Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Cyclists, insurance and road tax

Options
1…3334363839…65

Comments

  • Options
    #1052
    MrStuffins
    Registered Users Posts: 19,148 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    maestroamado wrote: »
    I think capping number at 4 in a group would work.

    You think cars should be limited to 4 in a group?

    How would this even work? And why would you want to limit legitimate usage of the roads by the public?


  • Options
    #1053
    Fighting Tao
    Registered Users Posts: 6,482 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    Effects wrote: »
    Probably best to have pedestrians wearing high vis, and identifying numbers.
    Maybe some kind of mandatory training and insurance, as a lot of them seem to have a bad understanding of how to walk around cycle lanes.
    I've been knocked down twice by pedestrians, and both time they ran away, and I was left with injuries and damages that had to be paid for.
    Wasn't a pedestrian responsible for killing a cycling in the Phoenix Park a few years ago too?

    Yes. People walking to their parked car should have to display both their own registration number, and the cars registration number just to be doubly sure they can be identified.


  • Options
    #1054
    maestroamado
    Registered Users Posts: 4,426 ✭✭✭maestroamado


    Thelonious Monk wrote: »
    They don't need to be policed because they don't cause any harm. What part of that don't you understand?


    If you think interfering with other road users is ok i certainly do not and i am a cyclists.


  • Options
    #1055
    doiredoire
    Registered Users Posts: 120 ✭✭doiredoire


    I really admire the patience of some of you in this thread trying to reason with the anti cycling brigade. They really don’t seem to understand basic logic or common sense.


  • Options
    #1056
    Thelonious Monk
    Registered Users Posts: 13,746 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    maestroamado wrote: »
    If you think interfering with other road users is ok i certainly do not and i am a cyclists.

    Interfering how? What harm are cyclists causing?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1057
    Thelonious Monk
    Registered Users Posts: 13,746 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    doiredoire wrote: »
    I really admire the patience of some of you in this thread trying to reason with the anti cycling brigade. They really don’t seem to understand basic logic or common sense.

    Very hard not to get drawn in. There's so much to work with though, PhD level material for behavioural scientists.


  • Options
    #1058
    Paddigol
    Registered Users Posts: 1,426 ✭✭✭Paddigol


    Thelonious Monk wrote: »
    Interfering how? What harm are cyclists causing?

    They're slowing him down, duh!!


  • Options
    #1059
    The J Stands for Jay
    Registered Users Posts: 5,651 ✭✭✭The J Stands for Jay


    MrStuffins wrote: »
    You think cars should be limited to 4 in a group?

    How would this even work? And why would you want to limit legitimate usage of the roads by the public?

    It would be difficult to work, but it's for safety reasons. Cars kill hundreds of people, so it'd be good to limit the number of vehicles grouped together in case there's an incident.


  • Options
    #1060
    doiredoire
    Registered Users Posts: 120 ✭✭doiredoire


    Thelonious Monk wrote: »
    Very hard not to get drawn in. There's so much to work with though, PhD level material for behavioural scientists.

    Absolutely. I know I shouldn’t but I give up on people like them


  • Options
    #1061
    km991148
    Registered Users Posts: 4,275 ✭✭✭km991148


    Thelonious Monk wrote: »
    Very hard not to get drawn in. There's so much to work with though, PhD level material for behavioural scientists.

    :pac: that's a couple if times you've alluded to having something better to be doing but now you say it's behavioural sciences where your own behaviour is to keep getting involved in a thread commenting on the behaviours of others!

    That's brilliant!! Log out of boards and get your research done. This shyte will still be here next week..


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1062
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,326 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    the gas thing is that these proposals - usually made in the spirit of making roads safer - will drive up the death toll, both on road and off-road.
    on-road in that it'll reduce the numbers cycling, and there's a correlation between driver behaviour and how common cycling is; i.e. it'll make life more dangerous for any cyclists still cycling.

    and off-road in that it will have a knock on effect on general public health by reducing the number of people cycling.


  • Options
    #1063
    mrslancaster
    Registered Users Posts: 1,764 ✭✭✭mrslancaster


    Paddigol wrote: »
    Well, put it this way - on my 3 year old SUV I pay just over €200 a year motor tax. Proportionally speaking, how much do you think I should pay for my 4 bikes? €50 each?

    I'm not having a go at you, because you're posts seem to be reasonable explorations of ideas, but when you tease out the logic you can see that it makes little to no sense to impose a tax on bicycles. If anything, we should be doing all we can to get more people cycling. And running, and swimming, and walking etc etc., but cycling specifically is a perfectly good mode of transport (not just exercise) that reduces traffic congestion and carbon emissions.

    Most suggestions around helmets, 'hi viz', tax, insurance, registration plates are not made from a place of concern for cyclists - that is abundantly clear from the refusal to look at evidence from other countries and the tone in which the suggestions are made - but from a place of disdain for cyclists.


    We are a family that use cars and also cycle. I know that cycling has always played second fiddle to cars in ireland but it does seem to be changing and more people have started cycling - I have seen a huge increase in our local area since the start of covid. One of our neighbours sold their car because they found walking, cycling & public transport suits them just as well & another close friend just made the same decision.

    Agree that cycling has a lot of benefits, health, less congestion, lower pollution etc but I'm sure most posters would agree that cycling doesn't suit everyone, older people or those with physical impairments for instance might find it impossible so they have to use a car or public transport and that brings its own problems. IMo, bad public transport is probably the very reason we have so many cars in the first place.

    I'm not familiar with evidence from other countries but take your word for it. I know we'd be happy to pay a nominal amount if it was introduced, but have no idea if that's a feasible idea or even how it would work. I just wondered if there's a shortfall in motor tax revenue what will replace it?

    The exchequer is being decimated by covid supports according to some reports so I'd say we can look forward to all sorts of new taxes & charges soon but that's for a different post...


  • Options
    #1064
    km991148
    Registered Users Posts: 4,275 ✭✭✭km991148


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    the gas thing is that these proposals - usually made in the spirit of making roads safer - will drive up the death toll, both on road and off-road.
    on-road in that it'll reduce the numbers cycling, and there's a correlation between driver behaviour and how common cycling is; i.e. it'll make life more dangerous for any cyclists still cycling.

    and off-road in that it will have a knock on effect on general public health by reducing the number of people cycling.

    I'm really not saying it to be smart, but they should properly commit to decent tax breaks for those that cycle. That would fulfill the requirement of fairness (that these threads always mentioned) and really help everyone (including those that have no interest in cycling at all).


  • Options
    #1065
    John_Rambo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,503 ✭✭✭John_Rambo


    I think it's hilarious that taxi drivers give out about tax payers money being spent on cycling infrastructure when it's very likely that the commuter cyclists heading in to their work in the city are most likely paying ten times more tax than the taxi driver who's probably been on benefits for the last year.


  • Options
    #1066
    Fighting Tao
    Registered Users Posts: 6,482 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    mrslancaster wrote: »
    We are a family that use cars and also cycle. I know that cycling has always played second fiddle to cars in ireland but it does seem to be changing and more people have started cycling - I have seen a huge increase in our local area since the start of covid. One of our neighbours sold their car because they found walking, cycling & public transport suits them just as well & another close friend just made the same decision.

    Agree that cycling has a lot of benefits, health, less congestion, lower pollution etc but I'm sure most posters would agree that cycling doesn't suit everyone, older people or those with physical impairments for instance might find it impossible so they have to use a car or public transport and that brings its own problems. IMo, bad public transport is probably the very reason we have so many cars in the first place.

    I'm not familiar with evidence from other countries but take your word for it. I know we'd be happy to pay a nominal amount if it was introduced, but have no idea if that's a feasible idea or even how it would work. I just wondered if there's a shortfall in motor tax revenue what will replace it?

    The exchequer is being decimated by covid supports according to some reports so I'd say we can look forward to all sorts of new taxes & charges soon but that's for a different post...

    I asked you to detail your proposal on a bike tax to see how it would work. You have still provided none, and I think if you did start detailing it, you would soon see why and how it would fail.


  • Options
    #1067
    Sono Topolino
    Registered Users Posts: 455 ✭✭Sono Topolino


    John_Rambo wrote: »
    I think it's hilarious that taxi drivers give out about tax payers money being spent on cycling infrastructure when it's very likely that the commuter cyclists heading in to their work in the city are most likely paying ten times more tax than the taxi driver who's probably been on benefits for the last year.

    Standing up for the cyclist underdog against the evil car driver, while making fun of people on welfare is just the kind of attitude I expect from Lycra fascists.


  • Options
    #1068
    mrslancaster
    Registered Users Posts: 1,764 ✭✭✭mrslancaster


    Fighting Tao wrote: »
    I asked you to detail your proposal on a bike tax to see how it would work. You have still provided none, and I think if you did start detailing it, you would soon see why and how it would fail.

    Did you read the post you just quoted?

    Edit: I didn't propose a bike tax & have no idea how such a scheme would work or even if it would be feasible. I'm sure if a decision was made to bring in something like that, either the Revenue or the RSA would find a way. They always do.


  • Options
    #1069
    km991148
    Registered Users Posts: 4,275 ✭✭✭km991148


    Fighting Tao wrote: »
    I asked you to detail your proposal on a bike tax to see how it would work. You have still provided none, and I think if you did start detailing it, you would soon see why and how it would fail.

    I think it's quite straightforward - if you fill out a declaration of commitment to cycle regularly then you get a credit of 500 per year?

    I don't know how much policing of it would be needed initially - some spot check on bicycle ownership and may having to upload evidence of usage? It get a bit tricky if it get abused.

    It would need to be funded from evening out the motor tax, something more akin to road tax that is linked to wear and tear and environmental damage perhaps? Or we set up congestion charging in our most congested areas?

    Problem is out politicians are too afraid of the motoring lobbies at present and rely on the general ignorance of the population to get re elected.


  • Options
    #1070
    Effects
    Registered Users Posts: 9,761 ✭✭✭Effects


    McGaggs wrote: »
    It would be difficult to work, but it's for safety reasons. Cars kill hundreds of people, so it'd be good to limit the number of vehicles grouped together in case there's an incident.

    Less cars clearer roads, and less road rage, faster journey times.
    Drivers might even learn to stop breaking red lights all the time.


  • Options
    #1071
    Sono Topolino
    Registered Users Posts: 455 ✭✭Sono Topolino


    Lycra fascist is a misnomer, I admit. It's more "Lycra libertarian"
    I really find it hilarious how car drivers who want cyclists to pay their fair share get labelled all sorts of hiliarious things, from libertarian to fascist, and yet the real libertarians here are the cyclists who:

    1. Have professional comfortable jobs
    2. Live within 20-30 minutes bike ride from their job
    3. Want to use the road for free
    4. Expect no interference from the state.

    And they laugh at motorists who want the exact same things for themselves.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1072
    swarlb
    Registered Users Posts: 1,244 ✭✭✭swarlb


    Like most threads on Boards this has descended into a roundabout of tit for tat nonsense (in most cases) and has veered long beyond the OP's original post.
    There was a snippet on the news the other day about a man being fined for having no insurance on his E scooter. The judge said that every powered vehicle should have insurance. The man was fined and his scooter confiscated and destroyed. There was also a snippet of Eamonn Ryan speaking in the Dail about forthcoming 'legislation'.
    We here in Ireland love 'rules' and 'legislation'. Lets take sports for example, in football (soccer) it's enough to have a simple yellow card and red card system.
    But in the GAA, that's not enough, they have to have yellow, red and black.
    So, we have E scooters, E Bikes and 'bicycles'.... and I guarantee before long there will be new rules, because if they implement insurance for e scooters, then e bikes will follow... and you'll have the E Bike 'brigade' giving out how unfair it is that they will be hit and not ordinary bikes.
    Remember there was a time when you didn't need a licence to tow a trailer, or a safe pass card to drive a truck.... or even a time when you could go into a shop and the guy behind the counter was not requited to wear 'safety equipment'.
    Chances are at some stage, to appease one sector of the community there will be charges imposed on cyclists. Better to discuss it now, rather than let some politician impose it on you.
    If they cannot get a simple thing right like taxing a car (how many different rates do we have ??) , can you imagine the hell that will be taxing a bike...

    Oh... and a warning to all those without children who shout for a tax on bikes.... be careful what you wish for. The last thing you need on a Christmas morning is for some Garda to arrive at your door, 6 year old in handcuffs, and a crushed 'illegal' Christmas present in the boot of a Garda car.


  • Options
    #1073
    km991148
    Registered Users Posts: 4,275 ✭✭✭km991148


    Sono Topolino wrote: »
    Standing up for the cyclist underdog against the evil car driver, while making fun of people on welfare is just the kind of attitude I expect from Lycra fascists.

    nice zinger - but your thread has got me to change my mind. Cyclists should absolutely be accounted for in the taxation system.


  • Options
    #1074
    Fighting Tao
    Registered Users Posts: 6,482 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    mrslancaster wrote: »
    Did you read the post you just quoted?

    Yes and I’m asking you to tease it out so you figure out if it workable or not seeing you said you don’t know.


  • Options
    #1075
    Padre_Pio
    Registered Users Posts: 4,897 ✭✭✭Padre_Pio


    Sono Topolino wrote: »
    Standing up for the cyclist underdog against the evil car driver, while making fun of people on welfare is just the kind of attitude I expect from Lycra fascists.

    Ah listen, you've shown yourself up big time on this thread. Maybe its time to call it quits
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URWLnOJ25uA


  • Options
    #1076
    Trekker09
    Registered Users Posts: 1,578 ✭✭✭Trekker09


    Sono Topolino wrote: »
    Standing up for the cyclist underdog against the evil car driver, while making fun of people on welfare is just the kind of attitude I expect from Lycra fascists.

    I've read every one of your posts and have come to the conclusion that you're a troll, but not a very good one. The alternative is frightening


  • Options
    #1077
    Fighting Tao
    Registered Users Posts: 6,482 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    km991148 wrote: »
    I think it's quite straightforward - if you fill out a declaration of commitment to cycle regularly then you get a credit of 500 per year?

    I don't know how much policing of it would be needed initially - some spot check on bicycle ownership and may having to upload evidence of usage? It get a bit tricky if it get abused.

    It would need to be funded from evening out the motor tax, something more akin to road tax that is linked to wear and tear and environmental damage perhaps? Or we set up congestion charging in our most congested areas?

    Problem is out politicians are too afraid of the motoring lobbies at present and rely on the general ignorance of the population to get re elected.

    Every non-cycling driver would be claiming the tax credit and it would become a joke very quickly. It would require a central bike register to ensure people owned the bikes, and therefore facility to record changes in ownership. It would fail due to excessive costs.


  • Options
    #1078
    km991148
    Registered Users Posts: 4,275 ✭✭✭km991148


    swarlb wrote: »
    Chances are at some stage, to appease one sector of the community there will be charges imposed on cyclists. Better to discuss it now, rather than let some politician impose it on you.


    No - the pro cyclist taxation lobbying has worked - I am for it.

    Readjust motor tax bands to better reflect impact and get the cyclists into the sytem.

    The less you drive (or more likely the more you replace driving with walking/cycling), the bigger the tax credit.

    The 'charge' will work out at around -500 per year for cyclists, which will offset the higher prices of motorotax.

    Old/disabled etc and possibly those isolated in proper remote areas get properly looked after.

    Fairness all round. Wins all round as it will lead to less vehicular traffic - so those diehards will be in fewer traffic jams.


    I can't really see any negatives? Unless of course the thread isn't actually about "fairness" and just a bunch of "They don't even pay road tax Joe" cry babies?


  • Options
    #1079
    Fighting Tao
    Registered Users Posts: 6,482 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    Sono Topolino wrote: »
    Lycra fascist is a misnomer, I admit. It's more "Lycra libertarian"
    I really find it hilarious how car drivers who want cyclists to pay their fair share get labelled all sorts of hiliarious things, from libertarian to fascist, and yet the real libertarians here are the cyclists who:

    1. Have professional comfortable jobs
    2. Live within 20-30 minutes bike ride from their job
    3. Want to use the road for free
    4. Expect no interference from the state.

    And they laugh at motorists who want the exact same things for themselves.

    Cycling is open to everyone due to its low entry cost but you’ll ignore that.


  • Options
    #1080
    km991148
    Registered Users Posts: 4,275 ✭✭✭km991148


    Fighting Tao wrote: »
    Every non-cycling driver would be claiming the tax credit and it would become a joke very quickly. It would require a central bike register to ensure people owned the bikes, and therefore facility to record changes in ownership. It would fail due to excessive costs.

    Motor tax increases will balance it somewhat. The admin can be worked out. Revenue spot checks would happen - the costs could be managed.

    Usually when there is a rules change in revenue they clamp down heavily on it initially. Over time abuse would probably rise, but you are making a declaration and the fines would be heavy for those that do abuse it.

    Assuming admin can be worked out, what else?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1081
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,377 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    BanditLuke wrote: »
    Are you new to discussion? The thread isn't about motorists.

    Good point - drivers are killing 2 or 3 people each week and we're kidding ourselves that cycling needs to be fixed? Why isn't the thread about motorists?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement