Cyclists, insurance and road tax

Sono Topolino

My opinions on this are not welcome on the cycling forum, so here we go.

Why is it such a taboo to request cyclists to get insurance and pay taxes for the roads that they use, just like car drivers do?

"There is no such thing as road tax" cyclists bleat - except there are plenty of taxes that other road users have to pay, and cyclists pay none of them. There are plenty of tax breaks which cyclists can avail of, and second hand bikes which are dickied up to be as good as new are even VAT free.

I agree that cycling is worth encouraging in big cities like Dublin, where it is a superior form of transport, but the cycle lanes have to be paid for from somewhere. And in rural areas, the only cyclists I see are doing it as a form of exercise on a road built for cars and tractors, slowing all the traffic down and endangering all road users. If cyclists want to cycle on main roads in rural Ireland, then they should pay for greenways for this purpose.

Until then, they're a nuisance and a menace. So cyclists really have no arguments against mandatory insurance either. Before giving them insurance, I assume those companies will want evidence that cyclists know the rules of the road - something which currently they are not required to be remotely aware of.

It's a pity I can't actually address this point to cyclists in the cycling forum.



Threadbanned Posters:

• Joe4321
• Spook_ie

Smee_Again

Its been a while since we've had this thread.

statto25

Sono Topolino wrote: »

"There is no such thing as road tax" cyclists bleat - except there are plenty of taxes that other road users have to pay, and cyclists pay none of them.

What are these other taxes you speak of....and there IS NO such thing as road tax....so those bleating cyclists are correct

Tombo2001

Could have googled it OP. But you didnt.

PS - as a cyclist, glad to know I am both a nuisance and a menace.

Glad to know I am in the category of 'they'. Not one of 'us', whatever that is.

You are saying you werent allowed post this in the Cycling forum?

Anyway, I am sure your views will be welcome in in the Current Affairs/ IMHO .


The forum where 'us' takes the opportunity to rant about 'they'.

Sono Topolino

statto25 wrote: »

What are these other taxes you speak of....and there IS NO such thing as road tax....so those bleating cyclists are correct

Motor tax
VRT
VAT

Cyclists get tax breaks.

Smee_Again

Sono Topolino wrote: »

Motor tax
VRT
VAT

Cyclists get tax breaks.

I got a tax break when I bought my car.

Sono Topolino

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Could have googled it OP. But you didnt.

PS - as a cyclist, glad to know I am both a nuisance and a menace.

You are saying you werent allowed post this in the Cycling forum?

I was told "this isn't a forum for complaining about cyclists".

I tried resurrecting an AH thread but my post was deleted by moderators.

griffdaddy

Sono Topolino wrote: »

Motor tax
VRT
VAT

Cyclists get tax breaks.

You could drive an electric car and avail of low rates of motor tax as well as getting a grant from the government. There's VAT on everything to some extent, not sure what your argument is there? Everyone pays tax to fund everything in the country. By your logic pedestrians should pay footpath tax?

Tombo2001

Sono Topolino wrote: »

Motor tax
VRT
VAT

Cyclists get tax breaks.

Why didnt you include Ice Cream tax and Surf Board tax.

What they all have in common is that none of them are Road tax.

statto25

Sono Topolino wrote: »

Motor tax
VRT
VAT

Cyclists get tax breaks.

Motor Tax: Tax for the privilege of owning a Motor Vehicle
VRT: Tax for the registration of a purchased motor vehicle
VAT: Tax applied to all goods sold for non commercial purposes


2 of those 3 dont apply to cyclists as they apply to motor vehicle owners. The 3rd applies and the last time I checked, I paid VAT on my last bike purchase.
Dont forget to account for the fact that most cyclists are also car owners so your post is incorrect for the most part

doughef

You should know by now your not allowed question our cycling friends about anything in this platform !

Tombo2001

statto25 wrote: »

Motor Tax: Tax for the privilege of owning a Motor Vehicle
VRT: Tax for the registration of a purchased motor vehicle
VAT: Tax applied to all goods sold for non commercial purposes


2 of those 3 dont apply to cyclists as they apply to motor vehicle owners. The 3rd applies and the last time I checked, I paid VAT on my last bike purchase.
Dont forget to account for the fact that most cyclists are also car owners so your post is incorrect for the most part

When presented with information - will OP recognise his/ her mistake?

Lets find out.....

Donald Trump

You forgot to include the fact that nobody charges cyclists for petrol or diesel for their bikes either OP.
And how the cyclists are let away with not having to do a yearly NCT on their bikes is another one.
Not to mention the high charges in the local garage here to get your car washed using their machine. I've never seen a garage with a relatively high bike-wash. Discrimination I tell ya

antfin

Sono Topolino wrote: »

My opinions on this are not welcome on the cycling forum, so here we go.

Why is it such a taboo to request cyclists to get insurance and pay taxes for the roads that they use, just like car drivers do?

"There is no such thing as road tax" cyclists bleat - except there are plenty of taxes that other road users have to pay, and cyclists pay none of them. There are plenty of tax breaks which cyclists can avail of, and second hand bikes which are dickied up to be as good as new are even VAT free.

I agree that cycling is worth encouraging in big cities like Dublin, where it is a superior form of transport, but the cycle lanes have to be paid for from somewhere. And in rural areas, the only cyclists I see are doing it as a form of exercise on a road built for cars and tractors, slowing all the traffic down and endangering all road users. If cyclists want to cycle on main roads in rural Ireland, then they should pay for greenways for this purpose.

Until then, they're a nuisance and a menace. So cyclists really have no arguments against mandatory insurance either. Before giving them insurance, I assume those companies will want evidence that cyclists know the rules of the road - something which currently they are not required to be remotely aware of.

It's a pity I can't actually address this point to cyclists in the cycling forum.

How would this be enforced against kids on their bicycles cycling to school? Would the Gardai be diverting resources to set up checkpoints to stop kids, issue them with a fine and take the bike off them if the parents hadn't insured and taxed the bike for the kid? Or would there be an age limit so that if a kid could produce an ID document to prove they were under the age limit they wouldn't be fined? Checkpoints either side of most schools in cities would surely generate massive revenue!

Tombo2001

doughef wrote: »

You should know by now your not allowed question our cycling friends about anything in this platform !

I dont see the mods intervening......

Smee_Again

doughef wrote: »

You should know by now your you're not allowed question our cycling friends about anything in this platform !

Fixed that for you.

The J Stands for Jay

Sono Topolino wrote: »

Motor tax
VRT
VAT

Cyclists get tax breaks.

Motor tax and VRT dont cover the cost of the externalities of motor vehicles; the health problems they cause, the environmental damage, the amount of the landmass of this country covered in tar, the streetlights at deserted junctions which all electricity uses pay for but only road users benefit from.

Cyclists pay VAT.

Tombo2001

Come on OP - is this yet another example of someone using false information to vent their gripes on social media.

Or can you acknowledge that you are completely wrong - if facts count for anything - on the subject of Road Tax.

RobbieTheRobber

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I dont see the mods intervening......

The cycling forum will soon attempt to kidnap a mod and hold them to ransom until this thread is closed!

Sono Topolino

statto25 wrote: »

Motor Tax: Tax for the privilege of owning a Motor Vehicle
VRT: Tax for the registration of a purchased motor vehicle
VAT: Tax applied to all goods sold for non commercial purposes


2 of those 3 dont apply to cyclists as they apply to motor vehicle owners. The 3rd applies and the last time I checked, I paid VAT on my last bike purchase.
Dont forget to account for the fact that most cyclists are also car owners so your post is incorrect for the most part

1. There's no VAT on second hand bicycles - even if they're as good as new.
2. Cyclists can get 50% off the price of a new bike via the BTW scheme. Note, there's nobody checking if they use this bike to get to work!
3. Motor tax and VRT are taxes on road vehicles.

The Irish people are subsidising people owning bikes, which would be fair enough in the middle of Dublin but makes no sense in Castlepolard, Co. Westmeath.

Paddigol

Because cars, trucks and vans destroy the roads, which constantly need to be maintained and repaired at the tax payer's expense.

And because cars, truck, vans emit massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere... which needs to be offset at the tax payer's expense.

Cycling has virtually zero impact on the road surface quality. And virtually zero carbon footprint.

Cycle lanes are a necessary evil as so many drivers are incapable of sharing the road. A lot of cyclists hate cycle lanes as they are badly designed, used by others as footpaths and badly maintained. But to encourage people to start cycling, it seems cycle lanes are needed.

The only people endangering road users' safety on roads are people who can't cycle or drive within the rules of the road. Only an idiot would argue that a road user is in more danger as a result of a cyclist than a dangerous, impatient, poorly skilled driver.

You're entitled to your opinion, which is effectively that cyclists should be taken off all roads onto either cycle lanes or greenways, and the roads returned to use exclusively by cars. Maybe you think that would make the country a better place to live.

My opinion? Roads have been around for centuries. Cars for about 100 years. Roads were certainly not built for them - they've been taken over by them. Cars should be subject to higher rates of motor tax given the impact they have on the road infrastructure. Particularly the big, gas-guzzling types. This would result in better roads and better public transport options. Speeding drivers should be crucified on insurance renewal and fines. Drivers prosecuted for dangerous/ careless driving should have their licences revoked without exception. And people driving without insurance should be jailed.

The J Stands for Jay

What about insurance? The main cost of insurance is 3rd party. Are cyclists likely to kill, main and destroy property of they have an accident?

km991148

It's not so much that your opinion isn't so much welcome on its own, I'd say it's more because the arguments and generalisations don't make much sense.

The tiniest bit of research would show this.


But sure, they don't even wear helmets etc etc

Joe4321

Totally agree, when you purchase a bike you should need to have it registered and a number attached so you can be identified just like a motor vehicle, cyclists that use public roads should have insurance. Anyone who cycles on public roads should have a licence or certificate to say that they are proficent in the rules of the road, but unfortunately we have no one in government including that clown in the green party to implament these things, oh and cyclists need to be allocated 90% of the road for their use.

freshpopcorn

Oh this thread again,
It’s one those who you nearly can predict who’ll post in it.

The J Stands for Jay

Sono Topolino wrote: »

1. There's no VAT on second hand bicycles - even if they're as good as new.
2. Cyclists can get 50% off the price of a new bike via the BTW scheme. Note, there's nobody checking if they use this bike to get to work!
3. Motor tax and VRT are taxes on road vehicles.

The Irish people are subsidising people owning bikes, which would be fair enough in the middle of Dublin but makes no sense in Castlepolard, Co. Westmeath.

1. You can buy a second hand car without vat.
2. The tax break on a bike is cheaper than suffering the external costs we all suffer from other people's car journeys.
3. The gas state of water is known as steam.

Irish people are subsidising the destruction of the environment by motorists and the health costs caused to others by the actions of motorists.

doughef

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

The cycling forum will soon attempt to kidnap a mod and hold them to ransom until this thread is closed!

Won’t be long !

Hoboo

McGaggs wrote: »

What about insurance? The main cost of insurance is 3rd party. Are cyclists likely to kill, main and destroy property of they have an accident?

If they go through someone's windscreen? Yep.

Joe4321

Agree cyclist are not likely to kill but are very likely to injure people and cause danage while zig zagging through traffic

km991148

Sono Topolino wrote: »

2. Cyclists can get 50% off the price of a new bike via the BTW scheme. Note, there's nobody checking if they use this bike to get to work!
3. Motor tax and VRT are taxes on road vehicles.

The Irish people are subsidising people owning bikes, which would be fair enough in the middle of Dublin but makes no sense in Castlepolard, Co. Westmeath.

#2.. where do I sign up! I wish!

The 'Irish people'.. lol.. are cyclists not Irish people? Do we get to say what our tax goes on? In that case I want a refund. I don't have kids but pay for schools (amongst many other taxes to promote family life).

doughef

Smee_Again wrote: »

Fixed that for you.

Thanks - although I asked you already not to edit my posts on a separate forum ?

The ‘fixed it for you’ bit is hilarious though - every time .

Dinging

Genuine question for the OP. I drive, my wife drives, between us we pay €560.00 motor tax every year, 2 car family. No problem with that. I commute to work by bike (pre Covid). Is this enough revenue for pay for the road and cycle lane usage or would I need under the OP's proposal to pay a bicycle tax?

Sono Topolino

Joe4321 wrote: »

Agree cyclist are not likely to kill but are very likely to injure people and cause danage while zig zagging through traffic

And cycling insurance should be a lot cheaper than car insurance.

km991148

Joe4321 wrote: »

Agree cyclist are not likely to kill but are very likely to injure people and cause danage while zig zagging through traffic

Yep, that's what the numbers show alright. I guess that's why we have go safe vans randomly targeting this behaviour at known locations where people were injured.

Joe4321

Yes you should pay for your bicycle, that's like saying I pay for one car tax and insurance why should I pay for a second one

Smee_Again

doughef wrote: »

Thanks - although I asked you already not to edit my posts on a separate forum ?

The ‘fixed it for you’ bit is hilarious though - every time .

Just making sure your point gets across clearly, it'd be a real shame if people were denied your valuable insights due to your poor spelling and grammar.

km991148

Sono Topolino wrote: »

And cycling insurance should be a lot cheaper than car insurance.

It already is.

ExMachina1000

Sono Topolino wrote: »

And cycling insurance should be a lot cheaper than car insurance.

It should be. Not wearing a helmet should invalidate your policy in the event of an accident too.

Eventually it will happen.

Gregor Samsa

You seem bitter, OP, and latched onto a crusade that you have no hope of achieving. Not a healthy mix.

Maybe take a nice leisurely cycle to take your mind off it. It's a cheap and easy way to get physical exercise, mental space and fresh air. Plus there's no tax, insurance or licencing requirements. You can use it for transport, leisure, fitness or sport. You'd love it, and it would do you the world of good.

Seth Brundle

Sono Topolino wrote: »

1. There's no VAT on second hand bicycles - even if they're as good as new.
2. Cyclists can get 50% off the price of a new bike via the BTW scheme. Note, there's nobody checking if they use this bike to get to work!
3. Motor tax and VRT are taxes on road vehicles

The Irish people are subsidising people owning bikes, which would be fair enough in the middle of Dublin but makes no sense in Castlepolard, Co. Westmeath.

1. Is there VAT on all second hand cars?
2. The BTW scheme is there for any employee who wants to avail of it. It's not some secret thing only for people who wear cycling clothing :rolleyes:
3. Motor tax and VRT are taxes on mechanically propelled vehicles

Facts really aren't a strength of yours, are they?

km991148

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

It should be. Not wearing a helmet should invalidate your policy in the event of an accident too.

Eventually it will happen.

Any other random rules that should apply to this fantastic fantasy insurance system?

ExMachina1000

Weepsie wrote: »

We could also start by making sure all drivers are properly taxes and insured and the thousands out there who are not are moved permanently off the road.

We can do multiple things at once. Tax everyone

Sono Topolino

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

It should be. Not wearing a helmet should invalidate your policy in the event of an accident too.

Eventually it will happen.

Insurance requirements will mean better behaviour - i.e. no helmets/lights/high vis will invalidate policies. As will not using a cycle lane where one is available, and engaging in dangerous practices like zig-zagging through traffic.

This is precisely why cyclists don't want mandatory insurance.

km991148

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

You seem bitter, OP, and latched onto a crusade that you have no hope of achieving. Not a healthy mix.

Maybe take a nice leisurely cycle to take your mind off it. It's a cheap and easy way to get physical exercise, mental space and fresh air. Plus there's no tax, insurance or licencing requirements. You can use it for transport, leisure, fitness or sport. You'd love it, and it would do you the world of good.

Apparently there is a subsidised 50pc off new bikes as well!

growleaves

Roads are paid for out of general taxation.

The use of the phrase "road tax" is dishonest. Anyone who pays any tax at all has put towards paying for roads.

The cyclist vs motorist fake feud is silly.

km991148

Sono Topolino wrote: »

Insurance requirements will mean better behaviour - i.e. no helmets/lights/high vis will invalidate policies. As will not using a cycle lane where one is available, and engaging in dangerous practices like zig-zagging through traffic.

This is precisely why cyclists don't want mandatory insurance.

Ah the mandatory cycle lane nonsense too.

The mandatory insurance stuff worked out well for motorists..

Seth Brundle

Joe4321 wrote: »

Totally agree, when you purchase a bike you should need to have it registered and a number attached so you can be identified just like a motor vehicle, cyclists that use public roads should have insurance. Anyone who cycles on public roads should have a licence or certificate to say that they are proficent in the rules of the road, but unfortunately we have no one in government including that clown in the green party to implament these things, oh and cyclists need to be allocated 90% of the road for their use.

Would this also apply when you take your small kids out to the park on their bikes?
Leaving aside the complete absurdity of your proposal, how much would it cost to administer and to what benefit?

Sono Topolino

km991148 wrote: »

Apparently there is a subsidised 50pc off new bikes as well!

It's called the bike to work scheme. There's no requirement to actually use the bike to cycle to work, so it's basically the taxpayer subsidising the purchase of new bikes.

km991148

Sono Topolino wrote: »

It's called the bike to work scheme. There's no requirement to actually use the bike to cycle to work, so it's basically the taxpayer subsidising the purchase of new bikes.

Oh that (assuming you meant cycle to work). That's different from what you are talking about.

I only got just under 500quid off my last bike. Still one small benefit from the massive amount of tax I pay towards random sh*t like healthcare in this country.

If only the gov took a more proactive approach to encouraging better health in our population then maybe we would have fewer taxes.

Joe4321

@set, yes it would, iit would be called family insurance, as for price, that would be down to the insurance companys just like car insurance is, I would say it would be very reasonable at first but as the claims rise just like motor claims so would the cost, why would you have a problem with having cover in place for your family, we buy motor, house, travel insurance why not cycle insurance

dubrov

Sono Topolino wrote:

And in rural areas, the only cyclists I see are doing it as a form of exercise on a road built for cars and tractors, slowing all the traffic down and endangering all road users.

I think you'll find it's the cars that are the danger to road users, not the bikes