UK to Ban Sales of New Petrol Fuelled Motorcycles from 2040

Tic-Tac-Toe, what concerns me is I'd hate to be forced to eat my shoes, in my 90's, because I can no longer afford petrol, electricity, and food. :rofl1:

Tom
I mean, if electric cars become the default, it'll mean less demand/higher supply of gasoline, and that should result in lower costs.

We should want alternative fuel/transportation to get popular and good enough on its own that it reduces competition for gas and prevents government from getting involved in pressing it.
 
I mean, if electric cars become the default, it'll mean less demand/higher supply of gasoline, and that should result in lower costs.
That is NOT the way supply and demand works when the market is government controlled. Demand is controlled by legislation; reducing or increasing supply, always increasing costs.

Tom
 
Last edited:
I mean, if electric cars become the default, it'll mean less demand/higher supply of gasoline, and that should result in lower costs.

We should want alternative fuel/transportation to get popular and good enough on its own that it reduces competition for gas and prevents government from getting involved in pressing it.
Did you ever recharge a 1234yf vehicle? Anywhere from 4-500 dollars, Whaaat? Currently refrigerants entering the country are subject to a tax of around 210% percent. That's your government at work for, again, who do they work for ?
 
29? I don't even remember being 29 lol.

I just bought a new gasoline engine car with a regular transmission (not CVT) figuring it would last me the rest of my life. This coming weekend I'll turn 74, seriously doubt I'll make another 10 years (no male in my family has ever made it past 78). I did consider that in their zeal for zero emissions, they may just tax the gasoline I'll need, enough to make me choose between gas/oil and the food/health care I need.

But I don't think that EV's are going to be the answer. Heck I might've just lived long enough to need a replacement $15K EV battery had I gone that route, and $15K will buy a lot of gasoline (right now)
 
Adding to my previous 2p.

This was a report from the Daily Telegraph, my respect for which infinitesimal. .....'set to be announced by ministers... '. and 'It is expected to be revealed soon, according to Industry sources, although it is not yet clear whether Downing Street has signed off on the policy yet'.

Sounds to me like the 'industry sources' are using the newspapers to frighten people so should such a policy ever be mooted, there is already a big enough opposition to the notion. Or the newspapers are conjuring up unnamed industry sources for the same purpose.
Or maybe even the government ...... ?

You Google the topic, you get a page, and before you can read it all, a caption pops up to mask the text and invite you to pay a subscription. Unless you are pretty handy with the screenshot key.

Whatever, there is so much vagueness in the statement that it isn't news at all. But enough to light the blue touch paper under twitter, facebook, and motorcycle forums. You wouldn't catch me rising to such ..... What ? Oh tish !
 
Did you ever recharge a 1234yf vehicle? Anywhere from 4-500 dollars, Whaaat? Currently refrigerants entering the country are subject to a tax of around 210% percent. That's your government at work for, again, who do they work for ?
I just recharged our '17 Civic last summer. R-1234yf. The can was $80 and the new tooling was $35. I now have the gauge set ready for both cars (because mine also takes 1234yf).

If you're paying someone a 400% markup over already-inflated Autozone prices, you're just bad at shopping. Nothing to do with the government.
 
Adding to my previous 2p.

This was a report from the Daily Telegraph, my respect for which infinitesimal. .....'set to be announced by ministers... '. and 'It is expected to be revealed soon, according to Industry sources, although it is not yet clear whether Downing Street has signed off on the policy yet'.

Sounds to me like the 'industry sources' are using the newspapers to frighten people so should such a policy ever be mooted, there is already a big enough opposition to the notion. Or the newspapers are conjuring up unnamed industry sources for the same purpose.
Or maybe even the government ...... ?

You Google the topic, you get a page, and before you can read it all, a caption pops up to mask the text and invite you to pay a subscription. Unless you are pretty handy with the screenshot key.

Whatever, there is so much vagueness in the statement that it isn't news at all. But enough to light the blue touch paper under twitter, facebook, and motorcycle forums. You wouldn't catch me rising to such ..... What ? Oh tish !

The sale of new petrol-fuelled motorcycles is set to be banned from 2040, under plans due to be announced by ministers as part of the Government’s net zero crackdown.
The move would affect all vehicles classed as “L3” and upwards, including scooters and light, medium and higher-powered motorcycles. There are around 1.3 million motorcycles registered in the UK.
It is expected to be revealed soon, according to industry sources, although it is not clear whether Downing Street has signed off on the policy yet.
The change would also be accompanied by a plan to ban sales of new petrol-fuelled mopeds earlier, from 2030.
That reflects the already-high numbers of electric mopeds being sold. They accounted for roughly half of UK moped registrations last year.
By contrast, the market for electric motorcycles is far less developed and represented less than 2pc of total sales in 2023.
They also suffer from some of the same “range anxiety” issues as electric cars, with many e-motorcycles currently limited to ranges of less than 100 miles while not all are compatible by default with electric car charging stations.

The Motorcycle Action Group, which represents riders, has claimed banning new petrol motorcycle sales is “unworkable” and will “terminate most British motorcycle manufacturing” if implemented.


The Government insists no final decision has been taken on banning sales of petrol motorcycles.
But the Department for Transport is taking steps to make low-powered electric motorcycles a more attractive transport option and views them as “dynamic, efficient and affordable… and too often overlooked”.
Last month ministers extended the grant for plug-in electric motorcycles, under which riders can get up to £500 off models costing less than £10,000, until April next year.
Ministers are also consulting on changes that would give motorcyclists use of bus lanes across the country, something that currently varies by local authority area.
However, banning sales of new petrol motorcycles from 2040 would represent a climbdown.
In a consultation published two years ago, the Department for Transport asked companies to comment on either a 2030 or 2035 ban for motorcycles and mopeds. A ban in 2035 would have been in line with the phasing out of sales of new petrol cars.
But while cars and taxis accounted for 57pc of the UK’s transport-related carbon emissions in 2021, motorcycles and mopeds represented just 0.5pc.
The Motorcycle Industry Association had previously warned that phasing out petrol-fuelled motorcycles by 2035 was “unrealistic” and could cause some manufacturers to “review their place in the UK market”.


Commenting on the proposals last year, Tony Campbell, the association’s chief executive, told Motorcycle News: “If you get it wrong, you could kill us.”
Asked about the potential climbdown on Friday, a spokesman for the group said: “We cannot comment on speculation but note that the Government has said it will be publishing the outcome of the consultation imminently.”
A spokesman for the Department for Transport said: “An increasing number of riders are choosing electric motorcycles and mopeds, including from British manufacturers like Maeving.
“While we are committed to transitioning away from petrol and diesel engines, no decision has been taken on the end sale for new motorbikes and mopeds, we continue to engage with the industry on the matter.”
Guy Opperman, the roads minister, added: “Our Plan for Drivers is not just improving journeys for car users, but also motorcyclists, who have sometimes been overlooked.
“We’re getting on and delivering our plan to make life for drivers - and motorbike riders alike - better, fairer and cheaper, and I am glad the consultation has already seen such a significant response.”


'
 
I just recharged our '17 Civic last summer. R-1234yf. The can was $80 and the new tooling was $35. I now have the gauge set ready for both cars (because mine also takes 1234yf).

If you're paying someone a 400% markup over already-inflated Autozone prices, you're just bad at shopping. Nothing to do with the government.
8 oz for $80 why so much? 12 oz 134a is about $10. Please explain it.
 
Well now let's see in 16 years I'll be 86 and probably just hanging my handle bars up so I don't give a u know what. If Government Idiots want to live in fairy tail land and believe that fossil fuels are the buggee man well let them have at it. If people are so gullible to believe 100 percent in what their Government tells them hook line and sinker well....all i'm going to say is we get what we deserve.
 
Because it's new, mostly. Because there isn't 40 years of infrastructure for manufacturing it.
This is from Interdisplinary Social Studies

Consumption needs to be controlled One of the concepts of tax collection that applies globally is the existence of restrictions on the consumption of a product. The state collects the excise duty that the country wants a reduction in the consumption of certain goods. The purpose of reducing consumption is for several reasons including negative impacts on society or the environment, and also there is an impact on health."

It's the Government . The problem is that taxing it affects lower incomes the most.
 
If you're paying someone a 400% markup over already-inflated Autozone prices, you're just bad at shopping. Nothing to do with the government.
Go to a shop that's mandated by the EPA to have a yf recovery unit and ask them what it cost. Your freon is leaking out wait till it get to the point where you can't keep filling it.
 
funny it's made at the same plant.
That's simply not accurate.

The nine largest manufacturers of R-134a worldwide are Daikin, Chemours (formerly DuPont), Arkema, Dongyue Group, Zhejiang Juhua, Mexichem, Meilan Chemical, Sanmei and Sinochem Group, and they only make up 70% of the manufacturing capacity.

The largest R-1234yf plant in the world is in Ingleseide, Texas, a joint venture of Chemours and Honeywell, and its manufacture was completed in 2019. That plant produces 50% of the worldwide supply. 30% is from a plant in Shangshu, China, built in 2012, and about 15% is from a plant in Geismar, Louisiana built in 2017.

As it stands, Chemours/Honeywell as a joint venture is the only entity worldwide making YF, and the entire production capacity is in purpose-built plants that have all opened within the last 12 years. 100% of the refrigerant is being made on new production lines in new factories on new equipment that wasn't able to be used for R-134a.

Some of these plants are on industrial plots that are shared with 134a production, namely the Ingleside and Geismar campuses, but the production doesn't get to share equipment at all because hydrofluoroolethins are entirely unrelated to hydrofluorocarbons.

Go to a shop that's mandated by the EPA to have a yf recovery unit and ask them what it cost. Your freon is leaking out wait till it get to the point where you can't keep filling it.

It costs... exactly the same as an R-134a recovery unit. You're looking at $3950 for a standard Mastercool recovery/recycle/recharge machine for R-134a, and $3950 for a Mastercool RRR machine for R-1234yf. If you're just looking for recovery without recycle/recharge capability, to tank the recovered refrigerant, you don't even need a different machine. Just a second empty tank.

If the shop is charging you FOUR TIMES AS MUCH for an R-1234yf service as an R-134a service, then you need to find a new shop.

It's really easy to be lied to by someone who stands to sucker you out of an extra $300 for no good reason when they try telling you it's a political angle you disagree with rather than them just charging you hundreds more.
 
This is from Interdisplinary Social Studies

Consumption needs to be controlled One of the concepts of tax collection that applies globally is the existence of restrictions on the consumption of a product. The state collects the excise duty that the country wants a reduction in the consumption of certain goods. The purpose of reducing consumption is for several reasons including negative impacts on society or the environment, and also there is an impact on health."

It's the Government . The problem is that taxing it affects lower incomes the most.
There's no excise tax on R-1234yf refrigerant that separate from R-134a refrigerant. And as the majority is made stateside, versus the majority of 134a being imported, it actually results in lower tariff collections. On top of that, it adds to blue-collar jobs in the new chemical facilities, as broken down above.

From your own excerpt right there, "The purpose of reducing consumption is for several reasons including negative impacts on society or the environment, and also there is an impact on health." That has nothing to do with taxing the poor.

This is the most bewildering string of thought that is just you being lied to by mechanics about how much something costs and deciding it's actually the government trying to oppress poor people (who absolutely aren't buying the brand new cars that use 1234yf).
 
Green Movement = behavior control. I'm certain bike emissions hardly make anyone's carbon charts. Certainly they are less harmful than our overabundance of political hot air.
For many reasons Canada produces more green-house gases per capita than most other countries. Despite that, according to some UN report quoted on the news, Canada was responsible for only 1.8% of the total world-wide green house gases produced in 2022. If that is accurate, this means that if Canada is wiped off of the face of the earth tomorrow it will not make a bit of difference with regards to climate change whether a person believes that green-house gases are the cause of it or not. If one believes that green-houses gases are the cause of climate change then yes, every effort does indeed matter when trying to mitigate the damage. However, listening to our politicians one would think that Canada is single-handedly responsible for destroying the earth.

Reasonable and balanced discourse seems to have been lost with regards to climate-change discussions and policies- on both sides of the debate.
 
For many reasons Canada produces more green-house gases per capita than most other countries. Despite that, according to some UN report quoted on the news, Canada was responsible for only 1.8% of the total world-wide green house gases produced in 2022. If that is accurate, this means that if Canada is wiped off of the face of the earth tomorrow it will not make a bit of difference with regards to climate change whether a person believes that green-house gases are the cause of it or not. If one believes that green-houses gases are the cause of climate change then yes, every effort does indeed matter when trying to mitigate the damage. However, listening to our politicians one would think that Canada is single-handedly responsible for destroying the earth.

Reasonable and balanced discourse seems to have been lost with regards to climate-change discussions and policies- on both sides of the debate.
Those two things are honestly pretty hand-in-hand, though.

Canada only makes up 0.4% of the world population. If it's creating 1.8% of the world's carbon output, then that means it's releasing 4.5 times the worldwide average per person.

Put a different way, Quebec is about 8.5 million people. 0.4% of that would be a city of 40,000; Salaberry-de-Valleyfield is a perfect candidate.

If you went to visit Salaberry and were told "this town has one out of every 50 murders in Canada", you'd probably say "oh crap, that's way too many for a town that only has one out of every 250 people." It would be outrageous; the local police would be looking for a serial killer or links to organized crime. Nobody would be okay with it.

1.8% isn't small. It's about 1/55. It's a visible impact out of a bucket.
 
The point is that what Canada does or doesn't do will have a negligible impact as long as China, India, and the US continue to account for over 30% each, and continue to increase yearly. Until that changes, what Canada does doesn't really matter a whole hell of a lot in the grand scheme of it, other than virtue signalling and making people feel good.
 
Back
Top Bottom