100% Biker & Trike Magazine Forums

Go Back   100% Biker & Trike Magazine Forums > 100% Biker > Biker Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-01-2010, 03:20 PM
Nik Nik is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Saarfuk
Posts: 6,072
Send a message via MSN to Nik
Default Motorcyclists Not Budgeted For Say bmf

Angered that under the Chancellor’s recent pre-budget report, road tax rates for motorcycles are set to increase this year, the British Motorcyclists Federation have set up a petition on the No 10 website asking the Prime Minister to intervene and stop the increases.

The bmf say that at a time of economic hardship and when sales of motorcycles are already down some 27% year on year, it makes no sense for any government to increase taxes on motorcycle ownership.

Unlike the car world where motorists and the motoring industry have benefited from the car scrappage scheme, conversely, due to the weak pound, the price of motorcycles has increased and now motorcyclists are to be faced with a Vehicle Excise Duty increases of between 4% and 6% - and this at a time when the Consumer Prices Index is only 1.9%!

The bmf’s Government Relations Executive Chris Hodder said: “This is all wrong. While in monetary terms the increases of between £2 and £4 are admittedly quite small, it’s not about the numbers, it's about the principle of increasing owner taxation at a time of economic hardship when the motorcycle industry is struggling to stay solvent.”

The bmf are asking that in this an election year, all motorcyclists should sign-up to show the strength of feeling over motorcyclists and motorcycling being treated unfairly. The petitions says:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to stop the increases in motorcycle tax proposed for 2010

Given that the motorcycle industry is facing some of its darkest days with sales slumping by around 25-30%, it makes no sense for any government to increase taxes on motorcycle ownership as is proposed in the Pre-Budget Report. We petition the government to support the motorcycle industry as it has the car industry and freeze or lower Vehicle Excise Duty and provide some other stimuli for the industry and not to attack it further by increasing the cost of ownership for law-abiding citizens.

The petition can be found at: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/motorcycleved/
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-01-2010, 04:46 PM
Gloria Gloria is offline
Chat Slapper
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Ballyhalbert Norn Iron
Posts: 50
Default yeah but..........

Motorcyclists could be paying less VED (Vehicle Excise Duty) – Road Tax – if the same CO2 emissions based VED scheme was introduced for motorcycles that is already in place for cars - and from April 2010, for new car purchases.

But they won’t unless the motorcycle manufacturers supply CO2 emission information. Unlike car manufacturers who have reported CO2 emission figures for years as part of the European type approval system, motorcycle manufacturers do not state these figures.

Apart from a few model specific exceptions it's impossible to get hold of this information.

Without these figures, a motorcycle CO2 based VED emission scheme cannot be implemented, motorcyclists will not have a first year reduction on their road tax for new machines and any further potential savings on road tax will not be passed on to motorcyclists.

ACEM the Motorcycle Industry in Europe, the professional body representing the interests and combined skills of 12 powered two wheelers (PTWs) manufacturers, prefers Road Worthiness (RW) Testing (MOT) for motorcycles throughout Europe (not all European countries have this test for motorcycles) and has been pushing to include emissions in this test.

We can only presume that this is so that they can move the responsibility for the emissions and the durability (how long the vehicle should remain within emission tolerances) onto the rider and not have to worry about the cost of testing new models and recalls.

For years the industry and motorcycle organisations have said that motorcycles are among the most fuel efficient vehicles on the road, with their space saving capabilities.

They spend less valuable time stuck in traffic jams so that commuting and travel times are both reduced, thus leading to a reduction in emissions, because motorcycles are not forced to remain stationary, with an idling engine, in congested traffic.

Where does this leave motorcyclists?

We pay road tax based on engine size (because in the absence of information about emissions, the government will tax by default) and there is the real possibility that riders will have to pay higher charges for MOTs to cover the cost for emission checks and be responsible if the emission levels are too high.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-01-2010, 07:10 PM
2tellys's Avatar
2tellys 2tellys is offline
Chat Pimp
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 185
Default

I've signed it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-01-2010, 07:30 PM
ChopperFXR's Avatar
ChopperFXR ChopperFXR is offline
Talk, Type, Breath, Talk, Type, Breath....
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Somerset
Posts: 2,468
Default

Hang on a minute Gloria.

What you are suggesting in your post, (Not sure if you are quoting from an official source) is an additional test/restriction on motorcycles and thier owners.

Very few custom motorcycles fall within what our draconian government would regard as acceptable in terms of noise, design and type approval. Any increase in the level of type approvalremoves even more of our freedom of choice to ride whatever we can design, build or commision to be built.

The current MOT test is already hooked up to a national database at DVLA, which in turn is linked up with the Police National Computer and all ANPR cameras. An emissions test to be invcluded in the MOT will give the authoritiess even more control over what we can and cannot do.

The government has for many years been fully aware of the fact that bikes are far more environmentally friendly than cars. More fuel efficient, cause less damage, if any, to the highways and reduce congestion. ANY sensible government would see all of those FACTS as a good mode of transport that should be encouraged and stimulated.

Just stand at the A4 Twikenham roundabout during the morning rush hour and see how many huge gas guzzling company cars are blocking the road and the vast majority of them will have just the driver. By taking just 1 in five out of those cars, you would reduce the congestion by 20%. Simple maths. The same can be said about any major town or city in England.

Now do the maths. 1 in 5 might not sound very much, until you consider the multiple benefits spread across the whole of the UK. How many work man hours could be saved by industry? How much fuel could be saved, how much congestion, road rage, accidents.

Instead the government choose to penalise the bike rider/owner. We already have the toughest bike test in europe which actively discourages newowner riders. Plus the huge cost of getting a licence. Insurance companies compoun the matter by horrendous premiums. Police and other agencies refuse to acknowledge the fact that the great majority of bike/vehicle accidents are the fault of the vehicle driver.

I cannot see how encouraging any government to increase further type approval is going to benefit any bike owner or the transport system in general. It would be for the sole benefit of the government, the police and the chancellor.

Chopper.
__________________
MADE IN ENGLAND.
MY COUNTRY RIGHT OR WRONG.


WELCOME TO GREAT BRITAIN.
WE ARE FULL UP, SO FUCK OFF.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-01-2010, 11:28 PM
harry's Avatar
harry harry is offline
Techno Guru! He's Good! He Knows Everyfink!
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Taunton
Posts: 3,414
Default

There might be an advantage to us in having bikes emission tested.

Our enemies mainly the cycling lobby have made claims that our bikes are many times more poluting than cars. This is absurd but the science is beyond most of the public so they may believe it.

If bikes were classified by their emissions and tested at MOT it would shut them up because we would have figures to point at.

I'm sure that others will tell me their opinions
__________________
si is does non opportunus vos postulo a maior pango
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-01-2010, 11:34 PM
Grav's Avatar
Grav Grav is offline
Noisy Scouse Gobshite and Owner of the snigger TM
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: in a house and a tent at weekends
Posts: 19,061
Default

New bikes have to conform to the latest EU emission standards anyway. They were agreed in 2002.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2...2-03-26-04.asp
__________________
Dark Lord Of Custard

Mitch Says " It'll be alright trust me, I'm a yorkshireman..... "
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-01-2010, 09:46 AM
Gloria Gloria is offline
Chat Slapper
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Ballyhalbert Norn Iron
Posts: 50
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grav View Post
New bikes have to conform to the latest EU emission standards anyway. They were agreed in 2002.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2...2-03-26-04.asp
Yeah - conform to EURO 3 - but that's not the point - the industry refuses to declare emissions - so nobody knows what they are and in the case of road tax in the UK - nobody knows what the CO2 emissions are for motorcycles, so nobody can benefit from the tax breaks which in a lot of cases could mean no road tax at all.

e.g.

In September 2008 the Association for Emissions Control by Catalyst (AECC)8 completed a Motorcycle test programme evaluating current motorcycle emissions performance. Four Euro 3 motorcycles and one Indian motorcycle were selected and evaluated on Euro 3 and world harmonized World Motorcycle Test Cycle (WMTC) test cycles for regulated and unregulated pollutants. The results were based on tests for the Euro 3 Test Cycle and the WMTC.

How does this relate to the proposed road tax to be introduced in the U.K.?

For example, for cars - Bands A through to D (= to up to 100 g/Km to a maximum of 130 g/Km) would mean zero charge for road tax;
E band (= to 131-140 g/km) would cost £110 - 2010 first-year rate (or £100 for alternative fuel);
F band (= 141-150 g/km) would cost £125 - 2010 first-year rate (or £11for alternative fuel);
G band (=151-160 g/km) would cost £155 - 2010 first-year rate (or £145 for alternative fuel) and so forth.

So (considering that there would need to be a proportionate rating for motorcycles due to the lower consumption of fuel and other factors), based on these results and using the Euro3 as the measure for the new road tax regime, if you chose a BMW F800, a Honda Unicorn 150 or a KYMCO Xciting 500 you would not pay any tax at all, but you would pay a higher tax per year (G Band) for both the Yamaha FJR 1300 and the Honda VFR 800 (although using the WMTC rating, the latter two would pay less (E Band) per year for road tax).

That leaves two choices, either the manufacturers accept that they will have to be responsible for declaring emissions and for recalls if they get it wrong.

Or

we pay higher road tax (because in the absence of information, the government will tax by default) and there is the real possibility that riders will have to pay higher charges for MOTs to cover the cost for emission checks – and be responsible for repairs if the emission levels are too high (because the manufacturers don't want that responsibility).
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-01-2010, 09:56 AM
Gloria Gloria is offline
Chat Slapper
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Ballyhalbert Norn Iron
Posts: 50
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChopperFXR View Post
Hang on a minute Gloria.

What you are suggesting in your post, (Not sure if you are quoting from an official source) is an additional test/restriction on motorcycles and thier owners.

Very few custom motorcycles fall within what our draconian government would regard as acceptable in terms of noise, design and type approval. Any increase in the level of type approvalremoves even more of our freedom of choice to ride whatever we can design, build or commision to be built.

Chopper.
Chopper - That's not what I am implying - custom bikes are a completely separate issue - you seem to be raising the issue of SVA - that's not the same as MOT and in any case I don't think there should be MOTs for motorcycles because even the industry and government studies have found that technical issues are rarely the cause of accidents.

There is a much bigger problem for custom building - fyi the Motorcycle Working Group at DG Enterprise is now considering an industry prosposal for anti-tampering measures which - IMHO - will kill custom bikes.

ACEM presented two documents at a committee meeting of the MCWG(Motorcycle Working Group) in Brussels on December 14 - see link http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/en...ailed&sb=Title

The manufacturers have moved from anti-tampering of mopeds to include various components and have also included 125cc as well as A2 driving licence category (35Kw = 46.6 bhp - which can have any engine size) aka category C (page 9 of amendment to directive ACEM).

So although it seems that this is an attempt by the industry to increase the manufacture of motorcycles that are identified in the training/testing parts of the 3DLD - and make it so that people will have to use restricted bikes or buy new ones (35Kw), it also appears to be the first step by the industry to ensure that the EU outlaws custom building, because the industry identifies that A2 vehicles should not be derived from a vehicle of more than double its power (i.e. 70Kw), so that would imply restrictions to custom build a bike of anything up to 70Kw (slightly less than 74Kw = 100bhp).

The industry (ACEM) is suggesting that because young moped riders modify their bikes to make them go faster, introducing anti-tampering measures, will stop them. This of course is complete rubbish, because while there is a market for spare parts, there will be a supply to make modifications. Nobody seems to know the level of this so called problem of tampering, yet the industry is prepared to bring in a wide range of measures to stop it - and from what I can see - it's just a cover up to stop custom building.

Last edited by Gloria; 07-01-2010 at 11:35 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-01-2010, 10:52 AM
dixie dixie is offline
Need to Get out More!
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 497
Default

With regards to emmisions...carbon foot prints and other green issues being discussed, lets not forget for one moment the FACT that over several generations and more, motorcyclist have been, and still are, the champions of re,cycling,, no other vehicle currently paying subscription homage to our out of touch goverment can lay claim to that...we should be applauded for this not persecuted, thing is though, we never shout loud enough do we..?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-01-2010, 12:39 PM
ChopperFXR's Avatar
ChopperFXR ChopperFXR is offline
Talk, Type, Breath, Talk, Type, Breath....
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Somerset
Posts: 2,468
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gloria View Post
Chopper - That's not what I am implying - custom bikes are a completely separate issue - you seem to be raising the issue of SVA - that's not the same as MOT and in any case I don't think there should be MOTs for motorcycles because even the industry and government studies have found that technical issues are rarely the cause of accidents.

There is a much bigger problem for custom building - fyi the Motorcycle Working Group at DG Enterprise is now considering an industry prosposal for anti-tampering measures which - IMHO - will kill custom bikes.


The industry (ACEM) is suggesting that because young moped riders modify their bikes to make them go faster, introducing anti-tampering measures, will stop them. This of course is complete rubbish, because while there is a market for spare parts, there will be a supply to make modifications. Nobody seems to know the level of this so called problem of tampering, yet the industry is prepared to bring in a wide range of measures to stop it - and from what I can see - it's just a cover up to stop custom building.
Gloria

I didn't metion SVA, which is a completely seperate issue. There are a great many modified/custom bikes on the road that do not require an SVA test. Most custom bikes are built around an already registered bike. Besides which, the SVA is a one off test. MOT is an annual test.

An addition to the current MOT test, by way of an emmissions test would not benefit anyone except the tax man and the Ministry of Transport. You can guarantee that the cost of an MOT test would rocket. The cost of modifying bikes to pass emission tests would also go through the roof as manufacturers used the new rules as an excuse to screw bike owners for parts they do not want or actually need. Thereby creating more control of bikers by back door means.

The government and MOT have long made it clear that they do not like motorcyclists, they cannot actually ban bike ownership, so they try to price us out. Every new raft of anti bike legislation is designed to put more and more people off the idea of owning a bike.

The legislation is usually pathetically disguised as a "SAFETY" measure. Hence the new bike tests. Every time there is new legislation the government and MOT ignore all advice from real bike experts. Remember Ken Livingstone and his report on bikes using bus lanes? He ignored what the report recommended and alterd what he didn't like, just to suit his own political agenda.

Bike emissions don't NEED to be fixed. Any bike burning way too much fuel is going to run like a bag of shite anyway so it won't be running for too long. Now go into any town or city centre and have a look at the amount of vehicles chucking out great clouds of smoke and fumes. Look at all the buses that smoke for a start.

If anyone values the freedom that a bike can still offer, then you need tothinklong and hard before giving politicians another bandwagon to jump on. Give them an idea and you also give them the chance to drive another nail into the coffin of custom biking and biking in general.

Don't try to fix what ain't fucked.

Chopper.
__________________
MADE IN ENGLAND.
MY COUNTRY RIGHT OR WRONG.


WELCOME TO GREAT BRITAIN.
WE ARE FULL UP, SO FUCK OFF.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-01-2010, 01:33 PM
harry's Avatar
harry harry is offline
Techno Guru! He's Good! He Knows Everyfink!
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Taunton
Posts: 3,414
Default

I could never agree with stopping the MOT test. OK I have a vested interest, but although we all ride good bikes and take pride in them not all do.

We assume that when a bike comes in for test that it is in the best condition that it will be in for 12 months. But if you saw some of the sh1t that is presented for test you would be horrified. Yes the figures of accidents caused by mechanical failure are very low this is for two reasons: -

One not many coppers are qualified to recognise faults or can be bothered to look' prefering to blame the rider.

Two the MOT takes these machines off the road. I haven't got the bike failure rates to hand but would guess it's in the 60% area.
__________________
si is does non opportunus vos postulo a maior pango
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-01-2010, 01:43 PM
Gloria Gloria is offline
Chat Slapper
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Ballyhalbert Norn Iron
Posts: 50
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChopperFXR View Post
Gloria

An addition to the current MOT test, by way of an emmissions test would not benefit anyone except the tax man and the Ministry of Transport. You can guarantee that the cost of an MOT test would rocket. The cost of modifying bikes to pass emission tests would also go through the roof as manufacturers used the new rules as an excuse to screw bike owners for parts they do not want or actually need. Thereby creating more control of bikers by back door means.

Chopper.
ok

I don't think there should be MOTs for bikes - there is no need for them because technical issues are rarely the cause of accidents anyway. So I agree with you.

I thought I wrote that rather than having MOTs for emissions - because I do not believe that motorcyclists should have to foot the bill for emissions testing at any time, the industry should declare emissions at the point of manufacture - so that bikers don't have to pay later.

Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-01-2010, 02:22 PM
Grav's Avatar
Grav Grav is offline
Noisy Scouse Gobshite and Owner of the snigger TM
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: in a house and a tent at weekends
Posts: 19,061
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gloria View Post
ok

I don't think there should be MOTs for bikes - there is no need for them because technical issues are rarely the cause of accidents anyway. So I agree with you.
That's were you and I will never agree, Gloria. I take great pride in the fact that I have never had a bike fail an MOT. I always make sure my bike is well maintained and fit for the road. I am not alone on that either, There's many a biker who takes the same approach and that's how it should be. The MOT is validation of the standard we set ourselves to stay on the road.

Can you imagine what death traps could be on our roads without an MOT? There are a lot of people who through various commitments rely on bike shops to do their servicing and MOT's for them. Take away the MOT and you take away around half of the bike shops. They rely on servicing and MOT prep to survive, especially in the current economic climate.

How many people do you think would bother with routine maintenance without the MOT? How many people do you think would be lax in ensuring their bike was roadworthy without the MOT? I reckon it would be a high percentage, simply because human nature dictates how we deal with risk. Take away the MOT and you have way too many people who will think "it'll do" Accident rates will rise and this will provide the gubbermint with all they need to legislate us off the road altogether.
__________________
Dark Lord Of Custard

Mitch Says " It'll be alright trust me, I'm a yorkshireman..... "
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-01-2010, 03:06 PM
John Hopkins's Avatar
John Hopkins John Hopkins is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Tredegar, South Wales
Posts: 16,062
Default

I listened with half an ear,(thats about all I have now anyway) to three polititians discussing the upcoming election. The libral one kept refering to the 'ordinary people' as in the ordinary people want, or the ordinary people need, or the ordinary people think...Nobody asked him if he was extra ordinary, or what an ordinary person was, or how many ordinary people voted for him.

Are all these polititians supermen and women who have landed on our planet to guide us to a better life or are there actually some ordinary people who are MPs.

If ever there was a clear example of them and us that was it for me.

Oops..

got carried away there, it was the remark about drawing attention to us and getting extra legislation and restrictions on bikes that did it. We have no control over any laws or rules the government imposes on us, and even if we are pulled for something that is not our fault the judges will find against us because we are not part of the elite and probably can't afford to pay the high price of being right.

John
__________________
Beauty is skin deep; ugly goes right to the bone

Last edited by John Hopkins; 07-01-2010 at 03:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-01-2010, 05:04 PM
harry's Avatar
harry harry is offline
Techno Guru! He's Good! He Knows Everyfink!
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Taunton
Posts: 3,414
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grav View Post
That's were you and I will never agree, Gloria. I take great pride in the fact that I have never had a bike fail an MOT. I always make sure my bike is well maintained and fit for the road. I am not alone on that either, There's many a biker who takes the same approach and that's how it should be. The MOT is validation of the standard we set ourselves to stay on the road.

Can you imagine what death traps could be on our roads without an MOT? There are a lot of people who through various commitments rely on bike shops to do their servicing and MOT's for them. Take away the MOT and you take away around half of the bike shops. They rely on servicing and MOT prep to survive, especially in the current economic climate.

How many people do you think would bother with routine maintenance without the MOT? How many people do you think would be lax in ensuring their bike was roadworthy without the MOT? I reckon it would be a high percentage, simply because human nature dictates how we deal with risk. Take away the MOT and you have way too many people who will think "it'll do" Accident rates will rise and this will provide the gubbermint with all they need to legislate us off the road altogether.
Quite right Grav. I've seen a bike presented for MOT with the front brake lever broken off and the cable tied to the fork leg, same bike's rear brake only worked 'cos the pedal could drag on the road. The little Chav owner lost his temper when it failed.
We get enough crap from the powers that be without dickheads like him making it worse. Other classes of vehicle are actually worse but that aint the point. You will never convince me to do away with vehicle testing. As for the cost of adding emission testing, My ST1100 running on carbs NEARLY passes the test for a cat equipped car. The test would be age related as for cars and if it fails it proves that something is wrong and fixing it will pay for it's self in a few thousand miles. It aint scarey at all.
__________________
si is does non opportunus vos postulo a maior pango
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-01-2010, 06:51 PM
Gloria Gloria is offline
Chat Slapper
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Ballyhalbert Norn Iron
Posts: 50
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grav View Post
That's were you and I will never agree, Gloria.
ok

I guess everybody has to make a quid or two. Last time I had my bike MOT'd in England, the man gave it a look over (5 mins) checked the lights and the brakes and charged me £42 for the privilege.

Anyway - that's deviating from my point - with regards to the BMF press release - which is about the cost of road tax and emissions testing and the fact that the manufacturers do not want to provide information on emissions because they prefer to pass the cost on to the motorcycle owner who would then have to pay extra to whoever does the MOT.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-01-2010, 07:14 PM
Beano's Avatar
Beano Beano is offline
Qualified Sniggerer (MDLCSS)
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Blowing stuff up in a field..
Posts: 1,874
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grav View Post
That's were you and I will never agree, Gloria. I take great pride in the fact that I have never had a bike fail an MOT. I always make sure my bike is well maintained and fit for the road. I am not alone on that either, There's many a biker who takes the same approach and that's how it should be. The MOT is validation of the standard we set ourselves to stay on the road.
100% with you Grav...
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-01-2010, 09:37 PM
Grav's Avatar
Grav Grav is offline
Noisy Scouse Gobshite and Owner of the snigger TM
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: in a house and a tent at weekends
Posts: 19,061
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gloria View Post
ok
Splendid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gloria View Post
I guess everybody has to make a quid or two. Last time I had my bike MOT'd in England, the man gave it a look over (5 mins) checked the lights and the brakes and charged me £42 for the privilege.
Now I know you're talking bollocks cos an MOT is still less than £30 here in merry old Englandshire. You must have upset him........ a lot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gloria View Post
Anyway - that's deviating from my point - with regards to the BMF press release - which is about the cost of road tax and emissions testing and the fact that the manufacturers do not want to provide information on emissions because they prefer to pass the cost on to the motorcycle owner who would then have to pay extra to whoever does the MOT.
Your point is invalid unless you can prove it beyond all reasonable doubt.
__________________
Dark Lord Of Custard

Mitch Says " It'll be alright trust me, I'm a yorkshireman..... "
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-01-2010, 02:26 AM
ChopperFXR's Avatar
ChopperFXR ChopperFXR is offline
Talk, Type, Breath, Talk, Type, Breath....
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Somerset
Posts: 2,468
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gloria View Post
ok

I don't think there should be MOTs for bikes - there is no need for them because technical issues are rarely the cause of accidents anyway. So I agree with you.

I thought I wrote that rather than having MOTs for emissions - because I do not believe that motorcyclists should have to foot the bill for emissions testing at any time, the industry should declare emissions at the point of manufacture - so that bikers don't have to pay later.

Ye gods!

I have no objection to having an annual MOT for my bikes. I get trade rates for my MOT tests and the guy that does them rides a bike himself. He is a real old school mechanic, that repairs things rather than replacing them.

I am a member of a club and must have a bike in roadworthy condition at all times. Thats why I have several bikes. I can take them off the road one at a time to do any maintenance.

When we ride as a pack we ride hard and we are all pretty close together. No room for error and all of us need to keep our head and arse firmly wired together. I cannot afford to have dodgy brakes, tyres, chains, sprockets, lights or bearings. The annual MOT test is to me, belt and braces. I do all my own maintenance then once a year a bloke that really knows his stuff looks over what I have done. Costs me £25 per test and worth EVERY penny.

To take your last comment to its logical conclussion. Even if the bike manufacturers declared emmission levels at the time of production, how are we to ensure that the bike is still within limits after say a few thousand miles? How do the manufacturers control what happens to the bike once it has left the factory?

ANY engine wears with use. When the engine and its component parts wear, adjustments have to be made to keep the motor running at optimum levels. That is called servicing and routine maintenance. I do not know of any manufacturer that pays for all routine servicing and maintenance for the life of the vehicle/bike.

If yyou paid £42 for an MOT test you were ripped off.

Think again Gloria.

Chopper.
__________________
MADE IN ENGLAND.
MY COUNTRY RIGHT OR WRONG.


WELCOME TO GREAT BRITAIN.
WE ARE FULL UP, SO FUCK OFF.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-01-2010, 11:41 AM
Gloria Gloria is offline
Chat Slapper
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Ballyhalbert Norn Iron
Posts: 50
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChopperFXR View Post

An addition to the current MOT test, by way of an emmissions test would not benefit anyone except the tax man and the Ministry of Transport. You can guarantee that the cost of an MOT test would rocket. The cost of modifying bikes to pass emission tests would also go through the roof as manufacturers used the new rules as an excuse to screw bike owners for parts they do not want or actually need. Thereby creating more control of bikers by back door means.

The government and MOT have long made it clear that they do not like motorcyclists, they cannot actually ban bike ownership, so they try to price us out. Every new raft of anti bike legislation is designed to put more and more people off the idea of owning a bike.

Chopper.
Thinking again.....If the manufacturer is obliged to declare emissions at the point of manufacture which is the substance of this "debate" and if there are any faults, the manufacturer is obliged to recall the vehicle and repair it and the manufacturer would effectively be responsible for the emissions of the vehicle for a period of time after the sale of the vehicle. As far as I am aware in the case of cars, this is for 5 years or 80,000 kms, therefore presumably there would be an equivalent for motorcycles, which is yet to be established.

My issue with MOTs is that anybody can charge what they like and in my case "get ripped off" though I suspect I'm not alone - I got mine done at a dealer in Rugby. Luckily I moved to Northern Ireland where MOT tests have fixed prices - now £22.

Anyhoo - thanks for the interest
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 08-01-2010, 11:52 AM
John Hopkins's Avatar
John Hopkins John Hopkins is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Tredegar, South Wales
Posts: 16,062
Default

I always thought the MOT was a good idea, it tells you how much it is going to cost to keep the vehicle on the road for another year, it also tells you what is wearing out and will soon need replacement, My only regret is the distance I have to travel to my nearest bike MOT centre...As for value for money, considering the labour cost of most garages per hour imagine what it would cost you for an yearly check up of all the things the MOT covers. I think it's pretty good value.

Of course human nature being what it is I would like it free, and being very selfish I don't care about exhaust emmissions from my bike. I got pulled once back in the late sixties for having a hole in my exhaust pipe after the silencer and couldn't understand the logic, after all it has to come out into the air somewhere and after the silencer is the best place.

John
__________________
Beauty is skin deep; ugly goes right to the bone
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-01-2010, 12:01 PM
harry's Avatar
harry harry is offline
Techno Guru! He's Good! He Knows Everyfink!
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Taunton
Posts: 3,414
Default

The way it works for cars ( and I don't see why bikes would be different ) is the vehicle is put through an "Urban cycle" test that produces CO2 figures and HC figures. this is part of type approval. The figures are then added to the registration document and establishes the tax rate for that vehicle.

Nowt to do with MOT. At MOT the emissions test is to establish correct maintainance and only faulty parts would be covered by a warranty and only then if the service record is up to date. The length os warranty is up to the manufacturer and if you don't like it don't buy.

Vosa lay down maximum charges for MOT.

The cost of adding an emissions test to bikes at MOT would be minimal it would only add about 5 mins to the test.
I teach people how to do it and often use my bike as a demo. The level of emissions for cars is age related and I see no reason why it would not be for bikes.
__________________
si is does non opportunus vos postulo a maior pango
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-01-2010, 05:23 PM
ChopperFXR's Avatar
ChopperFXR ChopperFXR is offline
Talk, Type, Breath, Talk, Type, Breath....
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Somerset
Posts: 2,468
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gloria View Post
Thinking again.....If the manufacturer is obliged to declare emissions at the point of manufacture which is the substance of this "debate" and if there are any faults, the manufacturer is obliged to recall the vehicle and repair it and the manufacturer would effectively be responsible for the emissions of the vehicle for a period of time after the sale of the vehicle. As far as I am aware in the case of cars, this is for 5 years or 80,000 kms, therefore presumably there would be an equivalent for motorcycles, which is yet to be established.

My issue with MOTs is that anybody can charge what they like and in my case "get ripped off" though I suspect I'm not alone - I got mine done at a dealer in Rugby. Luckily I moved to Northern Ireland where MOT tests have fixed prices - now £22.

Anyhoo - thanks for the interest
Gloria

You are missing the point. Manufacturers are NOT responsible for routine maintenance and servicing. As someone else pointed out, it is up to the owner to maintain the vehicle/bike to ensure optimum performance.

A manufacturing fault or design fault, would have to be recognised by the manufacturer as having a detrimental effect on the vehicle/bikes performance or safety. No manufacturer can guarantee that the component parts of thier vehicles/bikes will not wear. That is why we do routine maintenance and servicing. The MOT test is more concerned with issues relating to the vehicles safety. You can take a bike or car for MOT with the clutch hanging out or the engine banging like a shit house door and it can still pass the MOT test.

Manufacturers guarantees only cover against faulty parts for a set period of time or a set number of miles covered. A part wearing out due to usage is NOT a valid guarantee claim.

£22 for an MOT test is damn good value for money. I pay a little bit more and still think it is good value.

Chopper.
__________________
MADE IN ENGLAND.
MY COUNTRY RIGHT OR WRONG.


WELCOME TO GREAT BRITAIN.
WE ARE FULL UP, SO FUCK OFF.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-01-2010, 06:48 PM
Grav's Avatar
Grav Grav is offline
Noisy Scouse Gobshite and Owner of the snigger TM
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: in a house and a tent at weekends
Posts: 19,061
Default

Chopper, this smiley was invented for such an auspicious occasion as this.

Ahem



ayethangewe!
__________________
Dark Lord Of Custard

Mitch Says " It'll be alright trust me, I'm a yorkshireman..... "
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-01-2010, 07:02 PM
harry's Avatar
harry harry is offline
Techno Guru! He's Good! He Knows Everyfink!
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Taunton
Posts: 3,414
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grav View Post
Chopper, this smiley was invented for such an auspicious occasion as this.

Ahem



ayethangewe!
LOL
__________________
si is does non opportunus vos postulo a maior pango
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-01-2010, 12:33 AM
ChopperFXR's Avatar
ChopperFXR ChopperFXR is offline
Talk, Type, Breath, Talk, Type, Breath....
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Somerset
Posts: 2,468
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grav View Post
Chopper, this smiley was invented for such an auspicious occasion as this.

Ahem



ayethangewe!
Thankyou Grav. Despite being a scouser you are still a gent.

I don't know Gloria. I am guessng she is female. I was trying to be polite and friendly. A rare, cruel and unusual thing for me to venture into, but thought it might be worth a try.

Some times, quite often in fact, I wonder why I ever give a fuck.

Chopper.
__________________
MADE IN ENGLAND.
MY COUNTRY RIGHT OR WRONG.


WELCOME TO GREAT BRITAIN.
WE ARE FULL UP, SO FUCK OFF.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-01-2010, 12:36 AM
Gloria Gloria is offline
Chat Slapper
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Ballyhalbert Norn Iron
Posts: 50
Default

The tribal wisdom of the Dakota Indians is passed on from generation to generation states:
"When you discover that you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount."
However more advanced strategies are often employed, such as:
1. Buying a stronger whip.
2. Changing riders.
3. Appointing a committee to study the horse. Better yet, bring in an army of consultants to over study the horse.
4. Say things like, “This is the way we have always ridden this horse.”
5. Arranging to visit other countries to see how other cultures ride dead horses.
6. Lowering the standards so that dead horses can be included.
7. Ride the dead horse “outside the box.”
8. Compare the state of dead horses in today’s environment.
9. Hiring outside contractors to ride the dead horse.
10. Harnessing several dead horses together to increase speed.
11. Providing additional funding and/or training to increase the dead horse's performance.
12. Doing a productivity study to see if lighter riders would improve the dead horse's performance.
13. Declaring that as the dead horse does not have to be fed, it is less costly, carries lower overhead and therefore contributes substantially more to the bottom line than do some other horses.
14. Rewriting the expected performance requirements for all horses.
15. Promoting the dead horse to a supervisory position.
16. Declare that “This horse was procured with cost as an independent variable.”
17. Form a charity so that others can pay for the dead horse
18. Get the horse a Web site.


BTW this is not targetting any gents on this forum - just myself.

Last edited by Gloria; 09-01-2010 at 12:56 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-01-2010, 12:32 PM
John Hopkins's Avatar
John Hopkins John Hopkins is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Tredegar, South Wales
Posts: 16,062
Default

Well you can at least agree that the other one is wrong.

John
__________________
Beauty is skin deep; ugly goes right to the bone
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-01-2010, 12:59 PM
jcb jcb is offline
Need to Get out More!
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 465
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gloria View Post
The tribal wisdom of the Dakota Indians is passed on from generation to generation states:
"When you discover that you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount."
However more advanced strategies are often employed, such as:
1. Buying a stronger whip.
2. Changing riders.
3. Appointing a committee to study the horse. Better yet, bring in an army of consultants to over study the horse.
4. Say things like, “This is the way we have always ridden this horse.”
5. Arranging to visit other countries to see how other cultures ride dead horses.
6. Lowering the standards so that dead horses can be included.
7. Ride the dead horse “outside the box.”
8. Compare the state of dead horses in today’s environment.
9. Hiring outside contractors to ride the dead horse.
10. Harnessing several dead horses together to increase speed.
11. Providing additional funding and/or training to increase the dead horse's performance.
12. Doing a productivity study to see if lighter riders would improve the dead horse's performance.
13. Declaring that as the dead horse does not have to be fed, it is less costly, carries lower overhead and therefore contributes substantially more to the bottom line than do some other horses.
14. Rewriting the expected performance requirements for all horses.
15. Promoting the dead horse to a supervisory position.
16. Declare that “This horse was procured with cost as an independent variable.”
17. Form a charity so that others can pay for the dead horse
18. Get the horse a Web site.


BTW this is not targetting any gents on this forum - just myself.
personally it would be more use to myself and other riders if you were to tackle a biking problem such as shite roads,killer potholes,immi lorry drivers etc instead of inventing a problem that doesnt as such exist....

i can only presume theres political thinking going on here n more to do with personal crusade than anything of actual benefit to bikers,

personally,as chopper,it aint broke so stop fucking about with it,i dont care if its your chosen subject at "uni",feck off on interfere with someone elses way of life.maybe join the cycling lobby,theyd luv you and their grasp of reality is much the same as yours....
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-01-2010, 03:02 PM
Beano's Avatar
Beano Beano is offline
Qualified Sniggerer (MDLCSS)
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Blowing stuff up in a field..
Posts: 1,874
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grav View Post
Chopper, this smiley was invented for such an auspicious occasion as this.

Ahem



ayethangewe!
Seconded !

"so nobody can benefit from the tax breaks"...sorry Gloria...but I belive there are no tax breaks. You have to pay a tax to get a break and this is not evident in government policy throughout the ages. Bring in any sliding scale for emissions etc and the standing tax (ie road) will be preloaded before so called tax breaks.
Ignore the low emmisions from the bikes...its the cows we have to stop farting ! Thats the big issue ! ! !
I am keeping my head down as I ride a trike......and I am just waiting to have some of my liberties to be taken away from me by my ever caring government. ( the no helmet tax....)

Last edited by Beano; 09-01-2010 at 03:17 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.