Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Cyclists, insurance and road tax

1…4041434546…65

Comments

  • #1262
    Pawwed Rig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,454 ✭✭✭✭Pawwed Rig


    Sono Topolino wrote: »
    I was tailing them for an entire mile.

    So about 3 minutes


  • #1263
    Scrabbel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 401 ✭✭Scrabbel


    Seth Brundle wrote: »
    I think the vast majority of times people see three abreast isn't actually three abreast but merely looks that way momentarily.
    No doubt some of the anti-cycling posters will retort with an incident they saw but didn't get on camera but they will see what they want to see!

    I'm both a cyclist and a driver. I'd disagree with you there - that's just one opinion (which you're quite entitled to hold, like the original poster) that you equally can't back up with evidence. In any event, if 1 hanging back looks like they're in the middle of 3 abreast, then clearly the gap between the front 2 is too big anyway. Just as I think people who are cycling 3 (or even 2) abreast should be a bit considerate and go single file for a minute to let a hold-up clear I also think people who are driving should be a little bit patient and not immediately try to overtake if the space is narrow or immediately beep to make their presence know. A bit of give and take goes a long way.


  • #1264
    harmless
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,015 ✭✭✭harmless


    Scrabbel wrote: »
    . Just as I think people who are cycling 3 (or even 2) abreast should be a bit considerate and go single file for a minute to let a hold-up clear I also think people who are driving should be a little bit patient and not immediately try to overtake if the space is narrow or immediately beep to make their presence know. A bit of give and take goes a long way.


    I completely agree with this but the cyclists need to be very careful when they go single file as many will take it as a signal to overtake immediately.

    I've seen some close calls when groups go single file while there is still traffic coming the other direction on a rural road. And of course the same caution applies to bends in the road.
    Then you have situations where one group goes single file when it is safe but another does not because it is not and the motorist gets angry.


  • #1265
    John_Rambo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,631 ✭✭✭✭John_Rambo


    Sono Topolino wrote: »
    A cyclist made a crass remark about how many taxi drivers are in receipt of pandemic unemployment payments

    That was me, never mentioned how many, just about the mouthpiece on the thread and his tax money. It was a valid point, not crass. I'm a motorist by the way.. Haven't been on a bike in well over a year.

    BUT IT WAS THE CYCLISTS FAULT, THEY MADE MY SAY IT!!

    Tell us more about your anecdote, conveniently.. just this Saturday!! Where you were stuck behind three cyclists for a mile and you couldn't overtake! Sounds like a great yarn. In all my years of driving vans and cars throughout Ireland and Europe I've never come across such a situation.

    Where was this? Sounds terrible. Poor you.

    Expand.. Explain....


  • #1266
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 53,399 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Sono Topolino wrote: »
    I was tailing them for an entire mile.
    cyclists don't cycle in miles, we cycle in kilometres.
    as does your car, unless it's quite old.


  • Advertisement
  • #1267
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,458 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    SeanW wrote: »
    Not sure where to start with this tbh. First of all, it's not just Vietnam, it's most of the world bar about 3 or 4 countries. And even then, we're separated from the objective best (Norway) by a thin margin. Second, motorised traffic offers enormous inherent benefits to any society, and those benefits far outweigh the costs. It's not just that mass motoring allows anyone to go wherever they want, whenever they want, carrying as much as they want, but also society's ability to ensure that goods and materials are delivered where they are needed, when they are needed. Everyone's quality of life is massively improved, even if they don't own a car themselves, they benefit indirectly. It's got nothing to do with "car industry propaganda". Alas, the risks are also inherent. That's what the global data shows. The question isn't whether or not there will be collisions and fatalities, but rather how well those risks are managed. The data are clear on that point, the evidence clearly indicates that good decisions are being made on a very widespread basis in this country.

    It's also clear that many of the people who do die, do so due to some extreme act of recklessness, not some fully licensed, insured driver driving at 36kph on some suburban distributor road. Like that "driver" that caused the recently discussed deaths in Donegal, a good enforcement policy would focus on finding people like that before they kill. Like how a checkpoint by either the Gardai or the PSNI would have found him driving with a suspended license and no insurance, even before he got blind drunk and decided to go on a rampage with people stuffed in his car boot. Many other fatalities are caused (and this is a known risk factor worldwide) by inherently dangerous roads, and good policy includes ensuring that routes are fit for purpose (like bypassing towns so that you don't have thousands of vehicles going through them every day that have no business there).

    It is clear that there is widespread singling out of Irish motorists for demonisation (as a collective), that is not commensurate with objective reality. And that unlike some random person on the Internet suggesting cyclists pay road tax, the people doing that demonisation have power, as we can see in Dublin. And yet many of the countries those people want us to emulate have road safety records that are legitimately horrifying.

    What does an inherently dangerous road look like? Does it have bombs and barbed wire or what? I've never seen a road hurt anyone.

    Would the extra checkpoints you're looking for in Donegal not be part of the 'collective punishment' that you were railing against a few hours ago?


  • #1268
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 43,547 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    BanditLuke wrote: »
    Ah the old it doesn't suit my agenda so i don't believe you,
    I've no agenda to push. I'm just tired of the anti-cycling rhetoric that some here keep spouting. I think at this stage we've seen all of the traditional anti-cycling prejudices and it is tiresome


  • #1269
    Ronaldinho
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 829 ✭✭✭Ronaldinho


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    cyclists don't cycle in miles, we cycle in kilometres.
    as does your car, unless it's quite old.

    The rules of the forum are simple but absolute.

    We have one guiding principle: Don't be a dick.


  • #1270
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,579 ✭✭✭SeanW


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    What does an inherently dangerous road look like? Does it have bombs and barbed wire or what? I've never seen a road hurt anyone.
    Some roads due to design flaws, inappropriate routing, poor engineering etc. make a collision or fatality more likely.

    Like a main road routed through a small town - that town becomes choked with through traffic. That's inherently dangerous. We also used to build dual carriageways with uncontrolled median crossings. Those used to be accident blackspots, so they were replaced with either grade separation or roundabouts, the latter being the preferred (i.e. inherently safer) way of providing access to modern "2+2" dual carriageways. A road can be designed in such a way that it mitigates risk, or aggravates it.

    In extreme cases (fortunately this is not a thing in Ireland) people have to use really narrow roads on the side of a mountain with no guardrail at the precipice, and that's basically guaranteed to get people killed.
    Would the extra checkpoints you're looking for in Donegal not be part of the 'collective punishment' that you were railing against a few hours ago?
    Having the odd checkpoint here and there, now and then, to make sure that people aren't driving with suspended licenses, drunk, no insurance, people hanging out of the boot etc. is entirely reasonable. And there does seem to be something weird going on in Donegal. Maybe all the Nordies are coming across the border and completely taking the piss?

    https://u24.gov.ua/
    Join NAFO today:

    Help us in helping Ukraine.



  • #1271
    swarlb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,235 ✭✭✭swarlb


    Sono Topolino wrote: »
    1. Motor tax is road-user tax paid only by car-drivers. I want this scrapped and replaced with a single carbon tax which applies to everything.

    2. How many cyclists are members of cycling clubs? And why are they the only ones with insurance?

    3. Cyclists break lights all the time with impunity. Please stop pretending that this does not happen.

    4. Motorists who break speed limits should of course be punished. More speeding cameras is something I support. I'd also like cameras to police red-light breaking.

    I admit I really get annoyed at gangs of Lycra libertarians clogging up the road on Saturdays and not allowing cars to pass, but as you see I can work past my prejudices.


    Does the wearing of Lycra upset you more than the non payment of tax ?? Lycra wearing cyclists seems to be a catch phrase. I only ask, because I come from a cycling era before Lycra was used as an apparel. Back then I never heard of motorists jumping up and down at the sight of 'woolen wearing cyclists' clogging up our roads...
    So, now we are getting to the heart of the matter...

    And it's 'Lycra'


  • Advertisement
  • #1272
    Fighting Tao
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,507 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    swarlb wrote: »
    Does the wearing of Lycra upset you more than the non payment of tax ?? Lycra wearing cyclists seems to be a catch phrase. I only ask, because I come from a cycling era before Lycra was used as an apparel. Back then I never heard of motorists jumping up and down at the sight of 'woolen wearing cyclists' clogging up our roads...
    So, now we are getting to the heart of the matter...

    And it's 'Lycra'

    I was on the bike in jeans and a T-shirt the other day. I wonder if his hate applied to me.


  • #1273
    BanditLuke
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,600 ✭✭✭BanditLuke


    Seth Brundle wrote: »
    I've no agenda to push. I'm just tired of the anti-cycling rhetoric that some here keep spouting. I think at this stage we've seen all of the traditional anti-cycling prejudices and it is tiresome

    Maybe there is a reason it's been brought up again and again, could it be that it's an issue maybe?


  • #1274
    Fighting Tao
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,507 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    BanditLuke wrote: »
    Maybe there is a reason it's been brought up again and again, could it be that it's an issue maybe?

    There is an irrational hate towards people on bikes who they have had no interaction with before. It’s in a minority of peoples heads, and seems to stop as soon as the person is no longer on a bike. Do you not find that extremely weird and effed up? I do, and I think those people should seek professional help for their anger issues.


  • #1275
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,458 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    BanditLuke wrote: »
    Maybe there is a reason it's been brought up again and again, could it be that it's an issue maybe?

    That's correct Luke, anti-cycling prejudice from you and others is indeed an issue, just like other forms of prejudice. That's why people have patiently explained the relevant facts and the logical flaws in your position over and over again.

    Have those explanations helped you to move on to a more rational place?


  • #1276
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,458 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    SeanW wrote: »
    Some roads due to design flaws, inappropriate routing, poor engineering etc. make a collision or fatality more likely.

    Like a main road routed through a small town - that town becomes choked with through traffic. That's inherently dangerous. We also used to build dual carriageways with uncontrolled median crossings. Those used to be accident blackspots, so they were replaced with either grade separation or roundabouts, the latter being the preferred (i.e. inherently safer) way of providing access to modern "2+2" dual carriageways. A road can be designed in such a way that it mitigates risk, or aggravates it.

    In extreme cases (fortunately this is not a thing in Ireland) people have to use really narrow roads on the side of a mountain with no guardrail at the precipice, and that's basically guaranteed to get people killed.

    Having the odd checkpoint here and there, now and then, to make sure that people aren't driving with suspended licenses, drunk, no insurance, people hanging out of the boot etc. is entirely reasonable. And there does seem to be something weird going on in Donegal. Maybe all the Nordies are coming across the border and completely taking the piss?

    1) Any design flaws, inappropriate routing, poor engineering are visible to the approaching driver, and given that we have the best drivers in the world apparently, surely they should adjust their style slow down and drive to the conditions?

    2) So collective punishment is okay for Donegal but not anywhere else - gotcha.


  • #1277
    maestroamado
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,425 ✭✭✭maestroamado


    km991148 wrote: »
    Shouldn't be 3, no, unless it was changing over who was at the front?


    3 is illegal simple as that...


  • #1278
    Fighting Tao
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,507 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    maestroamado wrote: »
    3 is illegal simple as that...

    So in your imagination one cyclist can’t overtake two others who are side by side?


  • #1279
    maestroamado
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,425 ✭✭✭maestroamado


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    What difference did three abreast make to you? Would you tried to squeeze past them if they were two abreast?


    That's a silly comment as 3 abreast was illegal unless the law was changed when mass cycling became fashionable...


  • #1280
    maestroamado
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,425 ✭✭✭maestroamado


    Fighting Tao wrote: »
    So in your imagination one cyclist can’t overtake two others who are side by side?


    No that is 3 which is breaking the law..


  • #1281
    Fighting Tao
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,507 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    maestroamado wrote: »
    No that is 3 which is breaking the law..

    As I said, it’s your imagination. The law states differently to what you believe. You should refresh yourself as you are probably a danger to others on the road. From your posts here I have to ask, how do you have a license? Did you get it when the government were giving them out in Skelligs boxes with Snap, Crackle, and Pop images on them? :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • #1282
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,458 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    maestroamado wrote: »
    3 is illegal simple as that...

    Not when overtaking.

    Do you ever break a speed limit yourself?


  • #1283
    maestroamado
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,425 ✭✭✭maestroamado


    Fighting Tao wrote: »
    As I said, it’s your imagination. The law states differently to what you believe. You should refresh yourself as you are probably a danger to others on the road. From your posts here I have to ask, how do you have a license? Did you get it when the government were giving them out in Skelligs boxes with Snap, Crackle, and Pop images on them? :pac:


    Show me where the law states there can be 3 abreast on single carriage road.
    You check it out as i know what i am talking about.


    Your losing control of the game...


  • #1284
    maestroamado
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,425 ✭✭✭maestroamado


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Not when overtaking.

    Do you ever break a speed limit yourself?


    Its illegal to cycle 3 abreast , simple as...

    I know break the speed limit every day...


  • #1285
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,458 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    maestroamado wrote: »
    Its illegal to cycle 3 abreast , simple as...

    I know break the speed limit every day...

    It is legal to be three abreast when overtaking. Simple as...

    Try again re speeding


  • #1286
    ED E
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,095 ✭✭✭✭ED E


    maestroamado wrote: »
    Show me where the law states there can be 3 abreast on single carriage road.
    You check it out as i know what i am talking about.


    Your losing control of the game...

    Quoting this before you delete it, big egg on your face.


  • #1287
    Fighting Tao
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,507 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    maestroamado wrote: »
    Show me where the law states there can be 3 abreast on single carriage road.
    You check it out as i know what i am talking about.


    Your losing control of the game...

    As a driver you are supposed to keep up to date yourself. Ignorance is not a defence in court. Of it was then you could murder someone and then claim you didn’t know the law doesn’t permit it. So do your duty and educate yourself and stop expecting people to do it for you because they are wasting their time when you ignore facts.


  • #1288
    maestroamado
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,425 ✭✭✭maestroamado


    Weepsie wrote: »
    Again not I'd one is overtaking. Its stated in the road traffic act. Have a read of it.in fact lots of people here should. Enkighten Yourselves


    Show me where it states people can do this if you can...
    You can enlighten us all with your knowledge...


  • #1289
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,579 ✭✭✭SeanW


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    1) Any design flaws, inappropriate routing, poor engineering are visible to the approaching driver, and given that we have the best drivers in the world apparently, surely they should adjust their style slow down and drive to the conditions?
    Then how come we don't build dual carriageways with median breaks anymore?
    2) So collective punishment is okay for Donegal but not anywhere else - gotcha.
    I've never had an issue with Garda checkpoints, within reason. And targeting genuinely dangerous drivers (drunk, no insurance, suspended license) is fine by me. With specific regard to Donegal, those additional checks should probably be on the border if that's where the lunatics are coming from.

    https://u24.gov.ua/
    Join NAFO today:

    Help us in helping Ukraine.



  • #1290
    maestroamado
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,425 ✭✭✭maestroamado


    ED E wrote: »
    Quoting this before you delete it, big egg on your face.


    I nave no intention of deleting as i know riding 3 abreast against the law, one of the other posters is going to quote the law that says its is ]legal?
    I also think riding 2 abreast in large groups should be against the law as it is dangerous on single carriage routes..


  • Advertisement
  • #1291
    km991148
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,277 ✭✭✭km991148


    maestroamado wrote: »
    3 is illegal simple as that...

    Er no.. riding 3 abreast is illegal. If they were in the middle of swapping over who was at the front then it's a perfectly legal overtake. It's as simple as that...


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement