micar wrote: » You are the one that needs correcting. You have been corrected multiple time and are refusing the accept the correction.
Chiparus wrote: » It is not a road tax, it is a motor tax, a tax to use a motor on the road, I pay motor tax to drive on the road, I dont pay walking tax or cycling tax or horse tax. There is no tax to use the road.
SeanW wrote: » A road usage tax paid by motorists.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_tax Technically known as "Motor Tax."
IrelandMotor tax is payable as an annual duty (subject to exemptions) in Ireland.
magicbastarder wrote: » well, you've convinced me anyway.
Spook_ie wrote: » How about we set it to the amount of space required, seeing as we've already decided that road/motor tax is nothing to do with wear and tear or environment. So cyclist 2m length, 2 meters wide ( allowing for 1.5 m legislated passing they want ) 4 sq meters at times car what 2 meters wide (Skoda) plus the 1 meter space between traffic so 3 x 4 meters long 12 sq meters yeah a 1/3 may be let you off down to 5% to 10 % because you don't take up as much space at traffic lights (well some of you don't)
Spook_ie wrote: » How about we set it to the amount of space required, seeing as we've already decided that road/motor tax is nothing to do with wear and tear or environment.
Spook_ie wrote: » None the less, this constant "there's no such thing as road tax, it's a motor tax" is incorrect, and as such people who use that in their arguments need correcting.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Interchangable in the way that Tesco and Quinnsworth are interchangeable. How about a Partial Road Fund Licence in proportion to the wear and tear caused on the road by the different vehicle types? If you look up the fourth power rule of engineering to calculate wear and tear, you'll see that a €50 annual fee per cyclist would be proportional to a €1.4 million annual fee per motorist. Bring it on.
Duckjob wrote: » In all seriousness though I think the registration plate needs to be overhauled so that the reg plate includes the level of road tax paid and therefore the priority each road user has. It could be done on a scale of 1 to 10, 1 meaning you're a little worm that needs to be thankful you don't get run over and 10 meaning you've paid top dollar and people need to clear the way for you. The number could be printed in nice large font and also in reverse, like ambulances , so more freeloading motorists know by looking in the rearview mirror to scatter to the kerb when something really important like a pre '08 3 litre is coming through.
Spook_ie wrote: » None the less, this constant "there's no such thing as road tax, it's a motor tax" is incorrect
magicbastarder wrote: » there are multiple different classes of user allowed to use the road, and there is one common factor which unifies all those who must pay a tax on their vehicle. hmm, what's the best name we could give to this tax? the tax is paid *on the motorised vehicle*. i paid my motor tax last night and it's tied very specifically to that one vehicle, and is linked to the emissions band of the vehicle in question. if i don't use the car in public, it simply does not enter the regulatory structure required to tax it. calling it a road tax is like calling water charges a pipe tax. the 'but i can't use X without Y, therefore it's a tax on Y' is a superficial argument. if you paid 'road tax' on your driving licence (an intriguing idea, but i'm one of those lunatics who believes motor tax should be abolished and the shortfall made up with increases in fuel duty), i would accept there's more argument to be made for it to be called a road tax, but still would argue that a better term would be 'driving tax'.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Actually, that’s not what you said. What you said was; “Black, Burgandy or Navy Enviroment” (one OR, not two ORs) – but it’s good of you to confirm that what you meant was ‘Black or Burgandy or Blue Environment’. And yes, given that it is an OR statement, I can take individual parts out without changing the meaning. I can take one or two out of three options, and reflect it as your position. It’s not a 100% complete representation of your position, but it is a 100% accurate representation of your position – that hi-vis for cars would help in blue or black environments, such as those we see around us at hight time.
Spook_ie wrote: » Just keep digging It's unlikely, unless it were parked in a black or burgundy or navy environment, maybe if it was speeding perhaps or killing 4 or 5 people a week it would benefit from hi viz stripes
I suppose the key difference here is that I don’t park my bike on public roads when I go to bed, so the comparison doesn’t really hold. But why don’t you direct your campaign at your fellow taxi drivers, getting them to hi-vis up every time they step out of the car, or indeed at all motorists, getting them to hi-vis up for their walk to/from your car? You do really believe in this hi-vis thing, don’t you?
No fantasy – your words are clear and specific, and confirm that hi-vis for cars would be beneficial in blue or black environments, such as night time.
Do you think that being slightly more wordy in your Bart Simpson approach gives it any more credibility? [It doesn’t]
You know what they say about ASSumptions, right? And more of the questions, why you still fail to answer mine? That’s some neck you have.
People should not have been ‘staying at home’. People should have been exercising to keep up their health and fitness to put them in the best position to fight the virus if it did come knocking. Given the 2km limit at the time, for most people this exercise meant walking or running – on footpaths, right? So having ten tonnes of bus parked up on the footpath or cycle path, sometimes with the engine idling doesn’t create an environment conducive to exercise.
I just thought you might apply your hi-vis logic that you apply to pedestrians and cyclists to bridges also. Should we add even more hi-vis to bridges to stop drivers driving into them regularly?
So hi-vis won’t prevent those collisions, but it will prevent collisions for cyclists and pedestrians? How did you work that out?
You can root all you like, but it doesn’t answer the question I’m asking. The question isn’t ‘which one is more visible, cyclists or cars’. The question is ‘which is more visible, cars with hi-vis or cars without hi-vis’? Have you got any videos to answer that one?
I reckon I’d have a better chance of coming out alive against a Swiss army knife, which is why the laws around them are very different to the laws around AK47s. Which would you prefer to be assaulted by?
See above. OR not AND.
Spook_ie wrote: » Road Tax and Motor Tax are interchangeable terms for the same thing.
Spook_ie wrote: » Arguments about Motor Tax not equating to a tax to use the roads are disingenuous, it's not a Motor Tax just because it's called a Motor Tax. Unless the "motor" is parked on a public road or other public place then you don't need "Motor Tax" therefore it's a tax for a motor to be used in a public place or on the road therefore it is a Road Tax. You don't even need the motor to be capable of running. Likewise you can't argue it's an Emissions Tax as you don't have to pay it if the motor is only emitting emissions on private land and therefor the tax is not required. Just in case (sarcasm ON) Now if it were labelled Partial Road Fund Licence it would be much more accurate and cyclists could use their partially funded cycle lanes on their partially funded bicycles (bike to work schemes seem so popular even if they don't cycle to work) and motorists could use their partially funded roads, unless there is no cycle lane, in which case we could all use our partially funded road network (sarcasm OFF)
Spook_ie wrote: » Once again I said " Black or Burgandy or Navy Enviroment" it's a grammatically correct sentence not some source of Boolean logic where you can take seperate parts of it and de-contextualize parts of the sentence.
Spook_ie wrote: » Pretty much the same as hi viz on cyclists when not cycling, maybe you'd get a kick out of it but I see no reason when you've parked your bike and gone to bed for you to wear it, maybe if you've gone over all pedestrian and are walking along the road after a puncture or something yeah but not in bed. If they are reading this then yes if you're getting out of your car to offload luggage make sure you can be seen and if necessary wear the high viz jacket in your emergency kit, as to mandatory Hi Viz I think you're the first to mention mandatory I haven't, only that I find it much easier to distinguish pedestrians and cyclists when they're wearing Hi Viz and would prefer it if they wore it.
Spook_ie wrote: » We back onto your fantasy voyage of what I didn't say, twice in the same post
Spook_ie wrote: » Not really, but you should look at yourself more often and think "Hmmm that probably applies to AJR, as well "
Spook_ie wrote: » You're right I did make the assumption that you wouldn't have deleted any photographs or video you'd have of them if you'd reported them, so did you report them?
Spook_ie wrote: » Nope but given that the capacity for PT has been slashed and we now have ( June 8th ) a greater return to work are they still parking there, no is the time we need social distancing on the general footpaths, not the previous 3 months when most people should have been staying at home.
Spook_ie wrote: » Why the twitter about a lorry under a bridge?
Spook_ie wrote: » Would be less of them if we didn't have criminals trying to make reckless get aways, or people drink driving Hi Viz in any shape or form won't prevent those accidents, and you're the one that selected those reports, I just happen to read them rather than rely on your interpretation.
Spook_ie wrote: » I must see if I can root out some old videos of cyclists without Hi Viz or Lights and compare them to vids of cars without Hi Viz or lights and see which ones are visible from the greater distance, especially at night time which is when reflected light comes into it's own Did I not answer this already in this post, can you try and tidy your posts up so I'm not having to repeat myself so often in the same post
Spook_ie wrote: » Which would you sooner be assaulted with then an AK47 or a bladed weapon, both can kill you
Spook_ie wrote: » WTF definite deja vu here but again check how the grammar would have needed to change to make it read correctly Black or Burgandy or Navy environment Black and Burgandy and Navy environment
ewc78 wrote: » Yeah it's what all the cool people do...;)
SeanW wrote: » 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.
SeanW wrote: » The fact that you have "urban" speed zones in the middle of nowhere gives me reason to question the relevance of your 98% figure.
SeanW wrote: » 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.
SeanW wrote: » I didn't "make up" anything. People have probably been calling it "road tax" since before I was born.
SeanW wrote: » But you haven't explained the increase. Did Irish motorists get 100% worse over the past year?
Pinch Flat wrote: » Ah look road tax is trotted out in these arguments all the tines. Those with their motoring blinkers on like to think if it as a subscription to some sort of club with the childish belief being that they paid this tax, therefore those who don't shouldn't be on their roads that they've paid for. It's incredible really
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.
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.
magicbastarder wrote: » you seem angry, maybe you should go for a cycle to work that tension out. .
Hurrache wrote: » Motor tax.
