Should cyclists pay Road Tax & Insurance?

brayblue24

kenmc wrote: »

I think you'll find that most cops don't like being referred to as pork.

You kind of expect it from 6 years olds but supposedly educated adults? Bit long in the tooth for it really

daymobrew

brayblue24 wrote: »

You kind of expect it from 6 years olds but supposedly educated adults? Bit long in the tooth for it really

Agreed.

Lads - ease off on the corny Gardai jokes - mature criticism is okay (like the 30% response rate to my TrafficWatch calls - and most callbacks are at least 6 weeks after the event :rolleyes: )

NewApproach

Call it what you like, but at the end of the day it is clear the tax is a tax on the use of the car on the road, and not the on the car itself.

If I own a car and only drive it round the fields, I do not need to pay 'Motor tax', even though I am using my 'motor' as much as anyone.

The tax is a tax to use the roads. End of story. Cyclists should pay it.

Cyclists should also have insurance, as they are using the same roads and are liable for their actions in the same way as motorists.

And no need to check, yes, I am from the motors forum!

Raam

NewApproach wrote: »

Call it what you like, but at the end of the day it is clear the tax is a tax on the use of the car on the road, and not the on the car itself.

If I own a car and only drive it round the fields, I do not need to pay 'Motor tax', even though I am using my 'motor' as much as anyone.

The tax is a tax to use the roads. End of story. Cyclists should pay it.

Cyclists should also have insurance, as they are using the same roads and are liable for their actions in the same way as motorists.

Have you actually read and understood any of the reasons why cyclists are exempt from motor tax? Cyclists are liable for their actions. Not having insurance does not mean you are exempt from liability.

kenmc

NewApproach wrote: »

The tax is a tax to use the roads. End of story. Cyclists should pay it.

Duh no it's not. It's a tax to use a MOTOR on the roads. As a result pedestrians, horses, dogs, bicycles, skateboards, sheep, cows, foxes etc do not have to pay, since they do not have MOTORS. That's why MOTORbikes and MOTORscooters also have to pay MOTORtax to be on the road, whereas a scrambler MOTORbike which is only used in the fields does not.

If you can't understand that then please hand back your driving licence.

AstraMonti

NewApproach wrote: »

Call it what you like, but at the end of the day it is clear the tax is a tax on the use of the car on the road, and not the on the car itself.

If I own a car and only drive it round the fields, I do not need to pay 'Motor tax', even though I am using my 'motor' as much as anyone.

The tax is a tax to use the roads. End of story. Cyclists should pay it.

Cyclists should also have insurance, as they are using the same roads and are liable for their actions in the same way as motorists.

And no need to check, yes, I am from the motors forum!

flickerx

daymobrew wrote: »

Agreed.

Lads - ease off on the corny Gardai jokes - mature criticism is okay (like the 30% response rate to my TrafficWatch calls - and most callbacks are at least 6 weeks after the event :rolleyes: )

Yep, we can all do much better when directing criticism at the Gardai - their complete lack of enthusiasm and seriousness when dealing with bike theft is a good starting point, and you can then work your way up to the likes of endemic corruption and general idiocy in Donegal, incompetence and lack of ability to deal with a situation that requires a bit of tact and intelligence such as the standoff at Abbeylara, to more sinister and extremely worrying tactics of covering up for their friends for deaths in custody (Terence Wheelock) or violence against demonstrators (the omerta of the post Reclaim The Streets inquiry when all the Gardai somehow couldnt identify all their work colleagues who they'd been on the force with for years), to plain mercenaries for hire with their thuggish actions alongside Shell private security guards in the Mayo pipeline dispute.

Chips Lovell

As cyclists we complain about motorists tarring us all with the same brush. Then the only Garda on the forum gets it in the neck over every grievance people have with the entire force.

Pot.. Kettle... Anyone???

concussion

flickerx wrote: »

Yep, we can all do much better when directing criticism at the Gardai - their complete lack of enthusiasm and seriousness when dealing with bike theft is a good starting point, and you can then work your way up to the likes of endemic corruption and general idiocy in Donegal, incompetence and lack of ability to deal with a situation that requires a bit of tact and intelligence such as the standoff at Abbeylara, to more sinister and extremely worrying tactics of covering up for their friends for deaths in custody (Terence Wheelock) or violence against demonstrators (the omerta of the post Reclaim The Streets inquiry when all the Gardai somehow couldnt identify all their work colleagues who they'd been on the force with for years), to plain mercenaries for hire with their thuggish actions alongside Shell private security guards in the Mayo pipeline dispute.

Abbeylara? Where a man barricaded himself into his home with a shotgun and a large amount of ammunition and proceeded to fire at Gardai for over a day? Where the victim finally opened his front door, started shooting at Gardai and was only shot by Gardai when he had in fact left his propertly and advanced toward the command center?
An FBI agent gave independant testimony after the incident - he said the only thing that was not done correctly was that they didn't shoot him the minute he opened the door and started firing.

As for the rest, I would go on but I'm sure we're both going to be sanctioned for posting such ridiculously off topic content.

Give them more money and resources I say, let them do their job effectively.

DirkVoodoo

Woah, ok I apologise for my off-the cuff remark about "bacon" and garda stations, I didn't mean to offend/insult anyone.

It was an immature comment that I did not really pay much thought to, I am sorry for "showing myself up for who I really am".

Think I'll take a break from boards for a while.

neilled

NewApproach wrote: »

Call it what you like, but at the end of the day it is clear the tax is a tax on the use of the car on the road, and not the on the car itself.

If I own a car and only drive it round the fields, I do not need to pay 'Motor tax', even though I am using my 'motor' as much as anyone.

The tax is a tax to use the roads. End of story. Cyclists should pay it.

Cyclists should also have insurance, as they are using the same roads and are liable for their actions in the same way as motorists.

And no need to check, yes, I am from the motors forum!

Fail. The matter is clear and is explained in the name "Motor Tax"

The amount raise through Motor Tax and associated charges comes nowhere near covering the local and national road budget. Motor tax is just another levy in the form of general taxation that goes into a big pot and gets redistributed.

Regarding the rants about insurance its something I'd love to have - but you can't get it because the insurers won't ensure a cycle on its own in Ireland. Probably not enough gouging margin in it for them to be bothered with.

Trying to charge cyclists road tax is pointless. How would it be done? A tax disc on the handle bars with reg plate? Well we all know the attitude of the Gardai when it comes to the theft of bicycles so you can forget them giving a toss about a component that "anto" has decided to remove from your machine?

How about a driving license style document? Hmmm well lets see how many motorists get stopped by the Gardai, find they don't have their license and get waved on and told to have it the next time. No point.

Levy at point of sale upon bicycle - pointless. Bicycles are cheaper in Northern Ireland as it stands by about 20% on a good day. This has been increased by the recent changes in taxation in the UK and Ireland combined with currency fluctuation. You can pick one up and bring it across the border with no problems.

Also consider the cost of set up, running and administering of any of the above.

The "New Approach" of attempting to charge cyclists Motor Tax has indeed failed.

L'Enfer du Nord

Hi,

I'm a cyclist, perhaps someone can direct me to where:
I can register my bike.
Pay 'road' tax.
Get insurance for cycling my bike

Thanks,


I actually have an old bike at home which came from Belgium, its got a little red nunber plate on the front fork.

ps
I'm guessing there are more cars without tax or insurance on the road than there are adults on bikes.

petethedrummer

L'Enfer du Nord wrote: »

ps
I'm guessing there are more cars without tax or insurance on the road than there are adults on bikes.

That's different. Motorists are individuals. And the ones on Boards are exemplary. Cyclists must assume responsibility for other cyclists poor actions and poor planning by the roads dept.

NewApproach

Like I said, I'm not interested in what they call the tax, it is a tax to use your vehicle on the roads. If I keep a car/van etc in a garage I do not need to pay 'Motor Tax', despite it being a 'motor'.

With regards to insurance, many wealthy people could afford a loss of their vehicle or that of a third party, but where it gets expensive is when there are personal liability claims, as these can run into the millions.

It is all well and good saying that cyclists are responsible for their actions, but what would happen if a cyclist knocks down an elderly pedestrian, and a large medical bill follows?
Insurance is there for the protection of people, and it is not meant to be simply another 'tax' on driving.
It is necessary, and I believe that cyclists should pay it in addition to all other road users.

kenmc

NewApproach wrote: »

It is all well and good saying that cyclists are responsible for their actions, but what would happen if a cyclist knocks down an elderly pedestrian, and a large medical bill follows?

Exactly the same thing that would happen if a car knocked down the pedestrian: If insured, the insurance would cover it. If not, a civil case could be brought against the party involved, or it could be taken from the fund for the insured.

NewApproach

kenmc wrote: »

Exactly the same thing that would happen if a car knocked down the pedestrian: If insured, the insurance would cover it. If not, a civil case could be brought against the party involved, or it could be taken from the fund for the insured.

The fact is insurance is a legal requirement, and in the case mentioned above the individual decided to break the law.

A totally different scenario

fergalr

tomcollins97 wrote: »

Should cyclists pay Road Tax & Insurance

I don't think so, tbh.
That would make cycling more expensive. We don't want to do that, as cycling, when you look at it's overall cost to the economy, is a very good way of moving people from A to B.
It's very low emissions (less carbon fines for Ireland), and it costs the economy a hell of a lot less than having to provide public transport or loads of extra roads.
I mean, seriously, if all the people that currently cycle to work in Dublin stopped, for some reason, we'd have to spend a shedload more on public transport (all of which is pretty much state subsidised) to get them to work, or a load more on roads to support all the extra cars.
As someone who pays tax, presumably you don't want the government shelling out a load more money for a less cost effective commuting solution?
I know I don't!
And that's a very simple argument, which everyone can surely understand, for incentivising cycling, rather than discouraging it.

tomcollins97 wrote: »

How often have you been driving along in your car, only to be forced into slowing down for a cyclist or worse two cyclists, who are hogging the road?

I drive too.
This is annoying, having to wait for slow vechiles is not as good as not having to wait for them. But if I genuinely, without regard to my favourable attitude towards cycling, if I genuinely look at what delays me if I drive through the city, it's hardly ever cyclists, even rude ones. It's almost always traffic caused by other cars. So I'd much rather have to wait occasionally behind cyclists, than have them also in cars blocking the roads. A commuter in a car takes up *way* more room on the roads than one on a bike.
As many cyclists are slower than drivers (not during rush hour) this may mean I occasionally am slowed down for a couple of minutes - usually only 10 or 20 seconds - before I can safely pass a cyclist, on some narrow roads.
That's fine by me - I'll take a typical delay of seconds, and a highly infrequent delay of a minute or two, over the delay of the extra cars on the road, thanks very much.
Could any motorist really disagree with this stance?
I'd say anyone that does is missing the forest for the trees (to use a green analogy)

tomcollins97 wrote: »

Cyclists pay no road tax or insurance yet they on occasion act as if they own the highway.

People acting inconsiderately on the road is bad. Some cyclists are very inconsiderate. Recently (as a pedestrian) I almost got hurt by an inconsiderate cyclist.
However, the vast majority of accidents, and threats to my safety, based both on stats and personal experience, comes from inconsiderate drivers.
They have tons of metal, and are a much bigger problem. It's just physics really, inconsiderate people driving cars do a lot more than than ones on push bikes. But being inconsiderate is bad, agreed.

tomcollins97 wrote: »

Cyclist should have a licence to be on the roads & have passed a test to prove they have the necessary road knowledge & can cycle safely.

Again, they do a lot less damage to other road users than drivers do.
As cycling is good overall, we have to balance the impact they have on other road users vs. the risk of disincentivising cycling. As a driver you don't want them all in cars instead, right?

tomcollins97 wrote: »

If a cyclist is insufficiently lit or breaking road traffic rules it should be possible to hand down a fine.

Yes, on the spot fines would be quite good, and go a long way to solving the problems of cyclists doing dangerous stuff.
Also, the rules should be reviewed properly to make sure they are sensible for cyclists, and some proper engineering should be done on cycling lanes if cyclists are to be enforced to cycle on them.
None of these things will happen, but I agree they all should.

tomcollins97 wrote: »

My pet hates when it comes to cyclists are:

Insufficient lighting on a bike, especially in the winter months. As a motorist you are obliged to have all lights working, if you are a cyclist you can cycle with none

Actually, as you probably know, you do have to have lights.
This isn't enforced, but it probably should be. At least if the cyclist gets this wrong, it's generally only the cyclist that gets hurt though. If drivers were doing 50kmph invisibility in 2 ton cars a lot of people would get killed (and not just the driver) so it makes sense to enforce it more strictly on drivers.

tomcollins97 wrote: »

Lack of reflective clothing – if a motorist hits a cyclist it is their fault, even if the motorist cannot see them

You sure about this? I'd be surprised if a judge penalised a motorist for hitting a practically invisible cyclist in a situation where the motorist genuinely couldn't be expected to see them.

tomcollins97 wrote: »

Lack of signalling when turning – cars indicate so why can’t cyclists.

Bikes don't have indicators. That's just part of the technology of bikes. It means it's hard to indicate on a bike; but again, we like bikes, because otherwise they'd all have cars, so we are willing to live with these things, right?

tomcollins97 wrote: »

Cyclists coming up on the inside of a car which is indicating to turn left.

This is bad for the cyclists alright, they shouldn't do it for their own sake. At the same time, as a driver, you have to check to see them.

tomcollins97 wrote: »

Cyclists breaking red lights
Cyclists cycling too far out from the footpath & impeding traffic flow

Sometimes, for everyones safety, they have to do this.
This might slow down other traffic - less so than if they were in a car, though.
Sometimes road users slow other road users down - it's the way it is, we all have to live with it. I don't insist other drivers drive right up to the speed limit, and I don't insist tractors pull out of my way when I'm in the country.

tomcollins97 wrote: »

Cyclists refusing to slow down when the cycle lane runs through a bus stop

You'll conceed this is more due to bad cycle lane design rather than any other factor?

tomcollins97 wrote: »

Cyclists wearing headphones

That's an area for debate, along with pedestrians wearing headphones, drivers listening to loud music, and drivers talking on handsfree kits. Again, at least cyclists won't ram a couple of tons of metal into others if they get it wrong.

tomcollins97 wrote: »

Cyclists generally paying no heed to what is around them

This is bad, but I'd suggest this doesn't happen very regularly, as these people tend to learn the error of their ways, through an evolution like process, very quickly.
Drivers unfortunately, and I say this as someone that drives and cycles, don't seem to be so quick on the uptake, for obvious reasons.

quietobserver

tomcollins97 wrote: »

What do you mean Kenmc? Cars, motorbikes, trucks, buses, coaches etc all pay tax to put a vehicle on the road. Cyclists do not

grab a mince pie and take an early holiday.
Theres thousands of un insured and unlicenced drivers on the roads, and the country is in tatters and you want regulation to tax and insure all cyclists.
hmmmmmmmmmm

Stark

fergalr wrote: »

Actually, as you probably know, you do have to have lights.
This isn't enforced, but it probably should be.

I remember there used to be a checkpoint at the junction of Aston Quay, Westmoreland Street and D'olier street with a Garda checking people's bicycles for lights. People do get pulled over at random for not having lights as well, so it is actually enforced.

fergalr

Stark wrote: »

I remember there used to be a checkpoint at the junction of Aston Quay, Westmoreland Street and D'olier street with a Garda checking people's bicycles for lights. People do get pulled over at random for not having lights as well, so it is actually enforced.

Sure, I know it's enforced from time to time, as is cyclists breaking red lights.
The OP implied it wasn't illegal, and it was in this context I said that - it's not really enforced rigidly or regularly, although is occasionally.

L'Enfer du Nord

Stark wrote: »

I remember there used to be a checkpoint at the junction of Aston Quay, Westmoreland Street and D'olier street with a Garda checking people's bicycles for lights. People do get pulled over at random for not having lights as well, so it is actually enforced.

It certainly was haven't heard seen it being enforced recently,
Why is it legal to sell a bike without lights? Indeed why is it normal/standard not to buy a bike without lights? Would you be able to buy any other vehical without lights?

As for the general argument, if it can be called that. It would be a good idea for the govt. to produce some TV ads encouraging cyclists and motorists to share the road. Remind cyclists that they have to obey the rules of the road, remind motorists that cyclists are fellow road users, not slow moving, tax dodging green paty voters. The ad campaign could be paid for by an increase in 'road' tax!:):rolleyes:

Bunnyhopper

NewApproach wrote: »

it is a tax to use your mechanically propelled vehicle on the roads

I fixed it for you...

Raam

I'd love for a crack down on dodgy cycling. Inadequate lighting and RLJ would be my targets.

Raam

L'Enfer du Nord wrote: »

It certainly was haven't heard seen it being enforced recently,
Why is it legal to sell a bike without lights? Indeed why is it normal/standard not to buy a bike without lights? Would you be able to buy any other vehical without lights?

As for the general argument, if it can be called that. It would be a good idea for the govt. to produce some TV ads encouraging cyclists and motorists to share the road. Remind cyclists that they have to obey the rules of the road, remind motorists that cyclists are fellow road users, not slow moving, tax dodging green paty voters. The ad campaign could be paid for by an increase in 'road' tax!:):rolleyes:

In the UK it's illegal to sell without lights, bell also.
As for adverts: I have seen signs on buses advising people to watch for cyclists as they alight. I agree that a more widespread campaign would be useful.

fergalr

Raam wrote: »

In the UK it's illegal to sell without lights, bell also.

I guess you might want to just cycle during the day, and don't want to push bike price up.

Raam wrote: »

As for adverts: I have seen signs on buses advising people to watch for cyclists as they alight. I agree that a more widespread campaign would be useful.

It'd be good - though would rather see the money on stopping bike theft, and actually getting someone in the road planning part of the world to care about building usable (non compulsory) cycle lanes.

Stark

Most lights sold with bikes would be nicked by skangers within 5 minutes so it would be a futile exercise for the most part.

Raam

Stark wrote: »

Most lights sold with bikes would be nicked by skangers within 5 minutes so it would be a futile exercise for the most part.

Well, the user would have to exercise some sense and remove the things if they are parking their bike. Most lights are of the quick release variety, I hope.

Stark

If they had common sense, there would be no need to force lights upon them in the first place

Chips Lovell

I think the UK law is about a bell and reflectors, not lights. That was certainly the case with The Claw, who got both on his Bianchi.

L'Enfer du Nord

Stark wrote: »

Most lights sold with bikes would be nicked by skangers within 5 minutes so it would be a futile exercise for the most part.

Actually I had a back light stolen recently from a university bike park. Kind of assumed it was a student prank(ya mad lad!) or an opportunist stealing for their own use. I was livid because I had to cycle home in the dark with no rear light. Stayed on the foot path mostly. In theory I should have wheeled the bike home, When you think about it stealing a bike light should be regarded as a serious offense.