Irish cyclists looking for a €1b investment? - note stay on-topic warning, post #160

Roadhawk

It appears that Irish cyclists are now looking for a massive investment of 1 billion euro into cycling infrastructure.

Is this a realistic amount to invest in infrastructure that may or may not be used?

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/ian-odoherty/cycling-dogooders-if-you-want-to-be-taken-seriously-you-should-start-paying-road-tax-35105042.html

HivemindXX

They couldn't even get through the headline without spouting nonsense about road tax. The Independent really is the after hours of newspapers.

So this is referring to protesters asking for 10% of transport spending. Since the government wants to increase the modal share of cycling, to at least 10% as far as I remember, this seems quite fair on the face of it.

All your jibe about "may not even be used" shows is that if you produce poor quality infrastructure on the cheap by painting a few lines on the footpath and making things worse at junctions people rightfully won't use it. If you want cyclists to use the infrastructure it has to be better than, at at least as good as, using the road. You'll find the cycle paths along the Grand Canal are used. There is no reason why cyclists won't use infrastructure that is better than the roads, you would have to be suffering from paranoid delusions to think otherwise.

The €1bn figure is designed to appear unreasonable, which no doubt it why you chose to use it in your subject. This is over the next five years by the way, a standard trick used to make things appear bigger than they really are. Why not quote annual figures? 10% seems much more reasonable. They buried it in the article and you didn't bother to mention it at all.

ThisRegard

Roadhawk wrote: »

It appears that Irish cyclists are now looking for a massive investment of 1 billion euro into cycling infrastructure.

Is this a realistic amount to invest in infrastructure that may or may not be used?

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/ian-odoherty/cycling-dogooders-if-you-want-to-be-taken-seriously-you-should-start-paying-road-tax-35105042.html

From posting in all the other threads on this topic you'd know that the money has been diverted from cycling to the luas.

Bloody pedestrians looking to have money taken from other forms of transport for something that may or may not be used.

plodder

I think calling for figures to be spent just based on percentage of modal share, is a bit daft tbh. 15% of journeys are already by foot (way higher than cycling). Does that mean 1.5 billion should be spent on ... well what exactly? Footpaths?

ThisRegard

Do you think that in areas where you find the largest concentration of pedestrians that the footpaths are inadequate?

eeguy

Same as before, if cyclists have dedicated good quality cycleways then they will be used.

At the moment they have lines painted on existing narrow roads, cycle lanes that just end or go nowhere and cycle lanes where cars have no problem stopping and throwing the hazards on.
Ever look at the edge of a road? It's where you'll find all the rubbish, water runoff and drain holes. No one wants to cycle in that.

The south travelling cycle lane on O'Connell St. used to have rubber bollards that stopped cars encroaching, but they were removed. Now the lane is home to taxis and delivery trucks.

Dublin could be a fantastic cycling city. It's nice and compact and flat. No wonder Dublin bikes is more successful than any other bike sharing scheme.

cajonlardo

Roadhawk wrote: »

It appears that Irish cyclists are now looking for a massive investment of 1 billion euro into cycling infrastructure.

Is this a realistic amount to invest in infrastructure that may or may not be used?

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/ian-odoherty/cycling-dogooders-if-you-want-to-be-taken-seriously-you-should-start-paying-road-tax-35105042.html

Roadhawk has a harrowing life sharing his roads with cyclists.

Cyclists seek funding for infrastructure that will separate them from Roadhawk ( and all the other drama queens ) and Roadhawk still whinges.

Go figure.

ED E

cajonlardo wrote: »

Roadhawk has a harrowing life sharing his roads with cyclists.

Cyclists seek funding for infrastructure that will separate them from Roadhawk ( and all the other drama queens ) and Roadhawk still whinges.

Go figure.

eeguy

Roadhawk wrote: »

Is this a realistic amount to invest in infrastructure that may or may not be used?

If you build it, they will come.

monument

cajonlardo wrote: »

Roadhawk has a harrowing life sharing his roads with cyclists.

Cyclists seek funding for infrastructure that will separate them from Roadhawk ( and all the other drama queens ) and Roadhawk still whinges.

Go figure.

Focus on the point and not the poster... as his point isn't clear, I'm also asking him...

-- moderator

Roadhawk wrote: »

Is this a realistic amount to invest in infrastructure that may or may not be used?

We have had a policy for years of asking OPs of such posts to state their views clearly and don't just ask a question. Please state your view.

-- moderator

sirwin357

Well I am 50. And have never driven a car in my life. Until 13 years ago I lived in Dublin city. Now I have relocated to the midlands and still cycle everywhere. Now this is for all cyclists in Dublin. You haven't lived till you cycle in Athlone. A brief list of 10 years of injuries sustained just coming and going from work.
Broken wrist (x2)
Broken fingers (x3)
Torn anterior cruciate ligament
Concussion (x2)
Hospitalisation (x3)
My point is this.
Can I have the billion euros please.

Shannon757

sirwin357 wrote: »

Well I am 50. And have never driven a car in my life. Until 13 years ago I lived in Dublin city. Now I have relocated to the midlands and still cycle everywhere. Now this is for all cyclists in Dublin. You haven't lived till you cycle in Athlone. A brief list of 10 years of injuries sustained just coming and going from work.
Broken wrist (x2)
Broken fingers (x3)
Torn anterior cruciate ligament
Concussion (x2)
Hospitalisation (x3)
My point is this.
Can I have the billion euros please.

You should be more careful

Cookie_Monster

ThisRegard wrote: »

Do you think that in areas where you find the largest concentration of pedestrians that the footpaths are inadequate?

completely

cython

Roadhawk wrote: »

It appears that Irish cyclists are now looking for a massive investment of 1 billion euro into cycling infrastructure.

Is this a realistic amount to invest in infrastructure that may or may not be used?

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/ian-odoherty/cycling-dogooders-if-you-want-to-be-taken-seriously-you-should-start-paying-road-tax-35105042.html

If you inspect the URL closely, you will find the word opinion - as the adage goes, these are like arseholes, everyone has got one. If you want to start a discussion on something that has likely been reported as news in many outlets, perhaps a good start would be to cite an actual news article? And as far as the idea of requesting €1bn goes, show me any group (lobbyists, industrial action, wherever) making requests/demands that lays out their realistic hopes up front, as opposed to over-requesting, in the hope of getting a more realistic figure.

plodder

sirwin357 wrote: »

Well I am 50. And have never driven a car in my life. Until 13 years ago I lived in Dublin city. Now I have relocated to the midlands and still cycle everywhere. Now this is for all cyclists in Dublin. You haven't lived till you cycle in Athlone. A brief list of 10 years of injuries sustained just coming and going from work.
Broken wrist (x2)
Broken fingers (x3)
Torn anterior cruciate ligament
Concussion (x2)
Hospitalisation (x3)
My point is this.
Can I have the billion euros please.

So, what are the main problems that cyclists in Athlone face, that are different from Dublin?

patrickbrophy18

Well, in actual fact Roadhawk, Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council have reported a 49% increase in cycling as a transport modal share on the Rock Road alone as per the following link:

http://www.dlrcoco.ie/en/news/general-news-press-releases/council-announce-49-increase-cyclists-rock-road-blackrock

Now, I will admit to being more than just a bit nuanced or skeptical about the improvements made to this infrastructure prior to when they were carried out. However, it actually isn't that bad. The only exception is that there is a bit of a hairy situation on the turn off for Merion Avenue which used to be a slip lane. A few slip lanes have been removed where logically, they weren't needed.

Any to answer the question you raised:

Roadhawk wrote: »

Is this a realistic amount to invest in infrastructure that may or may not be used?

Yes. But, in installments. Alluding to HivemindXX, it will probably be spent over a 5 year period instead of in one fell swoop.

sirwin357 wrote: »

You haven't lived till you cycle in Athlone. A brief list of 10 years of injuries sustained just coming and going from work.
Broken wrist (x2)
Broken fingers (x3)
Torn anterior cruciate ligament
Concussion (x2)
Hospitalisation (x3)
My point is this.
Can I have the billion euros please.

Sorry to hear about that sirwin357. Get well soon!

I do hope that some of this €1 billion will go towards making the roads in smaller cities and big towns safer for cyclists.

As per the article in the Indo itself, it is riddled with factual/idealistic errors. Here are 3 that I have seen:

1. Road Tax: It's actually called Motor Tax (which in my opinion should be rebranded to Carbon Tax or Emissions Tax) as it is essentially a tax based on the Carbon Dioxide emissions of a car. In the not too distant past, I used to call it Road Tax as well but, a few of the posters on this site rightly corrected me on this.
2. Reg Plates for Cyclists: As someone who used to cycle a lot as a kid, this is just an obstacle to the one accessible fast means of transport readily available for kids. Plus, it should be promoted as an alternative to the over use of yummy-mummy mobiles (SUVs) :D!
3. Taxing Cyclists: Like point 2, taxing a means of transport with literally zero negative effects to the environment is like taxing pedestrians for walking and is another obstacle to progress.

The only good point the article makes is the whole "a capital city where pedestrian, cyclist and motorist coexist in a state of mutually blissful harmony". Nevertheless, the way he says it, you'd swear there was some ethnic divide between the three principle road user archetypes.


The word in "bold red" implies that all cycling infrastructure expenditure should be Dublin-centric which is a possible 4th error to the above list.


I still think the Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets needs to be reworked in some areas. But, that's a topic for another thread.


For the most part, the article reeks of ignorance.

beauf

Roadhawk wrote: »

It appears that Irish cyclists are now looking for a massive investment of 1 billion euro into cycling infrastructure.

Is this a realistic amount to invest in infrastructure that may or may not be used?

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/ian-odoherty/cycling-dogooders-if-you-want-to-be-taken-seriously-you-should-start-paying-road-tax-35105042.html

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3789794.ece

Might be cost neutral...

Roadhawk

cython wrote: »

If you want to start a discussion on something that has likely been reported as news in many outlets, perhaps a good start would be to cite an actual news article? And as far as the idea of requesting €1bn goes, show me any group (lobbyists, industrial action, wherever) making requests/demands that lays out their realistic hopes up front, as opposed to over-requesting, in the hope of getting a more realistic figure.

Hope these are better picked articles/info site:

https://www.facebook.com/dublincycling/
http://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-cycle-protest-3008167-Oct2016/
http://cyclist.ie/2016/06/cyclist-ie-calls-on-transport-minister-to-allocate-more-to-cycling/

Roadhawk

beauf wrote: »

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3789794.ece

Might be cost neutral...

It would be great if it was but the title showing "could" really sets a different picture. Its sounds quite like a "best case scenario" which is never the case in Ireland.

Carawaystick

sirwin357 wrote: »

Now this is for all cyclists in Dublin. You haven't lived till you cycle in Athlone.

Cycles through Athlone in the Spring, it was awful alright. Mullingar is like a Dutch/Scandi haven compared to it and Mullingar's not at much.

monument

Roadhawk -- reply to this or don't post on this thread again...

monument wrote: »

We have had a policy for years of asking OPs of such posts to state their views clearly and don't just ask a question. Please state your view.

-- moderator

...thank you!

-- moderator

magicbastarder

here's a great way of getting people cycling - take the billion euro, and pay people to cycle. €1 per km, verified by GPS.
the money would last long enough to allow 500,000 people to cycle 2,000km each on average. two grand a head - maybe cap it at this.

there's your critical mass created right there.

SeanW

HivemindXX wrote: »

They couldn't even get through the headline without spouting nonsense about road tax. The Independent really is the after hours of newspapers.

The tax is not linked to motor ownership, but the placement of said motor on the road.

You'll find the cycle paths along the Grand Canal are used. There is no reason why cyclists won't use infrastructure that is better than the roads, you would have to be suffering from paranoid delusions to think otherwise.

Well, firstly, the Grand Canal cycle path is totally lawless, so as a pedestrian that's out there sometimes it's not something I'd be keen to replicate. Second, cyclists will ignore a cycle lane for any reason, up to and including just plain laziness.

The €1bn figure is designed to appear unreasonable, which no doubt it why you chose to use it in your subject. This is over the next five years by the way, a standard trick used to make things appear bigger than they really are. Why not quote annual figures? 10% seems much more reasonable.

Did the cycling body ask for €1bn? Yes or no? There are only two possibilities here:

1. The cycling groups did ask for €1bn, and that fact is being reported accurately. Your post is a complaint that this factually quoted figure was not massaged from €1bn to "10%" or "X over Y years".
2. The cycling groups did not ask for €1bn, so the article is wrong and those who quote it are inaccurate.

Which is it?

1. Road Tax: It's actually called Motor Tax (which in my opinion should be rebranded to Carbon Tax or Emissions Tax) as it is essentially a tax based on the Carbon Dioxide emissions of a car. In the not too distant past, I used to call it Road Tax as well but, a few of the posters on this site rightly corrected me on this.
2. Reg Plates for Cyclists: As someone who used to cycle a lot as a kid, this is just an obstacle to the one accessible fast means of transport readily available for kids. Plus, it should be promoted as an alternative to the over use of yummy-mummy mobiles (SUVs) !
3. Taxing Cyclists: Like point 2, taxing a means of transport with literally zero negative effects to the environment is like taxing pedestrians for walking and is another obstacle to progress.

Where to start >_<
The technical term is indeed "Motor Tax" however the use of the term "Road Tax" provides three key advantages.
1) It accurately reflects that the tax must be paid to place said Motor ON THE ROAD. If a tax is tied to the roads, or usage of the roads, in any way, it is a Road Tax.
2) The use of the term "Road Tax" allows for a fast and easy comparison between Motor Tax in the Republic of Ireland, vis-a-vis Vehicle Excise Duty in the United Kingdom. Both taxes operate in a similar way and serve the same function, the only difference is that Irelands' is 2-5 times higher in all categories.
3) It rolls off the tongue a lot easier than Motor Tax.

Additionally, the tax is not linked to emissions, for two reasons:
1) Motors registered on or before June 30th 2008 are taxed according to engine size. Or more specifically, the use of a car with the specified engine size on the road.
2) "Emissions" based motor tax takes no account of the cars actual emissions - a 1 Litre Micra that drives 500+ miles per week emits more CO2 than a Ferarri that is only driven 100 miles or less on the weekend.

Secondly. Reg plates for cyclists. Without reg plates for cyclists, lawbreakers who cycle on footways, jump red lights and so on, it's extremely hard to enforce laws on cyclists without such measures. And it shows.

endagibson

SeanW wrote: »

Second, cyclists will ignore a cycle lane for any reason, up to and including just plain laziness.

Really? What do you base than on?

magicbastarder

SeanW wrote: »

3) It rolls off the tongue a lot easier than Motor Tax.

did you list that to undermine your own argument?

PeadarCo

SeanW wrote:

Secondly. Reg plates for cyclists. Without reg plates for cyclists, lawbreakers who cycle on footways, jump red lights and so on, it's extremely hard to enforce laws on cyclists without such measures. And it shows.

What difference would it make? Sure even with reg plates and all the regulation motorists still manage to kill people on a weekly if not daily basis at times. That's not because cyclists are any better road users its due to basic physics resulting from lower mass and speed with greater consequences for the pilot of the vehicle in the advent of a crash. Speeding is so normalised in Ireland speed cameras have to "justified" as being at places where accidents had happened previously. Anybody who drivers knows if you obey the actual speed limit plenty of people will pass you.

The biggest issue with the any money invested in cycling is that it tends to result in poorly designed infrastructure that only an idiot would use. There are some exceptions. I'd far prefer efforts being made first in the design and planning stages first. Ensure those stages right before any money is wasted.

ThisRegard

SeanW wrote: »

T

Where to start >_<
The technical term is indeed "Motor Tax" however the use of the term "Road Tax" provides three key advantages.
1) It accurately reflects that the tax must be paid to place said Motor ON THE ROAD. If a tax is tied to the roads, or usage of the roads, in any way, it is a Road Tax.
2) The use of the term "Road Tax" allows for a fast and easy comparison between Motor Tax in the Republic of Ireland, vis-a-vis Vehicle Excise Duty in the United Kingdom. Both taxes operate in a similar way and serve the same function, the only difference is that Irelands' is 2-5 times higher in all categories.
3) It rolls off the tongue a lot easier than Motor Tax.

You actually posted this? You're changing the name of a tax in order to fit into some off the wall points you're trying to make?

magicbastarder

SeanW wrote: »

Where to start >_<
The technical term is indeed "Motor Tax" however the use of the term "Road Tax" provides three key advantages.
1) It accurately reflects that the tax must be paid to place said Motor ON THE ROAD. If a tax is tied to the roads, or usage of the roads, in any way, it is a Road Tax.

so the fact that a) it only applies to motorised vehicles and not all road users, and b) is explicitly based on emissions from those motors (except for the 'legacy' regime), you're still arguing it's a 'road' tax?

it's also interesting to note your 'ON THE ROAD' phrasing. i would rephrase that as 'the tax must be paid TO USE SAID MOTOR'. because that is the sole use of 99.99% of the cars in this country, driving on public roads. the tax ceases to be payable if the motor is taken out of use.

Cookie_Monster

SeanW wrote: »

1) It accurately reflects that the tax must be paid to place said Motor ON THE ROAD. If a tax is tied to the roads, or usage of the roads, in any way, it is a Road Tax.

:rolleyes:
So if its down to 'road usage' how come pedestrians, horses and cyclists don't have to pay it?

secman

Roadhawk wrote: »

It appears that Irish cyclists are now looking for a massive investment of 1 billion euro into cycling infrastructure.

Is this a realistic amount to invest in infrastructure that may or may not be used?

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/ian-odoherty/cycling-dogooders-if-you-want-to-be-taken-seriously-you-should-start-paying-road-tax-35105042.html

Must be true so if it's in the indo , the thought that it's bollocks never cross your mind ?

Zillah

Cheap, lazy, lowest-common-denominator pseudo-journalist tripe. Like, even just the most basic factual checking: no such thing as road tax. In the title. Barely warrants a reply, but shure let's give it a go:

A) No one pays road tax.
Most cyclists are also drivers, who therefore pay motor tax.
C) Tax is not only spent on those who pay it. I have no children and have never been in hospital, but I'm happy for my taxes to be spent on schools and hospitals.
D) You think the road system doesn't owe pedestrians anything...? Like, well-maintained footpaths and pedestrian crossings? I think we owe them that.
E) It's not to fund lecturing, in the very quote you reference they say "cycle-friendly road design" - that is infrastructure, which costs money.
F) You don't tend to find cyclists defending other rude cyclists.

Utter, hate-stirring tripe. It's like the sort of petty rabble-rousing you hear against immigrants. I'd write a letter to the editor but that would be confirming for them that their reckless shite is provoking the exact sort of destructive controversy they were hoping for.

Indo isn't worth burning for warmth.

SeanW

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

:rolleyes:
So if its down to 'road usage' how come pedestrians, horses and cyclists don't have to pay it?

Because the tax on road usage is limited to motorists.

magicbastarder wrote: »

so the fact that a) it only applies to motorised vehicles and not all road users, and b) is explicitly based on emissions from those motors (except for the 'legacy' regime), you're still arguing it's a 'road' tax?

It's tied to a motorists' usage of the road, so yes. It's a road tax that just happens to be limited to motorists.

it's also interesting to note your 'ON THE ROAD' phrasing. i would rephrase that as 'the tax must be paid TO USE SAID MOTOR'. because that is the sole use of 99.99% of the cars in this country, driving on public roads. the tax ceases to be payable if the motor is taken out of use.

I use the term "ON THE ROAD" because that is the legal standard. You can use any motor that is not on the road and not pay motor tax.
You can use lawnmowers, stationary petrol/diesel generators, motorised work/construction equipment, non-road going farm equipment and road-going motor vehicles that have been declared off road, for any off road use you may find such a vehicle useful for, all without paying motor tax.

If it actually was a "motor" tax, one would be liable for this tax for all of the above.

ThisRegard wrote: »

You actually posted this? You're changing the name of a tax in order to fit into some off the wall points you're trying to make?

No. I am merely pointing out that as an accurate description of the tax, the term "Road tax" is an appropriate colloquial term that can and should be used as a de-facto substitute for longer and less descriptive but de-jure terms such as Motor tax and Vehicle Excise Duty.

beauf

SeanW wrote: »

....It's tied to a motorists' usage of the road,.....

No it isn't doesn't matter how much you use the road the tax doesn't change. if you use the road less you don't pay less then someone who uses the road more.

SeanW wrote: »

Because the tax on road usage is limited to motorists....

Also applies to a bicycle with a petrol motor. But not to an bicycle with an electric motor. But does apply to Electric Mopeds.

Cookie_Monster

SeanW wrote: »

Because the tax on road usage is limited to motorists.

so it could be call something like "Motor Tax" perhaps?

I use the term "ON THE ROAD" because that is the legal standard. You can use any motor that is not on the road and not pay motor tax.
You can use lawnmowers, stationary petrol/diesel generators, motorised work/construction equipment, non-road going farm equipment and road-going motor vehicles that have been declared off road, for any off road use you may find such a vehicle useful for, all without paying motor tax.

still have to pay fuel taxes on these*

* for the most part at least.

magicbastarder

guys, you're missing the point. a (quote) 'key advantage' of the term 'road tax' is that it (again, quote) 'rolls off the tongue a lot easier than motor tax'.

i vote we change the name of PAYE to 'happy tax'. it's a snappier name, will make people happier to pay; what's to lose?

Arthur.beaker

They don't even pay road tax on their bicycles.

eeguy

Arthur.beaker wrote: »

They don't even pay road tax on their bicycles.

I wonder how much tax you'd pay on a 5 year olds bike from Santa.

Arthur.beaker

eeguy wrote: »

I wonder how much tax you'd pay on a 5 year olds bike from Santa.

How about a handle bar or saddle tax?

eeguy

Arthur.beaker wrote: »

How about a handle bar or saddle tax?

Sorry Timmy, you can't cycle your new bike because the tax disk didn't arrive :rolleyes:

check_six

Wasn't the change in nomenclature from Road Tax to Motor Tax in the 1930s in the UK specifically made to discourage motorists from the misapprehension that they were uniquely 'paying' for the roads and therefore 'owned' the roads?

This is a stupid debate. Apologies for contributing.

Carawaystick

SeanW wrote: »

Well, firstly, the Grand Canal cycle path is totally lawless, so as a pedestrian that's out there sometimes it's not something I'd be keen to replicate. Second, cyclists will ignore a cycle lane for any reason, up to and including just plain laziness.

Could you outline the lawlessness of the Grand Canal Cycle path?
Could you also state which part of the Grand Canal cycle path you mean?
It is in different guises from Clondalkin into the Dock
Shared Use, wide path, out near the M50,
Shared use, narrower path at Davvitt Road
On road Mandatory cycle lane at Dolphin's Barn
Segregated cycle track Charlemont Place

What is it as a pedestrian you wouldn't want to replicate?

Cyclists don't have to use cycle lanes except in narrow circumstances like pedestrianised streets or contraflow cycle lanes. Just like motorists don't have to use motorways.

magicbastarder

actually, why don't we turn the 'we should not give cyclists infrastructure until they learn to behave' approach on its head?
inspired by the place (in sweden, i think) which entered motorists who didn't speed into a raffle to win the fines of those caught speeding - how about we introduce a model where cycling and pedestrian infrastructure is paid for (but not exclusively) from the fines from motoring offences?
so the more motorists misbehave, the more infrastructure is given to non-motorists.

sounds fair, yes?

Arthur.beaker

eeguy wrote: »

Sorry Timmy, you can't cycle your new bike because the tax disk didn't arrive :rolleyes:

Exactly, teach them responsibility from a young age. Can't go wrong with that.

Arthur.beaker

magicbastarder wrote: »

actually, why don't we turn the 'we should not give cyclists infrastructure until they learn to behave' approach on its head?
inspired by the place (in sweden, i think) which entered motorists who didn't speed into a raffle to win the fines of those caught speeding - how about we introduce a model where cycling and pedestrian infrastructure is paid for (but not exclusively) from the fines from motoring offences?
so the more motorists misbehave, the more infrastructure is given to non-motorists.

sounds fair, yes?

Will we also be punishing cyclists for cycling offences such as cycling on foot paths, wrong way on one way streets and breaking pedestrian crossing lights?

ThisRegard

Where the law permits, they already do.

Arthur.beaker

ThisRegard wrote: »

Where the law permits, they already do.

When caught, which is extremely rare.

Arthur.beaker

Deedsie wrote: »

We already do have cycling fines for those things. AGS don't police it widely but the fines exist.

But are rarely enforced.

ThisRegard

Arthur.beaker wrote: »

When caught, which is extremely rare.

And why is that the fault of cyclists? You see people doing illegal activities in all forms of transports on a daily basis, they all don't get caught either.

eeguy

Arthur.beaker wrote: »

But are rarely enforced.

They're probably as well enforced as motorist fines in fairness.

On my 3k cycle home from work yesterday (where I didn't break any red lights), I saw 5 cars break red lights, two instances of cars stopped in a yellow box and in the latter incident a taxi mounted the kerb to get around the stopped car.

No penalties for any of these lads.

ED E

Arthur.beaker wrote: »

But are rarely enforced.

Just like parking in a Cycle Lane/Bus Corridor which is enforced only on the 5th tuesday of every month if the moon is at its fullest.


Writing any roads legislation is pointless in this country as the traffic corps won't enforce it.

Arthur.beaker

ThisRegard wrote: »

And why is that the fault of cyclists? You see people doing illegal activities in all forms of transports on a daily basis, they all don't get caught either.

So it isn't the fault of cyclists that they break the law?