Road legal bikes banned from certain roads due to noise
Discussion
PushedDover said:
Steve Bass said:
Incorrect.
legal ones are.
loud and obnoxious are subjective values without basis. An imposed 'benchmark" has no basis in law. it's another subjective assessemnt and unduly disadvantages those who have complied with the law in all respects.
Whether they like it or not, those vehicles are legal to own and operate in all areas where legal right of way is entitled.
Ripe for a legal challenge even by a manufacturer.
Have fun. I am sure you are totally right and will win the legal challengelegal ones are.
loud and obnoxious are subjective values without basis. An imposed 'benchmark" has no basis in law. it's another subjective assessemnt and unduly disadvantages those who have complied with the law in all respects.
Whether they like it or not, those vehicles are legal to own and operate in all areas where legal right of way is entitled.
Ripe for a legal challenge even by a manufacturer.
good luck fighting the government
in the end you lose and you pay the immense legal fees as well
Vickers_VC10 said:
Pothole said:
Prof Prolapse said:
I think the big question here is, "will the restrictions to a small number of roads, in a small region, of Austria, be increasingly applied elsewhere".
I mean, are the motorcycle restrictions enforced in this area typically rolled out on a global scale?
Only, I'm struggling to think of any instance, ever, where a law has been made on the basis of "well, all the cool kids in Austria are doing it". For that reason, and many others actually, this really doesn't bother me.
That was where I was hoping people would get to on their own.I mean, are the motorcycle restrictions enforced in this area typically rolled out on a global scale?
Only, I'm struggling to think of any instance, ever, where a law has been made on the basis of "well, all the cool kids in Austria are doing it". For that reason, and many others actually, this really doesn't bother me.
Also very odd to come from a country where they have a fairly large motorbike industry. Whatever.
Ho Lee Kau said:
PushedDover said:
Steve Bass said:
Incorrect.
legal ones are.
loud and obnoxious are subjective values without basis. An imposed 'benchmark" has no basis in law. it's another subjective assessemnt and unduly disadvantages those who have complied with the law in all respects.
Whether they like it or not, those vehicles are legal to own and operate in all areas where legal right of way is entitled.
Ripe for a legal challenge even by a manufacturer.
Have fun. I am sure you are totally right and will win the legal challengelegal ones are.
loud and obnoxious are subjective values without basis. An imposed 'benchmark" has no basis in law. it's another subjective assessemnt and unduly disadvantages those who have complied with the law in all respects.
Whether they like it or not, those vehicles are legal to own and operate in all areas where legal right of way is entitled.
Ripe for a legal challenge even by a manufacturer.
good luck fighting the government
in the end you lose and you pay the immense legal fees as well
Do yourself a favour and read and comprehend the ENTIRE thread before making yourself look a chop.
I think we might need to take the topography of the region in to account for the reasoning behind the ban.
I live on one side of a very small shallow valley, it's probably no more than 20m from top to bottom and the road that runs through it is no more than 2 miles until it goes over the hill.
My village - complete with it's 30mph limit- ( 50 either side) is smack in the middle.
We hear every loud pipe for the 2 or 3 minutes or so, down the hill with the sweeping bends, down the gears for the 30 (if they bother) and then full throttle on the straight out of the village.
I don't mind it, the neighbour hates it and I'm sure he gives me evil eyes out of the bedroom window every time I take the (fairly quiet with standard exhausts) bike out, even as late as 8am
. He loves the sound of the OH's AMG. So some people get offended by different noises.
Anyway back to my point. Some people like my neighbour find 2 minutes of 1 bike going thorugh the 2 mile long and 20m deep valley I live in annoying.
Imagine what that is like if you live here:
I don't agree that if bikes are banned everything should be banned if it's too noisy. I think that the legislation should be correct in the first place. They are part of the EU and should abide by the rules.
As for a legal challenge, is this any different to pedestrianising a road?
I live on one side of a very small shallow valley, it's probably no more than 20m from top to bottom and the road that runs through it is no more than 2 miles until it goes over the hill.
My village - complete with it's 30mph limit- ( 50 either side) is smack in the middle.
We hear every loud pipe for the 2 or 3 minutes or so, down the hill with the sweeping bends, down the gears for the 30 (if they bother) and then full throttle on the straight out of the village.
I don't mind it, the neighbour hates it and I'm sure he gives me evil eyes out of the bedroom window every time I take the (fairly quiet with standard exhausts) bike out, even as late as 8am
. He loves the sound of the OH's AMG. So some people get offended by different noises.Anyway back to my point. Some people like my neighbour find 2 minutes of 1 bike going thorugh the 2 mile long and 20m deep valley I live in annoying.
Imagine what that is like if you live here:
I don't agree that if bikes are banned everything should be banned if it's too noisy. I think that the legislation should be correct in the first place. They are part of the EU and should abide by the rules.
As for a legal challenge, is this any different to pedestrianising a road?
talksthetorque said:
As for a legal challenge, is this any different to pedestrianising a road?
in essence, yes.pedestrianising a road either completely or within specific hours establishes a uniform prevention. No vehicle or no vehicle of a certain type shall be permitted within the constraints of the limitiations.
However, to barr certain types, makes or models of vehicles, particulalry those legally purchased and owned within the laws prevailing at the time of initial purchase is discriminatory. This is also a critical matter as it addresses the changes in regulations and permits vehicles to be used today that complied at their time of original sale but perhaps do not comply today. (Classic cars, no seatbelts, ABS, Airbags etc)
Shy allow a Honda through but not a Yamaha when both are legal to purchase and own?
This is the crux of the issue.
By the same measure, why not prevent people of a certain colour/ethnicity entering your village?.
if 44% of respondents disliked [insert colour/ethnicity] people in their village, why not barr them??? Thats what this action is effectiviely sanctioning.
it's a slippery slope
Edited by Steve Bass on Thursday 4th June 11:08
Steve Bass said:
talksthetorque said:
As for a legal challenge, is this any different to pedestrianising a road?
in essence, yes.pedestrianising a road either completely or within specific hours establishes a uniform prevention. No vehicle or no vehicle of a certain type shall be permitted within the constraints of the limitiations.
however, to barr certain types, makes or models of vehicle, particulalry thiose legally purchased and owned within the prevailing laws at the time of initial purchase is discriminatory.
Why allow a Honda through but not a Yamaha when both are legal to purchase and own?
This is the crux of the issue.
by the same measure, why not prevent people of a certian colour/ethnicity through as you might not like certain ethnicities in your village....
if 44% of respondents disliked [insert colour/ethnicity] people in their village, why not barr them???
it's a slippery slope
Perhaps Width Restrictors placed by the local authority is a better example.
A range rover is wider than 7 ft. Many restrictors are either 6'6" or 7'
talksthetorque said:
Fair enough.
Perhaps Width Restrictors placed by the local authority is a better example.
A range rover is wider than 7 ft. Many restrictors are either 6'6" or 7'
Indeed.Perhaps Width Restrictors placed by the local authority is a better example.
A range rover is wider than 7 ft. Many restrictors are either 6'6" or 7'
Width restrictions are designed to prevent vehicles over a certain weight from transiting a structure unable to manage their mass.
A prohibition sign may convey the requirment but if the risk of catastrophic failure of the brige/ structure being protected is likely, then physical measures must be taken to ensure no structural damage or catastrophic failure.
As such, the prevention is based on safety grounds and the owner of the Land Rover must accept that by buying a vehicle that exceeds the width limit, he acknowledges he waives his legal right to pass.
The altermate option is a weigh bridge which doesn't discriminate against over width but under weight vehicles but imposes unreasonable cost, disruption and inconvienience to the neighbouring residents.
So the imposition of the physuical restriction is based on a reasoned balance.
In the caseof the excluded motorcycles, I would suggest the law already provides many remedies in the event of road users contravening the rules of the road.
Pothole said:
Steve Bass said:
In the caseof the excluded motorcycles, I would suggest the law already provides many remedies in the event of road users contravening the rules of the road.
I bow to your knowledge of Austrian road regs...I understand your dissmissiveness on the basis that this is in Austria, but I'm commenting on the application of law, irrespective of location. And until the seperation of the UK and Europe is complete, these laws relate ttot he UK as well.
Steve Bass said:
Pothole said:
Steve Bass said:
In the caseof the excluded motorcycles, I would suggest the law already provides many remedies in the event of road users contravening the rules of the road.
I bow to your knowledge of Austrian road regs...I understand your dissmissiveness on the basis that this is in Austria, but I'm commenting on the application of law, irrespective of location. And until the seperation of the UK and Europe is complete, these laws relate ttot he UK as well.
Pothole said:
Steve Bass said:
Pothole said:
Steve Bass said:
In the caseof the excluded motorcycles, I would suggest the law already provides many remedies in the event of road users contravening the rules of the road.
I bow to your knowledge of Austrian road regs...I understand your dissmissiveness on the basis that this is in Austria, but I'm commenting on the application of law, irrespective of location. And until the seperation of the UK and Europe is complete, these laws relate ttot he UK as well.
My point is simply that the law is clear and to begin introducing supplemental requirments or conditions that are discriminatory is unacceptable.
The slippery slope is in reference to what some people determine to be to their disliking and driving discriminatory acts or regulations that are in potential violation of the law.
Regardless of our opinions, the law establishes the contract by which we live and are governed. it establishes basic rights and obligations and I would worry that the inhabitants of a particular location would be able to implement discriminatory regulations that are a clear contravention of the law and based on their particular "special interests"
I'll make reference to the comment on the other thread where the residents were 'absoultly convinced" that bikes were travelling 130+.. Only upon the Police showing them were they made aware of their error and predujice.
it sets a angerous precedent is all.
Steve Bass said:
Apologies, I'm not aware of the 'ace Cafe" situation tbh..
My point is simply that the law is clear and to begin introducing supplemental requirments or conditions that are discriminatory is unacceptable.
The slippery slope is in reference to what some people determine to be to their disliking and driving discriminatory acts or regulations that are in potential violation of the law.
Regardless of our opinions, the law establishes the contract by which we live and are governed. it establishes basic rights and obligations and I would worry that the inhabitants of a particular location would be able to implement discriminatory regulations that are a clear contravention of the law and based on their particular "special interests"
I'll make reference to the comment on the other thread where the residents were 'absoultly convinced" that bikes were travelling 130+.. Only upon the Police showing them were they made aware of their error and predujice.
it sets a angerous precedent is all.
Except that it doesn't appear to have done in a similar situation in England. My point is simply that the law is clear and to begin introducing supplemental requirments or conditions that are discriminatory is unacceptable.
The slippery slope is in reference to what some people determine to be to their disliking and driving discriminatory acts or regulations that are in potential violation of the law.
Regardless of our opinions, the law establishes the contract by which we live and are governed. it establishes basic rights and obligations and I would worry that the inhabitants of a particular location would be able to implement discriminatory regulations that are a clear contravention of the law and based on their particular "special interests"
I'll make reference to the comment on the other thread where the residents were 'absoultly convinced" that bikes were travelling 130+.. Only upon the Police showing them were they made aware of their error and predujice.
it sets a angerous precedent is all.
Steve Bass said:
Pothole said:
Steve Bass said:
In the case of the excluded motorcycles, I would suggest the law already provides many remedies in the event of road users contravening the rules of the road.
I bow to your knowledge of Austrian road regs...I understand your dissmissiveness on the basis that this is in Austria, but I'm commenting on the application of law, irrespective of location. And until the seperation of the UK and Europe is complete, these laws relate ttot he UK as well.
Did you spot the bit on the Austrian website that said in the Q&A :
tirol.gov.at said:
11. Are these driving bans covered by EU law or do they contradict EU law?
The driving bans are covered by EU law and do not contradict Community law, as they apply to all motorcycles, regardless of their registration number. Compare question 5.
As for HLK, and not reading all of the thread - did you read all of the links I provided ? https://www.tirol.gv.at/fileadmin/themen/sicherhei...The driving bans are covered by EU law and do not contradict Community law, as they apply to all motorcycles, regardless of their registration number. Compare question 5.
Establish where in there the 44% voted this through ?
I live on a rural road that leads from a part of England where lots of people live, to a part of Wales where nobody lives. At the weekend I reckon 98% of the loudest vehicles to pass my house will be bikes. And 98% of the vehicles doing over double the speed limit will also be bikes.
I reckon I'm probably in the 5% locally who don't really mind it. Just about everyone else hates it. Many of them would just ban them all.
A large proportion of bikers (of whom I used to be one, and hope to be again) don't help themselves or the rest of you. I like noisy engines, but I'd support a crack-down on the louder bikes. They're selfish and obnoxious and impose disproportionately on other people.
Our little village, if you asked them, wouldn't tell you we have an Aventador problem. Or a Golf R problem. They would say we have a motorbike problem. Because they're too loud, and ridden too quickly. And these are crotchety Tory grannies and grandads who all use their vote.
Sad, but there it is.
I reckon I'm probably in the 5% locally who don't really mind it. Just about everyone else hates it. Many of them would just ban them all.
A large proportion of bikers (of whom I used to be one, and hope to be again) don't help themselves or the rest of you. I like noisy engines, but I'd support a crack-down on the louder bikes. They're selfish and obnoxious and impose disproportionately on other people.
Our little village, if you asked them, wouldn't tell you we have an Aventador problem. Or a Golf R problem. They would say we have a motorbike problem. Because they're too loud, and ridden too quickly. And these are crotchety Tory grannies and grandads who all use their vote.
Sad, but there it is.
Pothole said:
Steve Bass said:
Apologies, I'm not aware of the 'ace Cafe" situation tbh..
My point is simply that the law is clear and to begin introducing supplemental requirments or conditions that are discriminatory is unacceptable.
The slippery slope is in reference to what some people determine to be to their disliking and driving discriminatory acts or regulations that are in potential violation of the law.
Regardless of our opinions, the law establishes the contract by which we live and are governed. it establishes basic rights and obligations and I would worry that the inhabitants of a particular location would be able to implement discriminatory regulations that are a clear contravention of the law and based on their particular "special interests"
I'll make reference to the comment on the other thread where the residents were 'absoultly convinced" that bikes were travelling 130+.. Only upon the Police showing them were they made aware of their error and predujice.
it sets a angerous precedent is all.
Except that it doesn't appear to have done in a similar situation in England. My point is simply that the law is clear and to begin introducing supplemental requirments or conditions that are discriminatory is unacceptable.
The slippery slope is in reference to what some people determine to be to their disliking and driving discriminatory acts or regulations that are in potential violation of the law.
Regardless of our opinions, the law establishes the contract by which we live and are governed. it establishes basic rights and obligations and I would worry that the inhabitants of a particular location would be able to implement discriminatory regulations that are a clear contravention of the law and based on their particular "special interests"
I'll make reference to the comment on the other thread where the residents were 'absoultly convinced" that bikes were travelling 130+.. Only upon the Police showing them were they made aware of their error and predujice.
it sets a angerous precedent is all.
Your focus is on location. Understandably so.
My focus is on the application of the law irrespective.
Just different perspectives of the important issue
The days of roads being used for leisure are dying.
The people in power see the use of them only as a means for workers to be productive. In reality they'd like us all on public transport, on a push bike or walking.
Ever decreasing speed limits, regulations, fines are growing year by year. Parking is being reduced where ever possible. Taxes are increasing. All in the name of safety and the environment. "How dare the workers use our transport system for fun, it's not there for that. It's there to move people about to ensure the economy keeps growing" Yes leisure is part of the economy but that needs to be ever tighter regulated. "How dare people go to the beach when they've been told to stay in their boxes" Unless they're worried about their eyesight :-)
Most motorcycles are seen as leisure vehicles hence the targeting. They are non productive. Any car other than something with the same functionality of a fridge will go the same way.
It's over guys, not quite yet for us but for our children, wake up and smell the coffee.
P.S Not a fan of loud pipes either and those that use them are just accelerating the death of biking.
The people in power see the use of them only as a means for workers to be productive. In reality they'd like us all on public transport, on a push bike or walking.
Ever decreasing speed limits, regulations, fines are growing year by year. Parking is being reduced where ever possible. Taxes are increasing. All in the name of safety and the environment. "How dare the workers use our transport system for fun, it's not there for that. It's there to move people about to ensure the economy keeps growing" Yes leisure is part of the economy but that needs to be ever tighter regulated. "How dare people go to the beach when they've been told to stay in their boxes" Unless they're worried about their eyesight :-)
Most motorcycles are seen as leisure vehicles hence the targeting. They are non productive. Any car other than something with the same functionality of a fridge will go the same way.
It's over guys, not quite yet for us but for our children, wake up and smell the coffee.
P.S Not a fan of loud pipes either and those that use them are just accelerating the death of biking.
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff