"Accoustic cameras" to fine noisy vehicles

[Benzmanc]

Good, there's a tosser in a X5 around here that sounds like it has no exhaust at all, it all but rattles the windows. I saw it once but didn't get the number, when i do it will be reported, feckin moron.

 

[190]

Loud exhausts are such a juvenile thing. Great fun for a short blast then increasingly wearing after the 1st hour on the motorway. If these acoustic cameras are effective, sporty cars will just play the exhaust sound through the internal speakers. Some already do.

 

[E53AMG]

Well most cars will not be in danger of being caught by the acoustic cameras,the legal limit is 82 decibels ,and so I would expect the limit to be set at that,it will of course catch lots of motorbikes.

Why do you expect that? Just because it is logical? Do you feel our current bunch of politicians are logical or of sound mind?

We already have annual MOT testing to check this, anyone who is prepared to ignore/circumvent current legislation will still do so with these cameras. How many uninsured/banned drivers still drive as all the current law does is fine them and give a longer ban.

This is purely a political PR exercise with the added benefit of taxing the legitimate motorist. If they set the limit at say 70db then think of the extra tax they can take....

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

 

[DSM10000]

Why do you expect that? Just because it is logical? Do you feel our current bunch of politicians are logical or of sound mind?

We already have annual MOT testing to check this, anyone who is prepared to ignore/circumvent current legislation will still do so with these cameras. How many uninsured/banned drivers still drive as all the current law does is fine them and give a longer ban.

This is purely a political PR exercise with the added benefit of taxing the legitimate motorist. If they set the limit at say 70db then think of the extra tax they can take....

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

Where is the supposed taxation element in any of this?

 

[baxlin]

Behind a nearly new big Harley yesterday, must have had straight through twin pipes. The noise drowned out everything and I can't even say it sounded good. Just too much.

I have a pair of OEM Harley silencers on the JZR, bought 'as new' for £20 via eBay, listing said they had been removed in order to fit a pair of "Screamin' Eagle" slash cut cans. Wonder how much he’d pay to buy them back........

 

[219]

Why do you expect that? Just because it is logical? Do you feel our current bunch of politicians are logical or of sound mind?

We already have annual MOT testing to check this, anyone who is prepared to ignore/circumvent current legislation will still do so with these cameras. How many uninsured/banned drivers still drive as all the current law does is fine them and give a longer ban.

This is purely a political PR exercise with the added benefit of taxing the legitimate motorist. If they set the limit at say 70db then think of the extra tax they can take....

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

I know a thing or two about sound , being something I have worked with for many years .

Another difficulty is that the expression ‘70dB’ is strictly referring to a ratio ; it isn’t an absolute measurement as sound pressure is measured on a logarithmic scale and an increase of 3dB describes a doubling of sound output , besides which sound disperses according to the inverse square law .

While a reading of a notional ‘70dB’ could be taken at a 1m distance from a tailpipe ( with which weighting ? ) it will give one reading directly on axis , another at a 45 degree offset , and yet another at 90 degrees.

Then there is the matter of ambient noise ( how would you differentiate between the noise coming from a vehicle if the reading is taken next to an airfield or other source of variable loud noise ? ) , and reflected noise ( the same source measured in open space [ anechoic conditions ] will give a very different reading if measured in a tunnel or between buildings or other reflective surfaces , since the reflected sound will add to the direct sound ) ; what if two or more legal , but on the limit , vehicles pass the microphone at the same time ? The combined readings could be over the limit but it would be impossible to separate them .

The whole idea is ill conceived, and a clever defence would make a mockery of the first attempted prosecution.

 

[DSM10000]

I know a thing or two about sound , being something I have worked with for many years .

Another difficulty is that the expression ‘70dB’ is strictly referring to a ratio ; it isn’t an absolute measurement as sound pressure is measured on a logarithmic scale and an increase of 3dB describes a doubling of sound output , besides which sound disperses according to the inverse square law .

While a reading of a notional ‘70dB’ could be taken at a 1m distance from a tailpipe ( with which weighting ? ) it will give one reading directly on axis , another at a 45 degree offset , and yet another at 90 degrees.

Then there is the matter of ambient noise ( how would you differentiate between the noise coming from a vehicle if the reading is taken next to an airfield or other source of variable loud noise ? ) , and reflected noise ( the same source measured in open space [ anechoic conditions ] will give a very different reading if measured in a tunnel or between buildings or other reflective surfaces , since the reflected sound will add to the direct sound ) ; what if two or more legal , but on the limit , vehicles pass the microphone at the same time ? The combined readings could be over the limit but it would be impossible to separate them .

The whole idea is ill conceived, and a clever defence would make a mockery of the first attempted prosecution.

Excellent technical appraisal of the issues involved but you could have saved a lot of typing by saying "It's a Grayling"

 

[zipdip]

The only time I have ever seen the noise from the exhaust checked was when we took a Tiger kit car to get the car tested for the IVA I have never seen any MOT mechanic test the noise level,posters are getting themselves into a lather over nothing,the decibels cannot be set lower that what the law allows,and that is what manufacturers use when the make cars,of course if exhaust boxes have been removed then I suppose you might get caught,but given we still have thousands of cars running around without MOT Tax or insurance when the cameras were suppose to end all that I suspect the noise will continue,for those drivers who want to imagine they are just one step and a little bit of luck from being in F1.

 

[tron]

There are already laws to prevent the use of noisy vehicles but there isn't the acoustic camera (a Graylingism- Sound recorder,) technology that can determine whether it was my souped up car or Doctor Wally Txat's lawn mower in his £2m haise in Hampshire that made the noise. There is no greater enemy of freedom than somebody who thinks that they are making the world a better place.

 

[ash59fifty-uk]

Good thing the new ‘63 models will be hybrids then

 

[E53AMG]

Good thing the new ‘63 models will be hybrids then [emoji317]

Here commeth the milkfloats [emoji6]

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

 

[E53AMG]

Where is the supposed taxation element in any of this?

Hidden in the form of fines like those from speed cameras deliberately located at the bottom of hills...

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

 

[DSM10000]

Hidden in the form of fines like those from speed cameras deliberately located at the bottom of hills...

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

So no taxation then?

Assuming theses "cameras" ever work and are introduced all you have to do to avoid a fine is to use an exhaust system emitting no more than the permitted sound level?

 

[E53AMG]

So no taxation then?

Assuming theses "cameras" ever work and are introduced all you have to do to avoid a fine is to use an exhaust system emitting no more than the permitted sound level?

Yes a nice milk float aka Tesla.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

 

[DSM10000]

Yes a nice milk float aka Tesla.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

Just what point are you trying to make?

Are you suggesting that people should be allowed to modify their vehicles as they see fit with no legislative overview and controls? Looking at some people in society and on our roads that would end well, not!

Pollution of all types including noise is something we need to take a responsible attitude toward, stock AMG cars (proper ones not a 2 litre repmobile diesel with AMG badges) make a lovely, throaty (and legal) sound, why does louder equate to better?

 

[Deleted member 6183]

Just what point are you trying to make?

Are you suggesting that people should be allowed to modify their vehicles as they see fit with no legislative overview and controls? Looking at some people in society and on our roads that would end well, not!

Pollution of all types including noise is something we need to take a responsible attitude toward, stock AMG cars (proper ones not a 2 litre repmobile diesel with AMG badges) make a lovely, throaty (and legal) sound, why does louder equate to better?

Is he going on your ignore list?

 

[E53AMG]

Is he going on your ignore list?

[emoji6][emoji106]

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

 

[Dippo]

Will they take the road surface into account? My car makes a lot more noise on the south west section of the M25 (A3 to M3) than it does anywhere else.

 

[TeddyRuxpin]

I actually think it’s a safety thing for motorbikes!

But yes, I’ve never really gotten the idea of blokes paying thousands to fit noisy exhausts on their cars. I like performance but not really the ASBO aspect!

 

[TeddyRuxpin]

Will they take the road surface into account? My car makes a lot more noise on the south west section of the M25 (A3 to M3) than it does anywhere else.

I can’t state how much I hate driving along there. I just keep thinking ‘this can’t be good for the car’