Those damn cyclists again!

Jawgap · 16-07-2014 02:38PM

SeanW wrote: »

I didn't say any of that, I just think the fact that only motorists pay ROAD usage TAX should be properly noted. I object to silly "corrections" about the use of the term ROAD TAX because at best its inoffensive slang, at most, an accurate description of the basis of the tax - i.e. a tax a motorist must pay to use the road.

So, your logic seems to be motorists ( or mor correctly vehicle owners) pay, cyclists don't? That being the case some vehicle owners pay more, a lot more, than others so shouldn't they get priority? And what about motorists (reps, van & bus drivers etc) who pay no tax on the vehicle they drive - I don't the driver of the 46a pays much in the way of tax on his bus......

SeanW wrote: »

First of all, if you fined every RLJing footpath riding cyclist the same as the standard motoring fine €80 you could probably pay off the national debt.

Simple, use the same rules as apply for motorists. If "don't care about the rules of the road" and run red lights, I'll get tagged by red light cameras, that take my registration and apply penalty points, up until I get enough points to lose my license. My insurance would also go up exponentially during the time.

Cyclists could be subject to the same rules.

No argument there, but it's not cyclists holding up the legislation in DoT - it's there waiting to be signed, so maybe contact them and point out the revenue they are apparently foregoing by not introducing the regulations.

Baron Kurtz · 16-07-2014 02:38PM

roadrunner16 wrote: »

Apart from all the other stuff you said one thing stand out and I'm going to get in knocked for saying this but It boils my blood hearing motorists get it wrong... Yes cyclists don't pay road tax ...... in fact motorists don't pay road tax ....no one pays road tax .... its called Motor tax .... my bike dosen't have an effing motor !!!! Money for roads is taken from general taxation !!!!

Come on. Read the whole thread. This little nugget of clarification has been established countless times in the thread.

Feisar · 16-07-2014 02:39PM

blackwhite wrote: »

NO.

Like every other situation on the road, if you want to leave one lane and join another then you must give way to any traffic already in the lane.

TBH, when people get the rules of the road so badly wrong it's no wonder that threads like this go round and round and round and round.

That would be my understanding, if I'm on the motorway and want to overtake I'll check the outside lane to ensure there isn't someone coming up faster than me and the way is clear. If it is not I wait till they pass and then overtake the vehicle in from of me.
Surely it's the same for cyclists?

Shenshen · 16-07-2014 02:42PM

Feisar wrote: »

That would be my understanding, if I'm on the motorway and want to overtake I'll check the outside lane to ensure there isn't someone coming up faster than me and the way is clear. If it is not I wait till they pass and then overtake the vehicle in from of me.
Surely it's the same for cyclists?

And surely you've been in the overtaking lane on a motorway before when a car in front of you pulls out with minimal distance to you and without indicating?

I'm not defending stupid cyclists, I merely want to point out that from personal experience, the rules of the road get little regard from both cyclists and drivers alike in this country.

Knasher · 16-07-2014 02:43PM

Baron Kurtz wrote: »

Come on. Read the whole thread. This little nugget of clarification has been established countless times in the thread.

And yet the post you thanked in the previous page repeated the same road tax misinformation. So apparently clarification is still required.

SeanW · 16-07-2014 02:45PM

Jawgap wrote: »

So, your logic seems to be motorists ( or mor correctly vehicle owners) pay, cyclists don't? That being the case some vehicle owners pay more, a lot more, than others so shouldn't they get priority? And what about motorists (reps, van & bus drivers etc) who pay no tax on the vehicle they drive - I don't the driver of the 46a pays much in the way of tax on his bus......

I never said they should, I just think the reality should be kept in mind. Motors are taxed based on road usage. So a person who uses the term road tax is not out of line.

Augmerson · 16-07-2014 02:47PM

http://i.imgur.com/3OpJrgw.gif

seamus · 16-07-2014 02:47PM

SeanW wrote: »

First of all, if you fined every RLJing footpath riding cyclist the same as the standard motoring fine €80 you could probably pay off the national debt.

Agreed. So why don't we start with that? Why lump a big lumbering bureaucratic machine into operation for what is a minor road enforcement issue, when a simple stop-and-fine system would be far more effective in all respects - legally and financially?

If I did not carry registration plates, the first gard that saw my car would stop me.

For a number of reasons, the same argument doesn't really apply to bikes. Far easier to evade detection for a start; you can simply jump off the bike. Aside from that, enforcement issues also apply - the same reason why Gardai ignore cyclists breaking the lights right in front of them, they won't be arsed chasing down unregistered bikes because they regard it (arguably correctly) as a minor issue in the grand scale, like jaywalking.

Cyclists begin to respect red lights and pedestrian areas like motorists do.

As in, not at all? The more time you spend walking and cycling around city centre areas, the more you realise that 95% of all road users' primary objective is to get where they're going quickly. Adherence to the rules of the road comes a distant second, and the concerns of other road users an even more distant 3rd. Everyone ignores and breaks the lights when it suits them. They block others from getting where they're going, go the wrong direction where they're not supposed to, and generally make a nuisance of themselves because in their head their journey is important and everyone else is just farting around.

Jawgap · 16-07-2014 02:47PM

SeanW wrote: »

I never said they should, I just think the reality should be recorded. Motors are taxed based on road usage. So a person who uses the term road tax is not out of line.

They're not! You and I could own the same car and pay the same road / motor tax........even if you drive 20,000km per year and I drive 2,000km.

That's not taxation based on usage - it's a permit to own a vehicle.

Chips Lovell · 16-07-2014 02:48PM

Shenshen wrote: »

I'm not defending stupid cyclists, I merely want to point out that from personal experience, the rules of the road get little regard from both cyclists and drivers alike in this country.

Stop being so reasonable. People might put away their torches and pitchforks.

Keep_Her_Lit · 16-07-2014 02:50PM

Ratzo Rizzo wrote: »

I was driving from Dundrum towards junction 13 on the M50 a couple of weeks back and there was a guy cycling on the road despite the fact that a cycle lane exists on the path, a path largely untroubled by pedestrians or any other impediment to cyclists. I rolled down my window at the lights and asked why he wasn't using the cycle lane and he explained he was turning right further down the road on to Ballinteer Avenue.
It never ceases to amaze me at the number of cyclists who show a wilful disregard to their own safety yet are quick to point out motorists poor driving habits and how they endanger a cyclist's life... :rolleyes:

Maybe you can point out why a cyclist's decision to use a suburban road implies "a wilful disregard to their own safety". What exactly is the grave source of danger to a cyclist in this situation? Just wondering, as someone who's been happily cycling on suburban roads for more than three decades without a single serious incident.

Although you don't mention it, were you by any chance momentarily delayed by this cyclist? Hmmm? Could that be somehow wrapped up with your touching "concern" for their "safety"?

Maybe I'm wide of the mark here, in which case please do forgive my speculative guesswork. But here's a general observation from my long experience as a commuter cyclist : car drivers delay my progress a whole lot more than I delay theirs.

And yes, like most other adult cyclists I'm also a car driver. But whenever I can (i.e. most of the time), I choose not to drag a 3-piece suite around the streets with me.

So here's a little experiment for all those drivers who love to whine about being held up and delayed by cyclists.

Every time that you have to drive more slowly than you'd like; every time you're stopped further back from a junction than you'd like; every time you're at a standstill when you think you should be moving ... take a look at the vehicle in front. Is it a bicycle? Maybe print out a sheet of paper with 3 columns headed "Bicycle", "Sole occupant car", "Other". Then fill in the numbers over the course of a month and report back here with your findings.

Lots of city dwellers have realised over the last few years just what a fantastic mode of transport the bicycle is and have made the switch. Hey, maybe you could even try it yourself?!

Schwiiing · 16-07-2014 02:51PM

RobFowl wrote: »

Not too sure if you are aware but every member of cycling Ireland is licensed and insured.

Is every cyclist a member of cycling Ireland?

blacklilly · 16-07-2014 02:51PM

Bio Mech wrote: »

Why don't you try to leave adequate room to pass you on the inside? If only you were aware of past instances where you failed to do so. Oh wait yes your post above.

Oh wait....you're wrong, as was pointed out to you earlier.

In the case I descrbed, I was driving correctly in the inside lane, I do not have to leave room just in case a cyclist comes up on my inside.

I would not attepmt to overtake a vehicle if I did not have adequate clearence to do so, the same logic should be applied here.

blackwhite · 16-07-2014 02:53PM

Shenshen wrote: »

And surely you've been in the overtaking lane on a motorway before when a car in front of you pulls out with minimal distance to you and without indicating?

I'm not defending stupid cyclists, I merely want to point out that from personal experience, the rules of the road get little regard from both cyclists and drivers alike in this country.

Of course it happens, and people get pissed off whether it's a bike or a car that does it.

The reason for posting was that, some posters earlier (who need to resit their driving test by the sounds of things) seem to think that being "in front" gives a road user the right to change lanes with impunity, regardless of who is aleady in the lane.

Jawgap · 16-07-2014 02:54PM

blacklilly wrote: »

Oh wait....you're wrong, as was pointed out to you earlier.

In the case I descrbed, I was driving correctly in the inside lane, I do not have to leave room just in case a cyclist comes up on my inside.

I would not attepmt to overtake a vehicle if I did not have adequate clearence to do so, the same logic should be applied here.

No, you don't 'have to' leave room......

.......but it would be nice if you could, without causing risk to anyone else or yourself.

SeanW · 16-07-2014 03:01PM

seamus wrote: »

For a number of reasons, the same argument doesn't really apply to bikes. Far easier to evade detection for a start; you can simply jump off the bike. Aside from that, enforcement issues also apply

Registration plates expose a road user to automatic road law enforcement. That makes it a bazillion times easier to detect and punish law-breaking.

the same reason why Gardai ignore cyclists breaking the lights right in front of them, they won't be arsed chasing down unregistered bikes because they regard it (arguably correctly) as a minor issue in the grand scale, like jaywalking.

I could say the same thing about certain things motorists do, like breaking 30kph speed limits on grade separated dual carriageways, esp. when its 10PM and the DC is deserted. But when I do, the cycling fraternity compares such attitudes to those of drunk drivers mowing down schoolchildren ...

As in, not at all? The more time you spend walking and cycling around city centre areas, the more you realise that 95% of all road users' primary objective is to get where they're going quickly.

Yes, but from what I see every day, as a pedestrian, it's mainly cyclists that ignore pedestrian zones and red lights. I have never, for example, had to jump out of the way of a motorist on the Sean O'Casey bridge, I have to do it routinely for cyclists.

Jawgap wrote: »

They're not! You and I could own the same car and pay the same road / motor tax........even if you drive 20,000km per year and I drive 2,000km.

But if you drive 0km, or if you only drive off the public road system, you pay 0 tax.

That's not taxation based on usage - it's a permit to own a vehicle.

False. It is perfectly legal to own a vehicle, not use it on public roads, and pay no tax.

endacl · 16-07-2014 03:03PM

Caliden wrote: »

Oh wow!

If only there was some way to identify and report him. Oh well I guess his identity will be unknown forever.

/s

02 Wicklow reg. Only got a partial number though. Black jeep. Reported

blacklilly · 16-07-2014 03:05PM

Jawgap wrote: »

No, you don't 'have to' leave room......

.......but it would be nice if you could, without causing risk to anyone else or yourself.

How about the person trying to get by me takes the responsibility for being a risk. I am not causing a risk by the way in which I drive, the cyclist who tries to get by me on the inside without adequate room to do so is the one causing the risk and therefore the onus of their safety lies on their shoulders, not mine.

There is enough to concentrate on while driving then also considering an imaginary cyclist on my inside.

BTW I must add here, before you think I'm trying to bash all cyclists, I'm not, but when someone thinks it ok to thump my roof or the side of my car becuase of their own lack of judgement, it REALLY pisses me off.

Jawgap · 16-07-2014 03:06PM

SeanW wrote: »

Registration plates expose a road user to automatic road law enforcement. That makes it a bazillion times easier to detect and punish law-breaking.

Seriously? What size do you think this plate would be? What's the minimum size for ANPR technology to work?

SeanW wrote: »

But if you drive 0km, or if you only drive off the public road system, you pay 0 tax.

False. It is perfectly legal to own a vehicle, not use it on public roads, and pay no tax.

Again......seriously? While my country estate is extensive I, and I suspect most of my fellow citizens, still need to access the public highways for work, commuting, dropping kids off, going shopping.....so not paying motor tax is not really an option for the majority of vehicle owners......

Fact is, people who minimise their road usage are subsidising the high users paying the same flat rate of tax.......

endacl · 16-07-2014 03:07PM

blacklilly wrote: »

How about the person trying to get by me takes the responsibility for being a risk. I am not causing a risk by the way in which I drive, the cyclist who tries to get by me on the inside without adequate room to do so is the one causing the risk and therefore the onus of their safety lies on their shoulders, not mine.

There is enough to concentrate on while driving then also considering an imaginary cyclist on my inside.

If you can't 'consider an imaginary cyclist', perhaps you'd be better off on the bus?

Jawgap · 16-07-2014 03:09PM

blacklilly wrote: »

How about the person trying to get by me takes the responsibility for being a risk. I am not causing a risk by the way in which I drive, the cyclist who tries to get by me on the inside without adequate room to do so is the one causing the risk and therefore the onus of their safety lies on their shoulders, not mine.

There is enough to concentrate on while driving then also considering an imaginary cyclist on my inside.

Fine.....I was just suggesting that leaving a gap, where practical, is a nice thing to do......if you feel it compromises your safety then don't do it.

......if I was on my bike and there was no gap on the inside I'd just zip around the outside.

blackwhite · 16-07-2014 03:11PM

Jawgap wrote: »

No, you don't 'have to' leave room......

.......but it would be nice if you could, without causing risk to anyone else or yourself.

And here's the problem with the entrenched view on the "sides" of the argument.

When I'm cycling on country roads, I'll move over and leave room when safe to let vehicles pass me. When driving on country roads I've encountered plenty of cyclists who do this, and a smaller number of cyclists who don't move over when there is ample safe opportunity.

If a motorist posts on here to complain about cyclists who don't do this, then they are met with a barrage of "he's entitled to be there", etc. etc.

Consideration for other road users should be shown by everyone, sadly it isn't.
There seems to be a sad attitude abounding most on this forum whereby many motorists expect cyclists to do dangerous things to facilitate the motorists, and many cyclists refuse to accept that they should show some consideration to motorists when it's safe to do so.

rubadub · 16-07-2014 03:14PM

Cyclists aren't the only degenerates paying zero tax.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel_and_recreation/motoring_1/motor_tax_and_insurance/motor_tax_rates.html

The following vehicles are exempt from the requirement to pay motor tax:

State-owned vehicles
Diplomatic vehicles
Vehicles exempted under the Disabled Drivers and Disabled Passengers (Tax Concessions) Regulations, 1994 (S.I. No. 353 of 1994)
Vehicles (including any cycle with an attachment for propelling it by mechanical power) not exceeding 400 kilograms in weight (unladen), which is adapted and used for invalids
Vehicles which are used exclusively for the transport (whether by carriage or traction) of lifeboats and their gear or any equipment for affording assistance towards the preservation of life and property in cases of ship-wreck and distress at sea
Vehicles which are used exclusively for the transport (whether by carriage or traction) of road construction machinery used for no purpose other than the construction or repair of roads
Refuse carts, sweeping machines or watering machines used exclusively for cleansing public streets and roads
Ambulances, road-rollers or fire engines
Vehicles kept by a local authority and used exclusively for the purpose of their fire brigade service.
Vehicles which are used exclusively for mountain and cave rescue purposes
Vehicles which are used exclusively for underwater search and recovery purposes.

SeanW · 16-07-2014 03:14PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Seriously? What size do you think this plate would be? What's the minimum size for ANPR technology to work?

Motorcyclists have the more square plates (double height, half width), those seem to work.

Again......seriously? While my country estate is extensive I, and I suspect most of my fellow citizens, still need to access the public highways for work, commuting, dropping kids off, going shopping.....so not paying motor tax is not really an option for the majority of vehicle owners......

True, but if you go broke, you can take your car off the road. There is also the possibility of using a car for specific purposes like racing, again you would not do this on public roads.

Fact is, people who minimise their road usage are subsidising the high users paying the same flat rate of tax.......

True. But all motorists pay for USAGE OF THE ROAD!

papu · 16-07-2014 03:17PM

SeanW wrote: »

True. But all motorists pay for USAGE OF THE ROAD!

Pretty sure these guys use the road too..

rubadub wrote: »

Cyclists aren't the only degenerates paying zero tax.

The following vehicles are exempt from the requirement to pay motor tax:

State-owned vehicles
Diplomatic vehicles
Vehicles exempted under the Disabled Drivers and Disabled Passengers (Tax Concessions) Regulations, 1994 (S.I. No. 353 of 1994)
Vehicles (including any cycle with an attachment for propelling it by mechanical power) not exceeding 400 kilograms in weight (unladen), which is adapted and used for invalids
Vehicles which are used exclusively for the transport (whether by carriage or traction) of lifeboats and their gear or any equipment for affording assistance towards the preservation of life and property in cases of ship-wreck and distress at sea
Vehicles which are used exclusively for the transport (whether by carriage or traction) of road construction machinery used for no purpose other than the construction or repair of roads
Refuse carts, sweeping machines or watering machines used exclusively for cleansing public streets and roads
Ambulances, road-rollers or fire engines
Vehicles kept by a local authority and used exclusively for the purpose of their fire brigade service.
Vehicles which are used exclusively for mountain and cave rescue purposes
Vehicles which are used exclusively for underwater search and recovery purposes.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel_and_recreation/motoring_1/motor_tax_and_insurance/motor_tax_rates.html

RobFowl · 16-07-2014 03:17PM

Schwiiing wrote: »

Is every cyclist a member of cycling Ireland?

24,000 of them (and counting).

Jawgap · 16-07-2014 03:18PM

SeanW wrote: »

Motorcyclists have the more square plates (double height, half width), those seem to work.

True, but if you go broke, you can take your car off the road. There is also the possibility of using a car for specific purposes like racing, again you would not do this on public roads.

True. But all motorists pay for USAGE OF THE ROAD!

Again.....seriously.....motorbike plates????? On pedal bikes????

I don't want to race and I want my car on the road......and usage is not linked to taxation. I could put my snow chains on tomorrow and wreck the local roads or drive thousands of kilometres......and still I pay the same as the person who drives hundreds of kilometres in the same type of car.

ThisRegard · 16-07-2014 03:19PM

SeanW wrote: »

Motorcyclists have the more square plates (double height, half width), those seem to work.

It's a laughable suggestion.

Kav0777 · 16-07-2014 03:20PM

SeanW wrote: »

Motorcyclists have the more square plates (double height, half width), those seem to work.

True, but if you go broke, you can take your car off the road. There is also the possibility of using a car for specific purposes like racing, again you would not do this on public roads.

True. But all motorists pay TO USE MOTOR VECHILES ON THE THE ROAD!

FYP

Chips Lovell · 16-07-2014 03:20PM

We should tattoo their registration numbers on their faces.

Those damn cyclists again!

Comments