California Motorcycle smog check bill in the works

I'm going to spam this to a couple boards, as it is important for our hobby. Mods delete if you think it is overposted.

The wizards that run the fairytale land known as California are at it again. SB 435 is in the works. I've just called my Senator and suggest you all do too. This stuff always starts "small". Guess they vote on it today so I dunno if any action is moot.

Basically, any bike made from 2000 on will now need to be smogged just like a car. Any mods need to be removed and put back to stock. Just insane.

An article on the bill: http://www.examiner.com/x-17351-Sacramen....k-bill-Its-back

Here's the bill, its short: http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/1140/files/sb 435.pdf

Here's how to respond: http://www.abatelocal36.com/images/SB435.pdf

Just having to check each bike would be cost & hassle we don't need, for minimal gain. This isn't a loud pipes issue, only affecting a segment of our hobby, this will affect all California riders eventually, as it could be expanded.

I can't read the Examiner article, but I seem to recall this bill was tabled or dropped or whatever last year.

This may be a better link to the Examiner story.

Basically, it says that there's a new bill that will require bikes to have mufflers with DOT/EPA stamps or face a fine, which sounds very much like the Denver city law.

DarrylRi said:

This may be a better link to the Examiner story.

Basically, it says that there's a new bill that will require bikes to have mufflers with DOT/EPA stamps or face a fine, which sounds very much like the Denver city law.

Click to expand...

That's already Federal regulation, but the US DOT is not equipped as a roadside enforcement agency. So since they don't/won't it fails to surprise me that localities and states have decided to adopt and maybe enforce such a rule.

Provided there is some out for vintage and antiques I don't personally have a problem with it. I have seen large dumpsters full of brand new OEM V twin exhausts replaced by their somewhat louder and more obnoxious cousins.

But the Federal regulation is only for new vehicles as delivered. There are many situations where it doesn't apply, and yet a law like this one is too restrictive. You probably can't get stamped mufflers for older Japanese bikes any more, and I suppose that Buell mufflers, to pull a name out of the air, will be hard to come by in a few years.

As the author of the article says, this has nothing to do with smog and everything to do with loud pipes.

All of my bikes that could have this stamp, do.

Still, it would be much better if the new SAE sound test that is being heralded by the AMA could get some traction instead of something like this. It really does address the issue and allows for a reasonable compromise solution. (It also could address other loud vehicles besides motorcycles, and so is "fairer" all around.)

The big hassle will be smog testing. It is already a hassle & expensive to register bikes that I rarely ride, or own to ride a few times a year, having to smog test them every 2 years or so is just a PITA, & huge potential cost. This bill is open ended, it gives CARB authority to set up the testing regimen...

Make no bones about it, this is about hassling motorcyclists. read the last link, the poster about writing in. There is no good for any hobbyist that can come of this.

California has enough problems without adding another bureaucracy, or expanding an existing one. Certain people are trying to repeal the exemption for cars older than 1975, even though they add little to the smog problem & are owned by people who rarely drive them. I bet my 66 Mustang gets about 200 miles put on it a year. Back when I had to test it, life sucked.

I struggle with this one.

On the one hand I appreciate what CARB has done to clean up air pollution, imagine what the greater LA basin would look like if all those cars were still pumping out 60's era levels of exhaust.

On the other CARB appears to be the poster child for government bureaucracy run wild. If nothing else their insistence that what ever is under the hood look like it came from the factory is stifling the kind of innovation this country used to be famous for. ( As a subaru-powered VW vanagon driver I am aghast at the hoops the California guys have to jump through to put a more modern, cleaner burning engine in an old van.) You would think that a simple sniff test would be sufficient, the vehicle either meets the standard it was built to meet or not.

I moved from California 26 years ago to seek my fortune so I don't know the ins and outs of the politics there all that well...Are most Californians happy with CARB or has it gained so much power they can't get rid of it?

Guess I'm missing something, but upon reading the bill I see nothing about "a DOT stamp" needing to be found, being routinely stopped to check for same and it says quite clearly anything older than 1999 is exempt; so much for those arguments.. it just basically says it has to be inspected every two years and seems to just be designed to cover motorcycles which it seems may not have been specifically covered before. that seems to blow away most of the arguments I've read against it here. And how does one come to the conclusion that its really about noise? Because it requires a Cat converter? And this is bad, who? Esp in CA, home of the smog bound? Its bad because the AMA says so? Come On, the AMA is one of the most biased organizations Ive come across, Everything pertaining to Any laws for motorcycles is Always some sort of conspiracy in their view, they dont care if its a good or bad law, useful or otherwise if its about motorcycles ALL laws are bad just because its a law, (at least that's the way they come off in general from what I've seen) they could care less what its about or the motivation/purpose behind it. Kind of like taking a survey of Republicans asking if they are Democrats! Of course you will have a 100% consensus, its all in the wording and the question

Why is it that so many people see every law pertaining to motorcycles as always being done because someone or some ones are trying to do away with or limit them? IsnÔÇÖt that getting a bit ÔÇ£old HatÔÇØ? In a world where they are enjoying an ever grater presence I seriously doubt there is some movement afoot to rid the world of them or make all riders lives miserable thereby forcing them to give up riding. That seems a bit paranoid I'd say.

We have inspection/polution laws in VA, my car has to be inspected every two years for emissions, takes about 4 minutes while they do the safety inspection, Wow! man, my Whole Day is Blown! (<-----cynical comment in case you missed that!) Never had any bikes go thru it yet but havenÔÇÖt had any new enough bikes to find out if I need to, but IÔÇÖm willing to bet its no harder than with my car. Bikes are even easier for the general inspection, in and out in five minutes never waiting more than 10 to have it done. Big Deal!!

RM

I am 100% for air quality, but let's go after big gains. A motorcycle that runs 3000 miles a year polutes far less than say, a farmer's diesel pump, or ag burning (which KILLS my sinus system), or even... The small engines they use to power up warning signs or the "smog sniffer" that has been posted on California on ramps...

Many more polluters in CA that do much more damage than modified motorcycles...

If you read the article that I linked to, it says that the latest proposal is not like the earlier bill to smog test bikes. Instead, bikes must display the correct DOT/EPA stamp or the officer can write a ticket. That's all. The older bill to smog test bikes got sidetracked and isn't coming back (at least, not right now).

Ok, I stand partly corrected having found the amended bill, however I still say the article and AMA, Abate et all are still guilty of blowing a certain (rather large amount of) smoke.. and making mountians out of molehills,,,
the bill does state that all bikes built after 1983 must meet Federal Reg for emissions BUT it says the ticketable offence is for bikes built ON or AFTER Jan 2011(not 2000) and also refers to AFTERMARKET systems NOT stock systems or even all motorcycles as the article implies. the article makes it sound like ALL motorcycles can be ticketed if they can't see the stamp, when in fact it refers to aftermarket exhuast systems made AFTER 2011. in which case I'd make sure any I bought had the label where it can be seen (and I'm willing to bet any maker who sells in CA will make sure it is easily seen if they want to keep their market share!). It also states this would be a secondary offence and you could not be stopped just for this (again the articles tend to fail to mention this as it takes some of the steam out of their complaint) bottom line, don't put on a non-approved after market exhaust on your bike that was made after 2011 (bike or exhaust) and if you do put on an approved system make sure you have documentation to back it up. Guess you could put an older system on it without any problem (if you can show it was pre-2011).

Sorry, but I don't see that as a real big deal.

RM

Update from the AMA on this...

June 29, 2010
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: James Holter
Phone: (614) 856-1900, ext. 1280
E-mail: jholter@ama-cycle.org

California lawmakers back EPA compliant requirement for riders of new motorcycles
PICKERINGTON, Ohio -- A key California State Assembly committee has endorsed a proposal to require motorcyclists to have EPA-compliant exhaust systems on their model year 2011 and newer motorcycles, the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) reports.

On June 28, the Committee on Transportation voted 8-4 to approve Senate Bill 435, introduced by Sen. Fran Pavley (D-Oxnard-Los Angeles), which would make it illegal to ride a motorcycle on the road built on, or after, Jan. 1, 2011, that doesn't display a federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) label certifying the exhaust system meets sound emissions standards.

Riders caught riding model year 2011 or newer motorcycles without this stamp would be issued "fix it" tickets by law enforcement officers.

The measure now goes to the Assembly Appropriations Committee for further consideration.

"Many EPA labels are very difficult to locate on motorcycles," said AMA Western States Representative Nick Haris. "This proposed law could lead to a flurry of tickets for motorcyclists who have legal exhaust systems on their machines with EPA labels that can't be easily seen. It's unreasonable to expect a law enforcement officer to easily locate an EPA label, and it's simply unfair to expect a motorcycle owner to partially dismantle an exhaust system alongside the road to prove the label exists.

"Requiring that a motorcycle display a readily visible EPA label isn't the correct way to address concerns about excessive motorcycle sound," he added. "The only objective way to determine whether a motorcycle complies with sound laws is for properly trained personnel to conduct sound level tests using calibrated meters and an agreed-upon testing procedure."

Haris suggested that concerned California motorcyclists contact their state lawmakers and urge them to reject Senate Bill 435. To do so, go to AmericanMotorcyclist.com > Rights > Issue & legislation and select "CA" in the drop down menu.

The AMA has long maintained a position of strong opposition to excessive motorcycle sound. In September 2009, the AMA developed model legislation for use by cities and states seeking a simple, consistent and economical way to deal with sound complaints related to on-highway motorcycles within the larger context of excessive sound from all sources. The model legislation offers an objective method to evaluate motorcycle sound based on the Society of Automotive Engineers' (SAE) J2825 standard, "Measurement of Exhaust Sound Pressure Levels of Stationary On-Highway Motorcycles." For more information, see AmericanMotorcyclist.com > Rights > Resources > Model Legislation.


About the American Motorcyclist Association

Since 1924, the AMA has protected the future of motorcycling and promoted the motorcycle lifestyle. AMA members come from all walks of life, and they navigate many different routes on their journey to the same destination: freedom on two wheels. As the world's largest motorcycling rights organization, the AMA advocates for motorcyclists' interests in the halls of local, state and federal government, the committees of international governing organizations, and the court of public opinion. Through member clubs, promoters and partners, the AMA sanctions more motorsports competition and motorcycle recreational events than any other organization in the world. AMA members receive money-saving discounts from dozens of well-known suppliers of motorcycle services, gear and apparel, bike rental, transport, hotel stays and more. Through the AMA Motorcycle Hall of Fame, the AMA preserves the heritage of motorcycling for future generations. For more information, please visit AmericanMotorcyclist.com.

Now, That is a much better and more reasonable dissertation and presentation of the facts than the others and one I can agree with as it simply states the facts and presents valid arguments rather distort things to get folks all riled up! I will note that they failed to mention it as being a scondary offence only (unless the law was changed yet again), but still overall a much fairer report.
I will also note that the law itself talks about the machine itself having a label identifying the machine as having met the requirement so if that label (not necessarily being a stamp on the exhaust, but anywhere on the machine) is more visible that might help to alleviate some of the foreseen problems. Hopefully the manufactures will make an effort to make them readily viewable. If not then I suspect pressure will be brought to bear on them to do so.

Its kinda of ironic in a way, that by making a big issue of the original version, CA residents have wound up with a bill that is in some ways worse/harder to show compliance with than the original version.

RM

I still disagree with the AMA in general and feel they mostly do Not represent Me or my views but then I've been contrary cuss all my life!

OK. It sounds like California is looking to make after market, loud pipes verbotten on bikes that have not yet been manufactured. And, the only thing that will be required is the DOT/EPA stamp. A pretty clear message to me that says don't mess with the exhaust system (although you could drill out the baffles of your stock exhaust and still be legal under the previously posted guidelines).

1 July, 2010 is the day that the city of Edmonton began enforcing a motorcycle noise bylaw that could see offending bike owners tagged with a $250.00 fine. The city has purchased 8 calibrated sound meters to measure the noise. The testing procedure is to measure the bike's noise by placing the meter 6 inches back, 6 inches to the side of the bike with the microphone at a 45 degree angle. The sound is measured at idle (louder than 92 db gets fined) and at 2000 rpm (cruisers and other non-sport bikes) or 5000 rpm (sport bikes) (louder than 96 db at these engine speeds get you a fine). The city had a free test weekend two weeks ago where you could bring your bike to be tested so you could pro-actively take care of the problem if you needed to.

According to the service manager of one of the local Harley-Davidson dealers, nobody has come in to replace the noisy pipes with stock. She figures the $1,500.00 to take care of the problem is a steep price to pay. I figure it's more like $3,000.00 because these guys likely paid $1,500.00 for the aftermarket pipes to start with.

The bikes that make way too much noise are quite likely a very small percentage of all motorcycles out there. However, this small minority is giving all motorcycle riders a bad name. US DOT/EPA and Transport Canada regulations clearly state that it is a federal offence to alter a motorcycle's exhaust system in such a way that it produces more sound and/or increases the pollution output of said system. Like Paul stated, these agencies don't have roadside testing authority which results in the regulations being treated as suggestions.

Personally, I would rather my neighbours know I have a motorcycle by them seeing it, not hearing it.