Cyclists, insurance and road tax

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Almost all Government spending creates employment and revenue, including cycle lanes and other facilities, so you don't get any brownie points for that.


Motor tax doesn't contribute - motoring is a huge cost drain on society. So it's not unreasonable to say that those who get the 'pleasure' and usage out of it should be the ones who pay that cost, instead of expecting society as a whole to subsidise their transport choices. You indicated that cyclists need to pay for cycle lanes, so why don't we expect motorists to pay for motoring?

As regards your proposed tax, do you reckon it would; a) encourage more cycling and cyclists, resulting in less traffic congestion, less pollution, improved public health, or b) discourage more cycling and cyclists, resulting in more traffic congestion, more pollution and worsening public health?

But tell you what - would you be agreeable with a road user tax proportional to the wear and tear resulting from the vehicle?

but motor tax is a contribution made by those driving on the roads & I thought it was proportional, ie larger vehicles & older vehicles paid more for extra wear & tear and for more emissions but I could be wrong. I don't think buses or other government vehicles pay any motor tax but I could be wrong there too.

I said that as far as tax is concerned anything is possible if the current motor tax income keeps falling as a result of more people cycling instead of driving. another poster suggested €50 yearly which I'd have no problem with or some similar nominal amount. And presumably we will be paying a carbon tax at some point.

BTW, not looking for brownie points, just joining in the discussion.

Sono Topolino wrote: »

You took that definition of filtering from the RSA manual for motorcyclists.

The RSA does not recommend filtering for cyclists. In fact, they specifically recommend AGAINST it.

Again, pure lies and pure ignorance. Are you not tired of being proven wrong?

Here's a statement from the RSA:

Elaine Gibson, a spokeswoman for the RSA said: “There is a difference between weaving in and out of traffic and filtering, namely; Weaving refers to a situation where a road user moves erratically left and right and left again through moving or very slow moving traffic ie moving along in a winding or zigzag course through traffic.”

“Filtering involves a road user correctly overtaking static traffic, observing the Rules of the Road. Once the traffic starts moving freely again, it is important to reintegrate into the traffic flow in a safe manner. It is important to point out that the Rules of the Road apply to all road users,” she added.

It doesn't matter if you're on a motorcycle or a bicycle, filtering is all the same.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Wrong. Cyclists contribute VAT on bike sales, servicing, accessories.

Though motorists pay nothing near the true cost of motoring.

Cyclists should get together and post this on big billboards all around the country.

Why do we have to listen to the same misinformation from motorists year after year after year........

VonLuck wrote: »

I don't think it's a lack of intelligence. It's pure anger that fuels wilful ignorance.

If you can't control your "pure anger" you're not fit to be behind the wheel of anything.

VonLuck wrote: »

I don't think it's a lack of intelligence. It's pure anger that fuels wilful ignorance.

yeah - true - but not a good mix - anger and 2000KGs of steel..

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Cyclists should get together and post this on big billboards all around the country.

Why do we have to listen to the same misinformation from motorists year after year after year........

I'd pay that - some slogans like "No need to thank us for helping reduce traffic jams" etc

Unfortunately - it goes against my other principle of not winding up other road users as ultimately they ill just take their blame and anger out on some other poor sod.

mrslancaster wrote: »

but motor tax is a contribution made by those driving on the roads & I thought it was proportional, ie larger vehicles & older vehicles paid more for extra wear & tear and for more emissions but I could be wrong. I don't think buses or other government vehicles pay any motor tax but I could be wrong there too.

I said that as far as tax is concerned anything is possible if the current motor tax income keeps falling as a result of more people cycling instead of driving. another poster suggested €50 yearly which I'd have no problem with or some similar nominal amount. And presumably we will be paying a carbon tax at some point.

BTW, not looking for brownie points, just joining in the discussion.

Well, put it this way - on my 3 year old SUV I pay just over €200 a year motor tax. Proportionally speaking, how much do you think I should pay for my 4 bikes? €50 each?

I'm not having a go at you, because you're posts seem to be reasonable explorations of ideas, but when you tease out the logic you can see that it makes little to no sense to impose a tax on bicycles. If anything, we should be doing all we can to get more people cycling. And running, and swimming, and walking etc etc., but cycling specifically is a perfectly good mode of transport (not just exercise) that reduces traffic congestion and carbon emissions.

Most suggestions around helmets, 'hi viz', tax, insurance, registration plates are not made from a place of concern for cyclists - that is abundantly clear from the refusal to look at evidence from other countries and the tone in which the suggestions are made - but from a place of disdain for cyclists.

magicbastarder wrote: »

€50 a year is ~40% what is due on a nissan leaf. you cannot begin to compare a bicycle with a nissan leaf, in terms of manufacture, weight, size, carbon emissions, etc.

I think cyclists genuinely need tax rebates.

I think we should start more closely tying motor tax to road usage and reward properly those that complete more journeys by bike.

Paying 50 quid? I want a 500 a year+ tax credit. Since we want to talk about fairness.

maestroamado wrote: »

So you are basically saying the Gardai do not want to police cyclists.

They don't need to be policed because they don't cause any harm. What part of that don't you understand?

maestroamado wrote: »

So you are basically saying the Gardai do not want to police cyclists.
Just cap the number and problem solved, there are loads of charity cycle runs and i have done a few, generally charity funding etc.
I don't think mondello suitable for these charity events, its a motor racing venue...

Cap the number of motor vehicles. Let’s say one per every 5 people in the country as that how many people they generally carry the extremely odd time. Sounds smarter than your ideas.

Effects wrote: »

Probably best to have pedestrians wearing high vis, and identifying numbers.
Maybe some kind of mandatory training and insurance, as a lot of them seem to have a bad understanding of how to walk around cycle lanes.
I've been knocked down twice by pedestrians, and both time they ran away, and I was left with injuries and damages that had to be paid for.
Wasn't a pedestrian responsible for killing a cycling in the Phoenix Park a few years ago too?

Yes. People walking to their parked car should have to display both their own registration number, and the cars registration number just to be doubly sure they can be identified.

I really admire the patience of some of you in this thread trying to reason with the anti cycling brigade. They really don’t seem to understand basic logic or common sense.