Loud Pipes Bill goes to the Governator's desk in California

[GTS_Rider]

Debated whether to just post to Region 1, but I'm thinking a good loud pipes discussion travels well across State boundaries. Also, as one State passes a law, many others eventually follow. This is a watered down version of an earlier bill that originally was to require motorcycles to pass smog testing. Now it's just a required EPA sticker on new bikes exhaust systems after 2013.

It'll be interesting to see if the Governator signs it. He's on his way out and has lots of biker-buddies after all. Here's the LATimes version of the story from 'much loved'    Susan Carpenter:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2010/08/motorcycle-noise.html

Motorcyclists who swap their bikes' stock exhaust systems for so-called loud pipes may be more likely to get a traffic ticket under a California bill that passed the Senate on Monday. SB 435, also known as the Motorcycle Anti-Tampering Act, gives law enforcement officials the ability to cite noise pollution violations under the California Vehicle Code, reinforcing a 27-year-old federal regulation that is rarely enforced.

Under the proposed law, motorcyclists pulled over for other traffic violations could also be cited for illegally noisy exhaust pipes and fined $50 to $100 for a first violation -- a fix-it ticket that could be dismissed with a proof of correction. Subsequent offenses would result in fines of $100 to $250. The bill, which has also passed the Assembly, is headed for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to sign. It would apply to motorcycles and after-market parts from the 2013 model year forward.

"The noise pollution caused by illegally modified motorcycle exhaust systems is a major quality of life issue across the state," SB 435's author, Sen. Fran Pavely (D-Santa Monica), said in a news release issued Monday. "Basic common sense and decency dictates that when a motorcycle drives by and sets off every car alarm on the street, that is too loud.

"Additionally," Pavley said, "many of the modifications which are aimed at making a bike louder -- for example removing the catalytic converter -- also make the bike exponentially more polluting. This has direct, measurable and negative impacts on public health."

SB 435 is a watered-down version of a bill first introduced in the senate in February 2009. The earlier version of SB 435, which had also targeted illegally modified motorcycle exhaust systems but for emissions violations and would have required biennial smog checks for motorcycles, met too much resistance from bikers' rights groups and was amended last year.

The retooled version of SB 435 focuses only on exhaust-pipe-tampering and bikes that exceed the EPA-regulated 80-decibel limit for bikes manufactured since 1985. While an illegally noisy exhaust often goes hand in hand with a bike that exceeds allowable emissions, the 2010 version of SB 435 does not specifically address the smog-forming pollutants resulting from illegally modified bikes. It does, however, hold the potential to also reduce emissions -- if it's enforced.

According to the Air Resources Board, which backed the smog-check version of SB 435, motorcycles account for less than 1% of vehicle-miles traveled in the state yet account for 10% of passenger vehicles' smog-forming emissions; swapping a compliant tailpipe equipped with a catalytic converter for one without emissions controls can emit as many as 10 times more smog-forming pollutants per mile.

-- Susan Carpenter

[zer0netgain]

My thoughts....

SB 435, also known as the Motorcycle Anti-Tampering Act, gives law enforcement officials the ability to cite noise pollution violations under the California Vehicle Code, reinforcing a 27-year-old federal regulation that is rarely enforced.

Well, if Arizona set any precedent (thus far), California cannot do this.  

"Basic common sense and decency dictates that when a motorcycle drives by and sets off every car alarm on the street, that is too loud.

It's also more probable that the asshat with the car alarm has it set too sensitive.  I find car alarms 100 times more annoying than any HD or D&D exhaust noise.

"many of the modifications which are aimed at making a bike louder -- for example removing the catalytic converter -- also make the bike exponentially more polluting.

Legally, this is a challenge for aftermarket exhaust systems.  Now that bikes are coming with catalytic converters, it is illegal to remove them.  You want aftermarket exhaust?  It must work with the existing emission control systems.  You can change your car's muffler and tailpipe, but you can't remove the CC.

[JamesG]

Would be a good source of revenue. Which I hear Kalifornia desperately needs...

[HipGnosis]

According to the Air Resources Board, which backed the smog-check version of SB 435, motorcycles account for less than 1% of vehicle-miles traveled in the state yet account for 10% of passenger vehicles' smog-forming emissions; swapping a compliant tailpipe equipped with a catalytic converter for one without emissions controls can emit as many as 10 times more smog-forming pollutants per mile.

That doesn't add up.  It'd ONLY account for 10% of the emissions if ALL of the bikes came with cc's and ALL of them were removed, which is HIGHLY improbable.

[Brad1445]

Denver passed a similar law. I take off in second gear and short shift when I see the po po on the Busa ( two brothers pipes)


Now go bash but the majority of offenders including myself inside the city are sport riders. Crusiers seem to like the suburbs.  

[DogBoy]

Susan Carpenter is really on the job with this article. The proposed legislation only applies to bikes manufactured after January 1, 2013. The exhaust systems must have "a label affixed onto the motorcycle or exhaust emission system indicating that the motorcycle or exhaust emission system
meets the noise emissions standards." Same applies to aftermarket exhaust systems manufactured after January 1, 2013 for use on 2013 and newer motorcycles. There is no provision for sound testing or emissions testing.

The Governor has not indicated whether he will sign this legislation into law.

How could Carpenter, or her editor, leave out when the proposed law goes into effect and which motorcycles it applies to? The article is misleading.

Anyway, the exhaust just has to have a label or stamp, as most stock exhaust does now, stating it meets noise emissions standards. I believe the UK has a similar requirement and aftermarket pipes sold there come with the language stamped into the pipe.

[thatguy]

What kind of oil should I use?

And dogboy it's way easier to amend an existing law than to implement a new one. Beware of the foot in the door.

[DogBoy]

What kind of oil should I use?

And dogboy it's way easier to amend an existing law than to implement a new one. Beware of the foot in the door.

I hear what you're saying but this isn't a law yet and similar efforts have failed in the recent past. BTW, there are existing laws that could have been amended but weren't.

[chornbe]

Well, if Arizona set any precedent (thus far), California cannot do this.  

The laws are on the books; enforcement is possible already, regardless of precedent. Dust them off and use what's available. "It's easier to use the power you have than to seek new power."

It's also more probable that the asshat with the car alarm has it set too sensitive.  I find car alarms 100 times more annoying than any HD or D&D exhaust noise.

With all due respect, please turn in your crack pipe.

Legally, this is a challenge for aftermarket exhaust systems.  Now that bikes are coming with catalytic converters, it is illegal to remove them.  You want aftermarket exhaust?  It must work with the existing emission control systems.  You can change your car's muffler and tailpipe, but you can't remove the CC.

And this is a federal statute, unable to be circumvented at the state or local level. The issue here is that not every bike is (yet) mandated to require cats and this law can't be used where cats weren't OEM equipment.

[bluepoof]

If you're a California resident and would like Arnie to veto this, here's a link to the AMA Action Alert where you can contact the governor's office.

http://capwiz.com/amacycle/issues/alert/?alertid=16039911&type=SW&show_alert=1

My personal belief is that printing it out and mailing it has more effect than email, but email is better than nothing!

[antvq]

So who knew that BluePoof was running open pipes on the BMW  



 

[Norwegian Blue]

According to the Air Resources Board, which backed the smog-check version of SB 435, motorcycles account for less than 1% of vehicle-miles traveled in the state yet account for 10% of passenger vehicles' smog-forming emissions; swapping a compliant tailpipe equipped with a catalytic converter for one without emissions controls can emit as many as 10 times more smog-forming pollutants per mile.


 That doesn't add up.  It'd ONLY account for 10% of the emissions if ALL of the bikes came with cc's and ALL of them were removed, which is HIGHLY improbable.

I think you're missing the point -- the sentence expresses two different thoughts: the first is that motorcycles account for only one percent of miles traveled but account for 10 percent of the pollution, and the second is that swapping out pipes can increase pollution tenfold. The ideas are related but not dependent on one another. That said, were I the editor I think I would have split that sentence into two for clarity instead of separating them by a semicolon.

Susan Carpenter is really on the job with this article. The proposed legislation only applies to bikes manufactured after January 1, 2013. The exhaust systems must have "a label affixed onto the motorcycle or exhaust emission system indicating that the motorcycle or exhaust emission system
meets the noise emissions standards." Same applies to aftermarket exhaust systems manufactured after January 1, 2013 for use on 2013 and newer motorcycles. There is no provision for sound testing or emissions testing.

The Governor has not indicated whether he will sign this legislation into law.

How could Carpenter, or her editor, leave out when the proposed law goes into effect and which motorcycles it applies to? The article is misleading.

I'm a little confused by your question. She says in the article "It [the law] would apply to motorcycles and after-market parts from the 2013 model year forward."

Personally, I'm saddened that such a law is in the works but I'm also not surprised.

The old adage "Your right to swing your fists ends at the tip of my nose" applies; too many people have become amazingly selfish regarding the use of loud pipes with a "screw 'em if they don't like 'em" attitude. Alas, it seems passing a law is the only way to get through to these people.

[thatguy]

And this is a federal statute, unable to be circumvented at the state or local level. The issue here is that not every bike is (yet) mandated to require cats and this law can't be used where cats weren't OEM equipment.

No vehicle is mandated to have cats. Only to pass emissions standards. A cat is a method used to do so and if they are OEM it is illegal to remove them.

[DogBoy]

I'm a little confused by your question. She says in the article "It [the law] would apply to motorcycles and after-market parts from the 2013 model year forward."

The law goes into effect on January 1, 2013 and applies to bikes and parts manufactured after that date, not the entire 2013 model year as stated in the article. Many motorcycles aren't produced throughout the year. One model run is produced and then the assembly line is retooled for another model. Several models for 2013 model year will have been manufactured before Jan. 1 of 2013 so the law would not apply to them.

[UFO]

Pfffft, I'd take the risk/pay the fine.  Freakin' cruisers running straight pipes are far more of a nuisance IMO, JHC they are loud and annoying.  

[bluepoof]

So who knew that BluePoof was running open pipes on the BMW  
 

It's not just open pipes; it's ANY aftermarket exhaust.  The bill would require a stock exhaust on any motorcycle from 2013 on.   I would like to continue having the option to purchase third party parts.

[DogBoy]

It's not just open pipes; it's ANY aftermarket exhaust.  The bill would require a stock exhaust on any motorcycle from 2013 on.   I would like to continue having the option to purchase third party parts.

You will still have that option.

From the final version of the bill sent to the governor.

(d) (1) This section is applicable to a person operating a motorcycle that is manufactured on or after January 1, 2011 2013,
or a motorcycle with aftermarket exhaust system equipment that is manufactured on or after January 1, 2011 2013.

Bold added by me.


Read the whole bill, with ammendments, here:

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0401-0450/sb_435_bill_20100809_amended_asm_v91.pdf

[bluepoof]

You will still have that option

Perhaps I'm very dense.  The AMA summary says, "The California senate passed SB 435, known as the "motorcycle exhaust bill," which would require stock exhaust on all model year 2013 and newer motorcycles. "

[chornbe]

No vehicle is mandated to have cats. Only to pass emissions standards. A cat is a method used to do so and if they are OEM it is illegal to remove them.

Sorry. You know what I meant.

Net effect: same.

[DogBoy]

Sorry BP, I'm going with the official language released by the State of CA.

It might be a case of sloppy updating by the AMA lobbyist or staff as one of version of the bill, or a past bill, may have included the stock exhaust mandate. This bill does not. The AMA press release from June just says "PA-compliant exhaust systems".