NSW Exhaust regulations on older bikes

Well the amendment of the DEC (aka EPA) which was to have removed the
retrospective aspects of the motorcycle exhaust regulations was disallowed.

Great! Thank you all very much indeed.

I agree that the original regulations were indeed badly thought out,
badly worded, and, by acting retrospectively, bad law.

The amendment, while not being perfect by any means, did at least remove
the retrospective aspect.

Can anyone guarantee that DEC will bother to do anything to fix their
bad regulations?

The petty actions of a bunch of largely irrelevant upper house pollies
has left me still in the situation of having three registered
motorcycles which are illegal to use on the roads of New South Wales.

I wonder if any of these upper house super heroes will offer to pay any
fines that I get, thanks to their heroic <snigger> action?

Yes, Arthur, the amendment _was_ the Chrissie present I wanted.

regards,
CrazyCam

 

Erk. Did I misread that? I was under the impression that the
regulation was disallowed and that I could now ride legally into NSW.

Moike

 

Yes, same.

So does this move only pertain to pre '88 bikes or does it make this new
'can kit' and stickering bullshit defunct?

ck

 

The original, and stupid, regulations are still in force.

The amendment, which was disallowed, to such a fanfare of triumph?, was
to specifically exclude older, i.e. pre-1988 bikes, and fiddle with the
rules for brand new bikes, where the ADR that they comply with doesn't
tie in with the NSW regs.

As for you, Moike, _nobody_ can ride legally in NSW.....

regards,
CrazyCam

 

Cam,

Okay,

but if I'm on a '00 R1 with an Arrow can with no sticker on it then I can
still be slugged an instant 200 shekels?

ck (slow at times......)

 

Correct.

regards,
CrazyCam

 

AAAAAGH NUTS!!

ck

 

It seems to me the Gumbyment are still at their old tricks of taking a mile
and giving an inch. It's what happens when you play someone at their own
game, especially when it's a game they invented. Whilst the MCC does a very
commendable, time consuming and most excellent job I can't help think that
maybe there needs to be a... more radical element, to help the cause along
without being tied to it directly. If they can block public thoroughfares
enforcing bullshit legislation then we can do the same opposing it.

 

Well, you have to admit, that was a bit of hail-Mary...

 

In aus.motorcycles on Fri, 4 Mar 2005 12:20:48 +1100

Pre 88 bikes must theoretically have a sticker.
Many '05 bikes are illegal, sticker or no.
bikes between 88 and 05 are probably also illegal, sticker or no, as
there's no leeway for wear. they allow wear on tyres, but not on pipes.

pre-88 bikes were exempted in the disallowed amendment, but the whole
amendment was the EPA trying to get around having to do a decent job,
and were still about stickers and a sticker tax.

It made my bikes "legal" but still left other riders to be fucked over.

Which I don't think is right, I'm not that fond of "I'm alright Jack",
so I'm glad the amendment was disallowed and the EPA have to try again.

Zebee

 

In aus.motorcycles on Fri, 04 Mar 2005 06:39:10 GMT

When was the last time a small radical element got something done?

It will be small, because most folk won't give up time or money. And
the government doesn't give a shit about small radical elements, they
just get their mates in the papers to spin the radicals as ratbags, and
that's that.

If you have say the industrial clout of the 70s green ban movement, then
you might manage something but face it... a few "radicals" riding on a
Saturday afternoon won't do anything but piss off shoppers and make
"noisy no good bikie scum" pics for the evening news.

Now, if the radicals want to all front up to the EPA offices, sans
stickers, on illegal but not offensively noisy bikes, and take it
through the courts, refuse to pay the fines, all that, then maybe.

If you can get say a hundred people to do that, it might get a result.

If all that people will do is a "protest ride", **** all will come of it
except patronising comments from parliament and a hostile voice over on
channel 10 news before the sports coverage.

I've been in motorcycle politics off and on for over 20 years. The only
protests that have got results on their own - that is without the hard
yards from the bods playing the government's game - have been.. umm..
don't know of any.

Anyone up for real civil disobedience? the kind that costs real money
and real time, and has real risks?

Thought not...

Zebee

 

Zebee Johnstone wrote:

Sorry, but I don't see the logic in "the EPA have to try again". :-|

They tried, quietly, when no one was expected to be looking, to sneak
some amendment.

They got caught and the amendment was disallowed.

Tell me exactly how the handful of upper house pollies are going to make
the EPA try again.

The EPA don't exactly have a major problem with the status quo, and
probably don't want a repeat dose of some minor embarasment.

regards,
CrazyCam

 

In aus.motorcycles on Sat, 05 Mar 2005 07:20:03 +1100

They've been told to already by the Minister, hence the first amendment.
The tourism and other implications mean that they can't throw their
hands up, but have to get it right.

If the pressure isn't kept up, then the whole mess remains.

Zebee

 

Pros and cons. Blocking things generally pisses people off
and makes them less likely to see things your way. In this case,
the ones doing the blocking are likely to be the wankers with
the illegally loud pipes, and they're the ones that are most
likely to have the RTA/EPA/Gummint satisfied that beating up
on sodamichealists is a good thing, yeah?

A rally composed entirely of folks with standard and/or legal-
stickered cans might be a little difficult to assemble. I'm
the only person I know with standard cans on my post 1988
bikes.


I'm inclined to think that whilst the most recent step
has been to back-out a bad patch to a bad bit of legislation,
it was /still/ a bad patch 'cos while it suits some folks - people
with showroom-new bikes, and people like Cam and Zebee with
'collector' bikes (!), there's a huge bunch of people stuck
in the middle with the same old same old problem.

Having read the Hansard report on that particular bit of
debate, it seems to me that there's a good number of sympathetic
ears in the NSW Parliament. Between the ones that stood up
and said something, and all the others that voted to ditch the
bad patch, I'm optimistic that shifting the issue back to the
RTA, and making a proper noise test part of rego, might be
a slight possibility.


Much as I hate rhetoric, the current one really is a
'sticker tax'. Stickers don't make bikes quiet. I've got no
time either for the power rangers who *like* being noisy.
**** 'em I say, but **** 'em properly, with actual noise
tests, not stickers.


As an aside, Cam, I'm interested to hear what the actual
problem is for you and your pre '88 bikes. Does the 'get it
tested, get it stickered' approach not apply to you?


G

 

GB wrote:

<waves>

That's two now, since the Hornet still has the stock standard exhaust.

Actually, I'm not too sure about what problem they have.

There have been several alternative suppliers of ADR complient
replacement mufflers.

Seems to me the problem is that folk want to put a noisy exhaust on
their bike and not get pinged for it.

Now, the sticker rule wasn't really going to help that, but...<shrug>

I know a number of folk who have gone to the mob who setup camp at
Mt.White, paid the money for sticker(s) and wee, plug-in thingies to
make their bikes legal. They fit the sticker(s) and throw the wee
thingies away. Quite why, I dunno, 'cos while they can be done for no
sticker, they can also be done by the cops for excessive noise anyway.

Oh dear. I somehow don't think that a "proper noise test" as part of
the pink slip procedure is what many folk really want. ;-)

Well, partly as a protest, in that I am prepared to go to court and
argue the toss about it, I will not get my bikes tested or stickered,
since they shouldn't have been included anyway.

Also, the 1978 125, and the 1983 250 have expansion chambers which can't
be easily changed to make them quieter anyway.

The two-strokes, and the Z50, because of their age are actually allowed
to make louder noise than "modern" bikes anyway, so I suspect I could
get stickers, but I don't want to spend the money fitting in with a
stupid reg.

regards,
CrazyCam

 

Zebee Johnstone wrote:

Yup....with you so far.

Define "right".

What would you see as a "right" answer from the DEC (aka EPA)?

Well, the amendment would have fixed atleast some of the mess.

regards,
CrazyCam

 

So where do I get a sticker that legalises my 1981 GS1000 with the home-made
can?

Kim
PS. The cop sergeant who lives across the road (rides Guzzi California, before
that a FZ1, before that Aprilia something) doesn't think my bike is noisy
enough to worry about. Maybe it's just me...

 

And that's the big problem with the legislation brought in by the EPA prats.

Your bike can put out 20Db (can hardly hear it) yet you can be fined for
not having a sticker.

(Loved the comment in the Hansard about the Sticker being an "unbudgeted
Tax" - bet that made some of the pollies wince!)

Sta

 

In aus.motorcycles on Sat, 05 Mar 2005 21:46:48 +1100

you buy it from a bike shop. The EPA hasn't bothered to provide same,
the MCC has got blank ones made up and they are available from bike
shops. MCA has them, ask your local shop.

Theoretically, you should then get the bike tested and put the figures
obtained on the pipe.

Of course if you have a bike made after 1988, it is not allowed to have
any inservice wear at all, so if it is a gnat's whatsit over the ADR
decibel level, it is defectable under the EPA regs.

The presence or absence of the sticker has nothing at all to do with how
noisy your bike is.

If it's not got one, you are up for a $200 fine.

I note that if anyone gets booked for no sticker after Friday, they
should get onto the MCC fast as. Don't pay the fine, take it to court.

But I bet no one is... I understand the police are as confused as the
rest of us are.

Zebee

 

In aus.motorcycles on Sat, 05 Mar 2005 22:03:27 +1100

And if you have a post 88 bike with a brand new original equipment
exhaust, there's a chance you might have an illegally loud bike.

The ADR had a variance allowance, the EPA regs don't. So a new OEM pipe
might be half a dB over, and that's enough to make it defectable.

An original pipe that's a bit worn is almost certainly illegal.

None of which was fixed by the proposed amendments.

Zebee