Cyclists should do a theory test!

ThisRegard

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 ...

I pay motor tax on two cars, I already told you that, which I don't claim back from the state. My motor tax stays within the state coffers, as well as my general VAT, my PAYE, tax and VAT I pay on services I use during my business, VAT I paid on my bike, bike related products, running clothing, and on and on. All my business comes from outside of the country too, I don't draw it from within the state.

You're really grasping at straws to make any sort of cohesive argument. You have failed to demonstrate why this entitles you to use the road any more than someone on a bike. You admitted yourself your motor tax can be claimed back as an expense, therefore not going towards the infrastructure. You're far from the only person in the country to pay tax, or have business costs, on any other outgoings you have as part of your every day business. Are you implying cyclists don't work or something ?

I can only assume at this stage you're purposely ignoring the fact that cyclists are entitled to be on the road as much as you are, using your very own logic which is based on how much tax is paid.

And as for cyclists who cycle to work to pick up a bus they drive for a living, they must be royalty to you.

Spook_ie

ThisRegard wrote: »

I pay motor tax on two cars, I already told you that, which I don't claim back from the state. My motor tax stays within the state coffers, as well as my VAT, my PAYE, tax and VAT I pay on services I use during my business, VAT I paid on my bike, bike related products, running clothing, and on and on. All my business comes from outside of the country too, I don't draw it from within the state. You're really grasping at straws to make any sort of cohesive argument.

I can only assume at this stage you're purposely ignoring the fact that cyclists are entitled to be on the road as much as you are, using your very own logic which is based on how much tax is paid.

And as for cyclists who cycle to work to pick up a bus they drive for a living, they must be royalty to you.

You pay motor tax on two cars, lifestyle choice, use public transport, or (dare I say it, of course I'll dare ) take a taxi, having paid motor tax on two cars doesn't give you twice as much right to the road, and paying motor tax on two cars still doesn't translate to having paid anything for the privilege to cycle on the roads

CramCycle

beauf wrote: »

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?

Segregated infrastructure seems to teach other traffic not to expect cyclists at junctions, almost as if other road users cannot comprehend that the lanes beside them will join them at junctions. I have seen a schematic of it before but can't remember the figures, it basically increases the risk of crashes at junctions quite substantially. If you are on the road, the vehicle behind you has to acknowledge you to pass you, therefore think through their maneuver. Decide whether in the X metres before the junction if they can overtake and turn before you get there or just wait behind you and turn when you pass.

If you are in a segregated track, it appears you are more likely to be ignored and a vehicle turns across you or into you, with luck you can avoid it but maybe you can't.

ThisRegard

Spook_ie wrote: »

You pay motor tax on two cars, lifestyle choice, use public transport, or (dare I say it, of course I'll dare ) take a taxi, having paid motor tax on two cars doesn't give you twice as much right to the road, and paying motor tax on two cars still doesn't translate to having paid anything for the privilege to cycle on the roads

You ultimately don't pay fund the motor tax fund as it's written off as an expense.

Therefore Does this give no right to be on the road ?


And you conveniently ignore the fact that the road infrastructure is funded by all sorts of taxes, and grants from the EU.

Spook_ie

ThisRegard wrote: »

I pay motor tax on two cars, I already told you that, which I don't claim back from the state. My motor tax stays within the state coffers, as well as my general VAT, my PAYE, tax and VAT I pay on services I use during my business, VAT I paid on my bike, bike related products, running clothing, and on and on. All my business comes from outside of the country too, I don't draw it from within the state.

You're really grasping at straws to make any sort of cohesive argument. You have failed to demonstrate why this entitles you to use the road any more than someone on a bike. You admitted yourself your motor tax can be claimed back as an expense, therefore not going towards the infrastructure. You're far from the only person in the country to pay tax, or have business costs, on any other outgoings you have as part of your every day business. Are you implying cyclists don't work or something ?

I can only assume at this stage you're purposely ignoring the fact that cyclists are entitled to be on the road as much as you are, using your very own logic which is based on how much tax is paid.

And as for cyclists who cycle to work to pick up a bus they drive for a living, they must be royalty to you.

Reply to your edited bit, as a cyclist no you don't work therefore you have little contributory value to society as a whole, maybe you cycle to a job where you contribute to society such as a teacher, brain surgeon, road sweeper or whatever, I'd even give working in a bike shop as being contributory but the cycling bit it self, nah, definitely parasitic

Spook_ie

ThisRegard wrote: »

You ultimately don't pay fund the motor tax fund as it's written off as an expense.

Therefore Does this give no right to be on the road ?


And you conveniently ignore the fact that the road infrastructure is funded by all sorts of taxes, and grants from the EU.

Sorry, where did I say I pay no MTF, I said it's a business deductible, as a business deductible it still gets paid, you don't understand profit and loss very well do you?

beauf

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

It does nothing to encourage cycling...

The stats suggest otherwise.

I accept your point about re-enforcing negativity. I think the only way to combat that really is weight of numbers. So its a circular argument.

steamengine

CramCycle wrote: »

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.

Even though some are not in agreement with a theory test, there is a meeting of minds that courses would be very useful, starting at primary school level, including both practice and theory. It's all to the good really, at the end of the day.

I live close to a primary school and some kids are driven who live less than a five minutes walk away. In my day we cycled, as the only other option was walking - Feck that.

Plus as kids our bikes opened up a whole new world, heading off for 15-20 mile trips at 9/10 years of age, was no bother to us at all.

Tenzor07

Spook_ie wrote: »

Reply to your edited bit, as a cyclist no you don't work therefore you have little contributory value to society as a whole, maybe you cycle to a job where you contribute to society such as a teacher, brain surgeon, road sweeper or whatever, I'd even give working in a bike shop as being contributory but the cycling bit it self, nah, definitely parasitic

Ha! Classic! Will there be some new material coming out any time soon?

Chips Lovell

beauf wrote: »

The stats suggest otherwise.

I'm not so sure of that. Don't have a massive amount of time to go into it now, but for example, one of the studies linked to there, the Copenhagen one, didn't actually find that overall numbers increased.

beauf

I did say "suggest" and linked both sides for balance.

Chips Lovell

Yes, in fairness you did. There's a lot of debate and a dizzying number of factors to consider.

Spook_ie

You lot from over on the cycling forum, see this title

boards.ie > Topics > Social & Fun > After Hours

Go and take it back where it belongs, talking about segregated facilities and that sort of thing

Pinch Flat

Spook_ie wrote: »

Reply to your edited bit, as a cyclist no you don't work therefore you have little contributory value to society as a whole, maybe you cycle to a job where you contribute to society such as a teacher, brain surgeon, road sweeper or whatever, I'd even give working in a bike shop as being contributory but the cycling bit it self, nah, definitely parasitic

This comment is hilarious, and I can only assume it's a wind up in jest.

Of the 10,000 that cycle into Dublin city daily, http://irishcycle.com/2015/04/13/10000-people-on-bicycles-crossing-dublins-canals-in-morning-rush-hour/, I would suspect a lot of these are in gainful employment. A few students as well, but a huge proportion of people in jobs.

Boom_Bap

Spook_ie wrote: »

You lot from over on the cycling forum, see this title

boards.ie > Topics > Social & Fun > After Hours

Go and take it back where it belongs, talking about segregated facilities and that sort of thing

You there -> stop back seat modding

Spook_ie

Pinch Flat wrote: »

This comment is hilarious, and I can only assume it's a wind up in jest.

Of the 10,000 that cycle into Dublin city daily, http://irishcycle.com/2015/04/13/10000-people-on-bicycles-crossing-dublins-canals-in-morning-rush-hour/, I would suspect a lot of these are in gainful employment. A few students as well, but a huge proportion of people in jobs.

No it's perfectly serious, what actual contribution does the commuting side contribute, unlike the rickshaw lads who actually produce a contribution by their cycling efforts, your actual cycling efforts produce zilch, nada, nothing that couldn't be obtained by walking or visiting a gym. I'd ask the same question of anyone that doesn't use public transport

Spook_ie

Boom_Bap wrote: »

You there -> stop back seat modding

Sorry for a moment there I thought I wee riding on a tandem

Pinch Flat

Spook_ie wrote: »

No it's perfectly serious, what actual contribution does the commuting side contribute, unlike the rickshaw lads who actually produce a contribution by their cycling efforts, your actual cycling efforts produce zilch, nada, nothing that couldn't be obtained by walking or visiting a gym. I'd ask the same question of anyone that doesn't use public transport

Wait, we're expected to earn while we cycle to and from work? How does that work - maybe I'll give one of the neighbours a cross bar into town. Could be a nice little earner.

As opposed to costing the economy billions (1% of GDP) that traffic jams bring.http://www.itraffic.ie/MainProductsGov.html

So it's back in the car then to contribute to the economic effort I guess. ho hum.

CramCycle

Spook_ie wrote: »

No it's perfectly serious, what actual contribution does the commuting side contribute, unlike the rickshaw lads who actually produce a contribution by their cycling efforts, your actual cycling efforts produce zilch, nada, nothing that couldn't be obtained by walking or visiting a gym. I'd ask the same question of anyone that doesn't use public transport

From personal experience, the days I cycle in, I am more productive, hit the ground running so to speak, haven't the knees for walking or running long distance although my brother in law does, covers a 18km round trip almost daily by running, runs his own company in town.

My cycling contributes me being out of traffic and not annoying other motorists, it makes me more productive at work therefore contributing to the economy, it is good for physical and mental health which in the long run means I should cost less than the current average person living in Dublin to the exchequer. Overall, my cycling probably benefits the economy a nice few euro a year. It certainly would be a lot less of a contribution from me if I used my car or PT most of the time.

Spook_ie

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Wait, we're expected to earn while we cycle to and from work? How does that work - maybe I'll give one of the neighbours a cross bar into town. Could be a nice little earner.

As opposed to costing the economy billions (1% of GDP) that traffic jams bring.http://www.itraffic.ie/MainProductsGov.html

So it's back in the car then to contribute to the economic effort I guess. ho hum.

Would be 100% better for the economy if you did give him a crossie, you really do not understand that commuting ( unless on public transport ) isn't particularly productive.

The billions cost to the economy would be slashed if everyone were to avail of public transport.

this

So it's back in the car then to contribute to the economic effort I guess. ho hum

is just so revealing of your nature that you immediately drop down to commuting by car rather than commuting by public transport

Pinch Flat

Spook_ie wrote: »

Would be 100% better for the economy if you did give him a crossie, you really do not understand that commuting ( unless on public transport ) isn't particularly productive.

So I can commute the 14km from my house to my office in 35 minutes or so - I arrive at work refreshed and alert, haven done part of my days exercise. This 35 minutes is constant - summer, winter, kids off / on school, rain, hail or shine. Unless on the very rare occasion I have a problem or really bad weather (freezing roads) It's guaranteed. There's not a faster way for me to get from home to office.

Spook_ie wrote: »

this is just so revealing of your nature that you immediately drop down to commuting by car rather than commuting by public transport

I do travel by public transport - it's my second choice, as recently as Monday this week which I did recovering from a tough few days cycling. There is no way in gods earth I would drive to the city center. It's utterly miserable and completely undependable.

It just seems to be default fall back on boards 'tried cycling / bus / train but gave up, prefer the car'. Mea culpa.

ThisRegard

Pinch Flat wrote: »

This comment is hilarious, and I can only assume it's a wind up in jest.

He was banned from another forum for similar nonsense, no point in engaging him anymore.

Spook_ie

ThisRegard wrote: »

He was banned from another forum for similar nonsense, no point in engaging him anymore.

Feel free to ignore me, its a free country

Edit

In fact its that free that you could just stay over on the forum I'm banned from instead of being a pseudo stalker

Pinch Flat

Spook_ie wrote: »

its a free country

Unless you're a cyclist apparently :pac:

Spook_ie

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Unless you're a cyclist apparently :pac:

When its even freer because you don't pay at all, let alone follow traffic regulations

CramCycle

So that theory test,

IMO the idea of implementing it across the board fails on many levels, the cost of design, implementation, legal minefield of making it compulsory, negative effects to the economy, public health, traffic levels, all of which are well research din terms of comparatives to increased cycling levels and compared to accepted inhibitors to cycling levels.

My opinion is that education on road use for everyone through National School and Junior Cert level education is the only reasonable response if it is deemed necessary. While a slow introduction, this mentality is carried through to adult hood and improved behaviour should spread through familial and societal pressure over time. A slow burner but the most effective I think in the long run.

Ranchu

CramCycle wrote: »

So that theory test,

IMO the idea of implementing it across the board fails on many levels, the cost of design, implementation, legal minefield of making it compulsory, negative effects to the economy, public health, traffic levels, all of which are well research din terms of comparatives to increased cycling levels and compared to accepted inhibitors to cycling levels.

My opinion is that education on road use for everyone through National School and Junior Cert level education is the only reasonable response if it is deemed necessary. While a slow introduction, this mentality is carried through to adult hood and improved behaviour should spread through familial and societal pressure over time. A slow burner but the most effective I think in the long run.

I agree with the second part but I also think that some current cyclists could really do with some sort of basic training in how the roads work. The ones that also drive are less likely to be the three I just encountered at the bridge over the canal at Harold's cross who kept going after their light had gone red to allow a right turning filter coming in the other direction. Could have been three very sorry people.

furiousox

http://jeffreyhill.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341d417153ef01a73df58cd4970d-800wi

CramCycle

Ranchu wrote: »

I agree with the second part but I also think that some current cyclists could really do with some sort of basic training in how the roads work. The ones that also drive are less likely to be the three I just encountered at the bridge over the canal at Harold's cross who kept going after their light had gone red to allow a right turning filter coming in the other direction. Could have been three very sorry people.

So could several road users in general but the practicalities of picking out who have too or retesting everyone are not here at the minute.

Maybe part of the upcoming FPNs could be a larger fine to cover a day of road safety training but this could apply to all road users. A fine is one thing, training in a mind numbing course about stuff most of them already knew, taking at least one full day out of your life and having to pay for it.

Ranchu

CramCycle wrote: »

So could several road users in general but the practicalities of picking out who have too or retesting everyone are not here at the minute.

Maybe part of the upcoming FPNs could be a larger fine to cover a day of road safety training but this could apply to all road users. A fine is one thing, training in a mind numbing course about stuff most of them already knew, taking at least one full day out of your life and having to pay for it.

That's not a bad idea really.

If you've never had any training on the road you should really take the initiative and do it for your own safety though.

Qualitymark

The idea that motorists "pay for the roads" is laughable. Motorists pay a carbon tax to compensate for the fact that they're greedily using up the world's scarily finite supply of fossil fuel to haul themselves around - mostly just one person in a car weighing three tons or more.

Pinch Flat

Spook_ie wrote: »

When its even freer because you don't pay at all, let alone follow traffic regulations

Been driving since 1987 and cycling a lot longer than that. Have paid my taxes since I joined the workforce in 1991. Here's my statistics:

Penalty points - 0
Speeding fines - 0
Other traffic offences (dangerous driving, red light breaking, etc) - 0
Parking tickets - 0
Clamping - 0
Car accidents - 1 (Rear ended by truck)

So happy enough with how I'm going about things to date.

RainyDay

I was off this thread for a day or so, and came back invigorated, ready to point out the gaping chasms in the proposals of spook and others. But really, why bother my ass.

Cars are out, bikes are in.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/radical-plan-seeks-to-take-cars-out-of-dublin-city-centre-1.2244222

Anyone who knows anything about traffic management knows it is the way to go. Spook can keep trying to stop the tide coming in, but he is failing, and will continue to fail.

It's a pity that some people are so small-minded as to miss the essential point that it is in their direct interests to encourage cycling and reduce the number of cars on the road. Hopefully the penny will drop soon.

Grandpa Hassan

RainyDay wrote: »

I was off this thread for a day or so, and came back invigorated, ready to point out the gaping chasms in the proposals of spook and others. But really, why bother my ass.

Cars are out, bikes are in.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/radical-plan-seeks-to-take-cars-out-of-dublin-city-centre-1.2244222

Anyone who knows anything about traffic management knows it is the way to go. Spook can keep trying to stop the tide coming in, but he is failing, and will continue to fail.

It's a pity that some people are so small-minded as to miss the essential point that it is in their direct interests to encourage cycling and reduce the number of cars on the road. Hopefully the penny will drop soon.

It is great news. As has been pointed out many times earlier on this thread, it is only a matter of time before parts of the city become pedestrian, cycle and bus zones only. It is an inevitability.

I can hear the cries of the motorists, but it is little more than a rage against the dying of the light

Knasher

RainyDay wrote: »

Cars are out, bikes are in.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/radical-plan-seeks-to-take-cars-out-of-dublin-city-centre-1.2244222

Doing something similar in the centre of Cork.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/car-ban-looms-for-st-patricks-street-as-corks-traffic-set-for-overhaul-322994.html

Grandpa Hassan

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/cars-and-taxis-face-being-banned-from-large-parts-of-dublin-city-centre-31292092.html

This is the key line: Congestion is again becoming a feature of daily life, but by 2023 as many as 234,000 people are expected to enter and leave the city centre during the morning and evening peaks every day– up 42,000 on today, or 20pc – meaning the city could grind to a halt unless car use is discouraged.


And by extension, cycle used encouraged

Spook_ie

RainyDay wrote: »

I was off this thread for a day or so, and came back invigorated, ready to point out the gaping chasms in the proposals of spook and others. But really, why bother my ass.

Cars are out, bikes are in.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/radical-plan-seeks-to-take-cars-out-of-dublin-city-centre-1.2244222

Anyone who knows anything about traffic management knows it is the way to go. Spook can keep trying to stop the tide coming in, but he is failing, and will continue to fail.

It's a pity that some people are so small-minded as to miss the essential point that it is in their direct interests to encourage cycling and reduce the number of cars on the road. Hopefully the penny will drop soon.

Probably won't effect me that much, as it will be the consumer travelling further to get to the same point who will pay, probably add €2-€5 onto your night out as taxis take the longer way around from O'Connell St. to CFJs. Of course you could always extend Dublin bikes hours so you could pick one up after 00.30

ThisRegard

Spook_ie wrote: »

Probably won't effect me that much

But of course it will, it'll give you a hernia to know that there's pedestrians and cyclists out there enjoying increased space on the city centre roads without them first bringing in foot tax or cycle tax to give them the right to that road space.

Grandpa Hassan

Great timing of the article. It's almost like someone has been reading this thread!

Spook_ie

ThisRegard wrote: »

But of course it will, it'll give you a hernia to know that there's pedestrians and cyclists out there enjoying increased space on the city centre roads without them first bringing in foot tax or cycle tax to give them the right to that road space.

Oh I don't know, the extra money taking passengers on a longer route will help salve that I'm sure

ThisRegard

Your tune has certainly changed.

Spook_ie

ThisRegard wrote: »

Your tune has certainly changed.

What, if the powers that be close of a city center then they close it, like when there's a serious traffic incident and they close a road, I'll just make more money and the customers will be the ones that are discommoded.

Spook_ie

ThisRegard wrote: »

But of course it will, it'll give you a hernia to know that there's pedestrians and cyclists out there enjoying increased space on the city centre roads without them first bringing in foot tax or cycle tax to give them the right to that road space.

Mind you, it will be interesting to see where they make up the revenue shortfalls from

http://www.independent.ie/life/motoring/clobbered-drivers-pay-10pc-of-total-tax-take-30321308.html

Mr McGrath asked Finance Minister Michael Noonan questions in the Dail on the different taxes imposed on drivers.

He then added the figures together and calculated that the total paid in various taxes last year amounted to €4.3bn.

Tax on petrol alone amounted to €850m last year, with diesel generating €1.13bn for the State. Motor tax came in at €1.1bn.

RainyDay

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.

It's more than 'anyone who earns'. Anyone who spends in Ireland pays tax - VAT and customs duties. He's failed to grasp that also.

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.

Try spending less time watching what cyclists are wearing and more time observing the traffic.

CramCycle wrote: »

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.

Great questions - and don't forget the opportunity cost of focusing regulators and enforcers on cyclists and cycling (who don't kill anyone) while cars continue to kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others.

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

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

Best read in Kenny Everett's Cupid Stunt voice.

07Lapierre wrote: »

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!

I disagree. In Paris, they have legalised running of red lights by cyclists when turning right (equivalent to our left turn) on the basis that it is better to have cyclists spaced out (positionally, not narcotically) rather than bunched up together.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

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

They make videos of other cyclists too, and pedestrians.

Ranchu wrote: »

I agree with the second part but I also think that some current cyclists could really do with some sort of basic training in how the roads work. The ones that also drive are less likely to be the three I just encountered at the bridge over the canal at Harold's cross who kept going after their light had gone red to allow a right turning filter coming in the other direction. Could have been three very sorry people.

How many cars break the red light at that bridge every day, and what sort of 'basic training' would you recommend for the drivers of those cars?

ThisRegard wrote: »

But of course it will, it'll give you a hernia to know that there's pedestrians and cyclists out there enjoying increased space on the city centre roads without them first bringing in foot tax or cycle tax to give them the right to that road space.

And they don't even pay road tax, you know. Did you know that?

RainyDay

Spook_ie wrote: »

Oh I don't know, the extra money taking passengers on a longer route will help salve that I'm sure

Strange how you don't take that approach to being held up behind a cyclist?

Spook_ie

RainyDay wrote: »

Strange how you don't take that approach to being held up behind a cyclist?

Taxis make more money on distance traveled than time stuck in a jam, there's a changeover point at 21 kph

Spook_ie

RainyDay wrote: »

<snipped>


And they don't even pay road tax, you know. Did you know that?

Yes we all know that, they pay nothing extra for having facilities provided for their exclusive use, an exclusive use that they don't even have to use, good that isn't it?

jmayo

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.

So are you one of the ones who clogs up the roads of North Wicklow most weekends or even some spring/summer evenings ?

Would you be of the type that decides to saunder along two or three abreast holding up traffic ?
Would you be one of the ones that reckons lights are optional on a dark evening ?
Would you be one of the eejits that reckons the lycra shouldn't make you stand out, but actually blend in ?
You know the ones that wear black or dark tops/shorts in winter, but look like a moving add for dyno rod or are off to take part in Rio's Mardi Gra during the summer.

Would you be one of the ones that refuses to pull your car in on a narrow road because the very expensive bike that sticking out at the back might get an old scrap on the bushes and briars ?

You know I now nearly applaud anyone I see out cycling to actually get somewhere.
You know the type that doesn't have shoes on that make you walk like you are newly converted to acting as a drag queen.
The type that doesn't have skin tight shorts/tights or have a top that has more adds on it than a billboard.

Some mornings I used to meet an old guy on what looked like a high nellie.
I would give him a wide berth any day of the week.
And you know some morning he would raise his hand.
Perish the thought the numpties with their very expensive ABC1 social group bikes, that they most likely bought (fraudently I would say) through the bike to work scheme, would ever do that.

And one of the worse things to now suffer is to have to listen to a bunch of weekend cyclists discuss their cleats, their shimanos, their derailers, their iphone monitoring apps.

Go for a cycle fine, but remember other people like the natives use the road and don't be a fooking pane.

rubadub

Spook_ie wrote: »

they pay nothing extra for having facilities provided for their exclusive use

Who pays for them so? surely its not volunteers building the with free materials?

I would have thought it comes from a similar source as the money for footpaths.

I don't think its exlusive to cyclists. I think pedestrians can legitimately use cycleways, not sure about cycletracks -though cycletracks are where you see most pedestrians wandering dangerously onto.

Pedestrians -the other road users who pay no motor tax, along with these

The following vehicles are exempt from the requirement to pay motor tax:

State-owned vehicles
Diplomatic vehicles
Vehicles exempted under the Disabled Drivers and Disabled Passengers (Tax Concessions) Regulations, 1994 (S.I. No. 353 of 1994)
Vehicles (including any cycle with an attachment for propelling it by mechanical power) not exceeding 400 kilograms in weight (unladen), which is adapted and used for invalids
Vehicles which are used exclusively for the transport (whether by carriage or traction) of lifeboats and their gear or any equipment for affording assistance towards the preservation of life and property in cases of ship-wreck and distress at sea
Vehicles which are used exclusively for the transport (whether by carriage or traction) of road construction machinery used for no purpose other than the construction or repair of roads
Refuse carts, sweeping machines or watering machines used exclusively for cleansing public streets and roads
Ambulances, road-rollers or fire engines
Vehicles kept by a local authority and used exclusively for the purpose of their fire brigade service.
Vehicles which are used exclusively for mountain and cave rescue purposes
Vehicles which are used exclusively for underwater search and recovery purposes.

good that isn't it?

yes, most governments worldwide think so. Ever stop to think you might be the odd one out?

Pinch Flat

Spook_ie wrote: »

Yes we all know that, they pay nothing extra for having facilities provided for their exclusive use, an exclusive use that they don't even have to use, good that isn't it?

Ah in fairness the cycle tax should be higher €120 sounds a bit stingy, how about the €200 I was originally proposing.

"In other news today, at the height of on of the worst obesity crisis's to befall a western country, the Irish government today introduced some cycling incentives, including a €200 annual cycling tax and raised the VAT to 50% on new bike purchases. It is hoped these moves will encourage people to move from their cars, exercise more and stem the flow of this epidemic" (end press release)