A city’s acoustic environment plays a key role in affecting the overall health and well-being of residents, as well as the general enjoyment of urban spaces. Life in an overly noisy environment can lead to elevated stress levels, headaches, and a host of other problems. And too much noise can take its toll on the social life of a city as well – just try having a conversation in your yard when someone’s wielding a leaf-blower nearby… or check your blood pressure after a summertime visit to the neighbourhood patio is punctuated by one too many loud motor-bikes.

For these reasons and more, we were keen to review a report on the City’s Efforts and Impact on Noise Control. It’s an interesting look at noise in the city, how it’s regulated, and the sorts of exemptions City staff will allow when dealing with its production.

The report recommends that the City streamline its process for dealing with noise permitting, approve Noise Bylaw amendments that define certain nuisance noises and the fines associated with them (e.g construction noise outside permitted time, operating a leaf-blower outside of permitted hours, etc). The report also recommends that City staff be directed to look at ways to reduce the noise caused by back-up alarms. All things that could help improve the Vancouver soundscape.

Noise is an important topic in city living, and it’s interesting that the present report hasn’t received a whole lot of traction in the media. Daniel Fontaine at City Caucus noted that he thought the report was largely about a “tax grab” – which surprised us. There’s more to the report than that, and the tenor of the piece is not out of keeping with some of the concerns expressed by past Mayor Sam Sullivan (Fontaine’s former boss) when he tried to do something about the use of emergency sirens at night.

Our beef with the report is a bit different. We feel that it falls short by not addressing the larger issue of vehicle noise – particularly the kind that is created by modified tailpipes. In addressing the “efforts and impacts on noise control” this strikes us as a particularly key omission. Perhaps by coincidence, it also happens to be an issue that is proving particularly challenging to deal with.

With all that in mind, we took the opportunity to address these concerns in a letter to City Council. As per our practice, we’ve excerpted it here for your reading pleasure:

[The VPSN] advocates for the noise levels in the City to be such that vibrant activities in the public realm are promoted and nuisance noise is avoided.

To that end, we are supportive of the intent of the proposed staff recommendation to revise the Noise Control Bylaw such that nuisance noises which have a net negative effect on the public realm become ticketable offences. We also support the City’s notion of encouraging broadband backup alarms on vehicles to reduce vehicular noise. Both of these initiatives will contribute to a healthier, more pleasant acoustic environment.

Our support here comes with a caveat: we question why the report fails to address the greater issue of vehicular noise, particularly the excessive (and purposeful) noise created by modified tailpipes on cars and motorcycles. We understand that this matter is covered under a separate bylaw (the City’s Motor Vehicle Noise and Abatement Bylaw); however, we feel that the present report affords an important opportunity to attend to this issue in a more comprehensive fashion.

Under the City’s Motor Vehicle Noise and Abatement Bylaw, enforcement officers have the ability to issue $50 tickets to vehicles making noise such that is liable to “disturb the quiet, peace, rest, enjoyment, comfort, or convenience of individuals or the public” (which includes modified tail pipes or idling vehicles). However, enforcement of such highly invasive nuisance noises appears woefully inadequate. In our investigations into the issue we have been informed by representatives of the police that such matters are not considered to be an item of concern for them. Thus, with the exception of the occasional one-day blitz, there is little or no deterrent in place to deal with the ear-splitting roar of vehicles whose exhaust systems have been modified specifically to disturb the peace.

At the same time, we frequently hear from the public that such noise is a substantial issue – particularly in the summertime, when people crowd our streets, beaches, parks and patios.

As such, we would ask that Council request that staff develop a more robust strategy to reduce vehicular noise, and that new (and effective) enforcement mechanisms be developed to attend to the problem of modified tailpipes. We believe that reducing unnecessary vehicular noise could make an important contribution in meeting the overall intent of the more general Noise Control Bylaw, as well as City objectives around quality of life, well-being and urban health.

Today’s media brings news of two strategies being deployed in the fight against excessive vehicle noise. Both, coincidentally, aimed at the worst (in my humble, patio-loving opinion) of the summertime soundscape offenders – the pimped out motorbike.

If you spend anytime outdoors during that all-to-brief period between the blossoms and rain, you’ll probably have had this experience. You’re enjoying a nice stroll along one of the city’s commercial streets, or maybe a pint with friends on a terrace, or perhaps lazing in a green pocket park… and all of the sudden the bubble and tenor of the city’s acoustics are shattered by the violent belch of a muffler-pumped motor-bike as it roars down the street.

In that too-long-an-instant a chorus of interesting conversations are forced to stop, are drowned out. People jam their hands over their ears. Kids wail. The windows in buildings — sometimes even the buildings themselves — shake and rattle. And all because the owner of said vehicle has taken it upon themselves to amp up their bike’s exhaust system well-beyond reason or regulation. It seems, if you’ll pardon the armchair psychology, to be self-centredness at its worst. It also violates both the municipal Motor Vehicle Noise Bylaw and Provincial Motor Vehicle Act.

Situations like that leave you scratching your shell-shocked head, shaking your fist and wondering what to do. Thank goodness, as the Vancouver Sun reports, a German student has led the way with an innovative solution. Earlier this week a 26-year old in the town of Allershausen took on a group of Hells Angels in their clubhouse, first tossing rude gestures at the gang before hurling a puppy at them. A puppy! And what next you ask? He escaped on a stolen bulldozer. Pure genius. I have no evidence to support this, but I’m convinced that such bravery only came about because our student hero had his morning koffie und struesel interupted by a fleet of full-patch riders tearing down the strasse.

Naturally, this approach poses a number of logistical problems for for progressive Vancouverites like myself opposed to motor cycle noise — for example: availability and disposition of puppies, likelihood of personal injury from incorrect throwing, possibility that PETA will arrive en masse with (or without) Pamela Anderson, etc., etc. On top of that, as a gesture, it just wouldn’t translate well.

And for this and other reasons, we can find solace on the domestic front by turning our attention to the City of Edmonton. Here, a hop-skip-and-jump over the Rockies, we find another solution (courtesy of the Globe and Mail). The City has recently passed a motion wherein motorcycle-specific noise limits have been created. Riders whose vehicles idle at more than 92 decibels, or cruise at more than 96 decibels will find themselves facing a $250 fine. They’re specifically going after the two wheel trouble-makers as well, so it’s a more nuanced and targeted approach than the one we have in Vancouver.

The problem, of course, is enforcement. The best bylaws mean little if there’s no one to enforce them. A while back when I spoke to a Vancouver Police officer about the issue of vehicle noise they said, bluntly, “we might do a sweep once a year… but other than that, if you’re not bleeding as a result of the vehicle we don’t respond.” Discouraging. But maybe the economic argument can assuage the (I think) resource-related concerns of the officer I spoke to.

There are, it would seem, too many bikes that flout the law and make life miserable for the rest of us. At $250 bucks, the Edmonton model suggests the possibility of a bylaw that could pay for itself and send a serious message at the same time. It’s a heftier (and more useful) penalty and has a bit more bite than a puppy hurled by an angry Deutschlander, student or not.

It would also help to enrich those great summer spaces — and summer conversations — that we love so much.