how long before bikes have insurance,tax,nct?

mistermano

wouldn't surprise me if insurance came in?

or else maybe some bike tax?

the way things are going in this country

Raam

Never.

Beasty

Probably not going to happen in my lifetime - will someone think of the children (and how anyone will insure them;))

PucaMama

mistermano wrote: »

wouldn't surprise me if insurance came in?

or else maybe some bike tax?

the way things are going in this country

Insurance should be there for cyclists already.

mistermano

Raam wrote: »

Never.

none of the above ever?

what about insurance and pedestrians?

Beasty

mistermano wrote: »

none of the above ever?

what about insurance and pedestrians?

Yes - if cyclists are going to require insurance there's no reason it could not be extended to pedestrians ....

Raam

mistermano wrote: »

none of the above ever?

what about insurance and pedestrians?

Ever. What about the peds?

Jhcx

There used to be a tax for walking the pavement and how many windows you had on your house.

I would never be surprised in this country

Squidgy Black

It's not even Friday....

Beasty

Also there is nothing to stop "injured parties" suing cyclists already - it's just those who are not insured (and many cyclists are actually insured via CI or the IVCA) have to cover their own costs and any compensation

The reason motorists are legally required to be insured is the amount of damage they can do, and frequency of serious incidents involved. It's very rare for a cyclist to be the cause of serious (and costly) damage to others and/or their property

As I indicated above, if you apply the principle to cyclist, why not extend it to everyone (ie pedestrians also)?

PerrDub

Ah yes, I can just see it now... Bicycle Nct failure due to insufficient thread depth on my Conti Gp4000's! :-D

mistermano

ok.....

random breath testing


any chance?

Squidgy Black

mistermano wrote: »

ok.....

random breath testing


any chance?

It's not illegal to cycle after a few drinks.

mistermano

stetyrrell wrote: »

It's not illegal to cycle after a few drinks.

ya i know i've done it

but will that change?

AltAccount

stetyrrell wrote: »

It's not illegal to cycle after a few drinks.

Is it not? Are you not in charge of a vehicle?

Captain Havoc

Don't we pay VAT and CI insurance?

Raam

Captain Havoc wrote: »

Don't we pay VAT and CI insurance?

Depends where you buy your bike and if you join CI or not.

horse7

Is a pedestrian liable if they cause an accident on a cycle lane? Should there be a penalty for walking in a cycle lane?

monument

horse7 wrote: »

Is a pedestrian liable if they cause an accident on a cycle lane? Should there be a penalty for walking in a cycle lane?

There should be an on-the-spot fine for jaywalking!

Beasty

horse7 wrote: »

Is a pedestrian liable if they cause an accident on a cycle lane?

Pedestrians are already liable if they cause an accident, it's just they are not required to take out insurance to cover them against any claim

el tel

Well I have 3rd party insurance and paid VAT when I bought my bike so that's two from the list. NCT...impossible. Ireland is a banana republic, it could never be implemented even if there was a will to do it.

No Pants

stetyrrell wrote: »

It's not illegal to cycle after a few drinks.

Fairly sure I've read "drunk in charge of a bicycle" in a newspaper before.

Captain Havoc

No Pants wrote: »

Fairly sure I've read "drunk in charge of a bicycle" in a newspaper before.

It's down to the guard's discretion.

mistermano

i've often cycled half steamed

but....

isn't it a hazard to be over limit ? and why no law?

No Pants

Captain Havoc wrote: »

It's down to the guard's discretion.

Isn't everything.

Henlars67

It'll never be compulsory, but everyone who cycles regularly, even if it's only a commute should really get insured just in case.

Pretty sure a CI membership is only €20 if you don't want to race. Covers you for claims against you up to €7mil or something massive anyway.

Covers your own medical expenses too once they go over a few hundred.

Well worth it.

kumate_champ07

stetyrrell wrote: »

It's not illegal to cycle after a few drinks.

I think its covered by this and has a 100euro fine
Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act, 1994


4.—(1) It shall be an offence for any person to be present in any public place while intoxicated to such an extent as would give rise to a reasonable apprehension that he might endanger himself or any other person in his vicinity.

Squidgy Black

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

I think its covered by this and has a 100euro fine
Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act, 1994


4.—(1) It shall be an offence for any person to be present in any public place while intoxicated to such an extent as would give rise to a reasonable apprehension that he might endanger himself or any other person in his vicinity.

That's a general blanket rule that's up to the Garda's discretion as a previous poster said, it's the same for people walking home drunk etc.

kumate_champ07

and also if you are told to stop cycling and you ignore the guard because you think he is in the wrong, you could face up to 6months in prison? http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1994/en/act/pub/0002/sec0008.html#zza2y1994s8

Lumen

mistermano wrote: »

i've often cycled half steamed

but....

isn't it a hazard to be over limit ? and why no law?

Why exactly did you start this thread? What is your own position on these issues of legislation and regulation?

kumate_champ07

stetyrrell wrote: »

That's a general blanket rule that's up to the Garda's discretion as a previous poster said, it's the same for people walking home drunk etc.

Im pretty sure a guard will ignore someone staggering home by foot but apprehend someone out on the road zig zagging on a bicycle

mistermano

Lumen wrote: »

Why exactly did you start this thread? What is your own position on these issues of legislation and regulation?

insurance ... yes

random breath test ....yes


tax nct......no

Jawgap

No because you'd to bring in and police some form of registration system.

Lumen

mistermano wrote: »

insurance ... yes

Why?

The reason car insurance is compulsory is because car accidents cause death, serious harm and very expensive property damage to third parties, by several orders of magnitude greater than bicycles do, and these accidents happen with such frequency as to make the administration of such insurance worthwhile.

If cars were like bicycles then there would be no case for making car insurance compulsory.

edit: FWIW I suggested a similar thing on this forum a few years ago. It was politely pointed out that my ideas were idiotic and badly-thought through. Unfortunately it didn't stop the rot.

robertxxx

How long before Leo the FG muppet to banish the bike from Ireland like st patrick did with the snakes.

Come back st paddy there's till a few left in Dáil Éireann.

theSHU

robertxxx wrote: »

How long before Leo the FG muppet to banish the bike from Ireland like st patrick did with the snakes.

Come back st paddy there's till a few left in Dáil Éireann.

Yeah I'm sure he thought about banishing bikes while completing the ROK

robertxxx

He's only a FG muppet who has no interest in anything other than screw the people of Ireland for every cent they have.

Look at the size of the hog! He obviously doesn't cycle that often.

ThisRegard

robertxxx wrote: »

How long before Leo the FG muppet to banish the bike from Ireland like st patrick did with the snakes.

Come back st paddy there's till a few left in Dáil Éireann.

Leo is actually a pretty good TD, don't know where the impression that he's anti cyclist comes from.

Hmmzis

robertxxx wrote: »

How long before Leo the FG muppet to banish the bike from Ireland like st patrick did with the snakes.

Come back st paddy there's till a few left in Dáil Éireann.

Well, I for one think he's quite pro-bike in what he has done so far. Getting overtaking/filtering on left legalized for cyclists and banishing the stupid mandatory cycle lane rule are big thumbs up in my book for him. Also, the on-the-spot fines to be brought about in 2014 are a plus for him in my book (though the overtaking thing's as fuzzy as a cloud in the sky).

robertxxx

ThisRegard wrote: »

Leo is actually a pretty good TD, don't know where the impression that he's anti cyclist comes from.

On the spot fines.

Hmmzis

robertxxx wrote: »

On the spot fines.

How's that supposed to be bad? If I'd happen to do a booboo regarding a red light I would prefer a 50eur fine than a court appearance, 200eur at least out of pocket and a day off work.

robertxxx

robertxxx wrote: »

On the spot fines.

That's anti-muppet as opposed to anti-cyclist though.

robertxxx

Well skip the red light for a moment, I had my kid (1.5 year old) on the back of my old bike in a child seat today cycling with my other half.

Now I will never cycle on the road with my kid and plan my route so I don't have to, it's just not worth the risk, end of.

I use a mix of paths and on path bike lanes.

So now Leo the loin wants to fine me because I'm not risking my kids life by cycling on the never maintained roads with George hook schooled drivers!!!
Ask me c.o.c.k and that's what I'll say to the judge.

And as for the red lights I'm hardly going the break red lights when I don't even cycle on the road. Danger wise.

robertxxx

Dónal wrote: »

That's anti-muppet as opposed to anti-cyclist though.

So you've never broken a red light when all sides of the junction are clear and totally free of traffic as far as the eye can see?

theSHU

robertxxx wrote: »

Well skip the red light for a moment, I had my kid (1.5 year old) on the back of my old bike in a child seat today cycling with my other half.

Now I will never cycle on the road with my kid and plan my route so I don't have to, it's just not worth the risk, end of.

I use a mix of paths and on path bike lanes.

So now Leo the loin wants to fine me because I'm not risking my kids life by cycling on the never maintained roads with George hook schooled drivers!!!
Ask me c.o.c.k and that's what I'll say to the judge.

And as for the red lights I'm hardly going the break red lights when I don't even cycle on the road. Danger wise.

It's more dangerous to cycle on paths then on the road with cars pulling out of driveways etc. I hope the Gardaí have a field day fining you tbh, you deserve it.

robertxxx

theSHU wrote: »

It's more dangerous to cycle on paths then on the road with cars pulling out of driveways etc. I hope the Gardaí have a field day fining you tbh, you deserve it.

Meet me tomorrow on the north quays at the park gate street junction at 8:05am and we can continue this talk as you really deserve it, i'm on a giant rapid 4 with a blue back pack.

Lumen

robertxxx wrote: »

Now I will never cycle on the road with my kid and plan my route so I don't have to, it's just not worth the risk, end of.

If you think it's dangerous you shouldn't cycle at all, ever.

Beasty

robertxxx wrote: »

Meet me tomorrow on the north quays at the park gate street junction at 8:05am and we can continue this talk as you really deserve it, i'm on a giant rapid 4 with a blue back pack.

Put the handbag down - and if you want to discuss on the spot fines do so in the current thread on the subject (which is not this one)

mistermano

well

its too dangerous to cycle on narrow roads anyhow cos cars just nose out of driveways etc and trying to get past you

never again

i switched to big roads

dubaicentral

This idea of tax, insurance etc for cyclists keeps coming up but in reality it is completely impossible. Are the thousands of kids who cycle around housing estates and parks expected to pay.

I can just see little johnny now with the stabilizers on learning to cycle in the phoenix park getting hauled in for no insurance.

Cookie_Monster

tax and insurance are like compulsory helmets, just not a good idea. The long term drawbacks in health and fitness and increased healthcare costs outweigh any possible benefits from a society point of view.