California's new exhaust laws (merged threads)
01-08-19, 06:38 PM
#33
Lexus Champion
here is the Bill as written, no mention of the fine amount in the bill anywhere, it appears to me the decision is at the officers discretion, he can make it a correctable equipment violation or not, which has always been the case, I got referee'd in 2005 for loud exhaust, (long tubes, no cats, hi-flow off road mufflers) written as a non-correctable citation.
I think that video is just a LEO that has no clue and is misinterpreting the law to suit his power trip complex.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...01720180AB1824SEC. 4.
Section 40610 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
The one change I do see is in section B of VC 27150 now includes the verbiage:
https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/vehicle...ect-27150.html
"no muffler or exhaust system shall be equipped with a cutout, bypass, or similar device." which appears to have been added in 2016, because my 2015 VC book doesn't have that line, but the 2016 version does.
I think that video is just a LEO that has no clue and is misinterpreting the law to suit his power trip complex.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...01720180AB1824SEC. 4.
Section 40610 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
40610.
(a) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), if, after an arrest, accident investigation, or other law enforcement action, it appears that a violation has occurred involving a registration, license, all-terrain vehicle safety certificate, or mechanical requirement of this code, and none of the disqualifying conditions set forth in subdivision (b) exist and the investigating officer decides to take enforcement action, the officer shall prepare, in triplicate, and the violator shall sign, a written notice containing the violator’s promise to correct the alleged violation and to deliver proof of correction of the violation to the issuing agency.
(2) If any person is arrested for a violation of Section 4454, and none of the disqualifying conditions set forth in subdivision (b) exist, the arresting officer shall prepare, in triplicate, and the violator shall sign, a written notice containing the violator’s promise to correct the alleged violation and to deliver proof of correction of the violation to the issuing agency. In lieu of issuing a notice to correct violation pursuant to this section, the officer may issue a notice to appear, as specified in Section 40522.
(b) Pursuant to subdivision (a), a notice to correct violation shall be issued as provided in this section or a notice to appear shall be issued as provided in Section 40522, unless the officer finds any of the following:
(1) Evidence of fraud or persistent neglect.
(2) The violation presents an immediate safety hazard.
(3) The violator does not agree to, or cannot, promptly correct the violation.
(4) The violation cited is of subdivision (a) of Section 27150 or of subdivision (a) of Section 27151.
(c) If any of the conditions set forth in subdivision (b) exist, the procedures specified in this section or Section 40522 are inapplicable, and the officer may take other appropriate enforcement action.
(d) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (a), the notice to correct violation shall be on a form approved by the Judicial Council and, in addition to the owner’s or operator’s address and identifying information, shall contain an estimate of the reasonable time required for correction and proof of correction of the particular defect, not to exceed 30 days, or 90 days for the all-terrain vehicle safety certificate.
(a) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), if, after an arrest, accident investigation, or other law enforcement action, it appears that a violation has occurred involving a registration, license, all-terrain vehicle safety certificate, or mechanical requirement of this code, and none of the disqualifying conditions set forth in subdivision (b) exist and the investigating officer decides to take enforcement action, the officer shall prepare, in triplicate, and the violator shall sign, a written notice containing the violator’s promise to correct the alleged violation and to deliver proof of correction of the violation to the issuing agency.
(2) If any person is arrested for a violation of Section 4454, and none of the disqualifying conditions set forth in subdivision (b) exist, the arresting officer shall prepare, in triplicate, and the violator shall sign, a written notice containing the violator’s promise to correct the alleged violation and to deliver proof of correction of the violation to the issuing agency. In lieu of issuing a notice to correct violation pursuant to this section, the officer may issue a notice to appear, as specified in Section 40522.
(b) Pursuant to subdivision (a), a notice to correct violation shall be issued as provided in this section or a notice to appear shall be issued as provided in Section 40522, unless the officer finds any of the following:
(1) Evidence of fraud or persistent neglect.
(2) The violation presents an immediate safety hazard.
(3) The violator does not agree to, or cannot, promptly correct the violation.
(4) The violation cited is of subdivision (a) of Section 27150 or of subdivision (a) of Section 27151.
(c) If any of the conditions set forth in subdivision (b) exist, the procedures specified in this section or Section 40522 are inapplicable, and the officer may take other appropriate enforcement action.
(d) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (a), the notice to correct violation shall be on a form approved by the Judicial Council and, in addition to the owner’s or operator’s address and identifying information, shall contain an estimate of the reasonable time required for correction and proof of correction of the particular defect, not to exceed 30 days, or 90 days for the all-terrain vehicle safety certificate.
The one change I do see is in section B of VC 27150 now includes the verbiage:
https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/vehicle...ect-27150.html
"no muffler or exhaust system shall be equipped with a cutout, bypass, or similar device." which appears to have been added in 2016, because my 2015 VC book doesn't have that line, but the 2016 version does.
Last edited by mjeds; 01-08-19 at 06:45 PM.
01-08-19, 06:39 PM
#34
AB1824 2018
Here in (4):
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...01720180AB1824
They've maintained the 95db requirement though have now amended that there will be fines for deficient equipment.
CHP PDF here:
https://www.chp.ca.gov/PressReleases/Pages/18-46_CHP_New_laws_2019.pdf [QUOTE]
Here in (4):
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...01720180AB1824
(4) Existing law provides that whenever any person is arrested for certain offenses, including, among other things, an infraction involving vehicle equipment, the arresting officer is required to permit the arrested person to execute a notice, prepared by the officer in triplicate, containing a promise to correct the violation and to deliver proof of correction to the issuing agency, unless the arresting officer finds that a disqualifying condition exists.Existing law requires every motor vehicle subject to registration to be equipped with an adequate muffler in constant operation and properly maintained to prevent any excessive or unusual noise and prohibits a muffler or exhaust system from being equipped with a cutout, bypass, or similar device. Existing law further prohibits the modification of an exhaust system of a motor vehicle in a manner that will amplify or increase the noise emitted by the motor of the vehicle so that the vehicle exceeds existing noise limits.This bill would include, among those conditions that are disqualifying, a violation of the above-described requirements related to mufflers and exhaust systems.
CHP PDF here:
https://www.chp.ca.gov/PressReleases/Pages/18-46_CHP_New_laws_2019.pdf [QUOTE]
Certain vehicle exhaust violations no longer correctable (AB 1824, Committee on Budget):
A fine will become mandatory, not correctable, when loud motor vehicles and motor
cycles are cited.
Previously, a driver or motorcyclist who was cited for modified or excessively loud exhaust or
muffler systems could correct the violation to avoid a fine.
A fine will become mandatory, not correctable, when loud motor vehicles and motor
cycles are cited.
Previously, a driver or motorcyclist who was cited for modified or excessively loud exhaust or
muffler systems could correct the violation to avoid a fine.
Last edited by RA40; 01-08-19 at 06:43 PM. Reason: structure edit
01-08-19, 07:25 PM
#35
here is the Bill as written, no mention of the fine amount in the bill anywhere, it appears to me the decision is at the officers discretion, he can make it a correctable equipment violation or not, which has always been the case, I got referee'd in 2005 for loud exhaust, (long tubes, no cats, hi-flow off road mufflers) written as a non-correctable citation.
I think that video is just a LEO that has no clue and is misinterpreting the law to suit his power trip complex.
I think that video is just a LEO that has no clue and is misinterpreting the law to suit his power trip complex.
01-08-19, 10:31 PM
#36
Lead Lap
I'm not trying to get political here but it's funny because the President has been actively trying to get rid of CARB and rollback California's ridiculous emissions standards and is wanting to get them to conform to federal standards which means you can do whatever you want to your car. California has so much power that manufacturers are forced to abide by their standards for new vehicles which increases the cost of new vehicles by several thousand dollars. There's a lot of interesting articles online everybody should look at. I also saw somewhere that after 2020 whatever emissions come out of your exhaust will have such a minuscule effect on climate change that it does more harm than good to have these strict emissions standards. So I wonder what all the car enthusiasts would say if he actually gains some ground on this fight and the media gives it some attention.
Car mfgs are on board with cali, last i heard, heck they even mentioned the previous mpg targets that are on the chopping block were already achievable.
noise ordinance are totally a different animal.
01-08-19, 10:52 PM
#37
Tech Info Resource
iTrader: (2)
There's a paucity of reliable information about anthropogenic global climate change. Those claiming a lock on the truth are as unreliable as the folks telling us saturated fats cause heart disease when the truth is, sugar kills. MPG targets are always achievable, but at what cost? Almost as short sighted as saying electrics are the salvation when powering them uses fossil fuels; primarily natural gas these days.
01-08-19, 11:14 PM
#38
Lexus Test Driver
Sooo... what if we have performance exhausts from factory?
Like what taktiks mentioned, all the M cars, F cars, super cars will come LOUDer than usual from factory.. Guess its going to the junkyard?
Like what taktiks mentioned, all the M cars, F cars, super cars will come LOUDer than usual from factory.. Guess its going to the junkyard?
01-08-19, 11:32 PM
#39
Ill bite, published, peer reviewed scientific journal article source?
Car mfgs are on board with cali, last i heard, heck they even mentioned the previous mpg targets that are on the chopping block were already achievable.
noise ordinance are totally a different animal.
Car mfgs are on board with cali, last i heard, heck they even mentioned the previous mpg targets that are on the chopping block were already achievable.
noise ordinance are totally a different animal.
https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.do...-26_deis_0.pdf
01-09-19, 12:54 AM
#40
Lead Lap
There was a report from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration stating it. There are articles all over the internet from media sources that both support and hate the president citing that part from this report as well so I'm assuming its in there somewhere, I'm just too lazy to spend the time to pinpoint exactly where it is because there's like a thousand pages in this thing.
https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.do...-26_deis_0.pdf
https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.do...-26_deis_0.pdf
1) new vehicles will be cheaper to buy
2) owners with older, less eco friendly vehicles will scrap their old models and pick up "cheaper new models"
3) The increase in fuel consumption by these newer vehicles will force owners to drive less
.....I dont mean to seem confused, but damn, these assumptions are longer then the travels Harden gets away with...
The main thing, here is, if the tech exists to improve the qoL, in any shape possible, better FE, more power, stretch those $$$s for the loudest exhaust fund....idk I`d be up for the better exhaust fund over the random assumptions of me driving less
01-09-19, 03:56 AM
#41
It all comes down to CA (and many other states, countries etc) needing new sources of revenue to fill the gaps from our wonderful politicians to pay for their ever increasing promises and obligations. Simple as that.
As for “global warming/ climate change” be sure to think for yourselves on this one...it is not settled science, as very little science is truly settled and almost all of global warming research is government funding (and the politicians are already bought into global warming, so there is essentially no funding or tolerance of alternative research) of scientists who have staked their reputations and careers on a hypothesis very early on and now have no recourse. I am a scientist and sitting with my peers I would never dare to question “climate change” which on its own is completely against the scientific process. But, I hear arguements from world class scientists about how warm the last two years have been. Two years? Really? I remember 4 winters in a row in the 90s where there was no snow in MD...Not to mention there have been many faults in the scientific process with climate data, embarrassing retractions and corrections in the biggest scientific journals. To be honest, as a scientist it is scary to see this lack of adherence to the scientific process-it’s dangerous.
My favorite (simple) prop in this debate is a photo of two Time magazine covers, one from 1987 and one from a couple of years ago. The one from 1987 had a caption of how to prepare for the coming ice age that was going to kill us all (and an ice age truly would be much worse for humanity) and then in 201X the cover was of a polar bear on melting ice and how we were all going to die from global warming (now called climate change so that it can explain any weather anomaly). Really, the Earth has been around for how long and in the span of 30years we’ve nearly all died from both an ice age and a hot spell? How many ice ages and warming periods were there before people (answer is plenty)? How high did CO2 go in periods before man (answer is way higher than it is now)? In the next ten years we are entering into a solar minimum and it’s will be interesting to see what happens - if the mainstream is allowed to know the truth.
I’m 100% all for cleaner energy etc. No problem with that at all. But, politics and science should not be so closely in bed with each other if we ever want to know the truth. Money (ie funding) will make people, even scientists, behave in ways they shouldn’t behave.
Light reading for the morning
As for “global warming/ climate change” be sure to think for yourselves on this one...it is not settled science, as very little science is truly settled and almost all of global warming research is government funding (and the politicians are already bought into global warming, so there is essentially no funding or tolerance of alternative research) of scientists who have staked their reputations and careers on a hypothesis very early on and now have no recourse. I am a scientist and sitting with my peers I would never dare to question “climate change” which on its own is completely against the scientific process. But, I hear arguements from world class scientists about how warm the last two years have been. Two years? Really? I remember 4 winters in a row in the 90s where there was no snow in MD...Not to mention there have been many faults in the scientific process with climate data, embarrassing retractions and corrections in the biggest scientific journals. To be honest, as a scientist it is scary to see this lack of adherence to the scientific process-it’s dangerous.
My favorite (simple) prop in this debate is a photo of two Time magazine covers, one from 1987 and one from a couple of years ago. The one from 1987 had a caption of how to prepare for the coming ice age that was going to kill us all (and an ice age truly would be much worse for humanity) and then in 201X the cover was of a polar bear on melting ice and how we were all going to die from global warming (now called climate change so that it can explain any weather anomaly). Really, the Earth has been around for how long and in the span of 30years we’ve nearly all died from both an ice age and a hot spell? How many ice ages and warming periods were there before people (answer is plenty)? How high did CO2 go in periods before man (answer is way higher than it is now)? In the next ten years we are entering into a solar minimum and it’s will be interesting to see what happens - if the mainstream is allowed to know the truth.
I’m 100% all for cleaner energy etc. No problem with that at all. But, politics and science should not be so closely in bed with each other if we ever want to know the truth. Money (ie funding) will make people, even scientists, behave in ways they shouldn’t behave.
Light reading for the morning
Last edited by Jz39; 01-09-19 at 04:19 AM.
01-09-19, 08:27 AM
#42
Unfortunately if you get a citation, even for a stock exhaust, you're guilty until proven innocent. You'd have to waste money on a state ref exhaust noise test and court fees to prove your exhaust is legal--every time you get a ticket. The state ref should provide you with a noise level certification each time they test you, which you can show the cops on subsequent pull overs but they are not required to let you get away without a ticket since you could have changed your exhaust since you last got tested. If they are nice, they will let you go, but if not, they will likely just send you back to the ref again.
01-09-19, 09:46 AM
#44
Lexus Champion
Thanks I finally found it, there is another thread on it:
https://www.clublexus.com/forums/is-...l#post10404147
and the verbiage of the final draft of the says no such thing that is can't be a fix it ticket, it leaves it at the discretion of the officer, which has always been the case, I got nailed for this in 2005 and the officer decided it was not correctable and checked the box on the ticket.
The law states the officer will issue a correctable violation UNLESS specific disqualifying factors are present.
The CHP documentation is the CHP declaring as a policy that all officers will make it non-correctable, as a policing agency they are taking the decision out of the hands of the officer and have created a policy to enforce the fines, other departments may or may not do this.
I believe that the CHP in this case is in violation of the law and how it is written and I wouldn't be surprised to see if someone or some organization challenges this policy as the law specifically requires disqualifying factors to be present before it can be written as a non-correctable violation.
Should be interesting to see how this plays out, I have to say there is more misinformation and misunderstanding about this law than I have seen in awhile.
https://www.clublexus.com/forums/is-...l#post10404147
and the verbiage of the final draft of the says no such thing that is can't be a fix it ticket, it leaves it at the discretion of the officer, which has always been the case, I got nailed for this in 2005 and the officer decided it was not correctable and checked the box on the ticket.
The law states the officer will issue a correctable violation UNLESS specific disqualifying factors are present.
The CHP documentation is the CHP declaring as a policy that all officers will make it non-correctable, as a policing agency they are taking the decision out of the hands of the officer and have created a policy to enforce the fines, other departments may or may not do this.
I believe that the CHP in this case is in violation of the law and how it is written and I wouldn't be surprised to see if someone or some organization challenges this policy as the law specifically requires disqualifying factors to be present before it can be written as a non-correctable violation.
Should be interesting to see how this plays out, I have to say there is more misinformation and misunderstanding about this law than I have seen in awhile.
Last edited by mjeds; 01-09-19 at 09:53 AM.
01-09-19, 11:21 AM
#45
typical california doing stupid things.
what makes me mad is i can already bet that they won't be stopping loud $@! harleys and the stupid lifted trucks with the Cannon sized exhausts on the back.
it is 100% just a money grab law, like so many others.
i've seen on facebook ALOT of the 250/350/300 crowd and freaking out and selling their exhausts now.
what makes me mad is i can already bet that they won't be stopping loud $@! harleys and the stupid lifted trucks with the Cannon sized exhausts on the back.
it is 100% just a money grab law, like so many others.
i've seen on facebook ALOT of the 250/350/300 crowd and freaking out and selling their exhausts now.