Cyclists should do a theory test!

ThisRegard

Spook_ie wrote: »

No and you know I haven't, unless there's a typo in there somewhere

We were discussing motor tax, and motor tax, according to you, is the sole funding vehicle for........?

smash

RainyDay wrote: »

Except that it has everything to do with your original post, which takes a selectively narrow view of reality to suit a narrow argument. By looking at the big picture, it shows that your selective view was wrong.

It does not. You're 100% wrong here. Just because you pay income tax it does not in any way mean that you pay to use a road for cycling. Or just because you have paid motor tax on your car it does not in any way mean that you pay to use a road for cycling. By your logic we shouldn't pay motor tax because we pay tax on everything else. Or that if we pay motor tax one 1 vehicle then it should cover all vehicles that you own.

RainyDay wrote: »

If you see more cyclists breaking traffic laws that motorists, you are either a very unobservant road user, or you are suffering from confirmation bias.

It's very easy to sit at lights and watch cyclists fly through them, or to watch and avoid them weave out on a road without indicating.

RainyDay wrote: »

How many times did you break the speed limit the last time you drove?

If you want to go down the low hanging fruit route then go to the quays in Dublin where there's a 30kmph speed limit and you'll clock a lot of cyclists breaking it.

Spook_ie

ThisRegard wrote: »

We were discussing motor tax, and motor tax, according to you, is the sole funding vehicle for........?

LGF

smash

RainyDay wrote: »

Which bit of reality are you struggling to understand. I'm a cyclist. I've paid motor tax. So I've paid for the provision of roads.

Them's the facts,, brother, even if they don't suit your selective view of the world.

Paying for the provision of roads is not the same as paying to use the roads. Motorists pay for that privilege, cyclists don't.

Spook_ie

RainyDay wrote: »

Which bit of reality are you struggling to understand. I'm a cyclist. I've paid motor tax. So I've paid for the provision of roads.

Them's the facts,, brother, even if they don't suit your selective view of the world.

Again NO, you've contributed towards roads as a road user and paying motortax etc., you've not contributed to cycle lanes as a cyclist

mathie

smash wrote: »

If you want to go down the low hanging fruit route then go to the quays in Dublin where there's a 30kmph speed limit and you'll clock a lot of cyclists breaking it.

Speed limits don't apply to bikes.

Spook_ie

mathie wrote: »

Speed limits don't apply to bikes.

They probably will when they pedestrianise College Green, change in local byelaws will make it legal and a simple doppler detector to enforce it with a cyclewarden dishing out tickets

CramCycle

smash wrote: »

Paying for the provision of roads is not the same as paying to use the roads. Motorists pay for that privilege, cyclists don't.

Actually motorists get a license for that privilege, mainly due to the increased risk that is there from operating a motorised risk, hence different tests for different vehicles.

Cyclists do not need a license as it has been shown that the risk is so low as to not warrant it.

It is a privilege, don't ever forget that but not one paid for, one that is earned.

Knasher

smash wrote: »

Paying for the provision of roads is not the same as paying to use the roads. Motorists pay for that privilege, cyclists don't.

Seriously how many times are we going to go around on this point?

You think that cyclists should have to pay to use the roads. Fine, you're entitled to your opinion. The government clearly want to encourage the use of bicycles, and no matter how many times you, or somebody else, restate your opinion is isn't going to change that. And clearly they aren't going to bring in charges that would, undeniably (and I suspect purposefully), discourage cycling, at least without good reason.

I'd imagine the reasons that the government want to encourage cycling is because it has positive health benefits and reduces congestion. If you feel these reasons are wrong, then feel free to cite studies that prove they're wrong. If the only argument to be had in this thread is the restating, over and over, of this single opinion. Then can we all just agree to disagree and let this thread die? Because so far all I can see is pointless circles.

mathie

Spook_ie wrote: »

They probably will when they pedestrianise College Green, change in local byelaws will make it legal and a simple doppler detector to enforce it with a cyclewarden dishing out tickets

Seems legit. It's a policy that has served many other countries well. Oh wait.

Spook_ie

CramCycle wrote: »

Actually motorists get a license for that privilege, mainly due to the increased risk that is there from operating a motorised risk, hence different tests for different vehicles.

Cyclists do not need a license as it has been shown that the risk is so low as to not warrant it.

It is a privilege, don't ever forget that but not one paid for, one that is earned.

No they pay for it and require a license

CramCycle

CramCycle wrote: »

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/348943/vfm-assessment-of-cycling-grants.pdf

http://www.ecf.com/wp-content/uploads/ECF_Economic-benefits-of-cycling-in-EU-27.pdf

I am just going to quote myself so spook doesn't miss these really clear cut documents on economic benefits of cycling to an economy where infrastructure has been added.

smash

CramCycle wrote: »

Actually motorists get a license for that privilege, mainly due to the increased risk that is there from operating a motorised risk, hence different tests for different vehicles.

Cyclists do not need a license as it has been shown that the risk is so low as to not warrant it.

It is a privilege, don't ever forget that but not one paid for, one that is earned.

It is paid for. Owning a license on it's own does not grant a motorist a right to use the road, the right is only granted once Motor tax is paid for the specific vehicle the motorist is using. Thus, paying to use.

Spook_ie

CramCycle wrote: »

I am just going to quote myself so spook doesn't miss these really clear cut documents on economic benefits of cycling to an economy where infrastructure has been added.

So do you not think that if it's so beneficial that cyclists should contribute towards that €1 spend rather than relying on the rest of society, in particular the 10% tax take that the motorists of Ireland are paying

mathie

smash wrote: »

It is paid for. Owning a license on it's own does not grant a motorist a right to use the road, the right is only granted once Motor tax is paid for the specific vehicle the motorist is using. Thus, paying to use.

So should we ask pedestrians to have a license / pay to cross the road?

smash

mathie wrote: »

So should we ask pedestrians to have a license / pay to cross the road?

Why would we do that? That would be daft... they're not using a road, they're just crossing it.

CramCycle

Spook_ie wrote: »

So do you not think that if it's so beneficial that cyclists should contribute towards that €1 spend rather than relying on the rest of society, in particular the 10% tax take that the motorists of Ireland are paying

Let me clarify this then, and please state it loud and clear, your belief is that cyclists, in no way contribute towards the general tax fund. That is what you are saying, bottom line, that every cyclist you pass and every cyclist that pass you by, in no way contributes towards the general tax fund.

That's what it sounds like you are saying, just to make it clear, in case I misunderstand what you are saying.

ThisRegard

smash wrote: »

Paying for the provision of roads is not the same as paying to use the roads. Motorists pay for that privilege, cyclists don't.

Because there's no requirement for a cyclist to pay to use the road. But they certainly pay towards the building and upkeep of them, as do other people who don't even live in the state.

Spook_ie

CramCycle wrote: »

Let me clarify this then, and please state it loud and clear, your belief is that cyclists, in no way contribute towards the general tax fund. That is what you are saying, bottom line, that every cyclist you pass and every cyclist that pass you by, in no way contributes towards the general tax fund.

That's what it sounds like you are saying, just to make it clear, in case I misunderstand what you are saying.

Let me CLARIFY it for you again.


When you are using your cycle on a cycle lane you are NOT contributing to it, unlike when a motorist is using the road they ARE contributing to it

ThisRegard

Spook_ie wrote: »

than relying on the rest of society, in particular the 10% tax take that the motorists of Ireland are paying

LOL, do you even read over what you post ? Cyclists are the rest of society. There's no separate tax bucket for cyclists, and the rest of society.

smash

ThisRegard wrote: »

Because there's no requirement for a cyclist to pay to use the road. But they certainly pay towards the building and upkeep of them, as do other people who don't even live in the state.

I never suggested otherwise. Only that cyclists don't pay for usage and motorists do. For each vehicle they own.

Sure the government would change it to a pollution tax but then they couldn't tax zero emissions vehicles.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Let me CLARIFY it for you again.


When you are using your cycle on a cycle lane you are NOT contributing to it, unlike when a motorist is using the road they ARE contributing to it

Stop, you'll lose the argument for all of us...

Spook_ie

ThisRegard wrote: »

LOL, do you even read over what you post ? Cyclists are the rest of society. There's no separate tax bucket for cyclists, and the rest of society.

LGF

mathie

Spook_ie wrote: »

Let me CLARIFY it for you again.


When you are using your cycle on a cycle lane you are NOT contributing to it, unlike when a motorist is using the road they ARE contributing to it

... because you're paying for petrol?

ThisRegard

smash wrote: »

Stop, you'll lose the argument for all of us...

That ship has long since sailed (not before paying all it's necessary port and docking taxes of course)

Pinch Flat

Spook_ie wrote: »

Let me CLARIFY it for you again.


When you are using your cycle on a cycle lane you are NOT contributing to it, unlike when a motorist is using the road they ARE contributing to it

Interesting concept. So by using their car they're contributing (presumably through vat and duty on the fuel?). I presume this is offset against the 1% impact on Gdp that traffic jams cause?

Knasher

Spook_ie wrote: »

LGF

The LGF is funded by motor tax and directly from the exchequer (among others).

Anyone who contributes to the LGF is therefore also contributing to the maintenance of (non-national) roads.

omahaid

smash wrote: »

Paying for the provision of roads is not the same as paying to use the roads. Motorists pay for that privilege, cyclists don't.

I hate to point out the obvious but motor vehicles are taxed because they use the road. This is not the same as paying. The government tax me on my income, I don't pay them. The tax exists because of the exponentially greater damage caused by cars compared to cyclists to the road network.

check_six

smash wrote: »

If you want to go down the low hanging fruit route then go to the quays in Dublin where there's a 30kmph speed limit and you'll clock a lot of cyclists breaking it.

mathie wrote: »

Speed limits don't apply to bikes.

Spook_ie wrote: »

They probably will when they pedestrianise College Green, change in local byelaws will make it legal and a simple doppler detector to enforce it with a cyclewarden dishing out tickets

Don't forget to ensure all bikes in Ireland are fitted with a calibrated speedometer to get this to work. Seems straightforward?

Spook_ie

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Interesting concept. So by using their car they're contributing (presumably through vat and duty on the fuel?). I presume this is offset against the 1% impact on Gdp that traffic jams cause?

And we come back, ever so neatly to investing in public transport not cycling infrastructure

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95818677&postcount=571

Spook_ie

check_six wrote: »

Don't forget to ensure all bikes in Ireland are fitted with a calibrated speedometer to get this to work. Seems straightforward?

Why would they need a speedometer, calibrated or otherwise, a doppler radar with a sign saying slow down, with a second dopple up the street with a cycle warden should do the job neatly enough

Tenzor07

Spook_ie wrote: »

Let me CLARIFY it for you again.
When you are using your cycle on a cycle lane you are NOT contributing to it, unlike when a motorist is using the road they ARE contributing to it

Classic!

Build the "M50 of cycle lanes", high speed, no traffic signals, all over Dublin city and ill stick a bicycle tax disc on my lycra'd behind! :pac:

mathie

Spook_ie wrote: »

Why would they need a speedometer, calibrated or otherwise, a doppler radar with a sign saying slow down, with a second dopple up the street with a cycle warden should do the job neatly enough

So doppler radars and doppler radars with cycle wardens every 100? 200 metres?
Seems legit.

Tenzor07

Spook_ie wrote: »

Why would they need a speedometer, calibrated or otherwise, a doppler radar with a sign saying slow down, with a second dopple up the street with a cycle warden should do the job neatly enough

Great idea!

The Gardai Bicycle police, I can see it now, ChiPs Patrol... (Cyclists Have Police )

arthur daly

Tax and insurance too

jmayo

ThisRegard wrote: »

As soon as you started your post, I could see right through to what you were getting at, you couldn't be more transparent.

God bless your eyesight and my missed typing ...

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Top drawer rant - they're getting better.

You missed shaving our legs. Sometimes we'll shave each others.

I coudln't give a flying fook what you do to each other so long as you don't do it in the middle of the road.

RainyDay wrote: »

Yes, it's great that even though they've already paid motor tax for the car in their driveway, they aren't clogging up the road.

Ah yes the old "I pay tax gives me the right to ..."

Would you also be arguing that paying income tax gives you a right to ... let's see... maybe free water, free tv, free refuse collection ?

BTW I don't think cyclists shoudl be raod tax or bike tax.
Just obey some rules and don't think you can act the prat.

RainyDay wrote: »

Man, you seem to spend a scary amount of time studying cyclists, and particularly studying their clothing. Can I suggest that you concentrate on how other road users are driving, rather than what they are wearing?

Maybe if you get stuck behind a cyclist out in the middle of the road going at about 5mph and you had shag all chance of passing them you would also get a long detailed look at their lycra clad ar** as well.

Trust me it is not what I want to be doing, but something I have often found myself forced to endure for far too long.
BTW some of those ar**es are not hard to miss.
And I may not be just talking about the part in the saddle.

There appears to be a certain class of person (guys in particular) who have taken to wandering around the countryside probably subconciously reminiscing about the days when they chased around pretending to be Kelly or Roche.
I have usually found the cop out excuse to doing as they want to be "excercise and fitness".
Now it appears to be "well I have a car and pay road tax so I can do what I want on the roads"
I pay road tax, but does it mean I wander down the centre of the road when out for a walk ?

I would love to know how many of our sporting cyclists would be on complaining about farmers and their tractors clogging up the roads and holding them up when they are driving.

Spook_ie

mathie wrote: »

So doppler radars and doppler radars with cycle wardens every 100? 200 metres?
Seems legit.

Why would you need them every 200 meters, you put a radar activated sign at the start with a warning that you are cycling too fast for the following area, and a random cycle warden with a hand held pulling in cyclists that are ( arbitrary figure inserted ) 10% above the advised limit

Pinch Flat

Spook_ie wrote: »

And we come back, ever so neatly to investing in public transport not cycling infrastructure

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95818677&postcount=571

Around in circle in other words, like the rest of your arguments.

Did you hear back from the minister of finance yet? I'd say they're always interested to hear about novel revenue generating ideas

smash

omahaid wrote: »

I hate to point out the obvious but motor vehicles are taxed because they use the road. This is not the same as paying. The government tax me on my income, I don't pay them. The tax exists because of the exponentially greater damage caused by cars compared to cyclists to the road network.

But even to use your logic, then cyclists should pay a tax in order to use them too. Especially since they cause exponentially greater damage to cycle lanes than any other road user. No?

But even after the fact that motor vehicles cause more damage to the road network than anyone else, motor tax for the most part does not cover road maintenance. In fact, a good chunk of it went in to Irish water last year.

Spook_ie

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Around in circle in other words, like the rest of your arguments.

Did you hear back from the minister of finance yet? I'd say they're always interested to hear about novel revenue generating ideas

I think you'll find it's your post that's circularised it

Tenzor07

smash wrote: »

But even to use your logic, then cyclists should pay a tax in order to use them too. Especially since they cause exponentially greater damage to cycle lanes than any other road user. No?
But even after the fact that motor vehicles cause more damage to the road network than anyone else, motor tax for the most part does not cover road maintenance. In fact, a good chunk of it went in to Irish water last year.

Stop trying to make sense with mature reasoned logical and practical points!

It has no point in forum threads/posts like this!

Knasher

smash wrote: »

But even to use your logic, then cyclists should pay a tax in order to use them too.

Which they do though contributions to the LGF, which pays for the maintenance of non-national roads.

smash wrote: »

Especially since they cause exponentially greater damage to cycle lanes than any other road user. No?

Most of the maintenance on cycle lanes is clearing the debris pushed into them from the road.

check_six

Spook_ie wrote: »

Why would you need them every 200 meters, you put a radar activated sign at the start with a warning that you are cycling too fast for the following area, and a random cycle warden with a hand held pulling in cyclists that are ( arbitrary figure inserted ) 10% above the advised limit

You need to know how fast you are going to be able to comply with a speed limit sign. One static doppler sign that could be triggered by any other moving object is not really going to let you know how fast you are going at any other point in your journey. A functioning calibrated speedometer is a requirement in a motor vehicle, but not on a bicycle.

Also, why would the actual limit be 10% over the advised (posted?) limit? (Maybe I'm reading more into your use of language here than necessary.)

RobbieTheRobber

smash wrote: »

But even to use your logic, then cyclists should pay a tax in order to use them too. Especially since they cause exponentially greater damage to cycle lanes than any other road user. No?

But even after the fact that motor vehicles cause more damage to the road network than anyone else, motor tax for the most part does not cover road maintenance. In fact, a good chunk of it went in to Irish water last year.

The greatest danger to cycle lanes is surely fat joggers(walkers).

Effects

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

The greatest danger to cycle lanes is surely fat joggers(walkers).

Parents with buggies. Mainly dads with buggies tbh.

mathie

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

The greatest danger to cycle lanes is surely fat joggers(walkers).

Not to mention taxi drivers.

Pinch Flat

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

The greatest danger to cycle lanes is surely fat joggers(walkers).

I find it odd that people slag off cyclists for wearing Lycra - clothing that's specifically designed for the activity they're undertaking.

Yet I find it equally strange compared to the amount of obviously unfit and obese people who prance around in track suits and football jerseys

PeadarCo

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Stop trying to make sense with mature reasoned logical and practical points!

It has no point in forum threads/posts like this!

I know the whole idea that a person can be a cyclist and motorist seems to unfathomable to some people. The same with the health benefits and money saved by cyclists for the government particularly when with have an issue with obesity in society.

Motor tax doesn't pay for all road costs and to be honest in why opinion should never do. Even if you never drive/own a car you still benefit from a high quality road network. You might never cycle a bike but you will benefit from lower computing times(compared to the same cyclists in cars), you'll benefit from the economic effects(linked to by Cram Cycle).

What people like Spook miss is the big picture. This is thing that thankfully governs Irish road policy. The reason we built motorways, improved roads, public transport etc.

Effects

Pinch Flat wrote: »

I find it odd that people slag off cyclists for wearing Lycra - clothing that's specifically designed for the activity they're undertaking.

I don't wear lycra when I cycle.

Yet I find it equally strange compared to the amount of obviously unfit and obese people who prance around in track suits and football jerseys.

It's termed leisure wear.



What about the amount of cyclists who shave their legs to "reduce chances of infections from dirt that gets in the wound if I crash"?
Surely they don't crash often enough to warrant having to shave their legs all the time.

diomed

Car drivers beep horns. Who gave them the right to have a horn? As a cyclist I think horns should be removed from cars.

Pinch Flat

Effects wrote: »

I don't wear lycra when I cycle.

Yeah but the common perception out there is that we do. I use it for specific purposes. So for long cycles, yes - it's padded, wicks perspiration and dries quickly. Fir commuting not so.

Effects wrote: »

It's termed leisure wear.

ah ok. I just find it funny that some of the posters taking the micky out of cyclists might have the name of their favourite premiership footballer emblazoned across their backs

Effects wrote: »

What about the amount of cyclists who shave their legs to "reduce chances of infections from dirt that gets in the wound if I crash"?
Surely they don't crash often enough to warrant having to shave their legs all the time.

No it's just to look sexy and impress the laydeez