Cyclists, insurance and road tax

AndrewJRenko

harmless wrote: »

I don't want to get into a discussion about helmets as it's not really the point I am trying to make here(just using it as an example) but something as simple as mandatory helmet laws in Australia has discouraged people from cycling there. Now there cities have massive traffic issues.

Is allowing cyclists use the roads without extra tax not worth it for shorter commute times?

Shorter commute times, improved public health, less pollution - yeah that definitely sounds like something we should be punishing and disincentivising

mrslancaster

mrslancaster wrote: »

.... so then it must be a road tax even though it's called a motor tax.

Just saw a report from 2016 & €1.12 billion collected from motor tax plus €469 million from property taxes all goes into the local government fund.
That pays for local authorities, transport, irish water & some goes back to the exchequer.
So apologies, just discovered it's not specifically a road tax as it pays for other things also.

dinneenp

zerosugarbuzz wrote: »

No it true. I don’t have a problem with all cyclists. I have a problem with reckless cyclists, racers, and people with an inadequate knowledge of the rules of the road and basic self safety techniques. Insurance, testing, bike tax etc would go a long way to putting manners on these.

Hi,
How would insurance and bike tax address reckless any of the things you have a problem with? "reckless cyclists, racers, and people with an inadequate knowledge of the rules of the road and basic self safety techniques."

Testing doesn't mean that cyclists would cycle with the same behaviour as when they cycled in the test. If you applied that logic to motorists, nobody would break the speed limit, use a mobile while driving etc......

mrslancaster

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And if more roads and nonsense projects like this are being built, then motorists and only motorists should pay for it, right?

https://twitter.com/OConnorOisin/status/1384513554703921153?s=19

I don't know what this means...

I also dont know which department pays for major infrastructure but ImO good roads are needed by others besides private motorists, public transport and trucks transporting goods & supplies to name just two.

Eric Cartman

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And if more roads and nonsense projects like this are being built, then motorists and only motorists should pay for it, right?

https://twitter.com/OConnorOisin/status/1384513554703921153?s=19

more roads doesn't necessarily mean more cars. Also we increasingly need roads as people start working from home to transport them goods and keep services supplied. Unfortunately unions and the government made rail cargo transport caustically unviable here so we have no other choice

Hurrache

Eric Cartman wrote: »

more roads doesn't necessarily mean more cars. Also we increasingly need roads as people start working from home to transport them goods and keep services supplied.

Spectacular failure in logic there, unless you're talking about the vast segment of homeworkers who have to hike over impassable ground to get to their homes and used helicopter up until now to get everything in their home delivered?

Eric Cartman

Hurrache wrote: »

Spectacular failure in logic there, unless you're talking about the vast segment of homeworkers who have to hike over impassable ground to get to their homes and used helicopter up until now to get everything in their home delivered?

you're being deliberately obtuse. Its more efficient to have large trucks travel quickly from town to town on a dual carriageway / motorway network. Saving time and fuel and thus reducing costs of shipping to rural towns. Improved road networks also allow people to make that choice to live in not congested cities and still travel up to see their family and friends on occasion, overall spreading property prices, service provision and lowering emissions from congestion and lowering commute times for everyone.

The NBP and roads infrastructure are the two most important policies for us as a nation to reduce emissions and dependence on cities.

Pinch Flat

Eric Cartman wrote: »

more roads doesn't necessarily mean more cars. Also we increasingly need roads as people start working from home to transport them goods and keep services supplied. Unfortunately unions and the government made rail cargo transport caustically unviable here so we have no other choice

Unfortunately it does. it's like prescribing a bigger belt for someone that's putting on weight. More roads = more cars.

Paddigol

Hurrache wrote: »

Spectacular failure in logic there...

It honestly beggars belief. How someone can type those words - then read them back - and then press "Submit Reply", all without an alarm going off somewhere in their brain. That requires a spectacular amount of contrariness for the sake of having a pop at cycling.

AndrewJRenko

Eric Cartman wrote: »

more roads doesn't necessarily mean more cars.

There's decades of research on induced demand that disagrees with you

https://twitter.com/OConnorOisin/status/1380450762178846722?s=19

namloc1980

Eric Cartman wrote: »

you're being deliberately obtuse. Its more efficient to have large trucks travel quickly from town to town on a dual carriageway / motorway network. Saving time and fuel and thus reducing costs of shipping to rural towns. Improved road networks also allow people to make that choice to live in not congested cities and still travel up to see their family and friends on occasion, overall spreading property prices, service provision and lowering emissions from congestion and lowering commute times for everyone.

The NBP and roads infrastructure are the two most important policies for us as a nation to reduce emissions and dependence on cities.

I feel like I'm in the twilight zone after reading that.

Reduce emissions by building more roads so people can live further apart and need more cars to move them around. Logical failure.

Hurrache

Eric Cartman wrote: »

you're being deliberately obtuse. Its more efficient to have large trucks travel quickly from town to town on a dual carriageway / motorway network. Saving time and fuel and thus reducing costs of shipping to rural towns. Improved road networks also allow people to make that choice to live in not congested cities and still travel up to see their family and friends on occasion, overall spreading property prices, service provision and lowering emissions from congestion and lowering commute times for everyone.

The NBP and roads infrastructure are the two most important policies for us as a nation to reduce emissions and dependence on cities.

Wait, you think large trucks delivering into housing estates and villages is the way forward for regular deliveries, and to hell with distribution centres? So basically everything we're doing now is wrong, but build bigger roads to allow artics roll up to someone's driveway which will also help reduce emissions and allow more people to work from home?

mr potato head

zerosugarbuzz wrote: »

No it true. I don’t have a problem with all cyclists. I have a problem with reckless cyclists, racers, and people with an inadequate knowledge of the rules of the road and basic self safety techniques. Insurance, testing, bike tax etc would go a long way to putting manners on these.

The putting manners on them is a common excuse for aggression or assault on cyclists. There's an paper that looks at the dehumanising approach towards cyclists called " Bicycle Backlash Qualitative Examination of Aggressive Driver–Bicyclist Interactions" Piatkowski et al 2017.

when an aggressive driver accounts for dangerous driving behavior, he or she attempts to avoid spoiling a positive self-conception and to avoid feelings of guilt or remorse. The literature has identified multiple means by which aggressive drivers account for their behavior.

Examples of specific accounts observed with brief explanations include the following:

• Denial of responsibility. The act is the result of forces beyond one’s own control.
• Denial of injury. The act is harmless, despite the fact that it is illegal.
• Denial of the victim. The act is rightful retaliation. The victim is cast as a wrongdoer by the perpetrator.
• Condemnation of the condemners. The illegal act is justified by shifting blame to those who disapprove of the behavior: they are hypocrites or the actual deviants.
• Appeal to higher loyalties. The act, despite its illegality, was done to serve a greater good.

In the case of aggressive behaviors targeted at bicyclists, techniques of neutralization offer a reframing of deviant behavior (i.e., enforce norms of appropriate bicycling behavior through deviant means) in which the perpetrators of these behaviors attempt to account for their behavior.

There is another paper that looks at rule adherence (I can't find it at the moment).
It is honest in the fact that cyclists do break the rules at similar levels to drivers, with the most common being pavement cycling and light breaking.
However, the reasoning when examined was almost exclusively down to lack of safe infrastructure and driver behaviour towards them as opposed to impatience or ignorance.

Talk to offending cyclists and you will hear that breaking the lights to get ahead of car traffic at junctions is preferable to being nudged by drivers to get out of the way... this has happened on a number of occasions to me and my wife.
Young people and less confident cyclist will cycle on paths because the road is not a pleasant place to be for those cyclists.

i.e. investment in infrastructure and enforcement of safe passing and intimidation laws for drivers would result in more law-abiding cyclists

TrangiaCoffee

marvin80 wrote: »

I'd question why a person with such a low post count can start a bullsh*t thread like this that's been done over and over on boards.

Maybe they'll go for the boards bingo and start threads about travellers and foreigners.

The OP works in tax, so there is some benefit in it.

Type 17

Eric Cartman wrote: »

more roads doesn't necessarily mean more cars.

Actually, it does - for over 50 years, planners around the world have tried to build their way out of traffic congestion, only for higher traffic levels to jam the newly-widened roads - more/bigger roads attract traffic (induced demand), and fewer roads attract less traffic (traffic evaporation).

The planning axiom is "Build for cars, get cars."

This also means that if you build for bikes, you'll get bikes - loads of surveys around the world have shown that there is a large sector of every society who say that they'd ride a bike (or ride their bike more) if there were more facilities and they felt safer, and remember, more bikes means fewer cars, so less congestion for those who have no choice but to drive, deliveries, buses, etc.

Hurrache

Anyway, no need for more roads, sure just make use of something that's otherwise reserved for others if you're in any way in need of a bit of extra road space.
https://twitter.com/dlrcycling/status/1384537277964115969

AndrewJRenko

mrslancaster wrote: »

I don't know what this means...

I also dont know which department pays for major infrastructure but ImO good roads are needed by others besides private motorists, public transport and trucks transporting goods & services to name just two.

It means that if you expect cyclists to pay for cycle lanes then I'll expect motorists to pay for roads building and maintenance, motorway building, the National Roads Authority, the Road Safety Authority, the large sections of the Fire Brigade, Ambulance services, Gardai and the Courts Service that cover traffic issues, the costs of the hundreds of premature deaths each year resulting from air pollution and all the public space used for free parking. You're okay with that?

Thelonious Monk

namloc1980 wrote: »

I feel like I'm in the twilight zone after reading that.

Reduce emissions by building more roads so people can live further apart and need more cars to move them around. Logical failure.

Exactly. What's the Galway ring road going to do? Enable more and more remote housing estates and one offs to pop up not connected to anything to drive in and around Galway. They're going to do it anyway but it's such a bad way of doing things.

John_Rambo

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The NBP and roads infrastructure are the two most important policies for us as a nation to reduce emissions and dependence on cities.

LOL!! Get people out of the cities, away from public transport and cycle infrastructure, that will reduce emissions!!

FAIL

Back of the class and don't put your hand up again till you've learnt something from the people that know better.

km991148

Lol at everyone taking the bait :pac:

Type 17

km991148 wrote: »

Lol at everyone taking the bait :pac:

For every troll, there are multiple people who don't realise/haven't thought about it/have read garbage on Facebook who will learn something from this thread

km991148

Type 17 wrote: »

For every troll, there are multiple people who don't realise/haven't thought about it/have read garbage on Facebook who will learn something from this thread

Ah yeah, but I meant specifically about the claim that more roads mean less pollution or some bs..

The whole thread is a massive troll really, but I've been happily joining in with it too..

Thelonious Monk

Yes I get great entertainment out of these threads, not working this week as I'm doing exams and supposed to be studying but this is very distracting. Maybe a permanent cyclists should pay road tax thread should be left open and stickied maybe?

km991148

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Yes I get great entertainment out of these threads, not working this week as I'm doing exams and supposed to be studying but this is very distracting. Maybe a permanent cyclists should pay road tax thread should be left open and stickied maybe?

Maybe one permanent cyclist should pay road tax?

Given that all cyclists are like one big collective, it should be easy to arrange?

Pinch Flat

It's always an interesting insight into motoring attitudes in ireland. Always amazed how the sight of a bike can bring out such misery in people.

maestroamado

magicbastarder wrote: »

a group of cyclists cycling in single file is more dangerous. the behaviour you describe would hardly be described as 'mature'.

i will regularly 'take control' of the road, as you put it, for my own safety. if this is preventing a motorist behind from doing something, yes, that actually is my goal. it's preventing them from performing dangerous overtakes.

The max in group be 4 to 6 unless organized event when there needs to be strict control..
I am thinking i seen between 15 and 20 here where they seem to do as they please...
ie... No rules that i am aware of...

liamog

Pinch Flat wrote: »

It's always an interesting insight into motoring attitudes in ireland. Always amazed how the sight of a bike can bring out such misery in people.

Pretty much anyone on Irish roads has some pet hate, be it SUVs, Premium German Brands, EVs, Cyclists, or Motorbikes.
Personally I save mine for Yaris drivers.

Pinch Flat

liamog wrote: »

Pretty much anyone on Irish roads has some pet hate, be it SUVs, Premium German Brands, EVs, Cyclists, or Motorbikes.
Personally I save mine for Yaris drivers.

True. People get triggered off the Richter scale by cyclists though

Heart Break Kid

“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?“

Answer: places a barrier to entry on a behaviour we want to encourage.

Thread closed.

Type 17

liamog wrote: »

Pretty much anyone on Irish roads has some pet hate, be it SUVs, Premium German Brands, EVs, Cyclists, or Motorbikes.
Personally I save mine for Yaris drivers.

My pet hate is people who don't know how to share public spaces.

Using the roads is the one thing that most people do every day where other people's lives depend on you getting it right/not being a d1ck. Not enough people remember this.