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
Spook_ie wrote: » And it still is the question , the comment about benefit is directly replying to another post
Chiparus wrote: » But I pay Motor tax ( over 3k) and over 100k in income tax but I also cycle . Should I get preferential treatment ?
ThisRegard wrote: » Because your example is nonsense, unrealistic and formulated to suit a ridiculously one sided argument only. Disprove this example. Mickey the taxi driver driver a heap of junk jap import and under discloses his taxi fares by a matter of 80%, depriving the state coffers of some much needed funds, but even doing that the tight git only eats the €1 specials out of Iceland. Cyril the cyclist doesn't drive but changes his bikes on a monthly basis as he couldn't be bothered washing them. He's also considerably richer than Mickey and his monthly tax bill is equal to Mickeys annual one. Much like his dislike for washing his bikes, he choose to eat some fine steak on a nightly basis from the local steak house so as not to dirty his china, washed down with some nice beer, great for the recovery after his post work spins. Now can you disprove, in this theoretical example, that the cyclist does not pay more tax towards the upkeeps of the roads, than the motorist who causes more wear and tear to them and yet earns his living on them ?
beauf wrote: » Which post? Though it doesn't really matter, either. Its still centred on the logic of precedence based on the tax you pay, which is unworkable, and isn't the basis of road use anyway. The idea that one driver would get preference over the other based on the tax they've paid. So how much you benefit is of no relevance.
Spook_ie wrote: » No because the cyclist would be paying more tax, which is why I've removed the disparity of the subjects being on different wages/different jobs etc. as much as possible so that the effective difference is only by the physical costs of commuting, now once again which subject pays more to the exchequer?
ThisRegard wrote: » So is that an admission that you made up an unrealistic scenario to suit your weak argument ? Can we finally move on ?
Spook_ie wrote: » Possibly the one it was quoting?http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85985223&postcount=323
Spook_ie wrote: » Again who said anything about precedence?
Jack Kyle wrote: » It's pretty obvious that when motorists pay motor tax while cyclists pay sweet FA, motorists are rightly going to feel like they've more rights on the road. Cyclists generally seem to be over precious, over sensitive and possessing a misplaced sense of righteousness. In my view, their right to be on the road at all is questionable.
beauf wrote: » You said it wasn't the post you quoted. JK All this nonsense about paying tax, ring fencing it, and paying tax for the resources you use, is all the same issue. Cyclists right to be on the road, and then precedence. Seems to me to be all based on the fallacy that cyclists cause congestion, rather then reality that its cars.
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.
Spook_ie wrote: » 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 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.
beauf wrote: » We may progress if you answer a question for a change. Though I doubt progress is your intent. Lets simplify the question. What relevance has "benefiting from the use of the road" to cyclists using the roads and/or bus lanes, or indeed a cyclist being in front of a bus.
Jack Kyle wrote: » I for one blast cyclists out of it with the horn if I see them on the road when they're a cycling lane off road. I also blast cyclists out of it when they cycle two abreast.
beauf wrote: » We may progress if you answer a question for a change. Though I doubt progress is your intent. Apparently if a post is to be taken in context of the thread or only to what's directly quoted is up to your discretion. As such its difficult to follow any logic to your posts. Lets simplify the question. What relevance has "benefiting from the use of the road" to a cyclist being in front of a bus.
Originally Posted by ThisRegard View Post Because your example is nonsense, unrealistic and formulated to suit a ridiculously one sided argument only. Disprove this example. Mickey the taxi driver driver a heap of junk jap import and under discloses his taxi fares by a matter of 80%, depriving the state coffers of some much needed funds, but even doing that the tight git only eats the €1 specials out of Iceland. Cyril the cyclist doesn't drive but changes his bikes on a monthly basis as he couldn't be bothered washing them. He's also considerably richer than Mickey and his monthly tax bill is equal to Mickeys annual one. Much like his dislike for washing his bikes, he choose to eat some fine steak on a nightly basis from the local steak house so as not to dirty his china, washed down with some nice beer, great for the recovery after his post work spins. Now can you disprove, in this theoretical example, that the cyclist does not pay more tax towards the upkeeps of the roads, than the motorist who causes more wear and tear to them and yet earns his living on them ?
Spook_ie wrote: » No because the question is focused on removing the disparity between individuals, there fore it will always be a theoretical question but none the less is requiring an answer rather than your red herrings which involve so much disparity that you couldn't find any answers to them anyway Once again which one pays more taxes commuting?
ThisRegard wrote: » My gem is no more shiny than your ridiculous insistence that someone answers a loaded question that has no relevance to real life.
Jawgap wrote: » On an absolute or per km basis? On a per km basis a commuting cyclist who owns a properly taxed car pays more in motor tax than a commuting motorist with a properly taxed car - in the same way a bus / DART / LUAS passenger on a tax saver ticket who also owns a properly taxed car not generally used for commuting, pays more motor tax per km than the motorist - it's a fixed charge, the less use you make of the car the more it costs per km. Also which inflicts the greater costs on society? Despite your 'theory' (:pac:) modes of commuting and transport are not mutually exclusive - if someone commutes by bike tomorrow, it doesn't mean they can't commute by car the day after or take a bus or even a combination of two or more.
Peanut2011 wrote: » I would argue if the cycle lane is provided it must be used and Bus lane should not be allowed to be used by cyclists.
Spook_ie wrote: » Again, you insist on changing the substance of the question, one drives to work the other cycles, not they both own a car and only one uses it
ThisRegard wrote: » It was said before, it's a pointless question. You never answer the question of what the cyclist does with their extra disposable income.
Peanut2011 wrote: » Perfect examples are: blocking the whole bus lane by riding down the middle of it when bus is stuck behind them, going trough red lights without consideration for pedestrians and vehicles joining from other directions, riding two abreast in a convoy of 10-20 on country roads blocking any possibility of other road users overtaking them safely.
Spook_ie wrote: » OK just for you, the cyclist spends his disposable income on a bicycle related item ordered and dispatched from a company domiciled in Germany or another EU country where no tax is due to the Irish Exchequer
Peanut2011 wrote: » ...because he was not happy with the normal traffic lane as it has pot holes or whatever else
ThisRegard wrote: » This is gas, it's like asking my 3 year how did that mess happen, with every statement a new imaginative figure or situation gets added to the story.
ThisRegard wrote: » Argue all you want, the law says otherwise.
Macy0161 wrote: » I'm not going to defend red light jumping (all road user types have people guilty of that), but if a bus can't get past them safely when they're in the middle of the lane, they probably won't be able to get past them safely. A group of 20 cyclists is easier to pass in a two abreast, 10 deep group than as a 20 long line in a lot of instances.
Peanut2011 wrote: » And if this is the kind of a mature discussion you want great! I was not arguing the law, but maybe if the law makers had any interest instead of just populist vote, they would look in to that. Maybe law is flawed?
Peanut2011 wrote: » I're read this thread for some time now and MY GOD how many irrelevant posts. Can we get back on topic? I would argue if the cycle lane is provided it must be used and Bus lane should not be allowed to be used by cyclists. The reason I say this is, and I am sure many would be on here giving out about it, if they came across the car driving in a bus lane because he was not happy with the normal traffic lane as it has pot holes or whatever else. I do feel for cyclists who are very vulnerable on the road but there are so many who just simply don't help the case. Any of the ones that act in selfish way and do not consider other road users are really doing the disservice to all others who are on the roads. Perfect examples are: blocking the whole bus lane by riding down the middle of it when bus is stuck behind them, going trough red lights without consideration for pedestrians and vehicles joining from other directions, riding two abreast in a convoy of 10-20 on country roads blocking any possibility of other road users overtaking them safely. List goes on!!!! And no I do not thing cyclist are to blame for all problems but some of the above examples I have given and which are encountered on a daily basis are certainly not helping anyone. If only all road users had a bit more courtesy out there for one another we would all get where we are going just as quickly.
