Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

roofer1988 wrote: »

Cyclists are always in the way,

In the way of what?

dublintrafficjam_large.jpg?width=600&s=bn-736306

SeanW wrote: »

A road usage tax paid by motorists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_tax

We don't have any such tax in Ireland. Could you be mixing it up with something else?

SeanW wrote: »

Come to think of it, maybe cyclists aren't really qualified to tell anyone to refer to the legal terminology.

Bit like the 98% of motorists that break urban speed limits then?

SeanW wrote: »

Most cyclists regard these rules as (at best) suggestions.

Bit like the 98% of motorists that break urban speed limits then?
- you know, the ones you keep making excuses for.

SeanW wrote: »

Correct. You pay tax on your car if, and then because, it is on the road. Ergo, it's a road tax.

Actually, you pay the tax on your laptop, because, it is on the broadband - ergo, it's a broadband tax.

the_syco wrote: »

I'm finding more cyclists are breaking the red light than usual these days.

I'm finding more motorists are killing pedestrians than usual these days.
https://www.meathchronicle.ie/2020/05/27/road-deaths-up-9-double-number-of-pedestrians-killed-this-year-from-2019/

SeanW wrote: »

And I'm going to keep calling the tax I pay on road usage "road tax" and I'm going to keep calling accidental collisions "accidents" and if you don't like it, you take a long walk off a short pier.

"Correct" me all you want.

You can call it Percy and put a hat on if you like. That doesn't change anything. It's not road tax and they're not accidents. But if you want to keep letting motorists off the hook for killing and maiming people, you are free to do so.

Hurrache

meeeeh wrote: »

Value added tax means that producer only pays tax on value they added. End customer doesn't ad any value so they cannot claim tax back. Why would you buy something that adds no value to you btw? So you can dump it among other things people buy just because they can.

No, I refuse to acknowledge the reality of what taxes are since the poster who started this refuses.

Ergo it's a tax on value added to my purchase, which there isn't any.

But seriously, mansplaining?

meeeeh

Hurrache wrote: »

But seriously, mansplaining?

Womansplaining actually. I prefer not to use my gender to close down arguments though.

Anyway you still claim you bought something that adds no value to you. Not something I do.

Hurrache

Gender's but a state of mind.

And no, I didn't claim that, I said the value added tax added no additional value to my purchase, it had the opposite effect.

Anyway, nothing in this thread can be taking in any sort of seriousness.

Chiparus wrote: »

Im off to pay the cycle path tax.

Same here. is it an add on to the "road tax" I already pay?

SeanW

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

We don't have any such tax in Ireland. Could you be mixing it up with something else?

All explained in the link I provided.

Bit like the 98% of motorists that break urban speed limits then?

Bit like the 98% of motorists that break urban speed limits then?
- you know, the ones you keep making excuses for.

Yeah, so many "urban speed limits".

Actually, you pay the tax on your laptop, because, it is on the broadband - ergo, it's a broadband tax.

What if I just use my neighbours' WiFi? can I claim the VAT back on my laptop? :pac: How does this make Ireland's Motor Tax system not a road tax?

I'm finding more motorists are killing pedestrians than usual these days.
https://www.meathchronicle.ie/2020/05/27/road-deaths-up-9-double-number-of-pedestrians-killed-this-year-from-2019/

Yes, you mentioned. Double, from one small number, to another small number. No reason given, of course.

You can call it Percy and put a hat on if you like. That doesn't change anything. It's not road tax and they're not accidents. But if you want to keep letting motorists off the hook for killing and maiming people, you are free to do so.

It's still a road tax and accidental collisions are still accidents. Unless they're staged collisions, vehicular suicides, terrorism etc.

I assume you're done trying to pretend the 4 accidents you referred to earlier had anything to do with the lack of hi-vis on the cars that were crashed into?

Hurrache wrote: »

No, I refuse to acknowledge the reality of what taxes are since the poster who started this refuses.

Ergo it's a tax on value added to my purchase, which there isn't any.

But seriously, mansplaining?

Who said anything about gender?

ewc78 wrote: »

Did I say it wasn't legal? I checked my post again and nope, no mention of me saying it wasn't legal.
It was bad road etiquette though imo, brand new wide cycle lane there, but no I'll be an arse and cycle in the middle of the road. Didn't hold me up though so I wasn't fussed.

yeah sure when restrictions are fully lifted it'll be business as usual please god Single occupant cars, bumper to bumper, from castleknock to park gate street.

ewc78 wrote: »

Glad you enjoyed your cycle.

ah thanks:D

SeanW wrote: »

And I'm going to keep calling the tax I pay on road usage "road tax" and I'm going to keep calling accidental collisions "accidents" and if you don't like it, you take a long walk off a short pier.

"Correct" me all you want.

you seem angry, maybe you should go for a cycle to work that tension out.
best bit is that you don't have to pay anyone to use the road.

SeanW

Yeah that would work. Because menacing pedestrians off the road, ranting about horrible evil motorists and 1984 style language policing is what chilled-out people do. :rolleyes:

good god man, we're disagreeing about the definition of a tax and you're ranting about orwell, policing language, and censorship.
in what alternate universe are you feeling censored? no-one is trying to stop you from stating your case, we're *disagreeing* with you and you're getting all triggered on us.

apologies if you did actually live in a fascist state where people were actually forced to use a common language and were legally obliged to agree with each other, but this is boards and people are freely allowed to disagree. rules are different.

07Lapierre

Not all motorists are evil...sure aren't we motorists ourselves?

no, i am currently a keyboard warrior trying to crush SeanW's freedom to use language under the jackboot of my, eh, opinion.

meeeeh

Is the cycling where all the atheists moved after they killed Atheist forum with smugness?

Chiparus

07Lapierre wrote: »

Not all motorists are evil...sure aren't we motorists ourselves?

Yep, and one of mine is a SUV:eek:

meeeeh wrote: »

Is the cycling where all the atheists moved after they killed Atheist forum with smugness?

yes, we were redeployed after we won the battle against god.

in all seriousness*, what?

*i cannot take this seriously.

SeanW wrote: »

Yeah that would work. Because menacing pedestrians off the road, ranting about horrible evil motorists and 1984 style language policing is what chilled-out people do. :rolleyes:

Speaking of menacing, it's not cyclists that kill nearly one pedestrian each week on average.

07Lapierre wrote: »

Not all motorists are evil...sure aren't we motorists ourselves?

Some of my best friends are.....

ewc78 wrote: »

Was in the Phoenix Park meself this evening for a quick run before I headed home to greener pastures and cleaner air for the weekend.
Didn't see any cars in the new cycle lane but did see a Tour de France wannabe have a line of cars behind him because he was cycling up Chesterfield Avenue in the middle of the road rather than use the new cycle lane.

Were there many Formula 1 wannabes in the line of cars behind him?
This might help you to understand the difference between the middle of the road and the middle of the lane.

meeeeh

Chiparus wrote: »

Yep, and one of mine is a SUV:eek:

I hope you need it for work because otherwise you bought a bucket on four wheels that handles like a pig just because you don't want to be outdone on school run.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Speaking of menacing, it's not cyclists that kill nearly one pedestrian each week on average.

it's OK, AJR, we're giving you the weekend off. you can relax and chill for 48 hours.

meeeeh wrote: »

Is the cycling where all the atheists moved after they killed Atheist forum with smugness?

Ooh deep. Here, let me have a go: If a cyclist cuts down a tree in the forest, and there is no atheist present, what colour was the athiest's eyes?

SeanW wrote: »

All explained in the link I provided.

Doesn't matter what's in the link. There is no road tax in Ireland. That's the law.

SeanW wrote: »

"urban speed limits".

You know that your opinion on speed limits doesn't count for anything. That's how speed limits work, they apply to everyone, regardless of their opinion.
But it's fascinating to see your flexibility around speeding by motorists (one of the top three causes of road deaths) compared to your zero tolerance attitudes to cyclists.

SeanW wrote: »

What if I just use my neighbours' WiFi? can I claim the VAT back on my laptop? :pac: How does this make Ireland's Motor Tax system not a road tax?

By showing you that making up your own names for things doesn't change what those things are.

SeanW wrote: »

Yes, you mentioned. Double, from one small number, to another small number. No reason given, of course.

At a guess, the reason might have something to do with being hit by a tonne or two of metal.

SeanW wrote: »

It's still a road tax and accidental collisions are still accidents. Unless they're staged collisions, vehicular suicides, terrorism etc.

It's still not a road tax, because we don't have road tax in Ireland. Drivers don't accidentally speed. Drivers don't accidentally use their phones. Drivers don't accidentally have a few pints.

SeanW wrote: »

I assume you're done trying to pretend the 4 accidents you referred to earlier had anything to do with the lack of hi-vis on the cars that were crashed into?

Oh, wait, I thought that's how things worked round here? When you see a road death, you automatically spew out 'hi-vis' as the solution, regardless of what happened? Is that not the SOP here?

Are you sure that hi-vis wouldn't not have helped in any of those crashes?

magicbastarder wrote: »

yes, we were redeployed after we won the battle against god.

It was a good win, in fairness.

Chiparus

meeeeh wrote: »

I hope you need it for work because otherwise you bought a bucket on four wheels that handles like a pig just because you don't want to be outdone on school run.

No need it for recreation, actually handles very well.

Chiparus wrote: »

Yep, and one of mine is a SUV:eek:

Went out in the SUV for a spin this evening. Out to howth for a stroll at the bailey. Only picked it up in March before lockdown. Grand yoke. Job no. 1 tomorrow is to see if the universal bike rack fits on it. Looking forward to a road trip to Donegal in July when the travel limitations are lifted.

SeanW

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Doesn't matter what's in the link. There is no road tax in Ireland. That's the law.

The Irish Motor Tax system still meets the dictionary definition of a road tax. Bitch about it all you want, it will still be true.

You know that your opinion on speed limits doesn't count for anything. That's how speed limits work, they apply to everyone, regardless of their opinion.
But it's fascinating to see your flexibility around speeding by motorists (one of the top three causes of road deaths) compared to your zero tolerance attitudes to cyclists.

The fact that you have "urban" speed zones in the middle of nowhere gives me reason to question the relevance of your 98% figure. But like I said, I'll be more than happy to take a lecture on obeying "urban" speed limits from cyclists when they stop breaking every law in the book as a matter of routine.

By showing you that making up your own names for things doesn't change what those things are.

I didn't "make up" anything. People have probably been calling it "road tax" since before I was born.

At a guess, the reason might have something to do with being hit by a tonne or two of metal.

But you haven't explained the increase. Did Irish motorists get 100% worse over the past year?

Oh, wait, I thought that's how things worked round here? When you see a road death, you automatically spew out 'hi-vis' as the solution, regardless of what happened? Is that not the SOP here?

The ****? Where did I suggest anything of the sort? I suggested that you should err on the side of being more visible not less in a variety of contexts, including things like hi-vis. Because you're sharing the road with other people and it's a good idea to be as visible as possible, given that your bicycle is small and generally does not have the same lighting arrangements as a car.

Are you sure that hi-vis wouldn't not have helped in any of those crashes?

3 of the 4 cases involved drivers that quite simply should not have been on the road. In the fourth case, there's not enough information.

Hurrache

Motor tax.