Cyclists, insurance and road tax

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.

Duckjob

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.

Eric Cartman

Seth Brundle wrote: »

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?

They're designed to prevent injury to cyclists coming off a bike and hitting the road, be it caused by vehicle or road debris etc..

Every car has reflectors, headlights, trucks have side markers and reflective strips , there are tonnes of crumple zones and safety systems in cars to protect occupants. Cars are built with safety systems built in. Every road user should have safety and visibility equipment on them , cyclists are not immune to this.

A motorist driving around in a car with no lights on at night, no working reflectors etc. is illegal , for good reason. The same should be for cyclists.

Joe4321

@statto25, nó problems, just having a laugh at how sensative all the cyclist are and that there is knotting that they are doing is wrong, or knotting they can do to suggest how they can improve their safety and other road users safety. How are you today, hope you are enjoying this wonderful Monday.

Joe4321

You have an option so you are getting stressed, eeem, intelligent comment

ted1

kirving wrote: »

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.

I think we agree that the general thread is talking about commuters/road cyclists.

I don’t agree with using Doctors for examples. They only see the bad things.

If I fall down the stairs. The doctor will see stairs as a damaged and recommend people to live in a bungalow

AndrewJRenko

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.

How can you tell the purpose of a cyclist's journey, or any road user's journey by looking at them?

Can cyclists who are cycling to work expect all those drivers who are driving to go for a walk or play football to pull over and let the cyclist through?

AndrewJRenko

Joe4321 wrote: »

@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

Again, what risk are you hoping that cyclists will insure against?

Do pedestrians need insurance to cover comparable risks?

statto25

Joe4321 wrote: »

@statto25, nó problems, just having a laugh at how sensative all the cyclist are and that there is knotting that they are doing is wrong, or knotting they can do to suggest how they can improve their safety and other road users safety. How are you today, hope you are enjoying this wonderful Monday.

So youre acknowledging your on the wind up, fair play. Im wonderful actually, thank you for asking!

AndrewJRenko

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

We have 98% of motorists breaking urban speed limits, and the majority of drivers using their phones while driving, so 'pure ignorance or total disregard for the rules' seems to be fairly endemic.

What makes you think that there is a connection between insurance, road tax, and compliance with traffic laws?

Eric Cartman

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

We have 98% of motorists breaking urban speed limits, and the majority of drivers using their phones while driving, so 'pure ignorance or total disregard for the rules' seems to be fairly endemic.

What makes you think that there is a connection between insurance, road tax, and compliance with traffic laws?

Id love to see where either of those stats come from.