|
Front Page
MAG AGC & Outline Agenda
AGC Awards Information
Agenda in depth
How the AGC works
Modelling MAG Back to Basics 2002
Building a New Local MAG Branch - ideas to help you run a local MAG group
Action Document on VED - Urgent action needed please!
Intelligent Transport Systems - the worst threat we have ever faced.
MAG Events
Previous Issues
|
Consultation on Motorcycle Vehicle Excise Duty - MAG Action Document December 2001
Background
At the end of November 2001, the Government launched a consultation into reforming motorcycle Vehicle Excise Duty. The deadline for responses is 8th February 2002.
MAG sees this as an
opportunity to reform motorcycle VED in a way to benefit motorcyclists, but also recognises that these reforms may not necessarily be beneficial to us.
MAG has proposed a zero VED rating for small bikes in
order to further encourage their use by commuters and will welcome progress toward that goal.
MAG recognises that for many riders large motorcycles are recreational vehicles, but is also aware that there are
many whose recreational bike is also their commuter transport. For all practical purposes, the difference between large and small bikes in terms of their ability to filter through traffic and consume modest parking
space is academic.
MAG would not wish to see the gap in VED charges between large bikes and small cars narrowed. In fact, a widening of that gap would be welcomed to encourage more people out of their cars
and onto two wheels.
Concerns
Having studied the consultation document, MAG is concerned that some of the questions might be open to misinterpretation, and that the responses might be used to
justify something that the respondents would not be happy with.
A particular concern is that responses, from people who feel that rates of motorcycle VED should be lowered as a whole, might be used to justify
significant increases for motorcycles over 600cc, and even greater ones for motorcycles over 1000cc.
Another concern is that replies from people who see motorcycles as having environmental benefits, but
otherwise know little about motorcycles, might also result in VED being increased for larger motorcycles.
MAG sees this as highly undesirable, and therefore hopes that a large number of motorcyclists will
respond to the consultation, and exercise a lot of care when they do so.
What you can do
Copies of this Consultation Paper can be obtained by telephoning 0870 241 2145.
It is also available on
the web at: http://www.dvla.gov.uk/public/consult/motorcycle_ved/motorcycle_ved.htm, with a web form for responding at: http://www.dvla.gov.uk/public/consult/motorcycle_ved/motorcycle_response.htm.
There are links to these pages from the MAG web page at http://mag-uk.org.
MAG would like you to respond to the consultation, to ensure that the Government is aware of motorcyclists' views, and the strength
of feeling.
If you are active in a local MAG group, a motorcycle club, or similar, try to get other people there to respond. Those with Internet access can respond using the on-line form. For those without
Internet access, you can either print out the response form from the DVLA web-site, or phone them up and get them to send you a number of consultation documents. Please respond as individuals, rather than as local
groups. Your response is likely to carry more weight that way - especially if several of you from the group respond.
If you are using the DVLA's electronic form to respond, you may wish to paste a copy of
your response into an e-mail composition window, and additionally e-mail it to vehleg.dvla@gtnet.gov.uk. This will ensure that if their electronic form malfunctions, they will still receive your response. It will
also enable you to start again and paste your response back into the form, without re-doing loads of typing, if something goes wrong while you're filling in the form.
The following are some points that MAG
thinks is relevant to the VED consultation. You might like to include those points that you agree with in your response.
Apologies if this comes across as 'politics by numbers'. Experience has shown that the
easier it is for people to respond to this kind of thing, the more people will respond. So, we've tried to make it as easy as possible.
1. A zero VED rating for small bikes will further encourage their use by commuters,
delivering environmental benefits.
2. For many riders, large motorcycles are used both for recreation and commuting.
3. For all practical purposes, the difference between large and small bikes in terms of their
ability to filter through traffic and consume modest parking space is academic.
4. The gap in VED charges between large bikes and small cars should not be narrowed.
Rather, a widening of that gap would be welcomed to encourage more people out of their
cars and onto two wheels.
5. There is already an 'emissions tax' as part of the large amount of tax already on fuel.
6. VED is effectively a tax on ownership, rather than usage. If usage is small, it's a
disproportionately large tax.
7. VED is an annual tax. There is no logical correlation between motorcycle engine size,
and yearly emissions.
8. Some large capacity motorcycles are significantly more fuel & emission efficient than
some smaller capacity motorcycles.
9. A fuel & emission inefficient motorcycle used only to travel a relatively few leisure miles
each year, may cause significantly less pollution than a more efficient motorcycle used to
travel far more commuter miles each year.
10. For a car driver to have access to a motorcycle (large or small) for use when they don't
need to use a car will provide environmental benefits. Similarly, a motorcyclist having
access to a more fuel-efficient motorcycle for occasions when their less efficient machine
provides no advantage will also provide environmental benefits.
11. Access to emissions-efficient motorcycles will be improved, and pollution reduced, by
reducing motorcycle VED. This is obvious for VED on small motorcycles, but less
obviously so for large & mid-size motorcycles, where the savings can make the addition of
a second, even more efficient, machine viable. That additional motorcycle may not be a
'small' motorcycle, but may still be significantly more efficient than the vehicle it's an
alternative to.
Below are the questions from the consultation, in Italics. For each question, some possible pitfalls have been highlighted, and there are references to those of the above
points that appear relevant.
3.2
The Government has set itself a number of challenging transport and environment objectives. These include:
[a] Reducing traffic congestion
[b] Tackling climate change
[c] Providing access to affordable transport
[d] Improving local air quality
[e] Improving road safety
[f] Tackling transport noise
3.3
In delivering
these objectives, the Government uses a variety of policies, such as targeted spending, regulation or taxation. It is important to consider which policy instrument is most appropriate to delivering each objective.
Q2. Do you agree that the Government is right to take into account the objectives in paragraph 3.2 when considering reforms to motorcycle VED?
The question asks for yes/no & comments.
a-d
are objectives that greater use of motorcycles could help meet. Lowering motorcycle VED could help in these. On the other hand, e & f are often associated with discouraging increased motorcycle use, and probably
have little to do with how much VED should be charged for motorcycles.
Answering 'Yes' or 'No' is likely to mean that you express agreement with at least one statement that you disagree with.
It might
therefore be best to select *neither* 'Yes' nor 'No', but instead to put your views in the comments box.
For example: I think the Government is right to take the objectives "reducing traffic
congestion", "tackling climate change", "providing access to affordable transport" and " improving local air quality" into account when considering reforms to motorcycle VED.
However I think road safety and transport noise have nothing to do with motorcycle VED levels.
You might also like to make some points such as (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, and 11) from above.
Q3. Do you
agree that the motorcycle VED system should be used to help deliver objectives to tackle climate change and reduce congestion, while also encouraging motorcycles as an affordable alternative to car use?
The question asks for yes/no & comments.
Whilst not quite as bizarre as the previous question, something about the phrasing of this seems peculiar - as if the people conducting this consultation regard these
three objectives as not obviously compatible.
For this reason, it may be best again to select neither 'Yes' nor 'No', but instead to put your views in the comments box.
MAG would like to see a zero VED
rate for small motorcycles, to make them a more affordable alternative, whilst ensuring that the gap in VED between large bikes and small cars is not narrowed.
You might also like to make some points such as (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, and 11) from above.
Q4. Do you agree that engine size should continue to form the basis for motorcycle VED?
Engine size isn't
a good indicator for use, size and impact of a motorcycle. However, it may be the only practical method of differentiation.
If engine size is to continue to be used, it is important that large capacity
motorcycles are not penalised. They still offer significant congestion benefits over small cars, and their VED should be correspondingly less. Further, a large capacity motorcycle used for occasional leisure use may
have less of an environmental impact than a small capacity motorcycle used for everyday commuting.
You might also like to make some points such as (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11) from above.
Example 1: Low <400cc; 400<Intermediate<600; High >600cc
Q5. Do you believe that example 1 will help deliver the objectives identified better than the existing system?
Example 1 will
not offer these benefits. Increasing the low band to 400cc is welcomed by MAG. However putting 600cc-plus machines in a higher VED bracket seems unfair. There are a number of such machines (e.g. Deauville, F650,
SV650) better suited to efficient commuting than many of the 600cc sports bike in the 'Intermediate' category. The 600cc division is arbitrary, and unnecessarily penalises larger bikes for no reason.
You
might also like to make some points such as (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11) from above.
Q6. The Government is also considering the case for a further higher rate for the largest motorcycles (over
1000cc), because of the relatively larger environmental impacts they have. Do you think this is a good idea?
No. There is no reason to suppose they do have a larger environmental impact.
You might
also like to make some points such as (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11) from above.
Q7. Are there any ideas that you would like to have considered in tackling the evasion and theft of motorcycle VED
discs?
Here's your chance to be imaginative. However, it's fairly obvious that motorcycle VED disc theft would cease to be a problem if motorcycle VED were scrapped.
With the current insurance,
DVLA and MOT databases becoming more sophisticated, plus greater use of technology by law enforcement agencies, it's arguable that the VED disc will soon provide no benefit in ensuring that vehicles are tested and
insured.
Removing the bureaucracy associated with VED and VED discs would presumably go a long way towards offsetting the loss in revenue from scrapping VED.
Good luck with your response, and
remember to try and get other motorcyclists to respond.
|
