New can required - or I get an ASBO! (actually a Section 59 it now seems).

Call me a grumpy Old Man (I have been called a lot worse) but is the risk of getting an ABSO and continued police harrassment worth it? Me, personally, I think not. Why is it necessary for bikes to have to make specific grunting noises to get the adrenaline flowing (or whatever other reason ... please feel free to inform me as to why a certain non-standard noise is necessary)?

Me ... I like to ride bikes and commute daily. I also like peace and quiet. We live in an increasingly noisy society. Yes, I have to admit, excessive noise for the sake of it is just puerile (in my view). I mean, who appreciates boy racers cranking up TuPac as they drive past with their excessively silly MaxPower Exhausts?

Not worth the hassle (again IMHO). You won't beat the filth if they're on to you. You can thank Jack Straw for that!

Cue abuse ...

I'm really confused by this, I thought the point of ASBOs was to address problems in society where the behaviour of a person was causing nuisance to others and there was no law in effect to give protection against this (that's what the name suggests). But in this case, if the issue is solely due to the level of sound from the OPs can, there are laws. Apparently the can is not E marked AND is excessively noisy (according to OP and easy enough to put a figure on) so why don't the police simply enforce these laws? Perhaps there is another 'behaviour' issue of which we are not aware.

[Dave20046]

Originally Posted by merlin427

I'm really confused by this, I thought the point of ASBOs was to address problems in society where the behaviour of a person was causing nuisance to others and there was no law in effect to give protection against this (that's what the name suggests). But in this case, if the issue is solely due to the level of sound from the OPs can, there are laws. Apparently the can is not E marked AND is excessively noisy (according to OP and easy enough to put a figure on) so why don't the police simply enforce these laws? Perhaps there is another 'behaviour' issue of which we are not aware.

From what I've read of the thread it's the section 59(?) that's being threatened not an asbo. So they are enforcing the laws, titles a bit misleading I suppose. The section 59's just often referred to as a vehicle asbo as the criteria are something like 'using a vehicle antisocially or causing distress or annoyance to other road users with a vehicle'.

[Red Herring]

Sect 59 is primarily intended for use against the illegal use of motor vehicles on land with antisocial implications, think scrote on Pit bike riding around the local playing field. It's strengths are that it's definition of a motor vehicle is wider than that under the Road Traffic Act so it does include such things as Pit bikes, go karts, motorized scooters and such like, and it doesn't just apply to roads and public places, it can be used on any land where they don't have permission to be. There is also scope for the legislation to be used against vehicles that would otherwise be lawfully on the road/public place but are being driven/ridden contrary to sect 3 (careless or without due consideration). This is where the police have been testing their powers and the legislation because they have been using it against "boy racers" and such like who wheelspin, handbrake turn etc, or even in one case i know of play their music to loud! The reason they use Sect 59 is because if it's additional powers, ie you can potentially seize the vehicle, where just reporting someone for careless driving means they could just carry on and you still then have to get the case past CPS (Now you can see why it's being abused). It's an effective piece of legislation when used properly, unfortunately in my experience that not very often!

Originally Posted by Dave20046

From what I've read of the thread it's the section 59(?) that's being threatened not an asbo. So they are enforcing the laws, titles a bit misleading I suppose. The section 59's just often referred to as a vehicle asbo as the criteria are something like 'using a vehicle antisocially or causing distress or annoyance to other road users with a vehicle'.

Thanks for clearing that up Dave, a bit of over dramatization by the OP. I'm a bit out of touch with ASBOs as I'm too old to see earning one as a 'badge of honour' and am unlikely to be on the receiving end of one.

I remember a good few years ago I had a Yamaha FZR 1000 which I put a (home made) pipe on, I thought it sounded great and in truth was not too loud low down due to the EXUP valve. A while after I got rid of it I was in my local shop (for local people) and the old dear behind the counter asked if I still had it, I told her it had gone and she said "Oh, I used to hear that around the village" (cue an ear-bashing for the loud pipe think I) "I sounded really wonderful" she finished. I guess I was guilty of pigeon holing her but it did prove what I've long thought, people don't really change just because they get older and the whinging old gits you see were probably equally obnoxious when they were younger - they've just had more practice.

[Dave20046]

Originally Posted by merlin427

but it did prove what I've long thought, people don't really change just because they get older and the whinging old gits you see were probably equally obnoxious when they were younger - they've just had more practice.

Like it

[Sir Trev]

Originally Posted by Tony_BLY

Why is it necessary for bikes to have to make specific grunting noises to get the adrenaline flowing (or whatever other reason ... please feel free to inform me as to why a certain non-standard noise is necessary)?

Cue abuse ...

Got to agree with you here Tony.

I can see why people may want to make a gutless and strangeld bike go better by putting a less restrictive system on it but when something works well already I don't see the point.

Making something unique to stand out - can understand that too.

But deliberately using something too loud?

We all know several examples of the law being tightened because enough people get fed up of something, even though the existing laws were adequate but not enforced. If enough bikers use loud pipes then we run the risk of even harsher rules as a consequence...

Originally Posted by plowsie

I thought it was just 3 points for a loud can, or is that when there in a not for road use stamp?

It's non-endorsable mate. £60 fixed penalty (no points), used to be £30, is the worst they can do AFAIK

Originally Posted by Tony_BLY

please feel free to inform me as to why a certain non-standard noise is necessary)?

It's my bike and I prefer it with a Foxtrot Oscar can(s) on it. Justification is not necessary IMHO. I think it sounds better like that

Originally Posted by joshmac

It's my bike and I prefer it with a Foxtrot Oscar can(s) on it. Justification is not necessary

Exactly. It's like, say, if I wanted to paint my bike purple - that would be cool

Jm- Your perogative--same perogative should the powers that be wish to prosecute for your perogative

You are all aware by the number of posts over the last five years of the issues regarding loud or illegal exhaust systems and know the consequencies,but as the man says----"Its your perogative"---therefore why complain if you get fined.
DON'T DO THE CRIME IF YOU CAN'T PAY THE FINE [slightly modified]

The above applies to number plates,speeding and being a knob in general.