Does a lounder exhaust save lives?

[-JERICHO-]

Forum Sponsor

Yes, louder sounds are something to be considered, and it could theoretically be measured in a test (a test that does not exist yet, as you have said).

But... what you need to consider (what a few guys already said here, I think) is that loud pipes do not save lives, 'cause there is no silver bullet.

If a single factor is going to keep you alive, is rider training. Or maybe better, abstaining from alcohol when riding.

I would never assume that a singular reason keeps you alive on a bike. If that were the case I would argue that the brakes or vision are the "single" reason you live after riding a bike. (But that is not my point at all) I would group the sound of a muffler in with all the other factors that keep us safe, including training. Is it a factor? That is my only real question, I am attempting to come up with a way to prove this, but I don't actively create scientific experiments.. lol

The flaw is that the loud pipes make people hate us. Therefore if we get in a collision we are "Hooligans" not the nice young outdoorsy person next door.

Instead of being treating like vulnerable motorists we are treated like people out looking for trouble.

How about a bit of honesty? How many people just use the "Be heard be seen" line to justify their desire to make noise. ALL of the loud pipe people I have asked admit that they like the noise. I don't like wearing a helmet but I do for reasons of safety. How many loud pipe types wish they could be quiet?

That is as unproven an assertion as the loud pipes argument. (Honesty) I love loud exhausts.. I usually lower my window of whatever car I am in to hear a sweet exhaust note from a car or bike. I do not disagree with how certain people in our society react to a louder exhaust. But how people respond to a noise shouldn't take away the fact that it offers a sound reference that a biker is close by. Really that's what its about. Does the sound let a driver know I am near by? Is he moving over or reacting violently? Negative or positive the reaction is there..

Can it be agreed upon that above a certain level sound is bad? I think most people are there now. Up to a certain point tho, sound is just life in the big city and until electric vehicles come along en mass the average level we have now is "normal". In that context one could still have a decent but muted vroom vroom sound and enjoy both benefits of safety and aural delight.

Speaking of loud pipe people admitting they like loud pipes, you'll usually see a pattern of other behaviours among that crowd consistent with small penisitis. This probably requires more intervention than a simple db killer insert can provide.

Completely agreed. I suppose the easiest fix is to keep going with the DB laws then. Eliminate the abusers that put on those loud pipes that deafen people, allow louder pipes that stay below DB laws.

:lmaosmall p - This is the number one cause of all strife..

 

[YamaMana]

I like the protective gear.

 

[mikbusa]

Ok, I just spent a day on a Harley, in Mexico, with screaming eagle pipes. Loud pipes might help you avoid a minor collision, at super slow speeds in the city, but I don't buy that they are saving lives. I cold get a taxi to stop their stupid **** with a blip of the throttle, at a snails pace, but at any speed I don't see how all that noise behind you will do anything.

 

[RedDogDarren]

Ok, I just spent a day on a Harley, in Mexico, with screaming eagle pipes. Loud pipes might help you avoid a minor collision, at super slow speeds in the city, but I don't buy that they are saving lives. I cold get a taxi to stop their stupid **** with a blip of the throttle, at a snails pace, but at any speed I don't see how all that noise behind you will do anything.

It does not. My totalled TL1000 with full race exhaust and increased compression was the victim of a front end collision. The bike was as loud as an Apache attack helicopter.

 

[vociferous]

It does not. My totalled TL1000 with full race exhaust and increased compression was the victim of a front end collision. The bike was as loud as an Apache attack helicopter.

my favourite sound is the world is stilla friends 04ish rc51 with a full twin can highmount jardine pipe(s). badass sound.

 

[regder]

Loud pipes certainly do not replace proper riding skill, but they definitely don't hurt. Was in California a year ago, was amazed how far ahead I could hear a bike coming up behind me, splitting lanes, before I could actually see them. This was while move slowly in traffic in a rental

So yes, as far as I'm concerned, loud pipes definitely increase people's awareness of you.

 

[-JERICHO-]

The argument of "Does a loud pipe saves lives" is unnecessarily simplified, to exclude certain language, or perhaps just to sound simple so that it can fail easily?
"Does a modified exhaust system (which increases the DB levels by no less than 10dB) contribute to increased awareness for surrounding vehicles and pedestrians, of the modified vehicle."

Our anatomy is designed in such a way that it can be proved (localization) simply based on the physical structures inside our ears.

Sound frequency, frequency strength, rate of motion, sound muffling through cars insulation, direction, height. Through much interference we can detect sound and we can also pin point where the sound is coming from to a VERY high degree. Individuals differ of course in their ability due to genetics, age, and other contributing factors, but it will be detectable and is measurable nonetheless. All of the bolded elements are a factor in our ability to detect an object making sounds. High frequency sounds are easier to identify than lower frequency sounds etc.. these can be researched individually.
Two cues for localizing a sound source are: inter-aural intensity difference (IID) and inter-aural timing difference (ITD).

Sound localization in mammals is based on two very different means of analyzing the acoustic waveform. The first constitutes a spectral analysis in which the comparison of sound energy across different frequency bands arriving at each ear provides for sound-localization abilities in the vertical dimension (including distinctions between sources to the front from those behind). Although better performance based on frequency spectra may be possible using both ears, it represents an essentially monaural cue for sound localization, generated largely by the direction-specific attenuation of particular frequencies by the pinna and concha of the outer ear. The second means by which sound localization is achieved is based on detecting and comparing differences in the movement of the two eardrums. This binaural computation, which takes place mainly within narrowband sound-frequency channels, underlies sound localization in the horizontal dimension. Two interaural differences are available to such binaural analysis. First, sounds not arising directly from in front (or behind) arrive earlier at one ear than at the other, creating an ITD (Fig. 2B). Second, for wavelengths roughly equal to, or shorter than, the diameter of the head, a shadowing effect is produced at the ear further from the source, creating an interaural intensity, or level, difference (IID or ILD, respectively)

So whether or not you personally feel that a sound helps you be more aware, there is science behind the fact that it really does. It doesn't matter what the sound is. A truck, a car, a bike, a fly, a mosquito, beeping, dogs barking.. if the sound is annoying, or unwanted or any other feeling, if you are sitting in one spot and the sound moves around you, or if you are moving and the sound is moving.. all the variables are just more information.. The sound gives your brain the ability to reference where the sound is coming from, without you having to think about it. THEREFORE it increases awareness. The whole "its never been tested" or "there are no tests for it" are misleading because the true test is about sound (any kind of sound) and our ability to detect it (even when distracted, or muffled). That test has been done to death.

Its also worth noting the fact that car companies are pumping the newest models full of sensors to warn drivers (with audio/visual aids) of their fellow motorists isn't needed, yet its done to increase the chances that a distracted driver doesn't collide with another motorist. Some vehicles even have a directional vibration in the seats if they have a vehicle in their blind spot. More stimulus>Less Stimulus in effect at these manufacturers. We are adding a form of aural stimulus for a driver to pick up on.

 

[hedo2002]

THEREFORE it increases awareness. The whole "its never been tested" or "there are no tests for it" are misleading because the true test is about sound (any kind of sound) and our ability to detect it (even when distracted, or muffled). That test has been done to death.

So you began by stating that you wanted scientific proof to be given that :loud pipes will save lives". Then you post the above statement basically stating that scientific testing is not relevant.

Sound frequency, frequency strength, rate of motion, sound muffling through cars insulation, direction, height. Through much interference we can detect sound and we can also pin point where the sound is coming from to a VERY high degree. Individuals differ of course in their ability due to genetics, age, and other contributing factors, but it will be detectable and is measurable nonetheless. All of the bolded elements are a factor in our ability to detect an object making sounds. High frequency sounds are easier to identify than lower frequency sounds etc.. these can be researched individually.

If all of the above are true factors and need to be taken into account as to weather the listener can hear and effectively detect where the noise is coming from, then how does a rider, (without knowing all the above variables), determine if the other person is effectively aware of the sound and it's source and location?

Therefore, using a logical reasoned approach, a rider should NOT rely on the louder pipe but rather their ability using ALL available information, as well as their riding abilities, to avoid danger and ride safely.

Perhaps a better question to have posed is can louder pipes "assist" with sound awareness of other road users, rather than the posed question do louder pipes save lives. One "may" find scientific data to determine that the louder noise assist other road users in detecting and locating the source of a sound. Although, even that can be debated as again look at a siren in a urban setting, with echos and poor sight lines it can sometimes take a few seconds for a driver to determine accurately where the sound is coming from, (where is the vehicle). I doubt there exists scientific data that will state without doubt that loud pipes save lives, again one could argue if they did then bikes with straight pipes would never be involved in fatal collisions.

 

[-JERICHO-]

THEREFORE it increases awareness. The whole "its never been tested" or "there are no tests for it" are misleading because the true test is about sound (any kind of sound) and our ability to detect it (even when distracted, or muffled). That test has been done to death.

So you began by stating that you wanted scientific proof to be given that :loud pipes will save lives". Then you post the above statement basically stating that scientific testing is not relevant.

I began this thread thirsty for answers. I did obviously more reading than you have, and have come up with a revised thesis which was in my post that you are commenting on..What part of that sentence made you think I was "basically stating that scientific testing is not relevant"? I VERY specifically stated the tests are DONE, and over, and the proof of theory exists.

Sound frequency, frequency strength, rate of motion, sound muffling through cars insulation, direction, height. Through much interference we can detect sound and we can also pin point where the sound is coming from to a VERY high degree. Individuals differ of course in their ability due to genetics, age, and other contributing factors, but it will be detectable and is measurable nonetheless. All of the bolded elements are a factor in our ability to detect an object making sounds. High frequency sounds are easier to identify than lower frequency sounds etc.. these can be researched individually.

If all of the above are true factors and need to be taken into account as to weather the listener can hear and effectively detect where the noise is coming from, then how does a rider, (without knowing all the above variables), determine if the other person is effectively aware of the sound and it's source and location?

They are all true and proven. Your brain is hardwired for this. There is no debate over whether this is true or not, it would take a simple search on google for ya..
These are the BASIC principals behind it:
Two cues for localizing a sound source are: inter-aural intensity difference (IID) and inter-aural timing difference (ITD) Your brain does this for you without having to think upon it.

Therefore, using a logical reasoned approach, a rider should NOT rely on the louder pipe but rather their ability using ALL available information, as well as their riding abilities, to avoid danger and ride safely.

Of course, as we have previously discussed, however that does not take scientific facts away from this problem. Does a sound alert us to a presence? Yes.. are there other factors that could prevent it.. sure.. but the science proves that we are hardwired to notice the sound. Even if it does cause some confusion from time to time.

Perhaps a better question to have posed is can louder pipes "assist" with sound awareness of other road users, rather than the posed question do louder pipes save lives.

I restated a much better question in my last post.. "Does a modified exhaust system (which increases the DB levels by no less than 10dB) contribute to increased awareness for surrounding vehicles and pedestrians, of the modified vehicle." To that I would say yes. It most certainly does.

One "may" find scientific data to determine that the louder noise assist other road users in detecting and locating the source of a sound.

YUP... pretty easily actually, and there are many of them.. and that is what this is all about..

Although, even that can be debated (perhaps by people unwilling to understand or learn about our hearing a human physiology) as again look at a siren in a urban setting, with echos and poor sight lines it can sometimes take a few seconds for a driver to determine accurately where the sound is coming from, (I never mentioned how long it would take, only that it is inevitable in most situations) (where is the vehicle). I doubt there exists scientific data that will state without doubt that loud pipes save lives, again one could argue if they did then bikes with straight pipes would never be involved in fatal collisions.

See that is the problem. People like you will always try and point out that "I doubt there exists scientific data that will state without a doubt that loud pipes save lives" Scientific data already exists that proves WITHOUT A DOUBT that humans have that ability to locate a sound source. The sound source DOES NOT have to be a motorcycle. The theory has been proven that we have the ability. No need to do pointless tests with bikes if the principle of the argument is proven already.

I got my information from studies and papers (that I can link).. they are not my feelings. But after the theory of sound localization is proved, I don't see how this argument can be debated.

 

[hedo2002]

I am not disputing your theory just the, initial premise that increased sound form louder pipes save lives. I guess I am not hardwired the same as everyone else, just yesterday, I was driving in Peterborough. I heard an siren approaching. Yes I was able to determine there was a sound, BUT I had no idea which of the four lanes leading to the intersection that sound was coming from, (this was in an area without tall buildings). It took me a few seconds to determine it was an ambulance which was approaching over a crest in the road, from the rear, followed by two cruisers.

Now had that been a bike, whose rider was "expecting" me to know where they were just because they were convinced I would be able to detect and locate the source of that sound, they would not be able to determine I was now distracted looking for where the sound was coming from. That is my point when I stated that a rider shouldn't rely upon the sound to "save their life"

Do any of the studies you have looked at refer only to the ability of humans to hear and at some point being able to locate the source of a sound? Do any of the studies state categorically that this ability translates directly into loud pipes save lives? I will concede that evidence shows that humans can hear and locate the source of sound, (with some variables, IE the individuals age hearing level etc). If you concede that there are no studies that show a proven relationship that this ability has the direct result that loud pipes save lives. I would submit it would not be a pointless study relating to bikes. Just as studies can show that people have the ability to pick out images hidden in larger images, (the ones where the image is a series of dots and if one looks at the image long enough they can see the number 8 inside the larger image). But there are also studies that show drivers can easily not see an approaching motorcycle. Those studies were not pointless they resulted in such things as SMIDSY. Which lead to increased rider safety.

Now as you have acknowledged riders should NOT rely on this but rely upon their riding skills to prevent tragedy. As we have seen more and more municipalities are going the route, (largely driven by resident complaints), to legislating the noise levels of motorcycle exhaust. I don't see the potential

 

[-JERICHO-]

Do any of the studies you have looked at refer only to the ability of humans to hear and at some point being able to locate the source of a sound? Do any of the studies state categorically that this ability translates directly into loud pipes save lives?

The tests done were many and varied. Movement tests, static tests, shifting frequencies, age variances.. so many to list.. Each study contained different parameters and equipment, but all of the test resulted in the same experience. There is a measurable time frame (even with interference) that we as humans use this "skill" to become alert to the presence of an object. Now again genetics and evolution will play a role in individual reaction, however the differences were in the milliseconds.

The evolution of sound localization in mammals is not characterized by a straightforward sequence of changes in the underlying brain structures concomitant with an improvement in ability but rather is more related to the ecological niche of each species. Different habitats and different behavioral strategies for survival require different solutions for sound localization. So there wouldn't be a written link between "loud pipes" and "saving lives", but it is implied that the skill we have evolved with is used for all applications of localization.

I will concede that evidence shows that humans can hear and locate the source of sound, (with some variables, IE the individuals age hearing level etc).
If you concede that there are no studies that show a proven relationship that this ability has the direct result that loud pipes save lives.

You must concede because of Scientific proof, and I must also concede because no scientists have found it necessary to do a test specifically with bikes, that I could locate.

I would submit it would not be a pointless study relating to bikes. Just as studies can show that people have the ability to pick out images hidden in larger images, (the ones where the image is a series of dots and if one looks at the image long enough they can see the number 8 inside the larger image). But there are also studies that show drivers can easily not see an approaching motorcycle. Those studies were not pointless they resulted in such things as SMIDSY. Which lead to increased rider safety.

I cannot disagree with more tests. We can always find new information with new variables. I would LOVE for someone to do these specific tests, and if no one does, I may just do them myself.

Now as you have acknowledged riders should NOT rely on this but rely upon their riding skills to prevent tragedy. As we have seen more and more municipalities are going the route, (largely driven by resident complaints), to legislating the noise levels of motorcycle exhaust. I don't see the potential

Totally. Riders SHOULD ALWAYS rely on training and be EXTREMELY attentive at all times on their bike. Also I am a proponent of All gear all the time..

 

[griff2]

I heard an siren approaching. Yes I was able to determine there was a sound, BUT I had no idea which of the four lanes leading to the intersection that sound was coming from, (this was in an area without tall buildings). It took me a few seconds to determine it was an ambulance which was approaching over a crest in the road, from the rear, followed by two cruisers.

How much heads-up would you have had on that distant loud noise (siren) if you yourself had been creating your own loud noise (from tard pipes) right underneath you?

 

[griff2]

Totally. Riders SHOULD ALWAYS rely on training and be EXTREMELY attentive at all times on their bike. Also I am a proponent of All gear all the time..

How attentive can you possibly be to incoming noise stimulus coming from other traffic if you are drowning out that stimulus with your own loud pipe noise?

 

[mikbusa]

I am not disputing your theory just the, initial premise that increased sound form louder pipes save lives. I guess I am not hardwired the same as everyone else, just yesterday, I was driving in Peterborough. I heard an siren approaching. Yes I was able to determine there was a sound, BUT I had no idea which of the four lanes leading to the intersection that sound was coming from, (this was in an area without tall buildings). It took me a few seconds to determine it was an ambulance which was approaching over a crest in the road, from the rear, followed by two cruisers.

Now had that been a bike, whose rider was "expecting" me to know where they were just because they were convinced I would be able to detect and locate the source of that sound, they would not be able to determine I was now distracted looking for where the sound was coming from. That is my point when I stated that a rider shouldn't rely upon the sound to "save their life"

Do any of the studies you have looked at refer only to the ability of humans to hear and at some point being able to locate the source of a sound? Do any of the studies state categorically that this ability translates directly into loud pipes save lives? I will concede that evidence shows that humans can hear and locate the source of sound, (with some variables, IE the individuals age hearing level etc). If you concede that there are no studies that show a proven relationship that this ability has the direct result that loud pipes save lives. I would submit it would not be a pointless study relating to bikes. Just as studies can show that people have the ability to pick out images hidden in larger images, (the ones where the image is a series of dots and if one looks at the image long enough they can see the number 8 inside the larger image). But there are also studies that show drivers can easily not see an approaching motorcycle. Those studies were not pointless they resulted in such things as SMIDSY. Which lead to increased rider safety.

Now as you have acknowledged riders should NOT rely on this but rely upon their riding skills to prevent tragedy. As we have seen more and more municipalities are going the route, (largely driven by resident complaints), to legislating the noise levels of motorcycle exhaust. I don't see the potential

I drive a Mercedes, it's quiet, really quiet inside. A week ago I was approaching an intersection, heard a siren, and I had no ****ing idea what direction it was coming from until he was basically right behind me. No ****ing idea. I was scanning all directions trying to see WTF this siren was coming, and what I needed to do to get out of the way, from for some number of seconds.

Hey ********** on loud piped bikes, I won't hear you approaching.

 

[-JERICHO-]

How attentive can you possibly be to incoming noise stimulus coming from other traffic if you are drowning out that stimulus with your own loud pipe noise?

That is a loaded question. Too many variables. What kind of bike? How many dB over stock is it? Is the rider wearing a helmet.. etc.. The "amount" of attentiveness a driver would have is individually based. Car drivers are responsible for their own awareness I would think. Sound doesn't work that way, it doesn't become impossible because of more, until an extreme which does not happen. (jet level noise)

I drive a Mercedes, it's quiet, really quiet inside.

Well La dee da mister fancy pants..lol.. what kind if you don't mind me asking? Again hearing is a perception that can change over time due to many factors, what you cannot hear, another individual could hear perfectly. This still doesn't take merit from the sound argument.

 

[hedo2002]

That is a loaded question. Too many variables. What kind of bike? How many dB over stock is it? Is the rider wearing a helmet.. etc.. The "amount" of attentiveness a driver would have is individually based. Car drivers are responsible for their own awareness I would think. Sound doesn't work that way, it doesn't become impossible because of more, until an extreme which does not happen. (jet level noise)

Well La dee da mister fancy pants..lol.. what kind if you don't mind me asking? Again hearing is a perception that can change over time due to many factors, what you cannot hear, another individual could hear perfectly. This still doesn't take merit from the sound argument.

Well given helmets are the law in Ontario, We can rule that out as a factor. But you admit there are too many variables, and the attentiveness of the rider is individually based. Then go on to state that the car driver is responsible for their own awareness, (which in a perfect world would be at or close to 100%). Yet I submit there are even more variables involved with a car. Some riders play music, whereas MOST car drivers have some form of music or talk on in a car. The rider is not "shielded" from external noise, like a cager is. I haven't seen many riders texting and riding, yet cagers do it all the time. So if the biker may or may not hear external audio stimulus because of these factors then why would one assume that a cager is more prone to? I would respectfully submit a cager is indeed less likely to hear the external noise unless those loud pipes were to the level of obnoxious to counter the variables of todays modern cages.

With the cage manufacturers striving for a "quiet cockpit" experience and doing more and more to decrease the "intrusion" of external noise then at what point do "louder pipes" either become negated or have to go to an extreme in order to counter the "cockpit silence?" Then we get legislation which would rule out anything other than stock exhaust.

Have you talked to any bike manufacturers? I am sure at some point some engineer has tested the "effectiveness" of increasing exhaust sound levels as opposed to the current levels. After all as has been pointed out here electric vehicle manufacturers recognized the "need" for the vehicle to emit, some noise. If there was an "advantage" to producing a louder stock exhaust one would think a manufacturer would use that to their advantage.

But in the end if you are convinced that louder pipes will save your life then by all means get them installed, of course bearing in mind it could result, (depending upon the level of noise and how you "use" it), there could be ramifications, (tickets etc).

I will as I have for the past 35 years rely upon my riding skills and experience to stick with my stock quiet exhaust. When I am out for a Sunday ride I want to enjoy the scenery, and the quiet tranquil feeling of the open back road. Not have to jamb stuff in my ears just so I don't hurt my own hearing..lol

 

[Blackfin]

I drive a Mercedes, it's quiet, really quiet inside. A week ago I was approaching an intersection, heard a siren, and I had no ****ing idea what direction it was coming from until he was basically right behind me. No ****ing idea. I was scanning all directions trying to see WTF this siren was coming...

But perhaps the point here is that because of the loud noise you became aware there was something and you began scanning and looking for it. Yes, you may not know exactly where, in space and time, that bike (or ambulance is) but your senses are heightened and you're looking. That's all motorcyclists can realistically ask.

A great deal of the rest of the safety equation is up to the rider himself. But at least you're now scanning all directions for him.

 

[inreb]

But perhaps the point here is that because of the loud noise you became aware there was something and you began scanning and looking for it. Yes, you may not know exactly where, in space and time, that bike (or ambulance is) but your senses are heightened and you're looking. That's all motorcyclists can realistically ask.

A great deal of the rest of the safety equation is up to the rider himself. But at least you're now scanning all directions for him.

This is too logical and contrary to the anti-sweet sounding motorcycle movement afoot.

 

[hedo2002]

Agreed, But would you want to live or ride anywhere near a bike that the exhaust is to the level of a screaming siren??? lol The op seems to be now leaning towards an exhaust which would be somewhere in the ball park of 10dB louder. Which won't be anywhere near the level of a siren.

Also Mikbusa stated he couldn't locate the source of the sound until it was directly behind him, keeping in mind that the ambulance owuldn't be traveling nearly the speed most bikes do, and the siren is front facing, (designed to project the sound forward), the exhaust is rear facing, (not designed to project the sound forward).

But perhaps the point here is that because of the loud noise you became aware there was something and you began scanning and looking for it. Yes, you may not know exactly where, in space and time, that bike (or ambulance is) but your senses are heightened and you're looking. That's all motorcyclists can realistically ask.

A great deal of the rest of the safety equation is up to the rider himself. But at least you're now scanning all directions for him.

 

[Blackfin]

Agreed, But would you want to live or ride anywhere near a bike that the exhaust is to the level of a screaming siren??? lol The op seems to be now leaning towards an exhaust which would be somewhere in the ball park of 10dB louder. Which won't be anywhere near the level of a siren.

It doesn't have to be at the level of a siren. As well, the sound qualities of motorcycle engines are vastly different than the intentionally annoying peal of emergency-vehicle sirens: 100dB of Verdi is going to be preferable to 100dB of fingernails-on-a-chalkboard.

Also Mikbusa stated he couldn't locate the source of the sound until it was directly behind him, keeping in mind that the ambulance owuldn't be traveling nearly the speed most bikes do, and the siren is front facing, (designed to project the sound forward), the exhaust is rear facing, (not designed to project the sound forward).

I think many ambulances are going to be traveling quite a bit faster than prevailing traffic if they've got their sirens on.

And while the gist of what you say may otherwise be true the main point for me was an awareness on his part and his scanning around for the source. That's all I'd ask for or expect from other drivers. If that comes about because of the added noise of my exhaust then, to me, that pretty much vindicates the loud(er) exhaust case.

In terms of safety, I can only hope for awareness and scanning. I cannot assume that drivers will actually see me or not do something stupid despite knowing I'm somewhere nearby so, as I said, the rest is still up to me.

Forum Sponsor