New road tax discriminates against bikers
New emission-based tax rates set to clobber motorcyclists in yet another bizarre Government-led initiative
UNDER NEW emissions-based rates of road tax announced last week in the
Budget, vehicles that produce less than 100g of CO2 per/km will pay nothing
– unless they are motorcycles. Despite emitting less than 100g per/km, many
motorcycles will next year pay double according to the Environmental
Transport Association.
The new rates discriminate against motorcycles despite the fact that CO2
emissions for motorcycles of all types are already below the average level
for petrol and diesel-engined cars.
A 125cc commuter bike currently pays a vehicle excise duty of £15 – the rate
in 2009 will more than double to £33.
Andrew Davis, director at the Environmental Transport Association said: “A
doubling of tax for motorcycles that produce less than 100g of CO2 per/km
makes a nonsense of the revised rates of vehicle excise duty - it appears
that motorcycles are subsidising the new zero rate of vehicle excise duty
for the lowest-polluting cars. At a time when we are struggling to meet
emissions targets and high petrol prices, a case must be made for
motorcycles that produce less CO2 than cars and use far less fuel.”
Discuss this story
Just another example of the lack of joined up thinking from this Goverment. Just like congestion charging. "The traffic is slow moving due to congestion, so lets bring in a congestion tax" and then "People aren't using public transport so lets bring in 15 mph speed limits"
Posted: 25/03/2008 14:29
Great, another stealth tax on us. I know who won't be getting my vote next time round, unless they buck their ideas up. FWIW, I would imagine that motorcycles, throughout their lifetime leave a smaller carbon footprint that most other petrol/diesel fuelled forms of transport.
They are smaller, physically, so manufacture should create less carbon, less are built = less carbon, use less fuel than most petrol driven cars = less carbon and when it comes to the end of it's life most of the parts are sold on E-Bay and if they are not then it is a physically smaller vehicle to scrap = less carbon. If the governments aim is to reduce carbon emissions then we surely should not be persecuted for choosing a enviromentaly friendlier form of transport. Now someone will blow all of my theories out of the water with cold hard facts.
Posted: 25/03/2008 14:34
I love the way bike mags alkways defend bikes by using a sample 125 cc commuter bike but then go on to promote litre bikes that do 30 to the gallon and scrap a pair of tyres every 2000 miles..when a small car will easily do 45 to the gallon and 20000 miles to a set of tyres... I cant see how paying £33 a year to use the roads is such a big deal...hardly persecution compared to the $400 plus you will pay for an over 2.5 litre petrol car 
Posted: 25/03/2008 14:47
Taxing the hell out of anything, does not stop people using it. It is merely a way of raising more revenue, in a politically spun way to make it more palatable to the masses. Most opposition parties will shy away from criticising the policies, for fear of being labelled eco-destroyers. My bikes are no more economical than the girlfriends car, but I accept that I'm going to get shafted each & every year now, particularly on my car. The £455 road tax won't me stop driving big engined cars, nor will a congestion tax - I'll just shrug & move on. Not sure if that's defeatist, but there seems little I can do to change things and little seems to have changed for the better six months after any organised demo.
Posted: 25/03/2008 15:27
Fair point from gedge, there is a large variety of fuel efficiency amongst bikes. Most bikes were never designed for fuel efficiency or emissions anyway. That's something from the last couple of years. I'd expect the average big bike to do around 50 mpg which is still not too bad. With the 125 cc class, these bikes can be amazingly fuel efficient. For two years mine has been doing 120 mpg and it has low emissions according to European standards. It should be compared to a "low emission" car and would probably be more efficient than that. If cars and motorcycles are treated equally then a reduction in road tax should be considered. Or even zero road tax for the ultra-low emission vehicles. It would depend on the construction of the bike (2stroke / 4 stroke, fuel injection, catalist, actual emissions measurements on MOT etc.) We might start to lobby with the 125 bikers club to get our road tax scrapped. At the end of the day, there is a tax on the amount of riding/driving that you do and that is the petrol duty. If you find the petrol too expensive, then either - ride less miles - switch to a fuel efficient vehicle Cheers, Mansie
Posted: 25/03/2008 15:39
Here we go again. Not a completely thought through argument to tax us more for the priveledge of using roads. Yes there are bikes that use more fuel than small cars, but this is in a best case scenario. Motorways get clogged cars stop, bikes filter, who's creating more co2 now? Their answer would be that you get 4+ ppeople in a car thus reducing personnal co emissions. Local authorities increase co by introducing dumb speed limits that go up and down depending on how many kids live in each house, how's that helping. Brake, speed up, brake..................... and speed bumps IMHO Could keep going.
Posted: 25/03/2008 15:49
It doesn't matter what example is used Gedge, the new legislation is based on paying for the emissions you put out. Why should a biker be made to pay more than a car of the same emissions levels? A litre sportsbike should have to pay more, agreed. It's as ridiculous as saying ethnic minorities should pay more council tax.. Why different rules for different people or modes of transport??
I wasn't actually making a point about the tax or emissions bands...My point was the way bike mags cynically promote the least fuel efficient vehicles as being the latest must have...but when it comes to addressing a Govt policy they always pull out the good old 125 commuter...
When was the last time they carried out a proper test of economy ( forgetting their lands end to john o groats specials on a 40 yr old c50..) identifiying the best commuter bikes and most economical bikes for tax , insurance and fuel..? probably never.... but every month another litre bike group test...well if thats what they are promoting they should at least have the courage of their convictions when complaining about gov't policy and base their defences on what they are promoting..
Posted: 25/03/2008 16:41
IMy point was the way bike mags cynically promote the least fuel efficient vehicles as being the latest must have...but when it comes to addressing a Govt policy they always pull out the good old 125 commuter...
However, we are not talking about bike mags but Goverment policy. If they are serious about green issues, then increasing the road tax on a 125 commuter when at the same time they are bringing in new cars at zero rate, even if they still produce more emmission than the bike, just highlights the flaws in their strategy.
We have Ruth Kelly getting all excited about the +1 car sharing lane on the M606 in to Bradford and then the Government seem to want to penalise bikes that are far more fuel efficient, less polluting and take up considerable less road space.
Posted: 25/03/2008 17:32
It stands to reason that the same rules are applied to both cars and bikes, but to be honest road tax for bikes doesn't appear to be high. It irritates me that because it was registered in 2000 my car will cost £15 more to tax than if it had been registered in 2001. Fortunately it's a trivial amount.
Posted: 25/03/2008 17:35
However, we are not talking about bike mags but Goverment policy. If they are serious about green issues, then increasing the road tax on a 125 commuter when at the same time they are bringing in new cars at zero rate, even if they still produce more emmission than the bike, just highlights the flaws in their strategy.
We have Ruth Kelly getting all excited about the +1 car sharing lane on the M606 in to Bradford and then the Government seem to want to penalise bikes that are far more fuel efficient, less polluting and take up considerable less road space.
Speak for yourself..Government tax policy is clear so I decided to focus on something that is even more cynical..in future I will of course be sure to check with you first before making any slightly OT comments
Posted: 25/03/2008 17:59
Speak for yourself..Government tax policy is clear so I decided to focus on something that is even more cynical..in future I will of course be sure to check with you first before making any slightly OT comments
I'd argue that the Government's tax policy for the RFL is far from clear. We are told that they are using it to penalise polluting vehicles and rewarding green ones but then decide that fuel efficient, low emmision P2W will not benefit from this and will actually see their tax increased, while some cars will be completely exempt, even though they still produce more emmisions than commuter bikes, use more fuel (unless carrying multiple occupants) and use more resources in manufacturing. It clearly shows that there is no joined up thinking to the UK's transport plans I'll clear out my PM box so that in future you can check with me that your comments will be appropriate 
Posted: 25/03/2008 20:52
I'll clear out my PM box so that in future you can check with me that your comments will be appropriate
Couldn't you just post for me..cut out the middle man .... 
Posted: 25/03/2008 22:01
I'm heartened by the number of absolute, grade A, swallowing-their-tongues-without-realising, suited only to extremely menial work, need specially-clothed help in the bathroom, wouldn't want my goldfish to marry one, laugh-at-own-drool, couldn't carry a logical conversation if their nurses' lives depended on it, round-the-clock moose-impersonator fucking idiots there are on here. Salue!
Posted: 26/03/2008 20:51
it's all about a lying, thieving, corupt government, and all governtments are the same to one degree or another, put there to serve their people, but now serving their own needs and those of their familys and friends, their only thought at the moment is where and what to tax next, how to pay for their stupidity and arrogance, their second and third homes, their 10 grand kitchens, the list is endless, god knows how many pen-pushing jobs have been created on the backs of good people. At the end of the day we all pay for these so called public servants sitting there with their thumbs up their arse, they are just dreaming of ways to make us pay, and dreams can be expensive.
Posted: 27/03/2008 16:47
|
Latest News
Texas Police track down credit card thieves who stole from... Could veteran Nottingham racer be hanging up his leathers? 'Simon Gillett was having a good punt at it' BSB frontrunner takes premier slot on the grid for the 43rd...
|
