What might seem like a cool sound to you Chris doesn*t necessarily to the majority of adult members of the public who are entitled to some piece and quiet. I*m surrounded by overgrown kids with big bore exhausts who do not have one ounce of consideration for anybody else as long as their antics satisfy their own need to be noticed. It*s not about the politics, it*s about the fact that manufacturers spend millions on development of exhaust systems so that cars have less of an impact on the public and the environment. You don*t like it because your car violates virtually every aspect of the legislation it once confirmed to. What you do is up to you as long as you don*t hurt or interfere with anybody else but while modifying the suspension doesn*t have a direct effect unless you lose control of the car, items such as noise, emissions and to an increasing extent, lights, do. If the law tightens up it is for the good of the majority I*m afraid.
My car would not fall into the ban as I haven't touched any emission control on my exhaust system.
California has this thing called "CARB" which is basically there own Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Vehicles have to be emissions certified there specifically to even be sold there (CX-5 Diesel hurdle). Any change on the emission system automatically would make it non compliant, as well a certain engine modification (such as turbo or supercharger kit) has to be CARB certified ($$$$) to be technically legal. The issue is that previously, one could get a "fix it ticket" if a modification was deemed illegal. The fine would be removed once the car was made complaint before a certain time. here is the outrage though:
Now the rule is an officer can cite a $1000USD fine simply for "being to loud", based on a vehicle has a visibly aftermarket exhaust or visa versa. That's $1000 hard fine when it used to be a correctable fine. The aim is to be able to fine vehicles participating in "sideshows", car meets, street racing etc easily by making them easy to target, but it also affects people who aren't shutting down street/highways/businesses etc. So a regular car enthusiast who isn't doing burnouts at meets or revving through his neighborhood at night gets fined in the same manner as the guy who is an actual nuisance. Also, now that the cop has pulled you over with probable cause, you are opened up to any other investigation he/she feels is probable.
This type of legislation isn't going to prevent those choice people, who *choose* to be uncourteous from zooming by a house at 5AM being loud on purpose anymore than having anti marijuana laws (which also vary state to state, like these exhaust laws/emissions testing) will keep people from buying, using, growing and distributing it. However it goes give the police a valid reason to tax the inoffensive citizen, in the same way people using weed for their own health/recreation can be.
Anyone can turn their radio up and blast it loudly (stock or aftermarket) as they pass through neighborhoods at night, however most decent people choose not to. People who don't care will blast it on purpose.
I would also like to point out that this law which was an amendment to an existing muffler/sound requirement got rid of the correctable part (fix it ticket). It was NOT vote extended to the population, but rather lawmakers who decide what's best for the people (of course revenue for the government is good for the people from a career politician ). 78 yes votes.
Just because the majority votes on something doesn't mean it's good or properly motivated, or even experienced by the voters (likely just a vicarious experience). It might just "sound good". History show us many examples of this.
The majority of this town council in Radstock, England voted to not fly the St. George flag as it may offend the (16) muslims living in the town.. I couldn't imagine a town in the USA voting to not fly the Stars and Stripes because it would offend a foreign group living within. But that's exactly what happened. I'm sure it "sounded good" to the majority of the council (not the voting population). I wonder what kind of message this sends to the to those wishing to further their own agendas. For California, more revenue.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...laiming-offensive-Muslims-links-Crusades.html
It must be different in the UK because in the US, laws "tightening up" tend to garner a lot of opposition due to the ever increasing oversight/pocket reaching and wasteful spending that occurs. And you'd really have to live here to understand the legislation situation that goes on in California (whether you agree with the comparatively numeruous laws they enact/propose or not).