Got busted at the Forks for a loud bike!!

[DemonPig]

Actually since revving your bike at a standstill serves no purpose, unless you have a 2-stroke GP bike that stalls if you try to idle it by design (which isn't street legal either), you're risking an excessive noise bylaw ticket for that. No, I've never heard of anyone receiving one for it, but it's just a matter of time.

My little ZZR250 stalled while I was riding it on a cold day, not even talking about standing at a red. I had to constantly rev it up. Very cold blooded bike. I intended to remedy the issue but then I just sold the motorcycle. The only thing, it was super quiet so nobody ever minded.

 

[f1mauro]

Now the whiney Hamilton biatches are crying foul




Shhhh! Operation Baffle targets excess noise

Labour Day police blitz will target loud exhausts; Hamilton citizens' group petitions for noisy-muffler bylaw

BIKER

<small>Gary Yokoyama,The Hamilton Spectator</small>Motorcycle ride

BIKER

<small>Gary Yokoyama,Hamilton Spectator file photo</small>File photo of a biker with a skull face mask. Operation Baffle is keeping an eye on noisy vehicles while members of Hamilton Against Loud Exhausts work to get a new noise bylaw





<small class="color primaryNP printable-author">Hamilton Spectator</small> ByStacey Escott
Drivers take notice: Concerned citizens and Hamilton police have noise pollution on their radar and steps are being taken to quiet the racket coming from some vehicles, motorcycles in particular.
Police from the Mountain division officially kicked off Operation Baffle this summer. It's a proactive policing project that includes random visual inspections of motorbike exhaust systems to make sure they have baffles — devices that reduce the noise from mufflers.
"If they find there is no baffle … they will issue a provincial offence notice," said Sergeant Myra James, crime manager and supervisor of safety officers for Division 30.
James learned of the concerns through residents' calls to her office and meetings with city councillors.
"This quality of life type problem is a seasonal one and impacts members of our community," James said.
Division 30 covers the Mountain and other communities such as Glanbrook, Mount Hope, upper Stoney Creek, Ancaster and Dundas.
The Ontario Highway Traffic Act requires every motor vehicle or motor assisted bicycle to be "equipped with a muffler in good working order and in constant operation to prevent excessive or unusual noise."
The act prohibits the modification of mufflers to increase sound.
But Stuart Osborne and Martin Essig don't think that's enough and the two men started Hamilton Against Loud Exhausts (HALE) in the spring in an effort to decrease the overall noise levels of modified vehicles in the community.
"The biggest offenders of modified exhausts are motorcycles," said Osborne.
They want people to know that modified exhausts are illegal under the Highway Traffic Act but they also say the law is ineffective.
"It doesn't specify what noise is. It has to be defined and measurable," Essig said.
They want a bylaw enforced that enables either bylaw or police officers to measure the noise coming from vehicles. They created a Facebook page and started a petition online to get city council to start enforcing limits on noise emitted from motorcycles.
They point to municipalities such as Oakville, Guelph and Caledon, which have bylaws that specifically target excessive vehicle noise. These cities use a standard test from the U.S.-based Society of Automotive Engineers as a guideline to measure noise coming from exhaust systems.
"Oakville enacted the bylaw based on this standard — they will have blitzes within the community where Halton police will assist and pull over the vehicle (and) a bylaw officer is waiting with a sound meter," Osborne said.
The Oakville bylaw came into effect on July 1, 2012.
Burlington Councillor Marianne Meed Ward presented a similar motion last summer to ask staff to look at what is being done elsewhere regarding noisy motorcycles but no changes have been made.
James Conrad owns Sturgess Cycle in Hamilton and acknowledges the problem. He says he's respectful of his neighbours and asks his customers to do the same, but "there will always be the exception to the rule — there will always be (those) that have no consideration for anybody but themselves.
"Even with a bylaw in place, it will make no difference to them," he added.
Operation Baffle doesn't target just motorcycles. The project focuses on any vehicle with a dodgy muffler or no muffler at all. Police conducted their first blitz over the Victoria Day weekend in May. The next one will happen over the Labour Day weekend.
James says she has attended meetings with HALE and is in regular communication with the group.
"I think perhaps it would help in the area of enforcement if there was some sort of municipal bylaw that was measurable," she said.
To sign the HALE petition, visit www.change.org/en-CA/petitions/stop-the-noise.

 

[inreb]

Isn't there a ticket for excessive revving?......

Excessive idling.

 

[Matthew.Tremayne]

A friend of mine has an R6 that hit 150+ dbs... It makes your ears bleed lol.

 

[Phelan]

^^ must be a straight pipe.

 

[happycrappy]

Still think it would be better supported, easier to enforce, and a lot more "fair" to the accused if they went after the non-baffled pipes only. No subjective tests, just a clear view down the pipe that could be photographed for court. And make the deterrent significant; when they wanted to do inspection blitzes on cars in the past for safety and illegal performance upgrades, they simply took the plates and made them go through a new safety inspection or be impounded. A meager by-law fine does nothing for compliance

 

[nfq]

Still think it would be better supported, easier to enforce, and a lot more "fair" to the accused if they went after the non-baffled pipes only. No subjective tests, just a clear view down the pipe that could be photographed for court. And make the deterrent significant; when they wanted to do inspection blitzes on cars in the past for safety and illegal performance upgrades, they simply took the plates and made them go through a new safety inspection or be impounded. A meager by-law fine does nothing for compliance

Compliance?

I thought this was about revenue generation.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Still think it would be better supported, easier to enforce, and a lot more "fair" to the accused if they went after the non-baffled pipes only. No subjective tests, just a clear view down the pipe that could be photographed for court. And make the deterrent significant; when they wanted to do inspection blitzes on cars in the past for safety and illegal performance upgrades, they simply took the plates and made them go through a new safety inspection or be impounded. A meager by-law fine does nothing for compliance

The old roadside test was if the cop could insert his billy club down the exhaust, it failed. These days many stock exhausts would fail this test, and yet the HTA section behind it has never been updated.

 

[happycrappy]

The old roadside test was if the cop could insert his billy club down the exhaust, it failed. These days many stock exhausts would fail this test, and yet the HTA section behind it has never been updated.

I remember those. I wonder if there would be a modern alternative that is easily employed. Unfortunately, as written right now they could just hit anything non-OEM, but that's an enforcement nightmare. It's kind of like the snowmobile issue; only a percentage of meatheads are making it tough on everyone else. The snowmobile exhaust fine is 500 bucks, and that is for any non-OEM.

 

[nikiter]

The old roadside test was if the cop could insert his billy club down the exhaust, it failed. These days many stock exhausts would fail this test, and yet the HTA section behind it has never been updated.

That's how they molested my car.......twice.

 

[skip]

My bike fails the old billy club test since I have no baffles in my exhaust (Remus Revolution GP exhaust).

As tested in Caledon the J2825 test gives 84 dBA @ idle and 88 dBa @ 2000 RPM. Saw a H-D Heritage with aftermarket pipes tested as well (think they were Vance & Hines) 87 dBA @ idle and 93 dBa @ 2000 RPM.

 

[Brian P]

Still think it would be better supported, easier to enforce, and a lot more "fair" to the accused if they went after the non-baffled pipes only. No subjective tests, just a clear view down the pipe that could be photographed for court. And make the deterrent significant; when they wanted to do inspection blitzes on cars in the past for safety and illegal performance upgrades, they simply took the plates and made them go through a new safety inspection or be impounded. A meager by-law fine does nothing for compliance

No. An objective test based on numbers is the fairest way to do this. Vehicle is allowed to be X loud based on a prescribed test, IF ... THEN ...

"But I don't know if my own bike will pass" - then GET IT TESTED. The procedure is simple. And, while the dB meter application for an iPhone doesn't qualify as a calibrated instrument, it's good enough to filter out whether your situation is good (well in compliance by a substantial margin), bad (not in compliance by a big margin) or debatable (within the accuracy uncertainty of the test method) - and I'd suggest that if your situation falls in the latter category, it's better to make the safe assumption that you need to make the bike quieter anyway, just to make sure.

The old "billy club" test is not fair because many mufflers that could fail this test are actually not very loud, and it's easy to make a muffler that will pass this test but is obnoxiously loud. (Just hollow everything out of a muffler, no baffle and no sound-absorbing packing, but weld a couple bars across the tail end to stop the billy club from being inserted.)

Going by the EPA markings on a muffler housing (which is how California is doing it) is also not fair, because anyone with a moderately decent degree of fabrication capability could take an EPA-approved muffler, take all the innards out of it, and weld the outside shell back together preserving that EPA marking. Obnoxiously loud ... oh yes, but it bears that precious marking! An old muffler that is rusted out internally will still have its EPA markings, too.

Requiring that all bikes bear their stock exhaust systems (California is more or less becoming like this) is not fair to owners of vintage machinery for which the original-equipment parts are no longer available. There's nothing wrong with letting them use effective aftermarket parts if it achieves the objective of noise reduction.

It is much, much better for everyone to go by an objective test that anyone can perform for themselves before they are subjected to legal scrutiny.

I know that all of my bikes pass ... even my race bike!

 

[GreyGhost]

A friend of mine has an R6 that hit 150+ dbs... It makes your ears bleed lol.

So many problems with this statement.

Distance matters a lot and isn't stated.

If it was measured in dB instead of dBA, this number may be possible, but it is approaching the realm of impossible if it is dBA. To put it in perspective, if it was measured at the riders head and the rider was wearing the best ear plugs he could buy, he would get hearing damage in less than 30 seconds at full throttle.

Another comparison is that assuming this sound level was measured in accordance with J2825 (and is in dBA), it would take ~250,000 bikes at the 96 dBA limit all running at the same time to equal the sound from that one bike. No matter how obnoxious a pipe is, this just doesn't seem believable.

This is the kind of number someone that doesn't know any better throws out in a penis measuring contest.

 

[happycrappy]

No. An objective test based on numbers is the fairest way to do this. Vehicle is allowed to be X loud based on a prescribed test, IF ... THEN ...

"But I don't know if my own bike will pass" - then GET IT TESTED. The procedure is simple. And, while the dB meter application for an iPhone doesn't qualify as a calibrated instrument, it's good enough to filter out whether your situation is good (well in compliance by a substantial margin), bad (not in compliance by a big margin) or debatable (within the accuracy uncertainty of the test method) - and I'd suggest that if your situation falls in the latter category, it's better to make the safe assumption that you need to make the bike quieter anyway, just to make sure.

The old "billy club" test is not fair because many mufflers that could fail this test are actually not very loud, and it's easy to make a muffler that will pass this test but is obnoxiously loud. (Just hollow everything out of a muffler, no baffle and no sound-absorbing packing, but weld a couple bars across the tail end to stop the billy club from being inserted.)

Going by the EPA markings on a muffler housing (which is how California is doing it) is also not fair, because anyone with a moderately decent degree of fabrication capability could take an EPA-approved muffler, take all the innards out of it, and weld the outside shell back together preserving that EPA marking. Obnoxiously loud ... oh yes, but it bears that precious marking! An old muffler that is rusted out internally will still have its EPA markings, too.

Requiring that all bikes bear their stock exhaust systems (California is more or less becoming like this) is not fair to owners of vintage machinery for which the original-equipment parts are no longer available. There's nothing wrong with letting them use effective aftermarket parts if it achieves the objective of noise reduction.

It is much, much better for everyone to go by an objective test that anyone can perform for themselves before they are subjected to legal scrutiny.

I know that all of my bikes pass ... even my race bike!

I think my concern is based on the OP's experience, to which this test was not objective at all. If not performed correctly, then you have a very undesirable process for the accused. As with the snowmobiles, a stamped, stock pipe is the only "fair" way to enforce, however like many aftermarket upgrades, it's a can of worms to enforce simply due to the sheer numbers of people it would affect. Clearly the Db test as written can and should be used, but there are other legal requirements currently in place that this test does not address.
An annual inspection requirement would make a great deal of sense here, as would a clear and defined pipe requirement as part of a safety inspection. Of course those so inclined will find a way to circumvent the law, but don't they already? If 90 percent of the current offenders comply, then the 10 percent remaining is still a better outcome than what we have. Part of my gripe with the Db test is that it does absolutely nothing to answer the EPA emission requirements that the manufacturers adhere to. Federally, it would make more sense to simply require ANY aftermarket pipe to adhere to sound AND emissions, closed course use or not. This would certainly answer concerns to owners of vintage machines, as they could buy "aftermarket, approved for street use" components.

 

[Brian P]

The test method and criteria are publicly available. Given the current environment, it would not be unreasonable for everyone who rides a motorcycle that might be in a grey area of compliance, to know the test procedure. If you know the test procedure and it is being done wrongly then you can call out the officer at the time of the test ... "Hey, this distance is supposed to be X, you are not measuring it correctly", or "This meter is supposed to be set on this scale, not that one". If that doesn't work, then just like with anything else, you make your own notes and use them in court.

Regarding annual inspections ... Be very, very careful what you wish for, because you just might get it. I've posted many times about how German traffic laws generally make more sense than ours ... but I sure wouldn't want to deal with TuV inspection! If there is ANYthing aftermarket on your vehicle, you had better have the declaration of conformity for it. Anything home-made or custom, no matter how well it actually works, is not going to fly. Tires not the exact prescribed size and type? Nein. Lighting not absolutely original? Nein. Power Commander? Nein! In this regard, the inspection procedures that they have, are way overboard.

The small number of motorcycles on the roads in Canada don't warrant emissions inspection. They're insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

Regarding requiring aftermarket exhausts to comply with emissions requirements ... I'm not sure you have any idea what it costs to do validation testing on something like this. If it's going to cost a quarter million dollars (that's a low estimate), the result will be simply to kill the entire aftermarket, because it will no longer be cost effective to operate. Everyone will go out of business. It won't affect just the manufacturers of those exhaust systems, but also the distributors and vendors. Your local motorcycle shop/dealer probably can't survive without being able to sell aftermarket parts. Yes, we need a clean environment ... but we also need an economy that operates without government regulation sticking its nose into every conceivable nook and cranny.

P.S. You can buy e-marked (compliant with European standards) exhaust systems from some of the European-based exhaust system manufacturers. Those should be quiet enough to pass SAE J2825 by a decently wide margin ... as long as you don't unscrew and remove the little noise-reduction baffle that comes with them!! It's pretty likely that at least some of the North American based exhaust manufacturers will address SAE J2825 compliance as well, if they have not already. But there will always be the attention-craver who wants to buy the loudest exhaust system he can find, and then of course there is the whole "loud pipes save lives" crowd. At the moment, I would wager that the latter market is still bigger than the market for quiet, compliant aftermarket exhausts ...

 

[happycrappy]

The test method and criteria are publicly available. Given the current environment, it would not be unreasonable for everyone who rides a motorcycle that might be in a grey area of compliance, to know the test procedure. If you know the test procedure and it is being done wrongly then you can call out the officer at the time of the test ... "Hey, this distance is supposed to be X, you are not measuring it correctly", or "This meter is supposed to be set on this scale, not that one". If that doesn't work, then just like with anything else, you make your own notes and use them in court.

I guess my concern with this scenario is not unlike demanding a cop show you the process they followed using a radar to give you a ticket. By-law guy for sure, but a cop is not someone most people want to argue with. People should be able to rely on a basic, simple protocol

Regarding annual inspections ... Be very, very careful what you wish for, because you just might get it. I've posted many times about how German traffic laws generally make more sense than ours ... but I sure wouldn't want to deal with TuV inspection! If there is ANYthing aftermarket on your vehicle, you had better have the declaration of conformity for it. Anything home-made or custom, no matter how well it actually works, is not going to fly. Tires not the exact prescribed size and type? Nein. Lighting not absolutely original? Nein. Power Commander? Nein! In this regard, the inspection procedures that they have, are way overboard.

I'll take exception to that one; it's a little hysterical. We've been inspection commercial trucks annually for years, as well as e-testing them annually. There are always a few that mess with the system, but the clear majority have a compliant vehicle.

The small number of motorcycles on the roads in Canada don't warrant emissions inspection. They're insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

I want to argue this one, but I can't, lol

Regarding requiring aftermarket exhausts to comply with emissions requirements ... I'm not sure you have any idea what it costs to do validation testing on something like this. If it's going to cost a quarter million dollars (that's a low estimate), the result will be simply to kill the entire aftermarket, because it will no longer be cost effective to operate. Everyone will go out of business. It won't affect just the manufacturers of those exhaust systems, but also the distributors and vendors. Your local motorcycle shop/dealer probably can't survive without being able to sell aftermarket parts. Yes, we need a clean environment ... but we also need an economy that operates without government regulation sticking its nose into every conceivable nook and cranny.

I do challenge this theory completely. The sheer number of pipe manufacturers indicates a healthy market with plenty to go around, in addition to the fact that many of them are ONLY making pipes, and not relying on a plethora of items in their inventory. There is no doubt that fewer companies will remain, but the end product will improve. Already we see a range that is considerable for price and performance, so if the cheap crap that is out there ceases to exist, then the increase in market share for the stronger companies will answer the capital investment. the consumer wins, big time. Lest we forget, there was a time where everyone and their brother built snowmobiles and motorcycles. As regulations increased, the fringe fell away and the consumer got some killer product to enjoy.

P.S. You can buy e-marked (compliant with European standards) exhaust systems from some of the European-based exhaust system manufacturers. Those should be quiet enough to pass SAE J2825 by a decently wide margin ... as long as you don't unscrew and remove the little noise-reduction baffle that comes with them!! It's pretty likely that at least some of the North American based exhaust manufacturers will address SAE J2825 compliance as well, if they have not already. But there will always be the attention-craver who wants to buy the loudest exhaust system he can find, and then of course there is the whole "loud pipes save lives" crowd. At the moment, I would wager that the latter market is still bigger than the market for quiet, compliant aftermarket exhausts ...

THIS! I agree completely here with you. Again, there will always be the exceptions, just as some boobs will do 200/k on their bike on a public road. The idea is to allow enforcement to focus on the more extreme offenders, not act as a coffee filter for everything they see. I hate the thought of a cop or by-law dude taking the time to measure anyone who is even close. They should be getting the guy with flames coming out of his tailpipe. [/I]

 

[skip]

P.S. You can buy e-marked (compliant with European standards) exhaust systems from some of the European-based exhaust system manufacturers. Those should be quiet enough to pass SAE J2825 by a decently wide margin ... as long as you don't unscrew and remove the little noise-reduction baffle that comes with them!! It's pretty likely that at least some of the North American based exhaust manufacturers will address SAE J2825 compliance as well, if they have not already. But there will always be the attention-craver who wants to buy the loudest exhaust system he can find, and then of course there is the whole "loud pipes save lives" crowd. At the moment, I would wager that the latter market is still bigger than the market for quiet, compliant aftermarket exhausts ...

The Remus Revolution GP that I have on my bike is one such exhaust. Nice sound, little louder then stock but it compliant with the EU laws for noise.

 

[油井緋色]

THIS! I agree completely here with you. Again, there will always be the exceptions, just as some boobs will do 200/k on their bike on a public road. The idea is to allow enforcement to focus on the more extreme offenders, not act as a coffee filter for everything they see. I hate the thought of a cop or by-law dude taking the time to measure anyone who is even close. They should be getting the guy with flames coming out of his tailpipe. [/I]

.....almost everyone I know that has an SS with an aftermarket full or slip on shoots flames...and we're no where near as loud as any cruiser!

 

[jeero]

Is this something that can be dropped in court by simply locating a stock exhaust and installing it, then going to court with evidence of recent work in a "there, i fixed it" scenario? Much like the common license plate position tickets we see here every week?

 

[油井緋色]

Is this something that can be dropped in court by simply locating a stock exhaust and installing it, then going to court with evidence of recent work in a "there, i fixed it" scenario? Much like the common license plate position tickets we see here every week?

...you can get the license plate ticket dropped by putting it back to stock position?!