Noise restrictions bylaw coming for Oakville

[GreyGhost]

Already a thread on this, couldn't bother looking it up. I don't think it discussed the fines though. $400-25000 for first offence, up to $50000 for second offence?

Can one of the lawyers chime in whether those fines even stand a chance of being upheld? I would think that they will be pulled back to much more reasonable limits as the punishment is too severe for the crime. I am thinking something like $100 to $300 for first offence, seize the bike for second or third offence as you have had the opportunity to comply and chose not to.

[Rob MacLennan]

Already a thread on this, couldn't bother looking it up. I don't think it discussed the fines though. $400-25000 for first offence, up to $50000 for second offence?

Can one of the lawyers chime in whether those fines even stand a chance of being upheld? I would think that they will be pulled back to much more reasonable limits as the punishment is too severe for the crime. I am thinking something like $100 to $300 for first offence, seize the bike for second or third offence as you have had the opportunity to comply and chose not to.

I already merged the two threads, before you posted in it

[OpenGambit]

Already a thread on this, couldn't bother looking it up. I don't think it discussed the fines though. $400-25000 for first offence, up to $50000 for second offence?

Can one of the lawyers chime in whether those fines even stand a chance of being upheld? I would think that they will be pulled back to much more reasonable limits as the punishment is too severe for the crime. I am thinking something like $100 to $300 for first offence, seize the bike for second or third offence as you have had the opportunity to comply and chose not to.

I don't know, but I wouldn't want to be the test case.

[GreyGhost]

Fair enough, thanks for the input. Hopefully the test case is a rich person and not a poor stupid kid.

I think I understand the reason for the high fines, if you are riding an $80000 harley, who cares about a $100 ticket, but implementing them presents problems. With time, I am leaning more and more to fines based on income. It's not without problems, but it is a much more equitable punishment (and deterrent) than the current system.

[OpenGambit]

Fair enough, thanks for the input. Hopefully the test case is a rich person and not a poor stupid kid.

I think I understand the reason for the high fines, if you are riding an $80000 harley, who cares about a $100 ticket, but implementing them presents problems. With time, I am leaning more and more to fines based on income. It's not without problems, but it is a much more equitable punishment (and deterrent) than the current system.

Well I don't know about equitable, but I'll give you effective.

[Brian P]

An excessive fine (which this is) will tip the balance towards people charged with a violation putting up a fight against this law and making it unenforceable in some way, instead of just paying the fine (or fixing their bike).

We already know about the engine speed measurement issue.

[gwelfmike]

The Provincal Offences Act already has provision in it for "economic hardships"( re income level )

59. (1) No penalty prescribed for an offence is a minimum penalty unless it is specifically declared to be a minimum.
Relief against minimum fine
(2) Although the provision that creates the penalty for an offence prescribes a minimum fine, where in the opinion of the court exceptional circumstances exist so that to impose the minimum fine would be unduly oppressive or otherwise not in the interests of justice, the court may impose a fine that is less than the minimum or suspend the sentence.

Fair enough, thanks for the input. Hopefully the test case is a rich person and not a poor stupid kid.

I think I understand the reason for the high fines, if you are riding an $80000 harley, who cares about a $100 ticket, but implementing them presents problems. With time, I am leaning more and more to fines based on income. It's not without problems, but it is a much more equitable punishment (and deterrent) than the current system.

[OpenGambit]

The problem doesn't seem to be the minimum. its the Max

But before talking about unenforcability, lets not confuse the possbiilty of a high fine with an actual high fine being given.

If the general ticket is 400 bucks... i think its high but probably not unenforcable. When someone gets the 25,000 or 50,000 fine, that would be the test case.

[gwelfmike]

the $400 fine, would probably a set fine under a Part One Ticket under the POA, ( thats if the municipality made application Part 1 tickets and was approved ). The POA allows for maximum fine of $1000.00 under a part one ticket.

anything above that would be a summons to court, even with a summons

The problem doesn't seem to be the minimum. its the Max

But before talking about unenforcability, lets not confuse the possbiilty of a high fine with an actual high fine being given.

If the general ticket is 400 bucks... i think its high but probably not unenforcable. When someone gets the 25,000 or 50,000 fine, that would be the test case.

[OpenGambit]

oh I am not talking about legislative authority. I was just saying that no one is gonna know if a fine will fly until they actually write the 25,000 ticket.

Though at first blush I do think its bonkers.

[gwelfmike]

If you look at any legislation and what the maxium fine is, I think you would be surprised. Building Code Violations, max. $100,000 first offence on a person, $200,000 for a corporation, continuing offence, $10,000 a day, but when did you hear of someone getting a $100,000 fine for illegally building a shed? Zoning infractions, $100,000,

[OpenGambit]

Thats my point, I am saying its highly unlikely we are going to see the max. And its only when we get the huge tickets will there be any kind of "unenforcabilty" argument.

If they are just handing out 400 dollar tickets I think there is no chance of challenging the law. ( based on the fine)

[gwelfmike]

You cannot get a $25,000 "ticket", the maximum for a part one ticket is $1000.00, if the municipality ( or any enforcement agency) wants to get a higher fine, they have to issue a part 3 summons and take you to court.

Thats my point, I am saying its highly unlikely we are going to see the max. And its only when we get the huge tickets will there be any kind of "unenforcabilty" argument.

If they are just handing out 400 dollar tickets I think there is no chance of challenging the law. ( based on the fine)

[OpenGambit]

ok i called it a ticket and not a fine... doesn't change the point though

[Dynotunes]

For those who do not realize it the town of Oakville has passed a noise bylaw aimed directly at motorcycles.
The following is thier limits
A bike at idle shall not emit greater than the following levels of noise
1-idle rpm 92 db
2-2000 rpm 96 db
3- 5000 rpm 100 db

for those interested we just this morning tested 2 Harleys on our dyno with the following results

first bike 2007 harley street glide with Rinehart exhaust

1 idle rpm = 97 db
2 2000 rpm 102 db
3 5000 rpm in excess of 127

second bike was a stock 2011 Harley cvo 110

1 idle rpm 94 db
2 2000 rpm 98-100
3 3000 rpm 100+

So in actuality one could get a ticket for a totally stock bike.
Obviously this is going to be cause for concern, for what it is worth we tested a police bike and it measured above legal limits also.

[matthew]

Did you follow SAE J1287 standards?

[PLau]

So what the town of oakville is saying is that some bikes that are legal by ontario's standards is illegal by oakville's....

[Dynotunes]

we did the teasts as per Oakville bylaw measured at 50cm, the rule is very vague, no angles, nothing just 50 cm

[Dynotunes]

that would be correct

[matthew]

What kind of police bike did you test? HD? Aftermarket pipes?