Comments on: UK: Teen-B-Gone noise device a human rights violation?

By: Morias

Morias — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 09:22:58 +0000

I get the feeling that most of the comments are by people who couldn’t hear the sound themselves, and are presuming something that drives teenagers away through volume. This isn’t the case, the device is not so loud, however it is extremely irritating – imagine a constantly buzzing insect.

The actual volume is well within internationally accepted safe levels, so isn’t going to be causing injury.

The main place I can see there being a problem is when someone mounts one on their house and their neighbours’ children are affected by it (yes, here in ol’ England some houses don’t even have double glazing!). Leaving the neighbours able to involve the local council under noise pollution regulations.

By: Supremacy Claus

Supremacy Claus — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 10:11:56 +0000

I lived next to skateboard punks that woke up at midnight, loudly played rap music, and cursed at each other, from that time on.

I would leave my computer speakers against the wall, click “repeat” and blast Perry Como CD during the day, as they slept. “Catch a Falling Star and …”

Gone in two weeks. I may have discriminated, and committed a crime against humanity.

By: arerea

arerea — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 00:19:49 +0000

“Your second point (that hearing loss occurs naturally, but could be sued over anyway) is the more ridiculous (and yet true) one. Everyone acknowledges that the hearing loss happens anyway, yet I would be surprised if such a lawsuit didn’t generate money.”

Some part of hearing loss might be inevitable, but part of it is also preventable. If a sound causes premature damage, does it matter whether or not eventual hearing loss is inevitable? If I lose my hearing at an accelerated 30 rather than a natural 70, how is that ‘natural’? You’ve only got one pair of ears; no one else has the right to damage them.

By: Deoxy

Deoxy — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 10:24:05 +0000

“OSHA decibel limits would quash the things here.”

Only in workplaces, and even then only in certain cases.

Your second point (that hearing loss occurs naturally, but could be sued over anyway) is the more ridiculous (and yet true) one. Everyone acknowledges that the hearing loss happens anyway, yet I would be surprised if such a lawsuit didn’t generate money.

By: Richard Nieporent

Richard Nieporent — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 09:17:43 +0000

A human rights violation? Aren’t we being just a little too melodramatic? Next I expect people to charge that it violates the Geneva Conventions. I guess the next time I pull up to a gas station and have to listen to that annoying hip hop music when I am pumping gas I should complain to the human rights commission.

By: Stewart Peterson

Stewart Peterson — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 20:14:55 +0000

If this is designed to target a chosen demographic, without any consideration of actions taken by specific members, it sure seems like a human rights violation to me.

The core assumption is that young people, because they are young people, must always be up to no good; this is no more valid than an assumption that African-Americans are up to no good or that unaccompanied women are prostitutes.

I earnestly wish that about 99.9% of trial lawyers would shut up; however, I have to say that this is a valid concern.

By: David Wilson

David Wilson — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:32:15 +0000

I’ve heard of blaring classical music over loudspeakers to keep them away – maybe that’s a nicer solution. And very effective.

By: Insomniac

Insomniac — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:41:29 +0000

Teen repellent? I’d call that a humanitarian breakthrough!

By: nevins

nevins — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:21:08 +0000

OSHA decibel limits would quash the things here. Whether the frequency is audible or not, workplace rules would limit the sound intensity to levels that would be not particularly offensive even to teens.

Also there is a terrible liability time bomb waiting to happen. Surely lawyers have thought of this already. All of the teens and twentysomethings will loose this high frequency hearing as a natural part of the aging process. Test their hearing now, have them document their loitering in front of these storefronts over a few year period, then retest their hearing and voila, uncontestable documentation of hearing loss, and sound levels exceeding legislated standards. Instant open and shut tort.

By: Deoxy

Deoxy — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:54:37 +0000

Anecdotal, I know, but I’ve got a couple of those things for mice (my house has an ongoing mouse problem – I kill them, they come back, lather rinse, repeat – I’m wondering if there’s an untreated infestation somewhere nearby), and the one in the kitchen has worked like a charm for at least a year now, while the one in the living room has been only somewhat effective (they completely avoid that area of the room, though).

In summary, I believe the point about the furniture, but, barring that, it certainly seems HIGHLY effective to me (and it doesn’t even bother my dogs).

I actually don’t know how you’d regulate these things (in the states – England is the country that said “wanted” posters violated the criminals rights, among other inanities), at least for private usage – I can run my stereo however I’d like on my own property, as long as I’m not bothering you on yours.