Tory takes aim at noisy motorcycles | Page 3 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Tory takes aim at noisy motorcycles

Forum Sponsor
GreyGhost said:
If tested in compliance with J2825, a Class 1 (per IEC 61672-1) sound level meter (SLM) is needed. The cheapest class 2 meter I have ever seen is ~$500. Not a big problem if you are buying one meter, but if they are buying a fleet of them, and the associated field calibrators (~$1000+ each) the costs quickly add up. For Class 1 equipment you are looking at $3000+ per SLM plus the field calibrators. Adding in training, yearly traceable calibration ($500+ per system) etc. means this is not a trivial amount of money.

They could pick up the equivalent of radio shack meters or cell phone apps for much much less money, but they would be torn apart in court (and quite rightly so, I have tested many and if you aren't careful, they can report results that are wrong by 10's of decibels with no indication that the measurement is invalid).

Even if they were in for $5000 per system, that is peanuts in the overall Toronto budget, but is this a problem requiring that level of investment?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure they need a fleet of them and again....even a cheapie that leads to the bike coming in for a test is a good deterrent.

Ie officer finds bike loud
does quickie check with handheld - again will be obvious
Requires rider to get it tested at XYZ station .....

In addition I think the key is allowing JohnQ public to provide licence plates of loud bikes and a followup procedure to see that the complaint was acted on.

I don't think testing gear is the issue ....I think police compliance is .
 
Last edited:
JavaFan said:
cities are noisy
Click to expand...
Sitting in my backyard this past long weekend, attempting to find some peace and solitude, it felt like a never-ending audible assault on the senses. The constant high-pitched squealing of my neighbour's worn-out air conditioner was only matched by the insidious and incessant roar of the CNE Air Show, followed by the sound of a nearby OEM car alarm system honking away at random intervals all afternoon, unbeknownst to the offending vehicle's owner. The sound of intermittent thumping bass can be heard from the local park well past 11pm.

Nary a motorcycle exhaust was heard.

If you want to talk about urban noise pollution — let's be frank — motorcycles represent a mere sliver of the overall noise floor on any given day.
 
Last edited:
MacDoc said:
In addition I think the key is allowing JohnQ public to provide licence plates of loud bikes and a followup procedure to see that the complaint was acted on.
Click to expand...

FYI This doesn't work. John Q Public isn't very good at reporting this sort of thing. A lot of (perhaps most) traffic complaints filed by the public are frivolous complaints filed by chronic complainers, and the police know it - that's why you never see charges filed based solely on citizen complaints about someone's driving. You get little old granny driving 10 km/h below the speed limit complaining about everyone that overtakes. If there were to be complaints about noisy vehicles, you would get some person who hates motorcycles filing a complaint about every motorcycle that goes past, and someone else who complains about every truck or bus that goes past. "Chronic complainers" complain about everything everyone else does, never recognizing that they're the problem themselves.

Bear in mind that, at least at the beginning (not sure if they still do it) Calabogie race track had to have continuous sound monitoring in place to deal with frivolous citizen complaints. When someone complained about hearing something at such and such time, they could point to what the actual sound levels were at certain strategic locations on their property at that time. Had to, in order to defend themselves.

The sort of thing that Edmonton is doing, with roadside monitoring and photo license-plate enforcement, IMO will not stand up to scrutiny. It shouldn't stand up in court, although stranger things have happened.
 
Well then restrict it to home owners with complaints about bikes in their area and a licence plate.
Friends of ours had to move house in Fonthill due to lame brains with loud bikes going by in mobs at all hours.

There needs to be a complaint system that can be followed....I really don't care if it can stand up in court .....bylaws don't need the kind of standard of proof of a traffic breach.
It usually needs a complaint and a way of identifing the vehicle or person in breach of the bylaw.
It also needs a transparent way to track if that complaint has been acted on.

This isn't just restricted to noise but any bylaws. I'd be happy to have it dealt with a bylaw officer rather than police.

In large urban centres, bylaw enforcement officers may specialize in checking and enforcing specific bylaws. appear in court and give testimony related to the prosecution of bylaw offenders. The municipalities that hire bylaw enforcement officers define the powers they may use on the job.
Click to expand...

http://municipalcapacity.ca/+pub/document/resource-materials/dutiesbylawofficer.pdf

These are not traffic offences but bylaw breaches and should be dealt with that way.

From the PDF

In general, bylaw enforcement officers may:
• respond to complaints from local citizens, elected officials and businesses
• discuss bylaw requirements with the people involved and attempt to reach an
understanding and obtain voluntary compliance with the bylaw
• enforce bylaws by issuing orders to correct problems such as unsightly property
• correct problems when orders are not obeyed by arranging for required work to be
done and invoicing the property owner
• enforce bylaws by issuing violation tickets, traffic tags or summonses and
subpoenas, and prepare related legal documents
• keep records
• use specialized equipment related to specific bylaws (for example, weights and
measures, noise level instruments, auto samplers for taking chemical samples)
• investigate bylaw offences to prepare for court proceedings
• appear in court and give testimony related to the prosecution of bylaw offenders.
Click to expand...

There are towns in the US that you can't ride a motorcycle through legally ...they are fed up.....other countries don't have the problem with lax enforcement of noise from motorcycles.

This is Waterloo's approach

Enforcement

By-law officers may use handheld meters to measure noise and assess if it is exceeding the limit for a particular source of noise. Charges may be issued if the by-law is violated. The minimum fine for an offence under this by-law is $400.

If you believe someone is violating the noise by-law and would like to file a complaint, please contact us online or by calling 519-747-8785.
Click to expand...

https://www.waterloo.ca/en/government/noise.asp

It should not be in the police hands as they've done squat to address it to date.

In Queensland loud bikes can be impounded and even forfeited and it is under the police
https://www.police.qld.gov.au/corpo...olicies/Documents/TrafficManual/Chapter15.pdf

An interesting read about a blitz

https://netrider.net.au/threads/exhaust-noise-next-on-the-harassment-list.251340/

and

https://motorbikewriter.com/motorcycle-exhaust-blitz-expected/

Most of you would not like riding open class bikes in Queensland.
 
Australia is a horrible example of authority run amok. We do not want to follow their example.

Just make a sound level check part of Drive Clean ... done. Means every vehicle gets periodically get checked and nobody gets picked on because they have a nosy neighbor. It should be a performance-based test (like SAE J2825), not a part-number comparison with OEM, in order to allow the use of reasonable aftermarket substitute parts (not like California).

It wouldn't trouble me too much if police officers were allowed to pick out obvious offenders and require them to be tested. That's already the case (e.g. if your vehicle has an obvious safety issue). It shouldn't be necessary to have roadside impoundments and the like for something like this - it isn't an immediate threat to public safety. Just "show up here by this date with an inspection certificate".

Don't be surprised if the police have better things to do with their time - hence my suggestion for this to be part of Drive Clean.
 
Well they don't have corrupt police forces if you think that's authority run amok and they just about erased the bikie gangs not even allowing them to gather.

Insurance for motorcycles is far less in main due to strict Learner programs and a second level Open Class licence requiring additional testing. They are tough on DUI as well.

They have a far better voting system and a bit better healthcare system and safety net.

Yeah a bit more bureaucratic but in other ways easier ....buy or sell a bike with no tax hit and the liability insurance goes with the bike.
-----------


Bylaw officers checking on complaints directly, police nabbing the obvious and Drive Clean as a check all maybe but I'd rather it part of the safety check as well.
 
Last edited:
As a rider and father of a 2 year old and someone that has two very loud cruisers in my street, I can not tell you how disturbing and aggravating it is when these guys enter or exit the street we live in.

It is unnecessary and it is all about them liking the noise and vibration.

So i fully support this work, I might not support the way they go about it

Sent from my STV100-3 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
The city having more pressing issues is no excuse to get other less important stuff done. asking staff for a review which takes months is a good idea.

I am glad our elected officials are able to work in more than one thing at the time.

Sent from my STV100-3 using Tapatalk
 
Baggsy said:
Well, since Tory said vehicles, I think that's covered.
Click to expand...

I think that is a key point. Any time by-laws artificially limit their scope, problems arise. It would be much better to leave it at vehicles. Ideally there would be separate test procedures for 4 wheels and 2, but if they don't want to get that detailed, J2825 applied to a 4 wheel vehicle should get the worst offenders (except for those vehicles with switchable exhaust valves which again are better dealt with in a drive-clean test. Make exhaust dump similar to nitrous [eg you can have it but it cannot possibly be operated on the street]).
 
There are already laws on the books about noise levels for exhausts and they apply to all vehicles. The problem is enforcement. Neither the police or the MTO want to waste valuable man-power on enforcing something like this when they already don't have the resources to properly enforce laws related to safety like catching cellphone users/distracted drivers and catching motorists/commercial vehicles with unsafe vehicles. This is a vote grab, plain and simple. Tory wants to pass a law that will impress the folks with the expensive downtown condos in areas where folks like to ride/drive at night to see and be seen. It doesn't matter that it will be next to impossible to enforce, it'll wow some voters who don't bother to think it through. The city may even step up inspection/enforcement for a short time if the law is passed, but give it a few months and it'll pass. Kind of like the cellphone problem. They do a huge blitz, catch a bunch of folks, but after the blitz you see people still on their phones while driving.

Now, you want to talk about vehicle noise? Let's discuss the garbage truck that pulls up in front of my house ever Wednesday at 6:50am! The roar of the driver gunning that diesel followed by hammering on the screechy breaks between every house is far more annoying than any motorcycle or car! I know this to be true because my white trash next door neighbour has a monster truck (that has never once seen dirt) with a stupid loud exhaust on it and I still find the garbage trucks to be worse!
 
Last edited:
EXCEPT bikes don't do the Drive Clean.... hence why your suggestion WON'T work...lol

Brian P said:
Australia is a horrible example of authority run amok. We do not want to follow their example.

Just make a sound level check part of Drive Clean ... done. Means every vehicle gets periodically get checked and nobody gets picked on because they have a nosy neighbor. It should be a performance-based test (like SAE J2825), not a part-number comparison with OEM, in order to allow the use of reasonable aftermarket substitute parts (not like California).

It wouldn't trouble me too much if police officers were allowed to pick out obvious offenders and require them to be tested. That's already the case (e.g. if your vehicle has an obvious safety issue). It shouldn't be necessary to have roadside impoundments and the like for something like this - it isn't an immediate threat to public safety. Just "show up here by this date with an inspection certificate".

Don't be surprised if the police have better things to do with their time - hence my suggestion for this to be part of Drive Clean.
Click to expand...
 
Used to be in NB, you had a Bi annual vehicle inspection, it required a little sticker affixed to front windshield. Every time, I stopped a vehicle, first thing I looked at was expired inspection decals. This would capture most of these issues if it was applied to ALL vehicles including bikes.

GreyGhost said:
I like the concept of including it with drive clean, but I am also not opposed to something similar (but much less stringent than) the inspections required in Japan. Forcing your car to pass a safety every few years isn't a terrible idea and would clean up most of the idiotic blinding headlights, tinted tail lights, obnoxious mufflers, bald tires, no brakes etc. Having every drive clean center buy, calibrate and train on sound level equipment is likely a non-starter. If specific shops chose to undertake the required investment to provide whatever these safeties are called, they hopefully get a return on investment through increased revenue.

Interestingly, there is a decent chance that the car with a broken flex pipe would pass testing near the tailpipe unless there was a caveat in the by-law that required no obvious leaks.
Click to expand...
 
shanekingsley said:
If loud pipes are what is keeping riders safe, how do the rest of us with quiet pipes get it done?
Click to expand...
RIGHT ON. 18 years with stock pipes and somehow I've managed to look out for myself.

Quit it with this loud pipe safety talk. Just say you like loud pipes. Dont cloak it with this safety crap.

Sent from my SM-N950W using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Mayor Tory doesnt give a flying F about loud vehicles, he cares about 25 councilors that grumble about 2,800 constituents that are tired of loud vehicles. Thats how momentum works.

I'd rather not take my vehicles to a DriveClean, when they get a new mandate thats its also now DriveQuiet, and you cant renew plates with an aftermarket exhaust.

Roadside "ride" programs will come to your town, they did it with the old car sweeps when you got pulled over and had to go directly to an inspection station set up in a parking lot, they do it with commercial vehicle sweeps now. It happens in hot spots like Caledon and Oakville for bike noise and we will get it all over, thanks to a small population of 'I need to be safe and loud pipes are my only solution'
 
Thought this was humorous
017ad593484705003c77e3ffd51e07e7.jpg
9c9d05c4e19ade74e9342dbff66c9454.jpg
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom