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

stoneill

Should pay some form of road tax

Motorists, bicyclers and pedestrians, lend me your ears!

Right - we are all people going from A to B, and sometimes C.

Can't we just get on - give each other hugs and kisses?
Stop all this a-feudin' and a-fightin'

No wait - that's not what I want to say - Fine those biker bitches - yeah that's it.

Pompey Magnus

None of the above

seamus wrote: »

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?

I didn't say I was "forced to overtake", I said I was forced to the verge on the opposite side of the road when I did so.

ThisRegard

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

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

It's a rule of the road, you're a road user, you should know them.

Even if you're not a cyclist, person in charge of animals etc, you should be aware of the responsibilities of those around you, that's perfectly logical to any sensible road user.

seamus

I am not a cyclist

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

I didn't say I was "forced to overtake", I said I was forced to the verge on the opposite side of the road when I did so.

How?

Pompey Magnus

None of the above

seamus wrote: »

How?

Width of road - width of bicycle A - width of bicycle B - width of my car - width of safe distance between my car and bicycle B = ~0m

That is how.

seamus

I am not a cyclist

So how were you "forced" to do anything? Again, did they point a gun at you, "Drive on that verge mister, or I'll pop a cap in your windscreen", or were you thinking, "I don't like driving so close to the right edge of the road, but I'll do it anyway because I couldn't be bothered waiting any longer for a better place to pass"?

"Forced" to do it implies that you thought it was the incorrect thing to do. So why did you do it?

TonyStark

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

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

As a matter of interest do you have a driving license?

RobFowl

I am not a cyclist

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

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.

I'm not saving the Planet just getting from A to B...

I do pay Motor Tax (wrote the cheque for €592 this morning..)

That said have paid in excess of that in Vat on bike's and related stuff this year

Run_to_da_hills

Should pay some form of road tax

If caged drivers looked in their mirrors more there would be a lot less accidents amongst motorcyclists and cyclists.

Pompey Magnus

None of the above

seamus wrote: »

So how were you "forced" to do anything? Again, did they point a gun at you, "Drive on that verge mister, or I'll pop a cap in your windscreen", or were you thinking, "I don't like driving so close to the right edge of the road, but I'll do it anyway because I couldn't be bothered waiting any longer for a better place to pass"?

"Forced" to do it implies that you thought it was the incorrect thing to do. So why did you do it?

Because I know the road and I know that at normal speed (70 -80km/hr) it would have taken me the best part of 5 mins to get to where I could overtake in absolute comfort with plenty of room when this country road merges onto the N4. Doing 20km/hr (probably slower as it was mostly uphill) it would have taken me the best part of 20 minutes during which time other cars would have arrived behind me and I would have been obstructing them from overtaking.

Now you are absolutely spot on that no gun was pointed at me but I just think you are being obtuse when you keep mentioning that I wasn't forced to overtake. I know I wasn't but I made the decision that it was the better option and when I did so I was forced to drive to the verge which need not have happened if there was a rule whereby cyclists are required to cycle single file when they make overtaking difficult.

Lusk Doyle

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Because I know the road and I know that at normal speed (70 -80km/hr) it would have taken me the best part of 5 mins to get to where I could overtake in absolute comfort with plenty of room when this country road merges onto the N4. Doing 20km/hr (probably slower as it was mostly uphill) it would have taken me the best part of 20 minutes during which time other cars would have arrived behind me and I would have been obstructing them from overtaking.

Now you are absolutely spot on that no gun was pointed at me but I just think you are being obtuse when you keep mentioning that I wasn't forced to overtake. I know I wasn't but I made the decision that it was the better option and when I did so I was forced to drive to the verge.

By yourself it seems.

seamus

I am not a cyclist

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Now you are absolutely spot on that no gun was pointed at me but I just think you are being obtuse when you keep mentioning that I wasn't forced to overtake.

What I'm trying to do is combat this nonsense idea that it's someone else's fault when one performs a risky manouver.
You are the only person driving your vehicle. You are in full control of it, you make every decision in relation to how it moves. When you overtake, you overtake because you choose to. Own your actions, take responsibility for them. There's far too much eagerness to pass off blame for one's own actions to someone else because one was "forced" to do it.

Likewise, you have no control over other people's vehicles. If they choose to overtake dangerously, that's neither your problem nor your fault. If you cannot overtake safely, then you cannot overtake safely. Don't put yourself or anyone else in danger because you think another driver will be "forced" to overtake you.

I'm not being obtuse, I'm being factual. If you had crashed into an oncoming vehicle or embedded your car in the verge, or knocked down the cyclists because you had to pull back in, then it would have been your fault. Nobody else's. You were not forced to do anything. You chose to do it.

hatrickpatrick

Should pay some form of road tax

100%. I'm so, so, so sick of cyclists breaking red lights at pedestrian crossings and cycling on the pavement, especially in town. Walking up Dame Street is an absolute nightmare because of them.

iregk

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Because I know the road and I know that at normal speed (70 -80km/hr) it would have taken me the best part of 5 mins to get to where I could overtake in absolute comfort with plenty of room when this country road merges onto the N4. Doing 20km/hr (probably slower as it was mostly uphill) it would have taken me the best part of 20 minutes during which time other cars would have arrived behind me and I would have been obstructing them from overtaking.

So if I'm getting this right and please correct me if I'm wrong. You are on a road where you travel 70-80km. There isn't a safe overtaking spot for 5mins. In this time you've covered circa 8km. That's a pretty decent stretch of road and there wasn't one single safe overtaking space on it? Really? If there wasn't then this tends to suggest to me that it was a pretty tight and bendy road in which case I would say doing 80km on it is rather dangerous.

Fizzlesque

Every time there's a thread about cyclists, with regard to should they pay road tax, I find myself drifting off into a fabulous daydream. In this fabulous daydream we (cyclists) have luxurious cycle lanes with smooth surfaces, that we don't have to share with other traffic. No more lumpy bits, no more gaping holes in the ground that will throw you off your bike if you don't swerve to avoid it, no more cycle lanes that suddenly come to an end, in the middle of busy traffic, no more buses driving off from the bus stop while you're half way up the side, overtaking it while it stood allowing passengers to get on/off, only to be left in the middle of busy traffic unable to get back to the safety of the left hand side of the road because of the traffic behind the bus.

In this little daydream, we even have our own little traffic lights that allow us to continue to cycle if it's conducive for skinny little bicyles to merge with traffic because we're not as wide as a car instead of making us wait for the main lights.

At this point I realise my daydream is really a memory of what it's like to cycle in the Netherlands, where I lived and cycled for many years before returning to Dublin.

I'd love to have a cycling system like the Dutch have, it's fantastic. I'd happily pay to have decent safe cycling in Ireland - but would we get it? That's my question to you.

Deliverance XXV

seamus wrote: »

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.

It's a lot easier.

pickarooney

Fines should certainly be imposable although there is often a disparity between the correct legal procedure and the safe procedure (taking the third exit on a roundabout for example).
My house/third-party insurance applies to my cycling and a motorist who drove into me last year successfully claimed off it for repairs to her car.

The filthy, evil hoor.

Tax for cyclists is a stupid notion; if anything there should be tax exemptions for environmentally friendly road users.

Fizzlesque

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

100%. I'm so, so, so sick of cyclists breaking red lights at pedestrian crossings and cycling on the pavement, especially in town. Walking up Dame Street is an absolute nightmare because of them.

I'm a cyclist and I have to agree with you here. Dame Street junction can be treacherous. Many motorists and cyclists seem to have a total blind spot here with regard to red lights. I've counted as many as five cars going through the red lights here, and some cyclists (Dublin Bike cyclists being the worst, in my opinion) seem to genuinely not notice the red light until the pedestrian they almost knocked down points it out to them.

hatrickpatrick

Should pay some form of road tax

Fizzlesque wrote: »

I'm a cyclist and I have to agree with you here. Dame Street junction can be treacherous. Many motorists and cyclists seem to have a total blind spot here with regard to red lights. I've counted as many as five cars going through the red lights here, and some cyclists (Dublin Bike cyclists being the worst, in my opinion) seem to genuinely not notice the red light until the pedestrian they almost knocked down points it out to them.

Which junction did you have in mind, actually? Crossing the road at the bottom of the street where it meets Trinity is pretty bad, but where (IMO) it gets really dangerous is about half way up Dame Street where it joins South George's Street. Those lights seem to be invisible to about half the population I see in the mornings while walking to college, and in all honesty I don't think I've ever seen a cyclist stop for the lights there.

It's not as if they're taking a chance going through a light which was orange a second ago, that's one thing, this is when it's been red for ages, tons of pedestrians crossing, and some eejit just decides "Meh I can try to weave through them"...

darced

This post has been deleted.

Pompey Magnus

None of the above

seamus wrote: »

What I'm trying to do is combat this nonsense idea that it's someone else's fault when one performs a risky manouver.
You are the only person driving your vehicle. You are in full control of it, you make every decision in relation to how it moves. When you overtake, you overtake because you choose to. Own your actions, take responsibility for them. There's far too much eagerness to pass off blame for one's own actions to someone else because one was "forced" to do it.

You keep implying that I said I was forced to overtake so yet again I will clarify for you and I will hope you get it this time. I never said I was forced to overtake! I remained behind them for a while hoping that they would show some consideration, when they didn't I waited until I was on a long, straight stretch of road and I slowly got past them allowing a safe distance for them.

You seem to have trouble with my use of the word forced in my original post so I will rephrase the sentence for you: "When I overtook, at a time of my own choosing with due consideration for the safety of myself, the cyclists and other potential road users, I was left with very little space to the opposite verge such that a driver in a larger car than mine would not have been able to successfully carry out the maneuver, a situation which could have been avoided had there been a law stating that cyclists are required to cycle single file in such instances."

So hopefully there will be no more need for "gun to the head" quips.

Fizzlesque

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Which junction did you have in mind, actually? Crossing the road at the bottom of the street where it meets Trinity is pretty bad, but where (IMO) it gets really dangerous is about half way up Dame Street where it joins South George's Street. Those lights seem to be invisible to about half the population I see in the mornings while walking to college, and in all honesty I don't think I've ever seen a cyclist stop for the lights there.

It's not as if they're taking a chance going through a light which was orange a second ago, that's one thing, this is when it's been red for ages, tons of pedestrians crossing, and some eejit just decides "Meh I can try to weave through them"...

The junction I was talking about is the one where it joins South George's Street. While I agree with you, it's almost as if the lights don't exist (for motorists as well as cyclists) to be fair, I see lots of cyclists stopped there. I always stop and wait, and often there are other cyclists beside me, also waiting.

Yesterday I was crossing as a pedestrian there and there was a bus on the yellow box because the driver decided to try skim through even though the lights had gone red and pedestrians had started to cross - it was only because the pedestrians were on the road the driver stopped, forcing people to walk around the bus.

Then, as I cycled home, across O' Connell bridge, when the lights went green for me, I had to duck between the cars that were on the yellow box because they'd continued to drive even though their lights were red and got stuck unable to move in the middle of the road. The bus that couldn't pass was getting annoyed and cars were beeping at them, but they couldn't move, nor could those who had right of way. Except cyclists. The woman in the car, right on the yellow box looked terrified. I felt sorry for her, even though it was her own fault, and hope she learned how to avoid such a situation in future.

I am fully aware there are some severely selfish cyclists out there; I see all sorts as I wait for my traffic lights to go green, but, equally, there are bad/dangerous/selfish motorists making a mess of the roads as well.

seamus

I am not a cyclist

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

"When I overtook, at a time of my own choosing with due consideration for the safety of myself, the cyclists and other potential road users, I was left with very little space to the opposite verge such that a driver in a larger car than mine would not have been able to successfully carry out the maneuver, a situation which could have been avoided had there been a law stating that cyclists are required to cycle single file in such instances."

For the record, please note that you were the one who kept using the word "forced", but thanks for the rewording. However if your car successfully carried out the manouver in a manner which you considered safe, what purpose would the legislation serve? If there was no danger, then what's the problem?

Jawgap

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Are you a bee......?

Bus lanes need to be re-named because they are more than that - whether you like it or not. Dublin Bus and taxi drivers need this (and recent legislative changes applying to these priority lanes) explained to them.......in small words with clear diagrams.

The Government should introduce provisions allowing the Guards to issue fixed penalty notices to cyclists who jump lights, ride on the path etc.

The Guards should enforce existing rules better such as the prohibition on dangerous passing - there should be no minimum passing distance specified in law.

I cycle and I pay 'motor tax' - I also pay VAT, income tax etc

I also wonder when will avowed motorists (of which I am one too) will finally get their heads around the idea that the more people who cycle, the more road space it will free up for car journeys - but to do that means encouraging and embracing the activity rather than demonising it.

Death and Taxes

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

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

Poll only allows one choice, actually they should have to pay tax/insurance/and be subject to the full rigours of the law.!

Pompey Magnus

None of the above

seamus wrote: »

For the record, please note that you were the one who kept using the word "forced", but thanks for the rewording. However if your car successfully carried out the manouver in a manner which you considered safe, what purpose would the legislation serve? If there was no danger, then what's the problem?

Okay seamus,, how about this? If you are serious and you can honestly tell me you see no benefit in a rule being enforced which states that, in the case of narrow roads, when two abreast cyclists are obstructing the progress of other road users they must move into single file, I will admit I must be wrong and will admit defeat.

seamus

I am not a cyclist

No, I see no overall benefit of such a rule. It needlessly duplicates a rule which already exists for no other reason than to demonise cyclists.

The net effect will not result in less delays for motorists, but will result in increased danger to cyclists.

RobFowl

I am not a cyclist

We don't pay "Road tax" cos we don't need roads

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug7VL1CxdQE

Pompey Magnus

None of the above

seamus wrote: »

The net effect will not result in less delays for motorists, but will result in increased danger to cyclists.

Out of interest, how does extra space for overtaking result in increased danger for cyclists?

Jawgap

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Okay seamus,, how about this? If you are serious and you can honestly tell me you see no benefit in a rule being enforced which states that, in the case of narrow roads, when two abreast cyclists are obstructing the progress of other road users they must move into single file, I will admit I must be wrong and will admit defeat.

The problem is that it invites a close pass which can be quite dangerous.

The RSA stats (and stats from other countries) show that while there are many more incidents involving cyclists in towns and cities, there are more serious ones on country roads because speeds are much higher. Cyclists should be allowed to protect themselves by adopting appropriate road behaviours.

I'd agree with the idea of a single-file rule if there was aggressive enforcement of speed limits on the R-roads - if you want to put your safety in someone else's hands you've got to trust them and be convinced that their behaviour will be mature.

It's a sweeping generalisation to be sure, but drivers in Ireland are - by and large - poorly educated and quite immature in their driving - you don't need to go on a narrow country road to have that view confirmed, 10 km on the M50 at any time is enough.