Abuse of cycle to work scheme

antoobrien wrote: »

No the biggest problem with cycling in Ireland is actually cyclists themselves........I could go on all day listing the sheer stupidity of cyclists that I've witnessed over the years.

It's no wonder people won't cycle when they witness that kind of crap on a regular basis.

But that doesn't make any sense. I could go an all day about the kind of crap I see cars doing on the road. Parking on footpaths, crossing the white line, exceeding the speed limit, breaking lights, endangering pedestrians, etc etc etc.
You cannot go 60 seconds on any road without seeing someone breaking the law.

Yet somehow despite constant and persistent law breaking by motorists, it hasn't deterred anyone from driving.

The problem with cycling in Ireland is that private and commercial vehicular traffic has been prioritised above all others and this has been backed up by government and local authority transport policies for more than 50 years. This has created a public perception that cyclists have a lower priority on the road, with the obvious offshoot idea that cycling is dangerous.

This is turn it could reasonably be inferred has caused cyclists to become less adherent to the law since none of it seems to have been written with cyclists in mind, and they need to bend the rules to keep themselves safe. Note - this isn't my view necessarily, but I can easily see how someone would come to that conclusion.

blaming others for cycling into the side of cars that are turning (as opposed to the car turning into the bike)

So if I turn my vehicle in front of another, it's the other guy's fault for failing to stop? Are you serious?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes I did. But I didn't say (a) is wrong, therefore (b) and (c) are wrong. I simply said (a) is wrong.

Dubhlinner wrote: »

... I don't think people should be paying tax on equipment that helps them get healthy.

Agreed. Thats it in a nutshell. It should be expanded to cover other health initiatives (club membership etc) with the long term goal to reduce the amount of taxpayer money going into the HSE.

EDIT - Of course this will never happen, because the political system is not designed for long term strategic planning. Just do enough to get elected every 4 years.

Gurgle wrote: »

He spent barely over half the limit, but you call it abuse because you don't approve?

Yes it is abuse, the man would hardly walk to the car he is so lazy. Plenty of friends cycle and thisn is the money they would spend on a bike that would invlove 20km bike rides. He less than 3km from his work.

seamus wrote: »

But that doesn't make any sense. I could go an all day about the kind of crap I see cars doing on the road. Parking on footpaths, crossing the white line, exceeding the speed limit, breaking lights, endangering pedestrians, etc etc etc.
You cannot go 60 seconds on any road without seeing someone breaking the law.

Yet somehow despite constant and persistent law breaking by motorists, it hasn't deterred anyone from driving.

On the balance of probability, which is safer being inside something weighing a ton that moves or being outside it with no protection? It might give you an idea of how driving is still a popular way of getting around.

I notice you don't actually deal with what cyclists do to make their onw lives more dangerous.

seamus wrote: »

The problem with cycling in Ireland is that private and commercial vehicular traffic has been prioritised above all others and this has been backed up by government and local authority transport policies for more than 50 years. This has created a public perception that cyclists have a lower priority on the road, with the obvious offshoot idea that cycling is dangerous.

This is turn it could reasonably be inferred has caused cyclists to become less adherent to the law since none of it seems to have been written with cyclists in mind, and they need to bend the rules to keep themselves safe. Note - this isn't my view necessarily, but I can easily see how someone would come to that conclusion.[/quote]

I honestly don't know how I can deal with that without breaking the charter. I'll just say that as a cyclist of 20 years, that bit I've just quoted must be the most idiotic thing I've heard outside of the galway cycling campaign calling for cycle tracks to be ripped up.

The reason people think cycling is dangerous is because they don't know how and don't get any training. Christ I remember the "training" I got as a 10 year old: "Don't trust the cars to see you and don't get hit".

seamus wrote: »

So if I turn my vehicle in front of another, it's the other guy's fault for failing to stop? Are you serious?

Yes, if somebody hits you from behind it's generally their fault not yours, as they have failed to leave adequate space between their vehicle and yours.

Now if you turned right to cross traffic it's more than likely your fault though I can think of a few ways how it wouldn't be).

antoobrien wrote: »

I notice you don't actually deal with what cyclists do to make their onw lives more dangerous.

Why should I? I don't represent cyclists, nor could I ever claim to. The point is that idiots exist, and they ride bikes and they drive cars and they go for walks. Cyclists aren't some discrete group any more than drivers are a discrete group. They overlap, significantly, so statements about the behaviour of cyclists in general are largely empty rhetoric.

They're not some uniform community displaced from the rest of society who have to "make an effort" to be treated normally. They're individuals, and as such each cyclist must be treated as an individual, not as a representative of some perceived closed community of law-breaking daredevils. That's the problem with cycling - that many motorists seem to feel that I am obliged to take responsibility for the actions of some idiot just because we use a similar form of transport.

You've tried to claim that people cycling dangerously somehow deters other people from cycling, but you've failed to explain why. Logically people should similarly consider driving to be dangerous - steel box or not, people don't drive around terrified of crashing. Why not?

This is turn it could reasonably be inferred has caused cyclists to become less adherent to the law since none of it seems to have been written with cyclists in mind, and they need to bend the rules to keep themselves safe. Note - this isn't my view necessarily, but I can easily see how someone would come to that conclusion.

I honestly don't know how I can deal with that without breaking the charter. I'll just say that as a cyclist of 20 years, that bit I've just quoted must be the most idiotic thing I've heard outside of the galway cycling campaign calling for cycle tracks to be ripped up.

Why? If someone is being treated with lesser priority on the roads, would they not naturally seek ways to improve their own safety, even if those ways contravened the rules?

In some ways, the attitude of many motorists that "cyclists shouldn't be on the road", may be to blame for cyclists adopting the attitude that the ROTR don't apply to them. After all, if they shouldn't be there, then they don't have to obey the rules.

Yes, if somebody hits you from behind it's generally their fault not yours, as they have failed to leave adequate space between their vehicle and yours.

That's not what you said. You said someone hitting you from the side. If another vehicle crashes into the side of yours, it's usually because you've turned across their path.

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

For what it's worth, the one area of fraud under the scheme that does seem to have occurred is bike shops allowing people to buy other stuff and issuing an invoice for a bike. I've heard of a few instances of that, but I'm not sure how long it will last since I gather at least one shop has been reported to the Revenue already.

This is entirely permitted as part of the scheme.

Owen wrote: »

I'm closing my business this week because of the non stop rain in this country. I do call out bodywork repairs, and if there's even a bit of drizzle, I can't work. I've eeked out a living for 3 years now, but can't do it anymore. There have been very few rainless days in the last 3 years.

In the grand scheme of things most cyclists would spend on average 30 minutes commuting each way whereas, if you're working outside all day, then of course your chances of being rained on are much higher.

seamus wrote: »

That's not what you said. You said someone hitting you from the side. If another vehicle crashes into the side of yours, it's usually because you've turned across their path.

Actually what I said was:

antoobrien wrote: »

blaming others for cycling into the side of cars that are turning (as opposed to the car turning into the bike)

Now, lets clarify something if you're turning in a car it changes the angle of the car wrt the traffic on the road. So if a car is going to be hit from the original road, the car is going to be hit in the side (i.e. not head on, front or rear) as the side surface is the one that will be most exposed.

For a left turn, it will be on the passenger side - which means you will be approaching the car from the rear - so it's your fault for not leaving adequate slowing space behind the vehicle in front (car, truck, bus or bike - this is immutable).

There is a specific incident I have in mind, which I have seen repeated a number of times with a number of variations. Here's the basic, which I witnessed from behind the car in question as I was driving:
Car driving along the road indicates in good time (several seconds in advance).
Cyclist (in this case on the path) fails to note the signal (despite coming up to traffic lights) and continues on at the same speed.
The gap when the car signals is 50m, more than enough time to make most left turns (bearing in mind we are in an urban setting) so the car starts to turn.
The cyclist fails to notice, while cycling on a footpath (no cycle lane) closing the without slowing.
Cyclist proceeds to hit the car in the rear passenger door.

In this case the cyclist is clearly at fault for failing to observe traffic on on the road and act accordingly.

If on the other hand the car was turning right and the same thing happened the car driver would have been at fault - for precisely the same reason.

antoobrien wrote: »

For a left turn, it will be on the passenger side - which means you will be approaching the car from the rear - so it's your fault for not leaving adequate slowing space behind the vehicle in front (car, truck, bus or bike - this is immutable).

Nope, for a left turn, it's the driver's fault for failing to yield to traffic on their left.

Fair enough if the cyclist moves from behind the car to start overtaking on the left while the car is turning. But if the cyclist is already on the vehicle's left, and especially if the cyclist is in a cycle lane, then the obligation is on the driver to ensure that it is safe to proceed before turning.

A cyclist travelling on the left-hand side of a left-turning vehicle has right-of-way. Whether it's a good idea to be there or not is a different matter, but all other things being above board, if a vehicle turns left across the path of a cyclist who is cycling on the road, the vehicle is at fault.

I'm not sure why you brought people cycling on paths into the example. You may as well argue that people driving the wrong way down motorways are idiots. Nobody's going to disagree with you.

antoobrien wrote: »

The traffic wasn't to their left it was behind them. The cyclist hit the car as it has made about 2/3 of a 90 degree left turn.

In your specific example, the cyclist was on the path. I've no disagreement there.

My disagreement is with your throwaway comment that appears to imply that if you hit the side of a turning vehicle, you're at fault. More often than not, what happens is that the vehicle turns across the cyclist's path, or overtakes them and then turns across their path.

seamus wrote: »

My disagreement is with your throwaway comment that appears to imply that if you hit the side of a turning vehicle, you're at fault.

In general this is true (not talking about just cyclists, all traffic)

seamus wrote: »

More often than not, what happens is that the vehicle turns across the cyclist's path, or overtakes them and then turns across their path.

Funnily this isn't something I have happen to me as a cyclist(can't remember the last time it happened to me), because I don't give motorists a chance to do it.

I walk, drive and cycle the same way - by not trusting anybody else on the road - watch everything like a hawk and 99.9% of the time you'll be alright. it's the 0.1% of the time you need to be lucky for.

antoobrien wrote: »

So assuming that the way is clear (i.e. no pedestrians and blockages) you're on a single lane road making a left turn if somebody hits you from behind while you're turning it's your fault?

If they hit you then the way isn't clear?

If I cut somebody up on the motorway and they hit me from behind it's still my fault.

Most people I know who have availed of the scheme did so to get fit as well as save money. As a result they've started cycling at weekends and spend more of their own money on cycle related activities, or triathlons as have been mentioned. If people have their own cheap runabouts that they use for getting to work and then buy a more top end bike for weekend spins etc I don't think its the end of the world. They'll probably bring more money into the government through VAT etc. spent on related things.

Of my friends, 4/5 of us have used the scheme and have all got mountain bikes worth in or around €1,000. We cycle to work on occasion but not daily, but we are planning on going away for 2 weekends this year and spending far more than the savings we made through the scheme.

I also know a few guys who set up their own shop and now have 7 employees. They're undoubtedly benefiting from the scheme, but they're not driving around BMW's as mentioned. They're in their mid 20's and would probably have emigrated otherwise.