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.
Spook_ie wrote: » Why do you not think that you can have two vat rates for two different things? You can have two VAT rates for the same item in garages depending on if it's fitted or just supplied, so no problem applying 0% and 50% to two different types of bicycle
Unknown Soldier wrote: » I would but it doesn't exist. Start a petition or contact your MP. You're the one doing the "obfuscation" tbh. You don't pay motor tax to "use" your car. You don't pay tax to "use" lots of things. I'm struggling to think of one but when I do i realise it's usually called a "Licence" or "permit" It's a tax. The original meaning behind road/motor tax was for the upkeep of the road infrastructure. You don't like cyclists being on the road. They annoy you. Lets forget about the "tax" and all that. You just don't want them using the same road as you. It's really that simple. If it's not that simple, then please put up a definitive list of "pre being allowed to cycle" on the road things that you think should be mandatory to make you "OK" with cyclists being on the road. I don't think you can.
Spook_ie wrote: » Nothing says that the tax you pay on emissions has to be based on empirical data, after all the emissions based motor tax is €120 for 0g, so perhaps we should begin there as a starting rate
Spook_ie wrote: » But as anybody who knows, knows that since 2012 they're not, so remove the duplicity and remove the cycle lanes. After all you can still use bus lanes anyway
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
Pinch Flat wrote: » Oh oh straw man territory. Your assertion was that if you pay motor tax on a car that you have no entitlement to use the road as cyclist until you pay an equivalent 'cycle tax'. Your comment regarding 50% vat on cycling - higher than booze, fags or fuel - is totally laughable and doesn't even warrant a reply. Throughout this thread (which incidentally was to discuss theory tests for cyclists - how many taxi I drivers have a theory test or engage in cpd to bring them up to speed in road safety and legal developments btw?) we haven't been able to agree how you propose to tax cyclists - emissions (which apparently involves recording the co2 passing from their lungs) or asking them to stump up for the costs of roads (which the vast majority do anyway as motorists, excise /duty and tax payers). So let's say in the morning the government introduced a €200 flat fee for cyclists to use the roads (what I pay on a 1.6 diesel car annually), would your attitude towards cyclists change? I don't think so.
Spook_ie wrote: » Once again seeing as you can't seem to understand simple logic. The money you pay in motor tax on a motor is for the use of THAT vehicle on a public highway, there is no provision that allows that motor tax to be magically transferred to another vehicle! 50% is an arbitrary figure it could be 0% on clunkers ( I think thats the term some one used ) and 25% on mid range cycles and 50% on specialist cycles, the actual figures matter less than the principle of the user pays and the more the user can afford the more he should pay Why pick on taxi drivers, I think all drivers should have refresher courses but of course training should be aimed at those most likely to benefit from it, which would in general opinion seem to be cyclists If you paid €200 a year, I'd have suggested the €120 zero emission rate personally ) then at least you'd put paid to all the " I pay road tax arguments, you don't " which is true because the vehicle that you paid your tax on is by your choice sitting on the drive way costing you money to leave it standing there
Spook_ie wrote: » Why pick on taxi drivers
Spook_ie wrote: » Once again seeing as you can't seem to understand simple logic.
Spook_ie wrote: » The money you pay in motor tax on a motor is for the use of THAT vehicle on a public highway, there is no provision that allows that motor tax to be magically transferred to another vehicle!
Spook_ie wrote: » 50% is an arbitrary figure it could be 0% on clunkers ( I think thats the term some one used ) and 25% on mid range cycles and 50% on specialist cycles, the actual figures matter less than the principle of the user pays and the more the user can afford the more he should pay
Spook_ie wrote: » Why pick on taxi drivers, I think all drivers should have refresher courses but of course training should be aimed at those most likely to benefit from it, which would in general opinion seem to be cyclists
Spook_ie wrote: » If you paid €200 a year, I'd have suggested the €120 zero emission rate personally ) then at least you'd put paid to all the " I pay road tax arguments, you don't " which is true because the vehicle that you paid your tax on is by your choice sitting on the drive way costing you money to leave it standing there
Sam Kade wrote: » Which is practically every road. The social services for letting a child cycle on their own
tipparetops wrote: » very few parents let their child onto busy roads on a bicycle, if they do, they must accept blame if the child is injured or killed. Its like dog owners being liable for their dog running onto a road and causing an accident. Also all built up areas are 50kph zones.
tipparetops wrote: » very few parents let their child onto busy roads on a bicycle, if they do, they must accept blame if the child is injured or killed.
CramCycle wrote: » So if my child follows the rules, does nothing unexpected but you skim him for sh1t and giggles, this is my fault. For the sake of everyone on the roads, if this is how you act and then apportion blame, get off the roads.
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.
Grandpa Hassan wrote: » Wow....the anti cyclist brigade have actually lost the plot here!
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.
Pinch Flat wrote: » Victim blaming - all too common. I'm sure my neighbour whose 10 year old daughter was killed by a speeding motorist would disagree. The busy roads are dangerous because people insist on treating them like a race track.
tipparetops wrote: » this is the harsh truth cyclists will never admit.
RainyDay wrote: » Yes, I understand the scenario he was talking about, but why limit the principle to that scenario (unless this is a naked attack-cyclists-promote-driving policy). If the principle is that 70+ people on a bus have priority over cars with mostly 1 and up to 5 people, then the obvious result is that every time a bus appears in the rear window, the car driver will pull over and let the bus through, just like some expect cyclists will do. So is this really a principle that we want to apply to give buses priority, or is it just an attack on cyclists? It's actually quite funny, how they can see the bus supposedly held up by the cyclist, but they can't see the queue of cars. Some people must wear blinkers while driving.
Pinch Flat wrote: » I've absolutely no issue with my 8 year old cycling on paths when going from our house to the Phoenix park - there's no cycle lane and very narrow busy roads. I'll tackle them on my own when commuting, perhaps when he's a bit older I'll accompany him on the road - we use some of the less busy ones around our area.
tipparetops wrote: » I have no problem with that, I am pointing out that only a mental case would let their child cycle on the road unaccompanied. Cycling is dangerous, the reasons do not matter, it just is. Cyclists know this and take their chances, but cyclists will not let their own children take that chance.
Pinch Flat wrote: » Maybe logical in your own little world. If it's so logical, why hasn't this been rolled out in other countries? Again wrong. If I have a car and choose to cycle instead of using the car, it attracts no further tax liability. I realise you champion this idea time and time and get frustrated when people dont agree, but that is the current case. Have you thought about lobbying your local politician to have it reviewed, because that's all the chance you have. Point 1 Fair play to you for sticking to your guns on that one - and I see we now have an intermediate tax band. This gets more insane the more I read it. Point 2 At the moment there's no requirement for a taxi driver to pass any specific test or improve their road knowledge ( or even know where they are going). The vast majority of cyclists are drivers as well, so they already possess a driving licence and in some cases a theory test. From what I've seen of taxi drivers both as a passenger and road user their interpretation of road law and the rules of the road leave a lot to be desired. Point 3 We'd be the only country in the world to do so, with cycling infrastructure that lacks behind other EU countries, but hey I'll go along with it. becuae it's a complete circular argument - you feel cyclists should be taxed to use the roads, I disagree so let's move on. It would cost me more to drive my car the 30km to and from work and park it for the day - a round trip in bumper to bumper traffic that takes multiples of what I can cycle currently, wear and tear on my car, no certainty of when I can get there or back, hours of delay if I come upon an accident , the stress of traffic jams, potential obesity due to lack of exercise (cycling keeps me extremely fit) and poor diet that would result from 'dash board dining' - been there, done that. For me the advantages of cycling to work far outweighs the advantage of using a tonne of metal that's 20% full to haul my ass in and out to work Point 4.
Spook_ie wrote: » I don't need to because I don't actually want to get rid of cyclists, but I do get fed up with the same old tripe trotted out by cyclists on boards that they have a car and therefore they pay motor tax which somehow magically equates providing cycle lanes for nothing
Pinch Flat wrote: » Cycling is not dangerous. Drivers kill cyclists. Have you paused to think why it is perceived that cycling is dangerous?
awec wrote: » Where on earth have you got this notion that motor tax pays for roads? Your entire argument is based on nonsense. By your logic people who pay higher bands of motor tax have more right to use the road than those on the lower bands. Rubbish.
tipparetops wrote: » the harsh reality is cyclists will not let their kids cycle on the roads alone, they cycle on footpaths. this is the harsh truth cyclists will never admit.
tipparetops wrote: » Cyclists know this and take their chances, but cyclists will not let their own children take that chance.
Spook_ie wrote: » the tax I pay to use a motor on the road are direct taxes for the use of the road for that vehicle, not some away with the fairies theory like yours that " I pay motor tax on a car so I can use a cycle under the same basis" the tax you've paid is for the car NOT your cycle
Unknown Soldier wrote: » I knew you couldn't. More "obfuscation" on your part You had a simple question and you couldn't answer it. Or maybe you can and just need more time? Does this annoy you? get your blood up so to speak? It's just a simple list? What would make you happy sharing the road with cyclists? No more "obfuscation" please.Shame on me doing this on AH after all these years....
Spook_ie wrote: » Motortax, until recently, went into central funds and was paid out to local authorities for ( among other things ) the provision of local roads, the repair of local roads, the improvement of local roads,
steamengine wrote: » Most reasonable road users of whatever mode, while not falling over their perceived adversaries, do not see any advantage in obstructing their progress either. It is unlike the maritime or aviation environments which have mode priority rules where steam gives way to sail, or powered aircraft give way to gliders. [...] Cars don't come into it, they're already held up - maybe cyclists should realise just how lucky they are, but rule the roost seems to be the end game with some.
