Honda CBR 600RR Forum banner

1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
395 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
California Senate Bill SB435 signed into law by California governor, affects all motorcycles and aftermarket exhausts manufactured for these motorcycles after Jan 1, 2013
September 29, 2010


California Senate Bill SB435, also known as the “Motorcycle Anti-Tampering Act”, has been signed into law by California governer Arnold Schwarzenegger. This law now gives police officers the right to cite motorcyclists riding in California for non-stock exhaust system violations under the California Vehicle Code. The new law makes use of a seldom-enforced 27-year-old federal regulation that prohibits the replacement of the stock exhaust with any unit not officially approved by the EPA. Ever since 1983, every stock motorcycle system is required to have the EPA approval and federal noise regulation wording stamped somewhere on its outer surface that certifies compliance.

Under this new law, motorcyclists pulled over for other infractions can also be cited for having a non-stock exhaust system (or an illegally modified stock exhaust) on their bike. The first violation could result in a fine of $50-$100 if the exhaust is not returned to stock; subsequent violations will results in fines of $100-$250. Part of the new law states that any motorcycle exceeding the federal 80dB sound limit will also be in violation; however, police have no standardized tool nor procedure for actually measuring sound levels in the field, and enforcement will most likely be based upon whether the system has the EPA stamp readily visible (granted, if the exhaust is abnormally loud, most jurisdictions will back the officer’s opinion that the exhaust noise is excessive, which can fall under the same federal statute). The law technically only affects 2013 and later model motorcycles and aftermarket parts manufactured for those motorcycles.
"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 Pavley (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.” The SB 435 that was signed into law is actually a watered-down version of the original bill that Pavley had sought to get passed; that bill intended to require bi-annual smog checks for motorcycles, despite the fact that there is no way for smog check stations across California to run a motorcycle on the dyno drum used for car tests. That bill was quickly killed off before it reached the California Senate floor.
The California law is similar to an ordinance passed by the city of Denver three years ago that requires all motorcycles to have mufflers with the EPA stamp “plainly visible”. The New York City Council tried to pass a similar ordinance back in December of ’08, but it was quickly “tabled for further review” after objections were voiced from numerous fronts.




Im not even from California and that pisses me off! All the retarded ricer burners running around cali with their coffee can mufflers on and motorcycles are the real problem.... thats a load of sh*t. :cursin:
 
D

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Not like it's anything new. Aftermarket exhausts have always been for offroad use only. Now cops don't need another reason to pull someone over to give them a ticket for an illegal exhaust.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
395 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
ya just another way to screw people i guess. plus theres nothing else going on with our economy and everything else right now and motorcycle exhaust are definitely a huge problem right now haha i f**king love our government.
 
D

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
I don't see how it's screwing with anyone. Police just now have a way of actually enforcing a law that has been in effect, and is in effect in all states.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
395 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
They dont need another reason to pull us over. And the government doesnt need anymore control over the people, they need to be worrying about a lot bigger issues.
 
D

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
It's funny how everyone always bitches when the police don't enforce laws when it doesn't affect them, but when a law is passed so the police can enforce something that has been in place for dozens of years, people get pissed off and say the government is taking control of things.

Why do you think all aftermarket items that are not DOT approved say "for race/offroad use only"?
 

·
*BOTM Feb '11, Mar '12*
Joined
·
23,598 Posts
I still say its complete horse sh1t as the number one contributor to "motorcycle noise pollution" are Harley's and similar cruisers running open pipes. We just get tangled with them. I know my Leo says for off road purposes but you can't tell me that when I cruise on my way to work that you'll here my bike over a Vtwin. I honestly can't believe Arnold signed the bill, he's an avid rider himself. Thanks Harley fags for ruining it for the rest of us.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
51,151 Posts
Harleys are ridden buy heavy hitters ( rich and famous ) so they wont touch them
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
222 Posts
One thing no one has mentioned here yet is that this only only applies to motorcycles manufactured after Jan 1st of 2013. So lets say this is the year 2014 and you buy a used 2012 motorcycle, you can not be penalized for having your bike eqiupped with an aftermarket exhaust under this law.

This is probably give a definate bump to the used market. My personal feelings about this is that it sucks. But I understand why it's being done, there are some bikes that are way to loud and they have basically ruined it for everyone else. In my neck of Florida the harley crowd are the worst offenders as far as noise goes. There are some loud sportbikes as well, I have heard a few loud ones going up US1 when im standing in my drive way. That is a bit to much. Regardless, its going to drive up the cost which i feel is the worst part.

Give it 20 years, we'll be riding electric bikes and the cops will be ticketing you for not have a sufficient noise emmitting device to warn pedestrians your coming. Its all one very big stupid cycle.

Mainly because most our congress men and representatives are idiots,career politicans, and taking money from special interest groups. I've gotten a bit off topic.

To close, if you want an aftermarket exhaust don't buy a bike manufactured after Jan 2013. :ciao:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
"The noise pollution caused by illegally modified motorcycle exhaust systems is a major quality of life issue across the state"

^^^ Made me laugh. A "major quality of life issue"? Really? So dramatic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
793 Posts
So children, the lesson here is that despite rants and tantrums to the contrary the majority does rule.

This law was passed simply because enough people are tired of the excessively loud pipes run by some motorcyclists. In this country that means the law gets changed to enable/enhance punishment (even if it was already against the law).

It really didn't take all of that much effort by the lawmakers to make this happen and it probably makes a lot more people happy than it pisses off - there is that majority thing again. Sure it's not like solving world hunger but it's a relatively easy problem to solve, so they did. I'm sure a lot of the Harley crowd was thinking "that will never happen, there are too many of us". That little cloud went poof didn't it. Sportbikes and the rest just got dragged into it because they all have two wheels.

Now, how far off do you think it will be that sportbikes running from cops and tearing through traffic at 100mph gets noticed? How hard do you think it will be for the lawmakers to pass a law making it illegal to own a bike that will outrun a LEO?

The moral of the story: Piss off enough of the population and they will make the problem go away, one way or another.
 
D

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Now, how far off do you think it will be that sportbikes running from cops and tearing through traffic at 100mph gets noticed? How hard do you think it will be for the lawmakers to pass a law making it illegal to own a bike that will outrun a LEO?
That wouldn't be a bad idea. This country needs to pick up some standards like what they have over in Japan and limit the power output and top speed of cars and bikes that are made for road use. Would easily lower the accident rate, would stop a bunch of people from speeding and running from the cops, car manufacturers would be putting out fuel efficient cars, and everything from the cost of driving to price of insurance and gas would go down.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
222 Posts
That wouldn't be a bad idea. This country needs to pick up some standards like what they have over in Japan and limit the power output and top speed of cars and bikes that are made for road use. Would easily lower the accident rate, would stop a bunch of people from speeding and running from the cops, car manufacturers would be putting out fuel efficient cars, and everything from the cost of driving to price of insurance and gas would go down.
I agree, a lot of what you say would probably be true but like all things when it comes to politics its about the money. I'm sure the auto industry would scream murder(and snap shut their pocket books for there favorite politician).They would claim "By limiting the types of car we produce it will have a negative impact on jobs, We'll have to close are blah blah fast car assembly line and lay-off workers" yadda yadda yadda.

I think America's love affair with cars goes a lot farther then its love for super bikes. Plus some what you have said is already true. My Ranger's speed is limited to I think 100 MPH.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
208 Posts
That wouldn't be a bad idea. This country needs to pick up some standards like what they have over in Japan and limit the power output and top speed of cars and bikes that are made for road use. Would easily lower the accident rate, would stop a bunch of people from speeding and running from the cops, car manufacturers would be putting out fuel efficient cars, and everything from the cost of driving to price of insurance and gas would go down.

:iamwith: As depressing as it would be to not have fast cars and bikes it makes a lot of sense. Maybe we should sacrifice street for the better of the community. The track would still be there!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
208 Posts
I agree, a lot of what you say would probably be true but like all things when it comes to politics its about the money. I'm sure the auto industry would scream murder(and snap shut their pocket books for there favorite politician).They would claim "By limiting the types of car we produce it will have a negative impact on jobs, We'll have to close are blah blah fast car assembly line and lay-off workers" yadda yadda yadda.

I think America's love affair with cars goes a lot farther then its love for super bikes. Plus some what you have said is already true. My Ranger's speed is limited to I think 100 MPH.
:gun1:special interests groups
 
D

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
I agree, a lot of what you say would probably be true but like all things when it comes to politics its about the money. I'm sure the auto industry would scream murder(and snap shut their pocket books for there favorite politician).They would claim "By limiting the types of car we produce it will have a negative impact on jobs, We'll have to close are blah blah fast car assembly line and lay-off workers" yadda yadda yadda.

I think America's love affair with cars goes a lot farther then its love for super bikes. Plus some what you have said is already true. My Ranger's speed is limited to I think 100 MPH.
And that's the problem with the American auto industry. Look at the cars Japan puts out. You can make your 500HP powered mustang, just restrict it to say 200HP and 100mph. Someone can then pay money to get the extra 300HP and 50mph at the expense of their fuel economy and legality. If they really want to go fast and have 500HP, there's enough race tracks around for everybody.

I don't remember which country it was that someone posted about, but the 600RR was restricted to about 60HP max. Honda did it by putting restricor plates in. NASCAR does it and teams don't bitch much, so Ford, GM, and all the other craptastic companies can do it as well.

Another thing is people should be limited to the type of car you can drive by your drivers license. Do we really need a soccer mom who can really only drive a small car driving a huge ass SUV, or F250?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
222 Posts
:gun1:special interests groups
Ya they certainly suck, but to be my own devils advocate...Can you really blame them? If congress decided to vote for and pass a law that would make it illegal from that point foward to not allow car manufacturers to make any car in its line up that can go faster than say 100MPH.(wow run on sentence sorry)

People would be pissed, the goverment would be accused of intervening with our day to day lives, the industry would be losing millions of dollars. I guess special interests groups sort of have their place. The big problem is when they aquire to much money.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
222 Posts
And that's the problem with the American auto industry. Look at the cars Japan puts out. You can make your 500HP powered mustang, just restrict it to say 200HP and 100mph. Someone can then pay money to get the extra 300HP and 50mph at the expense of their fuel economy and legality. If they really want to go fast and have 500HP, there's enough race tracks around for everybody.

I don't remember which country it was that someone posted about, but the 600RR was restricted to about 60HP max. Honda did it by putting restricor plates in. NASCAR does it and teams don't bitch much, so Ford, GM, and all the other craptastic companies can do it as well.

Another thing is people should be limited to the type of car you can drive by your drivers license. Do we really need a soccer mom who can really only drive a small car driving a huge ass SUV, or F250?
I think the country your trying to think of was acutally Japan, someone on this board bought a JP spec 600RR and it had like 65HP.

I understand what your saying, the one thing I take away from your message is basically about wanting people to be more reasonable. Ok so lets say that all the things you stated in the post above were items on a bill that congress wanted to pass. Im sure you know as well as I is that the media, general public, auto industry would more than like have a very negative feeling and approach about it all.

I'm not say everyone would be up in arms and grabbing their pitchforks but I think the main feeling would be why does the Fed care, or have any say in what kind of car I buy for my wife? I think you see where I'm coming from. Not saying you will agree but Its just to much fun not to debate it ya know?
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Top