Cyclists, insurance and road tax

NickNickleby

ThewhiteJesus wrote: »

what if you were caught drink cycling

I might be wrong, but I thought that being caught 'drink cycling' is an offence and not only that, if caught and convicted it can actually result in points on your driving licence if you have one. I know it looks mad when you read it, but I really believe I've read something like this , somewhere, sometime (over a rainbow:pac:)

AndrewJRenko

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Yes. 100 euro per year

It would be a good start. Let's pay for that bicycle lane in wicklow. Let's fund the green way in louth. Etc

Although Eamon Ryan has a million a day to spend on cycling I think we will need much more. Those who use it should pay. Same as everything.

Same as everything? So should we tax parents more to pay for schools? Tax beach swimmers more for maintaining beaches?

Would you agree with a new charge for all road users based on the wear and tear arising?

Joe4321

@Fighting, should that be a reason for having identafieing marks on bike so theses people can be reprimanded for their actions,

Weepsie

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Yes. 100 euro per year

It would be a good start. Let's pay for that bicycle lane in wicklow. Let's fund the green way in louth. Etc

Although Eamon Ryan has a million a day to spend on cycling I think we will need much more. Those who use it should pay. Same as everything.

You've probably already been told this, but if we did that, we'd have to be charging drivers 1000s for the maintenance of roads.

However, everyone who pays taxes pays for the roads you use so can I stop this?

Paddigol

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Yes. 100 euro per year

It would be a good start. Let's pay for that bicycle lane in wicklow. Let's fund the green way in louth. Etc

Although Eamon Ryan has a million a day to spend on cycling I think we will need much more. Those who use it should pay. Same as everything.

So people who have no impact on the physical infrastructure, being a public road, should pay for it just because they use it??

Should be apply the same logic to all local, public parks and playgrounds? You use it, you pay.

Of course not.

Again, people are very quick to lose sight of the rationale behind the imposition of Motor Tax. I suspect because they're in such a rush to try and hammer some other demographic, such as cyclists or runners or pedestrians.

AndrewJRenko

Joe4321 wrote: »

@Fighting, should that be a reason for having identafieing marks on bike so theses people can be reprimanded for their actions,

Same for pedestrians presumably? Identifying marks on the forehead maybe?

Would be great for burglars too.

Fighting Tao

Joe4321 wrote: »

@Fighting, should that be a reason for having identafieing marks on bike so theses people can be reprimanded for their actions,

It didn’t work in Switzerland so how do you think it would work here? Does everyone here have superman’s reflexes and eyesight?

Paddigol

Joe4321 wrote: »

@Fighting, should that be a reason for having identafieing marks on bike so theses people can be reprimanded for their actions,

Because they can't be reprimanded for their actions without 'identifying marks" on their bike?? Honestly, this is descending into idiocy now. If the shoe was on the other foot and people were demanding tougher restrictions on cars and motorists you'd likely be the very first to cry "wokism", "PC gone mad", "nanny state!"

Get a grip.

Duckjob

Furze99 wrote: »

Whatever about road tax, I can see a case for insurance being required for cycling on public roads. Cyclists can cause injury to a range of other road users. It's really not acceptable to cause injury or damage and be able to walk off scot free. But this is probably a wider issue and maybe every individual over a certain age (12?) should have personal insurance and if they cause damage, choose to pay themselves or have their insurance pay.

I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding the basic purpose of insurance and why it is mandatory for motor vehicles.

The purpose of insurance is not to ensure people don't get away without paying in the event of an accident. The purpose is to ensure that the cost of the damage can be guaranteed to be covered.

Collisions involving motor vehicles generally carry damages/injuries that are in a different level from other road users, hence the legal requiremnt to carry 3rd party insurance.

People don't get away from paying for an accident because they didn't carry insurance. They get away because they did a runner after an collision, which incidentally is a still very common occurance with collisions of motor vehicle against cyclists and pedestrians.

NickNickleby

statto25 wrote: »

What do you pay to use the roads while in your Motor Vehicle?

Motor Tax. If you don't have it you can't use the road - in your car. But you can walk cycle or skateboard on it without a specific tax.

(a little off topic, but I did one Sunday pass a skateboarder using the bus lane in Fairview with a bus driver behind him losing his reason)

Fighting Tao

Paddigol wrote: »

Because they can't be reprimanded for their actions without 'identifying marks" on their bike?? Honestly, this is descending into idiocy now. If the shoe was on the other foot and people were demanding tougher restrictions on cars and motorists you'd likely be the very first to cry "wokism", "PC gone mad", "nanny state!"

Get a grip.

Yeah, that’s how ridiculous this has gotten. Going by some peoples logic here, it seems that someone couldn’t be arrested for beating up another person on the street unless they have a registration plate on you. How else would they be identified.

I wonder how so many hit and runs occur when cars have registration plates. Surely all the culprits should all be caught.

Joe4321

@Fighting, so a cyclist scratches your car while zigzagging, you get out and he hurls abuse at you and cycles off is that OK??, plenty of cars now with dash ams which could get the markings on the bike but if none they cycle of with no reprocussions on them, way to go...

Captain Flaps

NickNickleby wrote: »

Motor Tax. If you don't have it you can't use the road - in your car. But you can walk cycle or skateboard on it without a specific tax.

Wrong.

You can't operate a motor vehicle without motor tax, it's nothing to do with the road. You pay for the roads through general taxation and are welcome to use them in whatever legal means you want, but there is an additional tax on vehicles with an engine.

Joe4321 wrote: »

@Fighting, so a cyclist scratches your car while zigzagging, you get out and he hurls abuse at you and cycles off is that OK??, plenty of cars now with dash ams which could get the markings on the bike but if none they cycle of with no reprocussions on them, way to go...

Nobody is arguing it's ok, we're just saying your proposed solution to a fringe possibility is a ludicrous overreaction that makes you look unreasonable and silly

Effects

Eric Cartman wrote: »

we already have an insane level of traffic policing in Ireland..

If that's actually the case, why do the majority of drivers have no issue breaking red lights constantly?

AndrewJRenko

Sono Topolino wrote: »

You will only accept that insurance reduced car theft if there are no cars being stolen, even though car theft is now exceedingly rare.

There is no point in discussing anything to you since you cannot accept the simple concepts like counterfactuals.

Exceedingly rare? CSO report that 3% of vehicle users (5% in Dublin) had a theft or attempted theft in previous 12 months. There's a bit of a simple, conceptual counter factual for you.

Car theft isn't exceedingly rare.

doiredoire

Should also be a footpath tax and insurance for pedestrians and road tax if they step off the footpath onto a road. Kids buggies/strollers should also be required to have insurance and be taxed. Should also be tax and insurance on wheelbarrows if they are used in public.

Pet owners should be required to Pay a pet tax for their pets if they bring them for walks on the footpath to cover wear and tear.

There should also be a bird tax for birds landing on the road or footpath which causes wear and tear. This tax may be difficult to collect but why should birds get a free pass?

Joe4321

Andrew your alive, still waiting on your answer

Fighting Tao

Joe4321 wrote: »

@Fighting, so a cyclist scratches your car while zigzagging, you get out and he hurls abuse at you and cycles off is that OK??, plenty of cars now with dash ams which could get the markings on the bike but if none they cycle of with no reprocussions on them, way to go...

A motorist hits you and leaves you lying at the side of the road while they drive off. You are unable to get their big number plate because you were knocked out. No repercussions for them, way to go...

AndrewJRenko

Joe4321 wrote: »

@Fighting, so a cyclist scratches your car while zigzagging, you get out and he hurls abuse at you and cycles off is that OK??, plenty of cars now with dash ams which could get the markings on the bike but if none they cycle of with no reprocussions on them, way to go...

So a pedestrian scratches your car while passing, hurls abuse at you and jogs on - no repercussions. Do pedestrians need visible id numbers?

Seth Brundle

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Yes. 100 euro per year

It would be a good start. Let's pay for that bicycle lane in wicklow. Let's fund the green way in louth. Etc

Although Eamon Ryan has a million a day to spend on cycling I think we will need much more. Those who use it should pay. Same as everything.

Greenways aren't really suitable as commuting route (with the exception of s few users). They are more purposeful as a tourism amenity and if you look at the likes of the Mayo and Waterford Greenways, they have been very successful in terms of attracting tourists and have directly boost3d employment in those areas.

Joe4321

@doiredoire, maybe we should hand all our pay packet to the government and they can give us a weekly allowence

statto25

NickNickleby wrote: »

Motor Tax. If you don't have it you can't use the road - in your car. But you can walk cycle or skateboard on it without a specific tax.

(a little off topic, but I did one Sunday pass a skateboarder using the bus lane in Fairview with a bus driver behind him losing his reason)

Motor Tax does not go towards the upkeep of the infrastructure. Its the tax you pay for the privilege of owning a car. Thats not a cyclists fault, thats a government decision so why not take it up with them

Joe4321

@Andrew, waiting on an answer, you have an option on everyone else, now maybe you could inlighten us on your views without been prompted by someone else

Captain Flaps

Given your inability to assess things with simple logic and critical thinking I'd suggest that having someone else look after your money for you to ensure you don't do something silly might be a good idea, yes.

AndrewJRenko

Joe4321 wrote: »

@Fighting, should that be a reason for having identafieing marks on bike so theses people can be reprimanded for their actions,

What size should these identifying marks be?

ExMachina1000

Paddigol wrote: »

So people who have no impact on the physical infrastructure, being a public road, should pay for it just because they use it??

Should be apply the same logic to all local, public parks and playgrounds? You use it, you pay.

Of course not.

Again, people are very quick to lose sight of the rationale behind the imposition of Motor Tax. I suspect because they're in such a rush to try and hammer some other demographic, such as cyclists or runners or pedestrians.

So what exactly do you want and who should pay for it?
What is the end goal here

The consensus seems to be that general taxation must pay for everything. Let's hear the demands

micar

Joe Duffy and Pat Kenny haven't spoken about cyclists in a week.....think you should ring them up and have an old man rant

oisinog

Sono Topolino wrote: »

The point is that number plates fit on a bicycle frame. The poster was arguing that bikes have no space for number plates on their frames and this is clearly nonsense.

I would still argue that i have no viable place on my bike frame for a number plate.

Joe4321

Talk to Joe, Joe is in favour of cycle registration,

Fighting Tao

oisinog wrote: »

I would still argue that i have no viable place on my bike frame for a number plate.

I don't even have mudguards on mine for one like the failed Swiss one! But I have a nice big space on my car for one.