To whom it may concern
Thank you for sending us the review document and the invitation to comment.
I welcome the effort in dealing with pollution (substance and noise) and
some of the measure will help in reducing the level of pollution.
There are a whole series of questions, which to a large degree are in my
view more reactive instead of being proactive.
Question 1
Air as well as noise pollution is a significant issue.
Air pollution obviously impacts on the quality of air we breathe in and it
carries a lot of health issues. With increased population density in the
city this problem is dramatically increased and when you also overlap the
concentration of traffic you arrive an exponentially increased factor. There
are huge costs associated with it and it will only increase -> prevention
is the key
Noise unfortunately an increasing problem as people modify their vehicles
either in order to gain a more aggressive sound (misconceived impression of
sport or whatever) and also to increase the performance of the cars. In the
process we are exposed to increased noise levels which impact on us on
multiple levels, for example leading to a disturbed sleep or having this
level of aggression in the air. We already deal with multiple challenges in
our lives which lead to added pressure and anxiety. If you then add further
disturbing factors such as noise you also increase the detrimental impact on
our health.
Question 2
Fast acceleration, slow down and strong acceleration. Some latest trends are
to engage a turbo sound which also carries a high pitch. Impact as outlined
above disturbed sleep.
I do encounter noise disturbances regularly as we life Innercity and as such
there is a higher density of buildings.
Question 3
Whenever I am stuck in traffic I either smell the diesel exhaust of trucks
or badly serviced delivery vans or SUVs or just exhaust of badly serviced
cars full stop. This happens every day.
I'd probably report this to VIC Roads and have the vehicles checked for
exhaust emission. The smoky vehicle report could also have been an error.
The check at Vic Roads would a) establish the fact b) would then require an
action.
Question 4
Difficult to answer, it should go on record with the automatic number
recognition with the police and they should also be equipped with some
emission reading device. If one is reported and then picked up obviously the
emission reading would also tell if a car was serviced. = NOTE THERE WILL
BE SUGGESTIONS AT THE END OF THIS SURVEY
Question 5
a) I never have received a letter as I regularly service my car
b) n/a
c) Cannot comment
d) Prevention - How about mandatory regular vehicle inspections on vehicles
older than 3 years? It is done in Germany, Switzerland and a number of other
countries I Europe. Can be combined with exhaust, noise and general
inspection such as looking at vehicle modifications.
Question 6
First starters set a limit to the noise level, what would be a reasonable
threshold. Then have a bandwidth between the reasonable threshold and one
that is say "very excessive". The very excessive level should carry an
immediate fine / penalty.
- Again regular vehicle inspections would deal with it - having to carry a
record of vehicle inspection with exhaust as well as noise reading in the
car. When being stopped by police for random check and readings are exceeded
drastically also a fine should be imposed. - That should stamp out having
the car amended prior vehicle inspection only going back to the previous
modification.
Question 7
Yes - repeat offenders should have license suspended for 3 months and if
caught again then the vehicle should be confiscated. Really no place for
flagrant misuse.
Question 8
A)
B)
C)
D)
Registration
Education
Limitation of what can be done
Severe penalties
Question 9
No - assume that a reasonable modification is acceptable as long as the
emission is not worse than before and no dramatic increase in noise.
When I see cars, such as Nissan Skylines, Subaru WRX, Mitsubishi Lancer etc
with those huge exhaust pipes sticking out the back I really do wonder why
this is even allowed. It is an invitation for noise pollution.
Question 10
An exhaust pipe, for example, should have some number engraved, such a
product no., EPA acceptance or something like that and it should be recorded
in the vehicles log. I know it adds to compliance costs, but those costs
should be worn by the person who wants the vehicles modified in the first
place. In a way another incentive no to modify.
Question 11
Yes
Question 12
This is really an intelligence case. Looking after my car makes it run
better for starters, less pollution and in the longer run saving money. If
you cannot afford to service your car, then don't drive one and use public
transport. The environment is shared by everybody and we should look after
it.
Question 13
No, it boils down to common sense - unfortunately not widely held.
Question 14
No, in line with my answer to 12. Unfortunately only the rev heads and some
other less considered individuals would even contemplate making a car more
noisy.
Question 15
Too soft - should be stricter. Obviously some leniency on "first offenders"
or "offenders by chance" - but also still looking at what lead to the
offence in the first place.
Question 16
Yes - I suggested that under question 7
Question 17
Partially - combined with vehicle suspension or even confiscation is more
effective
Question 18
Yes, already hinted on that - I am surprised that this is not already the
case. It is also a preventative measure.
Question 19
All cars older than say 3 or leniently 5 years should have a yearly vehicle
inspection including some of the safety features. That should be done via
VIC roads
All cars, irrespective of age, should have a yearly exhaust and noise done
via the owners service provider. A record of that inspection must be carried
in the car at all times with the vehicle records. If you then do a random
check, police, one can do an exhaust reading as well as noise check. If
those reading exceed the legislated thresholds either a request for
rectification within 30 days or a combination of on the spot fine plus
request for rectification should be mandated.
Question 20
No - seeing the very lenient status I would estimate that at least 50% of
the cars are not regularly serviced. "if ain't broke don't fix it" appears
to be an attitude of many drivers.
Question 21
My car is serviced yearly or if I exceed 15,000 kms. My wife's car is
serviced every 6 month.
Question 22
I don't know exactly what, but I would expect at least some rules.
Question 23
Yes - should be mandatory with a product number to be recorded on the car
documentation, i.e. service book or a compliance booklet that also contains
the regular mandatory checks such as under question 19
Question 24
Nice try, those individuals who even think about would do it anyway. It goes
back to prevention and regular inspections where it is picked up. It also
should be part of what should be even allowed to be sold in the first place.
Question 25
Firstly mandate the vehicles inspections in a number of ways as outlined
above. Secondly introduce an incentive program, such as first increasing the
registration cost, but then getting a credit with the vehicle service (some
sort of compliance no.) with the next rego. Thirdly a penalty system if cars
are non compliant.
Unfortunately a large part of the population only reacts when their wallet
is impacted. That's a fact.
Question 26
A national standard that is also accepted on state level. Education campaign
as well as strong reminders going out with Rego each time.
Question 27
For starters there are various types of fuel, RON 91, 95 and 98 as well as
E10, Diesel etc.
Cleaning up those fuels would already help to reduce pollution. RON 91 is
not sold in most European countries, why is it sold here?
Question 28
Yes, also use a system to recover the vapour
Question 29
More stringent
Question 30
What reporting?
Question 31
That's for petrol stations, I drive a car and use petrol
Question 32
Yes, I am surprised that we don't use it already. A vast amount of petrol
stations in Europe already use this system. It would be also economical as
the user get's measured on what goes through the pump (pay as you use) and
the petrol station operator recovers some of the vapour back into their
tank. Depending on the time of the day and the season that should make a
huge difference.
Question 33
I cannot answer that question - but if I was one of the large operators I
would definitively install it.
Question 34
That is a partial benefit, it should be also an ecological benefit and/or
conscience. I doubt that the executives of oil and petrol companies are too
worried about it. As long as the dollars runs they are happy. Sorry, a bit
cynical, that's why we need much tougher regulations.
Question 35
I also inhale the emissions whilst I am filling up my car. That alone is
detrimental to my health. Not alone the impact on the environment full stop.
Question 36
Pollution concentration, cars, traffic and noise.
Question 37
Mandate vapour recovery immediately and also improve the fuel quality