Free Road Tax ?

[Corvus]

An motorbikes are not ecological.

DT

Why not? I'd have thought they were. Intrinsically.

45mpg to transport one (typically) person..........

You can get 5 people in a car with similar consumption.

So in relative terms - they are not very sound as far as resources go.

(would be my guess).



Al

Spot on Al .... plus remember a huge amount of motor cycle journeys are taken just for the pleasure of riding, nothing to do with getting from A to B. Wanton waste of fossil fuel for no gain (other than a smile on the face).

Plus how many 1100cc cars return as little as 45mpg with one passenger.

Plus can't remember the last time my bike returned 45mpg after a good days ride?

Yes a CB 125 may return 100mpg but who the fuck wants to ride a CB125


DT

My F800GS easily returns 55 to 65 mpg during spirited use and has CO2 levels the same as a Fiat 500 which pays zero road tax. As more and more bikes are having to comply with Euro xx levels it seems only fair that the powers that be recognise the efficiencies and give a level playing field to two wheeled users

And while we're at it on injustice. ... HMRC rules with their 50p a mile allowance for cars but for motorcycles of any CC it's only 24p .... yet they also allow 20p per mile for using a pushbike.... .so they reckon it's only 4p per mile more to run a superbike for business use than a pushbike!!! again plainly discriminatory, yet how hard to MAG and the BMF fight for that one. Easy answer they don't :/

Your point about the emissions seems a fair point to me.

Regarding the comparison between your bike and the fiat, how does the performance compare? Acceleration and top speed?

[slparry]

don't understand what the performance has to do with taxation to be honest? The bike will obviously out accelerate the car, both will cruise easily at the legal motorway limit

The car though presents a huge moving bollard when combined with other cars whereas the bike takes up a fraction of the space.

Horsepower on the 800 cc bike and the 900 cc car is the same at 85hp, but obviously the weight of the car drags the performance down.

http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/f ... 008/52666/

[Corvus]

don't understand what the performance has to do with taxation to be honest? The bike will obviously out accelerate the car, both will cruise easily at the legal motorway limit

The car though presents a huge moving bollard when combined with other cars whereas the bike takes up a fraction of the space.

Horsepower on the 800 cc bike and the 900 cc car is the same at 85hp, but obviously the weight of the car drags the performance down.

http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/f ... 008/52666/

Is the car in question supercharged?

What has the bikes' performance to do with taxation? Everything really. To present a bike with the same acceleration and speed performance we should end up with a very light machine. Very narrow and of considerably lower (effective) cubic capacity. That should lead to a more ecological machine for the same performance. By the government's own logic, it should be taxed lower. Exempt even?

Edit: yes, thought so, the car is turbocharged, so it is not to be judged directly on its swept volume.

[Corvus]

Horsepower on the 800 cc bike and the 900 cc car is the same at 85hp, but obviously the weight of the car drags the performance down.

Isn't the combined drag of the car worse than the bike?

I read a little while ago a comment by a motorcycle journalist that the consumed power at a given speed is an indication of the vehicle's drag. I'm probably out of touch with what modern cars can do on a given amount of power, but I can't help feeling that the very much narrower and lighter bike should beat it?

Edit: found this
http://www.wallaceracing.com/Calculate% ... 0Speed.php

[boxerscott]

Kin ell, Gov is gonna tax bikes for sure. If we were like India and all put putting about on 25cc jobbies then expect low taxation. We`re not.. blokes can afford to have £16k bikes (and thats just a fackin GS for gawds sake!) as well as cars and other bikes. Why should they be tax exempt unless of course it is because of similarities with Google, Amazon, EBay, Costa

[Blackal]

Kin ell, Gov is gonna tax bikes for sure. If we were like India and all put putting about on 25cc jobbies then expect low taxation. We`re not.. blokes can afford to have £16k bikes (and thats just a fackin GS for gawds sake!) as well as cars and other bikes. Why should they be tax exempt unless of course it is because of similarities with Google, Amazon, EBay, Costa

That's it - in a nutmeg.

The government are more adept in manipulating the general public's opinion - then slapping another tax on, secure in the knowledge that a significant amount of the public agree..........

(The tax on 4WD vehicles - after getting the public to hate the drivers of "Chelsea Tractors" etc)

Al

[Dog Tyred]

Kin ell, Gov is gonna tax bikes for sure. If we were like India and all put putting about on 25cc jobbies then expect low taxation. We`re not.. blokes can afford to have £16k bikes (and thats just a fackin GS for gawds sake!) as well as cars and other bikes. Why should they be tax exempt unless of course it is because of similarities with Google, Amazon, EBay, Costa

Where is that "Like" button again

Totally agree.

DT

[dave the german]

Chris, what do oh meant by JUST a GS? I'm deeply offended! !
Now where's the Bratwurst?

[Corvus]

.....You can get 4 (small) people in a Fiat 500, though.

Al

This does put an interesting moral slant on the logic.

Whether or not discussion like this on forums has any actual influence, it's a worthwhile discussion to have.

[Corvus]

Had an ad come thro. Mitsubishi outlander phev for £whateverpermonthnotinterested. What drew my attention was the claim of 148mpg.

Just when I thought perpetual motion really was a no no.

[Blackal]

On the £1.30 pump price, the breakdown is:

Base cost: 50p
Fuel duty: 58p
VAT: 22p

An increase in tax to "compensate" for losing RFL - might be a bit of a vote-loser for a government. No matter what the bare figures actually mean.

I reckon the next budget will increase the duty anyway, and they will explain it like "in REAL terms, the cost has decreased, and this additional rate will pay for hospitals/old age care/nursery places etc......" (but they'll avoid things like Trident or Pay increases for Civil Servants)

Al

[dave the german]

Al, you're such a cynic:wink:
I LOVE that phrase "in real terms" not It really does pi $$ me off

[big rob]

Response from HM Treasury.


The Government has responded to the petition you signed – “Abolish road tax on Motorcycles.”.

Government responded:

The average motorcycle owner pays £54 VED per year whilst the average car owner pays £166. VED rates have been limited to inflation only increases since 2010.

Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) is a tax on vehicle ownership irrespective of miles driven.

The rates of VED for lower emissions cars are part of a multi-pronged strategy to help realise long-term fuel-efficiency improvements through funding technological innovation, regulating manufacturing improvements and incentivising consumer take-up. This helps the Government to fulfil its legal obligation to reduce national CO2 emissions.

Unlike for cars, it has only been mandatory for CO2 emissions data to be included as part of the type approval process for motorcycles since 1 January 2016. Therefore, it has not been possible to base motorcycle VED rates on CO2 emissions. The current engine capacity based rates offer the most practical and easy-to-understand way to reflect the respective emissions of motorcycles.

Currently, the average motorcycle owner pays £54 per year – a lot less than the top VED rate of £81 per year – and the average car owner pays £166 per year. In addition, under this Government, VED rate increases for motorcycles have been limited to inflation only, meaning that all motorcyclists’ VED liability remains unchanged in real terms since 2010.

HM Treasury

Does anyone remember what Road Fund Licence was?

[The Teutonic Tangerine]

Does anyone remember what Road Fund Licence was?

Exactly what it says on the Tin when the Road fund Licence was introduced and you got your licence to stick on the windscreen the money was supposed to go to improving the roads. We are talking pre WWii here and many roads even in the 1920's were still only rolled stones not tarmac. Later it became what it is now - merely a tax or Excise Duty (VED - Vehicle Excise Duty) like any other tax. It bears no relation to the state of the roads or the potential damage to roads of a given vehicle. I remember when it was a flat rate for all cars then it became graded on CO2 output in an attempt to encourage the manufacturers to clean-up their engines and to persuade us to buy cleaner engines. If you think back to before it was graded we still had cars of 1300cc putting out only about 75bhp and clouds of smoke (1970's Austin 1300 Springs to mind) Now we have cars of 1000cc putting out 125 BHP without smoking like Frenchman (i.e. Fiesta). Not saying its right or wrong but that what happened. And why it was called the Road Fund Licence.

See Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_Fund

[JamesL]

Government responded:

The average motorcycle owner pays £54 VED per year

I got mine too, so at least we made them charge some time into creating the (predictable) response.

But who pays £54 I wonder? Surely it's £81 or SORN?