Brits To Tackle Loud Exhaust Pipes With Noise Cameras

[GoldOxide_imp]

Hopefully this works and the US adoptes similar measures in the future. Everyday I am aggravated and disturbed by millennials on sport bikes and/or baby boomers on V twins with uncapped open exhausts that rev the sh#t out of their engines with no regard for any of the people around them.

Well said!:worship:

Kennebunkport Maine has the following signs posted in their town "Please ride quiet ride safe"

Best sign I ever witnessed.

Well said!:worship:

Kennebunkport Maine has the following signs posted in their town "Please ride quiet ride safe"

Best sign I ever witnessed.
That is a nice sign indeed, and for most people, they will have the emotional space to respect the community.

But those who are self-absorbed will interpret the sign as intimidating or controlling and will behave in an obnoxious contrarian selfish manner. I see this pretty well daily. They are at high risk of seriously injuring somebody one day.

 

[DBM_imp]

Hopefully this works and the US adoptes similar measures in the future. Everyday I am aggravated and disturbed by millennials on sport bikes and/or baby boomers on V twins with uncapped open exhausts that rev the sh#t out of their engines with no regard for any of the people around them.

Just yesterday a group of us had ridden down the coast for a coffee at one of our favourite donut shops.
When we arrived there were several of the "straight pipes" types already there; you know who I mean without mentioning a brand name.
They left shortly after with constant cranking of the throttle and then blasted away down the road winding the V-twin engines up tight. I don't know who they thought they were impressing, but it wasn't anyone within hearing range.

Just yesterday a group of us had ridden down the coast for a coffee at one of our favourite donut shops.
When we arrived there were several of the "straight pipes" types already there; you know who I mean without mentioning a brand name.
They left shortly after with constant cranking of the throttle and then blasted away down the road winding the V-twin engines up tight. I don't know who they thought they were impressing, but it wasn't anyone within hearing range. Unfortunately, this type of total disregard of common courtesy and the "I'm gonna do what I want to" attitude of these slime balls ruins the image for those of us who are trying to project a responsible, law abiding persona to the non-riding public. I try my best to ignore these idiots, but it is hard when they blast by you doing twice the legal speed limit at 120 decibels.

 

[Stichill]

I'm a fairly radical libertarian. But I'm not an anarchist. Regarding personal liberty, someone once said, "Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose." Governments exist to stop, punish, and prevent contact between fists and noses.

Noise pollution is a serious social problem that detracts from the enjoyment of life and increases stress and health problems by depriving people of the ability to chill and relax. Although not pleasant, I am tolerant of necessary noise like jackhammering to repair a sidewalk and lawn mowers. I'm not tolerant of unnecessary noise like open turbo'd exhaust on speeding dump trucks, f@rt-can tuner cars, "rolling coal" diesel pickups, "boom-boom" cars, and illegally modified car and motorcycle exhaust.

There's a reason it's illegal: it's @&!#%@ obnoxious! Riding around on an extremely loud motorcycle is the social equivalent of f@rting in people's faces. What makes anyone think that is cool and should be tolerated? We all have to live together and having personal liberty in a civil society means being cognizant and respectful of others' right to peace and quiet. Logically, the rider of a loud motorcycle can't claim a right to make noise while denying that others have a right to enjoy a quiet environment. Since the rider of the loud bike is at cause and the passive citizen being disturbed is at effect, the loud rider is an aural aggressor and is objectively in the wrong. The passive citizen on the other hand has done nothing to disturb their neighbors' enjoyment of their lives.

Those who deny rights to others can claim none for themselves. And, there's no such thing as the "right to disturb".

Bring on the noise police.

 

[emptysea]

it's not about the noise laws...they already exist. It's about the enforcement method that I disagree with. And, as far as motorcycle noise goes, it pales by comparison to airplane noise, truck noise, tuner-car noise, and a host of other things. Lastly, I'd rather that law enforcement focus on distracted driving laws than on noise laws.

 

[pdedse]

I'm a fairly radical libertarian. But I'm not an anarchist. Regarding personal liberty, someone once said, "Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose." Governments exist to stop, punish, and prevent contact between fists and noses.

Noise pollution is a serious social problem that detracts from the enjoyment of life and increases stress and health problems by depriving people of the ability to chill and relax. Although not pleasant, I am tolerant of necessary noise like jackhammering to repair a sidewalk and lawn mowers. I'm not tolerant of unnecessary noise like open turbo'd exhaust on speeding dump trucks, f@rt-can tuner cars, "rolling coal" diesel pickups, "boom-boom" cars, and illegally modified car and motorcycle exhaust.

There's a reason it's illegal: it's @&!#%@ obnoxious! Riding around on an extremely loud motorcycle is the social equivalent of f@rting in people's faces. What makes anyone think that is cool and should be tolerated? We all have to live together and having personal liberty in a civil society means being cognizant and respectful of others' right to peace and quiet. Logically, the rider of a loud motorcycle can't claim a right to make noise while denying that others have a right to enjoy a quiet environment. Since the rider of the loud bike is at cause and the passive citizen being disturbed is at effect, the loud rider is an aural aggressor and is objectively in the wrong. The passive citizen on the other hand has done nothing to disturb their neighbors' enjoyment of their lives.

Those who deny rights to others can claim none for themselves. And, there's no such thing as the "right to disturb".

Bring on the noise police.

Philosophy professors around the world just raised their collective eyebrows in appreciation of that remark!

The only problem is that its succinctness and depth fall on deaf ears--damage that resulted from their obnoxiously loud pipes.

it's not about the noise laws...they already exist. It's about the enforcement method that I disagree with. And, as far as motorcycle noise goes, it pales by comparison to airplane noise, truck noise, tuner-car noise, and a host of other things. Lastly, I'd rather that law enforcement focus on distracted driving laws than on noise laws.

On the other hand...maybe loud pipes wake them from their distracted driving???

 

[GoldOxide_imp]

I'm a fairly radical libertarian. But I'm not an anarchist. Regarding personal liberty, someone once said, "Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose." Governments exist to stop, punish, and prevent contact between fists and noses.

Noise pollution is a serious social problem that detracts from the enjoyment of life and increases stress and health problems by depriving people of the ability to chill and relax. Although not pleasant, I am tolerant of necessary noise like jackhammering to repair a sidewalk and lawn mowers. I'm not tolerant of unnecessary noise like open turbo'd exhaust on speeding dump trucks, f@rt-can tuner cars, "rolling coal" diesel pickups, "boom-boom" cars, and illegally modified car and motorcycle exhaust.

There's a reason it's illegal: it's @&!#%@ obnoxious! Riding around on an extremely loud motorcycle is the social equivalent of f@rting in people's faces. What makes anyone think that is cool and should be tolerated? We all have to live together and having personal liberty in a civil society means being cognizant and respectful of others' right to peace and quiet. Logically, the rider of a loud motorcycle can't claim a right to make noise while denying that others have a right to enjoy a quiet environment. Since the rider of the loud bike is at cause and the passive citizen being disturbed is at effect, the loud rider is an aural aggressor and is objectively in the wrong. The passive citizen on the other hand has done nothing to disturb their neighbors' enjoyment of their lives.

Those who deny rights to others can claim none for themselves. And, there's no such thing as the "right to disturb".

Bring on the noise police.

(+1) Commonsense courtesy.

There is a reason why many communities have road signs on streets indicating things like, "Please avoid use of engine brakes" for trucks. All vehicle owners, especially those vehicles modified outside factory regulatory conformance, should be held accountable for their choices and behaviour.

God I sound like a crotchety old fart ... but this is so simple.

 

[Stichill]

it's not about the noise laws...they already exist. It's about the enforcement method that I disagree with. And, as far as motorcycle noise goes, it pales by comparison to airplane noise, truck noise, tuner-car noise, and a host of other things. Lastly, I'd rather that law enforcement focus on distracted driving laws than on noise laws.

I don't like airplane noise either, but at least airplane noise is necessary, and there are ongoing initiatives to mitigate it via engine design, operating protocol, and routing. And I say that as someone who lives in a rural area close to an international airport and understands that planners may send aircraft over my property before they'd send them over a dense residential area.

it's not about the noise laws...they already exist. It's about the enforcement method that I disagree with. And, as far as motorcycle noise goes, it pales by comparison to airplane noise, truck noise, tuner-car noise, and a host of other things. Lastly, I'd rather that law enforcement focus on distracted driving laws than on noise laws.

All should be subject to strict enforcement. When I was a teenager, loud car exhausts ("cherry bombs" or "glasspacks") were rigorously cited. In fact a leak in an otherwise stock muffler or exhaust pipe was rigorously cited. There were zero loud street motorcycles back then. It just wasn't tolerated. The cops from back in my day would have had an absolute field day ticketing today's "scr#w you anything goes" noise offenders.

I saw a comment to a post about "Loud pipes save lives". The commenter said, "Loud pipes cost rights" and I couldn't agree more. As riders, we all need to understand that the actions of those who flout noise regulations will come back to bite those of us who ride courteously. There are places in this world that have simply decided to ban motorcycles altogether. Problem solved.

 

[rboe]

Jet engines have been muffled a LOT since the days of the 707.

People that don't respect the rules of the road deserve their tickets. Too many cowboys out there thinking they don't have to conform to them (completely forgetting roads are a public resource, paid for and maintained by the public for the public good).

Folks will complain about the police state, but I'd like to know how you enforce these laws without a good stick while these cowboys insist on snubbing their noses at the rest of us. As the population increases there will be more rules to keep fists from hitting noses (think of a boarding house, the more people that move in the more rules you have to have about dishes, food, noise etc. so they can all get along together without killing each other). If you don't like all these rules, stop having kids.

 

[flynrider]

I was thinking about this the other day as I sat just below the rim of Bryce Canyon. The peaceful scene was interrupted every 5-10 minutes by the sound of uncorked V-twins arriving / departing a parking lot about a mile away.

I can understand those that prefer a little more sound than the quiet hum of the CB, but do you really need everyone within a mile radius to know that you have arrived? Some of these aftermarket pipe configurations just make an absurd amount of unnecessary noise. Walking back to my bike, I felt kind of embarrassed to be associated with those guys.

 

[Bazbro_imp]

Support here for some great points in the recent posts.

 

[Bheezy27403_imp]

You will like a red light camera after a car hit you or someone in your family gets hurt by a car running a red light.

A red light camera will do nothing to prevent that. They aren't there for safety, they are strictly an income producing construct set up by lazy governments.

 

[GoldOxide_imp]

You will like a red light camera after a car hit you or someone in your family gets hurt by a car running a red light.

A red light camera will do nothing to prevent that. They aren't there for safety, they are strictly an income producing construct set up by lazy governments.

A red light camera will do nothing to prevent that. They aren't there for safety, they are strictly an income producing construct set up by lazy governments.
Hmm, have to disagree to somewhat. Maybe some gov'ts are "lazy", but it is known practice that many set-ups are decoys that only appear to be monitoring - I suppose to save costs. Nevertheless, decoy or authentic set-up, the motive is to modify driver behaviour and hopefully reduce risk to everybody.

 

[Bazbro_imp]

You will like a red light camera after a car hit you or someone in your family gets hurt by a car running a red light.

A red light camera will do nothing to prevent that. They aren't there for safety, they are strictly an income producing construct set up by lazy governments.

A red light camera will do nothing to prevent that. They aren't there for safety, they are strictly an income producing construct set up by lazy governments.
Sorry, but I strongly disagree, Bheezy.
The UK figures show that well-placed cameras at accident-spot junctions and stretches of road really DO focus minds and reduce collisions,/deaths.
What went wrong in the UK was that every council jumped onto the bandwagon and were putting up cameras all over the place in inappropriate spots too. This blatant "revenue earning" was exposed for what it was and the government put a stop to it due to public protest.
So there is a middle way - dangerous junctions or stretches of road protected by cameras, but a proliferation of merely revenue-earning cameras is a no-no. That'sl all you have to guard against.
A spin-off from this is that when you're warned there is a camera, you KNOW it is an accident black spot and can react accordingly with extra care.

 

[Randy B]

When red light camera go in, you tend to reduce red light running, but you get a corresponding increase of rear enders at those intersections due to the "unexpected" stop.
And if someone is going to run a light into an intersection and cause an accident, they aren't going to stop for a camera. If they are running a red light trying to beat it and miss by ½ a second, POP, they get a ticket. But if they run a stale red into an intersection, that's when the accidents happen. I.E. they just weren't paying attention to the signal in the first place and ran it. No camera is going to stop that behavior. I'd attribute that to distracted driving over anything else.
But what do I know, I just stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

 

[Squibble_imp]

You will like a red light camera after a car hit you or someone in your family gets hurt by a car running a red light.

A red light camera will do nothing to prevent that. They aren't there for safety, they are strictly an income producing construct set up by lazy governments.

A red light camera will do nothing to prevent that. They aren't there for safety, they are strictly an income producing construct set up by lazy governments.
Sorry, but I strongly disagree, Bheezy.
The UK figures show that well-placed cameras at accident-spot junctions and stretches of road really DO focus minds and reduce collisions,/deaths.
What went wrong in the UK was that every council jumped onto the bandwagon and were putting up cameras all over the place in inappropriate spots too. This blatant "revenue earning" was exposed for what it was and the government put a stop to it due to public protest.
So there is a middle way - dangerous junctions or stretches of road protected by cameras, but a proliferation of merely revenue-earning cameras is a no-no. That'sl all you have to guard against.
A spin-off from this is that when you're warned there is a camera, you KNOW it is an accident black spot and can react accordingly with extra care.

A red light camera will do nothing to prevent that. They aren't there for safety, they are strictly an income producing construct set up by lazy governments.
Sorry, but I strongly disagree, Bheezy.
The UK figures show that well-placed cameras at accident-spot junctions and stretches of road really DO focus minds and reduce collisions,/deaths.
What went wrong in the UK was that every council jumped onto the bandwagon and were putting up cameras all over the place in inappropriate spots too. This blatant "revenue earning" was exposed for what it was and the government put a stop to it due to public protest.
So there is a middle way - dangerous junctions or stretches of road protected by cameras, but a proliferation of merely revenue-earning cameras is a no-no. That'sl all you have to guard against.
A spin-off from this is that when you're warned there is a camera, you KNOW it is an accident black spot and can react accordingly with extra care.
I agree wholeheartedly, the camera's are in essence a good idea and do have an impact on the safety, but, the as Bazbro say's the councils in the UK have used them as a huge "cash cow"

Interesting to hear so many of the US members saying they would like to see the noise camera's on their side of the pond, in a lot of cases with bike exhausts the ones that make the most noise seem to be Harley's :dodgy:

New noise camera trial to crack down on illegal vehicles

 

[Houtman_imp]

I'm a fairly radical libertarian. But I'm not an anarchist. Regarding personal liberty, someone once said, "Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose." Governments exist to stop, punish, and prevent contact between fists and noses.

Noise pollution is a serious social problem that detracts from the enjoyment of life and increases stress and health problems by depriving people of the ability to chill and relax. Although not pleasant, I am tolerant of necessary noise like jackhammering to repair a sidewalk and lawn mowers. I'm not tolerant of unnecessary noise like open turbo'd exhaust on speeding dump trucks, f@rt-can tuner cars, "rolling coal" diesel pickups, "boom-boom" cars, and illegally modified car and motorcycle exhaust.

There's a reason it's illegal: it's @&!#%@ obnoxious! Riding around on an extremely loud motorcycle is the social equivalent of f@rting in people's faces. What makes anyone think that is cool and should be tolerated? We all have to live together and having personal liberty in a civil society means being cognizant and respectful of others' right to peace and quiet. Logically, the rider of a loud motorcycle can't claim a right to make noise while denying that others have a right to enjoy a quiet environment. Since the rider of the loud bike is at cause and the passive citizen being disturbed is at effect, the loud rider is an aural aggressor and is objectively in the wrong. The passive citizen on the other hand has done nothing to disturb their neighbors' enjoyment of their lives.

Those who deny rights to others can claim none for themselves. And, there's no such thing as the "right to disturb".

Bring on the noise police.

VERY WELL STATED !

You will like a red light camera after a car hit you or someone in your family gets hurt by a car running a red light.

A red light camera will do nothing to prevent that. They aren't there for safety, they are strictly an income producing construct set up by lazy governments.

A red light camera will do nothing to prevent that. They aren't there for safety, they are strictly an income producing construct set up by lazy governments. I disagree with your statement , after a heavy fine some people might think twice about running a red light , especially if their insurance goes up as well.

 

[Bazbro_imp]

The evidence is to the contrary, Randy. After the second or third ticket and the offender in danger of losing his licence, insurance premium going up, etc., the penny drops that, er, maybe they ought to be taking more care and NOT tempted to jump red lights!

 

[Bheezy27403_imp]

A ticket after the fact of an accident will not negate the harm done in the accident.

 

[Randy B]

The evidence is to the contrary, Randy. After the second or third ticket and the offender in danger of losing his licence, insurance premium going up, etc., the penny drops that, er, maybe they ought to be taking more care and NOT tempted to jump red lights!

You're talking about those ½ second jumpers I mentioned, not the stale light runners that are not paying attention to the road.

The other major issue I have with this is that you have people operating a vehicle that doesn't own it. be it a family member, a friend, or an employee. The ticket still goes to the owner of the vehicle, not the operator. This goes straight to due process and the lack of it when it comes to these cameras.
I get it, we all want a safer world, but the world is not safe. You can't legislate out bad behavior no matter how badly that you might want to. People will continue to look at their phones, put on makeup, read the paper (only old people), eat CEREAL (I've seen this)....basically do anything and everything except pay attention to the road while driving, and no amount of laws or fines will stop them.
Don't get me wrong here, running red lights is a bad thing, and so are overly loud exhaust pipes. I have sat next to an open pipe V-twin in traffic and it was deafening with the window up. That needs to be taken care of by the police, and not with a fixit ticket. Add points and insurance premiums to the cost and they'll put the quieter pipes back on. If they don't, impound the vehicle.
Either way, the cameras are revenue streams more than anything. And one of the big arguments against them? They target the poor and underclass. Go figure.

 

[Bazbro_imp]

You're right Bheezy, but the object is to change bad behaviour over time. We went through all these debates when the cameras were being trialled and then installed.
The only people with anything to fear are the constantly terminally-poor drivers who regularly, as part of their normal driving habits, take chances at red lights.
You, as a law-abiding, 'normal' driver, have nothing at all to fear from cameras at dangerous junctions - nothing to fear and everything to gain.
Just imagine the situation where someone who ran a red light, then slammed into you. The camera would show what he'd done and all his protestations that it was YOU who had jumped YOUR light would be proven nonsense. You then win!
No, Randy ,my statement refers to ALL red light jumpers - they ALL get ticketed and some cameras can even show how long the light has been red, evidence of really dangerous driving.