road tax cost question

[steveg]

Just a thought

Cars registered after 2001 , tax rates are based on emissions not engine size
Bikes regardless of age are dependant on cc size

Would'nt it be fairer if newer bikes were based on C02 emssions ?

Could mean cheaper road tax ?

Cheers Steve

[Stu]

Doubt it's worth the effort officially testing every bike. If they were serious they could introduce some more bands based on cc. that would be much easier.

If they just keep on putting up the tax on petrol and the price of oil pushes up the remainder of the petrol price then consumers will have enough of an incentive to reduce pollution.

There's probably a much higher incidence of bike owners changing exhausts than car owners so official pollution results wouldn't hold true for a lot of bikes.

[cb9002]

Taking the p!ss really - tax on the SV is 64.00, nearly twice what my girlfriend pays on her car!

[Baph]

Taking the p!ss really - tax on the SV is 64.00, nearly twice what my girlfriend pays on her car!
And how much faster does the SV go than your girlfriends car?:rolleyes:

Personally, I don't think that £64 for the year is too bad. Compared to my Ford Galaxy at least, thank god it's not a 4x4!!

[SV225]

Taking the p!ss really - tax on the SV is 64.00, nearly twice what my girlfriend pays on her car!

Dont forget that if the SV was 45cc smaller you would save £17 a year on tax. :thumbdown:

[cb9002]

Well, her Yaris will do a ton - not much less than the SV.

As a car, it also takes up 2x as much road space, does probably 4x the damage to the road and, as a car, will do (on average) a hell of a lot more miles per year.

Plus, aren't the government supposed to be encouraging bikes to reduce congestion?

[Baph]

as a car, will do (on average) a hell of a lot more miles per year.

I love screwing averages :D I do at least 3 times as many miles on the bike as the car does in total.

Also, you been reading MCN about bikers being encouraged to aid congestion/pollution? :rolleyes:

[carlos]

Dont forget that if the SV was 45cc smaller you would save £17 a year on tax. :thumbdown:


And then 1000cc is still the same price as the 650:-s (not complaining though).

[kwak zzr]

tis annoying when a 600ss bike that will do 160mph is less to tax than a 650s with a top speed of 125.

[2mths]

tis annoying when a 600ss bike that will do 160mph is less to tax than a 650s with a top speed of 125.

Given the speed limit is 70 mph I can see where they might be coming from (I'm sure they aren't coming from there, just that if they were I could understand - does that make sense?)

Personally I lurve the £15 I pay for my CG and think I am happy with the general costs of taxing bikes. Its one of the reasons I own several bikes, not several cars.

[neio79]

This has always pi**ed me off, the fact that some cars pay less tax.

Correct me if i am wrong but the main point of road tax is to pay for the upkeep of roads etc (yes a small element is envromental, but that is jusat an excuse i think) therefore bike should always pay less as their weight and the damage they cause to the road is far less.

I would rather see car tak done on axel weight not just co2, they people who drive 4x4's in towns would be rightly punished as they get it for the polution they cause and the extra weight that damages the roads.

it is blatently obvious that road tax does not go towards repairs in most of the UK as our roads are becoming worse and worse.

[arenalife]

I believe a bike does 1 unit of road damage, a car does 10 and an HGV does 100.

We can't expect an easy ride while some bikes are doing 35mpg. My car has better fuel economy than my Deauville, only pay £35 a year tax for it too.