Ban on "boy racer" cars

Soupi

if there's something i hate more than bad drivers than it's people who can't hide their jealousy of what other people have.

i hate when i hear someone say "snob" under their breath when they see a fella in a eg: new BMW.

he's not necessarily a snob but obviously just worked hard for his car and is successful and i'd take my hat off to them. or else they come from a wealthy background and fair play some people are lucky but i would never hold that against them, it's not their fault.

if it bothers people so much than get out there and get the car yourself, don't bully people who have what you want.

prospect

Soupi wrote:

if there's something i hate more than bad drivers than it's people who can't hide their jealousy of what other people have.

i hate when i hear someone say "snob" under their breath when they see a fella in a eg: new BMW.

he's not necessarily a snob but obviously just worked hard for his car and is successful and i'd take my hat off to them. or else they come from a wealthy background and fair play some people are lucky but i would never hold that against them, it's not their fault.

if it bothers people so much than get out there and get the car yourself, don't bully people who have what you want.

Fail to see how this has any relevance to the discussion
Unless you are implying that Ivor Callelly is jealous of teenagers with 1995 micras with big fat chrome exhausts and mirror-effect windows :rolleyes:

Soupi

well it could all be linked to ignorance on their parts.

i'm just goin with the flow, that's all!

elexes

just wondering somone said twin exhaust systems were under review . whats that mean for the new bmw m3

Seth Brundle

elexes wrote:

just wondering somone said twin exhaust systems were under review . whats that mean for the new bmw m3

It would replace the 4 end pipes with a big huge wavin pipe!

Seriously though, where did you see this?

elexes

kbannon wrote:

It would replace the 4 end pipes with a big huge wavin pipe!

Seriously though, where did you see this?

in this thread . somone said it previous .

wonder if there is a way to subscripe to kbannons posts as ur questions are simular to the ones i would ask on this matter and the one about the new laws with the points system

Turner

kdevitt wrote:

The bit about the exhaust is:

29. (1) Every vehicle propelled by an internal combustion engine shall, subject to the provisions of sub-article (2) of this article, be fitted with an exhaust silencer or other device suitable and sufficient for reducing to a reasonable level the noise caused by the escape of exhaust gases from the engine.

It then says that is regards to this silencer described above, that I'm not allowed alter it to make it louder.

So if I buy an aftermarket exhaust that is louder than standard and still within 'reasonable limits', but don't alter it to make it any louder, I'm within my rights to do so.

I think you missed this bit...

every silencer or similar contrivance which is required to be fitted under these Regulations shall be maintained in good and efficient working order and shall not have been altered in such a way that the noise caused by the escape of the exhaust gases is made greater by the alteration;

Seth Brundle

Chief--- wrote:

every silencer or similar contrivance which is required to be fitted under these Regulations shall be maintained in good and efficient working order and shall not have been altered in such a way that the noise caused by the escape of the exhaust gases is made greater by the alteration;

I read that and can only see one interpretation:-
You have an exhaust back box on and cannot alter it to make the noise louder. It does not mention replacing it with a louder one. which may alter the car or exahust system alright, but does not alter the original back box.

kdevitt

Chief--- wrote:

I think you missed this bit...

every silencer or similar contrivance which is required to be fitted under these Regulations shall be maintained in good and efficient working order and shall not have been altered in such a way that the noise caused by the escape of the exhaust gases is made greater by the alteration;

Didn't miss it at all, I referred to it in my previous post, I think you're interpreting it differently...

The definition I posted below refers to the 'every silencer or similar contrivance which is required to be fitted under these Regulations ' part, and the not altering it bit refers to 'shall not have been altered in such a way that the noise caused by the escape of the exhaust gases is made greater by the alteration'.

I'm within my rights to stick on an exhaust that is within 'reasonable' sound limits according to the law you've referred us to. I'm not entitled to alter this and make it noiser. Its up to whoever is responsible for this to define 'reasonable'

Ernie Ball

Window tints might fall under this provision:

23. Every vehicle shall be so constructed that the driver, while controlling the vehicle in motion, can at all times have such a view of the road and of other traffic on the road in front and to the sides of the vehicle as is necessary to enable him to drive safely.

prospect

kbannon wrote:

I read that and can only see one interpretation:-
You have an exhaust back box on and cannot alter it to make the noise louder. It does not mention replacing it with a louder one. which may alter the car or exahust system alright, but does not alter the original back box.

Removing it, is altering it, as far as I would be concerned.

Seth Brundle

Ernie Ball wrote:

Window tints might fall under this provision:

23. Every vehicle shall be so constructed that the driver, while controlling the vehicle in motion, can at all times have such a view of the road and of other traffic on the road in front and to the sides of the vehicle as is necessary to enable him to drive safely.

This doesn't define anything though and leaves it open entirely to an opinion.

GreeBo

Whatever about tints and noise being subjective those poxy lights that change colour as they approach are such a distraction atnight, you cant tell if you are being flashed or what half the time.
Ban them, they are not needed at all.

Seth Brundle

prospect wrote:

Removing it, is altering it, as far as I would be concerned.

maybe so, but any solicitor or barrister could easily prove your opinion wrong.

jaqian

kbannon wrote:

Seriously though, where did you see this?

It's in todays Indo page 6 I think.

I've no problem with pimped cars but I do have a problem with the gimp's that drive them around Cabra doing doughnuts, handbrake turns around corners where kids are playing and pumping out their music "concert loud" in the early hours of the morning (anything between 1am & 5am) hoping they won't wake your baby.

ambro25

Ernie Ball wrote:

Window tints might fall under this provision:
23. Every vehicle shall be so constructed that the driver, while controlling the vehicle in motion, can at all times have such a view of the road and of other traffic on the road in front and to the sides of the vehicle as is necessary to enable him to drive safely.

HAHAHA! I'm sure Mr Ford, Mr Honda, Mr BMW et al will give a crate-full of flying monkeys about Ireland's half-assed Statutes telling them how to build their cars

Joke and nit-picking aside, I'm wondering how much of an attack upon personal freedom of choice and EU-backed individual liberty (if any applicable to the problem at hand, note) this proposal constitutes?

Not to mention (obliquely) an indirect commercial market restriction breaching Articles 85/86 of the EU Convention

However, it's not as if IE's not been getting away with it (VRT, anyone?) for years...

kdevitt

jaqian wrote:

I've no problem with pimped cars but I do have a problem with the gimp's that drive them around Cabra doing doughnuts, handbrake turns around corners where kids are playing and pumping out their music "concert loud" all hours of the morning hoping they won't wake your baby.

Who doesn't have a pain in the arse with these numpties, but apart from completely excessive exhaust noise, its not something that the NCT will ever sort out though.

As for removing the exhaust being regarded as altering it, it may well have been the intention of the law makers that it should read that way, but thats not what it states.

elexes

Ernie Ball wrote:

Window tints might fall under this provision:

would stickers for the rac/aa/wheelchair or disabled person /tax insurance and nct come into this also ? isnt the window tinting stuff not actually called a sticker according to the eu standard of sience ?

egan007

seamus wrote:

Banning tinted windows is one of the main ones. Tinted windows are a safety hazard for all other road users, not just the driver, because they reduce visibility. For example - if I'm driving behind you, and you have tinted windows, I can't see what's in front of you. That's a case of you affecting my ability to drive safely, forcing me to take extra care.

Presumably you never drove behing a van -

While loud exhausts drive me mad and 'most' of the guys n gals look like dicks.
i would whole heartedly defend their right to modify their car (within reason) anyway they see fit.

This is a stupid load of rubbish which is a panic reaction but a demonstartion of the brain power that we have running the country.

Don't forget about the morons you put in power the next time you vote.

t5pwr

prospect wrote:

Removing it, is altering it, as far as I would be concerned.

It says only if you alter it to make it louder.
It seems that you can replace the exhaust as long as it doesn't get louder...

elexes

t5pwr wrote:

It says that only if you alter it to make it louder.
It seems that you can replace the exhaust as long as it doesn't get louder...

how can you prove it dosnt get louder ?

egan007

elexes wrote:

how can you prove it dosnt get louder ?

Really....it's not hard to measure sound

gurramok

kbannon wrote:

Not doubting your claim either but can you tell me the specific piece of legislation?

Trying to find actual Irish legal limits online is next to impossible. I know that the tints on my car are between 15% and 20% when I bought them, at the time I was told by the installer that this is perfectly within the limit.
I'm sure other tinters on boards could offer more info of what the installers told them.
In the UK, tints have to let in 70% light or above else they have to be removed plus front side window tints are illegal afaik.
Found this piece which refers to EU directives on tints which does not ban them in the EU:

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/DDebate.aspx?F=DAL20050615.xml&Dail=29&Ex=All&Page=35

"Vehicle Regulations.

301. Mr. Wall Information Zoom asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform Information Zoom his views on cars that have been adapted to create as much noise as possible; the reason the gardaí do not enforce the law when clearly there is noise disturbance being caused; his further views on tinted windows and on lights underneath cars; his further views on whether such breaches of law should be clamped down on; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20398/05]

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. McDowell): Information Zoom The Garda Síochána enforces the lighting regulations and the construction, equipment and use of vehicle regulations. Prosecutions have been brought for breaches of these regulations as they pertain to smoky exhausts, no silencer fitted on a mechanically propelled vehicle, lights underneath vehicles, for failing to keep the vehicle free of inessential objects or inessential stickers and for not having a view of the road to enable the driver to drive safely.

The Department of Transport, which has responsibility for all road traffic legislation, has indicated that all new cars sold in the EU must have EU whole type approval, EU-WVTA, which requires cars to meet requirements set out in 47 separate type approval EU directives, including directives relating to the glazing on vehicles and the field of vision of drivers. Where a vehicle has been glazed in accordance with type approval standards of the relevant directive it is not open to individual member states to prohibit their sale or use."

Also a handy euro wide chart from http://www.iwfa.com/iwfa/Law_Chart/EWFA%20Tint%20Laws.pdf
which states levels of window tinting in EU countries BUT good old Ireland not listed.

Seth Brundle

t5pwr wrote:

It says only if you alter it to make it louder.
It seems that you can replace the exhaust as long as it doesn't get louder...

We are going back to this again.
read it:

every silencer or similar contrivance which is required to be fitted under these Regulations shall be maintained in good and efficient working order and shall not have been altered in such a way that the noise caused by the escape of the exhaust gases is made greater by the alteration;

You can't make the original louder but it doesn't say you can't replace it with a louder one (as long as the new one is within reasonable sound limits - [reasonable being undefined!])

Seth Brundle

gurramok wrote:

...Mr. Wall Information Zoom asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform Information Zoom...

Who is Mr. Wall Information Zoom and is it just coincidence that he is the Minister of a Department with a similar name to himself?

Interceptor

kbannon wrote:

Who is Mr. Wall Information Zoom and is it just coincidence that he is the Minister of a Department with a similar name to himself?

The government should feck off. And kbannon should be forced to change that sig

'c

kdevitt

egan007 wrote:

Really....it's not hard to measure sound

Its actually exceptionally difficult to measure the sound of the current exhaust against the one it replaced, given that the old one is probably a coke can or something now...

t5pwr

kbannon wrote:

We are going back to this again.
read it:

You can't make the original louder but it doesn't say you can't replace it with a louder one (as long as the new one is within reasonable sound limits - [reasonable being undefined!])

Would changing it not be an alteration just like prospect was saying?

Of which it says that an alteration cannot be louder...

egan007

kdevitt wrote:

Its actually exceptionally difficult to measure the sound of the current exhaust against the one it replaced, given that the old one is probably a coke can or something now...

well they would use the noise test from the original manufacturer of that car as the standard for that car- give or take a few %
This data would be available from every manufacturer.

So it makes no difference if your old exhaust is currenlty making its way to a local shop in the oz outback as a can of coke.

kdevitt

egan007 wrote:

well they would use the noise test from the original manufacturer of that car as the standard for that car- give or take a few %
This data would be available from every manufacturer.

So it makes no difference if your old exhaust is currenlty making its way to a local shop in the oz outback as a can of coke.

So if BMW say my exhaust should be 70 decibels, but due to 6 years worth of driving its actually slightly louder at this stage, I fail my NCT?? Not going to happen... There should (and more than likely will be if theres any sense in the world) a very top limit set out , that no car can exceed - rather than a limit for each type of car - otherwise someone with a quiet-ish exhaust on their Fiesta could fail, while me with my Murcielago will pass... despite it being twice as noisy. (Not that I have a Murcielago, but you have to think ahead for all situations)

Anyway, since the law quite clearly allows me to change my exhaust for something with a reasonable sound level (not alter it mind you) its doesn't really matter...