What drivers can do to be more cyclist aware

clonmahon

Interesting article from motoring website. The best bit is "Counter-intuitive to what you may believe, cyclists actually reduce congestion on the roads by not driving cars. They ‘re reducing the time you spend in traffic jams as they’re taking up so much less space". The opposite to the half witted "cyclists don't pay road tax" argument.

http://www.carbuzz.co.uk/blog/Drivers-more-cyclist-aware

John_Rambo

What drivers can do to be more cyclist aware.

Cycle for a month every year!

Good find clonmahon.

kenmc

clonmahon wrote: »

Interesting article from motoring website. The best bit is "Counter-intuitive to what you may believe, cyclists actually reduce congestion on the roads by not driving cars. They ‘re reducing the time you spend in traffic jams as they’re taking up so much less space". The opposite to the half witted "cyclists don't pay road tax" argument.

http://www.carbuzz.co.uk/blog/Drivers-more-cyclist-aware

I would have thought that was fairly obvious. if I don't cycle to work, I drive....

Cabaal

kenmc wrote: »

I would have thought that was fairly obvious. if I don't cycle to work, I drive....

Something being obvious and the benefits of this very obvious thing are not always thought of by the many fools who argue "but you don't pay roadtax!"

1. They don't think for one second that it would be worse for them if all cyclists drove instead
2. They aren't even smart enough to realize they also don't pay roadtax...they pay MOTOR tax!

:pac:

mp31

I like this bit

"It’s your responsibility to avoid hitting the cyclist, not the responsibility of the cyclist to avoid getting hit by you."

but confused by this:

"Cyclists endanger themselves by cycling in straight lines!"



How else I am going to keep my speed up if I don't go in a straight line... or am I missing something here?

Captain Havoc

Peruse the rules of the road.

BeerNut

Captain Havoc wrote: »

Peruse the rules of the road.

But teh cyclists shud do that to!!!1!!
/mindless autoresponse

clonmahon

Follow up article from carbizz.com on why there is no such thing as Road Tax

http://www.carbuzz.co.uk/blog/Road-Tax-Doesnt-Exist

Including the following quote from Winston Churchill.

Cookie_Monster

John_Rambo wrote: »

What drivers can do to be more cyclist aware.

wear helmets and high vis gear every time they get behind the wheel


*actually I dunno if it'd achieve anything, but it'd be funny

jrar

mp31 wrote: »

but confused by this:

"Cyclists endanger themselves by cycling in straight lines!"



How else I am going to keep my speed up if I don't go in a straight line... or am I missing something here?

I think the point the writer is making is that if you cycle in a straight line continuously, then a driver behind you will expect you to maintain that line and will not allow for any sudden deviation you need to make for potholes, broken shores, oil, loose gravel etc. - so I would interpret it as saying make sure a driver behind you is aware that you (constantly ?) need to adjust your line for such obstacles and therefore may do so at any moment as they attempt to overtake you.

Lawr

jrar wrote: »

I think the point the writer is making is that if you cycle in a straight line continuously, then a driver behind you will expect you to maintain that line and will not allow for any sudden deviation you need to make for potholes, broken shores, oil, loose gravel etc. - so I would interpret it as saying make sure a driver behind you is aware that you (constantly ?) need to adjust your line for such obstacles and therefore may do so at any moment as they attempt to overtake you.

It could mean that cyclists take the shortest distance between two points instead of following the contours of the road as in roundabouts. I often see cyclists take a straight line through roundabouts instead of following the contour of the lane. You might see this on curves in the road as well, where then may enter on the left side of the road, but be on the right hand side of the lane in the apex of the curve, then back to the left as they exit. Shortest distance between two points rule. Not a road rule.

I've seen cars do the same thing by the way.

mp31

jrar wrote: »

I think the point the writer is making is that if you cycle in a straight line continuously, then a driver behind you will expect you to maintain that line and will not allow for any sudden deviation you need to make for potholes, broken shores, oil, loose gravel etc. - so I would interpret it as saying make sure a driver behind you is aware that you (constantly ?) need to adjust your line for such obstacles and therefore may do so at any moment as they attempt to overtake you.

I hear ya jrar (+thanks) but how can I make the driver behind me aware of such a thing... at the moment I look behind as often as I can but because of my glasses (I have to rotate my head a lot more to get a good look) I end up wobbling slightly which maybe gets the driver to think before roaring past too close.
If I'm on a bad surface then I'll try to weave gently to avoid the pot holes etc but apart from that I can't think what more to do.

Gavb

clonmahon wrote: »

Follow up article from carbizz.com on why there is no such thing as Road Tax

http://www.carbuzz.co.uk/blog/Road-Tax-Doesnt-Exist

Including the following quote from Winston Churchill.

Is this the case in Ireland though? According to Dublin City Council:

"Motor Tax is collected by Dublin City Council on behalf of the Department of the Environment & Local Government. This revenue is used for building and repairing roads in Dublin City."

Vrt.ie still calls it 'Road Tax' though...

So, question: Is motor tax revenue used as to pay for roads in Ireland? Can anyone clarify?

dave1982

Amazing how cyclists think its the drivers at fault.

Lumen

dave1982 wrote: »

Amazing how cyclists think its the drivers at fault.

Your insights are astonishing. More please.

seamus

Gavb wrote: »

So, question: Is motor tax revenue used as to pay for roads in Ireland? Can anyone clarify?

No, it's not specifically ringfenced for road maintenance. It either goes into DCC's overall pot or is passed up the line to DoE's pot. Motor tax isn't specifically taken and spent on roads.

Gavb

seamus wrote: »

No, it's not specifically ringfenced for road maintenance. It either goes into DCC's overall pot or is passed up the line to DoE's pot. Motor tax isn't specifically taken and spent on roads.

That's what I thought. So why the [bleep] does DCC, vrt.ie, etc. persist in perpetuating the myth? :mad:

dave1982

Drifting to the middle of the road

2-3 cyclists a breast on the road (single file do not apply for some reason)

Cycling on footpaths

Holding up traffic on secondary roads.

Of course it goes without saying, that ye are right motorists are wrong

tomasrojo

Gavb wrote: »

That's what I thought. So why the [bleep] does DCC, vrt.ie, etc. persist in perpetuating the myth? :mad:

Another official body saying the same thing:

The revenue from this tax is used to maintain and upgrade the road network in Ireland.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel_and_recreation/motoring_1/motor_tax_and_insurance/motor_tax_rates.html

As far as I know, it's not directly true; it isn't ring-fenced for that purpose (or "hypothecated" I think they sometimes call it). The revenue certainly isn't sufficient on its own to meet the cost of maintenance an upgrade.

clonmahon

dave1982 wrote: »

Drifting to the middle of the road

2-3 cyclists a breast on the road (single file do not apply for some reason)

Cycling on footpaths

Holding up traffic on secondary roads.

Of course it goes without saying, that ye are right motorists are wrong

Riding in the middle of the road and on the footpaths, those cyclists really are a terrible menace. What's to be done.

Gavb

dave1982 wrote: »

Drifting to the middle of the road

2-3 cyclists a breast on the road (single file do not apply for some reason)

Cycling on footpaths

Holding up traffic on secondary roads.

Of course it goes without saying, that ye are right motorists are wrong

Just for the craic, I'll bite...

Parking / Driving in cycle lanes

Not giving cyclists enough room

Not signalling before turning

ignorance of the rules of the road

Of course, you do own the road and we are your grateful guests... :P

rich.d.berry

dave1982 wrote: »

Drifting to the middle of the road

2-3 cyclists a breast on the road (single file do not apply for some reason)

Cycling on footpaths

Holding up traffic on secondary roads.

Of course it goes without saying, that ye are right motorists are wrong

Amazing. Exactly 2 posts in the cycling forum and you have already managed to work out exactly what our consensus is in relation to other road users.

Have you perhaps considered that we may be motorists as well and do not spend all our time cycling when on the road. So, assuming you are right and we always blame the motorists then we'd be blaming ourselves every time we get behind the wheel. Doesn't really make sense does it.

And, just in case you're wondering. We do not condone any road users who disobeys the law or endanger others, whether they drive or cycle.

And my last point: What have any of the issues you've raised got to do with the current discussion topic?

Gavb

tomasrojo wrote: »

Another official body saying the same thing:

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel_and_recreation/motoring_1/motor_tax_and_insurance/motor_tax_rates.html

As far as I know, it's not directly true; it isn't ring-fenced for that purpose (or "hypothecated" I think they sometimes call it). The revenue certainly isn't sufficient on its own to meet the cost of maintenance an upgrade.

Yes all very confusing alright!:rolleyes:

dave1982

agreed we pay tax to maintain the roads.

I suggest a curfew for cyclists.:D

tomasrojo

Gavb wrote: »

Yes all very confusing alright!:rolleyes:

Excise taxes are governed by Finance Act legislation and are allocated to general tax revenue whereas motor tax is allocated to Local Authorities as part of their funding mechanism.

http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/tsg/2004/tsg09environtaxiss03.rtf

This is my understanding as well. But perhaps it would be a less palatable message to say "the revenue from this tax is used to pay local authority employees", which would also be true.

EDIT:

Local Government Fund - General Purpose Grant

The Local Government Fund (LGF) is a special central fund which was established in 1999 under the Local Government Act 1998. It is financed by the full proceeds of motor tax and an Exchequer contribution. The Fund provides local authorities with the finance for general discretionary funding of their day-to-day activities and for non-national roads, and funding for certain local government initiatives.

http://www.environ.ie/en/LocalGovernment/LocalGovernmentAdministration/LocalGovernmentFinance/

So, no, not ring-fenced though it is spent on roads as well as other things.

FURTHER EDIT:
The above also suggests that the Citizens Information claim is misleading, in that national roads are not funded by motor tax, since "the full proceeds" of motor tax go to the LGF.

FURTHER EDIT:
Sent Citizens Information feedback, based on the above. Maybe they'll change the page to tone down the claim.

Gavb

tomasrojo wrote: »

http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/tsg/2004/tsg09environtaxiss03.rtf

This is my understanding as well. But perhaps it would be a less palatable message to say "the revenue from this tax is used to pay local authority employees", which would also be true.

Ah, so they use it for digging all those potholes!

DePurpereWolf

What's drifting?

like this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Coj2wfPouuk

Chips Lovell

dave1982 wrote: »

agreed we pay tax to maintain the roads.

I suggest a curfew for cyclists.:D

Any more trolling, and it'll be a curfew for you.

seamus

tomasrojo wrote: »

The revenue certainly isn't sufficient on its own to meet the cost of maintenance an upgrade.

I think that's how they can get away with saying it. Since the motor tax intake is less than the total roads budget, you can claim that all motor tax goes towards road maintenance.

However, strictly speaking in order to claim that a fund is "ringfenced", you have to ask the opposite question - "If the motor tax intake exceeded the roads maintenance cost, would those funds be used elsewhere?". The answer of course is an undeniable "Yes", meaning that the funds aren't specifically ringfenced for roads usage.

tomasrojo

seamus wrote: »

The answer of course is an undeniable "Yes", meaning that the funds aren't specifically ringfenced for roads usage.

And, of course, from the environ.ie information above, the funds aren't spent on national roads at all.

rich.d.berry

clonmahon wrote: »

What drivers can do to be more cyclist aware.

This is a difficult question to answer. Driving is such an emotive issue. Most men think that their driving skills are above average therefore they have little or no incentive to improve their skills.

A study by psychologists J.A. Groeger and I.D. Brown lead them to conclude that:

Observational studies of drivers' involvements in dangerous situations suggest that young males drive differently from other road users. Studies of drivers' assessments of their own ability appear to show that they believe they drive better than their peers and that, while young males equate their ability with that of older male drivers, the latter group see themselves as superior to their younger counterparts but of equivalent ability to peers.

Perhaps the question should be re-stated "What incentives can drivers be given to be more cyclist aware."

From my own experience, the thing that made me re-assess my attitude and behaviour towards cyclists was to become a cyclist myself. Therefore, the best incentive I can think of is to make cycling more attractive and driving less so.

doozerie

I agree that riding a bike for a while is perhaps the best way of educating/encouraging drivers to improve their driving. A single incident of experiencing true fear for your life as the direct result of an action deemed by the other party to be perfectly reasonable may be enough to snap many drivers out of their artificial and skewed perspective to one where they really do consider the consequences of their actions beforehand. That holds for cyclists too, of course, neither group of road user holds a monopoly on mindless actions.

I don't see many drivers willingly taking to a bike though, so an alternative is for them to consider how they'd feel if their own actions were repeated by someone driving a large truck in the vicinity of they themselves. Anything that reminds people that skin and bone are fragile is a good thing, and nothing hammers that appreciation home better then when the skin and bone at risk is their own.

In the past I've tried to put this perspective to the odd driver that did something stupid that put me in danger. On one notable occasion a guy coming in the opposite direction turned right across my path and into a shopping centre. He clearly saw me as he made eye contact before turning but swiftly looked away as soon as I hit my brakes and my bike went into a skid (he applied the usual "I can no longer see you, so you are no longer there" approach to "dealing" with a problem). I missed him by inches. I followed him into the car park, remaining surprisingly calm all things considered, and asked him why he had nearly wiped me out. He suggested that I had "plenty of room", contrary to the clear evidence that his own eyes presented. I asked him if he would have driven across if I'd been driving a truck rather than cycling a bike. He adopted a pained facial expression and I could practically see the cogs turning in his head. After a minute or so of reflection his attitude changed entirely and he said "No, I wouldn't have. I'm sorry" - on the one hand a positive outcome as perhaps his attitude change would persist and he'd be more considerate in future, on the other hand it took some real effort on his part to view the incident in any other light than one in which the cyclist was completely wrong despite him clearly being at fault and that was a bit depressing.

tomasrojo

tomasrojo wrote: »

Sent Citizens Information feedback, based on the above. Maybe they'll change the page to tone down the claim.

Well, that was a quick response from Citizens Information:

Thanks for the feedback. You are correct. We will remove the wording.

EDIT: As good as their word. It's gone.

GlennaMaddy

Whether the tax is ringfenced or not, motorised vehicles cause all the wear and tear on the roads, and should therefore pay for the use of them. This notion that all other modes of transport have a lesser right to be on the road because they're not subject to the tax is utter bull****

A0

clonmahon wrote: »

What drivers can do to be more cyclist aware?

Get a proper driving licence (i.e, good level) and not have it given as it's the case.

Cookie_Monster

A thought occurred to me today when I saw an advert on the back of a bus about leaving 1.5m when overtaking bikes.

Every car should have a little electric shocker in the seat and a sensor on the side, anyone who gives a cyclist less than 1.5m gets a shock