Should Cyclists Pay Road Tax

endacl

lertsnim wrote: »

Motor Tax. It is Motor Tax

Yeah, we point that out monthly as these threads come up. Some people just don't want to know. It would mean they'd have to find something else to whine about.

Ush1

hardCopy wrote: »

Is that a problem? Since when?

Are you intimating that insurance on cars is only mandatory because it causes deaths and injuries rather than damage to property also?

maryishere

The "cycle to work" tax refund scheme is doing the taxpayer - you and me - out of millions of euros tax. Why should triathletes get subsidised bikes for their hobby / sport when other sportspeople have to pay vat and tax on their equipment?

hardCopy

Ush1 wrote: »

Are you intimating that insurance on cars is only mandatory because it causes deaths and injuries rather than damage to property also?

No, my point is that the frequency with which cars cause damage and the amount of damage they cause justifies mandatory insurance.

This is not the case with bikes.

The most property damage a bike could do would require a couple of new panels for a car, cars can write off another car in one incident.

BostonB

The just dump these zombie threads into a crank folder.. pun intended.

hardCopy

maryishere wrote: »

The "cycle to work" tax refund scheme is doing the taxpayer - you and me - out of millions of euros tax. Why should triathletes get subsidised bikes for their hobby / sport when other sportspeople have to pay vat and tax on their equipment?

Because if the triathlete cycles to work on their bike they benefit everyone else.

If you know of other sports equipment that provides similar benefits please lobby the government to extend the scheme. I run home from work, lodge a petition for subsidised runners and I'll sign it.

endacl

I think anybody who gets a tax break that I don't use myself shouldn't get that tax break. Begrudgery, or just stupid?

seamus

hardCopy wrote: »

No, my point is that the frequency with which cars cause damage and the amount of damage they cause justifies mandatory insurance.

Not to mention that the amount of damage that a vehicle can cause in a typical accident is one which is likely to leave the wronged party at a significant loss financially and/or physically and/or emotionally.

Outside of exceptionally rare circumstances, the same cannot be said of cyclists.

Vehicles routinely pose a serious hazard to the property and health of others. Bikes do not. The point of mandatory insurance is to offset that hazard as much as possible.

Ush1

hardCopy wrote: »

No, my point is that the frequency with which cars cause damage and the amount of damage they cause justifies mandatory insurance.

This is not the case with bikes.

The most property damage a bike could do would require a couple of new panels for a car, cars can write off another car in one incident.

Frequency would be correlated to the number of cars which is much higher than bikes, that's the only reason.

I would say the vast majority of insurance claims are generally minor in nature such as the type you described.

BostonB

maryishere wrote: »

The "cycle to work" tax refund scheme is doing the taxpayer - you and me - out of millions of euros tax. Why should triathletes get subsidised bikes for their hobby / sport when other sportspeople have to pay vat and tax on their equipment?

I love you to prove that the number of triathletes (specifically) cause millions of tax loss.

seamus

hardCopy wrote: »

Because if the triathlete cycles to work on their bike they benefit everyone else.

Actually a report produced when the scheme wasn't even two years old showed that it had already turned a net profit to the state of €20m at that stage through VAT sales, new jobs, etc.

http://ibba.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/IBBA_Report.pdf

Ush1

seamus wrote: »

Not to mention that the amount of damage that a vehicle can cause in a typical accident is one which is likely to leave the wronged party at a significant loss financially and/or physically and/or emotionally.

Outside of exceptionally rare circumstances, the same cannot be said of cyclists.

Vehicles routinely pose a serious hazard to the property and health of others. Bikes do not. The point of mandatory insurance is to offset that hazard as much as possible.

I agree that cars can cause more damage but I would imagine, so I've no basis for this, that most insurance claims are generally minor in nature and would be damage that could possibly be caused by a bicycle. That could be damage to a car(or another bike) or to people.

The sheer number of cars is what makes it more of an issue. When a car hits you that is insured you can claim from there insurance, what do you do if it's a bike?

MajesticDonkey

Ush1 wrote: »

I agree that cars can cause more damage but I would imagine, so I've no basis for this, that most insurance claims are generally minor in nature and would be damage that could possibly be caused by a bicycle. That could be damage to a car(or another bike) or to people.

The sheer number of cars is what makes it more of an issue. When a car hits you that is insured you can claim from there insurance, what do you do if it's a bike?

I'd imagine the majority of cyclists in this country have insurance with Cycling Ireland.

kc90

maryishere wrote: »

The "cycle to work" tax refund scheme is doing the taxpayer - you and me - out of millions of euros tax. Why should triathletes get subsidised bikes for their hobby / sport when other sportspeople have to pay vat and tax on their equipment?

You're free to avail of it too.

hardCopy

MajesticDonkey wrote: »

I'd imagine the majority of cyclists in this country have insurance with Cycling Ireland.

I doubt that to be honest. I'd say most members only join when they take up racing or join a club. Personally, I only race triathlons and do the occasional sportive so CI membership isn't important to me. I can't imagine it would have much appeal to the average commuter on a hybrid.

hardCopy

Ush1 wrote: »

Frequency would be correlated to the number of cars which is much higher than bikes, that's the only reason.

I would say the vast majority of insurance claims are generally minor in nature such as the type you described.

Insurance is not mandatory because we need to cover small claims, it's mandatory because cars regularly cause more damage than the driver could afford to pay out of their pocket.

A cyclist is less likely to do more damage than they can pay for.

MajesticDonkey

hardCopy wrote: »

I doubt that to be honest. I'd say most members only join when they take up racing or join a club. Personally, I only race triathlons and do the occasional sportive so CI membership isn't important to me. I can't imagine it would have much appeal to the average commuter on a hybrid.

Might be completely wrong, but from my observations surely the majority of cyclists in the country are in clubs. Especially in the last year or so, the amount of clubs in the country must have doubled. I've been in a club with 3 years, and 2 more clubs have started since then within 15 miles of me, each with probably 30-40 members.

RainyDay

maryishere wrote: »

The "cycle to work" tax refund scheme is doing the taxpayer - you and me - out of millions of euros tax. Why should triathletes get subsidised bikes for their hobby / sport when other sportspeople have to pay vat and tax on their equipment?

The Bike-to-Work scheme is for bikes that are used for cycling to work. More bikes on the road means less cars on the road, and everyone gets around faster. Plus, we make a dent in our growing obesity problem, which will cost the State billions in healthcare costs over time.

Now many triathlon bikes are coming in under the €1k limit for the scheme?

Cantona's Collars

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/05/21/article-2328397-19E8AC73000005DC-239_634x407.jpg

Police have launched an investigation after a driver bragged on Twitter how she knocked down a cyclist in a road accident.

The tweet, posted by user @EmmaWay20, read: 'Definitely knocked a cyclist off his bike earlier - I have right of way he doesn't even pay road tax! #bloodycyclists'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2328397/Trainee-accountants-Twitter-boast-knocking-cyclist-bike-sparks-police-probe.html#ixzz2TwTrglXx

Padraig Mor

RainyDay wrote: »

The Bike-to-Work scheme is for bikes that are used for cycling to work.

LOL. Bike shops up and down the country are helping customers to tear the arse out of the scheme. People buying bikes to sell on, for their kids, etc.

Corkfeen

Padraig Mor wrote: »

LOL. Bike shops up and down the country are helping customers to tear the arse out of the scheme. People buying bikes to sell on, for their kids, etc.

Which doesn't really matter as the scheme has profited the state in terms of tax.....

RainyDay

Padraig Mor wrote: »

LOL. Bike shops up and down the country are helping customers to tear the arse out of the scheme. People buying bikes to sell on, for their kids, etc.

I presume you've reported the evidence that you have of these abuses to Revenue - right?

FoxT

UCDVet wrote: »

I'd like to see a system where everyone paid an amount directly related to the actual cost of maintaining the roads, with consideration for the number of kms driven and the wear and tear caused.

The damage done, in terms of road wear, increases in proportion to the 4th power of the vehicle axle weight. A large truck can cause 10,000 times as much damage as a car, and the car, in turn, will do about 1500 times as much damage as a cyclist. Using your suggestion then, if a cyclist was to pay 1c road tax, a truck would have to pay eu150k.

I don't think this is a good idea, myself..

hardCopy

Padraig Mor wrote: »

LOL. Bike shops up and down the country are helping customers to tear the arse out of the scheme. People buying bikes to sell on, for their kids, etc.

Seeing as you can only avail of the scheme once every 5 years, there's not much scope for running a sideline in buying bikes to sell second hand.

hardCopy

MajesticDonkey wrote: »

Might be completely wrong, but from my observations surely the majority of cyclists in the country are in clubs. Especially in the last year or so, the amount of clubs in the country must have doubled. I've been in a club with 3 years, and 2 more clubs have started since then within 15 miles of me, each with probably 30-40 members.

Unless they buy a Road Bike or a Mountain Bike they're unlikely to be affiliated to CI, of the roadies and MTBs that are bought, many won't have any interest in racing. Then you have all the hybrids and city bikes that wouldn't be suitable for racing so they can be ruled out. All those kids who get bikes for their confirmation are unlikely to join either.

I know CI have experienced a massive growth in recent years but I'd imagine the number of non-affiliated cyclists has seen a similar rise.

I don't have any figures on it, that's just my own guess based on friends and colleagues who have used the scheme.

MajesticDonkey

hardCopy wrote: »

Unless they buy a Road Bike or a Mountain Bike they're unlikely to be affiliated to CI, of the roadies and MTBs that are bought, many won't have any interest in racing. Then you have all the hybrids and city bikes that wouldn't be suitable for racing so they can be ruled out. All those kids who get bikes for their confirmation are unlikely to join either.

I know, that's why I'm specifically talking about cyclists in road clubs. 95% of the road clubs in the country are affiliated with CI, and as such, their members have CI insurance. They don't necessarily have to race.

stephen97

hardCopy wrote: »

Insurance is not mandatory because we need to cover small claims, it's mandatory because cars regularly cause more damage than the driver could afford to pay out of their pocket.

A cyclist is less likely to do more damage than they can pay for.

what if you crashed and knocked all your teeth out? 2000 euros per implant

endacl

stephen97 wrote: »

what if you crashed and knocked all your teeth out? 2000 euros per implant

That'd be unfortunate, but wouldn't affect anybody besides the crashee. Drivers aren't required to have insurance because they might hurt themselves. That's why 3rd party is the bare minimum.

stephen97

endacl wrote: »

That'd be unfortunate, but wouldn't affect anybody besides the crashee. Drivers aren't required to have insurance because they might hurt themselves. That's why 3rd party is the bare minimum.

wow thanks i didn't know that, you really are a joy of information

endacl

stephen97 wrote: »

wow thanks i didn't know that, you really are a joy of information

You thought we had 'road tax'. You're in need of information.