nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Cyclists in bus lanes (cut from 'giving way to buses' thread)

bmaxi

The whole idea of bus lanes is to shorten bus journey times, so logically buses coming out of bus lanes should always have priority or any advantage
is lost. As usual in Ireland, these things are introduced in a ham fisted way, more for visual than practical effect, politicians showing how advanced in thinking they are without considering the full picture. It's easy to paint lines on roads when they mean fcuk all, for instance, I can never understand why bicycles are allowed to share bus lanes, they should have a dedicated lane to themselves although, having said that, they probably wouldn't use them. Just the other day I came across three buses stuck behind a bicycle in the bus lane on Stillorgan Road, even though there is a perfectly good cycle lane on the footpath. Proper penalties and a modicum of enforcement would solve a lot of our traffic congestion problems but apparently there are only two road traffic offences on the statute books, ironically the two which are most easily detected with the minimum of effort.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Jawgap

ThisRegard wrote: »

I therefore think a cyclist who pays motor tax should have more rights on the road than a motorist without a bike. Afterall, the cyclist has paid their VAT on the bike and accessories.

It's ok Spook, I've got this one.....

Unless said cyclist benefited from the Cycle-to-Work scheme and used that to avoid paying his / her fair share of income tax

ThisRegard

Jawgap wrote: »

It's ok Spook, I've got this one.....

Unless said cyclist benefited from the Cycle-to-Work scheme and used that to avoid paying his / her fair share of income tax

True, true. But can you imagine what those of us are entitled who bought a bike on the scheme, then bought one for each member of the family in order that we're not Billy No Mates when out for a spin ? I demand a garda escort from here on in when out on the bloody roads, or at least a man with a flag.

I fail to understand how some people still fail to get over this car/bike ownership mutual exclusivity thing.

Spook_ie

TheChizler wrote: »

What about your model proved that it was a road tax as opposed to an emissions tax? Or engine size tax? Or axle tax? There is no tax for anyone to just use the roads, there is tax to do that in combination with other things. But you can't separate the latter.

I don't need to separate it, just need to qualify that some people who use the road pay more tax for using the road therefore they are paying a road tax.

Spook_ie

ThisRegard wrote: »

I therefore think a cyclist who pays motor tax should have more rights on the road than a motorist without a bike. Afterall, the cyclist has paid their VAT on the bike and accessories.

Jawgap wrote: »

It's ok Spook, I've got this one.....

Unless said cyclist benefited from the Cycle-to-Work scheme and used that to avoid paying his / her fair share of income tax

ThisRegard wrote: »

True, true. But can you imagine what those of us are entitled who bought a bike on the scheme, then bought one for each member of the family in order that we're not Billy No Mates when out for a spin ? I demand a garda escort from here on in when out on the bloody roads, or at least a man with a flag.

I fail to understand how some people still fail to get over this car/bike ownership mutual exclusivity thing.

Thanks for that but wasn't any real need for it as government policy changes from time to time depending on their agenda, remember scrappage allowances. I'm sure the VAT on bikes etc. partially funded that, but I don't recall a particular scrappage tax

EDIT

BTW what's all this about rights dependent on the amount of tax being paid, have I said anywhere that someone who pays more tax has more rights, just trying to qualify that some people do indeed pay a road tax despite the protestations of people who say there is no such thing

Macy0161

Jawgap wrote: »

Unless said cyclist benefited from the Cycle-to-Work scheme and used that to avoid paying his / her fair share of income tax

But what if the car was brought on the scrappage scheme?

Jawgap

ThisRegard wrote: »

True, true. But can you imagine what those of us are entitled who bought a bike on the scheme, then bought one for each member of the family in order that we're not Billy No Mates when out for a spin ? I demand a garda escort from here on in when out on the bloody roads, or at least a man with a flag.

I fail to understand how some people still fail to get over this car/bike ownership mutual exclusivity thing.

Macy0161 wrote: »

But what if the car was brought on the scrappage scheme?

....or what if some of the people on the bus being delayed by the cyclist on his CTW bike have got annual Taxsaver tickets, while behind the bus is a Skoda Octavia taxi bought as a private vehicle on the scrappage scheme that is being powered by an LPG conversion.....

To get algebraic for a moment......

If the average number of Taxsaver passengers is 1.55x(y)F(t) where t represents the time of day......

and the cost of the bike CxY+F, where F is the number in the family then Average Joe, it turns out, doesn't give a f&ck because he's been working shifts and is heading home when we're heading to work.......

[Deleted User]

Spook_ie wrote: »

BTW what's all this about rights dependent on the amount of tax being paid, have I said anywhere that someone who pays more tax has more rights, just trying to qualify that some people do indeed pay a road tax despite the protestations of people who say there is no such thing

Well what was your point then?

steamengine

Spook_ie wrote: »

I don't need to separate it, just need to qualify that some people who use the road pay more tax for using the road therefore they are paying a road tax.

A very simple truism accepted by most people in the real world - historically that's why road tax was originally introduced !!!

monument

Spook_ie wrote: »

I don't need to separate it, just need to qualify that some people who use the road pay more tax for using the road therefore they are paying a road tax.

Moderator warning: A road tax is a tax ring fenced for roads. There is no such tax, so stop saying anybody is pay road tax.

If you repeat the claim again, it will be taken as trolling -- this is as defined in the charter and in the context of your other post which you were already warned about for trolling.

Also please do not talk about what is or is not trolling -- this will be viewed as back seat modding.

And finally note that bold text is reserved for mods giving warnings.

steamengine wrote: »

A very simple truism accepted by most people in the real world - historically that's why road tax was originally introduced !!!

Yes, historically so, it's however no longer the case.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Point 1 What has been proven untrue?

Lets try it algebraically then

Average Joe = X
Excise on Fuel etc. = Y

X=X ( Average Joe on bike )

X+Y > X (Average Joe in Car )

Therefore Y contribution is in excess of X

It's pretty simple really

You're including only some taxes and some costs, but not all taxes and all costs, so that's downright nonsense.

Car use does not look so rosy when motoring costs (such as congestion, health, air pollution, noise pollution, accident costs, how much social welfare payments are supporting car use etc) are included.

You'd also have to factor in things like at least part of cyclists' savings on fuel being spent on the local economy - and the extra VAT take that gives.

And you'd have to value the saving to the economy it is to have somebody pay motor tax but leave the car at home.

Zebra3

TheChizler wrote: »

What about your model proved that it was a road tax as opposed to an emissions tax? Or engine size tax? Or axle tax? There is no tax for anyone to just use the roads, there is tax to do that in combination with other things. But you can't separate the latter.

I like to think of it as the Road Users Pollution Tax.

Spook_ie

Aard wrote: »

Do you honestly not understand how averages work? I assume so, since you use words such as "algebraically".

Actually yes I do understand averages, I also understand real world terminology.

If you have 2 cars with 3 people you do not have 1.5 people per vehicle, what you have in the real world is 50% of the vehicles have more than one occupent.

A succint but requisite difference between the real world and the world of averages

Jawgap

Spook_ie wrote: »

Actually yes I do understand averages, I also understand real world terminology.

If you have 2 cars with 3 people you do not have 1.5 people per vehicle, what you have in the real world is 50% of the vehicles have more than one occupent.

A succint but requisite difference between the real world and the world of averages

That's a mode, not a mean

Spook_ie

Jawgap wrote: »

That's a mode, not a mean

Am I not correct though, that in the real world you cannot have 1.5 people in a vehicle, whereas you can have 3 people in 2 vehicles and there is a difference

Spook_ie

monument wrote: »

Moderator warning:s.<Snipped>

You're including only some taxes and some costs, but not all taxes and all costs, so that's downright nonsense.

Car use does not look so rosy when motoring costs (such as congestion, health, air pollution, noise pollution, accident costs, how much social welfare payments are supporting car use etc) are included.

You'd also have to factor in things like at least part of cyclists' savings on fuel being spent on the local economy - and the extra VAT take that gives.

And you'd have to value the saving to the economy it is to have somebody pay motor tax but leave the car at home.

Have I not stated that for simplicity that the only difference is one also drives a car, therefore all other costs are the same, therefore one of them is paying more into the exchequer, a part of which funds roads, therefore regardless of how minute the difference one of them is funding roads via his tax more than the other

Jawgap

Spook_ie wrote: »

Am I not correct though, that in the real world you cannot have 1.5 people in a vehicle, whereas you can have 3 people in 2 vehicles and there is a difference

That's true, but it doesn't mean that averages are useless or invalid - in this case I'd say the closer mean occupancy is to 1, the more confident you can be that single occupancy is the norm in cars, which itself is an indicator of inefficient road use.

monument

Spook_ie wrote: »

Have I not stated that for simplicity that the only difference is one also drives a car, therefore all other costs are the same, therefore one of them is paying more into the exchequer, a part of which funds roads, therefore regardless of how minute the difference one of them is funding roads via his tax more than the other

By excluding "real-world" costs relating to health, congestion, pollution etc your example is an oversimplification which voids any argument you're trying to make.

TheChizler

Spook_ie wrote: »

Have I not stated that for simplicity that the only difference is one also drives a car, therefore all other costs are the same, therefore one of them is paying more into the exchequer, a part of which funds roads, therefore regardless of how minute the difference one of them is funding roads via his tax more than the other

You're setting up that question so that it will give a very specific answer. You might as well say, Jimmy only eats apples, and Dave eats every fruit, therefore Dave spends more on bananas than Jimmy. There's no information attained there, you're just rephrasing the question.

Dave pays motor tax while Jimmy doesn't. Therefore Dave pays more motor tax.

SeanW

monument wrote: »

This has been proven to be untrue a number of times so I'm presuming you're trolling and you will be infracted and banned if you keep this up.

Are you suggesting that (given similar circumstances) that a motorist will not pay more tax than a non-motorist? Because to seriously suggest this were even possible, motoring taxes would have to be negligable.

Zebra3 wrote: »

Certain people in here don't seem to realise the benefits as motorists they get from others choosing to cycle instead.

That motorists who need their cars might benefit from others using bicycles, public transport etc is deeply feared in certain quarters.

beauf wrote: »

Because not only is it incorrect. Its misleading, and usually used incorrectly.

It's no more "misleading" than calling an attractive woman "hot" or describing a night of inebriation as getting "smashed" even if it were not 100% accurate from the POV of a motorist (who must tax their car to use it on taxable roads, but can legally use the car off road without paying the r**d tax), it would still be acceptable as slang or a colloquial term.

Granolite wrote: »

I find your position to be very, very extreme and cant help wonder where you might be picking up this attitude from? ... I fail to see where you experience "extreme hostility" from cyclists outside of those areas.

A good place to start would be Dom Nozzis "Plan B" blog. It typifies the problem that I have, in that in certain quarters there is an "us and them" mentality, that doing something positive for motorists is NECESSARILY bad for everything and everyone else, that "The Car is the Enemy" and that there is a need for war on cars. Unfortunately if you go through my posting history you will find that Mr. Nozzi is not alone.

My approach and that of many others, traditionally, is to plan for everyone. Footpaths? Great idea. Want to build a cycle lane (preferably by widening the road to do so if possible) Wonderful! Go for it! Ditto for public transport, I was a campaigner for PT on the Extend the DART campaign because I believe in it, that it's a positive for all our people. My view also includes friendliness to motorists, of which I am one.

Unfortunately this view is not exactly universal as you'll see on Dom Nozzis blog, the view taken there and in certain other quarters is that nothing you can do for PT, cyclists or pedestrians is any good unless it is accompanied by something that is motorist hostile as a primary policy objectve. It's been my experience here at least that this view is shared more so by cyclists and environmentalists in particular (probably there is an overlap)

If cyclists subscribe to the Dom Nozzi world view, then it becomes impossible to make things that benefit all road users because there will always be one group that is unhappy. Motorists because they're subject to a blistering array of new charges and regulations, hostile designs of housing etc becoming a casualty of the "war" that certain quarters wanted. On the other hand, if the government doesn't wage war on motorists, then it doesn't matter how good the cycling infrastructure is, if the Dom Nozzi view is taken then cyclists will never be happy because because none of the anti-car stuff they wanted doesn't happen.

So I am forced to reconsider whether my previous inclusive "let's make things work for everyone" approach is still valid. And it's becoming a distinct possibility that my former position was based on naievete about some of the views held in other quarters, that in fact it may be a case of "go for 3 out of 4."

steamengine

Jawgap wrote: »

That's true, but it doesn't mean that averages are useless or invalid - in this case I'd say the closer mean occupancy is to 1, the more confident you can be that single occupancy is the norm in cars, which itself is an indicator of inefficient road use.

Unfortunately the bicycle will never replace the car in this country in any great numbers even if the occupancy is one. Bikes aren't an all weather transport mode, driving rain cold and high winds render them pretty useless and only the physically fit can use them to any degree of efficacy. Absolutely no use to me if I, for example, want to play golf or do a heavy shopping and the myriad of other chores to which a car is suitable. Public transport is no better as it doesn't go to where exactly I want at the best of times. There is plenty of room on the roads for cars at the moment, the motorways are empty.

Bikes are fine for scooting around town though, commuting or leisure, but as a replacement for cars in any great numbers, I have my doubts.

Jawgap

steamengine wrote: »

Unfortunately the bicycle will never replace the car in this country in any great numbers even if the occupancy is one. Bikes aren't an all weather transport mode, driving rain cold and high winds render them pretty useless and only the physically fit can use them to any degree of efficacy. Absolutely no use to me if I, for example, want to play golf or do a heavy shopping and the myriad of other chores to which a car is suitable. Public transport is no better as it doesn't go to where exactly I want at the best of times. There is plenty of room on the roads for cars at the moment, the motorways are empty.

Bikes are fine for scooting around town though, commuting or leisure, but as a replacement for cars in any great numbers, I have my doubts.

I'm not sure anyone is suggesting that bikes are or ever will be a replacement for cars. If they were then there wouldn't be as many cyclists owning cars as there are.

No Pants

steamengine wrote: »

Absolutely no use to me if I, for example, want to play golf

Sorry, but I just had to Google that.

Someone else can look up a shopping one.

I see your point though. Another point would be that in a car it's possible to do a 200km journey and not take most of the day to do it.

Spook_ie

TheChizler wrote: »

You're setting up that question so that it will give a very specific answer. You might as well say, Jimmy only eats apples, and Dave eats every fruit, therefore Dave spends more on bananas than Jimmy. There's no information attained there, you're just rephrasing the question.

Dave pays motor tax while Jimmy doesn't. Therefore Dave pays more motor tax.

Correct, in which case all other things being taken as EQUAL Dave's contribution to the exchequer for building and maintaining roads is higher

Cookie_Monster

SeanW wrote: »

Are you suggesting that (given similar circumstances) that a motorist will not pay more tax than a non-motorist? Because to seriously suggest this were even possible, motoring taxes would have to be negligable.

do you think all these people that cycle just horde the (potential) motor and fuel tax away without spending it? Maybe they spend it on booze and alocohol that the motorist can't afford due to travel costs and end up paying more tax??

TheChizler

Spook_ie wrote: »

Correct, in which case all other things being taken as EQUAL Dave's contribution to the exchequer for building and maintaining roads is higher

As has been pointed out multiple times, there's a massive assumption which has been shown to be untrue in that statement.

Spook_ie

monument wrote: »

By excluding "real-world" costs relating to health, congestion, pollution etc your example is an oversimplification which voids any argument you're trying to make.

Only voids it in your opinion, however, as the exercise is to prove that pro rata a motorist pays more tax and therefore more to the exchequer for funding road building/maintenance etc. and so far none of your efforts have disproved that

Aard

Spook_ie wrote: »

Actually yes I do understand averages, I also understand real world terminology.

If you have 2 cars with 3 people you do not have 1.5 people per vehicle, what you have in the real world is 50% of the vehicles have more than one occupent.

A succint but requisite difference between the real world and the world of averages

Why are you being facetious? The only way to present such data is by aggregating them, yielding an average. Even if you were to disaggregate the data, given an average of 1.24 you will find far more single-occupancy vehicles than multiple-occupancy vehicles. There's some real world data.

Spook_ie

TheChizler wrote: »

As has been pointed out multiple times, there's a massive assumption which has been shown to be untrue in that statement.

Refer to previous posts, it's not a massive assumption, if Dave 1 pays €1000 to the exchequer and Dave 2 pays €1001 to the exchequer then Dave 2 is funding the exchequer by more than Dave 1, therefore as road funding is from central exchequer Dave 2 is paying more towards it, now if Dave 2's contributions are from motor related items then motorists are funding the roads by x amount more.

monument

Spook_ie wrote: »

Only voids it in your opinion, however, as the exercise is to prove that pro rata a motorist pays more tax and therefore more to the exchequer for funding road building/maintenance etc. and so far none of your efforts have disproved that

You have not proven anything -- re the claims you are making a number of posters have shown clear flaws in your argument, there's no point repeating those again.

Also: I'm nearly sure I have linked to studies on details of external costs and you did not reply. I'll be happy to post more at a later date again.

TheChizler

Spook_ie wrote: »

Refer to previous posts, it's not a massive assumption, if Dave 1 pays €1000 to the exchequer and Dave 2 pays €1001 to the exchequer then Dave 2 is funding the exchequer by more than Dave 1, therefore as road funding is from central exchequer Dave 2 is paying more towards it, now if Dave 2's contributions are from motor related items then motorists are funding the roads by x amount more.

Dave 1's bike costs more than his car, not uncommon, the associated VAT is more than the contributions Dave 2 pays on his Tesla Model S (VRT exempt) which he doesn't drive that often, so costs a minimum to run. In this case Dave 1 contributes more overall than Dave 2, meaning your (unrealistic situation anyway) example doesn't work across the board.

Spook_ie

Aard wrote: »

Why are you being facetious? The only way to present such data is by aggregating them, yielding an average. Even if you were to disaggregate the data, given an average of 1.24 you will find far more single-occupancy vehicles than multiple-occupancy vehicles. There's some real world data.

Not being facetious other than pointing out in the real world you don't have partial passengers, you either have some or none. therefore given that in 2011 (CSO figures of 1127396 commuting as a driver with 508338 commuting as a passenger in a private vehicle) where does that leave your 1.24, unhappily the census doesn't appear to correlate the number of passengers per vehicle but I think it would be a safe assumption that the majority would be 1