Should cyclists be issued with traffic fines and have to pay road tax / insurance?

Neewbie_noob

POLL IS MULTIPLE CHOICE, SO CHECK ALL THAT APPLY

Cyclists use the excuse "we are saving the planet" and other jibe when confronted by motorists, or when they are told they should pay road tax / insurance, they say "we don't pollute", we are not dangerous etc.

My argument is that cyclists are using the road, if a car were invented that ran off air, it would still have to pay road tax, so why should cyclists (who use the road have to be exempt).

Cyclists very often cause accidents by merrily sailing through a red light, very often onto on-coming traffic, they plough through pedestrian area, and should therefore have to pay insurance.

For the reason above, they should also be fined for breaking lights, disregarding traffic rules etc

This is not a trolling thread, but mods, feel free to lock etc. if you feel this thread might get out of hand, or if it has been done before. Let's not this turn into a cyclist-hating thread or flame each other. Keep it civil or face the wrath of the moderators :P

furiousox

There's no such thing as road tax.
It's motor tax.

Zer0

I'm a cyclist

No, I've been struck off my bike several times and the motorist just drives off.. I always signal, wait at lights and behave well.. I can't afford a car so I doubt I'd afford road tax for a bike.

ronaneire

No but they should know the rules of the road.

Oink

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

[...]
My argument is that cyclists are using the road, if a car were invented that ran off air, it would still have to pay road tax, so why should cyclists (who use the road have to be exempt).

Furiosox put that one to bed.

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

[...]
Cyclists very often cause accidents by merrily sailing through a red light, very often onto on-coming traffic, they plough through pedestrian area, and should therefore have to pay insurance.

This has been done to death. Some dangerous clowns are on bikes, some are on motorbikes, some are in cars. No need to put everybody in the same bag.

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

[...]
For the reason above, they should also be fined for breaking lights, disregarding traffic rules etc

Of course they should. As soon as the Guards get around to it.

EDIT:

ronaneire wrote: »

No but they should know the rules of the road.

Yes. But as mentioned above, every clown who ever cut in front of me without indicating should know them as well. But I don't blame all drivers.

furiousox

ronaneire wrote: »

No but they should know the rules of the road.

According to the ROTR, what distance should a car give when passing a cyclist?

(It's 1.5m but some motorists seem to think 0.5m is ample)

manafana

Should pay some form of road tax

furiousox wrote: »

There's no such thing as road tax.
It's motor tax.

yes its a tax on the negative affect your motorised vehicle has on the environment etc

Shenshen

Should pay some form of road tax

I don't think they should pay road tax. After all, the damage bikes do to roads is negligable compared to the damage cars do, so the maintenance costs (filling potholes, resurfacing, re-painting road markings etc.) are mostly down to cars wearing the roads down.

They should however be liable to fines for breaking the rules of the road.
Some countries have a system in place that allow police to actually place points on the driver's licence of a cyclist they found breaking the rules (drunk cycling, mostly, if I recall).
So yes, definitely.

Also, I would be in favour of teaching children how to safely ride a bike, and what the rules of the road are. We were taught that in school in Germany, and he had to take a test before we were allowed to use our cycles on the road.

BizzyC

Should pay some form of road tax

They should receive fines for breaking the rules of the road.

A cyclist who knows what he's doing is fine, but one who blasts through lights or jumps up onto the footpath when it suits them.
Give them fines, they'll behave themselves on the roads, fewer accidents...

RacoonQueen

Poll is not multiple choice.

shopaholic01

I'm a cyclist

By that logic you should want to tax pedestrians too.

Yes, cyclists should observe the rules of the road - but so should pedestrians. I don't think either should be taxed.

seamus

I am not a cyclist

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

Cyclists very often cause accidents by merrily sailing through a red light, very often onto on-coming traffic, they plough through pedestrian area, and should therefore have to pay insurance.

They do? How many accidents? How often? How many accidents per km travelled and per no. of cyclists?
And how does that compare to the overall statistics for other traffic causing accidents by breaking lights?

Or maybe you're just "supposing" that they do because you had a near-miss one day with some idiot who decided to break a red light?

For the reason above, they should also be fined for breaking lights, disregarding traffic rules etc

They are.

Grayson

Should pay some form of road tax

Anyone who's dangerous on the roads should be fined. That includes pedestrians who walk out in front of traffic.

But they shouldn't pay tax or insurance. Especially not for the privlidge of cycling on irish roads. There's feck all cycle lanes and motorists don't care.

As a side note, I saw a car speed past all the traffic queueing at traffic lights yesterday. He was using the cycle lane.

GeorgeBailey

Pretty sure this is the first time this has come up on boards. Well done OP.

hypermuse

I'm a cyclist

Although I did select None of the above, I should have selected fines and fines only.

Yes a person who uses a road recklessly and puts themselves or others in danger should be open to fines for such offenses, as should pedestrians alike.


As regards tax, insurance.. Are you having a laugh!

I cant understand how you could tax people who are not causing a carbon footprint, taking the initiative to exercise (which would reduce stress on the health system) and also reducing the number of cars on the road!

I would never drive in Dublin as its quicker to get around on a bike. More respect is needed from both sides regarding cyclists/motorists.

super_furry

Broken poll is broken.

Chips Lovell

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

Cyclists use the excuse "we are saving the planet".

I've yet to meet a cyclist who's said this.

For the reason above, they should also be fined for breaking lights, disregarding traffic rules etc

The last time I checked cyclists arent immune to the law.

tinkerbell

Should pay some form of road tax

Your poll is faulty - it's only one choice, not multiple choice.

Cyclists should be fined if they are caught breaking a red or cycling dangerously but not forced to pay motor tax since they aren't in a motorised vehicle.

Korvanica

I am not a cyclist

HERE WE GO AGAIN....

Nyom Nyom Nyom...

I am a motorist, cyclists should be shot.

Standard Road tax/Motor tax mix up...

Cnuts on the footpath running red lights, going slower than I am and holding me up because I am more important than them because I am in a big car VRUUM VRUUM look at me you poor fooker with yer bike... What ? I don't care that it costs more than my '97 Punto. My Punto is heavier so I win !

Don't be cycling 2 abreast that slows me down aswell you silly cyclist ! I want to squeeze past you and endanger you instead of waiting for a safe time to pass you out ! "What? you think I care about the safety of other road users ? Pfft NO, I AM IN A CAR SO I OWN THE ROAD ! "

ebbsy

I think cyclists should have their pants pulled down and have their bare buttocks thrashed.

Pompey Magnus

None of the above

furiousox wrote: »

According to the ROTR, what distance should a car give when passing a cyclist?

(It's 1.5m but some motorists seem to think 0.5m is ample)

Out of interest what are the rules (if any exist) for cyclists riding two abreast? It has happened to me a few times recently on relatively narrow country roads where cyclists would continue to do this when I get behind them and force me right to the verge on the opposite side of the road in order to pass instead of just cycling in single file for the five seconds it would take me to pass them.

RobbieTheRobber

I am not a cyclist

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Out of interest what are the rules (if any exist) for cyclists riding two abreast? It has happened to me a few times recently on relatively narrow country roads where cyclists would continue to do this when I get behind them and force me right to the verge on the opposite side of the road in order to pass instead of just cycling in single file for the five seconds it would take me to pass them.

They are allowed to cycle two abreast.

seamus

I am not a cyclist

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Out of interest what are the rules (if any exist) for cyclists riding two abreast?

Cyclists are permitted to ride two abreast at all times. Common courtesy is to single out to allow other vehicles to pass where it is safe to do so, but there's nothing which specifically requires them to do this.

It has happened to me a few times recently on relatively narrow country roads where cyclists would continue to do this when I get behind them and force me right to the verge on the opposite side of the road

Were they pointing a gun at you?

Korvanica

I am not a cyclist

seamus wrote: »

Were they pointing a gun at you?

Id say so man, i hear a lot of cyclists carry guns. Helps thin out the herd of idiot drivers...(and pedestrians/cyclists)

Pompey Magnus

None of the above

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

They are allowed to cycle two abreast.

I know that but I was wondering if there is any rules whereby they are required to cycle single file on narrow roads when there are cars attempting to pass in either direction and if there's not why not? I know most cyclists do show this courtesy to motorists but some don't.

ThisRegard

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Out of interest what are the rules (if any exist) for cyclists riding two abreast? It has happened to me a few times recently on relatively narrow country roads where cyclists would continue to do this when I get behind them and force me right to the verge on the opposite side of the road in order to pass instead of just cycling in single file for the five seconds it would take me to pass them.

You're a motorist, but you need to ask a question regarding rules of the road on the internet, in fact you're not even aware such a rule exists ?

That's the problem with some motorists, they've no idea of the rules of the road.

Captain Havoc

There are 15,000 cyclists that are insured. Cyclists do get regularly fined, just as much as any other road user.

Pompey Magnus

None of the above

seamus wrote: »

.Were they pointing a gun at you?

Now that you mention it I guess I could have taken the other options of either happily sitting behind them going about a quarter the speed limit and making overtaking even more difficult and dangerous for any cars behind me or else going straight through them.

ThisRegard

You could have gone for the more obvious option, waited until it was safe to overtake ?

seamus

I am not a cyclist

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

I know that but I was wondering if there is any rules whereby they are required to cycle single file on narrow roads when there are cars attempting to pass in either direction and if there's not why not?

Because if such a rule existed, some drivers would use this rule to justify passing dangerously or even knocking down cyclists on the basis that they "shouldn't be riding two abreast".
It's been covered before, but if a car is incapable of safely passing cyclists riding two abreast, then one abreast isn't much easier.

The majority of whinging about "two abreast" cyclists is from motorists who want to be able to overtake without having to cross into the oncoming traffic lane. Sorry, that's just being unreasonable.

I know most cyclists do show this courtesy to motorists but some don't.

You don't want to be stuck behind a cyclist going 25km/h and believe me, he doesn't want you there either. But like tractors and caravans and people towing their mates cars, some people can just be assholes about how they use the roads. If any vehicle is unreasonably holding up traffic, the Gardai have the powers to step in. So there's no legislation needed to deal with cyclists who unreasonably hold up traffic, because there's already legislation there.

Now that you mention it I guess I could have taken the other options of either happily sitting behind them going about a quarter the speed limit and making overtaking even more difficult and dangerous for any cars behind me or else going straight through them.

The correct answer is, "Nobody forced me to overtake, I could have waited for a suitable place to pass where I would not be putting myself or other road users in danger". Maybe you did in fact do that, but then the fact that you consider yourself to have been "forced" to overtake leads me to believe that you did the overtake in a way that you considered unsafe. So why did you?

Pompey Magnus

None of the above

ThisRegard wrote: »

You're a motorist, but you need to ask a question regarding rules of the road on the internet, in fact you're not even aware such a rule exists ?

That's the problem with some motorists, they've no idea of the rules of the road.

Not knowing whether one rule exists for cyclists equals "no idea of the rules of the road"? Nice jump in logic there.