nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Cyclists should do a theory test!

lickme

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Knasher

smash wrote: »

But even to use your logic, then cyclists should pay a tax in order to use them too.

Which they do though contributions to the LGF, which pays for the maintenance of non-national roads.

smash wrote: »

Especially since they cause exponentially greater damage to cycle lanes than any other road user. No?

Most of the maintenance on cycle lanes is clearing the debris pushed into them from the road.

check_six

Spook_ie wrote: »

Why would you need them every 200 meters, you put a radar activated sign at the start with a warning that you are cycling too fast for the following area, and a random cycle warden with a hand held pulling in cyclists that are ( arbitrary figure inserted ) 10% above the advised limit

You need to know how fast you are going to be able to comply with a speed limit sign. One static doppler sign that could be triggered by any other moving object is not really going to let you know how fast you are going at any other point in your journey. A functioning calibrated speedometer is a requirement in a motor vehicle, but not on a bicycle.

Also, why would the actual limit be 10% over the advised (posted?) limit? (Maybe I'm reading more into your use of language here than necessary.)

[Deleted User]

smash wrote: »

But even to use your logic, then cyclists should pay a tax in order to use them too. Especially since they cause exponentially greater damage to cycle lanes than any other road user. No?

But even after the fact that motor vehicles cause more damage to the road network than anyone else, motor tax for the most part does not cover road maintenance. In fact, a good chunk of it went in to Irish water last year.

The greatest danger to cycle lanes is surely fat joggers(walkers).

Effects

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

The greatest danger to cycle lanes is surely fat joggers(walkers).

Parents with buggies. Mainly dads with buggies tbh.

mathie

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

The greatest danger to cycle lanes is surely fat joggers(walkers).

Not to mention taxi drivers.

Pinch Flat

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

The greatest danger to cycle lanes is surely fat joggers(walkers).

I find it odd that people slag off cyclists for wearing Lycra - clothing that's specifically designed for the activity they're undertaking.

Yet I find it equally strange compared to the amount of obviously unfit and obese people who prance around in track suits and football jerseys

PeadarCo

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Stop trying to make sense with mature reasoned logical and practical points!

It has no point in forum threads/posts like this!

I know the whole idea that a person can be a cyclist and motorist seems to unfathomable to some people. The same with the health benefits and money saved by cyclists for the government particularly when with have an issue with obesity in society.

Motor tax doesn't pay for all road costs and to be honest in why opinion should never do. Even if you never drive/own a car you still benefit from a high quality road network. You might never cycle a bike but you will benefit from lower computing times(compared to the same cyclists in cars), you'll benefit from the economic effects(linked to by Cram Cycle).

What people like Spook miss is the big picture. This is thing that thankfully governs Irish road policy. The reason we built motorways, improved roads, public transport etc.

Effects

Pinch Flat wrote: »

I find it odd that people slag off cyclists for wearing Lycra - clothing that's specifically designed for the activity they're undertaking.

I don't wear lycra when I cycle.

Yet I find it equally strange compared to the amount of obviously unfit and obese people who prance around in track suits and football jerseys.

It's termed leisure wear.

What about the amount of cyclists who shave their legs to "reduce chances of infections from dirt that gets in the wound if I crash"?
Surely they don't crash often enough to warrant having to shave their legs all the time.

diomed

Car drivers beep horns. Who gave them the right to have a horn? As a cyclist I think horns should be removed from cars.

Pinch Flat

Effects wrote: »

I don't wear lycra when I cycle.

Yeah but the common perception out there is that we do. I use it for specific purposes. So for long cycles, yes - it's padded, wicks perspiration and dries quickly. Fir commuting not so.

Effects wrote: »

It's termed leisure wear.

ah ok. I just find it funny that some of the posters taking the micky out of cyclists might have the name of their favourite premiership footballer emblazoned across their backs

Effects wrote: »

What about the amount of cyclists who shave their legs to "reduce chances of infections from dirt that gets in the wound if I crash"?
Surely they don't crash often enough to warrant having to shave their legs all the time.

No it's just to look sexy and impress the laydeez

CramCycle

Spook_ie wrote: »

Let me CLARIFY it for you again.

When you are using your cycle on a cycle lane you are NOT contributing to it, unlike when a motorist is using the road they ARE contributing to it

mathie wrote: »

... because you're paying for petrol?

I presume that's what he means, forget the net improvement me cycling to work brings to the exchequer, forget the studies that have already been linked studying this.

No matter how he phrases it, the average cyclist contributes to the economy, the average cyclists also costs the exchequer less than the average non cyclist over time.

But don't let such things take away from Spooks I paid for petrol, what have you done today rant.

Pinch Flat

CramCycle wrote: »

I presume that's what he means, forget the net improvement me cycling to work brings to the exchequer, forget the studies that have already been linked studying this.

No matter how he phrases it, the average cyclist contributes to the economy, the average cyclists also costs the exchequer less than the average non cyclist over time.

But don't let such things take away from Spooks I paid for petrol, what have you done today rant.

I eat a banana and some nuts when I cycle into work. The odd time I'll make up a bit of an oul energy drink to give me a boost. And I pay vat them. These should be factored into spooks figures as well.

cajonlardo

I would love to know where these people drive (or how they drive) that they experience such absolute DRAMA!
I've driven on the Fire Service,Army, Close Protection and been a Chauffeur. Long, pressurised hours on the roads. Yet these guys encounter more grief on the way to the shops than I have encountered in 35 years driving.

BTW, not once, ever did a cyclist impede me when I was driving under blue lights. Could not even guess the amount of muppets driving that did.

But you know what? Give me the tests, the taxes, the high viz, the reg plates ANYTHING to get these whining self opinionated self important whiners to shut up. If even one tenth of the incidents they claim were to occur then the hospital wards and graveyards would be stuffed with cyclists. They are not. They are actually stuffed with people who couldn't relax, get a bit of exercise and live and let live.

ollaetta

Effects wrote: »

It's termed leisure wear.

Off topic but Lard arse wear would be more accurate in many cases.

Effects

Pinch Flat wrote: »

No it's just to look sexy and impress the laydeez

I've never met a lady who didn't find it weird and a turn off.

CramCycle

Effects wrote: »

I've never met a lady who didn't find it weird and a turn off.

There is a bit of dependence on who is in it, I get wolf whistles and quite acknowledging glances from both sexes. The odd swoon. I appreciate it, and so do they from what I can tell :cool:

RainyDay

Spook_ie wrote: »

Why would they need a speedometer, calibrated or otherwise, a doppler radar with a sign saying slow down, with a second dopple up the street with a cycle warden should do the job neatly enough

Sheer genius! Is there anything less important that you can come up with to focus garda/legal/policy resources on, while motorists continue to kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others? How about people who have their hair parted on the left, or people with dirty fingernails perhaps?

jmayo wrote: »

Ah yes the old "I pay tax gives me the right to ..."

Would you also be arguing that paying income tax gives you a right to ... let's see... maybe free water, free tv, free refuse collection ?

I'd have thought that the difference was fairly obvious, but let me spell it out for you if you're having difficulty grasping it. There is legislation in place to require people to pay for water, tv and refuse collection. There is no legislation in place to require people to pay for cycling.

jmayo wrote: »

BTW I don't think cyclists shoudl be raod tax or bike tax.
Just obey some rules and don't think you can act the prat.

Have you seen me cycling, or why would think that I don't obey some rules? And I presume you obey ALL the rules when driving ALL the time - right? You've never broken a speed limit - right?

jmayo wrote: »

Trust me it is not what I want to be doing, but something I have often found myself forced to endure for far too long.
BTW some of those ar**es are not hard to miss.
And I may not be just talking about the part in the saddle.

Methinks he doth protest too much. I drive a bit too, and I've never found myself 'forced to endure' cyclist clothing. I wonder why that is....

Spook_ie wrote: »

So do you not think that if it's so beneficial that cyclists should contribute towards that €1 spend rather than relying on the rest of society, in particular the 10% tax take that the motorists of Ireland are paying

Again, it's fairly obvious to all except yourself that the 10% of tax take is paid by motorists (including many cyclists) of Ireland.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Let me CLARIFY it for you again.

When you are using your cycle on a cycle lane you are NOT contributing to it, unlike when a motorist is using the road they ARE contributing to it

And again, it's fairly obvious to all except yourself that I pay motor tax once a year - I don't pay it by the meter. So I don't 'contribute' to motor tax when I use it, I just contribute to motor tax once - as a cyclist, motorist, Cadbury fan and boards.ie member. There are lots of aspects of my personality, and I don't pay different bits of taxes each time one of them uses something.

smash wrote: »

It does not. You're 100% wrong here. Just because you pay income tax it does not in any way mean that you pay to use a road for cycling. Or just because you have paid motor tax on your car it does not in any way mean that you pay to use a road for cycling. By your logic we shouldn't pay motor tax because we pay tax on everything else. Or that if we pay motor tax one 1 vehicle then it should cover all vehicles that you own.

Unfortunately for you, the legal position does not support you. And sorry if this comes as a surprise, but most cyclists are motorists too, and have paid their motor tax regardless.

smash wrote: »

It's very easy to sit at lights and watch cyclists fly through them, or to watch and avoid them weave out on a road without indicating.

Yes, that’s definitely true. And unless you wear blinkers, while sitting at those lights, you’ll also see motorists breaking the red lights, breaking the speed limit as they cross the junction, using their phones etc. Or do you have some form of very selective vision?

smash wrote: »

If you want to go down the low hanging fruit route then go to the quays in Dublin where there's a 30kmph speed limit and you'll clock a lot of cyclists breaking it.

As others have pointed out, there is actually no speed limits for cyclists. But what you will see on the quays is that most cars are faster than most cyclists, so you’ve confirmed nicely that most cars (the user group that kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others) break the law frequently.

smash wrote: »

Paying for the provision of roads is not the same as paying to use the roads. Motorists pay for that privilege, cyclists don't.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Again NO, you've contributed towards roads as a road user and paying motortax etc., you've not contributed to cycle lanes as a cyclist

The problem is that I only have one wallet, and one bank account. It all comes out of the same account and goes into the same account. So I don’t contribute ‘as a motorist’ or ‘as a cyclist’. I just contribute as me.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

I eat a banana and some nuts when I cycle into work. The odd time I'll make up a bit of an oul energy drink to give me a boost. And I pay vat them. These should be factored into spooks figures as well.

And don’t forget the VAT on all the figure-hugging lycra that Smash is so obsessed with.

diomed wrote: »

Car drivers beep horns. Who gave them the right to have a horn? As a cyclist I think horns should be removed from cars.

Do they pay horn tax?

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

The greatest danger to cycle lanes is surely fat joggers(walkers).

Nah, the dog walkers with the extendible lead stretched across the lane are my own particular nemesis.

Qualitymark

This business of "I pay road tax so it's my road" - is there a limit to how far it should extend? I used to pay around €500 a year VRT, a bit less than a tenner a week, until I got rid of my car last year. Is this typical, and how much road should it entitle someone to?

Pinch Flat

http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/jun/09/cities-physically-active-residents-more-productive-healthier-walking-cycling-economic-benefits?utm_content=buffer7782b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

beauf

Qualitymark wrote: »

This business of "I pay road tax so it's my road" - is there a limit to how far it should extend? I used to pay around €500 a year VRT, a bit less than a tenner a week, until I got rid of my car last year. Is this typical, and how much road should it entitle someone to?

Maybe efficiency.

http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/trying-travel-city-bikes-are-most-efficient-way-move.html

smash

RainyDay wrote: »

Unfortunately for you, the legal position does not support you. And sorry if this comes as a surprise, but most cyclists are motorists too, and have paid their motor tax regardless.

Cyclists who are also motorists makes absolutely no difference to the fact that as a motorist, you pay through taxation for your usage rights. Cyclists can use a road without paying to use it. Your opinion is that you pay motor tax to use a road in your car so this means you've paid to use your bike on the road. You haven't, you've only paid to use your car on the road. As a cyclist you don't have to pay to use your bike on a road.

So to sum it up

Motorists pay usage rights for their cars.
Cyclists don't pay usage rights. Because they don't have to.
If you're a motorist and a cyclist, your motor tax only covers your car usage. It doesn't mean you've paid for bike usage.

rubadub

smash wrote: »

So to sum it up
Motorists pay usage rights for their cars.

Cyclists don't pay usage rights. Because they don't have to.

If you're a motorist and a cyclist, your motor tax only covers your car usage. It doesn't mean you've paid for bike usage.

I don't get why posters keep saying stuff like this? what is the goal? to make fellow "motorist only" people think "see, cyclists who pay motortax are still scum", or make the cyclists who do pay feel bad/guilty or something? Because I really don't think its achieving anything other than wasting your own time.

A similar situation is the fact that people watching RTE TV on internet do not have to have a TV licence, if all they have is a laptop. Some people, especially those paying a tv licence fee, feel this is unfair and that they should contribute.

Now I wonder if a thread came up about this would people who say they do pay a tv licence AND also happen to watch RTE online the odd time -would these people still be berated and/or "corrected" and made out like they contribute nothing.

You pay motortax yearly, ideally a person could pay by the minute or by the mile it if was feasible. And paying in accordance to the vehicle they are using at that time. In which case the cyclist who also drives would be paying less motor tax per year.

I know people who have bikes who drive their car so that it will not "go to waste", as they pay insurance and tax yearly so if they were not using it they feel its going to waste. These are unnecessarily clogging up the roads, and are probably further put off cycling if they read any of the mental shit you see in these threads. With "teach you a lesson" type sociopaths out there.

CramCycle

smash wrote: »

Cyclists who are also motorists makes absolutely no difference to the fact that as a motorist, you pay through taxation for your usage rights. Cyclists can use a road without paying to use it. Your opinion is that you pay motor tax to use a road in your car so this means you've paid to use your bike on the road. You haven't, you've only paid to use your car on the road. As a cyclist you don't have to pay to use your bike on a road.

So to sum it up
Motorists pay usage rights for their cars.

Cyclists don't pay usage rights. Because they don't have to.

If you're a motorist and a cyclist, your motor tax only covers your car usage. It doesn't mean you've paid for bike usage.

To sum it up, there is no road or motor tax for cyclists. This is not the fault of cyclists, so probably no point being angry at them. It is the fault of tyrannical regimes of governments who one after the other, for some silly reason have thought, let's not tax cyclists.

Now, maybe they have their reasons but they should make these reasons clear to you, the common, motor tax paying, citizen, because it seems grossly unfair.

Being a democracy, I suggest you go to your local TD and ask him to support such a move, see what he says, maybe he knows the cunning plan behind such diabolical behaviour.

If your TD comes back with a bunch of unsubstantiated claims like doing such things would be negative because of increase in traffic, reduction in health bill, negative benefits to the local economy, negative effects to the national economy, road maintenance comes from general taxation, cyclists contribute towards their use of the road if you insist on seeing them as homogeneous group, that if cyclist numbers continue to increasl, the cost of road maintenance will also lower, not much but it will. Don't listen, it's a trick. You stand your ground and say, LIES, and show them your proof.

smash

rubadub wrote: »

I don't get why posters keep saying stuff like this? what is the goal? to make fellow "motorist only" people think "see, cyclists who pay motortax are still scum", or make the cyclists who do pay feel bad/guilty or something? Because I really don't think its achieving anything other than wasting your own time.

Not at all. There's the motorists who use the age old nonsense of "They don't even pay for the roads" and then there's the cyclists who point out that they pay for the roads through their taxes, which is true.

My point is that everyone pays for the roads, but only motorists pay for road usage. In the form of a motor tax. Some cyclists seem to think that paying motor tax for car usage entitles them to use for their bike. My point is that it doesn't, as cyclists don't have to pay for usage at all. Paying tax for usage rights on your car does not transfer the usage rights to your bike, because you don't need a usage right for your bike. That's all.

ardmacha

rubadub wrote: »

A similar situation is the fact that people watching RTE TV on internet do not have to have a TV licence, if all they have is a laptop. Some people, especially those paying a tv licence fee, feel this is unfair and that they should contribute.

A better analogy is that if you own two cars you have to pay tax for both of them, you cannot drive the second one on the basis that you paid for the first one.

CramCycle

smash wrote: »

Not at all. There's the motorists who use the age old nonsense of "They don't even pay for the roads" and then there's the cyclists who point out that they pay for the roads through their taxes, which is true.

My point is that everyone pays for the roads, but only motorists pay for road usage. In the form of a motor tax. Some cyclists seem to think that paying motor tax for car usage entitles them to use for their bike. My point is that it doesn't, as cyclists don't have to pay for usage at all. Paying tax for usage rights on your car does not transfer the usage rights to your bike, because you don't need a usage right for your bike. That's all.

What was your point then, I think everyone has known this for quite sometime. I don't pay motor tax so I feel better about cycling to work. I pay it because I may want to use my car sometimes for various reasons.

If I didn't have a car I wouldn't feel guilty for cycling, I would feel the same as I do now.

Pinch Flat

ardmacha wrote: »

A better analogy is that if you own two cars you have to pay tax for both of them, you cannot drive the second one on the basis that you paid for the first one.

Yes, but the legal situation currently is that to run a car on a public road you need to pay motor tax. To run a bicycle you don't. It can't be any clearer than that.

smash

CramCycle wrote: »

What was your point then, I think everyone has known this for quite sometime. I don't pay motor tax so I feel better about cycling to work. I pay it because I may want to use my car sometimes for various reasons.

If I didn't have a car I wouldn't feel guilty for cycling, I would feel the same as I do now.

My point is that not everyone seems to know this:

RainyDay wrote: »

based on current law, it does translate that a tax compliant cyclist HAS paid to use their bike on the road, in exactly the same way that your beloved motorist HAS paid to use their car on the road.

I was just clarifying for RainyDay that no, he has not paid tax to use his bike on the roads. He has only paid tax which funds the road network infrastructure development.

RainyDay

smash wrote: »

Cyclists who are also motorists makes absolutely no difference to the fact that as a motorist, you pay through taxation for your usage rights. Cyclists can use a road without paying to use it. Your opinion is that you pay motor tax to use a road in your car so this means you've paid to use your bike on the road. You haven't, you've only paid to use your car on the road. As a cyclist you don't have to pay to use your bike on a road.

So to sum it up
Motorists pay usage rights for their cars.

Cyclists don't pay usage rights. Because they don't have to.

If you're a motorist and a cyclist, your motor tax only covers your car usage. It doesn't mean you've paid for bike usage.

smash wrote: »

Not at all. There's the motorists who use the age old nonsense of "They don't even pay for the roads" and then there's the cyclists who point out that they pay for the roads through their taxes, which is true.

My point is that everyone pays for the roads, but only motorists pay for road usage. In the form of a motor tax. Some cyclists seem to think that paying motor tax for car usage entitles them to use for their bike. My point is that it doesn't, as cyclists don't have to pay for usage at all. Paying tax for usage rights on your car does not transfer the usage rights to your bike, because you don't need a usage right for your bike. That's all.

As was pointed out earlier, motorists don't pay motor tax FOR road usage, they pay motor tax BECAUSE they use the road. It is not a payment for a service. It's a tax, based on opportunity.

Also, I don't pay tax as a motorist, or a cyclist, or a water drinker. I just pay tax - it all comes out of the same pocket. So, to summarise;

- most cyclist pay motor tax
- roads are funded from general taxation
- general taxation is funded from all taxes paid by everybody - income tax, VAT, customs and motor tax etc

Motor tax is not a payment for a service or payment for an entitlement - it's a tax.

rubadub

ardmacha wrote: »

A better analogy is that if you own two cars you have to pay tax for both of them, you cannot drive the second one on the basis that you paid for the first one.

And I was saying this is not ideal. It should be in accordance to the usage if there was an easy way to do it. It shoudl not be yearly, but if it was it should be on the highest tax, on the vehicle which command the higest. I also think insurance is odd like that. I know a guy who owns about 5 cars and think his bulk insurance should be a lot less as he is never driving them all at once. I think time would be better spent campaigning TDs to recifiy this situation.

Your example is not a better analogy as you do not have to pay 2 licences if you watch TV and RTE online. And you do not have to pay 2 tv licences if you have 2+ tvs in the same house.

smash wrote: »

Some cyclists seem to think that paying motor tax for car usage entitles them to use for their bike. My point is that it doesn't, as cyclists don't have to pay for usage at all.

I think it's more like the cycliss seem to think/hope that paying motor tax for cars might shut the whining cunts up who make out that they are freeloaders who do have never paid anything towards the roads in anyway shape or form. But it doesn't.