Topic

motorcycles

4 petitions

Started 2 months ago

Petition to Land Transport Authority, MInister of Transport, Khaw Boon Wan

Remove the population cap for Motorcycles in Singapore

On 23 Oct 2017, Land Transport Authority (LTA) announced the motorcycle population in Singapore will have zero percent growth (0%) from Feb 2018 onwards.  Full announcement can be seen : HERE As members of the Singapore community, we ask for the population cap to be removed.   This is because motorcycles perform roles such as :- providing low cost transport for dispatch & food delivery companies- public transport workers who drive the first MRT trains & first buses daily- affordable transport for those who dare to brave the congested roads If these motorcyclists were to convert to cars & vans, the costs of doing business will go up in Singapore.  These extra costs are hard for riders & their employers to bear, so it will be passed onto the consumers. Motorcycles do not contribute to the congestion on the roads.Capping the numbers will mean higher costs as the riders begin to outbid each other for the remaining Certificate of Entitlements (COE).  This in turn will further raise the cost of owning a motorcycle.  As it stands today, the COE for a motorcycle costs more than the machine price of a 200cc motorcycle. LTA published statistics show there were 111,150 (below 200cc) bikes in 2010, now reduced to 97,306 in 2016.  As we can see, there are people who can no longer afford to buy a motorcycle for their livelihood.  LTA official motorcycle population numbers can be seen in THIS LINK Please sign this petition if you believe the motorcycle population cap should be removed, and for the growth rate to be returned. This is written by a motorcyclist that commutes to work daily, regardless of rain or shine.

Yu Seung Poh
3,123 supporters
Started 10 months ago

Petition to Public Petitions Committee Singapore, Ministry of Finance Singapore

Say NO to 100% ARF

We, the undersigned, have come together to protest the implementation of the new ARF scheme for motorcycles. We believe that the scheme unfairly penalises working-class motorcyclists, a large but relatively unrepresented group of commuters. "Just as we introduced tiers to the ARF for cars in 2013 to improve progressivity, I will introduce two more tiers for more expensive motorcycles…"  - Mr. Heng Swee Keat, Finance Minister, Budget 2017 Speech (source: http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/singapore-budget-2017-motorcycles-to-get-three-tiered-additional-registration) The notion that riding a motorcycle is somehow equivalent to driving a car is dangerously misguided and does not take into consideration the safety issues inherent in motorcycling. Unlike driving, motorcycling is after all, a high-risk activity.  For example, a 1.3L car of any make compared to a car of a different make but of a similar cubic capacity still affords the same basic level of protection to their drivers, while the same cannot be said of motorcycles.   Unlike car drivers who are insulated from hard impacts in a steel structure with safety belts and airbags, motorcyclists are more prone to injury when accidents occur. Riding a bigger motorcycle is indeed safer for motorcyclists because bigger motorcycles offer:  1.     More road presence and visiblity 2.     More power to maneauvre quickly out of danger zones as they develop in real time 3.     More stability at higher speeds e.g. 80 – 100kph. 4.     More safety features such as traction control & Anti-lock Braking System (ABS)  As a luxury tax, the new ARF scheme fails in its objective because not all large cc motorcycles are luxury bikes. Some larger cc motorcycles can be considered workhorse bikes for commute, for example, the Honda Super 4 (400cc), Yamaha Tmax (530cc), Honda NC700X (700cc), Yamaha MT09 (900cc), or even the Honda Africa Twin (1000cc). The prices of these motorcycles have all increased from under the new ARF scheme. The new scheme unfairly penalises motorcylists who purchase bigger cc bikes for reasons of personal safety. Safety should NEVER be considered a luxury. The government has a duty to safeguard the lives of all motorcylists, just as they have a duty to protect the lives of drivers and pedestrians alike.  Moreover, there are no clear benefits to this additional cost burden. Whereas additional taxes for cars discourage car purchases and alleviates traffic congestion, the same cannot be said for motorcycles. Motorycles have a low carbon footprint, much lower rates of emissions, and do not contribute to traffic congestion, no matter the size. In fact, studies have proven that motorcyles are the perfect form of transport for heavily built-up cities such as Singapore. (http://www.iatss.or.jp/common/pdf/en/publication/commemorative-publication/iatss40_practice_07.pdf) By prioritising short-term tax revenue gains over long-term environmental policies, this new scheme also contradicts the Government’s publicly-declared stance on keeping the vehicle fleet young and emissions low. It encourages motorcyclists to renew their COEs on older Euro I & II bikes, rather than to purchase a more environmentally-friendly Euro IV-compliant motorcycle. Another point of note: while a car retains a PARF value at the end of its COE term, motorcycles are eligible for no such benefit, making the scheme even more injurious to the motorcycling community. We, the undersigned, plan to submit this petition in the hope that the Public Petitions Committee would order a review of the ARF scheme. We believe that the scheme can be further adjusted to make it an even fairer one, taking into account the road safety issues motorcyclists face everyday.

Say NO to 100% ARF
1,658 supporters
Update posted 11 months ago

Petition to The Rt. Hon. Chris Grayling

Fight Vnuk - The EU Judgement Threatening to Kill UK Motorsport

In the landmark ‘Vnuk’ case, the European Court of Justice ruled in 2014 that the EU’s 2009 Motor Insurance Directive required insurance policies to cover all possible third-party accidents in all places and at all times. In some countries, including the United Kingdom and Ireland, governments had interpreted the law as meaning that it only applies to vehicles driven on public roads, however it is now clear that the judgment means that national laws must be changed to ensure that all mechanically propelled vehicles are insured for third-party losses regardless of type of use, in all places, at any time. This applies to everything from Formula One racing cars, to mobility scooters, to antique trams and everything in-between. Industry experts have already claimed that the risks associated with providing insurance cover to all motorised vehicles mean that they would be prohibitively expensive to insure, thus effectively outlawing all motorsport activities across the United Kingdom. HM Government opened a consultation on Wednesday 21st December with two clear options. First, to pursue the “Comprehensive option” which would involve changing UK motor insurance law to comply with the Motor Insurance Directive as interpreted in the Vnuk judgement. Second, the Government’s preferred “Amended Directive option” which would involve changing UK law on motor insurance to implement the Motor Insurance Directive as amended, should the European Commission pursue its proposal to amend it. While the United Kingdom remains a member of the European Union, the UK is obligated to make this change. We, the undersigned petition HM Government through the Secretary of State for Transport, The Rt. Hon. Chris Grayling, M.P., asking that HM Government under no circumstances implements the 'Vnuk' judgement in a way that encompasses vehicles involved in motor and motorcycle sport activities. www.fightvnuk.co.uk

Tristan Robinson
13,711 supporters