With the States due to debate proposals making it an offence to alter a vehicle’s exhaust system in a way that intentionally increases noise, a petition against the move is attracting increasing amounts of support.
Off the record chats with local mechanics and engineers suggested the petition’s aims have hit the nail on the head in covering their concerns.
Express asked those in the motor trades if something be done to curb noisy vehicles, and what problems could crop up if a blanket-ban is introduced on ‘after-market exhausts’.
We found there are various concerns around the proposals, with wide spread support for the petition aims in seeking a more fair method of dealing with concerns raised over noisy vehicles.
Do Guernsey’s roads have a 2-stroke problem?
Across industry, all of the garages approached seemed to instantly recognise that the problems of noisy vehicles exists mostly within a very small sub-sect of road users.
They were described as “mosquitos on wheels”, “giant wasps”, or “oversized flies”.
Those working at the garages we approached claimed road users will all know the ‘shrill, ring-ding’ of a small motorbike with an oversized exhaust, with plenty more bark than bite.
That wasn’t the only way the opinions lined up based on vehicle size and noise though.
Multiple garages told Express that older bikes could be at risk if a new law bans modifications as parts become obsolete.
Older bikes may not have original parts available explained some mechanics, meaning after market spares might be the only option to keep that bike running, yet the proposals from Home Affairs and E&I would effectively make them un-repairable, and essentially a write-off with no way to fix.
However, they didn’t all agree that a crack down on two-strokes only is the correct thing to do.
“On Sundays I can hear the auto-cross from my garden,” said one garage spokesperson. “I hear pressure washers, lawn mowers. We all messed with our bikes growing up, maybe it’s better to live, and let live. We were all young once.”
That opinion was the outlier though, with most stating that “something needed to be done” about noise.
Many pointed to more pressing issues though.
Driving standards, the condition of vehicles, the condition of the roads they drive on, and “actual crime” were all pointed to as alternatives to pursuing potentially problematic exhausts.
“Noise doesn’t kill, poor driving standards can!” said one.
A complete waste of time!
The practicality of the ban came into focus during all the conversations we’ve had with mechanics and engineers this week.
The idea of police officers being able to spend time identifying, and then gathering evidence to prove that an exhaust is louder than the one that came as standard was described as “laughable”.
The sentence “a waste of police time” was heard regularly across the various phone calls, with one suggesting that even the older, much more subjective check of “two officers agreeing that an exhaust is too loud” was a more viable option.
One prominent garage stated that deputies were offering a “knee jerk reaction to public opinion”. That’s purely opinion obviously, but the point is one to ponder.
The States have a packed meeting schedule this week and later this month, with a large amount of work pending before the end of this political term in June.
The island’s political cast will spend time debating these proposals in detail later this month. With all the garages seeing the exhaust ban as “half baked”, surely questions must be asked whether taxpayer money should be spent bringing it forward at this point when genuine concerns have been raised about whether it can even work.
Wasted time was on the mind for almost all of the garages contacted.
Regulation or restriction?
The question of whether to outright restrict aftermarket exhausts, or to instead regulate them with measurable data is one that you’d assume the States Committees would have pondered, but instead that seems to have been done by individuals in the industry, without being formally consulted.
None of the garages spoken to were against moves to make the island’s roads safer or a more pleasant and tranquil place, but almost all had objections one way or another.
The petition seeks to introduce a check on noise through a clearly defined decibel (dB) sound limit, a measurable metric that would allow officers to easily identify vehicles which could be considered a noisy nuisance.
During our conversations with those working in Guernsey’s garages, there was a further appetite for that to be further categorised, depending on the type of vehicle, engine size, age, or other potential identifying factors.
The impact on business
Despite all of the garages being given anonymity for this report, none were worried about the impact on their businesses.
One estimated that replacement exhausts make up less than 10% of their workshop time, another said ‘single digits’, whilst a third said they wouldn’t be impacted by the ban in anyway, shape, or form.
However, almost all garages were still against the States’ plans.
Mentions of personal freedoms, right to repair, and the viability of the proposals in action all took more of a stage. All of them taking part had either heard of, intended to, or had already signed the petition seeking the pursue the decibel readings alternative.
The day of debate
Guernsey’s political line up heads to the chamber this week and again later this month, ahead of the election in June.
At some point during the meeting later this month, this topic will take centre stage.
A petition was set up on Sunday (6 April) by James Larbelestier, who runs JL Innovation.
“One of the key issues I’ve seen is that some garages are under the impression that approved aftermarket options will still be permitted under the new proposals,” he said. “Unfortunately, this is incorrect.
“Having read the policy letter in detail, the legislation makes no allowance for aftermarket exhaust systems — whether for modified vehicles, classic cars and bikes, agricultural machinery, or even specially adapted disability vehicles. If a system is deemed even slightly louder than OEM, and is not the original part, it would be considered illegal.
“That’s incredibly difficult to prove or disprove, and it sets an unfair standard. In reality, it says: if your loud exhaust came factory-fitted on an expensive supercar, that’s fine. But if you own a more modest vehicle, even with a modest, reasonable aftermarket system, you could face prosecution. That’s not a fair or balanced approach.”
Mr Larbelestier said he’s approached deputies in order to try and make his voice heard;
“I launched the petition after seeing the media coverage last week. Once I’d read the proposal in full, it became clear that many people may not realise how far-reaching it is. I wanted to raise public awareness, encourage discussion, and demonstrate that there’s a real appetite for a more practical, fair solution.
“I also wrote directly to all Guernsey deputies to outline my concerns and suggest an alternative. I’ve been encouraged by the number of thoughtful replies I’ve received – including from members of the committees involved in developing the proposal. Many are open to further input from the public and industry professionals, which is really positive.
“My goal is simple: replace the current proposal with a clearly defined decibel (dB) noise limit – applicable to all vehicles, regardless of age, type, or value. We all agree excessive exhaust noise is a problem, so the logical step is to define what counts as “too noisy” and set a fair limit.”
He argues that his alternative is easier to enforce, and more objective and simple;
“I’m also concerned by the practical challenges in enforcing the current proposal. While it may sound straightforward to prove an exhaust has been altered, the reality is very different. Sure, it’s obvious if the system is visibly damaged or has parts removed – but many modified systems are very subtle. An OEM exhaust can be internally altered and professionally welded, making it indistinguishable from the outside. The only way to prove it has been changed would be to cut it open — which is obviously impractical and risky for enforcement officers.
“By contrast, introducing a decibel limit is simple, objective, and enforceable. My suggestion is that officers continue to issue VDRS (Vehicle Defect Rectification Scheme) notices where they suspect excessive noise. The vehicle would then be tested in a controlled environment, such as at the police station, using a standard decibel test. If it’s over the limit, the driver either fixes the issue or potentially faces prosecution – but importantly, the evidence is clear, consistent, and court-admissible.”
“This doesn’t require new systems or major changes – it just gives officers a practical tool to ensure fairness and enforce the rules properly.”