NSW: noise regs

This just came through on the MCC list.
================
The following is a select motorcycle centric summary from the new
regulations.

* From March 1, 2008 enforcement agencies are to be held more accountable
when issuing fines under the POEO. Authorised officers who intend to use
certain sections of clause 5 and 18, must now have substantial reasoning
to do so. In the previous regulations no reasoning was required and as
such alternate agendas could be readily serviced by the POEO. Further
information on this issue may be found in attachment "0871infomv.pdf"
and also in the definition of "defective noise control equipment"
in attachment "Protection Of The Environment Operations Noise Control
Regulation 2008.pdf"

[Basically they've added the word "reasonable" which may or may not be
helpful - ZJ]

* Provisions where made in the regs that take into account that motorcycle
exhaust systems, including mufflers are substantially different from those
of other vehicles and as such shall be exempt from certain construction
requirements, see clause 5 and 18 in the attachments.

[from the pdf: A defence is provided for:
any motorcycle that has baffles that are bolted or otherwise
securely fastened in place rather than substantially welded or riveted
into place.

The defence for removable baffles for all motorcycles has been
provided because a significant number of standard original and standard
aftermarket exhaust systems have baffles that are bolted or otherwise
securely fastened in place. However all motorcycles are still subject
to the provisions of clause 18 which makes it an offence to remove noise
control equipment from a vehicle and not replace it.]

* There are other implications, these may be found in the attachments.

With the introduction of these regs a more equitable system has been
created for all. It is also worth noting that the MCCofNSW were taken
seriously by DECC law makers and credit must be given to all those in
DECC who understood us and took onboard our concerns. A thank you is in
order to the Policy Section at DECC.

* exemptions on motorcycle muffler contruction were achieved.

* some issues remain to be dealt with

The two attached documents may be found at this URL
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/noise/poeonoisereg08.htm


Overall, we as riders remain responsible for the noise level from our
vehicles, but now there is also very limited scope for opportunistic
mis-use of legislation.

===================

 

Zebee Johnstone wrote:

<snip>

Thanks for that Zebee.

Does this mean that the classic business of having the "spud" in the
tool kit, being stopped and then fitting it won't actually get someone
out of a ticket?

regards,
CrazyCam

 

In aus.motorcycles on Thu, 06 Mar 2008 08:07:11 +1100

No idea - want to be a test case?

Zebee

 

No.

I was getting quite pissed off with the business where folk were stopped
for being noisy and then they refitted either the standard exhaust or
the "spud" to go to be tested and effectively got away with being noisy.

regards,
CrazyCam

 

Zebee Johnstone wrote...

Excellent result. Hopefully we can do something similar here in Victoria
with respect to muffler labelling etc., to reduce the disparity between
motorcycles and other vehicles that don't require specific labelling, but
instead have to pass the basic noise level test.

Currently, an EPA officer or a Victoria Police member can order you to
have your vehicle tested at an approved testing station. This can occur if
say you pass the officer who may either be travelling or be on the
footpath, side of road etc. Often when this happens you get a letter in
the mail with the "informant" making the accusation regarding your noise
levels. And that's the first you've heard of it.

This is open to abuse, too. And of course there are many bikes out there
that clearly push the limits, too.

But, if we can strike a balance such as what you guys have achieved then
this would be a start.

I'll forward this note of yours onto the MRA for its info.

 

Do we have a problem in Victoria with noise regs? It sounds like the
NSW solution to their unique problem is to implement a system very
similar to that which has been in force in Victoria for a very long time
without any problem. What are you proposing the MRA do with this 'new'
information?

Nev..
'07 XB12X

 

Nev.. wrote...

The MRA is seeking views from riders as to what outdated, inappropriate
and "draconian" rules that apply to motorcyclists should be reviewed. The
noise issues that the MCCofNSW may not be totally applicable to what we
have in Victoria, but some of it does apply.

If nothing else, it will be a "FYI" thing that the MRA may or may not be
able to use when it next meets with Tim Pallas, the minister responsible
for this sort of thing.

Or do you see a problem with such exchanges of information?

 

The current Victorian EPA noise reporting rules are neither outdated,
inappropriate nor "draconian".

Tim Pappas isn't responsible for "that sort of thing". EPA regulations
fall under Gavin Jennings' ministerial portfolio.

Nev..
'07 XB12X

 

Nev.. wrote...

Maybe, maybe not. But this is but a part of a range of road rules that the
MRA is seeking to have reviewed.

That's so, but Pallas is currently the MRA's first point of contact.

Anyway, given what you ride now I would have thought your views on noise
emissions reporting would be considered to be "draconian"....

 

EPA noise regulations are not road rules.

I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying my bike with it's
factory fitted silencer which complies to Victorian EPA regulations is a
problem for me? I have owned much noisier bikes than this, such as a
GSXR1100 with a Tingate can which was so loud I couldn't ride it without
earplugs. I have never had any problem with police or EPA officials
reporting me for breaches of noise regulations on a bike. I only know a
handful of people who have ever been issued notices to get a vehicle
tested for noise levels, and of those who have (myself included), none
of the vehicles reported were ever _not_ noisy... borderline yes, but
quiet, no.

Nev..
'07 XB12X

 

We were issued with a noise notice for a detroit diesel coach with a
stock exhaust.

It was subsequently tested (without being altered in any way) and found
to be within limits.

We were unable to claim back the loss of income or the cost to send the
vehicle to Melbourne.

Now that does not seem reasonable.

If a vehicle is in breach then fine... but if the roadside droids stuff
up then costs should be available.


G-S

 

Costs *were* available .. you got some didn't you

 

Bloody Top Posters LOL


G-S

 

That's not necessarily true. If the vehicle was being driven in a
manner which caused it to make excessive noise at the time that it was
reported, then it is totally reasonable that you should be requested to
have it tested. You would know that due to the way that noise testing
is performed, it is absolutely possible for any vehicles which is
excessively noisy under certain driving conditions to pass the noise
tests.

Nev..
'07 XB12X

 

Nev.. wrote...

I was having a dig at you given that it's got a Harley donk in it..

 

Maybe you should just stick to copypasting work that other people have
done and posting it to the MRA.

Nev..
'07 XB12X

 

Nev.. wrote...

No, but the road rules do cover noise and visible emissions.

 

Victorian road rule # 291 "Making unnecessary noise or smoke" is the
only mention of noise or emissions in the Victorian Road Rules. That
has nothing to do with EPA noise regulations, or with the reporting or
testing of noisy vehicles. It appears to be neither outdated nor
inappropriate nor "draconian". The example given for the application of
the rule deals with a vehicle doing a burnout.

Nev..
'07 XB12X

 

Nev.. wrote...

Maybe. Except that I didn't "copypaste" it. I forwarded Zebee's message by
email to the board.

 

Nev.. wrote...

I was wondering how long it was gonna take you to dig that one out. Not
long at all, it seemed. What, you bored at work or something?