Cyclists in bus lanes (cut from 'giving way to buses' thread)

ThisRegard

Spook_ie wrote: »

And why would I answer it when the specifics state that 2 identical subjects except for the motoring, can you actually prove to me that given the specifics as stated that one subject doesn't input more into the exchequer based on a motoring lifestyle

Because your example is nonsense, unrealistic and formulated to suit a ridiculously one sided argument only.

Disprove this example. Mickey the taxi driver driver a heap of junk jap import and under discloses his taxi fares by a matter of 80%, depriving the state coffers of some much needed funds, but even doing that the tight git only eats the €1 specials out of Iceland. Cyril the cyclist doesn't drive but changes his bikes on a monthly basis as he couldn't be bothered washing them. He's also considerably richer than Mickey and his monthly tax bill is equal to Mickeys annual one. Much like his dislike for washing his bikes, he choose to eat some fine steak on a nightly basis from the local steak house so as not to dirty his china, washed down with some nice beer, great for the recovery after his post work spins.

Now can you disprove, in this theoretical example, that the cyclist does not pay more tax towards the upkeeps of the roads, than the motorist who causes more wear and tear to them and yet earns his living on them ?

beauf

Spook_ie wrote: »

And it still is the question , the comment about benefit is directly replying to another post

Which post?

Though it doesn't really matter, either. Its still centred on the logic of precedence based on the tax you pay, which is unworkable, and isn't the basis of road use anyway. The idea that one driver would get preference over the other based on the tax they've paid. So how much you benefit is of no relevance.

Spook_ie

Chiparus wrote: »

But I pay Motor tax ( over 3k) and over 100k in income tax but I also cycle .

Should I get preferential treatment ?

Once again, in which post have I said either of the subjects get preferential treatment.

Spook_ie

ThisRegard wrote: »

Because your example is nonsense, unrealistic and formulated to suit a ridiculously one sided argument only.

Disprove this example. Mickey the taxi driver driver a heap of junk jap import and under discloses his taxi fares by a matter of 80%, depriving the state coffers of some much needed funds, but even doing that the tight git only eats the €1 specials out of Iceland. Cyril the cyclist doesn't drive but changes his bikes on a monthly basis as he couldn't be bothered washing them. He's also considerably richer than Mickey and his monthly tax bill is equal to Mickeys annual one. Much like his dislike for washing his bikes, he choose to eat some fine steak on a nightly basis from the local steak house so as not to dirty his china, washed down with some nice beer, great for the recovery after his post work spins.

Now can you disprove, in this theoretical example, that the cyclist does not pay more tax towards the upkeeps of the roads, than the motorist who causes more wear and tear to them and yet earns his living on them ?

No because the cyclist would be paying more tax, which is why I've removed the disparity of the subjects being on different wages/different jobs etc. as much as possible so that the effective difference is only by the physical costs of commuting, now once again which subject pays more to the exchequer?

Spook_ie

beauf wrote: »

Which post?

Though it doesn't really matter, either. Its still centred on the logic of precedence based on the tax you pay, which is unworkable, and isn't the basis of road use anyway. The idea that one driver would get preference over the other based on the tax they've paid. So how much you benefit is of no relevance.

Possibly the one it was quoting?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85985223&postcount=323

Again who said anything about precedence?

ThisRegard

Spook_ie wrote: »

No because the cyclist would be paying more tax, which is why I've removed the disparity of the subjects being on different wages/different jobs etc. as much as possible so that the effective difference is only by the physical costs of commuting, now once again which subject pays more to the exchequer?

So is that an admission that you made up an unrealistic scenario to suit your weak argument ? Can we finally move on ?

Spook_ie

ThisRegard wrote: »

So is that an admission that you made up an unrealistic scenario to suit your weak argument ? Can we finally move on ?

No because the question is focused on removing the disparity between individuals, there fore it will always be a theoretical question but none the less is requiring an answer rather than your red herrings which involve so much disparity that you couldn't find any answers to them anyway

Once again which one pays more taxes commuting?

beauf

Spook_ie wrote: »

Possibly the one it was quoting?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85985223&postcount=323

You said it wasn't the post you quoted.

Spook_ie wrote: »

And it still is the question , the comment about benefit is directly replying to another post

Spook_ie wrote: »

Again who said anything about precedence?

JK

Jack Kyle wrote: »

It's pretty obvious that when motorists pay motor tax while cyclists pay sweet FA, motorists are rightly going to feel like they've more rights on the road.

Cyclists generally seem to be over precious, over sensitive and possessing a misplaced sense of righteousness. In my view, their right to be on the road at all is questionable.

All this nonsense about paying tax, ring fencing it, and paying tax for the resources you use, is all the same issue. Cyclists right to be on the road, and then precedence.

Seems to me to be all based on the fallacy that cyclists cause congestion, rather then reality that its cars.

Spook_ie

Spook_ie wrote: »

Possibly the one it was quoting?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85985223&postcount=323

beauf wrote: »

You said it wasn't the post you quoted.






JK



All this nonsense about paying tax, ring fencing it, and paying tax for the resources you use, is all the same issue. Cyclists right to be on the road, and then precedence.

Seems to me to be all based on the fallacy that cyclists cause congestion, rather then reality that its cars.

What are you even on the same thread?

BostonB wrote: »

Whomever pays more than they use.

The person/family paying more tax, might actually use more of the resources, than they pay for. So a net loss.

The person/family paying less tax might actually use less of resources than they pay for, so a net gain.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Interesting concept but given they are both using the roads to commute one by motor, one by cycle, I think it fair to assume they are both benefiting from the use of the road

beauf wrote: »

Benefit wasn't your question. Which contributes more was the question and you didn't exclude cost from your scenario.

None of this is on topic. The issue is do cyclists have a major impact on bus times in bus lane. It's been proved that cars have a major impact. No data on cyclists.

Driving your spuds around the country where there's no bus lanes is hardly relevant either.

Spook_ie wrote: »

And it still is the question , the comment about benefit is directly replying to another post

beauf wrote: »

Which post?

Though it doesn't really matter, either. Its still centred on the logic of precedence based on the tax you pay, which is unworkable, and isn't the basis of road use anyway. The idea that one driver would get preference over the other based on the tax they've paid. So how much you benefit is of no relevance.

Unless I'm missing something there would seem to be logical progression to that conversation?

JK's comments are JK's comments not necessarily shared by me, so please don't attribute comments made by another poster as anything to do with my posts, we may well progress if you stop doing that

beauf

We may progress if you answer a question for a change. Though I doubt progress is your intent. Apparently if a post is to be taken in context of the thread or only to what's directly quoted is up to your discretion. As such its difficult to follow any logic to your posts.

Lets simplify the question. What relevance has "benefiting from the use of the road" to a cyclist being in front of a bus.

michael.dublin

I drive a car, and I pay whatever tax I have to pay on that, I also use my bike, so given some of the argument on this issue, I have every right to drive my car, but cycle ohhh no, i am taking up space, slowing down traffic and so on. now if i take my car to work, it will take me about 20 min or so due to traffic, if i take the bike i'll be there in 10 to 12 min. so i am quicker on the bike (not slowing down traffic).

let’s get back to the first post, about driving in the bus lane, i have done it, and yes i still do, i know this makes me a really bad person :-( but sometimes it is easier, and it will give way to other road user, who pay whatever tax (mind you i still have my car, so i have paid the same tax, just not using the car all the time). So the traffic has a good flow. IN regards to using the bus lane, back to the first post, i do see all kinds of vehicle in the bus lane, and cars, not just taxis, but everyday people going to work, that just dont want to be stuck in the traffic. this happens every day. I so think, that the issue here, is not just that a cyclist is in the bus lane, and some pay more in some kind of tax, and therefore have more rights than others, the issue is, that we have become a nation of egocentric people, that only care about our self, and really don't give a s*** about anyone else.

have a lovely day, and mind yourself in the traffic, in whatever you are driving today.

P.s then i am in a car, i hate cyclist...... and then i am on the bike, i hate cars.... IF I am on the bus, well then I hate everyone for been in MY BUS LANE

Spook_ie

beauf wrote: »

We may progress if you answer a question for a change. Though I doubt progress is your intent.

Lets simplify the question. What relevance has "benefiting from the use of the road" to cyclists using the roads and/or bus lanes, or indeed a cyclist being in front of a bus.

An argument is of two or more opposing views, to overcome someone's argument necessitates giving them a rational and logical path to follow, to bring them to a conclusion supporting your own argument, however, getting them to follow that path may well be a torturous affair and sometimes require a great deal of patience and planning

Johnny Jukebox

Jack Kyle wrote: »

I for one blast cyclists out of it with the horn if I see them on the road when they're a cycling lane off road.

I also blast cyclists out of it when they cycle two abreast.

And I report this type of aggressive behavior and harassment to Trafficwatch (1890 205 805).

Spook_ie

beauf wrote: »

We may progress if you answer a question for a change. Though I doubt progress is your intent. Apparently if a post is to be taken in context of the thread or only to what's directly quoted is up to your discretion. As such its difficult to follow any logic to your posts.

Lets simplify the question. What relevance has "benefiting from the use of the road" to a cyclist being in front of a bus.

As an additional reply to your modified post, usually I'll quote the post I'm replying to directly, as would be the normal convention in any written correspondence, however, for brevity when asking you to reply to the question I'd normally expect you to make yourself aware of the question rather than having to repeat it so many times, however, as people seem not to be able to remember the caveats of the question and instead reply with gems like

Originally Posted by ThisRegard View Post
Because your example is nonsense, unrealistic and formulated to suit a ridiculously one sided argument only.

Disprove this example. Mickey the taxi driver driver a heap of junk jap import and under discloses his taxi fares by a matter of 80%, depriving the state coffers of some much needed funds, but even doing that the tight git only eats the €1 specials out of Iceland. Cyril the cyclist doesn't drive but changes his bikes on a monthly basis as he couldn't be bothered washing them. He's also considerably richer than Mickey and his monthly tax bill is equal to Mickeys annual one. Much like his dislike for washing his bikes, he choose to eat some fine steak on a nightly basis from the local steak house so as not to dirty his china, washed down with some nice beer, great for the recovery after his post work spins.

Now can you disprove, in this theoretical example, that the cyclist does not pay more tax towards the upkeeps of the roads, than the motorist who causes more wear and tear to them and yet earns his living on them ?

it has proven difficult

ThisRegard

My gem is no more shiny than your ridiculous insistence that someone answers a loaded question that has no relevance to real life.

Jawgap

Spook_ie wrote: »

No because the question is focused on removing the disparity between individuals, there fore it will always be a theoretical question but none the less is requiring an answer rather than your red herrings which involve so much disparity that you couldn't find any answers to them anyway

Once again which one pays more taxes commuting?

On an absolute or per km basis? On a per km basis a commuting cyclist who owns a properly taxed car pays more in motor tax than a commuting motorist with a properly taxed car - in the same way a bus / DART / LUAS passenger on a tax saver ticket who also owns a properly taxed car not generally used for commuting, pays more motor tax per km than the motorist - it's a fixed charge, the less use you make of the car the more it costs per km.

Also which inflicts the greater costs on society?

Despite your 'theory' (:pac:) modes of commuting and transport are not mutually exclusive - if someone commutes by bike tomorrow, it doesn't mean they can't commute by car the day after or take a bus or even a combination of two or more.

Spook_ie

ThisRegard wrote: »

My gem is no more shiny than your ridiculous insistence that someone answers a loaded question that has no relevance to real life.

Nothing loaded about my question, just an attempt to clarify where the exchequer funds come from in relation to cyclists commuting and motorists commuting, if you see anymore in it than that then perhaps you need to rethink it or tell me ( I might well use such an item as that later, if it warrants it )

ThisRegard

It was said before, it's a pointless question. You never answer the question of what the cyclist does with their extra disposable income.

Spook_ie

Jawgap wrote: »

On an absolute or per km basis? On a per km basis a commuting cyclist who owns a properly taxed car pays more in motor tax than a commuting motorist with a properly taxed car - in the same way a bus / DART / LUAS passenger on a tax saver ticket who also owns a properly taxed car not generally used for commuting, pays more motor tax per km than the motorist - it's a fixed charge, the less use you make of the car the more it costs per km.

Also which inflicts the greater costs on society?

Despite your 'theory' (:pac:) modes of commuting and transport are not mutually exclusive - if someone commutes by bike tomorrow, it doesn't mean they can't commute by car the day after or take a bus or even a combination of two or more.

Again, you insist on changing the substance of the question, one drives to work the other cycles, not they both own a car and only one uses it

Peanut2011

I're read this thread for some time now and MY GOD how many irrelevant posts. Can we get back on topic?

I would argue if the cycle lane is provided it must be used and Bus lane should not be allowed to be used by cyclists. The reason I say this is, and I am sure many would be on here giving out about it, if they came across the car driving in a bus lane because he was not happy with the normal traffic lane as it has pot holes or whatever else.

I do feel for cyclists who are very vulnerable on the road but there are so many who just simply don't help the case. Any of the ones that act in selfish way and do not consider other road users are really doing the disservice to all others who are on the roads.

Perfect examples are: blocking the whole bus lane by riding down the middle of it when bus is stuck behind them, going trough red lights without consideration for pedestrians and vehicles joining from other directions, riding two abreast in a convoy of 10-20 on country roads blocking any possibility of other road users overtaking them safely.

List goes on!!!! And no I do not thing cyclist are to blame for all problems but some of the above examples I have given and which are encountered on a daily basis are certainly not helping anyone.

If only all road users had a bit more courtesy out there for one another we would all get where we are going just as quickly.

ThisRegard

Peanut2011 wrote: »

I would argue if the cycle lane is provided it must be used and Bus lane should not be allowed to be used by cyclists.

Argue all you want, the law says otherwise.

Jawgap

Spook_ie wrote: »

Again, you insist on changing the substance of the question, one drives to work the other cycles, not they both own a car and only one uses it

No, I choose to talk about real life and real people - not la-la land people where everyone only have one tax to pay and one way to get around......

......but if you are so right and your 'theory' is anyway plausible I expect in the spirit of onus probandi you can provide a link to an even loosely reputable publication that in some way supports your position.

I suspect, however, you'll just go on shouting at the rain.......:rolleyes:

Spook_ie

ThisRegard wrote: »

It was said before, it's a pointless question. You never answer the question of what the cyclist does with their extra disposable income.

OK just for you, the cyclist spends his disposable income on a bicycle related item ordered and dispatched from a company domiciled in Germany or another EU country where no tax is due to the Irish Exchequer

Macy0161

Peanut2011 wrote: »

Perfect examples are: blocking the whole bus lane by riding down the middle of it when bus is stuck behind them, going trough red lights without consideration for pedestrians and vehicles joining from other directions, riding two abreast in a convoy of 10-20 on country roads blocking any possibility of other road users overtaking them safely.

I'm not going to defend red light jumping (all road user types have people guilty of that), but if a bus can't get past them safely when they're in the middle of the lane, they probably won't be able to get past them safely. A group of 20 cyclists is easier to pass in a two abreast, 10 deep group than as a 20 long line in a lot of instances.

ThisRegard

Spook_ie wrote: »

OK just for you, the cyclist spends his disposable income on a bicycle related item ordered and dispatched from a company domiciled in Germany or another EU country where no tax is due to the Irish Exchequer

This is gas, it's like asking my 3 year how did that mess happen, with every statement a new imaginative figure or situation gets added to the story.

smackyB

Peanut2011 wrote: »

...because he was not happy with the normal traffic lane as it has pot holes or whatever else

Imagine your car lane had random road signs randomly plonked in the middle, ended suddenly without warning, had dangerous merging with traffic at junction, was blocked by bus stops, covered with glass and debris and had lots of bumps and dips on it. Can you see why you might not use it?

Spook_ie

ThisRegard wrote: »

This is gas, it's like asking my 3 year how did that mess happen, with every statement a new imaginative figure or situation gets added to the story.

You asked,I gave you a valid answer

Peanut2011

ThisRegard wrote: »

Argue all you want, the law says otherwise.

And if this is the kind of a mature discussion you want great! I was not arguing the law, but maybe if the law makers had any interest instead of just populist vote, they would look in to that. Maybe law is flawed?

Macy0161 wrote: »

I'm not going to defend red light jumping (all road user types have people guilty of that), but if a bus can't get past them safely when they're in the middle of the lane, they probably won't be able to get past them safely. A group of 20 cyclists is easier to pass in a two abreast, 10 deep group than as a 20 long line in a lot of instances.

Agree with you that all road users are guilty of that, no question there. Unfortunately the cyclists are probably the least likely to face any kind of a penalty for doing that. In any case that is neither here nor there, but if you want to argue about being safe on the road well.....

I would from experience argue that single file 20 cyclists are easier to overtake but again depends on the road and so on. It is the same case as two small cars tailgating a truck and not being able to overtake it but with their tailgating they are blocking everyone else from overtaking as well...

ThisRegard

Peanut2011 wrote: »

And if this is the kind of a mature discussion you want great! I was not arguing the law, but maybe if the law makers had any interest instead of just populist vote, they would look in to that. Maybe law is flawed?

So you think it's safer and better for a cyclist to cycle down a road with a bus lane on their inside, with buses and taxis zooming by, and other vehicles doing the same on their outside, simultaneously ? You want the law to be changed to insist that this be the case ?

Jawgap

Peanut2011 wrote: »

I're read this thread for some time now and MY GOD how many irrelevant posts. Can we get back on topic?

I would argue if the cycle lane is provided it must be used and Bus lane should not be allowed to be used by cyclists. The reason I say this is, and I am sure many would be on here giving out about it, if they came across the car driving in a bus lane because he was not happy with the normal traffic lane as it has pot holes or whatever else.

I do feel for cyclists who are very vulnerable on the road but there are so many who just simply don't help the case. Any of the ones that act in selfish way and do not consider other road users are really doing the disservice to all others who are on the roads.

Perfect examples are: blocking the whole bus lane by riding down the middle of it when bus is stuck behind them, going trough red lights without consideration for pedestrians and vehicles joining from other directions, riding two abreast in a convoy of 10-20 on country roads blocking any possibility of other road users overtaking them safely.

List goes on!!!! And no I do not thing cyclist are to blame for all problems but some of the above examples I have given and which are encountered on a daily basis are certainly not helping anyone.

If only all road users had a bit more courtesy out there for one another we would all get where we are going just as quickly.

First, the law was changed and compulsory use of cycle lanes was removed - if it's in the public interest then they should change it back, otherwise a cyclist is doing nothing illegal, unlike the bus or taxi driver who decides to 'shoulder surf' him to 'teach' him a lesson.

Second the off-road bus lanes are generally poor - they cross junctions in totally impractical and illogical ways, they're not maintained and in the autumn / winter they're not cleaned (in fact, they are never cleaned) so they fill up with leaf mulch which is dangerously slippy. That's even before you have to deal with cars coming out of driveways, dog walkers, joggers and pedestrians.

Third, cycling out from the kerb is a good safety measure. I'd say some cyclists are thoughtless and selfish when they do this, but in the majority of cases it's to avoid all the crap in the gutter, to give you some room to manoeuver and to prevent buses, taxis, vans etc pulling dangerous overtakes - not every driver of a motorised vehicle is conscientious when it comes to other road users' safety. As a road user, a cyclist is entitled to protect their own safety even if it means mildly inconveniencing other road users.

Fourth, red light jumping, cycling on the path, riding the wrong way up oneway streets etc - all should be appropriately punished and hopefully when the new fixed penalty notices come in this autumn there'll be a clampdown on this type of idiotic behaviour.