Deputy wants fines of up to £1,000 for noisy vehicles

Home Affairs won support for increasing the cost of a range of fixed penalty notices by £25, including a new fine of £95 for an excessively noisy vehicle.

But Deputy Lester Queripel claimed the proposal did not go nearly far enough.

‘This would have been the perfect opportunity to clamp down on noisy vehicles by increasing the fine by a lot more than £25,’ he said.

‘I would have liked to see a fine of £500. I wouldn’t think twice about doubling that to £1,000. That’s the kind of deterrent which should be in place. If owners of excessively noisy vehicles knew they risked a fine of £500, I’m sure the majority of them would sort out their vehicles.’

The States has debated noisy vehicles numerous times over many years. In 2007, it backed a requete led by the late Deputy Dave Jones which directed action against noisy exhausts. Environment & Infrastructure and Home Affairs have been studying the issue since early in the current States term.

Deputy Queripel told the Assembly he knew many islanders who were still suffering noise nuisance from the roads. As a sufferer of tinnitus, he was one.

‘They are a health hazard. To me it’s all related to the fine. We have to be mindful of people with hidden disabilities. We also have to be mindful of babies and toddlers in pushchairs and prams, whose hearing could be damaged for life.

‘There was a woman with a toddler in a pushchair the other day and a noisy vehicle was coming up the road. I put my hands over my ears and the child started screaming uncontrollably and the mother put her hands over the child’s ears.

‘That’s the sort of thing I’m talking about. We need to clamp down on this big time. This can’t be allowed to carry on.’

Home Affairs president Rob Prow expressed sympathy with Deputy Queripel’s view.

E&I president Lindsay de Sausmarez assured Deputy Queripel that the two committees were still working on the problem.

‘The problem is not so much the level of the fine. The problem is the mechanism for prosecution. It’s a much bigger issue than adjusting the fine. The reason I wasn’t tempted to bring any amendments to this policy letter myself was because I knew these issues were already in scope and they will be addressed in full,’ she said.