steamengine wrote: » Would you be amenable to mounting a footpath, to facilitate a bus passing ?
Unknown Soldier wrote: » I love to pay a tax to use my bike on the road, as well as my car. That way I'd be happy knowing that all the people in their cars, while I am out on my bike, would be happy and content to see me peddling along. Probably giving me thumbs up n'sh1t as they pass. Spook... can you sort that out for me? Thanks!
steamengine wrote: » 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.
A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: » A two-metre-wide car is not really comparable to a push-bike carefully mounting a pavement for a few feet. Cyclists are not only vulnerable when turning left at busy junctions, they're a distraction and often a hindrance. I'd much rather they hopped up on the pavement for a few feet, and tottered left with a headstart back onto an empty road. Or Irish cities could just give them their own lanes like most well-planned cities.
steamengine wrote: » Hypothetically then, I take it if you were a cyclist you would be prepared to pull in to let a bus pass.
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.
A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: » Under what circumstances? Obviously that would be a ridiculous and unnecessary reaction in most circumstances. Everybody has to be pragmatic on the road. If you're obstructing the flow of traffic, get out of the way when it is safe to do so: regardless of whether one is on a bicycle, or whether you are a driver blocking a cycle lane or any other traffic.
Jep Gambardella wrote: » Would a bus pull in to let a cyclist pass?
steamengine wrote: » In all practicality, I've never seen a bicycle stuck behind a bus -
Pinch Flat wrote: » Happens to me frequently on the quays at the croppy acre - buses pull in just beyond it on top of the cycle lane. It doesn't really bother me - Its a couple of minutes until it pulls off again and I can use the cycle lane to the four courts. I'll pass in the let a bus pass if it's safe to do so - as long as I'm not squeezed against the kerb I've no issues. In 99% of cases this works out without any issues.
RainyDay wrote: » Oh yes they do. I'm a cyclist, and I pay motor tax. 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/
Pinch Flat wrote: » 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.
Pinch Flat wrote: » 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
endacl wrote: » Come to think of it, maybe anybody who got their driving license pre-2001 should have to do a theory test? Would certainly clarify things for many drivers who think all cycle lanes are compulsory...
Spook_ie wrote: » I see no reason why cyclists should not be required to pay more tax by a higher VAT rate on certain types of cycle.
07Lapierre wrote: » As a cyclist I totally agree... WTF is the point of a cycle lane on a footpath geez!
lickme wrote: » A lot of cyclists have no concept of the rules of the road and are getting more and more agressive. There acting like they have the right of way the whole time, weaving in and out of traffic, breaking red lights, not adhering and not looking for possible dangers ahead. Stricter and harsher penalties are needed for them. A piece of advice playing chicken with cars will not work well in the long run for ye. Should be made do some sort of simulation test or something. They are some decent cyclists but most are idiots.
Spook_ie wrote: » And that's your personal choice, but having paid and taxed your two vehicles only provided for the use of those two vehicles, in no way , in no world would it translate to "I've paid for this vehicle on the road, so I can use my cycle because of it" which is the usual crud that cyclists argue when motor and road taxation is brought to the fore.
Spook_ie wrote: » Why would you pay VAT on them now, you've already purchased them. However, when it comes to replacing them then0% on the commuter and 50% on the weekend bike ( whatever one of those is ) seems equitable
Pinch Flat wrote: » I think it's only fair we pay it based on the weight of the bikes. Spook seems to have a particular issue with sports bikes - mine weighs a modest 8.2kg according to the manufacturer (but U.S. Sports cyclists know how they manipulate things like pedals, tubes and other items for make them look good) and some I understand are considerably lighter. That equates to about 1% the weight of my car - which costs €200 annually in motor tax. Anyone any idea where I can post my €2 cheque?
Spook_ie wrote: » Why should it be based on weight? or even size, it's something that should be based on supply, now if it costs €50,000 ( arbitrary figure ) to provide 500m of roadway that has 3 meters width designated as cycle lanes and 30 meters width as other traffic then I see no reason why 10% of the cost shouldn't be recouped by increasing taxation on cyclists to cover it, after all they are the only ones in the cycle lane, but then again seeing as the counter will be cyclists don't have to use the cycle lane then just get rid of cycle lanes altogether
Spook_ie wrote: » Pay some tax and who knows! After all I've never noticed people giving out about motorbikes unless they're riding like a cyclist
Spook_ie wrote: » Typical obfuscation, as a cyclist you need pay no further tax to use your cycle in public, as a motorist you have paid a tax to use one vehicle in public. You seem unable to comprehend that paying a tax for one vehicle does not translate to being a tax paid for another type of vehicle. I see no reason why cyclists should not be required to pay more tax by a higher VAT rate on certain types of cycle. What evasion, I'm just in favor that public transport be given priority over ALL traffic including cyclists, as cyclists are no longer required to use cycle facilities at all, then I see no reason to actually provide them.
Burning Bridges wrote: » Should we tax pedestrians? Same logic?
Pinch Flat wrote: » Again I'm afraid it does. Maybe in your head it doesn't. You buy a car and you can cycle any kind of bike including tricycle or a unicycle in a public road if you like. You don't have to pay any further tax. Other than the vat when you purchased your bike This is one of the most laughable things I've read in ages. Your ideas are so whacky it's hard to figure out when you're on the wind up.
Pinch Flat wrote: » If that model was applied to motor tax, versus the capital expenditure and subsidies to fund the road network, motor tax would be many multiples of what it is currently. I'm assuming the vast majority of motorists wouldn't mind digging deep when their next motor tax demand hits the hall mat, bearing in mind people are protesting over a few euros a week for water. Ah yeah the whole weight thing is unreasonable - the weight of a car has nothing to do with the wear and tear it exerts on the road. Ok let's be reasonable - I think it's only fair that cyclists should be taxed based on emissions as motorists currently are - again, how do you propose this is calculated? Clinics with exercise bikes that people breath into so they can collect co2 data? Another laughable suggestion.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e0a528cbc0a6c66fda22b51f3da0d9d1.svg)
