The Honorable Senator John T. Gallus
The Honorable Senator Carl Johnson
The Honorable Senator Robert Boyce
The Honorable Senator Robert B. Flanders
The Honorable Senator Bob Odell
The Honorable Senator Sheila Roberge
The Honorable Senator Jane O’Hearn
The Honorable Senator Robert Clegg
The Honorable Senator Andre Martel
The Honorable Senator Frank Sapareto
The Honorable Senator Charles Morse
The Honorable Senator Russell Prescott
The Honorable Representative Lawrence A. Artz
The Honorable Representative Pierre W. Bruno
Recently, noise emissions from motor vehicles operating in residential areas has
been an issue of great concern regarding quality of life, health and safety. These
complaints appear to be related largely to the noise generated by motorcycles
and car stereos. The question is: “what, in the next twelve months, will the New
Hampshire legislature propose and enact into law to control unnecessary motor
vehicle noise?”
While everyone will agree that loud motor vehicles are annoying, it is a scientific
fact that human ears, in close proximity to any motor vehicle operating without
a muffler, can be permanently and irreversibly damaged. The reason why most people
have only been annoyed, and not lost their hearing by excessive motor vehicle
engine noise, is that almost all motor vehicles are manufactured to be relatively
quiet and it doesn’t cost operators a lot of money to keep them quiet.
There are lots of reasons why motor vehicles are manufactured with effective mufflers.
One reason is that excessive engine exhaust noise is just plain unnecessary. But,
but the most important reason is that most people want, and have demanded motor
vehicle exhaust systems to be relatively noise-free. To ensure this mandate, these
demands are manifested in laws across the country requiring effective mufflers
on all highway motor vehicles. Unfortunately, as a result of a persistent minority
of people with large appetites to make unnecessary noise, a demonstrated need
to regularly enforce noise laws is needed to diminish unnecessary noise and punish
what appears to be a small number of recalcitrants.
We indeed live in a free country. However, it does not follow that this freedom
permits the behavior of some to substantially interfere with the freedom of others.
To simply illustrate the essence of the motor vehicle noise issue, suppose a parent
decides that their children’s precious evening sleep time be not disturbed, and
another person in close proximity decides to alter their motor vehicle’s exhaust
system to make more noise. At what level of noise does one person’s desire to
make noise be permitted to extend to interfere with another person’s desire for
total quiet? While the question challenges an unambiguous answer, there is some
agreement in general terms. Almost everyone will agree that excessively loud motor
vehicles operating with altered mufflers or loud car stereos in residential areas
late at night and in early morning are indeed substantially loud when they wake
people up. This is why most states and the federal government have established
reasonable and measurable threshold standards of acceptable noise. Law enforcement
needs simple and straightforward standards to make enforcement scientific, predictable,
and fair to all.
Although motorcycles only represent about 1% of registered motor vehicles, motorcycle
noise has been the most prevalent excessive noise complaint. The biggest ad-hoc
justification for motorcyclists operating with noisy modified mufflers is apparently
anchored to alleged safety concerns articulated by the euphemism “loud pipes save
lives”. However, these safety concerns appear to be contradicted by empirical
evidence that head protective gear (helmets) and/or ear protective gear is largely
absent on motorcycles with loud engines. Absent of mention in the discussion supporting
loud exhaust systems is that the horn is the generally accepted and lawful emergency
safety device to make noise to alert other drivers of danger, not the constant
drone of loud motor. The simple fact is that “loud pipes make noise”. However,
there is no compelling scientific evidence for the claim that “loud pipes save
lives”.
Another important fact is that there are a plethora of manufactures vending modified
mufflers and exhaust systems that generate noise well in excess of the original
exhaust systems. Uninstalled modified motorcycle mufflers alone can cost between
$250 and $650 dollars. Noise-making is a big business. But, this is not a business
that most people living in quiet residential areas in New Hampshire have asked
for. Quite the contrary. So, these multi-million dollar businesses, to offset
these objections, have employed lobbyists to do their bidding directly to you.
There is some evidence that you have been convinced by this lobby to eliminate
virtually all reasonable motor vehicle noise limitation requirements by your vote
regarding the repeal of RSA 266:59, Section III.
Your vote is in stark contrast to the federal Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) noise regulations that have been on the books since 1984, and the tightened
EPA restrictions put in place in 1986. The current EPA levels for noise emissions
are 80 decibels (dB) for on-highway motorcycles, 82 dB for off-highway motorcycles,
and 78 dB for automobiles. Similar requirements are found in state laws across
the country. Most states discourage noise above the levels of the original factory
muffler because such a standard is relatively easy to ascertain, measure and enforce.
In conclusion, with the law effective June 2004, you voted FOR legislation to
increase ALL motorcycle motor vehicle noise by 398 times the EPA standard (80dB
v. 106 dB), and remove ALL threshold standards for acceptable noise limits on
ALL cars and trucks. Based on the foregoing information and any other import sources
to you of late, are you in a position to reverse your position of permitting more
and unnecessary New Hampshire motor vehicle noise by filing, sponsoring and voting
for a law consistent with the EPA's 78 to 82 dB requirements at your next legislative
opportunity?
I would appreciate your relevant, thoughtful and complete position on this matter
at your earliest opportunity. Thank you in advance for your attention in this
matter.
At 09:59 AM 8/18/2004,
Senator John T. Gallus, District 1, replied:
Thank you for your recent email. I recieve an over abundance of e-mails daily
from my constituents which makes it difficult to respond to every one of them.
Please be assured that I will read your e-mail and take your concerns into consideration.
If this is of an urgent nature, please feel free to contact my office.
Have a nice day.
At
12:37 AM 8/19/2004, Senator John T. Gallus, District 1, was sent the following:
Thank you for the automated reply. I'd appreciate a reply to the question in my
previous message:
Are you in a position to reverse your position of permitting more
and unnecessary New Hampshire motor vehicle noise by filing, sponsoring and voting
for a law consistent with the EPA's 78 to 82 dB requirements at your next legislative
opportunity?
Thank you.