We've all heard them: Anywhere from one to one hundred motorcyclists roaring through our neighborhood, past our church, or by the cafe where we are enjoying a peaceful cup of coffee and a newspaper. For me, this experience lands somewhere between a train going through my bedroom, and holding jackhammer practice in the library annex. In short, teeth grindingly irritating.
The loud motorcycle is not only irritating, it monopolizes the attention of everyone within a city block. Once those bastards roar into earshot you can't even hear yourself think, much less sustain a civilized conversation (or really communicate anything below a red faced, throat splitting scream).
Lucky for people like me, the California state Senate passed a bill this month that would prohibit motorcycles from customizing their exhaust systems to spout anything more than 80 decibels. For those of us (like me) who have no idea how loud 80 decibels are, you can imagine a heated argument between your roommates over who has had the most to drink that night. If you don't have roommates, or spend more time cleaning than socializing, just think of a vacuum cleaner.
The bill (god bless it) still has to cross the governor's desk to be put into action, but the potential wrench in the proverbial gears is that Schwarzenegger himself is something of a motorcycle enthusiast, and could veto it for the sake of good old American liberty.
The Governor has already vetoed a bill this year that would have prevented smoking on all state parks and beaches. Some suspect this was a personal choice since Schwarzenegger himself is fond of cigars.
As quoted in the Sacramento Bee, President Mike Levison of the Southern California Harley Riders Association called the bill, "another example of government intrusion into our lifestyle."
Oh really?
Let me postulate, Mr. Levison, that if I and 50 of my friends trotted through your neighborhood blowing air horns at 1 a.m. you would damn sure enlist the government to intrude on my lifestyle. Grow up.
You can't rob entire neighborhoods of their peaceful quiet, generally antagonize the aural senses of anyone within earshot, and then simply chalk it up to "our lifestyle." It's simply not cricket. You wouldn't drive around in a truck full of rancid tuna salad, or run around waving LED flashlights or magnesium flares in people's faces, no, that's crazy talk. Noise at this level is beyond ridiculous, it borders on assault.
On the other hand, one legitimate argument has been raised for those opposed to this bill: Certain custom motorcycle outfitters make their business from selling aftermarket exhaust pipes, jet turbines and other noise amplifying apparatus, but would obviously stand to lose a lot if this bill passed. The question is what will happen to them if their wares are outlawed.
Here's my question: What percentage of their business is made up from the sales of noise-pipes? If it's enough to put them out of business then I say good riddance, and enough harm done. Open a barbeque dealership for all I care, only so long as you don’t equip them with trumpets and dinner bells. If, on the other hand, their catalogues are full of useful things like glowing blue undercarriages, tiny helmets, and shirts that say “if you can read this, the bitch fell off” then they don’t have anything to worry about.
I'm commenting before I've even read your piece because I had to let you know that you have, hands down, the best blog title in the class. Will get back to you soon regarding actual column.
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to top that title, but I dug your column. I hope to hell that the bill is signed. Waking up the dead with your mode of transportation, or being forced to move from point A to point B a little more quietly. What's more of an intrusion on lifestyle?
ReplyDeleteThis is the best. Made me laugh. Especially loved the "grow up" part. I never understood why people thought it was cool to be very loud and annoying. Believe me, if you are hot and you have a motorcycle, you will get enough positive attention. No need to add any negative sound to THAT.
ReplyDeleteGood column - and an area about which the writer obviously has strong (loud?) opinions.
ReplyDeleteSome suggestions:
Never start a column with "We've all heard them." It's better to say what 'them' might be.
In this case, by starting the column with "one hundred motorcyclists" gets the reader right into it.
Also, if the State Senate passed a bill, what was the bill number? Who sponsored it? And what was the vote? It all factors into whether the Governor of California is likely to sign it.
And, if I recall, the specialty area of this columnist is government, well, it would seem those numbers and information should be right at hand.
The information about decibel levels was good to include, but needed explanation. Did the columnist mean that people yelling is 80db?
What is the decibel level of the exhaust of one of the noisy motorcycles that the columnist so dearly detests? And what about those air horns he says he might use to demonstrate noise? Are they louder, or quieter than a Harley?
Final note: This is a good graph to include, though it needs some detail, too:
"On the other hand, one legitimate argument has been raised for those opposed to this bill: Certain custom motorcycle outfitters make their business from selling aftermarket exhaust pipes, jet turbines and other noise amplifying apparatus, but would obviously stand to lose a lot if this bill passed. The question is what will happen to them if their wares are outlawed."
Agreed, but how about putting some numbers to this: How much might they lose? I suspect it was included in the written arguments.
I'd love to jump into the fray, but my Harley speaks louder than I do.
ReplyDeleteOn second thought...
There are a number of factors that are conspicuously absent here. First, for the thousands of motorcycles (all motorcycles, not just Harleys) already on the road, this bill will have no effect - now or in the future. Current owners will not only be allowed to continue to run modified exhaust, but also allowed to continue to modify it on all bikes manufactured before Jan. 1, 2013. SB435 was originally set to include emissions testing for motorcycles because,"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," according to the bill's sponsor, Sen. Fran Pavley, D-Augora Hills. Perhaps she doesn't know that motorcycles do not have catalytic converters and the effects, therefore, are not measurable. But her false claim did win the support of the American Lung Association. Isn't it odd that the association's endorsement endured even after the emissions testing was excised from the bill?
But all of this is besides the point. What about consistency in the application of noise laws? What do you propose to do about the 5,000 watt stereos bumping down the street, rock concerts at Raley Field (with or without a curfew), fireworks and low-flying aircraft, just to name a few sources of "excessive" noise. And where does one draw the line. I supposed I might be willing to give up my loud pipes if the drivers on the road would take a precious moment of their time and look around them so that they see me before changing lanes into my path. In our situation, it is far better to be heard and seen.
But there is something to be said for legislated safety and comfort. We should ask the good senator to constantly be on the lookout for anything and everything that might possible harm us in some way or another. Trans-fat, high-fructose corn syrup, skydiving, wild animals trees and rocks. All pose a potential hazard or at the very least a discomfort and are in desperate need of legislation, regulation and elimination. One never can be too careful. We might as well just live in a bubble. Let's hear it for the nanny laws.