Many readers will have heard about new ‘acoustic speed cameras’ that are being “tested at several locations over the next 7 months”. The suggestion is that they will be used to prosecute drivers of vehicles with loud exhausts – https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-noise-camera-trial-to-crack-down-on-illegal-vehicles – and it’s worth clearing a few things up:
- It is an initiative apparently lead by Chris “what does a ferry look like, again?” Grayling.
- It is only a proposal at this stage.
- The noise regulations as they currently stand are quite explicit in terms of what can be measured and how – distance, height, angles etc of a specific, approved noise meter relative to the bike, and in the case of Type Approval, speed and gear – and literally none of them include measurement in a natural environment, where it will be impossible to isolate one vehicle from the others that surround it.
- Noise is a compound thing, as anyone who has stood underneath a bridge on a motorway to put their waterproofs on can testify: you hardly hear the tyres of a single car, you hear nothing else when you’ve got three lanes of them.
- There is no roadside test for noise, or even – currently that I’m aware of – one that allows the Highways Agency or Police to take a vehicle to a site that has been set up to test exhaust noise in the context of the regulations as they exist.
For the evidence of these cameras to be admissible in court, noise regulations will need to be harmonised between C&U, EUWVTA, MSVA and MOT, as will the laws pertaining to their enforcement – and indeed the laws of physics. I’ve attached the MSVA requirement as an example and the notes from the MOT, which is entirely discretionary, and which does not rely on a noise meter, which – I will speculate – is because it would require specific setting up and would not be conducive to a workshop environment)- Any new regulations will not be retrospective.
- Don’t waste any more time worrying about it: it will be kicked into the long grass after it has generated the right soundbites for a politician who is in the throes of establishing himself as worthy of being the next Prime Minister.
- It’s bollocks.
THAT SAID …
The only reason why this continues to rear its head is that the noise regulations as they exist are not enforced as robustly as they might (unlike Germany where there is a zero tolerance to exhaust noise, and it isn’t universally applied even there), and as a result the case for tightening them up because they vehicles are still too loud can be made and will find sympathetic ears … as would hot hatchbacks masquerading as PA systems with me 🙂
If we take the piss, we are going to bring changes in regulations on ourselves.
And if you hit 200dB when you pass one of these things, while it might not be admissible in court, there’s a chance that a handily-placed traffic car will pull you over.
Comments 2
I have several bikes, most of which are pre 01/04/83. Any vehicle pre 01/0/83 does not need to comply with noise levels, as there were no such conditions before that time. How would that work with this ridiculous idea?
Author
It wouldn’t apply to older bikes, as the regulations are different.
It won’t apply to modern ones either, even if they could actually pick out the noise of one bike from the general clamour, and measure it with any degree of accuracy … which they can’t, not least because EUWVTA and MSVA have different standards, are measured very differently and are both legal.