Rolling Coal Deserves Fines for Harming Public; Also Shows Poorly Kept Engine

In various peaceful public demonstrations here in Aberdeen, including the most recent march against gun violence organized by our Aberdeen High School Democrats, I have noticed occasional displays of macho menace from “coal rollers,” the yahoos who rig their trucks to fart excess black smoke. These strangely anti-social honyockers harken to peacocks waggling their plumage, demonstrate their reproductive fitness by showing off their ability to waste resources. Or maybe the more accurate analogy is hippos spraying their feces at females.

Either way, such displays don’t seem likely to lead to mating for the smoky drivers. In Colorado, such displays lead to fines:

The Steamboat Springs Police Department has ticketed a second driver for “rolling coal” during the “March For Our Lives” demonstration Saturday in front of the Routt County Courthouse.

…Demonstrators were harassed by several vehicles during Saturday’s event, and they handed over photographic evidence to police.

Soon after the demonstration, a 20-year-old Routt County man was issued a $113.50 ticket for “rolling coal.”

…Police Chief Cory Christensen said he has asked officers to ticket drivers for violating the law.

“Rolling coal might seem funny and harmless, but it is not,” Christensen said. “It is dangerous to others and causes a real hazard” [Matt Stensland, “2nd Driver Cited for ‘Rolling Coal’ During Steamboat Demonstration,” Steamboat Today, 2018.03.27].

Colorado struggled to pass this pollution fine, as I suspect South Dakota would, due to concerns from farmers with big diesel equipment. But Colorado lawmakers recognized the public health and safety risks of this wasteful and spiteful behavior, which has targeted not just liberal protestors but police and pregnant moms:

…Police had pushed for a law that could let them crack down. The police occasionally have been targets of the smoke, Fort Collins Police Lt. Craig Horton said.

“We have problems with that display of exhaust, especially on our weekend nights when we have a cruising issue,” Horton said.

…State Rep. Joann Ginal. D-Fort Collins, was among those smoked.

“They do it to people in Priuses, people on motorcycles, and people just walking down the streets. Some are older people who have chronic respiratory conditions. The smoke makes it worse,” she said.

“It is mean. It is more young people who are doing this,” she said. “They think it is funny.”

It happens statewide, [State Sen. Don] Coram said, citing incidents in Grand Junction and Durango.

A pregnant woman walking with a small child in Durango was hit, said Coram. She called his office to complain. Rolling coal isn’t a matter of political expression, he said.

“It is people just being jerks,” Coram said [Bruce Finley, “Diesel Drivers Who Are ‘Rolling Coal’ in Colorado: Tune Up or Pay Up,” Denver Post, 2017.05.22].

In 2014, the EPA said that modifying engines to fart these big clouds of smoke violates the Clean Air Act. Texas, Kansas, and other states ticket drivers for this excess smoke under existing statute.

Gov. Chris Christie signed a law explicitly banning the practice in New Jersey in 2015. Colorado and Maryland followed suit in 2017. The diesel industry trade group Diesel Technology Forum actually testified in favor of the Maryland ban:

“For the last decade, the industry has invested billions of dollars to produce diesel engines that today are near-zero in emissions. That’s why they’re called clean diesel,” said [Diesel Technology Forum policy director Ezra] Finkin.

“Diesel engines have long been a popular option in heavy-duty pick-up trucks because of their superior fuel efficiency and towing performance.  While we recognize diesel enthusiast’s love for diesel engines and the performance of their vehicles, the practice of tampering with engines and emissions controls for the purpose of generating excess emissions on demand – ‘known as rolling coal’ – is offensive, unsafe and harmful to the environment.  Most of all it is not representative of the manner in which diesel engines were designed to operate” [Diesel Technology Forum, press release, 2017.01.26].

Real diesel aficionados should be seeking less smoke from their pipes, not more. More smoke signals suboptimal performance:

A properly running diesel engine in good condition should produce no visible smoke from the exhaust, under most operating conditions. A short puff of smoke when an engine is accelerated under load may be acceptable, due to the lag before the turbocharger speed and air flow is able to match the volume of diesel injected into the cylinders. That would only apply to older technology diesel engines, but with modern type diesels, no smoke at all should be evident.

Black smoke is commonly emitted from diesel engines. It indicates poor and incomplete combustion of the diesel fuel  – too much fuel or not enough air..

The black smoke is full of particulates that are basically large diesel particles that normally would be burned as fuel. Any way you look at it, a diesel truck on the street emitting black smoke is not going to be getting optimal performance or fuel mileage [“The Ugly Truth About Rolling Coal: Black Smoke,” DieselIQ, 2017, retrieved 2018.04.03].

Translation: Real men don’t smoke.

South Dakota’s exhaust statute (SDCL 32-15-17) requires every car on the highway to have an exhaust system and a muffler “both in good working condition,” which one could interpret to outlaw the poor working condition caused by the coal-rolling modification. Yet that statute refers to “excessive or unusual noise,” not smoke.

If the coal-rollers keep it up, South Dakota may want to consider clarifying its exhaust law to fine these irresponsible, harmful, and wasteful exhibitionists.

Related: The Trump/Pruitt EPA is gunning to roll back fuel efficiency standards and take away states’ rights to set stronger emission standards for automobiles.