Glencarraig wrote: » My neighbour parkes a yacht on a trailer on the footpath on a regular basis, Gardai and DLRCC were informed...............nothing ever happens.
strandroad wrote: » It doesn't necessarily equal driving though. My neighbour is disabled, she uses her mobility scooter locally and only drives to hospital appointments. Her problems are: the lack of footpaths and crossings, footpaths not wide enough for scooters especially when scooters or buggies pass, cars parked on footpaths. Some of them are only forced to drive or be driven because of such issues.
Cyrus wrote: As soon we get everyone wearing helmets and enforcement if not, everyone insured , everyone with a registration plate , everyone passing a test to use public roads and everyone paying road tax then let’s go for it.
dubrov wrote: » That's anti-cyclist bingo for me.
Cyrus wrote: » I’m all for everyone cycling As soon we get everyone wearing helmets and enforcement if not, everyone insured , everyone with a registration plate , everyone passing a test to use public roads and everyone paying road tax then let’s go for it.
Cyrus wrote: » Not really if it’s to be the dominant mode of transport in the city replacing cars as some posters advocate then why wouldn’t the same rules and structures apply ?
ted1 wrote: » WTF? Plenty of reasons not to wear helmets ( which aren’t mandatory)look at the studies. Actually drivers and people travelling in cars would be well to wear helmets and neck braces Insurance ? That’s just begrudgary. It’s not needed as the cost of claims would be minuscule, cars is compulsory because they are in accidents where damages are outside most peoples means. Tax? Cyclists pay tax. Motor tax don’t have a motor. Also the wear and tear on a road is tiny compared to a car. They are also 10 kg v 1500+kg They are 1.5 ft wide vs 6 ft. The cost of providing infrastructure is much cheaper as they don’t carry the sane weight. The cost of land is cheaper as they need much less width. E.g a bi directional lane fits in a 1 way road In summary you are grasping at straws and making yourself look silly now.
Cyrus wrote: » I’m sure someone can give a reason not to wear a seatbelt aswell As I said if bikes are to become the dominant mode of transport as some of you are advocating then all of this needs to be put in place. If a cyclist coming down Killiney hill at 40kmph wipes me out and severely injures me, who pays ? They should have insurance silly to suggest not. It’ll be cheaper of course as chances of that are slimmer but they aren’t non existent. And re tax call it road tax if you prefer , feel better ?
dubrov wrote: » If a pedestrian comes around a corner and bumps an old pensioner to the ground, who pays?
Mav11 wrote: » Great idea, a few questions: L & N Plates? 2 Stabilizers for those on L plates? 1 Stabilizer for those on N plates? Theory test? What happens if a child cycling to school can't afford insurance from her pocket money? Do we include scooters? Where would you put the plate? Do those (the majority) who pay motor tax get a reduction as they are now paying bike tax? I could go on.
Cyrus wrote: » I’ll come back to you in it tomorrow there are easy answers to all of those questions
ted1 wrote: » You are just a begrudgar who fails to understand the basic laws of physics and the difference between a self propelled 10kg bike v a mechanical propelled vehicle weighing over 1500kg. Has anyone ever been taking out by a bike at 40kmh on killiney hill. A note to take is that any member of a club or cycling Ireland has insurance. As for tax, roads are subsidiesed out of general funds as drivers don’t pay enough. What are your view in footpaths and also bus lanes. Each bus driver has their journey subsided too Also many cyclists pay road tax but leave the car at home , this reducing traffic
Mav11 wrote: » Great idea, a few questions: L & N Plates? No just a licence to say you have passed a test 2 Stabilizers for those on L plates? No 1 Stabilizer for those on N plates? That would probably be unsafe Theory test? Absolutely , using the road need to know the rules of it, that’s a no brained What happens if a child cycling to school can't afford insurance from her pocket money? Children if accompanied by a licensed adult are exempt and covered by that adults insurance until they have passed their test. Would also have a min age for unaccompanied cyclists Do we include scooters? Yes Where would you put the plate? Behind the saddle on a bracelet Do those (the majority) who pay motor tax get a reduction as they are now paying bike tax? Course not do you get a reduction in road tax on a second car ? I could go on.
Mav11 wrote: » Ted, he's getting very good at the wind up! Shouldn't be taken seriously.
Cyrus wrote: » What am I begrudging exactly ? I’ve already explained I drive very little and take public transport to commute and most places I want to go are waking distance . As family we couldn’t do much less mileage and I’ve even gone eco and got a leccy car to keep everyone’s lungs safe, so yeay for me.
Cyrus wrote: » There you go I couldn’t wait
Mav11 wrote: » There you go, haven't a clue again. Scooters haven't got saddles.
ted1 wrote: » You are begrudging cyclists for having a safe low cost of transport that doesn’t require insurance or road tax. You think that because a mechanically propelled vehicle that kills several people on our roads a week has it them it’s only fair if cyclists too. With nothing to justify your logic only basic begrudgary
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Something like this perhaps?https://twitter.com/SilkeRichard/status/1271844709519024128?s=19
Cyrus wrote: » That’s it ? I’m sure we could modify them in some way the same way we attach a metal plate to a car , can’t be that hard now can it, where there is a will and all that
Cyrus wrote: » It’s very easy trigger cyclists to be fair, it seems outrage and the moral high ground are the default positions
Mav11 wrote: » Sounds a bit Boris Johnson'ish. You're not related are you?:D
Cyrus wrote: » I could only wish for some of Bojos genes and that fantastic head of hair he has
