New York rolling out noise law, listening tech for souped-up speedsters
thecity.nyc
thecity.nyc
I gave a presentation at the Audio Engineering Society titled "Iatrogenic Sound", on the tragic irony of how sirens may causally contribute to the heart attacks and strokes that ambulances are rushing to treat.
We were exploring the acoustics of urban design and the sound-design of sirens. The sweeping "wailer" siren is in fact one of the worst possible designs imaginable - all the wrong characteristics for locatability of source, annoyance versus attention ratio, penetration of dwellings etc. Add to that the design of modern "luxury" cars which are soundproofed, fitted with anti-noise and blaring ICE systems to block the world out.
There isn't an easy solution. Most laws give police, fire and ambulance crews "discretion" in the use of sirens. In the UK that's Article 99. But here, the removal of crown immunity and insurance pressures mean the crew now always deploy, even at times of night when it would have previously been illegal under other laws. I expect the same complex spheres of interest clash in NYC too.
I see this scenario played out every weekend when I visit a friend who lives near a busy intersection of two major routes. Emergency vehicles impede their own progress nearly every time by deploying sirens.
I don't know whether that's current regulation already, but I think it's a rather nice gesture and definitely reduces the noise background ever so slightly.
It really is quite obnoxious.
That said, I have seen police cars go the wrong way using hazard lights instead of the blue lights (and no sirens) so I'm not sure what the actual consequences for not following these regulations are.
- directional
- many short duration rather than continuous
- sonorous (melodic or consonant)
- amplitude appropriate to time of day and danger
A big mistake we make is confusing "attention", "arresting" and "annoying" qualities. Dissonant sounds seem like they grab your "attention" quicker, but that's not necessarily true, it's really about the spectrum morphology in the first 100ms - those sounds (like bells) have better localisation qualities - they tend to elicit an orientation response and have better front-rear ambiguity so we can position them better. Knowing where an emergency vehicle is, is as important as just knowing it's there. From video evidence of interchanges and roundabouts what we see is that the sound of sustained sweep sirens often creates chaos, with drivers panicking, pulling on to pavements or making other rash and dangerous sudden manoeuvres.
It's still loud, but subjectively less stress inducing and objectively easier to locate. The most obvious feature is that you can very easily tell if the emergency vehicle is moving towards you or away from you as well as the approximate relative speed because the doppler shift is really easy to pick up by ear.
Internal combustion engine?
Source? would appreciate some ammo to advocate for this locally.
[1] https://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/environment-and-he...
Glad I'm not the only one who has noticed this, I thought I was going crazy because in the majority of cases when I'm behind the wheel and I start hearing an ambulance siren I can't honestly tell from where it is coming from. I'm kind of aware of the general area, like it's coming from that general part, or that other general part, but I'm never sure until I actually can see the ambulance itself.
Much worse for causing often unexpected and very grating noise were:
1. Bin men, especially now they collect glass
2. Diesel black cabs having to put their foot down to get up a hill
3. Taxis idling outside your window waiting for a pickup or just waiting for their next dispatch on double yellows in middle of night
4. Scaffolding being put up or taken down. Incredibly noisy, actually has to be done fairly regularly, many companies illegally do this at the weekend in the early morning as it's a part time job for them
5. Skateboarders, one of the most anti-social hobbies for everyone else around them [1]
I lived on a bit of a hill, which caused 2 and attracted 5.
Since moving to a village again my sleep quality improved overnight. I didn't realize quite how badly it was affecting me.
[1] As it seems to be causing confusion, the anti-social behaviour is against non-skateboarders "Environmental antisocial behaviour is when a person’s actions affect the wider environment, such as public spaces or buildings." https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/asb/...
Bikes (mostly mopeds) are really really annoying as well, some of them, I don't know why or how generate insane amounts of noise.
Agreed on the scaffolding and overall works, I blame the random urban planning.
Mopeds don't need big batteries and the batteries can be taken out and charged at home.
It's really the perfect vehicle to electrify. Yes, it will make them slightly more expensive at start but it will remove a huge burden of noise and smell from the communities.
However, there are a few things I can still hear:
* Sirens - though these are relatively infrequent and necessary so I don't mind them.
* People playing music extremely loudly. I can feel the bass vibrations even though I'm more than 10 metres from the road.
* Lorries with unbalanced loads.
* Motorbikes/mopeds with modified exhausts.
I hear you - skateboarders skating on the street can be a nuisance sometimes, and yes they make a racket - but that's precisely why skate parks are such a great addition to a community.
That said, calling skateboarding an anti-social hobby is a bit misleading; on the contrary it's a highly social hobby, and in many ways can be socially uplifting.
In the part of town where I grew up, skateboarding gave my friends and I something enjoyable to do, that kept us fit - and crucially - kept us away from other more destructive past-times typically associated with rebellious teenagers (drinking, drugs etc.).
I don't mean to pick a fight here. Just felt it was necessary to better represent skateboarding culture (as a past skateboarder, who owes some of his success to the benefits that hobby provided at a very critical time in my life).
Skateboarding is antisocial because skateboarders are inflicting a noisy hobby on the neighbors. It has nothing to do with whether the skateboarder will make friends or not.
Instead folks seem to hope that by demonizing and inconveniencing a relatively harmless teenage activity that simply requires a bit of outdoor space as "antisocial", skateboarding will just...go away?
"Environmental antisocial behaviour is when a person’s actions affect the wider environment, such as public spaces or buildings."
https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/asb/...
We have skate parks, but skateboarders would come and do tricks on our hill while filming themselves, plus there were a few people who used them for commuting at the dead of night.
Cities can be surprisingly silent at the dead of night, someone riding along on a skateboard makes a huge amount of noise and as they're going slowly, for quite a long time.
With that definition, we could classify just about anything as antisocial.
There definitely is a difference between behavior that has a direct adverse impact on society, and pedantic attempts at portraying non-disruptive behavior as antisocial. A skateboard rolling down the street at night and waking people up is causing direct adverse impact, someone reading in their home does not.
Is it practical to stop reading because a tree gets cut or your ereader needs charging? Probably not, but that's why change doesn't happen until it's forced by the circumstances.
Regardless, it's still a false equivalency to try and equate directly antisocial behavior like making loud noises that disrupt people's healthy sleep and the sustainability of producing paper, some of which is used for printing novels that people read in their homes.
English is a muddle.
People use 'antisocial' colloquially as a synonym of 'asocial', but this is wrong, and asocial is the actual antonym.
Antisocial is no more an antonym of social than antisemitism is an antonym of Judaism.
You don't want to go describing other people as antisocial when asocial is what you mean, this thread illustrates that.
I joke with friends about this in fact, if someone says "ah I'm probably not going I've been feeling kind of antisocial" I'll ask them if they're planning to [redacted comment on America's violent culture in poor taste].
This is magnified by British use of antisocial, see ASBO, it's not worth trying to hold the line for two meanings when asocial is just sitting there being unambiguous.
Not in American English, which is why the Americans here are so confused about this whole thing. In American English, "antisocial" means "asocial" and the other meaning is obscure. And "asocial" just isn't in the lexicon as an alternative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-social_behaviour
>Anti-social behaviours are actions that harm or lack consideration for the well-being of others.
And incredibly repetitive, people trying to do the same trick over and over again.
I feel that if you live in a city you either understand that it's going to be somewhat noisy or you'll go insane, skateboarding generates much less noise than any street traffic.
This is the perfect Rorschach test.
I refuse to accept this premise, that a city is noisy by default. The city is noisy because we have allowed power tools to dominate (cars, motorcycles, sirenes, ACs, ...). Today is actually somewhat of an improvement, not that long ago the city had heavy industry too: saw mills, foundries, ...
But none of that is required. The aspirational city of the future will be the one of the pre-industrial age, but with good sanitation. It is the big galvanizing project of virtually every European city now; it is pushing out cars. It's a real reduction of overall noise, and just, less tangible, but also a real reduction of that low-key trashyness and sociopathy that just seems to seep in into every urban environment where cars dominate.
America is way behind, but it _will_ happen. The future of NYC for example will undoubtedly be one without cars for personal transport.
A downstream effect is, that as the city effectively becomes more quiet because power tools get pushed out, tolerance for noisy hobbies (like skateboarding) is decreasing as well.
I love having access to an international airport, but hate the noisy planes.
I love having local restaurants only a moments walk away but hate the late night loud chatter.
I love all the walking and transit infrastructure but hate the construction noise.
Sorry, but cities are just noisy, even absent cars, power tools. Either live with it or find somewhere else better suited.
My biggest complaints: in-car subwoofers and garden parties that run till deep in the night. Both caused by people that seem to think that just because they enjoy their music, the entire neighborhood should.
I think this is only true above a certain income threshold.
You need to have paid away a bunch of other more pressing problems before you have spare fucks to give about the kind of noise other people are making (except in the most egregious cases).
As a person who lives at the heart of the city, you can't believe how silent it can be.
Also a modern car cruising down the street is arguably less noisy than a hard wheeled skateboard going on concrete.
Doing ollies and grinds on hard concrete with hard wheels and 6 of your friends who all have to yell "yeah!" every time someone lands a trick is definitely nuisance level.
Source: former nuisance.
These cars are silencer than skateboards on parks or pavements.
Maybe you've had some good experiences, just seen people skating at a crowded park, and sound didn't feel piercing?
For me at least this is a lot more annoying or stressful than a loud but uniform sound, even if it's louder than the skateboard.
Even in the middle of the day it was deafening with closed windows. Every single person on the street turned to see WTF was happening. They immensely enjoyed doing it and the attention, and made sure they migrated in groups of 20+. The apartment was nearby the local art gallery where apparently they hang out and it was beyond awful.
Absolutely shocking, obnoxious behaviour and I'm so glad skateboards aren't a thing in my country.
There's definitely noises everywhere, but I recently saw a clip of Paris doing a carfree zone thing and it was _sooooo_ quiet, it makes me think that basically cars are the thing that do most of the damage.
As I stated in a sibling thread, 3 of the 4 sources I cited come from motorized vehicles: mopeds, general ICE noise, honking (in that order).
This is better explained by NotJustBikes video "Cities aren't loud: cars are loud": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTV-wwszGw8
If speeding is a problem, cameras would be a better solution. But that would cost more...
Yes, it's a noise nuisance and comfort nuisance for the law abiding people (I drive through quite a few of them, everyday), but speeding people are much more dangerous IMHO.
At least this is what I see from my window.
That's likely a feature, not a bug.
See also: sin taxes.
That's fascinating. Thanks for sharing your list. I think that if everybody contributed a Top-10 noise hate list they would be quite different and quite specific to location, culture and personality.
There is actually a branch of sound psychology on noise "annoyance" that is used in court cases and local authority noise abatement decisions. Although there are common factors like the spectral flux, prominence of high or low frequencies, repetitiveness etc, there are also personal psychological factors, and these dominate.
For example, I live by a skate park. But I like to take my daughter there with her board to (feels like I'm not 50 when I can hang out with the cool kids :), so anyway, I am not averse when I hear kids boarding down my street.
How much noises annoy us is linked to the social identification and sense of how much control or participation we have. For example, if you get on well with a neighbour who has occasional noisy parties you don't mind, because you feel you could ask them to turn it down, or just go and join them for a while. But strangers who never speak to their neighbours are likely to feel threatened and get annoyed. Even though they would probably turn it down if you asked politely these situations can escalate into violence.
That said, it absolutely seems reasonable to have a decibel limit on vehicles, in particular to catch the antisocial people who deliberately tune their cars or motorcycles to be as obnoxiously loud as possible. Although, I was under the impression that in most places it was already illegal to register private vehicles that exceeded a maximum noise threshold, and that it would be tested during the annual vehicle inspection. Apparently not?
In urban Germany, I could hear them all day.
There's something about the '4 story / narrow streets / high density' that reverberates sounds, there's also something uniquely blistering about their sirens, finally, I think they just put them on for any reason.
Being pulled over in Canada I just see the lights, often no siren at all.
In NYC there was rarely a time that I couldn't hear a siren. I figured it was because of the very long, straight roads with unbroken sight lines and the curious way American emergency vehicles seem to leave the siren on all the time.
In London I live on a main road but only hear them a few times a day, only for a second as they go past, and rarely at night. Quite a lot of emergency vehicles drive past, but they usually have the siren turned off for the small area where they're audible to me.
Couple of hundred yards off Old Kent Road and yeah, similar experience - although they do tend to come in bunches around here, it's generally over in a minute or two.
It's incredibly unlikely that a scaffolder operating in the city, during the weekend, is a part-timer. What you are seeing is the side effect of too much work, too little time, and the natural progression of staging.
Work on one "lift" (one floor height) of scaffolding progresses during the week. The "scaffs" come in on Saturday to raise to the next lift, ready for work to resume on Monday. Your crews are out doing smaller jobs during the week but all come in for a shift on Saturday to knock out a lift on a big site together.
And this isn't illegal. The local authority is responsible for setting guidelines, and those guidelines are used to inform enforcement notices that can prohibit a site's activities between hours _retrospectively if they're found to be excessive_. Excessive is a high bar for an enforcement agent standing 100ft below a scaffolder with a decibel meter trying to hear his impact gun over the drum of a bus rolling past.
The core guidelines are unlimited noisy work 8am to 1pm on Saturday. Work to be "avoided" on Sunday.
Where I lived in Bristol they were surprisingly common; when I had video calls people noticed and it became a bit of a running gag with my coworkers. Also lots of police helicopters (sometimes in the middle of the night) that kept circling for half an hour or more.
Never had it anywhere else though. AFAIK I didn't live anywhere near a police station, but I think the road near my house was often used to get to the city centre (in spite of not being that large).
Interestingly, I never personally experienced any problems with any of the other issues you mentioned, except cars (not taxis) idling; I often had people stop in the parking lot to make a phone call safely (great!) but they left the engine on for 20 minutes (less great).
Why should they let people moving in (who could have known the situation) drive them out?
> Why should they let people moving in (who could have known the situation) drive them out?
This is a bold assumption, and untrue. I was born in such a place, and had no choice as a kid to be woken up by the bells. Needless to say, I now loathe bells.
And it's not like people have all that much choice where they want to live, certainly not in recent years. It should be a matter of accepting and adapting: accepting that the world doesn't revolve around you and that you will be bothered by people and organisations around you, and adapting so that we can all live reasonably happy.
How many people go to church in Germany? Turns out, not very many.[1] Should everyone adapt to a small minority "just because they've been doing it for a longer time"? Seems very unreasonable.
I wouldn't mind a church ringing its bells daily; but every 15 minutes, starting at 7am? Yikes! That's just not reasonable today.
[1]: https://www.dw.com/en/german-church-membership-continues-to-...
Emptying the glass bin was loud, but the noise lasted 5 seconds roughly once per week. I don't care about that.
The skateboarders were a very minor annoyance, and I accepted it as part of living in the centre of a city where there were very, very few residents. The sound was confined pretty much to that single street, unlike vehicle-type noises which seem to travel much further.
Not sure about other cities, however sirens in NYC are a daily occurance. Living in Manhattan, I hear sirens at least once a day minimum. In fact, I just heard a siren while typing up this comment.
I do think it's highly variable by city. People from NYC will talk about hearing sirens multiple times a day (and night), whereas here in Austin I'll go days—often weeks—without hearing one.
I lived in SF and the 24/7 sirens of SOMA were unbearable.
The fact that it has to be done fairly regularly is not inevitable. It's a consequence of some arguable laws in some cities (NYC for example).
Living in Paris, I can't recall ever being disturbed by scaffolding being put up or taken down. The scaffolding I see generally stays up for months at a time until the work is finished, which means it's only being put up and taken down once. And it's not frequent to see scaffolding.
A big item missing from that list is mopeds (and, to a lesser extent, other loud 2-wheelers, which are less frequent). A lot of food delivery workers use those all day and night round, and they are very loud.
As others have said, someone's list is heavily influenced by where they live. All the items you listed are generally not a big issue to me (mopeds, general ICE noise, honking and random alarms are the main culprits).
Edit: clarification, "ICE" means internal combustion engine here. Electric vehicles are nearly silent at low speed and don't contribute to noise.
Skateboarding, in fact, is one of the least impactful of these activities, which is part of why it's relatively popular - you can actually do it within the confines of the modern cramped city, as opposed to, say, baseball, or frisbee. What do you think would happen if a bunch of kids started playing hockey on a city street?
psychoacoustics of subjective loudness perception, annoyance, sound and attention, arresting sound, sound localisation/directivity or spatial audio in exterior acoustics. These will give you a measure of the breadth of this research field. For health effects you can start with the WHO or IOA (institute of acoustics) searching under cardiovascular effects of long term exposure, accumulative harms or exposure, and noise harm metrics respectively.
(Partner is a medical writer. Don't make claims that you can't back up!)
Note: don't take it every day.
Second loudest noise is heavy traffic, like trucks. They always seem to be speeding in low speed areas too. I only noticed because my daughter would wake up because of them.
Either way I can't believe that both airports are still allowed to operate, I lived under both on/off-ramps and even though your mind learns to filter out the noise there's something you can still feel under your skin every time a plane buzzes by...
1. Bromma Stockholm Airport Opened 23 May 1936
2. São Paulo/Congonhas–Deputado Freitas Nobre Airport - Opened 12 April 1936
Interestingly both opened 86 years ago. When did you move to near the area of their operation? Most airports are built away from conurbations which then grow around them, in my observation
The issue with Congonhas is exactly that the city grew towards it after Brazil started to urbanise in the 50s, what I cannot believe is that even after Guarulhos was expanded there was some talks about shutting down Congonhas that never materialised, even though it would be a massive improvement for the city both regarding noise and land-use...
The logic here:
1. Move to a property immediately near an airport
2. Notice there is aircraft noise near that airport
3. Complain about the aircraft noise
4. Demand the 80+ year old airport be shut down because the noise is a problem for you
5. Incredulity that the municipality won't shut down an airport because it annoys you
It's like shooting yourself in the foot and suing the shoe manufacturer for not being bullet resistant.
A. Global airline traffic has approximately tripled in the last couple of decades[1], so even if you're arguing that someone should have known when they moved there it's not the same amount of noise as when they moved in.
See e.g. [2] for historical Kennedy airport traffic amounts, it makes no sense to compare modern-day traffic at any airport to its current traffic and noise levels.
B. It's basically a "let them eat cake" argument. Property prices in high-noise areas are lower, but poor people also deserve to have their health.
It's a given that a rich person living near an airport can afford to noise insulation to make it a non-issue (indoors at least), but that doesn't begin to address the greater public health aspect.
C. You're assuming that people are capable of making perfectly informed decisions before they move or buy property. You might know that the house is next to the train tracks, but you won't really know what affect waking up at 4am to screeching train noise will have on you until you settle in.
I live in a house constructed before WWI in a major European city. If we follow your reasoning it would be perfectly OK to heat all those houses with indoor stoves spewing unfiltered particulates into the air, with the resulting air pollution and fire risk.
After all if we wind back the clock that's what people who bought those houses initially expected, and if the default answer to how we could improve our collective living conditions was "you should have known about this when you bought it!" nothing would ever change.
But it doesn't work like that, standards change over time, and in the case of air or noise pollution bottom-up change over time tends to result in improvements through laws and regulation, and hopefully better public health as a result.
1. https://www.statista.com/statistics/564717/airline-industry-...
2. https://www.airporthistory.org/kennedy-traffic-booms.html
Lets keep the alpha bulleting
A. Global airline traffic has approximately tripled in the last couple of decades[1], so even if you're arguing that someone should have known when they moved there it's not the same amount of noise as when they moved in.
The individual I responded with the grievance moved to one of the areas a few years ago and the other less than 20 years ago. Please explain how your point relates to their position.
B. It's basically a "let them eat cake" argument. Property prices in high-noise areas are lower, but poor people also deserve to have their health.
And people with less money deserve to have choices. Also your argument is false because in most major conurbations with ready access to international air travel increases prices. Secondly the houses wouldn't exist without presence of an airport. Go to a 3rd world country and you will see shacks appear at the end of runways or near the airport built in the middle of nowhere
C. You're assuming that people are capable of making perfectly informed decisions before they move or buy property. You might know that the house is next to the train tracks, but you won't really know what affect waking up at 4am to screeching train noise will have on you until you settle in.
That's genuinely the worst argument I've ever heard and entirely based on a fictional supposition. Can you tell me honestly you know a person who thinks living on a train track doesn't involve noise? Honestly?
I live in a house constructed before WWI in a major European city. If we follow your reasoning it would be perfectly OK to heat all those houses with indoor stoves spewing unfiltered particulates into the air, with the resulting air pollution and fire risk.
In what logic pathway is that my reasoning? I genuinely would pay you to explain this because its beyond ridiculous. Please explain how that is analogous to my point (even in itself it is illogical and nonsensical, but that is beside the point).
After all if we wind back the clock that's what people who bought those houses initially expected, and if the default answer to how we could improve our collective living conditions was "you should have known about this when you bought it!" nothing would ever change.
A communist plea to collective action because they set themselves on fire on purpose but sold the water to pay for the food
I'm referencing the "demand the 80+ year old airport be shut down" part of your comment. And assuming that you meant that for those 80+ years the airport had been a relatively constant source of noise, otherwise what's the relevance of it being there for 80+ years if not to imply that the nature of the airport has remained relatively constant for that time?
> Go to a 3rd world country and you will see shacks appear at the end of runways or near the airport built in the middle of nowhere.
Well, yes. Because there's jobs there, or the land is cheap etc. Your point seemed to be that if those people then complained about the noise they'd have no standing, I was pointing out that that's a rather black & white position to take.
> Can you tell me honestly you know a person who thinks living on a train track doesn't involve noise? Honestly?
Of course they know it's noisy, but they might not fully appreciate the long-term health effects, or perhaps they've since had children who find the noise intolerable, but had no part in the decision to move there.
I was again, responding to your argument that we should just tell those people (to paraphrase) "tough luck, you should have known when you moved in!".
> "[...]Please explain how that is analogous to my point"
I thought it was rather obvious, during the industrial revolution and early 1900s European and American cities were notoriously polluted, but they aren't today.
If we are to accept the axiom that people who moved somewhere don't have standing to complain about the environment they find themselves in it seems unlikely that anything like modern-day air pollution regulation would have been enacted.
No analogy is perfect, but it seems rather obvious to me how the increasing awareness about noise pollution today is likely to follow a similar trajectory as the increasing awareness about the health effects of air pollution did in the past, and other environmental pollution more generally.
It simply indicates that he/she was more than aware the airport was there. And with their own information they moved there in recent modernity and thus nothing has changed in their experience from day 0 to n, I don't quite get how this is such a sticking point for you. They made an open and free and informed choice to move someplace.
> Well, yes. Because there's jobs there, or the land is cheap etc. Your point seemed to be that if those people then complained about the noise they'd have no standing, I was pointing out that that's a rather black & white position to take.
They have no standing if the parameters of operation have not changed. Absolutely zero moral high ground. None whatsoever.
> Of course they know it's noisy, but they might not fully appreciate the long-term health effects, or perhaps they've since had children who find the noise intolerable, but had no part in the decision to move there.
So all of society should hyper react to people incapable of making basic personal decisions? That isn't a good way to run a civilisation.
> If we are to accept the axiom that people who moved somewhere don't have standing to complain about the environment they find themselves in it seems unlikely that anything like modern-day air pollution regulation would have been enacted.
I genuinely don't know how someone can consider this an analogous argument. Very poor at best. Particulate pollution in urban areas is a function of density and change previously unknown to humans who learned to adapt technologies to live with it. How is that the same as someone deliberately in full awareness moving to beside an airport and then claiming the airport shouldn't exist. Nothing has changed. Airports already deploy considerable effort to limit noise e.g. approach AOE etc.
> No analogy is perfect, but it seems rather obvious to me how the increasing awareness about noise pollution today is likely to follow a similar trajectory as the increasing awareness about the health effects of air pollution did in the past, and other environmental pollution more generally.
In the UK there are bylaws in some areas to disregard noise complaints from people who have moved into the area and complain about the pub's normal noise under normal licensed hours
It is the height of social decay to have the gall and arrogance to think you alone should have a society shaped around you because you made bad decisions. Problematic to be honest.
It's not like you have an option if you want to live close to your office in the south zone (where most of the tech companies are located at)...
Just look at a map[0] and check how many neighbourhoods surround the airport, it's unsustainable, it was place on the outskirts of a much, much smaller city at the time, it needs to be moved. The city in 1936 was nowhere close to the current size, Brazil urbanised rapidly only after the 50s-60s, you can't blame people that expanded the city there when land became scarce.
Just look at the map on street view to see how densely populated this area is nowadays, are you gonna blame all those hundreds of thousands of people?
[0] https://www.google.com/maps/place/Congonhas-S%C3%A3o+Paulo+A...
... developed because there was an airport
> , you can't blame people that expanded the city there when land became scarce.
I mean you act like property and space are confusing concepts. You moved there because of convenience and value; imparted partially because of the presence of an airport.
> are you gonna blame all those hundreds of thousands of people?
If you sell Widgets and 100k people buy that widget voluntarily, technically yes, you can "blame" those 100k people for buying that widget. Conversely it is unlikely those 100k are going to blame the Widgets for ruining their lives because they know exactly what they are buying when they bought it.
You moved into the area in full knowledge of what to expect.
In many ways this is a perfect example of entitlement.
Daley the Younger bulldozed it in defiance of the FAA, far and away the coolest thing that fella did.
Only noise issues i had were motorcycles with modified exhausts and emergency sirens. It's really quite confusing why they are considered necessary. New flat is high up and has 3 inch thick windows so we can't hear a thing unless its really nearby. But i have the door open sometimes and you can hear what sounds like a massive terrorist response of emergency sirens. THe you look over and see its one ambulance traversing traffic in an area with many angled buildings.
I recall years ago there was a plan to move them to white noise based systems. What happened with that
What's the most disturbing for us are people on on scooters, motorbikes, or cars with modified mufflers or engines and excessive revving. Much more frequent, and they love cruising at all hours of the night.
Only used for a short period on approach to junctions, turned off if it’s clear that traffic can’t create space for them (so they don’t just sit in traffic wailing away), alternating the siren tone after passing each junction so it’s clear to others you need to pay attention again as the vehicle has cleared an obstacle and is going to start accelerating.
They do an extremely good job of making sure that people know they’re there, without being unnecessarily obnoxious.
The more I learn and think about this, the more it just seems absolutely insane to me how much we have given up for cars. Every horn and siren has to get louder, because the drivers have to hear them. No concern for others though, we must always appease the drivers first. Why can't we remove sound insulation in cars as a matter of policy? It would fix so many issues. Obviously removing most cars from cities would be a step better.
In NYC, police and fire fighters are usually the stereotypical Jabronis who themselves drive the muscle cars and trucks to get to work (and park on the sidewalk outside the precinct). So of course they don't care about the noise they are pumping out on their sirens either. I live near a fire station in Brooklyn and it's truly deafening, even in the middle of the night when there's no traffic.
Every Saturday, starting at 8am, they would have an athletics meet. Whistles, starting guns, announcements over megaphone. I wish that was illegal
The trick is keeping the broadcast tight, without giving governments the ability to passively track the movements of all vehicles.
Honestly quite sick of the ever more sterile, dull, and gentrified cities we inhabit (I live in London).
This might be dull and boring to you, but that's probably because these externalities do not significantly affect you. If you want to seek (loud and dangerous) thrills you have almost unlimited opportunities today to pursue them.
of course they are, but we accept them because of the negative effects that you mention.
From Wikipedia. Not sure how limits on pollution are anything like that.
Woah now, why is there anymore “toxic fumes” than any typical exhaust? Are you confused and think the louder the exhaust the dirtier the exhaust? While this can certainly be true, the muffler has nothing to do with emissions. That’s the catalytic converter. A loud exhaust simply removes some sound baffles so the air moving has less restriction. It should not pollute more if they’ve not modified the catalytic converter.
The most Onion bit of news I've seen is NIMBYs who buy condos next to a music venues. Then complain/litigate about noise till it gets shut down.
This is a defeatist attitude. You could have made the same comment a hundred years ago except replace "noise" with "smog", yet clean air regulations improved the lives of billions. Cities aren't necessarily loud; most of the noise comes from cars.
Tokyo is also amazingly quiet for its size and density. Just one block away from any major thoroughfare will be pleasantly quiet, but can have a lively high street with shopping, restaurants, bars, and cafes (called "sho-ten-gai").
A long time ago, I read a study about noise from high speed roads (freeways, expressways, auto-bahn, etc.) and the effect on people who live near them. They have (statistically significant) higher levels of stress, and all of the negative mental and physical effects that come with it. This is one of the major benefits from using special low-noise cement or asphalt, or trees / shrubs / barriers to reduce noise effects on people who live very close.
Finally, I'm excited for a future where more cars, trucks, and buses are electric. It will certainly make cities more quiet and livable.
What makes you think electric cars are not going to be modified? Have you ever unwound an electric motor to increase its performance and heard the noise it makes? It’s much louder. Have you heard the electric drag cars? They are also not very quiet.
https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/golf-ball-causes-6-000-damage-to-...
So yeah, this is great, but the real noise sources are harder to address, because they involve approaching a whole group of people, not a lonely person in a car.
Having an above ground train that isn't deafeningly loud is a huge improvement to the neighborhood, and I wonder why we don't think more about making new quiet above ground lines, instead of drilling +$2B per mile tunnels. I understand that people may find them to be an eyesore, but the noise is the top issue by far. With 100 years of new technology since the last ones were built, we should be able to make huge improvements in this area.
They just laughed at her and kept fooling around with the firecrackers.
Next day I asked why didn't she call 311. She had been doing so for months, the police never showed up. The resolution of the incident was "not enough evidence found to sustain the complaint", or something along those lines.
But many people have one year leases they don't want to break, or don't want to roll the dice just to move to an equally noisy place, or don't want to move and have to pay 30% more.
But I think it's safe to say the root cause is lack of resources.
Not sure what kind of performance you are expecting in residential pedestrian streets. I've seen plenty of customs go WOT through a 25mph zone. No other reason to do that except piss people off.
From about June to August all you hear is mortars. Boom. Boom Boom. Drives dogs insane, wakes up children, it's terrible.
Oh, they are only legal during the 24 hours around the 4th of July and New Years-how do you even enforce that? New Years is just a 2 hour gun shooting session anyway...
the city, any city belongs to everyone, pedestrians, “redneck gang”, etc
So why is one allowed when the other is not when they seem to arise from such similar contexts?
First of all, while one might feel like its use is a 'bigtime no-no', the use of 'wetback' is still very popular in certain segments. So obviously it's only disallowed in certain contexts, e.g. around people who don't hold to that particular kind of racism, in public forums, in professional settings, etc. Among other words it's used every day as a rallying cry of the anti-migrant movement in North America, and as such has a lot of negative power.
'Redneck' on the other hand has been embraced by a 'grassroots' conservative backlash movement, which now has a certain amount of political power. So while originally it marginalized a class of people: the poor rural class that have less access to adequate education or health care, and show many of the same generational problems that visible minorities do; now the term also refers to a whole bunch of definitely not marginalized middle-class Americans. People whose grandparents would never have self-described as 'Redneck'.
These new, political 'rednecks' backlash against anything they consider liberal, including efforts to help or defend the marginalized they purport to represent.
So now in some contexts the use of the term is not only allowed, but encouraged.
But where is that liberal society that's supposed to be defending the marginalized against bad words? Well, the liberals are hypocrites, just like most everyone else in this world. They'll jump on any chance to derogate 'the other' as long as it's fashionable to do so. They certainly won't come to the defense of the 'rednecks' while it's such a convenient rally cry against Trump voters.
So it's us-versus-them politics at play here, and as in any political game the marginalized get trod on by both sides.
Because giving chase to vehicles presents a huge public safety danger on city streets. Unless you're talking about a suspect of a major violent crime, especially when the infraction suggests drag racing tendencies, the police in many jurisdictions are very limited from pursuit.
With the crime wave NYC is experiencing, is there not more important crimes to focus on?
When visiting the states, I’ve often found it dangerous to walk anywhere. Even just half a mile to the grocery store will involve walking on some high speed road with barely a sidewalk, half-abandoned acres of parking lots, and people driving who have zero respect for people walking.
There are cars here, for sure. But it is nothing like the US.
The noise study found the loudest noises were loud cars/motorcycles which were quieter than the jet’s predicted noise. Of course the city did nothing with that finding about vehicles.
(I count myself in that group, but I was mildly pro-expansion on the basis of having less reasons to go to Pearson.)
Someone should produce this report as it sounds fake.
It was a study of impact on the nearest-by populated area (queens quay), so motor vehicles are a lot closer than the aircraft: https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/9936-porte...
Nobody cares about noise at the airport itself.
Where I live there’s an airport near an island with very expensive houses. They certainly care much more about the very loud jet engine than they do about a guy with a cut off exhaust and a v8
The Cseries was to be up to 1db louder than q400s, but people may find jet noise less annoying than a warbling turboprop. This study predated the actual flight tests as I understand it.
https://www.easa.europa.eu/downloads/20962/en
It looks like they were ~3db off the mark for lateral, but were quieter than the Q400 on approach.
I was ok with the jets until I realized it would require lengthening the airstrip inside the harbour. This would further block water access as the restricted area would also be extended even further into the harbour affecting the ferry routes and other uses including recreation. I am ok with the airport, but I will always be opposed to infilling the harbour. Besides loud cars, the streetcars can make god awful screeching with their trucks going around rail corners. ORNGE air ambulances are bloody noisy too, but I’ll never complain about them.
Only sorta. They would have been able to keep the existing lengths of the no-boating buoys by building out the runway, but also adding emergency runway arrest systems. IE: longer runway but compressed overrun safety area. Yes, less water, but you can’t use it anyway.
The runway would have to be widened a bit and the buoys would have to be too, but that’s less of an impact on marine navigation.
In the future I will prioritise quiet when picking somewhere to live. I'm just a light sleeper and it kind of sucks. In evolutionary terms, it's heavily maladapted to city life.
They aren’t strong enough to block out my neighbor having a loud party, but it can block out pretty much everything else. It’s hard to sleep without them anymore.
https://earplugstore.typepad.com/got_ears_get_informed/2020/...
Which earplugs do you use though?
But I use Mack’s foam earplugs every night and they have been great for all non-party related noise.
I could handle the noise, but when the wife and I had a kiddo who was a light sleeper-- our lives were hell for a 18 months or so.
Imagine, having a newborn and a motorcycle drive by emitting 110db of noise against her windows 5 nights a week, for a year.
If I had murdered this person I would have been, "the bad guy."
Is this a joke? I know it seems like it’s obviously a joke, but I often see Americans say things like this with total sincerity, so I feel like I should check
For example I often think of throwing some tomatoes or potatoes on the heads of the motorcycle guys who are doing their thing at 12 at night just in front of our block of apartments when summer comes (I live on the 8th floor). I know that that is illegal and that, most probably, doing that gesture could cause bodily harm to those motorcycle riders, but given the situation (lots and lots of noise that invades my personal space) that's the only thing that I can honestly think of at that particular moment.
I'm European, btw, and we live in Bucharest close to one of the busiest and nosiest intersections in this city (and, I dare say, on this continent, as Bucharest is one of most traffic congested cities in Europe).
It is no longer “that particular moment”
Does it? There’s a whole history we have of not taking these threats seriously and dealing with the results of it. Perhaps people should just stop joking around about killing people?
I mean they also said potatoes, but I don't see any death threats here.
> And how can you tell who’s alt-right/left or not?
If you're offended by my use of the term "alt-right" then mentally apply s/alt-right/extremist/ and re-read the comment.
On a more serious note, I have a friend who used to live two blocks away from where I live, at an even worst spot when it came to street noise (just close to the exit of an underground passage, where riders use to floor it as they exit it at night) and that noise was one of the biggest factors of him and his wife moving from where once they had their first child. He had indeed contacted the local police more than once for this noise thing, long story short it was all for nothing.
On a more serious note, you could probably get convicted for smth like involuntary manslaughter in most countries, and the probability of hitting someone else than the intended target is too high to be worth it... so DON'T.
Lots of people are pre-programmed to not be very far from deploying lethal violence against people around them... don't just assume that if you're not one of them you're not surrounded by at least one or two like us... we may satisfy our urges by hunting or whatching snuff or high-violence gaming or whatever, to each his own, but... be careful :)
They are very very loud and will wake you up from even a deep sleep.
Edit: After googling, it looks like there are about 2000 police helicopters in the US, but only 20 in the UK. As far as I can tell, there are the same number of police helicopters in LA as across the whole of the UK.
They make use of helicopters typically before a car arrives.
That depends on the jurisdiction. In NY it sounds like it's already illegal, and this new law will be stricter.
It’s actually already illegal. Most cities have noise ordinances that forbid sounds produced above a certain dB level. But like most cities there’s more important criminals to catch.
Summers bring out crowds of very loud motorcycles that are so large they block intersections for minutes at a time.
Other smaller groups of motorcycles perform tricks or go very fast (like, don’t see them coming and suddenly they’re 100m ahead fast) on Lakeshore Drive.
Of small note, there’s drag racing that occurs late at night on Lower Wacker.
I guess all these groups are having fun but as a pedestrian and driver it feels dangerous and unnecessarily loud.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/chicago/comments/otohi5/motorcycles...
I recommend the mighty plug brand (I have no affiliation)
I still remember standing outside with my finger in my ear shouting in to my phone just barely able to hear people walking around in cities in California.
Notjustbikes does a great video on this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTV-wwszGw8 - "Cities Aren't Loud, Cars are Loud"
The thing that really blew my mind was how cars honked when you lock/unlock them. Here they're usually silent or a short chirp. I thought people in the car park were just constantly honking their cars for some reason, then I locked mine and was shocked.
Yeah I noticed this as well, it seemed utterly insane. Here in the UK using a horn at night is illegal at night in built up areas [1] yet here you can't help but use it when locking a car which is normally at home in a built up area...
1. https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/answers/when-is-it-illegal-t...
I don't know why you're saying this while commenting on an article about NYPD doing something about this.
It's like some people, for some inexplicable reason, revel in making their cars loud. And we all have to enjoy it at 2am.
In North/South Carolina beaches cruising in modified pickups where the front suspension is jacked up and loud mousing blasting is very popular. It's a non-stop car show every night, especially on the weekends.
It's entertaining if you are just there for the week but I wouldn't be surprised if the locals hate it.
Traffic calming measures to keep cars slow such as narrow steets and roundabouts can do a lot.
It shouldn't be physically possible to travel at highspeed through residential areas.
No amount of “traffic” control is going to prevent assholes from revving it in neutral.
These people are just bad actors that need to be cited.
ie with this: https://cdn-s-www.ledauphine.com/images/270CD3E9-B76E-4D41-9... or that: https://www.selfsignal.fr/app/uploads//2021/03/Coussin-Berli...
Never underestimate the willingness of gearheads to overcome challenges. If people want to drive fast, they will.
Please explain. The noise is most definitely not fake.
In my particular area teenagers were known to modify their shitty 100cc motorbikes to sound like 1000cc bikes quite successfully. Often you see people turn around to see who brought a harley on the streets just to see two kids rolling in at 40km/hour lol
And to vindicate, when public speaking a microphone with speakers does feel cool. So there's some innate human trait.
Asked some cops in SF once why they don’t fine/ ticket people with ridiculously loud motorcycles and they were utterly confused. Responded “uh, because they’re cool?”
The noise in San Francisco was terrible. You could hear the highway at all times, and of course you could hear the trash truck 3 days a week, usually twice in the same night (1am or 2am, and 3am or 4am - how DUMB). My sleep quality, you can guess, was pretty bad. I bet I lost 1-2 years of lifespan just for this. I'm not kidding, and please do not assume I'm exaggerating either. And then of course the occasional gunshots (once or twice a year - I lived in the Mission district), of the frequent police or firefigthers sirens.
It often felt like VIOLENCE. A first world problem, yes (especially when considering that you are surrounded by homeless people) but violence nonetheless.
For the past 1.5 years I've been living mostly in Venezia, Italy. (you can call it Venice, I found that sometimes when I say Venice, without "Italy", people assume Venice in Los Angeles. What a dumb thing).
Venice is incredibly silent. You can occasionally hear a motor boat, but that's it, maybe with just a few contained exceptions (Campo Santa Margherita at night, where lots of youngsters gather to drink and make quite some noise).
I love it. I think you can fully understand only if you have lived for a long period in the countryside. Otherwise, it's really hard to understand the positive impact of a silent city, and a silent night.
New York will never be like Venezia, but I bet they can improve things a lot.
If you hate noise at night but want to be in San Francisco it’s totally doable, but you might not have a neighborhood bar or a walkable BART station.
Venice is of course a special case: banning cars and motorcycles can get you a special kind of quiet. But aren’t the crowds of tourists annoying?
I just googled it because I knew there was a purpose, and there was… it's called 'anti-lag' and it's a way of kicking the turbocharger into super-high RPMs through letting the exhaust explode with unburned gas. I remembered it from the launch of highly tuned rally cars, and it's a real thing, though it's a racetrack thing… I thought. And it's a turbo optimization thing.
Nope! Apparently now they do it on NA aspirated cars where it's about as useful as trucks rolling coal.
Even on turbo cars it's not NICE, but to tune NA cars this way is just ridiculous. Roll out the laws. This is deeply stupid.
As you've said, the thing in the article is done just for the "cool factor", which is doubly bad.
Also, motorcyclists' mental gymnastics about loud pipes are just unbelievable.
That's always been the primary use case, if we're being honest.
Anti-lag, or spooling, is an attempt to launch the vehicle with some boost built. Because in a turbocharged car you don’t build boost until enough exhaust gas goes through the exhaust turbine. An NA car will build no boost this way, as there is nothing to build boost. They are simply launching in their power band.
The unburnt exhaust gas callout is also interesting. This is called running rich, and is a problem. Nobody specifically wants to run richer than they need to, and won’t have much unburnt fuel if if they’re tuned right.
It was still uncomfortable to sleep because at night the outside temperature goes below the set point of the AC so the compressor switches off and the room gets humid. You can lower the set point to keep the compressor running all through the night to pump out the humidity but that would increase my power bill significantly. I was already paying a fortune just leaving it on like that.
It's too dangerous for the police to stop them while they are racing, and they don't even have license plates on. They should just get them when they are parked.
Horns should be illegal. It’s har side me to understand how stupid we are as a species that we think horns are ok.
You must not drive. I can't imagine any other way to come to this conclusion.
I don't drive a lot, but at least a couple times in recent memory when I've signaled/started to merge only to realize there was a car there. They didn't honk. Maybe if I hadn't noticed in time they would have, but I suspect they were focused on preparing to brake or swerve.
It definitely might be safer if we had a honkier culture. When you're urgently trying to avoid a collision, you won't have the mindfulness to remember the tools you never use. For many of us, that means we stick with the ones we're used to: we brake and/or steer.
The most frequent use of the car horn here seems to be the light has turned green and the driver in front of you hasn't noticed. I'll bet sizable percentage of local drivers haven't used their horn in a year.
This is so obvious to even non motorists, that I doubt it's the first time you've heard it.
And horns are getting louder? That's the first I've heard of that. Even Google doesn't indicate that's a thing.
I think you're way off base on this one.
What happens when you use it? Do they suddenly start paying attention and stop driving recklessly? I ask, because I've never used my horn whilst driving; I've only ever used it for alerting someone reversing into me whilst I was stationary.
If I see someone drifting into my lane, then I back off by applying the brakes. If someone is swerving, then I also slow down. Generally I slow down or change lanes but I've never used the horn.
It was explained to me when learning that they are a "Hey, I'm here" button.
They can be usefully deployed when someone is, for instance, reversing towards your vehicle and apparently doesn't see you. I think that's a good use for them.
They are not an anger button, or a let me through button.
(in response to the below, as I am rate limited:
Well, you can't fix stupid... But you can help along someone who's bit tired and forgot to look and "oh shit someone's just beeped me aaaaaaaaa I need more coffee". I've been on both sides of that and have yet to actually reverse into anyone else's vehicle)
Or more likely, I've avoided them ahead time because distracted drivers are fairly obvious if you're playing with your phone yourself.
However, what should be penalised heavily is blaring your horn in frustration or when stuck in traffic. This happens near where I live on a daily basis, and causes my blood to boil. It seems for these people it is almost instinctual, and they will do it at the slightest slowdown or inconvenience.
Not a big fan of enforcement actions, but this is incredibly anti social and provides zero/negative utility. A couple of weeks of police camping intersections and handing out liberal fines might perhaps encourage a change in behaviour.
That seems ill-defined. You can hear a bicycles tires rolling on pavement from 200 feet away on a quiet windless morning.
It sucks. I’m a car guy, I like things that go vroom, but when everyone is revving their engines and capping their RPM’s like it’s Need For Speed, I’ve turned into my father (keep it down!).
I recently spent some time in Stuttgart in an area dominated by EV’s, and lots of them. You know what I did’t hear? Them.
I’m a fan of Tesla. I like that more car companies are getting on board with EV’s.
I don’t like being stalked by one. They need a little bell or some sort of noise so I know they are coming. Even if it’s just an electric engine whine. Give me something more than just rubber tires over asphalt.
If a city were to enact an EV only policy, noise pollution would probably plummet.
In the EU at least there’s already a regulation for this:
https://ec.europa.eu/growth/news/electric-and-hybrid-cars-ne...
EVs emit a sort of musical tone at lower speeds. Although in practice it’s still not noticed by pedestrians. It must be a tough balance to get right, noise pollution on the one hand, pedestrian safety on the other.
Amsterdam is not far behind with electrifying vehicles or outright banning them from the city. Much of the Netherlands is easily reached on a single charge. People moan about battery range regardless. But it's a bit like complaining about the weather. They vote with their wallets in the end. A lot of leased cars for business use are already electric. The value proposition for the leasing companies is just better. And the companies that pay them like being green. It's not really a choice anymore. Privately owned vehicles is a different matter. Mostly these are second hand vehicles and there just aren't a whole lot of second hand EVs yet.
In much of western Europe, it's no longer a given that you will even be able to drive ICE vehicles into cities. Restrictions are coming. And even if it is allowed now, it's not certain to stay that way. People are starting to factor that into their purchasing behavior. Another thing is the second hand value of ice vehicles. What's the value of a second hand ICE car going to be in five years when they will be banned from a growing number of areas?
China is an interesting case. It has hundreds of electrical car companies and mostly they serve the domestic market. Owning and buying ice vehicles there requires permission, which is a lengthy process to get. A few of the bigger manufacturers are starting to become export to Europe and the US this year. Tesla is nice and a clear leader (even in China), but xpeng, nio, and others are not far behind in terms of quality, volume production, etc. And they are coming to foreign markets.
Right now EVs are mostly expensive luxury vehicles. However, there are very few technical limitations that prevent the creation of a 10K$ EV. China has a few on the road. Cheaper than that even; below 5K$ even. Mostly this is just a function of limited battery supply and insatiable demand at the high end. Why sell a 5K$ vehicle when you can sell a 50K$ one? It's like printing money. Not a choice really. Manufacturers will go for the big luxury cars every time. This will change rapidly as more production capacity comes online and the high end market gets saturated.
Cities Aren't Loud: Cars Are Loud: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CTV-wwszGw8
oh dear, that old argument again
> But Pennachio conceded he has modified four of the 11 cars he owns to enhance the rumbling of the engine, as a matter of pleasure, not safety. “Just to know you’re in a beefier man’s car,” he said
well, we quickly got to the real reason
"Loud pipes save lives" is nonsense. When a driver is concentrated on visual stimuli, has his windows up and music playing, there are no pipes loud enough to make him notice me.
Why loud pipes then? Because it's so much fun to open the throttle wide and hear and feel the roar vibrating through the bike and myself! Makes me feel like I'm riding a rocket into space.
Do I do that in towns? Very rarely. I mostly try obeying speed limit with calm hand on the throttle and reasonable engine speed and shooting off when leaving a town. I'm super noise-conscious when riding after dark. I also don't rev on red lights just for the hell of it. I live on both sides of this problem, as a city dweller i hate being woken by noise, but it's more often some doofus in a knocking diesel car letting the engine idle for 20 minutes as he picks up his friends at 11 pm. I guess cars like that wouldn't be punishable, because they are not tuned to make noise. And when I hear the whine of a motorbike from the hills on the outskirts, it just makes me smile and plan a next ride.
To sum up: yes, loud pipes can be obnoxious, but it depends on the driver. If they get banned, people like me will lose a part of their hobby and noisemakers will find another way to be obnoxious (burnouts? screechy braking? loud music?)
What I'm saying is that although this will be a bit crap for you, to the average person that's probably worth the trade off.
I would imagine you'd get a similar sensation from the whir/whine of an electric car picking up in pitch etc as you approach "the red line", but I don't know how well that is hushed away in modern EVs
For me personally, not the person you replied to, it is the noise.
After years of soul-searching, and as a music lover, it’s about the noise. I will (or would) leave NYS over this. 76dB 50ft away under 35mph and over 35mph it’s 82dB - a joke. Once I found the perfect engine note, the rest is history. Speed is fun, but sound and steering are more character.
Currently the goal of purchasing this soul-rending, sonorous beast is sustaining me in life.
I’ll do my very best to be judicious with valves closing the exhaust around town and at night.
Making a financially foolish move and touring the country isn’t the worst mistake you could make in an awful mood.
Well you could use a vibrator then.
Quieter and more close to the body...
As a former motoryclist with very loud pipes (and also an open air filter, which is just as bad or worse), I can tell you it‘s not just that. Exhaust noise emitted by a motorcycle is way louder behind the it than in front of it, especially when you and the bike are moving in the same direction. I have no hard numbers to back up this claim, but I once switched bikes with a buddy and while my bike was almost inaudible when I was driving in front of him, I was shocked how loud it was driving 200 m / 1/8 mile behind him.
Like most things in New York, it comes down to what NYPD officers actually care about enforcing. Per the article:
> But the law doesn’t doesn’t compel law enforcement to issue tickets, nor does it require police cars to be equipped with decibel readers.
tldr: these laws won't do shit then. Officers won't enforce what they aren't required to, this just gets added to the list of offenses they can use to harass someone or tack onto a speeding ticket.
There is one dude who drives past my window on 6th Ave, every single morning, at 7 AM, with an engine so loud it rattles glass ten stories up. That should be 365.24 summons/year, _for that guy_.
Until the cops choose to enforce the laws, nothing will fucking change. I'm thrilled the government is claiming to care here, but until anyone chooses to have these people hanged from the yardarm^W^W^W^W nothing will fucking change.
By the way, did you know it is _illegal_ to honk your horn in NYC outside of an emergency? Neither do the the people honking constantly outside my window! Why doesn't the NYPD just fine all of these people every single day until it stops? They could fund the entire department! But they simply don't care.
Many of my friends dream happily of enforcing vigilante justice for the loud motorists. I personally would be thrilled if this guy:
>But Pennachio conceded he has modified four of the 11 cars he owns to enhance the rumbling of the engine, as a matter of pleasure, not safety. “Just to know you’re in a beefier man’s car,” he said.
was evicted from the city. He is a horrible person with no redeeming characteristics and doesn't deserve to live in society.
As far as fining motorists for horn usage, if it works like everywhere else in the US there is no way they could ever actually make good on the fines. As long even a small percentage of people requested a court hearing (doesn't matter if it is a jury trial or something else) the police officer would basically spend 1 day writing fines, the remaining days in the year just sitting in court.
I'm unsure though, maybe NYC has a provision allowing it to issue fines you can't contest.
Fairly certain such a scheme would be illegal.
For example I've gotten parking tickets that had "automatic" hearings with no judge if you requested one. Unsurprisingly, they tended to find in favor of the government.
Confiscate their cars, problem solved.
I had a next door neighbor, someone picked their kid up from school every morning about 7:00am. Every morning, the car would pull in to the driveway between our houses and lay on the horn until the kid came out.
CAR ALARMS
OMG I HATE CAR ALARMS SO MUCH
its astonishing to me that our social contract says "its ok to blast an air horn endlessly in residential neighborhoods"
Why should taxes not solve negative externalities? If they don't solve it then they are just too low.
Sure I see the dystopic surveillance society part, but technically we already have that. Wouldn't it be nice to have quality of life benefits from it instead of just military and marketing uses.
I want QoL SLOs.
For you. I live in Dallas, and it happens every single day, every few hours.
In older construction street noise can be so bad I’ve bent over backwards and rearranged my apartment to make my bedroom quiet.
That said, this is tilting at windmills.
The majority of awful street noise is people being loud. It is people arguing, people being drunk, and frustrated drivers leaning in their horns.
This sucks, and I wish they wouldn’t do it. I have gone outside my house and explained to frustrated drivers what impact they are having on everyone who lives where they are honking. Countless times.
It’s a city. Cities are loud. NYC is LOUD LOUD.
We can the worst of this with better construction. NYC makes it hard and expensive to do construction. Almost, it would seem, deliberately. Including renovations.
So they are scapegoating one egregious and visible minority group of offenders while completely punting on the bulk of the problem.
Of course.
Which is why, once I've gone back to sleep, and woken up more or less refreshed, I typically go "huh, that needs more thought put in it."
Surveillance is a good thing when it's used to punish people who annoy me. Hopefully once the system is in place they'll be able to improve the technology to detect anybody who endangers the public by speaking a banned word or phrase.
Incessant horn honking and blaring car stereos, both of which are significant noise contributors won't be included? Does that make any sense? If the goal is to bring the noise pollution under control via the use of sound cameras why would you limit it to mufflers? The sound camera device's metric is decibels. Why should the program discriminate the source of noise pollution?
https://www.euronoise2018.eu/docs/papers/124_Euronoise2018.p...
I was thinking pattern matching sounds and then matching a pattern through logical association. IE same pattern at two different spots implies the car is at those same two spots.
But this is literally viewing the world through sound pressure levels. It doesn't care what the noise is, as long as it's loud. Which fits the use case here.
Sirens seem to be calibrated for open air environments and they end up being perceived way louder than they actually need to be. I really wish the city would fix this because it's a solvable problem. Just dynamically adjust the volume based on how much sound is reflected.
Anyway, this makes these open engine straight piping vehicles just that much worse in the city than they might be in suburban Ohio. I also understand the argument that being loud for a motorcyclist is a safety issue. At least I am sympathetic to that at 50+ mph. But in the city if you're not driving on an expressway, a parkway, a freeway or an otherwise major road (eg the Van Wyck) then you're simply not going above 30mph, probably not even 20mph.
I've had cases where one of these idiots passing actually causes things to shake in your apartment. That's not a safety issue. It's a "deliberately being an inconsiderate asshole" issue.
That all being said, the NYPD seems to have SWAT teams at the ready for black teens who have a joint or jump a subway turnstile but, at least in my experience, they do almost nothing when it comes to traffic enforcement. In over 10 years of living in NYC I think I saw the cops pull over 3 people. Blocking intersections is rampant. Running red lights is rampant. And this is without even getting into parking violations (eg blocking pedestrian crossings, parking in bike lanes, blocking fire hydrants).
So will this noise law even be enforced? I'll need to see it before I believe it.
After that, I became so cautious of the noise issue that whenever I’m looking for a place to live, I look out for steep hill, train tracks, police station, hospitals, main street (the ones with double yellow lines), highway, airport, air plane ascending and descending routes.
Don't live in an apartment at the corner of a four-way stop. The noise of squeaking brakes + engines accelerating from a stop is far worse than engines maintaining speed.
These people are not from the city. New York is unique perhaps in the world in that a huge number of people are living nearby with a completely suburban/typical car-centric American lifestyles, but regularly visit the city. It is a completely alien world to them that they do not understand and treat it like a playground. There is a staggering amount of anti-social behavior being committed constantly by folks in cars with New Jersey license plates, particularly on weekends. Their expectations of what they should be able to do with their cars, how much parking they should have, how much noise they should be able to make, and how quickly they should be able to move through dense pedestrian zones are completely unrealistic. They really should ban non-resident street parking like many nearby municipalities do.
Couldn't this be enhanced to operate like camera speed traps, just take a picture of the car passing by? The same tech used to determine gunshot location could pick the specific car if there are multiple.
I couldn't find any links in English, but here are some pictures of the tech:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=france+m%C3%A9duses+radars+anti-br...
I can live with tire/wind noise - it's wide spectrum, so not that unpleasant. Also noise-canceling headphones reduce it greatly.
But anything that has discernible harmonics wakes me up immediately.
I live in a building with a large courtyard (inspired by the architecture of Barcelona I guess, only it's a single unit, so not terribly well thought through) which amplifies every sound that gets in and bounces around the walls.
There's a railway a kilometer away which I hear much better than people living closer to it because of this, but that normally doesn't disturb my sleep.
What did to my surprise a few days ago was a phone conversation some drunk had - it wasn't even loud, just noticable - I suppose because it was human speech.
Glad to see this law but NYPD doesn't care about anything. They'll issue far more tickets for cyclists not having lights than something like this. You can drive through NYC in a way so reckless that it should be considered assault (with no license plate) and nobody will do anything about it. I regularly look up reckless drivers on howsmydrivingny.nyc while walking around, often to find tens of school zone speed violations. NYC is non-functional, regardless of what the law says.
This is a problem throughout America, rural and urban. Certainly more frequent and loud in city areas, however easier to legislate in cities. I wish states would start rolling out some basic rules. OTOH, eventually EV will take over, and gas will become prohibitively expensive for the hold outs. I predict that will happen first.
It already exists. Last year it was pilot tested in a few cities in France and this year they've apparently started rolling out the technology nationally.
I couldn't find an article in English. The tech is called a "méduse" ("jellyfish" because of the way the microphones hang down off of it) or "radar anti-bruit" if you want to try searching.
So then you head out to the country for some peace and quiet. And it works for a while until -- what the hell is that? -- oh, it's a trio of quad-bikes.
It's the damned engines.
Personal planes that cause noise should be addressed as well. Why do thousands of residents need to be exposed to plane sound (personal, propelled ones) so that one person have fun time?
In China (e.g. Shanghai), they simply banned combustion motorcycles from the city. Visited years ago and it was pretty interesting to experience.
[1] https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/austin-car-clubs-...
FYI: Living room music/TV is around 76 dB, and the law will have 'robocops' issuing summons like speed cameras do from 76 to 90 decibels per the posted article.
* Despite how it appears, this comment was not actually modded down -- it has been pre-censored by HN, allegedly to help preserve curiosity.
This makes my blood boil. Fuck this guy. Fuck this guy. I hope he gets all his vehicles impounded.
Does Pennachio not realize that every rust bucket 4-cylinder economy car is capable of being extremely loud?
Or, wait... maybe his levels are low? Something seems a little off in either case.
Real, big engines super cars don’t actually tend to be noisy in city settings.
And if you think about it, 1 horsepower is 750 watts. A 750 watt speaker system at full volume is extremely loud, but 1 horsepower is way smaller than the statistical standard deviation in engine output.
Some economy cars don't even have mufflers anymore - the turbo is enough.
Just to take an example, the single-speed helical gearboxes used e.g. by Tesla are a prime example of sacrificing efficiency in an EV just to reduce noise.
Using a straight-cut transmission like they do e.g. in Formula E would be more efficient, more lightweight at the same torque rating, and a lot more noisy.
Personally - I enjoy some loud cars and motorcycles but not the typical Harley types that roll by at 20mph wide open or the clapped out Chevy Tahoe with a rusted out muffler going from stop sign to traffic light. I’m more of a Ferrari 458, Fireblade, LFA, R8 V10, etc. type. High revving exotics and motorcycles - and tend to prefer their sounds as they are going somewhere not revving. I can appreciate some others - even my own non-exotic but special car sounds great to me. It’s one of the reasons I bought it - it sounded amazing from the factory.
But people who modify the cars to seem more macho? Yikes. I listen to the sound for my own pleasure - no one else. Literally could not give a shit how it sounds to others. I know when I go for drives with others that sometimes they enjoy the sound too. It’s thrilling and definitely adds to the experience. Top down - engine screaming like a banshee - especially in a tunnel. It gives a real “race car” type of sensation hearing it come alive like that.
It’s definitely something I’ve never experienced driving EVs and I’ve driven them faster than 99% of people ever will. Just tire squeal is all you get. Maybe a slight hum or what not. (Brake squeal I guess but again not my favorite sound…) Definitely not an auditory experience for an enthusiast.
Last night, I had a discussion with a friend about how neighbours' noise complaints are ruining small-time, local run and operated cafes in the country (in Germany also). Noise complainants are becoming all-powerful to the point of unreasonableness.
Can we accept that in society, asses exist that are going to behave like asses no matter what, and not micromanage/regulate literally every aspect of life. I dread this kind of society where we have a law dictating how long you have to cut your grass in your front garden.
The unmitigated, narcissistic gall of solving a problem of one's own making (choosing to ride a motorcycle), by annoying everyone else.
When I am Necromancer-King, anyone even thinking of making this argument will lose all "making sound" privileges of any kind at all - not only motorcycle, but even talking, playing music, tv - for a long, long time.
I fantasize about cheap, robotic air guns designed to inflict painful welts on these noisy assholes.
Pushing even more people into giant SUVs isn't good.
Yeah, see, that's not a good-faith response. The choice is not "ride noisy motorcycles" or "everyone rides giant SUVs"
It reminds me of the situation with cyclists where people like to complain about their “dangerous” behavior. But almost nothing a cyclist does on the road will undo the net reduction in risk to road users as a whole simply by choosing to ride a bicycle instead of operating a car.
I’m not saying that motorcycles should be unmuffled. I run a stock exhaust and do my best to idle through residential areas, and I too hate any vehicles that rattle windows and set car alarms off when they pass by. I guess my point is that if I were necromancies-king, I’d try to find a way to get all users of the road to experience empathy for others on the road and particularly for more vulnerable ones whose mere existence makes roads safer for everyone.
I don't ride a motorcycle. I also don't have a car, by choice. I use busses, bicycles and the occasional taxi, and make sure I live within walking distance of essentials. And yet, even I don't tell myself lies about how things are much better on the road because of my choices.
If I ever do choose to ride a motorcycle, I will keep it quiet and accept the risks like an adult.
If you tell yourself that you're selflessly helping humanity and then only "do my best" not to make noise in residential areas, you're a problem. Just admit, to yourself at least, you like to piss people off - or worse maybe you just don't care.
This entire post is full of people talking about how people like you are a problem, and yet you tell yourself that you're actually a hero. Look inward.
I'm not. I'm simply saying it's kind of crappy to tell some road users that they should just "live with the consequences of their decisions" when those decisions benefit you and everyone else on the road.
Every motorcycle on the road is a net increase in safety, a net reduction in traffic, and a net reduction in CO2 emissions compared to that same person choosing to drive a car. Perhaps we should be encouraging these types of choices instead of being belligerent toward the people who choose them, regardless of the motivation behind those choices.
> If you tell yourself that you're selflessly helping humanity and then only "do my best" not to make noise in residential areas, you're a problem. Just admit, to yourself at least, you like to piss people off - or worse maybe you just don't care. > > This entire post is full of people talking about how people like you are a problem, and yet you tell yourself that you're actually a hero. Look inward.
What, exactly, would you like me to do differently? I'm being 100% serious.
As I said earlier, I ride with stock pipes. The noise levels of exhaust pipes are regulated by the state of California where I reside, and exhausts must be approved by the state. The loud bikes you hear are inevitably aftermarket exhausts that are illegal, but that doesn't stop people from installing them and riding with them. I eagerly await the day when the people choosing to do this are caught, fined, and have the offending hardware confiscated.
As I also said, I do my best to idle through residential areas. Sometimes this strictly isn't possible, such as when there's a hill. Would you prefer I hop off and push my motorcycle? Hitch it to a passing car? Something else?
Please be concrete. What am I doing wrong that you believe I could do better?
Maybe, just maybe, I'm not an asshole who likes to piss people off. Maybe I'm just a guy who enjoys riding bicycles and motorcycles, who does his best to ride in a way that doesn't inflict negative externalities on others, and who is frustrated by the complete lack of empathy and outright hostility shown by people like yourself who directly benefit from my choices.
I go out of my way to yield to pedestrians and cyclists at intersections where drivers happily blow through the crosswalks they're trying to cross. I wait for them to cross at intersections when they have the right of way even when they expect me not to, because they have the right of way. When I notice bicycles getting passed too closely, I'll ride behind them and offset slightly to ensure passing traffic gives them the clearance they're legally entitled to. I'm not saying this because I consider myself a hero, I'm saying this because I have been the cyclist in this situation or the pedestrian in this situation and therefore I have empathy for them. I am saying this because I am clearly not the asshole you've decided I am based on a caricature you've created in your head based off a single comment.
> Look inward.
People are always happy to find some member of an outgroup to blame for society's ills while ignoring those of their ingroup.
Let's all take a moment to look inward, shall we?
Sorry, my bad. I misread. I think this is perfectly adequate and I never have problems with motorcyclists who follow the law. I take back everything negative I said with respect to you. It was a misreading.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_findings_in_the_Hurt_R...
Your implicit assumption is that if you make enough noise, you will pop their "windows up, listening to music, fiddling with a phone" filter bubble.
And that noise is the most efficient way to do this.
I wonder how much noise that would take, esp in more modern cars with good soundproofing?
Or perhaps other methods might be more effective?
There's no reason for stupidly loud exhausts (although ICE motorbikes will likely always be louder than cars due to the exposed engine and not enough room for a larger muffler), but that has nothing to do with your apparent irrational hatred of motorcycles.
I very clearly linked my "irrational hatred" to the noise. Interesting that you read that and thought "that's me!"
Is it irrational to hate people who intentionally inflict loud, unpleasant noise indiscriminately on everyone else - sleepers, infants, daydreamers, musics listeners, meditators - because of their own lifestyle choice? Surprisingly, someone who does this thinks so.
I actually admire quiet motorcyclists. They are adults who understand the risks and accept them. Like adults do.
For reference, I ride a motorcycle that has the factory fitted exhaust in a country that has laws limiting the noise of exhausts sold and tests vehicles every year to ensure they haven't been modified to be louder. I also wear earplugs when riding it to protect my hearing - which protects me from wind noise - not engine noise. So, no, I'm not thinking "that's me".
Frankly I am baffled that anyone would actually argue for this. I honestly think there is something wrong with their empathy processing, or their hearing. Surely they must experience this themselves as pedestrians or sleepers? When their baby is woken or car alarms go off, they think "that hero just reduced traffic congestion". Weird.
If you want it quiet move out of the city. The noise problem won’t go away in our lifetimes. So why getting angry at the sea? Just get out and enjoy the comfy country life.
Additionally, at a time when the streets are seriously unsafe, this should not be a priority.
It is reasons like this that I am infinitely glad I left NYC for the woods of the West Coast.
EDIT: I would just like to add, if you feel that the streets of NYC are a safe place at night for women, children, or whomever, then I really feel like your opinion is very dismissive of people who have been seriously injured or killed.
Anecdotally, in midtown, this isn’t true. (The Jersey plate correlation is.)
Keep in mind that making one’s vehicle flatulate isn't cheap.
Rusted out exhaust pipes from road salt in NYC on cars will make them louder but nothing like what I'm describing. Basically makes them have an annoying low pitched rumble similar to what those stupid $40 ricer 'fart can' modifications would. Few orders of magnitude of a difference between loudness.
According to TFA, the law wasn't written to ensure that. It's selective enforcement, with cops making judgement calls both about how loud is loud and who looks like they deserve a ticket.
The vast majority of homicide victims are male. In the US, the number is 78%. In the whole world, it is 79% [0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide_statistics_by_gender
and who are the vast majority of assault and rape victims?
Did we learn nothing from Eric Garner? You create thousands of petty rules, you will eventually kill someone with them.
I tick every single privilege box, some of them a few times over, and would think myself quite lucky if I was only tazed for turning violent with the police. While it's unfortunate that the driver's poor health led to an unintentional heart attack, I don't believe it does the rule of law much good to allow drivers, or anyone, to be violent with the police with impunity.
Karen's society...