The para @Wulle recommended for reading.1 §30 StVO mainly states: "When using vehicles, unnecessary noise and avoidable exhaust pollution are prohibited."There's what the Greens are talking about in their call for road closures for motorcycles> 95 dB stationary noise quite obviously overlooked, talking about "vehicles", not motorcycles. Apparently, there is a belief that noise from other sources is not relevant.
With us, especially in autumn, huge tractors thunder through the village and make a hell of a noise. Since this noise comes less from the engines than from the rolling noise of the chunky tires, it wouldn't even be necessary to impose a track closure against them, a speed limit of 30 km/h would already solve the problem. But the Greens leave out such noise sources, just like the noise of quads, sports cars, etc. Simply out of the picture. Why? Because they do not fit into the enemy image? Or is noise only disturbing and harmful for residents if it is caused by motorcycles?? Because it is not as relevant in quantity as the noise caused by motorcyclists!? Then ask the residents whom the owner of an Audi A8 wakes up every morning when he starts his car. And that, by the way, is also quite legal from the point of view of licensing.
Of course, nobody denies that there are a lot of roads that are already not open to all road users. @Wulle is of the opinion that you should close routes only for motorcycles with a standing noise> 95 dB therefore must not be seen as a collective punishment. I can only advise him to talk to riders (whom he himself mentioned as an example). Many of them see such closures as a collective punishment for the inappropriate behavior of individuals, like mountain bikers who are forbidden to use certain forest roads. And that (from their point of view) only because a few unreasonable mountain bikers endangered forest walkers and hikers or harmed the environment.
By the way, I also feel the closure of routes for motorcycles because of "accident accumulation" as a collective punishment. Or do any of you know of a stretch of road that has been closed off to cars only because of frequent accidents? I have been riding motorcycles for more than 30 years now, on average ~ 20.000 kilometers per year. On all these trips I had not one single self-inflicted accident. Why may I, whose probability for an accident on a distance closed because of the accident accumulation is extremely small, not drive these? The answer to the question is: Because I am on the road with the motorcycle. And because there are, and this is now unfortunately undeniable, many unreasonable motorcyclists who are traveling too fast and cause more noise than they should, you lump me together with them. And I should not then perceive this as collective punishment?
Quote @Wulle "Yes, there are certainly individuals who do not abide by the rules, but there are too many of them in total society over YEARS."I have a heretical question: If in a city at a traffic light the red light offences of cyclists are counted and one comes to the result that over 30% do not consider the traffic light regulation (and thus endanger themselves and others), is it then not meaningful in this city to forbid the bicycle driving? Or does the "from the point of view of society as a whole … Too many" apply only to motorcyclists?
Just to clarify: noise (not only, but of course also the noise caused by motorcycles) is a problem whose solution is overdue. But that should be.B. Through increased controls, appropriate notices (z.B. By noise displays) and more precise specifications for type approval (to prevent noise cheating by manufacturers [z.B. Due to exhaust flaps etc.] to prevent) achieve. This goal by closing routes for motorcycles with a standing noise> 95 dB is in my opinion the wrong way. And this will cost the Greens, whose goals I consider worthy of support in many areas, more than just my vote in the federal elections in the fall.