Car Exhaust Noise

[mjb1]

daz3210 said:

Sadly it would be a technicality as I see it.

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.

There was no fault in the administration of the measurement, as far as we know. They did the wrong spec of test for his vehicle. It's not a technicality. If you were 'done' for speeding at 50 mph on a single carriageway NSL in your car, because they mistakenly thought it was an HGV, would you still consider that a technicality?

If the OP has paperwork to prove that they measured at the wrong engine speed (he would also need to prove peak power RPM of his car - manufacturer's figures should confirm this), then I would first write to the officer that did the incorrect test, and invite them to retest at the correct speed, and if that doesn't get a retest, go to court and make the officer look silly.

[daz3210]

mjb1 said:

They did the wrong spec of test for his vehicle.

So they administered the test in a faulty manner

mjb1 said:

If you were 'done' for speeding at 50 mph on a single carriageway NSL in your car, because they mistakenly thought it was an HGV, would you still consider that a technicality?

No. But if I were cited for speeding, but there was some fault in the way the speed was measured (e.g. a faulty/out of calibration instrument) meaning that the reading obtained could have doubt as to its accuracy, then yes. In other words I may well have been traveling at excess speed, but whether I was or not is irrelevant, since sufficient doubt can be put on the device in question.

mjb1 said:

If the OP has paperwork to prove that they measured at the wrong engine speed (he would also need to prove peak power RPM of his car - manufacturer's figures should confirm this), then I would first write to the officer that did the incorrect test, and invite them to retest at the correct speed, and if that doesn't get a retest, go to court and make the officer look silly.

Why invite the replacement test? If you can show that procedure was wrong surely that is enough to prevent a conviction. Why invite trouble by saying test again?

[andye30m3]

If they prosecute above a level of 90dB what happens if a standard car exceeds this?

my GT3 which is 100% standard measured 105dB at Goodwood on a static test.

[mjb1]

daz3210 said:

mjb1 said:

If you were 'done' for speeding at 50 mph on a single carriageway NSL in your car, because they mistakenly thought it was an HGV, would you still consider that a technicality?

No. But if I were cited for speeding, but there was some fault in the way the speed was measured (e.g. a faulty/out of calibration instrument) meaning that the reading obtained could have doubt as to its accuracy, then yes. In other words I may well have been traveling at excess speed, but whether I was or not is irrelevant, since sufficient doubt can be put on the device in question.

But there was no fault in the procedure of the test, and the machine was not faulty/out of calibration, so your analogy isn't. There is no doubt over the accuracy of the reading, but it was obtained by testing with the wrong parameters.

daz3210 said:

mjb1 said:

If the OP has paperwork to prove that they measured at the wrong engine speed (he would also need to prove peak power RPM of his car - manufacturer's figures should confirm this), then I would first write to the officer that did the incorrect test, and invite them to retest at the correct speed, and if that doesn't get a retest, go to court and make the officer look silly.

Why invite the replacement test? If you can show that procedure was wrong surely that is enough to prevent a conviction. Why invite trouble by saying test again?

Yes, it will be enough to prevent a conviction, assuming the OP can present his case well enough to convince a layman (the magistrate). The police have screwed up, and inviting the retest shows that the OP has been reasonable, and the police continued to be incompetent, so it leaves the magistrate annoyed at wasting the courts time, and makes the officer involved look pretty silly. And if that is enough to prevent the same potential miscarriage happening again (to some one else, who may not be technically minded enough to realise the mistake), then it is worth writing the letter IMO.

[Monkey boy 1]

I have written to the local Police HQ, and advised them of their error, they waited for over a month to get back to me saying that the Officer conducted the test correctly in accordance to ther (Norfolk Constabulary) test procedures so the FPN stands, they were not looking into the fact that their test contradicts the ISO standard.

I have said on every single correspondance with them that I am more than happy to have my vehicle re-checked, If it is still over 90dB then fair enough.

I had the exhaust system checked at a local exhaust specialist who deal with the system I have on. They noise checked it and it was 86.7dB at 5250RPM and 83.4dB at 3750RPM, though the testing ground they had differed from the Police one as there were buildings within 3M of the exhaust pipe. (which would possibly make it worse)

[daz3210]

mjb1 said:

But there was no fault in the procedure of the test,...

I would beg to differ on that one. There is a procedure laid down that says use x rev's, where x is calculated according to parameters relating to the vehicle.

They didn't test according to the procedure, they used another arbitrary rev level.

Hence there was a fault with the procedure.

[mjb1]

daz3210 said:

I would beg to differ on that one. There is a procedure laid down that says use x rev's, where x is calculated according to parameters relating to the vehicle.

They didn't test according to the procedure, they used another arbitrary rev level.

Hence there was a fault with the procedure.

They did the test correctly and using the correct procedure, they just did the wrong test for his vehicle. Is that a technicality or incompetence?

Monkey boy 1 said:

I have written to the local Police HQ, and advised them of their error, they waited for over a month to get back to me saying that the Officer conducted the test correctly in accordance to ther (Norfolk Constabulary) test procedures so the FPN stands, they were not looking into the fact that their test contradicts the ISO standard.

I have said on every single correspondance with them that I am more than happy to have my vehicle re-checked, If it is still over 90dB then fair enough.

I had the exhaust system checked at a local exhaust specialist who deal with the system I have on. They noise checked it and it was 86.7dB at 5250RPM and 83.4dB at 3750RPM, though the testing ground they had differed from the Police one as there were buildings within 3M of the exhaust pipe. (which would possibly make it worse)

So you had an independent test done, and it still measured too high (83.4db when the limit is is 82db)? That won't help you in court, so I'd either leave it out, or make it pass the test somehow. If I were you, I'd want to be 100% sure that it will pass the correct test before contesting the wrong one. Your car should have a single exit exhaust in standard trim.

[Mastodon2]

Adrian W said:

Not the brightest thing i have seen posted on here

By the ridiculous standards of this test OP was subjected to, no standard Type R would pass the test anyway since they are 93db by most measures, so I'm not too worried about my aftermarket kit being non-compliant with these draconian and moronic rules. By a quick look at your garage, not a single one of your cars would pass the test either!

Edited by Mastodon2 on Monday 8th October 17:52

[Monkey boy 1]

To add to this stupidly draconian test an MOT station is not allowed to do a noise test. This is a law which cannot be checked unless it's by the Police.

[daz3210]

mjb1 said:

They did the test correctly and using the correct procedure, they just did the wrong test for his vehicle. Is that a technicality or incompetence?

Its incompetence by the officer, but a technicality that means the case should not proceed.

[daz3210]

Monkey boy 1 said:

To add to this stupidly draconian test an MOT station is not allowed to do a noise test. This is a law which cannot be checked unless it's by the Police.

Or anyone else with the relevant equipment.

[DeolTheBeast]

Big tailpipe =/= noisy

[herewego]

Monkey boy 1 said:

SMGB said:

"600m from home," "looks noisy". This stinks,do you have an issue with one of your neighbours or is the Plod related to one of them? Someone had complained + told them when you leave home and they were waiting.
Both of my MGs have stainless straight throughs and we often leave at stupid o clock to go on events during the season. I drive them as quietly as possible, several young families here. We have never ever had a problem.
There are some intelligent BiB on here, their toes must curl when they read threads like this.

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. !!!

Does the exhaust look standard or does it look aftermarket?

[simoid]

herewego said:

Does the exhaust look standard or does it look aftermarket?

Shirley his 17 year old car is no longer on the original exhaust...

[Futuramic]

aw51 121565 said:

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)?

Hooray, someone understood. As no S59 was issued at the time the Toyota would have to receive a warning and then get caught again before the law could be acted upon. Therefore if the first stop is taken into account there would be a total of three.

[herewego]

simoid said:

herewego said:

Does the exhaust look standard or does it look aftermarket?

Shirley his 17 year old car is no longer on the original exhaust...

Probably not, but that wasn't my question.

[simoid]

herewego said:

simoid said:

herewego said:

Does the exhaust look standard or does it look aftermarket?

Shirley his 17 year old car is no longer on the original exhaust...

Probably not, but that wasn't my question.

Not sure how it's helpful to any cause bar your curiosity, but carry on

[herewego]

simoid said:

herewego said:

simoid said:

herewego said:

Does the exhaust look standard or does it look aftermarket?

Shirley his 17 year old car is no longer on the original exhaust...

Probably not, but that wasn't my question.

Not sure how it's helpful to any cause bar your curiosity, but carry on

Yeah yeah, well I was just mildly irritated, but I'll move along now.

[streaky]

Futuramic said:

aw51 121565 said:

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)?

Hooray, someone understood. As no S59 was issued at the time the Toyota would have to receive a warning and then get caught again before the law could be acted upon. Therefore if the first stop is taken into account there would be a total of three.

But not three s59s. The driver might as well have been stopped for an unsafe load, obscured number-plate, or even speeding (by an unaccompanied officer on foot), or all three by different officers one after the other (if indeed there were so many individually outside the nick at the same time), this making five 'strikes'.

Streaky

[simoid]

herewego said:

simoid said:

herewego said:

simoid said:

herewego said:

Does the exhaust look standard or does it look aftermarket?

Shirley his 17 year old car is no longer on the original exhaust...

Probably not, but that wasn't my question.

Not sure how it's helpful to any cause bar your curiosity, but carry on

Yeah yeah, well I was just mildly irritated, but I'll move along now.

Interestingly, my car has just blown a hole in its original exhaust, so my car looks entirely standard.

However... start it up, and it sounds like a Spitfire or something