Should cyclists pay Road Tax & Insurance?

Traumadoc

I pay over 3k in motor tax and now you want me to pay more tax on my bikes?
Why stop at bikes? Why not have a footpath tax for pedestrians?

Seriously, the more people who cycle, the fewer cars on the road the less people in your way. Ever notice how much heavier the traffic is on rainy days- thats because many cyclist return to using their cars ( taxed).

Traumadoc

Traumadoc wrote: »

Ever notice how much heavier the traffic is on rainy days- thats because many cyclist return to using their cars ( taxed).

those days. Less people in the cycle lane

brayblue24

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Woah, ok I apologise for my off-the cuff remark about "bacon" and garda stations, I didn't mean to offend/insult anyone.

It was an immature comment that I did not really pay much thought to, I am sorry for "showing myself up for who I really am".

Think I'll take a break from boards for a while.

Ironically I find most of your comments inciteful and relevant. Don't take a break on my account please. I've had to apologise myself once for an impulsive, off the cuff comment!! Looking back I still cringe about it. Apology accepted here ("even with the inverted commas").

BTW I have no probs with legitimate criticism, ie. what Daymobrew said about response times etc. He's absolutely right.

flickrx......yawn. It's like groundhog day. Change the record.

Now can we get back on topic. I am. after all, a cyclist too, both in work and outside of it.

buffalo

brayblue24 wrote: »

Ironically I find most of your comments inciteful

The poetry of the mis-spelling made me laugh!

NeilMcEoigheann

tomcollins97 wrote: »

Insufficient lighting on a bike, especially in the winter months. As a motorist you are obliged to have all lights working, if you are a cyclist you can cycle with none
Lack of reflective clothing – if a motorist hits a cyclist it is their fault, even if the motorist cannot see them
Lack of signalling when turning – cars indicate so why can’t cyclists.
Cyclists coming up on the inside of a car which is indicating to turn left.
Cyclists breaking red lights
Cyclists cycling too far out from the footpath & impeding traffic flow
Cyclists refusing to slow down when the cycle lane runs through a bus stop
Cyclists wearing headphones
Cyclists generally paying no heed to what is around them

1 hey large can of metal / steak on a bike' the cleaver ones use lights
2 look at the first 20 commuters on your way home their all wearing hi-viz jackets
3 their called arms
4 9/10 times the car has just failed to spot the cyclist they were there all the time
5 no actually we were just turning onto the other road doing a u turn and continuing the way we were going
6 this is so we have room to manover when 4wheels is applying her lipstick
7 its still a cycle lane
8 there actually a anti car warning conspiricy ear piece
9actually were trying not to make eye contact with the guy attempting to run us over

NeilMcEoigheann

L'Enfer du Nord wrote: »

It certainly was haven't heard seen it being enforced recently,
Why is it legal to sell a bike without lights? Indeed why is it normal/standard not to buy a bike without lights? Would you be able to buy any other vehical without lights?

"There has been a long-running conspiracy among bicycle manufacturers to perpetuate the fiction that reflectors alone are enough for night riding. They have done this out of fear that they will be required to supply lights with new bicycles" sheldon brown.

quietobserver

studies being carried out across the uk found that outside of city streets cyclists with lights were more likely to be knocked down by motorists where street lighting wasnt in existance, motorists in general were found to use the light ahead as a guide to the direction of the road and when almost up on the cyclist discovered it was a moving object.

you'll win some you'll loose some, i guess its like the whole theory about boxing being more damaging and dangerous since gloves were introduced.

flickerx

el tonto wrote: »

As cyclists we complain about motorists tarring us all with the same brush. Then the only Garda on the forum gets it in the neck over every grievance people have with the entire force.

Pot.. Kettle... Anyone???

I didnt say that the cop on here was involved in any of that stuff, I was merely pointing out to kemmc a few ammunition/starting points if he wanted to berate them that I thought were slightly above the 'pig' or 'bacon sandwich' remarks.

I think people are entitled to air (garda & cycling-related, on this forum) their grievances with any Garda who comes on though, because our money pays their wages. They're supposed to be out there protecting our property and helping to recover it if it gets stolen, so when it doesnt, or the Garda dont appear to be that bothered about it, its natural that people get annoyed with them. I'd fully expect people to state their (council & cycling-related, on this forum) grievances with a council planner, official, or councillor who posted here, but who might be down with the cyclists...

I cant remember who suggested that the Garda should do what the FBI tell them, but I presume they are not actually serious.
And I'm a bit amused & surprised at the shock/hurt brayboyinblue response to the bacon sandwich remark, surely at this stage you've heard ten times worse on the streets, is it really that horribly offensive?? - and its hardly personal, as you said its an easy broad jibe, and on the internet they're ten a penny... Surely you're schooled in Templemore to brush that stuff off with a laugh? Would you say to some ten year old inner city kid "I think that remark shows you up for who you really are" who siad it to you, or would just laugh it off and tell him to run on home to his mammy?

flickerx

Yeah yeah, I know....

flickerx

brayblue24 wrote: »

Ironically I find most of your comments inciteful and relevant. Don't take a break on my account please. I've had to apologise myself once for an impulsive, off the cuff comment!! Looking back I still cringe about it. Apology accepted here ("even with the inverted commas").

BTW I have no probs with legitimate criticism, ie. what Daymobrew said about response times etc. He's absolutely right.

flickrx......yawn. It's like groundhog day. Change the record.

Now can we get back on topic. I am. after all, a cyclist too, both in work and outside of it.

Whoops, just saw this post now.

Sorry if I sound like a stuck record (I think thats the enormous grand total of twice I've mentioned those things) but I think its reasonably important in a modern democracy to have an accountable and transparent police force; and obviously the state did too with the setting up of the Garda ombudsman after years of said controversies.

Sorry for derailing the topic (see previous post) but I think at this stage the motor tax thing has been beaten to death... until its corpse gets reanimated again in a fortnights time by another troll from the motors forum.

Actually, this gives me the impetus to start a new topic. But tomorrow...

niceonetom

wow, this thread is like russian fucking novel...

some of you really need to HTFU and some of you really need to CTFD. on the other hand, my recent cravings for acrimony have been sated.

niceonetom

of the many red-herrings, dead ends, face-palms, and false starts in this thread i'm thinking the following...

TAX: no, bikes/cyclist should not be additionally taxed. anyone who thinks they should is probably a moron incapable of rising above the infantile argument of "i have to sit in traffic / pay road-tax (sic) / be generally miserable. why don't they?" a sense of personal aggrievement does not an argument make. taxation is a tool of social control as well as a method of filling the public coffers - and on that basis i think cycling should be exempt from certain taxes (this is coming with next year's benefit in kind scheme) simply because it is a very good thing for society as a whole, and for the person on the bike in particular.

INSURANCE: now this is a different matter entirely. many people are obviously confused as to the difference between liability and insurance, but it still goes to a good point. i have my bikes insured under the home-insurance against theft but as for liability, well, i'm on my own there.

now, cars are so obviously capable of causing horrific carnage that insurance in mandatory; but even if it weren't i think most people would still have it if they sat and thought about the probabilities involved and the consequences of even small mistakes.

then again not only is liability insurance for bikes not mandated by the state, it is not even offered as a product by any insurer in the state (that i'm aware of anyway - i'm not counting racing insurance here, i think that's a bit different). that alone says something about the comparative risks and consequences. i would still like to see the option though, but i dread to think what annual rates the insurers would come up with in such a small niche market.

blorg

quietobserver wrote: »

studies being carried out across the uk found that outside of city streets cyclists with lights were more likely to be knocked down by motorists where street lighting wasnt in existance, motorists in general were found to use the light ahead as a guide to the direction of the road and when almost up on the cyclist discovered it was a moving object.

I would be interested in seeing that; I do a lot of night riding on completely dark roads myself and cars pass _far wider_ on average than they do during the day, the difference is really noticable.

Raam

blorg wrote: »

I would be interested in seeing that; I do a lot of night riding on completely dark roads myself and cars pass _far wider_ on average than they do during the day, the difference is really noticable.

Do you have flashing lights on?

L'Enfer du Nord

blorg wrote: »

I would be interested in seeing that; I do a lot of night riding on completely dark roads myself and cars pass _far wider_ on average than they do during the day, the difference is really noticable.

Also my experience, cars are more likely to be patient and wait for a suitable opportunity, could be that they are in less of a hurry at night. Its interesting some cars will wait for ages and over take properly, the next will just skim by you. There seems to be a widespread belief that you don't actually have to indicate and overtake cyclists, you can just skim past them. [Queue widespread belief among cyclist that they don't have to stop at red lights]

Raam

L'Enfer du Nord wrote: »

Also my experience, cars are more likely to be patient and wait for a suitable opportunity, could be that they are in less of a hurry at night. Its interesting some cars will wait for ages and over take properly, the next will just skim by you. There seems to be a widespread belief that you don't actually have to indicate and overtake cyclists, you can just skim past them. [Queue widespread belief among cyclist that they don't have to stop at red lights]

I had someone sit behind me all the way from Baldoyle to Portmarnock the other night. There was ample room to over take as no cars were coming in the opposite direction. The driver wasn't a learner, or certainly not advertised as such. I wonder if it was a certain T. Mullins.

blorg

Raam wrote: »

Do you have flashing lights on?

I generally have a combo with at least one steady but most on flashing. The flashing I think does help with visbility, although I believe a steady helps a driver gauge your distance better. I'm certainly visible, indeed more so I think than in daytime as you are competing against a simple black background instead of lots of other stuff.

Raam

blorg wrote: »

I generally have a combo with at least one steady but most on flashing. The flashing I think does help with visbility, although I believe a steady helps a driver gauge your distance better.

The flashing possibly goes some way to explaining why you don't experience the same as the study suggests.

stuf

So we've established that cyclists are all a bunch of inconsiderate tax-dodging law-breaking cnuts who in indiscriminate endeavours to protect their own lives put right-minded tax-paying motorists in mortal fear of not reaching the next traffic light 5 seconds sooner.

Time to talk helmets I think - far too much agreement going on here

rubadub

tomcollins97 wrote: »

My pet hates when it comes to cyclists are:

Insufficient lighting on a bike, especially in the winter months. As a motorist you are obliged to have all lights working, if you are a cyclist you can cycle with none
Lack of reflective clothing – if a motorist hits a cyclist it is their fault, even if the motorist cannot see them
Lack of signalling when turning – cars indicate so why can’t cyclists.
Cyclists coming up on the inside of a car which is indicating to turn left.
Cyclists breaking red lights
Cyclists cycling too far out from the footpath & impeding traffic flow
Cyclists refusing to slow down when the cycle lane runs through a bus stop
Cyclists wearing headphones
Cyclists generally paying no heed to what is around them

So you're an extremely hateful person

tomcollins97 wrote: »

I am a responsible cyclist & it really bothers me that there are other out there who have complete disgregard for road users & the rules of the road

And ignorant of the rules of the road, so before claiming others have disregard go learn them yourself, you look quite the fool otherwise.

The us & them attitude is sickening, people defining themselve by what mode of transport they use. I can imagine your mother down the shops meeting a mate she has not seen in years.
"whats your son Tom doing"
"oh he grew up to be a motorist"
"you must be well pleased"
"oh yes, but his friend Jimmy ended up a cyclist"
"well, I always said he was a bad egg, but wayward, low IQ"
"well it was either a murderer, rapist, or cyclist, the only options open to that sort of criminal element"

Signal_ rabbit

Great read, have to agree with an earlier post though, the coffee chocolates are 'orrible and they should be banned! Now that's controversial!

steve-o

Halfrauds wrote: »

carbon emmissions = 0 so no tax:p

Fair play if you can cycle more than a few metres without producing carbon emissions. I'll also be the first to admit to being a source of other dangerous emissions.

seadog9

tunney wrote: »

This is for our safetly. Motorists are by and large poorly trained, inattentive, have poor observation skills and no idea of the damage a car can do. By cycling "too far out from the footpath" cyclists can reduce the probability of a motorist hitting them "because they didn't see them". Most times a motorist "didn't see" a cyclist its because they didn't look.

I'm sorry you claim drivers are poorly trained, are cyclists trained at all??

You also say drivers have poor observation skills and are inattentive, I'm sorry but are cyclists some form of super race who have no flaws? There are always going to be people making mistakes, whether they are drivers or cyclists.

A week or two ago I was driving to the RDS, in congested traffic, a jeep was turning into a space left open for him on the road, a cyclist hits the jeep, despite there being a sign telling cyclists and pedestrians to stop and yield to turning traffic. The cyclist then went to attack the driver, and continued shouting at him even though the driver pointed out the sign to him.

Nonetheless I found it quite amusing, gave me something to laugh about early in the morning

kenmc

seadog9 wrote: »

despite there being a sign telling cyclists and pedestrians to stop and yield to turning traffic.

Can you post a picture of such a sign by any chance, curious to see such a sign, and the legality of it. I mean anyone can make up signs.....

Bunnyhopper

seadog9 wrote: »

I'm sorry you claim drivers are poorly trained, are cyclists trained at all??

I can assure you that I've done every single bit of cycle training that the law requires me to do

In fact, the lack of cycle training is a fair point to raise: there are some woeful cyclists out there. In an important sense, being able to ride a bike is not the same as being able to cycle.

I suspect that tunney would accept that, but his point (as I understand it) was more that a fair number of drivers seem not to have even a basic understanding of cycling - the sort of basic understanding that they need if they are to share the road safely with cyclists. Unlike cyclists, drivers are required by law to undergo training and demonstrate competence, but there seems to be a deficiency in the training with respect to that basic understanding of cycling.

(The question of whether cyclists ought to be required by law to undergo training is an interesting but separate - albeit not utterly irrelevant - issue.)

Nonetheless, it is relevant that even those woeful cyclists are very much less likely to cause serious damage or injury to anything or anyone other than themselves and their own property than a woeful driver.

And, yes, just in case anyone was wondering, I do have a full driving licence

Kurtosis

seadog9 wrote: »

I'm sorry but are cyclists some form of super race who have no flaws?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAOHhV1EFe4

cyclopath2001

not again...

It was vaguely humourous first time around.

CDfm

rubadub wrote: »

And ignorant of the rules of the road, so before claiming others have disregard go learn them yourself, you look quite the fool otherwise.

ah cmon, i dont think its unfair that cyclists should know the rules of the road -wear reflective clothing and have proper lighting etc. None of which I see.

I think cyclists who do not follow the rules should be prosecuted.

They disrespect pedestrians and other road users.

Its the culture of willful disobedience of the rules of the road and signals that I object to with cyclists.

Chips Lovell

CDfm wrote: »

ah cmon, i dont think its unfair that cyclists should know the rules of the road -wear reflective clothing and have proper lighting etc. None of which I see.

Cyclists have no legal obligation to wear reflective clothing.

CDfm wrote: »

I think cyclists who do not follow the rules should be prosecuted.

They can be. It's up to the cops to do so.

CDfm wrote: »

Its the culture of willful disobedience of the rules of the road and signals that I object to with cyclists.

Pretty much every cyclist on here objects to people ignoring the rules of the road. You're preachig to the choir.

CDfm

el tonto wrote: »

Cyclists have no legal obligation to wear reflective clothing.



They can be. It's up to the cops to do so.



Pretty much every cyclist on here objects to people ignoring the rules of the road. You're preachig to the choir.

what i am saying is i dont see it happening - nothing else.

so in my view cyclists are really dangerous