State vs aftermarket exhaust [Text View]

WormGod

08/15/2006, 06:38 AM

Totally forgot to mention this, but last month, I was pulled over by a "state" cop who issued me a work order to change my exhaust. I have the PV1 and it is hardly annoying. Far from it, especially after they are broken in. ANyways, he gave me a song and dance about the use of an aftermarket exhaust in the state of MD and the noise issue involved. WTF! I did some hunting around and could not come up with a single law/issue involving the state of Maryland vs aftermarket exhausts. Did we go the same route that Mass did and simply did not "notify taxpaying citizens" of Maryland of this new change? The cop was hardly sympathetic and offered no information except to say "look into the laws before you go making modifications to your vehicle". ppffttt

Anyways, I got the legal workorder to get the exhaust changed out and I have 30 days to send in the signed order. The shops I spoke to said they have no clue what law this falls under. The police friends I have said they arent sure of any exhaust laws. So.... I guess its off to court I go. Trying to see if I can get a rep from SEMA to accompany me. That would rule.

Unless I can find some legal document or state code that validates this, I must fight the power!

kpaske

08/15/2006, 07:12 AM

WG -

Check with the MVA headquarters up in Glen Burnie(SP?) before you go getting your exhaust changed out. If it still works the way it used to, those are the folks you have to get reinspected by, so they are required to know the appropriate laws and have the authority to cancel your ticket.

I had a similar incident occur to me in the great state of Merryland a few years back. I was pulled over and given a ticket for having tint that was too dark on the rear window of a pickup. WTF? It was behind the driver, and I had both mirrors. I knew the law, the cop didn't. Guilty until proven innocent. I had to take a half day off work and drive up to GB just to confirm that I was in the right and have the ticket cancelled.

Unfortunately I am not sure what the law is in MD regarding loud exhaust. Have you tried checking with a shop that does aftermarket exhausts? Those guys should know the laws.

KP

WormGod

08/15/2006, 08:56 AM

I talked to 2 shops that do exhausts. They couldnt make any sense out of it and said my exhaust was very tame compared to 90% of what is out there. And I agree with them. I htink this cop just felt the need to put on his big boy pants and push a littel weight around, cause when not in his squad car, he is probably driving a brown '79 Toyota Corrolla.

I am looking more into the matter. I refuse to take the PV off when they let millions of ricers speed around with their Mr Coffee pipes.

etlsport

08/15/2006, 09:43 AM

definately challenge that, i lived in maryland since i was born til i turned 18.. and have heard many many many exhausts louder than a PV.. there were a couple guys in my neighborhood who would drive down the street a gear too low to see how many car alarms they could set off around 11-12 at night...

yeah, ive been pulled over for windows being tinted too dark... lucky for me, there happened to be a friend of mine in the squad car.. cop still said that if they couldnt recognize my face the windows were too dark, so i had to take it off and tint it again a little lighter (35% is legal i think)

kpaske

08/15/2006, 10:20 AM

The law enforcement standards in Maryland have always left something to be desired in my opinion. The fact is, a police officer is not required to know the law to issue tickets, and I, a law abiding citizen, have been inconvenienced more than once because of it. On the other hand, I understand they've got a tough job, so regardless of my previous experiences I try to remember that. What you said about the tint reminded me of something that I read recently that made some sense. I'm not sure if it would work in Maryland, but I've been told that here in Washington, the biggest issue police have with tint is when they can't see what the driver is doing because it puts them on the defensive. The recommendation around here is to roll down your window and turn on your dome light immediately after pulling over, before the cop even gets out of the car. Popular opinion seems to be that they won't mess with you about your tint as long as you display these "submissive behaviours". ;Db;

creeg

08/15/2006, 10:41 AM

Kpaske,
I live in Los Angeles, so you can imagine the defensive behavior of Law Enforcement out here.

Another good piece of advice is to put your hands on the steering wheel until they ask for your license: if you immediately start rummaging in your pockets and glove box, who knows what you are reaching for.

rowhard

08/15/2006, 05:37 PM

Good luck, hope you win this battle with little hassle to your life and wallet. But in the end, IF you have to get rid of of the PV, might be interested in taking it off of your hands since I guess you can't get them anywhere anymore.

The only thing the P.D's. in Washington State are concerned with is speeding, the hell with anything else that has to do with traffic safety. But then, that probable applies to the rest of the colonies.

Maugan_VX

08/15/2006, 05:57 PM

WG: Thats BS.

My friend had straight pipes on his Z71 over on the Eastern Shore, and never had a problem.

Hell, half the bubbas in my hometown of Easton would be getting tickets everyday if what the state patrolman said is true.

Ruflyf

08/15/2006, 06:48 PM

That sucks, but just to give you some fighting arguements (providing the judge doesnt just call the cop a dumb asz!

1) Do any cops suffer any hearing loss? (loud sirens, etc, I think so)
2) If there is a law, there must be an "accurate" way of enforcing it. Meaning a decibal meter would need to be used.
3) Personally I dont think there is a chance in hell of you losing this case, even if there is a law.

GL

tbigity

08/15/2006, 09:11 PM

i cannot offer you any words of advise but rather just state that I think it is craziness man...fight it all the way.

I cant imagine that being a law. Here in OK we have something similar but I think it is mostly for

A) Those "good ole boys" who get glasspacks, run em hot, then hose the muffler so they shatter and have that harley-3-feet-from-your-ear roar to them

and B) so they have an excuse to pull you over and check out what you go going on in the cab. They nevver issue anything more than a warning for "faulty equipment" or something...but never actually having you go get it worked on.

:rolleyes:

Ruflyf

08/16/2006, 04:28 AM

Actually if u really want to have a strong case, get your hands on a decibal meter, go to the local Harley Dealership and take a few comparisons. I am sure the dealership would be glad to help, being how they admire loud exhaust systems. I dont think the judge is really gonna wanna shut down a Harley Dealership. Just my 2cents

Navigator

08/16/2006, 08:41 AM

The inspection order just means you need to get your vehicle inspected to see if it is in compliance, the officer is not judge, jury, and executioner, he just sent you to verify if everything is AOK. So take it in for inspection to reveal what is "legal" the inspector will know. Get a lawyer for some heads up before you go if you like. Dosen't mean you are guilty of anything, just that your rig looks or sounds "suspicious" :smilewink

kpaske

08/16/2006, 09:16 AM

Yes, to reiterate my original point, this isn't likely something that will "go to court". An inspection order gives you 30 days to prove that your vehicle is in compliance with all of the local laws, and if not, to make the appropriate repairs.

Call up the MVA in Glen Burnie and ask them how they determine whether your VX is in compliance or not. They have folks from the State PD who are trained to inspect your vehicle and have the authority to pass or fail you (unlike the patrolman who issued you the ticket).

WormGod

08/16/2006, 01:04 PM

Better yet....

Took it for the inspection this morning. Sucks that I had to pay for it, but whatever, if it clears me, so be it. Anyways, the VX passed in all aspects. I didnt tell them I had a work order, but that I just wanted an inspection for "my sake". There wasnt even a mention of the exhaust (as I didnt even mention it was the concern). I THEN told them why I had them inspect it. The tech, Martin, looked at the order and then asked what sort of exhaust it was. He, of course, had never heard of a PowerVault, but said it didnt cause any fume or noise concern. He looked a few more things over like the catalytic and tailpipe and just shrugged. He had no idea what the state cop was thinking. He told me, there ARE a few ordinances concerning exhausts in MD but they are mostly emissions reliant. Noise is a small concern, but it is not necassarily illegal, unless it it outrageously loud, but that would fall under a basic disturbing of the peace, heh. He signed off on my order and told me to go to court anyways and present that order to the judge as proof that there is nothing wrong or illegal about my exhaust. He had no qualms about the court having his information, as if they would even contact him for whatever, but he wrote it down for me anyways (i guess to prove that he isnt one of those pay-off inspection techs).

So, now I just sit back and wait for my court date. On a plus note, I have to take the VX to emissions this weekend.... and I will take note of what they DONT say when it passes with flying colrs and bring that info to court as well. ;)

etlsport

08/16/2006, 02:57 PM

woo VX conquers all!

morgan-tec

08/16/2006, 05:14 PM

Sounds like the kid that got the ***** beat out of him in high school got himself a badge huh. The only thing i can imagine is that they have some sort of DB regulation. But even then he would need to have metered you to write you a ticket for that. Here in Co i got nabbed for my bike a few years back. The cops were driving around the group of bikes i rode with metering all of us just to be a$$holes. I was the only one that got a ticket, oh well $15 for more hp and noise is a small price to pay. FIGHT THE MAN AND WIN!!!

Hotsauce

08/17/2006, 01:54 AM

There is no way the officer can issue a noise ticket without a measurement, just like he can't issue a speeding ticket without comparrison of your speed to a calibrated device.

Just to say that your truck is louder than others is a purely subjective observation, and in no way accurate.

For a noise ticket to be issued he needs a dB meter AND calibration records for it.

John C.

kpaske

08/17/2006, 09:43 AM

There is no way the officer can issue a noise ticket without a measurement, just like he can't issue a speeding ticket without comparrison of your speed to a calibrated device.That's obviously not true, because he got a ticket, and (as far as we know) the cop didn't use any sort of measuring device. The fact is, it happens all the time in Maryland. Read my previous posts for several other real world examples.

WG - I'm surprised you are going to court at all. Unless the rules have changed all you need to do is go to the Glen Burnie MVA and have the State PD inspect it. It's free (unless you're guilty, of course) and you can do it on your own schedule. I personally wouldn't bother wasting a day in court without first trying to settle it the easy way.

psychos2

08/17/2006, 01:41 PM

In NY it is against the law to modify your stock exhaust. I have been pulled over a few times and have not had anyone tell me my exhaust was too loud. They pull me over to tell me I was going too fast!! But they have never mentioned my exhaust and they were standing next to the vx while it was running. shawn

WormGod

08/18/2006, 06:30 AM

That's obviously not true, because he got a ticket, and (as far as we know) the cop didn't use any sort of measuring device. The fact is, it happens all the time in Maryland. Read my previous posts for several other real world examples.

WG - I'm surprised you are going to court at all. Unless the rules have changed all you need to do is go to the Glen Burnie MVA and have the State PD inspect it. It's free (unless you're guilty, of course) and you can do it on your own schedule. I personally wouldn't bother wasting a day in court without first trying to settle it the easy way.

I simply feel I have a point to prove I guess. Present the facts to the judge and let my case be known. Of course, if there is some SECRET law that has been passed and it is simply not known to priveledged drivers, then I will surely be in for a surprise awakening, haha. Then again, my luck, the cop wont even show up and it will get thrown out.

And no need to go to Glen Burnie. I cop friend told me that I could deal with it at the Gaithersburg DMV. I was told by them that this works like a traffic ticket basically and if they are not mailed a reciept, a court date is mailed to my address and thus, the fun begins. So ya, I feel I have to point to prove somewhere deep down inside of me (probably my colon). :p

kpaske

08/18/2006, 11:47 AM

There's a Full Service MVA in GBurg now? Last time I was living in Maryland they were just opening the new location in Beltsville and the MVA in GBurg was an MVA Express (close to 5 years ago). I'm glad to hear they are expanding so much. I remember the days when a trip to the MVA nearly always involved waiting several hours just to find out that you don't have all the right paperwork, then returning to wait several more hours to found out the previous person was wrong and you still don't have all the right paperwork, rinse and repeat. Seems like that happened every time I went there. And customer service was worse than a Mickey D's in Langley Park. Oh, the memories... :D

JAFO

08/18/2006, 12:08 PM

I simply feel I have a point to prove I guess. Present the facts to the judge and let my case be known. Of course, if there is some SECRET law that has been passed and it is simply not known to priveledged drivers, then I will surely be in for a surprise awakening, haha. ...

Laws are not secret, however, it takes effort on the the citizens behalf to read and keep up on all of the changes. The burden is on the citizen to know the law and obey, not the government to keep the citizens informed.

Also I confired with some of my friends and co-workers, note we are not in the legal field, and one of them said something that I didn't recall. He said that when you apply for your drivers license here in Oregon the paper that you must sign to get your license, amungst other things, states that you acknowlege all driving laws and will obey them.

Hotsauce

08/18/2006, 03:21 PM

In NY it is against the law to modify your stock exhaust. shawn

If this were true, there would be no Mieneke or Midas shops in NY. It is illegal to modify from the cat forward unless theparts have an exemption number, but catback is wide open.

John C.

AlaskaVX

08/18/2006, 05:02 PM

Up here we do have laws about what dB your exhaust can reach. They issue those things left and right but I have never been hasseled with the PV.

tbigity

08/18/2006, 09:56 PM

Laws are not secret, however, it takes effort on the the citizens behalf to read and keep up on all of the changes. The burden is on the citizen to know the law and obey, not the government to keep the citizens informed.

Normally I would agree. I am a law abiding-citizen...pay my taxes, stop at stop signs, never murdered a guy...love the work cops do and respect them. However, as far as keeping up with laws, I must agree and disagree. It is our job to keep informed of them...after all we are the ones that must abide by them. However, I almost think that some enigma is purposefully left in the law.

Here is my case >> when I was underage, I was under the assumption that it was legal to drink IF, and ONLY IF you did so with your parents' consent, and you did not drive for a 24 hour period. Why did I think that? I asked a cop, a member of the executive branch of government, figuring he had to know the law in and out in order to execute it...moreso than a citizen. That was his response, what I mentioned above. However, that raised some concern with some parents who I described it to. So I went back to the same cop (was campus police at my HS). He went as far as to tell me that he was at a local restaurant and a minor requested a drink with his rents' permission. When the manager refused, the cop interjected and told the manager the law, the drink was served. However, my point is this. I have since asked 3 other cops. 2 agree with the first cop to the most part, though they have never mentioned a specific period of time that one must not drive after. The other cop I asked said if you are under 21, the law says you can't drink.

Well, wanting personal clarity (and to drink b4 turning 21) I consulted the OK laws via the state website. All I could find was the first law under the alcohol section stating it is unlawful for anyone under 21 to drink. i have since sent a barrage of emails to the state asking for clarity, non of which have been returned.

Therefore my [conspiracy] theory is that some level of obscurity is in the laws to keep people guessing so that if a cop wants to, he can find a reason, lawful or unlawful, to pull you over/inspect you/question you, whatever he wants to.

tbigity

08/18/2006, 10:01 PM

I also wanted to mention this that is more on line with the thread topic. I can relate WG :

Last time I got pulled over (bout 3 years ago) I was courteous as could be to the officer, like I have been taught. After all, they are just doing there job. However, on that instance [,the last time i got pulled over,] the cop gave me a warning on 2 bogus accounts. Said I was going 3 MPH over (no joke...3!) AND that I ran a yellow light. In 100% honesty, the light went yellow as I was in the intersection. I explained to him that I thought (being not too far out of defensive-driving school) that yellow was safe to pass the intersection, with discernment, as it gave you a warning that red was coming next.

This is the part I love. At that point, he explained to me that if the light is yellow at all, the intersection is "not to be traveled in." And that I "should have known that." My thinking was "if you are not supposed to be in the intersection at all when it is yellow, why not go right from green to yellow?" Point being, the cop just wanted a reason to pull me over. Sub 20 yr old male, driving a nice 05 Jeep (father's)...surely he had to pull me over just for some good ole fashioned demographic profiling, something had to be wrong with that picture. I lost a lil respect for the cops that fall into that category on that day...the kind that follow the typical hard-nosed, jerk ace, don't-let-them-have-fun mentality.

On a side note, later I was talking to a truck driver bud of mine about the situation. He just finished his yearly driving test with the company he worked for and told me that the handbook they have says that if the intersection is yellow when you are in it, and it then turns red you are still legal to pass. The reasoning is that the duration of "yellow" will vary, a substantial amount, from light to light as will the physical size of the intersection. So even if proper discernment puts you smack dab in the middle of the intersection when the light turns red, if you enter it while it is yellow, you are not breaking any laws.

Thus, my point is proven, and I feel that WG has been screwed.

tbigity

08/18/2006, 10:02 PM

HOLY CRAP! Don't turn me loose on a subject I am passionate about. I just realized I wrote a freaking multichapter novel in the last few posts :eek:

etlsport

08/19/2006, 03:29 AM

i always heard similar about being able to drink with your parents being OK.. i always thought it was more of that, 'if its only in our house, whos going to know' sorta thing, not actual law, of course i have never really looked into it either. when it comes to yellow/red lights, i know its legal to go through an intersection on yellow, take left turns while yielding to an oncoming green for ex. if you go halfway out into the intersection and the light turns yellow, you cant just stay there! at least in PA, i think situations like that are more the reason for being able to use yellow to clear the intersection, because yellow light durations are regulated here. when putting a light in, theres a whole bunch of equations that are used to calculate a safe duration for the light to be yellow based on how far away you are when you can first see the light, speed limit on the road, size of the intersection etc. lights are very rarely set up to those specifications though, so if you ever get busted for 'running' a red light, look into that. if you can prove the yellow wasnt long enough, they cant charge you (thats how i learned about all of that stuff, my roommate is a civil engineer and got pulled over for running a light, so i helped him go out and take measurements of the intersection for the calcs.)

kpaske

08/19/2006, 05:46 AM

WormGod

08/21/2006, 07:11 AM

Knowing the law and following the law is more trivial than you think then. If signing a paper to get a permit to drive concludes that you KNOW the law, then nobody, including police, should have a permit. Laws change by the day, and as you can see by all the research I have been doing, it it NOT stated clearly for us to find. Makes you wonder just how many of the DMV manuals are actually up to date even.

I was just about to put an catback on my WRX, that is even approved by Subaru, but this whole ordeal is making me think twice.

And I agree, it is the responsibility to know the laws, but, if the administration is unable to provide literature, or a means for us to keep up to code, I do not think we can be held responsible.

Icekold

08/21/2006, 07:43 AM

Hey WG, I wouldn't sweat it. Go ahead with that catback. I think you just ran into the wrong cop on the wrong day. I say this because in 7 years I've been pulled over a few times in My 3000GT and once in my VX which both have 20% tint that you can barely see through and not a word was said about it. I've seen (and heard) many a ricer with cops in the same general area and have never seen them pulled over for it either.

WyrreJ

08/21/2006, 10:29 AM

Therefore my [conspiracy] theory is that some level of obscurity is in the laws to keep people guessing so that if a cop wants to, he can find a reason, lawful or unlawful, to pull you over/inspect you/question you, whatever he wants to.
Follow the money. It's not set up that way for the cops, they are just a piece of the machine.

Who writes laws? Lawyers. The vast majority of legislators and the lobbyist class are lawyers, although it has not always been that way.

Who makes money when there is a question of law? Lawyers - all 3 parties in court making money are lawyers - counsel for defense, counsel for plantiff and the judge. Even if the issue does not go to court, chances are at least one lawyer gets paid as part of the process - the one who gets consulted by the defendent for advice.

Such a result is the inevitable result of the way the system is set up -- its the equivalent of letting the wolves guard the hen house.

psychos2

08/21/2006, 03:25 PM

If this were true, there would be no Mieneke or Midas shops in NY. It is illegal to modify from the cat forward unless theparts have an exemption number, but catback is wide open.

John C.

Hotsauce, I disagree ! My brother in law is a state trooper. They consider those mufflers to be the same as stock. Here is copy of the law:

" 31. Mufflers and exhaust systems. Prevention of noise. Every motor
vehicle, operated or driven upon the highways of the state, shall at all
times be equipped with an adequate muffler and exhaust system in
constant operation and properly maintained to prevent any excessive or
unusual noise and no such muffler or exhaust system shall be equipped
with a cut-out, bypass, or similar device. No person shall modify the
muffler or exhaust system of a motor vehicle in a manner which will
amplify or increase the noise emitted by the motor or exhaust system of
such vehicle above that emitted by the muffler or exhaust system
originally installed on the vehicle and such original muffler and
exhaust system shall comply with all the requirements of this section. "

Here is a link to the Laws Of NY site : http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menugetf.cgi?COMMONQUERY=LAWS
I think that says it all. In NY it is a no no !!! shawn

Ldub

08/21/2006, 03:33 PM

In WA it is illegal to enter the intersection if it is not clear all the way through, so that left turn where you wait for the light to turn yellow is actually illegal.

Alcohol laws vary from state to state. I remember being served in a restaurant in Tennessee when I was about 10 or 12. We were drinking wine that we brought ourselves (restaurants there could not sell alcohol, but could serve it if you brought it yourself). I got drunk as heck and fell out of my chair in front of everybody. :_beer:

As a youngster back in the mid seventies (18 was the legal drinking age) I was visiting friends in Montana. Much to my suprise, at closing time, if your drink wasn't finished, they gave you a to go cup & sent you on your merry way.
Another thing I noticed while traveling narrow, winding mountain roads on the same trip...there were no guard rails, just little white crosses where people (presumably to go cuppers) had gone over the edge & died.

psychos2

08/21/2006, 03:37 PM

tbigity

08/21/2006, 07:16 PM

Follow the money. It's not set up that way for the cops, they are just a piece of the machine.

I agree in part. While, like I mentioned, they are part of the executive branch and not legislative (to enforce, not create the laws) they still dictate why they pull people over and I doubt the reason do so is to give some "suit" more padding in his pockets. As was my point, if a cop wants to do so, he will find something to pull you over for. As has been mentioned, could have been the wrong cop on the wrong day. Just like a cop will let a group of 5 speeders all in-tow go by him and only nab one of them...the one he thinks there is more reason to pull over. Just looking for a reason. There is a certain mentaility that goes along with being a cop that simply cannot be avoided to some extent. I cannot recount the name of the Professor of Psychology that did the experiement a few years back...studied it in my psyche class. But it took a group of students and isolated them from everything they knew and put them in a hypothetical situation where they were to role play for weeks at a time with no outside contact. Half where the prison guards (cops) and half where the inmates. Keep in mind that these were piers going in...long story short, they were straight up enemies after the study. One of the "cops" had to be taken out of the experiment because he nearly killed one of the "inmates." Keep in mind this was just roleplaying. Some of the "inmates" had to undergo therapy afterward because of the treatment they received from the "cops." The interesting thing was that the study was performed again this time the students that had played "inmates" where now the guards and anew group was brought in for the "inmates." Nearly the same result. Despite having encountered the brutality of the previous group of "guards", the new guards did not learn from the behavior, but rather, that behavior became all they knew of that roll and so, they adopted it.

The point of the study was that there are certain roles in society where the behavior is governmend more by what you think (consciously or subconsciously) that role is supposed to be and not what you want to be in that role.

However, like I previously stated:

love the work cops do and respect them.

nfpgasmask

08/21/2006, 08:05 PM

You think traffic laws are enigmatic?!?! Try making clear sense out of your state's gun laws. Talk about muddy waters...

Bart

However, I almost think that some enigma is purposefully left in the law.

Therefore my [conspiracy] theory is that some level of obscurity is in the laws to keep people guessing so that if a cop wants to, he can find a reason, lawful or unlawful, to pull you over/inspect you/question you, whatever he wants to.

WormGod

08/22/2006, 06:46 AM

Here is a copy of the maryland law:

� 22-402. Mufflers; prevention of noise; discharge of smoke; maximum period of idling.

(a) Mufflers.- Every motor vehicle with an internal combustion engine shall be equipped with an exhaust muffler system in good working order and in constant operation to prevent excessive or unusual noise, and no person may use a muffler cutout, bypass, or similar device on a motor vehicle on a highway. Noise levels in excess of those adopted by the Administrator under � 22-601 of this title are excessive.

(b) Prevention of noise.- A person may not use on the exhaust or "tail pipe" of a motor vehicle any extension or other device to cause excessive or unusual noise.

And here is what the administrator says:

� 22-601. Motor vehicle operation - Establishment of sound level limits.

(a) Administrator to establish limits.- With the endorsement of the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of the Environment and after a public hearing following 60 days' notice, the Administrator shall adopt regulations that establish maximum sound level limits for the operation on the highways in this State of each type of motor vehicle or combination of vehicles.

(b) Scope of limits.- In establishing limits under this section, the Administrator shall:

(1) Consider any noise emission regulations established under federal law for motor carriers engaged in interstate commerce; and

(2) Set the limits at the most restrictive level that, through the application of the best available technology at a reasonable cost, is consistent with attaining the environmental noise standards adopted by the Department of the Environment.

shawn

Ya Shawn, I saw that much, but the "excessive or unusual noise" (makes me think of BubRubb with with wizzah goes WOO WOOOO!) part is vague. It points you in the direction of another state code. And as even the 2 shops said that I went to, they figured the cop just went by a typical "local noise ordinance". But, you can see just how vague it is, especially since there was no meter present at the scene.

Last night I talked to me *cough*EX*cough* who is in a local law firm. She was going to look into it some more for me and see about even getting my inspection fee "reimbursed". I never underestimate the power of lawyers.... especially dirty ones. ;)

As for going with the catback on the WRX, its still in the air. I did cancel my order for it, but its still something I would like to do. My WRX is FAR from a ricer and will never be one, as I have a STRONG hatred for that PepBoys circus crap. With the Cobb SS catback, the WRX sounds more like the PV thanks to the Boxer engine anyways, but with the current "exhaust" issue at hand, I want to finalise this little journey of mine first.

I AM PIONEER! MY JOURNEY SHALL MAKE A MARTYR OF ME! *we all know i will end up at the bottom of a river with concrete shoes* ;)

kpaske

08/22/2006, 07:29 AM

The interesting thing was that the study was performed again this time the students that had played "inmates" where now the guards and anew group was brought in for the "inmates." Nearly the same result. Despite having encountered the brutality of the previous group of "guards", the new guards did not learn from the behavior, but rather, that behavior became all they knew of that roll and so, they adopted it.

OR perhaps what they learned was that the system dictates (or at a minimum, encourages) a certain behavior.

tbigity

08/22/2006, 11:23 AM

that was the neat thing about this...it was technically out of the system. Granted, that mentality could have been furnished by the system, but the only stimulus they had was what was going on in their heads. The only instruction they were given was "these students are guards, these are the inmates." Kinda like a "we become what we know and nothing more" thing. If nothing else it just showed the human reluctancy to change :-/

kpaske

08/22/2006, 03:05 PM

I think it more likely highlights some of the natural tendencies of human beings who are placed in extremely unbalanced positions of power.

Then again, maybe they just behaved the way they thought inmates and guards were supposed to act based on previous experience (i.e. movies, tv, etc). It would be hard to eliminate this effect from the equation.

But we're getting off topic... ;Db;

WyrreJ

08/22/2006, 06:00 PM

Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
http://www.prisonexp.org/

When I was in 3rd grade, in public school, our teachers made us do a very similar thing. The entire grade of a couple of hundred kids in 7-8 classes was divided in half - kids who had to wear big construction paper blue collars and those who did not have to wear them. The blue collared were "bad" and the others were "good." The "bad" had to sit at their desks, be silent and do nothing as punishment for being "bad" while the good got to play games and stuff - any bad kids who did not behave got sent to "solitary." At various points in the day, the good and the bad got to interact with much more mild results than zimbardo got, but definitely along those lines.

Then after lunch break, the roles were reversed.

I remember being sent to "solitary" for just trying to find out WTF was going on.
And I remember after lunch when we switched roles and no longer had to wear a blue collar, just being so grateful that it was over that I didn't question why I was now "good" when I had been "bad" before.

Then, for the last hour or so of class, the collars came off and no one was "good" or "bad" and they had us all talk about the experience. It was probably one of the biggest, most clear-cut formative experiences of my youth. It taught me that 'authority' does not deserve respect simply for being authority and that societal or group beliefs (or prejudices) of what is "good" and "bad" are just as likely to be false as they are to be correct.

WormGod

08/23/2006, 06:59 AM

So.... my EX said she can "make it go away as if it never happened". I never question lawyers and their Weirding Ways, and it sounds good to me, but I kind of relish the idea of going to court to make a stand and made my point of view heard. Although, my EX, who knows me quite damned well, said that the way I state my case (any case, to anyone, anywhere), she will be posting my bail to get me out for a Contempt ruling, heh. She is um... quite right though. Hell, I was found in contempt years ago just for fighting a traffic ticket! So ya, I should think about it.

tbigity

08/23/2006, 05:18 PM

Then again, maybe they just behaved the way they thought inmates and guards were supposed to act based on previous experience (i.e. movies, tv, etc). It would be hard to eliminate this effect from the equation.

I suppose I was unclear, because that was my point. In many, MANY fewer words. Can you start writing my posts for me? :cool:

tbigity

08/23/2006, 05:21 PM

wyrrej: ZIMBARDO! THANK GOD!!! I tore my psyche books to shreds trying to find that. Thank you! Though I do think that is a bit deep for 3rd graders. You must have been a step above theothers for it to have made that big of a lasting impression on you, props!

Wormgod: I totally agree. It goes beyond just getting the matter taken care of. Go for it, man...take the stand. You have come this far and bent over backwards for them, might as well get some gain out of it all

kpaske

08/23/2006, 10:26 PM

I suppose I was unclear, because that was my point. In many, MANY fewer words.Well, the point of the whole experiment, or at least what I read in the links that WyrreJ posted, was to show that the behavior of the participants was dictated by the situation, and not some predisposition in the individual. If you believe the argument that they were behaving based on some preconceived notion of how they were expected to behave, it sort of invalidates the experiment. Personally I think it was probably a combination of the two effects, but I think there is still some validity to what Zimbardo was trying to prove.

WyrreJ

08/24/2006, 03:25 AM

wyrrej: ZIMBARDO! THANK GOD!!! I tore my psyche books to shreds trying to find that. Thank you! Though I do think that is a bit deep for 3rd graders. You must have been a step above theothers for it to have made that big of a lasting impression on you, props!
No, not so deep, just a "formative experience" - it was about shaping the character of a young and impressionable mind, not analytical thinking. It's only in retrospect as an adult that I can describe some of the effects it had on my development.

kpaske

08/24/2006, 07:34 AM

No, not so deep, just a "formative experience" - it was about shaping the character of a young and impressionable mind, not analytical thinking. It's only in retrospect as an adult that I can describe some of the effects it had on my development.I'm not sure you ever really said how the experiment affected your young impressionable mind. Care to share?

tbigity

08/24/2006, 09:18 AM

Well, the point of the whole experiment, or at least what I read in the links that WyrreJ posted, was to show that the behavior of the participants was dictated by the situation, and not some predisposition in the individual. If you believe the argument that they were behaving based on some preconceived notion of how they were expected to behave, it sort of invalidates the experiment. Personally I think it was probably a combination of the two effects, but I think there is still some validity to what Zimbardo was trying to prove.

True to an extent. However, if they were simply stuck in a situation and told "you are guards you are inmates", nothing would happen. They would mill about, bumping into each other "oh, hello inmate #2"..."yes, yes, how is every little thing guard #5."

Without preconceived behavioral patterns, they would not have known where to begin. The only thing the situation dictated was their label or class.

This is studied along with the freudian lessons...all about the subsconscious. Point being that even if you want to do something different, humans have an overwhelming tendancy to do what their subconscious tells them to do, IE all it knows to do based on experience either 1st person or 2nd hand. Thus predisposition is the main controlling factor in this case.

WyrreJ

08/24/2006, 10:21 AM

I'm not sure you ever really said how the experiment affected your young impressionable mind. Care to share?

Mostly just a visceral version of the effects I described. It was a really surreal day (although I didn't even know that word back then) - if the people in authority (teachers) could arbitrarily define who was "good" and who was "bad" (especially the flip-flop during lunch) then those terms don't mean anything deep, just the likes and dislikes of the people in charge. And since all of us followed along in large part with barely any questioning, that just because "everybody else" thought something was good/right doesn't mean it was, may actually mean it wasn't.

For example, as a kid I never understood all those commercials on tv that would proudly proclaim their product as being the most popular or the highest selling, or most preferred brand of whatever product it was. Seemed to me that would be a prime reason to avoid the brand - or at best neutral.

In retrospect my experience during "blue collar day" was probably a big reason I saw things that way since I had experienced just how easily people (well kids, but they were regular people to me since I was a kid too) could be convinced en masse to believe and do whatever they were told.

I remember from the discussion after the collars came off that the teachers were interested in focusing on prejudice and ethnic discrimination and how arbitrary it was, we might have been talking about south africa in social studies at the time. In Hawaii (where I grew up) ethnic discrimination is a whole different kind of thing than it is here on the mainland - a lot more complex and definitely not "black & white" or even "brown & white" like it has become here on the mainland. So I'd already had enough experience on the short-end of the racial stick that the discrimination focus wasn't anything special - getting the crap beat out of me after school just for being haole had already taught me that particular lesson.

FWIW, I misspoke earlier, it was 4th grade, not 3rd.

AREA 51

08/24/2006, 11:47 AM

Let the ex make it go away. You won't lose a work day and pay. If you wanted to go to court, the purpose should be to make the officer look like the dork he is, using a cross examination and line of questioning, but do you really want to do that and possibly cross his path again in the future?

With the ex's way, the officer might just be left wondering... wha happn'd??? and if you cross paths again, you can remind him of this.

kpaske

08/24/2006, 12:26 PM

tbigity -

Psychology is a very complex "science", which often can't be studied using black & white "scientific" methods, which leads to many questions about the intention of and conclusions drawn by the experiment. Unfortunately I couldn't find a complete write up of Dr. Zimbardo's original experiment to determine exactly what his hypotheses were, but http://www.prisonexp.org has a pretty decent write up. It states:
What happens when you put good people in an evil place? Does humanity win over evil, or does evil triumph? So as I suspected, the experiment was intended to show what happens pyschologically when you put average, healthy, normal males into a typical "prison" scenario. While Zimbardo did give the participants some freedom to decide how to do their jobs, he clearly modeled much of the experiement on typical prison life.
The guards were given no specific training on how to be guards. Instead they were free, within limits, to do whatever they thought was necessary to maintain law and order in the prison and to command the respect of the prisoners. The guards made up their own set of rules, which they then carried into effect under the supervision of Warden David Jaffe, an undergraduate from Stanford University. They were warned, however, of the potential seriousness of their mission and of the possible dangers in the situation they were about to enter, as, of course, are real guards who voluntarily take such a dangerous job.But they certainly weren't given a clean slate. The experimental prison was designed, by Zimbardo, to have many of the physical, emotional, and psychological effects of a real prison.
At 2:30 A.M. the prisoners were rudely awakened from sleep by blasting whistles for the first of many "counts." The counts served the purpose of familiarizing the prisoners with their numbers (counts took place several times each shift and often at night). But more importantly, these events provided a regular occasion for the guards to exercise control over the prisoners. At first, the prisoners were not completely into their roles and did not take the counts too seriously. They were still trying to assert their independence. The guards, too, were feeling out their new roles and were not yet sure how to assert authority over their prisoners. This was the beginning of a series of direct confrontations between the guards and prisoners.Note that the guards were told that they must "assert authority" and "command respect" of the prisoners. How does one impose rules on those who are known to have previously broken the rules? I think that is a key question in this whole experiment. How ELSE could the guards and prisoners have behaved, given the situation that Zimbardo created?
After half a day of this treatment, the guards then took some of these "good" prisoners and put them into the "bad" cells, and took some of the "bad" prisoners and put them into the "good" cell, thoroughly confusing all the prisoners. Some of the prisoners who were the ringleaders now thought that the prisoners from the privileged cell must be informers, and suddenly, the prisoners became distrustful of each other. Our ex-convict consultants later informed us that a similar tactic is used by real guards in real prisons to break prisoner alliances. For example, racism is used to pit Blacks, Chicanos, and Anglos against each other. In fact, in a real prison the greatest threat to any prisoner's life comes from fellow prisoners. By dividing and conquering in this way, guards promote aggression among inmates, thereby deflecting it from themselves.Which brings me back to my original point. Their behavior was dictated by the situation they were put in. They weren't told exactly how to do their role, but the roles were fairly clearly defined for them by Dr. Zimbardo (and not so much by preconceived ideas like I suggested previously and you seem to be supporting).

WyrreJ -

I think the experiment you participated in was actually much more telling than Zimbardo's. When you take a bunch of 4th graders who are still developing their own sense of "right and wrong", and tell them someone is "bad", they have much less of an ability to analyze the situation and will tend to react in the same way they would to other "bad" people without thinking about it. Unfortunately, I think even 4th graders have already started to develop some prejudices about who is "good" and "bad" (though notably less than the college students in the Zimbardo experiment). What is great about your experience is that the lesson was taught before the prejudices had become too "engrained", allowing the more thoughtful students to reflect on the situation and come to the same conclusions that you did.

I too had the good fortune of growing up as a discriminated minority for part of my formative years which has had a tremendous effect on how I view other people, especially those very different from myself. While the "discrimination" isn't necessarily a good thing, it's very healthy to be able to see a situation from multiple points of view.

tbigity

08/25/2006, 07:22 AM

Which brings me back to my original point. Their behavior was dictated by the situation they were put in. They weren't told exactly how to do their role, but the roles were fairly clearly defined for them by Dr. Zimbardo (and not so much by preconceived ideas like I suggested previously and you seem to be supporting).

Well, I suppose then we are ill-equipped for the discussion at hand. Non of us being authorities on the matter. We took an in-depth study of this in one of my psychology classes and I am realting what the findings where in the "zimbardo kit". It was something my professor got her hands on...not sure of where, could have been zimbardo's group. In any event, the point made then, is the point that still makes the most sense to me: behavior is dictated by how you think it should be executed.

It was an experiment. Like any experiment, it had its controls and its variables. Being 4 years out of psychology, I suppose I forgot some of the finer points of their instruction from Zimbardo. But never were they told how to brutalize the inmates. As you read it no doubt you read how they got down right violent with them iirc.

My point is, I changed my major from psych and you are getting your information from an internet writeup...neither is really equipped to debate one of the most major psychological studies of our day. Especially when we are approaching the information no doubt trying to find evidence that supports our theories.

Like I said, I am not saying this is what it shows to me...I am saying this is what the professors said it was highlighting and all the evidence at the time pointed to the same conclusion.