5000 BACK BAN ON ROADSIDE NOISE SENSORS
Classic fans lend support to petition calling for cameras that automatically fine owners with loud exhausts to be dropped
More than 5000 people have signed a petition on Parliament’s website calling for noise-sensing cameras that automatically fine owners of louder vehicles to be axed.
The online campaign was initially set up with bikers in mind but has also attracted plenty of support from classic owners who have been given no guarantees that their exhaust systems will be able to escape fines issued by the new cameras,
which are aimed at penalising owners of illegally modified cars and bikes.
Thomas Hill, petition creator, said: ‘Road users feel victimised once again with the the idea that a more noisy vehicle will be penalised financially if their vehicle is to activate said equipment.
‘So long as a vehicle can pass an MoT inspection within the noise restrictions, additional penalties are wholesomely rejected by all that have signed.’
More than 5000 people have hit out at plans to introduce numberplate recognition cameras that penalise owners of louder vehicles – and the Federation of British Historic Vehicle Clubs (FBHVC) has said it wasn’t consulted on whether it could affect classic owners.
An online petition started by biker Thomas Hill attracted 4967 signatures less than two months into noise camera trials; social media response from historic vehicle owners, rose in solidarity, helped on Facebook by Chrysler 300 owner Mike Rumble.
The DfT bill the cameras as a way of regulating environmental health in cities. When it rolled out the cameras across the country June, it said: ‘Communities have the right to live in peace, without being disturbed by nuisance noisy vehicles.’
When pressed by Classic Car Weekly (19 June) as to whether or not historic vehicles would be exempted, its spokesperson said: ‘The Department recognises that older vehicles which may have been introduced prior to the introduction of noise limits, or for which limits
may be higher, will need to be taken into account.’ Since then, the DfT has been unwilling to clarify what its noise camera threshold would be, and which vehicles would be exempt from penalty. In June, the TVR Car Club relayed its concerns about set noise levels, and even offered to help the DfT set appropriate noise limits.
The strength of feeling evident in Thomas Hill’s petition suggests that the issue is far from resolved.
In writing the petition, he said: ‘So long as a vehicle can pass an MoT inspection within the noise restrictions, additional penalties ideas are rejected by all that have signed.’ Excessive noise levels are at the discretion of MoT testers; at the moment, only race tracks and cars entered for Individual Vehicle Approval (IVA) tests have to pass defined noise tests. The DfT would not confirm if noise camera test results would influence later MoT policy.
The FBHVC’s spokesperson said: ‘The FBHVC has not been consulted as it is a technology trial only and it sets no standards as yet. It’s really difficult to understand what a response should be without DfT releasing some indication as to what offence these cameras are hoping to catch and what levels a vehicle will need to break to trigger them.
‘Until those standards are considered, our view is that our members don’t usually have noisy nuisance vehicles (including motorcycles) and we don’t in principal object to an environment which is less noisy as long as that puts no constraints on the usage of historic vehicles.’