Hamilton Spectator Article - "Sonic Boom"
#11
This looks to be another article bashing young drivers. And why not? The death of the truck driver on the 400 Highway caused by street racing has lost it's hype. (For those of you unaware, Toronto and surrounding media milked this for weeks) Let's find something else to complain about. Surely they don't think they could stop this could they? Car audio and electronics are really nothing new. What is new is that the population has aged. They demise such infernal racket. I have no problem with turning the music down. Especially at 2am or while cruising through town. But how dare you tell me what i can and can't listen to. Blasting your system all night is very rude to your neighbors. That really can't be argued.
Funny how there was no mention of safety in the article. There was no writing of how thumping too loud impairs hearing while driving (i.e. horns and sirens). What about the effect of music on driving. I will drive faster to Metallica's "Battery" or Van Halen's "Hot for Teacher" than i will to something more mellow like Jack Johnson or Pink Floyd when i am on the highway. Will the CRTC start making us listen to EZ-Rock or smooth jazz to numb our senses?
The purpose of this article was simply to stir the pot. A city councellor has decided to try and make a name for himself. A great big one-finger salute goes out to him for trying. There was no mention of a solution, nor was there even solid facts.
Here's what we did learn:
Old people and store owners don't like our cars.
A Hamilton city councellor has stepped forward
EHR does two dozen installs a week
EHR has a $13 000 amplifier
747's are loud
The Hamilton Spectator is getting desperate for articles.
My name is Adam Brenzil and I support boom cars.
Funny how there was no mention of safety in the article. There was no writing of how thumping too loud impairs hearing while driving (i.e. horns and sirens). What about the effect of music on driving. I will drive faster to Metallica's "Battery" or Van Halen's "Hot for Teacher" than i will to something more mellow like Jack Johnson or Pink Floyd when i am on the highway. Will the CRTC start making us listen to EZ-Rock or smooth jazz to numb our senses?
The purpose of this article was simply to stir the pot. A city councellor has decided to try and make a name for himself. A great big one-finger salute goes out to him for trying. There was no mention of a solution, nor was there even solid facts.
Here's what we did learn:
Old people and store owners don't like our cars.
A Hamilton city councellor has stepped forward
EHR does two dozen installs a week
EHR has a $13 000 amplifier
747's are loud
The Hamilton Spectator is getting desperate for articles.
My name is Adam Brenzil and I support boom cars.
#14
Originally Posted by ross_freier
thats awsome... 180 decibels plus, no one has hit 180 to date,
http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/pna/v3/pg/top/cat/article/0,,2076_310069607_362935503,00.html
#16
There's two sides to everything. The other side is that when a car rolls up to you blasting (c)rap, it's not pleasant. When somebody manages to invade your space at home with their boom boom, it's not pleasant. When someone wakes my baby with their noisy car, I'm pretty unhappy.
Should they be stopped from installing the gear? No. Should they try to show a little more respect to others? Yes. Common sense? A thing of the past, it would sometimes seem.
Yes, the article was sensationalistic. But that doesn't mean there isn't a valid point burried in there somewhere.
Creosote.
Should they be stopped from installing the gear? No. Should they try to show a little more respect to others? Yes. Common sense? A thing of the past, it would sometimes seem.
Yes, the article was sensationalistic. But that doesn't mean there isn't a valid point burried in there somewhere.
Creosote.
#17
Very well said Creosote. Your point is valid, however it is still buried VERY deeply within the article. The writer was pushing the grievances of surrounding neighbours more than an effort to create a feasible solution.
It's not very hard to see that the effort must be made by the owner of the vehicle to turn it down. I don't mind at all. I know I've been asked to lower the volume a couple times myself. If the owner would have the courtesy to respect his/her neighbours, there really would be no need for new noise bylaws.
It's not very hard to see that the effort must be made by the owner of the vehicle to turn it down. I don't mind at all. I know I've been asked to lower the volume a couple times myself. If the owner would have the courtesy to respect his/her neighbours, there really would be no need for new noise bylaws.
#19
Originally Posted by Creosote
When someone wakes my baby with their noisy car, I'm pretty unhappy.
#20
Originally Posted by wasted911
But there's the other side of the story, where I can't stand the sound of a baby crying when I am in public. More annoying/irritating to me than a person driving by with a loud stereo. But it's the fact that I can't do anything about it, and I'm not going to ask then to remove their baby from the public place I am at.
But my baby is sleeping in her room, in our house. The noise may come from a public place, but it invades private property.
And by the way, the sound of a baby crying is awful, excepting the one case when it's your own child. That's somehow different.
EDITED TO ADD: I actually agree with you. Unless it's at night, why can't you play loud music out your car? Lord knows there's enough other loud things to compete. But I will say that it's a matter of consideration for others as well.
Finally, the reason for thinking about adding by-laws (whether it's sensible or not) is that there's always someone who will be an inconsiderate ***. You can't reason with them, and they basically ruin it for the rest of us.
Creosote.
Last edited by Creosote; 07-25-2007 at 08:08 PM.