|
daz3210
5,000 posts
109 months
|
simoid said: daz3210 said: simoid said: Don't get sidetracked into any "I pay insurance and road tax, I don't drive a chav Saxo" rants, don't bother that the Policeman said "it looked loud", conentrate on the fact that your car didn't break any rules by being at X db at Y rpm. Is that right though? From the way this has been explained, there is no rule of X db at Y rpm for the rpm used to test. The measure they have gives the measure it does, but the test should have been (as I understand it) Y-1500, for which there is currently no reading available. At Y-1500 the vehicle may or may not have been in contravention, but does that actually matter in this instance? My view is that if they have no reading for Y-1500 RPM (the appropriate testing speed), then they have no evidence of any rule being broken, other than "it looks a bit loud"  Exactly. So why did you say concentrate on 'the fact that your car didn't break any rules by being at X db at Y rpm' rather than they have no evidence of a rule being broken. The case would be without merit surely.
|
|
|
MadMark911
1,354 posts
18 months
|
Go to court and get it thrown out! Point of principle - you have done nothing wrong .... 
|
|
|
simoid
8,322 posts
27 months
|
daz3210 said: "the fact that your car didn't break any rules by being at X db at Y rpm"
"they have no evidence of a rule being broken." Same thing...
|
|
|
daz3210
5,000 posts
109 months
|
simoid said: daz3210 said: "the fact that your car didn't break any rules by being at X db at Y rpm"
"they have no evidence of a rule being broken." Same thing... Almost, but not quite. x db at y rpm is trying to show an offence. Not having evidence at all is slightly different.
|
|
|
simoid
8,322 posts
27 months
|
daz3210 said: Almost, but not quite.
x db at y rpm is trying to show an offence.
Not having evidence at all is slightly different. But by showing how they incorrectly came to their conclusion of rulebreaking, you're more likely to succeed.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Monkey boy 1
Original Poster
1,839 posts
100 months
|
Local CAB very helpful, off to see their solicitor tomorrow. Their view is that the police tested incorrectly, but will wait till i get a professionals view.
|
|
|
daz3210
5,000 posts
109 months
|
simoid said: daz3210 said: Almost, but not quite.
x db at y rpm is trying to show an offence.
Not having evidence at all is slightly different. But by showing how they incorrectly came to their conclusion of rulebreaking, you're more likely to succeed. I fully agree with you. But I am unsure whether you even need to mention the x db at y rpm. Surely all you need is that the test should have been at y-1500 rpm, and the officer has not done a test at that.
|
|
|
simoid
8,322 posts
27 months
|
Ah! Yeah, no real need for noise level I suppose. Anyway, looking positive for the OP Hopefully this doesn't actually involve the waste of time for a court appearance as someone along the line sees sense...
|
|
|
Adrian W
8,116 posts
97 months
|
Mastodon2 said: 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! You spotted the Lexus Hybrid then
|
|
|
Mastodon2
5,737 posts
34 months
|
Adrian W said: You spotted the Lexus Hybrid then Clearly not, might just be in with a shout (or a whisper!) to fail this daft test if the officer thinks it "looks" like a loud pipe though 
|
|
|
Red Devil
4,239 posts
77 months
|
Monkey boy 1 said: Yes, I have their (Norfolk Police) paperwork which quotes noise test done in accordance with ISO5130 and have a copy of the latest ISO5130 which differs from the police form. As I have said earlier, they checked my car at 5250 RPM, ISO5130 states the test to be done ar 3750RPM. If my maths is correct, that is 1500RPM lower than the Police checked it at THAT is what I am arguing about  That's what you should concentrate on. Anything else is irrelevant. The test was defective as it was not carried out in accordance with ISO5130. I am surprised they made such a simple yet fundamental error because the information is readily available on the internet. Their actions smack of a zeal to implement a crack down coupled with reliance on the premise that nobody cba to mount a challenge over a £30 FPN which doesn't carry points. Some bedtime reading - http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/trl-report-p...More ammunition to demonstrate that the police dropped the ball. Btw, TVR owners - see the graph on page 8.
|
|
|
Monkey boy 1
Original Poster
1,839 posts
100 months
|
I have read that. Some interesting reading there
|
|
|
JBliss
719 posts
26 months
|
I have often wondered about this.
I have a Noble and the exhaust is around 99db (tested at a track). Yes, it is loud but i have never had a problem with the police.
If i did get a difficult copper, what could they do? don't they have to test your car based on how loud a standard car would be?
never really understood the exhaust testing!
|
|
|
Monkey boy 1
Original Poster
1,839 posts
100 months
|
Neither do the police 
|
|
|
rlw
2,176 posts
106 months
|
Since when was there an official dB limit? I have always believed that as long as your car complied with the regs current at the time of its manufacture, you were fine. (Apart from one or two safety areas).
My GT3, completely standard, easily makes 100dB on a trackday test at 75% of maximum revs and gets even noisier after that but it still complies with the manufacturers settings. Illegal? It idles at well over the maximum number mentioned by the OP too, so surely I should be nicked and fined every time I drive it.
|
|
|
simoid
8,322 posts
27 months
|
I believe it's to do with type approval and such things. But I have no clue why a 911 GT3 is permitted to be louder than a Celica GT4 
|
|
|
oyster
5,205 posts
117 months
|
MrBrightSi said: I used to run the williams with no silenecers and that was LOUD. It never got beans in crowded places at night, but was sometimes fun to scare people (Utterly childish and pathetic i know)
I cannot beleive you got a fine for this, surely if this kind of act is allowed to continue we'll be living in some sort of orwellian nightmare soon enough. Have you considered that your nightmare might be someone else's dream? (referring to noise, not the Orwellian aspect).
|
|
|
RtdRacer
1,274 posts
70 months
|
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.
|
|
|
daz3210
5,000 posts
109 months
|
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?
|
|
|
KevinA4quattro
6,076 posts
149 months
|
Monkey boy 1 said: For the record, the car has a Powerflow system. Original Cat with a 300mm centre box and twin rear boxes. Yes it's not original, Does the exhaust have the relevant E markings which makes it road legal?
|
|
