Cyclists should do a theory test!

Sam Kade

Shenshen wrote: »

And many of them also own cars, so they do in fact pay motor tax same as any other driver.

The poster said they should pay road tax which there is no such tax and if they have a car they tax it, so what is your point?

beauf

Tax is non issue. It's only thrown out to derail topics.

Policy is to encourage cycling, it's only going to increase as traffic gets worse and people realise its so much easier for a lot of journeys.

ThisRegard

No better person than our taxi driving friend to try muddy the water on these type of threads.

His logic is that the tax payer should not be funding facilities for cyclists, as they don't pay a form of motor tax on bikes, it's as if VAT and taxes on the money they earned to buy them doesn't exist.

However he has no problems with taxi drivers paying a small annual fee of €95 in motor tax, of which he continually points out is deductible anyway. But yet they're provided with the use of bus lanes and ranks, and without a doubt cause more wear and tear on the roads as they make their living on it. So if they deduct their motor tax anyway, they're being provided with more facilities than cyclists and directly contributing as much as a cyclist does under his tax all road users ideology.

So according to his own logic taxi drivers are bigger, his own words, parasites.

beauf

The issue was Cyclists needing to do a theory test, and breaking the rules.

The solution to that is enforcement, better facilities and better education. (not a theory test which many of them have already done and ignore). It would be some form of public service messages on the TV or radio etc.

Instead of giving lip service to the facilities plan the routes properly, don't waste money on sub standard paths, junctions. Look at the most popular routes and streamline them. Cyclists don't have to go the same route as cars. Get someone who knows what they are doing to design them. Many of the current cycling facilities looks like it was done by a monkey with a crayon.

Boom_Bap

MOD NOTE - Can we quit the off topic discussion on taxi drivers on this thread please?
Cheers.

CramCycle

beauf wrote: »

The issue was Cyclists needing to do a theory test, and breaking the rules.

The solution to that is enforcement, better facilities and better education. (not a theory test which many of them have already done and ignore). It would be some form of public service messages on the TV or radio etc.

These two points, never truer words spoken, for everyone.

Better enforcement leads to better behaviour, better behaviour means that those who used to risk it might stop or risk it less because it is no longer as socially acceptable eg amber gamblers.

Better education, and not just for cyclists, but for everyone, yet again, at national school and junior cycle level. Pedestrians need to know the general rules (although I turn a blind eye to breaking of these rules due to the clearly biased planning which is borderline criminal), almost everyone is a pedestrian and at some point you will interact with traffic in some shape or form, not only should you know how traffic should behave for future development so you don't develop bad habits, you should also know it so that you can better assess the world around you for your own safety.

awec

Spook_ie wrote: »

Motortax, until recently, went into central funds and was paid out to local authorities for ( among other things ) the provision of local roads, the repair of local roads, the improvement of local roads, under the LGA system, ergo motortax does indeed provide for repair of roads up to L numbers, any other roads are the responsibility of the NRA and funded direct from the government rather than councils.

As to people who pay more road/motor tax having more rights, kindly show me where i have even hinted at that. However, I have said that if cyclists were to pay something, then motorists wouldn't be able to throw the old chestnut of "I pay roadtax" into any arguments, a win for the cyclists but a win you should contribute to

I believe that people who drive bigger vehicles should pay more tax, but I also believe that cyclists should pay towards their infrastructure , especially as they are not even required to use them after wards

They already do. Anyone who earns any sort of income in Ireland pays toward them. This is what you have continually failed to grasp.

Your motor tax is not paying for the roads. You are paying a tax for bringing a motor vehicle onto a road owned by and paid for by everyone.

tipparetops

awec wrote: »

They already do. Anyone who earns any sort of income in Ireland pays toward them. This is what you have continually failed to grasp.

Your motor tax is not paying for the roads. You are paying a tax for bringing a motor vehicle onto a road owned by and paid for by everyone.

tax on fuel and road tax means motorists pay for the roads and therefore get out of our way.

07Lapierre

tipparetops wrote: »

tax on fuel and road tax means motorists pay for the roads and therefore get out of our way.

:rolleyes:

jimgoose

tipparetops wrote: »

tax on fuel and road tax means motorists pay for the roads and therefore get out of our way.

It's Motor Tax, i.e. a tax on owning a motor vehicle (as opposed to on "using" a motor vehicle more's the pity, but that's a whole 'nother tin of beans! )

This "...therefore get out of our way" mindset is no use and does no-one any good. And that's coming from a fairly die-hard motoring enthusiast who believes the only two reasons to own a bicycle are a) you're poor and b) you're ten years old.

tipparetops

07Lapierre wrote: »

:rolleyes:

go back to your cycling forum and bring all the other mid life crisis/cannot afford a car oddballs with you.

Galway K9

Rabble rabble rabble

tipparetops

jimgoose wrote: »

It's Motor Tax, i.e. a tax on owning a motor vehicle (as opposed to on "using" a motor vehicle more's the pity, but that's a whole 'nother tin of beans! )

This "...therefore get out of our way" mindset is no use and does no-one any good. And that's coming from a fairly die-hard motoring enthusiast who believes the only two reasons to own a bicycle are a) you're poor and b) you're ten years old.

they can call it what they want - its road tax, always will be to norms.

Something seems amiss,
you say "therefore get out of our way" is of no use And than
make a comment about Poverty.
A Rose by any other name.

Chips Lovell

Spook_ie wrote: »

However, I have said that if cyclists were to pay something, then motorists wouldn't be able to throw the old chestnut of "I pay roadtax" into any arguments, a win for the cyclists but a win you should contribute to

To be honest, paying an extra €100 or two a year in a road tax on my bikes would amount to a very small addition to my overall motoring and cycling expenses, so wouldn't be much skin off my nose.

A contribution to road construction/maintenance, yes. But I seriously doubt it would make any difference to the level of hostility some people show towards cyclists.

jimgoose

tipparetops wrote: »

they can call it what they want - its road tax, always will be to norms.

Something seems amiss,
you say "therefore get out of our way" is of no use And than
make a comment about Poverty.
A Rose by any other name.

There's nothing "amiss". I respect and accommodate other road users, for everyone's safety including my own. And that's irrespective of their age or socio-economic status.

07Lapierre

tipparetops wrote: »

go back to your cycling forum and bring all the other mid life crisis/cannot afford a car oddballs with you.

What car do you drive?

tipparetops

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

To be honest, paying an extra €100 or two a year in a road tax on my bikes would amount to a very small addition to my overall motoring and cycling expenses, so wouldn't be much skin off my nose.

A contribution to road construction/maintenance, yes. But I seriously doubt it would make any difference to the level of hostility some people show towards cyclists.

A tax on cyclists would only increase the level of hostility cyclists feel towards motorists and pedestrians, but I think it is required, nothing is free in this country.
the vast majority of cyclists are arrogant, the only way to change this is through education, cyclists need to do the theory test and made do a 13 week Bike test.

Pinch Flat

tipparetops wrote: »

go back to your cycling forum and bring all the other mid life crisis/cannot afford a car oddballs with you.

LOL. You should've been at the Wicklow 200 on Sunday - some very nice cars there with very expensive bikes on very expensive bike racks.

You do realize that a lot of cyclists are in the ABC1 social group? As for a mid-life crisis, well I can run 10km in under 50 minutes and cycle a tough 200km course in just over 7.5 hours. I'll be 44 in 2 weeks. That to me is preferable than being told by a doctor I'm obese and knocking years of my life due to my sedentary life style.

Chips Lovell

Thirteen weeks is very short IMHO. We need to move away from this idea that once you pass a test, that's it, you've nothing more to learn.

I'd favour a system of continuous education. Resit your driving test/cycling test once every five years.

Pinch Flat

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Thirteen weeks is very short IMHO. We need to move away from this idea that once you pass a test, that's it, you've nothing more to learn.

I'd favour a system of continuous education. Resit your driving test/cycling test once every five years.

The only way you're going to change the "them and us" mindset, and the one that seems to exist among motorists that they paid for the roads through road tax (sic) and therefore have sole access to them, is to start training children young.

On-road cycle training in cycle proficiency - theory and practice. Perhaps a test children can take at each stage - the basics followed by more advanced lessons at secondary school level. Making it mandatory to cycle for a period prior to gaining their first provisional licence. That way, the children will see the roads as for the use of all - not just one section of users - and see the perspective from a more vulnerable road users.

The brigade that are calling for cyclists to be taxed, chipped, pinned and other ideas have no idea what they're talking about - they've graduated from a car when they could afford it without any intermediate steps.

At the moment, it is not unusual for a child to drive their own car to school or more likely college - so it's easy to see where the mindset sets in.

Chips Lovell

Pinch Flat wrote: »

The only way you're going to change the "them and us" mindset, and the one that seems to exist among motorists that they paid for the roads through road tax (sic) and therefore have sole access to them, is to start training children young.

Totally agree with this. If I was to start anywhere, it would be there. Even if kids don't cycle in later life, it's great preparation for learning to drive. As someone who was a regular road user on a bike before I started driving, I found that all the experience I'd built up from years of cycling really helped me when I did get behind the wheel.

ThisRegard

Pinch Flat wrote: »

The brigade that are calling for cyclists to be taxed, chipped, pinned and other ideas have no idea what they're talking about - they've graduated from a car when they could afford it without any intermediate steps.

At the moment, it is not unusual for a child to drive their own car to school or more likely college - so it's easy to see where the mindset sets in.

I think you've made a great point there. We're not too far apart in age and I know since I was a kid right up until my 20s I cycled everywhere, friends, college, work, random places for the craic or just knocked about on them. And nobody called social services on us for being on the roads, like some have called for.

We even visited the old driver training place in Dublin as part of a school trip.

So we come from a culture where bikes were the norm to us, and have a better understanding of cyclists and road craft in general.

tipparetops

Pinch Flat wrote: »

LOL. You should've been at the Wicklow 200 on Sunday - some very nice cars there with very expensive bikes on very expensive bike racks.

You do realize that a lot of cyclists are in the ABC1 social group? As for a mid-life crisis, well I can run 10km in under 50 minutes and cycle a tough 200km course in just over 7.5 hours. I'll be 44 in 2 weeks. That to me is preferable than being told by a doctor I'm obese and knocking years of my life due to my sedentary life style.

you are suffering a mid life crisis, deal with it.
The vast majority who get dressed up are suffering a mid life crisis.
You can do exercise like a normal person without pretending you are in the tour de france.

CramCycle

tipparetops wrote: »

A tax on cyclists would only increase the level of hostility cyclists feel towards motorists and pedestrians, but I think it is required, nothing is free in this country.
the vast majority of cyclists are arrogant, the only way to change this is through education, cyclists need to do the theory test and made do a 13 week Bike test.

Please tell us how this will be achieved, remember, as with all good policy, cite examples, weigh up the potential issues caused to other areas of society and present a balanced view.

At the least, you will need a quango to draw up the standards, then the test, then the implementation times, how long will people have to get this theory test, your not going to get everyone through the doors immediately.

Who will implement this? Who will pay for it, the cost of licensing motorists is justified because the cost to the state if there was a surge in unfit drivers or people who simply were completely incapable of driving tried it, accidents would sky rocket. The cost to the state would be phenomenal. Whereas the number of cyclist accidents and there cost to the state, to the best of my knowledge is minimal in comparison.

So far the cost of it is more than will ever be recouped, unless you counter that by increasing the cost to cover it, congratulations, you have not only immediately breached one of the fundamental tenants of Public Health, you have increased traffic, by some miracle you might get improved PT, but the money you could and should have used for that has already been thrown down the drain of a quango that serves no purpose as there are less cyclists on the road.

So traffic increases, business suffers, foreign investment in branches or start ups declines due to increasingly obvious issues with infrastructure that cannot be fixed with a simple road resurfacing.

Health suffers with an increase in colds and minor illnesses directly attributable to lower exercise levels and increased traffic levels, which also has been shown to increase stress levels.

Hooray, the economy suffers more as sick days increase, the government suffer more as businesses suffer, unemployment starts to rise, social welfare bills increase.

13 week bike test? I passed my driving test, first time in about 45 minutes. I had two lessons before that as people warned me there are things you have to do that may not seem logical eg I move my eyes to look in the mirror with little head movement but if the examiner doesn't notice, I will fail so I have to make big sweeping gestures so no one is confused. My mother in law got handed one, my uncle has a license for every vehicle but the largest he has driven is a van.

I have not caused an accident while driving yet, this in no way implies I am a good driver, at best it implies I am a statistically safe driver but that's it.

The only suggestion here that has made sense, is education in schools, it is easier to implement, it covers a wide base of the population that over time will becoming an increasingly larger cross section of the population, in no way costs as much as a theory test for cyclists. It's not an immediate solution but its the most sensible one so far. It also covers everyone, pedestrians, cyclists and future motorists. Hopefully will help a few of them see that Mamai and Daddys bad habits are exactly that and not the way people should act on the roads. Socially, it will spread like a slow virus, kids will infect other kids, who will infect their parents or their friends parents, who once a critical mass is reached, start to infect other road users. Include re training, maybe have a retraining every year as part of the national school curriculum and the junior cert cycle curriculum, maybe even make it a JC subject.

Chips Lovell

If I'm going to suffer a mid-life crisis, I might as well look fabulous while doing so.

beauf

tipparetops wrote: »

tax on fuel and road tax means motorists pay for the roads and therefore get out of our way.

So if I pay more tax (its not a deductable), you should get out of mine, when I'm cycling.

Boom_Bap

tipparetops wrote: »

you are suffering a mid life crisis, deal with it.
The vast majority who get dressed up are suffering a mid life crisis.
You can do exercise like a normal person without pretending you are in the tour de france.

MOD NOTE
tipparetops - you appear to be on a mission to ruffle feathers in this thread. If you cannot post in a civil manner, then please dont post.

Pinch Flat

tipparetops wrote: »

you are suffering a mid life crisis, deal with it.
The vast majority who get dressed up are suffering a mid life crisis.
You can do exercise like a normal person without pretending you are in the tour de france.

So, if I'm in the gym am I prohibited from wearing the appropriate clothing? Or if I decide to take up golf - should I not dress as a golfer? What about horse riding -I'm assuming a pair of jeans and a jumper is okay, rather than the specific clothing? A complete non argument - try and cycle 200km across the Wicklow mountains in a pair of GAA shorts and cotton t-shirt, and report back to us.

I've done a stage of the Tour De France - BTW there's many more challenging cycles otu there, the Vuelta, Giro, Lombardy, Classics like Paris-Roubaix, Milan-San Remo and Liege Bastogne Liege, but for some reason people focus on the TDF.

Anyway, used to love the banter at the traffic lights. "Oi, where do you think you're going - the Tour de France"..."Well, yes actually".

The Dark Side

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Oh, and I'be done a stage of the Tour De France - very challenging traverse of the alps a few years ago.

Way to go on batting back the 'suffering a mid-life crisis' jibe.

tipparetops

As too often with boards, when certain precious groups are questioned about their dangerous activities, other powerful but equally precious groups come in to stop the debate.
Shame on you all.
this forum had one poster calling another a ****, no warnings there.
Another cycling forum poster replied to a MOD here, no warnings again.

Fairness for all or no one.

Spook_ie

ThisRegard wrote: »

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

I don't have a free ride, I run a business, perhaps you should get a rickshaw and stop your moaning

Boom_Bap

tipparetops wrote: »

As too often with boards, when certain precious groups are questioned about their dangerous activities, other powerful but equally precious groups come in to stop the debate.
Shame on you all.
this forum had one poster calling another a ****, no warnings there.
Another cycling forum poster replied to a MOD here, no warnings again.

Fairness for all or no one.

Dont post in this thread again

Spook_ie

ThisRegard wrote: »

No better person than our taxi driving friend to try muddy the water on these type of threads.

His logic is that the tax payer should not be funding facilities for cyclists, as they don't pay a form of motor tax on bikes, it's as if VAT and taxes on the money they earned to buy them doesn't exist.

However he has no problems with taxi drivers paying a small annual fee of €95 in motor tax, of which he continually points out is deductible anyway. But yet they're provided with the use of bus lanes and ranks, and without a doubt cause more wear and tear on the roads as they make their living on it. So if they deduct their motor tax anyway, they're being provided with more facilities than cyclists and directly contributing as much as a cyclist does under his tax all road users ideology.

So according to his own logic taxi drivers are bigger, his own words, parasites.

You really need to get a rickshaw and start a business, maybe you could actually get away with using a tandem, then you wouldn't be a parasite but a business, transporting people on the infrastructure that paying extra tax and duties on will help fund

Pinch Flat

The Dark Side wrote: »

Way to go on batting back the 'suffering a mid-life crisis' jibe.

Ha yeah, for some people a mid-life crisis is a doctor telling them they're grossly overweight or obese, and it's likely to curtail their lifespan or kill them. They end up being a burden on our health services, their families and their quality of life is severely curtailed.

This is apparently is in the majority of men my age. I take a different approach. Anyway, the thread has yet again been derailed - not sure what relevant this has to theory tests, but I've set my own thoughts out on this over several posts.

ThisRegard

Spook_ie wrote: »

I don't have a free ride, I run a business, perhaps you should get a rickshaw and stop your moaning

I'm not moaning, you're the one with a bee in his bonnet for years on this forum over the fact there's no 'motor' tax on cyclists, despite you being in a more 'parasitic' (again, I'm just using your words) situation.

You appear in every thread to do with cyclists pushing your same ill thought out arguments.

Qualitymark

Properly separated cycle lanes, with barriers to stop cars entering them or parking in them, are the only way to go.

The red lights business - like a red rag to a bull to many motorists - is a bit of a nothing; in many cases it's safer for a cyclist to go through a red light http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/more-idaho-stop-and-why-cyclists-should-be-able-roll-through-stop-signs.html

07Lapierre

Qualitymark wrote: »

Properly separated cycle lanes, with barriers to stop cars entering them or parking in them, are the only way to go.

The red lights business - like a red rag to a bull to many motorists - is a bit of a nothing; in many cases it's safer for a cyclist to go through a red light http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/more-idaho-stop-and-why-cyclists-should-be-able-roll-through-stop-signs.html

It is NEVER safer to run a red light! There may be situations where running a red light does not result in an accident, but doing so is both illegal and stupid! When cycling I hate have to stop at pedestrian lights when no pedestrians are crossing. But hey, it's an opportunity to practice a track stand!

jimgoose

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

If I'm going to suffer a mid-life crisis, I might as well look fabulous while doing so.

If I'm going to suffer a mid-life crisis, I'm going to do my damnedest to suffer it in a Lambo!

Chips Lovell

That may also add fabulosity

beauf

jimgoose wrote: »

If I'm going to suffer a mid-life crisis, I'm going to do my damnedest to suffer it in a Lambo!

Who wouldn't!!


Theres also this...

http://www.lamborghini.it/ie_en/biking.html

jimgoose

beauf wrote: »

...Theres also this...

http://www.lamborghini.it/ie_en/biking.html

Ooh, well-weapon. I'm told they also still do a decent line in tractors! :cool:

Spook_ie

ThisRegard wrote: »

I'm not moaning, you're the one with a bee in his bonnet for years on this forum over the fact there's no 'motor' tax on cyclists, despite you being in a more 'parasitic' (again, I'm just using your words) situation.

You appear in every thread to do with cyclists pushing your same ill thought out arguments.

Why do you think I'm more parasitic than yourself, I provide (via my business ) an option for up to 8 people to travel to work, social functions etc. That business incurs costs, which are ultimately paid for by the passengers ( you know that thing called business again! ) That's why it's termed an SPSV, you on the other hand ...

gormdubhgorm

lickme wrote: »

A lot of cyclists have no concept of the rules of the road and are getting more and more agressive. There acting like they have the right of way the whole time, weaving in and out of traffic, breaking red lights, not adhering and not looking for possible dangers ahead. Stricter and harsher penalties are needed for them. A piece of advice playing chicken with cars will not work well in the long run for ye. Should be made do some sort of simulation test or something. They are some decent cyclists but most are idiots.

I hope the people on you tube (that go around with cameras on thier helmets) making videos of motorists see this

Spook_ie

Qualitymark wrote: »

Properly separated cycle lanes, with barriers to stop cars entering them or parking in them, are the only way to go.

The red lights business - like a red rag to a bull to many motorists - is a bit of a nothing; in many cases it's safer for a cyclist to go through a red light http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/more-idaho-stop-and-why-cyclists-should-be-able-roll-through-stop-signs.html

No point, cyclists aren't required to use them, so why waste the money building them, give the money over to public transport and mass transit

CramCycle

Spook_ie wrote: »

No point, cyclists aren't required to use them, so why waste the money building them, give the money over to public transport and mass transit

Have to agree with you there, more money does need to be spent on public transport. Trains, buses and trams, the better these run, the less congestion we should see over time as more people turn to them. Pearse St. is a great example, they have gotten rid of one lane of traffic from half of the street to accomodate more PT and it seems to have made no difference to traffic times for non PT vehicles.

A great idea and one to be promoted more. No idea what this has to do with a theory test though.

Like I have said many times before, make it part of the curriculum at NS level, make it a subject or mandatory course at JC level, easier, more beneficial as it captures everyone at a young age before bad habits fully form, educates peds, cyclists and future motorists.

PeadarCo

Spook_ie wrote: »

Why do you think I'm more parasitic than yourself, I provide (via my business ) an option for up to 8 people to travel to work, social functions etc. That business incurs costs, which are ultimately paid for by the passengers ( you know that thing called business again! ) That's why it's termed an SPSV, you on the other hand ...

Have saved the government huge amounts in health service costs, and save money on motoring costs that can be reinvested in other parts of the economy.

Given that practically all of equipment/fuel required from running/buying a car aside from labour costs has to be imported, if even a fraction of this savings are reinvested in indigenous goods its a boost to the local economy.

Also unless you've been living under a rock you'd be aware of the obesity epidemic due to people eating too much/not exercising enough. Cycling addresses the 2nd point as it means people can incorporation exercise into their daily routine.

Chips Lovell

I'd be completely opposed to dedicated cycling infrastructure too. Does more harm than good. Money would be better spent elsewhere.

beauf

http://c2.thejournal.ie/media/2015/01/pic-2-cycle-415x500.png

Relative numbers of cyclists to other forms of transport.

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I'd be completely opposed to dedicated cycling infrastructure too. Does more harm than good. Money would be better spent elsewhere.

How so? It increases the numbers. With an increase in numbers there will be more accidents. What happened to the idea of safety in numbers?

There are many factors, such as cycle tracks and other cycling infrastructure, which contribute to cycling levels. A number of cities have demonstrated that particular cycle tracks will increase bike traffic on those routes, as shown, for example, in Montreal, New York City and Copenhagen. Bike usage increased by 40% in areas of Montreal where the city invested in bike paths and lanes.[10][107] In Copenhagen bike traffic increased by about 20% because of the construction of cycle tracks.[14] The construction of separated bike lanes on Dunsmuir Street and Viaduct in Vancouver, Canada, saw bike traffic volumes on the street more than double from before the construction.[114] NYC likewise saw cycling rates nearly triple on weekdays and doubled on weekends when the bike path was installed alongside Prospect Park West.[18]

Seville, Spain, is an example of what is possible on a city scale when a large investment is made in cycling infrastructure over a short period of time. In 2006 there were around 6000 bike trips made daily in the city of around 700,000. By 2009 there were about 50,000 daily bike trips. During those three years 8 urban bike paths totaling 70 km were built; the city centre was closed to motorised traffic; school projects were funded to create safe school paths; traffic calming measures were provided in school districts and the bicycle sharing system ‘Sevici’ was launched. The combination of all these factors helped to create a dramatic change in cycling rates.[115]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregated_cycle_facilities#Studies_showing_greater_benefits

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregated_cycle_facilities#Studies_not_supporting_segregation

seamus

What's funny is that in 20/30 years time when 90% of commercial vehicles have been replaced by self-driving vehicles and the majority of short trips down to the shops and schools are done on bicycle, all this talk of segregated infrastructure and special safety equipment will seem as foreign and farcical as having a man walking in front of a car holding a lamp to warn pedestrians.

Chips Lovell

It does nothing to encourage cycling by reinforcing the erroneous impression that cycling is so dangerous, you need to be segregated from other traffic to stay safe.

It also hardens the belief among some motorists that cyclists don't belong on the road.