Cyclists, insurance and road tax

Sono Topolino · 22-04-2021 11:07AM

km991148 wrote: »

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..

I would assume that carbon taxes and parking charges would make cycling and public transport the obvious choice except maybe on days when it is raining heavily.

Honestly, as stated in my OP, I think cycling is a no brainer in cities. It's on narrow country roads where there's no alternative but to drive to get from A to B that cyclists are a major annoyance for motorists.

Cyclists have the right to enjoy the natural splendour of rural Ireland, but they should have their own greenways for that.

km991148 · 22-04-2021 11:10AM

Sono Topolino wrote: »

I would assume that carbon taxes and parking charges would make cycling and public transport the obvious choice except maybe on days when it is raining heavily.

Honestly, as stated in my OP, I think cycling is a no brainer in cities. It's on narrow country roads where there's no alternative but to drive to get from A to B that cyclists are a major annoyance for motorists.

Cyclists have the right to enjoy the natural splendour of rural Ireland, but they should have their own greenways for that.

Would be nice to have a network of dedicated cycleways alright, but it's just not practical. We can barely cover the costs of the infrastructure that we need to keep things as they are.

Besides the roads are built for everyone anyway so it doesn't really make sense.

oisinog · 22-04-2021 11:10AM

Sono Topolino wrote: »

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?

At the same time there is a larger subset of motorists who go out of their way to cause a nuisance and also pointing this out shouldn't be controversial.

You also say you dont think cyclists havent got rights and in the next paragraph telling cyclists to go to a greenway or off road to to enjoy their sport.

So what is it do you want us to do, set up a rota so you can have the road to yourself or bugger off somewhere else so you can have the road to yourself?

liamog · 22-04-2021 11:10AM

km991148 wrote: »

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.

No it's grand we make the cyclists pay their fair share, equivalent road damage to 1 car is 160,000. The bike is zero emissions so we'll baseline against the EV rate which is €120/year, as such I will now require you to pay 1c every 13 years. That should cover it

AndrewJRenko · 22-04-2021 11:15AM

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.

There is no time limit on overtaking.

Seth Brundle · 22-04-2021 11:15AM

Sono Topolino wrote: »

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.

Meet them half way to what?
You simply dislike them on your roads. But you don't own the roads! It could actually be interpreted that cyclists have more right to be on the roads than drivers (as people on bikes don't need to be licenced).

Sono Topolino wrote: »

Cyclists are not infallible angels and pointing this out does not mean that they don't have rights.

I don't think anyone here said that people on bikes are angels or anything of the sort.

Sono Topolino wrote: »

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?

So you object to people on bikes who wear certain type of clothing?
Are you the fashion police?
Now you want to keep it real but preceed this by throwing out an insults.

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?

When I commute I am training so I'll still use the roads that my taxes contributed towards.
Greenways for your information are tourism amenities and successful ones at that. They are not designed for commuters or people training. Hopefully this corrects your mistaken understanding of them.
As for putting my life atr risk, sitting on a bike does not put my life at risk. In fact my cardiologist and GP both encourage me to do it. What is a danger is the likes of this asshole (who I have reported to the gardai)...

...or this one (outside a school)...

km991148 · 22-04-2021 11:17AM

liamog wrote: »

No it's grand we make the cyclists pay their fair share, equivalent road damage to 1 car is 160,000. The bike is zero emissions so we'll baseline against the EV rate which is €120/year, as such I will now require you to pay 1c every 13 years. That should cover it

The current scales are wrong. Most cyclists would be driving if they weren't cycling, so it should really be a rebate! That's the crazy thing. Motorists who only drive are getting a fantastic deal and some are so ignorant to it they come here or down the pub or the blowhards in the workplace and moan their faces off about it!

AndrewJRenko · 22-04-2021 11:17AM

Sono Topolino wrote: »

I would assume that carbon taxes and parking charges would make cycling and public transport the obvious choice except maybe on days when it is raining heavily.

Honestly, as stated in my OP, I think cycling is a no brainer in cities. It's on narrow country roads where there's no alternative but to drive to get from A to B that cyclists are a major annoyance for motorists.

Cyclists have the right to enjoy the natural splendour of rural Ireland, but they should have their own greenways for that.

If there was no alternative but to drive, there would be no cyclists.

The presence of cyclists confirms that there is an alternative.

Greenways are great for tourists but aren't generally in the right places for people cycling to work or college or shopping.

You own a car, not the road.

Cilldara_2000 · 22-04-2021 11:18AM

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.

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?

Nice to see that some people want to rip off motorists even further. If you take the total of what motorists pay in VRT, motor tax, VAT on the purchase of the car, VAT on the fuel, excise duty on the fuel, motorists pay in far more than is spent maintaining and building roads. Maybe that's fair enough in order to pay for the pollution but this "fair" system you want already exists.

The idea of the thread is nonsense. Some cyclists are bad at using the road but I'd maintain that a greater proportion of motorists are bad at using the road. We should be after these people first considering the potential harm they can cause to everyone else in their one tonne killing machines.

Seth Brundle · 22-04-2021 11:19AM

Sono Topolino wrote: »

Honestly, as stated in my OP, I think cycling is a no brainer in cities. It's on narrow country roads where there's no alternative but to drive to get from A to B that cyclists are a major annoyance for motorists.

If drivers get annoyed then they need to resolve that. It is not for me to change someone elses emotions.
As for no alternative for getting from A to B - that is just in your head. People managed to get from A to B long before cars. How was that possible?

Sono Topolino wrote: »

Cyclists have the right to enjoy the natural splendour of rural Ireland, but they should have their own greenways for that.

So you still don't understand what a greenway is after being told a number of times in this thread?

km991148 · 22-04-2021 11:21AM

Seth Brundle wrote: »

...or this one (outside a school)...

Fuk me.. and we want to talk about illegal overtaking (on the left this time) as well!

Seth Brundle · 22-04-2021 11:21AM

km991148 wrote: »

Fuk me.. and we want to talk about illegal overtaking (on the left this time) as well!

According to this thread all cyclists break red lights too!

Pinch Flat · 22-04-2021 11:23AM

Ah lads getting bored of this now. Can we move onto helmets? Or bells? Or lights?

Seth Brundle · 22-04-2021 11:23AM

Bells haven't really been covered here.
I'll start: I don't have a bell on my road bike!

km991148 · 22-04-2021 11:24AM

Cilldara_2000 wrote: »

Nice to see that some people want to rip off motorists even further. If you take the total of what motorists pay in VRT, motor tax, VAT on the purchase of the car, VAT on the fuel, excise duty on the fuel, motorists pay in far more than is spent maintaining and building roads. Maybe that's fair enough in order to pay for the pollution but this "fair" system you want already exists.

My point is that motoristrs are already getting a good deal, especially compared to cyclists who also drive (most of them).

The luxury of motoring is, by its very nature expensive - and that's including that its already heavily subsidised.

I am well aware of how much of a rip off my annual tax bill is. And you want me to pay even more to fund this crazy system of transport we have in Ireland..

liamog · 22-04-2021 11:24AM

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Bells haven't really been covered here.
I'll start: I don't have a bell on my road bike!

Isn't that one an actual legal requirement? unlike the oft trotted out helmets and high vis.

km991148 · 22-04-2021 11:24AM

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Bells haven't really been covered here.
I'll start: I don't have a bell on my road bike!

Animal

Seth Brundle · 22-04-2021 11:25AM

liamog wrote: »

Isn't that one an actual legal requirement? unlike the oft trotted out helmets and high vis.

Not quite.
A bell is required unless you're on a bike that is adapted for racing.

AndrewJRenko · 22-04-2021 11:25AM

Sono Topolino wrote: »

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?

Going to work or school or college or shopping isn't really a sport. It is going to work or school or college.

If you're unable to face up to sharing roads with cyclists, then stop driving.

liamog · 22-04-2021 11:26AM

Me: Well officer, my bike doesn't have a bell because its adapted for racing.
Officer: What adaptations have you made?
Me: I removed the bell!

Pinch Flat · 22-04-2021 11:27AM

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Bells haven't really been covered here.
I'll start: I don't have a bell on my road bike!

I have three bikes. bell on One, two without. Maybe a bell tax?

km991148 · 22-04-2021 11:29AM

It's actually mad - you want the people who are doing the most to slow rate of increase of traffic to pay more to save the most heavily subsidised road users money in order for them to have no encouragement to make the traffic situation any better. And then make cyclists go even slower in town as result.

Sign me up - also I'll give you my address and you can store some stuff in my house and even have use of my property too.

AndrewJRenko · 22-04-2021 11:29AM

Cilldara_2000 wrote: »

The idea of the thread is nonsense. Some cyclists are bad at using the road but I'd maintain that a greater proportion of motorists are bad at using the road. We should be after these people first considering the potential harm they can cause to everyone else in their one tonne killing machines.

The proportions of bad road users by type of road user is entirely irrelevant.

The actual source of danger on the roads is the drivers who kill two or three people each week.

Pinch Flat · 22-04-2021 11:31AM

I've thought about moving my garden shed to the road to store my bikes. Much handier. Maybe I can put half of it on the path like my neighbours cars.

osarusan · 22-04-2021 11:36AM

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Not quite.
A bell is required unless you're on a bike that is adapted for racing.

How is 'adapted for racing' defined, out of interest?

Sono Topolino · 22-04-2021 11:40AM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

There is no time limit on overtaking.

This is the kind of ridiculous Lycra Libertarian attitude I was just talking about.

"It's fine to cycle three abreast because if anyone asks, one of us is overtaking".

Christ on a bike. This is not what the law is meant to cover and if you do this you're a dick.

seamus · 22-04-2021 11:40AM

osarusan wrote: »

How is 'adapted for racing' defined, out of interest?

It's not. It's a very antiquated law which never foresaw a scenario where the vast majority of bikes sold would be racing-style bikes, and utility bicycles would be in the minority.

One could argue that a BMX is "adapted for racing", since that's the purpose of it.

The law does need updating to clarify that the requirement for a bell and lights does not apply while the bicycle is being used for racing, but is required outside of that.

Sono Topolino · 22-04-2021 11:43AM

Another gripe of mine - little or no bikes have air horns.

How the heck are you supposed to warn people, let alone cars, that you're approaching?

oisinog · 22-04-2021 11:43AM

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Bells haven't really been covered here.
I'll start: I don't have a bell on my road bike!

By the time you get your light on and the mount for your Wahoo or Garmen there is no room for a bell

Hurrache · 22-04-2021 11:46AM

Sono Topolino wrote: »

I don't understand why justifiable criticism .......or a troll, but I have actually tried hard to meet people half way and every attempt has just been spurned.

Yeah, ok so, not quite sure you even read your own posts.....

Sono Topolino wrote: »

.....the Lycra Libertarians as I call them, which go out of their way to cause a nuisance .....
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?

Cyclists, insurance and road tax

Comments