Level Meter to become Law?????

[bremen]

[quote name='bumfrog' post='375379' date='Jan 9 2009, 04:46 PM']I thought the whole thing was just to do with protection of staff, just like the whole no smoking thing. The way most places got around this was just to supply ear plugs free of charge.

The only places I've ever played with a limiter are older and more respectable buildings.[/quote]

That's how I read it too (as did many Basschatters when it was discussed last year).

[quote]If it was brought in as law then surely all gigs would become a thing of the past???[/quote]

If it was brought in as law as described in the OP (70dB limit), talking loudly in pubs would become a thing of the past.


Sign it anyway; it's misleading, too late, no-one will read it and it won't have any effect but at least you can hold your head high and say 'I said "Down With This Sort Of Thing!"'

[gets coat]

[Beedster]

Signed, but only 600 sigs ain't gonna do a whole lot of good?

[High score]

It does not matter whether or not it becomes the law of the land because local authorities are pretty much applying these conditions now. If a venue is applying for an entertainments license and it has complaints against it from the local residents, then these are considered and invariably a monitoring device will become part of the license condition.

The issue is that as ''neepheed'' said, it can be the venue's own fault however that is not always the case cos I know of several in the NE that were in place long before the houses that grew up around them - thinking ''Coach and Horses'' in Washington. Big music venue for a long time but got nailed some years ago along with some of the local working mens clubs. Limit is so low in one of them that a solo singer with acoustic guitar will trigger it............yet it was quieter than the ambient noise from passing traffic outside!!

[bumfrog]

[quote name='High score' post='375411' date='Jan 9 2009, 05:10 PM']It does not matter whether or not it becomes the law of the land because local authorities are pretty much applying these conditions now. If a venue is applying for an entertainments license and it has complaints against it from the local residents, then these are considered and invariably a monitoring device will become part of the license condition.[/quote]

I agree wholeheartidly with what you say, however some venues don't help themselves at all.

As has been said, sound engineers who insist on turning things up full, and later licensing hours mean that in some cases loud music does go on past agreeable times. I used to live behind a pub who in summer had really crap bands on, but would open the windows because it was too hot inside the pub. Their licence was only till 11, but often this would go on till past 12.

Even after complaining they still did it, however enough complaints later they actually lost their ents license.

There was a local rehearsal room set up as well, but it was catering for younger people and the council insisted that they put limiters in the rehearsal rooms before they would be allowed to operate.

A bit of common sense on both sides goes a long way I'd say, just a shame it seems to increasingly becoming polar opposites.

[phil_the_bassist]

will this also be applied to the Liquid/Venom/Time/Envy/ etc?

[The Admiral]

[quote name='bremen' post='375256' date='Jan 9 2009, 03:14 PM']Nothing on their website (search terms 'sound level', 'limiter' and '70dB')


It's a tabloid story, isn't it. Next thing we know, scientists will have discovered that looking at silicone tits for 10 minutes is the equivalent of an hour in the gym.[/quote]

Now there is a petition worth signing - free provision of 'specialist DVDs' as a major contributor to the health of the male,and indeed some of the female, population of the country.

Perhaps we should try to launch that on the No 10 site?

Although thinking about it - maybe there are too many tits in Downing street already.

A

[misrule]

[quote name='BassBunny' post='375241' date='Jan 9 2009, 03:04 PM']The 70DB figure came from the original study conducted in France. The details of this were published in one of the Sunday Papers last November.[/quote]
Headline: Pub music noise ban to curb binge drinking
Source: Mail on Sunday
Issue Date: Sunday November 16, 2008
Byline: Tom Harper
Page: 35
Word Count: 570
Edition: 1ST
Story Text:
THE Government's latest proposal to combat Britain's binge-drinking epidemic is to turn down the volume of music in pubs and bars.
Landlords could be forced to outlaw all entertainment louder than 70 decibels - roughly the same as a hairdryer - to curb alcohol-fuelled violence and anti-social behaviour.
A Labour taskforce has been persuaded by research which showed that loud music in pubs made customers buy more alcohol and drink it faster.
At present, there is no set noise level for licensed premises, the only stipulation being that if pubs want to host live bands, they must make a formal application to the local council.
But researchers found that deafening music speeds up drinking patterns by drowning out conversation and arousing the brain.
When sound levels were louder, the average number of drinks ordered by customers rose from 2.6 to 3.4. The time taken to drink a small beer also fell from 14 to 11 minutes, according to the study by France's University of South Brittany.
But pubs claim a limit on noise would put an end to televised sports events and comedy nights and leave jukeboxes barely audible.
Mark Hastings, of the British Beer & Pub Association, said: 'There is absolutely no evidence to suggest a link between music and binge-drinking.
'This move is akin to a sledgehammer cracking a nut - the Government already has the power to put whatever conditions it chooses on any individual licence. That would target the problem venues rather than banning music, dancing, comedy and entertainment for everyone.' The news follows a warning to a
Commons select committee last week by Feargal Sharkey, frontman of Eighties band The Undertones and now chief executive of British Music Rights. He said stricter licensing laws are making it increasingly difficult for smaller venues to obtain live music licences.
The taskforce also proposes meetings twice a year between licensees and the police. But the industry estimates this would run to 400,000 meetings a year and take up 33,000 police working days.
The measures could either be enshrined in new legislation or used to amend the 2003 Licensing Act.
The annual cost of hospital treatment for alcohol-related problems has now reached £2.7 billion and more than 40 per cent of all crime is linked to drink.
Since the extension of drinking hours, the number of youngsters treated for alcohol abuse has soared by 40 per cent.
Shadow Home Secretary Dominic Grieve said: 'This is a desperate attempt - the Government should concentrate on getting the basics right. Putting police on the street and enforcing the laws already in place would do more to combat alcohol-fuelled disorder.' The document makes no mention of minimum pricing for drink, despite Government-backed research showing that cheap supermarket deals are linked to binge-drinking. Last year, The Mail on Sunday revealed that some stores were selling beer more cheaply than water.
Other moves being considered are a ban on pub promotions, such as free drinks for women, happy hours and the sale of cocktails with suggestive names such as Sex On The Beach.
The draft code also proposes cigarette-style health warnings about the dangers of alcohol to be displayed in shops, bars and restaurants.
The Home Office said: 'This document is a draft and should not be taken as an indication of Government policy. Ministers have yet to take any final decisions.'

Cheers

Mark

[Stylon Pilson]

[quote name='misrule' post='375454' date='Jan 9 2009, 05:44 PM']Source: Mail on Sunday[/quote]

That's the relevant bit. [url="http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1086230/Pub-music-noise-ban-desperate-attempt-curb-binge-drinking.html"]Here's the link[/url].

S.P.

Edited January 9, 2009 by Stylon Pilson

[Jobiebass]

Signed,

Wiki "The Valve Sound System is a touring sound reinforcement system specifically designed for the playback of drum and bass music. Created by UK artists, Dillinja and Lemon D, the system has a total power output of 120kW. The system consists of 52 subwoofers (designed and built for the valve system) as well as Mid-High cabs made by Funktion One. The full system is not used in smaller venues. It was designed exclusively for drum and bass acoustics and as such is the first of its kind."

I went to one in sheffield student union, my god it was loud, couldnt get near the front cause it hurt, but they gave you ear plugs on the way in, and they make you aware its damaging to your health. I dont what the problem is.

[OldGit]

[quote name='Jobiebass' post='375461' date='Jan 9 2009, 05:54 PM']Signed,

Wiki "The Valve Sound System is a touring sound reinforcement system specifically designed for the playback of drum and bass music. Created by UK artists, Dillinja and Lemon D, the system has a total power output of 120kW. The system consists of 52 subwoofers (designed and built for the valve system) as well as Mid-High cabs made by Funktion One. The full system is not used in smaller venues. It was designed exclusively for drum and bass acoustics and as such is the first of its kind."

I went to one in sheffield student union, my god it was loud, couldnt get near the front cause it hurt, but they gave you ear plugs on the way in, and they make you aware its damaging to your health. I dont what the problem is.[/quote]



It's legislation to protect employees Elfin' Safety, same as the smoking ban.
This is not about noise polution or hurting the ears of punters who can choose to leave.

We bypassed a limiter at a gig last year afterwards the boss told us we'd be banned for evernmore if we did it again
He'd spotted it but let us play on anyway, just warning us at the end. A decent compromise I think.

[umph]

[quote name='budget bassist' post='375103' date='Jan 9 2009, 01:52 PM']Signed. This isn't a hoax, i've read about this a few times and i've been dead against it the whole time. 70DB is avsolutely f*** all. It's not until about 85-90DB that it starts to get damaging, and bearing in mind that every 6DB, the sound is twice as loud, that's a hell of a lot louder. Personally, i think that if you go to a gig where your hearing could potentially be damaged, then it's your own responsibility to protect your ears and nobody else's.

As for the link with loud music and binge drinking, well that's just bullshit, total utter f***ing bullshit.
Live music has taken enough of a downturn lately (particularly in notts with one of the better venues closing), don't let the government put the final nail in the coffin people![/quote]
i drink more in sh*t bands,

70db though? i'm not sure my head and cab go that quiet?

[bass_ferret]

Like Simon says, its the result of a european directive on elf and safety of staff. Just like the smoking directive that ended up as a total ban in the UK and is ignored by most of europe, you can rely on new labours government of lawyers making a total cock of it, but the legislation has already been passed so the petition is pointless.

The ridiculous article in the mail is just rubbish, like the mails outcry over Wetherspoons selling IPA for 99p. As if binge drinking chavs drink IPA or go to live music pubs. Just shows how stupid and ignorant they are.

[BassBunny]

[quote name='misrule' post='375454' date='Jan 9 2009, 05:44 PM']Headline: Pub music noise ban to curb binge drinking
Source: Mail on Sunday
Issue Date: Sunday November 16, 2008
Byline: Tom Harper
Page: 35
Word Count: 570
Edition: 1ST
Story Text:
THE Government's latest proposal to combat Britain's binge-drinking epidemic is to turn down the volume of music in pubs and bars.
Landlords could be forced to outlaw all entertainment louder than 70 decibels - roughly the same as a hairdryer - to curb alcohol-fuelled violence and anti-social behaviour.
A Labour taskforce has been persuaded by research which showed that loud music in pubs made customers buy more alcohol and drink it faster.
At present, there is no set noise level for licensed premises, the only stipulation being that if pubs want to host live bands, they must make a formal application to the local council.
But researchers found that deafening music speeds up drinking patterns by drowning out conversation and arousing the brain.
When sound levels were louder, the average number of drinks ordered by customers rose from 2.6 to 3.4. The time taken to drink a small beer also fell from 14 to 11 minutes, according to the study by France's University of South Brittany.
But pubs claim a limit on noise would put an end to televised sports events and comedy nights and leave jukeboxes barely audible.
Mark Hastings, of the British Beer & Pub Association, said: 'There is absolutely no evidence to suggest a link between music and binge-drinking.
'This move is akin to a sledgehammer cracking a nut - the Government already has the power to put whatever conditions it chooses on any individual licence. That would target the problem venues rather than banning music, dancing, comedy and entertainment for everyone.' The news follows a warning to a
Commons select committee last week by Feargal Sharkey, frontman of Eighties band The Undertones and now chief executive of British Music Rights. He said stricter licensing laws are making it increasingly difficult for smaller venues to obtain live music licences.
The taskforce also proposes meetings twice a year between licensees and the police. But the industry estimates this would run to 400,000 meetings a year and take up 33,000 police working days.
The measures could either be enshrined in new legislation or used to amend the 2003 Licensing Act.
The annual cost of hospital treatment for alcohol-related problems has now reached £2.7 billion and more than 40 per cent of all crime is linked to drink.
Since the extension of drinking hours, the number of youngsters treated for alcohol abuse has soared by 40 per cent.
Shadow Home Secretary Dominic Grieve said: 'This is a desperate attempt - the Government should concentrate on getting the basics right. Putting police on the street and enforcing the laws already in place would do more to combat alcohol-fuelled disorder.' The document makes no mention of minimum pricing for drink, despite Government-backed research showing that cheap supermarket deals are linked to binge-drinking. Last year, The Mail on Sunday revealed that some stores were selling beer more cheaply than water.
Other moves being considered are a ban on pub promotions, such as free drinks for women, happy hours and the sale of cocktails with suggestive names such as Sex On The Beach.
The draft code also proposes cigarette-style health warnings about the dangers of alcohol to be displayed in shops, bars and restaurants.
The Home Office said: 'This document is a draft and should not be taken as an indication of Government policy. Ministers have yet to take any final decisions.'

Cheers

Mark[/quote]
Cheers Mark,
I knew it was Nov 16th as another band member posted on another forum after calling me to see if i had seen it. I have been searching for the article as I am sure I kept it, but don't matter now you have reproduced it here.
Thought it was either MOS of Sunday Express as i tend to read either of them.

[skankdelvar]

If loud noise makes you want to drink more, then presumably there is some (unascertained) db level where you want to drink less. (So, to reduce alcohol consumption, we presumably need silent pubs that continue to dispense cheap beer).

Typical of the 'Little Professor' approach to government.

Armed insurrection. It's the way forward.

[Delberthot]

I belive that the propensity to drink is equal to the crappiness of the band perfoming on the premises.

We've just finished our Christmas residency and the manager jokingly asked if we could play crap so that the punters would go and buy drink. Apparently we had them on the floor all night so their bar taking were down.

Yet again, the government is talking pish. Goes with the territory I suppose

[risingson]

Utterly ridiculous, mostly because a lot of the venues that implement these limiters have not had them set up correctly whatsoever. It's a real irritation... we played a function the other day and me stamping on the floor at a quiet volume pushed the level into red. Imagine what a floor full of dancers and a full band would do to it. Get real... if it's that much of an issue for the venue organiser then I'd be more than happy to pack up my gear and leave... you don't get a full band in to play a gig (and we are by no means a loud band), only to turn around to them and say that we have to turn down because a badly set up limiter is telling them that we're too loud. I just won't deal with it, and I'm really glad it's been brought up.

[spacecowboy]

Signed. This Government is determined to destroy our country.

[misrule]

[quote name='bass_ferret' post='375739' date='Jan 9 2009, 10:51 PM']The ridiculous article in the mail is just rubbish ...[/quote]
[quote name='BeLow' post='375940' date='Jan 10 2009, 09:45 AM']The background to this is based on a tabloid article and frankly my children do more research for their school homework than the journalists.[/quote]

In fairness to the Mail on Sunday (not that they deserve it), their piece is straightforward and balanced. It's sprinkled with 'could' and 'may', indicating that it's all speculation. They only repeat somebody else's research. And the last line tells us all we need to know:

[quote]The Home Office said: 'This document is a draft and should not be taken as an indication of Government policy. Ministers have yet to take any final decisions.'[/quote]

Given the paper's ultra-right leanings and hatred of the Labour government, their piece could have been a lot worse. I suspect, as spokesmen of so-called Middle England (the old gits who moan about "young people's racket in pubs"), that's because they support the idea of noise limits.

We would probably have more success tackling our MPs about the issue personally than signing a petition which politicians can cheerfully ignore.

Cheers

Mark

[Paul Cooke]

[quote name='BeLow' post='375940' date='Jan 10 2009, 09:45 AM'][i]What is meant by “loud” ?

Most of the experts agree that anything over 85 dB is loud and anything over 90 dB is very loud. Any sound over 140 dB is classed as very dangerous and can cause instantaneous damage to hearing.

Does that mean if the SPL is more than 85 dB, everyone must have ear protectors?

Not necessarily. Hearing damage is dependent on the exposure time as well as the level of noise. The louder the noise, the shorter the time in which hearing damage can occur. On the right is a link to a useful chart.

Below are some examples.

SPL Max. daily exposure
(At Risk) Max. daily exposure
(High Risk)
Less than 85 dB no limit no limit
90 dB 2.5 Hours no limit
95 dB 45 minutes 2.5 hours
100 dB 15 minutes 45 minutes
110 dB 1.5 minutes 5 minutes

So for example, a piece of machinery producing 90 dB SPL is only operational for 1 hour a day, it does not pose a risk to hearing. What do you mean by “At Risk”?

If the “At Risk” exposure times are exceeded, then there is a possibility of hearing damage. The following actions need to be taken by the employer.

Measure noise levels at least every 2 years or when there is a significant change to noise levels or exposure times. Make sure the records of these are kept.

Advise the members of staff who are affected about the risks to their hearing and tell how to minimise this.

Make hearing protection available to those who ask for it. Show staff on how to use and maintain these properly. If possible, use noise reduction equipment to reduce noise at source.

What if there are short bursts of noise, say from a riveting machine or a gun at a firing range? If these bursts of noise greater than 140 dB, then this is considered a “High Risk” situation. [/i]

If I remember correctly when we drove 9" interference fit bolts into wing root joints it would hit 140dB, we had to re-engineer the process and damp the airframe to reduce resonance - even wearing ear protectors it was damn loud but the period of exposure was very short. I think we got down to 133dB in the end.

A 70dB threshold in this context, even with prolonged periods of exposure an employee might experience, seems ludicrous, I swear one of my colleagues hits 85dB sitting working on their own in our office![/quote]

we had a simple rule of thumb in the RAF as to when we had to wear ear protection and there wasn't already a mandatory ear protection sign present...

Basically, if we had to shout to be understood when conversing with another person when standing next to them, then we should be wearing ear protection... personally, I think that was a bit lax, the distance should have been 2 meters...

If punters in a venue are having to shout their drinks orders to the staff, then it's too loud for the staff and they should either be wearing ear protection, or else the band/disco/jukebox or whatever should be turned down...

the problem in the UK is a lot of councils play it safe and "gold plate" any legislation when drawing up their licensing regulations just so they can have more things to check for compliance when renewing or issuing them... it's getting ridiculous these days

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold-plating"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold-plating[/url]


ps interference fit bolts??? surely you should have been chilling them (not using liquid nitrogen like they do for Nimrod wing root bolts) using freezing mixture to make them easier to fit? We used to freeze certain engine bolts when reassembling Tornado jet engines.

[OldGit]

" ....Middle England (the old gits who moan about "young people's racket in pubs"),"

OldGits rule

My noise problem in pubs is usually caused by middle aged bands playing Bad Company/Free/Cream/Keiser Cheifs/Zep covers way too loud for the venue's size and audience comfort...

I must say I'd hate to work behind the bar in the couple of places I'm thinking of near me. It must be really wearing.

Of course, if you do wear earplugs in this environment you can hear people ordering drinks perfectly well .. I am amazed that no one has picked up on this

[Bassmurf]

Signed!

[bassace]

Done

[ardi100]

Signed

[thisnameistaken]

It seems every weekend in my local there's at least one table of blokes who can't talk without shouting, and like to laugh especially loud to show what a fun-loving bunch of stupid twats they are.

They must peak well over 70db. Does this mean they can be thrown out into the street? If so I'm all for it.

[misrule]

[quote name='OldGit' post='376037' date='Jan 10 2009, 12:00 PM']" ....Middle England (the old gits who moan about "young people's racket in pubs"),"

OldGits rule [/quote]
OldGit, voice of the nation

Cheers

Mark