Olde Posts Addenda (8)

  Since all of the news is "breaking" these days, here are some more stories which have broken and are related to older news items in MM.

Muffle the Mufflers
  In a recent post I mentioned that drivers of very noisy vehicles were, in some places, being fined (see: "Traffic Cameras"). I recall that many years ago, some of my buddies would install an extra tailpipe on their cars and on each of them, place glasspack mufflers which were very loud. More recently, a very loud car passed by me and, as it slowed, issued what sounded-like gunshots. It turns out that the noise-making technology these days is much more advanced. If you use it in London, you could be fined.

"Custom Car Owners Can Turn a Switch on Loud Exhausts, Police Say it's Still Illegal: Systems Allow Driver to Adjust Much-hated Loud Muffler Noise, and Avoid Police Attention," CBC NEWS, May 21, 2026.

  "In a video shared on the London Police Service's social media channels, Const. Greg Pearson gets down on his hands and knees and shines a flashlight into the exhaust pipe of an Audi he's pulled over.

  After his inspection, Pearson, who works in the London police's road safety section, gives the owner some bad news and two tickets, totalling fines of $220.

 "The sound emanating from this vehicle is excessive and unusual," he says on the video, using almost the exact wording from the section of Ontario's Highway Traffic Act that covers illegal equipment.

The fine isn't just for the noise.

  During his inspection, Pearson also zeroes in on an electronic device attached to the exhaust pipe. In one setting, the exhaust flows through the muffler and sounds like a normal car. When the driver flips a switch, the muffler is bypassed, and the car suddenly becomes very loud.

   "That's illegal," Pearson tells the driver. "You can't have that on the roadway...."

   Many car hobbyists like to hear the roar of a high-performance engine. Those trying to enjoy a quiet summer evening, however, often complain about excessive noise."

The Great Wine Burglary

   Large quantities of things are often stolen these days and MM  has covered some of the crimes under the heading, "Large Larcenies." My favourite thefts are still, "The Great Huron County Chicken Heist(s)", which have finally been solved. 
  Also ranked very high among my favourites is the theft of just a few bottles of wine, which can hardly be characterized as a "misdemeanour", since one of the bottles cost $24,000. Those are American dollars.
   This great story was probably missed by you since it was buried in this post, "Factlets (21 & 22)", where you will also find some photos of wine lists from restaurants where the corkage fees alone are far more than you would ever pay for a bottle. Go back and have a look at it.

   Last November a couple showed up at  L’Auberge Provençale Inn & Restaurant, which is in Virginia, not France. The woman indicated that she was working on behalf of a wealthy Canadian client who would perhaps book the restaurant. She asked to see the wine cellar. Her accomplice was wearing an unusual overcoat with deep pockets, in which he stashed a few bottles. As they were leaving, the crime was discovered and the couple chased. A few bottles and the woman were caught, but the fellow was last seen at an airport heading for Eastern Europe.
   The fellow may still be in Eastern Europe, but the wines have found their way back to Virginia.  The woman, Natali Ray, pleaded guilty and has been sentenced to 12 months in jail. The missing bottles had been delivered to Ray's lawyer's office. The owners of the wine think the $24,000 bottle of pinot noir is now likely worthless since it was probably improperly stored during the 145 days it was missing. 
"Nobody is going to pay $24,000 not knowing how the wine was kept," Alain Borel said."
    The male suspect is likely somewhere in Eastern Europe.

Sources:
  The return of the wine and the recent sentencing were reported in The Washington Post: "A $24,000 Bottle of Wine Was Stolen Then Returned," Dan Morse, May 18, 2026.

A Bonus Source:

   This story was also picked up by the reporters in the Kent seaside town where Ms. Ray resided, before her great American misadventure. Details about the crime are provided as well as some interesting items about Ms. Ray. The piece by Gerry Warren was found in the Herne Bay Gazette, May 21, 2026.

   "A former Herne Bay guest house owner has been jailed over an audacious fine wine heist at a luxury American restaurant.

   Natali Ray, 57, was sentenced to a year in prison after admitting her role in the distraction theft in Virginia’s Shenandoah Valley, according to The Washington Post.

   The creative writing graduate, who previously lived with her family in a property she had operated as the Bay View Guest House in Herne Bay, admitted grand larceny, possession of burglary tools and defrauding a restaurant or inn.

   The court heard how Ray and alleged accomplice Nikola Krndija posed as representatives of a wealthy Canadian businesswoman interested in booking a lavish dinner at the upmarket L'Auberge Provençale Inn & Restaurant.

   Using the fake name “Stephanie Baker” and wearing a disguise, Ray reportedly distracted sommelier Christian Borel with questions about the wine cellar while Krndija swapped rare bottles with cheaper substitutes, prosecutors said.

   The stolen wines, from the prestigious Domaine de la Romanée-Conti estate in Burgundy, France, were valued at about £30,000.

   Prosecutors said the pair had carefully planned the raid, parking away from the restaurant, using disguises and specially adapted clothing to conceal the bottles.

   Krndija fled and remains wanted, with authorities believing he boarded a flight from New York to Vienna the day after the theft. Ray, however, was apprehended in the restaurant car park.

   Judge Alexander R. Iden sentenced her to a year behind bars, although she is expected to receive credit for about six months already served in custody. Prosecutors had sought a three-year sentence, arguing the theft had involved extensive planning.

   The case took another bizarre twist earlier this year when two of the missing bottles resurfaced after being delivered to Ray’s lawyer’s office by an unidentified man, said to have an Eastern European accent.

   But the restaurant’s owners said the wines had effectively lost much of their value because there was no way to prove they had been stored correctly during the 145 days they were missing.

  Before moving to Kent, Ray had been raised in Leicester and later started a charity for orphans while living in an area affected by the Balkan refugee crisis, court filings stated.

   The filings also stated she enrolled in higher education aged 45, earning a first-class degree in creative writing at Canterbury Christ Church University and a master’s at the University of Kent in 2019.

   Her defence lawyer told the court Ray had no previous convictions and had spent the past decade battling a rare blood cancer while continuing chemotherapy treatment during her time in jail."

AGEISM

Banning Those in Gen Z and a Few Millennials
   Most arguments about ageism involve attitudes toward the elderly and old age. I noticed recently an example of discrimination involving young people. I will leave it to you to debate the legal and ethical implications of not allowing those under the age of 30 to enter a restaurant. Here are some examples:

"A D.C. Cafe is Banning Patrons Under 30. Is It Legal?", Emily Heil, The Washington Post, Dec. 17, 2024.
"For years, the owners of Café 8, a Mediterranean restaurant and hookah bar in Washington’s Capitol Hill neighborhood, have wondered how they could keep their patrons’ noise down around their establishment, which backs up to a residential neighborhood.
“They park on the front, they blast music, they party in their cars and all those things,” says Elif Sam, who manages the restaurant for her family. Finally, last month, they decided to take a step to attract an older clientele, rather than the younger, rowdier crowds. So they adopted a policy banning patrons under 30 after 8:30 p.m."
As for the legal part, it's complicated as most legal things are and the arguments around age discrimination are numerous.

"Still, while the family introduced the policy to help keep the peace, it might run afoul of D.C. law.
Under federal law, age is not a protected class in service settings the way it is when it comes to employment. And laws that do apply to public accommodations, such as eateries, ban discrimination when it comes to race, religion, national origin or disability status — but not age.
In D.C., though, the Human Rights Act expands the kinds of traits that businesses can’t discriminate against, including age over 18, personal appearance and political affiliation.
“It’s pretty straightforward,” said Andrew Kline, principal of the Veritas Law Firm, who frequently works on cases involving D.C. restaurants. He noted that the D.C. law includes a clause granting exceptions for “business necessity,” such as allowing establishments to ban patrons under 21 to prevent underage drinking. But he questioned whether Café 8’s new rule would meet that standard. “I think making the case that there’s a business necessity for keeping [out people over 21] would be troublesome,” he said."

There are other cases of exclusion elsewhere in the country. For example in St. Louis:

"A Restaurant Wanting a ‘Grown and Sexy’ Vibe Bans Diners Under 30:

At Caribbean restaurant Bliss outside St. Louis, age limits draw support and condemnation," The Washington Post, June 10, 2024.

"When Marvin Pate and his wife opened Bliss, their Caribbean restaurant outside St. Louis, they were aiming for an upscale, luxe vibe. They put jollof rice and tropical cocktails on the menu, offered hookahs for patrons to enjoy — and banned diners under the age of 30.

Since opening its doors in May, the restaurant has operated with an unusual age restriction, allowing in only women at least 30 and men at least 35, rules that the owners have been defending as necessary to maintain the kind of “grown and sexy” atmosphere they’re aiming for. “This policy is in place to ensure a mature, sophisticated, and safe dining environment for everyone,” the restaurant said in a Facebook post."

Some additional examples are offered in the article, but I have not found any Canadian ones, although child-free condos and adult-only developments exist here. 

"Legally, restaurants have the right to impose age limits, because age is not a protected class in that context. Controversies around age restrictions usually have cropped up when restaurants have banned children. Last year, Nettie’s House of Spaghetti in New Jersey was both rebuked and praised when it banned kids under 10, citing the noise and “crazy messes” they brought.

It’s far less common for such rules to target adults. But there are exceptions: In San Antonio, Horizons & More bills itself as a 30-and-up destination “for the grown & mature.” And in New York, the Auction House cocktail bar imposes a 25-and-up policy on Fridays and Saturdays.

Two years ago, two TikTokers shared a tale of being turned away from Melody Bar & Grill in Los Angeles because they weren’t old enough for the establishment’s 30-plus night. One response to the video seemed to come from someone who appreciated the idea of a 20-something-free zone: “I know it hurts right now, but when you are 30 you’ll understand.”

  Lately we have noticed, when dining out, that restaurants are far too noisy, but generally that is not because of the age of the customers. Still, I am in favour of keeping out noisy people, even those over 30, especially if they carry phones. It also would be great to be able to keep out obnoxious people. I am not sure how one does that, but I am certain that in Canada denying some the right to dine would be problematic, although years ago women were denied entry into many bars. Where I grew up, people of a certain colour could not eat in most restaurants in our small town. I suppose it is best to simply succumb to the self selection process and assume and hope that people of all ages will segregate in a restaurant they choose to be in and that the others won't want to join them. 

ON Beeping

 

   I just indicated that I am attempting to be more productive this month and rather than actually be productive, I will push out another post. In order to do so quickly I will simply state my case and then provide you with supporting sources. My case is again typically contrarian, so if you want sources that undermine my position you will need to find them on your own. 

   I think we should re-think the notion that "backup beepers" or "reverse signal alarms" are beneficial, or beneficial enough to offset the problems created by the noise they generate. We should "Shut the Beep Up!" to put it crudely. 

  It is an oddly ironic thing that my interest in noise has increased as my ability to hear has decreased. At this point a beeper defender could cleverly argue against me by noting that I want them done away with because I can't hear them and would not be saved from being crushed by, say a garbage truck. I could cleverly retort that since I can't hear them, why would I want them outlawed. In fact, what would I care if they were made mandatory and even put on walkers, so when an elderly person backed up, they wouldn't step on my toes.

  But, I can hear well enough that I do care.  I thought about this a few years ago when a construction project on our street meant that there was relentless beeping all day long. I am bringing it up now because summer is coming (only theoretically here in London) and we should soon no longer be hermetically sealed inside. From the patio it would be nice to hear birds rather than beeps. It is also the case that there is more beeping at night by all different kinds of vehicles and that there are proposals to put them on e-cars since we can't hear the motors and need to be warned of their arrival. 

  While I am at it, the beeps and bells that sound to remind you that you left your lights on, or which you activate to let you know that you have locked your car should also be banned. That might make it easier for some of us to support the current proposal to ban handguns.

   There are other options to backup beepers. For example, if you have a new vehicle it probably lets you know when something appears behind your car and doesn't beep loudly, continually,  to let the person outside know you are backing up.  There are also arguments against them, one being that the beeping is so ubiquitous we have become oblivious to it. 

Some Sources: 
   You can begin with the Wikipedia entry for "Back-up Beeper" where you will learn that they were first invented in the late 1960s. This is from the "Criticism" section:

"Back-up beepers have been criticized by the public and in scientific literature. Beepers are at or near the top of lists of complaints to government road builders about road construction noise. There is published concern that due to desensitization and the cry wolf effect people tend to disregard ever-present alarm sounds, diminishing their effectiveness. The normal level of 1000 Hz pure tone beeps at 97-112 decibels, considerably higher than the long-term hearing loss limit of 70 decibels."

One of the notes in that section goes to: Holzman, David C. (2011-01-01). "Vehicle Motion Alarms: Necessity, Noise Pollution, or Both?". Environmental Health Perspectives. 119 (1): A30–A33. The first paragraph says:

"Alarm fatigue or alert fatigue describes how busy workers (in the case of health care, clinicians) become desensitized to safety alerts, and as a result ignore or fail to respond appropriately to such warnings. Alarm fatigue occurs in many fields, including construction and mining (where backup alarms sound so frequently that they often become senseless background noise), healthcare  (where electronic monitors tracking clinical information such as vital signs and blood glucose sound alarms so frequently, and often for such minor reasons, that they lose the urgency and attention-grabbing power which they are intended to have), and the nuclear power field. Like crying wolf, such false alarms rob the critical alarms of the importance they deserve. Alarm management and policy are critical to prevent alarm fatigue."

To learn more about the "Crying Wolf",  see the Wikipedia entry for "Alarm Fatigue."

For a good general source in favour of silence see Noise Free America: A Coalition to Promote Quiet, where this is found:

The New York State Department of Health, after investigating an industrial accident, concluded that back-up beepers were completely ineffective: “Often, people who work near back-up beepers have become accustomed to their sound and desensitized to their use as warning signals.”

See also the interesting: Silence Wiki. 

To answer the very good question - "How many people are killed or injured by reversing vehicles, see a source like this one: Fatalities and Injuries in Motor Vehicle Backing Crashes."

This subject rang a very low-sounding bell for me and I recalled that I recently dealt with noise pollution in my "Advance Noise Alert" which is found in my post about Oddments (1)

Some Canadian Content: 
  They are attempting to deal with this in Ottawa. 

"City Considers Licensing Bylaw for More Ways to Eliminate Noisy Backup Beepers: A Larger Discussion Has Been Happening About Cutting Down Backup Alarm Beeps From Vehicles Doing Overnight Work in Ottawa," Jon Willing, Ottawa Citizen, Dec. 21, 2001.

"The city has been swapping out the beep alert devices with quieter “broadband” devices on parts of its fleet. Coun. Diane Deans got the ball rolling in 2017 when she asked staff to look into the broadband alarms after residents were complaining about the backup beeps from snow trucks in parking lots.

The broadband device emits a focused whoosh sound to the area directly around the vehicle, rather than blasting the surrounding area with a repetitive ear-piercing beep."

The Bonus:

   A while back I did a post about Sound. At the very bottom of it you will find a link to a very quiet place - "One Square Inch - A Sanctuary For Silence at Olympic National Park."