Ulysses, we're coming for you bitches

[SaferRides]

Disappointed that they haven't included sustained revving of engines. That seems to be a favorite pastime of some local Harley riders.



Sent from my SM-S938B using Tapatalk

[pete376403]

Disappointed that they haven't included sustained revving of engines. That seems to be a favorite pastime of some local Harley riders.

"The police-issued fine for people intentionally creating excessive noise from within or on a vehicle will be increased from $50 to $300, while the court-ordered fine will jump from $1000 to $3000."

Other than the dollar amount the police have these powers now, but they are not enforced to any meaningful degree. (eg every Hoggly with shotgun pipes) Add a provision that the the excessively noisy vehicle has a current WoF, then the shop that issued that Wof is fined or in worst case looses WoF authority. Again, police may well have that power too, so comes down to police or courts enforcement of current law, not writing more laws that will be ignored

[pritch]

police may well have that power too, so comes down to police or courts enforcement of current law, not writing more laws that will be ignored

And so say all of us.

[TheDemonLord]

Again, police may well have that power too, so comes down to police or courts enforcement of current law, not writing more laws that will be ignored

This, I think, needs to be repeated.

Often and loudly.

It is something I have observed numerous times:

"The current laws are difficult to use, so let's write new law that does the same thing"

I can think of multiple examples from across the political spectrum where this has occured - and it seems to me that it is ultimately doomed to failure.

In that, It is often not the Law itself that is the issue per se, but that someone comes up with a good legal argument that becomes precedent. The example that comes to mind is the infamous Anti-Smacking Bill - Someone made the argument that using a riding crop or rubber hose was the equivalent of using a Jandal and therefore was covered under reasonable force.

Coming up with a judicial argument that refutes that is hard - writing overly broad legislation with the addition of "we promise it won't target regular people, honest guv'nor" - that is much easier.

FWIW - I feel these laws definitely fall into that category. I see the pragmatic value of them - but they are an abomination against civil liberties.