Spook_ie wrote: » Would be 100% better for the economy if you did give him a crossie, you really do not understand that commuting ( unless on public transport ) isn't particularly productive.
Spook_ie wrote: » this is just so revealing of your nature that you immediately drop down to commuting by car rather than commuting by public transport
Pinch Flat wrote: » This comment is hilarious, and I can only assume it's a wind up in jest.
ThisRegard wrote: » He was banned from another forum for similar nonsense, no point in engaging him anymore.
Spook_ie wrote: » its a free country
Pinch Flat wrote: » Unless you're a cyclist apparently :pac:
CramCycle wrote: » So that theory test, IMO the idea of implementing it across the board fails on many levels, the cost of design, implementation, legal minefield of making it compulsory, negative effects to the economy, public health, traffic levels, all of which are well research din terms of comparatives to increased cycling levels and compared to accepted inhibitors to cycling levels. My opinion is that education on road use for everyone through National School and Junior Cert level education is the only reasonable response if it is deemed necessary. While a slow introduction, this mentality is carried through to adult hood and improved behaviour should spread through familial and societal pressure over time. A slow burner but the most effective I think in the long run.
Ranchu wrote: » I agree with the second part but I also think that some current cyclists could really do with some sort of basic training in how the roads work. The ones that also drive are less likely to be the three I just encountered at the bridge over the canal at Harold's cross who kept going after their light had gone red to allow a right turning filter coming in the other direction. Could have been three very sorry people.
CramCycle wrote: » So could several road users in general but the practicalities of picking out who have too or retesting everyone are not here at the minute. Maybe part of the upcoming FPNs could be a larger fine to cover a day of road safety training but this could apply to all road users. A fine is one thing, training in a mind numbing course about stuff most of them already knew, taking at least one full day out of your life and having to pay for it.
Spook_ie wrote: » When its even freer because you don't pay at all, let alone follow traffic regulations
RainyDay wrote: » I was off this thread for a day or so, and came back invigorated, ready to point out the gaping chasms in the proposals of spook and others. But really, why bother my ass. Cars are out, bikes are in.http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/radical-plan-seeks-to-take-cars-out-of-dublin-city-centre-1.2244222 Anyone who knows anything about traffic management knows it is the way to go. Spook can keep trying to stop the tide coming in, but he is failing, and will continue to fail. It's a pity that some people are so small-minded as to miss the essential point that it is in their direct interests to encourage cycling and reduce the number of cars on the road. Hopefully the penny will drop soon.
RainyDay wrote: » Cars are out, bikes are in.http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/radical-plan-seeks-to-take-cars-out-of-dublin-city-centre-1.2244222
Spook_ie wrote: » Probably won't effect me that much
ThisRegard wrote: » But of course it will, it'll give you a hernia to know that there's pedestrians and cyclists out there enjoying increased space on the city centre roads without them first bringing in foot tax or cycle tax to give them the right to that road space.
ThisRegard wrote: » Your tune has certainly changed.
Mr McGrath asked Finance Minister Michael Noonan questions in the Dail on the different taxes imposed on drivers. He then added the figures together and calculated that the total paid in various taxes last year amounted to €4.3bn. Tax on petrol alone amounted to €850m last year, with diesel generating €1.13bn for the State. Motor tax came in at €1.1bn.
awec wrote: » They already do. Anyone who earns any sort of income in Ireland pays toward them. This is what you have continually failed to grasp.
tipparetops wrote: » you are suffering a mid life crisis, deal with it. The vast majority who get dressed up are suffering a mid life crisis. You can do exercise like a normal person without pretending you are in the tour de france.
CramCycle wrote: » Please tell us how this will be achieved, remember, as with all good policy, cite examples, weigh up the potential issues caused to other areas of society and present a balanced view. At the least, you will need a quango to draw up the standards, then the test, then the implementation times, how long will people have to get this theory test, your not going to get everyone through the doors immediately. Who will implement this? Who will pay for it, the cost of licensing motorists is justified because the cost to the state if there was a surge in unfit drivers or people who simply were completely incapable of driving tried it, accidents would sky rocket. The cost to the state would be phenomenal. Whereas the number of cyclist accidents and there cost to the state, to the best of my knowledge is minimal in comparison. So far the cost of it is more than will ever be recouped, unless you counter that by increasing the cost to cover it, congratulations, you have not only immediately breached one of the fundamental tenants of Public Health, you have increased traffic, by some miracle you might get improved PT, but the money you could and should have used for that has already been thrown down the drain of a quango that serves no purpose as there are less cyclists on the road. So traffic increases, business suffers, foreign investment in branches or start ups declines due to increasingly obvious issues with infrastructure that cannot be fixed with a simple road resurfacing. Health suffers with an increase in colds and minor illnesses directly attributable to lower exercise levels and increased traffic levels, which also has been shown to increase stress levels. Hooray, the economy suffers more as sick days increase, the government suffer more as businesses suffer, unemployment starts to rise, social welfare bills increase. 13 week bike test? I passed my driving test, first time in about 45 minutes. I had two lessons before that as people warned me there are things you have to do that may not seem logical eg I move my eyes to look in the mirror with little head movement but if the examiner doesn't notice, I will fail so I have to make big sweeping gestures so no one is confused. My mother in law got handed one, my uncle has a license for every vehicle but the largest he has driven is a van. I have not caused an accident while driving yet, this in no way implies I am a good driver, at best it implies I am a statistically safe driver but that's it. The only suggestion here that has made sense, is education in schools, it is easier to implement, it covers a wide base of the population that over time will becoming an increasingly larger cross section of the population, in no way costs as much as a theory test for cyclists. It's not an immediate solution but its the most sensible one so far. It also covers everyone, pedestrians, cyclists and future motorists. Hopefully will help a few of them see that Mamai and Daddys bad habits are exactly that and not the way people should act on the roads. Socially, it will spread like a slow virus, kids will infect other kids, who will infect their parents or their friends parents, who once a critical mass is reached, start to infect other road users. Include re training, maybe have a retraining every year as part of the national school curriculum and the junior cert cycle curriculum, maybe even make it a JC subject.
Jep Gambardella wrote: » If I'm going to suffer a mid-life crisis, I might as well look fabulous while doing so.
07Lapierre wrote: » It is NEVER safer to run a red light! There may be situations where running a red light does not result in an accident, but doing so is both illegal and stupid! When cycling I hate have to stop at pedestrian lights when no pedestrians are crossing. But hey, it's an opportunity to practice a track stand!
gormdubhgorm wrote: » I hope the people on you tube (that go around with cameras on thier helmets) making videos of motorists see this
Spook_ie wrote: » Oh I don't know, the extra money taking passengers on a longer route will help salve that I'm sure
RainyDay wrote: » Strange how you don't take that approach to being held up behind a cyclist?
RainyDay wrote: » <snipped> And they don't even pay road tax, you know. Did you know that?
Pinch Flat wrote: » LOL. You should've been at the Wicklow 200 on Sunday - some very nice cars there with very expensive bikes on very expensive bike racks. You do realize that a lot of cyclists are in the ABC1 social group? As for a mid-life crisis, well I can run 10km in under 50 minutes and cycle a tough 200km course in just over 7.5 hours. I'll be 44 in 2 weeks. That to me is preferable than being told by a doctor I'm obese and knocking years of my life due to my sedentary life style.
Spook_ie wrote: » they pay nothing extra for having facilities provided for their exclusive use
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.
good that isn't it?
Spook_ie wrote: » Yes we all know that, they pay nothing extra for having facilities provided for their exclusive use, an exclusive use that they don't even have to use, good that isn't it?
