|
|
|
Cases on sound violation
 |
 |
 |
||||||
 |
Page 2 of 3: (obs: This issue has been updated after my personal appeal to and by the post actions of the San Francisco Taxicab Commission) and time of violation. From my research, I picked up only a small fraction of the reality of the brake violations. The actual reality is a lot worse than this. Now, let us think about it, first this issue involve 3 persons. 1. A driver 2. A mechanic 3. A purchasing agent. If we take the driver to the City and cite him for the violation, he might present a mechanic report that showed he had entered the car into the shop for a brake fix. In this case is he off the hook?. Not so fast, the driver is the last man on the line and should protest and not drive the car, he still is responsible for it. Then we can take the driver and the mechanic to the City. The mechanic will tell you that it is not his fault, the purchasing agent got him cheap material, he just installed it on the car. Reasoning with the case: The mechanic is accountable for the future performance of the car in which is about to service. Therefore he is responsible to figure out the good from the bad pads and request the purchasing agent to correct the mistake.
|
|
||||||
 |
|
 |
© 2000 - 2004 SoundPollution.org
Images, Illustrations and Intelectual Properties displayed on this website are copyright of the respectives holders.
SoundPollution.org is a non profit organization geared towards research, education and action
on the noise violation issue.