Insurance first: this is a DVLA idea, probably a make-work scheme (I suspect that DVLA is entirely a make-work scheme) but there is a get-out clause. If a bike is SORN'd, it needn't be insured. I believe they must think its easier to impose constant insurance than to stir off their lazy arses to check insurance before granting a tax disc. (Remember too that MCN is written by journalists: they're paid to make up shock! horror! stories that sell newspapers, not to tell the truth.)
It won't make much difference to me, with a Carol Nash rider policy for several old bikes, because I want the fire and theft cover - so I keep them all insured year round. When the road tax reminder comes in I automatically SORN the bike, then decide if I want to ride it any time soon. If I do (the Vincent...) I go through the make-work scheme of MOT, then get it taxed. Some are only SORN'd for a few weeks. I have 9 bikes (I think - gosh, how must the poor live with only one or two...), and about 6 of these are on SORN at any time. I could insure the two SORN'd bikes that aren't in the Carol Nash policy (not old enough) F and T only. They aren't worth enough to make it worthwhile, and may well be covered on my house insurance simply as possessions.
If you think that in DVLA the chimps are running the zoo, and they've lost all sight of what they were set up to do, I couldn't disagree. It's what Whitehall does: implement a deficient system at huge cost, and on finding that it doesn't work, impose more conditions on the users (us) to conceal this.
As to fuel, write to your MP. Tell him, or her, that the DfT-commissioned Qinetic report shows that ANY vehicle over ten years old is likely to dissolve its fuel system using 10% ethanol fuel. Point out the disaster that looms at a motorway junction near you as cars ignite.
(There's more ammunition in this months MPH, but my instinct is to focus not on bikes, but on Mr and Mrs Jones and their four kids, torched on the M25...)
One has to separate Whitehall from Westminster: observe U-turn Dave (Westminster), he quite clearly recognises that he is only PM so long as his vote goes the right way. First sign of widespread disapproval and he's out of there. (Forests, anyone?). Whitehall, the Civil Service, has no such worries, until politicians, fearing for their seats, put the pressure on. Ask yourself why Belgium doesn't suffer under "the iron heel of Brussels". Why they don't GAF for Brussels? Why in fact the rest of Europe doesn't? It's because they don't have Whitehall gold-plating often quite unexceptional suggestions, confident that Brits will tug their forelocks and obey. And blame Brussels! Result!!
Looking at "it would be a good idea to use bio-fuels but only up to 10%" being translated into "we'll impose 10% ethanol fuel" tells you all you need to know.
Note also that "a cynic" is what an idealist calls a realist...
It won't make much difference to me, with a Carol Nash rider policy for several old bikes, because I want the fire and theft cover - so I keep them all insured year round. When the road tax reminder comes in I automatically SORN the bike, then decide if I want to ride it any time soon. If I do (the Vincent...) I go through the make-work scheme of MOT, then get it taxed. Some are only SORN'd for a few weeks. I have 9 bikes (I think - gosh, how must the poor live with only one or two...), and about 6 of these are on SORN at any time. I could insure the two SORN'd bikes that aren't in the Carol Nash policy (not old enough) F and T only. They aren't worth enough to make it worthwhile, and may well be covered on my house insurance simply as possessions.
If you think that in DVLA the chimps are running the zoo, and they've lost all sight of what they were set up to do, I couldn't disagree. It's what Whitehall does: implement a deficient system at huge cost, and on finding that it doesn't work, impose more conditions on the users (us) to conceal this.
As to fuel, write to your MP. Tell him, or her, that the DfT-commissioned Qinetic report shows that ANY vehicle over ten years old is likely to dissolve its fuel system using 10% ethanol fuel. Point out the disaster that looms at a motorway junction near you as cars ignite.
(There's more ammunition in this months MPH, but my instinct is to focus not on bikes, but on Mr and Mrs Jones and their four kids, torched on the M25...)
One has to separate Whitehall from Westminster: observe U-turn Dave (Westminster), he quite clearly recognises that he is only PM so long as his vote goes the right way. First sign of widespread disapproval and he's out of there. (Forests, anyone?). Whitehall, the Civil Service, has no such worries, until politicians, fearing for their seats, put the pressure on. Ask yourself why Belgium doesn't suffer under "the iron heel of Brussels". Why they don't GAF for Brussels? Why in fact the rest of Europe doesn't? It's because they don't have Whitehall gold-plating often quite unexceptional suggestions, confident that Brits will tug their forelocks and obey. And blame Brussels! Result!!
Looking at "it would be a good idea to use bio-fuels but only up to 10%" being translated into "we'll impose 10% ethanol fuel" tells you all you need to know.
Note also that "a cynic" is what an idealist calls a realist...
Last edited by a moderator:
