Operation - Disarming San Francisco MTA-Muni

Is the door knob too high for you to reach? That is not your imagination playing tricks on you, probably it is!
Since 2001, The San Francisco MTA-Muni introduced the New fleet of Electric Buses on Union Street, San Francisco, California. Bus routes number 45 and 41. These buses in addition of being mechanically and technologically loud than the previous version, emits 3 types of offensive and intrusive noise signals trespassing inhabitants property lines. These signals are:
1. Beep signals that goes beyond property lines.
2. Voice signals that goes beyond property lines.
3. Sharp shooting whistles signals that goes beyond property lines.

-It is a mechanically acoustic cruel, mean and invasive system promoted by wrongful transportation lobbyists that transformed the interior of our living spaces in a bus stop, says many of San Franciscan's inhabitants, not releasing their names because of fear of retaliation.

-It seems that the City got out from one pollution mistake to fall into another one. You will going to hear and see attempts of lobbying and justification for this acoustic invasion, but none of them justify this unethical behavior or unlawful manners for acoustic pollution and trespassing of inhabitants property lines.
One of their justification is that the system is for orienting the blind and partially deaf in the City consequently assuming that everyone in the City is elderly, blind, partially blind or partially deaf.
- Nothing can justify acoustic trespassing even in the assumption that one possesses a physical disability, says an acoustic activist by the nickname "stopnoise." In the same token I might need money but I am not going to trespass and rob a bank to get it. I am also not going to brake into people house and steal their possessions and harm them physically in the process just because I am in need of it. Acoustic trespassing is not different from any other types and forms of trespassing in our society. Trespass is trespass no matter how you want to wrongfully justify it.

As Doctor Hagler, author of an acoustic publication in the Medical Journal, answering to a comment from a less acoustic concerned individual.

Dear Mr. Diaz:

I fear you have missed the point.

I am a retired physician with an interest in the public health effects of
noise pollution. Those of us in Noise Free America and other groups are not
opposed to people's choices in music. We are not concerned with rap or hip hop vs Vivaldi. We are opposed to the ceaseless and unwanted noise that washes over us at times, places and at volumes over which we have no control. We are opposed to noise over which others seem not to exercise control, restraint, or, consideration. We are opposed to noise because it is unhealthy. And this is not something to be sneezed at or trivialized.

There is now abundant (and continually growing) evidence that noise is not
merely an annoyance. It is not something that even grouchy old men like you
don't need to tolerate. Among its many adverse effects, noise damages
hearing, disturbs communication, disrupts sleep, impairs cardiovascular function, interferes with teaching and learning, reduces productivity, harms relationships, provokes unwanted behaviors, and increases accidents. It is a major source of recurring and often unrecognized stress, which, itself, degrades the quality of life and adversely affects health.

Pollution is pollution, irrespective of the source or the way it enters the
body. The ear is as important a portal for pollution as the lung, stomach,
or eye. It is the role of government to protect citizens from all forms of
pollution, including noise pollution. Polluters should be the target of swift, consistent, and meaningful penalties. From my perspective, a $200.00 fine and points on one's license are lenient.

Louis Hagler, MD
Oakland, CA