[HN Gopher] US sues eBay for allowing sale of emissions defeat d...
___________________________________________________________________
US sues eBay for allowing sale of emissions defeat devices
Author : PaulHoule
Score : 166 points
Date : 2023-10-10 17:29 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.thedrive.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.thedrive.com)
| jiveturkey wrote:
| google answerbox says
|
| > Section 203(a)(3)(B) of the Clean Air Act makes it a violation
| for any person to manufacture or sell, or offer to sell, or
| install, any part or component (i.e., "defeat device") intended
| for use with, or as part of, any motor vehicle or motor vehicle
| engine, where a principal effect of the part or component is to
| ...
|
| So, I guess I can see how ebay is at fault. But if that is
| literal text then it seems that both the end users (buyer and
| seller) are also at fault and should be parties to this lawsuit.
| bagels wrote:
| It's not illegal to buy it, just to sell or install it.
| slicktux wrote:
| A lot of these modified ECUs' are really for drag racers...though
| there are plenty of people who buy them to modify their street
| car...bummer
| tristor wrote:
| I am very annoyed by the decision of the EPA to start cracking
| down, because it's made it impossible to import parts for my
| track/race cars, even though it's completely legal to do so. Like
| many things, the market for enthusiasts supported availability
| and reasonable pricing for the more hardcore enthusiasts.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| My understanding is that such parts are not by themselves
| illegal. The crime is actually using them on the road. My
| understanding was that they were legal for track purposes.
|
| I would never want to say that people should be able to defeat
| emissions, but a part of me does not like the idea that every
| vehicle owner is beholden to the OEM for parts in perpetuity. The
| "right to repair" people should be all over this fight. Restrict
| cars to only their original emissions parts and that becomes yet
| another lever for manufacturers to pull when they want to sell
| new cars/trucks/tractors. I say let people use the parts they
| want to use, then properly inspect and test the resulting
| vehicles once they are on the road.
| datavirtue wrote:
| I would fully suspect people to be fined for producing enhanced
| emissions reduction hardware and offering it for sale. The
| default emissions systems end up reducing the life of the
| engine, creating another problem for the environment, and there
| are opportunities for fixing those deficiencies.
| enragedcacti wrote:
| My understanding is that such parts are not by themselves
| illegal.
|
| The relevant text regulating the sale and manufacture merely
| allows the EPA to exempt products "that you intend to be used
| solely for competition, where we determine that such
| engines/equipment are unlikely to be used contrary to your
| intent."
|
| > but a part of me does not like the idea that every vehicle
| owner is beholden to the OEM for parts in perpetuity.
|
| I don't think the regulation requires OEM parts, Dorman and
| MagnaFlow sell bolt-on Catalytic converters without any trouble
| from the EPA. I think there is a real problem when it comes to
| more complex parts like ECUs but right to repair laws can help
| solve that by requiring documentation and restricting arbitrary
| locks of electronic components.
|
| https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-I/subchapter-U...
| Scoundreller wrote:
| I was thinking more about O2 sensors. At least a lot of
| Toyotas don't like the aftermarket ones for some reason. No
| idea if they're truly out of spec or what.
|
| But there's a risk with living with a check engine light.
| Some vehicles disable stuff like traction control in that
| state, and you won't know when a new unique code has hit that
| you should deal with for other reasons.
|
| (The disabling of traction control is insane to me here:
| https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/questions/25383/why-
| does... ). A catalytic converter problem is zero reason to do
| this.
| I_Am_Nous wrote:
| My old Suzuki SX4 (RIP) disabled cruise control when it
| threw a code, but so far as I could tell that was the only
| thing it did. Traction control still worked,
| automatic/manual all wheel drive still worked...it was also
| a secondary catalytic converter alarm, so I just kept a
| code reader with me and reset it whenever it would come on.
|
| It would always come on after I got off the interstate and
| coasted up the on-ramp, so I am not sure if it came on
| after getting hot enough on the interstate or if it was
| just the coasting that caused it.
| valianteffort wrote:
| Not everyone lives in California so while OEM's might produce
| all cars to meet California standards, it is completely legal
| in states with more relaxed laws to make such modifications.
|
| At the least I think the government could argue about selling
| in jurisdictions where it is illegal.
| dieselgate wrote:
| To tap into this thread - this is quite real. One can just
| remove a catalytic converter (or have it stolen) and they'd
| then be "defeating emissions" so this lawsuit seems a bit
| zealous to me.
|
| Recently saw a post on a diesel truck forum about a CA
| resident who had legal/registration issues because of an
| engine swap (post emissions engine into a pre-emissions
| vehicle) [1]
|
| Am under the impression this particular vehicle would be fine
| in WA state by comparison.
|
| It's frustrating to see consumer vehicles being so strongly
| targeted by regulatory shenanigans compared to "private jets"
| and the like
|
| [1] https://www.oilburners.net/threads/california-diesel-
| convers...
| imp0cat wrote:
| I think the reason is (any diesel mechanics around please
| correct me if I'm wrong) that modern engines stripped of
| their emissions equipment will pollute a lot more than old
| engines.
| smileysteve wrote:
| Modern (fuel injected with wideband) engines without
| emissions devices will produce much fewer hydrocarbon
| emissions but more Nitrous oxides
| dieselgate wrote:
| I understand the reasoning and am all for mitigating
| pollution. It may be frustrating for consumers when these
| systems have potential to decrease economy, performance,
| and reliability while increasing cost and maintenance.
| ospzfmbbzr wrote:
| In the case of the DEF it absolutely reduces the lifespan
| of the engine. A truck engine that could last 500K miles
| lasts 200K max.
|
| Factor a second or third engine (whole new truck) and the
| energy and pollution to produce it and DEF looks not as
| great.
|
| Vehicles and engines that last 25 years are easy to build
| yet they are rare outside of commerical and military.
|
| The whole argument is disengenuous and proceeds from an
| unstated a priori desire by government to restrict
| movement of citizens and markets, rather than as a real
| requirement for a real benefit.
|
| It's all so tiresome...
| throwaway11004 wrote:
| [flagged]
| sandworm101 wrote:
| >> more governmental regulation, such as the right to repair
| itself.
|
| Wanting more personal freedoms is generally considered a
| right-wing view. Creating a right to repair is about placing
| limits on corporations, not actual people. Try telling people
| that they can only use "original" parts in their guns and
| suddenly the entire NRA will be on the streets demanding a
| constitutional amendment in support of right-to-repair. This
| isn't a left-right political thing. It is a persons v.
| corporations issue, with government as the representative of
| the people.
| throwaway11004 wrote:
| [flagged]
| rpmisms wrote:
| That's false. I'm extremely (machine guns are a human right,
| the government got too big in 1777) libertarian-right, and
| right-to-repair is a sensible regulation that empowers
| individual agency and adds massive value to the economy.
| Kerrick wrote:
| The right to repair isn't leftist for those who don't believe
| intellectual property is property. For those people, the laws
| prohibiting people from cracking lockouts on hardware they
| own and modifying the code running on their own equipment are
| the governmental regulation they're fighting against.
| Kerb_ wrote:
| Put this on your main, homie. I dare you.
| LargeWu wrote:
| It's must be some interesting mental gymnastics to equate
| "protecting consumer rights" to "state control".
| throwaway11004 wrote:
| Who guarantees protection of consumer rights if not the
| state? Again, I'm not saying it's a bad thing.
|
| People mentioned farmers in your sibling comments, are
| those consumers? I thought they are not.
| strbean wrote:
| With respect to the farming equipment market, they are
| the consumers.
| strbean wrote:
| I don't know about the political leanings of right to repair
| supporters on average, but there are prominent supports who I
| certainly wouldn't characterize as leftist. See Louis Rossman
| for example.
| throwaway11004 wrote:
| [flagged]
| strbean wrote:
| That's an atrocious Wikipedia article. They don't even
| pull a quote, they just reference a 30 minute YouTube
| video directly?
|
| From what I can tell, the only relevant bit in that video
| is that he concedes he didn't know that tractor racing
| (tractor pulls) was a thing.
|
| And thinking any environmental regulations should exist
| certainly doesn't place you on the left. Do you think
| Richard Nixon was a leftist?
|
| Rossman spends about the same amount of time railing
| against regulation as he does supporting right to repair.
|
| Right to repair is largely about protecting individual
| liberties and property rights.
| titaniumtown wrote:
| I don't think that confirms any "points" you've made at
| all.
| ska wrote:
| > The right to repair people are leftists
|
| I think this is an oversimplification at best. Right-to-
| repair has huge support amongst e.g. farmers, who are not
| homogeneously left-leaning by any stretch.
| throwaway11004 wrote:
| [flagged]
| [deleted]
| eli wrote:
| What a bizarre argument. I don't think "business
| regulation" is the only or even the primary dimension of
| the left vs right axis.
| ska wrote:
| That's an idiosyncratic usage of left/right leaning.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| The right is not significantly more opposed to regulation
| of business than the left, except in some shallow
| rhetoric. They just want the regulations to align with
| their own world view.
| petsfed wrote:
| I think a lot of folks use "leftist" in modern usage to mean
| "those who are further left than liberals". And that's where
| you're getting a lot of pushback. In terms of governmental
| regulation "you cannot use the judicial system to compel
| people to use your preferred avenue of repair" is pretty
| weak. I think there's a path to saying "there's no legal
| concept of 'felony contempt of business model'" is _anti_
| governmental regulation.
|
| What I'm saying is that by casting right-to-repair as leftist
| (or rightist) just muddies the waters of what leftism _is_
| without providing any guiding context about _why_ people
| might be for or against the right to repair. In any case,
| there 's very few parts of the governmental-regulation
| spectrum that are unambiguously left or right.
| Dracophoenix wrote:
| > there's no legal concept of 'felony contempt of business
| model'.
|
| It's a bad legal concept, but it exists: The DMCA
| petsfed wrote:
| I mean to say that the statement is anti-governmental-
| regulation in its expression.
|
| Clearly, there _is_ a legal concept of 'felony contempt
| of business model', as I did not coin that phrase myself.
| willsmith72 wrote:
| it's pretty classic, people creating new throwaway accounts
| to spout their garbage because they're too embarrassed to
| chance it being linked back to them.
|
| what does that say about the quality of what you have to say?
| hoofhearted wrote:
| The manufacturers got sued by the EPA for not actually
| enforcing the "for track use" only rule.
|
| A lot of the big name exhaust companies have stopped producing
| catless products; and others require all of your information to
| be on file if you're buying a catless race downpipe.
|
| A lot of the install shops around here in Maryland that run a
| legit receipt paper trail of work type of business won't even
| touch catless installs anymore.
| paulddraper wrote:
| > not actually enforcing the "for track use" only rule
|
| How does a _manufacturer_ enforce the use of a device in that
| way?
| PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote:
| is catless a portmanteau of catalytic converter and less?
| meaning, the lack of a catalytic converter?
| hallway_monitor wrote:
| Yes
| hoofhearted wrote:
| Yes. Remove the cat for either a straight pipe, or
| resonator.
|
| HKS silently discontinued their "catless" downpipes in the
| U.S. around 2021 for mentioned reasons above.
| grecy wrote:
| > _My understanding is that such parts are not by themselves
| illegal. The crime is actually using them on the road. My
| understanding was that they were legal for track purposes._
|
| That certainly used to be the case, but it changed recently,
| and the EPA has been aggressively going after _anyone_ who
| sells them for _any_ purpose.
|
| If you're in the US and sell things that can modify emissions
| stuff, they're coming for you. Period.
| User23 wrote:
| Does this include chip tunes?
| grecy wrote:
| It does, but it's worth noting that a manufacturer of such
| devices _can_ make it meet federal emissions regulations
| (if they want to spend the $$$$ on R &D), and they can sell
| devices that are 100% legal in all 50 states.
|
| Examples are Green Diesel Engineering (Who did a TON of
| dyno time and used to work for a major OEM on emissions
| stuff) and Banks (who are virtually an OEM at this point)
| LazyMans wrote:
| Yes, a popular diesel tuner was the target a take down and
| fined big money for providing tunes that make vehicles non-
| compliant. https://www.thedrive.com/news/another-diesel-
| tuner-nailed-wi...
|
| Omitting wear and reliability concerns, some tunes gain
| their effect by not controlling for things like NoX and
| unburned hydrocarbons.
|
| The worst offenders? "Coal rolling". It would be one thing
| to do this to help spool a turbo or for some other
| performance reason, but it's literally running the motor as
| rich as possible to dump unburned fuel out the tailpipe to
| make a visual effect. At the expense of everyone around
| you.
| fsckboy wrote:
| > _My understanding is that such parts are not by themselves
| illegal. The crime is actually using them on the road. My
| understanding was that they were legal for track purposes._
|
| ok, it's just a single datapoint, but motocross racetracks in
| New England, already built in the woods away from civilization,
| started requiring mufflers about 50 years ago, early 1970's
| oceanplexian wrote:
| We're not taking about mufflers. For example in California
| "Emissions defeat system" means you simply used an off-brand
| air filter that wasn't blessed by the government.
|
| The parts may even be more efficient and less polluting, the
| government bureaucracy everyone here is worshipping doesn't
| give a rats behind.
| ryandrake wrote:
| Exactly. Years back, I moved to California with an 80's
| sports car that was admittedly quite hotrodded, but I made
| very sure that the hotrodding did not worsen its emissions
| because 1. I wanted to keep driving the car in CA and 2. I
| don't want to pollute. First SMOG test in CA, the car blew
| clean as a whistle. It met emissions standards 40 years
| harsher than it ever had to meet.
|
| Except I had all sorts of aftermarket parts in there from
| years of repairs, none of them with the all-important
| California CARB seal of approval on them, so even though it
| blew clean, it still "failed emissions" and I had to sell
| it to someone out of state. I'm still bitter about it.
| datavirtue wrote:
| In Ohio in the early 2000s all us kids were removing cats
| and passing the sniffer test easily. There was a visual
| test so we would normally just hollow out the existing
| cats. A lot of times cars with missing cats would pass
| the visual as well.
| CobaltFire wrote:
| This is disingenuous; you have to do a lot more than change
| an air filter. You would have to change the actual piping,
| etc. with one that the seller declined to spend the money
| on certifying as compliant.
|
| Further, and most people don't know this is a thing, you
| CAN tune your car as much as you want and have it certified
| with all of those parts as a one off for about $5,000 and a
| six-ish month wait. This is how you can legally import
| overseas vehicles and get a California title and
| registration, but it's $5,000 per test, and it usually
| takes more than one if you aren't super prepared. After the
| certification the entire engine (including all
| modifications) are regarded as that being the SMOG
| compliant form.
|
| One other major loophole is kit cars; SB100 allows for non-
| SMOG vehicles to be built as a kit. Not everyone's cup of
| tea, but you can build things like the Superlite GT-R [0]
| or SL-C [1] and never SMOG it.
|
| 0: http://www.superlitecars.com/gtr/
|
| 1: http://www.superlitecars.com/slc
| vdqtp3 wrote:
| > you have to do a lot more than change an air filter
|
| You are barely correct. A filter alone is insufficient to
| be an issue, but a cold air intake will mean you don't
| pass smog in CA.
| MarCylinder wrote:
| Mufflers do not impact emissions.
|
| In the case of gasoline cars, there are mechanisms for
| controlling intake air, recirculating exhaust gas, and
| filtering emissions directly out of the exhaust gases. All of
| these impact carbon emissions.
|
| These defeat devices allow drivers to modify some or all of
| these attributes in favor of gaining engine performance.
| datavirtue wrote:
| Muffler delete is a known cause of misfires. It manifests
| as a popping sound surrounded by the other shitty sounds
| produced by such a modified exhaust. We have all heard it.
|
| A misfire is raw fuel being expelled.
| rumblerock wrote:
| I for one love that BMW built the catalytic converters into the
| exhaust manifolds on my car, meaning that the only CARB-viable
| route outside of gambling on used units is a $10k replacement.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| This is incorrect. Federal law prohibits the removal of
| emissions devices on a vehicle, even if not used on public
| roads.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| Which makes sense. It's not like pollution stays confined
| within the track area.
| oceanplexian wrote:
| Pollution only applies to the little people.
|
| If you're a wealthy politician with a private jet you can
| pollute as much as 10,000 modified diesel trucks and the
| EPA might even give you an award or something.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > pollute as much as 10,000 modified diesel trucks
|
| This is insanely hyperbolic.
|
| A Cessna Citation I carries 564 gallons of fuel, with
| which it can travel ~1,500 miles - 2.7mpg.
|
| A Ford F-250 carries 48 gallons of fuel, with which it
| can travel ~700 miles - 14mpg.
|
| It's not even 10x.
| SAI_Peregrinus wrote:
| A Gulfstream G700 carries 22,407kg of fuel (about 6,100
| gallons at 800kg/m^3 ) and a max range of 14,353km
| (8,918.5mi), for 1.45mpg. Closer to 10x, by a bit. Using
| the 12,316km high-speed cruise range manages to bring it
| down to 1.24mpg, just under 10x worse.
| profile53 wrote:
| Yes but an F250 does not use leaded gas like many planes
| do, has much more complete and efficient combustion, and
| likely produces far less particulate emissions.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Private jets don't use leaded gas.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel
|
| No amount of cherry picking is gonna get you to the
| 10,000x number upthread.
| Blackcatmaxy wrote:
| Private planes absolutely still use leaded gas
| https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/leaded-
| gas-wa... https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/leaded-aviation-
| fuel-and-enviro...
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Yes, if you change entire words in my post you can make
| it say anything you like.
| Blackcatmaxy wrote:
| Parent talked about private planes which you changed to
| talk about specifically private jets which doesn't
| disprove "many planes" using leaded gas.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Direct quote from the parent: " If you're a wealthy
| politician with a private jet"
| vdqtp3 wrote:
| It's funny watching you all use different words and think
| they mean the same thing. Turbine powered aircraft,
| whether jet, fan or prop (a Citation is a turbofan
| powered aircraft) use Jet-A which is basically diesel
| (OK, OK, it's kerosene but they aren't that different).
| Piston planes (of which there are plenty) mostly use
| 100LL - high octane, leaded gasoline. Now that we're done
| with the pedantry, please continue with your argument.
| sam345 wrote:
| Just curious, where in the wikipedia article does it say
| Private jets don't use leaded gas ?
|
| Just searching the article for "lead" only gets this
| quote: "The possibility of environmental legislation
| banning the use of leaded avgas (fuel in spark-ignited
| internal combustion engine, which usually contains
| tetraethyllead (TEL), a toxic substance added to prevent
| engine knocking), and the lack of a replacement fuel with
| similar performance, has left aircraft designers and
| pilot's organizations searching for alternative engines
| for use in small aircraft."
|
| Also a reference to "Planemakers challenged to find
| unleaded fuel option - The Wichita Eagle" a 2009 article
| which has a dead link.
|
| Curious to me why you would cite an article that says the
| opposite of your assertion and then repeat the definitive
| statement. I must be missing something.
| ska wrote:
| Jets don't use avgas (which is still available with
| lead), they use jet fuel.
|
| The planes you are thinking of are mostly used for hobby
| flying or some short haul commercial flights, e.g. float
| planes. These have piston engines, more like your car
| ICE.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Avgas is not used in jets. It's for the little four seat
| propeller Cessnas you see tooling around.
| paulddraper wrote:
| > No amount of cherry picking is gonna get you to the
| 10,000x number
|
| I cherry-pick "5 miles in a F-150" vs "5000 miles in a
| Citation."
|
| Cherry-pick complete.
| westmeal wrote:
| They're not in a fuckin Cessna.
| vwcx wrote:
| Of course they are.
| paulddraper wrote:
| A Cessna _Citation,_ not a Cessna 172.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _A Cessna Citation, not a Cessna 172_
|
| In case people are wondering, Citations are top-of-the-
| line business jets. I think Queen Elizabeth and Larry
| King had them.
| chrisBob wrote:
| Maybe in terms of CO2, but turbines also don't burn as
| completely as most piston engine cars. 10k is probably an
| exaggeration , but the pollution is much worse than the
| fuel economy indicates.
|
| Similarly, my chain saw probably pollutes nearly as much
| as my new Honda truck even though it only gets a few
| gallons of gas per year.
| datavirtue wrote:
| Leer jets, they so thirsty.
| paulddraper wrote:
| _Per mile_
|
| What if little person and wealthy person travel a
| different # of miles?
| babypuncher wrote:
| But nobody drives their Ford F-250 10,000 miles a week.
| It's not about the energy efficiency of someone's mode of
| transport, it's about the total emissions from their
| transit habits. You know, the actually important metric
| when measuring an individual's impact on the climate.
| queuebert wrote:
| Dedicated race cars don't have emissions controls, though.
| For some reason, only race cars that drive on both roads
| and tracks are regulated.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Dedicated race cars are too few in number to really make
| a difference, so they don't worry about them.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| My experience is that eBay screws up their filters and wayyy
| overfilters.
|
| The Canadian government has some secret spat with Xiaomi
| cellphones and got eBay, newegg and Amazon to stop their sale.
| They weren't approved for sale in Canada, but I suspect some
| other reasoning for targeting a Chinese manufacturer in
| particular and not all the other unapproved products.
|
| However, eBay just blocked anything with "xiaomi" in the title,
| so their scooters, vacuums, android TV hubs and everything were
| no longer available for sale.
|
| I had an old Mi Box (TV hub) listed for sale that became shadow-
| banned: after it didn't sell for a while (duh, nobody could find
| it), I went to lower the price and it gave some vague error. I
| called eBay and they said it was due to gov regulation but had no
| further info, so I just took "xiaomi" out of the title and voila!
| kps wrote:
| Maybe they're under a different name, but I don't see any
| Xiaomi phones on the REL, so I'd guess the 'secret spat' is
| lack of RF certification.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| I'm still trying to get the gov to cough up the documents,
| but funny how the gov didn't tell our telecoms to ban them
| from roaming on our cellular networks. Nor identify domestic
| users that imported them and put on a transition plan to get
| them off our networks.
|
| If they're actually so harmful to public health.
|
| Though I wonder if our telecoms were behind this; they prefer
| you to buy your device from them.
| kps wrote:
| I don't think "harmful to public health" is a
| consideration. Pretty much every country with a functioning
| government requires RF certification for electronics, but
| _especially_ radio transmitters. It 's never going to be
| worth hunting down individual buyers or hassling tourists,
| but selling is another thing.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| Cell phones do have emitted energy regulations based on
| estimated tissue absorption. And they vary country to
| country (some countries even further regulate them near
| schools & other locations).
|
| If they were causing harmful interference, I'd like to
| think they would be harder-headed about it.
| arcticbull wrote:
| All that RF radiation from any of these devices can do is
| mildly warm you up. When you get to kW it could cook you
| I guess.
|
| It's not about health effects, there are none.
|
| It's about the risk of interference.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| I agree, but governments think otherwise (and
| inconsistently with their acceptable limits).
|
| https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/indicators/indicator-
| detai...
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_absorption_rate
|
| Can be a handy tool to selectively remove vendors from
| the market (which may be what occurred here).
|
| If there was a problem with interference, I really wished
| our regulator would require the telecoms to disable them
| from the networks to force migration to non-interfering
| devices.
| arcticbull wrote:
| I know they do have limits, but I don't believe any
| government or private entity has linked absorption to any
| kind of health impact at levels anywhere close to the
| published SAR limits.
|
| These are likely just out of an abundance of caution just
| in case, not because they actually think harm will come.
| Frankly that's just fine, I wish they'd do that more -
| especially with new chemicals.
|
| > If there was a problem with interference, I really
| wished our regulator would require the telecoms to
| disable them from the networks to force migration to non-
| interfering devices.
|
| Agreed.
| kps wrote:
| No one is saying they cause harmful interference. It's
| _up to the vendor_ to get certified that they don 't. You
| can't sell an uncertified radio transmitter. It's not a
| conspiracy.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Cell phones do have emitted energy regulations based
| on estimated tissue absorption_
|
| The real reason everyone does RF certification is to make
| sure the radio isn't screaming in others' bands.
| wredue wrote:
| The Canadian government "secret spat" doesn't seem so secret.
| Xiaomi stuff is laced with various levels of spyware.
|
| There's also tech relations issues due to huawei shenanigans
| and back doors.
| Neil44 wrote:
| *citation needed
| porkbeer wrote:
| https://www.knowyourmobile.com/phones/is-your-xiaomi-
| phone-s... was the first ddg result.
|
| Or just google it. Pretty common knowledge that the too
| cheap to be true chinese phones, amazon fires, etc all
| trade on your personal data to subsidize the device, either
| overtly with amazon, or less openly in the case of xiaomi,
| huwei, and dozens of smaller brands of phone, television,
| and other connected devices.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| So are iPhones and US Android phones, but I guess when it's a
| "partner" country's corporations doing the spying, that makes
| it okay.
| Eisenstein wrote:
| > I guess when it's a "partner" country's corporations
| doing the spying, that makes it okay.
|
| According to the government? Yes, of course.
| december456 wrote:
| Well yes, partner country's corporations intelligence, your
| intelligence.
| Aurornis wrote:
| > My experience is that eBay screws up their filters and wayyy
| overfilters.
|
| This is what happens when the penalties are high and users are
| motivated to evade keyword filtering.
|
| I doubt it's what eBay wants to do, but if the law is unclear
| about how filtering must be done then companies will over-
| filter to stay safe.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| What about silencers/suppressors?
|
| Haven't looked for a while, but it used to be fairly common to be
| able to find them on both Amazon and eBay, usually listed as
| "lawnmower mufflers", with pretty un-subtle hints:
|
| "This lawnmower muffler fits a 9mm exhaust and you can bang
| around your back yard all morning without disturbing your
| neighbor."
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Not sure why you're being downvoted, that's a legitimate
| question. The ATF spends a lot of time going after illegal
| silencers (usually sold as 'oil filters') but they generally
| focus on end users who buy in quantity or the manufacturers who
| 3d print them. Have not heard of them going after marketplaces
| like eBay, but then again marketplaces generally bend over
| backwards to maintain compliance with firearm regs because they
| don't want to see a headline like 'mass shooter bought weapons
| on ebay'.
| AlgorithmicTime wrote:
| Most of those are probably honeypots for the feds.
| xeromal wrote:
| An oil filter can act as a suppressor too so I don't think
| there's much you can do about that.
| black6 wrote:
| More to the point, there's nothing that can be done about
| thread adapters for oil filters. There are any number of
| legitimate uses for a 13/16"-16 to 1/2"-28 adapter.
| Alupis wrote:
| Two points:
|
| 1) In most of this country it's entirely legal to own and use a
| suppressor - so there's plenty out there "in the wild" and few
| if any are used for crime.
|
| 2) These listings are usually predatory BATF Honeypots
| (designed to catch only the dumbest among us) - but even if
| they aren't, there's still little if any crime committed with
| them. So, why even worry?
| starbase wrote:
| Isn't it strange that it's unlawful to have a muffler on your
| gun, and unlawful to NOT have a muffler on your car?
| agloe_dreams wrote:
| I mean you also drive a car in city limits and it is illegal
| to fire a gun in city limits in most places...
| chung8123 wrote:
| It is also illegal to shoot someone but we still have gun
| control laws.
| hkt wrote:
| Possibly to lower the likelihood of people breaking the
| other law..
| local_crmdgeon wrote:
| But should it be legal to shoot people who install fart
| cannon exhausts?
| queuebert wrote:
| It's legal to shoot people under certain circumstances...
| self defense, defense of another, performing a git merge,
| etc.
| striking wrote:
| I think one of those things should be loud and one of those
| things should be quiet.
| [deleted]
| zdragnar wrote:
| Try living near a range. Mandatory suppressors would be a
| blessing.
| starbase wrote:
| Suppressed firearms are still quite loud, typically
| 120-150dB, vs 145-175dB unsuppressed. It's enough to reduce
| hearing damage but still sounds like a gunshot.
|
| The sound they make in movies couldn't be further from
| reality.
| WirelessGigabit wrote:
| Depending on your state, you can perfectly get a suppressor /
| silencer on your gun.
|
| You need to get a threaded barrel, $250, available online.
|
| Then you fill out paperwork, pay the ATF $200, wait, and then
| you'll get permission to buy one.
| wil421 wrote:
| Is this similar to the brass knuckles, I mean "belt buckles",
| they sell in shady gas stations? Or the tobacco shops who sell
| pipes for anything but tobacco? As long as they don't say it's
| for illegal use it's a gray area.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| I miss the time in Canada when you'd walk into a bong shop
| and they'd look at you and smile when they'd say "and you put
| your... tobacco... here"
| PaulHoule wrote:
| I remember the time I was looking shaggy and walking out the
| door of a supermarket from the wrong direction with a large
| open-topped bag (and no stolen goods) and the manager of the
| store, who looked like a detective from a 1970s movie,
| followed me out on my heels holding a big clipboard which I
| suspect he would have whacked me with if I'd given him any
| trouble and later would claim that he was just holding a
| clipboard and I got hit my mistake.
| akira2501 wrote:
| Other than in Hollywood movies, is there any crime that is
| enabled with a suppressor that isn't enabled with just the gun
| itself? Is everyone collectively harmed by one person
| possessing one?
| floren wrote:
| Lots of gun owners think the rules around suppressors are
| silly, because the reduction in noise is a huge quality of
| life improvement for everyone around you -- and a glance at
| the police blotter in any major city should show that gun
| crime isn't exactly hindered by the lack of suppressors!
| Alupis wrote:
| and... most importantly... a suppressed firearm _is still
| not quiet!_ - and is not hearing-safe to fire indoors!
|
| Hollywood and video games have convinced the population a
| suppressor is impossible to hear and you can shoot people
| in public without anyone knowing. Ridiculous, to say the
| least.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| To be fair, Hollywood expects you to be shooting subsonic
| ammunition at close range.
| Alupis wrote:
| Even then, it's still obvious a gun was fired. The John
| Wick scene in the subway is so laughably absurd, but so
| many people think that's what happens when you screw on a
| can.
| edrxty wrote:
| It was a thing for a while, less so now though. To be fair,
| while they're illegal if fully finished (it's complicated, the
| ATF changed the rules recently), they're not exactly a threat
| to anyone. They just make weapons less concealable and only
| minimally decrease the audio signature. They're not like the
| movies. Congress and the ATF have been pushing to deregulate
| them because the paperwork burden required to make/buy them
| legally is gumming up the works at the ATF and they're
| unregulated in a lot of the commonwealth/European countries.
| zdragnar wrote:
| I wouldn't want to get caught without a tax stamp... that's
| just asking to have a Very Bad Day.
| cloudyq wrote:
| [dead]
| a2tech wrote:
| Anything to avoid regulating real change right? Why save huge
| amounts of emissions by mandating slight changes to over the road
| trucks and commercial users when you can instead harass regular
| (well asshole) drivers?
| Someone1234 wrote:
| We can do two things.
|
| The big problem is the lack of emissions regulation (or even
| proposed) on the commercial vehicles. However, that isn't
| something the legislative branch can do by themselves (either
| EPA or DoJ), requires congressional action.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Its so sad realizing how we have all these fixes available to
| the worlds problems, but the fact they depend on the
| stakeholders in question to take a loss means they won't be
| implemented without a protracted legal battle that might
| never meaningfully resolve. All this technological progress
| ossified by the profits gained from the status quo.
| hvs wrote:
| I think you mean "executive branch". The legislative branch
| IS congress.
| rasz wrote:
| Does author of this article
| https://www.thedrive.com/author/chris-rosales "focused on the
| technical side" "Previous work experience: GTChannel, track day
| photography, drifting coverage, and odd jobs. Once worked in an
| Italian restaurant" "AA-T in Communications" really think Hondata
| is being used to skirt emissions and is the aim of DOJ action?
| Reuters news piece is cited verbatim except for the important
| part:
|
| >The Department of Justice said eBay illegally allowed the sale
| of at least 343,011 aftermarket "defeat" devices that help
| vehicles generate more power and get better fuel economy by
| evading emissions controls.
|
| https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/national-enforcement-and-com...
|
| "sales of defeat devices for certain diesel trucks after 2009 and
| before 2020 resulted in more than 570,000 tons of excess NOx and
| 5,000 tons of excess particulate matter (PM) over the lifetime of
| the trucks."
|
| "defeat" devices are not aftermarket ECUs for your eighties
| Honda, they are DPF/EGR/SCR deletes for Diesel trucks.
|
| https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-05/documents/ta...
|
| Here is an example of asshole coal rolling supplier:
| https://www.rpmmotorsport.net/blogs/technical-help-center/sc...
| EGR Delete DPF Delete ADBlue SCR Delete
| Swirl Flap Delete
|
| >RPM MOTORSPORT LTD. - We are located in Torrance, California and
| Vancouver, British Columbia.
| LinuxBender wrote:
| Additional issue I see there is the customers are being ripped
| off. $1500 for a device that can only do specific programming
| sets and depends on remote access? I think they are taking
| people to the bank on cheap devices. This seems like something
| that could be done on a $100 general purpose OBD device.
|
| On newer vehicles I would expect it to be possible to _upgrade_
| the infotainment system to have all this built in to change on
| demand. Fuel efficiency mode. Smog inspection mode _shout-out
| to VW_. Whistlin Diesel Mode _For rollin coal and melting
| tires_. All of this should be an open source USB image file
| that also strips out any remote telemetry and remote control
| capabilities from the vehicle and unlocks all subscription
| services giving ownership back to the owner.
| dharmab wrote:
| With Hondata you are mostly paying for the license to their
| software.
| RamblingCTO wrote:
| For the non-US and uninitiated, are these at fault for these coal
| burner people?
| Scoundreller wrote:
| Depends how broadly the devices covered under this lawsuit are.
|
| As cars get more advanced, sometimes you're just overriding a
| sensor that broke and there was nothing wrong with the vehicle
| or its emissions. But fixing the faulty sensor would be a $$$$
| fix and a defeat device is far cheaper.
|
| Other devices can be used for other situations.
| codexb wrote:
| A small number, perhaps, but most of these are likely
| components that enable more aggressive tuning to increase fuel
| and airflow for more horsepower and performance.
| eppp wrote:
| Only partially. There are lots of ways to get such things.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| You only have to go after the largest volume folks, and then
| put bounties on reporting the small frys (both sellers and
| the trucks running this gear). Leverage where most efficient.
| taylorbuley wrote:
| The rules are in place, but not enforced at the degree to which
| the government prefers. So they are litigating moderation
| policies under the Clean Air Act. This seems a novel application
| and, to me, a likely overstep.
| jimnotgym wrote:
| Finally the billion dollar online marketplaces get held to a
| similar standard to real mom and pop shops.
| 8jef wrote:
| Let's see where it goes before getting ahead of ourselves..
| SamReidHughes wrote:
| They want to further outsource law enforcement to a due-process-
| free zone.
| richiebful1 wrote:
| This is literally being tried in court under the Clean Air Act.
| How does this circumvent due process?
| SamReidHughes wrote:
| They want eBay to enforce the law on merchants.
| eli wrote:
| eBay is a merchant
| axus wrote:
| I think it's an efficient use of tax dollars for the gov to
| hold a trial once, instead of 300k times.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| Like every business that's supposed to enforce any kind of
| compliance requirement...
| abracadaniel wrote:
| Is that different from any other retail store that has to
| choose what products to carry based on the local laws? Just
| because eBay crowd sources their product acquisition,
| doesn't materially change the fact that they are,
| ultimately, a retailer selling products. I go to a store
| and buy a product, and the only difference is in the
| retailer's perception of my relationship to the origin of
| the product, but it's a distinction that only exists on
| paper and ultimately has no difference from the outside.
| That distinction without a difference shouldn't create a
| loophole to bypass all liability.
| RIMR wrote:
| Because the devices aren't illegal, and have legal uses, but
| eBay is being held responsible for the illegal ways end users
| use these devices.
|
| The only real violation that might have occurred here is not
| removing listings for these devices where they are explicitly
| marketed for illegal purposes. Short that, they need to
| actually justify passing a law outlawing these devices, or
| they need to enforce the existing laws against deceptive use
| of these devices.
| enragedcacti wrote:
| AFAICT it is up to the EPA whether or not to exempt
| noncompliant nonroad engines/equipment that are intended
| solely for competition. I don't think you need to
| explicitly market a product for illegal purposes for the
| EPA to determine that it is not unlikely to be used
| contrary to the intent.
|
| > New nonroad engines/equipment you produce that are used
| solely for competition are excluded from emission
| standards. We may exempt (rather than exclude) new nonroad
| engines/equipment you produce that you intend to be used
| solely for competition, where we determine that such
| engines/equipment are unlikely to be used contrary to your
| intent.
|
| https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-I/subchapter-
| U...
| vkou wrote:
| The devices are illegal to sell and install. EBay seems to
| be squarely in the first business.
| chucksta wrote:
| They are illegal to install on road vehicles. You can do
| whatever you want to off road vehicles used in power
| sports.
| local_crmdgeon wrote:
| This is being handled through due process
| ChuckMcM wrote:
| Great, now do Amazon.
|
| It is always amusing to see the evolution of "code names" for
| things that sellers use to try to get around algorithmic
| detection.
|
| And bottom line, I expect businesses operating in the country of
| origin will likely become the sellers of choice here.
| xnx wrote:
| This is a good step, would also like to see more enforcement of
| emissions and noise ordnances at the local level.
| WirelessGigabit wrote:
| This is wonderful.
|
| I wish they did the same about modifications done to increase the
| noise.
|
| I've got 2 people living nearby that both have straight-piped
| their car and I literally cover my ears when they pass by.
|
| My Watch literally tells me that a noise peak happened when they
| drive by.
| wutwutwat wrote:
| Your municipality likely has noise ordinances for anything
| above a certain decibel level. This can be handled by your
| local PD giving them tickets for their exhausts. I've seen it
| done before. If they keep getting tickets/fines they will
| likely change their exhausts. You can probably call the city
| about it but you can also call the cops. Just remember what
| they say about snitches.
| genter wrote:
| Don't waste your time. I've tried, my PD told me that I need
| to get used to the noise.
| grepfru_it wrote:
| Let me translate for you:
|
| Management (the courts) do not find it lucrative enough
| (political capital) to pursue weak cases (lax laws passed
| by the legislative branch).
|
| In order to fix you must bring awareness in your local
| community to the problem (lax laws) and petition change
| (raise political capital). The courts and byproxy,
| enforcement, will follow. The larger the city, the more
| difficult this becomes.
| genter wrote:
| No, I believe the officer I talked to didn't care and
| thought I was a pansy.
| lokar wrote:
| This. More so for loud motorcycles, since cops tend to
| also own them.
| wutwutwat wrote:
| This logic is absurd. Cops are hands off with bikers not
| because they own bikes. Extrapolating your logic one
| could say:
|
| Cops don't ticket cars because they also own a car
|
| Cops don't stop people with guns because they also own
| guns
|
| Cops don't go after bikers because they factor in if the
| offense is worth the risk, to both themselves and the
| public. There's also a whole thing with outlaw motorcycle
| gangs that plays into it. Most non entry level bikes can
| out maneuver and outrun cop cars with ease, yes, even
| those slow looking Harley's. Starting a chase over loud
| pipes would put a lot of innocent people at risk and for
| what? It isn't worth it and it's safe to say if the biker
| is running modified pipes they are not on an entry level
| bike.
|
| Story: a buddy of mine had a gsxr 1000 and would
| purposely screw with cops on the freeway and as soon as
| they'd light up he'd be gone and doing 200mph within a
| few seconds, fitting between cars easily. Within 30-60
| seconds a bike can be damn near a mile away from a cop
| car. Radioing ahead won't help if you don't know where
| they went and they were never running a plate to run...
| most cops know it's pointless to chase and often
| immediately call it off. Public safety is more important.
| Those types of bikers have a way of making the issue go
| away all on their own eventually. You can't temp fate
| that much and not eventually meet yours.
| sib wrote:
| Grappling hook through the front wheel fixes that right
| away...
| wutwutwat wrote:
| So we should kill people for loud exhausts? What about
| the innocent bystander the bike turns into jelly when it
| is catapulted into the air and lands on them? That energy
| has to go somewhere...
| I_Am_Nous wrote:
| >doing 200mph within a few seconds
|
| It's still kind of amazing to me that race-tuned liter
| bikes are even legal in the US. Even a starter 250 likely
| has a faster 0-60 than most cars on the road. I believe
| you need a _little_ extra power to spare when riding, so
| that you can suddenly speed up if you need to, but not so
| much extra power that a quarter-turn on the throttle gets
| you from 70 to 100 MPH in 1 second.
|
| I've heard big bikes described as "ride to survive"
| because even a small mistake can be fatal when you are
| dealing with that much performance. Full disclosure, I
| ride a big, fat Kawasaki touring bike (1993 ZG1200, right
| about 760 pounds wet) and while the engine is big, it's
| geared to a max of 113 MPH. It's big enough I have to
| respect it when riding, but powerful enough that if I
| need to I can spur it a bit :)
| alexfoo wrote:
| > Story: a buddy of mine had a gsxr 1000 and would
| purposely screw with cops on the freeway ... You can't
| temp fate that much and not eventually meet yours.
|
| An idiot friend used to do similar (in the UK), then one
| day he did it and the Police turned up at his house 1
| minute after he had stopped and put his bike away. He'd
| gotten away with it loads of times but this time he did
| it with a Police helicopter in the air less than a mile
| away and easily able to track a bike all the way back to
| his house. A top sports bike may be able to do 200mph but
| not everywhere, and helicopters are fast, can see for
| miles with very good tracking cameras, and can fly in
| straight lines.
|
| They then used all of the footage from the Police cars of
| previous incidents to tie them all to him (similar
| clothing, similar bespoke exhaust, etc). I think he got 8
| years in prison with all of the totting up that went on
| (and previous offences taken into account).
| alexfoo wrote:
| It's just the odd love of the Harley or similar.
|
| I got pulled over for noise (in the UK) as my ZX6-R had a
| hole in the downpipes and it was obviously a bit too
| noisy. I was trying my best to keep the noise down and
| (genuinely, provably) on my way to drop the bike off to
| have it repaired.
|
| The Cop that pulled me over was happy to chat about it
| when I explained that it was on its way to get fixed he
| let me off.
|
| Then a Harley that was twice as loud went past and the
| cop says "Cor, doesn't that sound lovely!" I asked him if
| he was going to pull it over for being louder than mine
| and he suddenly got very grumpy with me again. I didn't
| push any further as I didn't want to end up with a fine.
|
| What's the old line?
|
| "Harley's are probably the most efficient machine to turn
| gasoline into noise without that pesky by-product of
| horsepower."
| dumbfounder wrote:
| I am in favor of louder pipes for motorcycles for safety
| reasons. But there is such a thing as too loud.
| rando_dfad wrote:
| not sure the safety argument has factual support; the
| sound would need to project forward from the motorcycle,
| wouldn't it?
| fsckboy wrote:
| hmmm, if I have to hear the noise, I would like a
| requirement that it blare forward! (so I can step into
| the crosswalk)
| mikestew wrote:
| If noise made your bike safer, you'd get an insurance
| discount. People say such things so that they don't come
| off as sociopathic, not because it is true. Don't parrot
| them.
| rrix2 wrote:
| safer for whom? My windows only rattle _after_ the
| motorcycle has driven past, they don 't project the noise
| ahead of you nearly as much as you think they do.
| genter wrote:
| So should every pedestrian have a blazing siren on their
| head?
| charcircuit wrote:
| Pedestrians should not be on the road.
| bdcravens wrote:
| Probably a gearhead showing his personal bias.
| genter wrote:
| The really frustrating thing is I love cars. I love
| driving, I love shifting though the gears, I love working
| on them, I've replaced headgaskets, rebuilt
| transmissions, and regeared differentials. I just hate
| how obnoxious noisy vehicles are.
| bdcravens wrote:
| For sure - I love speed myself. (Ironic that my fastest
| car ever is also the quietest, but EVs are a different
| creature). I guess not everyone has the same ethos that
| our personal enjoyment doesn't entitle us to encroach on
| others.
| pseg134 wrote:
| To be fair to that cop I think you were too. Did you try
| solving the problem for yourself first?
| genter wrote:
| Being woken up 1:00 in the morning multiple times a week
| by the walls of my house shaking from my neighbors
| vehicles makes me a pansy?
|
| But I did talk to them. Turns out he lives with his mom,
| and she just bitched me out.
| plagiarist wrote:
| I have never heard of a municipality actually enforcing their
| sound regulations other than live performances being shut
| down.
| lokar wrote:
| Laguna beach is pretty strict on out of towners with loud
| pipes
| wutwutwat wrote:
| Grow up with alcoholic parent who loves to max out their
| high wattage sound system at 3am all the time and you'll
| see it enforced often. Most house parties are shutdown due
| to noise complaints.
| CobaltFire wrote:
| Coronado Island (San Diego) loves giving tickets to all the
| Navy personnel driving through with too loud of vehicles.
| We try to warn people transferring there but many don't
| listen and end up with tickets.
|
| To be fair (to those who think that's excessive), they also
| (on two occasions) chased down and cited/arrested people
| who tried to run me off the road on my bicycle there
| (commuted via bicycle for years), and I've had many other
| great interactions with them.
| tbyehl wrote:
| Where I grew up, an automotive noise citation was easy to
| beat in court because the law incorporated a complicated
| and exacting standard for measurement.
| wutwutwat wrote:
| Most citations can get off on technicalities but that
| involves missing work, appearing in court, mounting a
| defense, and the gamble of owing the fine + additional
| court costs if you lose, and they probably, literally,
| bank on the probability that most people just pay the
| fine. Speeding tickets can be thrown out if the radar
| wasn't recently calibrated, just have to ask about it in
| court. Window tint is the same deal, when was it last
| calibrated and documented to be within spec? Etc.
| miguelazo wrote:
| Most municipalities, especially ones relying on cops to
| enforce these rules, rarely take action on these complaints.
| RajT88 wrote:
| These rules are usually used as probable cause to target
| someone the police officer was already targeting.
| "Profiling" is the better word for it maybe.
| wutwutwat wrote:
| If I chop the muffler off my car and run around revving
| the hell out of my engine I'm not going to say I was
| targeted or profiled after I'm pulled over in the vehicle
| that's calling out to nearby police to take notice of me,
| regardless of what I'm ticketed for in the end. The
| squeaky wheel gets the grease as they say. You don't want
| to be "targeted" or "profiled" (which isn't what that
| would be anyway), then you need to blend.
| pc86 wrote:
| Who is going to enforce these rules other than cops?
|
| I mean yeah if they never get complains about a given area
| and they get one call about a loud car _driving_ they 're
| not going to come in lights and sirens to search for them.
| But if they consistently get complaints it will absolutely
| guide their decision-making around where to patrol, how
| often, etc.
|
| Of course this assumes that the political leadership in
| your municipality hasn't decided that cops don't need to
| enforce laws (rare outside of a few large cities) and
| they're not busier with much more serious crimes,
| underfunded and understaffed, and just not able to spend
| time on noise complaints (rare but a common talking point).
| Scoundreller wrote:
| At least in Canadian cities, both bylaw officers and police
| can enforce these things. Bylaw officers tend to have less
| discretion on doing their job (and uhhh, fewer other crimes
| to claim to be busy with)
|
| Though sometimes this double-responsibility just means
| finger-pointing instead of action.
| InitialLastName wrote:
| I've never heard of bylaw officers being a thing in the
| US. There are some code enforcement people in the US, but
| they mostly deal in very specific areas (fire code,
| building code, etc).
| Scoundreller wrote:
| Don't worry, you're not missing out. Ours are
| ineffective/unwilling to enforce noise bylaws against
| vehicles anyway.
| ChuckMcM wrote:
| If you seriously want to take action here, then do this;
|
| 1) Look up your city ordinances on sound, there should be
| copies of this is the reference section of your city's public
| library. Identify the ordinance and paragraph that the people
| nearby are violating. Record/video one or more violations on
| your phone.
|
| 2) Call the police, don't "complain about the noise", tell them
| you want to "swear out a complaint" for violating ordinance x,
| paragraph y. They are obligated to take your complaint and
| forward it to the District Attorney[1].
|
| 3) You will probably be called as a witness if the folks with
| the noisy cars choose a trial.
|
| [1] When a police officer hears a complaint, they can
| "investigate", and then "cite" the offender. It is up to the
| officer's discretion. That citation is the sworn complaint
| _from the officer_ of the offending behavior. When the police
| refuse to do their job, everyone has the right to "step in" to
| that role and swear out a complaint. The downside is that
| retaliating against an officer is 'scary' but retaliating
| against a neighbor isn't. This can result in a variety of
| negative externalities that may be criminal but hard to prove
| (car getting 'keyed', tires slashed, rocks thrown through
| windows, feces on your porch, Etc.)
|
| Because taking on the job of enforcement when the cops let you
| down incurs significant personal risk, I usually suggest people
| make an appointment with their representative on the city's
| governing body, city manager, or district attorney and
| encourage them to actually do their job. Editorials in the
| local paper are good to, but projecting soft power as a voter
| in that way is less likely to blow back directly on you. I can
| also take longer and be less successful but sending emails to
| the DA with repeat infractions over and over can often convince
| them of the need for enforcement.
| notyourwork wrote:
| > 2) Call the police, don't "complain about the noise", tell
| them you want to "swear out a complaint" for violating
| ordinance x, paragraph y. They are obligated to take your
| complaint and forward it to the District Attorney[1].
|
| Good luck getting them to pick up. At least where I live
| (Seattle), I don't think its possible to get someone on the
| phone unless you call 911. Daytime phones automated system
| defers everything to online.
| altec3 wrote:
| I lived in Portland for years - and it's the same. Even if
| you did get someone on the phone, I doubt anything would
| happen. There's tons of cars without plates, mufflers,
| windshields, etc. driving around that the police don't care
| about.
| brianwawok wrote:
| Another upside to living in the flyover states I guess? I
| can get multiple people up to the mayor on the line.
| Pseudocrat wrote:
| Actually faster here to dial the non-emergency. I once
| called 911 because a 7 year old child approached me at a
| gas station asking for money. I was put on hold. When I
| called the non-emergency I got through right away. The
| cherry on top was when I received a callback from 911
| dispatch over an hour later to check if I was okay.
| RajT88 wrote:
| City council meetings are for this. They typically have a
| citizen comments section at the end of the meeting.
|
| Where I live, these citizen comments are beloved by
| wingnuts who hate their neighbors and are trying to
| convince the city to harass them. So - you know - try not
| to come off as one of those.
| pseg134 wrote:
| I'm sure this has worked but I have gotten the same result by
| writing fix your exhaust on a piece of paper and tying it to
| a brick and throwing it through their back windshield. Some
| times two wrongs make a right.
| westmeal wrote:
| Not really you're just an asshole.
| deepsun wrote:
| Are there any legislative initiatives to ban loud motorcycles
| (like they did in some EU countries)? I'd really want to vote
| for it.
|
| US is all about freedom, and concern for neighbors is a
| necessary prerequisite to practicing freedom.
|
| PS: I ride a motorcycle as well, there's no problem making it
| reasonably quiet.
| akudlacek wrote:
| This will do nothing to stop people from removing their
| mufflers.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| You would need to stop the sale of exhaust tubing to prevent
| this. I don't think that is realistic
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30364669 ("New York is
| using cameras with microphones to ticket loud cars")
| akudlacek wrote:
| exactly
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Not to mention good old fashioned overpowered unfocused led
| lighting. Its been a meme with the truck bros for years, but
| now these products have entered the general lighting supply.
| Now your landlord replaces the garage light with one thats
| brighter than the sun and shines into your bedroom. You will
| end up like Kramer in the chicken roaster episode of
| _Seinfeld_.
| plagiarist wrote:
| It is somehow every single vehicle on the road with these.
| People should lose their license for operating a vehicle with
| the blinding LEDs tilted up higher than highbeams would be.
| It is unsafe that approaching drivers cannot see past them as
| they drive by.
| kraquepype wrote:
| Ugh yeah. It's that time of year where it gets dark early
| and I get blinded on the way home from work by all the bro-
| dozer truck lights and intense LEDs.
| rumblerock wrote:
| I've been looking into transparent windshield films to
| reduce glare for this reason.
| extraduder_ire wrote:
| A friend of mine bought a hyundai i20, and the LED lights in
| it aren't aimed low enough, either by manufacturing error or
| design, and even when dipped they shine at oncoming drivers.
| No idea if this is common, or if he can get them adjusted
| anywhere.
|
| Can't tell you the amount of times I've seen people in the
| other lane flash their highbeams at him while I've been
| riding in the passenger seat, because they think he's doing
| the same.
| brianwawok wrote:
| It's 100% adjustable by user. Very likely when replacing
| them they got bumped? The classic way is you go in a garage
| or against a wall and shine them, and measure to ensure the
| horizontal line is going down towards the ground (vs going
| up and blinding everyone). Not only is it nicer for
| oncoming traffic, they actually work a lot better...
| sokoloff wrote:
| I typical set the high beams on and aim those straight
| ahead.
|
| That gives max range for high beams and the low beam down
| and right (for right drive countries) is then also very
| close to optimal.
| brianwawok wrote:
| Yah. If you are being flashed it's likely at least 1
| degree upward, which is not helping a driver see the
| road.
| RC_ITR wrote:
| Say what you will about over-engineering, but the Germans
| _got it so so so right_ with their metal full black out
| shades.
| slaymaker1907 wrote:
| I'd prefer to just have less outdoor light since blocking
| out all outdoor light also blocks out sunlight which can
| mess up your circadian rhythms.
| userabchn wrote:
| But unfortunately it is the type of thing that, although
| obviously a superior solution, is unlikely to be adopted in
| the rest of the world. Where I live, as, I think, in most
| places, people would think you were very strange if you put
| those kinds of metal shutters on your windows, and I can
| even imagine neighbours being displeased with you as it
| makes it look like it is a bad neighbourhood.
| jrwoodruff wrote:
| I'm unfamiliar with this, but I'd love some well-done black
| out shades - got a link or a brand?
| progman32 wrote:
| Very common in Italy as well - search Images or Youtube
| for "finestra tapparelle" for an idea. The sound of
| tapparelle is super ingrained in many european minds,
| i.e. https://italybeyondtheobvious.com/taparelle/
|
| They are also good for deflecting debris :)
| sschueller wrote:
| Call the police on them. It's illegal almost everywhere.
| MisterTea wrote:
| I wish it were simply just strait pipes. The biggest buffoons
| are the ones running "pops and bang" tune where the clown car's
| engine dumps fuel into the exhaust to make it pop, bang and
| gurgle. Makes the car sound like shit but these mental midgets
| think it makes their already ugly slammed trashcar somehow
| sound cool. The kinds of people who do this usually have very
| little going on upstairs.
| I_Am_Nous wrote:
| My dad bought a truck with aftermarket headers installed and
| dual aftermarket glasspack mufflers. If you were going down a
| hill and let off the throttle, it would "popcorn" like you
| described, but not obnoxiously. It was loud when you
| accelerate quickly, though. Scared a horse once when he
| pushed the clutch in and revved the engine.
|
| I'd personally rather have a fast, but quiet vehicle. Most
| vehicles people make loud don't really have enough
| displacement to warrant that much sound so it's usually loud
| AND slow lol
| lsedgwick wrote:
| Emissions tests are a poverty tax that play a strong role in
| punishing people trying to buy affordable old cars and either
| pushing the demand curve for new cars, or pushing poor people
| into illegality or carlessness.
| g232089 wrote:
| Literally. I'm sure the purpose of all these regulations
| (including the EU banning petrol cars) is that in a few decades
| poor people won't allowed to drive their own cars.
| baron816 wrote:
| People should pay for the pollution they cause
| undersuit wrote:
| The poverty tax is making it required to have a vehicle to
| participate in society. Make better public transit options so
| owning a car is optional.
| rdschouw wrote:
| How do you mean? Here in Illinois they are free. It was also
| free in New Jersey.
| deathanatos wrote:
| Well, they're not free (in dollars) in CA or MA.
|
| They're never free in terms of your time, either.
|
| (But note that I agree with the sibling comments by
| cool_dude85 & undersuit, in this case. But they _are_ a
| regressive tax.)
| cool_dude85 wrote:
| Under current economic conditions almost any tax that doesn't
| explicitly target high earners and high net worth individuals
| is a poverty tax. Fixing economic inequality is the appropriate
| place to deal with this problem, not reasonable taxes like
| emissions tests.
| beardyw wrote:
| Sorry to sound stupid but what is the point of an emissions
| defeat device?
| skyyler wrote:
| Usually increased performance. ECUs that will happily dump an
| increased amount of fuel into the engine, for example. High
| flow exhaust parts that remove catalytic converters, for
| another example. Both are being sold on eBay.
| codexb wrote:
| There are many examples. Many SUV's in the US these days are
| only able to meet emissions requirements by automatically
| turning off the engine at stoplights or whenever the car comes
| to a stop. Many people find it annoying because there's a delay
| when you press the accelerator to go and then you press harder
| and the car then jumps. Most cars allow you to disable it, but
| you have to do it every time after you turn the car on. No one
| likes it. You can sometimes modify the car or access hidden
| computer settings to disable the setting. Technically, it's
| illegal to do.
| testfoobar wrote:
| IMHO such start/stop is a fraudulent way to meet MPG targets.
| Almost everyone I know presses the button to turn off the
| feature the moment they start their car.
| [deleted]
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal
|
| https://www.mtpr.org/montana-news/2022-11-10/whats-the-deal-...
|
| https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/rolling-coal-backfires
| swatcoder wrote:
| There are aesthetic, performance, financial, and ideological
| reasons for people to evade many regulatory requirements for
| cars. For emissions in particular, you may miss out on some
| vrooom or roar from your car, or you may find yourself tasked
| to make expensive repairs in order to keep it on the road.
|
| These are comparatively cheap ways around that.
| LazyMans wrote:
| Right. I'm not putting a $1500 catalytic converter on my
| $1800 prius. Just to have it stolen again.
| brianwawok wrote:
| Yah thats is super obnoxious. I love the prius but if I
| couldn't park in a locked garage I would likely sell it for
| something else ASAP.
| dieselgate wrote:
| Often times it's the removal of a complicated system that is
| failure prone - less filters to get clogged and stuff like
| that.
|
| Edit: people generally don't do things for the "sole purpose of
| polluting more" it's often functional. Many diesel drivers
| don't like others who roll coal as the image is bad in general
| - heavy equipment will often produce black smoke because the
| engine is being worked for a purpose and it's literally just
| being given fuel.
| [deleted]
| linuxftw wrote:
| There's a multitude or purposes. Improved power being one,
| improved reliability being another. Modern diesel emissions
| equipment fails regularly, often in hard to diagnose and repair
| ways.
|
| If you spent $100k on a truck, and you could spend $2k more to
| 'delete' some emissions equipment to prevent $10k+ worth of
| repairs in the future, would you do it?
| floren wrote:
| [flagged]
| strbean wrote:
| Seems likely they are talking about semi trucks, not
| pickups.
| linuxftw wrote:
| Well, a 3500 diesel is all of $100k today (if you're
| getting 4 door, dually). I personally wouldn't spend that
| kind of cash unless I needed such a thing (like, to pay
| my bills with, not pull an RV or something). And if I was
| paying my bills with it, I'd make sure I keep it one the
| road, one way or the other.
| doubled112 wrote:
| It isn't just 100K trucks.
|
| I drive a 2013 VW diesel, and this year the warranty
| covered an EGR and a DPF, which is exactly the kind of
| thing deletes remove from the vehicle.
|
| That's about $6K in work on a vehicle I paid $14K for a
| couple of years ago.
|
| Next time, when it is out of warranty, should I take the
| car to the junk yard? Or delete them and never have another
| issue? Which is really better for the planet?
|
| Before anybody asks, no I do NOT want to roll coal. It's
| stupid and obnoxious. You can put a proper tune on a car
| and not have that issue. Soot is unburnt fuel, which means
| wasted fuel. You turned it up too high.
| linuxftw wrote:
| You're lucky it was under warranty (I'm assuming it's an
| extended warranty). Most manufacturers are only covering
| those items for 36 months.
|
| Imagine if the warranty was a federal minimum 300k
| miles/20 years. I bet they would design the components so
| the labor time is zero to replace them.
| doubled112 wrote:
| Extended warranty.
|
| When Dieselgate was happening, my understanding is that
| you were offered a couple of options.
|
| One was to sell back the car. The other was to keep the
| car, do the fix, and accept an extra 10(?) years of
| fairly comprehensive warranty. It transferred ownership,
| which made them fairly attractive as a used car, which is
| why I have one.
|
| Has saved me literal thousands at this point, but after
| owning it a couple of years, I understand why everybody
| was happy to sell them back. They're junk, and the
| dealership experience leaves something to be desired too.
|
| Some of these warranty claims have had me running back
| and forth to the dealership. My record is 7 trips before
| they got it right.
|
| Another dealership left it spraying fuel all over the
| engine bay. That was a good time.
| WirelessGigabit wrote:
| It's not on you to decide that I get to breathe in
| carcinogens.
| Osiris wrote:
| As a motorcycle rider, these people that dump black smoke
| when they accelerate are just pumping poison straight into
| my lungs. I hate it so much because there's nothing I can
| do about it.
|
| At least cars have cabin air filters. I get to suck it
| straight in unfiltered.
| devit wrote:
| You could wear an FFP2 or FFP3 mask with a valve.
| numtel wrote:
| As a car driver without a cabin air filter, (are cabin
| air filters even effective against exhaust gases?) both
| diesel trucks and motorcycles require me to close my
| windows and vents because of the smell.
|
| At least cars have smog equipment to reduce the
| emissions. Motorcycles mostly don't.
| dharmab wrote:
| Most motorcycles made from 2017 onward have factory
| emissions equipment with cleanliness similar to cars (due
| to the Euro5 regulations from that year forward). Since
| most bikes have one configuration globally, even US
| models implemented Euro5.
| bagels wrote:
| Well, if you do it right, you put it on your race car to make
| it go faster and only drive it at the race track.
|
| Otherwise, you do it to make your street car faster (and maybe
| also pollute more), or worse, just generate a bunch of diesel
| soot to annoy other people with.
| fgsfds028374 wrote:
| To asphyxiate cyclists in clouds of toxic soot while you pass
| them. Speaking from experience
| Scoundreller wrote:
| Cancel windshield wiper fluid NOW!
| leakybit wrote:
| One motive is that it's cheaper to delete the emission system
| vs having to replace/repair the unit. Diesels have much more
| sophisticated emission devices vs gasoline engines, so it's
| more costly.
| systems_glitch wrote:
| One does not roll coal from e.g. an EGR bypass or delete,
| though! The only way to get thick clouds of black smoke are
| too much fuel (turn up the pump) or not oxygen (bag over the
| air filter in the simplest case).
|
| Many states and localities have "visible emissions" rules,
| where even if your vehicle doesn't have to pass emissions
| tests, you can still get pulled and cited for actual smoke.
| I've never been pulled for it (smoke means you're wasting
| fuel) so I don't know if it's an inconsequential fine or just
| not enforced generally.
| dieselgate wrote:
| In my lived experience the folks who intentionally want to
| roll coal are younger guys (something to do in high school)
| - "matured" diesel owners want little/no smoke for the
| higher performance
| Scoundreller wrote:
| Sometimes to avoid costlier mechanical work like changing O2
| sensors, where often cars still give a check-engine-light if
| you use an aftermarket one (dunno why the aftermarket ones are
| so poor that they cause emissions problems or if the car's
| computer was deliberately/unintentionally so sensitive to force
| people onto OEM parts).
| ewagsjr wrote:
| Oh my gosh, I've had to run a new wire for an O2 sensor
| because mine gave out and it was a PITA but I couldn't afford
| the labor at the time and it was putting my car in limp mode
| which disabled cruise control. so not only was it $150
| sensor, but also 5 freaking hours of me watching youtube and
| get cuts on my hands underneath a car.
| codysc wrote:
| They defeat/bypass smog control systems to either boost power,
| or literally, just blow clouds of diesel exhaust on demand.
| kmonad wrote:
| > eBay says that it is removing and blocking "more than 99.9%" of
| the listings cited by the DOJ.
|
| Is this an admission?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-10-10 23:00 UTC)