Cars emit smog, Priuses (Prii?) emit smug. 
I’ve been coal rolled on the handcycle. It’s deliberate. I’ve had a couple of these jackasses drive within inches while the passenger tries to snag my flag.
Depends on the laws of the jurisdiction in which the act takes place. Where I live, Canada, there are a couple of Criminal Code charges that would apply: assaultand administering a noxious substance, quite apart from environmental regulations.
You mean there are really people out there that dumb?
Moderator Note
I’ve already issued Hail Ants a mod note for his remarks. I don’t think there’s a need to engage him in debate here. If you want to address this, please open a new thread in the Pit. Let’s get back to the question in the OP regarding the legality of the practice.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Diesel exhaust inescapably contains soot and NOx; even with EPA-standard aftertreatment, diesel exhaust will contain a greater fraction of these components than gasoline-engined car exhaust. Each diesel soot particle is like a microscopic sponge, and it soaks up unburned and partially-burned fuel. When you inhale diesel exhaust, the fine size of the particles lets them reach deep into your lungs - where they get stuck, and release their toxic payload.
Even absent its toxic properties, inhalation of fine dust can eventually lead to pneumoconiosis - although this generally isn’t a concern outside of occupational/chronic exposure.
Thanks. I really am curious whether this - the deliberate spewing of large, dense clouds of diesel smoke directly onto unsuspecting pedestrians - fits the legal definition of assault.
Apparently - and with a flagrant disregard for Latin grammar. (Prius is Latin, but not a second-declension masculine singular and so should not take the -ii plural. But it seems that’s what the public wanted.)
I’m interested in why you think this. Can you point to any actual research or evidence for this?
[I assume you’re not playing deliberately deceiving word games and pretending that the particulates/soot from diesel engines aren’t ‘exhaust’]
The big catch here is that cops typically don’t enforce these kinds of visible pollution laws out of what I suspect are political motives.
If they did, they’d constantly be pulling over Mexicans and black people driving smoking, busted-ass jalopies, and they’d be accused of harassment and targeting and everything else that comes from socio-economic status being coupled with ethnicity in the US.
And, if they pulled over these clowns with the polluting diesels, they’d get pilloried for enforcing the laws against them, and not against the busted-ass jalopies.
Personally, I think they should be draconian against all of them, race be damned; this is certainly a Tragedy of the Commons situation- some broke person’s desire to get to work doesn’t trump everyone else’s need for clean air.
I recall driving cross-country in IIRC it was 1993. Denver had billboards advertising their snitch line to deal with their air pollution problem - “report any car with visible exhaust”. I assume this would cause the owner to get a letter requiring re-certification of their car.
At the very least, as mentioned, these guys are violating state and federal laws about tampering with anti-pollution devices. Many states have annual or similar inspections required.
I’m imagining the direct charges could be dangerous driving, reckless driving or some such at the very least if they do this in close proximity to a cyclist. Police have a pretty large latitude in assessing dangerous driving charges - doing something like spewing smoke that could cause a cyclist to lose control on a busy street, or deliberately driving very close to a cyclist (or motorcyclist), could be construed as dangerous. The same if they got too close to a car, although I suppose spewing an annoying cloud at a car is less of a hazard. Plus, flooring it to get a cloud of soot means erratic speed while driving, also piling on the dangerous-driving charges.
Moderator Warning
I’ve already pointed out that political jabs are not permitted in General Questions, (and racial jabs are even less so). This is an official warning. Stick to the question in the OP without bloviating about your personal prejudices.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
All I can think of re legality is tampering with the emissions control device. That’s illegal, but I’ve never heard of anyone being charged for doing it.
Once while riding my bicycle on a country road in TN, a car passed me and the passenger opened his door and hit me with it. He was deliberately trying to knock me off balance and make me crash. That was assault with a deadly weapon (the car itself). Just FYI, I wasn’t blocking traffic; I was obeying all the laws, riding on the far right edge of the roadway, the road was almost deserted. He ran me off the road but I wasn’t injured.
It seems to me that Coal Rollers are doing just about the same thing. They are deliberately causing a dangerous situation, reducing visibility, and trying to startle people. There’s a significant possibility that their actions could cause someone to lose control and crash. I say Yes, it’s assault.
You feel threatened by people driving smaller, cheaper, cleaner cars than you?
I think you might need to see somebody about that.
To address the OP, they couldn’t be charged with assault for exposing passersby to a known carcinogen. A key requirement of assault is “imminent” harm, not merely “probable”. The same logic you applied to make this an assault would also make cigarette smoking an assault, along with any number of industrial processes that release (varying amounts of) harmful byproducts into the air.
However, it could be considered assault for it’s blinding and cough-inducing effects (particularly the blinding part), especially if the driver specifically targetted a person.
These vehicles are almost certainly no longer road legal for any state with emissions control laws, especially given that they (likely) haven’t had their emissions tested after the modification.
I’ve had a few diesel pickup trucks belch a lot of black smoke on me while riding my bicycle or out for a walk. I just figured that it could be a POS truck that needs a lot of work. It seems that the smoke might be intentional due to a lot of work on the truck!
It might also fall under “de minimis non curat lex”, the idea that minor inconveniences or irregularities are too insignificant for the courts to get involved in and are just part of the cost of living in society. E.g. people don’t get charged with “hit and run” for driving over discarded fast food containers, get charged with assault for shooting someone once with a water pistol, or get charged with theft or embezzlement for taking a cheap ballpoint pen home from work.
In my state, they could be arrested for “assault by contact” which requires only that you cause physical contact with another when you know the other person would consider it offensive or provocative. Unfortunately, it’s only a class C misdemeanor - maximum $500 fine.
Class A assault would require that the victim experiences pain. So if the exhaust caused physical pain, it’d be an “A” - up to one year in jail.
As for diseases you may or may not get in the future, I’m not aware of anything that covers that, as far as the penal code. If there was, though, it would apply to anybody who drives a car, not just diesel trucks.
You win the internet for that, my friend.
It never extended to assault or vandalism – nor to reckless driving, or doing anything that might cause a motor vehicle accident.
They’re not putting you down just by driving the thing. All they’re doing to you is setting a good example. Follow it.