A Staten Island driver is suing over a “noise camera” ticket for his $315,000 Lamborghini — saying the fine should be dropped because he didn’t modify the supercar to make it louder.…
I understand where he is coming from. If the car is street legal, he shouldn’t have gotten a fine for using it. The problem is that cars that produce such levels of noise are street legal.
Every single car you and I have ever owned, are presumably street legal, yet they can reach speeds that are illegal almost everywhere.
Similarly, every knife I have ever owned has the necessary sharpness to cut meat… yet I am not supposed to cut human meat. I am pretty certain the car would not reach undesirable noise levels if he were not speeding or revving the engine, etc. So it is more on him for HOW he is using the car and not how the car was built
So his reasoning sounds legit, but it really is not.
Ok dumbass how do you adjust your exhaust? You can adjust your speed and sound of your stereo but you can’t adjust a stock exhaust. Nice false equivalence
He could just drive normally and his car would never reach the noise level for the ticket. Dude is intentionally driving to make noise. Similar to how bikes can Rev hard to be loud or just drive normally and be less loud.
He states in the article he was slowing down when hitting the area the sound camera was in.
Either way either make the cars illegal or deal. You can’t arbitrarily decide a car is illegal at a given moment in time. I get that people are annoyed with the sounds, but that’s one of the deals of living in a city. You know how many sirens go by in those area?
Easy, you just drive slower and gently accelerate the car and then it will be far quieter.
In a perfect world we could all be as loud as we wanted all the time and it wouldn’t hurt anyone, but people racing up and down residential streets wakes people up and there is data that shows traffic noises reduce your life expectancy… So I have to side with the sound restrictions here. Your freedom to be obnoxiously loud ends when it objectively negatively impacts public health.
Lambos aren’t quiet, but if you drive them gently then they aren’t loud enough to set off the noise camera.
So this is a bit like arguing someone should be allowed to blast their music at midnight just because the speakers were legal to buy and own. If a city implements noise restrictions to protect the health and well-being of their residents then people have a legal and moral obligation to do their best to comply even if that means driving your lambo slowly through residential areas.
They maybe don’t set them.off, but where i live, quite a lot of people drive Lamborghinis, and they are obnoxious loud, even if they just idle on a redlight. And just hitting the accelerator slightly more than usual and they are way louder than any peasant car is ever allowed to be.
Just because it’s stock doesn’t mean the driver can’t rev the engine way too hard and loud like a crazy person, engine braking loud at shit down the street in the middle of the night, yeah could be annoying
Some others have mentioned there may be a distinction between levels of noise when the car is in some sort of “street” mode. I have zero sympathy if there is a street legal mode that he turned off while on public roads.
Yeah no shit. The thing is, those supercars are insanely loud from factory. I was behind a pair of Diablo SVs in a traffic jam on the motorway once, and even then they pretty much drowned out the sound of the little 500 cc motorcycle engine between my legs. I have no idea how those things are deemed street legal.
Edit: It’s not about the revs alone, but also engine load. 3000 rpm stationary might be relatively quiet, but 3000 rpm with the throttle blades wide open is an entirely different matter.
This is true, but why not fine all individuals in that case (assuming the driver was not accruing in bad faith).
Government regulation has to apply equally to the rich and the poor and if there was no signage indicating his street legal car could not be used on that street, it’s hard to see how he should be liable.
I don’t have a lot of sympathy for a guy with that kind of money, but it doesn’t mean he’s filthy rich either, for all we know he’s got cancer and sold his house for the dream car, who knows.
The point is, government regulation should be consistent and act in the best interest of the people. This is a failure in public policy.
This is still a goofy line of reasoning. If you, for example, are driving a truck equipped with engine retarder brakes, in quite a lot of municipalities you literally aren’t allowed to use them because they are too loud for neighbourhoods. You risk getting a fine.
I understand where he is coming from. If the car is street legal, he shouldn’t have gotten a fine for using it. The problem is that cars that produce such levels of noise are street legal.
Every single car you and I have ever owned, are presumably street legal, yet they can reach speeds that are illegal almost everywhere.
Similarly, every knife I have ever owned has the necessary sharpness to cut meat… yet I am not supposed to cut human meat. I am pretty certain the car would not reach undesirable noise levels if he were not speeding or revving the engine, etc. So it is more on him for HOW he is using the car and not how the car was built
So his reasoning sounds legit, but it really is not.
Ok dumbass how do you adjust your exhaust? You can adjust your speed and sound of your stereo but you can’t adjust a stock exhaust. Nice false equivalence
He could just drive normally and his car would never reach the noise level for the ticket. Dude is intentionally driving to make noise. Similar to how bikes can Rev hard to be loud or just drive normally and be less loud.
He states in the article he was slowing down when hitting the area the sound camera was in.
Either way either make the cars illegal or deal. You can’t arbitrarily decide a car is illegal at a given moment in time. I get that people are annoyed with the sounds, but that’s one of the deals of living in a city. You know how many sirens go by in those area?
Idk if I would believe a dude who got 2 more tickets that same day for speeding in a slow zone and running a red light.
well in the case of the car in the article… maybe don’t rev up every 10 meters like the length of your penis depends on it?
Easy, you just drive slower and gently accelerate the car and then it will be far quieter.
In a perfect world we could all be as loud as we wanted all the time and it wouldn’t hurt anyone, but people racing up and down residential streets wakes people up and there is data that shows traffic noises reduce your life expectancy… So I have to side with the sound restrictions here. Your freedom to be obnoxiously loud ends when it objectively negatively impacts public health.
Dont wind the fucker out
Lambos aren’t quiet, but if you drive them gently then they aren’t loud enough to set off the noise camera.
So this is a bit like arguing someone should be allowed to blast their music at midnight just because the speakers were legal to buy and own. If a city implements noise restrictions to protect the health and well-being of their residents then people have a legal and moral obligation to do their best to comply even if that means driving your lambo slowly through residential areas.
They maybe don’t set them.off, but where i live, quite a lot of people drive Lamborghinis, and they are obnoxious loud, even if they just idle on a redlight. And just hitting the accelerator slightly more than usual and they are way louder than any peasant car is ever allowed to be.
Just because it’s stock doesn’t mean the driver can’t rev the engine way too hard and loud like a crazy person, engine braking loud at shit down the street in the middle of the night, yeah could be annoying
https://youtu.be/_0nsO9IS2Vs
Some others have mentioned there may be a distinction between levels of noise when the car is in some sort of “street” mode. I have zero sympathy if there is a street legal mode that he turned off while on public roads.
The car can do 200 miles per hour, and yet there are speed limits. Should he be exempt?
Duh, it can go 200 mph stock.
Whats the noise level if the car is driving at a reasonable speed in the city?
I imagine it’s only excessively noisy if they are showing off, revving the engine, and/or streeet racing
That car cruising at 30 mph in the city is probably louder than a Honda Civic when you put the loud pedal all the way down on the freeway.
It depends on the revs, not the speed.
Yeah no shit. The thing is, those supercars are insanely loud from factory. I was behind a pair of Diablo SVs in a traffic jam on the motorway once, and even then they pretty much drowned out the sound of the little 500 cc motorcycle engine between my legs. I have no idea how those things are deemed street legal.
Edit: It’s not about the revs alone, but also engine load. 3000 rpm stationary might be relatively quiet, but 3000 rpm with the throttle blades wide open is an entirely different matter.
Removed by mod
This is true, but why not fine all individuals in that case (assuming the driver was not accruing in bad faith).
Government regulation has to apply equally to the rich and the poor and if there was no signage indicating his street legal car could not be used on that street, it’s hard to see how he should be liable.
I don’t have a lot of sympathy for a guy with that kind of money, but it doesn’t mean he’s filthy rich either, for all we know he’s got cancer and sold his house for the dream car, who knows.
The point is, government regulation should be consistent and act in the best interest of the people. This is a failure in public policy.
This is still a goofy line of reasoning. If you, for example, are driving a truck equipped with engine retarder brakes, in quite a lot of municipalities you literally aren’t allowed to use them because they are too loud for neighbourhoods. You risk getting a fine.
Revving a lambo is exactly the same.