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
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.
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.
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
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".
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.
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.
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
Spook_ie wrote: » Official figures would seem to have the potential for disagreementhttp://www.dttas.ie/press-releases/2012/bulletin-vehicle-and-driver-statistics-2011http://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
The Dark Side wrote: » Luckily I deemed it to be reasonably necessary.
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.
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.
Zillah wrote: » Delusional.
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
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 , 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.
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 .
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
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"
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?
Spook_ie wrote: » They already do, they're called bus lanes, perhaps we should build more bus lanes and remove all cycle lanes
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.
RainyDay wrote: » And on non-bus lanes? Will you be pulling over every time a bus appears in your rear view mirror?
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
Spook_ie wrote: » But cyclists DON'T pay motor/road tax,
Spook_ie wrote: » as I said perhaps we should dispense with cycle lanes and build more bus lanes
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 "
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?
Pinch Flat wrote: » Oh I see. so a sporting bike gets hit with 50% vat. So why are they singled out?
Jimoslimos wrote: » Stupid sexy bikes :pac:
Grandpa Hassan wrote: » Wow....the anti cyclist brigade have actually lost the plot here!
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.
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.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e0a528cbc0a6c66fda22b51f3da0d9d1.svg)
