Cyclists, insurance and road tax

Pinch Flat · 22-04-2021 09:38AM

Fighting Tao wrote: »

So we have moved back again to cyclist bashing just because some drivers have completely irrational anger issues against people they never met before on bikes. However, the anger issues suddenly disappear when the people are not on bikes. Very serious mental issues going on with some motorists.

There really needs to be some sort of mental capacity and personality test conducted every year for motorists in order to make the roads safer. They could be paid for by increasing motor tax.

it looks like driving is not for a lot on this thread. makes them way too emotional.

Fighting Tao · 22-04-2021 09:40AM

Pinch Flat wrote: »

it looks like driving is not for a lot on this thread. makes them way too emotional.

Imagine living in fear of meeting a person on a bike every time in a car.

seamus · 22-04-2021 09:44AM

If the name of the game here is ensuring that everyone using the road is qualified to do so and pays their fair share, doesn't it stand to reason that we should be retesting drivers every five years or so, and putting all of the tax on fuel instead? Surely nobody calling for cycling licences and cycling tax could be opposed to this?

BabysCoffee · 22-04-2021 09:44AM

Fighting Tao wrote: »

So we have moved back again to cyclist bashing just because some drivers have completely irrational anger issues against people they never met before on bikes. However, the anger issues suddenly disappear when the people are not on bikes. Very serious mental issues going on with some motorists.

There really needs to be some sort of mental capacity and personality test conducted every year for motorists in order to make the roads safer. They could be paid for by increasing motor tax.

Every time a driver sits in to their car they need to remind themselves of all of the other vulnerable road users that the roads are shared with.

Fighting Tao · 22-04-2021 09:47AM

BabysCoffee wrote: »

Every time a driver sits in to their car they need to remind themselves of all of the other vulnerable road users that the roads are shared with.

Totally agree. However, we seem to live in a world of self absorbed motorists (if this thread is to go by) and their trip 300m to the shop is much more important than anything else.

maestroamado · 22-04-2021 10:10AM

Hurrache wrote: »

24 hours later, and people's comprehension deficits still on display for the amusement of everyone.

Can you say that in english please...

maestroamado · 22-04-2021 10:14AM

Fighting Tao wrote: »

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.

What are you talking about?..... if you know that is....

maestroamado · 22-04-2021 10:20AM

osarusan wrote: »

Already posted in the thread:

3 abreast while overtaking other cyclists = legal.

Otherwise illegal.

Where is this stated?
The law does not allow three abreast.
If it does someone here will post confirmation of this..

Fighting Tao · 22-04-2021 10:21AM

maestroamado wrote: »

What are you talking about?..... if you know that is....

Can’t you comprehend what people are telling you in this thread? It’s simple....you are expected to know the law. Claiming that you believe it states something else is not a defence...in English...ignorance of the law is not a defence and will not stand up in court.

Fighting Tao · 22-04-2021 10:21AM

maestroamado wrote: »

Where is this stated?
The law does not allow three abreast.
If it does someone here will post confirmation of this..

The text of the law has been posted twice. Are you trolling now?

Seth Brundle · 22-04-2021 10:23AM

maestroamado wrote: »

Where is this stated?
The law does not allow three abreast.
If it does someone here will post confirmation of this..

It is in the Road Traffic Act and has been posted here a couple of times. Have you really not read all of the thread?

osarusan · 22-04-2021 10:24AM

maestroamado wrote: »

Where is this stated?
The law does not allow three abreast.
If it does someone here will post confirmation of this..

Perhaps you are not able to see quotes within quotes or something, so here it is:

Section 47, S.I. No. 182/1997 - Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations, 1997:

A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than two pedal cyclists driving abreast, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists, and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians

That means it's legal to cycle 3 abreast when (and only when) safely overtaking cyclists that are cycling 2 abreast.

liamog · 22-04-2021 10:34AM

maestroamado wrote: »

I also think riding 2 abreast in large groups should be against the law as it is dangerous on single carriage routes..

You are probably one of those people I get extremely frustrated driving behind, if you think overtaking two cyclists is a problem then you are probably one of those people who can't overtake any slow moving vehicle.
There is plenty of room in the opposing lane that can be used for the overtake, you don't have to keep one wheel in your lane.

km991148 · 22-04-2021 10:35AM

seamus wrote: »

If the name of the game here is ensuring that everyone using the road is qualified to do so and pays their fair share, doesn't it stand to reason that we should be retesting drivers every five years or so, and putting all of the tax on fuel instead? Surely nobody calling for cycling licences and cycling tax could be opposed to this?

If it really was about fairness we would have a system genuinely tied to usage, measured in terms of environmental impact and damage to roads.

This would massively push up motor tax for most.

This could be counteracted by giving tax rebates to those that choose to replace done of these journeys by bicycle.

But it's not about fairness, is it?

oisinog · 22-04-2021 10:36AM

Fighting Tao wrote: »

So we have moved back again to cyclist bashing just because some drivers have completely irrational anger issues against people they never met before on bikes. However, the anger issues suddenly disappear when the people are not on bikes. Very serious mental issues going on with some motorists.

There really needs to be some sort of mental capacity and personality test conducted every year for motorists in order to make the roads safer. They could be paid for by increasing motor tax.

To be fair Tao you may have made a point here.

I done my driving test 20 years ago and I was never taught what to do when I meet a cyclist on the road (obviously I have a bit of common sense so I knew).
More needs to be done with the driving test to help drivers deal with venerable road users

With working from home I have been trying to get in 15k on my bike at lunch time during the week and I have have more trouble with drivers on their R plates and actually on Monday had a white van man pull up beside me and ask me if I wanted his dash cam footage as someone on their R plates cut me off on a dangerous way. Knowing how the PSNI deal with cases like that up here I said thanks but there is no point.

liamog · 22-04-2021 10:43AM

km991148 wrote: »

If it really was about fairness we would have a system genuinely tied to usage, measured in terms of environmental impact and damage to roads.

This would massively push up motor tax for most.

Road damage in relation to vehicle weight rises with the 4th power of weight. An average lorry weighing 32 tonnes will do the same damage as 65,000 2 tonne cars, or 10.5 billion cyclists. If we tried to implement a system of "fairness" we'd end up with incredibly high logistics costs.

Sono Topolino · 22-04-2021 10:44AM

It's legal for a single cyclist two overtake two cyclists.

This isn't the same as cycling three abreast. Additionally, you have to exercise care when overtaking. This is a narrow exception, not blanket permission for cyclists everywhere to cycle three abreast as some here assume.

So yes, three abreast is illegal in 99% of cases where it occurs.

Tombo2001 · 22-04-2021 10:46AM

Sono Topolino wrote: »

It's legal for a single cyclist two overtake two cyclists.

This isn't the same as cycling three abreast. Additionally, you have to exercise care when overtaking. This is a narrow exception, not blanket permission for cyclists everywhere to cycle three abreast as some here assume.

Who here assumes this?

Can you make a reference please?

Tombo2001 · 22-04-2021 10:48AM

oisinog wrote: »

To be fair Tao you may have made a point here.

I done my driving test 20 years ago and I was never taught what to do when I meet a cyclist on the road (obviously I have a bit of common sense so I knew).
More needs to be done with the driving test to help drivers deal with venerable road users

With working from home I have been trying to get in 15k on my bike at lunch time during the week and I have have more trouble with drivers on their R plates and actually on Monday had a white van man pull up beside me and ask me if I wanted his dash cam footage as someone on their R plates cut me off on a dangerous way. Knowing how the PSNI deal with cases like that up here I said thanks but there is no point.

Fair play to the lad in the van all the same.

Seth Brundle · 22-04-2021 10:51AM

Sono Topolino wrote: »

It's legal for a single cyclist two overtake two cyclists.

This isn't the same as cycling three abreast. Additionally, you have to exercise care when overtaking. This is a narrow exception, not blanket permission for cyclists everywhere to cycle three abreast as some here assume.

So yes, three abreast is illegal in 99% of cases where it occurs.

But as I've mentioned, many if not most of the three abreast that drivers see is not actually three abreast.
Maybe you can post the dashcam footage of the three you claim you recently were behind for a mile and we can discuss.

Sono Topolino · 22-04-2021 10:52AM

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Who here assumes this?

Can you make a reference please?

When I pointed out that the fairly common behaviour of cycling three abreast is illegal, plenty of posters started pointing out a narrow exception to this rule.

Any complaints I have about cycling three abreast obviously does not involve a single cyclist overtaking two cyclists who are cycling three abreast. Overtaking takes ~30 seconds - no skin off any motorist's nose.

I'm obviously complaining about cyclists doing this for an extended amount of time, not with the intention of overtaking, as happened last Saturday.

LollipopJimmy · 22-04-2021 10:52AM

I really don't get it, why do road users see others as the enemy, I cycle, I ride a motorbike and I drive a car and its only when cycling I get abuse for nothing. Funnily enough as part of a college course I was asked to stand at a city centre junction at rush hour and count the number of people breaking lights, I was shocked in the end to note more cars and vans had broken the lights than cyclists and this was the junction of leeson St. and Fitz place.

Every road user needs to be courteous and patient, if you're not then you're a ****.

Seth Brundle · 22-04-2021 10:53AM

Sono Topolino wrote: »

When I pointed out that the fairly common behaviour of cycling three abreast is illegal, plenty of posters started pointing out a narrow exception to this rule.

Any complaints I have about cycling three abreast obviously does not involve a single cyclist overtaking two cyclists who are cycling three abreast. Overtaking takes ~30 seconds - no skin off any motorist's nose.

I'm obviously complaining about cyclists doing this for an extended amount of time, not with the intention of overtaking, as happened last Saturday.

Fixed your post for you :cool:

km991148 · 22-04-2021 10:57AM

liamog wrote: »

Road damage in relation to vehicle weight rises with the 4th power of weight. An average lorry weighing 32 tonnes will do the same damage as 65,000 2 tonne cars, or 10.5 billion cyclists. If we tried to implement a system of "fairness" we'd end up with incredibly high logistics costs.

Yep. Commercials would need tax breaks too. Same as other things where there is a different rule for businesses Vs private citizens.

Either way asking cyclists to pay more, because it's "fair" is ridiculous considering most cyclists are already subsidising most non cycling motorists to a fair tune.

maestroamado · 22-04-2021 10:57AM

Fighting Tao wrote: »

The text of the law has been posted twice. Are you trolling now?

What thread number i must have missed it...

Sono Topolino · 22-04-2021 11:00AM

LollipopJimmy wrote: »

I really don't get it, why do road users see others as the enemy, I cycle, I ride a motorbike and I drive a car and its only when cycling I get abuse for nothing. Funnily enough as part of a college course I was asked to stand at a city centre junction at rush hour and count the number of people breaking lights, I was shocked in the end to note more cars and vans had broken the lights than cyclists and this was the junction of leeson St. and Fitz place.

Every road user needs to be courteous and patient, if you're not then you're a ****.

It's ridiculous - I don't see cyclists as an enemy and I don't understand why justifiable criticism is considered an existential threat to cycling. The responses I've gotten here show that people think I'm an irrational rage-filled dinosaur or a troll, but I have actually tried hard to meet people half way and every attempt has just been spurned.

Cyclists are not infallible angels and pointing this out does not mean that they don't have rights. I would rather that they have their own cycling infrastructure for their own protection and my own peace of mind. As I have pointed out multiple times, I have no problem paying more tax for this.

There is a subset of cyclists, the Lycra Libertarians as I call them, which go out of their way to cause a nuisance and pointing this out shouldn't be controversial. Every group has it's assholes. Again, this doesn't mean I don't think cyclists have rights, but let's keep this real, ok?

Happily, once cyclists have their own greenways and places to enjoy the sport off main roads, Lycra Libertarians can be obnoxious to other cyclists without putting their own lives at risk. That seems fair?

km991148 · 22-04-2021 11:01AM

Other ways of leveling the field would be congestion charging in towns or cities and minimum occupancy rates of vehicles at peak times (private cars must have a minimum of two occupants).

In the interest of fairness, like..

Sono Topolino · 22-04-2021 11:03AM

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Fixed your post for you :cool:

It's nice that you exercise your right to be a dick. Now I assume you accept that cyclists can act in bad faith on the road as well as online, yes?

That's why we have laws regulating people's behaviour.

oisinog · 22-04-2021 11:05AM

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Fair play to the lad in the van all the same.

I agree nice bloke and didnt have to take the time to do it, but it goes to show as a professional driver he is probably sick of the reputation he has with other road users.

km991148 · 22-04-2021 11:06AM

Sono Topolino wrote: »

Happily, once cyclists have their own greenways and places to enjoy the sport off main roads, Lycra Libertarians can be obnoxious to other cyclists without putting their own lives at risk. That seems fair?

And now we want to restrict usage as well?
This thread just keeps getting better!

So no driving for social reasons as well I assume? Or to go to the gym? I guess it makes sense I mean it's probably unethical to just go for a drive these days considering we know the damage it causes to the environment.

Out of interest, who will publish this list of allowed road use purpose?

Cyclists, insurance and road tax

Comments