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

Amirani

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 might as well be arguing that smokers or alcoholics contribute more taxation than the general populace, it's an irrelevant argument because the situation you've described just doesn't exist.

TheChizler

Spook_ie wrote: »

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

Does 124 passengers per 100 cars work for you? Simple fractions man...

monument

Spook_ie wrote: »

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

The 1.24 is from the canal cordon counts -- search NTA canal cordon count 2012 to find the report.

It was already stated that is figure is for cars entering Dublin city centre in the mornings. Such figures will more often than not, not correspond to national figures.

If you now agree the majority is one, it kind of makes your previous arguing quite pointless and a waste of everybody's time. The figure of 1.25 or first the incorrect figure of 1.5 was used to challenge the image depicted by another poster that three people in a car was a normal thing and you the jumped in because an average figure is not a real world thing apparently.

ThisRegard

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

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??

That's the exact point I made the last time spook went down this road, I don't expect it to be answered this time either.

monument

NiallSparky wrote: »

You might as well be arguing that smokers or alcoholics contribute more taxation than the general populace, it's an irrelevant argument because the situation you've described just doesn't exist.

Thanks - that's a great way of saying it.

Spook_ie

TheChizler wrote: »

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.

According to vrt.ie Dave 2's Tesla is only exempt from the 1st €5000 and then only if registered before 31st Dec 2012
http://www.vrt.ie/vrtDetail.php?page=22

The cost of his tesla starts at $64200 ( €48408 xe.com ) the VRT rate for Cat A vehicles is 14% so the VRT would be €6777- €5000= €1777 ( as I understand it ) if it was before 2012, add to that the VAT payable on it as an import from the states 23%, the motor tax of €104, I think you'll find he's making a sizeable contribution, then of course you need add the VAT and associated charges with charging it, keep trying

Cookie_Monster

Spook_ie wrote: »

According to vrt.ie Dave 2's Tesla is only exempt from the 1st €5000 and then only if registered before 31st Dec 2012
http://www.vrt.ie/vrtDetail.php?page=22

The cost of his tesla starts at $64200 ( €48408 xe.com ) the VRT rate for Cat A vehicles is 14% so the VRT would be €6777- €5000= €1777 ( as I understand it ) if it was before 2012, add to that the VAT payable on it as an import from the states 23%, the motor tax of €104, I think you'll find he's making a sizeable contribution, then of course you need add the VAT and associated charges with charging it, keep trying

free to charge so that a big zero. He buys it second hand so no VRT.

Spook_ie

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

free to charge so that a big zero. He buys it second hand so no VRT.

At least do the basic search....please

A full charge at home will cost just €2-3 when availing of the cheaper night rate electricity. Public charging is currently free and will be until mid-2012. When a payment system is in place, it will cost approximately €3-5 and fast charging will cost around €6-7. An electric car costs just 1-2cent per km compared to 10-12cent per km for a conventional car. You can check out our comparative cost calculator to see how much you’ll save when you go electric.

from esb.ie

Spook_ie

ThisRegard wrote: »

That's the exact point I made the last time spook went down this road, I don't expect it to be answered this time either.

And why would I answer it when the specifics state that 2 identical subjects except for the motoring, can you actually prove to me that given the specifics as stated that one subject doesn't input more into the exchequer based on a motoring lifestyle

Cookie_Monster

Spook_ie wrote: »

And why would I answer it when the specifics state that 2 identical subjects except for the motoring, can you actually prove to me that given the specifics as stated that one subject doesn't input more into the exchequer based on a motoring lifestyle

so the exchequer is the only thing that matters? What about reduced future health cost burden due to a more active lifestyle? What about less impact on the environment and the associated costs to the country as a result? What about the reduced impact on the road surface and therefore maintenance costs? What about the way the money saved on not paying for a car, fuel, insurance, NCT, tax etc is spent? What about the lowering of congestion and reduced wasted hours spent on the road to the economy as a whole? What about the difference is mental health?

Your extremely selective narrow view of things makes no sense, you cannot ignore everything and just focus on just the extra tax directly related to driving when there are so many other issues. The subject cannot be identical as one has more cash to do what they wish with because of a lack of either 1) a car altogether and its associated costs or 2) the marginal costs of driving if they do own a car anyway.

Spook_ie

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

so the exchequer is the only thing that matters? What about reduced future health cost burden due to a more active lifestyle? What about less impact on the environment and the associated costs to the country as a result? What about the reduced impact on the road surface and therefore maintenance costs? What about the way the money saved on not paying for a car, fuel, insurance, NCT, tax etc is spent? What about the lowering of congestion and reduced wasted hours spent on the road to the economy as a whole? What about the difference is mental health?

Your extremely selective narrow view of things makes no sense, you cannot ignore everything and just focus on just the extra tax directly related to driving when there are so many other issues.

For the sake of this exercise I can and will, now can ANYONE disprove the theoretical model as given that one subject pays more tax than the other

TheChizler

This is ridiculous... Dave 2 drunk drives his Tesla until it discharges in a bus lane and blocks a bus full of of duty Gardaí and local district court judges. The resulting ban, fine, and confiscation of his car causes him to lose his job and go bankrupt because he can no longer pay back the loan he took out to buy the car. He lives a meagre lifestyle funded by the exchequer and contributes a minimum 'to the roads'. He becomes destitute and is killed in a bike crash by Dave 1 jumping a red light.

Spook_ie

TheChizler wrote: »

This is ridiculous... Dave 2 drunk drives his Tesla until it discharges in a bus lane and blocks a bus full of of duty Gardaí and local district court judges. The resulting ban, fine, and confiscation of his car causes him to lose his job and go bankrupt because he can no longer pay back the loan he took out to buy the car. He lives a meagre lifestyle funded by the exchequer and contributes a minimum 'to the roads'. He becomes destitute and is killed in a bike crash by Dave 1 jumping a red light.

Again can you disprove the theoretical position as given?

TheChizler

Spook_ie wrote: »

Again can you disprove the theoretical position as given?

That if one person pays more tax than the other he is paying more tax? No. The question forbids it.

Spook_ie

TheChizler wrote: »

Does 124 passengers per 100 cars work for you? Simple fractions man...

Yes it would work actually because your simple fraction is actually 224/100 occupants as a passenger isn't a driver

TheChizler

Spook_ie wrote: »

Yes it would work actually because your simple fraction is actually 224/100 occupants as a passenger isn't a driver

24.

Spook_ie

TheChizler wrote: »

That if one person pays more tax than the other he is paying more tax? No. The question forbids it.

So I take it that you can't, therefore I need take no further notice of your inputs

TheChizler

Spook_ie wrote: »

So I take it that you can't, therefore I need take no further notice of your inputs

I had no reason to believe the content of posts was being noticed before now. Can you explain why your 'point' is relevant?

One particular person pays more tax than another particular person. Therefore no bikes in bus lanes.

Spook_ie

TheChizler wrote: »

I had no reason to believe the content of posts was being noticed before now. Can you explain why your 'point' is relevant?

One particular person pays more tax than another particular person. Therefore no bikes in bus lanes.

If you answer the question originally asked then you might get an answer or some further insight.

Go back find the question then answer it, bearing in mind this post...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85964448&postcount=228

monument wrote: »

<snipped>

This is the commuting and transport forum -- all sorts of transport is taken into account in discussion -- even when that is not convenient for some. You seem to have no problem discussing the merits of other transport vs cycling when you think it suits you.

Cookie_Monster

Spook_ie wrote: »

For the sake of this exercise I can and will, now can ANYONE disprove the theoretical model as given that one subject pays more tax than the other

so can I prove the motorist pays more tax, no of course I can't given the constraints of your scenario.

BostonB

Spook_ie wrote: »

...which one is subsidising the other?

Whomever pays more than they use.

The person/family paying more tax, might actually use more of the resources, than they pay for. So a net loss.

The person/family paying less tax might actually use less of resources than they pay for, so a net gain.

Spook_ie

BostonB wrote: »

Whomever pays more than they use.

The person/family paying more tax, might actually use more of the resources, than they pay for. So a net loss.

The person/family paying less tax might actually use less of resources than they pay for, so a net gain.

Interesting concept but given they are both using the roads to commute one by motor, one by cycle, I think it fair to assume they are both benefiting from the use of the road

beauf

Benefit wasn't your question. Which contributes more was the question and you didn't exclude cost from your scenario.

None of this is on topic. The issue is do cyclists have a major impact on bus times in bus lane. It's been proved that cars have a major impact. No data on cyclists.

Driving your spuds around the country where there's no bus lanes is hardly relevant either.

Spook_ie

beauf wrote: »

Benefit wasn't your question. Which contributes more was the question and you didn't exclude cost from your scenario.

None of this is on topic. The issue is do cyclists have a major impact on bus times in bus lane. It's been proved that cars have a major impact. No data on cyclists.

Driving your spuds around the country where there's no bus lanes is hardly relevant either.

And it still is the question , the comment about benefit is directly replying to another post

Aard

Spook_ie wrote: »

For the sake of this exercise I can and will, now can ANYONE disprove the theoretical model as given that one subject pays more tax than the other

So on the one hand, you refuse to entertain the notion of fractional occupancy (note: not occupants) because it isn't relevant in the real world. Then on the other hand, you want people to disprove an entirely abstract model that you have constructed that somehow bolsters your argument.

Spook_ie

Aard wrote: »

So on the one hand, you refuse to entertain the notion of fractional occupancy (note: not occupants) because it isn't relevant in the real world. Then on the other hand, you want people to disprove an entirely abstract model that you have constructed that somehow bolsters your argument.

Nah not really, the fractionality is just me winding up someone for trying to wind me up

EDIT
The only relevance to fractions would be that the picture of the number of cars for 40 people needs reducing by 24 - 43 % depending on if you use canal cordon figures or national figures
2nd EDIT
You want to disprove the abstract model?

Jawgap

Spook_ie wrote: »

Again can you disprove the theoretical position as given?

No, it's not disproveable therefore it's not a 'theoretical' position.

Incidentally, if motorists are such great contributors to the economy how come dealerships and petrol stations are shutting down in scary numbers while new bike shops are opening almost every week?

Chiparus

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.

But I pay Motor tax ( over 3k) and over 100k in income tax but I also cycle .

Should I get preferential treatment ?

Jack Kyle

Chiparus wrote: »

But I pay Motor tax ( over 3k) and over 100k in income tax but I also cycle .

Should I get preferential treatment ?

So you've three big cars and earn €250k a year?

Or are you just making it all up?

beauf

Jack Kyle wrote: »

So you've three big cars and earn €250k a year?

Or are you just making it all up?

Doesn't matter if he is or not the question is still valid. Plenty of cyclists have one or more vehicles.

The whole issue of tax is irrelevant to cycles in a bus lane. The law dictates what's allowed on the road not tax.