Exhausted

Frequently asked questions

Here’s #Exhausted’s response to common questions surrounding vehicle noise.

Q: Loud vehicles are obvious: why do the police ignore them?

The police nab a few loud cars – but ignore most of them, either by choice or necessity.

Unfortunately the law surrounding vehicle noise is a mess. That makes police enforcement harder. Worse, the authorities often assume the MOT system is doing all the work, when the MOT system is a mess too.

#Exhausted believes most police officers want do a good job but are held back by inadequate regulation, especially for after-market exhausts, which are often wildly antisocial but also borderline legal and hard to inspect.

  • There is too much leeway in the legal definition of an exhaust, from its manufacture through to the MOT. Consequently not every loud vehicle is illegal.
  • Police culture is an issue too. The police sometimes ignore their own discretionary powers, which can enforce against any exhaust, legal or illegal, if it is being anti-socially loud. More than one traffic officer is a fellow petrolhead.
  • In the UK, there are no national policing guidelines for noisy vehicles – every regional Force does its own thing. Police chiefs have been known to ask for more direction from central Government on this issue. It should be given.
  • Testing a vehicle’s noise output at roadside is harder than it seems. Acoustic analysis is a science: the evidence of your own ears might convince you but it won’t necessarily convince a court of law. Loophole lawyers abound.
  • Noise isn’t as immediately serious as other crimes. As with air pollution, there are no bodies piling up – or at least none visible. Sadly, some police officers see exhaust noise as harmless fun or just a youthful phase. That same officer might honourably and robustly pursue a disability hate crime but not appreciate the impact of noise on those with severe autism or schizophrenia. More generally, noise leads to stress and stress leads to strokes: noise is not harmless.
  • Illegal noise may be an offence against a mass of people (as it spoils the environment for all, like fly-tipping), but unfortunately the police receive noise complaints only one by one. To a police officer, noise doesn’t seem like a mass crime, even though a mass of people are affected. Isolated and individual reports help to disguise the fact that noise is an offence against many. The obvious and clear evidence is that just one journey by a loud vehicle might disturb thousands along the route. This point is not made often enough.

To blame only the police is to let other culprits off the hook, such as 1) MOT testers, 2) the firms who sell the kit and above all 3) our politicians.

Noise is impossible to remedy after the fact. For that reason alone, it is best to diminish it at source – via tax. If you had to choose between seeing noisy offenders punished or just less noise to begin with, what would you choose? If the latter, you should side with a noise tax. If you just want noisy drivers punished, you’ve a long wait and much less chance of success.

Q: How do loud vehicles pass their MoT?

Most people would be shocked to learn just how little the MoT test concerns itself with noise or with deliberate illegality. Loud cars make it through the net largely untroubled. It’s all down to lax rules, awkward tech, fraud and corruption. Taking those in turn:

Lax MOT rules: You may be stunned to learn that the MOT test doesn’t measure noise. No decibel meter is used. The tester will rev your engine (to only 50% throttle) and listen to the noise – but no measurement is taken. An MOT tester will fail your vehicle only if, in their subjective opinion, it sounds louder than when came out of the factory – but no tester knows how loud that should be. There is no single, comprehensive database of factory specs for all cars. Even if such a database existed, MOT garages couldn’t use it – because they are not equipped with decibel meters. With no science or standards to be had, many MOT testers err on the side of caution and give loud vehicles an MOT pass.

Roadside inspections by traffic police are just as subjective. The police often can’t (or won’t) work to a clear national standard, beyond looking for a BSI kite mark on some exhausts, which itself is too easily attained. As one exhaust manufacturer puts it: “…there are certainly plenty of other UK ‘manufacturers’ who might carry out the final assembly in the UK, which allows them to say it’s made here, but the reality is often that it’s a pile of foreign components of varying quality and legality which were just screwed together and had a [kite mark] sticker applied by a bloke in Britain.”

The final point to make about MOT’s is an obvious one: brand new cars are MOT-exempt for the first three years of their life. It is not uncommon for a brand new car to immediately get fitted with illegal exhaust: the owner can then make an illegal noise for three years before any real chance of being caught. The owner will get advance warning of the MoT, of course – they can swap out the exhaust at any time before, and re-fit afterwards.

Awkward tech: Accurate noise measurement is surprisingly difficult, certainly for evidence to be admissable in court. Accurate measurement requires genuine skill and a tightly controlled physical environment. It also needs fancy kit – an iPhone app won’t do. Fancy kit isn’t cheap. Worse, the kit must be regularly calibrated for accuracy, so there are ongoing costs. As of Spring 2021, noise cameras run to £000s per camera per month – too much to be self-financing for smaller towns with fewer vehicles. Proper acoustic kit is thus an unwelcome prospect for MOT garages, councils and police. #Exhausted believes excess vehicle noise will never be tackled by tech alone, even if tech has its place.

Fraud: Some owners will fraudulently install a quiet exhaust pipe just for the MOT, then swap it for a loud one. This happens more often with bikes than cars, being easier and cheaper to do on a bike. For their part, the exhaust manufacturers openly sell road exhausts that can be “…easily adapted for the track”. This is a euphemism for riding loud and illegal – the exhaust comes with an easily removable component that make sit much louder (and illegal for road use). The police often don’t spot it. User-adjustable exhausts are a legal loophole which must be plugged. There is no user case for them – even race tracks ban loud pipes!

Corruption: Among car modifiers, the most hardcore will simply bribe the MOT garage. It’s far from unknown. In 2019 the DVSA struck off 45 garages and 111 testers for MOT fraud. More frequently, some MOT garages just end up with an informal reputation for giving loud exhausts the benefit of the doubt. After all, many MOT testers are motor enthusiasts themselves. Most of them try to do a good job, but sadly not all of them.

#Exhausted’s research suggests that MOT and police procedures either can’t or wont change in the short term, which means noise ought to be addressed by hitting the supply and demand for noisy exhaust systems. We need to start taxing vehicles by noise as well as Co2. Only the loudest need pay any more than under the present road tax system.

We also need tighter control of after-market modifications. Currently, an owner can modify the exhaust on their vehicle without having to tell anyone except their insurer. That needs to change. #Exhausted proposes that owners must declare louder exhaust modifications to the DVLA – where they will also incur higher road tax – or face a heavy penalty if found with an undeclared modified exhaust.

Declaring mods to the DVLA will allow the use of ANPR cameras, which are already in use across the nation (unlike noise cameras). With ANPR linked to a DVLA register of modifications, a traffic officer could quickly assess whether the owner of a louder exhaust has paid tax toward the high social cost of a loud pipe. As diesel taxes have shown, noisy vehicles will go into steep and rapid decline if taxed hard enough.

Q: Is it me or is the noise getting worse?

It’s probably not you.

  1. The Internet has made it simple for buyers and sellers of loud exhausts to find each other. “Noise culture” on YouTube makes the resulting noise seem like a harmless laugh and a nice way to meet people.
  2. There are now many more cars being built with exaggerated exhaust characteristics, not just sports cars but also everyday cars too. Even a humble Mini Cooper S is programmed to make popping and banging sounds, straight out of the factory.
  3. Modern vehicles have more horsepower than ever. Horsepower is noise. Manufacturers are locked in a “mine-is-bigger-yours” competition which leads them to increase horsepower output year on year. Absurdly, some engines are now so powerful that they must use software limiters to secretly withhold power from the driver in lower gears, to prevent the transmission destroying itself. Such engines are monumentally loud when fully on song.

DEFRA’s National Noise Attitude Survey (2012) found that the public sensed an increase in noise of all kinds over the previous five years, and 27% thought traffic noise was getting worse. Only 11% said it was getting better.

Q: How would a noise tax work?

The more a vehicle costs to tax the sooner it becomes uneconomic to repair, and the sooner it goes to the scrapheap. That was the theory behind diesel taxes – and the theory is working very well in the real world. The same theory should now be extended to noise too. It would send a message not just to current owners but also to prospective buyers – witness the decline in sales of new diesels, even though old diesels were the target.

A noise tax would need to take account of the separate market dynamics for new cars, used cars, modified cars and historic/classics/kits cars. Looking at those in turn: 

i) New cars – A noise tax would be determined by type-approval. It could be levied at the point of first sale and via annual road tax. Cars are taxed this way now, but for CO2 only – so why not noise too? Both are harmful emissions. 

ii) Used cars – A noise tax would apply via road tax, but only where a decibel rating is known. In practice, that means only type-approved vehicles made by a mainstream manufacturer since circa late 1990s, but that’s still the vast majority of cars on the road. Type-approved vehicles have been noise-tested and approved by country-specific agencies (the Vehicle Certification Agency in the UK). Thus a noise rating is often available for the average car, although the data will need pulling together from disparate sources into a single database built for that purpose.

iii) Historics/classics/kit cars – these are not noise-rated and so nothing can be done, but they are not a big part of the problem and only a tiny % of road users.

iv) Modified second-hand vehicles – these are a big part the problem and need their own solution. #Exhausted proposes that a noise tax be applied to modified vehicles via a DVLA registry of modifications. Owners would be required to voluntarily declare engine/exhaust mods to the DVLA when applying for road tax, or face significant penalties if caught with an undeclared modified vehicle. Of course, some modders won’t disclose. But currently they are required to disclose modifications to their insurer. Some don’t, many do. Either way, the obligation to disclose won’t be new to them. The hard part is that all after-market exhausts are sold with a kite mark that supposedly – but often falsely – warrants that it meets approved standards. To get that kite mark, the exhaust manufacturers seem to have been marking their own homework. Reform is needed there too.  

The advantage of a DVLA registry of modifications is that the police will have less work to do. ANPR cameras could be used instead of expensive noise cameras. A traffic officer will only need to determine whether tax has been paid and that an engine/exhaust has been modified from standard (which can often be done at a glance). Currently, the police have to prove that a modified exhaust is louder than stock, which is almost impossible. It requires skill, pricey equipment, silence – and anyway there is as yet no single database of decibel outputs

For noise tax bands, #Exhausted proposes a simple classification for all vehicles:

  • “Silent” – for EVs and most hybrids
  • “Standard” – applies to most vehicles on the road; most owners need not pay any extra tax.
  • “Loud” – for cars with a known db output above a certain level and cars known to have exaggerated sound characteristics (large ICE engines, switchable exhaust systems, “drift mode” etc)
  • “Unknown” – for modified vehicles declared to the DVLA.

Vehicle manufacturers might dishonestly claim that such a classification is hard to compile, but it’s totally achievable if the will is there. One car enthusiast could easily manage it, so a small delegation from government vehicle agencies certainly could.

Q: What’s wrong with after-market exhausts, removable baffles and race exhausts?

Sadly the technical rules around exhaust noise are littered with loopholes and exceptions. These are being exploited to the full, mostly for the benefit of a few specialist firms who sell little else but anti-social and illegal noise. 

After-market exhausts – After-market exhaust suppliers make up a global industry. Outwardly it’s a legitimate industry, because all exhausts wear out and replacement parts are needed. However, the industry is abusing its position and selling illegal exhausts.

No modern road car is legally permitted to make more noise than the day it came out of the factory, so an industry which sells noisier-than-stock exhausts ought not to exist at all. But such an industry does exist, owing to legislation that was intended to promote competition, enable manufacturing and preserve legitimate motorsport – but which is now being openly finessed by after-market firms. Taking those laudible aims in turn:

i)Anti-monopoly: after-market exhaust manufacturers are socially useful, in that they help to prevent original equipment manufacturers (OEM) monopolising the supply of spare parts. 

ii) Manufacturing tolerance: After-market firms are granted a degree of manufacturing tolerance and variation. They are expected to make a mechanically similar copy of the OEM part – similar, but not identical. This is where cynical commerce creeps in.

Crucially, after-market exhausts are permitted to be a few decibels louder. That might not sound much, except that the decibel scale is logarithmic, not linear. A car making 110 decibels is not 10% louder than a car making 100 decibels: it is roughly twice as loud to the human ear. This decibel tolerance loophole is actively exploited by the many firms which openly market “… a more aggressive tone“. 

#Exhausted believes that an after-market firm which cannot make an exhaust as quiet as the OEM equivalent is not competing with OEMs and deserves no favours under anti-monopoly policy.  Manufacturing tolerances should be reduced. Advertisements for after-market exhausts should be banned from referring to noise, just as car ads are not permitted to glorify speeding. 

Of equal concern is that after-market firms seem to be marking their own homework. #Exhausted could find only one UK exhaust manufacturer whose products are independently tested and certified for technical compliance with noise laws. All the other manufacturers are presumably self-assessing, with a wink. 

iii) Racetrack use: road cars are often adapted for use on a racetrack, where a de-silenced exhaust can provide the small power increases which are necessary in sporting competition. These power improvements are usually too small to be noticeable on the public road – but the extra noise is obvious and is openly marketed to road users. The same firms who sell race exhausts to racers will ask no questions when selling race exhausts to road users. Their adverts blatantly refer to the extra noise on offer. The fact that the exhaust is not road-legal is often presented in opaque language. These “competition-only” exhausts routinely end up on road cars.

In fact road cars are probably the main user case for competition exhausts, because racetracks increasingly don’t allow unregulated exhausts! Noise regulation is an existential threat for most racetracks and so every major racetrack will noise-tests a competitor’s exhaust before going out on track: too loud and they’re sent home. That being so, what is the excuse for marketing an exhaust as being for “track use only”? Tracks don’t want them. Bedford Autodrome (a large and responsible outfit) reports that half of its development costs go into suppressing noise. Phil Ellis, chief instructor at Bedford: ‘If we have trouble [with exhaust noise], it’s almost always something with a sports [modified] exhaust. With the exception of one or two Ferraris there are very, very few standard road cars that break the sound limits.’  (Evo Magazine 2017). 

The selling of “competition exhausts” to the public needs to be re-examined. Something has gone badly wrong when vehicle noise is policed more effectively by racetracks than by the authorities. If a so-called “competition exhaust” provides little extra power and can’t be used at many tracks, what purpose does it serve other than illegal noise? How many road cars need a flourishing, consumer-facing supply chain for sports exhausts?   

Removable baffles: Many car and bike exhaust systems are legally sold with built-in “cheat devices” to help the owner dodge the law. Bikes are the worst offenders. On most bikes, the outer exhaust features an inner baffle designed to reduce sound and meet noise laws. The outer exhaust will carry a kite mark stamp to show that it has been approved for road use. Police look for this kite mark on roadside checks.

Unfortunately, the kite mark is rarely stamped on the baffle – and the baffle is very easy to remove. Remove the baffle and the exhaust is no longer legal, but is now much louder and largely beyond enforcement unless a police officer knows what they’re looking for. Few officers try hard here.

The after-market firms aren’t stupid. They know bikers want loud bikes and so every advert reassures that its baffles are removable. If it is illegal to remove a baffle, what purpose is served by the marketing of removable baffles? The standard excuse is “for race track use”, but we know that race tracks are less and less willing to tolerate loud pipes. Removable baffles are a scandal and that’s why the EU eventually banned them – but there should be a retro-ban on all the removeable systems still out there and still on sale.

Q: What are manufacturers doing about noise?

They’re cashing in. Traditional car companies rely on their louder cars for a disproportionate slice of profit and boardroom salaries, so don’t look to them for leadership on noise harm. Also, legacy car companies are anxious about Tesla and other EV-only firms. A loud noise is one thing they can sell that Tesla can’t, so they will carry on making loud cars for as long as permitted.

Q: Why are the owners so selfish/ridiculous/aggressive etc?

#Exhausted does not seek to insult anyone. Loud cars and bikes are huge fun – for the owners. Insulting them won’t change national policy.

Indeed, insults can backfire. In the 2016 US presidential election, the market research question that most accurately identified a Trump voter was: “Do you belong to a group in society that is being picked on?” In America, feeling “picked on” is exactly how some diesel lovers feel about the advance of green politics. They react by rollin’ coal (click for the video: it’s safe for work but not for your faith in mankind).

It’s important to recognise that most car and bike fans are perfectly sociable people when they’re not behind the wheel – it’s just that the road can bring out the worst in any of us. Noise is tempting. Loud vehicles are huge fun, as long as it’s your noise being jammed into someone else’s mind, body and home.

It should also be said that a handful of companies and jobs depend on making noisy aftermarket exhausts. Most of these firms deliberately trade in legal and technical grey areas, because that’s where the money is. Meanwhile, their products cause real harm: noise sensitivities provoke some autistic children to hurt themselves; some will bolt, wander or try to hide from loud sounds. #Exhausted believes that most vehicle enthusiasts don’t know what their noise is doing to these children, to say nothing of the rest of us.

#Exhausted doesn’t want to devalue anyone just because they love vehicle noise. Instead it wants the hobbyists to understand that they’re making someone else pick up the tab. #Exhausted also wants politicians to recognise that the pendulum has swung too far in favour of a few motoring enthusiasts.

Q: I want to modify my exhaust to make it louder. What will happen to me? 

Sadly, you’re not likely to get pulled over by the police.

If you are pulled over, you’re more likely to be lectured than fined. If you are fined, it’ll be a fine you can live with – maybe £50, which is not much in the context of the £000’s you might have paid for a modified exhaust.

Nor will you get points on your licence for noise, meaning there is no cumulative downside to being a persistent offender.

Seizure is rare. If you say something daft to the traffic officer then you might get a Section 59 notice, but that will mean little at the time and will mean absolutely nothing if you’re not caught again in the next 12 months.

The evidence of our ears is that all these penalties need upping, although tougher penalties are of debatable value when wrongdoers generally believe they won’t get caught. Enthusiasts generally do fear getting pulled by ANPR if they don’t pay road tax, so that that’s one more reason why noise ought to tackled via tax.

It’s not illegal to modify an exhaust, though it is illegal to make it louder than originally manufactured. #Exhausted believes that almost all exhaust modifications are carried out for the sake of illegal noise. Given what society wants an exhaust pipe to do, and how widely exhaust rules are flouted, it is time to consider a blanket ban on all exhaust modifications. Hardly anyone truly needs to tweak an exhaust pipe.

But back to the subject of what will happen if you do tweak your exhaust. An obvious point is that you’ll have to drive faster if you want to hear everything you paid for. You then face a higher probability of death – or jail.

As a matter of observation and statistics, young men love loud vehicles the most and young men are bad at judging risk. Many young men neither know nor care that dying in a road accident is the leading external cause of death for men aged under 44. When you’re young, driving recklessly holds little apparent threat.

As for jail, the maximum sentence for death by dangerous driving is 14 years. It’s hard to believe we can nip out for a harmless drive and then go straight to jail for a decade, but in fact over ten drivers a week in England and Wales are jailed for causing a stranger’s death (trending up, too). None of those imprisoned ever thought it would happen to them. Some will have driven fast simply to soak up the noise. It’s a senseless waste of human potential.

Some vehicles have been explicitly engineered to make speed and noise more sensuous, even though driving is already one of the most dangerous things that we routinely do. Why must we share the road with vehicles that deliberately reward speed with a cultivated noise?

Q: Shouldn’t we concentrate on motorbikes first?

Bikes are indeed a significant % of offenders. DEFRA’s 2012 noise survey found that the public attributes noise disturbance to cars and bikes in a 50/50 ratio – when only 2% of UK households have access to a motorcycle.

Bikes are especially susceptible to MOT fraud. Illegal exhausts are cheaper for bikes than for cars and are much easier to swap out before the MOT.

Here’s what the Federation of European Motorcyclist Associations says on the subject: “From information provided by our member organisations it becomes clear, that in most countries there is not much enforcement. The police focus on popular areas like the Italian Alps and the river dykes in the Netherlands. Because roadside checks are almost impossible, the most common reaction of the police to clearly illegal exhausts is to summon the rider to get his bike inspected in a test centre.”

By and large, the police are not enforcing against bike noise. We can all hear it.

Q: Why doesn’t the Government do more?

Because the typical noise complaint is directed at police, not MPs.

When someone complains about noise, their energy is usually directed at the loud driver and not at government policy. That leads energy away from MPs and toward the police, who can either do little, or who care less than we’d all hope. The police usually neutralise the complaint. That leads the complainer to lapse into “learned helplessness”. They lose heart and give up. In any case, a lone individual can’t do much about a problem rooted in lax legislation and cynical commerce.

And some citizens are frightened to complain. Those who do complain say they are often afraid of seeming weak, intolerant or eccentric, when there is nothing weird about wanting a peaceful home and a good night’s sleep.

In government, there’s a false assumption that the MoT system weeds out noisy vehicles, when we can all hear otherwise. Additionally, politicians are frightened of the car lobby and frightened of being seen as anti-wealth and anti-private transport. In truth, politicians have nothing to fear. Quieter homes would be a massive political win and would cost few votes. Hardcore noise-makers might be highly obvious but they’re a tiny interest group. The Government needs to be reminded that there are undiscovered votes in regulating loud vehicles.

Also, noise may be partly a disability rights issue, but it is not an issue that recognised disability groups seem to bother with. Their failure to step up may simply be due to them wrongly assuming that vehicle noise is unavoidable.

Q: What’s happening in other countries?

Germany – of all places – is looking at a ban on modified exhausts. It’s significant that a country so psychologically synonymous with speed might think there’s a problem.

Germany has only proposed a ban, but the UK should run with it. A total ban on exhaust modification seems inevitable for any country serious about this issue. Hardly anyone truly needs to modify their exhaust, except for noise and speed. Why should anyone be allowed to tweak their exhaust, when the extra noise is illegal and any increased power could be obtained simply by purchasing a faster vehicle.

In June 2021, legislators in New York State began work on the SLEEP Act, which allows fines for illegal exhausts to rise from a useless $150 dollars to a more thought-provoking $1000. The Act also provides that the shady garages which fit illegal exhausts stand to lose their operating licence.

Q: Won’t electric vehicles solve the problem?

Not soon and maybe never.  Some exhaust manufacturers believe they’ll still be in business in the 2050s.

Also, it is inevitable that petrol will become a heritage interest. Steam power went out decades ago, but every year the Great Dorset Steam Fair attracts 200,000 visitors across 600 acres. Steam nostalgia today, petrol nostalgia tomorrow.

It’s true that electric vehicles will be quieter, but that cuts two ways. As EVs become more common, petrol vehicles will seem even louder: they will stand out more, and standing out is exactly what some owners want.

Q: Isn’t this just a grumpy old man’s issue?

Some individuals do indeed become more noise sensitive with age, but it’s nothing to do with the stereotype of the culturally intolerant elder. It’s down to age-related changes in the body, specifically the vagus nerve.

The vagus nerve is the longest nerve in the body. One of its many functions is to help restore bodily relaxation after a response to stress – such as a sudden loud sound that might signal a predator. Speaking of predators, it’s no coincidence that many after-market exhausts have brand names like Black Widow, Jekill and Hyde and Scorpion. Some owners want passers-by to feel startled and intimidated.

Sudden noise produces the classic, adrenaline-soaked “fight or flight” response, whether it’s a real predator or just a silly exhaust pipe named after a predator. When the perceived threat passes, the body tries to calm itself down – and that calming-down process is something we lose as we age. The vagus nerve loses efficiency and gains sensitivity. It is thus nobody’s fault that some older people are a little more sensitive to noise, or need longer to recover from a noise shock.

We all age. In our later years, our bodies and minds have more need for peace. That ought to matter much more than a few loud vehicles.

Q: Isn’t this just a rich neighbourhood problem?

No. As usual, the poor suffer most.

There is reasonable evidence that living close to a noisy road impairs cognitive development in childhood, even when controlling for the other socio-economic factors that might force someone to live roadside.

Modified exhausts can be had for a few hundred pounds and fitted to almost any ordinary vehicle, expensive or not. Consequently there are more modded exhausts in poor areas than in Mayfair. The residents of Mayfair might be better at launching futile appeals to the authorities, but for every £1m supercar in Mayfair, there are many more £500 bangers with dodgy exhausts blasting around council estates, stopping low-paid nurses from sleeping off a night shift and distracting a disadvantaged child from learning to read.

#Exhausted campaigns for anyone and everyone disturbed by exhaust noise, rich or poor. But as a side point, most people on an average income would be stunned to discover that these loud vehicles bother the rich too: a Mayfair pad can be as noisy as a roadside flat. If you’re stuck in a noisy home, a lottery win won’t necessarily help. A noise tax just might.

Q: Isn’t this just a clash of rights?

Our bodies and our homes are central to our psychological well-being. For that reason, they have always been afforded special rights. Our bodies have a daily need to recover from stress and stimulation; a home is the best place to do that. As author Garrett Keizer puts it, your right to make a loud noise ends at my front door.

No sane or civilised society would give equal rights to peaceful homes and loud cars. A Lamborghini Aventador produces 108db; no double glazing will shut that out.

Since no society can have loud vehicles and peaceful homes, we ought to choose between the two.

Q: A noise tax would hit the value of loud cars. Mine was legal when I bought it. Unfair!

This argument was wheeled out against diesel taxes. There is a tiny nugget of truth to it. Consumers were encouraged to go green with diesel: those who did were later hit with unexpected penalties.

But some of those who bought diesel didn’t do it for the planet. They did it merely to have a more powerful engine car for the same fuel cost. At one point diesel was approx 50% of new car sales, when very few owners need to tow a caravan.

Tax reform can be disappointing, but tax reform is what all governments do. No government underwrites the value of used cars. The rules around vehicle noise were first established back in 1929 and have changed many times since then. Today’s owners know noise rules exist; they ought to know rules change.

Ultimately all rules are made by those who show up and organise. If owners of loud vehicles want to be left alone then there is nothing to stop them showing up and organising for that. Some have tried: in Germany over 20,000 bikers gathered in a mass swarm and deliberately blocked the roads, in response to proposals to curb motorcycle noise. It’s hard to imagine the noise of 20,000 bikes winning much sympathy.

Recently the UK government proved itself unafraid to change the taxation of diesel cars. Its rules changed when the scientific consensus around air pollution changed. The change disadvantaged a few but benefited all – as would a noise tax.

As with air pollution, new advances in medical imaging are revolutionising what we know about sleep deprivation and the news is not good. There is renewed medical emphasis on sleep, and the rules around exhaust noise must change to reflect that. Everyone needs sleep and a viable home.

Q: I don’t mind Ferrari noises: it’s the noise from cheap modified cars I hate.

#Exhausted believes there is just as much fun and creativity to be seen in the world of inexpensive modified cars as pricey supercars. In many respects, modified car owners should be admired for their technical skill; certainly they have no less right to be on the road than anyone else. All #Exhausted cares about is noise.

Noise is subjective but noise harm is not. In medical terms, noise is noise – even when you love it. More than one Harley Davidson owner bought a Harley for the noise, only to discover the noise tires them out. It might be their favourite bike that is making them deaf, but they’re still deaf. This is why noise legislation largely ignores consent and subjective appraisal of noise. Your favourite musician is not allowed to make you permanently deaf.

On a cultural note, noise has alway been used to announce power and status. Few supercar fans will acknowledge that their taste in cars has been set by the rich. Instead, supercar fans will say that they “love the engineering”, “the looks” and the “motorsport heritage” – as if those things do not also imply money and power.

We all want to show we’re a success on our own terms, but noise is not the only way to do it. A Tesla emits no exhaust noise; Tesla is now the no.1 luxury car brand, by perception.

Culture seems to be leaving exhaust noise behind. Increasingly, quiet is cool and loud is out. If someone wants to defend exhaust noise on cultural and subjective grounds, they must also admit that cultural beliefs never stand still.

Q: What about noise from buses, lorries and planes etc?

They’re noisy too, but noise reduction is much further up the agenda for aviation and public transport than for private transport. To Boeing, noise has long been a burden, with the regulation of aviation noise starting as far back as the 1960s. But to BMW today, noise is exactly what they’re selling.

If BMW were allowed to make its cars even louder, it would. When Porsche lobbied for noise exemption, its most senior executives in charge of vehicle noise argued that taxpayers should build giant concrete sound barriers next to the roads. If that is their mindset then they ought to be first in line for regulation, ahead of bus makers, who don’t sell noise.

Q: Where’s Brexit in all this?

To some extent, post-Brexit UK is theoretically less vulnerable to ceaseless lobbying from Porsche and other European manufacturers. For years, German sports car manufacturers relentlessly and successfully carved out legal exceptions for the huge noise made by their vehicles, supposedly on the grounds of being “low sales volume” products. The volume might be low in any one year, but the years add up and the noisy fleet slowly expands. A used Porsche Boxster can be had for as little as £4k and there are nearly 30,000 still on UK roads, to speak only of one noisy model by one manufacturer.

It’s true that the Euro 7 regulations will extend current exhaust noise limits, and that Euro 7 rules will most likely be carried over to a post-Brexit UK. But even Euro 7 will almost certainly bear the mark of corporate lobbying, and will take a while to make a difference. Meanwhile, many of the worst offending vehicles are going to be heard for decades to come – unless they are gently taxed off the road.

We can and should go further than EU regulations, with a retrospective noise tax implemented by vehicle noise output. We’d end up with quieter homes – politicians could spin that as a Brexit bonus.

Q: Don’t loud pipes save lives?

In most cases, loud pipes do not save motorcyclist’s lives.

“Loud pipes save lives” may be a memorable phrase, but there is strong evidence that it is false.

It is always potentially fatal for a biker to assume other road users can hear them coming. That’s why learner bikers are formally taught to assume they’re largely invisible to other roads users, and not to put their life in the hands of an internet meme.

It’s obviously true that a car driver can sometimes hear a motorcycle coming up behind them, but only sometimes, typically at low speeds and when the driver is not otherwise distracted. All drivers increasingly are distracted.

As any police traffic officer will confirm, a frightening % of motorists don’t hear police sirens until it’s too late. The police don’t want to collide with other road users and are trained not to, but collisions still happen, despite the sirens, every day.

Of course, far too many motorcyclists get killed because they were not seen or heard. That is a serious matter and a valid concern for every motorcyclist and car driver. But motorcycling is a personal choice: very few bikers have no other transport option available to them. Any risk assessment of biking ought to take commonly-observed outcomes into account.

It is very common for bikers to illegally alter their silencer, or deliberately and illegally rev to make noise. Both are done for different reasons. Some just like to show off their engine noise. Others hope to avoid a crash, which is understandable, but effectively they are also admitting that legal and sociable motorcycling is too risky for them.

Motorist do need to be aware of bikers, but ultimately the risk of motorcycling is for bikers alone. Again, very few bikers have no other transport option available to them. Motorcycling is not a matter of universal concern, not compared to the health benefits of a good night’s sleep or the prospect of working half your life just to pay the mortgage on a home blighted by noise. Sleep and housing really matter; motorbikes are largely a hobby.

Since society can’t have loud hobbies and peaceful homes, it ought to choose between the two. Start by looking at the numbers:

The intention here is to give a sense of proportion, not to trivialise the experience of innocent bikers who get hit by inattentive drivers. Nevertheless, the numbers matter: in absolute % terms, few of us are motorcyclists. Bikers are a small group, within which a few ride anti-socially. For them, “loud pipes save lives” is perhaps a pretext to indulge themselves at everyone else’s expense.

Q: Don’t we get used to road noise?

Some of us might get used to steady noise, but none of us get used to sudden noise. Loud exhausts are sudden noise.

Q: When I rev my supercar around town, children love it and adults film me. Why spoil our fun?

They’ll love you at the Goodwood Festival of Speed too, and at the many other enjoyable and professionally-run motorsport events located away from homes and public roads. Few want to ban these events, certainly not #Exhausted.

Q: I only thrash my car on empty roads/country roads.

Most of us live near a road.  Go to any national park on a weekend and listen to the noise. National parks were set up to allow people to experience nature in its raw state, not to be forced to listen to a car show staged by a few. The roads might be empty but the houses by the road are not.

And if we bring animals into the picture, there is no such thing as an empty road. Noise hits animals in many different ways. Sudden loud noises have been shown to briefly induce paralysis in smaller animals, which makes them more vulnerable to predators and contributes to species imbalance and species loss. Traffic noise interferes with birdsong too. #Exhausted believes most of us prefer hedgehogs and birdsong to loud vehicles.

Q: If someone doesn’t like road noise, why don’t they just move? 

Move where? Country roads are especially popular among fans of sports cars and bikes. In remote spots, many owners think they can’t be see; few care about being heard.

#Exhausted exists partly to remind owners of loud cars that more tranquil roads are quickly becoming possible, and if that new world is a boring prospect then you’ve always the racetrack.

Q: Don’t racetracks have decibel limits too?

Many do, for all the reasons above. Few tracks in the UK permit anything louder than 105db, often much less.

Permanent hearing damage begins to occur at prolonged exposure to 75db or more. Say what you like about people who buy a house next to Silverstone and then complain about noise, but the people who work at Silverstone don’t deserve to go deaf just for doing their job. Noise legislation at racetracks is here to stay.

Admittedly, noise is a core part of the wonderful spectacle at a racetrack. And it’s true that Formula 1 isn’t quite the same now the engines are a little more green and “quiet”. But is that a serious social problem? The clip-clop of horse hooves was once the essential sound of mass transportation, but it’s gone forever and no-one misses it, just as noise fans won’t miss the sound of a V12 forever.

#Exhausted wants to see vehicle noise taxed, because police enforcement has failed and tax works quickly. Hopefully, a few of these taxed-off vehicles will finish life not on the scrap-heap but at a race track. That is where they belong and may be enjoyed to the full. The UK is a world leader in motorsport and probably has more decent race tracks per head than any other nation: a large influx of inexpensive and otherwise unwanted noisy vehicles will improve access to motor racing for all. Some taxed-off road cars might need to be fitted with a decent silencer – but they’ll still be a blast.

Q: Wouldn’t wealthy drivers pay a noise tax then carry on regardless?

Some wealthy drivers will indeed pay a noise tax and carry on regardless – but some won’t. Instead, they will take the hint, just as they did with diesel.

Diesels are now being deserted by rich and poor drivers alike, both having got the message that diesels are environmentally uncool and a bad long-term buy.

Exactly the same tax system might deliver a similar message about loud vehicles. After all, from 2030 the supply of spare parts for internal combustion engines will start drying up. Many assume the 2030 ban won’t happen. A noise tax would show them the Government means business.

In most locations, excess exhaust noise is not the preserve of the well-off. If you live in Monaco or Mayfair then yes, a few wealthy drivers in supercars are indeed a daily problem and #Exhausted stands for you too. But in Monaco and Mayfair and everywhere else, there is just a much disruption from less expensive vehicles.

Similarly, not every loud vehicle is expensive. For example, Volkswagen makes a loud variant of the everyday VW Golf. It has four exhaust pipes and will wake the neighbours, but it is still a Golf and there are a great many of them on the road. Elsewhere, just £6k will buy an elderly but super-loud Maserati Quattroporte. Between those two extremes is a huge fleet of mid-price loud vehicles from Mercedes AMG and BMW M division, which were originally pitched to upper-middle income drivers but are now working their way along the depreciation curve to lower income drivers, often to inexperienced young male drivers who like making noise. This “loud-but-semi-affordable” fleet has grown sharply in recent years and is perhaps the single most frequent noise nuisance, next to bikes.

For noise vehicles, “rich vs poor” is a red herring. Anti-noise need not be seen as anti-wealth.

Q: How many people are bothered by traffic noise?

DEFRA’s 2012 noise survey found that 63% of respondents were disturbed by vehicles accelerating and 40% by engines revving.

Road traffic noise was reported to predominantly interfere with activities requiring quiet or involving rest. Around one-fifth of all respondents reported road traffic noise interfering with their sleep (21%) and with having the windows or doors open (20%) while10-15% of all respondents also reported road traffic noise interfering with resting (16%), spending time in the garden or on the balcony/terrace (13%), concentrating (13%) and reading, writing or other quiet activities (11%). DEFRA’s National Noise Attitude Survey 2012