Is this legal?

[chocobo_ff]

Take a look here: http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/rul...ment-2007.html

In particular:

Currently, clause 7.4 of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 provides for on-road enforcement of vehicle noise. Under this Rule, a Police officer can issue an instant $250 infringement offence notice carrying 10 demerit points if a person operates a vehicle that creates noise which, having regard to all the circumstances is excessive. Since February 2005 this has included noise from stereos and “boom boxes”.

Maybe it was too loud for the "circumstances", i.e. early in the morning?

[short-circuit]

Shouldn't the onus be on the person modifying a vehicle to demonstrate that the vehicle still complies with the law? If you don't want the hassle, don't modify it.
The govt sets the laws and vehicle importers must demonstrate compliance with these laws, how is this any different?

Many aftermarket exhaust systems still comply with noise regulations. Some pipes can be baffled or debaffled accordingly.

There are many "standard" pipes that have been gutted and would not comply.

If a means of testing is available - it should be used. When I go for a warrant I don't rely on whether a tester "thinks" my stop light is clearly visible enough - The tester has a manual with stipulated viewing angles and distances outlined, tread depth on tires is measured etc

[Chill]

The guy has short straight pipes (see his post earlier).

I think we (and the cops) can all tell that they would be noticeably louder than stock.

There are louder than stock but I think I gave the wrong impression of what pipes they are. They aren't those straight, thin slash-cut ones you see on loud harleys - they're bigger, longer, throatier and less loud.

The time was just before 8am, morning work traffic..

[short-circuit]

Someone who hears them screaming past their house at all hours wont care what sounds best - they want quality of like in their home - without having loud as fuck pipes waking them and their baby at 2am.

I'm not disagreeing about the amount of noise that is or isn't acceptable. I'm objecting to a method of "law enforcement" which relies on an officer's subjective judgement. I'm also objecting to an argument that cost for fighting a possible bogus charge should fall on Joe Blogs

[Spyke]

Bung summit into the pipe (non conspicuous) and goto the cop shop an show them its really quiet. Take a spark plug out of 1 of the cylinders and do the same lol

[scumdog]

Don't talk shite - the onus of prove should be on them. They want to lay the charge - they should pay for the test (as with breath/blood alcohol)

Fuck off - where does your logic fit in with any other sort of test that depends on a WOF check?

Cop can order you of the road because he reckons your car has altered steering/suspension/seat-mounts etc - no 'proof' necessary.

[short-circuit]

Bung summit into the pipe (non conspicuous) and goto the cop shop an show them its really quiet. Take a spark plug out of 1 of the cylinders and do the same lol

The point is he shouldn't have to if his bike doesn't exceed 100 decibels

[scumdog]

Go and get them certified. If they pass they are legal, irrespective of what Mr Plod may think.
Not cheap but could save a lot of money in the long run.
My after market pipe is not that loud but I will be doing this to protect myself from poorly drafted laws and irresponsible Plods.

Be aware - if you get stopped and stickered for excess noise you will have to get your zorst certified - the catch being that it will have to be certified at 5 decibels lower than required by law BEFORE you got stopped.

i.e: you were ok at 95 decibels but due to your modified zorst you got 'stickered' and needed zorst certified- so NOW you're only allowed a level of 90 decibels.

[short-circuit]

Fuck off - where does your logic fit in with any other sort of test that depends on a WOF check?

Cop can order you of the road because he reckons your car has altered steering/suspension/seat-mounts etc - no 'proof' necessary.

1. Watch your language when you address me

2. Why don't you carry on with your agenda of revenue collection quietly and try not to "think" too much.

[McJim]

"why are loud cars any worse than loud bikes?"

err they arent... crush them all!! send the scrap to china
__________________

Sounds like a damn good place to send beemers then.

I strongly disapprove of legislation of this nature where the whole thing is subjective and based upon human opinion. It's actually fear of this kind of punitive legislation that generates hatred for the Police, paranoia about the lack of come back and contributes to people doing "runners".

With anecdotal stories like this it seems that word will get out and people will simply assume the worst of the Police - this can only lead to more bother since the Police are merely civillians charged with upholding the law however things like this will give the impression that the police belive themselves to be above the law. This is not good for Police/Public relations and I hope the majority of the police force are far sighted enough to realise that effective policing requires the cooperation of a willing public.

By increasing the polarity in the "Them and Us" situation with heavy handed contacts they will inadvertently make policing in the community that bit harder for themselves.

[shafty]

How about some pics or video with sound Chill?

[scumdog]

1. Watch your language when you address me

2. Why don't you carry on with your agenda of revenue collection quietly and try not to "think" too much.

(a)OK - but I don't know who you are..

(b) It's none of you business......I think

[short-circuit]

I strongly disapprove of legislation of this nature where the whole thing is subjective and based upon human opinion.

Absolutely - this sort of legislation is both unclear and concerning. It is also unnecessary as objective measures can be employed

[piston broke]

Sounds like a damn good place to send beemers then.

I strongly disapprove of legislation of this nature where the whole thing is subjective and based upon human opinion. It's actually fear of this kind of punitive legislation that generates hatred for the Police, paranoia about the lack of come back and contributes to people doing "runners".

With anecdotal stories like this it seems that word will get out and people will simply assume the worst of the Police - this can only lead to more bother since the Police are merely civillians charged with upholding the law however things like this will give the impression that the police belive themselves to be above the law. This is not good for Police/Public relations and I hope the majority of the police force are far sighted enough to realise that effective policing requires the cooperation of a willing public.

By increasing the polarity in the "Them and Us" situation with heavy handed contacts they will inadvertently make policing in the community that bit harder for themselves.

absolutely,
bring back the M.O.T.
maybe we will regain the respect we once had for the police.

[Spyke]

The point is he shouldn't have to if his bike doesn't exceed 100 decibels

that is true , what can he do? not pay and goto court, does he have to pay for fees if he doesn't use a lawyer? would they throw it out if they don't have appropriate evidence?

could be straight up and go in to the coppers, say where's the proof to this so called ticket i'll pay for muffler certs if its illeagal. (cops shouldn't ticket people without real proof that anyone has broken the law)

law fark man, need to make some proper legislations so we don't have these stupid problems about who's abit to loud today, so next they gonna cop a fine on the poor squeling kid who fell out of her pram and grazed her knee cause she was abit to loud for old man plods ears as he strolled down the footpath?