• @RojoSanIchiban
    link
    51 year ago

    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).