Tax cyclists?

endswell

sean1141 wrote: »

Maybe not tax them but there should have some way of identifying them when they are on a public road. If one of them clips a mirror off a car or hits off it passing they can easily cycle away and avoid the responsibility of repairing the damage they caused.

every bike should be registered for €5. helps tackle bike theft. Random police checks can ensure bike has matching owner. "but it's my mate's bike" - must be a solution.

dr.fuzzenstein

Tea 1000 wrote: »

What about pedestrians? You can't keep taxing and controlling everything.

Now there's an idea!
Tax, insurance and NCT for shoes should do it, with little disc holders and numberplates.
You will get periodically checked by the Guards, to make sure you have a minimum thread depth and don't go too fast.
And insurance companies will have a field day levying 800% surcharges on flip-flops, high heels and runners.
The NCT could be handled by Mr Minute outlets, who could also carry out any necessary repairs.
And people will need a license, of course.
I mentioned this to a revenue official, he immediately started drooling and convulsing at the though of the billions that could be made of this.

kumate_champ07

endswell wrote: »

every bike should be registered for €5. helps tackle bike theft. Random police checks can ensure bike has matching owner. "but it's my mate's bike" - must be a solution.

random bike checks would be an annoyance and a waste of police time.

you cant have 5euro insurance for every bike, some bikes cost more than cars, some bikes costs less than a night out on the town!

kumate_champ07

I think you can register bikes for free anyway, if its found it can be checked against a database by the police

Mycroft H

True, I've mine registered. Serial number, Make/Model, distinguishing features. I *think* it's nationwide in any Garda station now.

Cabaal

djimi wrote: »

Id be a lot quicker to try and force cyclists to get insurance; if they realised that there was a monetary consequence to their actions they might take a bit more care on the road.
.

What about those pesky pedestrians?

Should they also not have insurance also for the exact same reason?

thecomedian

Cabaal wrote: »

What about those pesky pedestrians?

Should they also not have insurance also for the exact same reason?

Why are people comparing cyclists to pedestrians?
They don't follow the same rules, just a question before people go on the attack.

galwaytt

Anan1 wrote: »

At the risk of stating the obvious, that's a TV programme. It might make a good opener for a discussion, but I wouldn't draw any conclusions about the general behaviour of cyclists or motorists from it.

I agree, that's why I said there was fault all-round. We have dash cam thread for more insight.

Have to say though, the 24yr old Programmer guy has some ego. Ive seen his stuff on YT before....The taxi driver was right - the cyclist claiming that if he can touch the cab that the cab is too close ? Wrong. It's a city. If he can't cycle in close confines then walk. Or get the bus. Mind though, you'll have to stand closer to others there, too....and he was completely wrong going uo the incline/bridge in the middle of the lane.

Putting oneself IN danger, not mitigating it is stupid.

Capt'n Midnight

galwaytt wrote: »

The taxi driver was right - the cyclist claiming that if he can touch the cab that the cab is too close ? Wrong. It's a city. If he can't cycle in close confines then walk. Or get the bus.

Have a look at the diagram in the Highway Code. The rules on overtaking cyclists are a little different over there.

Mycroft H

galwaytt wrote: »

I agree, that's why I said there was fault all-round. We have dash cam thread for more insight.

Have to say though, the 24yr old Programmer guy has some ego. Ive seen his stuff on YT before....The taxi driver was right - the cyclist claiming that if he can touch the cab that the cab is too close ? Wrong. It's a city. If he can't cycle in close confines then walk. Or get the bus. Mind though, you'll have to stand closer to others there, too....and he was completely wrong going uo the incline/bridge in the middle of the lane.

Minimum passing distance there is 3ft. That's set down in law. He has a point. If you can touch a car, you're far less then 3ft. Nothing stopping that taxi passing more the 3ft at that point. Loads of room. Laziness on the drivers point.

robertxxx

Cycle in the middle of the bus lane when things get tight, that's what I do.

Capt'n Midnight

Tax on HGV's should reflect what it costs to support them. IIRC a HGV does 1,000's of times more damage to roads than a car. They need stronger bridges and more head room ( taller tunnels and longer flyover ramps ) than other vehicles.

Instead they can claim back VAT.

Precious little is spent on usable cycling facilities in this country. Yes there are cycle lanes, but limited hours and parked cars and barriers and loss of right of way at junctions, broken glass etc. all add up.

Would be interesting to see how much the level of cycling has affected Dublin Bus subsidies.


There is an old adage "you aren't stuck in traffic, you are traffic"

every bike that passes you means you are a car length further ahead than you would be otherwise


you don't need licenses for bikes, one techno fix is CCTV and mobile phone tracking , enforcement and on the spot fines for breaking red lights


Can anyone remind me if you can get penalty points on a Driving License for offences committed on a bike , and if the fines also apply ?

Victor

The reality, especially in a country that neither produces cars nor oil, is that motoring should be discouraged.

sogood wrote: »

Given that motor tax and revenue raising is topical at the moment, I wondered if and when the notion of taxing/regulating cyclists might be considered?

What makes you think that cyclists don't pay motor tax? Many cyclists also own cars or other vehicles.

Also, there is the issue of costs to the health system, both in obesity-exercise and collision casualities.

Of 854 fatal collisions (number of casualties will be higher) in the period 1998-2010, between single vehicles and pedestrians only two involved pedal cycles. One presumes that the vast majority (if not all) of the fatalities were the pedestrian.There may have been fatal multi-vehicle collisions involving pedestrians, but I suspect they are rare.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81425578&postcount=100

galwaytt

BX 19 wrote: »

Minimum passing distance there is 3ft. That's set down in law. He has a point. If you can touch a car, you're far less then 3ft. Nothing stopping that taxi passing more the 3ft at that point.

That makes no sense imho. If there's a cycle lane you have to ADD 3 extra feet ?

endswell

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

random bike checks would be an annoyance and a waste of police time.

you cant have 5euro insurance for every bike, some bikes cost more than cars, some bikes costs less than a night out on the town!

not insurance, registration. plenty of ways it could be implemented so that it wouldnt use up time, barcode etc. Anti-theft measure at end of day. Bike without a barcode is confiscated. Charge for its return if not stolen.

Alanstrainor

galwaytt wrote: »

That makes no sense imho. If there's a cycle lane you have to ADD 3 extra feet ?

Cycle lane or no cycle lane you have to give 3 feet. The distance is taken from the cyclists position, not the lane they're in.

Victor

galwaytt wrote: »

That makes no sense imho. If there's a cycle lane you have to ADD 3 extra feet ?

As if vehicle aerodynamics obey little white lines on the road.

Mycroft H

galwaytt wrote: »

That makes no sense imho. If there's a cycle lane you have to ADD 3 extra feet ?

If you've ever cycled on a busy road with traffic you'd a know how 3 feet is appreciated. Especially with large vehicles that can cause a backdraft

BostonB

sogood wrote: »

Given that motor tax and revenue raising is topical at the moment, I wondered if and when the notion of taxing/regulating cyclists might be considered? I watched a documentary last night about cyclists wearing helmet cams, recording poor driving etc. but in fairness, there was also a lot of poor cycling also. Police on bikes were kept busy taking cyclists to task for breaking red lights, cycling on footpaths, wrong way on one way streets etc. You know the sort of thing (given that cyclists are immune from the rules of the road!) But what happens when cyclists are caught on cctv? Basically, nothing, as they cant be tracked.
So, why arent cyclists registered, with reg plates as a legal requirement and road tax payable also. They use the roads, like the rest of us. They have facilities and infrastructure put in place for their (sometimes exclusive) use, like signage, cycle lanes, bike parking. So, why don't they pay? Why aren't they accountable? If the government wants money, what are they waiting for? Of course the green brigade would be up in arms, but lots of people are up in arms over lots of things and they just have to suck it up.

Any cyclists on here with an opinion?

How about tax relief for cyclists as they'll use their cars less, and save on wear and tear on the infrastructure. They'll also help with congestion and probably ease demand on the HSE.

jimmyw

sogood wrote: »

Given that motor tax and revenue raising is topical at the moment, I wondered if and when the notion of taxing/regulating cyclists might be considered? I watched a documentary last night about cyclists wearing helmet cams, recording poor driving etc. but in fairness, there was also a lot of poor cycling also. Police on bikes were kept busy taking cyclists to task for breaking red lights, cycling on footpaths, wrong way on one way streets etc. You know the sort of thing (given that cyclists are immune from the rules of the road!) But what happens when cyclists are caught on cctv? Basically, nothing, as they cant be tracked.
So, why arent cyclists registered, with reg plates as a legal requirement and road tax payable also. They use the roads, like the rest of us. They have facilities and infrastructure put in place for their (sometimes exclusive) use, like signage, cycle lanes, bike parking. So, why don't they pay? Why aren't they accountable? If the government wants money, what are they waiting for? Of course the green brigade would be up in arms, but lots of people are up in arms over lots of things and they just have to suck it up.

Any cyclists on here with an opinion?

So tar all cyclists with the one brush? Good as well as bad?

mcmoustache wrote: »

Oh yes. Definitely.

It should be proportional to their exhaust emission levels and the amount of wear and tear that they cause to the road.

What emissions? On a bike?

OldmanMondeo

Tea 1000 wrote: »

What about pedestrians? You can't keep taxing and controlling everything.

pedestrians are taxed!!!;)

Aka Ishur

jimmyw wrote: »

What emissions? On a bike?

Pretty sure thats the point...silly thread to get 5 pages anyways...

OldmanMondeo

jimmyw wrote: »

What emissions? On a bike?

The auld bum burps...

endswell

jimmyw wrote: »

What emissions? On a bike?

Single largest cause of ozone damage in the world

AugustusMinimus

seamus wrote: »

Ignoring taxes paid, every km cycled instead of driven results in a net saving to the state in things like the upkeep of the roads, healthcare, sick days, etc, whereas a km driven results in a net cost to the state in the above categories (among others).

That's why you need taxation to offset the cost of motoring.

I'll see if I can dig up the article which did the calculations.

1. Sick days are paid out of PRSI contributions
2. I don't for a second believe that driving around in a car is a primary cause for healthcare risks / obesity. I seriously doubt for a that levels of obesity are increasing at a similar level with car usage.
3. You're ignoring the fact that car usage is just one of the factors which affect healthcare costs and the health of the nation. I'd imagine it's a very small factor in the grand scheme of things.
4. I still doubt the costs are greater than the tax take.

Alanstrainor

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

1. Sick days are paid out of PRSI contributions
2. I don't for a second believe that driving around in a car is a primary cause for healthcare risks / obesity. I seriously doubt for a that levels of obesity are increasing at a similar level with car usage.
3. You're ignoring the fact that car usage is just one of the factors which affect healthcare costs and the health of the nation. I'd imagine it's a very small factor in the grand scheme of things.
4. I still doubt the costs are greater than the tax take.

It's not car usage that increases health care risks, it's not keeping active. If someone who was driving even 2/3 miles to work, starts cycling those miles every day, it is a certainty that, that individual will become fitter and healthier as a result.

Cookie_Monster

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

1. Sick days are paid out of PRSI contributions
2. I don't for a second believe that driving around in a car is a primary cause for healthcare risks / obesity. I seriously doubt for a that levels of obesity are increasing at a similar level with car usage.
3. You're ignoring the fact that car usage is just one of the factors which affect healthcare costs and the health of the nation. I'd imagine it's a very small factor in the grand scheme of things.
4. I still doubt the costs are greater than the tax take.

1. less sick days means less PRSI spend = savings
2. not primary but it add considerably to the sedentary lifestyle that so prevalent these days, from driving the kids to school a 30sec drive tot he shops instead of walking etc. it all adds up over 60+ years.
3. it's probably reasonably small for an individual but again for society it all adds up into the increasing obesity and inactivity the general population trends show
4. Between the environmental, healthcare, social and infrastructural cost I'd but the cost at many many times the revenue.

AugustusMinimus

Alanstrainor wrote: »

It's not car usage that increases health care risks, it's not keeping active. If someone who was driving even 2/3 miles to work, starts cycling those miles every day, it is a certainty that, that individual will become fitter and healthier as a result.

You don't think I understand that

AugustusMinimus

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

4. Between the environmental, healthcare, social and infrastructural cost I'd but the cost at many many times the revenue.

But what exactly are the environmental costs of motoring. There's obviously an effect on the environment from emissions, but what government expenditure is being used to counteract this ?

For healthcare, a figure would have to be worked out for what saving their would be if people didn't have cars. In such a scenario, some would walk, some would cycle. It must be remembered though that others would get the bus, train or plane which would be just as sedentary.

On infrastructure. A few points. Major builds such as motorways would have to be written off over 50 years or more (whatever they're useful life is). Yearly maintenance costs etc would then be added onto this figure.

Another issue is that the bulk of this infrastructure would have to be build anyways to allow buses, heavy goods vehicles and you guessed it, bicycles to move from point A to point B. You can't lump all the costs of infrastructure on just car users.

Social. There is a huge cost of a person dying in a car crash obviously. While this may cost the country as a whole, does this actually cost the state anything ?

Our man in Havana

This has run it's course.