Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 137

Thread: M.O.D.E.L. Edmonton

  1. #1
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    51

    Default M.O.D.E.L. Edmonton

    On June 9, 2010, the City of Edmonton enacted a discriminatory noise bylaw targeting one demographic of citizens, motorcycle owners. Despite the fact that statistics prove excessive noise from motorcycles specifically is actually the minority of complaints regarding excessive vehicle noise, they pushed forward. There is a solution that can expand the bylaw to include all forms of vehicles, but most of City Council continues to ignore. If noise was truly the issue, one would think Mandel and company would be receptive to a better solution. This solution also does not require up to 40 traffic officers pulled from dealing with real traffic issues to chase motorcycles. This solution is also a better use of tax dollars. Finally, this solution was invented by one of Edmonton's own engineers. Calgary has already done all the due dillegnece of testing the Noise Snare, meaning it could simply be implemented and enforced by bylaw like bylaws are meant to be enforced.

    It needs to be noted the issue with the bylaw has nothing to do with noise. We all agree there is an issues with excessive noise from all types of vehicles whether it be exhaust, stereos, etc on trucks, cars, motorcycles, etc. With that said, allowing City Hall to disregard the Charter, specifically equality, legal and mobility rights, is a slippery slope we should not allow them to go down.

    For more information, please visit www.modeledmonton.com.

  2. #2
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,175

    Default

    It is interesting how you portray yourself as a victim. How do think the people feel who have to put up with the noise? The issue is noise not motorcycles or the people who ride them.
    “Canada is the only country in the world that knows how to live without an identity,”-Marshall McLuhan

  3. #3
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,261

    Default

    I agree the noise bylaw should be applying to a wider range of noise emitters.

  4. #4
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    51

    Default

    Glenco, I understand this is a hard concept to grasp. First, I never said noise wasn't an issue. I was very clear that our issue is not with the noise, but how this law discriminates.

    Second, are you aware:

    1. that the Provincial Traffic Safety Act was being efficiently used in prior years per the statistics provided by the EPS? The new bylaw netted a whole 8 more tickets but profiled a bunch of innocent riders who were detained simply because they ride a motorcycle. There was no other reason to pull them in.

    2. that there are two sets of fine levels for the exact same infraction holding one group to a more severe penalty than the rest? The fines should be equal.

    3. that the majority of the tickets that have been put through the court system have been thrown out, dismissed or withdrawn? Effective use of tax dollars when you add it all together.

    4. that the amount of complaints filed regarding excessive noise center more on passenger vehicles (3 times more) than motorcycles per the statistics provided by the EPS?

    5. that the Charter of Rights clearly states that we all have the right to be held to and protected by the same laws EQUALLY without discrimination?

    There are two solutions that make this law fair; one is to revert back to the existing provincial law that will also alleviate the issue of ultra vires in the two laws, or expand under the City of Edmonton bylaw using the Noise Snare which in essence deals with noise and not the source of it.

    If noise was truly the issue, the law would be fairly applied to all. Anything less is discrimination.

  5. #5

    Default

    ^Is this guy for real?

  6. #6
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Ozerna, North Edmonton
    Posts
    8,956

    Default

    I loathe loud motorcycles and the really loud ones are purposely modified and should be fined. This goes for any vehicle but it seems as motorcycles are by far the worst offenders, not looking forward to hearing them now that spring is coming.

    Maybe Diotte can raise this issue up in council for you?

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trmpt View Post
    Glenco, I understand this is a hard concept to grasp. First, I never said noise wasn't an issue. I was very clear that our issue is not with the noise, but how this law discriminates.

    But NOISE IS THE ISSUE!

    This issue has brought the law upon themselves. Yes, there are loud cars but that may be 1% or 2% of the cars on the road. Trucks can be loud too but again it is a small percentage of the number. Vehicle stereos can reverberate through communities.

    Most motorcycles are designed to be loud or are modified to be loud, either low rumbling or high revving engines. Some riders take perverse pleasure in waking up the neighbourhood. Some riders actually deliberately terrorize neighbourhoods with their bikes and noise. Name me one auto manufacturer who tried to trademark the sound of their engine? Harley-Davidson actually filed an application for a sound trademark.

    Motorcyclists make themselves an easy and identifiable target of the collective wrath of quiet neighbourhoods and the growing stress of big city coexistence.

    Roosevelt stated "speak softly, and carry a big stick."

    Many motorcyclists do the exact opposite.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  8. #8
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    51

    Default

    Edmonton PRT, we don't disagree that excessively loud bikes should be punished, however you failed to see the issue we see. You claim that only a small percentage of vehicles are excessively loud. How does that explain passenger vehicles netting 3 times as many noise complaints than motorcycles? Stats are stats and ours came directly from the EPS.

    As for Harley trademarking the sound of their exhaust, that is a mute point as any stock Harley that comes with that trademarked sound, passes the bylaw.

    If you have seen what we have seen for the past couple years, you might understand better. It is a law that holds one group of people to a different standard. That is an infringement on equality rights.

    So although noise is an issue, there are bigger issues with this law once you see it for what it is. Unfortunately most people won't understand until something similar happens to them. We are trying to set a precedence that discrimination is not acceptable, especially when there is a viable solution that addresses the discrimination factor.

    Take the recent reversal of dog breed bans. The city stated it was unfair to discriminate against an entire breed because the breed MAY have a bad reputation. This motorcycle only noise bylaw is essentially the same thing. The clear majority of the 13,000 registered motorcyclists are law abiding citizens. It truly is a small percentage that deserve to be fined and not one person disagrees with that. Unfortunately that isn't what is happening. Thousands of innocent people are determined to be guilty over and over before being proven innocent over and over. These people are detained between 30 - 60 minutes every time.

    So please refrain from lumping all riders into one category because every group has their small percentage of bad apples.

  9. #9
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    4,834

    Default

    Where were all the bikers when this issue was brought forward to the group that then reported to council? Nowhere. Not a single person showed up to defend the loud bikes.

    Also, you're aware that the Motorcycle and Moped Industry Council was involved in drafting this bylaw, correct? They don't represent bikers?

    Instead of whining about being unfairly targeted, you should be going after the bad apples that spoil it for you all. Go after the guy that puts on aftermarket "noise-makers" that wake up a neighbourhood at 2 am, or the guy that sets off car alarms when he opens it up after a red light. Just yesterday I had to calm my crying son after a bike ripped past us in a small parking lot, making a ton of noise. If 17% of the bikes fail (100% of which were modified), that means there are 2,210 noise-makers driving around the streets of Edmonton (the 17% came from a report used for drafting the bylaw).

    Look at your own stats. You say there are 3 times more complaints about noise coming from passenger vehicles compared to motorcycles, right? Let's use the 2009 data provided by Stats Canada to take a closer look (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tabl...ade14c-eng.htm).

    There were 2,605,008 vehicles under 500 kilograms (passenger vehicles), and 102,778 motorcycles AND mopeds (which means they likely include scooters in there as well). That's a 25:1 ratio of passenger vehicles to bikes, even including the mopeds and scooters to raise the number of classified motorcycles, yet the complaints are 3:1. Now, can you honestly tell us that bikers are being unfairly targeted based on those numbers?
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gord Lacey View Post
    Look at your own stats. You say there are 3 times more complaints about noise coming from passenger vehicles compared to motorcycles, right? Let's use the 2009 data provided by Stats Canada to take a closer look (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tabl...ade14c-eng.htm).

    There were 2,605,008 vehicles under 500 kilograms (passenger vehicles), and 102,778 motorcycles AND mopeds (which means they likely include scooters in there as well). That's a 25:1 ratio of passenger vehicles to bikes, even including the mopeds and scooters to raise the number of classified motorcycles, yet the complaints are 3:1. Now, can you honestly tell us that bikers are being unfairly targeted based on those numbers?
    Thanks Gord for the stats. You saved me time looking for them. From the stats, motorcycles are responsible for 8 times more noise complaints/registered vehicles. Moreover, since those motorcycles are on the road for usually 6 months and are driven less kilometers each year than the average vehicle, the complaints/vehicle/kilometer-driven is many times higher. As Glenco stated, M.O.D.E.L. members are portraying themselves as victims when certain members are the problem. Maybe M.O.D.E.L. members should police their members and test their own bikes. If member bikes would all conform, they could design a sticker to apply to their bikes or wallet card that they could show police.
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 24-04-2013 at 06:12 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  11. #11
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    51

    Default

    Gord - this law was put through somewhat under the table. There was no knowledge of it until the day it went to a vote. We had people there, they were not given their due process by being allowed to speak.

    The MMIC is responsible for funding the J2825 and pushing this initiative across the country. They DO NOT represent the motorcyclists. There is a full page on our website that is dedicated to the MMIC and the MCC, who they represent and what they do.

    Part of our mandate is to educate within the motorcycle community about their responsibilities to society at large. We do attempt to police our own in this as well because they are simply ruining riding for the vast majority. Again, this is information on our website under the About Us tab.

    My stats are based on Edmonton only, which is who enacted this law. I am not concerned with Canada wide stats as it is not a federal law, it is a municipal law so in the interest of fair information, we have kept the statistics to within city borders provided by the EPS. The stats within the city itself prove that City Council moved hastily targeting only the group with the lesser amount of complaints. Again, that information is on our website under stats.

    Edmonton PRT - We are not portraying ourselves as victims. We are asking to have equal laws applied to all violators. What is so hard to understand about that concept? There are plenty of vehicles that are just as loud, some louder. For example, when Calgary was running their free testing using the Noise Snare, the officer in charge down there listed motorcycles 4th on the list of offending vehicles and the majority that showed up to get tested were motorcycles. The winner of the most offending vehicle was a "rig rocket". Do you not think that all noise violators should be held to the same standard?

    We presented the idea of identifiers that state that someone has passed the test and it was shot down. The idea of throwing how long bikes are on the roads as compared to other vehicles then comparing that to complaints is an interesting approach. We would then have to also add in the factors such as windows being closed, people not being outdoors and therefore not necessarily hearing everyone they would on a day where windows are open and people are trying to enjoy being outside. It's all relative.

    On our website we have a video taken from last summer demonstrating that EPS are still unable to perform this test 3 years in. The officer in the video was partnered with the EPS "expert" from day one so he should know what he is doing. The more interesting part of this video is the person who is shooting it is the man's wife. Her bike is in fact louder than his but they only wanted to test his. Would you not think they would at the very least test both?

    There is far more to this issue than those who are not educated in the matter understand. We have presented all the background information, statistics involved, researched why the test doesn't work, presented information on various factions involved, etc. Bottom line is, we all want the same thing, a noise bylaw. We just are asking for one that is fairly applied to all per the Charter of Rights & Freedoms. Again, there is a solution to do so and we would like to see it implemented.

    Thank you all for your feedback. We hope that you can open your mind just a little to see where we are coming from as we certainly do see where you all are coming from. We do understand there is an issue. Mostly, I would like to thank you for bring attention to this thread as it is getting views, our website hits are up and therefore awareness is being spread.

  12. #12

    Default

    We? Our? So multiple people are using the account? I'm pretty sure that's a violation of the tos of this stie.
    Last edited by Magnoblade; 24-04-2013 at 09:16 AM.

  13. #13
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,525

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by darkmagnoblade View Post
    We? Our? So multiple people are using the account? I'm pretty sure that's a violation of the tos of this stie.
    It's incredibly obvious when he uses the pronoun "we", he is referring to the group that is listed in the title of the thread. Grow up.

  14. #14
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    4,834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trmpt View Post
    Gord - this law was put through somewhat under the table. There was no knowledge of it until the day it went to a vote. We had people there, they were not given their due process by being allowed to speak.
    Huh, it's weird that tons of others knew when and where to show up to speak. As for not being given their due process, every meeting I've been to allows people to sign up and speak at the beginning of the session, or by calling the City Clerk office.

    Quote Originally Posted by trmpt View Post
    My stats are based on Edmonton only, which is who enacted this law. I am not concerned with Canada wide stats as it is not a federal law, it is a municipal law so in the interest of fair information, we have kept the statistics to within city borders provided by the EPS. The stats within the city itself prove that City Council moved hastily targeting only the group with the lesser amount of complaints. Again, that information is on our website under stats.
    While you say "lesser amount of complaints," I provided you with data that shows the number of passenger vehicles to motorcycles at a 25:1 ratio, yet the complaints are only 3:1. That means that there's a far number of complaints per motorcycle compared to complaints against passenger vehicles. Obviously there will be more complaints filed against a type of vehicle that far outnumbers another. You're not properly reporting or examining the stats. The stats I gave don't apply to all of Canada, they're simply collected by Stats Canada. I only referred to the Alberta stats to calculate the ratios.

    And please don't think I hate motorcycles, because I don't (my mom and her husband had two and enjoyed them), I just hate people that feel it's their right to annoy others. Unfortunately for motorcycle owners, a far greater number of owners modify their bikes to be loud, obnoxious machines.

    Quote Originally Posted by darkmagnoblade
    We? Our? So multiple people are using account? I'm pretty sure that's a violation of the tos of this stie.
    I don't think multiple people are using the account, they're just saying "we" because the poster is representing a group, as opposed to an individual.
    Last edited by Gord Lacey; 24-04-2013 at 09:33 AM.
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

  15. #15
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    51

    Default

    Gord - I assure you, we had people there and they were told they couldn't speak. Neither here nor there as that is in the past and nothing can be done about it now.

    Back to the stats, I am focused on simply Edmonton and what was given to us by the EPS. I of course will agree, there are more vehicles on the street but those who are noise offenders should be given the same fine as motorcycles. There are more and more trucks and cars that are modifying their vehicles and are as equally annoying.

    I don't think you hate motorcycles, I think that you are engaged in a healthy discussion about an issue that affects a community in our city. Nothing wrong with that as you are entitled to your opinion. I completely agree with you about the minority who modify just to be loud and obnoxious. I find them to be an embarrassment to the community and trust me, I state that to them very clearly each time. I am pretty up front as a 5'6" female going at these guys and for the record, I refuse to help them beat their noise violation ticket in court when I feel they deserve it. We know in our community who the gross offenders are.

    With that said, there are a ton of motorcycles that are modified yet ridden respectfully in the city. I for one have after market exhaust on my bike but I still pass the test. So not all mods are bad mods. It also depends on how hard and fast you twist the throttle (your mom and her husband could attest to that). I am not a fan of those who sit at red lights on busy streets cranking their throttle to get attention. Again, it is an embarrassment to our community.

    All we are asking for is that noise is treated as noise and the law be equally applied to all regardless of type of transportation and including the heavy base stereos, etc. When there is a solution to make that happen, what is the harm in investigating it further?

  16. #16
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    4,834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trmpt View Post
    Back to the stats, I am focused on simply Edmonton and what was given to us by the EPS. I of course will agree, there are more vehicles on the street but those who are noise offenders should be given the same fine as motorcycles. There are more and more trucks and cars that are modifying their vehicles and are as equally annoying.
    Where did the 13,000 motorcycle stat come from? How many passenger vehicles are in Edmonton? If it's more than 39,000 (which it is), that still means that motorcycles account for more than their share of the noise complaints.

    It's likely the vast majority of people don't complain to EPS about the vehicles that make a ton of noise, because it would be nearly impossible for them to do anything unless it's an ongoing issue (such as with a neighbour). I've never complained to EPS about the noise a bike makes, but I've written Ben Henderson about it, since he represents my ward.
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

  17. #17

    Default

    To hop into this as devils advocate, I really admire people who have nothing better to do that whine ***** and complain about 2-5 second disruption of their peace & quiet by this "noise". Really now. Lets put on some big boy underpants.

    Really??? I for one welcome the summer and a loud rip of a motorcycle down whyte ave while im on the patio. A nice rumble in my stomach as it passes. I love it!!

    We are ticketing people for a brief loud noise? Thank goodness. Great use of police resources.

    I think this has more to do with people not liking motorcycles/motorcyclists than it has to do with "noise"
    FREE THE LOOPING .GIF MEMES
    youtube.com/GrimEmpire

  18. #18
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    51

    Default

    Gord - 13,000 is an approximate from last year of registered motorcycles in Edmonton. It has likely gone up but I have already agreed there are far more vehicles on the road. By your own statement though, most people likely don't phone in complaints so we will never know what the true number is of complainers. I only have what EPS has given me.

    Could you answer me a couple questions since I have been so kind to answer yours.

    Do you feel that all noise offenders should be fined regardless of mode of transportation?

    Do you feel that laws, not just this one, should be equally applied without discrimination?

  19. #19

    Default

    I think the posters here are missing the entire point that "trmpt" is putting forward. Her argument is not that loud bikes are OK. Her point is that the bylaw is discriminatory in its application. Discrimination is against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The argument is that simple. If bikes or cars or trucks are excessively loud they should be fined. The fine for a bike that is loud is $250.00. The fine for any other vehicle that is excessively loud is $115.00. That is not a fair or equal application of law. What part of that do you not comprehend?

    I would also add that the reason the statistics are so high for motorcycles as compared to other vehicles is that the EPS specifically targets motorcycles. EPS does not specifically target any other vehicles in enforcing the noise bylaw. That would explain the higher percentage of motorcycles compared to cars that are charged based on numbers.

    I believe that if the law was applied equally and fairly to all vehicles, this discussion would not be taking place

  20. #20
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    4,834

    Default

    Yes, and yes. The problem that's faced right now is that there's no current standard to measure noise of the various other vehicles. Bikes, because of how they're built, have exhaust that comes out of one place. Measuring a car, a dual exhaust truck, and a big rig need different measurements, because their "noise makers" are at different places. That's the problem as I understand it.

    Komrade, it's about the noise for me, and if there was a measurement for all other vehicles then I'd support that as well. Why should my conversation be interrupted by an inconsiderate jerk who wants all eyes to be on him (or her, though it's almost always a guy)? Why should my sleep be disturbed because someone wants to make a ton of noise? Why should I have to spend 5 minutes calming my son down because someone blasted by us making enough noise to scare him? These vehicles are modified (either through stereos, or pipes) to make a lot of noise for the enjoyment of the owners, and at the detriment of everyone else. That's what I have a problem with.

    We live in a city, and we should be considerate to our neighbours.
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

  21. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trmpt View Post
    Edmonton PRT, we don't disagree that excessively loud bikes should be punished, however you failed to see the issue we see. You claim that only a small percentage of vehicles are excessively loud. How does that explain passenger vehicles netting 3 times as many noise complaints than motorcycles? Stats are stats and ours came directly from the EPS.

    As for Harley trademarking the sound of their exhaust, that is a mute point as any stock Harley that comes with that trademarked sound, passes the bylaw.

    If you have seen what we have seen for the past couple years, you might understand better. It is a law that holds one group of people to a different standard. That is an infringement on equality rights.

    So although noise is an issue, there are bigger issues with this law once you see it for what it is. Unfortunately most people won't understand until something similar happens to them. We are trying to set a precedence that discrimination is not acceptable, especially when there is a viable solution that addresses the discrimination factor.

    Take the recent reversal of dog breed bans. The city stated it was unfair to discriminate against an entire breed because the breed MAY have a bad reputation. This motorcycle only noise bylaw is essentially the same thing. The clear majority of the 13,000 registered motorcyclists are law abiding citizens. It truly is a small percentage that deserve to be fined and not one person disagrees with that. Unfortunately that isn't what is happening. Thousands of innocent people are determined to be guilty over and over before being proven innocent over and over. These people are detained between 30 - 60 minutes every time.

    So please refrain from lumping all riders into one category because every group has their small percentage of bad apples.
    As a bike owner.. I get it...

    Loud motorcycles have become the sacrificial lamb... To be honest I encounter more loud obnoxious trucks than bikes.

    If your going to go after noise pollution... it should be done across the board.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  22. #22
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    4,834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KOxamitny View Post
    I would also add that the reason the statistics are so high for motorcycles as compared to other vehicles is that the EPS specifically targets motorcycles. EPS does not specifically target any other vehicles in enforcing the noise bylaw. That would explain the higher percentage of motorcycles compared to cars that are charged based on numbers.
    Sorry KOxamitny, we've been looking at complaints, not tickets (which EPS has no control over):

    2010 - this was the year the bylaw was enacted. A total of 28 complaints were called in with again, only 8 specific to what the complainant believed to be a motorcycle, the remaining 20 were for vehicles. 71% of the complaints were not motorcycle related.
    That means 29% of the complaints WERE motorcycle related, despite making up 3.9% of the vehicles. Do you see the issue?

    Even using the 2009 stats (245 issued by bylaw, with 107 for motorcycles), you see motorcycles accounted for 43.7% of the tickets. That's what caused this in the first place.
    Last edited by Gord Lacey; 24-04-2013 at 11:46 AM.
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

  23. #23

    Default

    Actually, the technology does exist to measure the pressure waves from vehicle exhaust. As an example, Britain tests all vehicles on a yearly basis as part of their licensing rules. They apply a standardized test, using the exact same equipment EPS is using. Noise is noise when it is coming out of a tailpipe. The other error in your statement is that many motorcycles have duel exhaust systems similar to some cars or trucks but the testing is considered accurate on them. Therefore, that argument is without merit.

    To address your final paragraph, you should not have to put up with that jerk on his bike, or Honda with the fart tube, or the Dodge pickup with the modified diesel. The argument here is not about that. What you are basically saying is that your right to peace and quiet overrides the right to be treated equally and fairly under the law. Sorry, but our laws don't work like that. Fortunately, we live in a country where we are all protected by a Charter of Rights.

    I agree that we need to be considerate in our actions, but that is something that you cannot legislate. Speaking of consideration, my name is not "komrade".

  24. #24

    Default

    So aside from the "noise" issue you seem hung up on, what part of discrimination do you not understand?

    Are you saying that discrimination is OK?

    Nobody, including myself, has stated that noise is an acceptable thing be it from bikes, cars or what have you. So what is your argument? You appear to be arguing that discrimination is OK. Is that your position? I think you should read section 15 of the the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. You cannot argue that. It is what it is. What "trmpt" is saying is that the bylaw does not follow the spirit of that section.

    As a citizen of Canada, you should be outraged that the City of Edmonton is blatantly ignoring the rights of a specific segment of society, and treating them differently under the law.

    If the public does not stand up for their rights, and they are our rights, then we will surely lose them. That is what this issue is about. To reiterate, this is not about the noise!

  25. #25

    Default

    I think we should go back to vehicle inspections of all types like we had in the 70's.

    Annually for commercial vehicles
    Every 3 or 4 years for other vehicles including motorcycles
    All vehicles when registered in the province (other than brand new)
    All used vehicle sales including private sales
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  26. #26

    Default

    I agree 100%. I would even go further and have all licensing for drivers revert back to provincial control. Too many people getting licences from shady and suspect private agencies that are open to "influence".

  27. #27
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    4,834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KOxamitny View Post
    Speaking of consideration, my name is not "komrade".
    Umm... no... it's not. Komrade is the person I was responding to in the thread.
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

  28. #28

    Default

    Sorry for the mistake and thanks for clarifying.

  29. #29
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gord Lacey View Post
    Yes, and yes. The problem that's faced right now is that there's no current standard to measure noise of the various other vehicles. Bikes, because of how they're built, have exhaust that comes out of one place. Measuring a car, a dual exhaust truck, and a big rig need different measurements, because their "noise makers" are at different places. That's the problem as I understand it.
    As I have stated several times already, there is a solution to target all forms of excessive vehicle noise. The City of Calgary has implemented it and the City of Saskatoon is now looking at it.

    It should be noted that in 2011 the City of Saskatoon voted down a motorcycle only noise bylaw because it demonstrated discrimination by targeting one group of people.

    As for answering yes to both my questions, you do in fact understand where the issue is with this law. It has nothing to do with noise. We all agree there is a noise issue but it doesn't give the right to government on any level to ignore the Charter and enact laws that demonstrate blatant discrimination.

  30. #30

    Default

    ^ Which is fair!
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  31. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Komrade View Post
    To hop into this as devils advocate, I really admire people who have nothing better to do that whine ***** and complain about 2-5 second disruption of their peace & quiet by this "noise". Really now. Lets put on some big boy underpants.

    Really??? I for one welcome the summer and a loud rip of a motorcycle down whyte ave while im on the patio. A nice rumble in my stomach as it passes. I love it!!

    We are ticketing people for a brief loud noise? Thank goodness. Great use of police resources.

    I think this has more to do with people not liking motorcycles/motorcyclists than it has to do with "noise"

    Gonna add to that, while in europe I was surrounded by Vespa's that all ran around on the roads AND sidewalks like rabid bumble bees at all hours of the day and night, its called big city living, if you want piece and quiet live in the country but then you have to deal with the smell of Cow Crap !!!

    Oh and for the record, you can and will get used to it if you just put your mind to it, I was wokring once in North Carolina with 4 fella's from New York, it was TOO QUIET and they couldn't sleep, the solution? One of them had his wife record a couple hours of street noise in his neighbourhood, gun shots, cars motorcycles loud partiers and created a loop on a CD for him to sleep too. Its all how you grew up and what is your "normal" I'm really tired of a bunch of whiners shoving bylaws up my arse, because they get their panties in a knot!!!

    ...(Ken takes Komrades Soap Box folds it up and hands it back to him for a later date)
    Excellence is a continual Journey up a staircase where there is NO top step...

  32. #32

    Default

    It seems more than a few on this thread are so obsessed with the noise of some motor bikes they are not getting the point. OP wants the noise bylaw applied to all noisy vehicles. He (and his bros) seem to be singled out in larger numbers and yet cars/trucks get more complaints to bylaw officials. Most bike engines are louder than car/truck engines anyway but the vast majority of them don't exceed the bylaw limit of noise nuisance. Sure it sounds real loud when a motor bike goes by at 3 a.m. in the morning. It would also sound loud(er) at that time if someone was constantly blowing a whistle or playing a trumpet on a high note.
    It's always interesting to hear some of you spout off about how they want Edmonton to be alive and fibrant then the minute a motor bike goes by it's sour pusses all round. Get over it, if you want to live in the city it goes with the territory. I'm surprised some of you have not tried to stop the birds from singing.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  33. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KenL2 View Post
    I'm really tired of a bunch of whiners shoving bylaws up my arse, because they get their panties in a knot!!!
    This +1

  34. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trmpt View Post
    With that said, allowing City Hall to disregard the Charter, specifically equality, legal and mobility rights, is a slippery slope we should not allow them to go down.
    With an absolute and definitive declaration, you repeatedly and emphatically state your Charter Rights have been infringed... the only basis for your declaration is your interpretation. Please desist from your unsupported claims and adjust your website accordingly - thanking you in advance.

    I'd suggest you temper your hyperbole and your unsupported claims and channel your hyper-activism towards bringing a formal Charter infringement challenge forward.

  35. #35

    Default

    Jeff, you'll be pleased to know that last night, on the south end of the high level bridge, the police were pulling over every loud bike/vehicle. There was quite a collection of bikes and a few custom rods waiting tickets at the top of the southside hill when I passed through.

  36. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trmpt View Post
    Despite the fact that statistics .
    You repeatedly claim stats have been provided to you by EPS - what's stopping you from putting those stats up, as received from EPS, within this thread... and on your website.

    While you downplay the significance of the (supposed) stats you've received from EPS, you make a claim that categorically states, "The City of Edmonton advised this bylaw had to happen because of the sheer number of complaints that the EPS had received regarding excessive noise". Please provide substantiation to your claim on said CofE advisory - thanking you in advance.

  37. #37
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Ozerna, North Edmonton
    Posts
    8,956

    Default

    ^^ Good to hear (pun intended).

  38. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Jeff, you'll be pleased to know that last night, on the south end of the high level bridge, the police were pulling over every loud bike/vehicle. There was quite a collection of bikes and a few custom rods waiting tickets at the top of the southside hill when I passed through.
    Thanks - great news! The HLB has always been a favoured high-speed venue... for all vehicles - at times becoming a veritable drag strip. A lot of that abuse (speed and noise) has coincident timing with the closing of downtown bars - go figure! With regular targeted frequency, EPS needs to get aggressive with radar monitoring on the HLB... they'll surely get many two-fers, nailing both speed and noise abusers.

  39. #39
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    51

    Default

    Jeff, first I would like to point out that every single law is subject to interpretation. Second, to file a Charter claim against the city is costly. But if you need the reasons as to why the infringement concerns are valid, please visit and read here - http://www.modeledmonton.com/letter-to-province.html.

    As per the second point, the stats are up on the website - http://www.modeledmonton.com/stats.html. They always have been and we are just waiting for an update from EPS to bring them current to this year from last year.

    Third Medwards, that was a RADAR trap on the south side of the high level bridge last night which is why all forms of vehicles were being pulled in. It has been widely stated that EPS will be cracking down on speeders and we support that. No bikes were tested for noise last night.

  40. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trmpt View Post
    Jeff, first I would like to point out that every single law is subject to interpretation.
    Of course - thanks for acknowledging it's only your interpretation. That being said you now openly acknowledge you have no formal basis to claim your Charter Rights have been infringed. Again, please desist with your absolute, definitive, repeated and emphatic declarations that your Charter Rights have been infringed.

    Quote Originally Posted by trmpt View Post
    Second, to file a Charter claim against the city is costly. But if you need the reasons as to why the infringement concerns are valid, please visit and read here
    Again, your interpretation... do you have internet or jailhouse lawyers assessing the validity of your infringement claims? And here, in all my naivety, I always thought the ultimate arbiter would be the courts!

    Quote Originally Posted by trmpt View Post
    As per the second point, the stats are up on the website - They always have been and we are just waiting for an update from EPS to bring them current to this year from last year.
    Those are not as you've received - those are numbers as you've (presumably) interpreted/transposed/tailored/presented - stats you say you've received. Simply put up exactly what you received from EPS, exactly as received from EPS.... is that a problem? You've made a rather bold unsubstantiated statement concerning a 'city advisory' you received. Your unsubstantiated City advisory claim needs to be measured against the (supposed) EPS stats you claim to have received... the stats you belittle in terms of significance.
    "The City of Edmonton advised this bylaw had to happen because of the sheer number of complaints that the EPS had received regarding excessive noise"

  41. #41
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    51

    Default

    Jeff, of course I acknowledge it is our interpretation, as again, ALL LAWS are subject to interpretation, even by the legal system, judges included. It does not mean we do not have a formal basis for our claim. Again, I ask you to visit and read the reason as to why, backed up by legal definitions and citing cases, as to why there are charter issues. It is obvious that you have not read that. http://www.modeledmonton.com/letter-to-province.html

    The statistics we received were directly from Staff Sgt. Kevin Galvin of the traffic division in the EPS and posted to our website exactly how they were presented to us. Nothing was interpreted/transposed/tailored/presented so please do not presume you know how we received them and in what fashion.

    The fact still remains only 8 complaints were filed with the EPS which is far from a sheer number directly related to motorcycles. The EPS report found here (EPS report starts on page 6 - http://sirepub.edmonton.ca/sirepub/c...3103414972.PDF) states very clearly there is a noise issue with all types of vehicles per complaints but then switches to target just one type which is wrong.

    There is a solution that will target all forms of vehicles equally. Targeting only one type while others commit the same infraction with a lesser penalty is discrimination. If noise is truly the issue, the law would be equally applied to all fairly. That is what we are fighting for. We believe there is an issue with noise but it has been proven to not be solely a motorcycle problem, not even a majority motorcycle problem per the EPS themselves.

    So I will ask you the same two questions I posed to another poster above which are simply yes or no questions.

    1. Do you feel that all noise offenders should be fined regardless of mode of transportation?

    2. Do you feel that laws, not just this one, should be equally applied without discrimination?
    Last edited by trmpt; 03-05-2013 at 10:52 AM.

  42. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trmpt View Post
    Third Medwards, that was a RADAR trap on the south side of the high level bridge last night which is why all forms of vehicles were being pulled in. It has been widely stated that EPS will be cracking down on speeders and we support that. No bikes were tested for noise last night.
    Why was an officer standing with a noise meter and not a radar gun in that case? It would've been pretty pointless to have radar on the bridge, as the trap at the top of the hill had traffic at a near standstill for the majority of the bridge...

    EPS is cracking down on speeders all over the place as well, but this wasn't the case last night.

  43. #43
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Why was an officer standing with a noise meter and not a radar gun in that case? It would've been pretty pointless to have radar on the bridge, as the trap at the top of the hill had traffic at a near standstill for the majority of the bridge...

    EPS is cracking down on speeders all over the place as well, but this wasn't the case last night.
    You state that the officer was "standing with a noise meter". Was he holding it in his hands like they do with the radar guns?

  44. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trmpt View Post
    It does not mean we do not have a formal basis for our claim.
    You acknowledge an interpreted basis for your interpreted infringement claim. Clearly, again, that doesn't dissuade you from an unsubstantiated absolute and definitive claim that your Charter Rights have been infringed. Again, proceed with your multi-interpreted challenge... until you realize a judgement in your favour you have no basis to claim your Charter Rights have been/are being infringed.

    Quote Originally Posted by trmpt View Post
    The statistics we received were directly from Staff Sgt. Kevin Galvin of the traffic division in the EPS and posted to our website exactly how they were presented to us. Nothing was interpreted/transposed/tailored/presented so please do not presume you know how we received them and in what fashion.
    So you say. Given you are making a multitude of unsubstantiated claims I personally have no foundation to presume your numbers are a contextually accurate account. You clearly are tailoring a presentation that aligns with your agenda.

    Quote Originally Posted by trmpt View Post
    The fact still remains only 8 complaints were filed with the EPS which is far from a sheer number directly related to motorcycles.
    I personally know of at least a dozen+ plus motorcycle noise complaints that have been lodged through 311 and directly to Councillors... myself, family, neighbours, co-workers. If your claimed "only 8 complaints filed with the EPS" has any validity, it most assuredly shows there is a failing in terms of how noise complaints, particularly 311 registered noise complaints, are captured/elevated for recognition.

    Quote Originally Posted by trmpt View Post
    The EPS report found here (EPS report starts on page 6 - http://sirepub.edmonton.ca/sirepub/c...3103414972.PDF) states very clearly there is a noise issue with all types of vehicles per complaints but then switches to target just one type which is wrong.
    No - again, that's your biased and self-serving interpretation. Clearly, the motorcycle targeted bylaw is declared as an interim measure; apparently, a more all-encompassing bylaw targeting all vehicles is contingent upon standards/testing currently being developed/completed.

    Quote Originally Posted by trmpt View Post
    There is a solution that will target all forms of vehicles equally.
    You keep insisting the 'noise snare' is "good to go". My latest understanding is that Calgary deployed it after extensive testing and a lengthy implementation phase - but that, effectively, it's still being monitored for effectiveness and court challenge.

    If you're so "tapped in" what reasons are you receiving, if any, as to why the City/EPS have not (yet) deployed the 'noise snare'?

  45. #45
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    51

    Default

    Again, your opinion on our founded and valid claim regarding the Charter is simply your opinion. It is clear you have not read the link I provided which clearly states our reasons. So I will leave that at that.

    Your opinion that the statistics provided by the EPS being inaccurate, is again your opinion. Please feel free to contact Staff Sgt. Galvin and ask for the numbers yourself. Or file a FOIP request.

    The only complaints that the EPS can report on are reports officially filed to them. Anyone calling to complain to 311 are simply making calls to complain. If they are truly serious about their concerns, they should file a complaint with EPS directly and put it on official record, name attached.

    If this truly was an interim measure, then where is the report that was requested and due by September of 2010 and why is City Council ignoring that very simple question? Why has nothing progressed in 3 years? It is not an interpretation, the report is there, in black and white, in their words. They state it is an all-encompassing issue but only will target motorcycles. Again, there is a solution to make it all encompassing.

    As for the Noise Snare, here is the email we received from the CPS regarding the use of the Noise Snare. For the record, Tornberg did confirm that they were monitoring the device for the first year or two to monitor it continues to work properly so at least that part of your assumption is actually correct.

    "Good Morning/Afternoon

    Thank you for the link to your website. It was very informative. Our approach to excessive vehicle noise is quite different than Edmonton’s. Our bylaw sets the infraction threshold at 96 DBA. During our testing phase of the Noise Snare, we found a wide variety of vehicle types were responsible for infractions. Vehicle types included; trucks, cars, vans, trucks over 5450KG, commercial vehicles, motorcycles, powered bicycles, SUVs, industrial equipment. Independent testing by a third party showed that the Noise Snare is accurate. We will be deploying the Noise Snare to sites within Calgary on a complaint basis. Any vehicle registering a violation will result in an investigation by an officer. Warnings and/or charges may be laid depending on the outcome of the investigation.

    Our bylaw is the Traffic Bylaw 26M96 and it can be accessed through this link: http://www.calgary.ca/CA/city-clerks...96-Traffic.pdf Section 51.1(1) is our offence section with Objectionable noise being defined in the definition section of this bylaw.
    The Noise Snare website is: http://www.snrsystems.com/ We are using the Noise Snare device as a possible answer to citizen complaints of excessive vehicle noise. We are planning on having 2 public test days May 26 & May 30 in which the Noise Snare will be deployed at the CPS EVOC track . The public is welcome to come and have their respective vehicles tested. We are still in the process of finalizing dates and times so there may be some changes to the dates and times.

    I hope this has been of assistance to you.

    Martin Tornberg
    Peace Officer, North Operations
    Animal & Bylaw Services
    The City of Calgary
    P.O. Box 2100, Stn M, #210
    Calgary Ab
    T2P 2M5
    Telephone 403-567-5011 | Fax 403-567-5050
    [email protected]"


    As for the answer from the City as to why they will not expand the bylaw and use the Noise Snare? Good question...as they are avoiding answering that one as well. We presented the material directly to our good mayor in a meeting he requested. He refused to address there is a solution. There are two Councilors who would like to see this brought forward for possible solution. The City of Saskatoon is in the midst of moving forward with the Noise Snare initiative after voting down the J2825 because it showed bias and discrimination.

    I noticed you didn't answer my two questions. It's only fair given I have been responding to yours.

    1. Do you feel that all noise offenders should be fined regardless of mode of transportation?

    2. Do you feel that laws, not just this one, should be equally applied without discrimination?

  46. #46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trmpt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Why was an officer standing with a noise meter and not a radar gun in that case? It would've been pretty pointless to have radar on the bridge, as the trap at the top of the hill had traffic at a near standstill for the majority of the bridge...

    EPS is cracking down on speeders all over the place as well, but this wasn't the case last night.
    You state that the officer was "standing with a noise meter". Was he holding it in his hands like they do with the radar guns?
    nope. He was also not in a place where he would have very good sight lines to see incoming speeders. He was half way up the hill, and the device really wasn't pointed at anything. I've seen radar guns, and radar traps in many different situations, including on the high level bridge... and this wasn't like that at all.
    ----
    I'll add to the rest of the choir here. - GOOD on the Police to be cracking down on the loud vehicles, whether its a bike or a car or a truck. There is absolutely no need, and those that intentionally make their vehicles louder than they need to be through custom exhausts, or being a DB and flying around in a very low gear to make their bike/truck/car louder should be punished to the full extent of this law. Repeat offenders should have their toys taken away and crushed.
    Bikers are the worst though, and it's always an intended action to be as loud as the bike possibly can, nothing disturbs the peace more than a loud bike in a low gear thats got the engine full bored out, making the loudest possible rumble, obviously trying to make up for something, a lost childhood, bad parenting, or just plain DOUCHEBAG.
    Last edited by Medwards; 03-05-2013 at 12:28 PM.

  47. #47
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    51

    Default

    Medwards, we all agree that noise infractions should be enforced but it needs to be done equally and fairly, not two sets of rules and fines for the same infraction. Not sure why that is hard to understand.

    Speed traps are usually set up so the radar gun is somewhat hidden and the offenders are pulled over by units down the road, out of the line of sight of where the offending speed is recorded. If you are familiar with radar traps, you would know this. So it would make sense the officer was up the hill and likely being signaled as to who to pull in to issue a speeding ticket.

    Again, to clarify, was the officer holding what you believe is a decibel meter in his hands? And if not in his hands, where was it?
    Last edited by trmpt; 03-05-2013 at 01:25 PM.

  48. #48
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    4,834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    I personally know of at least a dozen+ plus motorcycle noise complaints that have been lodged through 311 and directly to Councillors... myself, family, neighbours, co-workers. If your claimed "only 8 complaints filed with the EPS" has any validity, it most assuredly shows there is a failing in terms of how noise complaints, particularly 311 registered noise complaints, are captured/elevated for recognition.
    Jeff, I think this is the difference. EPS only has 8 complaints logged with them, but, as you said, people have complained through various other means that wouldn't be included in the EPS stats. I complained about loud vehicles (including loud bikes), but I didn't do that with EPS, so I wouldn't be included in their stats.
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

  49. #49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trmpt View Post
    Again, to clarify, was the officer holding what you believe is a decibel meter in his hands? And if not in his hands, where was it?
    I know it was a decibel meter. It definitely was not a radar gun. I'm not sure why you are questioning me on this.
    I've seen the radar trap 100 times on the high level bridge. I know exactly how they setup, where they setup. it was not like this at all.
    And it was not just bikes that were being pulled over, as I answered before.

    As for the different levels of sound 92-96 db, perhaps it has to do with how or how often the sound is emitted. A bike is a lot more likely to be in the offending area, especially with a custom exhaust. Perhaps its because they are the most frequent offenders?

  50. #50
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    51

    Default

    Medwards, I am simply asking if he was holding the alleged decibel meter in his hands. Once you answer me that, I will explain to you why I am asking.

  51. #51
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    51

    Default

    It is becoming increasingly evident that any questions anyone from "our side" ask rarely get answered or are stalled on the answers. That's fine, but really, it does say something.

    Jeff - I have emailed the admin of the site an image from an EPS report to the Police Commission asking him to post it for me as I do not have the means to post a URL image as this site requires. That in itself should prove to you undoubtedly that our stats on our site are not falsified in any "self-serving" way.

    Medwards - the reason I was asking for clarity is because there is no hand held decibel meter test for either vehicles or motorcycles. Further to that, per the J2825 standard being used by the EPS to test motorcycles, that area in which people were being pulled in, was not conducive to a proper testing area.

    1. Paragraph 5 - Test Site of the J2825 clearly defines what that site should look like. This includes that the “site shall be an open area free of large sound reflecting surfaces such as parked vehicles, signboards, or buildings located within 2.5 m (8 ft) of the motorcycle. The surface ground shall be paved or hard-packed early, level within the typical slope of a paved street or parking lot with no curbs closer than 0.25 m (10 in) of the exhaust outlet being measured”.

    2. Section 6.4 of the J2825 defines that “the ambient noise cannot be more than 82 db” where section 6.5 defines the “wind velocity shall be less than 9 m/s (20 mph).”

    3. Section 6.6 which states that "no more than one person other than the rider and the measurer and an assistant (if necessary) to operate the throttle shall be within 2.5 m (8 ft) of the motorcycle under test or the microphone, and that person shall be directly behind the measurer on a line through the microphone and the measurer."

    4.The idle test is a simple test where the engine is run for 5 seconds at idle with the microphone placed at a 45 degree angle 20 inches behind the exhaust. For the above idle test, with the microphone in the same position, the bike is slowly brought up to 2000 rpm (engines with less than 3 or more than 4 cylinders) or 5000 rpm (engines with 3 or 4 cylinders) and held for at least 2 seconds than slowly released. This test is to be done 3 times based on EPS policy with the lowest of the three readings as the final decision.

    So, if the officer was holding the decibel meter, it wasn't for this reason. They have designed a placard that they place on the ground to achieve point 4 above (angle and distance). The decibel meter is then placed on a tripod at the same level as the opening of the pipe to ensure accuracy is not tainted. It cannot be held because that would call into question the requirements per the standard rendering the test null and void.

    The fact that traffic was being held up while people were being pulled over for speeding across the HLB indicates that the people being pulled was hindering traffic and therefore points 1, 2 and partly 3 could not have been achieved. The designated area for testing would have been predefined and in a much more open area than anything you can find just south of the HLB.

    To answer your question on the difference in db levels, per point 4, the idle test requires a level of 92 db or lower with a margin of error of 1.5% to pass. The above idle test requires a level of 96 db or lower with a margin of error of 1.5% to pass.

    As for bikes being the most frequent offenders, that is your opinion and unfounded. The point is that noise is noise and should be treated as such and therefore should have the same standards and fines across the board. That is the only point. If noise is truly the issue, then it needs to be treated equally and fairly for all.

  52. #52

    Default

    your points seem to point out that if it were a decibel test, it was not in a suitable location...

    So, what ever they were doing, it wasn't a speed trap, and it wasn't a decibel test either, or not done in a suitable location.

    I've did a quick sketch to show... don't mind the crude 2 second mspaint drawing..

    blue arrow - this is normally where they have the radar gun
    red star - this is where the officer was, resting a device that looked like a black rectangle box with LED read outs on the front, with no possible sight lines on to the high level bridge to see/measure any potential speeders. The device looked nothing like any radar gun I've ever seen, and, well, I've seen my fair share over the years.
    yellow star - the pull over location - the left turn lanes onto sask drive... (normally on a speed trap, they have you pull over on the other side of the road near the high level diner...


  53. #53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trmpt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Why was an officer standing with a noise meter and not a radar gun in that case? It would've been pretty pointless to have radar on the bridge, as the trap at the top of the hill had traffic at a near standstill for the majority of the bridge...

    EPS is cracking down on speeders all over the place as well, but this wasn't the case last night.
    You state that the officer was "standing with a noise meter". Was he holding it in his hands like they do with the radar guns?
    trmpt There's a couple of people on this thread that are not going to be happy until you provide them with a stool sample and a prostate test. And I also heard that EPS were having a crackdown on speeders. When I was out driving they announced it on the radio.
    Last edited by Gemini; 03-05-2013 at 05:21 PM.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  54. #54
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    51

    Default

    Medwards - you have to love MS Paint! Definitely gives me a better idea of what you saw. I can confirm without a doubt it was not a decibel test. Decibel tests are done as a road side test here in Edmonton, in a predesignated appropriate place that falls in with the standards set out in the J2825. Also, where that red star is, far to much reverberation would occur which does not give a true indication of the actual noise level. So no, cannot be a noise testing device he had.

    Gemini - thanks for the laugh! And yes, I am more than aware of the fact it may just come down to stool sample but I don't have a prostate so that one might be tough!

  55. #55

    Default

    It sure must be hard to make a flickr account to host images.....stop being lazy

  56. #56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    You acknowledge an interpreted basis for your interpreted infringement claim. Clearly, again, that doesn't dissuade you from an unsubstantiated absolute and definitive claim that your Charter Rights have been infringed. Again, proceed with your multi-interpreted challenge... until you realize a judgement in your favour you have no basis to claim your Charter Rights have been/are being infringed.
    Quote Originally Posted by trmpt View Post
    Again, your opinion on our founded and valid claim regarding the Charter is simply your opinion. It is clear you have not read the link I provided which clearly states our reasons. So I will leave that at that.
    Apparently, the subtleties are "too deep" for you to recognize! Making an absolute definite statement that your Charter Rights have been and continue to be infringed is not the same as saying you believe/interpret your Charter Rights are being infringed.

  57. #57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    Given you are making a multitude of unsubstantiated claims I personally have no foundation to presume your numbers are a contextually accurate account. You clearly are tailoring a presentation that aligns with your agenda.
    Quote Originally Posted by trmpt View Post
    Your opinion that the statistics provided by the EPS being inaccurate, is again your opinion.
    I said "contextually accurate account". That presumes on how you're deciding to present those numbers. Clearly, your charade has been exposed with your dismissive summation on any complaints/concerns registered with 311... with bylaw enforcement... with City Councillors... with anyone/any entity that doesn't necessarily filter complaint/concern directly to EPS.

    Quote Originally Posted by trmpt View Post
    Anyone calling to complain to 311 are simply making calls to complain. If they are truly serious about their concerns, they should file a complaint with EPS directly and put it on official record, name attached.
    Huh! Say what? Simply making calls to complain??? Oh really... isn't that what we're talking about? You don't get to arbitrarily decide the value/worth of someone registering a concern with 311. Clearly you want nothing to do with 311 stats. I asked you earlier (twice previously) to substantiate the following claim that appears on your website... this will be the 3rd time:
    "The City of Edmonton advised this bylaw had to happen because of the sheer number of complaints that the EPS had received regarding excessive noise"
    It's a point I was leading to... it's one Gord Lacey appears to echo. Obviously the City moved on the bylaw for a reason - I expect a big part of that City rationale aligns with all manner of complaints being registered... you know, all the ones/types registered that you, apparently, simply choose to ignore to suit your self-serving agenda.

  58. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trmpt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by trmpt View Post
    The EPS report found here (EPS report starts on page 6 - http://sirepub.edmonton.ca/sirepub/c...3103414972.PDF) states very clearly there is a noise issue with all types of vehicles per complaints but then switches to target just one type which is wrong.
    No - again, that's your biased and self-serving interpretation. Clearly, the motorcycle targeted bylaw is declared as an interim measure; apparently, a more all-encompassing bylaw targeting all vehicles is contingent upon standards/testing currently being developed/completed.
    If this truly was an interim measure, then where is the report that was requested and due by September of 2010 and why is City Council ignoring that very simple question? Why has nothing progressed in 3 years? It is not an interpretation, the report is there, in black and white, in their words. They state it is an all-encompassing issue but only will target motorcycles. Again, there is a solution to make it all encompassing.
    It's impossible to filter through your disjointed reply. You speak of a missing report... then a report "that's there"! Who requested what report? Who/what established a due date you suggest is now dated/passed? You speak of "no progress in 3 years"... how do you know there's been no progress in establishing standards and testing based on those established standards?

    And again, yes - the motorcycle bylaw has been stated as being an interim measure - waiting on the completion of setting standards/testing for all other vehicles. Other than being advised by a City Councillor, I personally can't attest to progress being made in that regard... as of last fall I can state I was advised that this standards/testing work continues. That's all I personally know... but I'm not the one stating "no progress has been made". That's simply you making another substantiated claim.

    Clearly, the standards/testing was complete for motorcycles... sufficient to allow the bylaw to be created/passed. Obviously you don't care for something that is aimed to limit your "loud pipes". Instead of accepting the validity of the bylaw you weasel around with your Charter Rights infringement nonsense. Using the royal case of your/you, simply adjust "your" pipes/driving to align with the bylaw and recognize "you" have no rights to infringe on the quality of life of others. It's really quite simple!

  59. #59

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    If you're so "tapped in" what reasons are you receiving, if any, as to why the City/EPS have not (yet) deployed the 'noise snare'?
    Quote Originally Posted by trmpt View Post
    As for the answer from the City as to why they will not expand the bylaw and use the Noise Snare? Good question...as they are avoiding answering that one as well. We presented the material directly to our good mayor in a meeting he requested. He refused to address there is a solution. There are two Councilors who would like to see this brought forward for possible solution.
    You state you know of two Councillors advocating for the 'noise snare' - which two Councillors? I suggested, as I am aware, the CofE wait on the noise snare reflects on the want to evaluate the Calgary deployment, particularly it's effectiveness and whether or not court challenges to it prove successful. You simply choose to ignore/negate the cost/expenditures behind the current CofE motorcycle noise bylaw... you want to ignore/negate all the other ongoing efforts to establish national standards/testing for all vehicles. You want to do all this while trumpeting the uncertain effectiveness and (ultimate) legality of the Calgary 'noise snare' deployment/bylaw. Of course you do!!!

  60. #60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trmpt View Post
    Medwards - you have to love MS Paint! Definitely gives me a better idea of what you saw. I can confirm without a doubt it was not a decibel test. Decibel tests are done as a road side test here in Edmonton, in a predesignated appropriate place that falls in with the standards set out in the J2825. Also, where that red star is, far to much reverberation would occur which does not give a true indication of the actual noise level. So no, cannot be a noise testing device he had.

    Gemini - thanks for the laugh! And yes, I am more than aware of the fact it may just come down to stool sample but I don't have a prostate so that one might be tough!
    About the stool sample, I have a good idea who you could send it too. Some people think they are big city dwellers but a little bit of noise and they start to act like hayseeds. There must be a real quiet small town old folks home somewhere that would take them. The city is just too much for them.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  61. #61
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    51

    Default

    Jeff - You are entitled to your opinion. I am more than willing to sit down with you and go through all of the documents and research that M.O.D.E.L. has done, including all the original documents from the various authorities who have supplied them. Just make sure you bring yours as well so we can compare.

    With that, I have asked you several times to answer two simple questions that only require a yes or no. Yet you continue to avoid them and that begs the question why.

    1. Do you feel that all noise offenders should be fined regardless of mode of transportation?

    2. Do you feel that laws, not just this one, should be equally applied without discrimination?

  62. #62

    Default

    Boy, someone sure likes to argue huh? FYI, I attended the meeting with the Mayor and with the two city councillors with trmpt. I have studied all of the mentioned documents which were provided by the city of Edmonton showing the statistics quoted. All you seem to do is argue for the sake of arguing. You have an opinion that is respected, but that is all you have. MODEL has documentation to support its claims. It is obvious that you pretty much despise motorcyclists, and that's fine, we get it. What is most annoying though is that you cannot see the obvious in that this law is discriminatory. Yes, that is MODEL's interpretation, just as it is the city of Edmonton interpretation that the law is not discriminatory. I should correct myself here however, it is our opinion that the law is discriminatory as it is the city of Edmontons opinion that it is not. Only a judge can interpret the law. As to your comment about challenging the law on a constitutional basis, we would love to, but unfortunately the $250,000.00 dollars it would take is a little out of reach. A fact that the city of Edmonton knows full well that we could not come up with. This is the first and only time I will respond to you because it is obvious that you simply want to argue for the sake of arguing and have no real knowledge of the topic at hand. Maybe there is a board about dogs crapping on your lawn that your rants will get some mileage on. You've made your point, please move on.

  63. #63

    Default

    And your comments are addressed to… who?

    Quote Originally Posted by KOxamitny View Post
    Boy, someone sure likes to argue huh?
    It’s called a discussion board/forum… apparently, on occasion, debate breaks out. As I read this thread, there are collectively many more posts by your cohort-in-arms, C2E member ‘trmpt’, than anyone else. Boy, he/she sure likes to argue huh?

    Quote Originally Posted by KOxamitny View Post
    All you seem to do is argue for the sake of arguing.
    Clearly, you don’t handle challenge or questioning well.

    Quote Originally Posted by KOxamitny View Post
    It is obvious that you pretty much despise motorcyclists, and that's fine, we get it.
    Despise? Wow! Just how sensitive are you? Do you… despise… persons who raise concern/complaint over motorcycle noise? If so, that’s fine; we get it!

    Quote Originally Posted by KOxamitny View Post
    What is most annoying though is that you cannot see the obvious in that this law is discriminatory.
    You’re annoyed? Because I, because others in this thread, because the City doesn’t interpret the bylaw as discriminatory? You’re annoyed because not everyone agrees with you? I’m annoyed that you’re annoyed!

    Quote Originally Posted by KOxamitny View Post
    Only a judge can interpret the law.
    Perhaps we are making progress here after all! Does this mean you will temper your absolute, definitive and unreserved claims that your Charter Rights have been infringed? Oh wait – you’re not a Federal/Supreme Court judge are you?

    Quote Originally Posted by KOxamitny View Post
    As to your comment about challenging the law on a constitutional basis, we would love to, but unfortunately the $250,000.00 dollars it would take is a little out of reach. A fact that the city of Edmonton knows full well that we could not come up with.
    Perhaps it’s time to drop the ole adage about ‘putting up or shutting up’. Here’s a thought: Do you think it helps or hurts your case to suggest/imply the City is knowingly, openly and flagrantly infringing on your Charter Rights by, as you claim, leveraging your self-described meagre financial means and inability to launch a Charter challenge?

    Quote Originally Posted by KOxamitny View Post
    This is the first and only time I will respond to you because it is obvious that you simply want to argue for the sake of arguing and have no real knowledge of the topic at hand.
    The first and only time? Promise? Whatever knowledge you think I have, or don’t have, is irrelevant and of no consequence. In any case, I clearly have enough to rankle your ultra-sensitivities!

    Quote Originally Posted by KOxamitny View Post
    Maybe there is a board about dogs crapping on your lawn that your rants will get some mileage on.
    I sense we’re close to your full meltdown.

    Quote Originally Posted by KOxamitny View Post
    You've made your point, please move on.
    You’ve not made your point(s); please continue.

  64. #64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trmpt View Post
    Jeff - You are entitled to your opinion.
    You keep saying as much - repeatedly! Thanks for repeatedly acknowledging my entitlement.

    Quote Originally Posted by trmpt View Post
    I am more than willing to sit down with you and go through all of the documents and research that M.O.D.E.L. has done, including all the original documents from the various authorities who have supplied them. Just make sure you bring yours as well so we can compare.
    Your pomposity appears unbounded! For absolute clarity here, just what do you posit your collected documents/research means to whoever or whatever you presume to ply your agenda towards?

    Quote Originally Posted by trmpt View Post
    With that, I have asked you several times to answer two simple questions that only require a yes or no. Yet you continue to avoid them and that begs the question why.
    I have requested you, 3 times now, substantiate a claim that appears on your website. Yet you continue to avoid the requests and that begs the question why. There are also many pointed questions put to you in my most recent posts prior to this, your most recent reply. You have avoided them all and that begs the question why.

  65. #65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    You state you know of two Councillors advocating for the 'noise snare' - which two Councillors? I suggested, as I am aware, the CofE wait on the noise snare reflects on the want to evaluate the Calgary deployment, particularly it's effectiveness and whether or not court challenges to it prove successful. You simply choose to ignore/negate the cost/expenditures behind the current CofE motorcycle noise bylaw... you want to ignore/negate all the other ongoing efforts to establish national standards/testing for all vehicles. You want to do all this while trumpeting the uncertain effectiveness and (ultimate) legality of the Calgary 'noise snare' deployment/bylaw. Of course you do!!!
    What the hay does this days old Calgary Sun article suggest about the veracity of MODEL’s claims concerning the Noise Snare technology deployment... about MODEL’s repeated and emphatic insistence that the CofE is turning a blind-eye to available technology... of MODEL itself?

    Inventor of Noise Snare says City of Calgary bylaw officials have bungled using the technology

    Less than a year after Mark Nesdoly’s high-tech solution to the scourge of loud motorcycle pipes fell flat, the Edmonton inventor of Noise Snare says the experiment failed because Calgary’s bylaw department did it wrong.

    Over the span of last summer, while responding to more than 300 complaints about loud vehicles, Calgary bylaw officers managed to write but one measly ticket using Noise Snare — hardly the impact Calgarians were hoping for or expecting.

    The combination decibel-meter/camera was touted as the sonic solution to years of Harley-sized headaches, caused by unmuffled motorcycles and uncaring owners ripping around neighbourhoods and down pedestrian strolls like 17 Ave. S.W..

    Instead, Noise Snare failed to deter, or make a dent in the din. If their bikes weren’t so loud it’s certain you would have heard the straight-pipe pilots laughing all the way down the street.

    Calgary’s Noise Snare, provided free of charge since this is the first city to test it, was packed away at the end of October — and so far, the bylaw department hasn’t decided whether it will be redeployed for 2013.
    Well now, perhaps MODEL’s forceful lobbying for the "proven" Noise Snare makes sense after all!

  66. #66

    Default

    No wonder they want a device that doesn't work properly!! Let er rip !!!

  67. #67
    Forum Administrator *
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,481
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Stats picture as requested by trmpt

    Ow

  68. #68

    Default

    Medwards maybe these pics can help you better describe where the radar trap or noise snare was.


    radartrap1 by darkmagnoblade, on Flickr


    radartrap2 by darkmagnoblade, on Flickr


    radartrap3 by darkmagnoblade, on Flickr


    radartrap4 by darkmagnoblade, on Flickr


    radartrap5 by darkmagnoblade, on Flickr



    I did have video of the bikes that did cross but it wasnt very good quality i will try and get next time though.
    radartrap6 by darkmagnoblade, on Flickr
    Last edited by Magnoblade; 04-05-2013 at 03:55 PM.

  69. #69

    Default

    Thanks for the pics, but I feel my diagram illustrated well enough what I was talking about, and it's a dead issue for me. I doubt it was a decibel test/trap with the evidence trmpt submitted, but I don't believe it was a speed trap either -- I/we may never know what was actually taking place.

  70. #70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    Well now, perhaps MODEL’s forceful lobbying for the "proven" Noise Snare makes sense after all!
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    No wonder they want a device that doesn't work properly!! Let er rip !!!
    I was aware of the results of Calgary's last year deployment of the 'noise snare' - and was quite amazed to read the MODEL spokesperson keep repeatedly touting it as the end-all/be-all solution for the CofE... to keep berating the CofE/Mandel for turning a blind-eye to this technological wizardry!

    My repeated references to the 'noise snare' was an attempt to 'snare' the MODEL spokesperson into touting the 'noise snare' with a more direct numbers/stat type results summation. Clearly, the MODEL spokesperson wasn't interested in going there, choosing instead to repeatedly flaunt EPS complaint numbers... all the while ignoring any/all other types of concern/complaint raised by citizens. As the article link I provided stated, in just the summer period of last year, Calgary bylaw enforcement responded to, "more than 300 complaints about loud vehicles". Clearly, Calgarians are just, as C2E member Gemini suggests, a bunch of "hayseed" whiners!

    I do find it interesting that the MODEL spokesperson was previously so invested in this thread - responding to each and every post in a most timely manner. Not so much now... perhaps the MODEL spokesperson has been "mufflered"!

  71. #71

    Default

    from the previous linked pics, many years ago I regularly noticed EPS set up a speed trap at the red-dot highlighted in the pic below... a constable standing behind the bridge girder leaning out with a hand-held radar device. I can't recall seeing anything like this in the past 5 years or so. It was a veritable gold-mine as vehicles were eventually pulled in at the top of the hill (88th ave turn-off by the High-Level Diner). As I said earlier, that straight-flat stretch of the HLB has become a 'drag strip' that, apparently, EPS has turned a blind-eye towards.


  72. #72
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    No wonder they want a device that doesn't work properly!! Let er rip !!!
    Considering that the J2825 currently being used doesn't really work either by the sheer number of tickets fought being thrown out, at least this achieves equality which is our concern. We have never stated that Noise Snare tickets couldn't be fought in court, but our objective would be satisfied and court would be up to the individuals likely without the help from M.O.D.E.L.

    Frankly the law should be reverted back to the Provincial TSA which was effectively being used prior to thereby avoiding discrimination and ultra vires.

  73. #73

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trmpt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    Well now, perhaps MODEL’s forceful lobbying for the "proven" Noise Snare makes sense after all!
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    No wonder they want a device that doesn't work properly!! Let er rip !!!
    I was aware of the results of Calgary's last year deployment of the 'noise snare' - and was quite amazed to read the MODEL spokesperson keep repeatedly touting it as the end-all/be-all solution for the CofE... to keep berating the CofE/Mandel for turning a blind-eye to this technological wizardry!
    We have never stated that Noise Snare tickets couldn't be fought in court, but our objective would be satisfied and court would be up to the individuals likely without the help from M.O.D.E.L.
    What kind of a nonsense reply is this? Calgary's trial deployment was an absolute big-time fail... Calgary issued a single ticket last year - one ticket... and it remains uncertain if they'll even deploy the Noise Snare again, given its abject failure. Apparently the "proven solution" you so hyped, isn't so... proven after all, is it?

    You were either incompetent in your self-touted knowledge gathering/research, or you were disingenuous in your hype and repeated denigration of the CofE/Mayor Mandel for waiting for your claimed Noise Snare "proven solution" to prove itself... prove in terms of effectiveness and court challenge. You pick - you were either incompetent or disingenuous... maybe both!

    You/MODEL clearly have NO credibility here.

    Quote Originally Posted by trmpt View Post
    Frankly the law should be reverted back to the Provincial TSA which was effectively being used prior to thereby avoiding discrimination and ultra vires.
    And the basis for your claim that the Traffic Safety Act was effective? My understanding is the TSA relied wholly upon a subjective interpretation of 'noise level' by a police officer... that cases were repeatedly tossed out of courts because no actual technical monitoring/results could support a police officer's subjective assessment. And as a result, either police became reluctant to issue tickets in the first place or prosecutors were unlikely to take on the challenges to the tickets. Clearly, your kind of effectiveness!

    Your repeated discrimination assertion is nothing but your opinion/interpretation... here, let me take a page from your playbook: "you also are entitled to your opinion"!

    "Ultra vires"... oh my - are you a lawyer? If you don't believe the CofE has the authority to bring forward, "Bylaw 15442 - The Edmonton Noise Bylaw"... take the CofE to court - as before with your claims your Charter Rights are being infringed: put up or shut up!
    Last edited by Jeff; 06-05-2013 at 12:32 AM.

  74. #74

    Default

    I don't see how it's someone chartered rights to interfere with my rights to peace and quiet in my own home.
    Bikes are the loudest and worst offenders, and the noise is completely intentional 9 out 10 times. Whether it is a modify exhaust or the rider purposely trolling around in the lowest gear possible or worse yet both custom exhaust and a douche rider.

    Perhaps there should be a special law for these special breeds of lowlifes who feel they need to awaken the whole neighborhood.

    There is absolutely no need for bikes to be noisy at all.

  75. #75

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    I don't see how it's someone chartered rights to interfere with my rights to peace and quiet in my own home.
    Bikes are the loudest and worst offenders, and the noise is completely intentional 9 out 10 times. Whether it is a modify exhaust or the rider purposely trolling around in the lowest gear possible or worse yet both custom exhaust and a douche rider.

    Perhaps there should be a special law for these special breeds of lowlifes who feel they need to awaken the whole neighborhood.

    There is absolutely no need for bikes to be noisy at all.
    Hi, I own a motorcycle, some would consider it loud, as it is louder than almost any car, mostly due to how it derives its power in the higher rev range. When I pull away from lights I have to bring the revs up, and therefore the noise to pull away, making it again louder than any car pulling away from lights. The bike is stock, so I don't have a custom exhaust, but has a fairly high performance engine, that requires that I keep the revs at much higher level than that of a Car , again creating more noise, in its stock form that many find loud.

    AM I a douche? am I a low life? should I be singled out because I chose to purchase a vehicle that is available legally in this country?

    This is a big city, and noise is enivitable, from construction, emergency vehicles, random noise, cars, trucks, mototrcycles, buses, screaming babies etc. It is part of life in the city you chose to live here.

    I challenge you to sit down with this group or any group of motorcycylists and call them low lifes or douches to their face. The internet and the shield of your computer makes you tough, but I think you need to step back and be careful what you say.

    Always ask yourself the question would I say this to these people or to this persons face?

    Ask yourself that Medwards, as I find your posts offensive
    Last edited by KenL2; 06-05-2013 at 08:54 AM.
    Excellence is a continual Journey up a staircase where there is NO top step...

  76. #76
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    I don't see how it's someone chartered rights to interfere with my rights to peace and quiet in my own home.
    Bikes are the loudest and worst offenders, and the noise is completely intentional 9 out 10 times. Whether it is a modify exhaust or the rider purposely trolling around in the lowest gear possible or worse yet both custom exhaust and a douche rider.

    Perhaps there should be a special law for these special breeds of lowlifes who feel they need to awaken the whole neighborhood.

    There is absolutely no need for bikes to be noisy at all.
    Medwards, you are stuck on the noise aspect of it. I have stated numerous times in this thread that we AGREE there is a noise issue but it is not limited to motorcycles. Therefore if noise is truly the issue, the only solution to put in place must target noise for noise, not just one easy identifiable source of it.

    I would like to enjoy the peace and quiet of my backyard without the vehicles that possess after market exhaust and loud stereos. There has been no answers on if that will ever happen and with that, leaves this motorcycle only noise bylaw in contravention of Chapter 15 of the Charter which states that we have the right to be held to and protected by all laws equally without discrimination.

    All vehicles should be subjected to the same standards and fine levels for the same infraction.

    As I have offered to others, we are more than willing to sit down over a coffee to discuss this further with anyone.

  77. #77

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trmpt View Post
    Medwards, you are stuck on the noise aspect of it. I have stated numerous times in this thread that we AGREE there is a noise issue but it is not limited to motorcycles.
    Duh! Yes - it's all about motorcycle noise! Your agreement isn't necessary. You simply choose to leverage the fact not all standards development/testing is complete for all vehicles. The standard is established for motorcycles - the test has been developed... the related Edmonton bylaw has been crafted and enacted.

    If you truly were concerned about the affects of motorcycle noise you would promote the bylaw. Instead, you attempt to weasel your way around the bylaw by "claiming" the CofE has no authority to enact the bylaw... "claiming" that your Charter Rights are infringed. You obviously want no law aimed to deter your want to ride without regard to the rights of all citizens to not have their quality of life negatively impacted by excessive/abusive motorcycle noise.

    Quote Originally Posted by trmpt View Post
    All vehicles should be subjected to the same standards and fine levels for the same infraction.
    A nonsensical comment. Obviously, all vehicles are not the same... types of exhaust, placement of exhaust, number of cylinders, noise at idle; noise at 'x' rpm, etc., etc., etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by trmpt View Post
    As I have offered to others, we are more than willing to sit down over a coffee to discuss this further with anyone.
    Who cares! You have no legal standing to support your opinions... other than your personal interpretations. You clearly have a self-serving agenda; one that cares nothing about the negative impact of excessive/abusive motorcycle noise upon citizens of Edmonton, at large. Your charade has been exposed within this thread!

  78. #78

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KenL2 View Post
    This is a big city, and noise is enivitable, from construction, emergency vehicles, random noise, cars, trucks, mototrcycles, buses, screaming babies etc. It is part of life in the city you chose to live here.
    No! Living in a city does not preclude the need for laws to protect citizens from excessive/abusive noise... does not preclude the ability of elected politicians/city administration to enact measures intended to protect citizens from excessive/abusive noise. Living in a city does not mean "one must just accept excessive/abusive noise"!

  79. #79

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KenL2 View Post
    Hi, I own a motorcycle, some would consider it loud, as it is louder than almost any car, mostly due to how it derives its power in the higher rev range. When I pull away from lights I have to bring the revs up, and therefore the noise to pull away, making it again louder than any car pulling away from lights. The bike is stock, so I don't have a custom exhaust, but has a fairly high performance engine, that requires that I keep the revs at much higher level than that of a Car , again creating more noise, in its stock form that many find loud.
    Point of clarification: are you stating your stock bike emits noise over and above that mandated by the Edmonton Motorcycle Noise Bylaw? You had it tested?

  80. #80
    Forum Administrator *
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,481
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    All,

    The over the top, aggressive, and outright vitriolic responses here are getting more than annoying. I am receiving several complaints from people on both sides of this conversation who refuse to engage due to the nature of some of the responses.

    Stop with the snide comments please. Discuss the points.
    Ow

  81. #81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KenL2 View Post
    Hi, I own a motorcycle, some would consider it loud, as it is louder than almost any car, mostly due to how it derives its power in the higher rev range. When I pull away from lights I have to bring the revs up, and therefore the noise to pull away, making it again louder than any car pulling away from lights. The bike is stock, so I don't have a custom exhaust, but has a fairly high performance engine, that requires that I keep the revs at much higher level than that of a Car , again creating more noise, in its stock form that many find loud.
    Point of clarification: are you stating your stock bike emits noise over and above that mandated by the Edmonton Motorcycle Noise Bylaw? You had it tested?

    Jeff,

    I will only respond as I have to Medwards

    and I quote, "I challenge you to sit down with this group or any group of motorcycylists and call them low lifes or douches to their face. The internet and the shield of your computer makes you tough, but I think you need to step back and be careful what you say.

    Always ask yourself the question would I say this to these people or to this persons face?"

    Ask yourself this Jeff.

    I am done with this thread and soon I will be done with this site should this BS continue, ADMIN this is my public statement as I dont wish to hide behind PM's or my computer, if you wish I will meet with you or RichardS to discuss in person.

    Ken
    Excellence is a continual Journey up a staircase where there is NO top step...

  82. #82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Admin View Post
    All,

    The over the top, aggressive, and outright vitriolic responses here are getting more than annoying.
    Over the top... as in MODEL making outright absolute and definitive legal claims simply based on personal interpretation of the authority of the CofE?... of the Canadian Charter of Rights? That kind of over the top commentary?

    Over the top... as in MODEL repeatedly touting the 'Noise Snare' as a proven solution?... as in MODEL repeatedly berating/denigrating the CofE/Mayor Mandel for waiting for evaluations of the effectiveness and legal challenge of/to the 'Noise Snare'? That kind of over the top commentary?

    Over the top... as in MODEL repeatedly stating the CofE is openly and flagrantly exercising a discriminatory practice simply because, as MODEL stated, as I paraphrase, "the CofE knows MODEL does not have the financial means to formally challenge the CofE... or to pursue a Charter Rights challenge"? That kind of over the top commentary?

  83. #83
    Forum Administrator *
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,481
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Pot, meet kettle.

    I said on all sides Jeff, now go calm down.
    Ow

  84. #84

    Default

    KenL2, I may not be referring to all motorbike riders, or even you directly. But certainly there are a lot of them that give the rest of you a bad rap. I realize that motorcycles are noisier than cars in general, but some purposely over-rev the snot out of them, ride around in the lowest gear possible, for the sole purpose of drawing attention to themselves through noise.

    (and this is not completely limited to bikers either. There's certainly ones that do this in cars and trucks too... I can think of those soup-can mufflers on the civic, and thug-wannabe driving around in 2nd gear as much as possible cause it sounds cool)
    These individuals are exactly this program was created.

  85. #85

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KenL2 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    Point of clarification: are you stating your stock bike emits noise over and above that mandated by the Edmonton Motorcycle Noise Bylaw? You had it tested?
    Jeff,

    I will only respond as I have to Medwards

    and I quote, "I challenge you to sit down with this group or any group of motorcycylists and call them low lifes or douches to their face. The internet and the shield of your computer makes you tough, but I think you need to step back and be careful what you say.
    Again, as I stated, as a point of clarification: Is there a problem with you answering these 2 simple/basic questions concerning your stated 'stock bike'?

    Your response has no bearing on my comments made; I've certainly not offered personal attack or personalized with 'name calling'. I've certainly stated what I think of the MODEL agenda, particularly:
    - it's absolute/definite legal claims based solely on personal interpretation and
    - its berating/denigration of the CofE/Mayor Mandel and
    - it's lack of any credibility associated with its advocacy of the failed 'Noise Snare' trial deployment in Calgary. Based solely on that advocacy I've suggested either incompetence or disingenuous positioning - or both.

  86. #86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Admin View Post
    Pot, meet kettle. I said on all sides Jeff, now go calm down.
    ??? I'm quite calm.

  87. #87
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,283
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    For the heck of it...

    I am not a fan of loud motorcycles on city streets...exactly the same reason why I am not a fan of overly loud stereos, coffee can exhausts on cars that sound like a loud dying calf, glass packs with the glass removed, and straight pipes.

    If I want to hear loud cars, I go to the track.

    If I want to hear loud bikes, I go to the track.

    Loud pipes do not save lives.

    After tuning my own cars for some 20+ years, the performance gains by most aftermarket equipment is marginal. Only when you combine several aspects does performance increase to a spot where, on the street, you'd actually notice or could even use within the limits of the laws...and more importantly...the streets and environment that Edmonton produces. Modding your vehicle to extremes...that belongs on the track.

    Sorry tuners, there is no compromise in physics. You want a fast track car...build a fast track car. Odds are, it will not perform well in daily driving use.

    Bikes...same goes for your air pump between your knees. Your stock performance is pretty darn good for what you use in Edmonton.

    The "performance" equipment touted by Borla, Flowmaster, etc are all tuned to meet the average SPL in most cities. Anything they market over that is expressly written "for off road use only". You put this on your vehicle knowing this. The same goes for these HID lights that tuners use for their cars - those are just as much of an annoyance.

    Backing away from constitutionality, rights, and other items that have been placed into this conversation...the end game is fairness...

    Sound Level Meters are available. Decibel levels are set. Apply this to all forms of noise and we're OK.

    The core of what MODEL is saying from what I read is exactly that. The core argument of those who are against this noise is respect for their environment. So, an easily applied and fully inclusive bylaw that respects the common and current noise levels as set forth by the City of Edmonton is the end game. Can we agree to that?

    I'm not going to engage in the discussion of tickets, warrants, and any of the other "failed" tests and punitive measures...when the root is simple...

    While we are not living in a bubble, we also need to respect the environment around us. A little common courtesy goes a long way. If you want respect, your community has to give it in return. 96-98 db is the max level allowed. Racers and customizers know this, so when you equip your street certified vehicle with equipment that can readily exceed this level, expect to be harassed. You are willingly putting yourself in that position.

    With Indy, we were able to see many ways to measure sound levels over large distances. The same goes for aviation. Most shops can measure SPL, and if you are in a bind, go to a car stereo shop...they all can read SPL.

    Life is too short to get so wrapped up in this one...
    Onward and upward

  88. #88

    Default

    There seems to be some trouble understanding what "STOCK" means in regards to a vehicle.

    Therefore I offer up this small explanation.

    STOCK
    - the not modified state of a vehicle purchase new from a licensed dealership, said vehicle was purchased with a NVIS certificate stating that the vehcile was new, and also that the vehicle is approved for sale in Canada and meets all legal and regualtory requirements for sale within the borders of Canada, those requirements include but are not limited to, approved, noise, pollution and safety equipment properly engineered, installed and tested for use within Canada.

    Hopefully that clears up any confusion that anyone on here might have as to what it means when someone uses the work "Stock"
    Excellence is a continual Journey up a staircase where there is NO top step...

  89. #89
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,283
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Stock = OEM. Even the addition of jobber parts (OEM like in every way aka plug wires, distributor caps, etc) can make your car "aftermarket"...as I found out the hard way with one alignment job...
    Onward and upward

  90. #90

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    Stock = OEM. Even the addition of jobber parts (OEM like in every way aka plug wires, distributor caps, etc) can make your car "aftermarket"...as I found out the hard way with one alignment job...
    Richard,

    Even more succinct thank you!!
    Excellence is a continual Journey up a staircase where there is NO top step...

  91. #91

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    So, an easily applied and fully inclusive bylaw that respects the common and current noise levels as set forth by the City of Edmonton is the end game.
    Such an easy thing to say. If it's so easy why isn't it there? Why did we have to deal with the 'decade old' ineffective TSA? Why did the Motorcycle Industry Council develop its own standard... work with the Society of Automotive Engineers to develop a test? Why did that happen... need to happen, if your inclusive 'applied solution' was so - easy?

  92. #92

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KenL2 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KenL2 View Post
    The bike is stock, so I don't have a custom exhaust, but has a fairly high performance engine, that requires that I keep the revs at much higher level than that of a Car , again creating more noise, in its stock form that many find loud.
    Point of clarification: are you stating your stock bike emits noise over and above that mandated by the Edmonton Motorcycle Noise Bylaw? You had it tested?
    There seems to be some trouble understanding what "STOCK" means in regards to a vehicle.

    Therefore I offer up this small explanation.

    STOCK
    - the not modified state of a vehicle purchase new from a licensed dealership, said vehicle was purchased with a NVIS certificate stating that the vehcile was new, and also that the vehicle is approved for sale in Canada and meets all legal and regualtory requirements for sale within the borders of Canada, those requirements include but are not limited to, approved, noise, pollution and safety equipment properly engineered, installed and tested for use within Canada.
    You still haven't answered the requested point of clarification questions:

  93. #93

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KenL2 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KenL2 View Post
    The bike is stock, so I don't have a custom exhaust, but has a fairly high performance engine, that requires that I keep the revs at much higher level than that of a Car , again creating more noise, in its stock form that many find loud.
    Point of clarification: are you stating your stock bike emits noise over and above that mandated by the Edmonton Motorcycle Noise Bylaw? You had it tested?
    There seems to be some trouble understanding what "STOCK" means in regards to a vehicle.

    Therefore I offer up this small explanation.

    STOCK
    - the not modified state of a vehicle purchase new from a licensed dealership, said vehicle was purchased with a NVIS certificate stating that the vehcile was new, and also that the vehicle is approved for sale in Canada and meets all legal and regualtory requirements for sale within the borders of Canada, those requirements include but are not limited to, approved, noise, pollution and safety equipment properly engineered, installed and tested for use within Canada.
    You still haven't answered the requested point of clarification questions:
    Yes I have
    Excellence is a continual Journey up a staircase where there is NO top step...

  94. #94
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    51

    Default

    Thank you Richard, you have summed it all up quite nicely. Much appreciated.

  95. #95

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KenL2 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KenL2 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KenL2 View Post
    The bike is stock, so I don't have a custom exhaust, but has a fairly high performance engine, that requires that I keep the revs at much higher level than that of a Car , again creating more noise, in its stock form that many find loud.
    Point of clarification: are you stating your stock bike emits noise over and above that mandated by the Edmonton Motorcycle Noise Bylaw? You had it tested?
    There seems to be some trouble understanding what "STOCK" means in regards to a vehicle.

    Therefore I offer up this small explanation.

    STOCK
    - the not modified state of a vehicle purchase new from a licensed dealership, said vehicle was purchased with a NVIS certificate stating that the vehcile was new, and also that the vehicle is approved for sale in Canada and meets all legal and regualtory requirements for sale within the borders of Canada, those requirements include but are not limited to, approved, noise, pollution and safety equipment properly engineered, installed and tested for use within Canada.
    You still haven't answered the requested point of clarification questions:
    Yes I have
    Uhhh... if, what you're really saying is that your motorcycle does not exceed the mandated limits of the Edmonton Motorcycle Bylaw, what's your problem? - what's your personal concern with the bylaw as it reflects upon your "stock" motorcycle?

  96. #96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trmpt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    So, an easily applied and fully inclusive bylaw that respects the common and current noise levels as set forth by the City of Edmonton is the end game.
    Such an easy thing to say. If it's so easy why isn't it there? Why did we have to deal with the 'decade old' ineffective TSA? Why did the Motorcycle Industry Council develop its own standard... work with the Society of Automotive Engineers to develop a test? Why did that happen... need to happen, if your inclusive 'applied solution' was so - easy?
    Thank you Richard, you have summed it all up quite nicely. Much appreciated.
    We know your much touted end-all/be all Noise Snare "proven solution"... isn't proven at all. We now know you have no credibility in terms of advocating for a supposed "all inclusive" solution. Perhaps you could answer the questions I posed to RichardS - since you believe it (his reply) to be a "quite nice" summation.

  97. #97
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,283
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    So, an easily applied and fully inclusive bylaw that respects the common and current noise levels as set forth by the City of Edmonton is the end game.
    Such an easy thing to say. If it's so easy why isn't it there? Why did we have to deal with the 'decade old' ineffective TSA? Why did the Motorcycle Industry Council develop its own standard... work with the Society of Automotive Engineers to develop a test? Why did that happen... need to happen, if your inclusive 'applied solution' was so - easy?

    Hmmm..

    Could it be that lobby groups such as SEMA, as well as a nice group of people who never bring solutions...but can readily play politics, go to silly bugger mode, and obfuscate with question after question after question...until the truth comes out...aka no bylaw other than outright banning of the object of their hatred...keeps this from being actually enabled?

    ...and an odd crafty defence attorney doesn't hurt either...

    Riddle me this. If the City of Edmonton can enact a noise bylaw and protection overlays for an airfield, even going so far as to place remote sound meters on all approach/departure paths, adding others in off path locations, and then display the sound levels in REAL TIME on a board in the lobby of YXD's departures level (all this in the early 1980's)...and then apply fines and collect from aircraft operators...why can't they do the same with all other forms of vehicular noise pollution?

    ...seems pretty easy on an airplane...


    Could it be political will?
    Onward and upward

  98. #98
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,283
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    As an aside Jeff, I noticed in your selected quote you forgot to include the question I asked. Is that because you don't have an answer? It was a question to the group, of which you are a part of via your participation in this discussion.

    So, to quote the whole thing, and ask you directly...

    Jeff, can you or can you not agree to the attempt to do the following?

    So, an easily applied and fully inclusive bylaw that respects the common and current noise levels as set forth by the City of Edmonton is the end game. Can we agree to that?
    Onward and upward

  99. #99

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KenL2 View Post
    Hi, I own a motorcycle, some would consider it loud, as it is louder than almost any car, mostly due to how it derives its power in the higher rev range. When I pull away from lights I have to bring the revs up, and therefore the noise to pull away, making it again louder than any car pulling away from lights. The bike is stock, so I don't have a custom exhaust, but has a fairly high performance engine, that requires that I keep the revs at much higher level than that of a Car , again creating more noise, in its stock form that many find loud.
    Not being cute here, but I bolded what Ken said. I believe in its stock form it complies with the bylaw.

    What I thought was an interesting observation is the part I underlined.
    I can attest to this with my own experience with my own bike and its aftermarket exhaust. No, not straight pipes, not cored-out, but aftermarket. (I have optional baffles so it was no biggie if the bike failed) I went to the free noise testing last spring in all sincerity believing I would fail. By most accounts, it is considered loud. It passed.

    I think many that don't like the loud motorcycle exhausts would be surprised by how many of those 'loud' bikes would pass the test. 96 decibels is VERY loud.

    What most people seem to complain about in this thread is self loathing motorcycle noise they find annoying, disruptive and irritating, etc, BUT not necessarily violating the motorcycle noise bylaw.
    Last edited by bpeters; 09-05-2013 at 10:17 AM.
    He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

  100. #100
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,283
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Jeff,

    I don't find it appropriate having quotes placed together that suggest one person directly responded to your statement, when indeed they are completely different posts and conversations.

    I read trmpt's response to say that the overall theme of the conversation was to his or her liking, and also that he/she would agree with the very question I asked you.


    It would be a bit better form if you separated them out - you could still place them one after the other, but separate quotes to show that they are separate posts and not a reply in sequence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by trmpt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    So, an easily applied and fully inclusive bylaw that respects the common and current noise levels as set forth by the City of Edmonton is the end game.
    Such an easy thing to say. If it's so easy why isn't it there? Why did we have to deal with the 'decade old' ineffective TSA? Why did the Motorcycle Industry Council develop its own standard... work with the Society of Automotive Engineers to develop a test? Why did that happen... need to happen, if your inclusive 'applied solution' was so - easy?
    Thank you Richard, you have summed it all up quite nicely. Much appreciated.
    We know your much touted end-all/be all Noise Snare "proven solution"... isn't proven at all. We now know you have no credibility in terms of advocating for a supposed "all inclusive" solution. Perhaps you could answer the questions I posed to RichardS - since you believe it (his reply) to be a "quite nice" summation.
    Onward and upward

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •