to court at all. Unless the rules have changed all you need to do is go to the Glen Burnie MVA and have the State PD inspect it. It's free (unless you're guilty, of course) and you can do it on your own schedule. I personally wouldn't bother wasting a day in court without first trying to settle it the easy way.

I simply feel I have a point to prove I guess. Present the facts to the judge and let my case be known. Of course, if there is some SECRET law that has been passed and it is simply not known to priveledged drivers, then I will surely be in for a surprise awakening, haha. Then again, my luck, the cop wont even show up and it will get thrown out.

And no need to go to Glen Burnie. I cop friend told me that I could deal with it at the Gaithersburg DMV. I was told by them that this works like a traffic ticket basically and if they are not mailed a reciept, a court date is mailed to my address and thus, the fun begins. So ya, I feel I have to point to prove somewhere deep down inside of me (probably my colon).

[kpaske]

There's a Full Service MVA in GBurg now? Last time I was living in Maryland they were just opening the new location in Beltsville and the MVA in GBurg was an MVA Express (close to 5 years ago). I'm glad to hear they are expanding so much. I remember the days when a trip to the MVA nearly always involved waiting several hours just to find out that you don't have all the right paperwork, then returning to wait several more hours to found out the previous person was wrong and you still don't have all the right paperwork, rinse and repeat. Seems like that happened every time I went there. And customer service was worse than a Mickey D's in Langley Park. Oh, the memories...

[JAFO]

I simply feel I have a point to prove I guess. Present the facts to the judge and let my case be known. Of course, if there is some SECRET law that has been passed and it is simply not known to priveledged drivers, then I will surely be in for a surprise awakening, haha. ...

Laws are not secret, however, it takes effort on the the citizens behalf to read and keep up on all of the changes. The burden is on the citizen to know the law and obey, not the government to keep the citizens informed.

Also I confired with some of my friends and co-workers, note we are not in the legal field, and one of them said something that I didn't recall. He said that when you apply for your drivers license here in Oregon the paper that you must sign to get your license, amungst other things, states that you acknowlege all driving laws and will obey them.

[tbigity]

Laws are not secret, however, it takes effort on the the citizens behalf to read and keep up on all of the changes. The burden is on the citizen to know the law and obey, not the government to keep the citizens informed.

Normally I would agree. I am a law abiding-citizen...pay my taxes, stop at stop signs, never murdered a guy...love the work cops do and respect them. However, as far as keeping up with laws, I must agree and disagree. It is our job to keep informed of them...after all we are the ones that must abide by them. However, I almost think that some enigma is purposefully left in the law.

Here is my case >> when I was underage, I was under the assumption that it was legal to drink IF, and ONLY IF you did so with your parents' consent, and you did not drive for a 24 hour period. Why did I think that? I asked a cop, a member of the executive branch of government, figuring he had to know the law in and out in order to execute it...moreso than a citizen. That was his response, what I mentioned above. However, that raised some concern with some parents who I described it to. So I went back to the same cop (was campus police at my HS). He went as far as to tell me that he was at a local restaurant and a minor requested a drink with his rents' permission. When the manager refused, the cop interjected and told the manager the law, the drink was served. However, my point is this. I have since asked 3 other cops. 2 agree with the first cop to the most part, though they have never mentioned a specific period of time that one must not drive after. The other cop I asked said if you are under 21, the law says you can't drink.

Well, wanting personal clarity (and to drink b4 turning 21) I consulted the OK laws via the state website. All I could find was the first law under the alcohol section stating it is unlawful for anyone under 21 to drink. i have since sent a barrage of emails to the state asking for clarity, non of which have been returned.

Therefore my [conspiracy] theory is that some level of obscurity is in the laws to keep people guessing so that if a cop wants to, he can find a reason, lawful or unlawful, to pull you over/inspect you/question you, whatever he wants to.

[tbigity]

I also wanted to mention this that is more on line with the thread topic. I can relate WG :

Last time I got pulled over (bout 3 years ago) I was courteous as could be to the officer, like I have been taught. After all, they are just doing there job. However, on that instance [,the last time i got pulled over,] the cop gave me a warning on 2 bogus accounts. Said I was going 3 MPH over (no joke...3!) AND that I ran a yellow light. In 100% honesty, the light went yellow as I was in the intersection. I explained to him that I thought (being not too far out of defensive-driving school) that yellow was safe to pass the intersection, with discernment, as it gave you a warning that red was coming next.

This is the part I love. At that point, he explained to me that if the light is yellow at all, the intersection is "not to be traveled in." And that I "should have known that." My thinking was "if you are not supposed to be in the intersection at all when it is yellow, why not go right from green to yellow?" Point being, the cop just wanted a reason to pull me over. Sub 20 yr old male, driving a nice 05 Jeep (father's)...surely he had to pull me over just for some good ole fashioned demographic profiling, something had to be wrong with that picture. I lost a lil respect for the cops that fall into that category on that day...the kind that follow the typical hard-nosed, jerk ace, don't-let-them-have-fun mentality.

On a side note, later I was talking to a truck driver bud of mine about the situation. He just finished his yearly driving test with the company he worked for and told me that the handbook they have says that if the intersection is yellow when you are in it, and it then turns red you are still legal to pass. The reasoning is that the duration of "yellow" will vary, a substantial amount, from light to light as will the physical size of the intersection. So even if proper discernment puts you smack dab in the middle of the intersection when the light turns red, if you enter it while it is yellow, you are not breaking any laws.

Thus, my point is proven, and I feel that WG has been screwed.

[tbigity]

HOLY CRAP! Don't turn me loose on a subject I am passionate about. I just realized I wrote a freaking multichapter novel in the last few posts

[WyrreJ]

Therefore my [conspiracy] theory is that some level of obscurity is in the laws to keep people guessing so that if a cop wants to, he can find a reason, lawful or unlawful, to pull you over/inspect you/question you, whatever he wants to.

Follow the money. It's not set up that way for the cops, they are just a piece of the machine.

Who writes laws? Lawyers. The vast majority of legislators and the lobbyist class are lawyers, although it has not always been that way.

Who makes money when there is a question of law? Lawyers - all 3 parties in court making money are lawyers - counsel for defense, counsel for plantiff and the judge. Even if the issue does not go to court, chances are at least one lawyer gets paid as part of the process - the one who gets consulted by the defendent for advice.

Such a result is the inevitable result of the way the system is set up -- its the equivalent of letting the wolves guard the hen house.