Aftermarket Exhaust and New Rules

[MikeL]

Exactly.
Although I don't have a personal axe to grind on this one, it's the principle that is important. The legislation is ill-conceived, poorly worded and I believe impossible to enforce fairly. If it is deemed necessary to tighten up on existing regulations, then the only rational approach would be to provide the law enforcement authorities as well as WOF testing stations with standardized noise-measuring equipment, clearly defined parameters (noise level in dB in specific conditions) and appropriate training. Apart from the difficulty in ensuring standardization of procedure (think of the successive loopholes in the blood/breath-testing regulations that have been exploited by clever lawyers), there is the cost, which by itself is probably sufficient to ensure that this approach will not be seriously considered. So we get this compromise solution which creates injustice by the inevitable subjective judgements and selective enforcement.

[bikerboy]

Bluninja is correct in that we must make as much "noise " about this as possible now.

If we create a hugh outcry now it will have much more effect than later. It may be that they will never target bikes, but if we don't complain it will be there to be used as and when they want.

Everyone should post an objection and urge their friends to do so.

[SPman]

I agree with Bn & Bb.Make as much noise as possible. If they pass a law, it may well be intended for a specific group - in this case boyracers, but if it is applicable to others, the chances are, it WILL be dragged out and used by the powers that be to suit whatever ends they are after. Or, it will be there, waiting, for the use of some snot!

[750Y]

I wonder whether this will jeopardise our insurance policies in any way? There are companies out there like State who, when they want to, will look for a technicality to avoid paying out.
...
45 mins later after talking to the insurance company...
well it's all cool & so is my insurance company. They said it's not a problem for them. and also said that it doesn't classify the bike as modified if it was designed for that bike.

They suggested forcing the wof issuer to prove that the exhaust did not comply before failing it. Just get them to do so BEFORE they write it down otherwise it's a legal binding document i think. after all isn't it the wof issuer who is the expert who must prove the vehicles non roadworthiness? i don't think a bike should be able to be failed if the issuer THINKS it doesn't comply, they must be able to categorically state that based upon scientific evidence it doesn't comply.
I think the hot potato is just getting passed on down the line to the usual good ol consumer to foot the bill again.

What about the scenario that the wof issuer equips themselves to be able to scientifically evaluate a vehicles non/compliance.
Oh that's right it's expensive to cater to the customers. We'll just say "oh it's all the LTSA".
luckily for them the LTSA has given them the out they need to not have to justify their assessments in all cases.

taking it a step further what happens when the LTSA brings in more stringent emissions testing linked to wof inspections?
Do the wof outlets just go sniff sniff "oh smells a bit rich, that's a fail sorry" or "sounds a bit noisy I think Your valve seals might be getting a little worn? Fail again sorry".

any comments please Motu?

[Coldkiwi]

Well, until they do sort it out, when you turn up to the WOF station and the inspector looks at your noisy contraption say 'Oh yeah ,it complies.. see the manual says 86.. so I'll go idle it over here and you go stand WAY over there and we'll see what it comes up with!" If they don't specify locations/revs etc. otherwise then they can't really fail it.. (can they motu??)

The silly thing is, a simple dBA test at a certain point or points isn't impracticible and I think a good idea of managing the problem effectively and reasonably fairly! Simple dBA meters are cheap as (less than a grand), easy to operate and a test a different parts of the rev range would take a maximum of 3 minutes.

LTSA have completely missed the point on this one. They've failed to:

1. Identify the problem (boy racers in cars late at night)
2. get advice about how to solve the problem effectively (how do we stop boy racers with an under resourced police force)
3. Consult with any other people that may be effected by their solution (motorcyclists, classic car owners, non problematic car enthusiasts, manufacturers, retail outlets, overseas agencies/institutions...)
4. Provide any real beneficial input into the problem in any way shape or form

Lets see some posts on the submissions being sent out guys! Send one to your MP too because they have to reply!

 

[750Y]

Just wanted to add.I went to Red Baron(a wof issuer) to try to clarify this new law & what it means in the real world for us.
basically the noise level will be considered too loud or not on the spot. This will be the measure of non/compliance.
Commonsense will prevail and if Your bike isn't "too loud" in the examiners "opinion" then it will be fine.
If it is too loud in their opinion for that particular type of bike then they will fail it. (a cb250 shouldn't sound as loud as a harley)
It's not about failing a vehicle instantly because of it's non standard exhaust system. It's all about the blatantly loud 'boy racers' getting crushed by legislative measures. personally i don't mind so-called 'boy racers' & their loud cars.
If Your wof issuer says they don't like Your slip ons, go elsewhere.
the best place to go will probably be bike familiar places who know dam well that a v-twin is gonna be loud and so are not concerned that there is a problem.
hope that's of some use.
i also spoke to LTSA head office who said basically if Your wof issuer won't pass Your V8 commodore because of the big bore then go elsewhere because they are being unreasonable with their newly found discretionary powers. at the end of the day it's discretion at the wof issuer and cop level.
if the cops or wof do You, it's up to You to prove the system's fine.
The bottom line is.. any time there is room for discretion there is room for commonsense and there is room for bullshit.

[Slim]

It appears that submissions can no longer be made on the Vehicle Equipment (Exhaust) Land Transport Rule.

Rules Currently Under Development - note that the link is no longer active for the Vehicle Equipment Rule.

Bugger.

[Coldkiwi]

well its apparently still open till June 3 so just mail them a letter. Its' all on the LTSA site.

 

[Marmoot]

I hate the word "discretion" in the law, although I would like the police to use them more when the law doesn't say it

[wkid_one]

My submission to the LTSA:

 

 

Whilst I can appreciate the intent of the legislation surrounding the ‘exhaust systems’ in fail to see the method in which this can be enforced.  The legislation is entirely ambiguous and places too much onus on the testing agents interpretation.  The agent needs to have an understanding of not only how loud the vehicle is – but also a comparative understanding of how loud the vehicle should have been at manufacture.  On top of this, the measurement of the loudness of the vehicle is entirely subjective.  There are no explicit and measurable maximums or guidelines to provide a framework for the agent to work within – rather it provides them (and the police) and open slather to deem any car exhaust system ‘louder than original’.  This is hardly a rational law and without specific parameters doesn’t allow Joe Public to determine what is ‘too loud’.fficeffice" />>>

 >>

Surely Low Volume Certification of every exhaust system would be a far easy way to monitor ‘illegal exhaust’.  The company fitting the system therefore has to provide a certificate indicating the system complies with the legal dBA requirements and this certificate is required to be held in the vehicle and produced when requested.  The onus should be on the distributors and sellers of the systems to ensure that they are road legal, and accordingly the systems should carry ‘for road use’ stamps on them indicating they are legal for the road (as system used to great effect in the UK).  To place the onus of the purchaser is pointless as we are not the experts in determining whether the system is legal or not, a job suitable for the manufacturer.>>

 >>In short, I feel this law is too ambiguous to provide any reasonable guideline and is entirely open to interpretation (and abuse) by the testing agents and police.  It appears to be an entirely heavy handed approach to restricting the activities of a limited proportion of society and one that has missed the mark in terms of effect and management.

[wkid_one]

PS - Laws shouldn't allow for discretion.  They should be black or white.  Something is either illegal or it isn't.  Discretion generally allows the law to be broadened, very seldom does it allow for it to be narrowed.  Something to be cautious about is that no LTSA agent will pass you if there is doubt - the risk is too great to them.  Also, it provides the police another reason to hassle both boy racers and bikers alike.  You try arguing the point of discretion with a police man on the side of the road - fat chance.  I have seldom seen discretion work in anyones favour other than the law.

My advice - get your WOF's from bike stores as they are the ONLY ones who know what bikes should sound like.  LTSA's seldom see bikes due to the fact the most WOF's coincide with a service done at the bike shop...so don't risk it - take it to a shop.

[What?]

You can still make submissions from the LTSA web site - I did so last night. The guts of mine was similar to wkid_one's, but I added in a bit about parity: how can you outlaw straight pipes on a hogly doglyson (which give me the shits) when Jacobs brakes on V8 Cat powered trucks are legal?

Make lots of noise

[wkid_one]

I also question the position the police are then also taking on car stereos.  In my mind, these are not only an annoyance to people external to the car - but may also prove to be a distraction to those inside the car.  Also - CELLPHONES - how many times have you seen people texting away on cell phones etc - this is a far more important 'safety issue' that needs addressing rather than noisy exhausts. 

All this money and time goes in to policing noisy exhausts - and the police and public wonder why the police are unable to respond quickly to burgularies, solve murders, deal with rape cases etc.....no wonder crime is rife in NZ - it appears only to be the road toll that Policing NZ is focused on - nothing else!  They should focus on the real criminals in NZ, not the people who wish to spend their hard earned money (NOTE THEY HAVE JOBS) on their cars in the pursuit of individuality - allow the freedom of speech (to a point).  It sure beats them stealing/mugging etc and in comparison to this is a minimal nuisance to society. 

I had a friend who had her EVO stolen and it took the police 1.5 weeks to give her a case number, if however she had been caught showing a 'needless exhibition of speed' - the car would have been impounded on the stop!  There is something grossly unjust about that!

Typical of NZ law however and the knee jerk reaction we have to what are small problems in the face of the wider scheme of things.  For example - police at present would be better serving the community by reporting excess power useage as this has a wider impact on society than boy racers.  At the end of the day, who are they hurting??  I can't remember the last time (*or first time) a loud exhaust work me up and I lived in Alfriston where they used to drag.

Arseholes!

[Motu]

The crux of this matter for wof inspectors (like me) is that ultimatly theirs is not the final say.If I pass your 2 bros exhaust because I think it sounds sweet - down the road you pop a front wheel up...a cop pulls you over...he says your bike is too noisy,and you get a ticket...a big stink ensures...the cop is proved correct and the wof inspector has issued an illeagal wof.

We have no test equipment,no test proceedures to give a recordable result - it's all guess work.NO WAY will this work.I haven't had a vehicle in with a noisy exhaust yet,but I have been thinking hard about my policy on this one - I have come to the conclusion that I don't do wofs on vehicles with a non standard exhaust,I will say - go away and let someone else deal with it.

I was at a Dick Smith today and saw a decibel meter - goes up to 140 thingys....it doesn't mention exhaust noise,but noise is noise eh? $198 is not too over the top - I was thinking of getting one and setting up my own test proceedure - then I can have repeatable results,I can write them on the wof check sheet and say - it was putting out 78 whatzits when I tested it last week,don't know what it will prove though,I don't know how the manufacturer did their test.I just want consistancy and a figure to write down - we do this with brake tests.

[What?]

That's the direction I was headed in my submission to the LTSA Motu - if new noise laws are required, there needs to be STANDARDS; that means measurable numbers and a defined test method. It also needs to apply totally to vehicle noise, not necessarily just exhaust noise.

But then what??? will the cops be required to carry decibel meters and be able to conduct roadside tests? And do not lose sight of the fact that a WoF is only worth the paper it's written on at the time of writing (this is a legal standard). If I get a pull for noisy pipes soon after getting a WoF, it would be me, not the issuer, in trouble, as the issuer need simply claim that noisy pipes were not fitted to the bike (car, truck...) at the time of inspection. This is a different scenario to a dangerous vehicle fault ignored or missed, because I could leave the tesing station, turn the corner and whip the baffles out of my pipes. I would be unlikely to go out and remove my new brake pads and put old ones back in. Doubt it? There have been a number of high profile incidents where cars have been involved in crashes when bald tyres were the cause, and the cars had new WoF's. Some people simply borrow a set of good tyres to pass the test then put their baldies back on. In none of these cases was the issuer held accountable - their claim that the tyres were up to standard at the time of testing was held as correct.

As Wkid has alluded to, while very noisy exhausts may be annoying, the trendy car stereo with 35 squigawatt sub-woofers are downright painful to those outside the vehicle. I see no sign from the LTSA that this interests them in the slightest.