Car Exhaust Noise

Author
Discussion

Monkey boy 1

Original Poster:

2,063 posts

230 months

Thursday 11th October 2012
quotequote all
I have no idea about the "E" markings. The whole issue is not whether the exhaust is legal or illegal. It's about the Police issuing FPN's in information which is incorrect.

Anyway, the local CAB put me in touch with a Solicitor who had a look through all my paperwork and said that, "It's clear as day that the Police have dropped a clanger" He also said that" the chances were if you opt for the magistrates court then the Police woupld in all probablity drop the case as they have, so far not looked deep enough into their paperwork contradiciting the ISO spec they quote".

So looking positive for a result, but who knows !!!

KevinA4quattro

11,555 posts

279 months

Thursday 11th October 2012
quotequote all
Monkey boy 1 said:
I have no idea about the "E" markings. The whole issue is not whether the exhaust is legal or illegal. It's about the Police issuing FPN's in information which is incorrect.
I am aware of that, and that you have an extremely good case. But, it would add extra strength to your case to be able to show it is a legal exhaust system.

RtdRacer

1,274 posts

200 months

Thursday 11th October 2012
quotequote all
daz3210 said:
RtdRacer said:
Proving this to the Mag's satisfaction should be easy. Take along a copy of the regs, and highlight the relevant parts. Take along the car specification - a photocopy of hte manual.

Imagine you were explaining it to your mum, highlight and copy out the relevant parts onto a fresh clean sheet of paper and take that along with the original docs.

State that you are pleading Not Guilty, and the basis of your defence is that the police carried out the wrong procedure.
Do you get any opportunity to do this before appearance? I'm thinking to avoid a waste of the courts time?
You could try writing to the CPS stating that this is the basis of your defence. I'm more sketchy on the procedure the CPS take before going to court - BV or anyone?

If it did end up in court, it would be for a very, very short period of time, IMO.

Monkey boy 1

Original Poster:

2,063 posts

230 months

Friday 12th October 2012
quotequote all
KevinA4quattro said:
I am aware of that, and that you have an extremely good case. But, it would add extra strength to your case to be able to show it is a legal exhaust system.
I'll go and have a look under the car

simoid

19,772 posts

157 months

Friday 12th October 2012
quotequote all
Monkey boy 1 said:
KevinA4quattro said:
I am aware of that, and that you have an extremely good case. But, it would add extra strength to your case to be able to show it is a legal exhaust system.
I'll go and have a look under the car
Weren't you just going to stick to "the Police did the wrong test"?

Seems short and sweet, simple and effective...

blueg33

35,588 posts

223 months

Friday 12th October 2012
quotequote all

simoid said:
Weren't you just going to stick to "the Police did the wrong test"?

Seems short and sweet, simple and effective...
I would agree, why bring up something else that could cause confusion? In my experience simple and clear is best.

Monkey boy 1

Original Poster:

2,063 posts

230 months

Friday 12th October 2012
quotequote all
I am sticking to the 'Police did not follow the ISO5130 test' but just in case it goes pear shaped, which I doubt it will, best to have more ammo which I could use at a later date.

Monkey boy 1

Original Poster:

2,063 posts

230 months

Thursday 18th October 2012
quotequote all
A friend of mine, (who has also been stopped by Norfolk Police for exhaust noise but was allowed to continue on his way after the test) had a chat with the guy who wrote the test procedure and training manual for Norfolk Police this afternoon. The guy said he stands by his method, though my friend did point out the way he saw things and the errors in their procedures. Just goes to prove how idiotic they are.
Still, a week has gone by since I informed them I wanted to go to court, Not heard a thing from them.

simoid

19,772 posts

157 months

Thursday 18th October 2012
quotequote all
Would be brilliant if you could get that guy up in court to explain his procedure to the officer who carried it out incorrectly biggrin

streaky

19,311 posts

248 months

Friday 19th October 2012
quotequote all
Monkey boy 1 said:
A friend of mine, (who has also been stopped by Norfolk Police for exhaust noise but was allowed to continue on his way after the test) had a chat with the guy who wrote the test procedure and training manual for Norfolk Police this afternoon. The guy said he stands by his method, though my friend did point out the way he saw things and the errors in their procedures. Just goes to prove how idiotic they are.
Still, a week has gone by since I informed them I wanted to go to court, Not heard a thing from them.
A week can be a short time in police matters.

They have up to six months to lay an information before a Magistrate. Thereafter up to two years can reasonably (according to the ECHR) elapse before the summons is served.

Streaky

tonyvid

9,869 posts

242 months

Friday 19th October 2012
quotequote all
KevinA4quattro said:
Does the exhaust have the relevant E markings which makes it road legal?
My TF has a MGOC SuperSports stainless exhaust - I don't remember seeing anything stamped on it. It can bark a bit but doesn't "look noisy".... Worrying.

ging84

8,829 posts

145 months

Friday 19th October 2012
quotequote all
something else to look into which could also make the test invalid
the iso stataes

"The measurements shall be made using the frequency-weighting A, and the time-weighting F."

They have stated on the ticket that the test was conducted in accordance with iso 5130, yet the result has not been recorded in accordance with it, as it states the result should be reported as an A-weighted sound pressure level, this would be written as either dBA or dB(A) not just dB.

This may seem like a very trivial insignificant difference and unfortunately a court might also see it that way, but if the measurements taken were in-fact not A-weighted it could have a significant effect on the result.

MadMark911

1,754 posts

148 months

Friday 19th October 2012
quotequote all
News Flash: Monkey Boy 1 makes the Police look stupid and ignorant in court (here is hoping)!

Wishing you the best of luck with this. yes

daz3210

5,000 posts

239 months

Friday 19th October 2012
quotequote all
Don't know whether this - http://www.sengpielaudio.com/TableOfSoundPressureL... - would be of any use to the OP, but I was interested to see the expected noise of a diesel truck at 10m in the table on there.

Also further down is an interesting comment re the db and dbA comparison.

TX1

2,348 posts

182 months

Friday 19th October 2012
quotequote all
Good on you for fighting your case, good luck.

GC8

19,910 posts

189 months

Friday 19th October 2012
quotequote all
KevinA4quattro said:
Does the exhaust have the relevant E markings which makes it road legal?
Does a non-type approved vehicle need an E marked exhaust? It certainly doesnt need one in order to be registered, MOTd and used legally on the road. Whether a replacement has to be E marked is a question that I cant answer.

Monkey boy 1

Original Poster:

2,063 posts

230 months

Friday 19th October 2012
quotequote all
MadMark911 said:
News Flash: Monkey Boy 1 makes the Police look stupid and ignorant in court (here is hoping)!

Wishing you the best of luck with this. yes
Thanks

Quietlybonkers

20,905 posts

143 months

Friday 19th October 2012
quotequote all
I have the world's quietest TVR, and on the test the OP mentioned registered 90 dB at Cadwell Park. 110 TVR owners drove around central London last weekend, some of the cars were over 125 dB, not one got stopped for noise.

I would write to the Chief Constable immediately, quote the rules and ask him to quash the fine.

GC8

19,910 posts

189 months

Friday 19th October 2012
quotequote all
ging84 said:
something else to look into which could also make the test invalid
the iso stataes

"The measurements shall be made using the frequency-weighting A, and the time-weighting F."

They have stated on the ticket that the test was conducted in accordance with iso 5130, yet the result has not been recorded in accordance with it, as it states the result should be reported as an A-weighted sound pressure level, this would be written as either dBA or dB(A) not just dB.

This may seem like a very trivial insignificant difference and unfortunately a court might also see it that way, but if the measurements taken were in-fact not A-weighted it could have a significant effect on the result.
How accurate was the noise level meter too, even if the correct weighting was selected? Even an accuracy of 1 dB(A) equates to a massive degree of inaccuracy, if you see what I mean? 3dB(A) covers a doubling of the sound pressure and when this sort of testing started and enterprising traffic officers were buying meters from Maplin*, some of the results were comical (but still prosecuted!).

ging84

8,829 posts

145 months

Saturday 20th October 2012
quotequote all
GC8 said:
How accurate was the noise level meter too, even if the correct weighting was selected? Even an accuracy of 1 dB(A) equates to a massive degree of inaccuracy, if you see what I mean? 3dB(A) covers a doubling of the sound pressure and when this sort of testing started and enterprising traffic officers were buying meters from Maplin*, some of the results were comical (but still prosecuted!).
The iso has quite a lot of details on requirements on the equipment and calibration i would like to believe they at-least have the correct equipment these days even if they don't know the procedures to use them, the iso also has quite a lot of detail on how to deal with inaccuracy and suggest less than 5dB above the limit should not be considered significant, which gives you a fair amount of leeway, not 91 when it should be 82 leeway, but the 80-84 that the exhaust place measured would be fine.
I'm also not sure where the 82 figure came from, is that the type approval figure for that model? the log book for my car says 88