Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Woodsy
I am sorry you cannot comprehend HB-1624 as it is written. Skip (an obvious Law Enforcement Officer) offered to educate you privately and you declined. it's probably alot easier for you to think its some sort of conspiracy to make the world louder.
|
This will be my last post on this (unless something new is added). I raised very legitimate and specific questions about obvious concerns with proposed changes to our laws. I understand the language of HB1624 better than you think...apparently better than those of you arguing with me about it. And I am not challenging SAE-J2005...I have read it...I understand it...it is a good measurement technique...safer and easier for our MP. But it does not set the dB limits that are being proposed in this bill. And this bill appears to loosen the dB limits of our existing laws substantially, while doing that under the coattails of an easier/safer measuring technique. Skip's understanding of the flexibility of the bill is obviously not being reflected in the language of the bill. Those who point out obvious flaws in a proposal are not all conspiracy theorists, although calling questioners by names like that seems to be the curious MO of those supporting this bill.
Right now, I have bigger fish to fry. We can look at this again if it gets through committee.