Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact [email protected]

Closed thread

  • 22-01-2021 1:58pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 152 ✭✭


    Dun Laogahire and Rathdown CC have now made road passage in the area into a nightmare with their obsessive need to put bloody cycle tracks everywhere. I am wondering if it is possible to challenge the Government that in fact we should not pay any road tax since the roads are now almost impassable ? Has anyone done this ?
    So even in the run up to Christmas, roads in this area were blitzed with temporary road works wherever you go, traffic lights now every 100m, and these bollards which now prevent the normal flow of cars,lorries etc. Examples are the Ballyogan Road in which the LUAS Station Glencairn is now blessed with traffic lights at BOTH ends of the station ! There are literally traffic lights every 100m now on that stretch. Another example is Leopardstown Road by Torquay Road junction. Do we really need THREE sets of lights within 100m of each other ??
    Traffic used to flow in this jurisdiction, now it literally crawls from one set of traffic lights to the next. Meanwhile, roads like the Stradbrook Road are so badly maintained that it is only a matter of time before a car disappears down a pothole. And there are numerous other examples of this stupidity and wasting of taxpayer's money.
    The Kilgobbin Road which was narrow enough anyway. Now traffic has come to a standstill halfway along this road and why ? Because the idiots in charge of traffic management decided to put bollards (small metal posts) EITHER side of the road, which even the smallest MPVs now cannot pass each other, and thus block the traffic in either direction. Did this council buy a job lot of traffic lights and bollards in a fire sale, and thus find the need to have to put them everywhere ? Take the junction of Wyattville Road and Churchtown Road. Instead of a lead in filter lane for traffic taking the Churchtown Road, there are now bollards which prevent filtering down to just two cards, so what happens ? The traffic is backed up on the Wyattville Road. Again there are numerous examples of this stupidity.
    If you must have cycle lanes (and I understand there is a need for them), don't make motorists pay for this, charge the people who are going to benefit, and don't do this at the expense of maintenance needed for roads which motorists use. And for Christ's sake stop with the traffic light and bollard invasion.


Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,205 ✭✭✭cruizer101


    We don't, we pay motor tax


  • Registered Users Posts: 943 ✭✭✭riddlinrussell


    To be specific, tax paid on a car is an emissions tax, bicycles do not produce emissions during use and therefore do not pay motor tax.

    Also of note, many people who cycle also own cars and therefore they do pay motor tax, many of them would like to see fewer cars on the roads.

    Finally neither motor tax, nor any other vehicle specific tax pays for road upkeep or building, the funds for that come out of a general pot and are not ringfenced, so it makes as much sense to complain that you pay VAT on a chocolate bar, therefore you should get to decide what way road space is allocated, as to say you pay motor tax or fictional 'road tax'.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,275 ✭✭✭km991148


    To be specific, tax paid on a car is an emissions tax, bicycles do not produce emissions during use and therefore do not pay motor tax.

    Also of note, many people who cycle also own cars and therefore they do pay motor tax, many of them would like to see fewer cars on the roads.

    Finally neither motor tax, nor any other vehicle specific tax pays for road upkeep or building, the funds for that come out of a general pot and are not ringfenced, so it makes as much sense to complain that you pay VAT on a chocolate bar, therefore you should get to decide what way road space is allocated, as to say you pay motor tax or fictional 'road tax'.

    Or indeed any taxation - Why do I pay sh!tloads of income tax - I don't even have kids in schools, or use public health or rely on (insert in local issue here..)..

    However, I don't want to ruin your rant - the quality of some roads are absolute shocking and down right dangerous (for all traffic!).


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,204 ✭✭✭partyguinness


    Because we live in a society where we are all asked to contribute. It is like a social contract with the State and among ourselves.


  • Registered Users Posts: 827 ✭✭✭HalfAndHalf


    So this isn’t so much a ‘road tax’ thread as a ‘bloody cyclists’ thread. Right.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,518 ✭✭✭AugustusMinimus


    To be specific, tax paid on a car is an emissions tax, bicycles do not produce emissions during use and therefore do not pay motor tax.

    Also of note, many people who cycle also own cars and therefore they do pay motor tax, many of them would like to see fewer cars on the roads.

    Finally neither motor tax, nor any other vehicle specific tax pays for road upkeep or building, the funds for that come out of a general pot and are not ringfenced, so it makes as much sense to complain that you pay VAT on a chocolate bar, therefore you should get to decide what way road space is allocated, as to say you pay motor tax or fictional 'road tax'.

    Motor tax is not an emissions tax. It existed long before any global warming issue was in the public sphere. That’s what the carbon tax is.

    Motor tax was introduced as a way to gouge the motorist. Unlike other commodities, people need to travel. Given the state of public transport in this country, government after government view this tax as quite inelastic and a dependable source of Revenue for the state.

    While there is no direct link between contributions and ring fencing revenue for spending on roads, the motoring public have every right to complain about potholes and the like given the Motor Tax, VRT, VAT and Excise on fuel. All that money and then to dent an alloy on our ****ty roads.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,187 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    OP...reading your post makes me wonder why i have a car at all! its almost like the local council don't want me driving my car in the city? Its as if they want us to use public transport, walk or cycle everywhere! ;)


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,204 ✭✭✭partyguinness


    Don't make motorists pay for cyclepaths says you?

    Let's not stop there. How much do drunk drivers and road accidents cost the ecomony and in particular the health service every year? Let's tax motorists higher to cover that...I mean why should cyclists or non motorists cover the health costs for the bad/careless/drunk drivers?

    I can't get pregnant being male and all that...why is my tax be used for child benefit?


  • Registered Users Posts: 22,178 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    It's not mandatory. Sell your car and cheer the fcuk up. You can whinge about any number of other taxes an levies then.


  • Registered Users Posts: 599 ✭✭✭POBox19


    Road, Motor, Income, whatever, it's just TAX.
    Tax on cigarettes is not spent on more cigarettes, likewise motor tax is not spent on roads.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,500 ✭✭✭Dr. Bre


    Well that escalated quickly


  • Registered Users Posts: 596 ✭✭✭bigar


    Ah, another motorist complaining about something they themselves have caused: congestion.
    Very amusing post, thank you.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,518 ✭✭✭AugustusMinimus


    bigar wrote: »
    Ah, another motorist complaining about something they themselves have caused: congestion.
    Very amusing post, thank you.

    I’ve never fully understood this argument. It’s natural conclusion is that no roads should be built at all.

    The whole argument IMO is an exercise in reductio ad absurdum


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,750 ✭✭✭LillySV


    To be specific, tax paid on a car is an emissions tax, bicycles do not produce emissions during use and therefore do not pay motor tax.

    Also of note, many people who cycle also own cars and therefore they do pay motor tax, many of them would like to see fewer cars on the roads.

    Finally neither motor tax, nor any other vehicle specific tax pays for road upkeep or building, the funds for that come out of a general pot and are not ringfenced, so it makes as much sense to complain that you pay VAT on a chocolate bar, therefore you should get to decide what way road space is allocated, as to say you pay motor tax or fictional 'road tax'.

    Many people who pay motor tax own cars , many of them would like to see fewer male cyclists on the road as they are girley and always entitled :p


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,322 ✭✭✭✭jimmycrackcorm


    I’ve never fully understood this argument. It’s natural conclusion is that no roads should be built at all.

    No, the natural conclusion is that you shouldn't complain if you are adding to the congestion, not that necessary roads should not be built.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,679 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    thegeezer wrote: »
    If you must have cycle lanes (and I understand there is a need for them), don't make motorists pay for this, charge the people who are going to benefit, and don't do this at the expense of maintenance needed for roads which motorists use. And for Christ's sake stop with the traffic light and bollard invasion.

    Presumably we should take the same approach to footpaths, and charge the people who are going to benefit -bloody free loading pedestrians, when are they going to start paying their way?

    Btw, bollards aren't for cyclists. Bollards are for motorists, specifically for the large numbers of drivers who can't be trusted to obey basic traffic laws and not park in cycle paths.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,204 ✭✭✭partyguinness


    "Don't complain about the traffic jam or congestion because you are the traffic jam"


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    The funniest part is if "motor tax" was actually used to fund roads and was the only means of doing so, it would be so expensive that there would be virtually no motorists.

    Sorry op, that you might be inconvenienced slightly to ensure safer travel for little ones, elderly, commuters, students etc on bikes, well, thats not something I am going to be worrying about

    One thing I will say, get used to it, there's going to be a LOT more coming


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,187 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    As a protest i think all motorists should do what the farmers did... Drive in convoy at slow speed around the M50! oh wait... that sounds like an average Monday morning rush hour!


  • Registered Users Posts: 34 OnDeBanks


    Wait until they close Strand Road Northbound.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,275 ✭✭✭km991148


    07Lapierre wrote: »
    As a protest i think all motorists should do what the farmers did... Drive in convoy at slow speed around the M50! oh wait... that sounds like an average Monday morning rush hour!

    :pac:

    What if all car owning cyclists took to the roads in a solidarity protest with their non bicycle owning brethren?


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,518 ✭✭✭AugustusMinimus


    DaCor wrote: »
    The funniest part is if "motor tax" was actually used to fund roads and was the only means of doing so, it would be so expensive that there would be virtually no motorists.

    Sorry op, that you might be inconvenienced slightly to ensure safer travel for little ones, elderly, commuters, students etc on bikes, well, thats not something I am going to be worrying about

    One thing I will say, get used to it, there's going to be a LOT more coming

    What about the combined haul from Motor Tax, VRT, Carbon Tax, VAT on Cars, VAT on fuel, excise on fuel and of course VAT on the excise on the fuel?

    Isn’t there also a government levy on car insurance along with an additional cost to fund PMPA going bankrupt 25 years ago.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,384 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    What about the combined haul from Motor Tax, VRT, Carbon Tax, VAT on Cars, VAT on fuel, excise on fuel and of course VAT on the excise on the fuel?

    Isn’t there also a government levy on car insurance along with an additional cost to fund PMPA going bankrupt 25 years ago.

    Well that , and quin and setanta ,
    I thought all the "road tax " was supposed to pay for the water services ... ( Well that was the story 8 or so years ago ... ).
    ;-)

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,187 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    km991148 wrote: »
    :pac:

    What if all car owning cyclists took to the roads in a solidarity protest with their non bicycle owning brethren?

    Good Idea...we could wear helmets and put Hi-viz jackets on our cars too! ;)
    we could act like cyclists and drive on the hard shoulder and run red lights and....eh...no...thats just your average motorist too!


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,679 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    km991148 wrote: »
    :pac:

    What if all car owning cyclists took to the roads in a solidarity protest with their non bicycle owning brethren?

    Something like this perhaps, that demonstrates the vast amounts of wasted space from the single-occupant cars all around us?

    automobile-bicycle-protest-lets-bike-it-4.jpg

    From http://www.demilked.com/automobile-bicycle-protest-lets-bike-it/
    What about the combined haul from Motor Tax, VRT, Carbon Tax, VAT on Cars, VAT on fuel, excise on fuel and of course VAT on the excise on the fuel?
    Be careful what you wish for. What about the combined haul of the extensive healthcare costs arising from motoring, including the motorist's share of the 1500 premature deaths each year due to poor air quality, and the cost of the large amounts of public space given over the storage of private property (car parking), mostly at no actual cost?
    Isn’t there also a government levy on car insurance along with an additional cost to fund PMPA going bankrupt 25 years ago.
    Well yes, but that goes to pay for bust insurance firms that the State had to bail out. It's not income available to fund public services.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,309 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    Is this even on-topic for "Roads"? Sounds like a political argument.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,099 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Mod: This is not a subject for Infrastructure.

    Open a thread in either the politics or motoring forums.

    Thread closed.

    Thank you.



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement