I have recently bought a new bike - A Triumph Bonneville SE,the reason I got it at this time of year was to beat the VAT increase that is coming,however on receipt of the registration document I saw included in it,were the Emmision Levels for this machine,the levels are much lower than some cars that attract lower levels of Road Tax than the bike,which is currently £70,cars that are registered as low emmission vehicles attract very low levels of Taxation,some of them are FREE! for the first year,and afterwards attract a tax rate of ONLY £35 per year,we are being screwed and discriminated against by this system,so I would URGE all of you guys out there,to make representaions to your MP,and get him/her to raise this issue in parliament,all of us Motorcyclists out there need to do this,to get the system changed,so that all new bikes get the same Tax levels as cars,get busy contact your MP and make it happen,NOW.
I have already taken this action,and talked to my MP Lord Thurso on Saturday about this very issue,he is taking it up on my behalf,and agrees with me that there is a case for the goverment to answer,so come on go for it.

email (option): glesgaman@tiscali.co.uk

Tommy this is way off topic, and I think you should remember that this is a Netherlands based website used by people from all around the world.

email (option): robmiller11@yahoo.co.uk

I agree this subject is 'off topic'... but I also agree with Tommys sentiments. Motorcycles and their riders are constantly discriminated against in one way or another by the Government/Police etc. and if these things are not highlighted eventually they will get to classic bikes as well.How many people from this forum bothered to fill out the recent EU 'consultation' form relating to new MOT and inspection rules?..Something that will affect us all and very much 'on topic'...few I suspect, and it is noteworthy these proposed changes don't even affect cars, just motorcycles and heavy goods vehicles. But I'll bet there will be plenty complaining if the new (unopposed) rules are felt to be too draconian.....Ian

email (option): julie@wright52.plus.com

Let's just hope that 'they' don't start applying higher duties to old side valves which spit unburned ethanol back out of the carbs !

That's not a problem Rik...ethanol is 'environmentally friendly'...I've started having it on my Corn Flakes every morning ...Ian

email (option): julie@wright52.plus.com

I agree with Tommy and that's why I am a MAG member. United we stand, divided we fall. Nobody objected to discussing the OGL's on here, which only apply to Britain. We are constantly under attack by hidebound Eurocrats and Safety nuts. If emissions were tested on all bikes, a lot of older ones would be museum pieces overnight. MAG and FEMA (it's european sister organisation) have been fighting horse power limits (BSA WM20's and Nortons included) and anti tamper laws. IF TUV style MOT's came in where would you get original parts for our bikes from. It could also be a case of daylight running only as it is in some countries.

I bothered to fill in the Euro MOT questionnaire...

email (option): stinkypete80@hotmail.com

Well Rob
Off topic or not,I suppose this means you will NOT be raising this issue with your MP! and as for it being a Dutch site,were "all" European now!!! And I am just trying to raise the issue and get support,from anyone wherever in the world they come from.

email (option): glesgaman@tiscali.co.uk

Corn Flakes ? Hasn't winter arrived in Blighty yet ? I'm back on the Quaker Oats and that's best with unrefined cane sugar

You don't know what your missing Rik...try some milk and Golden Syrup...Yummy...Ian

email (option): julie@wright52.plus.com

You have to be careful about crying discrimination.

Firstly, discrimination works both ways. Frequently, for instance, traffic wardens allow me to park my bike on single yellow lines which would get me a ticket were I driving a car.

Next, we get to use bus lanes in many parts of the country, which is a Godsend in London (although you have to watch the signs because some lanes WILL get you a ticket).

Next, motorcycles often get priority in other ways, such as getting onto ferries and getting into shows, etc. This happens to me frequently.

Next, more pertinently, Tommy's bike might in fact be less fuel efficient and pump out more toxic gases than those vehicles in the lower taxation band. How so? Because his bike carries only two people, whereas a car carries four or five. That means you can carry more than twice the number of people for a given amount of fuel/pollution.

So, a Triumph Bonneville SE travelling 50 miles at 50mpg means that two people can travel that distance per gallon. However, a small car that carries 5 people at 50mpg (and many of them exceed that mpg) will carry 5 people per gallon (and possibly a lot of luggage). So which is more fuel efficient?

True, most cars rarely carry five people. But most bikes rarely carry two. The point being that the discrimination argument isn't straightforward, and you can't always expect equality and fairness to be linear. It's always a question of swings and roundabouts, etc.

Yes, it is important to protect riders' interests. But riders need to be careful not to blow a harmless tinder into a dangerous flame.

email (option): dannydefazio@sumpmagazine.com

But while the car with five people is stuck on the M25 doing 0 mpg, the bike is still making progress with it's two passengers.

It is true that some bikes do less miles per gallon than some family cars but many bikes do less annual mileage than cars and damage the roads and infrastructure less than cars. Bikes don't leave ruts in the carriageway the way cars and vans do.

I also agree that we do get preferential treatment sometimes, such as ferries but that is usually because it suits the company to do it that way, not especially for our benefit.

Using Bus Lanes in London & elsewhere. Thank Mag and other motorcycle organizations for that. Years of campaigning and fighting prejudice from TfL and Pro Cycling Groups.

email (option): stinkypete80@hotmail.com

It's true that bikes do very little infrastructure damage. In fact, it's pretty much neglible. Cars aren't that bad either. But HGVs are catastrophic and punch well above their weight.

It's also true that cars tend to get stuck in traffic (many of them towing classic bikes on trailers). But it also has to be said that bikes weaving through traffic are usually returning a very low mpg due to accelerating, braking, changing gear, etc. I suspect that there's a very strong case to be made in favour of a 60mpg diesel car burbling quietly in slow moving traffic while "more fuel efficient" bikes are zipping around left, right and centre (and not many modern bikes can manage 60mpg due to lousy aerodynamics - except, of course, small capacity machines).

And here's a bigger concern; bikes have a far higher accident rate which costs the taxpayer a lot of money is our perhaps our biggest threat at the moment. Which goes back to my point that there are times when, as a group, we need to keep a low profile, and times when we need to make a big noise about it.

Lastly, the other thing to watch with bikes versus cars is that the bus and train pretty much beats them both in terms of fuel efficiency and pollution, etc - and God forbid that we should accidentally talk our way onto those.

email (option): dannydefazio@sumpmagazine.com

As many people get injured playing football and riding horses at weekends as get injured on bikes...and I would definitely question the Government statistics on the level of risk in riding a motorcycle. Car drivers, although at a lower risk than bike riders, load up the National Health system far more purely in terms of numbers and contribute in no small measure to the presence of bikers and pedestrians within the system as well...yet there is nothing like the accent on driver training, speed and other factors in the 'education' of car drivers. Just take a drive on the motorway as I did last week where 50% of the cars are routinely exceeding the speed limit and are ignored by the police.
I'm not against sensible regulation in the interests of road safety but there is absolutely no reason or justification for a dual standard to be applied to road users...which it is. Personally I am getting pissed off with the endless regulation and focus on a pastime which is no more dangerous than many others in my opinion...in the last 15 years none of my friends have had a serious accident and I hope that remains the case. However, it IS time we stopped acting like a load of sheep and drew a line under the prevailing official attitude that bikes would best be eliminated from the roads....Ian

email (option): julie@wright52.plus.com

Hi, I agree that plenty of people get injured playing football or riding horses. In fact, healthy sport is rarely healthy and usually results in a litany of injuries directly proportional to the extremes to which some sports-people go. For most of us, sitting in a pub with a pint of beer is a lot healthier than wrecking our kneecaps pole-vaulting or getting head injuries playing rugby.

But I write for a bike trade magazine, and I've been reading numerous press releases from the trade and DVLA about increasing government anxiety regarding bike injuries.

The problem is largely the disparity between serious car injuries and serious bike injuries. Car fatalties and serious injuries have dropped enormously since crumple-zones were introduced. Bike injuries have dropped only slightly and are still wildly over-represented, especially among the young.

Regarding driver training, I was recently caught by a speed camera driving at 30mph in a 35mph limit. This was in good, dry weather on a country road that had a 50mph limit half a mile behind me, and a 40mph limit about 400 yards ahead.

Because it's my first offence, I've been invited on a "speed awareness" course, which will cost me £70 and waste half a day of my life. It will save me getting points on my licence and won't be recorded as an offence.

However, had I been driving at, say, 50mph or 70mph, I would just get points and a fine with no speed awareness option. Now here's the point: it's my first speeding offence in 30 years on the road. Does it really sound like I need a speed awareness course?

It sounds to me like the high-speed speeders need the course. But Northamptonshire police have their own ideas. Driver education is largely nonsense.

Safety in numbers is part of the answer, and there is a scheme running at present to draw in fresh blood (so to speak). But you can be sure the government accountants will still be looking at ways to cut biking injuries. I'm going to be interviewing the transport minister soon (Peter Hammond). I'll keep you posted.

email (option): dannydefazio@sumpmagazine.com

I would like to see the figures that indicate how many bike accidents are caused by myopic, half asleep car drivers...they don't seem to get quite as much publicity.It also seems a bit ripe that we are blamed for accidents that are frequently caused by someone else..and I think few people would dispute that fact. (Sorry mate I didn't see you).
Your experience with the speed awareness course also rather neatly indicates how legislation tends to be badly thought out and illogical.
It might also be worth asking the transport minister why motorcycles are not even mentioned in the governments white paper on future transport..it seems quite strange that they have been forgotten when the government road safety gurus seem to spend so much time thinking of nothing else...Ian

email (option): julie@wright52.plus.com

Hi Ian, I'll ask him that. The trouble with most modern law enforcement, especially on the roads, is that it tends to be "blunt hammer" policing. You're either guilty or not guilty, which scoops up a lot of minor transgressions.

There was, for instance, the case not so long ago of the biker who stopped on a double yellow line or red route to put on his waterproofs and was snapped by a traffic camera and presented with a £60 bill.

It's all just daft. I don't need a speed awareness course. I need a speed CAMERA awareness course, which is why I'm looking for a SatNav which will give me extra warning. The net result is that I have even more contempt for the law than I had before. Paradoxically, a SatNav will probably INCREASE my speed. So much for these road safety programs.

Maybe I should have pleaded that I also ride a BSA WM20; then they'd understand that I'm pretty much an expert when it comes to speed, and the lack of it.

email (option): dannydefazio@sumpmagazine.com

I'm with Ewok - this is an issue MAG (The Motorcycle Action Group) are campaigning on , join and get your voices heard....

http://www.mag-uk.org/en/joinmag/a6318

All riders and MAG members at South Devon MAG meetings- you may recognise the rep.... his wife / secretary is a tyrant of a woman though (I wonder who that might be?)!!!!

email (option): jennycook163@hotmail.com

Danny, you did need a speed awareness course. Not for the obvious reason, that you were speeding but to save points on the license and possible insurance increases. The fact that it was your first offence in many years means that you are not going to be overly penalized for a one off- momentary lapse. I must admit that for many years I have carried points for speeding... I hate slow. However I have learnt to be careful around cameras and have only been done once in the last ten years......

Remember we are rufty-tufty bikers, not pansies.

email (option): stinkypete80@hotmail.com

There were two reasons I agreed to the course. The first was to keep my insurance premiums down - although Carol Nash (my insurers) said it would make no difference. It's something to do with the degree of speeding. But if I switch insurers, I might get a premium hike.

But the main reason was that I didn't want to risk surrendering my licence and then having the DVLA muck me about by removing my motorcycling category entitlement (as they have been doing).

Even then, right up to the last minute I was tempted to tell them to get stuffed and just send a cheque for sixty quid. It's still an option.

email (option): dannydefazio@sumpmagazine.com

Ok you guy's
All I mentioned was the fact,that us guy's are getting the short end of the stick,when it comes to Vehicle Excise Duty,new bikes that are tested for emmissions are not accorded the low rate of VED,cars are!
The big issue is,this is wrong !!!! 100% wrong,the rules say,"Low emmission vehicles attract,a lower VED level of duty"Riders who have bought new Machines,are being illegally taxed,this is outragegous against all common sense,the VED is WRONG.
I have no idea where all the other ANGLES came from,I have only one gripe,the Taxation system is wrong,and needs sorted,please just keep that in mind,please try to lobby your MP,and sort this out.Amen

email (option): glesgaman@tiscali.co.uk