Norfolk Police and exhaust noise

[Monkey Boy 1]

The number plate issue is only on the officers statement, they have it down correctly on other paperwork, but could still be a nail in their side for not proof reading their statements.

I have also found amendments to the 'Construction & use act' 1996 which states a higher dB reading to the ones the police quote. and also the Police paperwork does not state the';weighting' on the dB meter, should read (A) for the human ear. which records a different frequency banding than other dB readings.

It's all getting quite in depth now.

[alwayzsidewayz]

wow, oh dear, me thinks that they are not going to know what hit em!

[tony188]

wot a joke you take this all the way and i hope you win win and win and then get money back for lost of earnings and parking fee,s

[Monkey Boy 1]

Just to add confusion to the case, remembering that I am questioning the way in which my car was checked and the interpretation of the results not the fact that it has an aftermarket exhaust. I have just re-read the "Road vehicles Construction & use regulations 1986" Yes it states an 82dB(A) limit, but then you have to then hunt for the method of measurement for this test. Now this is hidden away on Commission Directive 81/334/EEC Paragraph 5.2.2.4.

Basically the 82dB(A) test as quotes in the Construction & use regs can only be attained in a drive by test, not a static test.

This has to be done on an approved Test track.

The static test as used by the Police as laid out in ISO5130 does not have a results table, so the figures the Police are using are cobbled together from various different sources to make their own standard up.

The plot thickens

[tombrady]

Very interesting indeed....

[BrianGT]

Just to add confusion to the case, remembering that I am questioning the way in which my car was checked and the interpretation of the results not the fact that it has an aftermarket exhaust. I have just re-read the "Road vehicles Construction & use regulations 1986" Yes it states an 82dB(A) limit, but then you have to then hunt for the method of measurement for this test. Now this is hidden away on Commission Directive 81/334/EEC Paragraph 5.2.2.4.

Basically the 82dB(A) test as quotes in the Construction & use regs can only be attained in a drive by test, not a static test.

This has to be done on an approved Test track.

The static test as used by the Police as laid out in ISO5130 does not have a results table, so the figures the Police are using are cobbled together from various different sources to make their own standard up.

The plot thickens

Your case is becoming stronger by the minute!

Note down the relevant points of law but keep it simple and direct so that the Magistrate understands what you are saying first time across...that way it really sinks in.

[Monkey Boy 1]

In answer to the above.

Relevant points

1.I have the test report from the police.

2.Test paperwork shows the RPM at which they tested it. (5250RPM)

3. I have a copy of ISO5130 which is quoted on the police form

4.My car, max power is delivered at 6850RPM, Red line is 7000RPM

ISO5130 Shows that a car with max power of between 5000 & 7500RPM should be tested at 3750RPM. (NOT 5250 as Plod did it at)

There are no figures for dB(A) output in the ISO5130 test procedure. The Road Traffic Construction & use Reg 1986 refers to a different test, that of which is a drive by test. NOT as static test.

Also to point out some errors in the paperwork:

Police statements has incorrect colour of my vehicle

Police statement has incorrect registration mark of my vehicle (court papers have correct Veh.Reg)

Police test cert states different RPM target to the quoted ISO5130 test.

Police form states dB on their form, it should state the correct dB(A) - There is a difference, believe me

The initial Police ticket was given out as "A vehicle exhaust making excessive noise", The Court papers say "Use of a motor vehicle with an altered silencer / exhaust" as in Construction & use regs 54 (2) Every exhaust system and silencer shall be maintained in good and efficient working order and shall not be altered so as to increase the noise made by the escape of exhaust gases.

Now that last bit is the only thing that is bugging me. I know i have a sports exhaust fitted to my car, so in theory it has been altered to increase noise. BUT it was fitted to increase power, the byproduct of more power is louder noise. Iwon't mention that bit in court as it will only confuse them even more.

Hopefully they will see the amount of holes in the case and throw it out.

[BrianGT]

Keep it that succinct and direct and the court will know you know the facts and have done your research without coming across as a clever bugger!

Well done mate....wish I was in the gallery that day!

[alwayzsidewayz]

surely a performance exhaust is more efficient as it allows the engine the engine to expel its exhaust gases in a more effective way?

Good Luck again

[Zorg]

This is extremely interesting. Well done on the research. Victory all the way

[keef-b]

Rather than having modified your car by fitting the exhaust for increased power are you sure you didn't fit a freer flowing exhaust system to make your vehicle more fuel efficient?

A stretch I admit but, well, you know

[daytona]

Personal opinion only as a property lawyer not a litigator but...................

Magistrates are human with limited attention spans and no prior knowledge of the sort of stuff you are about to throw at them so KISS applies Keep it Simple Stupid!

Intro? The paperwork is a shambles form start to finish colour registration etc (they may gloss over that as typo's and not that important)

Main points ? 1. 5250 test invalid.

2 db & dba are not the same thing etc

BUT and here you could do with some proper advice from Mr Loophole This does not appear to be the charge that has been laid...................you can clearly stuff the Police evidence generally and win the individual battles but stil lose the war as you do not appear to be being charged with exceeding a certain noise level. So......

1. How far if at all can you be prosecuted for a different offence than the one you were charged with?

2. Prosecution under C&U 54 is stretched beyond the normal useage of the English language in that (so far as you say) you haven't altered the replacement system.

To follow the "logic" of the prosecution then every aftermarket system that is noiser by 1db is automatically illegal. Your research is really good but it needs focussing on the issues. I would see if you can have a chat with a specialist in the area. Doesn't the club have a legal link? NO!!! not me not my area at all as you can tell.! Sure the Mal Kirwan? biker type firms that advertise in MCN etc would love the leads from this site. You could always have a chat with the manufacturer or similar and say your systems are all illegal I am reporting you to trading standards and see what hey come up with. If their systems are stamped C&U compliant ball is back in your court. I think prosecution would bail before hearing if you could show that your system is C&U compliant and they have no evidence of subsequent tampering. If like a lot of aftermarket bike exhausts it is stamped "not legal for road use" then I regret you are ****ed!

Can the corporate guys on here flogging aftermarket exhausts assist or are you looking at your feet shuffling nervously? lol ;o)

Best of luck anyway!

[Monkey Boy 1]

Some interesting question there Daytona, and some good advice too. i will pop down to my local Powerflow distributor (who produce very similar systems to the one I have fitted) and ask them if they have any C & U compliant accreditation.

The more ammo I have, the better, but I feel it's getting quite complicated now. I am trying to keep it simple and to the point. Even the guys at work are totally confused by the Police's stance on this. The type approval guys say that the test is an invalid test, No car of the age of mine should be revved to 3/4 power in an unloaded condition.

[daytona]

You're welcome. I just thought it looked as though you were about to suffer death by 100 (paper) cuts and needed focussing on what you have been charged with rather than the feeble reason for being stopped " ooo look. Shiney, shiney. Book 'im Danno!" They had a new toy and wanted to play with it at your expense. tsk tsk!

[Monkey Boy 1]

That was almost the exact comments from the Police back in August last year when I was stopped.

"The reason we are stopping you Sir is that your exhausts look loud, will you accompany us back to the station so we can do a noise check"

ORC got stopped a month earlier, probably within a mile or two from where i was stopped and apparently they told him that the force had a new piece of kit

Even on the PC's written statement it says they stopped me because I had four tail pipes, two each side.and looked louder than a standard Toyota Celica.

[Old Red Celica]

My Youngest Sons GF got pulled in GY last night for having a loud exhaust, she was let off and advised her exhaust was too loud, (it's a lot louder than the one on my Corolla) and sent on her way. No Noise test, just gave her car a once over, Tax, Insurance, MOT etc.

[daytona]

Police / CPS as consistent as porridge! Depends on the fetishes of the local chief constable eg speed enforcement in parts of Wales etc . Welcome to 1984.

[Devious]

[Monkey Boy 1]

Found an interesting read from a paper written by the Transport Reserarch Laboratory with help from Devon & Cornwall Plod (Apparently the most active force in the UK on Exhaust noise checks back in 2010) back in 2010 about proposals for in-service exhause noise checks on cars, They even say that the ISO5130, is flawed in the checking of some vehicles. They even have a chart on about 320 cars checked with the age, mileage engine size, fuel type etc of the vehicle. The loudest was an Evo 8 in at 106 dB, Impreza's seem to come in at between 92 & 104dB, Lotus Elise 93dB and a Gen 5 Celica at 99dB (it had a performance pipe on).

They also show that there was a +2.8dB change between checking a car at the specified 3750 RPM and 4000RPM. (they checked mine 1500RPM higher than 3750), OK the graph isn't linear, but it shows the difference you can get in incorrect set up. Even a 10cm change in microphone position can add 2dB to the results even at the correct rev range.

They also state that the maximum power isn't neccessarily where the red line is (but we all know that anyway)

Another interesting point is that type approval test denote a 74dB(A) limit for new cars, but that is on a drive by test. The other noise test conducted at type aproval is the stationary test as laid out in ISO5130, however there is currently no limit with regard to this test for cars manufactured in the UK must meet. VOSA enforce a 99dB(A) limit on cars improted from outside the UK / EU as part of their IVA (individual Vehicle Approval)

They also state that "There can be large differences in noise levels between different makes of car."

[Black Knight]

They also state that "There can be large differences in noise levels between different makes of car."

Well duu! :rolleyes: That silly little Smart sport's car vs a Lambo for instance