It's written mostly in technical jargon but occasionally they lapse into real English, particularly when they think they've got a statement to make that shows the motocross track in a good light.
I'd just got to the part where the Noise Assessment consultant is saying that the predicted noise levels are “considered conservative as noise sources adopted in the modelling are all of bikes assumed to be under acceleration but in real life the bikes will at times be off the throttle (i.e. braking as the bikes come into a corner), which would result in lower overall noise emissions.”
Mmm ... maybe.
Then an email came in from a friend who is an "experienced dirt bike rider, having competed in motocross and ‘enduro’ at a national level. I was also involved with Motorcycling Queensland in an organisational capacity for many years. This experience gives me a greater understanding of the noise pollution generated by a facility like the MTF. "
His view is that " The style of riding is a significant contributor to the noise level generated i.e. using full throttle in an irregular manner, as compared to ‘smooth riding’, creates the largest impact. This is an essential element of motocross riding."
Over the years I've come to the view that a basic principle in advertising and public relations is that if you want to sell a "product" which is actually pretty crappy, take its negative features and say that the exact opposite is true. The same kind of thinking seems to have invaded professional fields, or are noise assessments being done by public relations consultants?