Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 137 of 137

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

  1. #101

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS 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?
    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
    No need for you to add to the obfuscation! I fail to see what bearing a trade association focused on selling aftermarket parts has to my questions... or your unsubstantiated suggestions of politicization or a 'crafty' defense attorney. Your anecdotal attachment to YXD is noted. If you can offer substantiation to a supposed politicization behind the Edmonton Motorcycle Noise Bylaw, please do... something more than politicians simply reacting to raised concern/complaint and exercising their political authority to enforce acts intended for the benefit of the greater public welfare.

  2. #102
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,284
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bpeters View Post
    (...)
    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 complain about in this thread is self loathing motorcycle noise (but really, noise in general) they find annoying, disruptive and irritating, etc, BUT not necessarily violating the motorcycle noise bylaw.
    96 db is quite loud indeed.

    It is the level that we were told any event outside Indy would have to conform to in order to be approved. 96 db can be reached on any day on the Yellowhead.

    You have hit a core concern. It is not necessarily the noise level per se (but that is the one we have to deal with from a legal standpoint), but the real reason is it is noise that you detest.

    You may love a certain type of music and blare it to your heart's content, but someone else cranks up opera, or death metal, and you are instantly annoyed. Both are 96 db.

    This is where the mutual respect thing happens. Like I said, I am not a fan of loud bikes, and the piped up bike I took on a road trip years back actually detracted from the experience. I had a headache, my arms hurt from the vibration, and I was grumpy the whole ride back.

    I drive a convertible, stock all the way around including the nice sounding exhaust. I have the larger stereo, yet with the top down, I prefer to just absorb the sounds around me. It is Edmonton after all, and top down weather will be over in a few days. I am sure there is a snowstorm sometime before the long weekend!
    Onward and upward

  3. #103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bpeters View Post
    What most people complain about in this thread is self loathing motorcycle noise (but really, noise in general) they find annoying, disruptive and irritating, etc, BUT not necessarily violating the motorcycle noise bylaw.
    As I recall, the only persons attempting to deflect/expand this motorcycle noise focused thread beyond motorcycles are those clamoring for an "all inclusive" solution in the name of challenging the CofE's authority or their interpreted infringed Charter Rights. I suggest you're reading (rather, creating) something that's not there.

  4. #104
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,284
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Seriously Jeff,

    SEMA has members that make money off their product...some of which are aftermarket exhaust systems at the heart of your issue. You are seriously telling me that they don't lobby on behalf of their members for a bit more lenient or open bylaws? If you don't, look at "clunker" laws and see SEMA fly off the handle!

    SEMA is a very influential lobby group. Do not doubt that.

    One attorney an make people not even try, or worse, make ballot initiatives that cause you to wonder what the hell the system has come to.

    As for the politics, why call it the Motorcycle Bylaw if the bylaw itself is not to pander directly to the complaints of people who hate motorcycles? Why not make bikes a sub category of the larger vehicular noise bylaw, or are you suggesting we create the "dying calf coffee can exhaust tip bylaw no 12345" and the "loud bass bylaw" and the "hard loping engine bylaw"...


    An overall vehicular noise bylaw does exactly the same thing you ask, namely

    something more than politicians simply reacting to raised concern/complaint and exercising their political authority to enforce acts intended for the benefit of the greater public welfare.
    ...without getting quagmired in this "fairness" debate in the first place.
    Onward and upward

  5. #105

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    96 db is quite loud indeed.
    Guys, guys! Then there's no problem... simply avoid, "emitting any sound exceeding 96 db(A), as measured at 50 centimetres from the exhaust outlet, while the engine is at any speed greater than idle".

    For what its worth, my anecdotal observations have noted a betterment each year - but only after EPS actually swings into a more forceful monitoring campaign. Unfortunately, those campaigns seem to miss the, weather permitting, late April/May periods.

  6. #106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS 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?
    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
    No need for you to add to the obfuscation! I fail to see what bearing a trade association focused on selling aftermarket parts has to my questions... or your unsubstantiated suggestions of politicization or a 'crafty' defense attorney. Your anecdotal attachment to YXD is noted. If you can offer substantiation to a supposed politicization behind the Edmonton Motorcycle Noise Bylaw, please do... something more than politicians simply reacting to raised concern/complaint and exercising their political authority to enforce acts intended for the benefit of the greater public welfare.
    Seriously Jeff,

    SEMA has members that make money off their product...some of which are aftermarket exhaust systems at the heart of your issue. You are seriously telling me that they don't lobby on behalf of their members for a bit more lenient or open bylaws? If you don't, look at "clunker" laws and see SEMA fly off the handle!

    SEMA is a very influential lobby group. Do not doubt that.
    Yes, seriously RichardS. My question was from the perspective of a motorcycle standard and test being developed. Whether SEMA was a factor in that, or not, it obviously wasn't successful in preventing the Motorcycle Industry Council developing the standard or from working with the Society of Automotive Engineers to develop a test.

    Now, I have no problem in leveraging your emphasis that SEMA is a 'very influential lobby group' and, accordingly, an impediment to the creation of a supposed, much clamored for, "all inclusive, all vehicle" solution. Which kind of speaks to the "easiness" of creating that all inclusive solution - wouldn't you say?

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    As for the politics, why call it the Motorcycle Bylaw if the bylaw itself is not to pander directly to the complaints of people who hate motorcycles? Why not make bikes a sub category of the larger vehicular noise bylaw, or are you suggesting we create the "dying calf coffee can exhaust tip bylaw no 12345" and the "loud bass bylaw" and the "hard loping engine bylaw"...
    Really? Would the same bylaw name carry any less targeted emphasis as a sub-category of "whatever" larger vehicular noise bylaw? By the by, fart can exhausts, loud music and "loping" engines are not... vehicles!

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    An overall vehicular noise bylaw does exactly the same thing you ask, namely

    something more than politicians simply reacting to raised concern/complaint and exercising their political authority to enforce acts intended for the benefit of the greater public welfare.
    ...without getting quagmired in this "fairness" debate in the first place.
    Nice one! My question/request and the quote extract you're replying to was in regards to you substantiating your suggestion/implication of a politicization behind the Edmonton Motorcycle Noise bylaw. If you're not prepared to offer substantiation... no problem!

  7. #107
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Neither cars nor motorcycles are persons, so there should be no legal rights issue, but there is a fairness issue, and an effectiveness issue: a bylaw targeting all loud vehicles would do a better job of making the city a better place.

    The problem then is that no static testing can account for how a vehicle is driven. Driving any vehicle in such a way that it creates excessive noise should be easily enforced under some sort if nuisance law without having to be measured directly. Some bikes in particular can be reasonable at idle but when reved hard can be loud enough to cause pain.

  8. #108

    Default

    You know i have the best way to solve all this. LEAVE THE CITY AND MOVE TO THE COUNTRY.

  9. #109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by darkmagnoblade View Post
    You know i have the best way to solve all this. LEAVE THE CITY AND MOVE TO THE COUNTRY.
    I trust your call to exile motorcycles to the country will be met by someone claiming their Charter Rights are being infringed!

  10. #110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    The problem then is that no static testing can account for how a vehicle is driven. Driving any vehicle in such a way that it creates excessive noise should be easily enforced under some sort if nuisance law without having to be measured directly. Some bikes in particular can be reasonable at idle but when reved hard can be loud enough to cause pain.
    The bylaw covers both a static (engine at idle) measure as well as an engine at any speed greater than idle; specifically:
    18.1 A person shall not operate a motor cycle that is capable of:
    1. emitting any sound exceeding 92 db(A), as measured at 50 centimetres from the exhaust outlet, while the engine is at idle; or

    2. emitting any sound exceeding 96 db(A), as measured at 50 centimetres from the exhaust outlet, while the engine is at any speed greater than idle.


    Your suggestion of a bylaw that doesn't rely upon direct measurement brings us back to the, as I understand, subjective problems associated with the Traffic Safety Act:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    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!

  11. #111

    Default

    Uh no. Im calling the people crying that the noise is too much for them to move to the country. You're in a bloody city there will always be noise.

  12. #112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by darkmagnoblade View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by darkmagnoblade View Post
    You know i have the best way to solve all this. LEAVE THE CITY AND MOVE TO THE COUNTRY.
    I trust your call to exile motorcycles to the country will be met by someone claiming their Charter Rights are being infringed!
    Uh no. Im calling the people crying that the noise is too much for them to move to the country. You're in a bloody city there will always be noise.
    Oh... is that what you meant? I guess that went right by me!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    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"!

  13. #113

    Default

    alright with that logic of yours lets take the emergency services and parents of the babies to cry to court just to make you happy because they were making too much noise for your precious ears

  14. #114

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by darkmagnoblade View Post
    alright with that logic of yours lets take the emergency services and parents of the babies to cry to court just to make you happy because they were making too much noise for your precious ears
    And with that logic of yours let's get rid of any form/manner of intrusive noise law! Why let's just get behind your apparent libertarian bent and get rid of all laws... all government levels.

    Oh wait, perhaps you should explain just why you personally feel... you... have the right to cause excessive/abusive noise - because you live in a city?

    Care to share what kind of thunder-machine you ride... other than your pic-taking bicycle?


    Hey now - do they have any cities in California???

    California motorcycle noise limits (as measured at a distance of 50 feet from the centerline of travel) :
    - A noise limit of 92 decibels applies to any motorcycle manufactured before 1970;
    - A noise limit of 88 decibels applies to motorcycles manufactured after 1969 and before 1973;
    - A noise limit of 86 decibels applies to motorcycles manufactured after 1972 and before 1975;
    - A noise limit of 83 decibels applies to motorcycles manufactured after 1974 and before 1986;
    - A noise limit of 80 decibels applies to motorcycles manufactured after 1985.

    And just recently, California upped the stakes by directly targeting after-market manufacturers:

    Motorcycles registered in the state that are manufactured on or after 2013 or have an aftermarket exhaust system manufactured on or after 2013 must have the federal EPA noise emission label affixed to it in order to be operated, used, or parked in the state.
    Last edited by Jeff; 07-05-2013 at 12:50 AM.

  15. #115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by darkmagnoblade View Post
    You know i have the best way to solve all this. LEAVE THE CITY AND MOVE TO THE COUNTRY.
    Where they can listen to the sound of tractors, quads, snowmobiles, and trucks bombing down the road

  16. #116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    I suggest you're reading (rather, creating) something that's not there.
    Maybe. But if the posters complaints on this forum regarding motorcycle noise are a snapshot of the complaints the City received that brought about the bylaw in the first place then my 'creation' stands; more often than not most (not all, there are some violators) the sounds they (you) hear that are so offensive are probably not illegal. Annoying, intrusive, aggravating? yes. We are upset at being disturbed.
    The bylaw gets the attention and support it does is because its closest thing to a flagbearer that a percent of the population can rally behind.

    The thoughtful citizen realizes its beyond motorcycles.
    Last edited by bpeters; 07-05-2013 at 04:41 PM.
    He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

  17. #117

    Default

    Given that the Motorcycle Industry Council developed the noise standard associated with the Edmonton Motorcycle Noise bylaw... and that it worked with the Society of Automotive Engineers to develop the test used within the bylaw, MODEL chooses to state the Motorcycle Industry Council "sold out" the Edmonton biker community... "sold out" - the exact words used.

    In that an association is nothing more than the makeup of its membership, apparently, these manufacturers, importers and distributors, these members of the Motorcycle Industry Council have "sold out" the Edmonton biker community:


  18. #118
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    51

    Default

    To all who are may be unaware there is always more to what certain people pick out to post, the Motorcycle Industry Council (MIC) has no bearing on Canadian laws as they are a US based organization. Their Canadian counterpart is the Motorcycle & Moped Industry Council (MMIC).

    What is stated on our website is that "Once the J2825 test was developed, Luc Fournier, Director of Policy and Government Relations, took to the streets to sell his new product that sold out the community his MMIC members rely on - the customers."

    So, yes we stated that the MMIC sold out the motorcycle community in Edmonton first, have tried in other places with no success and have succeeded in two very small towns in Ontario. We never stated that the manufacturers themselves sold out their own clientele. It might be surprising for some to note we actually have good support from dealerships and shops in Edmonton.

    If anyone wishes to disagree with our stance, that is your right and your opinion. We just ask that you don't pick and choose bits and pieces, taking them out of context to twist things around in order to further your own agenda, especially if you are going to accuse us of doing that exact thing.

  19. #119

    Default

    Jeff, whatever your argument was, its lost. You now only sound like a cranky, belligerent curmudgeon.
    He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

  20. #120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    Given that the Motorcycle Industry Council developed the noise standard associated with the Edmonton Motorcycle Noise bylaw... and that it worked with the Society of Automotive Engineers to develop the test used within the bylaw, MODEL chooses to state the Motorcycle [& Moped] Industry Council "sold out" the Edmonton biker community... "sold out" - the exact words used.

    In that an association is nothing more than the makeup of its membership, apparently, these manufacturers, importers and distributors, these members of the Motorcycle [& Moped] Industry Council have "sold out" the Edmonton biker community:
    Quote Originally Posted by trmpt View Post
    ...the Motorcycle Industry Council (MIC) has no bearing on Canadian laws as they are a US based organization. Their Canadian counterpart is the Motorcycle & Moped Industry Council (MMIC).
    The US based MIC has as much or as little bearing on Canadian laws as does the Canadian based MMIC. As I stated, it was the MIC, in conjunction with SAE International, that developed the Motorcycle Roadside Noise Emission Test SAE J2825... the standard/test associated with the Edmonton Motorcycle Noise Bylaw. In the case of the CofE municipal government, the "law bearing" aspect reflects upon the adoption of the standard/test and its incorporation into the bylaw!

    Now, for full disclosure/completeness, per the MMIC website, the MMIC, as a MIC funding partner, claims an attachment to the SAE J2825 standard/test; specifically:
    The SAE J2825 Sound Test for Motorcycles

    On-highway riders and their bikes don’t have to be victims of questionable sound-level checks anymore, thanks to a new procedure developed by the Motorcycle Industry Council (MIC) in partnership with SAE International, and the Motorcycle & Moped Industry Council (MMIC), as one of its funding partners.

    The MIC and the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) established the SAE J 2825 sound test, which they believe will provide a quick, easy, economical, and science-based tool for accurately identifying motorcycles with excessively noisy sound emissions.

    Now, law-enforcement authorities have a simple, quick, economical tool for accurately identifying motorcycles with excessively loud exhaust systems. The SAE document J2825, "Measurement of Exhaust Sound Pressure Levels of Stationary On-Highway Motorcycles," meets the need for a practical, consistent roadside sound test.

    MMIC, its member manufacturers and distributors recommend the new SAE J 2825 stationary sound test procedure for on-highway motorcycles and encourage the implementation of these standards across Canada.

    Quote Originally Posted by trmpt View Post
    What is stated on our website is that "Once the J2825 test was developed, Luc Fournier, Director of Policy and Government Relations, took to the streets to sell his new product that sold out the community his MMIC members rely on - the customers."

    So, yes we stated that the MMIC sold out the motorcycle community in Edmonton first, have tried in other places with no success and have succeeded in two very small towns in Ontario. We never stated that the manufacturers themselves sold out their own clientele.
    Great! Thanks for confirming exactly what I stated concerning your "sold out" claim... as I bold highlighted immediately above, MMIC states it and its member manufacturers and distributors recommend the SAE J 2825... more pointedly, also per a MMIC statement appearing on its website:
    The member companies of the MMIC account for over 90 percent of all the new motorcycles and scooters sold in Canada. The MMIC is funded entirely by its members, affiliate members and by the programs and services it offers.
    ... clearly, as I stated initially, "an association is nothing more than the makeup of its membership"! Claiming the MMIC association "sold out" the Edmonton biker community is tantamount to claiming the MMIC association's membership makeup "sold out" the Edmonton biker community.


    Quote Originally Posted by trmpt View Post
    We just ask that you don't pick and choose bits and pieces, taking them out of context to twist things around
    Nothing was taken out of context or twisted. You appear to be quite confused as to the where/how/what behind the very SAE J 2825 standard/test you're so perplexed over. This must be doubly embarrassing given your earlier highlighted (big time) fail in advocating for the (not) "proven solution" Noise Snare!

  21. #121

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bpeters View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bpeters View Post
    What most people complain about in this thread is self loathing motorcycle noise (but really, noise in general) they find annoying, disruptive and irritating, etc, BUT not necessarily violating the motorcycle noise bylaw.
    As I recall, the only persons attempting to deflect/expand this motorcycle noise focused thread beyond motorcycles are those clamoring for an "all inclusive" solution in the name of challenging the CofE's authority or their interpreted infringed Charter Rights. I suggest you're reading (rather, creating) something that's not there.
    Maybe. But if the posters complaints on this forum regarding motorcycle noise are a snapshot of the complaints the City received that brought about the bylaw in the first place then my 'creation' stands
    You appear quite confused! Your "creation" was suggesting an extension beyond motorcycle noise proper; extending beyond to encompass, as you said, "noise in general". Again, as I stated: "the only persons attempting to deflect/expand this motorcycle noise focused thread beyond motorcycles are those clamoring for an "all inclusive" solution in the name of challenging the CofE's authority or their interpreted infringed Charter Rights.".

    Quote Originally Posted by bpeters View Post
    more often than not most (not all, there are some violators) the sounds they (you) hear that are so offensive are probably not illegal. Annoying, intrusive, aggravating? yes.
    I acknowledge your unsubstantiated anecdotal based opinion!

    Quote Originally Posted by bpeters View Post
    We are upset at being disturbed.
    Excessive/abusive noise is a disturbance to quality of life - it's what noise laws target... and yes, people do get upset at those who purposely and wantonly modify their motorcycles simply to create excessive/abusive noise. Your belittling speaks volumes to the apparent (lack of) consideration you offer.

    Quote Originally Posted by bpeters View Post
    The bylaw gets the attention and support it does is because its closest thing to a flagbearer that a percent of the population can rally behind.
    Go figure! People reacting positively to a law intended for the benefit of the greater public welfare. Is there a problem?

    Quote Originally Posted by bpeters View Post
    The thoughtful citizen realizes its beyond motorcycles.
    No - the thoughtful citizen realizes a viable standard/test exists today to address excessive/abusive motorcycle exhaust noise.

    Quote Originally Posted by bpeters View Post
    Jeff, whatever your argument was, its lost. You now only sound like a cranky, belligerent curmudgeon.
    In your opinion... uhhh, did you even have an actual argument?

  22. #122
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    51

    Default

    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?

    If the J2825 is such a proven standard that the City of Edmonton can stand by, why did the they withdraw their own appeal just two days before it was to go before the court?

  23. #123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trmpt View Post
    If the J2825 is such a proven standard that the City of Edmonton can stand by, why did the they withdraw their own appeal just two days before it was to go before the court?
    How is one to decipher a statement, your statement as quoted, bereft of detail, context, reference and meaning? Are you (MODEL) formally challenging the SAE International J2825 standard and, if so, how and on what basis are you (MODEL) formally challenging it? Just what are you exactly stating here? And again, as stated previously, per the MMIC statement, "MMIC, its member manufacturers and distributors recommend the new SAE J 2825 stationary sound test procedure for on-highway motorcycles and encourage the implementation of these standards across Canada."

    If you (MODEL) are challenging the (SAE) J 2825 standard, why are you (MODEL) going against the recommendations of MMIC member manufacturers and distributors... against their recommendation of the (SAE) J 2825 standard/test procedure?

    Note: as I'm aware, 2 U.S. states have recently enacted excessive motorcycle noise legislation based on the relatively new J2825 standard/testing as developed in conjunction with the Society of Automotive Engineers International. Within Quebec, as of May 2013, 15 police forces across the province of Quebec will be enforcing against excessive motorcycle noise based on the (SAE) J2825 standard; specifically, these 15 Quebec police forces will be utilizing a new (SAE) J2825 based methodology developed by the Quebec Ministry of Transport and the Quebec Automobile Insurance Society (SAAQ).

  24. #124
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    51

    Default

    I just assumed because you assume to know everything else, you would know this as well. I'll make it two part for you.

    If the J2825 is such a proven standard that the City of Edmonton can stand by, why have so many tickets been quashed, dismissed or withdrawn?

    If the J2825 is such a proven standard that the City of Edmonton can stand by, why did the they withdraw their own appeal just two days before it was to go before the court?

    It has become apparent that you continue to blatantly avoid the two simple yes or no questions below that have been asked to you several times:

    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?

    As long as you refuse to answer these, I will no longer be engaging in this conversation with you.

  25. #125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trmpt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by trmpt View Post
    If the J2825 is such a proven standard that the City of Edmonton can stand by, why did the they withdraw their own appeal just two days before it was to go before the court?
    How is one to decipher a statement, your statement as quoted, bereft of detail, context, reference and meaning? Are you (MODEL) formally challenging the SAE International J2825 standard and, if so, how and on what basis are you (MODEL) formally challenging it? Just what are you exactly stating here? And again, as stated previously, per the MMIC statement, "MMIC, its member manufacturers and distributors recommend the new SAE J 2825 stationary sound test procedure for on-highway motorcycles and encourage the implementation of these standards across Canada."

    If you (MODEL) are challenging the (SAE) J 2825 standard, why are you (MODEL) going against the recommendations of MMIC member manufacturers and distributors... against their recommendation of the (SAE) J 2825 standard/test procedure?

    Note: as I'm aware, 2 U.S. states have recently enacted excessive motorcycle noise legislation based on the relatively new J2825 standard/testing as developed in conjunction with the Society of Automotive Engineers International. Within Quebec, as of May 2013, 15 police forces across the province of Quebec will be enforcing against excessive motorcycle noise based on the (SAE) J2825 standard; specifically, these 15 Quebec police forces will be utilizing a new (SAE) J2825 based methodology developed by the Quebec Ministry of Transport and the Quebec Automobile Insurance Society (SAAQ).
    I just assumed because you assume to know everything else, you would know this as well. I'll make it two part for you.
    ??? I don't assume to know everything else. However, among the things I do know: I do know you (MODEL) have associated yourself with a failed promotion of an apparently 'not ready for prime time' alternate 'Noise Snare' so-called all inclusive solution. I do know you (MODEL) claim the MMIC/motorcycle manufacturer & distributor membership have 'sold out' the Edmonton biker community. I do know you (MODEL) make absolute and definitive claims solely based upon your selective and self-serving interpretations of the authority of the CofE and (supposedly) infringed Charter Rights. I do know you (MODEL) care little to nothing about actual excessive motorcycle noise... if you (MODEL) did, you most certainly would not be advocating for the return of enforcement based solely on the Traffic Safety Act; rather, you would be openly and forcefully advocating for enforcement by the existing CofE Motorcycle Noise Bylaw. I do know you repeatedly denigrated/berated the CofE/Mayor Mandel for not aligning to your advocating the non-proven/failed 'Noise Snare' alternative "solution". I do know you repeatedly stated the CofE/Mayor Mandel were openly and flagrantly discriminating against you (MODEL) and motorcyclists based simply on your stated/acknowledged 'minimal/meager' financial means to formally challenge the bylaw/the Canadian Charter.

    Quote Originally Posted by trmpt View Post
    If the J2825 is such a proven standard that the City of Edmonton can stand by, why have so many tickets been quashed, dismissed or withdrawn?
    If they have... and you (MODEL) can attest to the SAE J2825 standard being the reason, just say so? If you (MODEL) truly can substantiate that, will you be bringing that information to MIC/MMIC/SAE to advise of a lacking in the standard? That would be a part of your/MODEL's mandate in presumably advocating for the motorcycle community, right? Let us know how you make out with that!

    Quote Originally Posted by trmpt View Post
    If the J2825 is such a proven standard that the City of Edmonton can stand by, why did the they withdraw their own appeal just two days before it was to go before the court?
    You're simply repeating the exact statement you just provided... the same statement that I suggested was "bereft of detail, context, reference and meaning"! Why are you so vague... is there a problem here in why you refuse to provide detail, context, reference and meaning behind your (now repeated) statement?

    Quote Originally Posted by trmpt View Post
    As long as you refuse to answer these, I will no longer be engaging in this conversation with you.
    I've repeatedly answered your questions - you simply refuse to accept the answers you don't like. I don't accept your self-serving personal interpretations that question both the authority of the CofE and the Canadian Charter.

  26. #126

    Default

    Figured this was a good place to share this link.

    Yet another reason I love motorcycles / bikers: http://www.leaderpost.com/news/Biker...200/story.html
    FREE THE LOOPING .GIF MEMES
    youtube.com/GrimEmpire

  27. #127

    Default

    Oh Jeff, my dear friend, you seem to use a lot of words to not say very much. As I read through your previous statement I walk away with very little. But, there may be hope yet. Am I to assume that you perceive the group M.O.D.E.L. have to six pillars which are as follows:
    1) They support a "non-proven/failed" alternative. By the way, not proven and failed are not, in fact, synonymous but are rather mutually exclusive. This means that if something has not been proven it could not possibly have failed due to the simple fact that for anything to have "failed" one must provide evidence of its inability to preform as designed.
    2) That the MMIC has "sold out." It is my understanding that the MMIC is an association that represents the interests of motorcycle distributors, not the interests of the rider. Therefore, it is impossible for the organization to "sell out" as the acronym does not stand for "Mad Motorcyclists Investigating Crime." This organization is based in the interests of the supplier- not the consumer. The organization M.O.D.E.L. rather states that the MMIC has thrown their members' clientele under the (figurative) bus.
    3) That M.O.D.E.L. makes absolute claims based on opinion. Jeff, I am curious as to whether or not you understand the word subjective. Also, I wonder if you (Jeff) understand the fact that by stating this point you are also a hypocrite. As I slowly trudge through your poorly organized argument I have, very quickly, come to realization that you are in the habit of doing many of the same things that you berate others for doing. Also, on a side note, I would like to point out that every absolute claim is based on an opinion at some point in its history. For instance, "the sky is blue" is an absolute. But this point is base solely on the person's definition of blue (aka his or her opinion of what constitutes the color blue), the time of day, and the weather.
    4) That M.O.D.E.L. does not care about noise. Please see my response to 3. It is clearly stated throughout this thread that the organization does care about noise... in fact they care about all noise.
    5) That M.O.D.E.L berates the city and Mayor Mandel. This is a group that is trying to enact change. It is my understanding that change cannot occur silently from the dark, lonely corners censored mediocrity.

  28. #128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy View Post
    Oh Jeff, my dear friend, you seem to use a lot of words to not say very much. As I read through your previous statement I walk away with very little. But, there may be hope yet. Am I to assume that you perceive the group M.O.D.E.L. have to six pillars which are as follows:
    Oh Billy, you speak of 'six pillars'... I count 5. Is there more?
    Quote Originally Posted by Billy View Post
    1) They support a "non-proven/failed" alternative. By the way, not proven and failed are not, in fact, synonymous but are rather mutually exclusive. This means that if something has not been proven it could not possibly have failed due to the simple fact that for anything to have "failed" one must provide evidence of its inability to preform as designed.
    No – as used, the terms are not, as you claim, mutually exclusive… ‘not proven’ as in not shown to be a viable alternate all-inclusive solution… ‘failed’ as in a failed trial deployment in Calgary.
    Quote Originally Posted by Billy View Post
    2) That the MMIC has "sold out." It is my understanding that the MMIC is an association that represents the interests of motorcycle distributors, not the interests of the rider. Therefore, it is impossible for the organization to "sell out" as the acronym does not stand for "Mad Motorcyclists Investigating Crime." This organization is based in the interests of the supplier- not the consumer. The organization M.O.D.E.L. rather states that the MMIC has thrown their members' clientele under the (figurative) bus.
    No - the specific phrase “sold out” was used by MODEL (and its spokesperson within this thread) – that in relation to the SAE J2825 motorcycle noise standard/test, “MMIC sold out the motorcycle community in Edmonton”. As I stated the MMIC and its member manufacturers/distributors recommend the SAE J2825 noise standard/test.
    Quote Originally Posted by Billy View Post
    3) That M.O.D.E.L. makes absolute claims based on opinion. Jeff, I am curious as to whether or not you understand the word subjective. Also, I wonder if you (Jeff) understand the fact that by stating this point you are also a hypocrite. As I slowly trudge through your poorly organized argument I have, very quickly, come to realization that you are in the habit of doing many of the same things that you berate others for doing. Also, on a side note, I would like to point out that every absolute claim is based on an opinion at some point in its history. For instance, "the sky is blue" is an absolute. But this point is base solely on the person's definition of blue (aka his or her opinion of what constitutes the color blue), the time of day, and the weather.
    No – my statements have been that MODEL (and its spokesperson within this thread) have made and continue to make absolute and definitive claims solely based on self-serving interpretations of the authority of the CofE and of (supposed) Charter Rights infringement. Your personal subjectivity is glaringly evident if you don’t see the distinction between absolute/definitive claims and self-serving interpretation. MODEL (and its spokesperson within this thread) are not the final arbiter in deciding the authority of the CofE or of a challenge to the Charter of Rights.
    Quote Originally Posted by Billy View Post
    4) That M.O.D.E.L. does not care about noise. Please see my response to 3. It is clearly stated throughout this thread that the organization does care about noise... in fact they care about all noise.
    No – my statement doubted/challenged concern for excessive motorcycle noise based on advocating for the sole return of the (ineffective) Traffic Safety Act and an apparent incompetence in advocating/lobbying for the ‘Noise Snare’ as a viable alternate (supposed) all-inclusive solution.
    Quote Originally Posted by Billy View Post
    5) That M.O.D.E.L berates the city and Mayor Mandel. This is a group that is trying to enact change. It is my understanding that change cannot occur silently from the dark, lonely corners censored mediocrity.
    I said berated… and denigrated. Thanks for agreeing with my assessment.

  29. #129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    - the specific phrase “sold out” was used by MODEL (and its spokesperson within this thread) – that in relation to the SAE J2825 motorcycle noise standard/test, “MMIC sold out the motorcycle community in Edmonton”. As I stated the MMIC and its member manufacturers/distributors recommend the SAE J2825 noise standard/test.
    The American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) endorses the SAE J2825 standard/test for measuring motorcycle exhaust noise: The American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) - self described as the world's largest motorcycling rights organization... "since 1924, the AMA has protected the future of motorcycling and promoted the motorcycle lifestyle".

    The AMA was aware even in the 1940s that excessive motorcycle sound created problems. The AMA launched the popular “Muffler Mike” campaign for quieter riding in 1948 in an effort to get motorcyclists to respect others.

    Since that time, the AMA has always tried to find a middle ground between overly restrictive laws that punish responsible riders and a wide-open, anything-goes attitude that results in a backlash from the general public.

    In 2009, the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) International produced a simple, consistent and economical sound test standard that can be used to determine whether an on-highway motorcycle exhaust system emits excessive sound. The SAE J2825 "Measurement of Exhaust Sound Pressure Levels of Stationary On-Highway Motorcycles" establishes instrumentation, test site, test conditions, procedures, measurements and sound level limits.

    Shortly after the SAE released J2825, the AMA developed model legislation for use by cities and states seeking a simple, consistent and economical way to deal with sound complaints related to on-highway motorcycles within the larger context of excessive sound from all sources. The model legislation is based on SAE J2825.
    Based on its opposition to excessive motorcycle sound, the American Motorcyclist Association recommends the following:

    - All motorcyclists should be sensitive to community standards and respect the right of fellow citizens to enjoy a peaceful environment.

    - Motorcyclists should not modify exhaust systems in a way that will increase sound to a level that is offensive. This includes the installation of unmuffled exhaust systems.

    - Organizers of motorcycle events should take steps--through advertising, peer pressure and enforcement--to make excessively loud motorcycles unwelcome.
    Motorcycle retailers should discourage the installation and use of excessively loud replacement exhaust systems, including unmuffled “straight pipes.”

    - The motorcycle industry, including aftermarket suppliers of replacement exhaust systems, should adopt responsible product design and marketing policies aimed at limiting the cumulative impact of excessive motorcycle sound.

    - Manufacturers producing motorcycles that meet the appropriate federal standards should continue to educate their dealers and customers that louder exhaust systems can decrease the performance of motorcycles.

    - Law enforcement agencies should fairly and consistently enforce appropriate laws against excessive vehicle sound and other sources of undesirable sound.

    - The motorcycle industry and the safety community should educate customers and riders that excessive sound can be fatiguing, thus impairing good riding skills and judgment, making riding less enjoyable.

  30. #130

    Default

    Guys, guys! Bikers of America... 'Phil & Bill'... recommend the SAE J2825!!! These guys look like they know their stuff!

    We support the SAE J2825 recommended practice because it's practical, reliable, and follows the lead established by the SAE for measuring off-highway vehicle sound using the J1287 recommended practice.

    Again, if the issue is excessive sound, we can't think of a better way to establish a test procedure that's fair to all concerned (i.e., motorcycle owner, law enforcement, courts, etc.) than this one.

  31. #131

    Default

    Oh my, I cannot believe that I have forgotten to include the sixth, and possibly most important of all of the pillars. But, alas, there is new business to discuss and with the spirit of progress in our hearts we are forced to address that which is new before readdressing that which is old. It is for that reason that I must leave you clinging, with white knuckles, to the edge of your cushioned, lumbar supporting desk chair.

    It seems that if we are to continue on the path that we are currently merrily strolling we will soon be engaging in a discussion of semantics. Please do not understand the following statement as agreeing with your perceptions, but rather, explaining as to why point 1 required to be addressed. Not proven and non-proven mean the same thing, I believe that the term that you are attempting to use is dis-proven. Pronouns are important. Non-Proven leads the reader to believe that there has been no evidence provided. Dis-Proven means that the evidence has lead the seeker to believe that theory has failed.

    But onto more important business. Business that this thread actually concerns it's self with. The people who are actively engaging in the conversation are concerned with noise. Not simply the noise emitted from a motorcycle but noise that is emitted from all types of vehicles. Here is where I need more clarity of your position and in order for my curiosity to be fulfilled I require you to answer the following questions.
    Do you agree with the statement that there are many vehicles that emit unnecessary levels of noise?
    If so, do you agree that all owners of these vehicles should be fined?

    The reason that I ask is that your opinion, at times, seems malleable. It brings me to wonder if you are anti-noise or if you simply enjoy playing the devil's advocate.

    And finally, the moment that you have, indeed, been patiently waiting to arrive. The moment that will from now on be referred to as the reveal of the illusive 6th pillar. Personally, my favorite aspect of the sixth is its simplicity.
    6) To spread awareness of the issues and engage people in an open dialog regarding said issues. You (Jeff) may not have openly stated this pillar but by simply participating in a conversation (no matter your motives) you are providing evidence for the existence of this pillar... and its incredible efficiency.

  32. #132

    Default

    Here's a though everyone just stop posting and let this thread die it has turned into a bickering war of words.

  33. #133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by darkmagnoblade View Post
    You know i have the best way to solve all this. LEAVE THE CITY AND MOVE TO THE COUNTRY.
    Quote Originally Posted by darkmagnoblade View Post
    Im calling the people crying that the noise is too much for them to move to the country. You're in a bloody city there will always be noise.
    Quote Originally Posted by darkmagnoblade View Post
    with that logic of yours lets take the emergency services and parents of the babies to cry to court just to make you happy because they were making too much noise for your precious ears
    Quote Originally Posted by darkmagnoblade View Post
    Here's a though everyone just stop posting and let this thread die it has turned into a bickering war of words.
    And here I thought providing information that both industry/manufacturer/distributor & motorcyclist organizations support and endorse the SAE J2825 standard/test procedure was informative. Why... along with my just mentioned reference to the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) endorsing SAE J2825, here's another one: - The Motorcycle Riders Foundation (MRF):
    It is not clear why Schwarzenegger decided to punish motorcycle users who do not have an EPA stamp. We at the MRF oppose this sort of open-ended legislation, and advocate for the use of the newly-approved Society of Engineers (SAE) sound test for on-road motorcycles, technically known as the J2825 test.
    That's both the AMA & the MRF, two of the largest motorcyclist lobbying/activist organizations out there... both supporting the same SAE J2825 standard/test that is the basis for Edmonton's Motorcycle Noise Bylaw. Oh, and don't forget my reference to the 'Bikers of America' dudes support for SAE J2825, as well! Given all this biker support, doesn't it kind of make you wonder why MODEL would state that by MMIC's support and advocacy of SAE J2825, MMIC "sold out" Edmonton's biker community?
    Last edited by Jeff; 11-05-2013 at 08:12 AM.

  34. #134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    The Motorcycle Riders Foundation (MRF):
    It is not clear why Schwarzenegger decided to punish motorcycle users who do not have an EPA stamp. We at the MRF oppose this sort of open-ended legislation, and advocate for the use of the newly-approved Society of Engineers (SAE) sound test for on-road motorcycles, technically known as the J2825 test.
    The above is a reference to former California Governor Schwarzenegger bringing in motorcycle legislation I referred to earlier; specifically:
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    And just recently, California upped the stakes by directly targeting after-market manufacturers:
    Motorcycles registered in the state that are manufactured on or after 2013 or have an aftermarket exhaust system manufactured on or after 2013 must have the federal EPA noise emission label affixed to it in order to be operated, used, or parked in the state.
    Of course, as a federal law, the U.S. has had this EPA based requirement for many years... however, given the jurisdictional distinctions between the U.S. States and the federal U.S. Government, the federal law was not being enforced at the state level. I do believe California is the first to extend the federal law to a state legislative level... targeting aftermarket manufacturers directly as well as those motorcyclists choosing to alter their 'stock' exhausts. About that saying: "As California Goes, So Goes the Nation".....

    And for what's worth, although I can't find it associated with any official California government/police attachment, I'm finding several unofficial web references to California police agencies currently training for introduction of new direct targeted enforcement of excessive motorcycle noise based on the SAE J2825 standard.

  35. #135

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    Oh Billy, you speak of 'six pillars'... I count 5. Is there more?
    Quote Originally Posted by Billy View Post
    Oh my, I cannot believe that I have forgotten to include the sixth, and possibly most important of all of the pillars.

    And finally, the moment that you have, indeed, been patiently waiting to arrive. The moment that will from now on be referred to as the reveal of the illusive 6th pillar. Personally, my favorite aspect of the sixth is its simplicity.

    6) To spread awareness of the issues and engage people in an open dialog regarding said issues. You (Jeff) may not have openly stated this pillar but by simply participating in a conversation (no matter your motives) you are providing evidence for the existence of this pillar... and its incredible efficiency.
    Ya, Billy! It's this new web thingee called a 'Discussion Forum'!!! I am humbled to realize I motivated you enough to sign-up to C2E and direct your sole posting complement towards me... keep on "pillaring"!

  36. #136

    Default

    Jeff,

    I am to understand that you refuse to answer the two questions that I have asked?

  37. #137

    Default

    An update on Calgary's failed trial/deployment of the 'Noise Snare' vehicle noise monitoring system: Calgary crackdown on noisy vehicles sitting in silent limbo

    Perhaps MODEL could provide an update... or at least "adjust" it's strong advocacy for it's claimed solution... the , apparently, flawed/failed 'Noise Snare'.

    Alas, we are told, the Noise Snare is not out there trying to catch those louder than 96 decibels.

    No Noise Snare is going out anytime soon.

    No Noise Snare may ever go out again.

    Score update. Loud Motorcycles 1. City 0.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    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!

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

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
  •