Should cyclists be issued with traffic fines and have to pay road tax / insurance?

TonyStark · 15-11-2012 01:25PM

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Okay seamus,, how about this? If you are serious and you can honestly tell me you see no benefit in a rule being enforced which states that, in the case of narrow roads, when two abreast cyclists are obstructing the progress of other road users they must move into single file, I will admit I must be wrong and will admit defeat.

If by "obstructing progress" you mean impede people in cars who "know the road" travelling at speeds of 80 kmph and upwards. Bear in mind that this is the upper limit on some national primary roads.

Perhaps if you were to look at it from the cyclists point of view and think that perhaps that they were doing this not to impede you personally but to stay safe because they heard stories of people who "know the roads" in cars driving at excessive speeds around narrow roads.

15-11-2012 01:38PM

I'm a cyclist

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

POLL IS MULTIPLE CHOICE, SO CHECK ALL THAT APPLY

No, it's not.

Cyclists use the excuse "we are saving the planet" and other jibe when confronted by motorists, or when they are told they should pay road tax / insurance, they say "we don't pollute", we are not dangerous etc.

Excuse for what? Sounds like you're just bitter against cyclists.

My argument is that cyclists are using the road, if a car were invented that ran off air, it would still have to pay road tax, so why should cyclists (who use the road have to be exempt).

Cyclists very often cause accidents by merrily sailing through a red light, very often onto on-coming traffic, they plough through pedestrian area, and should therefore have to pay insurance.

I can't tell if you're serious. I've only been cycling for four weeks, and so far, I've had some moron almost kill me by turning left in a right-only lane and a number of pedestrians walk right out in front of me. Half of my route has no cycle lane and I spend much of my journey trying to avoid potholes and shi!tty patch jobs.

So, what would I be paying tax for, exactly?

Lusk Doyle · 15-11-2012 01:46PM

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Okay seamus,, how about this? If you are serious and you can honestly tell me you see no benefit in a rule being enforced which states that, in the case of narrow roads, when two abreast cyclists are obstructing the progress of other road users they must move into single file, I will admit I must be wrong and will admit defeat.

Where were you off to that day in such a hurry anyway?

doozerie · 15-11-2012 01:59PM

RobFowl wrote: »

We don't pay "Road tax" cos we don't need roads

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug7VL1CxdQE

"Coming through, coming through! Single file there, SINGLE FILE! JAYSUS! Feckin' mud tax dodgers, etc. Grrr!"

Pompey Magnus · 15-11-2012 02:09PM

None of the above

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

Where were you off to that day in such a hurry anyway?

I was off to see a man about a dog.

15-11-2012 02:11PM

I am not a cyclist

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

Where were you off to that day in such a hurry anyway?

Probably missing an episode of emmerdale!

Jawgap · 15-11-2012 02:21PM

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

I was off to see a man about a dog.

I hope if you got the dog you paid the requisite tax licence fee on it:D

galwaycyclist · 15-11-2012 02:44PM

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Okay seamus,, how about this? If you are serious and you can honestly tell me you see no benefit in a rule being enforced which states that, in the case of narrow roads, when two abreast cyclists are obstructing the progress of other road users they must move into single file, I will admit I must be wrong and will admit defeat.

You were doing 70-80km/h so this clearly was unlikely to be a narrow road.

Instead it sounds like a 2-lane road with room for oncoming cars to pass each other. In that case it suggests you had another lane available for any overtaking manouevre. The only way your progress was impeded is if it was not a safe place to overtake without risk of encountering oncoming traffic.

In that circumstance it would not be a safe place to overtake regardless of wether the cyclists were in single file or side by side.

ash23 · 15-11-2012 02:48PM

I'd like to see any pedestrian or cyclist who walks/cycles in the dark with no reflective gear/lights fined.
Other than that, not bothered.

15-11-2012 02:51PM

I am not a cyclist

ash23 wrote: »

I'd like to see any pedestrian or cyclist who walks/cycles in the dark with no reflective gear/lights fined.
Other than that, not bothered.

:D

That would be hilarious on a Friday/saturday night in the city. Everyone dressed in their finery and then covered in hi viz.

Comical!

jester77 · 15-11-2012 02:58PM

Not sure why Ireland is so backward when it comes to these sort of laws. A cyclist breaking the rules of the law is not just a danger to him/herself but also to other users on the road.

Here in Germany you get punished if you break the rules of the road, doesn't matter what your means of transport is. And if you seriously break the rules, like cycling while under influence, then you lose your drivers license and most likely have to partake in a medical-psychological assessment to see if you can get it back.

Nate--IRL-- · 15-11-2012 03:01PM

jester77 wrote: »

Not sure why Ireland is so backward when it comes to these sort of laws.

It isn't - the laws are there.

Nate

jester77 · 15-11-2012 03:05PM

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

It isn't - the laws are there.

Nate

OK, then maybe they are not enforced, I've never heard of anyone losing their license for cycling drunk.

ThisRegard · 15-11-2012 03:05PM

jester77 wrote: »

Not sure why Ireland is so backward when it comes to these sort of laws. A cyclist breaking the rules of the law is not just a danger to him/herself but also to other users on the road.

Here in Germany you get punished if you break the rules of the road, doesn't matter what your means of transport is. And if you seriously break the rules, like cycling while under influence, then you lose your drivers license and most likely have to partake in a medical-psychological assessment to see if you can get it back.

Like this guy ?

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/injured-cyclist-gets-driving-ban-for-breaking-red-light-2228117.html

jester77 · 15-11-2012 03:09PM

ThisRegard wrote: »

Like this guy ?

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/injured-cyclist-gets-driving-ban-for-breaking-red-light-2228117.html

They need to do more of this, some of the cities here have clamped down big time on it and it has made a huge difference. Cyclists are a lot more respectful of their fellow road users now.

ash23 · 15-11-2012 03:10PM

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

:D

That would be hilarious on a Friday/saturday night in the city. Everyone dressed in their finery and then covered in hi viz.

Comical!

On roads obviously.....we are talking about road tax. Ever rounded a corner in a car on a dark road and (not) seen a moron completely hidden by the dark? Scary stuff. I don't think some people who don't drive realise just how difficult it is to see someone when driving in the dark.
Seriously idiotic of anyone to walk or cycle in the dark with no reflective gear.

Shenshen · 15-11-2012 03:15PM

Should pay some form of road tax

Jawgap wrote: »

The problem is that it invites a close pass which can be quite dangerous.

The RSA stats (and stats from other countries) show that while there are many more incidents involving cyclists in towns and cities, there are more serious ones on country roads because speeds are much higher. Cyclists should be allowed to protect themselves by adopting appropriate road behaviours.

I'd agree with the idea of a single-file rule if there was aggressive enforcement of speed limits on the R-roads - if you want to put your safety in someone else's hands you've got to trust them and be convinced that their behaviour will be mature.

It's a sweeping generalisation to be sure, but drivers in Ireland are - by and large - poorly educated and quite immature in their driving - you don't need to go on a narrow country road to have that view confirmed, 10 km on the M50 at any time is enough.

Can I add to that wish list that R roads be reviewed and speed limits applied according to the status and lie of the particular road in question?

Currently, all R roads have a blanket speed limit of 80 kph, unless the local council has made an exception ruling. In consequence, I've recently been on an R road with the corresponding 80kph speed limit, with the road being barely wide enough for one car, extremely windy with very tight corners and grass growing down the middle of it.
Enforcing a maximum limit of 80 on such a road is not going to do anything to help the safety of cyclists.

15-11-2012 03:23PM

I am not a cyclist

ash23 wrote: »

On roads obviously.....we are talking about road tax. Ever rounded a corner in a car on a dark road and (not) seen a moron completely hidden by the dark? Scary stuff. I don't think some people who don't drive realise just how difficult it is to see someone when driving in the dark.
Seriously idiotic of anyone to walk or cycle in the dark with no reflective gear.

ok but sometimes people who go out int he city cross roads, so while not in nightclubs/bars under your law they would need hi viz.

Can i ask how cars manage not to crash into walls, seeihng at they are not covered in hi viz or even parked cars seeign as they dont wear hi viz?

Jawgap · 15-11-2012 03:24PM

ash23 wrote: »

On roads obviously.....we are talking about road tax. Ever rounded a corner in a car on a dark road and (not) seen a moron completely hidden by the dark? Scary stuff. I don't think some people who don't drive realise just how difficult it is to see someone when driving in the dark.
Seriously idiotic of anyone to walk or cycle in the dark with no reflective gear.

I cycle with no reflective gear all the time* - morning and evening. Hi-viz is not nearly all it's cracked up to be and should never be relied upon. A decent set of lights is your only man, hi-viz should only be worn if you are on a building site, working on the railways or wanting to dress up as a citrus fruit.

*I do have some serious lights on though;)

ash23 · 15-11-2012 03:26PM

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

ok but sometimes people who go out int he city cross roads, so while not in nightclubs/bars under your law they would need hi viz.

Can i ask how cars manage not to crash into walls, seeihng at they are not covered in hi viz or even parked cars seeign as they dont wear hi viz?

Um I said "in the dark".

ash23 wrote: »

I'd like to see any pedestrian or cyclist who walks/cycles in the dark with no reflective gear/lights fined.
Other than that, not bothered.

Cars have lights and the lights are reflectors even when they are off. So you can usually see a car even if it's parked. You can't see a person until you're almost on top of them unless they have some sort of reflectors etc.

City streetlights mean the paths and roads aren't dark.

15-11-2012 03:26PM

I am not a cyclist

ash23 wrote: »

Um I said "in the dark".

City streetlights mean the paths and roads aren't dark.

But what if there is a power failure?

Can the garda then go around and arrest everyone not in hi viz?

and surely you wouldnt see them its dark, which makes your point abut any pedestrian you see in the dark a bit redundant.

seamus · 15-11-2012 03:29PM

I am not a cyclist

High-vis is a con because it leads to a false sense of security for road users. There was a thread on boards recently enough where a parent described how their young child nearly ran straight across the road in front of traffic because they believed their school-mandated high-vis jacket would protect them from a tonne of metal travelling down the road.

The RSA's campaign to get cyclists wearing high-vis seems to be slowly backfiring on them as I increasingly see cyclists pottering around wearing high-vis jackets, but nary a light to be seen on them. Unless there is a direct light shining on a high-vis jacket (like a full-beam headlight or a torch), then it's no more effective than a light-coloured piece of clothing.

On the roads, high-vis really only has merit on unlit roads because full beam headlights on a high-vis jacket will allow a person to be seen from a few hundred meters. In lit-up areas, dipped headlights do not shine on high-vis jackets and the point of them is lost.

ash23 · 15-11-2012 03:31PM

Jawgap wrote: »

I cycle with no reflective gear all the time* - morning and evening. Hi-viz is not nearly all it's cracked up to be and should never be relied upon. A decent set of lights is your only man, hi-viz should only be worn if you are on a building site, working on the railways or wanting to dress up as a citrus fruit.

*I do have some serious lights on though;)

Agree, but high viz is better than nothing. I was driving home from work the other night and there was a young teen on a bike, with a dark hoody and no sort of lights at all. I would have hit him only for the tiny little reflectors on his pedals alerted me to the fact that something was ahead of me but I was about a foot from him before I "saw" him properly.
Just plain stupidity.

I am not a city dweller so am more coming at this from the perspective of a country road user (little or no lighting).

Shenshen · 15-11-2012 03:31PM

Should pay some form of road tax

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

ok but sometimes people who go out int he city cross roads, so while not in nightclubs/bars under your law they would need hi viz.

Can i ask how cars manage not to crash into walls, seeihng at they are not covered in hi viz or even parked cars seeign as they dont wear hi viz?

I suspect if you put a human-size piece of black wall on any road at night time, chances are drivers will hit it.

And as for the parked cars, they've got these things called "reflectors" as part of their rear lights... you know, the stuff that reflects the light of the head lights of other cars? The equivalent of a high viz jacket but for cars?

Shenshen · 15-11-2012 03:36PM

Should pay some form of road tax

seamus wrote: »

High-vis is a con because it leads to a false sense of security for road users. There was a thread on boards recently enough where a parent described how their young child nearly ran straight across the road in front of traffic because they believed their school-mandated high-vis jacket would protect them from a tonne of metal travelling down the road.

The RSA's campaign to get cyclists wearing high-vis seems to be slowly backfiring on them as I increasingly see cyclists pottering around wearing high-vis jackets, but nary a light to be seen on them. Unless there is a direct light shining on a high-vis jacket (like a full-beam headlight or a torch), then it's no more effective than a light-coloured piece of clothing.

On the roads, high-vis really only has merit on unlit roads because full beam headlights on a high-vis jacket will allow a person to be seen from a few hundred meters. In lit-up areas, dipped headlights do not shine on high-vis jackets and the point of them is lost.

That said, I'm driving in the dark a good bit recently, and mainly along country roads.
While there is no contest with a set of working lights on a bike (and who in hell thought up these flickering things??? What's the point of them??), a high-viz jacket is something I'm really grateful seeing, as it means I do get to see the pedestrian or cyclist a good 50 to 100 meters before I see the guy in dark clothes with no high viz stuff on him.

So no, it's not a failsafe, not by a long shot, but it is a safety feature that I as a driver definitely welcome.

SunnyDub1 · 15-11-2012 03:36PM

Should pay insurance

I hate cyclists that think the own the roads of Dublin city center in the mornings. :mad::mad::mad:

They are all a danger to themselves

That is all

galwaycyclist · 15-11-2012 03:38PM

seamus wrote: »

On the roads, high-vis really only has merit on unlit roads because full beam headlights on a high-vis jacket will allow a person to be seen from a few hundred meters. In lit-up areas, dipped headlights do not shine on high-vis jackets and the point of them is lost.

And the problem with that is that it makes motorists less likely to dip their lights - because the high viz disappears. Blinded cyclists can have a tendency to move out towards the centre of the road - away from the ditch etc.

ash23 · 15-11-2012 03:41PM

galwaycyclist wrote: »

And the problem with that is that it makes motorists less likely to dip their lights - because the high viz disappears. Blinded cyclists can have a tendency to move out towards the centre of the road - away from the ditch etc.

No, the high viz still works on dipped headlights on a dark road. But it alerts the driver to the fact that there's someone on the road from a safe distance away. Lights are better obviously. But nothing at all is madness.

Shenshen · 15-11-2012 03:45PM

Should pay some form of road tax

galwaycyclist wrote: »

And the problem with that is that it makes motorists less likely to dip their lights - because the high viz disappears. Blinded cyclists can have a tendency to move out towards the centre of the road - away from the ditch etc.

Meh... for the last 6 weeks I've been driving from Kinsale to Cobh at around 10pm once a week.
I honestly no longer believe the majority of motorists are even aware that they've got their high beams on and are blinding the daylights out of oncoming traffic, or they just don't give a rat's posterior.

Jawgap · 15-11-2012 03:46PM

ash23 wrote: »

Agree, but high viz is better than nothing. I was driving home from work the other night and there was a young teen on a bike, with a dark hoody and no sort of lights at all. I would have hit him only for the tiny little reflectors on his pedals alerted me to the fact that something was ahead of me but I was about a foot from him before I "saw" him properly.
Just plain stupidity.

I am not a city dweller so am more coming at this from the perspective of a country road user (little or no lighting).

I'm not disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing but I'd disagree with the idea that hi-viz is better than nothing. As another poster pointed out it generates a false sense of security - people genuinely think it makes them immediately visible to all and sundry and then proceed to behave like they've just donned Iron Man's suit!!!

The RSA, in my opinion, would be better off tackling the more difficult issue of road user behaviour (cyclists, motorists and pedestrians) rather than pushing propaganda on people that suggests if you wear hi-viz and a helmet you are somehow safe.

The great observed irony of my cycle each morning is the number of red light jumpers and foot path cyclists who merrily proceed wearing RSA issue pieces of tat!

Should cyclists be issued with traffic fines and have to pay road tax / insurance?

Comments