£168.00 Fine-For A Legal pipe!

Home Forums BikeMeet Cafe £168.00 Fine-For A Legal pipe!

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • Author
  • #12285

    Hayabusa rider nicked by heavy-handed cops for road-legal aftermarket exhaust at kent bike meet.

    Over zealous police in kent have been handing out fines to riders of”Loud”bikes-even though their exhaust systems are compltetely road-legal!
    Paul Schock,37,of orpington,kent,was one of a number of motorcyclist pulled during a bike night at the oakdene cafe in wrotham recently and given a fine eventhough his system was road-legal.
    Schook was fined for,according to the police:”Riding a motorcycle with an insufficient exhaust system”,even though the titanium Akroprovie pipe on his suzuki Hayabusa is a road-legal exhaust.
    “They said my exhaust was illegal;but that;s wrong.Itold them it was legal for the road -Ieven made surethey saw the stamp on the side to say it was legal-but the didnt take any notice .They just told me it was an illegal silencer and gave me on the spot fine of £168.00.IWAS GOBSMACKED.
    “What makes it worse is that the officers who pulled me then accused me of putting the road-legal stamp on the on the exhaust my self:.
    Schock has refused to pay the fine,choosing to appear in in front of a magistrate’s court at a later date to plead his caseinstead,the ploice officers then threated to impound his bike if it was spotted again with the silencer still on it.
    For years the oakdene cafe bike night has been plaged by a high police presence with bikers beging reprimaned if they are found to have illegal modifications.
    Pc Peter Vaughan,traffic managament officer for west kent police,told mcn,”All police officers have basic training about construction and use regualatons,Where they supect an offence they will take action,but if some one belives they are beging incorrectly prosecutted they can explain this to the court and it will be for the magistrates to decide


    Under construction and Use regulations, anything added or replaced on a vehicle, unless it is exact same part, for instance, if your vehicle rolls off factory floor with michelin pilot sport tyres and armstrong road brake pads, if you replace with dunlop tyres and ebc brake pads, your vehicle is then considered not fit for road use under construction and use regulations, its a legal minefield because VOSA guidelines says that as long as the silencer is not detrimental to vehicle use, or is not noticably louder than OE part, it is legal for road use, each set of regulations contradicts each other, legal minefield and the magistrate will get eaten alive and spat out again by a decent brief. Its all a farce really, I had the same when I was pulled by police for plate, he tried to do me for my can, when I stated I would seek legal advice regarding silencer (which is road legal), he back pedalled.


    :O That’s disghusting!!

    I’m actually gob smacked myself… always the easy few quid from a biker to be made isn’t there? grrr


    Some info…

    These Regulations further amend the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986.

    Regulation 3 gives effect to Schedules 1 and 2 to the Regulations. Regulation 4 makes some minor and consequential amendments to the 1986 Regulations.

    Schedules 1 and 2 to the Regulations replace regulation 57 of the 1986 Regulations with new regulations 57, 57A and 57B and with a new Schedule 7A.

    The new regulation 57 requires motor cycles to be so constructed that they meet specified noise limit requirements. These requirements are unchanged. As before, there is an exemption for vehicles first used before 1st April 1991 that have been approved under Council Directive 78/1015/EEC or that Directive as amended by Council Directive 87/56/EEC. Also, as before, there is an exemption for vehicles first used on or after 1st April 1991 that have been approved under the 1978 Directive as amended by the 1987 Directive. There is, however, in both cases a new exemption for vehicles approved under the 1978 Directive as further amended by Council Directive 89/235/EEC.

    Previously, regulation 57 required original silencers fitted to motor cycles to meet certain requirements in Annex I to the 1978 Directive. The new regulation 57A(1) requires an original silencer fitted to a motor cycle first used before 1st February 1996 to meet those same requirements. However, new regulation 57A(2) requires such a silencer fitted to a motor cycle first used on or after that date to comply with certain requirements of the 1978 Directive as amended by the 1989 Directive. The new regulation 57A(3) contains exemptions for vehicles approved under the Directives.

    New regulation 57A(4) replaces regulation 57(3)(b). It requires a replacement silencer to meet certain technical and noise requirements. The requirements are based on the Directives referred to above and British Standards BS AU 193: 1983 and BS AU 193a: 1990. The requirements vary according to the date of first use of the motor cycle to which a silencer is fitted. There are also transitional provisions.

    New regulation 57A(13) replaces regulation 57(4) and prohibits the use of a motor cycle on a road if any part of the exhaust system is marked “not for road use” or words to that effect.

    New regulation 57B imposes a new prohibition on the use of a motor cycle if it does not meet certain requirements and would make materially less noise if it were in good and efficient working order or had not been altered

    The relevant noise levels are as follows:

    For paragraph of Annex I, substitute—

    The sound level measured in accordance with to of this Annex shall not exceed—
    “(a) in the case of vehicles with engine power of less than 75 kW, 84 dB(A)

    (b) in the case of vehicles with engine power not less than 75 kW, 86 dB(A).” .

    There is absolutely nothing I can see in the regulations about E markings being required.



    There should be a law for discriminating against bikers! That is totally outrageous! I’m shocked at this story. Perhaps they should take a few lessons from Poole Police. every Tuesday eve is bike night, you do get police there but its very low profile, they wander around chatting to the bikers ya even get the grockles coming to have a look, and there’s never any trouble! There is no need for this shit they’re giving you up there!


    Does this apply to cars aswell,if you replace the tyres with another make rather than the factory ones can you get done for not fit for road use under construction and use regulations.My bike exaust is after market but road legal,I`d like to hear what Micron and all the other leading manufactures of exhaust think of this topic.


    It just sounded to me like they suspected an infringement, and rather than attempt to investigate properly themselves, they’d rather use up significantly more resources in taking it through court. They’re able to do that, and you’d hope that the court will quickly just dismiss the case, especially if the officer has no formal evidence to present proof that the exhaust did not meet regulations (i.e. if they didn’t use specifically designed sound equipment to accurately measure noise emissions then they surely haven’t a leg to stand on).
    Hopefully the case would then have a beneficial effect in indicating that a heavy-handed approach by police would need to be backed up by proper evidence.
    The other possibility of course, that I haven’t seen any mention of, is that the exhaust doesn’t comply with regulations and was in fact mis-sold. It’s a possibility, but you’d hope that’s not the case.

    GSF K1

    If its noise they’re trying to get us on, then what about all those c*cks with booming sterios that drive behind my house every Saturday afternoon!!! Surely thats more of an annoyance than a bike thats gone before you even see it!

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.