By on May 12, 2015

Mad Max Dudebro Coal Roller At AMERICA Walmart Circa November 2010

Dudebros in their diesel brodozers will need to take their coal rolling outside of New Jersey, as the state has banned the practice.

Governor Chris Christie signed the legislation — S2418 — earlier this month, according to NJ.com. S2148 outlaws “retrofitting any diesel-powered vehicle with any device, smoke stack, or other equipment which enhances the vehicle’s capacity to emit soot, smoke, or other particulate emissions.”

The law’s language is echoed elsewhere under current federal and state statutes, but Assemblyman Tim Eustace of Bergen, N.J. says the new law is there to ensure the aforementioned statutes are actually enforced:

It’s to actually make sure we enforce the law. We have laws that law fallow, I think, in some circumstances. This doesn’t come off as very important unless you’ve been coal-rolled.

As for what awaits someone more than willing to unleash black smoke upon their fellow driver in the Garden State, the New Jersey State Department of Environmental Regulations will have the power to establish fines meant to discourage coal rolling.

[Photo credit: Mark Spearman/Flickr/CC BY-ND 2.0]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

186 Comments on “Coal Rolling Banned In New Jersey...”


  • avatar

    “Dudebros in their diesel brodozers”…

    Yep, had to look those words up. I’m old.

  • avatar
    Mandalorian

    In other news, Mad Max visited the Walmart Garden Center today.

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      My life fades. The vision dims. All that remains are memories. I remember a time of chaos… ruined dreams… this wasted land. But most of all, I remember that I needed mulch and a Japanese maple.

  • avatar
    energetik9

    I do not get this trend. It just looks like dual, white trash flag poles to me.

  • avatar
    Felix Hoenikker

    There should be a bounty on the poorly potty trained dudebros who mod their pickups to roll coal. Worse yet are the high number of heavy duty tractor trailers plying the roads of NJ spewing copious amounts of opportunistic, lung seeking particulates into the atmosphere. I never see them pulled over despite the fact that they are way over the limits.

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      I despise visible (or not so visible), smelly diesel fumes.

      They gave me an instant headache as a kid, and do now, and I know many people who have the same physical reaction.

      Spewing diesel fumes intentionally is nothing short of assault.

      There should be far more severe penalties for this nasty behavior, as in suspended licences and huge monetary penalties for both individuals & companies they may be driving for.

      • 0 avatar
        benders

        I occasionally ride my bicycle to work and a stereotypical young diesel truck driver tried to roll coal on me twice: once as he passed me and once as I caught him at a stoplight. I would have been more pissed had he not been so completely inept at actually getting his truck to spew carbon.

        I ride with a helmet cam but at the time, there wasn’t a statue specifically outlawing rolling coal in Illinois although some have been proposed.

      • 0 avatar
        dantes_inferno

        It all boils down to this:

        Rolling coal produced by rolling dopes.

  • avatar
    an innocent man

    Is this actually a problem? It might be, I don’t know. I’m just trying to remember if I’ve seen people doing this more than like 6 times, ever.

    • 0 avatar
      fozone

      This is. A single brodozer so configured can shoot the particulate equivalent of hundreds of normal cars.

      This is what we call ‘low-hanging fruit’. And the redneck lobby in NJ just isn’t strong enough to fight it.

    • 0 avatar
      TonyP

      I grew up in New England but from what I see it’s more prominent in the Midwest and South. Read into that however you want. I see these modified trucks on a regular basis here in Utah, intentionally polluting the environment, trying to make a statement, whatever the hell that might be.

      • 0 avatar
        krhodes1

        I have never seen one of these idiots in Maine, and I have no doubt at all that anyone rolling coal around here would get pulled over so fast it would make their head spin. We have an annual inspection requirement of “no excess smoke”, it would be an equipment violation. We don’t have very many brodozers here anyway, I think there is a fairly low limit as to how high you can lift a truck and still pass inspection. I see them in the South and out West all the time, and they were rampant in So Cal last week.

        • 0 avatar
          jpolicke

          Problem is, many offenders make smoke by way of prorammable tuners and can turn it of for inspection.

        • 0 avatar
          OneAlpha

          God krhodes, you sound like somebody who would’ve lived in the Soviet Union and been proud of the government for shipping dissidents off to Siberia.

          • 0 avatar

            He spent some serious money on that system! Ill give em that.

            But isnt it time our diesel fuel was up to snuff??? Its easy to make 60 cetane fuel….just gotta quit selling it in bottles at the auto parts store for $15-20 a quart.

      • 0 avatar
        56BelAire

        @TonyP….I hear you Tony, I’m in Utah also and these yahoos are over the place.

        We were in South Dakota last summer seeing Mt. Rushmore and the Black Hills. One evening we were in downtown Rapid City for dinner, there were about six young 20’somethings(guys and gals) nicely dressed standing on the corner at a large intersection. Three yahoos in an old modified pickup are stopped at the red light literally 3-4 feet in front of them. Light turns green and the driver leaves the clutch depressed and revs to 3,000-4,000 RPM for seemingly 15-20 seconds engulfing the people and the entire intersection in thick black smoke…….the dimwits laugh their asses off and drive away.

        Death would be far too compassionate for these clowns…..I vote for castration and full penisectomy.

    • 0 avatar
      tommyboy1123

      I grew up in South Jersey (the garden part) and it’s a problem.

  • avatar
    Master Baiter

    There’s a tool around the corner from me that has one of these smoke stack mods coming out of the bed of his pickup truck. One of my many neighbors who couldn’t afford to live in his house had it not been purchased 30 years ago.

  • avatar
    JimC2

    Fear not, brodozer driving dudebros, for inbreeding–between two age-of-majority consenting cousins–is still legal in Joisey, the other 49 states, and the assorted territories and protectorates. And even if that ever gets banned then no government will never make such a law retroactive- in other words, your parents won’t get in trouble.

  • avatar
    philipwitak

    a bounty is not nearly enough.

    modified rigs should be confiscated, dismantled and sold for scrap. ‘willful pollution’ of this sort should be a felony. ‘willful pollution’ in all its forms should be considered a crime against humanity – and punished appropriately.

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      Line em up and shoot ’em. Amirite?

      • 0 avatar
        philipwitak

        danio – no sir. youRwrong. no need to put words in my mouth. i meant precisely what i wrote.

        i have a feeling these clowns would only need to lose their vehicles/investments once before they changed their wicked ways…

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      Only if we can do the same to every conceited Prius driver that feels compelled to drive 10 below, they certainly represent a big problem.

      • 0 avatar
        ttacgreg

        Just curious, do you hold the same feelings for semi trucks, school buses, or motor homes that are driving at ten under?

        • 0 avatar
          JimC2

          If they’re driving ten under in the left lane then yes. Doubly so if they have a “coexist” bumper sticker, stylistically monogrammed initials in the rear window, a stick figure family, Gore-Lieberman 2000, “salt life” sticker, “my child is a terrific kid,” etc. etc.

          • 0 avatar
            dantes_inferno

            You know what scares the hell out of me? Urban/Suburban/Rural soccer moms multitasking while attempting to navigate a 5000+ lb vehicle. I make it a point to steer clear of those ladies.

          • 0 avatar
            JimC2

            “You know what scares the hell out of me? Urban/Suburban/Rural soccer moms multitasking while attempting to navigate a 5000+ lb vehicle. I make it a point to steer clear of those ladies.”

            @dantes- they make themselves easy to spot. Usually there is a soccer ball sticker, a stick figure family, or lately the soccer mom’s initials in a stylistic monogram custom decal. So you can spot them a good ways away and get around them post-haste.

        • 0 avatar
          Hummer

          All of those vehicles have legitimate reasons for going at a slower speed. The prii, certainly do not, doubly so when they try and drift into the oncoming lane during a passing maneuver.

    • 0 avatar
      S2k Chris

      There should be a caveat for people trying to go faster. Gut the cat, install a test pipe, or get a catless downpipe in search of power? Go ahead, son.

      Roll coal because you think it’s cool? Die.

    • 0 avatar
      OneAlpha

      Crime against humanity? Are you havin’ a Turkish?

      Go back to Russia.

    • 0 avatar
      raph

      Gross polluter maybe, crimes against humanity not so much. Be careful of the slippery slope you desire.

  • avatar
    zerofoo

    While I don’t agree with tampering with emissions control equipment, NJ has bigger problems than black diesel exhaust.

    Our state legislators are running around giving gun dealers and truck owners a hard time while, at the same time, ignoring our soon-to-be bankrupt highway fund and crushing pension debt.

    The crazy thing is that we could have already solved this problem by actually inspecting vehicles instead of simply plugging them into an OBD port and slapping a sticker on the car. You can have a rusted-out frame, bad brakes, and burned out tail lights, but if your OBD computer is OK – your car passes.

    NJ is a regulatory joke.

    • 0 avatar
      blueflame6

      It’s useful to fix some things even if you can’t fix everything. That said, prioritization is important.

    • 0 avatar
      Rasputin

      As a current citizen, though not a native, of NJ, I remember when the inspections changed. All due to a huge corruption scandal (I know, who’da thunk it – in NJ!) So the State in its wisdom stops safety inspections, but continues emission inspections.

      Probably has something to do with getting Federal money (yippee, ‘free’ money), because the Feds know what is best for us. Hey, I’m all for cleaner air, but not at the cost of the death of a family of six in a head-on caused by some dude in a clunker whose rotted out sub-frame sends him into oncoming traffic.

      The stupidity of inspecting for emissions, but not safety says all you need to know about American politics

      • 0 avatar
        wolfinator

        Federally mandated safety inspections would make no sense in many places. I get that they’re need in the NE.

        I live in the Pacific NW. It hardly snows here, and the roads are never salted. (I think it might be disallowed?)

        Cars rarely rust seriously. 30 year old rattletraps are running around without body rust. I’ve never *seen* a rusted out subframe. Mandating safety inspections would be onerous and pointless.

      • 0 avatar
        VolandoBajo

        Absolutely spot on comment, @Rasputin but to make it more absurd, my wife’s car had a repetitive check engine light that kept her from passing. Took three or four emissions tests, and two different mechanics to find out her Corolla needed a different gastank cap.

        I’m sure THAT helped emissions a boatload!

        And while I tend to be more libertarian than most, the point at which someone begins rolling coal is the point at which their freedom impinges on the freedom of others, and deserves regulation.

        Not crushing a working vehicle, or similar, but enough tickets to put them of a mind to not do it again.

        As to tuning devices, you’ll never stop that one hundred per cent, unless you equip all law enforcement vehicles with the ability to read all computer/chip programs and determine which are stock.

        Just ticket the negative effect when and if it is observed.

        My new tune on my old Panther has gotten me smoother shifts, better acceleration and improved mileage, so I hope they don’t decide to go to war against modding per se.

        But rolling coal…make em pay. Til it hurts so bad they stop.

        Let em roll coal at the strip if they want for power, but keep it off the streets I have to live on.

  • avatar
    Occam

    I mostly see the clouds of black diesel smoke from outwardly unmodified heavy-duty type trucks. I’m never sure if it’s an actual modification, or just the normal sooty diesel smoke from the ubiquitous “I work in the oil industry” white SuperDuty.

    Usually, I can hit “re-circ” before I’m blasted by the noxious odor. After going to Athens a few years ago and smelling the air, I want to build a 20 foot statue to Ransom Olds, thanking his namesake company for turning off Americans to diesel, and limiting the sources of this stench to just commercial trucks and a pickup here and there.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      Unmodified HD trucks made in the last 8 years emit basically no smoke.

      • 0 avatar
        SC5door

        Unless it’s manufactured by Navistar.

        I’ve seen a ton of International trucks going down the road spewing tons of smoke from their exhausts, same for the buses. Their MaxxForce engines are garbage, no wonder why their bus division now is offering the Cummins 6.7L as an option.

        • 0 avatar
          danio3834

          “Unless it’s manufactured by Navistar.”

          Ya got that right. Plumes of white unburnt diesel smoke. Enough to make your eyes water.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          IIRC, Didn’t Navistar scam an exemption or a delay on implementing particulate filters out of the USA government???

          • 0 avatar
            Scoutdude

            It was not the DPF it was using urea injection that they were granted an exemption for which the EPA then reneged on. To entice the mfgs to adopt the 2007 emissions standards early they offered the ability to sell a 2007 compliant engine after the 2010 standards took effect for each engine sold before it was required. That is what led to the rush job that was the 6.0 and led to the Ford/Navistar divorce which Navistar walked away with the credits earned by the Super Duty sales.

            The EPA then got pissed when they figured out that Navistar had years of credits since MD and HD trucks do not sell in anywhere near the numbers that the Diesel equipped Super Duty’s did. So it was Navistar that got scammed by the EPA.

            Cummins took advantage of the offer as well but their exempt engines went into Dodge vehicles that earned the credits and were used up pretty quickly since they didn’t have as many stockpiled.

  • avatar
    JK43123

    You can pass a law but you can’t fix stupid.

    John

  • avatar
    RideHeight

    Cool truck. “Outdoor Living” store behind it is a nice irony. No Subies?

  • avatar
    an innocent man

    Christie signed this? Isn’t he the guy that takes a state helicopter to his kid’s baseball game? And causes a multi-hour traffic jam to punish a political opponent? Those would seem, to a simple person, to cause a bit of pollution, no?

    • 0 avatar
      darkwing

      That may be what they say on the TV, but one is complicated at best, and the other is provably wrong.

      • 0 avatar
        VolandoBajo

        @darkwing It is not provably wrong that he didn’t cause a traffic jam to punish his political opponents. It is only not provably true, because his former right hand deputy fell on his sword (after they stood him in front of it), while taking two other Christie aides (who may have engineered his fall) with him.

        Not proving he did it is not the same as proving he did not.

        And he did come into office with a reputation for vindictiveness against anyone who didn’t support him, more than most politicians.

        And what is so complicated about whether or not he took a state helicopter to a ballgame?

        Or are you trying to argue that that was not proven, and his involvement in the traffic scandal was complicated? I would think the helicopter matter would be easily proven.

  • avatar
    Compaq Deskpro

    I should hate it but I don’t, an enthusiast is an enthusiast. Hell. a few weeks ago I saw 2 coal rollers on pass each other going the opposite direction on a 2 way street, they cheerfully blew coal at each other and waved. How am I supposed to hate that? It’s similar to doing a smoky burnout with a muscle car.

    • 0 avatar
      krhodes1

      Smoky burnouts are also stupid, juvenile, and very, very illegal where civilized people live. Both burnouts and rolling coal serve no purpose other than being obnoxious.

      • 0 avatar
        OneAlpha

        So, what?

        Are you one of those enlightened sorts who thinks that every form of fun human beings can come up with is somehow unsafe, destructive or childish, and for whom the word “civilized” conjures up images of some sort of Star Trek-like world of meek, quiet, obedient, infinitely-malleable milquetoasts sitting around in beige coveralls waiting to be told what to do by a benevolent government?

        • 0 avatar
          PeriSoft

          “Are you one of those enlightened sorts who thinks that every form of fun human beings can come up with is somehow unsafe, destructive or childish, and for whom the word “civilized” conjures up images of some sort of Star Trek-like world of meek, quiet, obedient, infinitely-malleable milquetoasts sitting around in beige coveralls waiting to be told what to do by a benevolent government?”

          Yeah, because obviously not being an a**hole to the people around you and being a sycophantic, gutless ward of the state are *totally the same thing*.

        • 0 avatar
          dal20402

          I just don’t get why people find burnouts “fun.” Whoo hoo, your car has enough power to unstick the tires. So do most cars these days. All it does is make noise and a big cloud of stinky smoke.

        • 0 avatar
          krhodes1

          Not at all – and I probably have a LOT more fun in my cars than the average person, given I have a garage full of cars that are actually fun, and not bland transportation appliances. But rolling coal and smoky burnouts are not fun. They are juvenile and obnoxious, and are rightly made illegal. And I put obnoxiously loud-piped motorcycles in this category as well.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          If this issue could be somehow linked to homosexuality, the beta male in the thread would be all in favor of banning it. (He keeps his priorities straight, so to speak.)

          • 0 avatar
            Domestic Hearse

            Pch,

            The further I scroll through this “B&B” comment thread, the more COTD your comment becomes.

          • 0 avatar
            VolandoBajo

            @Pch101 On the good side for you, have no fear that YOU will be able to link ANY issue to homosexuality.

            On the bad side for you, natural selection will guarantee that you will not propagate your narrow-minded fanatical obsession to insult everyone who does not agree with you 100%, into the next generation.

            And given your inability to counter opinions you disagree with, with logical arguments, but can only conjure up insults, perhaps it is you who are the beta male.

            I don’t see a single self-proclaimed homosexual male leaping to your defense, nor seeking to identify themselves with your lack of intelligent arguments.

            Perhaps you should take a few months off and try taking a logic class at your local community college.

        • 0 avatar
          Firestorm 500

          That’s all well and good until the Klingons show up.

        • 0 avatar
          philipwitak

          alpha – your comments [and your user-name] suggest that you are way too self-centered for my good, or yours, or anybody elses.

      • 0 avatar
        FormerFF

        Burnouts do serve a purpose – at the drag strip. On the street, they’re just obnoxious and expensive.

        • 0 avatar
          krhodes1

          And even on a drag strip, you only do it just enough to serve the intended purpose of heating up the tires.

          • 0 avatar
            CJinSD

            The purpose of a burnout is to lay a coat of rubber on the track that your tires can find purchase on when you actually launch.

    • 0 avatar
      raph

      There is a time or place for everything, coal rollers aren’t exactly picky where they roll coal and with no laws in place they can be down right obnoxious. This past Saturday a buffoon in a Ford truck made sure plenty of people got a whiff of his diesel truck as he passed through the parking lot where I work. Even worse coal rollers with a vindictive streak aren’t shy about blasting a person with soot which frankly in my eyes is worth a beat down ASAP.

      • 0 avatar
        Truckducken

        Tell y’all what: as long as all coal is rolled directly into the passenger compartment of the offending vehicle, I’m willing to let it slide. Otherwise, shoot ’em on sight.

        • 0 avatar
          AmcEthan

          doing a burnout is fun. i do it but not when people are around so its not to annoy anybody else. my ram does rolling burnouts at 40 mph and lemme tell you that is fun.

    • 0 avatar
      VolandoBajo

      A smoky burnout doesn’t cause one percent of the pollution that rolling coal does. Sorry, no sympathy from me, and I have been known to lay a patch from time to time.

      Besides, if someone pulled a burnout lasting a tenth of a mile or more, I’m sure they’d be ticketed too, if observed.

      In fact, I think I’d probably get a ticket if I was observed just chirping my tires. So why should rolling coal, a hundred times worse, get a pass?

  • avatar

    Looking at the placement of those stacks, the rear doors probably don’t open.

  • avatar
    carguy

    It difficult to criminalize being a douchebag – they will always find other ways to express their anti-social leanings.

  • avatar
    Dan

    Not my hobby but if they love their trucks then more power to them. Anyone who doesn’t wish he had one of these while passing cyclists is a liar.

    • 0 avatar
      KixStart

      And anybody who would do that to somebody who’s breathing hard to keep moving is an a__hole.

      The last time this subject came up for discussion, I happened to catch a YouTube video of a couple of guys passing a pretty girl in their pickup and they deliberately buried her in a cloud of that crap and laughed about it. What a pair of morons.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      The he!l? You think everyone wants to choke cyclists in carcinogenic smoke? You sound like a sociopath.

    • 0 avatar
      VolandoBajo

      Cyclists, no. Overly stickered pretentious-owner Priuses? Maybe…

      But only in my dreams.

  • avatar
    RogerB34

    NJ requires emissions testing light duty diesel powered vehicles 1997 and later.
    The truck in the pic is older.
    Dudebros both truck and legislature.

  • avatar
    Toad

    Now if we can just get a ban on bumpers that are 2″ above or below OEM height specifications I’d be a happy guy. Rolling coal is annoying; getting run into by a truck with the bumper 3 feet off the ground can actually kill somebody.

    • 0 avatar
      Timothy

      Posted the exact same sentiments. In MA it is definitely illegal yet I’ve never seen a single lifted truck being pulled over. Also curious as to how they pass inspection.

    • 0 avatar
      JMII

      +100 I drive a Z thus I see plenty of rear diffs and various suspension pieces directly in my line of site. The bumper on those lifted trucks? About level with my roof mounted Sirius antenna!

  • avatar
    Timothy

    Good. So stupid it hurts.

    Along the same line of thinking it’s time that the brodudes in their brodozers start getting pulled over for the ridiculous lifts that seemingly every truck now has.

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    Am I the only one who noticed how comically tiny the pipes are running under the truck that lead to those massive pythons?

    Kind of like a reverse T-Rex.

    • 0 avatar
      kmoney

      Haha, yeah I noticed that too. Can you even “roll coal” in the old 6.2/6.5 GM diesels. I get you could mess with the mechanical injection pump, but you could never turn it off like the modern trucks that do it with power-programmers.

  • avatar
    Ron B.

    @ PrincipalDan ,yes I had a laugh at that too … As someone who is a trained Diesel engineer and who drives a diesel as a daily , the smoke means too much fuel and not enough air. That is why older trucks,locomotives and untuned diesel cars blow smoke under acceleration .It’s hardly a show of power if you are blowing smoke out the stack, just a display of a sick engine.

  • avatar
    71 MKIV

    You guys sound like a bunch of self righteous puritans.

    OMG SOMEONE SOMEWHERE IS DOING SOMETHING THAT PUTS A SMILE ON THEIR FACE!!!
    NO
    THIS MUST STOP.

    Geez, this used to be a fun website.

    I’m gone.
    Sorry Murilee.

    • 0 avatar
      See 7 up

      You can’t see the difference between having fun and supporting that freedom with limiting it when it causes others harm?

      How about this, everyone starts rolling coal everywhere all the time because you know, fun. Be a great place to live huh.
      Maybe I can throw trash in your yard. Seems like fun to me.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        The irony. People say they are FREE to do as THEY please.

        The point that is MISSED is that we cannot exercise the full scope of our freedoms if they impact the freedoms of others.

        If being free to roll coal makes me sick, that isn’t very responsible and some lawmaker has to decide which freedom is “more” free.

        • 0 avatar
          blppt

          “The point that is MISSED is that we cannot exercise the full scope of our freedoms if they impact the freedoms of others.”

          FREAKING BRAVO. I can’t tell you how many times people whine about losing silly things like this, yet they fail to grasp that what they are doing is harming others.

    • 0 avatar
      Domestic Hearse

      71,

      Let me unpack libertarian freedom in a way you might understand: Your freedom to swing your fist extends not quite to my nose. Pass this point, and you’ve infringed upon my freedom to not be a victim of assault.

      Rolling coal may put a smile on your face as you leave a wake of soot and carcinogenic detritus in your wake, but trust me, your fellow citizens behind you are not smiling. It is unfortunate an action this juvenile and irresponsible needs to be legislated, but based on your ignorance of universal freedoms, laws must be passed to protect the rest of us from dudebros who think responsible adults are self-righteous puritans for expecting you to not willfully pollute the air we breathe for your own amusement.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      Ironically, your inability to understand that your freedom can’t infringe on the freedoms of others is proof that such laws are needed. When good sense and common decency are in short supply, legislation is necessary.

    • 0 avatar
      VolandoBajo

      If s***ting where other people eat, @71 MKIV is your idea of fun, I for one will be glad to see you go. Just don’t go near where I live, please.

      Some people get a smile on their face from firing bullets into the air on New Years Day, to come to earth they know not where. I don’t consider myself a self-righteous puritan to want to see this archaic smile-inducing practice halted, either.

      Someone died in the Philly area a few years ago from such a gunshot. Think about it.

      And think about what rolling coal does to someone with emphysema or asthma.

      Fortunately, your idea of fun is a dying concept, in more ways than one.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      I’m curious since the Continental Mark IV did not come out until MY72, what was a Mark IV in 1971?

  • avatar
    See 7 up

    I’d be OK if the punishment for this is to have the offending owners truck hooked up to the owners home hvac system and require it to “roll coal” for a week.

    If no home, a nice small soot machine installed in the truck that blows soot into drivers face for 2 months.

    Do this to a pedestrian or cyclist, hook that pipe straight to a gas mask and roll coal.

    And I’d consider myself a pacifist.

  • avatar
    86er

    Begun, the culture war has.

  • avatar
    reclusive_in_nature

    I don’t what’s more irritating:

    The moron rednecks that can’t express themselves without blowing diesel smoke at other drivers.

    OR

    The limprwristed pansies that work themselves into a self righteous hissy fit over the moron rednecks.

    I’d say they’re both equally pathetic.

    • 0 avatar
      OneAlpha

      Definitely the bedwetters. The rednecks, at least, will respect your freedom. The pansies won’t.

      “The world would be a better place if there weren’t so many people trying to make it a better place.”

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        reclusive_in_nature & OneAlpha – must be tough dividing the world into “moron rednecks” and “limprwristed pansies”.

        Doesn’t get more partisan left or right than that.

        Simple concept……… well………. maybe not for you two BUT with freedom comes responsibility.

        That means in exercising my freedom I cannot impinge upon someone else’s rights and freedoms.

        Example, you may have the right to keep and bear arms but not randomly shoot people in the face.
        Same with trucks, I have the right to drive a truck but not the right to turn it into a pollution monster.

        I’m sure you can google the location of a tractor pull if you really really need to blow smoke.

        • 0 avatar
          VoGo

          Why would anyone want the right to bear arms? It just doesn’t make any sense. I might be able to understand a rabbit’s foot, or maybe a mink coat, but bear arms? Maybe bear paws, if we’re talking pastry.

          Sure, when the US Constitution was written, it may have made sense to give people the right to bear arms. Wild animals were a real threat on the frontier back then, and they could hurt somebody with their powerful arms. But today? Maybe in Montana, but for the rest of us, there’s no need.

          Why people construe this as having something to do with the right to Lanza machine guns is beyond me.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            VoGo – I used that example since I was typecasting based upon @reclusive_in_nature’s comment about rednecks and pansies.

            Even a redneck would know that “the right to keep and bear arms” does not include the right to harm others. Inappropriate or dangerous use of firearms means the forfeiture of that right.

            It is no different with motor-vehicles.

          • 0 avatar

            Again 60 cetane fuel would be a good goal.

            As for the 2nd “A” etal written in 1780s? …bullets didnt EXIST till the 1850s. That changes EVERYTHING, dosent it?

        • 0 avatar
          reclusive_in_nature

          “reclusive_in_nature & OneAlpha – must be tough dividing the world into “moron rednecks” and “limprwristed pansies”.”

          Not really. At least not for the limpwristed pansies.

          You just post a comment calling them out for being limpwristed pansies and they’ll reply with a long winded rant attempting to explain how they’re not, usually with a thinly veiled insult at the end.

          Say…

      • 0 avatar
        VolandoBajo

        @OneAlpha Yeah, the rednecks will respect your freedom…keep on believing that.

        Like the rednecks that blocked a narrow sandy access road to a deserted Florida beach one night, as my two high school buddies and I were attempting to leave after having a quart on a school night.

        Tried to stop our car and get us out, to beat our asses with chains. The three of them had tire irons, at least ten years, forty or fifty pounds, and about five times as much alcohol on us.

        Fortunately my friend convinced his younger brother to drive right by them, and force them to jump out of the way, or we would probably ended up in the hospital.

        Nice respectful rednecks. Not saying all rednecks are like that, but if you think they will all respect your rights, you better hope they give you three steps towards the door.

        Another group of rednecks caused a local civil rights worker in north Florida to disappear, never to be heard from again.

        Alcohol and rednecks are a deadly combination, unless you are one of them. And even then, that is no guarantee.

        Lots of luck with your rolling coal buddies.

        The world would be a better place if there weren’t so many people who thought that all people had equal rights, but that their rights were more equal than other people’s.

    • 0 avatar
      VolandoBajo

      @reclusive_in_nature objecting to having smoke blown in my face, whether diesel or tobacco, does not make me a limpwristed pansy, nor self-righteous. It makes me a person with a normal operating survival instinct and a sense of proportion about the right to roll coal vs. the right of others to enjoy clean air.

      If you want to roll coal in your enclosed garage, or smoke at home, I won’t object. But when you get in other people’s faces, expect backlash and not just from the class of people you seem to expect will be the ones.

  • avatar
    Sgt Beavis

    I wish they would ban that horse manure here in Texas. Ban those damn LED light bars while they’re at it.

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      Those are already banned, using offroad lights on road is a quick ticket, though I will say they (or at least the KC style offroad lights) are amazing going down back roads when used in tandem with hi-beams when there’s no other cars.

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    The vast majority of trucks I see (smell???) set up to roll coal are newer trucks. It boggles my mind that a guy would by a 80k full bling HD diesel and spend another 20k (lift, tires, chrome, emissions delete) just to render the truck completely useless for anything other than pizzing off the rest of the planet.

    That old truck pictured would make a great bush beater once it was reverted back to normal emissions.

    Cue 2000 posts bashing pickups in general.

    • 0 avatar
      JimC2

      “… just to render the truck completely useless for anything other than pizzing off the rest of the planet.”

      You forgot the obvious use- to impress his cousin when they go on their hot date.

    • 0 avatar
      SC5door

      The truck in the photo has no “emissions”, it’s literally some exhaust stacks. It has mechanical injection on it and no turbo.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit_Diesel_V8_engine

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        SC5door – that is assuming the original engine is still in that beast.

        If one looks at the stacks there isn’t a lot of soot evident at the outlets.

        This picture was used for the visceral appeal. A 100k chromed brodozer would not have the same effect on the B & B.

  • avatar
    kosmo

    I’m glad they passed this new law. Having only one federal law making this illegal is not enough. More laws are always better.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      I looked it up. It has been a Federal Law since 1990. A shop that tampers with emissions can get hit with a $25,000 fine and $2,500 for each vehicle.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      I can’t tell if sarc or serious.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      +1. Actually, I think all this will do is provide YouTube opportunities for anonymous NJ citizens to thumb their noses at Christie by rolling some coal on video.

      The new Prohibition has begun.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        SCE to AUX – I can just picture it now,a window sticker of a black silhouetted brodozer rolling coal with the ominous letters “MOLON LABE” underneath it.

        • 0 avatar
          VolandoBajo

          @Lou_BC Then the MOLON LABE brodozer gets a huge ticket from the state police, undersigned with: Veni, Vidi, Vici.

          One of my martial arts teachers taught me not to walk down the street with a target on your back. And open defiance is usually met with open repression.

          That is one cultural war I am glad I am on the sidelines of. And fortunately, I do not feel that rolling coal is an inalienable right.

  • avatar
    -Nate

    ” rolling coal ” is just the white trash version of hanging your pants below your butt cheeks .

    At least the rusty behind out guys don’t hurt anyone else even if they piss me off .

    -Nate

  • avatar
    Signal11

    It’s like deliberately pissing or shitting into a public pool or municipal water supply.

    Hard to believe that there are people out there who try to defend these d-bags.

  • avatar
    banjopanther

    My volvo 240 Diesel (wagon) could “roll coal” at will, either rev it too high or lug the engine. I would do it on purpose sometimes just to piss people off. I think the rings were bad.

  • avatar
    Wheatridger

    I’m sorry that those truck bros had such a difficult toilet training that left them with so many issues , but they shouldn’t act them out in public.

  • avatar
    VenomV12

    Good, I have no sympathy for these guys. This is the perfect example of arrogant redneck thinking where you think you can flaunt the law by pissing people off in some sort of display of freedom or whatever crap they want to call it. The reality is you do it enough and then reality kicks in and stuff like these laws happen. I had never run into one of these rolling coal morons and then about two weeks ago I saw not one but two of them within a 5 minute span, they must have had a convention going on or something.

    It is the same logic these gun idiots use, they have been sold this line of nonsense that the boogeyman is coming to take their guns which was really just a great way to get them to buy a ton of guns and ammo and make the people that sell them very wealthy, but when the guns do get taken away one day down the road, it will be because of the obnoxious behavior and doing idiotic things like taking assault rifles into grocery stores. If you really think the normal, well adjusted majority of the population looks at you in a positive manner when they are shopping with their kids or grandkids and you are walking around with a gun you have another thing coming. I saw this one moron the other day who is a ticking time bomb, had about 7 different gun decals on the back window of his pickup truck, then instead of those stick figure families he had the people replaced with different types of guns and rifles and then he modified the 4X4 sticker on the side adding an AK-47 to it. Got to feel great being a cop pulling a whack job like that over. There’s a reason the police departments are becoming more and more militarized.

    • 0 avatar
      Quentin

      Agreed. I had no problems with guns. I grew up in a household of 20+ hunting rifles and a few revolvers here and there. We were trained from a very young age that guns were not toys; they were deadly tools. Through hunting, I saw what they did to living things. I feel like I have a good understanding of the care that should be taken and what they are capable of doing. With the fetishizing of guns over the past 10 years, I feel like the middle ground is fading away because people aren’t treating their guns with proper respect. When so many people are being so irresponsible with them, it is hard to not step back and start wondering what purpose they are truly serving these days.

      • 0 avatar

        I was an NRA brat. I fully support the second amendment. Skeet, Trap, target shooting….

        Having said that, the vast majority of gun owners are untrained and dangerous……

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          speedlaw – “Having said that, the vast majority of gun owners are untrained and dangerous……”

          Just like vehicle owners!

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @Lou_BC,
            I totally agree with you.

            I do think hand guns, assault weapons should be banned.

            The constitution was written long ago, over 200 years ago. Back then you didn’t have the weapons available today.

            The forefathers of the US would of made the Constitution different if the weapons of today were available back then.

            I view gun laws like driving laws. It’s the few who ruin it for the many.

            It’s no different going through an airport with the TSA. But these guys don’t cry about that.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @Lou_BC,
            Here is a brilliant Youtube skit on gun control. It will raise some of the NRA clan’s hackles.

            Oddly enough there is some truth in the story.

            Be aware. There is some bad language.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            Here is the link, you’ll have to “assemble” the link to make it work.

            Part A;
            https://www.

            Part B;
            youtube.com/watch?v=t4OSKZ1Qaus

        • 0 avatar
          philipwitak

          “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

          but the right to bear arms is conditional, not absolute.

          those who choose to bear arms and remain in compliance with their cherished second amendment need to become a part of a “well regulated militia” with heavy emphasis on the ‘well regulated’ and i am not alone in this opinion: “In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, “The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence” and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”.

          • 0 avatar
            -Nate

            There you go using _FACTS_ and truth again when talking about dimwit free guns for all white folks bubbas .

            I bet you’re using your real name too , a thing those droolers will never ever do .

            -Nate

          • 0 avatar
            CJinSD

            It’s always possible that the founding fathers had a better grasp of dependent clauses than those who try to remove constitutional protections will admit to.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Funny. The First Congress’ House debate of the Second Amendment makes it abundantly clear that its intent was to address the role of the militia and who would be required to serve in it.

            One of the issues was Madison’s inclusion of language that exempted conscientious objectors from militia duty. That language was removed because of concerns that some citizens would discover religion when their services were required.

            It was quite clear to those who enacted it that “bearing arms” was used to specifically describe militia service, not just any form of gun ownership. It would seem that some folks lack the Googling skills to find basic examples of well documented history.

            http://www.constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.htm

          • 0 avatar
            CJinSD

            You’re either being deliberately obtuse or it is a wonder that you have enough of a brain stem to sustain respiration on your own. There are plenty of references to debates on the nature of religious objections to bearing arms, but precisely zero suggestions that the right to bear arms shall be infringed for any cause short of “Actual Rebellion.” Sorry I’m not the sort of TL:DR morons that make up your peer review circle jerk.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Being unable to read is a real benefit to the conservative movement.

            The House debate could not be clearer. All of the references to “bearing arms” are in the context of the requirement of serving in the militia.

            They were not debating the rights of conscientious objectors to avoid gun ownership, but the right to avoid militia service. “Bearing arms” = serving the state or the country.

            Anyone who has a reasonable knowledge of constitutional history (read: not you) knows that the second and third amendments were companion amendments. In many state constitutions, the two concepts were combined — there was the “right” to serve in a militia (and to accordingly avoid a permanent peacetime standing army) combined with the right to avoid having that standing army from turning a citizen’s home into a billet — while the federal constitution put these into two separate amendments, one after the other. Madison wrote the first draft of the Bill of Rights, and he borrowed these ideas from various state constitutions, including these issues concerning the role of the army.

          • 0 avatar
            VolandoBajo

            @Pch101 You just can’t seem to make any point you believe in without throwing out personal insults, as if you believe that doing so establishes your superiority over those who oppose your views, and that such insulting establishes the superiority of your viewpoint over those of others.

            It must be really difficult to be you, surrounded by a world full of idiots who don’t agree with you, and just a handful of your intellectual equals, who fling insults in the same direction you do.

            Do you REALLY think that makes you smarter, wittier or more persuasive? I find it hard to believe that even with your limited ability to conduct discourse without insults, that you could really believe that, yet I see no evidence to the contrary either.

            “not you”…what a loser of an insult.

            You slay me, you really do.

            Why don’t you just trundle off to the Move On website and congratulate yourself in front of your peers, unencumbered by opposing viewpoints, and by discussions that are not totally one-sided.

            I doubt you can get three people on here to say they’d miss you and your insults.

          • 0 avatar
            VolandoBajo

            @Pch101 By the way, if the founding fathers had so clearly intended the right to bear arms to be solely in the context of a well-regulated militia, why didn’t they just say “the right to bear arms IN A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA shall not be infringed.”?

            They were clearly capable of writing sentences of such a degree of complexity.

            Also, where in the original documents, as opposed to your interpretation of them, is the concept of “companion” amendments mentioned?

            Sounds to me like you have put a spin on the facts in order to get them to fit your viewpoint, thus providing you with a platform to administer what you must feel is a logical coup de grace, but hurling an insult, as if that settles the matter.

            Sorry, that style of debate went out of style in the seventh grade playground, if not sooner. At leasat for most adults.

          • 0 avatar
            VolandoBajo

            @philipwitak The right to bear arms is not granted by the constitution, but it is granted by the Bill of Rights.

            And it seems logical that the founding fathers intended that people should be allowed to keep and bear arms, in order that they would be able to form well regulated militia, and not that the states should form well-regulated militias, and that then those who controlled the militias would issue arms to those they saw fit to arm.

            The latter top-down approach is entirely antithetical to the entire intent of the Bill of Rights, and is instead much more in keeping with the “rights of the state over the rights of the individual” approach of King George and his governors, which was the basis for the entire American Revolution, and for the formation of the Constitution and the BIll of Rights.

            It is government, of the people, by the people and for the people, not government of the well-regulated militias, by the well-regulated militias, and for the well-regulated militias, such that the militias, under the control of their commanders would allegedly protect the rights of the people, but rather that the people would be able to peaceably assemble and form their own militias into well-regulated units.

            And the ability to do so in such a grass roots manner was the only way that the rights of individuals could and would be secure against the usurpation of power by such governmental entities that sought to dictate to the people what rights they could or could not enjoy., as had been the case under English colonial rule.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            It’s pretty sad that many of those who claim to love the Constitution know so little about it.

  • avatar
    Avid Fan

    Ok, Fred first. No “bullets” until the 1850s. I guess the Revolutionary War and conflicts prior were fought with spitballs.
    Now the rest of you. This is HI-friggin-larious. Those big nasty men blew smoke at me, ew. BA HA HAHA HA HA. So what. I agree with the brodozer comments. They’re either a bunch of kids in daddy’s new truck or daddy is acting like an idiot. But I don’t get the hatred. One law to make it illegal is not enough? Really?! Nazi much? I guess you need more laws to make it “illegaler” so you will be “safer.”
    I had an 80 something Isuzu diesel that was geologically slow. A few puffs of smoke was a great way to get rid of tailgaters.
    Maybe if you ladies would unpinch your faces and ignore these idiots, they’d stop. I GUARANTEE you they do it for the reaction. Just like the guy who taught his ’76 Civic to backfire.

    • 0 avatar
      Quentin

      He is technically right. Bullets weren’t developed until the mid 1800s. Before that, everything was a round ball.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet#History

      • 0 avatar
        Avid Fan

        Webster says round or elongated missile (as of lead) to be fired from a firearm. Now the typical “bullet” shape we’re familiar with today came from the Minie ball which we fist saw and recognize from the Civil War.

    • 0 avatar
      JimC2

      “Just like the guy who taught his ’76 Civic to backfire.”

      That trick is really easy with a carbureted car. With the vehicle in gear and moving at speed, you briefly turn the key to “off” to cut off the ignition. Fuel and air keep coming and when you turn the key back to “on” then the exhaust system becomes a big noisemaker. Caution: doing this is really really really really bad for your car!

      • 0 avatar
        VolandoBajo

        My carbed 76 Rabbit would backfire after the cat was legally deleted. Problem was the empty cat chamber was an expansion chamber, causing the backfire. Fixed it by paying for a Canadian straight downpipe to replace it, at my own cost, as I was tired of having it backfire every time I wound it out in 2nd in NYC trying to make a light, and then had to back off the throttle when I couldn’t make it.

        But when the backfire is on the intake side, you are literally playing with fire.

        And I doubt that 76 Civic had to be “taught” to backfire.

    • 0 avatar
      VolandoBajo

      @Avid Fan What good is the first law, a federal one, when there are no federal traffic patrol vehicles to enforce it, and anyway the law only applies to shops?

      If you’d like, I’ll petition the legislature to let them roll coal withing fifty feet of your house, if you like it so much.

      Would love to see such a truck in a driveway next to your bedroom window, belonging to a guy who worked nights if you worked days, or vice versa.

      Bet you’d be screaming for stricter enforcement then.

  • avatar

    Saw this for the first time recently. I was getting on a highway and the massive diesel pickup ahead of me hit whatever switch and blew the worst black smoke I’ve ever seen out of the vertical stacks behind the cab.

    I watched this pure blackness swirl and cover an unexpectedly large area of blue sky. Thought about the danger of these particulates, and why my TDi had a mad scientist’s hangover nightmare under the hood to burn up and control those very same particulates.

    This guy just blew my pollution quotient for, oh, 100k miles, getting onto a ramp for no reason.

    I’m all for automotive expression, but this makes me think the same thing I see when someone runs an unmuffled cigarette boat in a small lake…that there are “compensation” issues.

  • avatar
    shaker

    A “Full Tank of Freedom.”

  • avatar
    johnhowington

    the amount of liberal butthurt in this thread is staggering.

  • avatar
    shaker

    That’s what these articles are for – bringing two sub-critcal masses of “Wingnutanium” together, and watch the fireworks.

  • avatar
    Numbers_Matching

    I blame the popularity and justification of this behavior on the plethora of ding-bat reality shows that have been targeted to a certain demographic range of the population. Remember when you watched ‘Discovery’ network as walked away feeling it was time well spent?

    • 0 avatar
      shaker

      The Discovery “network” is a garbage dump of reruns and “reality” shows masquerading as “educational” peppered through with commercials out the wazoo.

      I’ve reached the point where I’m watching reruns of “House” and “Family Guy”, and the Pirates games – IMHO, the best that Cable TV has to offer.

      If I didn’t live in a hollow with absolutely NO TV reception, I’d dump cable TV altogether (but am still stuck with ComCrap Internet).

      • 0 avatar
        VolandoBajo

        @shaker Yep, that’s all there is outside of your little world there in the holler, nothing but masses of Wingnutanium and nothing anyone out there cares about has any value at all, right?

        This is what happens when one becomes enmeshed in a steady diet of ComCrapium as a point of reference.

        Bet you play Dueling Banjos pretty well, though, don’t you?

  • avatar
    brenschluss

    If you reserve the right to deliberately give me a headache at the least, or send me to the hospital with respiratory problems at worst with your exhaust, against my will, I reserve the right to give you a headache or send you to the hospital through whatever means I have at my disposal at the time.

    Once I have this freedom, I’ll accept others having the freedom to “Roll Coal.”

  • avatar
    George B

    I haven’t seen any diesel pickup trucks “rollin coal” in the Dallas suburbs. Diesel engine/exhaust modification here seems to focus on faster and louder with occasional black smoke from burnouts, not the exhaust. Maybe the demographic that would make the black smoke modification can’t afford a diesel truck around here. However I have seen video of diesel truck drag racing where the fuel/air ratio is obviously rich. The smoke goes white as the truck goes down the track suggesting black smoke is incidental to other modifications.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • dantes_inferno: FCA motto: Dodge testing. RAM into production.
  • Schurkey: A few years back, I treated myself to a Challenger 5.7 Hemi rental car for several days when vacationing on...
  • SCE to AUX: I was shocked to see an SSR in the wild the other day. The Hummer EV will do better, but I wouldn’t...
  • SCE to AUX: Yeah, I’ll bet the engineers didn’t think of that. Have you seen the armor plate under the...
  • CaddyDaddy: Ya, but when Dalton got to Missouri and the Roadhouse, the Riv was the one to go with for the Dirty Work.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Matthew Guy
  • Timothy Cain
  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber