TonyBurns

iTrader: (3)

Its down to the descression of the police officer if they think the vehicle is producing sound that as pointed out, exceeds the parameters noted.
Its a real pain, but a baffled centre section could be an option instead of a straight though pipe?

Tony

abbott

LOL thats the complete ****ing **** rapist who got me last time , i wouldnt mind but at the time i was on my way home from work in my 1.5 civic (works banger) wich admitedly does have a different exhaust on it but its a sheepdog wich i wouldnt say is any louder than standard AT ALL

The 1 bloody night i left the skyline at home with the 5" monster mega loud exhaust on it wich i would have happily paid a £30 on the spot fine for no bother !!!

I was taken down to caley stadium car park where the wind was TERRIBLE i was parked less than 6 foot from the wall going into the carpark , I became a little heated with the gentleman as he was OBVIOUSLY just looking for something to do and wasnt performing the test correctly , anyway told him to beat it and id see him in court and landed up with a £250

NORTHERN CONSTABULARY ARE A BUNCH OF TNUC'S !!

Meallbhan

iTrader: (3)

Yep! I don't think "gentleman" is the right word though.

When he pulled me it was up the top of Castle Street where you take the one way street near the prison. I was going to see a mate who lived in the next street down so I turned left right next to the high prison wall (the right narrow street with the speed humps you can dodge) and he pulled me there. The street has a nice high wall either side so the sound would echo nicely. He got 90 something on his dB meter while revving my car to over 4000rpm. The first thing he said to me when he got out his car was "your exhaust is illegal", no; evening sir or anything. I've since found out that he had the meter in the wrong place. Too close to the exhaust, too high and at the wrong angle. But as I sure you are aware of, this particular **** can't be argued with.

abbott

chatting **** mate ! they ARE the law .

Meallbhan

iTrader: (3)

WhatswiththeR

iTrader: (1)

4000rpm? thats too high for a start, the MOT cat test is between 2500-3000rpm so why is he revvving it to 4000rpm? and what if you just had an engine rebuild and it end bang, would he pay for it?

GC8

You can get a reading equal to an atomic explosion if you rev the engine sufficiently and place the nose of the tester directly in the exhausts tailpipe. Ive heard of foolish (and plainly untrained) traffic police thrapping engines with the meter in that location, getting a reading higher than an engine with a short open pipe at full chat/load could get close to. Off the top of my head it was about 168dB !

Underworld

they ARE CIVIL SERVANTS... and moody dumba$$ who will pick on you when they get pi$$ed off something else...

The rookie

iTrader: (1)

The point is that they could use any test procedure as long as its referenced to the same procedure used on a standard unmodified car.

Bear in mind the type approval test for all new cars is 30mph (well 50kph) and wide open throttle accel in 2nd and 3rd gears averaged.

Note, the dB scale is logrithmic, every 10dBA represents a doubling of percieved noise level by the human ear, every 3dBA represents a doubling of the sound energy.

I prefer the 'don't take the mick and you'll get away with it' approach, a straight through silencer in the centre section (only very latest newage have any baffles in there!) looses no power but makes a heck of a difference to noise levels!

Simon

fivetide

iTrader: (1)

"Under regulation 54 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, as amended, alteration of the exhaust system of a vehicle so as to increase the noise made by the escape of exhaust gases is an offence. The regulation forbids both the alteration of the silencer itself so as to make the vehicle noisier and the alteration of the exhaust system (by, for instance, replacing the silencer with one of a different pattern) so as to make the vehicle noisier."

But m'lud i haven't altered it to make it nosier, i've altered it for performance, the noise is by product not the reason. Since the regulation says nothing about altering it for performance reasons i'll be on my way....

Aye right but just goes to show how these things can be interpreted depending on the person.

5t.

Meallbhan

iTrader: (3)

The way Mr Policeman **** tested mine was to have his meter directly behind my exhaust and at the same height as the tail pipe and about 2 feet away. Then revved the **** off it.

He should have had the meter at a 45 degree angle from the tailpipe, I think 3 metres away (on the angle) but about 1 metre in a straight line, if you get wot I mean. Not sure about wot the car should be revved too, as you say, maybe MOT range.

This particular copper is well known to be a complete **** though.

minty

iTrader: (1)

it would be nice to have a rev-limiter set to 3-4k at the flick of a switch, so that the TW@'s couldnt rev the nuts of our beloved.

Plus i think MOT test is idle and 2.5-3k fast idle.

Meallbhan

iTrader: (3)

I think next time I get pulled I will go round checking their car while he's checking mine, which you are perfectly within your rights to do. That would really wind the pr1ck up!

minty

iTrader: (1)

i pointed out a tail light out on a patrol car one night in town and got told to move on before i got into trouble !!!

mikesfarm1

So the police are running cars with illegal exhaust then, has most have a prodrive or sti exhaust on.

Mark1983

iTrader: (2)

It's called prioritising. The Police have more serious matters to attend to on Friday/ Saturday nights

And a loud car, acting in an anti social manner, in this case noise, could be Section 59'd in my Borough.

sandyRS16i

iTrader: (13)

Thats the common story, although you dont need to argue at the time. If you understand the procedures and look into where the gaps in their processes are then you can go to court and win.

After 6 unpaid fines I was taken to court......and won my case. MY99 STI Nija 2 exhaust, every time was a different reading ranging from 99dB to 110dB with zero changes or modifications, everytime with the equipment in the worng place.

Read a copy of ISO 5130, will tell you everything you need to know about 'vehicle noise testing'.

Here is some info I posted elsewhere on this subject

ISO 5130:2007 specifies a test procedure, environment and instrumentation for measuring the exterior sound pressure levels from road vehicles under stationary condition, providing a continuous measure of the sound pressure level over a range of engine speeds. ISO 5130:2007 applies only to road vehicles of categories L, M and N equipped with internal combustion engines.

ISO 5130:2007 is designed to meet the requirements of simplicity as far as they are consistent with reproducibility of results under the operating conditions of the vehicle.
It is within the scope of ISO 5130:2007 to measure the stationary A-weighted sound pressure level during type approval measurements of vehicle, measurements at the manufacturing stage, measurements at official testing stations and measurements at roadside testing. Technical background information is provided.

Everything you need to know is written within this document.


ISO 5130:2007 specifies neither a method to check the exhaust sound pressure level when the engine is operated at realistic load nor a method to check the exhaust sound pressure levels against a general noise limit for categories of road vehicles.

This cannot be applied when the engine is operating under 'realistic' load. IE when the vehicle is moving (drive by scenarios). It is under these that there are regulations for manufacture that are tested at a UK VOSA test station. Therefore the results from ISO 5130 (stationary testing) CANNOT be compared with those for a moving vehicle.

Additionally, if you contact the Home Office you will find that there are no Approved items of sound recording equipment which is recognised for use of vehicle testing in accordance with the Road Traffic Act 1988.

It is clearly written that it is ILLEGAL to replace an exhaust system to make more noise or divert the flow of gases, this includes the actual replacement and not just the modification due to drilling/removing baffels etc. However the onus is on the police and procurator fiscal to PROVE that it is louder than the OE system, that is something that cannot be done as their is no approved database for OE systems as factory fitted. (Even harder if you car is JJDM )

It is also worth noting that Northern Constabulary do not perform the tests in the correct manner as outlined in ISO, however it is NOT your responsibility to inform them of this as this would be the basis of any defence for not paying fines. There are strict guidelines relating to the environment, the vehicle revs, the equipment position (0.5m @ 45° rotation from the exhaust tip, not a 45° angle for the test machine), again listed in ISO.

Saying its louder is not enough evidence for prosecution, there must be proof. if you look into the legality and the law, there are loopholes.

The rookie

iTrader: (1)

NIce argument Sandy, but full of holes I'm afarid, they don't have to test to a standard, but to the same test procedure, and Northern DO have a database of known cars, if they take someone to court the onus will be on them to cast reasonable doubt, something that will be pretty impossible to do if the car is actually noisier.

The JDM is a valid argument though, if they referance a JDM against a UK car all you have to show is the JDM was different in the firts place and the argument falls apart.

PPP were illegal, they are now type approved with Subaru UK (aka IM Group) as manufacturer of the second sateg, so PPP is now legal.

Simon

sandyRS16i

iTrader: (13)

They do have to test to a standard, there are rules, regulations and laws in place. Each police region cannot make up their own rules and regulations, they have to be passed by government to be law. There is NO database, it has never been created and has never been approved by the DoT, hence any data they have is hearsay and cannot be used as evidence in court.

If you are taken to court the onus if on the prosecution (procurator fiscal) to prove guilt, not for the accused to prove innocence, in this country you are INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. (although it seems to be the other way round according to the police )

The fact is that just by listening and saying something is 'louder' doesn't mean it is, different frequencies of acoustics can greatly affect the interpreted noise (a subaru for example has a distinctive note and may sound louder than an equivalent dB producing vehicle). Without equipment and following a consistent procedure for testing stationary vehicles (hence the ISO 5130) there is little the PF can base a case on. There is no Home Office approved sound equipment used by NC (in this case) so it cannot be used as evidence, just as their is no consistent procedure they follow.

The comparison of the noise tested by NC on a stationary car cannot be compared to any data they have concerning the noise from a vehicle in motion, as these are completely different test procedures and wil result in completely different results.

As for claiming my argument is full of holes , it was enough for me to win my case in court, with still plenty of points that can still be argued sitting in reserve

The rookie

iTrader: (1)

No they do not, read regulation 54 again, they only have to show its noisier, they do not have to show its noisier when using a particular test I'm afraid.

So they only have to show reasonably that the car is louder (and that could be just opinion) and the onus will be on the defence to create reasonable doubt, if just opinion was used it would be easier, but if they can show say that using whatever test procedure they want (as long as its consistant - reg 54 does not specify a test procedure you will note) a car is noiseir than they have measured a standard car to be, then the defence have to show why reasonable doubt exists.

Enough innocent people are getting succesfully done for using a mobile when scratching there ear for me to have an understanding of how are 'justice' system accepts the words of the BiB until it can be proven to be wrong.

Simon

sandyRS16i

iTrader: (13)

Which cant be done unless a specific approved method or measurement is used, by ear is not an approved or calibrated method If there is no procedure in Section 54, then there is NO approved method. I suggest you check with the Home Office regarding this, you will be informed that there is NO procedure that can be used and the HO do not approve any form of sound testing equipment for use with the RTA.

I would suggest by your replies and username (reference to an police movie?) you must be a BiB? Hence it sems you obviously have an issue with people being able to create a case and win in court, the facts speak for themselves, these points were made in court with success.

Hope you still have an OE exhaust fitted

The rookie

iTrader: (1)

AAaaaarrrrgggghhhhhhhhh NO NO NO

Have you read reg54, please do so, they only have to show its noisier NOT NOT NOT to a specific test, they don't need an approved device either, there is nothing in statute that required the noise tester to be approved, if they have sufficient evidence to buring a prosicution, then the defence has to rebut it, if a single officers opinion (on a motorway) is sufficent to get you done for speeding (No approved device required at all - case law exists) then why should a less serious offence need them to jump through hoops?

I am not BiB at all (as you would know if you bothered to read my profie), I have great respect for many coppers, they often do a hard job, they also have to enforce laws they may not agree with, I also see the Wayne Kerrs that give the Polive a bad name by lieing through their teeth to create an offence that did not occur, or by refusing to back down when shown they are wrong.

Rookie was my nickname in primary school, based on my (easy to deduce I guess) surname!

I have an illegal exhaust, as you would know if you bothered to read 'my scooby' I choose to be informed and realistic and not take the mickey!

Sandy you are clearly bright, but a little naive, I suggest you read up a bit more before making incorrect (if sensible, but the law has little to do with sense!) assumptions.

Simon

sandyRS16i

iTrader: (13)

Less of the patronising please & if you read my comments at no point am I being derogetory against the police. I believe they do have a very hard job, however some do have terrible attitudes.

You seem to be getting confused, perhaps in England the word of a single RTA is enough for a prosecution, however that is not the case in Scotland. The facts is simple if there is nothing approved to be tested against then there is no case to be made, it is hearsay.

I would like to know how you can make a case suggesting that an exhaust is louder in a courtroom (where nobody has heard it) without any form of evidence or anything as a comparison. Saying it comes down to individual officer interperatation is ludicrious, any decent solicitor would rip that apart (and did). If that were the case then why have laws at all, lets just base it all on individual tollerance?

As for the arguments made, they were brought to light by a leading solicitor in the field of Road Traffic law. While I would love to continue debating this, I have meny better things to do. The facts speak for themselves, I went to court and won my case based on the fact that the crown could not prove the claims made.

vindaloo

Did you manage this feat with the mags or did you have to appeal and go to crown court?

The rookie

iTrader: (1)

I suspect a typicakl mags court baffled em with BS approach, the law is clear, in Scotland it make take 2 officers, but thats a distraction, a prepared CPS need only have the officers opinion (easier to defeat I agree) but test data shown robustly collected, calibrated tester and data from a stock car tested teh same way complies with what the LAW says, we all know clever solicitors can baffle the CPS and mags on the day, Nick Freeman has made a career of it.

I was being slightly patronising as you couldn't be arsed to look at two readily available sources before making an assumption.

Simon

Butty

iTrader: (2)

I came across this database that appears to be linked to the DOT. It contains noise emissions for std cars, albeit for recent models:

VCAcarfueldata.org.uk - Search Results - Further Information

The noise figure is from a moving test rather than static idle, so rather tricky to be done on the spot when pulled.

nick

The rookie

iTrader: (1)

Yes, that would be impossible to do at the roadside, you need an approved stretch of tarmac for starters as the tyre noise is a reasonable factor, then you need a microphone accurately spaced 5m from the centreline of the cars course, no wind etc etc....and many sources of noise are not as restricted by the regs as noise, tyres and intake for example.

Simon

DxbLee

Hey you should see if it is possible to find out what the db limit is for a car going for its Mot and what is approved by the police. Then get it tested and keep the results in the glove box so next time you get done give it to them and say here are the test results and they have been approved by correct people.

Its just a joke i find that you always seem to be unlucky and get an uneducated toffy nosed **** who thinks he has a PHD in Subaru's

Best of luck to you mate Dont sell it you will regret it!

Dxblee