Cyclists should do a theory test!

Spook_ie

ThisRegard wrote: »

It's an easy question, should taxis fund the full costs of taxi ranks and towards bus lanes via increases in their motor taxes? You only said a couple of posts back that the tax payer should not be funding cycle facilities any further.

And I think you'll find I said cyclists should contribute towards not fund completely, you're being deliberately misleading now

tipparetops

Pinch Flat wrote: »

C'est, but let's not get pedantic.


Look, I know a lot of Irish people freak out at the thoughts of personal responsibility - I had a woman try to blame me for ripping the underside of her car off for trying to overtake me on a speed ramp, my fault apparently for cycling to fast. So I can get that mindset.

What concerns me out even more is that there's people like you who drive around, safe in the knowledge that whatever happens is someone else's fault. Thankfully in the minority.

Your last point, that is opposite of what i was saying.
WE all have to accept our own decisions, not blame others.

For Example:
A cyclist gets killed by a speeding driver, there is no point the cyclists family saying the cyclist was in the right. They are dead.
WE all have to accept the decisions we make.

tipparetops

ThisRegard wrote: »

Cool, can I see the leader board?

Another Troll point for you, well ahead.

ThisRegard

Spook_ie wrote: »

And I think you'll find I said cyclists should contribute towards not fund completely, you're being deliberately misleading now

I'm not quite sure, is that a Yes or a No, even partiality funding them?

Pinch Flat

tipparetops wrote: »

Typical cyclist arrogance, if you do not like the truth go back to your own forum and bring the other codgers with you.

If you read my posts, I'm posting as a citizen who is a motorist and a cyclist, albeit one who refuses to follow the herd in a car park every morning. It's improved my lifestyle no end - more free time, regular exercise and saves me thousands annually. You could not pay me to go back to being stuck in a car every morning to trying around and do the same again in the evening. Did that for years - it was miserable.

But you're right - the truth is that cars kill almost 200 annually. I'm acutely aware of this when cycling. The other codgers would agree.

Pinch Flat

Spook_ie wrote: »

Point 1 Correct as it stands at the moment there would be no tax liability for using a cycle, however, given that your argument about motor tax is that you already pay for it on your car why would you pay it on a cycle (correct me if I'm misinterpreting you ) if the tax regime was changed just because you have paid it for a car would not exempt you from having to pay it on a cycle, they are two separate vehicles.

So we've established this is a circular argument. You feel a person who pays 200 annually to tax a car should pay another 120 (your figure) to use a bike to commute. I disagree (as do a lot of sensible people) that this is workable and without precedent on the entire planet. But lets park this one, as it's going nowhere. Many other posters who posted here have pointed out how the roads are funded - including non-drivers indirectly through VAT, excise and duty that goes towards funding the roads - just like schools, libraries, hospitals and other public amenities.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Point 2 Nothing insane about VAT, luxury items tend to attract higher tax rates, is a sexy cycle more of a luxury than a clunker? If so then increase the VAT

Ok, so a ford fiesta should have less VAT than a BMW 5 series following this logic. My commuting bike is a junker (the correct term ) - far from a luxury item, but nevertheless I've already paid VAT on it, as well as the VAT on clothing, locks, safety equipment etc.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Point 3 Going off topic, but as it currently stands to become a taxi driver you are now required to pass a test that tests your knowledge of the taxi area you intend to work, agreed it wasn't always that way and indeed in some areas the only requirement was to present yourself to the local PSV inspector, answer half a dozen questions about PSV law and that was it, I would love for a driving test to be part of the licensing procedure, maybe it would rid us of some turkeys but that wouldn't help with cyclists flouting the law!

I must admit I'm not up on the ins and out of the taxi game, but this can't be a bad thing. Will this be applied retrospectively to the thousands of taxi drivers who've flooded the market since deregulation? From what I see on a daily basis taxi drivers carry on with scant regard of those around them - they'll happily cause a compromising situation with other road users to get that fare. Granted there are a few that'll play buy the rules, but they're in the minority.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Point 3a I notice a few people have alluded to my old argument that a crap cyclist is probably also a crap driver, but seeing as you don't normally train downwards it would be more logical to start at the bottom, ie cyclists ( I've not included pedestrians because by law they are NOT defined as road users)

Cycling (both theory and practice) should be taught to children from school going age and that before they take a provisional licence spend a period of time on a bike. This would box off the theory argument and give people an understanding of how to use the roads in a responsible manner - lacking now, where the saturation of cars as the primary choice of personal transport has lead to people treating some other road users with contempt.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Point 4 And that's your choice, I just don't believe other people should have to pay for your choices, therefore put up the VAT on sexy cycles and if you decide that's the way you want to go, then go for it, who would I be to argue but don't expect myself and a lot of others to like paying for your lifestyle choices

Again we're back to point 1 - and that's your view which I fundamentally disagree with, as does the government of the country who decide the tax regime. I can't really discuss this point anymore as it's going nowhere. I suggest you pen a letter to your local TD or the Minister for Finance and see if they'll consider changing the tax regime. Let us know how you get on.

I choose to save myself about 3,000 per annum in fuel costs alone (my own figures which ignore depreciation and wear and tear on my car) as well as the shear hassle and inconvenience by cycling to and from work. I already pay for my choice - it's been pointed out to you umpteen times how the roads are funded. What about other public amenities - libraries, hospitals, play grounds, public pools, sports facilities - should they just be paid for by the people solely who use them, or society as a whole? because I think that's how our public roads are funded. Although a lot of motorists believe they have sole access to them - an attitude born of the car dependency we've developed here.

Spook_ie

ThisRegard wrote: »

I'm not quite sure, is that a Yes or a No, even partiality funding them?

Taxi drivers already partially fund a lot of things, I'll pull up some figures later as I'm on the mobile phone and searching cutting and pasting is a pain, but an in head estimate is somewhere around 3 to 4 million per year in various fees, but again you digress.

Now given that I can prove that taxi drivers AND other motorist pay or contribute for the use of various facilities do you believe that cyclists should be allowed to be parasites of the road? and not only that but untrained parasites

tipparetops

Pinch Flat wrote: »

If you read my posts, I'm posting as a motorist and a cycling, albeit a motorist who refuses to follow the herd in a car park every morning. It's improved my lifestyle no end - more free time, regular exercise and saves me thousands annually. You could not pay me to go back to being stuck in a car every morning to trying around and do the same again in the evening. Did that for years - it was miserable.

But you're right - the truth is that cars kill almost 200 annually. I'm acutely aware of this when cycling. The other codgers would agree.

It is a free country, cycle on.
When I meet cyclists on the road I drive slowly and overtake carefully.
But not all motorists do and cyclists must accept they know this and they are still deciding to cycle.

Pinch Flat

ThisRegard wrote: »

I'm not quite sure, is that a Yes or a No, even partiality funding them?

Ah no in fairness he's been very clear - 50% VAT on sports bikes - this seems to be the one group he's targeting - although that apparently gets revised back to 25% and further back to 0% depending on the type of bike. Interestingly Dublin Bikes recently celebrated 10,000,000 trips - so not sure why they should all be VAT free given this logic, but it's an admirable jesture on Spooks part admittedly.

And we've settled on 120 Euros as a 'cycle tax'. The first in the world. Go Ireland, smoking ban, legalised gay marraige now taxing bikes the same as cars.

So that's Spooks manifesto in a nut shell.

Spook_ie

Pinch Flat wrote: »

So <snipped>Many other posters who posted here have pointed out how the roads are funded - including non-drivers indirectly through VAT, excise and duty that goes towards funding the roads - just like schools, libraries, hospitals and other public amenities.


<snipped>.

And all of them are forgetting this

Local Government Fund - General Purpose Grant

The Local Government Fund (LGF) is a special central fund which was established in 1999 under the Local Government Act 1998. It is financed by the full proceeds of motor tax and an Exchequer contribution. The Fund provides local authorities with the finance for general discretionary funding of their day-to-day activities and for non-national roads, and funding for certain local government initiatives

http://www.environ.ie/en/LGFinance/

ThisRegard

Spook_ie wrote: »

Taxi drivers already partially fund a lot of things, I'll pull up some figures later as I'm on the mobile phone and searching cutting and pasting is a pain, but an in head estimate is somewhere around 3 to 4 million per year in various fees, but again you digress.

Now given that I can prove that taxi drivers AND other motorist pay or contribute for the use of various facilities do you believe that cyclists should be allowed to be parasites of the road? and not only that but untrained parasites

We're talking about motor tax, not other various fees, of which we all pay. You're just widening the scope to suit your argument.

You know full well that taxes any sort of motorists pay don't cover the costs of what they're provided. You also know that people who don't drive, and who never will, also pay towards road infrastructure. So if you're going to get all smarmy make sure you put all road users in your parasite bucket, particularly those whose motor tax is further subsidised by the tax payer.

You still haven't given me an answer.

Spook_ie

ThisRegard wrote: »

We're talking about motor tax, not other various fees, of which we all pay. You're just widening the scope go suit your argument.

You know full well that taxes any sort of motorists pay don't cover the costs of what they're provided. You also know that people who don't drive, and who never will, also pay towards road infrastructure. So if you're going to get all smarmy make sure you put all road users in your parasite bucket, particularly those whose motor tax is further subsidised by the tax payer.

You still haven't given me an answer.

You asked about facilities for taxi drivers, now I see we have a raw nerve about being a parasite, but do you think that cyclists should contribute or be parasitic

ThisRegard

I feel like Paxman, Yes or No? Does your logic fall asunder when you realise it also applies to yourself?

Pinch Flat

Spook_ie wrote: »

Taxi drivers already partially fund a lot of things, I'll pull up some figures later as I'm on the mobile phone and searching cutting and pasting is a pain, but an in head estimate is somewhere around 3 to 4 million per year in various fees, but again you digress.

I'm sure they do. I contribute in my own profession through registration, charges, VAT, income tax, training etc - why should a taxi driver be different?

Spook_ie wrote: »

Now given that I can prove that taxi drivers AND other motorist pay or contribute for the use of various facilities do you believe that cyclists should be allowed to be parasites of the road? and not only that but untrained parasites

Again we're back to the circular argument. Let's ignore the derogatory term to describe cyclists - but it's giving an insight into your own mindset. It's society that pays for the roads.

There's also a huge subsidy from central government to top-up the funding and maintain the roads. People who don't drive subsidize the roads, as they do hospitals, libraries, play grounds and other public amenities.

Spook_ie

ThisRegard wrote: »

I feel like Paxman, Yes or No? Does your logic fall asunder when you realise it also applies to yourself?

No because any costs associated with driving my taxi are business deductables, don't know how many times I need to say it but just for you

Business deductable, business deductible, business deductible, business deductible............

Spook_ie

Pinch Flat wrote: »

I'm sure they do. I contribute in my own profession through registration, charges, VAT, income tax, training etc - why should a taxi driver be different?



Again we're back to the circular argument. Let's ignore the derogatory term to describe cyclists - but it's giving an insight into your own mindset. It's society that pays for the roads.

There's also a huge subsidy from central government to top-up the funding and maintain the roads. People who don't drive subsidize the roads, as they do hospitals, libraries, play grounds and other public amenities.

And as said before motortax specifically is paid out in LGFs it doesn't go to central taxation so the money you pay to fund national roads is different to the money for funding local roads

Pinch Flat

Spook_ie wrote: »

No because any costs associated with driving my taxi are business deductables, don't know how many times I need to say it but just for you

Business deductable, business deductible, business deductible, business deductible............

But wait

Spook_ie wrote: »

No the customer ( historicly ) expected to find taxis at taxi ranks, some taxi drivers believe that taxis should have somewhere to park while waiting instead of plying for hire

Presume these will be funded solely by taxi drivers then? And presumably business deductible as well - maybe a nice handy levy. No messing with tax credits, just pay your levy if you want this facility.

Spook_ie

Pinch Flat wrote: »

But wait



Presume these will be funded solely by taxi drivers then? And presumably business deductible as well - maybe a nice handy levy. No messing with tax credits, just pay your levy if you ant this facility.

Why the but wait?, I explained to you the historical significance of taxi ranks, they no longer serve the same purpose as you'll find taxis just about everywhere and if not in sight a simple phone app will find you one a few hundred metres away to come to you.

I've also already said that I would welcome the ability to park legally somewhere, paying the fee if required, and being able to legally ply for hire.

I just fail to see what you are digging for? Maybe you're looking for parasites in the taxi business, I'll tell you there are plenty

beauf

These recycled arguments are taxing to read.

The strategy aims for a fivefold increase in the cycle network in the greater Dublin area from the current level 500 km to 2,840 km. Planners are aiming for an increase in cycle routes from 500 km to 1,485 km in Dublin City.

http://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-cycling-plan-1410242-Apr2014/

it is our vision to have as many people cycling into the city every morning in 2021 as currently take the bus. This is hugely ambitious but I believe it can be done. In short, this represents a new transport network for the Greater Dublin Area, with a target in 2021 of 75,000 cycle users each morning, which is a three-fold increase in cycling over 2011 levels. In other words, the cycle network could carry as many commuters in the morning in 2021 as are now carried by bus. This plan will inform the next decade of NTA investment in cycling across seven local authority areas in the region.

45% MORE CYCLISTS ENTERING CENTRAL DUBLIN SINCE 2006

http://irishcycle.com/2012/02/03/dublin-city-traffic-count-shows-15-increase-in-cycling-in-2011/

160% INCREASE IN CYCLING INTO DUBLIN CITY CENTRE BETWEEN 2004-2014
March 4, 2015 · by Cian Ginty · in News
14.2% year-on-year increase between 2013 and 2014

http://irishcycle.com/2015/03/04/160-increase-in-cycling-into-dublin-city-centre-between-2004-2014/

ThisRegard

Spook_ie wrote: »

No because any costs associated with driving my taxi are business deductables, don't know how many times I need to say it but just for you

Business deductable, business deductible, business deductible, business deductible............

So you're happy with the free ride you get, but hate it that you think cyclists also get one. So petty.

Sam Kade

Shenshen wrote: »

And many of them also own cars, so they do in fact pay motor tax same as any other driver.

The poster said they should pay road tax which there is no such tax and if they have a car they tax it, so what is your point?

beauf

Tax is non issue. It's only thrown out to derail topics.

Policy is to encourage cycling, it's only going to increase as traffic gets worse and people realise its so much easier for a lot of journeys.

ThisRegard

No better person than our taxi driving friend to try muddy the water on these type of threads.

His logic is that the tax payer should not be funding facilities for cyclists, as they don't pay a form of motor tax on bikes, it's as if VAT and taxes on the money they earned to buy them doesn't exist.

However he has no problems with taxi drivers paying a small annual fee of €95 in motor tax, of which he continually points out is deductible anyway. But yet they're provided with the use of bus lanes and ranks, and without a doubt cause more wear and tear on the roads as they make their living on it. So if they deduct their motor tax anyway, they're being provided with more facilities than cyclists and directly contributing as much as a cyclist does under his tax all road users ideology.

So according to his own logic taxi drivers are bigger, his own words, parasites.

beauf

The issue was Cyclists needing to do a theory test, and breaking the rules.

The solution to that is enforcement, better facilities and better education. (not a theory test which many of them have already done and ignore). It would be some form of public service messages on the TV or radio etc.

Instead of giving lip service to the facilities plan the routes properly, don't waste money on sub standard paths, junctions. Look at the most popular routes and streamline them. Cyclists don't have to go the same route as cars. Get someone who knows what they are doing to design them. Many of the current cycling facilities looks like it was done by a monkey with a crayon.

Boom_Bap

MOD NOTE - Can we quit the off topic discussion on taxi drivers on this thread please?
Cheers.

CramCycle

beauf wrote: »

The issue was Cyclists needing to do a theory test, and breaking the rules.

The solution to that is enforcement, better facilities and better education. (not a theory test which many of them have already done and ignore). It would be some form of public service messages on the TV or radio etc.

These two points, never truer words spoken, for everyone.

Better enforcement leads to better behaviour, better behaviour means that those who used to risk it might stop or risk it less because it is no longer as socially acceptable eg amber gamblers.

Better education, and not just for cyclists, but for everyone, yet again, at national school and junior cycle level. Pedestrians need to know the general rules (although I turn a blind eye to breaking of these rules due to the clearly biased planning which is borderline criminal), almost everyone is a pedestrian and at some point you will interact with traffic in some shape or form, not only should you know how traffic should behave for future development so you don't develop bad habits, you should also know it so that you can better assess the world around you for your own safety.

awec

Spook_ie wrote: »

Motortax, until recently, went into central funds and was paid out to local authorities for ( among other things ) the provision of local roads, the repair of local roads, the improvement of local roads, under the LGA system, ergo motortax does indeed provide for repair of roads up to L numbers, any other roads are the responsibility of the NRA and funded direct from the government rather than councils.

As to people who pay more road/motor tax having more rights, kindly show me where i have even hinted at that. However, I have said that if cyclists were to pay something, then motorists wouldn't be able to throw the old chestnut of "I pay roadtax" into any arguments, a win for the cyclists but a win you should contribute to

I believe that people who drive bigger vehicles should pay more tax, but I also believe that cyclists should pay towards their infrastructure , especially as they are not even required to use them after wards

They already do. Anyone who earns any sort of income in Ireland pays toward them. This is what you have continually failed to grasp.

Your motor tax is not paying for the roads. You are paying a tax for bringing a motor vehicle onto a road owned by and paid for by everyone.

tipparetops

awec wrote: »

They already do. Anyone who earns any sort of income in Ireland pays toward them. This is what you have continually failed to grasp.

Your motor tax is not paying for the roads. You are paying a tax for bringing a motor vehicle onto a road owned by and paid for by everyone.

tax on fuel and road tax means motorists pay for the roads and therefore get out of our way.

07Lapierre

tipparetops wrote: »

tax on fuel and road tax means motorists pay for the roads and therefore get out of our way.

:rolleyes:

jimgoose

tipparetops wrote: »

tax on fuel and road tax means motorists pay for the roads and therefore get out of our way.

It's Motor Tax, i.e. a tax on owning a motor vehicle (as opposed to on "using" a motor vehicle more's the pity, but that's a whole 'nother tin of beans! )

This "...therefore get out of our way" mindset is no use and does no-one any good. And that's coming from a fairly die-hard motoring enthusiast who believes the only two reasons to own a bicycle are a) you're poor and b) you're ten years old.