Tuner fined for pop and bang map & decat fitting

[liner33]

Well if its a case of interpretation

Here is how Essex police interpret C&U

https://www.essex.police.uk/foi-ai/essex-police/ou...

In summary, vehicle exhausts must not be altered or replaced in a manner which increases the noise above that emitted by the type approved exhaust fitted by the manufacturer.

So if the aftermarket type approved system with E and/or BS make the car louder than the V5 states then its illegal

The rest of the article expands on this initial "interpretation"

[mac96]

liner33 said:

Well if its a case of interpretation

Here is how Essex police interpret C&U

https://www.essex.police.uk/foi-ai/essex-police/ou...

In summary, vehicle exhausts must not be altered or replaced in a manner which increases the noise above that emitted by the type approved exhaust fitted by the manufacturer.

So if the aftermarket type approved system with E and/or BS make the car louder than the V5 states then its illegal

The rest of the article expands on this initial "interpretation"

Thanks for digging that out, it's interesting. It is obviously a guide to the attitude we can expect from Essex police, whether their interpretation of the law is right or wrong.

It does on the face of it fall into the trap of thinking that clause 54(2) can be read on its own- as a matter of normal construction of documents layed out like this, I really don't see how it can.. Clause 54 as a whole simply does not say what they state it does. Anyone prosecuted simply on that issue should probably consider legal advice. Unless they have taken a drill to their silencer of course!

In reality I expect they will be looking to mainly prosecute simply on exceeding noise limits which has nothing to do with clause 54. That would seem entirely sensible and fair, as noise is the issue, and it a simple binary thing, like exceeding a speed limit. Little scope for argument, and also has the advantage of avoiding any possible arguments about what is OEM and what isn't, if somehow they do try to use clause 54.

[youngsyr]

mac96 said:

liner33 said:

Well if its a case of interpretation

Here is how Essex police interpret C&U

https://www.essex.police.uk/foi-ai/essex-police/ou...

In summary, vehicle exhausts must not be altered or replaced in a manner which increases the noise above that emitted by the type approved exhaust fitted by the manufacturer.

So if the aftermarket type approved system with E and/or BS make the car louder than the V5 states then its illegal

The rest of the article expands on this initial "interpretation"

Thanks for digging that out, it's interesting. It is obviously a guide to the attitude we can expect from Essex police, whether their interpretation of the law is right or wrong.

It does on the face of it fall into the trap of thinking that clause 54(2) can be read on its own- as a matter of normal construction of documents layed out like this, I really don't see how it can.. Clause 54 as a whole simply does not say what they state it does. Anyone prosecuted simply on that issue should probably consider legal advice. Unless they have taken a drill to their silencer of course!

In reality I expect they will be looking to mainly prosecute simply on exceeding noise limits which has nothing to do with clause 54. That would seem entirely sensible and fair, as noise is the issue, and it a simple binary thing, like exceeding a speed limit. Little scope for argument, and also has the advantage of avoiding any possible arguments about what is OEM and what isn't, if somehow they do try to use clause 54.

The legislation says exactly what Essex Police have interpreted it to say.

A car with an ICE must be fitted with an exhaust system that must include a silencer. The legislation pertains to the entire exhaust system, i.e. from the head to the tailpipe and specifies that it must include a silencer.

It then states that every exhaust system cannot be altered resulting in it being louder than the standard system.

It's very clear to any reasonable person that the definition of "an alteration" includes changing anything about the standard exhaust system, including fitting a new oem part and certainly an aftermarket/modified part.

Of course the ultimate arbiter would be a judge, good luck arguing that the legislation states that you can't modify an existing exhaust which makes it louder, but fitting an aftermarket exhaust system that is louder is a loophole!

Edited by youngsyr on Sunday 26th November 18:23

[Chris32345]

Good it's about time
Same with "rolling coal"

[youngsyr]

Chris32345 said:

Good it's about time
Same with "rolling coal"

"Rolling Coal?" I think you've mistaken Essex with Texas.

[520TORQUES]

liner33 said:

Well if its a case of interpretation

Here is how Essex police interpret C&U

https://www.essex.police.uk/foi-ai/essex-police/ou...

In summary, vehicle exhausts must not be altered or replaced in a manner which increases the noise above that emitted by the type approved exhaust fitted by the manufacturer.

So if the aftermarket type approved system with E and/or BS make the car louder than the V5 states then its illegal

The rest of the article expands on this initial "interpretation"

That is a guidance document, it is badly worded and would not stand up to a legal challenge. It is also using noise levels that are outside the guidance of good practice according to the official document i link below.

It is also far too restrictive in it's interpretation of the legal limits. For example, the static noise limit for a car that passed an IVA/SVA such as a Japanese Import or a kit car is not 80db(A) but is in fact 99db(A).

It is based around a study document created to provide guidance for future noise measuring and control methods and if you are genuinely interested in how this is heading you should probably read it.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5cf...

It's clear the aim of the Police action is to stop anti-social behaviour and their guidance is based on that, it is not a correct legal interpretation of the law and in the case of Essex, the limits applied are outside the study recommendations, so they are using a sledge hammer to kill a local problem and someone with a decent lawyer would bring that into evidence, if the CPS let it go that far.

[BorisnBertie]

I have a v8 car that's been modded.. resonator and silencer delete. Also has H and S backboxes.
It's never been questioned, ever. It's a bit boomy at start-up, to heat cats.. sounds like a v8 afterwards.
Never above threshold (80dB)..
If it pops and farts I'm probably having fun somewhere it's safe to have fun.
Heard an AMG45 start up in a car park next to mine recently... maybe around half again as loud, but that's ok?

[520TORQUES]

BorisnBertie said:

I have a v8 car that's been modded.. resonator and silencer delete. Also has H and S backboxes.
It's never been questioned, ever. It's a bit boomy at start-up, to heat cats.. sounds like a v8 afterwards.
Never above threshold (80dB)..
If it pops and farts I'm probably having fun somewhere it's safe to have fun.
Heard an AMG45 start up in a car park next to mine recently... maybe around half again as loud, but that's ok?

It's a logarithmic scale, 3db(A) is double the noise change. It's also reading at set frequency ranges.

To have the Police taking notice, you generally have to be being a bit of a tt.

[Pit Pony]

Crudeoink said:

Someone's Mrs wont let them have a bike

Anyways, being relatively young (90's baby) I can say up until recently most of my cars and bikes were pretty loud, not decatted, but louder than standard (Porsche tested at 97dB at my last trackday). That said, I still cringe when I hear a HD or sports bike with a straight pipe full chat. I know it just pisses people off. It's this kind of stupidly loud exhaust that has led to this kind of case, people were taking the piss too much so the law had to make an example of someone to reign it in a bit

When I was a student in the 1980s, our next door neighbour moved house, due to the noise. Part of this noise was a Z500 with a 4 into 1 ansa exhaust with modified* baffles, that spat out flames on the overrun... I was on a year in industry, and would regularly power it up at 7am and wheelspin it across the rear garden and out the back gate.
My house mates liked loud music, into the night (I slept through it because I'm a tt like that)

I hate my younger self.

• By modified, it was mostly removed, alough looked normal on the outside, and there was no wadding to speak of.

[OutInTheShed]

Heaveho said:

MG CHRIS said:

No it didn't no cat rated car will pass a cat test with one missing. Also removing a cat is a major fail anyway.

Er, yes it did. I was there. Twice.

With regards to your second sentence, thanks for repeating what everyone already knows and has already been established endlessly anyway.

Edited by Heaveho on Friday 24th November 13:37

You're aware that the test procedures/guidlines have been updated?

"You should reject all vehicles first used on or after 1 September 2002, where original emissions control equipment components are missing, obviously modified or obviously defective."

Basically, it's new this year, check emission control stuff has not been tampered with. For cars.
If they bring the bike test in line with the car test, it will be carnage.

Also an MOT emissions test is not the same thing as type approval limits.
If you've got a euro4 car, it's illegal to modify it such that it no longer meets euro4.
If your vehicle is euro 6, you probably don't have much leeway to fiddle with it!

People are getting away with a lot of stuff that's technically illegal.


Also even if your car or bike is entirely 'legal', it's still possible you can get fined for making an antisocial noise with it.

I get the feeling that we'll see much more effective enforcement quite soon
'Noise Cameras' being just one prong of the attack.

[smokey mow]

520TORQUES said:

It is also far too restrictive in it's interpretation of the legal limits. For example, the static noise limit for a car that passed an IVA/SVA such as a Japanese Import or a kit car is not 80db(A) but is in fact 99db(A).

You’re trying to compare two different methods of testing.

The roadside test is carried out at 50% of the vehicles maximum RPM whist the IVA and type approval limits are at 75% of maximum RPM, hence why one is significantly different to the other.

[popeyewhite]

OutInTheShed said:

Also even if your car or bike is entirely 'legal', it's still possible you can get fined for making an antisocial noise with it.

I get the feeling that we'll see much more effective enforcement quite soon

As a law has never been passed for breaking sound limits, you can't be prosecuted for breaking them. Until a law is created and put through parliament all that will happen is local councils will use scare tactics to threaten. Unless you're a complete idiot of course - driving up and down the high street revving and making too much noise. But for the average person with the louder than average exhaust you're pretty safe.

[NFT]

said:

"You should reject all vehicles first used on or after 1 September 2002, where original emissions control equipment components are missing, obviously modified or obviously defective."

This mean a car having a cat in exhaust when it was part of a combined CAT & Manifold from factory fails?

P.S .. Suggests would include a bypass valve on exhaust pre cat too? OMG..

Edited by NFT on Saturday 2nd December 17:44

[520TORQUES]

smokey mow said:

520TORQUES said:

It is also far too restrictive in it's interpretation of the legal limits. For example, the static noise limit for a car that passed an IVA/SVA such as a Japanese Import or a kit car is not 80db(A) but is in fact 99db(A).

You’re trying to compare two different methods of testing.

The roadside test is carried out at 50% of the vehicles maximum RPM whist the IVA and type approval limits are at 75% of maximum RPM, hence why one is significantly different to the other.

You are incorrect.

The IVA test is carried out at 3/4 of the engines maximum power speed, where that rpm point is not known, it's carried out at 2/3 of engine maximum design speed. Limit in both tests is 99db(A)

On a typical Japanese spec high performance car, the maximum power speed is published in the sales brochure. My car it is listed as maximum power speed at 6400rpm, so the test was carried out at 4800rpm. If that info wasn't published, with the red line at 8000rpm on the tacho, the test would be carried out at 5333rpm. My car is a pretty high revving car for stock, so at the higher end of the rev band used in an IVA.

There are two main methods being used by the police for road side tests, the first uses the following method
• 75% of the rated engine speed, where the rated engine speed is < 5,000 RPM
• 3,750 RPM for a rated engine speed 5,000 – 7,500 RPM
• 50% of the rated engine speed, where the rated engine speed is > 7,500 RPM

So with my car under this test it would fall into the last method, with the test rpm being 4000rpm

The other main method used is the engine speed tested for all cars is 50% of the maximum displayed on the vehicle’s tachometer

So with my car that would be at 4000rpm again

In both cases, the limit is 99db(A), not 80db(A) as the car is not EU type approved but has been registered via the IVA test.

Incidentally, i compete in MSUK events and so the car is noise tested regularly, this test is carried out at 2/3 engine peak speed, so at 5333rpm (the same method as the IVA if peak power speed is not known) and with it's free flowing 3" system reads 87db(A), The limit for a road rally car, which is used on the public road is 98db(A), 1db(A) under the IVA test and the construction and use test for none type approved cars. The government study for the roadside noise testing methods to use, reference the MSUK regulations.

With regards to UK Police testing, it's a shambles, they don't know what they are doing and their tests would not stand up to a court case. Below is the feedback from a government study of how the Police are carrying out these tests.

Police Force Question: What noise limit (in decibels) do you enforce and how has this been derived?

Answers:
Police Force 3
Noise limits aren’t applicable as guidance states that if loud to ear and not fitted to car when manufactured, then it is an offence.
Police Force 4
Stated noise limits are not applicable as the guidance states if it is considered louder than when the vehicle was manufactured, it could be an offence
Police Force 8
Currently have no noise testing equipment in the force, so any action is taken in relation to Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations.
Police Force 9
N/A
Police Force 10
We trialled enforcement above these levels in 2016, but as the equipment we were using was only on loan to the force, we have not continued with any enforcement at all since. The below was included on the initial trial warning letter given to drivers when they were tested. A four-wheeled vehicle used on or after 1st October 1983 must not exceed 82 dB. Some exceptions apply and in these exceptions the limit is increased to 99 dB.
Police Force 12
We will generally utilise exhaust legislation such as removal of baffles/defects if appropriate. Local Authorities in the area do not engage with us on joint operations for this issue
Police Force 14
We enforce from 90 dB. 82 dB is the legal limit.
Police Force 15
We do not

Police Force Question: What test equipment do you use to measure vehicle noise?

Answers:
Police Force 2
None
Police Force 3
Subjective listening
Police Force 4
Subjective listening
Police Force 6
Standard reasonable person
Police Force 9
Do not have test equipment
Police Force 10
A Neutrik NTI XL2 sound level meter was trialled, but not purchased due to budget
Police Force 12
N/A
Police Force 13
None
Police Force 14
NTi audio XL2 handheld acoustic analyser

Police force question: Testing method used?

approximately a third (38%) of the respondents do not use ISO 5130, around a fifth (19%) of the respondents don’t know if the police force uses ISO 5130, and 13% of the respondents use ISO 5130 for enforcement. One respondent stated that they do not use ISO 5130 because it is non-applicable for noise limit enforcement.

As is always the case, don't be a dhead and the Police will leave you alone. If you do have an over zealous policing issue or you happened to be innocently caught up in someone else's nuisance event, know your correct legal position and be polite with any interaction.

Edited by 520TORQUES on Sunday 3rd December 12:55

[blank]

To muddy the waters even more, while there is a static test during type approval, there is no limit.

So you can have a car that's over 100dB(A) in the static test as long as it passes the dynamic limits.

The static test is only really there to give a value for "in-use" testing to be compared against as it would be impractical to do a full dynamic test.

[DodgyGeezer]

520TORQUES said:

lots of interesting stuff

however for me these stand-out as being 'interesting'

Police Force 3
Subjective listening
Police Force 4
Subjective listening
Police Force 6
Standard reasonable person


hopefully someone here can explain to a dunderhead like me WTF the above means?

[520TORQUES]

DodgyGeezer said:

however for me these stand-out as being 'interesting'

Police Force 3
Subjective listening
Police Force 4
Subjective listening
Police Force 6
Standard reasonable person


hopefully someone here can explain to a dunderhead like me WTF the above means?

It means police person thinks its noisy, so it's noisy. It is of course absurd.

What they really mean is they are not using the noise limit regulations, they are using the nuisance to the public legislation which is subjective.

[popeyewhite]

520TORQUES said:

... they are using the nuisance to the public legislation which is subjective.

This. If you take the mickey you could get in trouble.

[DodgyGeezer]

popeyewhite said:

520TORQUES said:

... they are using the nuisance to the public legislation which is subjective.

This. If you take the mickey you could get in trouble.

normally I'd agree with you - however (tinfoil hat time) what happens when said copper is 'sympathetic' to JSO or just believes that 'big engines are pointless and bad'? An arbitrary decision on what is legal or not isn't a great way forward (and yes it would, almost certainly, lose in court - but what a ball-ache)

[popeyewhite]

DodgyGeezer said:

normally I'd agree with you - however (tinfoil hat time) what happens when said copper is 'sympathetic' to JSO or just believes that 'big engines are pointless and bad'? An arbitrary decision on what is legal or not isn't a great way forward (and yes it would, almost certainly, lose in court - but what a ball-ache)

I think you're right. People should be careful... .