Those damn cyclists again!

SeanW

carlmango11 wrote: »

Tough sh*t. Bikes were around longer than cars.

And the reason they don't pay tax is because bikes do practically 0 damage to roads. If everyone cycled the road maintenance bill would plummet.

So would the governments' tax take ... by a much larger degree.

Scruffy...The Janitor wrote: »

At risk of recycling an extremely extensively made point at this stage:

Motor tax =/= Road tax

"Motor tax" is a tax on road usage that is only paid by motorists.

No Pants wrote: »

Cyclists pay no tax? When did the Revenue make this massive change and how come no one told me? Was it in the newspapers or something?

If you have a bicycle, you pay no transport related taxes on it. Cyclists are also totally unregulated, and it shows.

seamus wrote: »

You know what they say about assumptions. Never assume any other road user is going to do anything until they've started doing it.
Observe. There's a cyclist to your left, bearing down on the two in front of him. The most likely possible outcomes of this situation are:

Why are the last two reasonable things to expect?

mal1

jelenka wrote: »

I don't mind cyclists on the road, I'd say more of them are vigilant and don't break the rules, but i absolutely hate it when 2 cyclists cycle next to each other having a chat, leaving no room to overtake them.

Most of the time they do it on purpose. Not to annoy but if the road is narrow and it's best that a driver uses the opposite lane to overtake then cyclists will tend to cycle next to each other to force the driver to do so.

ThisRegard

gramar wrote: »

I've seen various studies that state that anywhere between 40-60% of accidents involving both cars and bicycles are caused by cyclists so why don't they have insurance to cover the damage caused by their actions? That makes no sense to me.

Show us these studies, or do we have to wait for the technology to be developed to see into other peoples imaginations ?

Jawgap

No Pants wrote: »

Cyclists pay no tax? When did the Revenue make this massive change and how come no one told me? Was it in the newspapers or something?

* Runs off to buy buy a bike *

......feck a new bike I'm off to claim back all the VAT I paid, and the motor tax I've paid on my cars.

I suspect the rise in the use of helmet cams will eventually take care of the OP's inconsiderate driving behaviour.

Anyway, as a cyclist and motorist I'm off to engage in a bit of self-loathing.......

No Pants

SeanW wrote: »

If you have a bicycle, you pay no transport related taxes on it.

Quite a change from what the OP said.

ThisRegard

jelenka wrote: »

leaving no room to overtake them.

Are you driving a Stenna Line car ferry or something ? If you can't manage to over take them, maybe you should be on a bike yourself.

Jawgap

SeanW wrote: »

So would the governments' tax take ... by a much larger degree.

So would healthcare and policing costs;)

Infini

There is no road tax. Only MOTOR tax

Also drivers tend to get narky at some cyclists because they can maneuver around them and keep on goin without having to worry bout traffic jams :P

Doesnt help that the places for cyclists in this city to cycle in suck.

gramar

ThisRegard wrote: »

Show us these studies, or do we have to wait for the technology to be developed to see into other peoples imaginations ?

I've had this debate before in other threads and I'm not going through all that again suffice to say that these were legimate studies that determined who was at fault in car/bicycle accidents in particular urban areas and also concluded the main contributing factors such as availability of cycle lanes, culture of cycling etc.

Studies aside common sense would tell you that cyclists are responsible for a percentage of traffic accidents. To think otherwise is frankly absurd.

Jawgap

SeanW wrote: »

If you have a bicycle, you pay no transport related taxes on it. Cyclists are also totally unregulated, and it shows.

?

VAT on components, repairs etc

Also as for regulation - the Road Traffic legislation applies and the government have been sitting on the new regs that would allow cyclists to be given FPNs for red light jumping, pavement cycling and dangerous overtaking, for at least a year now......

......maybe direct some of your ire in their direction......or you could just continue to not let the truth get in the way of opinions......

Jawgap

gramar wrote: »

I've had this debate before in other threads and I'm not going through all that again suffice to say that these were legimate studies that determined who was at fault in car/bicycle accidents in particular urban areas and also concluded the main contributing factors such as availability of cycle lanes, culture of cycling etc.

Studies aside common sense would tell you that cyclists are responsible for a percentage of traffic accidents. To think otherwise is frankly absurd.

Link to the thread where the studies are then......

"Studies aside.....":rolleyes:

ThisRegard

gramar wrote: »

I've had this debate before in other threads and I'm not going through all that again suffice to say that these were legimate studies that determined who was at fault in car/bicycle accidents in particular urban areas and also concluded the main contributing factors such as availability of cycle lanes, culture of cycling etc.

Studies aside common sense would tell you that cyclists are responsible for a percentage of traffic accidents. To think otherwise is frankly absurd.

So they should be easy enough to dig out again, or link to the previous threads in which you mentioned them.

Studies aside common sense would tell you that cyclists are responsible for a percentage of traffic accidents

That's quite a difference from saying they're responsible for the majority. 1% is a percentage too.

jelenka

ThisRegard wrote: »

Are you driving a Stenna Line car ferry or something ? If you can't manage to over take them, maybe you should be on a bike yourself.

No , but when you are on busy narrow backroads ,with lots of oncomming traffic , you simply don't have the room .

Caliden

This question is for cyclists, do you not agree though that it is a bit crazy that a someone can just hop on a bike and go around without any knowledge of signs, car stopping distances (some seem to think we can stop on a penny) or any of that?

Now I'm not lumping all cyclists in the same group and there are cyclists who take the time to educate themselves on the rules of the road.

There are definitely cyclists that obey the laws but for each one of them there are at least 2 more that don't. Cycling is definitely one of the more dangerous ways to commute to work and I see some really stupid driving by people overtaking cyclists on blind bends or coming within inches of their bike every day of the week.


I just think that there should be some sort of bike licence. Now it may seem really stupid but RSA ads alone are not enough to keep people safe. It would also help with the prosecution of people who have no right to call themselves a cyclist and are the reason cyclists get a bad name.

Jawgap

jelenka wrote: »

No , but when you are on busy narrow backroads ,with lots of oncomming traffic , you simply don't have the room .

Then you should wait until there is space to complete any manoeuvre safely.....

Caliden wrote: »

This question is for cyclists, do you not agree though that it is a bit crazy that a someone can just hop on a bike and go around without any knowledge of signs, car stopping distances (some seem to think we can stop on a penny) or any of that?

Now I'm not lumping all cyclists in the same group and there are cyclists who take the time to educate themselves on the rules of the road.

There are definitely cyclists that obey the laws but for each one of them there are at least 2 more that don't. Cycling is definitely one of the more dangerous ways to commute to work and I see some really stupid driving by people overtaking cyclists on blind bends or coming within inches of their bike every day of the week.


I just think that there should be some sort of bike licence. Now it may seem really stupid but RSA ads alone are not enough to keep people safe. It would also help with the prosecution of people who have no right to call themselves a cyclist and are the reason cyclists get a bad name.

'Really stupid driving' is the responsibility of the driver......drivers have no 'right' to overtake - if they can't do it safely the they wait until they can. Blaming cyclists, even I'll informed ones, for stupid driving is ridiculous.

Caliden

Jawgap wrote: »

Then you should wait until there is space to complete any manoeuvre safely.....



'Really stupid driving' is the responsibility of the driver......drivers have no 'right' to overtake - if they can't do it safely the they wait until they can. Blaming cyclists, even I'll informed ones, for stupid driving is ridiculous.

I never blamed cyclists so stop with being aggressive.

Any opinion on the question I put forward?

blackwhite

Caliden wrote: »

I never blamed cyclists so stop with being aggressive.

Any opinion on the question I put forward?

Some people will never accept that cyclists have a responsibility for anything.

Some people will never accept that cyclists aren't to blame for everything.

The two groups above seem to be drawn to threads like this like moths to a flame.

Jawgap

Caliden wrote: »

I never blamed cyclists so stop with being aggressive.

Any opinion on the question I put forward?

No it's not crazy - most people start cycling from very young and experience road use as cyclist and pedestrian.

If any thing, I'd say the opposite applies - my experience as a cyclist has made me a better driver as it gives you a better appreciation of the road and the environment - something drivers tend to be insulated from.

As for mad, it's pretty mad you can pass a test and pretty much have a licence for 50+ years to drive increasingly powerful lumps of metal without any requirement for reassessment.

I passed my test with a Toyota Starlet - I'm now driving something three times larger, and probably 4 to 5 times more powerful - and I can, if I could afford it go buy something ten times more powerful than my existing vehicle without any requirement to undergo any kind of assessment! I could legitimately drive one of the new 1600 bhp Lamborghinis and there'd be nothing to stop me.......

And I wasn't being aggressive - you mentioned stupid driving, suggesting that people pulling off stupid manoeuvres is down to the presence of cyclists, when it's doe to a lack of maturity that drives an inability for drivers to wait.

SeanW

Jawgap wrote: »

VAT on components, repairs etc

Which is countered possibly to the point of irrelevance by the Bike To Work scheme subsidy.

Also as for regulation - the Road Traffic legislation applies and the
government have been sitting on the new regs that would allow cyclists to be
given FPNs for red light jumping, pavement cycling and dangerous overtaking, for at least a year now......

In theory.

......maybe direct some of your ire in their direction......or you could just continue to not let the truth get in the way of opinions......

Enforcement is exponentially harder for cyclists than motorists. You would have to have a guard at every junction and on every footpath to fine RLJers and footpath riders. Cyclists do not carry registration plates so they can't be tracked, and don't have licenses against which to record repeat offenses.

Barely a day goes by in Dublin city that I do not (as a pedestrian) have to yield to or jump out of the way of some d***head on a bike that decided that the red light was too inconvenient or that the footpath/pedestrian bridge was a good quasi-cycle lane.

If I drove my car like that, I'd be put of the road. And rightly so. And it would be much easier since I have to carry registration plates, maintain a license that's subject to penalty points, and carry insurance which would go up exponentially if I were in the habit of jumping red lights, driving on footpaths etc.

ford2600

Jawgap wrote: »

As for mad, it's pretty mad you can pass a test and pretty much have a licence for 50+ years to drive increasingly powerful lumps of metal without any requirement for reassessment.

I passed my test with a Toyota Starlet - I'm now driving something three times larger, and probably 4 to 5 times more powerful - and I can, if I could afford it go buy something ten times more powerful than my existing vehicle without any requirement to undergo any kind of assessment! I could legitimately drive one of the new 1600 bhp Lamborghinis and there'd be nothing to stop me.......

It's the same with boats.

Any idiot with money can buy a boat/powerboat/rib and go on the water.

Not much fun when your the one in the kayak...

Jawgap

SeanW wrote: »

Which is countered possibly to the point of irrelevance by the Bike To Work scheme subsidy.

.

Which has been a boon to local businesses including to a large number of local businesses that have been set and sustained by this scheme......and paid local business rates, employer PRSI etc I'd say many of these businesses brought business to Main Street rather than leaving semi-derelict glass cathedrals to blight the outskirts of our towns......

Plus there's no loss to the Exchequer as it's highly unlikely anything more than a fraction of the bikes bought under the scheme would have have been bought in its absence.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

kylith

Caliden wrote: »

I just think that there should be some sort of bike licence. Now it may seem really stupid but RSA ads alone are not enough to keep people safe. It would also help with the prosecution of people who have no right to call themselves a cyclist and are the reason cyclists get a bad name.

While I disagree with bike licences, due to the fact that it would leave many teenagers without transport to and from friends' houses and school/sports events and wouldn't help our childhood obesity problems, I do think that cycling roadcraft and bike maintenance should be taught in schools.

Canis Lupus

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Have a look in the Dash cam saves your ass thread in the motors forum. Seems plenty of car drivers do it as well...

secondrowgal

blackwhite wrote: »

See, posts like this don't help the debate at all.

There are bad drivers, and there are bad cyclists.

Trying to pretend that, in any given incident, that cyclists are never in wrong is patently stupid and only serves to harden the extremes on both sides of the argument.


When I cycle, I'm always annoyed by the amount of drivers who don't realise that cyclists are more vulnerable than they are and try to squeeze past when there isn't a sufficient gap, tailgate, and open car doors without looking (among other things).

When I drive, I'm always shocked by the number of cyclists who don't realise how vulnerable they are, and will do stupid things like run red lights (including at this junction this morning, causing traffic coming from both directions to have to emergency brake), like swerving from one lane to another without hand signals or checking if there's someone already in the lane or cycle the wrong way down one-way streets.

In short, SOME motorists need to realise how easy it is for a cyclist to get hurt, avoid doing stupid things that could result in someone being hurt and show a bit of consideration for others.
And, SOME cyclists need to realise how easy it is for cyclists to get hurt, avoid doing stupid things that increase the chance of they themselves, and others, getting hurt, and show both consideration for other road users and a sense of responsibility for their own safety.

I agree with you b&w, and I am both a cyclist (to work!) and a motorist. But do you mind if I make one observation on the bolded bit above? Of course cyclists should be checking constantly what's going on around them, but from experience, it is really hard and dangerous to be looking behind you to check what's going on when you're cycling. It's not like being in a car where you are in a stable position on 4 wheels with mirrors. Just for example, I have to make a right turn pretty soon after some traffic lights at a 4-way junction when I am going home. Between starting from a standing start, the cars all trying to pass me, signalling to turn right and actually getting across the road, I don't have a lot of time to look behind me and not fall off . I often just get off the bike and wait to cross to be honest.

So I suppose what I'm saying is that it is not always easy for a cyclist to check behind them as they don't have rearview mirrors and it's not always safe to look around if you are moving reasonably quickly. That's just something for motorists to be aware of I suppose.

Jawgap

kylith wrote: »

While I disagree with bike licences, due to the fact that it would leave many teenagers without transport to and from friends' houses and school/sports events and wouldn't help our childhood obesity problems, I do think that cycling roadcraft and bike maintenance should be taught in schools.

It wouldn't really because people would just ignore it.

+1 on adding something to the school curriculum on road use / road safety.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Knasher

Caliden wrote: »

This question is for cyclists, do you not agree though that it is a bit crazy that a someone can just hop on a bike and go around without any knowledge of signs, car stopping distances (some seem to think we can stop on a penny) or any of that?

There is a very small subset of road signs that are actually relevant to cyclists, and the ones that matter are pretty easy to understand. There are some cyclists who choose to ignore stop signs, for instance, but I really don't think it is because they don't understand what stop means.

As for stopping distance, could you describe a situation when that would matter? Also can I ask if you know what the stopping distance of a bike on a wet hill is? Because the number of times I've had motorists over take me into the space I've left from the car in front for stopping distance leads me to think that generally motorists don't think about stuff like that, despite them having to undergo a test.

darkpagandeath

I love this concept, People in large metal boxes are the ones that have to give way to small metal tubes. If i was on a small metal tube i would be looking out for large metal boxes. As i understand physics, the large metal boxes can look out for small metal tubes. But cannot come to rest instantly if a small metal tube does something unexpected.

Quin_Dub

looksee wrote: »

There are arguments on both sides of this, there are also some rubbish car drivers who are a menace on the roads.

However yesterday on a narrowish road that has a good bit of traffic there was a tail-back of cars because two cyclists - in team outfits so they were obviously experienced cyclists - were cycling side by side, one just right of the hard shoulder line and the other just left of the centre line. They did not seem to be in any hurry and it would have been far more appropriate for them to be in single file, just as a gesture to let the traffic have a reasonable chance of passing. As it was the outer cyclist was ideally placed to complain about cars coming too close to him as they overtook.

Many cyclists are reasonable and try and give traffic every opportunity to pass, but the situation I described was just a sense of entitlement giving all cyclists a bad name.

This is my main bug-bear with Cyclists to be honest....

Clearly there are good and bad on both sides , but as a rural dweller it really annoys me when cyclists do this - narrow single lane country road , riding 2 and 3 abreast and making no effort to facilitate other road users..

I have the same issue with people driving slow moving farm machinery as well when they make no effort to move in when possible to allow traffic to pass...

Cyclist or driver - It's all about consideration for your fellow road users..