Should cyclists be issued with traffic fines and have to pay road tax / insurance?

Neewbie_noob

POLL IS MULTIPLE CHOICE, SO CHECK ALL THAT APPLY

Cyclists use the excuse "we are saving the planet" and other jibe when confronted by motorists, or when they are told they should pay road tax / insurance, they say "we don't pollute", we are not dangerous etc.

My argument is that cyclists are using the road, if a car were invented that ran off air, it would still have to pay road tax, so why should cyclists (who use the road have to be exempt).

Cyclists very often cause accidents by merrily sailing through a red light, very often onto on-coming traffic, they plough through pedestrian area, and should therefore have to pay insurance.

For the reason above, they should also be fined for breaking lights, disregarding traffic rules etc

This is not a trolling thread, but mods, feel free to lock etc. if you feel this thread might get out of hand, or if it has been done before. Let's not this turn into a cyclist-hating thread or flame each other. Keep it civil or face the wrath of the moderators :P

furiousox

There's no such thing as road tax.
It's motor tax.

Zer0

I'm a cyclist

No, I've been struck off my bike several times and the motorist just drives off.. I always signal, wait at lights and behave well.. I can't afford a car so I doubt I'd afford road tax for a bike.

ronaneire

No but they should know the rules of the road.

Oink

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

[...]
My argument is that cyclists are using the road, if a car were invented that ran off air, it would still have to pay road tax, so why should cyclists (who use the road have to be exempt).

Furiosox put that one to bed.

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

[...]
Cyclists very often cause accidents by merrily sailing through a red light, very often onto on-coming traffic, they plough through pedestrian area, and should therefore have to pay insurance.

This has been done to death. Some dangerous clowns are on bikes, some are on motorbikes, some are in cars. No need to put everybody in the same bag.

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

[...]
For the reason above, they should also be fined for breaking lights, disregarding traffic rules etc

Of course they should. As soon as the Guards get around to it.

EDIT:

ronaneire wrote: »

No but they should know the rules of the road.

Yes. But as mentioned above, every clown who ever cut in front of me without indicating should know them as well. But I don't blame all drivers.

furiousox

ronaneire wrote: »

No but they should know the rules of the road.

According to the ROTR, what distance should a car give when passing a cyclist?

(It's 1.5m but some motorists seem to think 0.5m is ample)

manafana

Should pay some form of road tax

furiousox wrote: »

There's no such thing as road tax.
It's motor tax.

yes its a tax on the negative affect your motorised vehicle has on the environment etc

Shenshen

Should pay some form of road tax

I don't think they should pay road tax. After all, the damage bikes do to roads is negligable compared to the damage cars do, so the maintenance costs (filling potholes, resurfacing, re-painting road markings etc.) are mostly down to cars wearing the roads down.

They should however be liable to fines for breaking the rules of the road.
Some countries have a system in place that allow police to actually place points on the driver's licence of a cyclist they found breaking the rules (drunk cycling, mostly, if I recall).
So yes, definitely.

Also, I would be in favour of teaching children how to safely ride a bike, and what the rules of the road are. We were taught that in school in Germany, and he had to take a test before we were allowed to use our cycles on the road.

BizzyC

Should pay some form of road tax

They should receive fines for breaking the rules of the road.

A cyclist who knows what he's doing is fine, but one who blasts through lights or jumps up onto the footpath when it suits them.
Give them fines, they'll behave themselves on the roads, fewer accidents...

RacoonQueen

Poll is not multiple choice.

shopaholic01

I'm a cyclist

By that logic you should want to tax pedestrians too.

Yes, cyclists should observe the rules of the road - but so should pedestrians. I don't think either should be taxed.

seamus

I am not a cyclist

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

Cyclists very often cause accidents by merrily sailing through a red light, very often onto on-coming traffic, they plough through pedestrian area, and should therefore have to pay insurance.

They do? How many accidents? How often? How many accidents per km travelled and per no. of cyclists?
And how does that compare to the overall statistics for other traffic causing accidents by breaking lights?

Or maybe you're just "supposing" that they do because you had a near-miss one day with some idiot who decided to break a red light?

For the reason above, they should also be fined for breaking lights, disregarding traffic rules etc

They are.

Grayson

Should pay some form of road tax

Anyone who's dangerous on the roads should be fined. That includes pedestrians who walk out in front of traffic.

But they shouldn't pay tax or insurance. Especially not for the privlidge of cycling on irish roads. There's feck all cycle lanes and motorists don't care.

As a side note, I saw a car speed past all the traffic queueing at traffic lights yesterday. He was using the cycle lane.

GeorgeBailey

Pretty sure this is the first time this has come up on boards. Well done OP.

hypermuse

I'm a cyclist

Although I did select None of the above, I should have selected fines and fines only.

Yes a person who uses a road recklessly and puts themselves or others in danger should be open to fines for such offenses, as should pedestrians alike.


As regards tax, insurance.. Are you having a laugh!

I cant understand how you could tax people who are not causing a carbon footprint, taking the initiative to exercise (which would reduce stress on the health system) and also reducing the number of cars on the road!

I would never drive in Dublin as its quicker to get around on a bike. More respect is needed from both sides regarding cyclists/motorists.

super_furry

Broken poll is broken.

Chips Lovell

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

Cyclists use the excuse "we are saving the planet".

I've yet to meet a cyclist who's said this.

For the reason above, they should also be fined for breaking lights, disregarding traffic rules etc

The last time I checked cyclists arent immune to the law.

tinkerbell

Should pay some form of road tax

Your poll is faulty - it's only one choice, not multiple choice.

Cyclists should be fined if they are caught breaking a red or cycling dangerously but not forced to pay motor tax since they aren't in a motorised vehicle.

Korvanica

I am not a cyclist

HERE WE GO AGAIN....

Nyom Nyom Nyom...

I am a motorist, cyclists should be shot.

Standard Road tax/Motor tax mix up...

Cnuts on the footpath running red lights, going slower than I am and holding me up because I am more important than them because I am in a big car VRUUM VRUUM look at me you poor fooker with yer bike... What ? I don't care that it costs more than my '97 Punto. My Punto is heavier so I win !

Don't be cycling 2 abreast that slows me down aswell you silly cyclist ! I want to squeeze past you and endanger you instead of waiting for a safe time to pass you out ! "What? you think I care about the safety of other road users ? Pfft NO, I AM IN A CAR SO I OWN THE ROAD ! "

ebbsy

I think cyclists should have their pants pulled down and have their bare buttocks thrashed.

Pompey Magnus

None of the above

furiousox wrote: »

According to the ROTR, what distance should a car give when passing a cyclist?

(It's 1.5m but some motorists seem to think 0.5m is ample)

Out of interest what are the rules (if any exist) for cyclists riding two abreast? It has happened to me a few times recently on relatively narrow country roads where cyclists would continue to do this when I get behind them and force me right to the verge on the opposite side of the road in order to pass instead of just cycling in single file for the five seconds it would take me to pass them.

RobbieTheRobber

I am not a cyclist

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Out of interest what are the rules (if any exist) for cyclists riding two abreast? It has happened to me a few times recently on relatively narrow country roads where cyclists would continue to do this when I get behind them and force me right to the verge on the opposite side of the road in order to pass instead of just cycling in single file for the five seconds it would take me to pass them.

They are allowed to cycle two abreast.

seamus

I am not a cyclist

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Out of interest what are the rules (if any exist) for cyclists riding two abreast?

Cyclists are permitted to ride two abreast at all times. Common courtesy is to single out to allow other vehicles to pass where it is safe to do so, but there's nothing which specifically requires them to do this.

It has happened to me a few times recently on relatively narrow country roads where cyclists would continue to do this when I get behind them and force me right to the verge on the opposite side of the road

Were they pointing a gun at you?

Korvanica

I am not a cyclist

seamus wrote: »

Were they pointing a gun at you?

Id say so man, i hear a lot of cyclists carry guns. Helps thin out the herd of idiot drivers...(and pedestrians/cyclists)

Pompey Magnus

None of the above

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

They are allowed to cycle two abreast.

I know that but I was wondering if there is any rules whereby they are required to cycle single file on narrow roads when there are cars attempting to pass in either direction and if there's not why not? I know most cyclists do show this courtesy to motorists but some don't.

ThisRegard

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Out of interest what are the rules (if any exist) for cyclists riding two abreast? It has happened to me a few times recently on relatively narrow country roads where cyclists would continue to do this when I get behind them and force me right to the verge on the opposite side of the road in order to pass instead of just cycling in single file for the five seconds it would take me to pass them.

You're a motorist, but you need to ask a question regarding rules of the road on the internet, in fact you're not even aware such a rule exists ?

That's the problem with some motorists, they've no idea of the rules of the road.

Captain Havoc

There are 15,000 cyclists that are insured. Cyclists do get regularly fined, just as much as any other road user.

Pompey Magnus

None of the above

seamus wrote: »

.Were they pointing a gun at you?

Now that you mention it I guess I could have taken the other options of either happily sitting behind them going about a quarter the speed limit and making overtaking even more difficult and dangerous for any cars behind me or else going straight through them.

ThisRegard

You could have gone for the more obvious option, waited until it was safe to overtake ?

seamus

I am not a cyclist

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

I know that but I was wondering if there is any rules whereby they are required to cycle single file on narrow roads when there are cars attempting to pass in either direction and if there's not why not?

Because if such a rule existed, some drivers would use this rule to justify passing dangerously or even knocking down cyclists on the basis that they "shouldn't be riding two abreast".
It's been covered before, but if a car is incapable of safely passing cyclists riding two abreast, then one abreast isn't much easier.

The majority of whinging about "two abreast" cyclists is from motorists who want to be able to overtake without having to cross into the oncoming traffic lane. Sorry, that's just being unreasonable.

I know most cyclists do show this courtesy to motorists but some don't.

You don't want to be stuck behind a cyclist going 25km/h and believe me, he doesn't want you there either. But like tractors and caravans and people towing their mates cars, some people can just be assholes about how they use the roads. If any vehicle is unreasonably holding up traffic, the Gardai have the powers to step in. So there's no legislation needed to deal with cyclists who unreasonably hold up traffic, because there's already legislation there.

Now that you mention it I guess I could have taken the other options of either happily sitting behind them going about a quarter the speed limit and making overtaking even more difficult and dangerous for any cars behind me or else going straight through them.

The correct answer is, "Nobody forced me to overtake, I could have waited for a suitable place to pass where I would not be putting myself or other road users in danger". Maybe you did in fact do that, but then the fact that you consider yourself to have been "forced" to overtake leads me to believe that you did the overtake in a way that you considered unsafe. So why did you?

Pompey Magnus

None of the above

ThisRegard wrote: »

You're a motorist, but you need to ask a question regarding rules of the road on the internet, in fact you're not even aware such a rule exists ?

That's the problem with some motorists, they've no idea of the rules of the road.

Not knowing whether one rule exists for cyclists equals "no idea of the rules of the road"? Nice jump in logic there.

stoneill

Should pay some form of road tax

Motorists, bicyclers and pedestrians, lend me your ears!

Right - we are all people going from A to B, and sometimes C.

Can't we just get on - give each other hugs and kisses?
Stop all this a-feudin' and a-fightin'

No wait - that's not what I want to say - Fine those biker bitches - yeah that's it.

Pompey Magnus

None of the above

seamus wrote: »

The correct answer is, "Nobody forced me to overtake, I could have waited for a suitable place to pass where I would not be putting myself or other road users in danger". Maybe you did in fact do that, but then the fact that you consider yourself to have been "forced" to overtake leads me to believe that you did the overtake in a way that you considered unsafe. So why did you?

I didn't say I was "forced to overtake", I said I was forced to the verge on the opposite side of the road when I did so.

ThisRegard

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Not knowing whether one rule exists for cyclists equals "no idea of the rules of the road"? Nice jump in logic there.

It's a rule of the road, you're a road user, you should know them.

Even if you're not a cyclist, person in charge of animals etc, you should be aware of the responsibilities of those around you, that's perfectly logical to any sensible road user.

seamus

I am not a cyclist

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

I didn't say I was "forced to overtake", I said I was forced to the verge on the opposite side of the road when I did so.

How?

Pompey Magnus

None of the above

seamus wrote: »

How?

Width of road - width of bicycle A - width of bicycle B - width of my car - width of safe distance between my car and bicycle B = ~0m

That is how.

seamus

I am not a cyclist

So how were you "forced" to do anything? Again, did they point a gun at you, "Drive on that verge mister, or I'll pop a cap in your windscreen", or were you thinking, "I don't like driving so close to the right edge of the road, but I'll do it anyway because I couldn't be bothered waiting any longer for a better place to pass"?

"Forced" to do it implies that you thought it was the incorrect thing to do. So why did you do it?

TonyStark

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

POLL IS MULTIPLE CHOICE, SO CHECK ALL THAT APPLY

Cyclists use the excuse "we are saving the planet" and other jibe when confronted by motorists, or when they are told they should pay road tax / insurance, they say "we don't pollute", we are not dangerous etc.

My argument is that cyclists are using the road, if a car were invented that ran off air, it would still have to pay road tax, so why should cyclists (who use the road have to be exempt).

Cyclists very often cause accidents by merrily sailing through a red light, very often onto on-coming traffic, they plough through pedestrian area, and should therefore have to pay insurance.

For the reason above, they should also be fined for breaking lights, disregarding traffic rules etc

This is not a trolling thread, but mods, feel free to lock etc. if you feel this thread might get out of hand, or if it has been done before. Let's not this turn into a cyclist-hating thread or flame each other. Keep it civil or face the wrath of the moderators :P

As a matter of interest do you have a driving license?

RobFowl

I am not a cyclist

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

Cyclists use the excuse "we are saving the planet" and other jibe when confronted by motorists, or when they are told they should pay road tax / insurance, they say "we don't pollute", we are not dangerous etc.

I'm not saving the Planet just getting from A to B...

I do pay Motor Tax (wrote the cheque for €592 this morning..)

That said have paid in excess of that in Vat on bike's and related stuff this year

Run_to_da_hills

Should pay some form of road tax

If caged drivers looked in their mirrors more there would be a lot less accidents amongst motorcyclists and cyclists.

Pompey Magnus

None of the above

seamus wrote: »

So how were you "forced" to do anything? Again, did they point a gun at you, "Drive on that verge mister, or I'll pop a cap in your windscreen", or were you thinking, "I don't like driving so close to the right edge of the road, but I'll do it anyway because I couldn't be bothered waiting any longer for a better place to pass"?

"Forced" to do it implies that you thought it was the incorrect thing to do. So why did you do it?

Because I know the road and I know that at normal speed (70 -80km/hr) it would have taken me the best part of 5 mins to get to where I could overtake in absolute comfort with plenty of room when this country road merges onto the N4. Doing 20km/hr (probably slower as it was mostly uphill) it would have taken me the best part of 20 minutes during which time other cars would have arrived behind me and I would have been obstructing them from overtaking.

Now you are absolutely spot on that no gun was pointed at me but I just think you are being obtuse when you keep mentioning that I wasn't forced to overtake. I know I wasn't but I made the decision that it was the better option and when I did so I was forced to drive to the verge which need not have happened if there was a rule whereby cyclists are required to cycle single file when they make overtaking difficult.

Lusk Doyle

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Because I know the road and I know that at normal speed (70 -80km/hr) it would have taken me the best part of 5 mins to get to where I could overtake in absolute comfort with plenty of room when this country road merges onto the N4. Doing 20km/hr (probably slower as it was mostly uphill) it would have taken me the best part of 20 minutes during which time other cars would have arrived behind me and I would have been obstructing them from overtaking.

Now you are absolutely spot on that no gun was pointed at me but I just think you are being obtuse when you keep mentioning that I wasn't forced to overtake. I know I wasn't but I made the decision that it was the better option and when I did so I was forced to drive to the verge.

By yourself it seems.

seamus

I am not a cyclist

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Now you are absolutely spot on that no gun was pointed at me but I just think you are being obtuse when you keep mentioning that I wasn't forced to overtake.

What I'm trying to do is combat this nonsense idea that it's someone else's fault when one performs a risky manouver.
You are the only person driving your vehicle. You are in full control of it, you make every decision in relation to how it moves. When you overtake, you overtake because you choose to. Own your actions, take responsibility for them. There's far too much eagerness to pass off blame for one's own actions to someone else because one was "forced" to do it.

Likewise, you have no control over other people's vehicles. If they choose to overtake dangerously, that's neither your problem nor your fault. If you cannot overtake safely, then you cannot overtake safely. Don't put yourself or anyone else in danger because you think another driver will be "forced" to overtake you.

I'm not being obtuse, I'm being factual. If you had crashed into an oncoming vehicle or embedded your car in the verge, or knocked down the cyclists because you had to pull back in, then it would have been your fault. Nobody else's. You were not forced to do anything. You chose to do it.

hatrickpatrick

Should pay some form of road tax

100%. I'm so, so, so sick of cyclists breaking red lights at pedestrian crossings and cycling on the pavement, especially in town. Walking up Dame Street is an absolute nightmare because of them.

iregk

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Because I know the road and I know that at normal speed (70 -80km/hr) it would have taken me the best part of 5 mins to get to where I could overtake in absolute comfort with plenty of room when this country road merges onto the N4. Doing 20km/hr (probably slower as it was mostly uphill) it would have taken me the best part of 20 minutes during which time other cars would have arrived behind me and I would have been obstructing them from overtaking.

So if I'm getting this right and please correct me if I'm wrong. You are on a road where you travel 70-80km. There isn't a safe overtaking spot for 5mins. In this time you've covered circa 8km. That's a pretty decent stretch of road and there wasn't one single safe overtaking space on it? Really? If there wasn't then this tends to suggest to me that it was a pretty tight and bendy road in which case I would say doing 80km on it is rather dangerous.

Fizzlesque

Every time there's a thread about cyclists, with regard to should they pay road tax, I find myself drifting off into a fabulous daydream. In this fabulous daydream we (cyclists) have luxurious cycle lanes with smooth surfaces, that we don't have to share with other traffic. No more lumpy bits, no more gaping holes in the ground that will throw you off your bike if you don't swerve to avoid it, no more cycle lanes that suddenly come to an end, in the middle of busy traffic, no more buses driving off from the bus stop while you're half way up the side, overtaking it while it stood allowing passengers to get on/off, only to be left in the middle of busy traffic unable to get back to the safety of the left hand side of the road because of the traffic behind the bus.

In this little daydream, we even have our own little traffic lights that allow us to continue to cycle if it's conducive for skinny little bicyles to merge with traffic because we're not as wide as a car instead of making us wait for the main lights.

At this point I realise my daydream is really a memory of what it's like to cycle in the Netherlands, where I lived and cycled for many years before returning to Dublin.

I'd love to have a cycling system like the Dutch have, it's fantastic. I'd happily pay to have decent safe cycling in Ireland - but would we get it? That's my question to you.

Deliverance XXV

seamus wrote: »

It's been covered before, but if a car is incapable of safely passing cyclists riding two abreast, then one abreast isn't much easier.

It's a lot easier.

pickarooney

Fines should certainly be imposable although there is often a disparity between the correct legal procedure and the safe procedure (taking the third exit on a roundabout for example).
My house/third-party insurance applies to my cycling and a motorist who drove into me last year successfully claimed off it for repairs to her car.

The filthy, evil hoor.

Tax for cyclists is a stupid notion; if anything there should be tax exemptions for environmentally friendly road users.

Fizzlesque

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

100%. I'm so, so, so sick of cyclists breaking red lights at pedestrian crossings and cycling on the pavement, especially in town. Walking up Dame Street is an absolute nightmare because of them.

I'm a cyclist and I have to agree with you here. Dame Street junction can be treacherous. Many motorists and cyclists seem to have a total blind spot here with regard to red lights. I've counted as many as five cars going through the red lights here, and some cyclists (Dublin Bike cyclists being the worst, in my opinion) seem to genuinely not notice the red light until the pedestrian they almost knocked down points it out to them.

hatrickpatrick

Should pay some form of road tax

Fizzlesque wrote: »

I'm a cyclist and I have to agree with you here. Dame Street junction can be treacherous. Many motorists and cyclists seem to have a total blind spot here with regard to red lights. I've counted as many as five cars going through the red lights here, and some cyclists (Dublin Bike cyclists being the worst, in my opinion) seem to genuinely not notice the red light until the pedestrian they almost knocked down points it out to them.

Which junction did you have in mind, actually? Crossing the road at the bottom of the street where it meets Trinity is pretty bad, but where (IMO) it gets really dangerous is about half way up Dame Street where it joins South George's Street. Those lights seem to be invisible to about half the population I see in the mornings while walking to college, and in all honesty I don't think I've ever seen a cyclist stop for the lights there.

It's not as if they're taking a chance going through a light which was orange a second ago, that's one thing, this is when it's been red for ages, tons of pedestrians crossing, and some eejit just decides "Meh I can try to weave through them"...

darced

This post has been deleted.