Tax cyclists?

sogood

Given that motor tax and revenue raising is topical at the moment, I wondered if and when the notion of taxing/regulating cyclists might be considered? I watched a documentary last night about cyclists wearing helmet cams, recording poor driving etc. but in fairness, there was also a lot of poor cycling also. Police on bikes were kept busy taking cyclists to task for breaking red lights, cycling on footpaths, wrong way on one way streets etc. You know the sort of thing (given that cyclists are immune from the rules of the road!) But what happens when cyclists are caught on cctv? Basically, nothing, as they cant be tracked.
So, why arent cyclists registered, with reg plates as a legal requirement and road tax payable also. They use the roads, like the rest of us. They have facilities and infrastructure put in place for their (sometimes exclusive) use, like signage, cycle lanes, bike parking. So, why don't they pay? Why aren't they accountable? If the government wants money, what are they waiting for? Of course the green brigade would be up in arms, but lots of people are up in arms over lots of things and they just have to suck it up.

Any cyclists on here with an opinion?

Tea 1000

What about pedestrians? You can't keep taxing and controlling everything.

Kintarō Hattori

sogood wrote: »

Given that motor tax and revenue raising is topical at the moment, I wondered if and when the notion of taxing/regulating cyclists might be considered? I watched a documentary last night about cyclists wearing helmet cams, recording poor driving etc. but in fairness, there was also a lot of poor cycling also. Police on bikes were kept busy taking cyclists to task for breaking red lights, cycling on footpaths, wrong y on one way streets etc. You know the sort of thing (given that cyclists are immune from the rules of the road!) But what happens when cyclists are caught on cctv? Basically, nothing, as they cant be tracked.
So, why arent cyclists registered, with reg plates as a legal requirement and road tax payable also. They use the roads, like the rest of us. They have facilities and infrastructure put in place for their (sometimes exclusive) use, like signage, cycle lanes, bike parking. So, why don't they pay? Why aren't they accountable? If the government wants money, what are they waiting for? Of course the green brigade would be up in arms, but lots of people are up in arms over lots of things and they just have to suck it up.

Any cyclists on here with an opinion?

You don't pay road tax either. You may a motor tax for driving your car.

As for using the roads, yep cyclists do, but that's paid for with general taxation, regardless of whether you walk, cycle or drive.

I'm all for penalising poor cyclists but as has been stated many times before: there are good/bad pedestrians, good/bad cyclists and good/bad motorists.

Looking to tax cyclists because they don't pay 'Road Tax' is absolutely wrong. You pay a motor tax because your car has harmful emissions. Other than a few dodgy farts every now and again, cyclists don't emit any dangerous pollution.

mcmoustache

Oh yes. Definitely.

It should be proportional to their exhaust emission levels and the amount of wear and tear that they cause to the road.

07Lapierre

I'm a cyclist,motorist and a pedestrian. I pay my taxes, ( all of them). If you dont want to pay motor tax, sell your car and buy a bicycle!

sebastianlieken

how about no.

sean1141

Maybe not tax them but there should have some way of identifying them when they are on a public road. If one of them clips a mirror off a car or hits off it passing they can easily cycle away and avoid the responsibility of repairing the damage they caused.

sogood

Tea 1000 wrote: »

What about pedestrians? You can't keep taxing and controlling everything.

Tell that to our government! They seem to be making a very good effort to prove that the opposite is the case.
Did women ever think that they would see the day when their maternity benefit, which they pay for,( from a wage that is already taxed) would then have to pay tax on that very payment when it is accessed?

Did you ever think you would be asked to pay tax on a (negative equity liability) known as your home? Especially when you cant even afford to pay for the home? And, given that you have already paid "stamp duty" (tax) during the original purchase!! The list goes on.....................

Watch this space!

jozi

I don't see signage, cycle lanes or facilities where I live, much like there are no footpaths either, just roads that are only just wide enough for 2 cars to pass. Fair enough closer to town there's footpath and 1 bike shelter in town.

Dream on is what I say! Cycling should be encouraged, not discouraged with a tax.

sogood

07Lapierre wrote: »

I'm a cyclist,motorist and a pedestrian. I pay my taxes, ( all of them). If you dont want to pay motor tax, sell your car and buy a bicycle!

I do pay my taxes, motor or otherwise, its a choice of sorts. I'm not saying I'm in favour of taxing cyclists, just looking for opinions and possibly predicting the shape of things to come. Thanks for your input.

Bigus

sogood wrote: »

Tell that to our government! They seem to be making a very good effort to prove that the opposite is the case.

Watch this space!

No vradker has stated it's not feasible to licence or tax cyclists earlier this year.

Remember the first rules of taxation mean it has to bring in more revenue than the cost of bringing collecting and policing it , this goes for any tax,

hence how some minorities pay no tax as its financially not worth the return, compared to the cost of enforcement.

This is how the middle always gets squeezed.

H3llR4iser

Silliest idea ever. As for recognition, why don't we put license plates on pedestrians too? Afterall, they can easily tear off a parked car's wing mirror and not be identifiable in any way.

Logical_Bear

sogood wrote: »

Any cyclists on here with an opinion?

yep,thats one seriously retarded OP

seamus

Logical answer: Every km cycled saves money for the state, every km driven costs the state money. Hence it makes sense to tax driving and not cycling.

Alanstrainor

The notion that motor tax gets used purely for road infrastructure is false.

Cycle facilities are provided in the hope that more people cycle, the more people that cycle, means more people who are relatively fit. Fit people don't get sick as often, which will reduce the chance of expensive medical bills later on.

Registration plates are not used purely to identify, they are used to track tax and insurance, and make sure the car is registered in Ireland. It's not meant to be a way of tracking drivers, it can be used, but that's not it's reason to be. Me and 5 other people drive the same car on occasion, whereas it is only registered to one.

I want to close this, but i'll give it a chance...it'll get shot down fairly sharply anyway, even in the motors forum.

Beasty

sogood wrote: »

Any cyclists on here with an opinion?

Plenty in the Cycling Forum - don't bother starting a thread over there on the topic though - it's been discussed (and indeed shot down) many times before - just do a search;)

MuppetCheck

If some idiot genuinely wanted to tax cyclists the best way would be to force them to have insurance and it would be included in that.

Good luck enforcing either of them though.

Beasty

... yeah trying to force tax and/or insurance on a 12 year old may be a bit of a challenge.

Seriously OP, it's a complete non starter for a whole host of reasons

Seve OB

OP I don't think you have really thought this through.

Firstly and most obvious, there is a tax benefit to cycling through the bike to work scheme. It is one of the few tax loopholes still avaliable & to someone earning the top rate, they can save over €500. It was an incentive to get people cyclying more to encourage a healthier society with less air polution. Why would the government give us this tax break in one hand to then take it off us by charging us an annual bike tax. Nonsensical, and is not going to happen.

The only taxable way of hitting the cycling community is to take back the cycle to work scheme. IMO, this would be a bad way and would probably cost the government more money in the long run. Why? The tax break encourages people to buy new bikes. This is good for the economy as it means more bike sales, more jobs... and also more VAT for the tax man. So the cost of the tax break to the government, can be offset by the VAT & Corporation Tax generated from the sale, the PAYE / PRSI / USC from the employee who get a job because of the scheme. This is further enhanced by the future spending of said new cyclist to purchase clothing, saftey equipment, accessories etc.... Of course with the increase in VAT last year, they already have hit the cycling community with an indirect tax.

Motor tax has been based on air polution levels for a number of years so to implement a cycling tax based on this would accomplish nothing as a bike produces no emissions. so by default a tax level of zero €€.

Now what about the lucky 5 year old who might get his dream christmas and Santa delivers a shiny new BMX for him under the tree this year. Unfortunately his dad will have to tell him he can't go out on it yet as it would be illegal until he can to the tax office and pick him up a disc. Oh yea and while you are there dad, you might just pick him up an application form so he can get a provisional bicycle licence........

Idleater

I cycled to work while my taxed car is sitting on the drive. My taxed motorcycle is also parked on the drive.

sogood

Yes, true indeed, I didn't think it through very much. It just occurred to me and I posted a query, not a statement or suggestion. Thank you all for your input and opinons and given the facts I would have to agree that yes, it's a non starter, unmaneagable, not cost effective, counter productive etc. etc. Thanks for all the views and opinions expressed.

mickdw

Should have a reg plate if on the road imo. It would certainly cytokines out a lot of nonsense such as kicking cars, breaking red lights etc.
Garda could then inspect cyclists at checkpoints, just like motorists.

djimi

MuppetCheck wrote: »

If some idiot genuinely wanted to tax cyclists the best way would be to force them to have insurance and it would be included in that.

Good luck enforcing either of them though.

Id be a lot quicker to try and force cyclists to get insurance; if they realised that there was a monetary consequence to their actions they might take a bit more care on the road.

Realistically there is no way that cyclists can or ever will be charged tax or forced to get insurance.

Seve OB

sogood wrote: »

Yes, true indeed, I didn't think it through very much. It just occurred to me and I posted a query, not a statement or suggestion. Thank you all for your input and opinons and given the facts I would have to agree that yes, it's a non starter, unmaneagable, not cost effective, counter productive etc. etc. Thanks for all the views and opinions expressed.

nuf said... time for a mod to shut this place down I do be thinkin!

Anan1

mickdw wrote: »

Should have a reg plate if on the road imo. It would certainly cytokines out a lot of nonsense such as kicking cars, breaking red lights etc.
Garda could then inspect cyclists at checkpoints, just like motorists.

They should have reg plates so Gardaí can inspect them at checkpoints for what, reg plates? Jesus wept.

galwaytt

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

You don't pay road tax either. You may a motor tax for driving your car.

As for using the roads, yep cyclists do, but that's paid for with general taxation, regardless of whether you walk, cycle or drive.

I'm all for penalising poor cyclists but as has been stated many times before: there are good/bad pedestrians, good/bad cyclists and good/bad motorists.

Looking to tax cyclists because they don't pay 'Road Tax' is absolutely wrong. You pay a motor tax because your car has harmful emissions. Other than a few dodgy farts every now and again, cyclists don't emit any dangerous pollution.

This 'general' taxation you speak of includes a huge contribution from Motor tax and motor-related taxes - Excise, VRT, VAT etc - so actually cyclists' contribution to roads is miniscule.

AugustusMinimus

seamus wrote: »

every km driven costs the state money.

Hows that then ?

The government are easily bringing in more taxes from road related activities (VRT, VAT, excise, etc etc) than it is spending on the upkeep of our roads.

And you can't count the cost of newly built motorways or bypasses. The cost of these must be written off over at least 50 years or more. Deduct EU grant money received also.

Idleater

galwaytt wrote: »

This 'general' taxation you speak of includes a huge contribution from Motor tax and motor-related taxes - Excise, VRT, VAT etc - so actually cyclists' contribution to roads is miniscule.

Apart from the fact that many cyclists are also motorists, yet leave their vehicles at home.

Even considering recreational cyclists, the point should then stand to tax joggers for their use of the road.

Anan1

galwaytt wrote: »

This 'general' taxation you speak of includes a huge contribution from Motor tax and motor-related taxes - Excise, VRT, VAT etc - so actually cyclists' contribution to roads is miniscule.

This might make some sense if no cyclists also drove.

seamus

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Hows that then ?

The government are easily bringing in more taxes from road related activities (VRT, VAT, excise, etc etc) than it is spending on the upkeep of our roads.

And you can't count the cost of newly built motorways or bypasses. The cost of these must be written off over at least 50 years or more. Deduct EU grant money received also.

Ignoring taxes paid, every km cycled instead of driven results in a net saving to the state in things like the upkeep of the roads, healthcare, sick days, etc, whereas a km driven results in a net cost to the state in the above categories (among others).

That's why you need taxation to offset the cost of motoring.

I'll see if I can dig up the article which did the calculations.

Grudaire

galwaytt wrote: »

This 'general' taxation you speak of includes a huge contribution from Motor tax and motor-related taxes - Excise, VRT, VAT etc - so actually cyclists' contribution to roads is miniscule.

Everytime you see a cyclist whizz passed you on the road you should take a pause for a moment..

Thank God/Atari Jaguar/Whoever you want/Eamon Ryan*

Thank them for you are not another car length back in the queue of traffic you are enduring.




*Note I don't think Eamon Ryan is God, but it might be a good person to thank anyway

07Lapierre

Cliste wrote: »

Everytime you see a cyclist whizz passed you on the road you should take a pause for a moment..

Thank God/Atari Jaguar/Whoever you want/Eamon Ryan*

Thank them for you are not another car length back in the queue of traffic you are enduring.




*Note I don't think Eamon Ryan is God, but it might be a good person to thank anyway

As long as the cyclist doesn't clip the cars door mirror as he/she passes!

Grudaire

07Lapierre wrote: »

As long as the cyclist doesn't clip the cars door mirror as he/she passes!

To be honest I wouldn't be surprised if the car door happened to approach the cyclist if the OP happened to be in the passengers position :pac:

But yes of course not!

Qualitymark

So that's who tore off my wing mirror while the car was parked on the road outside the house! A cyclist! And here was me blaming a random drunk driver!

hardCopy

Qualitymark wrote: »

So that's who tore off my wing mirror while the car was parked on the road outside the house! A cyclist! And here was me blaming a random drunk driver!

Or possibly an untaxed pedestrian foot-lout.

Qualitymark

(Strikes brow) Of course!

TonyStark

sean1141 wrote: »

Maybe not tax them but there should have some way of identifying them when they are on a public road. If one of them clips a mirror off a car or hits off it passing they can easily cycle away and avoid the responsibility of repairing the damage they caused.

I think you'll find there are plenty of hit and runs where motor vehicles get away scot free as well.

ciotog

djimi wrote: »

Id be a lot quicker to try and force cyclists to get insurance; if they realised that there was a monetary consequence to their actions they might take a bit more care on the road.

Realistically there is no way that cyclists can or ever will be charged tax or forced to get insurance.

I'm having a think about this and interested in your take. In general self-preservation makes us cyclists take care i.e. serious or fatal injury is the consequence of a failure to take care. What are the scenarios where there's no consequence to body where you think there should be a monetary consequence. For me, all I can think of is where cyclists cause pedestrians problems. Is damage to another vehicle caused by a cyclist a common occurrence? (I've no idea of any numbers, some on the thread have mentioned wing mirrors).

Wishbone Ash

Cliste wrote: »

Thank them for you are not another car length back in the queue of traffic

...and we be given a rebate against the cost of taxing our cars which remain in the driveway freeing up that road space for others.

galwaytt

Cliste wrote: »

Everytime you see a cyclist whizz passed you on the road you should take a pause for a moment..

Thank God/Atari Jaguar/Whoever you want/Eamon Ryan*

Thank them for you are not another car length back in the queue of traffic you are enduring.




[SIZE="1"]*Note I don't think Eamon Ryan is God, but it might be a good person to thank anyway[/SIZE]

You have got to be kidding - thank Eamonn Ryan ? He was a disaster as Minister.

He knows nothing about his portfolio and even less about motoring.

He was a self serving ideological idiot.

No traffic where I live tbh....and where there may be, I just Harley on by.....

I'd be more inclined to hit him with my mirror than avoid him.

kumate_champ07

sean1141 wrote: »

Maybe not tax them but there should have some way of identifying them when they are on a public road. If one of them clips a mirror off a car or hits off it passing they can easily cycle away and avoid the responsibility of repairing the damage they caused.

wouldnt that apply to pedestrians too? most mugings are done by pedestrians, also shoplifting, dangerous assaults etc. they should all have numbers on their jackets at all times

kumate_champ07

if youre stuck in a car and bicycles are whizzing by you, does it not make better sense to be one of those cyclists instead?

josealdo

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

if youre stuck in a car and bicycles are whizzing by you, does it not make better sense to be one of those cyclists instead?

+1

galwaytt

ciotog wrote: »

.....In general self-preservation makes us cyclists take care i.e. serious or fatal injury is the consequence of a failure to take care

Did you watch the same programme as I, last night ?
Yes, lots of bad driving, but imho the general standard of cycle riding was also low. Poor hazard perception, poor spatial awareness, poor "vehicle" control. And an amount of ignorance of rules and regulations.

Btw, for context, I'm a cyclist, motorcyclist, and motorist. With a truck licence as well. And, I've been involved in the local school Sprocket Rockets programme and occasionally marshall cycle events too, so I know and value the bicycle.

Qualitymark

Certain amount of angry reaction to that programme:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cyclists-hit-out-at-depiction-of-the-war-on-britains-roads-in-bbc-documentary-8382245.html

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/aa-boss-cyclisthating-drivers-are-absolute-idiots-8389124.html

Anan1

galwaytt wrote: »

Did you watch the same programme as I, last night ?
Yes, lots of bad driving, but imho the general standard of cycle riding was also low. Poor hazard perception, poor spatial awareness, poor "vehicle" control. And an amount of ignorance of rules and regulations.

At the risk of stating the obvious, that's a TV programme. It might make a good opener for a discussion, but I wouldn't draw any conclusions about the general behaviour of cyclists or motorists from it.

thecomedian

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

if youre stuck in a car and bicycles are whizzing by you, does it not make better sense to be one of those cyclists instead?

Never

Qualitymark

thecomedian wrote: »

Never

I salute you. Not many people are so honest and insightful about their own limitations.

thecomedian

Qualitymark wrote: »

I salute you. Not many people are so honest and insightful about their own limitations.

Well as I look outside, there is no way in hell I would rather be on a bloody bike

Mycroft H

thecomedian wrote: »

Well as I look outside, there is no way in hell I would rather be on a bloody bike

I know, why would I want to loose weight and get to work at the same time.

thecomedian

BX 19 wrote: »

I know, why would I want to loose weight and get to work at the same time.

???
I you need to lose weight get on the bike or go running whatever u want.
But in general I would always choose the car over the bike.