Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie 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 hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Cyclists, insurance and road tax

1246739

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,806 ✭✭✭The J Stands for Jay


    Joe4321 wrote: »
    @Seth, I do agree with having insurance, and yes if a kid is out on a public road it would be required also, the registration is also a big thing for identification, the guards could also use this for issueing fines, but I sure I will be told that cyclists don't break any traffic rules, why would you be against registering your bycicle?

    How do the gardai catch people who aren't Inna vehicle? No way to identify them.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 158 ✭✭Joe4321


    @Seth, your obsest with cost, why do we have to follow other countries, why can't we lead in this,


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,290 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    You may well be a good cyclist. Unfortunately there are very many on the roads who are absolutely terrible cyclists. I’ll never understand why cyclists feel the need to defend all cyclists no matter how bad they are. They must see how bad a lot of them are too jut are just in some extreme form of denial.
    Just like there are good drivers and bad drivers.
    The effect from one of these bad drivers can be so much worse that all the bad cyclists put together. Where is your thread on them?

    In what way might a terrible cyclist affect you?
    In what way might a terrible driver affect you?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,832 ✭✭✭Paddigol


    ted1 wrote: »
    You need to look further into it.
    1. Cyclists takes more risks when wearing one.
    2. Drivers give cyclists who are wearing helmets less space
    3. Helmets deter the uptake of cycling , particularly with teenage girls , soo all the health benefits are lost.

    I doubt he - or 99% of people who raise these kind of arguments - has any intention of looking further into it.

    It's mostly a demonstration of confirmation bias. As an earlier poster pointed out - all this drama about insurance, hi viz and helmets being safe for cyclists and pedestrians, it's not about a concern for other people at all. It's just looking for a way to make other people's lives more difficult. The lack of any reasoned, informed discussion on any of these threads is evidence of that.


  • Posts: 2,078 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Why stop there, why not have tax, insurance and an annual "health NCT" for pedestrians?

    OP nothing stopping you getting on your bike. Just put the McDonalds to one side for a while first.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,290 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Joe4321 wrote: »
    @Seth, your obsest with cost, why do we have to follow other countries, why can't we lead in this,
    Everything in society is done on a cost/benefit basis. With your proposal, there is a large cost and very little benefit.
    You have not been able to articulate why we as a society would be better off with this system yet I and others have shown that this would have a negative effect on society.
    If Ireland were to do it, no other country would follow. It is kinda like Brexit - noboey else thinks its a good idea apart from the ones who wanted it (and the original idea had nothing to do with the outcome). With your proposal, I suspect that you aren't concerned with bike safety or anything like this but simply want less cyclists out there as you find them a PITA when you're driving.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,832 ✭✭✭Paddigol


    Joe4321 wrote: »
    @ted1, really, that's your argument, a little bit of discomfort that could save you life, tells me everything

    So you DO wear a helmet in your car and you WILL be wearing face masks at all times in public post-pandemic.

    You don't seem to want to respond to any of my replies to your posts, but the above is good to know.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,440 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Hoboo wrote: »
    If they go through someone's windscreen? Yep.

    Does that happen often?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,477 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    Helmets and high vis again is just something drivers want enforced so that less people will cycle and their lives will be more difficult.
    The same people who feign concern for OAPs and the disabled when any talk of restricting car access to somewhere comes up.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 245 ✭✭oisinog


    148 fatalities in Ireland in 2020 resulting in car collisions 10 of which were cyclists and 32 Pedestrians.

    28% of people killed by car drivers where vunerable road users.

    Now compair that to how many people cyclists killed last year. I will help you out with that figure it was 0


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,767 ✭✭✭Pinch Flat


    One thing I always find funny in these threads is the assumption that cyclists are not drivers. .

    I cycle and own a SUV:P. Quite the dilemma. In saying that, when we're back to work, you couldn't pay me to drive in Dublin commuter traffic. Absolutely soul destroying and probably behind a lot of the frustration there. Nothing more annoying than a chirpy cyclist passing 100 cars queueing in the phoenix park when you know you're only at the start of your daily commuting nightmare.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,862 ✭✭✭statto25


    Pinch Flat wrote: »
    I cycle and own a SUV:P


    tenor.gif
    :D


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 158 ✭✭Joe4321


    @Seth, your options are so far away from reality, nobody here suggests that they want less cyclists on the road, why do you say this? People giving there option which disagrees to cyclists is condemned straight out, you have cyclists on here suggesting it is safer to not were a helmet, how is that been a roll model for kids? People have different options but anyone who tries to suggest anything regarding cycling is out to get them, just because something has not been done before or is not been done in other countries does not mean it does not need to be done,


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,440 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    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!

    That is factually untrue.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,193 ✭✭✭Fian


    Joe4321 wrote: »
    Car drivers were set belts, have air bags in there car, have day time lights on, are you suggesting that kids should not were a helmet?? Please inlighting me

    It's spelled "enlighten", "inlighten" sounds like what Trump suggested would cure covid. Which suggestion was about as sensible as many of those you have proposed.

    Nobody is suggesting that children should be prohibited from wearing helmets, just that cyclists should not be prohibited from getting on a bike without one. this is because the health benefits of cycling far outweigh the risks of cycling without a helmet and if helmets were mandatory it would spell the end of people casually jumping on a bike like under the dublin bikes scheme.

    Edit: since drivers are also at risk in the event of a collision perhaps we should introduce mandatory motorbike style helmets for drivers too? After all if it only saves one life............. /s


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    Joe4321 wrote: »
    So the people that you look up to in the tour de France are been inconvenienced by weeing helmets, wowwww

    Well in fairness a hell of a lot of accidents happen to people when on the toilet, so it's only right they should be made mandatory.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,440 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Joe4321 wrote: »
    Agree cyclist are not likely to kill but are very likely to injure people and cause danage while zig zagging through traffic

    Could you show any evidence to support these claims please?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 158 ✭✭Joe4321


    @Hurrache, maybe we should all wrap up in bubble wrap before we go out, time to buy shares in a bubble wrap company..


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,841 ✭✭✭TomTomTim


    Helmets and high vis again is just something drivers want enforced so that less people will cycle and their lives will be more difficult.
    The same people who feign concern for OAPs and the disabled when any talk of restricting car access to somewhere comes up.

    Why would less people cycle? I'm an avid cyclist and I've nothing but contempt for the clowns who go around wearing all black like they are a thief in the night. I wear high vis nearly all through winter, purely because I feel safer doing so. I don't agree with mandatory enforcement, but at the same time people should be wearing helmets and making themselves as visible as possible.

    “The man who lies to himself can be more easily offended than anyone else. You know it is sometimes very pleasant to take offense, isn't it? A man may know that nobody has insulted him, but that he has invented the insult for himself, has lied and exaggerated to make it picturesque, has caught at a word and made a mountain out of a molehill--he knows that himself, yet he will be the first to take offense, and will revel in his resentment till he feels great pleasure in it.”- ― Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,650 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    Joe4321 wrote: »
    @ted1, really, that's your argument, a little bit of discomfort that could save you life, tells me everything

    It’s not my argument, it’s findings from independent studies.
    Tell me a lot about you , ignoring research to push your agenda


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,859 ✭✭✭Duckjob


    Fully agree that cyclists should have insurance and pay road tax. I’d go a step further and have them sit a test and undergo NCTs for their bikes too. The vast majority of them display either pure ignorance or total disregard for the rules of the road, putting themselves, pedestrians and drivers at risk.

    Funny you should mention ignorance.

    I'd say the height of ignorance is ignoring just about every study that's been conducted worldwide which conclude universally that people on bikes taken as a group ("cyclists") break road laws at the same or slightly lower rate than people in cars ("motorists").

    But sure, keep going LALALALA with the fingers stuck in the ears.

    If the same rules applied to them as say motor cyclists it might sharpen their behavior.


    And just on this- To borrow a turn of phrase from Jeff Daniels in that clip about America:

    If motorists are so well behaved, then in low speed residential areas how come we need to have speed bumps so goddamn everywhere ?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    Joe4321 wrote: »
    @Hurrache, maybe we should all wrap up in bubble wrap before we go out, time to buy shares in a bubble wrap company..

    Yeah, but how are they going to enforce bubble wrap tax? And as it's a safety feature, are you ok with dropping the VAT on it?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,650 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    Paddigol wrote: »
    So you DO wear a helmet in your car and you WILL be wearing face masks at all times in public post-pandemic.

    You don't seem to want to respond to any of my replies to your posts, but the above is good to know.

    If drivers wore neck brace we could eliminate whiplash and the associated claims


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 158 ✭✭Joe4321


    @tom Tom Tim, be careful your talking too much sense, they will come for you soon.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,440 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


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

    What risk do you want cyclists to insure against please? Do pedestrians need insurance to cover the risks of causing collisions resulting in injury or damage by stepping out onto the road or cycle lane?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,059 ✭✭✭kirving


    ted1 wrote: »
    You need to look further into it.
    1. Cyclists takes more risks when wearing one.
    2. Drivers give cyclists who are wearing helmets less space
    3. Helmets deter the uptake of cycling , particularly with teenage girls , soo all the health benefits are lost.

    I agree for the most part, but it's also important to point out that you mean large scale health benefits, not on an individual level.

    If I fall off my bike, which I do regularly in the mountains, I sure as hell want my helmet. I'll get torrents of abuse about this along the lines of "doctors are not statisticians", but on multiple occasions in hospital for cycling injuries, almost every doctor and surgeon told me an anecdote about patients who didn't wear a helmet being in a bad way.

    Should they be mandatory, not a chance. As you say, I'd probably hop in the car or get a bus rather than have to grab the helmet and then carry it around the shop or pub.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,477 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    TomTomTim wrote: »
    Why would less people cycle? I'm an avid cyclist and I've nothing but contempt for the clowns who go around wearing all black like they are a thief in the night. I wear high vis nearly all through winter, purely because I feel safer doing so. I don't agree with mandatory enforcement, but at the same time people should be wearing helmets and making themselves as visible as possible.

    Less people would cycle because most people don't carry a helmet/high vis around with them. Dublin Bikes would be rendered obsolete too.
    I've always said that if you can't see a cyclist on the road, no matter what he's wearing or the time of day or night, you probably shouldn't be driving.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 158 ✭✭Joe4321


    And there lies the problem


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,345 ✭✭✭Padre_Pio


    Do people have the same ire about tractors on the road? Tractors are slower and harder to overtake.

    Honestly, if you find cyclists make driving difficult, then maybe your shouldn't be driving.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,440 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


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

    Eventually it will happen.

    Same for motorists presumably, given that vastly more head injuries happen in cars than on bikes, even with seat belts and air bags - failure to wear a crash helmet would invalidate motor insurance?

    Why do you think this eventually will happen when no country in the world requires cyclists to be insured?


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,290 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Joe4321 wrote: »
    @Seth, your options are so far away from reality, nobody here suggests that they want less cyclists on the road, why do you say this? People giving there option which disagrees to cyclists is condemned straight out, you have cyclists on here suggesting it is safer to not were a helmet, how is that been a roll model for kids? People have different options but anyone who tries to suggest anything regarding cycling is out to get them, just because something has not been done before or is not been done in other countries does not mean it does not need to be done,
    My options?
    I'm merely responding to your ludicrous proposal which is one used over and over by those who would love to curtail the number of cyclists.
    As for kids wearing helmets or whether it is safer for them not to wear one, I never said either of these.
    Anyhow, to get back to your last point: your proposal is stupid. It hasn't been done anywhere else and won't be done anywhere else because it is stupid. I'm not sure if that will sink in so maybe a few bullet points might help:
    * it would be expensive to set up, administer and enforce
    * it is unnecessary
    * it would only serve to reduce the numbers cycling resulting in more car journeys and reduce the numbers involved in active travel (therefore health implications)
    * it is unnecessary
    * it serves next to no benefit
    * it is unnecessary except to those who have a massive chip on their shoulder
    * did I say it was unnecessary?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,280 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    Well you just want people to have to wear helmets because you want cycling to be more inconvenient for people, that's why I'd meet it with scorn coming from someone like you. As if you give a flying f*ck about the safety of cyclists.

    If how unsafe it is to cycle is whats pushing the agenda to harm cars in the city then I absolutely do , the favourite approach is just to harm motorists and let cyclists live a feckless life. 'make cycling more inconvenient' that some 'seatblets discourage car ownership' level crap there.

    The solution can't just be to let cyclists behave like children with no regard for their own safety. Mandatory helmets, cycling training in schools, more police enforcement on fines . Thats what we need.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,224 ✭✭✭zerosugarbuzz


    Duckjob wrote: »
    Funny you should mention ignorance.

    I'd say the height of ignorance is ignoring just about every study that's been conducted worldwide which conclude universally that people on bikes taken as a group ("cyclists") break road laws at the same or slightly lower rate than people in cars ("motorists").

    But sure, keep going LALALALA with the fingers stuck in the ears.





    And just on this- To borrow a turn of phrase from Jeff Daniels in that clip about America:

    If motorists are so well behaved, then in low speed residential areas how come we need to have speed bumps so goddamn everywhere ?

    What silly nit picking... as for speed bumps, I’ve no problem with them, no doubt the put manners on cyclists too.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 245 ✭✭oisinog


    more police enforcement on fines . Thats what we need.

    That is needed for car drivers as well


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 158 ✭✭Joe4321


    @Seth, bullet point no. 1, cost, your obsest with cost, but I guess I'm wrong, who says motors want cyclist of the road????? Why do you think everyone with an option that differs to yours is against cyclists?????


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,280 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    oisinog wrote: »
    That is needed for car drivers as well

    we already have an insane level of traffic policing in Ireland, check out the Garda traffic twitter, enforcement on motorists isn't the issue, we already have it. As I explained - Dublin cyclists behave like feckless children, no amount of 'but motorists' changes that.


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,290 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    If how unsafe it is to cycle is whats pushing the agenda to harm cars in the city then I absolutely do , the favourite approach is just to harm motorists and let cyclists live a feckless life. 'make cycling more inconvenient' that some 'seatblets discourage car ownership' level crap there.
    What are you talking about here? Who is suggesting harming cars?
    The solution can't just be to let cyclists behave like children with no regard for their own safety. Mandatory helmets, cycling training in schools, more police enforcement on fines . Thats what we need.
    Nobody is suggesting letting people on bikes behave like children. But the reality is that many of them are children and if some drivers weren't such selfish pricks then you'd see a lot more kids on bikes.
    Mandatory helmets will reduce cycling numbers.
    I've absolutely no problem with enforcement. Maybe we will also see proper enforcement of driver infringements at the same time.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,487 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    Padre_Pio wrote: »
    Do you think any of the people involved in these activities would use their own bicycles? :rolleyes::rolleyes:

    My comment was tongue in cheek. :pac:


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 158 ✭✭Joe4321


    No need for bad language.....


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,290 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    we already have an insane level of traffic policing in Ireland, check out the Garda traffic twitter, enforcement on motorists isn't the issue, we already have it. As I explained - Dublin cyclists behave like feckless children, no amount of 'but motorists' changes that.
    Enforcement of the Road Traffic Acts is not good. This is why when penalty points came out first people were very pobedient and after a few weeks realised that they were unlikely to get caught so wen't back to the old ways.
    Speeding is rampant.
    Dangerous overtaking is rampant.
    Phone usage is rampant.
    Tailgaiting is rampant
    There are also a large cohort of drivers who are not insured.

    Seriously, stand at the side of a road sometime for 10 or 15 minutes and you'll be surprised at what you see.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,862 ✭✭✭statto25


    Joe4321 wrote: »
    And there lies the problem


    Whats the problem?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,280 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    What are you talking about here? Who is suggesting harming cars?


    Nobody is suggesting letting people on bikes behave like children. But the reality is that many of them are children and if some drivers weren't such selfish pricks then you'd see a lot more kids on bikes.
    Mandatory helmets will reduce cycling numbers.
    I've absolutely no problem with enforcement. Maybe we will also see proper enforcement of driver infringements at the same time.

    Sure lets let builders work without helmets and high vis jackets so we can get more houses built , Helmets are a proven safety device as are reflectors, lights and high vis clothing. We cant have the attitude of reducing safety just to get cycling to ‘critical mass’


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,859 ✭✭✭Duckjob


    What silly nit picking... as for speed bumps, I’ve no problem with them, no doubt the put manners on cyclists too.

    So lets see...

    Point about studies that universally show cyclists no worse behaved than motorists.... IGNORED


    Point about why speed bumps are needed everywhere in built up areas .... IGNORED


    Feel free to actually address either or both of the points made.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,440 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    We can do multiple things at once. Tax everyone

    We really can't. We have limited resources in Dept Transport and RSA and the Dail and the Gardai. Every hour spent chasing cyclists and cycling issues is an hour that could have been spent reducing the CARnage that motorists cause on the road.


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,290 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Sure lets let builders work without helmets and high vis jackets so we can get more houses built , Helmets are a proven safety device as are reflectors, lights and high vis clothing. We cant have the attitude of reducing safety just to get cycling to ‘critical mass’
    Helmets are not designed to protect the wearer in an impact from a vehicle. Do you wear one whilst driving?

    Demanding high-viz for cyclists is simply placing the onus for safety on the vulnerable road user and away from the road user who is the one who can do the damage. Is your car high-viz?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,440 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    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.

    How exactly did you come to this conclusion, given that we have 98% of mostly insured motorists breaking speed limits and the majority of mostly insured motorists using their phones while driving?

    What is the connection between insurance and behaviour?

    And will we have fines for motorists who fail to use an available motorway?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,862 ✭✭✭statto25


    From my own experience, high-viz seems to make me a better target for some motor drivers. I have a bright pink jersey I like to break out for the summer. It seems to make me a magnet for metal as the amount of close passes wearing it vs not is laughable


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,832 ✭✭✭Paddigol


    Edit: clearly trolling at this stage so I'm out.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,440 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    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.

    There is a requirement for the bike to be used mainly to cycle to work. Every user signs up to these conditions.

    Could you please do some basic research before posting?

    Any thoughts on the taxpayer subsidies for buying new electric cars?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,487 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    Joe4321 wrote: »
    @Seth, your options are so far away from reality, nobody here suggests that they want less cyclists on the road, why do you say this? People giving there option which disagrees to cyclists is condemned straight out, you have cyclists on here suggesting it is safer to not were a helmet, how is that been a roll model for kids? People have different options but anyone who tries to suggest anything regarding cycling is out to get them, just because something has not been done before or is not been done in other countries does not mean it does not need to be done,

    Why the faux concern for cyclists. You can do you part and drive carefully. There is no need for you to get stressed about cyclists safety then.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement