The govt want to charge bikes twice road fund licence (thought they were being fairer on low emissions, with a bike being tuned to be far more efficiant that a car engine this is far from within policy) if they want to charge accordingly they should test emissions for bikes here too. Not just blanket up the rates!!!!
Sheesh, HR.. where did you read this?
There has been some crazy supposed anti-bike suggestions recently.. did you see the one about there being no need to have a bike above 600cc and plans to put a capacity cap on manufacturers? One of their arguments was that by not making a bike with a capacity large enough to tour on, people would instead use public transport......
The tax things been hanging around for a few months now was a thread a little while back about it on here....
As for capping at 600cc (they tried to cap at 100bhp and failed) thanks to MAG and BMF lobbying, and you can (although not recommended) tour on any bike that's capable of over 30mph lol who can argue (with a straight face) that public transport is viable when wanting to go on hols in UK or Europe?
Bikes still remain the most (fossil fueled) enviromentaly efficiant/friendly option, plus it saves on mental heath bills too lol, well I for one if feeling a bit low go for a ride on my bike and feel a hell of a lot better for it.........even with rising fuel at the pumps (anyone know where I can get my bike gas converted? lol)
Just a little piont too about cars, I had a 2.7 ltr rover SI (honda v6) it was damn good on emissions (pre cat car) on CO2 is was better than the pass on a CAT car and the other part of the test just .08 worse than the test for a CAT so what is the FAIR way of taxing any vehical?
I know put some ministers in a room and run the engine till they are screaming to get out divide the time x by effort and hand over yer wallets lol
lol - I like the way you are thinking HR!!
This whole carbon dioxide ransoming is getting beyond a joke now..... I just wait for the day the truth is revealed but unfortunately I doubt it will ever come as the majority of the public are programmed to accept what they are told with blind faith. A little independent research uncovers a whole different story.....
I toured Japan on a 400 and all of the US on a 650, both cruisers rather than tourers. No real problems.
Interestingly, my Arizona bike had to be emmissions tested each year until I moved my address from Phoenix to Prescott. Once out of the big metropolis, emmissions testing no longer needed. It always came through without any issues.
Isn't emmissions testing part of the bikes MOT?
No MOT only has provision for emmissions on cars trucks etc.
(so why have eec laws tightening up of emmissions on bikes when we UK do not even test em) however if a cat is fitted to a bike as std equipment it must be on the bike for mot, as for noise testing on an exhaust for MOT it must not be excessive at idle!
My exhaust had a hole in it and I was worried it would not pass (I was given an advisory note to the effect it seamed to be louder than std possably due to a hole somewhere!)
Little note to Super bike riders and all others if you do cut down your rear mud guard (you know to let us all share the splendour of your rear tire) remember to replace that reflector at the back of the bike you just cut off (leagal and MOT requirement to have a RED reflector fitted to the rear of all motorcycles/ped etc..) if it's all part of the rear light then no worries!
I've heard it said that bikes kick out a lot more pollution than cars, per litre or petrol used or somesuch due to cars having more gadgets and bikes having comparatively unrefined engines......BUT..... That cars cause more pollution because a bike uses much less fuel per mile than a car.....
Or somesuch drivel.
I dunno - I just know to put fuel in, turn the twisty thing and we go fast!!!
Hmm... not too sure about modern bike engines being unrefined and less efficient then cars - will have to look that up but I doubt it.
You have to look at the use of cars too, though... used on short journeys their engine is on choke most of the time. They also spend more time queuing than (the majority of) bikes. Plus the engine also has to power alternators, air con systems, and a whole host of electrical accessories. Plus the weight/load issue.
And don't even get me started on diesel!!!!
*Pops that in notebook of handy tips in preparation for DAS*
Other tips include;
Do NOT grab the front brake. Stoppies are fancy stunts to pull, but they don't impress the examiner!!
Doing the YMCA dance at traffic lights may liven up long group rides, but may not be an official DSA manoeuvre.
The bike goes where you look. Young women walking by with exposed cleavage do not exist anywhere in the DSA curriculum.
Your instructor may be a tearaway twat who can get his knee down on a roundabout. You will learn nothing useful from following his example.
Despite what they may think, guys must do twice as well as girls to be considered half as good by instructor's standards.
Ladies - the turny-steering bit that holds the bars and forks onto the main bike is called the HeadSTock, not the Head-C.....
It is difficult enough to concentrate on riding without you disclosing your little innuendo-laden mind-tricks to help you remember component names. We think the opposite way around!!!
Stumbled across this:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmsel.../69804.htm
It's a list of recommendations from the Transport Select Committee and the Government's response (June 07). Some VERY interesting reading in there...
The bit relevant to this thread is Section 11 on Emissions...
Emissions
Paragraph 11
11. Government statistics show that for many of the classes of pollutant, motorcycles are often worse than cars. If the Government wishes to encourage motorcycling (as part of wider strategies to tackle congestion and social exclusion) then it must support the development of cleaner vehicles. While we welcome the improvements made in the Euro 3 standard, we recommend that the Government do a lot more work with industry with the aim of reducing emissions from motorcycles. It is unacceptable that the heavier of these vehicles are more polluting than cars, this may be another argument in favour of reducing the maximum power and speed that is available on these vehicles. (Paragraph 44)
Carbon dioxide emissions for motorcycles of all types are already below the average level for petrol and diesel-engined cars. In Great Britain motorcycles account for around 1 per cent of all motor traffic measured as passenger km and so make a relatively small contribution to total emissions from motor traffic. Government believes the current arrangements will deliver significant improvements in reducing emissions from new motorcycles that will yield further reductions in overall motorcycle emissions over time as newer models that meet the latest standards replace older ones. In addition, Government believes that measures to reduce maximum power or speed are not justified from an environmental perspective.
The data on local pollutant emissions that the Committee has considered gives an unrealistically pessimistic view of the emissions performance of motorcycles. With the exception of particulate matter, the data are limited to pollutants where the UK already fully meets its health-based air quality objectives. It excludes oxides of nitrogen where the UK does not fully meet its objectives, but where motorcycles on average emitted 73% less per km than did cars.
I think they are refering to Carbon Mon Oxide as bikes ARE more efficient in burning fuel air mix they do spit out less unused oxigen, hence higher levels of CO not good in confined spaces, brings me back to the Ministers suggestion lmao.
![Bikes are not tested in UK for emissions YET! - Forums [Biker Match]](/images/backgrounds/strips/8mobileLQ.jpg)
![Bikes are not tested in UK for emissions YET! - Forums [Biker Match]](/images/backgrounds/strips/8desktopLQ.jpg)
