noiselaw : Messages : 102-137 of 137

Messages: Show Message Summaries (Group by Topic) Sort by Date

#137 From: "Joe Foe" <joefoefrombuffalo@...>
Date: Mon Jan 2, 2006 12:21 am
Subject: Train Horns in USA? joefoefrombu...
Offline
Send Email

What is the status of the trains having to follow the way horns are
blown at crossings compared to the FRA rules
http://www.uprr.com/newsinfo/horn.shtml
  said to start on June 24th 2005?  I live Near Hamburg NY
and have been working with local residents and the town of Hamburg
to
try to get the rules enforced by the FRA or CSX/Norfolk Southern
100+
trains that pass threw Hamburg every day since June 24th.  We have
been
told by the FRA the June 24th rules do not have to be followed yet
since the Association of American Railroads
http://www.aar.org/
  has petitioned the rules and  the FRA gave the "AAR" a 120 day
grace period to the AAR follow/learn the rules.
Which brang it to mid October 2005.  After that date the FRA then
said
CSX/Norfolk Southern still do not have to follow the rules till the
rules are  changed to the AAR asking with no ETA when the rules are
to be changed
and what the rules changes are to be.  Yes we have paper work to
prove
this is what we have been told which honestly sounds fishy to us to
say
the least.  Yes we would like quite zones
http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/1318
  some day..only problem is our town does not have the money to pay
for the multiple crossings in our town that would cost over $100,000
to install.  We have been trying to find some type of funding with
no luck.  FYI asking CSX and Norfolk Southern to follow the rules
only makes issues worse with the trains blowing their horns even
more we have found out when we are able to get some type of reply
from both.., like they are telling us don't try to tell us what we
have to do or how to do it.  We can not find any docoments saying
the rules should not be enforced/followed as of June 24th 2005.

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (1)

#136 From: "NoBoomers" <noboomers@...>
Date: Tue Oct 11, 2005 1:43 am
Subject: RE: [lower_the_boom] Re: Milwaukee Court Rules State Noise Law Unconstitutional banboomers
Offline
Send Email

Great information David. Hopefully Alderman Bohl can use this to his advantage. The victims of boom car assaults need to rely on their elected officials to protect their right to peace and quiet in the communities!

Ron Czapala

From: lower_the_boom@yahoogroups.com [mailto:lower_the_boom@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Staudacher
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 9:28 PM
To: noiselaw@yahoogroups.com; jbohl@...; noiseoff@yahoogroups.com; lower_the_boom@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [lower_the_boom] Re: Milwaukee Court Rules State Noise Law Unconstitutional

> http://www.city.milwaukee.gov/display/router.asp?docid=13034 > > ... a Milwaukee Municipal Court Judge ruled surprisingly that the state > law was unconstitutional because it violated content-based restrictions > on free speech. http://www.legis.state.wi.us/acts89-93/91Act83.pdf - Wisconsin Statute 346.94(16), enacted in 1991, is unconstitutional because vehicles "used for advertising purposes" are exempt, thereby granting such vehicles greater freedom. In Illinois, People v. Jones (1999), Section 12-611 of Illinois Motor Vehicle Code was declared unconstitional for exactly the same reason. After Illinois Public Act 91-919 removed the advertising vehicle exemption, the constitutionality of Section 12-611 was restored and enforcement resumed. http://www.iml.org/LegalSection/topics/summary/state/supcrt/86/86453.htm - Abstract of People v. Jones decision. http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/1999/November/Opinions/HTML/86453.htm - Full text of People v. Jones decision. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/pubact91/acts/91-0919.html - Illinois Public Act 91-919 http://www.city.milwaukee.gov/display/router.asp?docid=654 - Milwaukee Municipal Judge James A. Gramling, Jr. http://www.ci.mil.wi.us/display/router.asp?DocID=931 - Alderman James A. Bohl, Jr. Milwaukee 5th District http://legistar.milwaukee.gov/TextFiles/TextFile041619Version1.pdf - Resolution seeking to restore constitutionality of Wisconsin Statute 346.94(16).

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (2)

#135 From: David Staudacher <quiet@...>
Date: Tue Oct 11, 2005 1:28 am
Subject: Re: Milwaukee Court Rules State Noise Law Unconstitutional quietist
Offline
Send Email

> http://www.city.milwaukee.gov/display/router.asp?docid=13034
>
> ... a Milwaukee Municipal Court Judge ruled surprisingly that the state
> law was unconstitutional because it violated content-based restrictions
> on free speech.

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/acts89-93/91Act83.pdf - Wisconsin Statute
346.94(16), enacted in 1991, is unconstitutional because vehicles "used for
advertising purposes" are exempt, thereby granting such vehicles greater
freedom.  In Illinois, People v. Jones (1999), Section 12-611 of Illinois Motor
Vehicle Code was declared unconstitional for exactly the same reason.  After
Illinois Public Act 91-919 removed the advertising vehicle exemption, the
constitutionality of Section 12-611 was restored and enforcement resumed.

http://www.iml.org/LegalSection/topics/summary/state/supcrt/86/86453.htm -
Abstract of People v. Jones decision.
http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/1999/November/Opinions/HTML/8\
6453.htm - Full text of People v. Jones decision.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/pubact91/acts/91-0919.html - Illinois
Public Act 91-919

http://www.city.milwaukee.gov/display/router.asp?docid=654 - Milwaukee Municipal
Judge James A. Gramling, Jr.
http://www.ci.mil.wi.us/display/router.asp?DocID=931 - Alderman James A. Bohl,
Jr. Milwaukee 5th District
http://legistar.milwaukee.gov/TextFiles/TextFile041619Version1.pdf - Resolution
seeking to restore constitutionality of Wisconsin Statute 346.94(16).

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (2)

#134 From: "R. A. Thayer" <thayertec5@...>
Date: Fri Sep 23, 2005 11:40 pm
Subject: Fw: Florida Statutes-motor vehicle exhaust, noise. taltec2112
Offline
Send Email

----- Original Message -----
From: "R. A. Thayer" <thayertec5@...>
To: <lower_the_boom@yahoogroups.com>; <noiseoff@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 6:23 PM
Subject: RE: Florida Statutes-motor vehicle exhaust, noise.


> All,
>
> Florida law regarding motor vehicle exhaust, noise.
>
>
http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_Strin\
g=&URL=Ch0316/SEC293.HTM&Title=->2004->Ch0316->Section%20293#0316.293
>
>
http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_Strin\
g=&URL=Ch0316/SEC272.HTM&Title=->2004->Ch0316->Section%20272#0316.272
>
>
http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_Strin\
g=&URL=Ch0316/SEC2935.HTM&Title=->2004->Ch0316->Section%202935#0316.2935
>

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (1)

#133 From: "nastynoise" <nastynoisenuisance@...>
Date: Fri Sep 9, 2005 4:20 pm
Subject: Fw: 266:59 Muffler; Prevention of Noise, para: 3 taltec2112
Offline
Send Email

----- Original Message -----

From: R. A. Thayer

To: noiselaw@yahoogroups.com

Cc:

Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 11:07 AM

Subject: Fw: 266:59 Muffler; Prevention of Noise, para: 3

To all,

Received information regarding New Hampshire legislature selling out because of lobbyist and special interests. From: http://www.francestown.us

Richard A.

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

----- Original Message -----

From: mail@...

To: R. A. Thayer

Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 10:46 AM

Subject: RE: 266:59 Muffler; Prevention of Noise, para: 3

Mr. Thayer-

Thank you for your remarks - it is appreciated.

The underlying mission of http://www.francestown.us is specifically designed to encourage people to think more about noise, and understand how confusing certain types of well accepted scientific measurements can be, and understand exactly who made de facto motor vehicle noise a lot louder in NH - legally or otherwise, and to challenge local legislators that supported the noise-makers.

What was well understood by the NH legislature in the summer of 2004 is that by removing the easily observable empirical test (no louder than original equipment) from the law, it would further frustrate enforcement of obnoxious noise generated by loud or absent mufflers. This was indeed the goal and chosen mechanism of the special interests and lobbyists who represent the purveyors of loud exhaust systems - - their success became our noise problem.

The fact is that the explicit decibel level of 106db for motorcycles "... measured 20 inches from the exhaust pipe at a 45 degree angle 2,800 revolutions per minute for one and 2 cylinder motorcycles..." , as an example, is almost an irrelevant fact in NH legislation because whatever the decibel level might be for any particular vehicle, the NH legislature did not provide the training, new equipment or new regulations to local communities to facilitate enforcement the remaining decibel standards in NH law. Even if it did, it takes two law enforcement officers to issue a citation - one holding the meter and the second observing the RPM levels. Francestown rarely has more than one officer on duty. As a result in part, in the last year, zero complaints were issued by the Francestown police in spite of the hundreds, if not thousands, of violations that occurred this summer alone in Francestown. [note: Francestown NH is where the motorcycle was invented - - it is on a ride-through route for dozens of motorcycle clubs on every weekend of the summer]

http://www.francestown.us tries to show how the legislature sold out their constituents, who sold them out or lacked the courage to identify themselves (the NH House), and why the sell out occurred

http://www.francestown.us is designed to strip away the legislature's anonymity and expose some compelling political facts. Hopefully, the democratic process will achieve acceptable noise standards and a reasonable expectation of enforcement by replacing these recalcitrant legislators with people who actually do what is morally and ethically right and make a reasonable effort to reflect the wishes of the majority of constituents who elected them.

Ironically, the 2004 legislation was enacted to mitigate or virtually eliminate enforcement of motorcycle noise violations, but it actually ended up in making it virtually impossible to enforce any noise complaints for car or truck mufflers because there are no decibel levels indicated in any NH law for on-road cars and trucks. This will be the next wave yet to come.

In short, the current NH noise laws are so complicated and asset absent, they constructively make enforcement nearly impossible to achieve. This fact, coupled with the near total lack of will or policy to enforce motorcycle noise, results in virtually unabated motorcycle noise from Spring to Fall in NH.

Webmaster- Francestown.us

At 01:14 AM 9/8/2005, you wrote:

To whom it may concern,

I am the owner/moderator of nastynoisenuisance.org located in Panama City, FL where we have our own noise problems, but when I ran across the francestown.us document regarding "Why will New Hampshire motor vehicle noise increase?", I had to ask myself why and find out more information concerning the deletion of paragraph 3 of Section 266:59 Muffler-Prevention of Noise New Hampshire state law.
Paragraph III which has been deleted by HB243 effective June 2004 reads as follows:
" No person shall modify the exhaust system of a motor vehicle in any manner which will amplify or increase the noise emitted abov e that emitted by the original muffler installed in the vehicle and such original muffler shall compy with all the requirements of this section."
Appalling is the fact of EPA standards for motor vehicles 80 decibels

If anyone at francestown.us has any further information regarding HB243, and/or who best to contact regarding this deletion, I would appreciate a reply to my inquiry.

R. A. Thayer
ThayerTec Planning

Confidentiality Notice: The information transmitted in this e-mail (including any attachments) is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. Any review, copying, printing, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of or reliance upon such information by any person or entity other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, kindly contact the sender and delete this e-mail and any attached material immediately. Thank you.

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (1)

#132 From: noiselaw@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tue Aug 30, 2005 1:44 pm
Subject: New file uploaded to noiselaw noiselaw@yahoogroups.com
Send Email

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the noiselaw
group.

   File        : /html/us/ak/state.htm
   Uploaded by : quietist <quiet@...>
   Description : Alaska

You can access this file at the URL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/noiselaw/files/html/us/ak/state.htm

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

quietist <quiet@...>

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (3)

#131 From: "Bill Bush" <inbox0003@...>
Date: Sat Jun 25, 2005 4:10 pm
Subject: Legal Collaboration electricdesk
Offline
Send Email

Anybody out there know enough about law to help me file a lawsuit against my
noisy neighbor here in California? Small Claims is easy enough, but I want
to file a REAL suit in Superior Court so they have to either hire a lawyer,
or settle with me amicably, or lose by default if they don't get a lawyer or
know enough about the law to adequately defend themselves. My guess is most
people will settle upon receiving the summons and finding out what a lawyer
is going to cost them :-)

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (2)

#130 From: "Michael W. Smith" <mysonjordie@...>
Date: Sun Jun 19, 2005 4:45 pm
Subject: Neighbor Law Book - Posted by Ellie nomoreboomcars
Offline
Send Email

Great find - Ellie...

http://www.nolo.com/product.cfm/objectID/920EBFCB-3ECE-4CC9-A2ED7FCF1EE6E6B3/213/#summary

Pub. Date: May 2001
Edition: 4th
Pages: 384 pp
ISBN: 0-87337-650-1

Summary

Is a neighboring business driving you crazy? Too much noise from next door? Run-off from up the hill threatening to drown your yard?

Learn your rights and responsibilities with Neighbor Law, Nolo's clear-cut, comprehensive guide to the laws concerning common neighbor disputes. The popular bestseller covers:

fences
trees
boundaries
blocked views
noise
water issues
neighborhood businesses
and more

In plain English, Neighbor Law explains how to find the law in each circumstance and resolve disputes outside the court -- but if you must go to small claims court, this popular book gives you the information you need.

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (1)

#129 From: "Michael W. Smith" <mysonjordie@...>
Date: Sun Jun 19, 2005 4:08 pm
Subject: Do we need to muffle the car stereos? - Posted by Robert Levine nomoreboomcars
Offline
Send Email

Article/link originally posted by Robert Levine (Thanks Robert)

http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050619/HOTTOPICS02/506190417

Do we need to muffle the car stereos?

HOT TOPICS QUESTION

Law-enforcement officers say the restriction is aimed at making the road safer. A critic calls the measure "ridiculous."

Starting July 1, Florida drivers playing music that can be heard 25 feet from their cars could be fined $68.50. An old restriction for automobile sound systems set the distance at 100 feet.

The new limit is part of a law that was signed by Gov. Jeb Bush this month and includes several provisions targeting motorists.

There's an item that mandates signaling for lane changes. And there's one that allows officers to issue tickets for a seat-belt violation alone.

But the car stereo provision has garnered much of the recent attention.

State Rep. Greg Evers of Baker, who helped sponsor the legislation, said law-enforcement agencies cited safety concerns when they asked for the 25-foot limit.

"When you can't hear outside noises such as sirens from your vehicle, then you become a detriment to public safety," Sgt. Ron Harrison of the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office told the Tampa Tribune.

Maj. Ernesto Duarte, chief of public affairs for the Florida Highway Patrol, echoed concerns that loud music can prevent drivers from hearing sirens -- as well as horns.

In an article published Thursday, he told The Herald-Tribune the law is as much about safety as about muffling what some people view as an annoyance -- having to hear the music being played by their fellow motorists.

"We're in Florida. People have their air on high and their windows up, and if their music is up too loud, (ambulances) are up on them before you know it," Jay Franks, a Sarasota Police Department public information officer, told the newspaper.

Critics reject argument

But not everyone is happy with the plan. And vocal critics include people in the business of installing custom sound systems.

"You can hear a person talking from 25 feet away," Mike Mills, owner of Auto Audio Systems Inc. in Palm Harbor, told The Tampa Tribune. "Twenty-five feet is absolutely ridiculous. If I sneeze or talk 25 feet away, I should get a ticket, too."

Mills said he doesn't accept the logic of the public safety argument. He cited luxury car manufacturers that boast how well their cars reduce outside noise when windows are rolled up.

"They purposely make it so quiet (drivers) can't hear ... an ambulance until it's on top of them," he said. "That's simply no different from having a stereo on."

Law-enforcement authorities say they'll be aggressive in enforcing the law, but that's going to require judgment calls.

The bass factor

Advocates of the law said it was not aimed at specific groups, such as rap fans.

But one of the things noted in a Herald-Tribune report last week is that the type of music a driver listens to can be as big a factor as the volume switch itself.

Lower frequency sound waves, such as heavy bass beats found in rap music, travel farther than the higher-pitched sounds of guitars, for instance, said Robin Devlin, an audiologist for the Sarasota County Schools.

When a Herald-Tribune reporter tested different songs by standing 25 feet from her car, the results varied with the song, even though the volume remain unchanged.

From 25 feet away, rap music such as Eminem's "Without Me" could be heard playing at approximately 100 decibels inside the car. At the same volume and from the same distance away, Charlie Daniels' "Uneasy Rider" was inaudible, as was Elton John's "Levon" and Joan Jett's "I Love Rock 'N Roll."

Paul Hodgin, owner of Auto Enhancements, a car stereo store and installation shop on Warfield Avenue in Venice, said bass is often more audible outside the car than inside.

"The law is targeted towards bass," Hodgin said. "And bass goes hand in hand with rap."

There's another part of the debate -- one involving health. Audiologists interviewed by the media say the law may offer a benefit: reducing the number of people suffering hearing loss.

But loud-music lovers have argued that machinery like lawn mowers and some motorcycles are louder than their music.

This item contains material from a Herald-Tribune staff report and from The Tampa Tribune.

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (1)

#128 From: "Michael W. Smith" <mysonjordie@...>
Date: Thu Jun 16, 2005 6:18 pm
Subject: Re: [noiseoff] ACTION ALERT - Support Legislation to Ban Hot-Rod Muffler Pipes nomoreboomcars
Offline
Send Email

Ellie,

You need to join "Noise Law" group and help in updating Noise Laws in CA for
that site...  I know that David would welcome you, and your participation,
to the group...    You can also see what has been done in CA from that
site... I have CC'ed David...

Mike Smith
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ellie" <ellie.s@...>
To: "NoiseOFF" <noiseoff@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 1:39 PM
Subject: Re: [noiseoff] ACTION ALERT - Support Legislation to Ban Hot-Rod
Muffler Pipes


> Richard:
>
> Thank you for sending this information and I support this legislation.
>
> Richards & Friends:
>
> I'd like to know if anything in that nature is taking place for the state
of California.
> How can I find out if there are legislations and bills to ban differnet
kinds of noises in California?
>
> Thanks for your help in advance.
> ellie.
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Richard Tur
>   To: NoiseOFF
>   Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 3:29 AM
>   Subject: [noiseoff] ACTION ALERT - Support Legislation to Ban Hot-Rod
Muffler Pipes
>
>
>   SEMA is at it again.  They are trying to defeat legislation in
Pennsylvania that would ban noisy hot-rod muffler pipes.  Their members are
lobbying hard to defeat this legislation so that means we have lobby even
harder.  We have to let these legislators know that we exist and that we
have the facts about noisy aftermarket exhaust systems.
>
>   Legislation (H.B. 1330) will effectively prohibit the use of noisy
hot-rod aftermarket exhaust systems has been reintroduced in the
Pennsylvania State House of Representatives by Representative Michael K.
Hanna (Phone: (717) 772-2283, Fax: (717) 787-4137). The bill has been
referred to the House Transportation Committee. Contact Rep. Hanna and
members of the Pennsylvania House Transportation Committee (listed below)
and request their support of H.B. 1330.
>
>   Modified muffler pipes are incredibly noisy and awaken residents at
night. They appeal mainly to hot-rodders who use their car for illegal
street racing purposes. Citizens across the country are banding together to
ban these types of noisy vehicle products.  They cause tremendous nose
pollution is nerve shattering to adults and frightening to young children.
We have our section on muffler pipes with all the facts at
http://www.noiseoff.org/exhaust.shtml
>
>   If you want to know what other things SEMA is doing, here is their
webpage:
>   http://www.semasan.com/main/main.aspx?ID=/content/SEMASANcom/HomePage
>   They are bragging that Illinois had a chance to ban hot-rod mufflers and
SEMA lobbied and stalled the bill in the state senate.  We can't let these
people get away with this in Pennsylvania.
>
>   Please write up a great letter and fax these good people below that we
support their efforts to make Pennsylvania a quieter place.  The best way to
do this is to write a letter in Word and then use your computer as a fax
machine to "blast-fax" them.  Even if you don't live in Pennsylvania,
remember this, your state could be next.  SEMA ruined California and but we
fought back in Virginia and won.
>
>   There are 117 of us right now, if we each send one fax to each of these
representatives, we will yield over 3,000 letters. Frankly, I'd like see
SEMA top that!
>
>   House Transportation Committee
>
>   Hon. Richard Allen Geist, Chairman
>   Tel: (717) 787-6419
>   Fax: (717) 772-5142
>
>   Hon. Kate Harper
>   Tel: (717) 787-2801
>   Fax: (717) 787-2022
>
>   Hon. John R. Evans
>   Tel: (717) 772-9940
>   Fax: (717) 772-7099
>
>   Hon. John A. Maher
>   Tel: (717) 783-1522
>   Fax: (717) 783-8332
>
>   Hon. Ronald S. Marsico
>   Tel: (717) 783-2014
>   Fax: (717) 705-2010
>
>   Hon. Rod E. Wilt
>   Tel: (717) 783-5008
>   Fax: (717) 705-1948
>
>   Hon. Roy E. Baldwin
>   Tel: (717) 787-1776
>   Fax: (717) 772-9869
>
>   Hon. Teresa Forcier
>   Tel: (717) 787-2353
>   Fax: (717) 787-0860
>
>   Hon. Dick Lee Hess
>   Tel: (717) 787-7076
>   Fax: (717) 705-1835
>
>   Hon. Eugene F. McGill
>   Tel: (717) 783-7179
>   Fax: (717) 783-3899
>
>   Hon. Stanley E. Saylor
>   Tel: (717) 783-6426
>   Fax: (717) 705-1849
>
>   Hon. Jess M. Stairs
>   Tel: (717) 783-9311
>   Fax: (717) 787-0859
>
>   Hon. Katharine M. Watson
>   Tel: (717) 787-5452
>   Fax: (717) 783-8934
>
>   Hon. Keith R. McCall
>   Tel: (717) 783-1375
>   Fax: (717) 772-1231
>
>   Hon. Kenneth W. Ruffing
>   Tel: (717) 787-4891
>   Fax: (717)787-0861
>
>   Hon. Anthony J. Melio
>   Tel: (717) 787-3557
>   Fax: (717) 772-2943
>
>   Hon. Joseph A. Petrarca
>   Tel: (717) 787-5142
>   Fax: (717) 705-2014
>
>   Hon. Lawrence Roberts
>   Tel: (717) 783-1359
>   Fax: (717) 705-2088
>
>   Hon. Dante Santoni, Jr.
>   Tel: (717) 783-3290
>   Fax: (717) 772-2943
>
>   Hon. LeAnna M. Washington
>   Tel: (717) 783-2175
>   Fax: (717) 783-8724
>
>   Hon. Frank Dermody
>   Tel: (717) 787-3566
>   Fax: (717) 787-8060
>
>   Hon. Edward P. Wojnaroski, Sr.
>   Tel: (717) 787-7524
>   Fax: (717) 787-0861
>
>   Hon. Matthew Good
>   Tel: (717) 783-6433
>   Fax: (717) 772-9958
>
>   Hon. Mario M. Scavello
>   Tel: (717) 787-7732
>   Fax: (717) 705-1889
>
>   Hon. P. Michael Sturla
>   Tel: (717) 787-3555
>   Fax: (717) 787-0861
>
>   Hon. Michael Gerber
>   Tel: (717) 787-9475
>   Fax: (717) 772-2284
>
>
>   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
>   Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>     a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
>     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/noiseoff/
>
>     b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>     noiseoff-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>     c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (2)

#127 From: "Michael W. Smith" <mysonjordie@...>
Date: Sun May 29, 2005 4:13 pm
Subject: Strategies for Dealing with Nightmare Neighbors - Judy Ellis & Richard Tur nomoreboomcars
Offline
Send Email

Thanks to Judy Ellis and Richard Tur for this GREAT FIND!!!!!

http://www.finetuning.com/articles/148-strategies-for-dealing-with-nightmare-neighbors.html

Strategies for Dealing with Nightmare Neighbors

by Arvind Mathur

May 20, 2005

Living in close proximity to noisy, thoughtless and annoying neighbors can make your life hell. Dealing with noisy neighbors can be difficult, but not impossible. There are a number of ways in which you can curb their noisy ways.

So you�ve finally moved into your new dream apartment and are ready to settle down and live happily ever after. However, no sooner have you plunked yourself onto the couch with a sigh of relief, you begin to realize that you�re not alone. The slob on top keeps odd hours and bombards you with such weird noises that you keep awake the whole night simply guessing his next move. No amount of adjustment makes you get used to this nuisance. And your much cherished fairytale existence soon turns into a nightmare. Welcome to community living!

Someone has truly said, �You can make your own home, but God makes your neighbors.� And if thy neighbors have not been created in God�s image, it�s curtains for you!

Defining Nuisance

�A good neighbor is a fellow who smiles at you over the back fence, but doesn't climb over it.� Arthur Baer

The Environmental Protection Act, 1990 classifies several types of behavior as statutory nuisances, including:

Noise or vibration.
Smoke, fumes or gases from any premises.
Dust, steam or smells from business premises.
Accumulations or deposits.
Animals kept in unhygienic or unsafe conditions.

According to the law, for an act to constitute a statutory nuisance, it must present a health risk or a nuisance. Typical examples of a statutory nuisance might include a neighbor who regularly burns rubbish that pollutes the air or who throws garbage out in the open, resulting in an all-pervading stench.

Assessing the level of nuisance

�Love thy neighbor as thyself, but choose your neighborhood.� Louise Beal

When assessing nuisance, the law looks to balance the right of one individual to enjoy his or her land, without interfering with the right of their neighbors to enjoy theirs. Some guidelines that councils use, include:

A nuisance must cross a boundary.
It must be a substantial interference and not a trivial matter.
A one off event such as a birthday party can be a nuisance.
The time, duration, nature and location of the nuisance must be taken into account. For example, something that is not a nuisance in the middle of the day may become one, later in the night.

Nuisance from neighbors can come in many forms � noise, pets, smoke, light, littering and antisocial behavior. But noise remains the chief culprit amongst them.

Noise

�Whoever came up with the idea that counting sheep helps you sleep never had a noisy neighbor.� Kate Kemp

Excessive noise affects your quality of life, it makes you irritable and jumpy, it can deprive you of your sleep, and cause many stressful side effects. Before you label your next-door neighbor as noisy, take a quick peek at your own habits. If you sleep till noon and your neighbor�s pets start playing at nine in the morning, it is you who has to adjust the timings, not they. Yes, if you�re aroused from your deep slumber at midnight by the loud volume of your neighbor�s television, then you�ve got a case. Similarly, don�t expect to wind up your work undisturbed on a weekend. It�s a weekend for your neighbor�s kids too and you can�t expect them to waste it just being considerate to you, can you?

Noise can take many forms. It can be the booming of heavy stereo music at ungodly hours. It can be the sound of shouting, arguing or conversing loudly from across the wall. It can be the continuous barking of the neighbor�s dog at irregular intervals. It can be frequent slamming of the door in the early morning hours. It can be noisy vehicles coming and going throughout the night or their frequent honking. It can be an insomniac neighbor who decides to vacuum or run the washing machine at three in the morning. It can be the banging and crashing of objects, ringing of the alarms, noise from the parties and other gatherings, clipty-clop of steps on a wooden floor and innumerable other deafening and annoying sources. The list can be endless, but the suffering remains excruciatingly the same!

What you can do

�It is easier to love humanity as a whole than to love one's neighbor.� Eric Hoffer

There are plenty of ways to tackle such a situation depending upon how you want it tackled. But we certainly don�t advocate the method employed by one of the victims, who was hell-bent on giving the offending neighbor a dose of his own medicine. He set up a video camera in an open window and got the neighbor�s noisy blast on the film along with the date and time. He then set up a heavy duty, powerful boom box within a few feet of the neighbor�s window and let him have it. As the neighbor called the police, he explicitly showed them who started what and when! According to the adherents of this method, "blasting back" is not infantile, �it�s simply communicating in a language that the friggin� noisemaker understands�!

Whether or not the level of nuisance represents a health risk, it is advisable to first try and resolve the dispute informally. Some tried and tested methods are:

Keeping a record: At the first sign of trouble with your neighbor, no matter how petty, always start a diary of incidents, recording their dates and timings. Make this as detailed as you can. It�s not a legal requirement, but you may need it to back up your complaint and it could be used in evidence, if you do decide to go to the court. Keep a note of all letters, phone calls and conversations. Collect other evidences too, if possible, such as photos, clips and the like. This is vital. In case matters get worse, it will give you some proof of the events, even though this may not be admissible in court. Remember, recording of small instances and occurrences of your neighbor�s misdemeanors do add up to become clinching evidences.

Soundproofing your room: If you�re the reserved kind who is reluctant to even broach the subject with your neighbor, leave alone fighting it out with him, then it is best to tune out your neighbor by soundproofing your apartment. For the paper-thin common wall, that even allows the sound of your neighbor scratching his unmentionables to filter across, use a sound barrier by affixing false plywood panels in fiberfill. This would decrease the noise from across. Fabric is also a great sound reducer, so use lots of it � use carpet and padding on the floor, draperies at the windows and upholstery on the walls.

Speaking with your noisy neighbor: If you don�t want to waste good money on soundproofing and would like to thrash out the issue with your neighbor, by all means do so. However, don�t approach him if you feel he could be violent. If you do approach him, wait until a suitable time. Just don�t go rushing to him complaining about the noise when it�s actually happening. Chances are he�d be drunk or partying hard and will be in no mood to talk, and may even interpret it as your spoiling his fun. So, it is best to approach him when all is calm and quiet, and he seems in a receptive mood. Be friendly and approach him without anger or excess emotion. Try hard to keep the conversation light hearted and friendly. It may be that there is a situation that you�re unaware of and this could clear the air between the two of you. The worst thing you can do is to disgorge all your pent-up resentment, harbored throughout the months of sleepless nights, in one go. You may be surprised to know that, more often than not, your neighbor may not even be aware of the nuisance that he is creating. You can, through an attitude of helpful cooperation, mutually agree upon an acceptable period of high volume. You may even persuade him to keep the noise level down at all times. If you are lucky and this works out, this can be your first and last step to settle the issue. In any case, record the date you spoke with your neighbor. This documentation may come in handy at a later date, in case the nuisance doesn�t stop.

Speaking with other neighborhood sufferers: To think that this slob will be courteous enough to stop the moment you convey your problem is usually wishful thinking. If he were such a nice guy, the situation wouldn�t have arisen in the first place. So, if there is no let up in his behavior and the problem persists, seek out other neighbors who are undergoing the same trauma. Ask them to approach this offending neighbor too, but urge them to remain pleasant while addressing the problem. If your fellow neighbors have young children, let them show how this loud music or other noise is keeping them awake at night. It is possible that the sheer number of complaining neighbors may make this offender realize the enormity of his nuisance and intimidate him into towing the line. It is wise to keep a detailed record of all those who approach this noisy customer.

Informing your noisy neighbor in writing: If your noisy neighbor finds out that you are putting pressure on him through other neighbors, he would resent you and in all probability would continue or step up his noisy behavior. If this is the case, it is time to send him a letter. Writing a letter to a next-door neighbor may sound formal, but it�s an effective method of communication, when he is unwilling to listen to you or even let you raise the matter with him. It also saves you from approaching him in person. The letter should reiterate the problem being faced by you and should request him to resolve the issue by immediately ceasing the nuisance. The letter should clearly mention the dates on which you and your neighbors approached him about the noise. Also inform him that you�ve sent copies of this letter to your landlord or your management company and that you will be speaking to them about this persisting problem. Letters serve as proof that you have brought the matter to the notice of your neighbor. Therefore, you must retain a copy of this letter. Also attach a copy of the local noise ordinance, and community rules and regulations, highlighting the noise restrictions. The ordinance outlines "quiet hours," for example, 10 pm to 8 am, and gives guidelines for acceptable decibel levels.

Discussing with the landlord: If your noisy neighbor just isn�t in the mood for relenting, it�s time to speak with the landlord. Describe the specific problem to him and make him aware of the steps you have already taken. Persuade the other affected neighbors to do likewise. This would make your case stronger and may force the landlord to act early. According to the law, the tenants are granted with at least one inalienable right, regardless of what the lease says, and that is the implied warranty of habitability. Your landlord has a legal obligation to provide you with a habitable dwelling and it includes complying with local noise ordinances. A threat of eviction of the offending neighbor by the landlord would usually put the brakes on the nuisance. However, if it doesn�t work speak with the landlord again and continue doing so till the matter is resolved.

Taking the help of neighborhood-mediation centers: There are hundreds of neighborhood-mediation centers in nearly every metropolitan area in the U.S. and in certain other countries that specialize in resolving potentially bitter border issues. Numerous mediation centers are even operated by church groups. These centers are becoming increasingly popular because they generally resolve neighbor feuds for free and are able to settle cases ninety percent of the time. These mediated agreements are known to remain in force because the mediator makes no decisions at all and the outcome is a mutually agreed solution between the two parties. If you think you could never get your neighbor to agree to a mediation, the center will help you by assigning a mediator, who will contact your neighbor and urge him to come in. Sixty percent of the time both parties do appear for mediation.

Other approaches

There is a possibility that your offending neighbor, even at the risk of eviction, may not respond to the landlord�s request or the landlord himself doesn�t respond to your requests. It�s time to take action outside the realm of mutual resolution:

Calling the police: Calling the police is most effective when you�ve reached a point where the noise has continued for a long period of time, and you�ve tried unsuccessfully to resolve the problem at your end. Call the police when your neighbor is at his noisiest best (or is it worst?). This would give a clearer picture of the nuisance. In this too, persuade your neighbors to contact the police separately, since there is strength in numbers. Many simultaneous calls will automatically strengthen your case and elicit a quick response from the police.

Legal action: If your neighbor remains adamant, taking recourse to legal action is saner than ending up with a shrink! Take the advice of a lawyer on your specific rights and redresses available and then sue the neighbor. If the landlord had ignored your written complaints about your noisy neighbor for a reasonable amount of time, you may have grounds to take this erring landlord also to the court.

Shifting residence: If suing is too much of a bother for you and all else has failed to provide you succor, it is best to move out of the apartment, rather than continue to exist in a living hell. Here too, consult a lawyer to find out if you can break your lease without penalty because of the persisting nuisance.

Be a model neighbor yourself

You have only one life to live and you should live it with dignity and with your peace of mind intact. Remember, there is always a lesson in your adversity. A noisy and uncouth neighbor teaches us not to do unto others what has been done unto you. Your triumph in such a situation is to become a model neighbor yourself, sensitive to those around you. You must always strive for perfection by practicing the following, wherever you may decide to settle:

Get to know your neighbors: They don't have to become your best friends, but a passing acquaintance with them will hold you in good stead. So, whenever you run into them always smile and say hello. And you can always introduce yourself to the ones who reciprocate.

Abide by the community rules: Many apartment communities have by-laws on quiet hours, trash pickup, parking and other dos and don�ts for the residents. Ensure that these are spelled out when your lease is being drawn or they are made part of it as a separate supplemental set of rules and regulations. It is important for you to be aware of them and follow them.

Control your children: If you have children, understand that many of your neighbors don't and they are probably not used to their antics. So be considerate. For those of you without children, understand that your neighbors' children have a right to be there, and that they are, after all, children.

Control your pets: If you have pets, understand that not all your neighbors are animal lovers. Abide by the community rules concerning where they can be, when they are outside your apartment. There are certain commonsense actions that you can take to prevent your pet from becoming a nuisance � don't let it roam free in the complex, clean up any mess it has created and control its noise making potential. If your community doesn't allow pets, don't have them.

Curtail noisy activities: Though maintaining a home calls for noisy activities like vacuuming, hammering nails, moving heavy furniture, their impact can be reduced if you restrict these activities to daytime hours. A 9 am to 9 pm bracket is a good rule of thumb for these activities. However, do check the exact specified quiet hours in your lease and rental regulations.

Curb noisy parties: Don�t let your parties come as a surprise to your neighbors, inform them beforehand. This way they will be psychologically better prepared for enduring the noise. At your end, don�t let the party go wild and untamed. Make sure the noise level does not get out of hand by keeping a tab on it. And remember even when you're having a party quiet hours apply.

�A man who has reformed himself has contributed his full share towards the reformation of his neighbor.� George Norman Douglas

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (1)

#126 From: David Staudacher <quiet@...>
Date: Sat May 7, 2005 4:43 am
Subject: Re: Noise References in San Diego Municipal Noise Code quietist
Offline
Send Email

Updated HTML page for San Diego:

   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/noiselaw/files/html/us/ca/SanDiego.htm

Sample implementation:

   http://www.quiet.org/noiselaw - Main
   http://www.quiet.org/noiselaw/us/federal.htm - U.S.
   http://www.quiet.org/noiselaw/us/ca/state.htm - State of California
   http://www.quiet.org/noiselaw/us/ca/cities.htm - California Cities
   http://www.quiet.org/noiselaw/us/ca/SanDiego.htm - San Diego

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (1)

#125 From: "Michael W. Smith" <mysonjordie@...>
Date: Sat May 7, 2005 1:39 am
Subject: San Diego Municipal Code Chapter 5: Public Safety, Morals and Welfare - Louis Hagler nomoreboomcars
Offline
Send Email

Posted by Dr. Louis Hagler (Reposted for URL link and text)

The link is to a PDF file... Please find below a copy of the text:

http://clerkdoc.sannet.gov/RightSite/getcontent/local.pdf?DMW_OBJECTID=09001451800ac9b6

San Diego Municipal Code Chapter 5: Public Safety, Morals and Welfare

(6-2000)

Article 9.5: Noise Abatement and Control

Division 5: Public Nuisance Noise

(�General Noise Regulations�

added 9�18�1973 by O�11122 N.S.)

(Retitled to �Public Nuisance Noise�

on 9�22�1976 by O�11916 N.S.)

�59.5.0501 General Prohibitions

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to make, continue, or cause to be made or

continued, within the limits of said City, any disturbing, excessive, or

offensive noise which causes discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable

person of normal sensitiveness residing in the area.

(b) The characteristics and conditions which should be considered in determining

whether a violation of the provisions of this section exists should include, but

not be limited to the following:

(1) The level of the noise;

(2) Whether the nature of the noise is usual or unusual;

(3) Whether the origin of the noise is natural or unnatural;

(4) The level of the ambient noise;

(5) The proximity of the noise to sleeping facilities;

(6) The nature and zoning of the area from which the noise emanates and

the area where it is received;

(7) The time of day or night the noise occurs;

(8) The duration of the noise; and

(9) Whether the noise is recurrent, intermittent, or constant.

(Amended 1�3�1984 by O�16100 N.S.)

Ch. Art. Div.

5 9.5 5 2

San Diego Municipal Code Chapter 5: Public Safety, Morals and Welfare

(6-2000)

�59.5.0502 Disturbing, Excessive, Offensive Noises � Declaration of Certain Acts

Constituting

The following activities, among others, are declared to cause disturbing, excessive or

offensive noises in violation of this section and are unlawful, namely:

(a) Horns, Signaling Devices, etc.

Unnecessary use or operation of horns, signaling devices, or other similar

devices, on automobiles, motorcycles, or any other vehicle.

(b) Radios, Television Sets, Phonographs, Loud Speaking Amplifiers and Similar

Devices.

(1) Uses Restricted

The use or operation of any sound production or reproduction device,

radio receiving set, musical instrument, drums, phonograph, television

set, loud speakers and sound amplifier or other similar machine or

device for the producing or reproducing of sound in such a manner as

to disturb the peace, quiet, or comfort of any reasonable person of

normal sensitivity in any area of the City is prohibited. This provision

shall not apply to any participant in a licensed parade, or to any person

who has been otherwise duly authorized by The City of San Diego to

engage in such conduct.

(2) Prima Facie Violations

Any of the following shall constitute evidence of a prima facie

violation of this section:

(A) The operation of any such sound production or reproduction

device, radio receiving set, musical instrument, drum,

phonograph, television set, machine, loud speaker and sound

amplifier or similar machine or device between the hours of

10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. in such a manner as to be plainly

audible at a distance of fifty feet from the building, structure,

or vehicle in which it is located.

(B) The operation of any sound amplifier, which is part of, or

connected to, any radio, stereo receiver, compact disc player,

cassette tape player, or other similar device when operated in

Ch. Art. Div.

5 9.5 5 3

San Diego Municipal Code Chapter 5: Public Safety, Morals and Welfare

(6-2000)

such a manner as to be plainly audible at a distance of fifty

(50) feet and when operated in such a manner as to cause a

person to be aware of vibration accompanying the sound at a

distance of fifty (50) feet from the source.

(3) Enforcement of Prima Facie Violations

(A) Any person who is authorized to enforce the provisions of this

Article and who encounters evidence of a prima facie violation

of this section is empowered to confiscate and impound as

evidence, any or all of the components amplifying or

transmitting the sound.

(B) Any peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing

with Section 830) of the Penal Code, who encounters evidence

of a prima facie violation of this section whereby the

component(s) amplifying or transmitting the sound are

attached to a vehicle may, in accordance with the provisions of

California Vehicle Code section 22655.5, impound the vehicle,

as containing evidence of a criminal offense, when the

amplifying and/or transmitting component(s) cannot be readily

removed from the vehicle without damaging the component(s)

or vehicle.

(1) The keeping or maintenance, or the permitting to be kept or

maintained upon any premises owned, occupied, or controlled by any

person of any animal or animals which by any frequent or long�

continued noise, shall cause annoyance or discomfort to a reasonable

person of normal sensitiveness in the vicinity.

(2) The noise from any such animal or animals that disturbs two or more

residents residing in separate residences adjacent to any part of the

property on which the subject animal or animals are kept or

maintained, or three or more residents residing in separate residences

in close proximity to the property on which the subject animal or

animals are kept or maintained shall be prima facie evidence of a

violation of this section.

Ch. Art. Div.

5 9.5 5 4

San Diego Municipal Code Chapter 5: Public Safety, Morals and Welfare

(6-2000)

(d) Hospitals, Schools, Libraries, Rest Homes, Long�Term Medical or Mental

Care Facilities

To make noise adjacent to a hospital, school, library, rest home, or long�term

medical or mental care facility, which noise unreasonably interferes with the

workings of such institutions or which disturbs or unduly annoys occupants in

said institutions.

(e) Playing of Radios on Buses and Trolleys

The operation of any radio, phonograph, or tape player on an urban transit bus

or trolley so as to emit noise that is audible to any other person in the vehicle

is prohibited.

(f) Playing of Radios, Phonographs, and Other Sound Production or

Reproduction Devices in Public Parks and Beach Areas and Public Parking

Lots and Streets Adjacent Thereto.

The operation of any radio, phonograph, television set, or any other sound

production or reproduction device in any public park or on any public beach

or any public parking lot or street adjacent to such park or beach, without the

prior written approval of the City Manager or the Administrator, in such a

manner that such radio, phonograph, television set or sound production or

reproduction device emits a sound level exceeding those found in the

following table at any point ten (10) feet or more from the noise source is

prohibited:

TABLE OF APPLICABLE LIMITS

Time of Day...........................................................Sound Level Limit

7 a.m. to 7 p.m. ................................................................65 decibels

7:01 p.m. to 6:59 a.m. ......................................................55 decibels

(g) Leaf Blowers

(1) A �leaf blower� means any portable, hand�held or back pack, engine

powered device with a nozzle that creates a directable airstream which

is capable of and intended for moving leaves and light materials.

(2) No person shall operate a leaf blower in any residential zoned area

between the hours of 7 p.m. and 8 a.m. on weekdays and 5 p.m. and 9

Ch. Art. Div.

5 9.5 5 5

San Diego Municipal Code Chapter 5: Public Safety, Morals and Welfare

(6-2000)

a.m. on weekends or on legal holidays specified in section 21.04 of

this Code.

(3) After October 9, 1991 and through June 30, 1993, no person may

operate any leaf blower at a sound level in excess of 70 decibels

measured at a distance of 50 feet or greater from the point of noise

origin. Beginning on July 1, 1993, no person may operate any leaf

blower at a sound level in excess of 65 decibels measured at a distance

of 50 feet or greater from the point of noise origin.

(4) Beginning on July 1, 1993, leaf blowers shall be equipped with

functional mufflers and an approved sound limiting device required to

ensure that the leaf blower is not capable of generating a sound level

exceeding any limit prescribed in this section.

(5) All litter and debris generated by leaf blower operation shall be

cleaned up and disposed of in accordance with Chapter 9, Article 4, of

this Code.

(Amended 9�9�1991 by O�17676 N.S.)

�59.5.0503 Burglar Alarms

(a) Audible burglar alarms for structures or motor vehicles are prohibited unless

the operation of such burglar alarms can be terminated within 20 minutes of

being activated.

(b) Notwithstanding the requirements of this provision, any member of the Police

Department of The City of San Diego shall have the right to take such steps as

may be reasonable and necessary to disconnect any such alarm installed in

any building, dwelling, or motor vehicle at any time during the period of its

activation. On or after thirty (30) days from the effective date of this article,

any building, dwelling or motor vehicle upon which a burglar alarm has been

installed shall prominently display the telephone number at which

communication may be made with the owner of such building, dwelling, or

motor vehicle.

(Amended 1�3�1984 by O�16100 N.S.)

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (1)

#124 From: "Michael W. Smith" <mysonjordie@...>
Date: Fri May 6, 2005 3:59 pm
Subject: Re: [noiseoff] Help in crafting legislation in SF Bay Area ... nomoreboomcars
Offline
Send Email

John,

First, you need to join the NoiseLaw Group and you will find a wealth of
information there...  I have CCed David to invite you to that group.

Second,  Any Legislation must first be acceptable by your local/state ACLU
or they will fight it to the end.  It would be advisable to contact your
local ACLU and get their input.

Third,  You best research your competition such as local Car Audio Shops
etc...  You can visit MERAUSA.ORG and get a list of their members in your
area...  Keep in mind, MERA and their member are COMPLETE VERMIN and will
fight you to the bitter end.

Fourth,  Legislative Evidence is the most important!!!!  Have your
local/state officials educated on the affects of noise before going public.
Convince your Officials that noise is not just an annoyance but has Adverse
Health and Safety Affects on Society.

This is a start...

Your fellow Warrior and THUG-buster,

Mike Smith

----- Original Message -----
From: "GSI John" <johngsi@...>
To: <noiseoff@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 11:50 AM
Subject: [noiseoff] Help in crafting legislation in SF Bay Area ...


>
> Hello Gentle Neighbors,
>
> I am interested in writing legislation to assist various county
administrative boards in crafting policies to detect, punish, and deter
noise polluters.  Not just punk boom cars but old-school choppers and
leaf-blowers et al.  Getting this legislation passed and enforced may
require some adroit partnering with unlikely fellows.  For the sake of
anticipating problems, I am interested in two things: first, a section of
the (marvelous) noiseoff website which contains cut-and-paste legislation
for wonks such as myself and policy makers such as those to whom I can bring
this information; and second, an off-line dialogue with an attorney or
legislator who has experience doing this kind of thing.  Thanks.  Peace.
>
> John
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Mail
>  Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (1)

#123 From: "Michael W. Smith" <mysonjordie@...>
Date: Thu Feb 17, 2005 12:33 am
Subject: Kingsport (TN/US) Noise Law Strikes Discord at Stereo Joe's nomoreboomcars
Offline
Send Email

http://www.timesnews.net/archives/index3.php?id=9459973

Date Published: February 14, 2005

Kingsport noise law strikes discord at Stereo Joe's

Author: KEVIN CASTLE

WEBER CITY - Business is always booming at Stereo Joe's.

That's what 90 percent of the customers want, according to Steve Dexter, a certified installer at Stereo Joe's.

"Bass is the main thing they ask for. They want that subwoofer in the back to either complement the car stereo system they already have, or they want to completely replace the system they have with something that will enhance the musical experience,'' said Dexter.

Just across the state line in Kingsport, a new ordinance has stereo enthusiasts keeping a close eye on the volume knob.

The new law adopted by the Kingsport Board of Mayor and Aldermen came from a log of 18 months of noise complaints from city residents, said Kingsport Police Chief Mark Addington.

The basis of the law is simple. If a police officer can hear music coming from a car within a 50-foot radius, a citation will be issued to the automobile operator.

In the world of crank-up where wooden boxes are crafted to cradle subwoofers that require thousands of watts to power them, Dexter says it is a multimillion dollar industry that thrives on boom for the buck.

"The normal system can push 500 to 800 watts of power, but we have installed systems here that maintain a power surge of 10,000 watts,'' said Dexter, who has more than 20 years of experience as an installer.

"The factories put out the fast cars, and the states put speed limit restrictions in place to regulate that," Dexter said. "Now, they are starting to crack down on the fast stereos. All in all, I think it is a money-maker for the cities to enforce this type of ordinance.

"If a kid is driving down the highway with his radio cranked, what harm is he doing to anyone else? What may be loud to one person may not be loud to another. I think people just become annoyed for a few seconds because of the hum that goes with the bass.''

Addington said the noise law won't be easy to enforce, and officers were retrained to "have an ear to measure noise or have equipment to measure noise."

"It is a matter of respect, if you ask me. Certain areas of a city - like around churches, hospitals and nursing homes - should have a noise ordinance enforced,'' said Stereo Joe's owner Joe Finley, whose business has customers from Kingsport, Virginia and Kentucky.

"However, if this is going to be something that is citywide, every officer has got to have a decibel meter in their cruiser to measure the decibel level, if one has been established. I think a law based on how far away the music is coming from is vague and cannot stand up in court," he said.

Dexter says there are stereo systems he has installed in automobiles that are for competition purposes only.

According to U.S. Autosound Competition International, the current world record for decibels in an open modified competition is 171.1 by a group out of Clayton, Ga., in 2003.

The equivalent to that decibel level is a rocket lifting off from a pad or a shotgun blast, according to the League for the Hard of Hearing, based in New York.

"My opinion is these kids who have these types of stereos in their cars could be messing with something else if they weren't enthused with speakers and their cars. I think a box thumping in the back of a car is less of a threat than a guy with a gun in his hand,'' said Dexter.

Staff writer Chelsea Griffith contributed to this report.

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (1)

#122 From: David Staudacher <quiet@...>
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 2:14 pm
Subject: Link Checker quietist
Offline
Send Email

Noise law sources on the web are constantly in flux, which requires that HTML
pages in the Noise Law database be checked periodically for broken links. The
World Wide Web Consortium ( http://w3c.org ) provides a free link validation
tool which makes this chore a bit easier.

http://validator.w3.org/checklink - For any installation of the Noise Law
database, any page can be checked by pasting in the URL and clicking the "Check"
box.  After checking all the embedded links, the tool generates a report listing
any links which could not be resolved or were redirected. For example, checking
http://www.quiet.org/noiselaw/us/federal.htm shows that the link to the United
States Code is broken, that the Chapter and Section links for Title 42 Chapter
65 are now being redirected, and that the state page for Connecticut is missing.
Knowing exactly which links are broken is often half the job of fixing them.

http://validator.w3.org/docs/checklink.html - Link checker documentation

Noise Law Database (members only, must sign into Yahoo to access):

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/noiselaw/files/html/us - US
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/noiselaw/files/html/ca - Canada

Development and maintenance of the Noise Law Database is the primary function of
the Noise Law Yahoo Group.

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (1)

#121 From: "Michael W. Smith" <mysonjordie@...>
Date: Sat Jan 29, 2005 7:15 pm
Subject: Re: Legislation against boom cars in Va. nomoreboomcars
Offline
Send Email

Kyle,

Please find that David is CCed...

David, Kyle is doing an article on my House Bill in VA and once learning
about NoiseLaw archive would lke more information.  Please assist Kyle with
NoiseLaw...

Thanks guys,

Mike Smith

----- Original Message -----
From: "kyle trygstad" <trygstadkk@...>
To: <mysonjordie@...>
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 2:38 PM
Subject: Legislation against boom cars in Va.


> Mike Smith,
>
> My name is Kyle Trygstad. I am a journalism major at Virginia
> Commonwealth University in Richmond. I am also a member of the Capital
> News Service, run by VCU. I, and about 9 other students, cover the
> General Assembly for small newspapers around the state. One of the
> newspapers I write for is the Southwest Times.
>
> I am currently doing a piece on Delegate Benny Keister, D-Dublin, who
> is sponsoring legislation that would provide a state-wide ordinance
> against boom cars. You might already be aware of it. Under the
> legislation a first offense would bring a fine of $100, and a second
> offense would cause the driver to receive a suspended license for six
> months.
>
> I wanted to ask you how you feel about the legislation. Is it
> stringent enough? Will it do any good?
>
> If you have a phone number I could reach you at, that would be great.
> Otherwise if you want to just email me your reaction as soon as
> possible, that would be great too.
>
> Thank you for your help. I look forward to hearing from you.
>
> Kyle Trygstad
> Capital News Service
> trygstadkk@...
> (703) 505-2151

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (1)

#120 From: Ron Czapala <noboomers@...>
Date: Fri Jan 14, 2005 12:07 pm
Subject: New Ordinance Proposal for Ossining NY banboomers
Offline
Send Email

http://www.thejournalnews.com/newsroom/010905/b03p09noiselaw.html - News article

http://www.townofossining.com/depts/townboard-agenda.htm - Passage expected at
next Town Board meeting, January 25th.

http://www.townofossining.com/docs/townboard/LocalLaw_Noise_2005.pdf - Proposed
Law

Limits noise by neighborhood at certain times of the day.
Includes sections on vehicle noise, car stereos and construction sites.
Car stereos must not be audible more than 50 feet from the vehicle.
Fine of $100 for first-time violators.

http://www.noiseconsultancy.com - Eric Zwerling's Noise Assistance Center at
Rutgers helped draft proposed law.

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (1)

#119 From: noiselaw@yahoogroups.com
Date: Fri Dec 17, 2004 4:46 am
Subject: Virginia ACLU Argues Virginia Beach Noise Ordinance Unconstitutional quietist
Offline
Send Email

Ref: ACLU OF VIRGINIA PRESS RELEASE, 6-Feb-2004
http://www.acluva.org/pressreleases2004/feb6beachnoise.doc

ACLU FILES COURT PAPERS ARGUING VIRGINIA BEACH NOISE ORDINANCE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Amicus Brief filed in Virginia Beach Circuit Court on behalf of
Lagoon nightclub

The American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia and the Thomas
Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression today filed a
friend-of-the-court brief in Virginia Beach Circuit Court on behalf
of the managers and owner of a nightclub who have been charged with
violating the Virginia Beach noise ordinance.  The brief claims that
the city's noise ordinance is unconstitutionally vague and therefore
cannot be used as the basis for prosecuting Christopher and Ryan
Feeney, who manage the Lagoon, a restaurant and nightspot on Atlantic
Avenue, or Jacob Manual, who owns it.

The ACLU also argues that the ordinance is being selectively enforced
against the Lagoon since other similar nightspots and even city-
sponsored events are allowed to make as much or more noise without
fear of prosecution.

The Feeneys have been charged multiple times under Virginia Beach's
noise ordinance, which prohibits any "unreasonably loud, disturbing
and unnecessary noise in the city or any noise of such character,
intensity and duration as to be detrimental to the life or health of
persons of reasonable sensitivity or to disturb or annoy the quiet,
comfort or repose of reasonable persons."

"We are not arguing that Virginia Beach can't control noise," said
ACLU of Virginia executive director Kent Willis, "only that noise
ordinances, like other laws, must be reasonable and precise. The
vagueness of the Virginia Beach ordinance means that it is impossible
for people to know how to comply with it.  It also leaves the law is
wide open for abuse by police who may interpret it differently
depending on whom that are applying it to."

"Imagine speed limit signs on I-64 that read, 'Don't drive too fast'
rather than '65mph,' added Willis. "That's the equivalent of what
Virginia Beach is doing with its noise ordinance."

"The Supreme Court has ruled that laws must be written in a way that
they can be understood and followed by ordinary people," added
Willis  " Noise ordinances, therefore, should be clearly stated and
include a way in which violations can be measured.  Most such
ordinances state a maximum decibel level at which sound can be heard
at a specified distance from its source."

The case is Feeney v. Virginia Beach.  ACLU of Virginia legal
director Rebecca K. Glenberg and Josh Wheeler of the Thomas Jefferson
Center for the Protection of Free Expression represent the Feeneys
and Manual. A copy of the amicus brief is available by contacting the
ACLU at the number below or emailing us at kwillis@...

Contacts:  Kent Willis or Rebecca K. Glenberg   804/644-8022

= = = = = = = =

Added to "ACLU Opinions on Noise and Noise Laws" folder:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/noiselaw/links/ACLU_001086994366/

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (1)

#118 From: noiselaw@yahoogroups.com
Date: Mon Nov 22, 2004 5:42 am
Subject: Added District of Columbia quietist
Offline
Send Email

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/noiselaw/files/html/us/dc/district.htm -
  District of Columbia

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (1)

#117 From: noiselaw-owner@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wed Nov 17, 2004 5:53 am
Subject: Switzerland Added to Main Page quietist
Offline
Send Email

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/noiselaw/files/html/main.htm - Switzerland added
to country list on main page

http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=de_en&trurl=http:/\
/www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/814_41/ - Babelfish can be used to provide a convenient
(but crude) English translation

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (1)

#116 From: noiselaw-owner@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sun Nov 14, 2004 8:05 pm
Subject: URL for Connecticut Has Changed quietist
Offline
Send Email

URL for Connecticut State Government website has changed from
http://www.cga.state.ct.us to http://www.cga.ct.gov

HTML for State of Connecticut has been changed accordingly, see
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/noiselaw/files/html/us/ct/state.htm

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (1)

#115 From: jj <jjs110@...>
Date: Wed Nov 10, 2004 7:28 pm
Subject: Interesting blueprint jjsurbeck
Offline
Send Email

Hi everyone,

I hope I'm not re-inventing the wheel here, but I thought this article was interesting in showing us a possible blueprint for all communities to start fighting noise. The story of this couple is a good example to follow: http://www.noiselaw.org/article82.html .

J.J.
_________________

Group sets out to cut noise in Greeley (CO)

By Jesse Fanciulli,

The Greeley Tribune (CO)

November 10, 2003

Doug and Helen Blanz of Greeley like to sleep with their window open -- and they want city government to help ensure the kind of peaceful slumber they enjoyed while visiting quieter cities.

The Blanzes are the founding members of an action group called Citizens for a Quiet Greeley. The group's goal: Shushing sources of vehicle noise until the nights are as quiet as the ones the Blanzes enjoyed in Alaska and Nevada.

“In the last year I spent a week in Anchorage and Las Vegas,” said Doug Blanz, a 67-year-old retired school counselor. “Every night, I had my window open and I never heard a loud vehicle.”

But there are fewer silent nights in the Blanzes southwest Greeley neighborhood, Doug Blanz said. Vehicle noise, particularly loud mufflers, originating from 23rd Street Road and the nearby U.S. 34 Bypass, interrupts the couple's sleep.

Noise from a neighbor's altered motorcycle muffler added to the problem.

Police wound up ticketing the neighbor, and what happened next spurred the Blanzes to action.

The Blanzes were chagrined to learn that their neighbor escaped a fine for the noise violation after telling the municipal judge he planned to get rid of his loud muffler or fix it.

Helen Blanz, 68, a retired attorney who worked on several criminal cases in Minnesota, said she wishes the court would have set a deadline for the neighbor to do what he promised.

“Sentencing shouldn't be open ended,” Helen Blanz said, adding that her neighbor could wait 20 years to sell or fix the muffler. City Attorney Rick Brady said his office has since contacted the motorcycle owner and is keeping pressure on him to fix the problem.

Even so, the Blanzes decided to organize a group of Greeley residents who want the city's vehicle noise laws to be stricter and better enforced.

The couple's neighbors were among the first to join Citizens for a Quiet Greeley.

Today, Citizens for a Quiet Greeley now includes nine homeowners' associations representing 2,486 residents and a handful of people who spent hours on street corners documenting apparent noise-law violations, Doug Blanz said.

On two dates -- July 2 and Aug. 14 -- members of the group logged suspected noise violations at five Greeley intersections from 7-8 p.m.

The group judged apparent violations based on criteria including that the noise was so loud it would wake someone from sleep and or cause annoyance and irritation.

The first survey showed that 232 vehicles generated unacceptable noise. A second survey at the five intersections showed 196 apparent noise violations.

With the surveys to back them, the Citizens for a Quiet Greeley took their case to city council Tuesday.

The group urged the city to take many steps to curb vehicle noise, including:
* Impose tougher penalties, including more fines for vehicle noise law violators.
* Consider adopting stricter standards for noise violations.
* Create a noise-reduction task force.
* Establish vehicle noise-enforcement and reduction goals, including ticketing quotas for police.

Some of the suggestions didn't sit well with city staff.

For example, Greeley Police Chief Paul Branham said he'll encourage police to enforce noise laws but won't establish the noise-ticket quotas. Branham said police issued about 90 vehicle noise citations so far this year.

“I like the idea of a quiet, peaceful Greeley, and I'll encourage our officers to enforce laws for a quieter more peaceful Greeley,” Branham said. Ticket quotas, however, have no place in Branham's philosophy of law enforcement.

Even so, Greeley City Council directed city staff to explore the Blanzes' suggestions for reducing vehicle noise as well as noise from other sources.

City Councilman Don Feldhaus praised Citizens for a Quiet Greeley for amplifying the city's conversation on noise pollution.

“The work you've done here is very admirable,” Feldhaus said.

About the law

Greeley has laws on the books that prohibit loud noise from many mobile sources including loud mufflers, car stereos and misuse of horns. Fines, which are up to the court to impose, can generally range from $50 for a vehicle noise offender cited under the traffic code to $600 for someone who has accrued three noise violations in a calendar year, Greeley Municipal Court Judge Linda Goff wrote in an Oct. 27 memo to Citizens for a Quiet Greeley.

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (1)

#113 From: "NoBoomers" <noboomers@...>
Date: Sun Sep 12, 2004 3:50 pm
Subject: RE: NO BOOMERS- interesting question for all banboomers
Offline
Send Email

Chris,

When I was trying to determine whether Louisville's noise ordinance was a criminal or civil offense, I talked with a person from the county attorney's office. It is currently a criminal offense but actually considered something less than a misdemeanor.

The Metro Council intends to amend the ordinance to a civil offense. This should actually be beneficial for several reasons. Criminal offenses must be heard by a judge (if contested) and judges consider noise violations trivial and generally dismiss them. One police sergeant I spoke with said they used to write tons of citations along Preston Highway to try and control the rowdy cruising crowd, but the judges threw them out. So the police quit writing them - what was the point.

Making the offense civil allows the new Code Enforcement Board to handle these violations so judges don't have to "waste their time" plus the money collected from the fines stays with local government rather than being sent to the state. This should give officers an incentive to write the citations since it indirectly helps the department. Also they won't feel like their efforts are in vain.

I guess we'll see if that is the case...

- Ron Czapala

From: Chris Eagan [mailto:chris@...]
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2004 1:43 AM
To: "Aaron Friedman"; "Michael W. Smith"
Cc: "Terri"; "SUSCHI"; "Sharon Amann"; "Sam Deas"; "Ruth Jonkman"; "Ruth Groff"; "Ron Czapala"; richard@...; "Richard Tur"; "Ray Plemo"; "Randy Throckmorton"; "Patrice Thomas"; noiselaw@yahoogroups.com; "Noisefree America"; "Noise Pollution Clearinghouse"; noboomers@yahoogroups.com; "Nina Teicholz"; "Mike Pelletier"; "Michael Wright"; "Mary Laureano"; "Mark Lyons"; lower_the_boom@yahoogroups.com; "Louis Hagler"; "Lloyd Phillips"; "Les Bird"; "Katharine"; "Judy Ellis"; "John Bergan"; "Glen Slater"; "Geoffrey Hess"; "Gail Stokes"; "Drew DeShazo"; "David Staudacher"; "David Slough"; "Cynthia"; "Cliff Crowley"; "Charles Dickinson"; "Carla Moore"; "Billy Higginbotham"; ban-boomcars@...; "Arline"; "Andrew C. Cocke"
Subject: NO BOOMERS- interesting question for all

Greetings fellow advocates for peace & quiet!

We have an interesting question for all to contemplate:

If it has been recognized by the legislative powers that be in our (Louisville, KY) Metro Gov. that these Booming Noisemaker Vehicles are committing a "criminal" offense by booming through our neighborhood, can we not make the push - by logical extension - to have it recognized that someone booming through our neighborhood is committing a crime equivalent to an assault??

After all, if booming, rumbling noise, as these inconsiderate, disrespectful idiots emit from their vehicles, can cause heart attacks, lung collapse, etc. (as we've seen in the Forwards from your group), is not causing this noise the equivalent of an assault? If our windows, our doors, and our homes' foundations shake when these scumbags roll down our streets, are they not in effect "assaulting" us??

If we can get the powers that be in our Metro Government to recognize that an unbearably loud booming vehicle is committing "an assault" on all unwilling citizenry within earshot, then the penalites for committing such crime should become much more dutifully enforced & much more harsh than they are currently.

Furthermore, if a booming vehicle is committing an assault on our homes are we not acting in self-defense if we, say, blow the booming car off the Street with a bazooka? LOL. But, don't say it's not something you've at least contemplated! LMAO ;-)

Food for thought. Let's keep the pressure on!

Sincerely,

Chris & Allison Eagan

Chris Eagan, The Eagan Team
Direct: (502)649-8381 V M: (502)329-1224
***
Free, Over-The-Net Home evaluation!
Http://Louisvillehomeevaluation.com

Beat out other Buyers to elegant, rare Historic Homes or apt buildings! FREE list of hot, newly available properties!
http://oldlouisvillerealestate.com/vip_buyer.asp

Find out how you can purchase a home for ZERO
DOWN & payments LESS THAN RENT!
http://eagans.com/zerodown.asp

Eagan Team of Re/Max Connections/licensed in Kentucky

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (1)

#110 From: "Michael W. Smith" <mysonjordie@...>
Date: Fri Aug 13, 2004 6:21 am
Subject: Officials struggle to quiet it down nomoreboomcars
Offline
Send Email

http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=42205

Officials struggle to quiet it down
By MARK HAYWARD and RILEY YATES
Union Leader Staff

News - August 13, 2004

MANCHESTER � Aldermen are vowing to address noise problems, as hundreds of residents have complained publicly about booming motorcycles and car stereos.

A start will be resurrecting a proposed noise ordinance that never made it out of committee, aldermen said. Other suggestions include concentrating on certain neighborhoods, finding out what the rest of the state is doing and offering police the funds to have greater enforcement.

�It�s a forefront issue and will be addressed shortly,� said Alderman Mark Roy of Ward 1. �When you get public concerns like that, it�s up to your elected officials to get the right ordinance on the books.�

The Union Leader received 40 responses yesterday to a reader survey on street noise. In total, some 870 people have responded.

Most say loud motorcycles are their biggest gripe, followed closely by loud car stereos. But people mentioned car alarms, brakes on 18-wheel trucks and airplanes.

Two years ago, aldermen debated an ordinance that prohibited motor vehicle noise that exceeded 80 decibels 25 feet from a vehicle, with fines $250 for the first offense, $500 for the second.

The bill never made it out of the bills on second reading committee, but will now be taken up, aldermen say.

�I suspect it will come out of committee and we will vote on it. So I do think we�ll have a new noise ordinance in place,� said Alderman Frank Guinta of Ward 3.

Guinta said he�s contacting neighboring towns about their noise ordinances in the hopes of getting some other ideas.

Alderman Mike Garrity of Ward 9 said he supports the ordinance but believes police enforcement is also critical.

�If that�s extra dollars to do that, then so be it,� Garrity said.

Alderman Armand Forest of Ward 12 suggested police concentrate on the area around Lake Avenue and Union Street, where the biggest problem is.

�I don�t believe I should be knocking (Police Chief) John Jaskolka,� said Forest, a retired police officer. �John and his crew are doing a good job. They probably have to do a better job in that neighborhood.�

Alderman Ed Osborne of Ward 5 said the state could make automobile insurance mandatory, a move that would get 75 percent of the offending cars off the road.

Osborne said he�s only heard from one constituent complaining about noise � Clifton Crowley.

There aren�t enough police to enforce parking regulations, just like noise, Osborne said. �We just don�t have the manpower to do all this.�

On average, yesterday�s respondents ranked street noise as 8.3 in seriousness on a scale of 1 to 10.

�In California, heavy bass rap music is employed as a cultural weapon,� wrote Santa Barbara resident Jim Hultman, who said enforcement is the key. He also urged confrontation with the noisemakers; they�re not as tough as one might think.

In Santa Barbara, he tracked one person with a loud stereo to his parents� home. The driver turned out to be mentally ill, the parents took away his driving privileges and the neighborhood was 50 percent quieter, Hultman said.

Tina Crawford of Manchester said police are needed for problem situations, but not the little things, fearful police will end up searching houses for the softest of noises.

Felix Torres said he has a strong tolerance for urban noise, having lived in Boston for years. �I was never awoken in the middle of the night by motorcycle noise as I have been repeatedly in Manchester,� Torres said.

�Kate� said she was moving to Goffstown; she�s sick of listening to �ghetto trash music and obnoxious trucks and motorcycles. It�s all about showing off for these people. Grow up,� she wrote.

But �Keri� of Manchester said people should be able to do their own thing. �Everyone knows that if someone don�t want us to do something, we do it anyway, but with a bang!�

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (1)

#107 From: "Michael W. Smith" <mysonjordie@...>
Date: Tue Aug 10, 2004 5:34 pm
Subject: Two lessons from Ohio, where windows stay open nomoreboomcars
Offline
Send Email

http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=42026

Two lessons from Ohio, where windows stay open
By MARK HAYWARD
Union Leader Staff

News - August 10, 2004

MANCHESTER � Two Ohio cities have cracked down on street noise, with one city, Cleveland, making it illegal for drivers to play music that is plainly audible anywhere outside the automobile.

The effort in Lorain, a city of 68,000 in northeast Ohio, has been successful, according to one city official, who said he lives on a busy street and sleeps with his windows open.

�It�s had a dramatic effect,� said Mark Provenza, legal counsel for the city. Two years ago, noise from loud car stereos was so bad that more than 2,000 city residents signed a petition demanding action.

Provenza drafted a new city ordinance, which junked the idea of decibel measurements and prohibited noise that could be plainly audible 50 feet from the source.

Police have aggressively enforced the ordinance, said Provenza, who acknowledges that noise levels do rise in the summer. Provenza said the ordinance calls for heavy fines � $350 on first offense. Also, police confiscate stereos that belong to repeat offenders, and media have publicized court officers taking sledge hammers to the confiscated stereos.

�The first amendment right only goes so far. You don�t have the right to be disorderly,� Provenza said. The Lorain ordinance does not go as far as one in Cleveland, which prohibits noise or music that is loud enough to be plainly audible outside the vehicle.

Cleveland police Lt. Wayne Drummond said officers pull over errant vehicles when they are in between calls.

�We try to address quality of life issues, and this is one of them,� Drummond said.

Like Lorain, Manchester�s ordinance prohibits noise that is plainly audible 50 feet from the source. The prohibition runs from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m.

The Union Leader received 103 responses since Friday in its unscientific survey into street noise. On average, respondents say the problem of street noise ranks 8.1 on a scale of 1 to 10, a number consistent with previous compilations.

Loud motorcycles were the biggest complaint, followed by booming car stereos. Other bothersome noises included airplanes, taxi horns and barking dogs.

North Country resident Jim Borgman said he moved out of Nashua because of noise and traffic.

�Our society, at the individual level, becomes ever more selfish and self centered,� Borgman wrote.

Borgman and others encouraged police to crack down on excessive noise. Gorham resident Claude Pigeon noted that major crime went down in New York City when police concentrated on petty crimes. �When you sweat the small stuff, the big stuff will take care of itself,� he wrote.

Motorcyclists and others said the issue is overblown.

Laconia resident Kevin Arruda said overzealous complaining will lead to �unbalanced, ridiculous laws� that will prohibit any type of aftermarket exhaust.

�As far as the loud stereos go, that�s too bad,� he wrote. �You know when you moved into an apartment on a main road that there was going to be noise. If you don�t like it, you shouldn�t have lived there. I know plenty of people who don�t mind street noise (because they create it themselves) and would be perfectly happy living on a main road. On the other hand, I know many people who HATE street noise, and live in rural neighborhoods. It is common sense.�

Steve Drouin of Manchester said loud pipes save lives. �I am an avid motorcycle rider and people just don�t see us,� Drouin wrote. But Ed in Salem said loud pipes can scare and distract drivers, causing accidents.

�Learning how to ride with the proper gear and respect for other drivers,� Ed wrote, �is the best way to be safe.�

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (1)

#106 From: "Michael W. Smith" <mysonjordie@...>
Date: Tue Aug 10, 2004 6:39 pm
Subject: Council seeks to cut down on noise nomoreboomcars
Offline
Send Email

http://www.georgetownnews.com/NEWS-GRAPHIC/myarticles.asp?P=1022715&S=500&PubID=16538

Tuesday, August 10, 2004

Georgetown, Kentucky

Council seeks to cut down on noise
By KEVIN HALL
Georgetown News-Graphic
8/8/04

Shh.

A citywide noise ordinance may soon take effect, as the Georgetown City Council is looking at adopting new nuisance laws.

If adopted, the ordinance will prohibit �any excessive, unnecessary or unusually loud noise which either annoys, disturbs, injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace and safety of others.�

That includes operating construction, drilling or demolition equipment between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. near residences; using outdoor machines like lawnmowers between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. Monday through Friday and before 9 a.m. on Saturday and Sunday; playing a stereo, television or musical instrument too loudly in a residence; and repairing or operating on vehicles in such a way as to create noise.

Noises that can be heard from a distance of 50 feet are also subject to fines, which will range from $50 to $400, depending on the time and number of previous offenses.

�We wanted to cut back on any type of public disturbance with neighbors, things like loud parties,� Councilman Chad Wallace said after Friday morning�s special meeting. �We�d had a lot of complaints on nuisances with loud cars with music booming.�

�They can rattle your windows, for sure,� Mayor Everette Varney said of some of cars in the city.

The ordinance defines an �unreasonably loud, harsh or excessive noise� as one �audible at a distant of 50 feet from its point of origin or emanation or which negatively affects the peaceable enjoyment of a residence.�

The ordinance, which had its first reading on Friday, established the 50-foot rule to help give the city a way to determine what is too loud, Wallace said.

�What is loud to you might not be loud to me,� he said. �We have some definites, but we also have some flexibility.�

�I think that people have a place to turn to get some enforcement on loud noises,� said Councilman David Lusby, adding that the ordinance borrows from laws in other communities.

The ordinance will not cover tractor pulls at Brooking Park because it is in the county even though the noise can be heard in subdivisions inside the city limits.

The city is also looking at purchasing a decibel reader to measure continuous noises, like those caused by air conditioning units at businesses located near homes, Wallace said.

The ordinance, if approved, will be enforced by the Georgetown Police Department. The second reading is scheduled for the next council meeting at 6 p.m. Aug. 19.

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (1)

#105 From: "Michael W. Smith" <mysonjordie@...>
Date: Fri Aug 6, 2004 3:41 pm
Subject: Police: New law muffles noise enforcement powers nomoreboomcars
Offline
Send Email

http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=41837

Police: New law muffles noise enforcement powers
By MARK HAYWARD
Union Leader Staff

News - August 6, 2004

(Part of the series of articles concerning Manchester, NH and Cliff Crowley.)

In what police said hurts their efforts to keep streets and highways quiet, a law took effect in June that allows owners of motorcycles and cars to modify their exhausts.

Supporters claimed the change was needed because nearly any exhaust modification � such as dual pipes or side exhausts � would result in a citation. But opponents, who included officials in the Department of Safety and Manchester Police Chief John Jaskolka, said the change will make it more difficult to enforce noise limits.

�It�s a lot more complex to enforce,� said Earl Sweeney, assistant commissioner of safety for New Hampshire, about fallback portions of the law.

The legislation passed the House by voice votes, meaning no record was taken of how lawmakers voted. It survived a narrow, 12-11 roll call vote in the Senate. It then went to Gov. Craig Benson, who let it become law without his signature on June 16.

�He isn�t crazy about the legislation,� said Benson spokesman Alicia Preston yesterday. But Benson told supporters that he wouldn�t veto it and he kept his word, Preston said.

�He couldn�t lend his support to it (by signing it) because of the concerns of the opposition and some of the concerns he agreed with,� Preston said.

The legislation removes one of three paragraphs in state law dealing with mufflers and noise prevention.

The provision prohibits one from modifying an exhaust system in any manner that will amplify or increase the noise above that of the original muffler.

The provisions that remain require motor vehicles to have mufflers in good working order to prevent unusual or excessive noise and prohibit use of muffler cutouts, bypass or similar devices

State Rep. Larry Artz, R-Nashua, stressed the change does not make straight pipes on motorcycles legal. The existing provisions cover exhaust without baffles.

He said police were ticketing any automobile with any modified exhaust, even cars that weren�t loud. He said excessive motorcycle noise has been a long-standing problem.

�If anything, House Bill 243, I think, it�s actually helped police in enforcing the original intent of the noise statute, which is to do a noise measurement,� Artz said.

The chairman of the House Transportation Committee echoed that statement. It�s been 11 years since the Legislature passed a law designed to limit motorcycle noise. The test came from the Motorcycle Industry Council, a trade group, said Rep. Sherman Packard, R-Londonderry.

�It�s not that difficult to do the test,� he said.

But police complain about the test required in state law to ticket a motorcycle for noise. A calibrated decibel meter must be held 20 inches from a motorcycle exhaust at a 45-degree angle. The engine must be revved to 3,500 rpm. The law forbids exhaust noise that exceeds 106 decibels, which is comparable to the noise from a gas-powered chain saw.

Practically, two police officers are needed to enforce the law � one to hold the meter and one to rev the bike, Sweeney said. Alternatively, a single officer can hold the meter and trust the biker will rev the engine to the required level, Sweeney said.

Other police note that many motorcycles don�t have tachometers, meaning another piece of equipment is needed to measure the rpm level.

�It�s kind of difficult. There�s a limit of how much equipment they can carry in a cruiser,� Sweeney said.

Sweeney said he is researching laws in other states to see if they have an easier system. He�s yet to find one. Packard said he�d be open to changes in the current motorcycle noise law, but any vague language will be difficult to enforce.

On the Senate side, attempts were made to alter the exhaust legislation, but they died in conference committee, said Sen. Joseph Kenney, R-Union, chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee.

He ended up opposing the legislation.

�Noise is becoming a larger and larger issue,� Kenney said. �I just didn�t think it (the legislation) was the right public policy at this time.�

Senators who voted to repeal the provision were: John Gallus, Carl Johnson, Robert Boyce, Robert Flanders, Bob Odell, Sheila Roberge, Jane O�Hearn, Robert Clegg, Andre Martel, Frank Sapareto, Charles Morse and Russell Prescott.

Senators who voted against the repeal were: Kenney, Clifton Below, Richard Green, Andrew Peterson, Joseph Foster, Sylvia Larsen, Ted Gatsas, Jack Barnes, Lou D�Allesandro and Burton Cohen.

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (1)

#104 From: "Michael W. Smith" <mysonjordie@...>
Date: Fri Aug 6, 2004 4:39 am
Subject: NH cities find obnoxious noise to be moving target nomoreboomcars
Offline
Send Email

http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=41494

NH cities find obnoxious noise to be moving target
By RILEY YATES
Union Leader Staff
News - July 29, 2004

A neighbor complaining of noise Sunday night led police to Central Square in Keene, where they asked a rock band to turn down the music a notch or two.

Put that in the back of a moving car, or have it roaring from a motorcycle tailpipe, and mayors in cities across the state aren�t sure what can be done.

�How do you deal with someone who�s got a vibrator in their car that vibrates your house?� asked Keene Mayor Michael Blastos. �I can�t imagine coming up with something that would really work, unless you have a cruiser so sophisticated it has a decibel meter and all that other stuff.�

With more cars on the road and better � louder � sound systems, cities are grappling with noise pollution, especially from the road.

Since offenders are just passing through a neighborhood, it�s difficult indeed to cite them, mayors in three New Hampshire cities say.

�It�s a problem, one of the biggest problems that our city has,� Nashua Mayor Bernie Streeter said. �And particularly on our Main Street, where we have noisy motorcycles or boom boxes going up and down where some of the best outdoor dining is in the state.�

Nashua has been searching for the right ordinance for at least a year, after getting repeated complaints from the restaurant owners. Streeter said options range from permitting police to cite noisemakers on their own, to requiring a resident complaint, to needing a decibel meter reading.

�It�s expensive and difficult,� Streeter said. �You can�t station someone downtown to try to catch someone with a loud muffler or one of those contraptions.�

Portsmouth Mayor Evelyn Sirrell said more officers are what is needed. But at a time when local governments are strapped for cash, it�s not realistic to expect, she said.

Portsmouth has banned amplified music from its downtown, and uses decibel meters to measure noise.

It is doing as well as any community in the state in addressing noise complaints � but that doesn�t necessarily mean much, Sirrell said.

Problems for Portsmouth include cars racing at night on Route 1 and of course motorcycles with modified mufflers.

�I�m on Route 33 and I get the bulk of it,� Sirrell said. �When we moved here there was hardly a car, but now there�s a steady stream.�

An exception is Dover, whose mayor said he�s yet to hear a noise complaint from a resident. Scott Myers credited strong, active neighborhoods, and a calm community that�s farther from the ocean than Portsmouth.

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (1)

#102 From: "Michael W. Smith" <mysonjordie@...>
Date: Mon Aug 2, 2004 1:43 am
Subject: Burning Rubber Will Burn A Hole In Your Pocket nomoreboomcars
Offline
Send Email

http://www2.kauz.com/kauznews/fullnews.php?id=20

Burning Rubber Will Burn A Hole In Your Pocket
posted on 07-07-2004 7:50

Think twice before you squeal your tires. Today, the Wichita Falls city council amended the city's noise ordinance to include burning rubber.

When drivers try to show off how fast their car can accelerate, their tires often make a squealing sound, and that sound is now illegal in Wichita Falls.

Squealing tires is an especially big problem for folks living near kemp, just south of kell.

Wichita Falls resident Mickie Wallace said, �It's worse in the summertime. It's always this way actually, and it's not getting any better.�

Another fed up resident Becky Pierson said, �Lots of times we're wakened at night from the squealing of the tires and the boom boxes.�

The city hopes to put an end to that. The Wichita Falls city council has just added squealing tires to the city's noise ordinance.

The new state law only allows police to ticket tire squealers if they can prove it's linked to drag racing, but it's the annoying noise that residents seem most concerned about.

The question is -- will police enforce this new ordinance?

Arthur b. Williams, mayor pro tem, said, �If somebody makes loud noise with a boom box or squeals their tires and there's not an officer present, the police department can't do anything about it.�

Despite that, residents say the city is headed in the right direction with this new noise ordinance.

If you get caught by police burning rubber, a ticket will set you back $350 because it's a safety hazard. Since it's a city ordinance, you cannot take a defensive driving course to get out of the paying the fine.

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (1)

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...

Messages

Summary

Yahoo! My Yahoo! Mail
	Sign In New User? Sign Up
		Groups Home - Help

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...

Best of Y! Groups

Messages

Summary