Cyclists should do a theory test!

tipparetops

ThisRegard wrote: »

Comprehension is not your forte either.

your post above shows you have been bested by your superior.
Now you can jog on, it might be safer.:cool:

Spook_ie

ThisRegard wrote: »

You use the roads more and pay less to do so. Can't wait to see the appropriate rates for you guys under your new scheme.

Wouldn't make much difference, its a deductible business expense

Grandpa Hassan

Spook_ie wrote: »

don't expect myself and a lot of others to like paying for your lifestyle choices

You already do. Its called the bike to work scheme. I picked up a great bike on it.

ThisRegard

Spook_ie wrote: »

No cyclists contributing to the facilities they use as cyclists, sort of like motorists contributing via motor tax, fuel tax, VRT etc for the facilities they use. Which has the added benefit of repudiating the motorists "I pay road tax, you don't " argument

You pay subsidised motor tax but still expect taxi ranks provided taking space from other road users and pedestrians.

tipparetops

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

You already do. Its called the bike to work scheme. I picked up a great bike on it.

The bike to work scheme is good for everyone, including non cyclists.
I have seen fellas buying lawnmowers, chainsaws etc. and saying they got a bike.

ThisRegard

tipparetops wrote: »

your post above shows you have been bested by your superior.
Now you can jog on, it might be safer.:cool:

Stop digging, the use of smilies doesn't disguise the fact you completely misunderstood the post.

tipparetops

ThisRegard wrote: »

Stop digging, the use of smilies doesn't disguise the fact you completely misunderstood the post.

smilies - spelling not your forte? :pac:

Spook_ie

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

You already do. Its called the bike to work scheme. I picked up a great bike on it.

Correct, and I believe that you should at least agree to pay towards the rest of the infrastructure that you all want, I don't believe the taxpayer should foot any more of cyclists bills than they do already.

Interestingly that the exchequer think its a success but can't actually tell you how many people actually cycle to work rather than
go on weekends up and down the Sallygap, of course if they ever did find out it would likely screw a lot of the Mamils up

RainyDay

Spook_ie wrote: »

Because the dept of environment receive in the motor tax and pay it back out in the form of LGA, it never went into central exchequer like income tax

Nonsense, you've just made that up. Motor tax shows on the tax receipts of central govt. It's all in one pot.

Spook_ie

ThisRegard wrote: »

You pay subsidised motor tax but still expect taxi ranks provided taking space from other road users and pedestrians.

No the customer ( historicly ) expected to find taxis at taxi ranks, some taxi drivers believe that taxis should have somewhere to park while waiting instead of plying for hire, but we digress, if you wish to disparage taxi driving then start a new thread, AH hasn't had a decent taxi thread in ages, I'd suggest something along the lines of tipping taxi drivers for maximum response

RainyDay

ThisRegard wrote: »

You pay subsidised motor tax but still expect taxi ranks provided taking space from other road users and pedestrians.

Brilliant, I look forward to his explanation of this one.

rubadub

tipparetops wrote: »

I drive sensibly, I am watchful for other vehicles. I am always wary.
But accidents are accidents, there is no blame.
They are not called on purposes.

We all take chances every day, accept this.
Cyclists take their chance sitting on a push bike, I am all about accepting ones decisions.

You said before the parents are to blame.

tipparetops wrote: »

very few parents let their child onto busy roads on a bicycle, if they do, they must accept blame if the child is injured or killed.

When I was a child it was the norm for almost everybody I knew to cycle to school.

Or are you saying its not an accident, but an "on purpose" if a child is killed cycling on the road.

ThisRegard

tipparetops wrote: »

smilies - spelling not your forte? :pac:

You really really need to stop making a fool of yourself. You even had the use of Google to check before posting but still posted that.

tipparetops

ThisRegard wrote: »

You really really need to stop making a fool of yourself. You even had the use of Google to check before posting but still posted that.

you completely misunderstood my post. stop pretending.

Spook_ie

RainyDay wrote: »

Nonsense, you've just made that up. Motor tax shows on the tax receipts of central govt. It's all in one pot.

Did I really,

http://www.cartell.ie/2010/02/cartell-asks-where-does-our-motor-tax-go/

Pinch Flat

tipparetops wrote: »

Cyclists like yourself choose to go onto the roads with drivers that kill cyclists.
Have you paused to think about that, do you have a death wish.

I choose to use the roads as I am legally entitled to do. Incidentally, the closest I've come to a serious accident was while driving. The car came against me on the wrong side of the motorway. I'm glad you can agree though that drivers kill people. It's completely unacceptable.

cajonlardo

Give me the tests, taxes, licences, reg plates (I'm already insured )

Anything, anything to shut these whining holier than thou ^&*wipes up.

No longer allowed to be racist, homophobic or to openly berate religion - whats a cretin got left to hate?

Grandpa Hassan

Spook_ie wrote: »

Correct, and I believe that you should at least agree to pay towards the rest of the infrastructure that you all want, I don't believe the taxpayer should foot any more of cyclists bills than they do already.

Interestingly that the exchequer think its a success but can't actually tell you how many people actually cycle to work rather than
go on weekends up and down the Sallygap, of course if they ever did find out it would likely screw a lot of the Mamils up

You need to wake up and understand that government policy will remain pro cycle and anti car. I look forward to the day when increasing parts of our major cities are bike bus and taxi zones only. It's coming. Like you said, the exchequer says it's a success and Dublin bikes has just been massively expanded. The momentum is only one way, my friend. Maybe you should by a lycra and join the fun

tipparetops

rubadub wrote: »

You said before the parents are to blame.


When I was a child it was the norm for almost everybody I knew to cycle to school.

Or are you saying its not an accident, but an "on purpose" if a child is killed cycling on the road.

Yeah, cycled to school with you mom behind you.
You Sir, are a ticket.

My posts are quite simple to understand, adult cyclists must accept that cycling is dangerous and accidents happen.
Parents who send their children cycling onto a road should have social services and guards at the door.
If a child is killed cycling on a road, the parents will have questions to answer.

Spook_ie

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

You need to wake up and understand that government policy will remain pro cycle and anti car. I look forward to the day when increasing parts of our major cities are bike bus and taxi zones only. It's coming. Like you said, the exchequer says it's a success and Dublin bikes has just been massively expanded. The momentum is only one way, my friend. Maybe you should by a lycra and join the fun

Nah, can't see me wearing Lycra while driving the taxi

ThisRegard

Spook_ie wrote: »

No the customer ( historicly ) expected to find taxis at taxi ranks, some taxi drivers believe that taxis should have somewhere to park while waiting instead of plying for hire, but we digress, if you wish to disparage taxi driving then start a new thread, AH hasn't had a decent taxi thread in ages, I'd suggest something along the lines of tipping taxi drivers for maximum response

I'm just using the very same points you always use, cyclists should pay towards the facilities they're provided with via additional taxes.

Why should your very own logic not apply to taxi drivers?

tipparetops

Pinch Flat wrote: »

I choose to use the roads as I am legally entitled to do. Incidentally, the closest I've come to a serious accident was while driving. The car came against me on the wrong side of the motorway. I'm glad you can agree though that drivers kill people. It's completely unacceptable.

keep cycling, but accept that if you are hurt or killed doing so, ce la vie.

Pinch Flat

tipparetops wrote: »

Parents who send their children cycling onto a road should have social services and guards at the door.

I love it. These hysterical over reactions. Keep them coming.

Spook_ie

ThisRegard wrote: »

I'm just using the very same points you always use, cyclists should pay towards the facilities they're provided with via additional taxes.

Why should your very own logic not apply to taxi drivers?

Where have I said that it shouldn't? To be honest one of my suggestions to the NTA was to allow any legally parked taxi ( as in you were parked were parking was permitted ) to ply for hire you wouldn't need any taxi ranks, but again we digress, take it to a taxi thread

Pinch Flat

tipparetops wrote: »

keep cycling, but accept that if you are hurt or killed doing so, ce la vie.

C'est, but let's not get pedantic.


Look, I know a lot of Irish people freak out at the thoughts of personal responsibility - I had a woman try to blame me for ripping the underside of her car off for trying to overtake me on a speed ramp, my fault apparently for cycling too fast. So I get that mindset.

What concerns me even more is that there's people like you who drive around, safe in the knowledge (in their own myopic world) that whatever happens is someone else's fault. Thankfully in the minority.

ThisRegard

Pinch Flat wrote: »

I love it. These hysterical over reactions. Keep them coming.

I think some people start out thinking they're making good points, soon realise that's not the case and end up just posting troll like posts.

tipparetops

Pinch Flat wrote: »

I love it. These hysterical over reactions. Keep them coming.

Typical cyclist arrogance, if you do not like the truth go back to your own forum and bring the other codgers with you.

tipparetops

ThisRegard wrote: »

I think some people start out thinking they're making good points, soon realise that's not the case and end up just posting troll like posts.

You have the highest troll posts, more lies because you are losing the argument.

ThisRegard

Spook_ie wrote: »

Where have I said that it shouldn't? To be honest one of my suggestions to the NTA was to allow any legally parked taxi ( as in you were parked were parking was permitted ) to ply for hire you wouldn't need any taxi ranks, but again we digress, take it to a taxi thread

It's an easy question, should taxis fund the full costs of taxi ranks and towards bus lanes via increases in their motor taxes? You only said a couple of posts back that the tax payer should not be funding cycle facilities any further.

ThisRegard

tipparetops wrote: »

You have the highest troll posts, more lies because you are losing the argument.

Cool, can I see the leader board?

Spook_ie

ThisRegard wrote: »

It's an easy question, should taxis fund the full costs of taxi ranks and towards bus lanes via increases in their motor taxes? You only said a couple of posts back that the tax payer should not be funding cycle facilities any further.

And I think you'll find I said cyclists should contribute towards not fund completely, you're being deliberately misleading now

tipparetops

Pinch Flat wrote: »

C'est, but let's not get pedantic.


Look, I know a lot of Irish people freak out at the thoughts of personal responsibility - I had a woman try to blame me for ripping the underside of her car off for trying to overtake me on a speed ramp, my fault apparently for cycling to fast. So I can get that mindset.

What concerns me out even more is that there's people like you who drive around, safe in the knowledge that whatever happens is someone else's fault. Thankfully in the minority.

Your last point, that is opposite of what i was saying.
WE all have to accept our own decisions, not blame others.

For Example:
A cyclist gets killed by a speeding driver, there is no point the cyclists family saying the cyclist was in the right. They are dead.
WE all have to accept the decisions we make.

tipparetops

ThisRegard wrote: »

Cool, can I see the leader board?

Another Troll point for you, well ahead.

ThisRegard

Spook_ie wrote: »

And I think you'll find I said cyclists should contribute towards not fund completely, you're being deliberately misleading now

I'm not quite sure, is that a Yes or a No, even partiality funding them?

Pinch Flat

tipparetops wrote: »

Typical cyclist arrogance, if you do not like the truth go back to your own forum and bring the other codgers with you.

If you read my posts, I'm posting as a citizen who is a motorist and a cyclist, albeit one who refuses to follow the herd in a car park every morning. It's improved my lifestyle no end - more free time, regular exercise and saves me thousands annually. You could not pay me to go back to being stuck in a car every morning to trying around and do the same again in the evening. Did that for years - it was miserable.

But you're right - the truth is that cars kill almost 200 annually. I'm acutely aware of this when cycling. The other codgers would agree.

Pinch Flat

Spook_ie wrote: »

Point 1 Correct as it stands at the moment there would be no tax liability for using a cycle, however, given that your argument about motor tax is that you already pay for it on your car why would you pay it on a cycle (correct me if I'm misinterpreting you ) if the tax regime was changed just because you have paid it for a car would not exempt you from having to pay it on a cycle, they are two separate vehicles.

So we've established this is a circular argument. You feel a person who pays 200 annually to tax a car should pay another 120 (your figure) to use a bike to commute. I disagree (as do a lot of sensible people) that this is workable and without precedent on the entire planet. But lets park this one, as it's going nowhere. Many other posters who posted here have pointed out how the roads are funded - including non-drivers indirectly through VAT, excise and duty that goes towards funding the roads - just like schools, libraries, hospitals and other public amenities.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Point 2 Nothing insane about VAT, luxury items tend to attract higher tax rates, is a sexy cycle more of a luxury than a clunker? If so then increase the VAT

Ok, so a ford fiesta should have less VAT than a BMW 5 series following this logic. My commuting bike is a junker (the correct term ) - far from a luxury item, but nevertheless I've already paid VAT on it, as well as the VAT on clothing, locks, safety equipment etc.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Point 3 Going off topic, but as it currently stands to become a taxi driver you are now required to pass a test that tests your knowledge of the taxi area you intend to work, agreed it wasn't always that way and indeed in some areas the only requirement was to present yourself to the local PSV inspector, answer half a dozen questions about PSV law and that was it, I would love for a driving test to be part of the licensing procedure, maybe it would rid us of some turkeys but that wouldn't help with cyclists flouting the law!

I must admit I'm not up on the ins and out of the taxi game, but this can't be a bad thing. Will this be applied retrospectively to the thousands of taxi drivers who've flooded the market since deregulation? From what I see on a daily basis taxi drivers carry on with scant regard of those around them - they'll happily cause a compromising situation with other road users to get that fare. Granted there are a few that'll play buy the rules, but they're in the minority.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Point 3a I notice a few people have alluded to my old argument that a crap cyclist is probably also a crap driver, but seeing as you don't normally train downwards it would be more logical to start at the bottom, ie cyclists ( I've not included pedestrians because by law they are NOT defined as road users)

Cycling (both theory and practice) should be taught to children from school going age and that before they take a provisional licence spend a period of time on a bike. This would box off the theory argument and give people an understanding of how to use the roads in a responsible manner - lacking now, where the saturation of cars as the primary choice of personal transport has lead to people treating some other road users with contempt.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Point 4 And that's your choice, I just don't believe other people should have to pay for your choices, therefore put up the VAT on sexy cycles and if you decide that's the way you want to go, then go for it, who would I be to argue but don't expect myself and a lot of others to like paying for your lifestyle choices

Again we're back to point 1 - and that's your view which I fundamentally disagree with, as does the government of the country who decide the tax regime. I can't really discuss this point anymore as it's going nowhere. I suggest you pen a letter to your local TD or the Minister for Finance and see if they'll consider changing the tax regime. Let us know how you get on.

I choose to save myself about 3,000 per annum in fuel costs alone (my own figures which ignore depreciation and wear and tear on my car) as well as the shear hassle and inconvenience by cycling to and from work. I already pay for my choice - it's been pointed out to you umpteen times how the roads are funded. What about other public amenities - libraries, hospitals, play grounds, public pools, sports facilities - should they just be paid for by the people solely who use them, or society as a whole? because I think that's how our public roads are funded. Although a lot of motorists believe they have sole access to them - an attitude born of the car dependency we've developed here.

Spook_ie

ThisRegard wrote: »

I'm not quite sure, is that a Yes or a No, even partiality funding them?

Taxi drivers already partially fund a lot of things, I'll pull up some figures later as I'm on the mobile phone and searching cutting and pasting is a pain, but an in head estimate is somewhere around 3 to 4 million per year in various fees, but again you digress.

Now given that I can prove that taxi drivers AND other motorist pay or contribute for the use of various facilities do you believe that cyclists should be allowed to be parasites of the road? and not only that but untrained parasites

tipparetops

Pinch Flat wrote: »

If you read my posts, I'm posting as a motorist and a cycling, albeit a motorist who refuses to follow the herd in a car park every morning. It's improved my lifestyle no end - more free time, regular exercise and saves me thousands annually. You could not pay me to go back to being stuck in a car every morning to trying around and do the same again in the evening. Did that for years - it was miserable.

But you're right - the truth is that cars kill almost 200 annually. I'm acutely aware of this when cycling. The other codgers would agree.

It is a free country, cycle on.
When I meet cyclists on the road I drive slowly and overtake carefully.
But not all motorists do and cyclists must accept they know this and they are still deciding to cycle.

Pinch Flat

ThisRegard wrote: »

I'm not quite sure, is that a Yes or a No, even partiality funding them?

Ah no in fairness he's been very clear - 50% VAT on sports bikes - this seems to be the one group he's targeting - although that apparently gets revised back to 25% and further back to 0% depending on the type of bike. Interestingly Dublin Bikes recently celebrated 10,000,000 trips - so not sure why they should all be VAT free given this logic, but it's an admirable jesture on Spooks part admittedly.

And we've settled on 120 Euros as a 'cycle tax'. The first in the world. Go Ireland, smoking ban, legalised gay marraige now taxing bikes the same as cars.

So that's Spooks manifesto in a nut shell.

Spook_ie

Pinch Flat wrote: »

So <snipped>Many other posters who posted here have pointed out how the roads are funded - including non-drivers indirectly through VAT, excise and duty that goes towards funding the roads - just like schools, libraries, hospitals and other public amenities.


<snipped>.

And all of them are forgetting this

Local Government Fund - General Purpose Grant

The Local Government Fund (LGF) is a special central fund which was established in 1999 under the Local Government Act 1998. It is financed by the full proceeds of motor tax and an Exchequer contribution. The Fund provides local authorities with the finance for general discretionary funding of their day-to-day activities and for non-national roads, and funding for certain local government initiatives

http://www.environ.ie/en/LGFinance/

ThisRegard

Spook_ie wrote: »

Taxi drivers already partially fund a lot of things, I'll pull up some figures later as I'm on the mobile phone and searching cutting and pasting is a pain, but an in head estimate is somewhere around 3 to 4 million per year in various fees, but again you digress.

Now given that I can prove that taxi drivers AND other motorist pay or contribute for the use of various facilities do you believe that cyclists should be allowed to be parasites of the road? and not only that but untrained parasites

We're talking about motor tax, not other various fees, of which we all pay. You're just widening the scope to suit your argument.

You know full well that taxes any sort of motorists pay don't cover the costs of what they're provided. You also know that people who don't drive, and who never will, also pay towards road infrastructure. So if you're going to get all smarmy make sure you put all road users in your parasite bucket, particularly those whose motor tax is further subsidised by the tax payer.

You still haven't given me an answer.

Spook_ie

ThisRegard wrote: »

We're talking about motor tax, not other various fees, of which we all pay. You're just widening the scope go suit your argument.

You know full well that taxes any sort of motorists pay don't cover the costs of what they're provided. You also know that people who don't drive, and who never will, also pay towards road infrastructure. So if you're going to get all smarmy make sure you put all road users in your parasite bucket, particularly those whose motor tax is further subsidised by the tax payer.

You still haven't given me an answer.

You asked about facilities for taxi drivers, now I see we have a raw nerve about being a parasite, but do you think that cyclists should contribute or be parasitic

ThisRegard

I feel like Paxman, Yes or No? Does your logic fall asunder when you realise it also applies to yourself?

Pinch Flat

Spook_ie wrote: »

Taxi drivers already partially fund a lot of things, I'll pull up some figures later as I'm on the mobile phone and searching cutting and pasting is a pain, but an in head estimate is somewhere around 3 to 4 million per year in various fees, but again you digress.

I'm sure they do. I contribute in my own profession through registration, charges, VAT, income tax, training etc - why should a taxi driver be different?

Spook_ie wrote: »

Now given that I can prove that taxi drivers AND other motorist pay or contribute for the use of various facilities do you believe that cyclists should be allowed to be parasites of the road? and not only that but untrained parasites

Again we're back to the circular argument. Let's ignore the derogatory term to describe cyclists - but it's giving an insight into your own mindset. It's society that pays for the roads.

There's also a huge subsidy from central government to top-up the funding and maintain the roads. People who don't drive subsidize the roads, as they do hospitals, libraries, play grounds and other public amenities.

Spook_ie

ThisRegard wrote: »

I feel like Paxman, Yes or No? Does your logic fall asunder when you realise it also applies to yourself?

No because any costs associated with driving my taxi are business deductables, don't know how many times I need to say it but just for you

Business deductable, business deductible, business deductible, business deductible............

Spook_ie

Pinch Flat wrote: »

I'm sure they do. I contribute in my own profession through registration, charges, VAT, income tax, training etc - why should a taxi driver be different?



Again we're back to the circular argument. Let's ignore the derogatory term to describe cyclists - but it's giving an insight into your own mindset. It's society that pays for the roads.

There's also a huge subsidy from central government to top-up the funding and maintain the roads. People who don't drive subsidize the roads, as they do hospitals, libraries, play grounds and other public amenities.

And as said before motortax specifically is paid out in LGFs it doesn't go to central taxation so the money you pay to fund national roads is different to the money for funding local roads

Pinch Flat

Spook_ie wrote: »

No because any costs associated with driving my taxi are business deductables, don't know how many times I need to say it but just for you

Business deductable, business deductible, business deductible, business deductible............

But wait

Spook_ie wrote: »

No the customer ( historicly ) expected to find taxis at taxi ranks, some taxi drivers believe that taxis should have somewhere to park while waiting instead of plying for hire

Presume these will be funded solely by taxi drivers then? And presumably business deductible as well - maybe a nice handy levy. No messing with tax credits, just pay your levy if you want this facility.

Spook_ie

Pinch Flat wrote: »

But wait



Presume these will be funded solely by taxi drivers then? And presumably business deductible as well - maybe a nice handy levy. No messing with tax credits, just pay your levy if you ant this facility.

Why the but wait?, I explained to you the historical significance of taxi ranks, they no longer serve the same purpose as you'll find taxis just about everywhere and if not in sight a simple phone app will find you one a few hundred metres away to come to you.

I've also already said that I would welcome the ability to park legally somewhere, paying the fee if required, and being able to legally ply for hire.

I just fail to see what you are digging for? Maybe you're looking for parasites in the taxi business, I'll tell you there are plenty

beauf

These recycled arguments are taxing to read.

The strategy aims for a fivefold increase in the cycle network in the greater Dublin area from the current level 500 km to 2,840 km. Planners are aiming for an increase in cycle routes from 500 km to 1,485 km in Dublin City.

http://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-cycling-plan-1410242-Apr2014/

it is our vision to have as many people cycling into the city every morning in 2021 as currently take the bus. This is hugely ambitious but I believe it can be done. In short, this represents a new transport network for the Greater Dublin Area, with a target in 2021 of 75,000 cycle users each morning, which is a three-fold increase in cycling over 2011 levels. In other words, the cycle network could carry as many commuters in the morning in 2021 as are now carried by bus. This plan will inform the next decade of NTA investment in cycling across seven local authority areas in the region.

45% MORE CYCLISTS ENTERING CENTRAL DUBLIN SINCE 2006

http://irishcycle.com/2012/02/03/dublin-city-traffic-count-shows-15-increase-in-cycling-in-2011/

160% INCREASE IN CYCLING INTO DUBLIN CITY CENTRE BETWEEN 2004-2014
March 4, 2015 · by Cian Ginty · in News
14.2% year-on-year increase between 2013 and 2014

http://irishcycle.com/2015/03/04/160-increase-in-cycling-into-dublin-city-centre-between-2004-2014/

ThisRegard

Spook_ie wrote: »

No because any costs associated with driving my taxi are business deductables, don't know how many times I need to say it but just for you

Business deductable, business deductible, business deductible, business deductible............

So you're happy with the free ride you get, but hate it that you think cyclists also get one. So petty.