So increasing registration tax based on noise level won't make much of a difference. You have to go after the aftermarket stuff.
I've had a really noisy bike (loud exhaust installed by previous owner) and a completely stock bike after that. I vastly prefer the stock exhausts. Quiet most of the time, made a nice sound when I really gave it the beans, but nothing excessive.
To be fair, those are illegal, but enforcement seems to be non-existent.
The SUV users say it improves safety. OK, they can pay for it.
The loud noise also presumably causes something of an arms race with more acoustically insulated, less fuel efficient, cars.
The eventual alternative is outright banning the noise. I think paying for some of that externality would be better.
> The riders intentionally choose a less safe form of transit and gain many benefits from doing so, including lower fuel and maintenance cost.
You've never actually owned or regularly ridden a motorcycle, have you?
They're as expensive, and often more expensive, to maintain than a car if they're your primary form of transport[1]. Service intervals tend to be much shorter (3750 - 10000 miles, depending on model), and tyres don't last anywhere near as long (2500 - 5000 miles, again, depending on the bike and the tyres). A new pair of good tyres (and you really want good tyres) is going to set you back about £300. When I was commuting 70 - 80 miles per day I was having to get my bike serviced and tyres replaced every 7 weeks.
The main reason I choose my bike over my car nine times out of ten is agency: I want to be able to decide how long a journey will take, not have it decided for me by the volume of traffic.
[1] Obviously this depends on the bike and car being compared, which can vary wildly - cheap(er) to run commuter bikes do exist, as per cars, but any kind of sports bike, mid-high end tourer, cruiser, roadster, etc., will probably have significant costs associated with maintenance.
But then, I wasn't keeping my bike in great tires/etc, and I wasn't commuting nearly as far as you.
(fwiw my current vehicle is approximately the loudest allowable per federal regulations, because I enjoy the sound it makes, not safety per say.)
I don't. The worst way to start my day is to be woken up by some moron revving their Harley on the road near my home at 6.20am.
GP's point is that everyone is paying the price for the choices that operators of motorbikes make. No one wants to listen to 'loudest allowable per federal regulations' riding past their family home after-hours. That price needs to be factored into the cost of operating a motorbike/truck/other loud transport near population centres.
That might be relevant if those Harley's were anywhere near the legal dB limit.
P.S. the hate I'm getting here for stating that I follow the law, to the letter, on noise regulations is insane. If you/anyone think a straight pipe Harley is close to legal check your facts.
"(fwiw my current vehicle is approximately the loudest allowable per federal regulations, because I enjoy the sound it makes, not safety per say.)"
These two statements don't balance.
I believe Dennis Leary wrote a song about this kind of thing.
I'd certainly feel better about the irritating motorcycles if they were subsidizing all the quiet EVs. The bikers say the ear splitting noise is useful to improve safety? Okay, they can pay for it.
Like other forms of pollution we don't need to immediately stop all of it to make an improvement.
Now lets talk about dark skies...