Turn down the volume on your sportbike exhaust - Brampton - Stop ruing a good thing

[redridernl]

Forum Sponsor

So if a bike is your main mode of transportation you can piss off because you have less rights than the rest of us?

If there is a higher crime rate associated with a certain race is it okay to ban them too?

 

[S500K]

410 South, right around The Hershey Center / Iceland skate park on the right. Bikes are always opening up the throttle (just the other day, blue and white GSX-R was hitting at least 180 while I was at the skate park) Crazy loud (the Jardine GP-1 exhausts are the loudest I think with the high pitch sound) but this was in the afternoon and I was outside, not too sure how it sounded a few km away.

I live about 1.5 km from there and in the early morning hours, 12am-2am, Fridays and Saturdays, always here the sport bikes ripping it through that area of highway.

When I was younger and wanting a bike, throughout the summer I had my window open just laying down and listening to the bikes. I don't really care about the loudness coming from the highways echoing.

WHAT I HATE IS THIS *** OLDER RIDER (in his mid 40's) been riding the last 8 years I have been here, same bike, COMES HOME LATE AT NIGHT, 1AM OR SO ON A NIGHTLY BASIS, I GUESS FROM WORK, AND HAS HIS THROTTLE WIDE OPEN. Its a older 250, 1998 or so, with Muzzy exhausts on it and that bike is just tooo loud.

My street is about 120m. Mid point, about 70m he turns left into the town houses where he lives. Why dose he have to have his throttle wide open in first and rev it up so much. The streets around are so quite, and then this prick comes home. Shift into 2nd and keep it down! It's common courtesy, right? - If you come home late at night, do you try to keep it down? Let me know, down below.

 

[OpenGambit]

Neither does a loud truck.


Someone in a car shouldn't be able to do it eithe, but there's way more cars on the road than motorcycles or trucks.

Cars are considered to be the standard mode of transport for residents on any given street. Banning them from a given street isn't going to happen anytime soon. Also, if you want to look at numbers, out of a hundred cars vs a hundred bikes, how many of each are out there with exhausts modified to be as ridiculously-loud as found on many bikes, sport bike or cruiser? Even when a car does have a modified exhaust, rarely is it ever as loud as a straight-piped or cut-down-can bike.

They won't ban motorcycles. The most they will do is enforce a DB law. The idea of banning all motorcycles based on some loud ones would be a ridiculous infringment on mobility rights.

 

[Griffin]

410 South, right around The Hershey Center / Iceland skate park on the right. Bikes are always opening up the throttle (just the other day, blue and white GSX-R was hitting at least 180 while I was at the skate park) Crazy loud (the Jardine GP-1 exhausts are the loudest I think with the high pitch sound) but this was in the afternoon and I was outside, not too sure how it sounded a few km away.

I live about 1.5 km from there and in the early morning hours, 12am-2am, Fridays and Saturdays, always here the sport bikes ripping it through that area of highway.

When I was younger and wanting a bike, throughout the summer I had my window open just laying down and listening to the bikes. I don't really care about the loudness coming from the highways echoing.

WHAT I HATE IS THIS A** OLDER RIDER (in his mid 40's) been riding the last 8 years I have been here, same bike, COMES HOME LATE AT NIGHT, 1AM OR SO ON A NIGHTLY BASIS, I GUESS FROM WORK, AND HAS HIS THROTTLE WIDE OPEN. Its a older 250, 1998 or so, with Muzzy exhausts on it and that bike is just tooo loud.

My street is about 120m. Mid point, about 70m he turns left into the town houses where he lives. Why dose he have to have his throttle wide open in first and rev it up so much. The streets around are so quite, and then this prick comes home. Shift into 2nd and keep it down! It's common courtesy, right? - If you come home late at night, do you try to keep it down? Let me know, down below.

I used to have a '79 Honda CBX with 6-into-6 straight pipes. It was offensively loud (I mean that I could use it to make car drivers slide down into their seats, sobbing from the aural assault on their ears as I passed them (it did nothing to get the attention of those in front of me, they didn't know I was there until I was passing them).

Anyways, I lived on a quiet residential street. Riding on ANY residential street I short-shifted and kept the rpm down to just over idle and I would coast into my garage. The noise was only about as bad as a stock H-D when ridden like that.

But I don't ride a bike so that everyone within 2 kms will look at me and say "oooh!" which seems to be the motivation for most people on two wheels.

 

[turbodish]

So if a bike is your main mode of transportation you can piss off because you have less rights than the rest of us?

Why not? We don't seen to have a problem telling heavy trucks to piss off. Why should you have more rights than them?

If there is a higher crime rate associated with a certain race is it okay to ban them too?

Mode of transport is not a protected right under our Charter.

In any case, the answer seems pretty simple. Riders need to exercise restraint when it comes to both modifying their bikes to make more noise, and to using their bikes in a way that creates excessive noise. Like everything else in life, if people can't exercise restraint on their own to avoid inflicting unreasonable impact on others, the inevitable response will be more laws to deal with that impact.

 

[Griffin]

Why not? We don't seen to have a problem telling heavy trucks to piss off. Why should you have more rights than them?


Mode of transport is not a protected right under our Charter.

In any case, the answer seems pretty simple. Riders need to exercise restraint when it comes to both modifying their bikes to make more noise, and to using their bikes in a way that creates excessive noise. Like everything else in life, if people can't exercise restraint on their own to avoid inflicting unreasonable impact on others, the inevitable response will be more laws to deal with that impact.

Unfortunately, I agree with Turbo on this one.

 

[Jenerator]

My house backs onto Williams Pkwy and every day of the week between 2am-5am I'm woken up by several ******** winding their bikes up (no matter sport or cruiser) between each stoplight. These people are giving respectful riders a bad name and there's no reason for this kind of behaviour, other than to prove to other people how much of a dick they are.

 

[OpenGambit]

Why not? We don't seen to have a problem telling heavy trucks to piss off. Why should you have more rights than them?


Mode of transport is not a protected right under our Charter.

In any case, the answer seems pretty simple. Riders need to exercise restraint when it comes to both modifying their bikes to make more noise, and to using their bikes in a way that creates excessive noise. Like everything else in life, if people can't exercise restraint on their own to avoid inflicting unreasonable impact on others, the inevitable response will be more laws to deal with that impact.

Trucks are not really analogous because there is a difference between considerations for commerical use vs personal use. One can easily look at the free speech/advertising cases under to Charter to see that Canadian law does not protect commerical activity in the same way.

If the problem is sound, you are going to have rational connection issues banning bikes. What you are suggesting is more like banning women from a street at certain hours because of a prostitute problem (i realize this would be more extreme but the charter issues are similar)

From my experience of seeing DB testing in BC. Its based on potential sound, not exactly how you ride/drive ( but they generally won't conduct the test until they hear you making a lot of noise)

 

[redridernl]

Why not? We don't seen to have a problem telling heavy trucks to piss off. Why should you have more rights than them?

Heavy trucks can damage the road surface and some two lane roads are too narrow for large trucks or they may have tight turns that a large vehicle couldn't get through safely. I see this as more of a common sense thing. It's just not practical for a transport truck to take certain routes. None of these things can be applied to motorcycles.

Some people with bikes, cars, the sound of their voice or whatever can be incredibly annoying and should be dealt with on an individual basis.

 

[turbodish]

They won't ban motorcycles. The most they will do is enforce a DB law. The idea of banning all motorcycles based on some loud ones would be a ridiculous infringment on mobility rights.

Trucks are also a means of mobility. Why would a no motorcycles sign be any greater an infringement on "mobility rights" than a mo trucks signs?

Also, mobility rights are a federal Charter of Rights thing and applicable to Quebec (where the OP mentioned "No Motorcycles" signs) as well. Still the signs appear and they are perfectly legal.

Mobility rights in the Charter have nothing to do with mode of transport. Mobility rights merely mean that you are free to live/work/travel where you wish. You still have to abide by local/provicial/federal regulations and laws in doing so.

What they will do depends on what turns out to be most effective and workable.

• In some places in Quebec, local authorities have chosen "No Motorcycles" restrictions on certain streets and roads. Riders moan and whine about it and refuse to understand how they as a collective group are in good part responsible for that state of affairs.
• Here in Ontario and out west in Edmonton, local authorities have decided to pass local bylaws restricting DB levels, and imposing roadside testing and fines to back up those bylaws. And predictably, riders moan and whine about it and refuse to understand how they as a collective group are in good part responsible for that state of affairs.

Hopefully the bylaw approach used by Caledon will work effectively enough to reduce the noise problems posed by motorcycles and hopefully the loud-pipes contingent will finally sit up and take notice of where things are going. Otherwise, the next thing could well be Quebec-style "No Motorcycles" signs on some of the popular riding roads with high residential concentrations.

 

[Flywheel]

Appealing to individuals who can't understand that the general public doesn't want to hear unmuffled gasoline engines at 2 AM is the definition of a lost cause.

The general response of the recent re-routing of an annual charity ride in Edmonton due to noise complaints? Good riddance, you selfish babies!

 

[turbodish]

Trucks are not really analogous because there is a difference between considerations for commerical use vs personal use. One can easily look at the free speech/advertising cases under to Charter to see that Canadian law does not protect commerical activity in the same way.

Let's say I'm an O/O who owns and drives a truck for a living. When I'm done for the day, my truck is no longer in "commercial-use" mode, but is in fact my non-commercial-use personal daily-driver vehicle to and from my home. There are a lot of truck O/O's who fall into that category.

If the problem is sound, you are going to have rational connection issues banning bikes. What you are suggesting is more like banning women from a street at certain hours because of a prostitute problem (i realize this would be more extreme but the charter issues are similar)

Women have constitutional rights, including mobility rights. You can't refuse them their Charter rights on the basis of gender as that would infringe on another Charter right, the right to be free of discrimination on prohibited grounds (gender).

Motorcycles have no such rights. Even riders and drivers have no "right" to be able to ride or drive at all, let alone anywhere they might wish.

From my experience of seeing DB testing in BC. Its based on potential sound, not exactly how you ride/drive ( but they generally won't conduct the test until they hear you making a lot of noise)

The whole idea of excessive noise charges is enforce noise laws on the exceptions who make too much noise. When the "exceptions" become numerous enough to be almost be the norm, enforcement efforts can be overwhelmed and become ineffective in dealing with the problem. When that happens, look for much more restrictive laws and even bannings.

 

[turbodish]

Heavy trucks can damage the road surface and some two lane roads are too narrow for large trucks or they may have tight turns that a large vehicle couldn't get through safely. I see this as more of a common sense thing. It's just not practical for a transport truck to take certain routes. None of these things can be applied to motorcycles.

I can think of more than a few designated haul routes that are specifically constructed to enable and withstand heavy truck traffic to and from gravel and sand pits. They too have time restrictions on when they may be used by heavy truck traffic (only from 7am to 7pm I believe) so as to give residents along those routes some evening respite from the noise that comes from the trucks.

Some people with bikes, cars, the sound of their voice or whatever can be incredibly annoying and should be dealt with on an individual basis.

When "some" among an identifiable group of vehicles becomes "many", the door opens for wide-sweeping bans against the vehicle class as a whole.

 

[slowbird]

I can't stand all these idiots on Sportbikes who just ride around in a low gear and the revs wayy wayy up there. It's ridiculous.

I was with some friends the otherday and a guy came up to talk to me about my bike and he said:
"I didn't even hear you pull in."
Me: "That's because i keep the revs low."
Him: "Why? Riding around with the revs up is Fun."

:confused1:

 

[Baggsy]

I don't think that we should take away peoples right to not have to hear loud exhausts.
There is absolutely no need for them.
So, yes towns should be able to ban motorcycles if too many loud ones come through.
The alternative would be increased enforcement, which would cost the town money.
Especially, since those with loud exhausts (on any vehicle) see it as a right to have them, and claim that they don't disturb others, it's someone else.

I believe that people need to think more about how their choices affect others, and start being more courteous.
We could be the start of that movement.

 

[turbodish]

Him: "Why? Riding around with the revs up is Fun."

:confused1:

That's moronic pinhead logic at its finest.

 

[redridernl]

I can think of more than a few designated haul routes that are specifically constructed to enable and withstand heavy truck traffic to and from gravel and sand pits. They too have time restrictions on when they may be used by heavy truck traffic (only from 7am to 7pm I believe) so as to give residents along those routes some evening respite from the noise that comes from the trucks.

Those would be dump trucks. All dump trucks are loud. Not all bikes are loud, in fact, I would think that most aren't.

 

[OpenGambit]

Trucks are also a means of mobility. Why would a no motorcycles sign be any greater an infringement on "mobility rights" than a mo trucks signs?

Also, mobility rights are a federal Charter of Rights thing and applicable to Quebec (where the OP mentioned "No Motorcycles" signs) as well. Still the signs appear and they are perfectly legal.

Mobility rights in the Charter have nothing to do with mode of transport. Mobility rights merely mean that you are free to live/work/travel where you wish. You still have to abide by local/provicial/federal regulations and laws in doing so.

What they will do depends on what turns out to be most effective and workable.

• In some places in Quebec, local authorities have chosen "No Motorcycles" restrictions on certain streets and roads. Riders moan and whine about it and refuse to understand how they as a collective group are in good part responsible for that state of affairs.
• Here in Ontario and out west in Edmonton, local authorities have decided to pass local bylaws restricting DB levels, and imposing roadside testing and fines to back up those bylaws. And predictably, riders moan and whine about it and refuse to understand how they as a collective group are in good part responsible for that state of affairs.

Hopefully the bylaw approach used by Caledon will work effectively enough to reduce the noise problems posed by motorcycles and hopefully the loud-pipes contingent will finally sit up and take notice of where things are going. Otherwise, the next thing could well be Quebec-style "No Motorcycles" signs on some of the popular riding roads with high residential concentrations.

Well... lets not jump ahead to perfectly legal. We have a lot of laws that are still the law... but doesn't mean they would survive a Charter challenge. I think the prostitution laws are a good example. Many laws are simply not worth challenging....

As to mobility rights having nothing to do with mode of transport, I wouldn't agree with that. If you did have a road that said no motorcycles and you have a guy that rides a quiet bike that lives at the end of that road. You are going to have a Charter problem when you go to court and say that its about sound. Thats really not that far fetched...

However, I am pretty sure that we aren't going to have a legal conclusion to this because I doubt that they would make a blanket "No motorcycle" law just to satisfy our curiousity. I really just see a DB law, which makes way more sense, targets the problem and includes other vehicles that also make a lot of noise ( after all, that really is the problem )

 

[Griffin]

Appealing to individuals who can't understand that the general public doesn't want to hear unmuffled gasoline engines at 2 AM is the definition of a lost cause.

The general response of the recent re-routing of an annual charity ride in Edmonton due to noise complaints? Good riddance, you selfish babies!

Another very good point.

 

[redridernl]

As to mobility rights having nothing to do with mode of transport, I wouldn't agree with that. If you did have a road that said no motorcycles and you have a guy that rides a quiet bike that lives at the end of that road. You are going to have a Charter problem when you go to court and say that its about sound. Thats really not that far fetched...

This is my point exactly.

However, I am pretty sure that we aren't going to have a legal conclusion to this because I doubt that they would make a blanket "No motorcycle" law just to satisfy our curiousity. I really just see a DB law, which makes way more sense, targets the problem and includes other vehicles that also make a lot of noise ( after all, that really is the problem )

There already are bylaws that ban motorycles.

Forum Sponsor