Company not allowing use of a Motorbike for business travel
Discussion
Has anybody been restricted from using a motorbike for business travel to meetings etc?
I am yet to push back, but the initial comments I am getting are that a motorbike is considered too much of a risk, and that all business travel should be by car or public transport.
Has anybody else been told similar? The company is a large uk firm with multiple offices.
I am yet to push back, but the initial comments I am getting are that a motorbike is considered too much of a risk, and that all business travel should be by car or public transport.
Has anybody else been told similar? The company is a large uk firm with multiple offices.
Have you opted out of a company car scheme?
Or are you travelling for work and just claiming mileage?
I am the former and we have a specific policy regarding what we can drive - no sports cars, under 5 years old, etc.
It also specifies that it must be a car.
If you’re the latter you may wish to argue that your bike is your means of conveyance and if they don’t want you to use it, they need to provide an alternative.
Or are you travelling for work and just claiming mileage?
I am the former and we have a specific policy regarding what we can drive - no sports cars, under 5 years old, etc.
It also specifies that it must be a car.
If you’re the latter you may wish to argue that your bike is your means of conveyance and if they don’t want you to use it, they need to provide an alternative.
Do you have business use insurance?
And you're probably right if they do a risk assessment the risk is to high given it is a motorcycle. If you have an accident on the way to the meeting then their insurers will not be happy and given that the HSE are keen to prosecute these days it is their right to be prudent
And you're probably right if they do a risk assessment the risk is to high given it is a motorcycle. If you have an accident on the way to the meeting then their insurers will not be happy and given that the HSE are keen to prosecute these days it is their right to be prudent
Muzzer79 said:
Have you opted out of a company car scheme?
Or are you travelling for work and just claiming mileage?
I am the former and we have a specific policy regarding what we can drive - no sports cars, under 5 years old, etc.
It also specifies that it must be a car.
If you’re the latter you may wish to argue that your bike is your means of conveyance and if they don’t want you to use it, they need to provide an alternative.
The latter, I am travelling for working (once or twice a week) and claim mileage, there is no company car scheme offered (to me).Or are you travelling for work and just claiming mileage?
I am the former and we have a specific policy regarding what we can drive - no sports cars, under 5 years old, etc.
It also specifies that it must be a car.
If you’re the latter you may wish to argue that your bike is your means of conveyance and if they don’t want you to use it, they need to provide an alternative.
carinatauk said:
Do you have business use insurance?
And you're probably right if they do a risk assessment the risk is to high given it is a motorcycle. If you have an accident on the way to the meeting then their insurers will not be happy and given that the HSE are keen to prosecute these days it is their right to be prudent
Yes, I have business use insurance on the bike.And you're probably right if they do a risk assessment the risk is to high given it is a motorcycle. If you have an accident on the way to the meeting then their insurers will not be happy and given that the HSE are keen to prosecute these days it is their right to be prudent
I thought if I had an accident, irrespective if I was on business travel, the liability has nothing to do with them and remains between myself, my insurance and any third party vehicle involved?
eeLee said:
company travel is risk-based and they have insurance. The policy will be driving this.
It's actually quite sensible since they would be paying out in the case of an accident.
Can you explain why they would pay out if I had an accident? If I'm hit by a third party (for example) would it not be my insurance that I would be using (and suing the third party?).It's actually quite sensible since they would be paying out in the case of an accident.
eeLee said:
company travel is risk-based and they have insurance. The policy will be driving this.
It's actually quite sensible since they would be paying out in the case of an accident.
They would be paying if something happened to you whilst on company business, much like travel insurance.It's actually quite sensible since they would be paying out in the case of an accident.
However, if you’re in your car and are travelling for work, you are expected to have appropriate car insurance for business use.
Muzzer79 said:
They would be paying if something happened to you whilst on company business, much like travel insurance.
However, if you’re in your car and are travelling for work, you are expected to have appropriate car insurance for business use.
they transfer a risk to an insurer. The risk that the insurer will accept will include tin boxes where personal injury is less likely than on a bike.However, if you’re in your car and are travelling for work, you are expected to have appropriate car insurance for business use.
the vehicle insurance is a red herring, it's not covering the business risk.
Muzzer79 said:
Have you opted out of a company car scheme?
Or are you travelling for work and just claiming mileage?
I am the former and we have a specific policy regarding what we can drive - no sports cars, under 5 years old, etc.
It also specifies that it must be a car.
If you’re the latter you may wish to argue that your bike is your means of conveyance and if they don’t want you to use it, they need to provide an alternative.
I'm the former and have similar restrictions on the car but bikes are permitted as it happens.Or are you travelling for work and just claiming mileage?
I am the former and we have a specific policy regarding what we can drive - no sports cars, under 5 years old, etc.
It also specifies that it must be a car.
If you’re the latter you may wish to argue that your bike is your means of conveyance and if they don’t want you to use it, they need to provide an alternative.
It did make me smile today when I got the annual request for confirmation of license details and to complete a questionnaire. The covering email stated something along the linea of 'driving for work is one of the riskiest things you do'.
They should see what I do in my spare time!
smiles1 said:
Muzzer79 said:
Have you opted out of a company car scheme?
Or are you travelling for work and just claiming mileage?
I am the former and we have a specific policy regarding what we can drive - no sports cars, under 5 years old, etc.
It also specifies that it must be a car.
If you’re the latter you may wish to argue that your bike is your means of conveyance and if they don’t want you to use it, they need to provide an alternative.
The latter, I am travelling for working (once or twice a week) and claim mileage, there is no company car scheme offered (to me).Or are you travelling for work and just claiming mileage?
I am the former and we have a specific policy regarding what we can drive - no sports cars, under 5 years old, etc.
It also specifies that it must be a car.
If you’re the latter you may wish to argue that your bike is your means of conveyance and if they don’t want you to use it, they need to provide an alternative.
Not normal or reasonable in my opinion. I don’t see how they can direct you not to use a vehicle you are entitled to operate, which is in good condition and has a lower expense rate. I’ve worked for several large companies (including one in the insurance industry) which have paid expense claims for bike travel without question. Make sure you have business use insurance (which in my experience is the same price as private use insurance).
If it is not stipulated in contract or trael / expense policy (taht is noted in contract) that you cannot use it, or if they stipulate what vehicle you MUST use, they cannot really enforce it, assuming you are on the HMRC FPCS rates. But motorbikes are lower pence per mile than a car, considerably IIRC, but i cannot recall which. So if you have been claiming at 45p per mile, that may incur tax.
I managed to get two forms of transport "banned" at one company! Private aircraft and motorbikes, both of which i rented to fly / ride to jobs in! They paid for them, but banned them per policy later!
I managed to get two forms of transport "banned" at one company! Private aircraft and motorbikes, both of which i rented to fly / ride to jobs in! They paid for them, but banned them per policy later!
poo at Paul's said:
If it is not stipulated in contract or trael / expense policy (taht is noted in contract) that you cannot use it, or if they stipulate what vehicle you MUST use, they cannot really enforce it, assuming you are on the HMRC FPCS rates. But motorbikes are lower pence per mile than a car, considerably IIRC, but i cannot recall which. So if you have been claiming at 45p per mile, that may incur tax.
I managed to get two forms of transport "banned" at one company! Private aircraft and motorbikes, both of which i rented to fly / ride to jobs in! They paid for them, but banned them per policy later!
Yes, the bike rate is 24p mile vs 45 for a car. Too low. Low enough that it doesn’t cover fuel, consumables and pro rated servicing. I managed to get two forms of transport "banned" at one company! Private aircraft and motorbikes, both of which i rented to fly / ride to jobs in! They paid for them, but banned them per policy later!
I can see some logic in banning small private airplanes for practical reasons, eg strong wind blowing wrong direction, can’t take off or land. Cloudy day, VFR pilot cant go anywhere. I’ve heard of US companies (there being a big general aviation community in the US) stipulating minimum 500 hours, or minimum CPL, or minimum IFR etc. But doing it and expensing it is epic
Edited by Iminquarantine on Thursday 15th April 09:35
The company I work for stipulates that motorcycles aren't to be used for travel between offices. For any office travel you need to use hire cars (paid for by the company via expenses and company card) or have business insurance on your car.
Normal commuting to a single place of work (my usual office) there are no stipulations over.
Its a pain as sometimes I need to go to the opposite side of the country and the journey would be far faster by bike but hey ho.
In my example it's part of the travel policy for work so not really any getting around it nor is it worth it I don't think
Normal commuting to a single place of work (my usual office) there are no stipulations over.
Its a pain as sometimes I need to go to the opposite side of the country and the journey would be far faster by bike but hey ho.
In my example it's part of the travel policy for work so not really any getting around it nor is it worth it I don't think
I've not encountered this type of thing before. While the suggestions here are that it's insurance driven, I don't think that's likely to be the case or many other companies would be doing the same. In my view it's much more likely someone in HR who defines the policies "just knows" that anyone riding a motorbike is going to die!
Assuming that their travel policy allows use of push bikes then you may want to consider challenging the policy on the basis that, per mile, push bikes are statistically more dangerous on motorcycles, and the time advantage of the use of a motorcycle vs. either a car or public transport. Also point out that you will still be travelling to your normal base of operation by motorcycle as that is your transport and that asking you to then travel to other locations, leaving you motorcycle "unattended" thus they may need to take some responsibility should the bike get stolen. (They will have no responsibility but it shouldn't stop you raising it as a question.)
However, be careful what you wish for. If your company travel reimbursement rates are related to the HMRC values then the rate per mile for a motorcycle is crap, and goes no where near the actual cost of running anything bigger than a 125.
Assuming that their travel policy allows use of push bikes then you may want to consider challenging the policy on the basis that, per mile, push bikes are statistically more dangerous on motorcycles, and the time advantage of the use of a motorcycle vs. either a car or public transport. Also point out that you will still be travelling to your normal base of operation by motorcycle as that is your transport and that asking you to then travel to other locations, leaving you motorcycle "unattended" thus they may need to take some responsibility should the bike get stolen. (They will have no responsibility but it shouldn't stop you raising it as a question.)
However, be careful what you wish for. If your company travel reimbursement rates are related to the HMRC values then the rate per mile for a motorcycle is crap, and goes no where near the actual cost of running anything bigger than a 125.
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff