Seaneh wrote: » But it is a tax for the privilege of using a motor vehicle on the road. Motorists pay more towards road upkeep than peds and cyclists (and public transport users), but they do more damage than peds and cyclists (and public transport users). The point of this thread was "cyclists dont pay to use the road". They do, we all do. I pointed out that road users don't pay as much for the privilege of using motor vehicles on the road as they cost in road damage (which is a direct consequence of their road use). Are you going to now try and argue that motor tax isn't a direct tax on the privilege of using the road?
Seaneh wrote: » Do you have any proof that motorists are paying more than than they cost?
irish bloke wrote: » Do you think it's fair for motorists to pay more for teachers, banks, schools etc then non motorists
irish bloke wrote: » What??? I never said that. Again your not answering the question. You stated fuel tax does not go on road maintenance but rather towards teachers, banks, schools etc. Do you think it's fair for motorists to pay more for teachers, banks, schools etc then non motorists
stephen97 wrote: » i say yes, motorcyclists have to pay and receive no benefits in terms of parking, bus lanes. but cyclists get cycle lanes and parking places without contributing
scudzilla wrote: » I do think that cyclists should have to have some kind of Insurance
Seaneh wrote: » They don't. They pay tax into a central fund, like everyone else, to pay for the cost of everything. The direct tax they pay for the privilege of using the road, doesn't even add enough to that central fund to cover the cost of their road use, so no, they aren't paying more towards doctors and nurses and teachers and politicians holidays, they are in fact costing the central fund more per capita than they contribute to the central fund in direct taxation. Your argument is beyond flawed.
Seaneh wrote: » In 2008, 2009 the take for motor tax was about €850million and €835million respectively, the cost of building and maintaining roads in those two years was €1.4billion and €1.2billion respectively.
Seaneh wrote: » As I said earlier, if the cycle lanes are properly designed and properly built and properly maintained, then you'd have an argument I(a shíte one mind, but an argument nonetheless). But as it is, the cycle path network in Ireland is almost completely useless.
Gorilla Rising wrote: » 'Building' is the key word here. Should you, as a road user and cyclist (assuming for arguments sake you don't drive) not contribute then? If roads are being built for your use as well as for drivers. For the record, I couldn't care less about who pays what, just asking. The ones that are there still had to built and marked etc, whether they're up to scratch is somewhat irrelvant. Plenty of roads aren't up to scratch in this country. I still think I should pay motor tax.
fasttalkerchat wrote: » I think that serious cyclists (the ones with helmets, lycra and expensive bikes) should pay a few euro a year to contribute to cycling infrastructure and parking. They should also get a basic insurance policy covering injury where they are at fault. These cyclists can cycle on all public roads (not motorways) but can be fined for cycling on paths etc. Kids and anyone who takes a bike to the shop when the car is off the road or just in the summer can continue as normal however cannot cycle on 100km/h roads.
Seaneh wrote: » Cyclists do pay for roads, as already stated. We pay VAT on our bikes, and every time we buy new tyres or wheels or smaller parts or upgrade our groupsets or buy a second bike (most cyclists will have more than 1 bike) or buy accessories like helmets, cycling glasses, mitts, jerseys or jackets or the food we take on longer cycles or the coffee we buy when we stop in a cafe half war through a 100km cycle and so on. That's 23% of everything we buy for use while cycling goes straight to toe government to pay our share of building and maintaining the transport network, paying for schools, doctors, nurses, teachers, social workers, bank debt and of course, ploiticians holidays. I'd imagine if the math could be done, the cost of maintaining the current cycle path system and painting a few more white lines is far less than we contribute through what we spend on out bikes/associated gear. And then you have the however much is taken from out income tax to help pay for all of the afore mentioned costs on top of that. Motorists pay more than other road users because they cost more to clean up after and more to accommodate. Simples.
hardCopy wrote: » If deaths and injuries caused by cyclists ever become an issue then we can revisit this. For now it's a no from me.
Triangla wrote: » Where does my 3 year old daughter go to pay her road tax for her bike?
jam_mac_jam wrote: » So, how do you judge that? Tax on lycra or good bikes? Its not really feasible is it?
fasttalkerchat wrote: » They would opt in to registering in order to use their bike as a vehicle eg. On all roads and not just in towns and housing estates.
Anyone wrote: » It could be deducted at source from her Child Benefit?
Ush1 wrote: » What about cyclists crashing into a car and damaging it?
lertsnim wrote: » Motor Tax. It is Motor Tax
