No More Noise is a group that campaigns against loud vehicles. It asked municipal candidates four questions about vehicle noise, with room for one public comment, and it plans to post candidates’ answers on its website as the election gets closer.
Most of us have been jolted awake by a modified exhaust roaring past at midnight. Loud, illegally modified vehicles are a nuisance, and the laws against them should be enforced. My answers come from standards I apply to every vote. Where a question belongs to the province, I’ve said so.
Here is every question, and my full explanations.
All the questions, and my answers
Automated Enforcement
Do you agree to push the province for automated enforcement?
We are asking municipalities to pass formal council resolutions urging the Province of Ontario to amend the Highway Traffic Act so it can allow for automated noise enforcement pilots in our cities.
Matt’s position: No
I’m against fixed cameras surveilling London’s citizens on principle, and a noise camera is another fixed camera reading licence plates, so I will oppose them.
Modernizing Definition of Noise
Do you agree to modernize the Operating Definition of Noise within your city?
The current operating definition of most noise in municipal bylaws is ‘unwanted sound’. This definition requires for residents to complain about noise before city government action can be taken. ‘Unwanted and/or harmful sound’ allows for municipal governments to take proactive, health-focused enforcement action, reducing the need for people to report noise issues.
Matt’s position: Not sure
I could support updating the City’s definition of noise if the new one is objectively measurable and backed by solid evidence. “Harmful” on its own is too vague to enforce fairly.
Changing procedures to issue tickets for safety, not noise.
Do you support changing from ticketing vehicles for noise infractions (Section 75) to a Notice to Inspect (Section 82)?
Currently, police enforce against loud vehicles by issuing tickets and fines for noise under Highway Traffic Act Section 75. A better way is instead to require the vehicle to be inspected for safety at a certified inspection station, which does not involve the courts.
The safety inspection should pick up on any illegal muffler modifications (and other infractions such as tinted windows). An illegally modified vehicle will only be recertified once repairs have been made to bring it back to OEM standards and it passes another inspection. If the loud vehicle does not pass the re-inspection, it is deemed unsafe and not allowed to be operated on Ontario roads.
Matt’s position: Not sure
Which Highway Traffic Act section police use is set by the province and police operations, and is outside council’s authority.
Traffic-Calming Design
Do you support the implementation of Traffic-Calming Design for existing and new roads in your city/ward?
Speeding, aggressive driving and high motor traffic volume all create unnecessary and unhealthy noise. Traffic-Calming designs that reduce vehicle speed, volume, and aggressive driving also reduce noise.
Matt’s position: No
My mobility plan rests on one idea: when the arterials flow, your neighbourhood stays quiet. Traffic forced off a backed-up main road brings its noise right to people’s front doors, so I won’t support calming that pushes cars onto side streets, but calming may be warranted on a residential street when measurable data shows a clear problem.
That is every question I answered. If you can help me sharpen my positions, please get in touch!