Caledon noise by-law meeting Tues. Oct.5th 7:00pm

[djltoronto]

look here for the propsed bylaw


http://www.town.caledon.on.ca/conten...y-lawFinal.pdf

Garry

So they included the RPM's. Good...


What about the part regarding the set fine.. Something like the set fine no longer applies if you challenge the ticket in court, and instead, a new fine of $1000 is the default? I'm not a fan of that. If the set fine is $150, the set fine should stand. And if a person chooses to challenge it in court for whatever reason, they should be permitted to do so. The threat of the fine increasing 6 fold just seems like financial bullying to me.

[turbodish]

So they included the RPM's. Good...


What about the part regarding the set fine.. Something like the set fine no longer applies if you challenge the ticket in court, and instead, a new fine of $1000 is the default? I'm not a fan of that. If the set fine is $150, the set fine should stand. And if a person chooses to challenge it in court for whatever reason, they should be permitted to do so. The threat of the fine increasing 6 fold just seems like financial bullying to me.

This is common for bylaws and for provincial offences with set fines. Trespass is one - set fine is usually $63 or so, but can go up to $500 on conviction at trial. Just because it can go up to $500 on conviction doesn't mean that this is the default fine for those who go to trial and lose. It is just the maximum, and maximums only get applied to the worst of the worst.

The set fine is the out of court settlement amount, applies to everyone regardless of the circumstances that led to the ticket or the previous record of similar violations. In most cases, going to court and being found guilty will not result in an increased amount over and above the set fine. However, if you have a particularly bad record of previous violations, or if your ticket came about because of some particularly obnoxious overt act, you could win the booby prize.

[frekeyguy]

You can't directly post an attachment from your Hotmail. That would require putting your passowrd, in plain text, in the link

sorry.

I found this at the Shed @ bellfountain...

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4124/...7df4680f_b.jpg

[hdsomeday]

sorry.

I found this at the Shed @ bellfountain...

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4124/...7df4680f_b.jpg

My eyes hurt !!

[turbodish]

sorry.

I found this at the Shed @ bellfountain...

You'll also find them attached to utility poles in the area. The very first one I saw was on a pole on the mountain side of the road right under the train trestle.

[turbodish]

Read some of the comments on the online petition to get an idea of what the locals are experiencing and complaining about, and it's not just Belfountain residents complaining.

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/c...ise/signatures

[Rob MacLennan]

Read some of the comments on the online petition to get an idea of what the locals are experiencing and complaining about, and it's not just Belfountain residents complaining.

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/c...ise/signatures

Why would anyone think that ANONYMOUSLY 'signing' a petition has any worth? There are quite a few of those.

[turbodish]

Why would anyone think that ANONYMOUSLY 'signing' a petition has any worth? There are quite a few of those.

There are 24 of them. I'm not sure that qualifies as "a lot". Oddly, some of those who didn't give their name did give their street address.

So ignore them if you wish, but there are enough "named" entries with well-written comments to take note of instead.

[Rob MacLennan]

There are 24 of them. I'm not sure that qualifies as "a lot". Oddly, some of those who didn't give their name did give their street address.

So ignore them if you wish, but there are enough "named" entries with well-written comments to take note of instead.

So, did you notice that I'm in that list before you made that comment?

*EDIT* More than 10% of the total doesn't qualify as "alot"?

[djltoronto]

I think the By law should be written with the following - in Bold, to more complete.
As it's written, some bikes would be tested at more than 75% of their max RPM... and that doesn't seem fair.

Triumph Rocket III for example Redlines at 6250 RPM and it's a 3 cylinder... (to be tested at 5000 RPM, which is more than 75% of it's max RPM).
While bikes like SV650's (any small displacement 2 cylinder) are tested just off idle - 2000rpm

Same with the 2dBA padding, it should be added to bone stock bikes that have aged and are clearly not modified with the intent to make noise. Imagine having a bone stocker older machine and failing by 1dBA.

The SAE recommends that the following lowest numerical limits be adopted:

92 dBA at idle for all motorcycles
96 dBA for motorcycles with fewer than three cylinders or more than four cylinders at 2000 rpm (or 75 percent of maximum engine speed, whichever is less)
100 dBA for motorcycles with three or four cylinders at 5,000 rpm (or 75 percent of maximum engine speed, whichever is less)
And, 2 dBA should be added to these sound limits for motorcycle exhaust systems that are clearly labeled as meeting the EPA sound limits and have not been obviously modified or tampered with.

Source = http://www.mic.org/news062409.cfm

[turbodish]

Define the meaning of "a lot". Usually it means many or very many. There are not many or very many anonymous entries in the list. One in ten is not "a lot".

I did read your comment. You ask that not all rider be painted with the same brush. Ok. Reading other comments, it appears that a number of residents in fact do agree that not all riders should fall under that brush.

[Rob MacLennan]

I think the By law should be written with the following - in Bold, to more complete.
As it's written, some bikes would be tested at more than 75% of their max RPM... and that doesn't seem fair.

Triumph Rocket III for example Redlines at 6250 RPM and it's a 3 cylinder... (to be tested at 5000 RPM, which is more than 75% of it's max RPM).


Same with the 2dBA padding, it should be added to bone stock bikes that have aged and are clearly not modified with the intent to make noise. Imagine having a bone stocker older machine and failing by 1dBA.


Source = http://www.mic.org/news062409.cfm

The number that you're looking for is likely closer to 50% of redline, rather than 75%. My own bike would be tested at 18% of redline, by the original document.

[Rob MacLennan]

Define the meaning of "a lot". Usually it means many or very many. There are not many or very many anonymous entries in the list. One in ten is not "a lot".

I did read your comment. You ask that not all rider be painted with the same brush. Ok. Reading other comments, it appears that a number of residents in fact do agree that not all riders should fall under that brush.

When the standard for a usable 'signature' is actual identification, I find 10% to be "a lot." It's one of the reasons that I think ePetitions are useless.

[turbodish]

Same with the 2dBA padding, it should be added to bone stock bikes that have aged and are clearly not modified with the intent to make noise. Imagine having a bone stocker older machine and failing by 1dBA.

And what if the specified dBa threshhold has already been "padded" to allow for some loss of effectiveness in an aging exhaust system? Stock exhaust systems should already be well within that threshhold as a result of meeting Transport Canada noise requirements for new vehicles sold in Canada. At some point though, when the system (stock or otherwise) is no longer effective at reducing noise, it's time for replacement regardless of type of vehicle.

[djltoronto]

And what if the specified dBa threshhold has already been "padded" to allow for some loss of effectiveness in an aging exhaust system

It hasn't been. Both the 75%of max RPM hard limit and the 2dBA padding are not my thoughts (though I agree with them), They are the recommendations from the SAE, the creators of the SAE J2825 standard.

[djltoronto]

The number that you're looking for is likely closer to 50% of redline, rather than 75%. My own bike would be tested at 18% of redline, by the original document.

It's not my number... I think 75% is a fair hard limit for RPM. 50% may be too low, and some bikes do cruise along the road at greater than 50% of their max RPM... (Ninja 250).
75% of the max would be the upper hard limit. Not the regular test RPM.

[Kelly Eric]

Hm, no mention of the fines, or of how the test is to be done other than to say the meter must be 50cm away from the exhaust.. 50cm directly behind will fail almost all bikes as the exhaust air flow will mess with the meter.

[djltoronto]

Hm, no mention of the fines, or of how the test is to be done other than to say the meter must be 50cm away from the exhaust.. 50cm directly behind will fail almost all bikes as the exhaust air flow will mess with the meter.

I don't understand why they don't simply write the by law to read - test as per SAE J2825 standard. and that's the end of that.

[CanadianBiker]

Read some of the comments on the online petition to get an idea of what the locals are experiencing and complaining about, and it's not just Belfountain residents complaining.

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/c...ise/signatures

I have lived in Caledon for over 16 years and been involved in various community initiatives during that time, so I have some sliver of insight into the community.
Caledon is an absolute hotbed of NIMBYism and hypocrisy, particularly when it comes to protecting their individual slices of "heaven". While I agree wholeheartedly that loud pipes are a problem and should be dealt with, I also firmly believe that it will not stop there. Belfountain will not be happy until bikes are banned altogether. Many residents have stated this publically; look through the archives of the Caledon Enterprise for the articles. Kind words on an e-petition don't mean much in the face of their past vitriol.
This by-law will happen and it won't affect most of us. For now. But it's just the top of a very slippery slope.

[djltoronto]

I have lived in Caledon for over 16 years and been involved in various community initiatives during that time, so I have some sliver of insight into the community.
Caledon is an absolute hotbed of NIMBYism and hypocrisy, particularly when it comes to protecting their individual slices of "heaven". While I agree wholeheartedly that loud pipes are a problem and should be dealt with, I also firmly believe that it will not stop there. Belfountain will not be happy until bikes are banned altogether. Many residents have stated this publically; look through the archives of the Caledon Enterprise for the articles. Kind words on an e-petition don't mean much in the face of their past vitriol.
This by-law will happen and it won't affect most of us. For now. But it's just the top of a very slippery slope.

This reminds me.. I would LOVE to know how many residents in Caledon actually know, or could identify approximately 100 dBA? Do half of them even know what they are agreeing to in terms of setting a legal limit for SPL?

They are agreeing to a sound pressure level = to a jackhammer at 1 meter... 100 dBA isn't all that quiet, and I can imagine a group ride of 20 bikes, staggered, close formation, all near but under the proposed legal limit - that group will certainly be heard just rolling through.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_pressure