Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Cyclists should do a theory test!

1…910121415…47

Comments

  • #332
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,833 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    No you don't the "roadtax" relates to the vehicle it is on,, it's not a transferable item to be used on another vehicle otherwise we'd only need to tax one vehicle as you can only drive one vehicle at a time

    We have two cars in the house, I pay the motor tax on both. There's my tax for the road I use when on the bike. But you know yourself that there's no such thing as paying tax to use the roads when on a bike don't you.

    I know you're good for an oul chuckle with your opinions on this at times Spook, but even you're reaching.


  • #333
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    Matt_Trakker wrote: »
    <snipped>

    Just doing a test once always seemed a bit pointless to me, like do any of you remember your algebra theories from your Leaving Cert? Or the definition of The Law of Diminishing Returns?

    Continuous assessment is the way to go.
    Plus it'll be a handy way to legally get all those old people off the roads....unless they pass of course....it's mad, like, people who passed their exams in the 40s/50s can still drive based on an exam they did 60 or 70 odd years ago. That's just wrong.


    There's already a pseudo continuous assessment for licensed drivers, if you do something wrong and are caught you face penalty points and the ultimate sanctions of being disqualified from driving


  • #334
    steamengine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,372 ✭✭✭steamengine


    Captain Chaos wrote: »
    Cyclists are causing jams on roads that are not built with enough space for them and traffic to pass each other. I used to get the 15B bus and every morning we were stuck behind a bike while a mile of road ahead was empty because the bus cannot overtake as the traffic is too heavy coming the other way.

    When the bus got a chance it would overtake and then at a bus stop the bike would catch the bus and we'd end up stuck behind it again. It was madness. 3 mornings of that and I decided to get back in the car. It was the same guy on the bike every morning too.

    There is absolutely nothing stopping such cyclists pulling in to the left and letting the bus pass. If I see one in my mirror :p, that's what I do, pull in and wave him on. But such procedures should be written into the ROR, buses carrying 70+ pax, should have priority over individual cycles.


  • #335
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    mikemac1 wrote: »
    Motor tax doesn't pay for roads. It comes from central funds. The kid paying vat on a can on coke pays for roads same as you.

    And if you believe you pay more because you have a tax disc on your windscreen well that money is paying for Irish Water these days ;)

    How much does the exchequer get from fuel duties, VRT etc. You know the associated costs for using a vehicle on the road, so that the kid can have his can of coke?


  • #336
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    Pinch Flat wrote: »
    Hah yeah I can see how this is going to work "excuse me sir can you just Pop up on that exercise bike, exhale into this tube and see what co2 you're emitting for tax purposes".

    Not so hard to figure, if you're a sport or long distance cyclist you'd emit more CO2, therefore for anything other than basic commuter bikes increase the VAT rate to 50%, problem solved


  • Advertisement
  • #337
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    Zillah wrote: »
    Hahahahahaha you are detached from reality. Yes, tiny bikes with tiny narrow lanes on 30% of the roads are what cause thousands upon thousands of cars to clog each other into traffic jams. Delusional.

    Sorry did I miss something in these proposals?
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057399529


  • #338
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    ThisRegard wrote: »
    We have two cars in the house, I pay the motor tax on both. There's my tax for the road I use when on the bike. But you know yourself that there's no such thing as paying tax to use the roads when on a bike don't you.

    I know you're good for an oul chuckle with your opinions on this at times Spook, but even you're reaching.

    No it's not it's the tax for using either of the two vehicles in question, otherwise what's stopping you getting a 3rd vehicle and say " I've paid tax on two of them and they're not being used"


  • #339
    Pinch Flat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,780 ✭✭✭Pinch Flat


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Not so hard to figure, if you're a sport or long distance cyclist you'd emit more CO2, therefore for anything other than basic commuter bikes increase the VAT rate to 50%, problem solved

    Genius idea. So we'll have a range of co2 emissons. So little ole lady popping to the shops one rate, post man another, commuter something else and then a nice hefty surcharge for the weekend cyclist who likes getting the miles in.

    So double the Vat rate for cyclists? I love it. Your posts always give me a good laugh :).


  • #340
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    ThisRegard wrote: »
    We have two cars in the house, I pay the motor tax on both. There's my tax for the road I use when on the bike. But you know yourself that there's no such thing as paying tax to use the roads when on a bike don't you.

    I know you're good for an oul chuckle with your opinions on this at times Spook, but even you're reaching.

    BTW the bolded bit is what a lot of people say, cyclists should be paying something extra for having whole sections of public roadways turned over to their exclusivity


  • #341
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭RainyDay


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Official figures would seem to have the potential for disagreement
    http://www.dttas.ie/press-releases/2012/bulletin-vehicle-and-driver-statistics-2011

    http://www.cso.ie/multiquicktables/quickTables.aspx?id=cna15
    According to CSO there are about 3.6 million adults (over 15 is the breakpoint so there is a margin of error ) in Ireland, so that is approx 27% of potential adult cyclists without a license, 942000 or so, hardly trivial

    That's some highly entertaining misuse of statistics there. That's a huge assumption - that every non-licensed adult is likely to be a cyclist. Sorry to burst your bubble, but the reasons for such adults not having a driving license are very likely to be the same reasons that they don't cycle - such as age, disability etc.
    The Dark Side wrote: »
    Luckily I deemed it to be reasonably necessary.

    I deemed it NOT to be reasonably necessary, given that you were speeding at the time. Slow down, and you won't need to bully other road users into submission.
    The Dark Side wrote: »
    You seem to have formed a certain view based on very little evidence.
    It's entirely appropriate to beep your horn at an errant cyclist when I deem it reasonably necessary. It's for his own good as well - he seemed oblivious to his own shortcomings but I imagine that I awoke him from his semi-stupor.

    As others have pointed out, that's a huge heap of conclusions that you've leaped to, while speeding up behind another road user. Just for your future reference, there are a whole pile of reasons while a cyclist might change position, including a gust of wind, a pothole, debris on the road etc.

    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Does it though? Consider, the amount of CO2 produced when idling in traffic going nowhere because large sections of roadway are turned over to cyclists, would there not actually be a reduction in emissions if the traffic were more free flowing? One for you mathematicians out there.

    'large sections of roadway turned over to cyclists' - that's really quite funny. Where exactly are these 'large sections of roadway? Addressing our traffic jams by widening roads is like fixing obesity by buying bigger trousers.
    Zillah wrote: »
    Delusional.
    Indeed.
    Captain Chaos wrote: »
    Cyclists are causing jams on roads that are not built with enough space for them and traffic to pass each other. I used to get the 15B bus and every morning we were stuck behind a bike while a mile of road ahead was empty because the bus cannot overtake as the traffic is too heavy coming the other way.

    When the bus got a chance it would overtake and then at a bus stop the bike would catch the bus and we'd end up stuck behind it again. It was madness. 3 mornings of that and I decided to get back in the car. It was the same guy on the bike every morning too.
    Did you manage to work out how much time the bus spent behind other cars on your journey? Any chance it was more than the time spent behind the cyclist?

    I'd love to know where is this mile on the 15B route that has no chance for the driver to overtake. Where did this happen?
    Spook_ie wrote: »
    There's already a pseudo continuous assessment for licensed drivers, if you do something wrong and are caught you face penalty points and the ultimate sanctions of being disqualified from driving
    Pseudo is right. Look around you on the road. Look at the number of drivers speeding, phoning, texting, eating breakfast, doing make-up - where's your CPD?
    steamengine wrote: »
    There is absolutely nothing stopping such cyclists pulling in to the left and letting the bus pass. If I see one in my mirror :p, that's what I do, pull in and wave him on. But such procedures should be written into the ROR, buses carrying 70+ pax, should have priority over individual cycles.
    Just curious - should buses also have priority over 1 pax cars? Should every car pull over every time a bus appears in the mirror?


  • Advertisement
  • #342
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    Pinch Flat wrote: »
    Genius idea. So we'll have a range of co2 emissons. So little ole lady popping to the shops one rate, post man another, commuter something else and then a nice hefty surcharge for the weekend cyclist who likes getting the miles in.

    So double the Vat rate for cyclists? I love it. Your posts always give me a good laugh :).


    No only two rates, one for the generic Dublin Bikes, Halfords commuter bike type of thing at 0%, and one for those of you who buy light framed bikes purely for sporting reasons, at 50% don't see any disparity there


  • #343
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,833 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    BTW the bolded bit is what a lot of people say, cyclists should be paying something extra for having whole sections of public roadways turned over to their exclusivity

    Public is the keyword there, or is your interpretation of Public different than everyone else ? Can I take it that in your eyes roadways should be exclusive to people driving vehicles with engines ?

    And I know you know this because you've been told over and over, motor tax does not go to fund road building exclusively.
    Spook_ie wrote: »
    No it's not it's the tax for using either of the two vehicles in question, otherwise what's stopping you getting a 3rd vehicle and say " I've paid tax on two of them and they're not being used"

    Not comparable at all, it's simply a counter to the logic that cyclists don't pay motor/road tax.


  • #344
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    RainyDay wrote: »
    <snipped>
    Just curious - should buses also have priority over 1 pax cars? Should every car pull over every time a bus appears in the mirror?

    They already do, they're called bus lanes, perhaps we should build more bus lanes and remove all cycle lanes


  • #345
    Clearlier
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,454 ✭✭✭Clearlier


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Official figures would seem to have the potential for disagreement
    http://www.dttas.ie/press-releases/2012/bulletin-vehicle-and-driver-statistics-2011

    http://www.cso.ie/multiquicktables/quickTables.aspx?id=cna15
    According to CSO there are about 3.6 million adults (over 15 is the breakpoint so there is a margin of error ) in Ireland, so that is approx 27% of potential adult cyclists without a license, 942000 or so, hardly trivial

    From the numbers you provided:
    2.66 (full) + 0.27 (learner) = 2.93
    Assuming that 1/4 of the 15 - 24 are ineligible you get a population of 3.46.

    So, more like 533,000 or 15% of the population. I'll agree that I could have chosen better language than trivial but my point still stands that a large majority of adult cyclists also have drivers licences. It's not a questions of not knowing the rules of the road or not paying motor tax.


  • #346
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭RainyDay


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    They already do, they're called bus lanes, perhaps we should build more bus lanes and remove all cycle lanes

    And on non-bus lanes? Will you be pulling over every time a bus appears in your rear view mirror?


  • #347
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    ThisRegard wrote: »
    Public is the keyword there, or is your interpretation of Public different than everyone else ? Can I take it that in your eyes roadways should be exclusive to people driving vehicles with engines ?

    And I know you know this because you've been told over and over, motor tax does not go to fund road building exclusively.



    Not comparable at all, it's simply a counter to the logic that cyclists don't pay motor/road tax.

    But cyclists DON'T pay motor/road tax, vehicle owners pay motor/Road tax, being a vehicle owner paying motor/road tax doesn't equate to " well I can be a cyclist as well now because I've paid my road/motor tax "


  • #348
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    RainyDay wrote: »
    And on non-bus lanes? Will you be pulling over every time a bus appears in your rear view mirror?

    as I said perhaps we should dispense with cycle lanes and build more bus lanes


  • #349
    Pinch Flat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,780 ✭✭✭Pinch Flat


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    No only two rates, one for the generic Dublin Bikes, Halfords commuter bike type of thing at 0%, and one for those of you who buy light framed bikes purely for sporting reasons, at 50% don't see any disparity there

    Oh I see. so a sporting bike gets hit with 50% vat. So why are they singled out?


  • #350
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭RainyDay


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    But cyclists DON'T pay motor/road tax,
    Oh yes they do. I'm a cyclist, and I pay motor tax.
    Spook_ie wrote: »
    as I said perhaps we should dispense with cycle lanes and build more bus lanes
    Nice evasion. I guess you're not going to answer the question.

    As the reporter said to Homer "Your silence will only incriminate you further"

    http://exploregram.com/mr-simpson-your-silence-will-only-incriminate-you-further-from-homer-badman/


  • #351
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,833 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    But cyclists DON'T pay motor/road tax, vehicle owners pay motor/Road tax, being a vehicle owner paying motor/road tax doesn't equate to " well I can be a cyclist as well now because I've paid my road/motor tax "

    And right back to the mutual exclusive argument. Can a person who owns a vehicle not also be a cyclist ?

    And WTF, being a vehicle owner paying motor/road tax doesn't equate to "well I can be a cyclist as well now because I've paid my road/motor tax ". You spout a lot of nonsense on this subject, but seriously.

    Of course it doesn't, because there's no requirement to pay any kind of additional taxes to cycle a bike.


  • Advertisement
  • #352
    Paz-CCFC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,529 ✭✭✭Paz-CCFC


    You know it's time to stop following this thread when someone is suggesting that people who exercise more should pay tax for breathing.


  • #353
    Pinch Flat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,780 ✭✭✭Pinch Flat


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    But cyclists DON'T pay motor/road tax, vehicle owners pay motor/Road tax, being a vehicle owner paying motor/road tax doesn't equate to " well I can be a cyclist as well now because I've paid my road/motor tax "

    I'm afraid it does. There's nothing your pathological dislike of cyclists is going to change this. I'm a commuter who (up to recently) taxed and insured 2 pre-2008 cars that were uneconomical to run and cost a fortune in motor tax. I made a choice to sell one car and trade in the other for a lower emission car that's cheaper to tax. I now cycle to and from work. My wife travels over and back by train.

    It saves us thousands annually and greatly adds to quality of life - journey times that are the same and divorced from traffic. Health benefits and not adding to dublins daily chaos. In no point in my 14km journey do I hold up any traffic and, if I do perceive this, I will pull in if safe to do so.

    I fail to see the reason I should be punished for this choice financially.


  • #354
    steamengine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,372 ✭✭✭steamengine


    RainyDay wrote: »

    Just curious - should buses also have priority over 1 pax cars? Should every car pull over every time a bus appears in the mirror?

    Captain Chaos was referring to the situation where:-

    1 The bus has it's own lane
    2 There is no cycle lane
    3 Your 1 pax cars are bumper to bumper in the outside lane.

    So the cars are out of the way, ergo - no need for them to pull over.

    Some time back, I was on the 15 heading into Dublin city centre and approaching Newcomen Bridge, the bus was stuck behind a cycling snail on the bridge incline. The cyclist was clearly oblivious to the fact that a cycle lane existed on the footpath to the left, and this is the sort of stupidity that needs to be sorted out.


  • #355
    Jimoslimos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,930 ✭✭✭Jimoslimos


    Pinch Flat wrote: »
    Oh I see. so a sporting bike gets hit with 50% vat. So why are they singled out?
    Stupid sexy bikes :pac:


  • #356
    Grandpa Hassan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,945 ✭✭✭Grandpa Hassan


    Wow....the anti cyclist brigade have actually lost the plot here!


  • #357
    Pinch Flat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,780 ✭✭✭Pinch Flat


    Jimoslimos wrote: »
    Stupid sexy bikes :pac:

    yeah but the thing is I have a junker for commuting and a sexy bike for the weekends. I better check with spook 0% for the commuter and 50% for the weekend bike. Or maybe I'll pay 50% vat on both to be on the safe side


  • #358
    Pinch Flat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,780 ✭✭✭Pinch Flat


    Grandpa Hassan wrote: »
    Wow....the anti cyclist brigade have actually lost the plot here!

    Usually a good reason

    http://www.buzzle.com/articles/effects-of-traffic-jam-on-human-brain.html :)


  • #359
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Sometimes it's just stupid for a cyclist to obey a red light.

    Most obviously at a pedestrian crossing. Like, you'll just be standing here with two feet on the road, and absolutely nobody is crossing the empty road. If there is no cycle lane, he's going to accelerate so slowly that he's going to impede the flow of traffic behind.

    Similarly, I have no problem with cyclists carefully mounting empty pavements and whizzing back onto the road as a means of avoiding traffic lights altogether.

    Everybody hates the legalistic cyclist who demands he has a right to cycle in the centre of the road and angrily screams his rights in your direction. Lets not be that guy either. There are times when bending the rules is entirely appropriate.

    Rules are for the obedience of fools, and the guidance of wise men.


  • #360
    steamengine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,372 ✭✭✭steamengine


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    Sometimes it's just stupid for a cyclist to obey a red light.

    Most obviously at a pedestrian crossing. Like, you'll just be standing here with two feet on the road, and absolutely nobody is crossing the empty road. If there is no cycle lane, he's going to accelerate so slowly that he's going to impede the flow of traffic behind.

    Similarly, I have no problem with cyclists carefully mounting empty pavements and whizzing back onto the road as a means of avoiding traffic lights altogether.

    Everybody hates the legalistic cyclist who demands he has a right to cycle in the centre of the road and angrily screams his rights in your direction. Lets not be that guy either. There are times when bending the rules is entirely appropriate.

    Rules are for the obedience of fools, and the guidance of wise men.

    Would you be amenable to mounting a footpath, to facilitate a bus passing ?


  • Advertisement
  • #361
    mikemac1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,395 ✭✭✭✭mikemac1


    Paz-CCFC wrote: »
    You know it's time to stop following this thread when someone is suggesting that people who exercise more should pay tax for breathing.

    Tax for breathing?

    Don't give Michael Noonan ideas!


Advertisement