Tag Archives: infringement

Time running out for noisy exhausts

The end appears to be coming for noisy motorcycle exhausts as noise detection devices are being trialled in the UK and Paris while Australian authorities monitor the trials.

Both the UK Department of Transport and French noise pollution agency Bruitparif are trialling devices that detect the noise, identify the culprit, take a photo and can even automatically issue a fine.

While they are set up to detect any noisy vehicles, the Parisienne devices are specifically targeting motorcycles with one set up in Saint-Forget, a hilly rural area near Paris popular with riders.

These “noise cameras” or “noise radars” are still under trial and no fines have been issued fines yet, but it may not be long before they are being used in Australia and other countries.

In India, police take a less technical approach with a subjective assessment followed by smashing the offending exhaust pipe on the roadside.If you think the cops are tough on noisy aftermarket exhausts here, try India where they hammer them flat by the roadside, or confiscated them and flattened them with a backhoe.

In June, they made an example of their crackdown by steam rolling confiscated pipes.

Noisy trials

When the UK trial was announced in June, we contacted police and road authorities in each state to gauge their interest in the noise cameras.

We received mainly non-committal replies saying they monitor the development and introduction of all traffic enforcement technologies around the world.

WA Police were the only ones to admit they were actively monitoring the UK prototype noise cameras and said they would “seek information on its operational effectiveness”.

Queensland Transport and Main Roads say they have trialled other equipment but only to detect noise levels of heavy vehicles.

“Although the technology can potentially be used for detecting noisy, modified or defective exhausts in light vehicles and/or motorcycles there is currently no plan to extend the trials or legislation to include those vehicles in Queensland,” a spokesperson told us.

How the systems work

noise cameras
UK Department of Transport drawing

The UK DoT could not supply us with any images of the camera or details of how they work, but they did provide this tiny drawing showing a camera pointed at an oncoming car.

Surely the camera should be behind the vehicle!

They say the camera function will identify the type of vehicle and its legal sound level (decibels or dB) to assess whether to apply an infringement.

In Europe, motorcycles have maximum noise levels of 73-77dB, depending on engine size, while cars are about 82dB.

Australia has much more lax levels of 94dB level for motorcycles (100dB if built before 1984) while it’s 90dB for cars (96dB before 1983).

But since the requirements for testing noise levels are so complex and prone to inaccuracies, we wonder about the accuracy of a device positioned up a light pole.Noisy cameras noise exhaustNoisy cameras noise exhaust

However, French noise pollution agency Bruitparif says their device is very accurate.

It has four microphones that measure decibel levels every 10th of a second and triangulates the source of the sound.

The device displays a picture of an “acoustic wake” as a trace of coloured dots trailing a vehicle.

Source: MotorbikeWriter.com

Cops issuing incorrect helmet fines?

Just days after we published an article in which Queensland Police waived an erroneous fine for a “void” helmet sticker, a second similar incorrect infringement has surfaced.

And it seems one of the chiefs of the Road Policing Command is so out of touch with the Australian and Queensland Road Rules and Standards he even thinks European-approved helmets can’t be sold legally in Queensland stores.

The lack of police knowledge about helmet rules has alarmed the new Australian Motorcycle Council chairman, Guy Stanford. 

He has called on Police Minister Mark Ryan and Police Commissioner Katarina Carroll to ensure officers are correctly educated about the rules before more riders are erroneously fined.

And Queensland is not the only state where police are getting the rules and standards wrong. Click here for more details.

Incorrect fine

Void helmet Ian Joice
Ian with his “void” sticker

In the first instance of an incorrect helmet fine, a rider had an external sticker showing “VOID” from sun exposure and an internal certification label affected by wear and sweat

Neither the Australian Road Rules nor the Australian Standards make any reference to an age limit for motorcycle helmets.

Police admitted their error and said it was an “isolated incident” and “the officer has been given guidance regarding the matter”.

However, that is not the case and police are issuing incorrect fines because they apparently don’t know the relevant road rules and helmet standards.

Second fineIncorrect helmet fine Robbie Graham

In the second incident, Robbie Graham copped a fine for a non-compliant helmet even though it had a proper Australian compliance sticker on the outside although the interior label had disappeared with normal wear and tear.

Guy says riders only need one form of certification “mark” on their helmet, either the external sticker or internal label, not both.

He says there is no reference in the road rules nor standard to helmets being non-compliant because of the wear and tear to the certification sticker or label.

The Queensland Department of Transport also notes that “either” a sticker or label is all that is legally required.

Fight against incorrect fine

Robbie has vowed to fight the $400/three-demerit-point fine and has written to the Police Commissioner and Department.

We also contacted Police HQ to ask why this has occurred, how they would ensure proper education of their officers and whether they would waive the incorrect fine.

Their insufficient reply did not answer any of our questions.

Instead, police referred us to the officer in charge and said “personal correspondence has been provided to the relevant party regarding this matter”.

That “personal correspondence” consisted of a phone message left for Robbie by an officer from the Organised Crime Gangs Maxima Road Policing Unit.

The message suggested Robbie had “two options — you can pay the fine or go to court”.

We contacted the phone number supplied and spoke with the Officer in Charge of the unit, Sgt Cameron Wilson.

The Sgt agrees that riders only need either the sticker or label as stated on the Department of Transport website and admitted by police in waiving Ian’s fine.

However, he says if the helmet only has the sticker, it needs to have all the information that is on the internal label as well as a date of manufacture.

Guy Stanford - Mobile phone while riding - darrk visor helmets tinted visor youtube withdrawn void incorrect
Guy Stanford

Guy points out that there has never been any external sticker with all that information and the date of manufacture is superfluous because there is expiry date requirement for helmets.

Not only was his interpretation of the rules askew, but he didn’t even know that European-approved helmets could legally be sold in shops.

We asked Police HQ what training police received on helmet rules.

They replied: “Although there is no specific formal training package regarding motor cycle helmets, all officers are trained in statutory interpretation to enable them to enforce the law.”

Guy says the term “trained in statutory interpretation” sounds like something the Red Queen from Alice in Wonderland would say.

“Perhaps this Sergeant needs to take advice from a hookah-smoking caterpillar before he goes crimson with rage and demands “Off with his head!” before going off to play croquet using flamingos for sticks,” he says.

“We really are in some childish alternate reality with this stuff.”

Court optionQueensland police

While police continue to incorrectly issue helmet fines, riders are left with the two options of paying a fine for an offence they did not commit or waste the court’s time and their time with the expense of a court hearing.

“They shouldn’t be issuing incorrect fines to people in the first place,” Robbie says.

“This doesn’t show ethics or integrity. It’s just wrong.

“You have to stand up for everyone else not just yourself.”

We contacted the Police Minister who has now asked the police to investigate the matter.

The Police Commissioner has been asked for comment, but is busy with bushfires this weekend and may not reply until next week.

We will follow the progress of Robbie’s fine challenge.

Source: MotorbikeWriter.com

Victory in void helmet sticker fine

Police have waived a Bribie Island rider’s $400/3point infringement for having a void helmet sticker in a test case that proves riders can legally remove the external sticker.

Ian Joice, 63, says he was pulled over by police on Bowen Rd, Glass House Mountains, on 12 August 2019 at 11.38am.

He says the officer noted the external sticker had the word VOID across it from age and sun damage while the internal label was faded due to wear.

Helmet fine void sticker
Internal label

A week later he received an infringement notice in the post for “fail to wear helmet”.

So he contacted Motorbike Writer after reading our article which advised riders that is legal to remove the external sticker.

Click there to read our full article.

We contacted Queensland Police to ask why an erroneous fine was issued and how many other similar fines had been issued.

They replied:

The infringement in this matter will be withdrawn. This is an isolated incident and the officer has been given guidance regarding the matter.

Ian was greatly relieved when we passed on the news of his fine waiver.

“I have been very distressed with this situation and am greatly relieved that the notice has been withdrawn,” he says.

“I have had some black days since the notice arrived.”

Australian Motorcycle Council helmet law expert Guy Stanford says he believes police are not aware of the rules and standards that apply to helmets.

Guy Stanford - Mobile phone while riding - darrk visor helmets tinted visor youtube withdrawn void
Guy Stanford

“This is a good result from a commonsense complaint,” he says. 

“The facts were clear, the rider had been issued a fine for an offence he did not commit.

“This sort of fraud reflects badly on all police.”

Void sticker

Guy says the external sticker on a motorcycle helmet is only an indication of compliance and not a legal requirement.

In fact, the Australian Road Rules and standards do not even mention an external sticker.

They only say the helmet has to be “permanently and legibly marked”.

“So long as the mark of certification appears somewhere on the helmet that’s all you need, which means the label inside,” Guy says.

AS/NZS 1698 external stickers show VOID due to fading in the sun or if they have been removed.Helmet fine void sticker

“This is only a manufacturer’s device to recommend to riders when they should update their helmet,” Guy says.

“It has nothing to do with any legal requirement and is not mentioned in the Australian Road Rules. There is no expiry date on motorcycle helmets.”

Ian says he didn’t realise his helmet was so old and has now spent the $400 he would have spent on paying the fine to buy a new helmet.

  • We suggest you keep a copy of this article and/or our previous article to show police if you are ever threatened with a similar erroneous fine.

Source: MotorbikeWriter.com