Car Exhaust Noise
Discussion
daz3210 said:
How would they test a diesel? As I understand it it can be dangerous to the engine to over rev without load (I was told not to by my driving instructor), or have modern diesels changed?
Very damaging to rev my Automatic gearbox in Neutral off-load according to the guys who re-built it after it got eaten by the engine last time round...Futuramic said:
In order to confiscate the car they'd need to issue a S59 warning, which it appears they haven't, and then catch you again and issue another one. Potentially you've got three goes before anything serious happens.
The vehicle can be seized on the second occasion, regardless of whosoever is driving it at the time (i.e. it need not be the same driver as on the first occasion); and regardless of whether it is the same vehicle - if it is being driven by a driver who has already received an s59.So it's "two strikes", not three.
Streaky
Monkey boy 1 said:
No, not a problem with the neighbours, The Police were going in the opposite direction then did a U turn and followed me for about a mile. 30mph limit. When stopped I asked what the problem was, they said my driving was very good, but the exhausts looked loud. !!!
Thats un
believable! If you kept your cool you are a better man than me! Whenever you hear a senior Policeman whingeing about elected local commisioniares, well they asked for it.
Apparently one of my friends got pulled for the same offence in his Corrola a month earlier.The police officer doing the test was actually being tested at the same time. The dB meter was a new piece of kit the Force had aquired that month, so he was told. His Corrola kicked out 87dB and that was with a Std exhaust. Slap on the wrists as itm was below the "unwritten" 90dB prosecution limit.
I presume as it was a new piece of kit, they need to justify it's use. I have no problem with that, just need to do the test correctly or read the specification as laid down by the ISO standard.
I presume as it was a new piece of kit, they need to justify it's use. I have no problem with that, just need to do the test correctly or read the specification as laid down by the ISO standard.
Well, I suppose if the police are handing out unfounded tickets for people who "look" like they have a fast car, not withstanding the fact that if something was loud, you'd expect that to be detected with ears, not eyes, at least it shows our taxes being put to use.
Oh wait, except it doesn't, as its a complete and utter waste of time and is clearly being used for nothing other than harassing motorists and generating revenue. I sure hope the police don't pull me, not only does my exhaust "look" loud, it outputs in excess of 105db at 3750, which is not even close to the 3\4 point in the rev range.
Oh wait, except it doesn't, as its a complete and utter waste of time and is clearly being used for nothing other than harassing motorists and generating revenue. I sure hope the police don't pull me, not only does my exhaust "look" loud, it outputs in excess of 105db at 3750, which is not even close to the 3\4 point in the rev range.
streaky said:
Futuramic said:
In order to confiscate the car they'd need to issue a S59 warning, which it appears they haven't, and then catch you again and issue another one. Potentially you've got three goes before anything serious happens.
The vehicle can be seized on the second occasion, regardless of whosoever is driving it at the time (i.e. it need not be the same driver as on the first occasion); and regardless of whether it is the same vehicle - if it is being driven by a driver who has already received an s59.So it's "two strikes", not three.
Streaky
it is "two strikes"; but I think Futuramic is referring to the OP's situation where he's had a "first strike" and now he still has two "strikes" where S.59s are issued. On reflection, you're right - it's "two strikes" before anything serious happens on the "third strike" with the rider that the OP has already had the first one...
Nasty piece of law, S.59
.All theoretical at this stage anyway
.And genuinely WTF???
about the exhaust looking noisy 
. No doubt the police officer won't say that if this goes to court 
.Is this 'issue' worth a letter of complaint to the local chief of police, in the same way as if a S.59 has been issued (ie the officer "might be mistaken" in what he is doing/has done)?
C.A.R. said:
Wait until you get told you were going too fast because your car was making a lot of noise - even though they couldn't actually see you at the time.
True story.
Been there, done that. True story.
Copper was none too impressed at being asked when his ears were last calibrated as a speed measuring device.
Adrian W said:
Mastodon2 said:
I sure hope the police don't pull me, not only does my exhaust "look" loud, it outputs in excess of 105db at 3750, which is not even close to the 3\4 point in the rev range.
Not the brightest thing i have seen posted on hereSeems starnge about the "prosecute at 90dB" rule, mates completely standard Caymen S is way over this as is other friends Exige, another friends standard M3 and the list could be continued.
simoid said:
IANAL but...
You've been given an FPN for exceeding a noise limit.
It would appear that your car was tested at the wrong RPM, therefore, reject the FPN and tell them to see you in court, as they have no evidence that your car was breaking any rules.
On who is the burden of proof as to whether the correct procedure was used?You've been given an FPN for exceeding a noise limit.
It would appear that your car was tested at the wrong RPM, therefore, reject the FPN and tell them to see you in court, as they have no evidence that your car was breaking any rules.
simoid said:
I am also assuming, perhaps wrongly, that the OP would be obliged to introduce "reasonable doubt" that the alleged offense was committed.
Surely that is expecting the OP to prove it didn't occur as opposed to the prosecution proving it did, hence we would have the concept of guilty unless proven innocent.If the test was carried out incorrectly would that be a case of the OP getting off on a technicality?
I'm not sure I'm suggesting "getting off on a technicality", more that I don't think the OP is actually being accused of an offense, i.e. they tested his car to see if it was too loud at 5250 RPM, whereas this isn't applicable to his car, as it should've been tested at a lower RPM.
I'm seeing it along the lines of prosecution for 69mph, in a car, on an NSL Dual Carriageway, although I may be over-simplifying.
If the procedure was wrong/not applicable to the OP's car, and the OP and the Police know that, then a magistrate wouldn't be impressed with this case appearing on his desk.
I'm seeing it along the lines of prosecution for 69mph, in a car, on an NSL Dual Carriageway, although I may be over-simplifying.
If the procedure was wrong/not applicable to the OP's car, and the OP and the Police know that, then a magistrate wouldn't be impressed with this case appearing on his desk.
simoid said:
I'm not sure I'm suggesting "getting off on a technicality", more that I don't think the OP is actually being accused of an offense, i.e. they tested his car to see if it was too loud at 5250 RPM, whereas this isn't applicable to his car, as it should've been tested at a lower RPM.
I'm seeing it along the lines of prosecution for 69mph, in a car, on an NSL Dual Carriageway, although I may be over-simplifying.
If the procedure was wrong/not applicable to the OP's car, and the OP and the Police know that, then a magistrate wouldn't be impressed with this case appearing on his desk.
Sadly it would be a technicality as I see it.I'm seeing it along the lines of prosecution for 69mph, in a car, on an NSL Dual Carriageway, although I may be over-simplifying.
If the procedure was wrong/not applicable to the OP's car, and the OP and the Police know that, then a magistrate wouldn't be impressed with this case appearing on his desk.
To use your example it is similar to being caught for speeding, but the speeding ticket not being applicable because the device used to measure the speed was out of calibration.
It would matter not whether the car was too loud or not (or in your example if you were speeding or not), since the method of detection (i.e. a fault in the administration of the measurement) means that there is no proof of the offence either way.
simoid said:
I am, perhaps wrongly, assuming that there is some sort of paperwork along the lines of "car tested @ x RPM gave readings of a b & c decibels...
I am also assuming, perhaps wrongly, that the OP would be obliged to introduce "reasonable doubt" that the alleged offense was committed.
You are correct, The car was checked at 5250RPM and gave a dB reading of 94.1dB However ISO 5130 which the Police Quote on their paperwork says that : (Taken from ISO5130)I am also assuming, perhaps wrongly, that the OP would be obliged to introduce "reasonable doubt" that the alleged offense was committed.
6.4.3 Vehicles of category M, N
The target engine speed shall be:
- 75 % of the rated engine speed, S, for vehicles with S equal to or less than 5000 min,
- 3750 min - for vehicles with a rated engine speed 5000 to 7500 min,
- 50 % of the rated engine speed, S, for vehicles with S equal to or greater than 7500 min,
with a tolerance of ± 5 %.
Where as:
3.2
vehicle category M
power-driven vehicles having at least four wheels and used for the carriage of passengers
3.3
vehicle category N
power-driven vehicles having at least four wheels and used for the carriage of goods
3.4
rated engine speed
S
engine speed at which the engine develops its rated maximum net power as stated by the manufacturer.
The Police form just has a blanket statement of "test at 3/4 power"
So my little Celica has it's red line at 7000RPM with max power at 6800RPM, so should fall into the second line of paragraph 6.4.3
therefore they (The Police) tested the vehicle 1500RPM too high.
I am going to consult my local CAB to see what they say then probably go down the "see you in court" route.
simoid said:
daz3210 said:
...there is no proof of the offence either way.
And so you shouldn't be prosecuted It does not prove or disprove whether you were actually guilty does it. Hence my later question, what about next time, after plod have educated themselves as to how to do the test properly.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff