So... what if we DID pay a road tax

fat bloke

Yes I know there's no such thing.
Yes I know cyclists are mostly also motorists and pay motor tax. I pay plenty of it myself, over 2 grand a year so I've as little interest as anyone else in paying out any more.
Yes I know that cyclists who are not motorists also already pay for roads through general taxation.
And yes I know collecting it and monitoring such a tax would be a complete ball-ache.

BUT

Given the current climate/atmosphere/mood, where the majority is "agin" us and it can be difficult to have a voice and we feel that there isn't an appropriate or proportionate spend on cycling etc etc etc.....- SHOULD we pay a "road" or call it what you like tax? - It could be as simple as a fiver onto the cost of every new bike sold, which would obviate any licencing or tax disc displaying. Or a fiver onto every Cycling Ireland Licence - I dunno how best to work it.
- But could it be a once and for all cancelling out of the constant argument against the legitimacy of cycling and cyclists as a bona-fide group of road-users with the same rights of existence and access as any other group of road user. Instead of just giving the impotent finger to the ignorant driver, you/I/we could idignantly retort back with the "I pay my road tax" counter argument.

Would it be worth it?


Edit - GAH!!! Wrong place. Sorry mods.

mickuhaha

Get RSA to do a bike license test for over 16 and give under 16 a learning permit with an annual training. Then charge an annual renewal fee.

stevek93

Insurance for cyclist would be wise

gman2k

Your argument is that cyclists should pay a road.tax to placate other road users.
No, they will find other reasons to hate us, helmets, high Viz, lights, cycling in groups, not using bike lanes, just being there.

Irishphotodesk

mickuhaha wrote: »

Get RSA to do a bike license test for over 16 and give under 16 a learning permit with an annual training. Then charge an annual renewal fee.

Just because someone sits and passes a test doesn't mean they will use the road correctly (cyclist or motorist).

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

And much as I dislike a lot of cyclists out there... most of them are perfectly fine but there’s still a substantial amount of morons out there... policing cycling and generating income off it is just wrong. What’s next, taxing people walking on the footpath? Just no.

fat bloke

gman2k wrote: »

Your argument is that cyclists should pay a road.tax to placate other road users.
No, they will find other reasons to hate us, helmets, high Viz, lights, cycling in groups, not using bike lanes, just being there.

Yeah, I'm not sure. There's something very emotive about the "freeloader" perspective. The "I have to pay, so why don't they?" - I KNOW it's completely wrong and uninformed and ignorant and not at all the case.

BUT (again) I do wonder if it would serve as a useful and once and for all shut-the-fcuk-up to that particularly vocal argument which only seems to undermine everything cyclists and cycling enthusiasts try to speak to.

magicbastarder

stevek93 wrote: »

Insurance for cyclist would be wise

wise in what sense? (assuming you're talking about it as a mandatory measure)
i once cycled into the back of a taxi at nearly 30km/h. i did so little damage to it that the taxi driver was unconcerned about it.
what would insurance do, except as a means to reduce cyclist numbers?

it's a solution in search of a problem to solve.

magicbastarder

fat bloke wrote: »

BUT (again) I do wonder if it would serve as a useful and once and for all shut-the-fcuk-up to that particularly vocal argument which only seems to undermine everything cyclists and cycling enthusiasts try to speak to.

the one thing which it at least would highlight is how little would be required. 'road tax' of under a euro, insurance probably around the same. it would highlight how ludicrous the arguments are, and that it would cost many, many more times to administer than the actual levies would collect.

mickuhaha

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

Just because someone sits and passes a test doesn't mean they will use the road correctly (cyclist or motorist).

I have seen some strange things on the road and your right, i completely agree but if you're licenced you have proven that you understand and can use your Vehicle in a safe manner in relation to yourself and others. I makes it easier when it comes to prosecute an individual for committing an offence like braking a red light. You could generate confidence in cyclists rather than a fee. You could make money off renewing a licence.

buffalo

fat bloke wrote: »

Yeah, I'm not sure. There's something very emotive about the "freeloader" perspective. The "I have to pay, so why don't they?" - I KNOW it's completely wrong and uninformed and ignorant and not at all the case.

BUT (again) I do wonder if it would serve as a useful and once and for all shut-the-fcuk-up to that particularly vocal argument which only seems to undermine everything cyclists and cycling enthusiasts try to speak to.

I think education would be a lot more useful and effective, and far cheaper. Rather than introducing a scheme costing €millions to create and administer, spend a few hundred thousand on an ad campaign on how much roads cost in capital and maintenance, how much motor-related injuries and illnesses cost the health system, how much environmental damage is done by emissions, and then explain how much motor tax raises in comparison. Then do the same, but for cycling.

That would be an awesome response to the freeloader argument.

stevek93

magicbastarder wrote: »

wise in what sense? (assuming you're talking about it as a mandatory measure)
i once cycled into the back of a taxi at nearly 30km/h. i did so little damage to it that the taxi driver was unconcerned about it.
what would insurance do, except as a means to reduce cyclist numbers?

it's a solution in search of a problem to solve.

Why did you cycle into a back of taxi?

Tenzor07

There's no what if, the concept of a taxation for non-motorised transport is utterly ridiculous!

magicbastarder

stevek93 wrote: »

Why did you cycle into a back of taxi?

because he was in the way.

Plastik

If cyclists pay road tax, can we impose the same road tax on motorists? Would seem unfair that cyclists pay road tax while they get away with just paying motor tax.

fat bloke

Plastik wrote: »

If cyclists pay road tax, can we impose the same road tax on motorists? Would seem unfair that cyclists pay road tax while they get away with just paying motor tax.

True, but unfortunately we're both both! .

magicbastarder

i think motorists should actually pay an extra fee for *unused* capacity in their cars. if you're driving into the city centre on your own in a five seater, you should be levied an extra charge for wasteful use of the road.
similarly for people cycling bikes with empty child seats on them, the selfish bastards.

nthclare

Cyclists shouldn't be on the roads in the first place unless they've some kind of permit.

They're dangerous especially around the Burren in Clare.
Many a Saturday morning I've been held up by two cyclist's abreast, and they know there's a car behind them.
Do you think they'ed even think of driving in single file, not a hope...

There's plenty of boreens and green road's in the Burren for them to cycle, why slow down everyone else...

Plastik

nthclare wrote: »

Cyclists shouldn't be on the roads in the first place unless they've some kind of permit.

They're dangerous especially around the Burren in Clare.
Many a Saturday morning I've been held up by two cyclist's abreast, and they know there's a car behind them.
Do you think they'ed even think of driving in single file, not a hope...

There's plenty of boreens and green road's in the Burren for them to cycle, why slow down everyone else...

Epic

magicbastarder

nthclare wrote: »

Cyclists shouldn't be on the roads in the first place unless they've some kind of permit.

They're dangerous especially around the Burren in Clare.
Many a Saturday morning I've been held up by two cyclist's abreast, and they know there's a car behind them.
Do you think they'ed even think of driving in single file, not a hope...

There's plenty of boreens and green road's in the Burren for them to cycle, why slow down everyone else...

hello and welcome to the cycling forum. might be worth checking out the charter, especially in relation to this not being a place for non-cyclists to have a pop at cyclists.

Tenzor07

nthclare wrote: »

Cyclists shouldn't be on the roads in the first place unless they've some kind of permit.
They're dangerous especially around the Burren in Clare.
Many a Saturday morning I've been held up by two cyclist's abreast, and they know there's a car behind them.
Do you think they'ed even think of driving in single file, not a hope...
There's plenty of boreens and green road's in the Burren for them to cycle, why slow down everyone else...

Your post is pure Grade A manure!

I read that post in the voice of "D'Unbelievables"

Duckjob

A “road” tax for cyclists would do nothing to alleviate bad feeling towards cyclists from certain motorists unless it was done with no regards to rate of road wear/ environmental impacts etc

Eg
https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-of-the-day-vehicle-weight-vs-road-damage-levels/

Going by the stats here, if calculating tax based purely on road wear and tear, then-

Assuming an average annual motor tax of €1000 (let’s say), cyclist road tax would be around 6c annually. I could live with that.

Want cyclists to pay €10 annually? That’ll be an annual bill of €166,666 motor tax bill to drive your car please 🀪

Want them to pay €50 annually? That’ll be €833,333 annually please 🀪🀪

And so on.... and we haven’t even talked about other factors like environmental impact or public health system dependence yet.

I don’t have the link handy but one or more of the Nordic countries conducted cost benefit analysis m and determined that for every €1 you spend on cycling infrastructure you save back €8 in cost savings in getting people out of their cars and only bikes. That’s almost twice as good an investment return as the SSIA which people jumped on nearly 2 decades ago.

That’s why more enlightened countries like Belgium are actually willing to pay people to cycle to work, because even after paying for the infrastructure and paying people to cycle, they’re still quids in. It’s simply mind boggling to me that our government, despite all the words, remain paralyzed when it comes to this.

Motoring, on the other hand is heavy subsidized so the notion that many idiots here have that they “pay for the road “ is utter nonsense.

The sad fact is that those people have no interest in freely available facts and statistics around motorists and cycling that have been gathered and acted upon in other countries. They are stuck in a dog-in-the-manger mindset where they think wrongly that people cycling are getting something for free that they are not.

They will never be happy with a cyclist "road" tax unless it is a wildly disproportionate one that doesn’t shake then awake from their delusions.

fat bloke

nthclare wrote: »

Cyclists shouldn't be on the roads in the first place unless they've some kind of permit.

They're dangerous especially around the Burren in Clare.
Many a Saturday morning I've been held up by two cyclist's abreast, and they know there's a car behind them.
Do you think they'ed even think of driving in single file, not a hope...

There's plenty of boreens and green road's in the Burren for them to cycle, why slow down everyone else...

That's awesome. You think there really aren't people out there with that mindset anymore, but here's a live one, fresh from under a North Clare rock. :rolleyes:

secman

20% of drivers cycle
80% of cyclists drive..
Therein lies the problem. A better option would be to include in the driving licence test a 15 min cycle in traffic so they get a better appreciation of what its like to be a cyclist in traffic and they may behave better towards them.

Just a thought... not a random one though.

Peter T

Id pay it if it meant some proper infrastructure to be built with the money

Wishbone Ash

fat bloke wrote: »

Yeah, I'm not sure. There's something very emotive about the "freeloader" perspective. The "I have to pay, so why don't they?" - I KNOW it's completely wrong and uninformed and ignorant and not at all the case.....

Motoring is heavily subsidized - some indicating that it should cost 4 times what is does cost. Perhaps a daily advertising campaign reminding motorists of how much they are freeloading.

fat bloke

secman wrote: »

20% of drivers cycle
80% of cyclists drive..
Therein lies the problem. A better option would be to include in the driving licence test a 15 min cycle in traffic so they get a better appreciation of what its like to be a cyclist in traffic and they may behave better towards them.

Just a thought... not a random one though.

Right, I read that and thought "good idea", then I thought - hang on a second, who takes a driving test? - Young people for the most part. Young people that up until that point have been getting around by some means other than a car. Why the fcuk haven't they all been cycling?!?! They should, or the vast majority of them should, have accumulated ten+ years of cycling in traffic experience.
I mean everyone knows what it's like to be a pedestrian and to be bullied off the road by cars and left on pedestrian islands in the rain by cars, and 120kph close passed on a b road. They don't need 15 mins in a test to learn that cars are dangerous and drivers can be a$$holes. So I wonder what it is about the human condition that makes drivers so selfish and self righteous behind the wheel.

I honestly think it comes back to money. I paid for this car, I paid to insure it, I pay to tax it, my taxes pay for the road, this is my road - - - - - Get off my road! Drivers don't think that about other drivers because other drivers also 8en the road so they're entitled to be there. But the cyclist isn't because they haven't paid.

So... What if we paid?!


(again, I don't agree with the above, it's clearly nonsense, I'm just parsing the common erroneous argument and resultant ignorant perception)

magicbastarder

fat bloke wrote: »

I pay plenty of it myself, over 2 grand a year

how many cars is that for?

tdf7187

Concept is absurd and as another poster said if we did have to pay a road tax they would find another stick with which to beat us.

I do think there is a case for some kind of cycling test, also would support more Garda enforcement of bad behaviour by cyclists and helmet wearing being made compulsory.

Tenzor07

fat bloke wrote: »

Young people for the most part. Young people that up until that point have been getting around by some means other than a car. Why the fcuk haven't they all been cycling?!?! They should, or the vast majority of them should, have accumulated ten+ years of cycling in traffic experience.

I'd say the current generation of new drivers have been ferried around in the back of SUVs to school, soccer practice etc. since they were born, so have no appreciation of non-vehicular traffic on the road...

fat bloke

magicbastarder wrote: »

how many cars is that for?

Two 12 year old cars.

nthclare

magicbastarder wrote: »

hello and welcome to the cycling forum. might be worth checking out the charter, especially in relation to this not being a place for non-cyclists to have a pop at cyclists.

But in fairness, call a spade a spade.
There's a lot of responsibile cyclists out there.
But the loons cycling two a brest on a secondary road are causing a danger to themselves and others.

You'd hardly notice the cyclists who are safe and responsible because they probably drive themselves and know that there will be car's frequenting said road's. So they'll cycle in single file or line up when a car approaches from behind or from the front.

I was only joking about cyclists needing permits and shouldn't be on the roads, so I'll take that back and apologies for offending anyone.

The poster who said that there shouldn't be vehicles pumping out fumes around the Burren is living in Cuckoo land, more than likely from the green fraternity.

The eco system will just dilute the fumes through taking in CO2 during the day and releasing it as oxygen there after....

So I think you're cycling up the wrong road there, nice try though I can see what you mean.

As for The Unbelievable s comment, Fr Ted was filmed in the locality so I can my comment might be better coming from Fr Noel or someone else

Wishbone Ash

nthclare wrote: »

...But the loons cycling two a brest on a secondary road are causing a danger to themselves and others....

It's done for safety and is perfectly legal. Cycling single file only encourages motorists to squeeze past when there isn't enough room. (...and in single file they'll be twice as long).

You say you are held up regularly on Saturday mornings. Have you not learned from that and leave earlier.

How do you manage when you're confronted with congestion caused by motorists? Do you expect drivers to get out of your way?

ruwithme

fat bloke wrote: »

Yes I know there's no such thing.
Yes I know cyclists are mostly also motorists and pay motor tax. I pay plenty of it myself, over 2 grand a year so I've as little interest as anyone else in paying out any more.
Yes I know that cyclists who are not motorists also already pay for roads through general taxation.
And yes I know collecting it and monitoring such a tax would be a complete ball-ache.

BUT

Given the current climate/atmosphere/mood, where the majority is "agin" us and it can be difficult to have a voice and we feel that there isn't an appropriate or proportionate spend on cycling etc etc etc.....- SHOULD we pay a "road" or call it what you like tax? - It could be as simple as a fiver onto the cost of every new bike sold, which would obviate any licencing or tax disc displaying. Or a fiver onto every Cycling Ireland Licence - I dunno how best to work it.
- But could it be a once and for all cancelling out of the constant argument against the legitimacy of cycling and cyclists as a bona-fide group of road-users with the same rights of existence and access as any other group of road user. Instead of just giving the impotent finger to the ignorant driver, you/I/we could idignantly retort back with the "I pay my road tax" counter argument.

Would it be worth it?


Edit - GAH!!! Wrong place. Sorry mods.

Don't be giving them any ideas with that chat, you will have them taxing walking and the pony and trap next.

magicbastarder

nthclare wrote: »

The eco system will just dilute the fumes through taking in CO2 during the day and releasing it as oxygen there after....

not sure if serious.
what growing carbon sink are you referring to?

fat bloke

nthclare wrote: »

You'd hardly notice the cyclists who are safe and responsible

I'd say you don't notice them at all. You can just barrel by those lads, in-lane, without scrubbing off any speed at all.

As a cyclist. I want you to notice me. I want you to see me, adjust your speed on approach, and overtake me safely. - Like you're forced to do with the lads 2-abreast. Or ANY other road user - pedestrian, horse, car, tractor, truck etc etc etc.

mamax

nthclare wrote: »

But the loons cycling two a brest on a secondary road are causing a danger to themselves and others.

Are you really that silly or just here to cause trouble ?
And do you frequent the farming forums to complain about the slow moving tractors that you can't pass either which are a lot more dangerous to everyone spreading sh!t all over the road at times ?
Slow down a bit and overtake only when it's safe to do so.

nthclare

mamax wrote: »

Are you really that silly or just here to cause trouble ?
And do you frequent the farming forums to complain about the slow moving tractors that you can't pass either which are a lot more dangerous to everyone spreading sh!t all over the road at times ?
Slow down a bit and overtake only when it's safe to do so.

Deflecting the discussion onto tractors now are we.
Tractors cannot split themselves into two halves and make the road wider.

Two cyclist's can easily transform into single file, and then revert back to cycling two abreast there after.

Why should a motorist drive behind two cyclist's along a narrow road for age's ?

All they have to do is pull in and I could drive around them.

Bringing the farming forum into this and complaining about **** on the roads is a bit infantile.

Why don't you bring up your dillema in the farming forum ?

Why can't two cyclist's abreast pull in and let a car pass because it'll be safe to do so ?

nthclare

fat bloke wrote: »

I'd say you don't notice them at all. You can just barrel by those lads, in-lane, without scrubbing off any speed at all.

As a cyclist. I want you to notice me. I want you to see me, adjust your speed on approach, and overtake me safely. - Like you're forced to do with the lads 2-abreast. Or ANY other road user - pedestrian, horse, car, tractor, truck etc etc etc.

In layman's terms...

The cyclists who are in single file are noticeable, but they're not out in the middle of the road.

How can you over take two cyclist's abreast on the Tubber to Kinvara road and leave safe space between the driver and two cyclist's ?

magicbastarder

nthclare wrote: »

Two cyclist's can easily transform into single file, and then revert back to cycling two abreast there after.

are you saying the lanes in north clare are wide enough to allow a cyclist in single file 1m of road, and allow a 1.5m gap between them and you for overtaking, and 2m for your car? that's a 4.5m lane.
or else are you overtaking this single file cyclist by crossing the white line?

seamus

I did the sums on this years back but I didn't save them. Basically if cyclists were to pay motor tax on an apples-to-apples basis with cars, based on CO2 emissions, then it would be in the region of a few cents, maybe a euro per year. Which would cost a hundred times more to collect and enforce.

If the "cycling tax" was to be increased to something like €50/year, then the lowest motor tax band would have to be increased to around €500/year in order to keep it equitable.

So by all means if someone who pays €200 motor tax a year is happy to pay €1000 next year, then I'll happily pay my €50 cycling tax in return. Until then, they can bite me.

magicbastarder

seamus wrote: »

So by all means if someone who pays €200 motor tax a year is happy to pay €1000 next year, then I'll happily pay my €50 cycling tax in return.

you're forgetting the crucial part of this - how would you display your tax and insurance disks?
those dastardly fiends in government would probably mandate some horrifically ugly and unaerodynamic plastic holder to bolt to your handlbars. that's where the real battle lies.

nthclare

magicbastarder wrote: »

are you saying the lanes in north clare are wide enough to allow a cyclist in single file 1m of road, and allow a 1.5m gap between them and you for overtaking, and 2m for your car? that's a 4.5m lane.
or else are you overtaking this single file cyclist by crossing the white line?

Have you driven the new line road from Tubber to Kinvara ?

It's quite long and straight, and there's no white line's.

As I said not all cyclists will hold up traffic actually maybe ten percent act the ghoul on the road the rest usually pull in single file.

The Burren cycling club are really good and they are well coordinated, they're well used to these roads

seamus

magicbastarder wrote: »

you're forgetting the crucial part of this - how would you display your tax and insurance disks?
those dastardly fiends in government would probably mandate some horrifically ugly and unaerodynamic plastic holder to bolt to your handlbars. that's where the real battle lies.

If drivers agreed to allow an increase of motor tax by 500% I'd get my cycling tax disc tatooed on my forehead.

eeeee

nthclare wrote: »

Have you driven the new line road from Tubber to Kinvara ?

It's quite long and straight, and there's no white line's.

As I said not all cyclists will hold up traffic actually maybe ten percent act the ghoul on the road the rest usually pull in single file.

The Burren cycling club are really good and they are well coordinated, they're well used to these roads

MOD NOTE: Please acquaint yourself with the charter before posting again, posting negativity, two abreast giving out etc. is not allowed.
Any further off topic posts and replies of this nature will be deleted.

07Lapierre

Just Buy one of these!

(Its Hi-Viz too so no excuses for Motorists)

CramCycle

nthclare wrote: »

Why can't two cyclist's abreast pull in and let a car pass because it'll be safe to do so ?

Long story short. If you cannot safely overtake two cyclists side by side then you cannot safely overtake them safely in single file in the same scenario but you'd be more tempted too. It's not ignorance or arrogance, it is a protective measure. If you feel this happens to you alot, leave earlier would solve alot of issues. Motorists who pay attention, rather than getting worked up, will realise that the delay on rural roads is actually quite minimal.

You think you can and I understand that but it is, in the majority of cases, simply untrue but you may not be able to see it from your perspective.

AndrewJRenko

Weepsie wrote: »

I went into the back of Quasqai. It's driver had pulled in to make a call in a 24 hour bus lane that I've never ever seen a car in before other than the very occasional taxi. This is in 3-4 years of using that road. My brain kind of turned off when I saw it just ahead thinking it must be moving especially as there was a little layby just up the road and a free car park just to the right.

A cyclist was killed in Cork after crashing into the back of a car parked in similar circumstances.

nthclare wrote: »

But in fairness, call a spade a spade.
There's a lot of responsibile cyclists out there.
But the loons cycling two a brest on a secondary road are causing a danger to themselves and others.

Specifically, what danger arises?