Cyclists, insurance and road tax

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.

Joe4321

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

Seth Brundle

zerosugarbuzz wrote: »

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

AndrewJRenko

Hoboo wrote: »

If they go through someone's windscreen? Yep.

Does that happen often?

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.

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

Pinch Flat

FileNotFound wrote: »

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.

statto25

Pinch Flat wrote: »

I cycle and own a SUV:P

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,

AndrewJRenko

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!

That is factually untrue.

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

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.

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?

Joe4321

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

TomTomTim

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

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.

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

Duckjob

zerosugarbuzz wrote: »

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.

zerosugarbuzz wrote: »

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 ?

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?

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

Joe4321

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

AndrewJRenko

Sono Topolino wrote: »

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?

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.

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.

Joe4321

And there lies the problem

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.

AndrewJRenko

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

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?

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?

Eric Cartman

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

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.

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.

oisinog

Eric Cartman wrote: »

more police enforcement on fines . Thats what we need.

That is needed for car drivers as well

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?????

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.

Seth Brundle

Eric Cartman wrote: »

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?

Eric Cartman wrote: »

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.

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:

Joe4321

No need for bad language.....

Seth Brundle

Eric Cartman wrote: »

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.

statto25

Joe4321 wrote: »

And there lies the problem

Whats the problem?

Eric Cartman

Seth Brundle wrote: »

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’

Duckjob

zerosugarbuzz wrote: »

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.

AndrewJRenko

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

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.

Seth Brundle

Eric Cartman wrote: »

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?

AndrewJRenko

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.

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?

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

Paddigol

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

AndrewJRenko

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.

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?

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.