Rolling coal is one of those idiotic expressions of personal freedom things so beloved by the wingnut peanut gallery and we've got quite enough of that already.
Vehicle modifications are, imo, a form of self-expression and should be protected by free speech as long as they don’t compromise the safety of the vehicle or cause it to spew more greenhouses gases than necessary; however, modifying your car in a way that intentionally makes it unsafe or increases pollution is fucking awful.
To put it another way, modifying your engine timings and shoving a turbo in there should be legal even though it will probably increase emissions because the intent is to increase power. Modifying your car to increase emissions just because you can is an asshole move.
I know this opens a loophole regarding intent as people could potentially argue that “rolling coal” somehow increases horsepower (or create a mod that increases horsepower while also dumping shittons of unburnt diesel into the air). However, you could also argue that you don’t need to “roll coal” to increase your truck’s power, and that the modification needlessly increased emissions.
Tbh I kinda think ICE vehicles are going to become the “vinyl records” of Gen Z, alpha, and whatever comes after. Electric cars will be the norm and will be used to get people from A to B, but ICE and hybrids will be something enthusiasts have; and tbh, I’d be willing to bet that in a world where ICE and hybrids are mainly in the hands of hobbists and enthusiasts, the emissions released would be negligible.
To put it another way, modifying your engine timings and shoving a turbo in there should be legal even though it will probably increase emissions because the intent is to increase power. Modifying your car to increase emissions just because you can is an asshole move.
While people in the car community hate CA’s CARB certs, they exist for a reason. If you can prove that your performance parts don’t increase the emissions, CARB has no issue giving the mfg. a certificate that says it’s legal to sell and use in California.
It’s not hard to make big power in a gas or diesel vehicle and not substantially increase emissions. Hell, Gale Banks has been doing diesel performance for decades and he loathes rolling coal.
I’m not entirely sure how to take my more-than-slightly-cheeky response being interpreted so seriously, but I’m happy it’s fostering true thought and discussion on the subject.
My dryer-than-Mojave humor has its moments, at least.
My real take on this would be such that the case of modifications for rolling coal is a widely known “zero gain” modification that accomplishes nothing other than allowing for the forementioned act, and yes, absolutely the off-the-cuff verbage would be changed to ‘modifying for the intent of enabling coal rolling…’ or whatever works linguistically to narrow the scope just to this act.
I did genuinely try to word it in such a manner that someone accidentally doing it with a modified vehicle wouldn’t be at risk of losing their license, but yep, naturally that allows an interpretation of any modification being at odds with the “law” and it’s clear I don’t actually write legislation for a living.
In the grand scheme of things, of course there are totally far, FAR more emissions from otherwise acceptable vehicles than the few that do this, but I’d like to think a majority of sound-minded people see the act as so mind-bendingly douchey, that it deserves to be a crime (and I truly do, for one).
As long as there’s an “and” in there, I agree.
Vehicle modifications are, imo, a form of self-expression and should be protected by free speech as long as they don’t compromise the safety of the vehicle or cause it to spew more greenhouses gases than necessary; however, modifying your car in a way that intentionally makes it unsafe or increases pollution is fucking awful.
To put it another way, modifying your engine timings and shoving a turbo in there should be legal even though it will probably increase emissions because the intent is to increase power. Modifying your car to increase emissions just because you can is an asshole move.
I know this opens a loophole regarding intent as people could potentially argue that “rolling coal” somehow increases horsepower (or create a mod that increases horsepower while also dumping shittons of unburnt diesel into the air). However, you could also argue that you don’t need to “roll coal” to increase your truck’s power, and that the modification needlessly increased emissions.
Tbh I kinda think ICE vehicles are going to become the “vinyl records” of Gen Z, alpha, and whatever comes after. Electric cars will be the norm and will be used to get people from A to B, but ICE and hybrids will be something enthusiasts have; and tbh, I’d be willing to bet that in a world where ICE and hybrids are mainly in the hands of hobbists and enthusiasts, the emissions released would be negligible.
While people in the car community hate CA’s CARB certs, they exist for a reason. If you can prove that your performance parts don’t increase the emissions, CARB has no issue giving the mfg. a certificate that says it’s legal to sell and use in California.
It’s not hard to make big power in a gas or diesel vehicle and not substantially increase emissions. Hell, Gale Banks has been doing diesel performance for decades and he loathes rolling coal.
I’m not entirely sure how to take my more-than-slightly-cheeky response being interpreted so seriously, but I’m happy it’s fostering true thought and discussion on the subject.
My dryer-than-Mojave humor has its moments, at least.
My real take on this would be such that the case of modifications for rolling coal is a widely known “zero gain” modification that accomplishes nothing other than allowing for the forementioned act, and yes, absolutely the off-the-cuff verbage would be changed to ‘modifying for the intent of enabling coal rolling…’ or whatever works linguistically to narrow the scope just to this act.
I did genuinely try to word it in such a manner that someone accidentally doing it with a modified vehicle wouldn’t be at risk of losing their license, but yep, naturally that allows an interpretation of any modification being at odds with the “law” and it’s clear I don’t actually write legislation for a living.
In the grand scheme of things, of course there are totally far, FAR more emissions from otherwise acceptable vehicles than the few that do this, but I’d like to think a majority of sound-minded people see the act as so mind-bendingly douchey, that it deserves to be a crime (and I truly do, for one).