|
|
|
Noise restrictions bylaw coming for Oakville
- Thread starter the bandit
- Start date
Then you somehow missed posts 84 and 85.
Splash
Well-known member
you also didn't watch the video I posted. There's a Tech like this you can buy
http://www.manddsmallengine.com/briggs/tools/19200.html
Last edited:
The Oakville legislation is written not only with downtown Oakville and it's Tim Horton's/God's waiting room situation in mind, but in the various neighborhoods also. Specifically, i can think of my childhood -> young adulthood home, where my parents have lived for the past 35 years. This isn't the richest of neighborhoods, nor the poorest for Oakville.. Just around the block lives a 'clan', where some of the children, though now in their 40's, appear to have never grown their flight feathers out to leave the nest. One of those 'children' has had a HD for at least the past 20 years, and who's sole contribution to the neighborhood milieu has been noise pollution - he's run straight-pipes on the damn thing for as long as i could remember, and you could hear him long after the '10 second rule'.. The topic of him came up over Christmas dinner, and my father remarked that he much preferred the roar of the offshore jet-boats often heard in the summer on the lake to this noise-maker from Hell. This HD is obnoxiously, teeth-filling loosening, loud.. there is absolutely NOTHING pleasant about it.
If my father has his back up over it .. it's bad. He's a former motorcyclist.. always wanted a HD, and lives and breathes light airplanes.. so noise with purpose is not an issue for him. He's thankful for the new local ordinance, in the hope that the neighborhood finally gets some peace after so long a period of time.
It only takes one, to ruin it for the many.. shades of grey, turn black and white.
If my father has his back up over it .. it's bad. He's a former motorcyclist.. always wanted a HD, and lives and breathes light airplanes.. so noise with purpose is not an issue for him. He's thankful for the new local ordinance, in the hope that the neighborhood finally gets some peace after so long a period of time.
It only takes one, to ruin it for the many.. shades of grey, turn black and white.
Last edited:
gwelfmike
Well-known member
Municipal police can enforce by-laws, where a municipality depends on the OPP, depends on how or if they have a contract with the Municipality.
Yes, police can enforce bylaws.
Bylaws DO NOT give police search and seizure rights that come with the HTA... meaning they cannot pull you over for a bylaw, and cannot compel you to participate in their tests.
So, if you get pulled over for a bylaw noise test just politely tell the nice officer you don't want to play their reindeer games.
Bylaws DO NOT give police search and seizure rights that come with the HTA... meaning they cannot pull you over for a bylaw, and cannot compel you to participate in their tests.
So, if you get pulled over for a bylaw noise test just politely tell the nice officer you don't want to play their reindeer games.
Good luck on that.
The HTA's 82.(2) section gives police the right to pull your vehicle over for mechanical fitness inspections using "examinations and tests that the police officer or officer may consider expedient", and that includes inspecting your vehicle to determine if it is "equipped with a muffler in good working order and in constant operation to prevent excessive or unusual noise" as per HTA 75.(1).
Failure to assist in inspection HTA 82.(8) can net you an additional charge and fine HTA 82.(9) of up to $1,000 for failing to assist in the inspection. Further, failure to assist will give the cop grounds to order the motorcycle off the road pending repair HTA 82.(12) and remove your motorcycle's license plates on the spot HTA 82.(13).
Given that the HTA is silent on how determination about whether a muffler is working properly is made, then it follows that police have broad latitude in how they make that determination. The test procedure specified in the Caledon and Oakville noise bylaws offers them a test procedure that is objectively consistent and internationally-recognized.
If the motorcycle fails the exhaust noise test, now they have objective measured evidence that supports laying of charges under both the local noise control bylaws and under the HTA's 75.(1) unusual noise provisions. Nothing in the HTA is breached by doing so.
Last edited:
OpenGambit
Banned
Very bad advice. You would be getting yourself into a lot deeper trouble by failing to co-operate with the lawful instructions of a police officer. I look forward to hearing your report back, after you have attempted this.
gwelfmike
Well-known member
In the body of any properly written by-law, there is a section in it that relates to who enforces a by-law,
and it should read, by-law enforcement officer, municipal police officer , etc. etc. , depending on the regulatory by-law being written.
This now gives officer friendly the right to enforce the by-law using the Police Act to obtain evidence, including your reindeer antlers. And remember, just becaue Police Officer in one municipality says they dont enforce by-law x, doesn t hold true for other municpalities.
and it should read, by-law enforcement officer, municipal police officer , etc. etc. , depending on the regulatory by-law being written.
This now gives officer friendly the right to enforce the by-law using the Police Act to obtain evidence, including your reindeer antlers. And remember, just becaue Police Officer in one municipality says they dont enforce by-law x, doesn t hold true for other municpalities.
The only real issue is who has the authority to stop a vehicle on a public highway. Municipal bylaw enforcement officers generally do not have that authority the HTA.
Caledon and Oakville plan to get around this by having bylaw enforcement officers work in conjunction with the local policing service to target offencders. The bylaw enforcement officers will have the specific training to use the equipment and lay charges under the local bylaws, while police will be present as they have HTA authority to stop vehicles for roadside inspection as well as lay charges under relevant HTA sections.
gwelfmike
Well-known member
By-law enforcement officers do not have the authority to stop a moving vehicle. This is called a moving violation and by-law officers do not have the authority to enforce this. An example of this would be a truck routes, truck routes are implemented by municipal by-law but enforced by the police.
The police do not need a by-law enforcement officer to enforce a by-law such as the noise by-law. The only advantage of having the police assist the by-law enforcement officers with the noise by-law is that then the police do not need to be in court and yes, a by-law enforcement officer would have been trained in sound measurement as an expert witness but probably not your average police officer.
There is only specific areas of the HTA where a by-law enforcement officer has any powers, one being able to tag and tow a vehicle if parked obsructing snow removal operations. Section 170 (15) of the HTA gives that authority.
The police do not need a by-law enforcement officer to enforce a by-law such as the noise by-law. The only advantage of having the police assist the by-law enforcement officers with the noise by-law is that then the police do not need to be in court and yes, a by-law enforcement officer would have been trained in sound measurement as an expert witness but probably not your average police officer.
There is only specific areas of the HTA where a by-law enforcement officer has any powers, one being able to tag and tow a vehicle if parked obsructing snow removal operations. Section 170 (15) of the HTA gives that authority.
slowbird
Well-known member
The reason I brought up what I said earlier is the redundency of this by-law.
From what I know, Police do not enforce noise by-laws. Call your local police department and tell them your neighbour is hammering away in the backyard and is being noisey. They'll tell you it's a by-law issue, and tell you to call the city (311).
(they may go out as a courtesy but they don't give out fines)
So if there is a noise by-law for bikes and it's being enforced, the By-law officers will be out enforcing it, but, (as mentioned in this thread) they can't pull over vehs, so they need local Police Officers to be there. (and not doing real police work)
But if Police Officers are there, they can lay heftier fines then By-Law and give out Provincial Offences Notices.
So why bother having By-law out there?
It just seems like a very complicated way to enforce something that should be provincial wide, and that way they don't tie up LEO's and other resources on giving out Improper Muffler/Accessive noise fines.
....and for the record I fully agree with having a fine for loud bikes. Hopefully quiet some of these Cruisers down, and maybe even get some of the SS guys to stop bombing around town in low gear screaming their motors at high revs.
From what I know, Police do not enforce noise by-laws. Call your local police department and tell them your neighbour is hammering away in the backyard and is being noisey. They'll tell you it's a by-law issue, and tell you to call the city (311).
(they may go out as a courtesy but they don't give out fines)
So if there is a noise by-law for bikes and it's being enforced, the By-law officers will be out enforcing it, but, (as mentioned in this thread) they can't pull over vehs, so they need local Police Officers to be there. (and not doing real police work)
But if Police Officers are there, they can lay heftier fines then By-Law and give out Provincial Offences Notices.
So why bother having By-law out there?
It just seems like a very complicated way to enforce something that should be provincial wide, and that way they don't tie up LEO's and other resources on giving out Improper Muffler/Accessive noise fines.
....and for the record I fully agree with having a fine for loud bikes. Hopefully quiet some of these Cruisers down, and maybe even get some of the SS guys to stop bombing around town in low gear screaming their motors at high revs.
Last edited:
The police do go out and give noise fines, not bylaw officers in most cities in ontario.
slowbird
Well-known member
Maybe in Waterloo.
....not the Police force I work for.
Excessive noise is not a Criminal matter (unless it's gunshots, people screaming in pain etc etc) so it's a City issue. The officers may go out as a courtesy and ask the noisey parties to keep it down....but thats about it.
The only reason why Bylaw officers don't go out is becuase the process to go through Bylaw for noise complaints is extremely long and tedious and people would rather just call the Police. But that is the incorrect way to go about it.
When I deal with citizens calling regarding noise I educate them on the proper way to have noisey people taken care of.
If officers go out for a noise complaint, it's prossibly a more serious matter (like a party) or it's a slow night.
Last edited:
gwelfmike
Well-known member
Not all cities have 311, or for that matter full time by-law enforcement officers or by-law enforcement officer at all. There is more to Ontario than the Metro Toronto, so just because this is the way your employer handles certian laws, does not mean it is like that in other jurdicsions.
Also, excissive noise can be handled under the Criminal Code, "Cause a disturbance."
Also, excissive noise can be handled under the Criminal Code, "Cause a disturbance."
It requires a bit more than just being noisy, to invoke CC-175
175. (1) Every one who
<aside class="MarginalNote">Evidence of peace officer
</aside>(2) In the absence of other evidence, or by way of corroboration of other evidence, a summary conviction court may infer from the evidence of a peace officer relating to the conduct of a person or persons, whether ascertained or not, that a disturbance described in paragraph (1)(a) or (d) or an obstruction described in paragraph (1)(c) was caused or occurred.
175. (1) Every one who
- (a) not being in a dwelling-house, causes a disturbance in or near a public place,
- (i) by fighting, screaming, shouting, swearing, singing or using insulting or obscene language,
- (ii) by being drunk, or
- (iii) by impeding or molesting other persons,
- (b) openly exposes or exhibits an indecent exhibition in a public place,
- (c) loiters in a public place and in any way obstructs persons who are in that place, or
- (d) disturbs the peace and quiet of the occupants of a dwelling-house by discharging firearms or by other disorderly conduct in a public place or who, not being an occupant of a dwelling-house comprised in a particular building or structure, disturbs the peace and quiet of the occupants of a dwelling-house comprised in the building or structure by discharging firearms or by other disorderly conduct in any part of a building or structure to which, at the time of such conduct, the occupants of two or more dwelling-houses comprised in the building or structure have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied,
<aside class="MarginalNote">Evidence of peace officer
</aside>(2) In the absence of other evidence, or by way of corroboration of other evidence, a summary conviction court may infer from the evidence of a peace officer relating to the conduct of a person or persons, whether ascertained or not, that a disturbance described in paragraph (1)(a) or (d) or an obstruction described in paragraph (1)(c) was caused or occurred.
- R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 175;
- 1997, c. 18, s. 6.
slowbird
Well-known member
LOL....I'd hope they'd be charged with more than just being noisey
But that's my point. Noise is a bylaw issue unless it more serious. So if they are implementing a noise bylaw, but will (most likely) need Police to enforce it, it becomes a waste of police time and City/Regional/Municipal resources.
I agree with others on here who have said it needs to be a province wide infraction in the Highway Traffic Act, especialy when crossing from one municipalicty/region/township etc can be done quite easily and accidentally.
Just put it in the HTA and add the DBA equipment to the list for the Traffic Enforcement Units stuff to keep in their cruisers.
For the record I never said I worked in Metro Toronto. But maybe you meant to say Greater Toronto area.
Last edited:
It won't be much different than when local police forces teamed up with MTO and MOE staff to target modified cars for illegal modifications and disabled pollution controls. Set up an inspection location in a handy parking lot with appropriate bylaw officers and testing equipment in place, then have police cruisers on patrol in the area stop likely suspects and escort them to the inspection location for testing using HTA 82 as the authorizing statute. Do it near popular motorcycle hangouts or riding roads, and there will be enough "business" to make it worthwhile and provide some degree of deterrent factor.
|
|
|
|
|