Cyclists should do a theory test!

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

Pinch Flat

CramCycle wrote: »

I presume that's what he means, forget the net improvement me cycling to work brings to the exchequer, forget the studies that have already been linked studying this.

No matter how he phrases it, the average cyclist contributes to the economy, the average cyclists also costs the exchequer less than the average non cyclist over time.

But don't let such things take away from Spooks I paid for petrol, what have you done today rant.

I eat a banana and some nuts when I cycle into work. The odd time I'll make up a bit of an oul energy drink to give me a boost. And I pay vat them. These should be factored into spooks figures as well.

cajonlardo

I would love to know where these people drive (or how they drive) that they experience such absolute DRAMA!
I've driven on the Fire Service,Army, Close Protection and been a Chauffeur. Long, pressurised hours on the roads. Yet these guys encounter more grief on the way to the shops than I have encountered in 35 years driving.

BTW, not once, ever did a cyclist impede me when I was driving under blue lights. Could not even guess the amount of muppets driving that did.

But you know what? Give me the tests, the taxes, the high viz, the reg plates ANYTHING to get these whining self opinionated self important whiners to shut up. If even one tenth of the incidents they claim were to occur then the hospital wards and graveyards would be stuffed with cyclists. They are not. They are actually stuffed with people who couldn't relax, get a bit of exercise and live and let live.

ollaetta

Effects wrote: »

It's termed leisure wear.

Off topic but Lard arse wear would be more accurate in many cases.

Effects

Pinch Flat wrote: »

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

I've never met a lady who didn't find it weird and a turn off.

CramCycle

Effects wrote: »

I've never met a lady who didn't find it weird and a turn off.

There is a bit of dependence on who is in it, I get wolf whistles and quite acknowledging glances from both sexes. The odd swoon. I appreciate it, and so do they from what I can tell :cool:

RainyDay

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

Sheer genius! Is there anything less important that you can come up with to focus garda/legal/policy resources on, while motorists continue to kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others? How about people who have their hair parted on the left, or people with dirty fingernails perhaps?

jmayo wrote: »

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 ?

I'd have thought that the difference was fairly obvious, but let me spell it out for you if you're having difficulty grasping it. There is legislation in place to require people to pay for water, tv and refuse collection. There is no legislation in place to require people to pay for cycling.

jmayo wrote: »

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.

Have you seen me cycling, or why would think that I don't obey some rules? And I presume you obey ALL the rules when driving ALL the time - right? You've never broken a speed limit - right?

jmayo wrote: »

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.

Methinks he doth protest too much. I drive a bit too, and I've never found myself 'forced to endure' cyclist clothing. I wonder why that is....

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

Again, it's fairly obvious to all except yourself that the 10% of tax take is paid by motorists (including many cyclists) of Ireland.

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

And again, it's fairly obvious to all except yourself that I pay motor tax once a year - I don't pay it by the meter. So I don't 'contribute' to motor tax when I use it, I just contribute to motor tax once - as a cyclist, motorist, Cadbury fan and boards.ie member. There are lots of aspects of my personality, and I don't pay different bits of taxes each time one of them uses something.

smash wrote: »

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.

Unfortunately for you, the legal position does not support you. And sorry if this comes as a surprise, but most cyclists are motorists too, and have paid their motor tax regardless.

smash wrote: »

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.

Yes, that’s definitely true. And unless you wear blinkers, while sitting at those lights, you’ll also see motorists breaking the red lights, breaking the speed limit as they cross the junction, using their phones etc. Or do you have some form of very selective vision?

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.

As others have pointed out, there is actually no speed limits for cyclists. But what you will see on the quays is that most cars are faster than most cyclists, so you’ve confirmed nicely that most cars (the user group that kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others) break the law frequently.

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.

Spook_ie wrote: »

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

The problem is that I only have one wallet, and one bank account. It all comes out of the same account and goes into the same account. So I don’t contribute ‘as a motorist’ or ‘as a cyclist’. I just contribute as me.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

I eat a banana and some nuts when I cycle into work. The odd time I'll make up a bit of an oul energy drink to give me a boost. And I pay vat them. These should be factored into spooks figures as well.

And don’t forget the VAT on all the figure-hugging lycra that Smash is so obsessed with.

diomed wrote: »

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

Do they pay horn tax?

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

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

Nah, the dog walkers with the extendible lead stretched across the lane are my own particular nemesis.

Qualitymark

This business of "I pay road tax so it's my road" - is there a limit to how far it should extend? I used to pay around €500 a year VRT, a bit less than a tenner a week, until I got rid of my car last year. Is this typical, and how much road should it entitle someone to?

Pinch Flat

http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/jun/09/cities-physically-active-residents-more-productive-healthier-walking-cycling-economic-benefits?utm_content=buffer7782b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

beauf

Qualitymark wrote: »

This business of "I pay road tax so it's my road" - is there a limit to how far it should extend? I used to pay around €500 a year VRT, a bit less than a tenner a week, until I got rid of my car last year. Is this typical, and how much road should it entitle someone to?

Maybe efficiency.

http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/trying-travel-city-bikes-are-most-efficient-way-move.html

smash

RainyDay wrote: »

Unfortunately for you, the legal position does not support you. And sorry if this comes as a surprise, but most cyclists are motorists too, and have paid their motor tax regardless.

Cyclists who are also motorists makes absolutely no difference to the fact that as a motorist, you pay through taxation for your usage rights. Cyclists can use a road without paying to use it. Your opinion is that you pay motor tax to use a road in your car so this means you've paid to use your bike on the road. You haven't, you've only paid to use your car on the road. As a cyclist you don't have to pay to use your bike on a road.

So to sum it up

• Motorists pay usage rights for their cars.
• Cyclists don't pay usage rights. Because they don't have to.
• If you're a motorist and a cyclist, your motor tax only covers your car usage. It doesn't mean you've paid for bike usage.

rubadub

smash wrote: »

So to sum it up

• Motorists pay usage rights for their cars.
• Cyclists don't pay usage rights. Because they don't have to.
• If you're a motorist and a cyclist, your motor tax only covers your car usage. It doesn't mean you've paid for bike usage.

I don't get why posters keep saying stuff like this? what is the goal? to make fellow "motorist only" people think "see, cyclists who pay motortax are still scum", or make the cyclists who do pay feel bad/guilty or something? Because I really don't think its achieving anything other than wasting your own time.

A similar situation is the fact that people watching RTE TV on internet do not have to have a TV licence, if all they have is a laptop. Some people, especially those paying a tv licence fee, feel this is unfair and that they should contribute.

Now I wonder if a thread came up about this would people who say they do pay a tv licence AND also happen to watch RTE online the odd time -would these people still be berated and/or "corrected" and made out like they contribute nothing.

You pay motortax yearly, ideally a person could pay by the minute or by the mile it if was feasible. And paying in accordance to the vehicle they are using at that time. In which case the cyclist who also drives would be paying less motor tax per year.

I know people who have bikes who drive their car so that it will not "go to waste", as they pay insurance and tax yearly so if they were not using it they feel its going to waste. These are unnecessarily clogging up the roads, and are probably further put off cycling if they read any of the mental shit you see in these threads. With "teach you a lesson" type sociopaths out there.

CramCycle

smash wrote: »

Cyclists who are also motorists makes absolutely no difference to the fact that as a motorist, you pay through taxation for your usage rights. Cyclists can use a road without paying to use it. Your opinion is that you pay motor tax to use a road in your car so this means you've paid to use your bike on the road. You haven't, you've only paid to use your car on the road. As a cyclist you don't have to pay to use your bike on a road.

So to sum it up

• Motorists pay usage rights for their cars.
• Cyclists don't pay usage rights. Because they don't have to.
• If you're a motorist and a cyclist, your motor tax only covers your car usage. It doesn't mean you've paid for bike usage.

To sum it up, there is no road or motor tax for cyclists. This is not the fault of cyclists, so probably no point being angry at them. It is the fault of tyrannical regimes of governments who one after the other, for some silly reason have thought, let's not tax cyclists.

Now, maybe they have their reasons but they should make these reasons clear to you, the common, motor tax paying, citizen, because it seems grossly unfair.

Being a democracy, I suggest you go to your local TD and ask him to support such a move, see what he says, maybe he knows the cunning plan behind such diabolical behaviour.

If your TD comes back with a bunch of unsubstantiated claims like doing such things would be negative because of increase in traffic, reduction in health bill, negative benefits to the local economy, negative effects to the national economy, road maintenance comes from general taxation, cyclists contribute towards their use of the road if you insist on seeing them as homogeneous group, that if cyclist numbers continue to increasl, the cost of road maintenance will also lower, not much but it will. Don't listen, it's a trick. You stand your ground and say, LIES, and show them your proof.

smash

rubadub wrote: »

I don't get why posters keep saying stuff like this? what is the goal? to make fellow "motorist only" people think "see, cyclists who pay motortax are still scum", or make the cyclists who do pay feel bad/guilty or something? Because I really don't think its achieving anything other than wasting your own time.

Not at all. There's the motorists who use the age old nonsense of "They don't even pay for the roads" and then there's the cyclists who point out that they pay for the roads through their taxes, which is true.

My point is that everyone pays for the roads, but only motorists pay for road usage. In the form of a motor tax. Some cyclists seem to think that paying motor tax for car usage entitles them to use for their bike. My point is that it doesn't, as cyclists don't have to pay for usage at all. Paying tax for usage rights on your car does not transfer the usage rights to your bike, because you don't need a usage right for your bike. That's all.

ardmacha

rubadub wrote: »

A similar situation is the fact that people watching RTE TV on internet do not have to have a TV licence, if all they have is a laptop. Some people, especially those paying a tv licence fee, feel this is unfair and that they should contribute.

A better analogy is that if you own two cars you have to pay tax for both of them, you cannot drive the second one on the basis that you paid for the first one.

CramCycle

smash wrote: »

Not at all. There's the motorists who use the age old nonsense of "They don't even pay for the roads" and then there's the cyclists who point out that they pay for the roads through their taxes, which is true.

My point is that everyone pays for the roads, but only motorists pay for road usage. In the form of a motor tax. Some cyclists seem to think that paying motor tax for car usage entitles them to use for their bike. My point is that it doesn't, as cyclists don't have to pay for usage at all. Paying tax for usage rights on your car does not transfer the usage rights to your bike, because you don't need a usage right for your bike. That's all.

What was your point then, I think everyone has known this for quite sometime. I don't pay motor tax so I feel better about cycling to work. I pay it because I may want to use my car sometimes for various reasons.

If I didn't have a car I wouldn't feel guilty for cycling, I would feel the same as I do now.

Pinch Flat

ardmacha wrote: »

A better analogy is that if you own two cars you have to pay tax for both of them, you cannot drive the second one on the basis that you paid for the first one.

Yes, but the legal situation currently is that to run a car on a public road you need to pay motor tax. To run a bicycle you don't. It can't be any clearer than that.

smash

CramCycle wrote: »

What was your point then, I think everyone has known this for quite sometime. I don't pay motor tax so I feel better about cycling to work. I pay it because I may want to use my car sometimes for various reasons.

If I didn't have a car I wouldn't feel guilty for cycling, I would feel the same as I do now.

My point is that not everyone seems to know this:

RainyDay wrote: »

based on current law, it does translate that a tax compliant cyclist HAS paid to use their bike on the road, in exactly the same way that your beloved motorist HAS paid to use their car on the road.

I was just clarifying for RainyDay that no, he has not paid tax to use his bike on the roads. He has only paid tax which funds the road network infrastructure development.

RainyDay

smash wrote: »

Cyclists who are also motorists makes absolutely no difference to the fact that as a motorist, you pay through taxation for your usage rights. Cyclists can use a road without paying to use it. Your opinion is that you pay motor tax to use a road in your car so this means you've paid to use your bike on the road. You haven't, you've only paid to use your car on the road. As a cyclist you don't have to pay to use your bike on a road.

So to sum it up

• Motorists pay usage rights for their cars.
• Cyclists don't pay usage rights. Because they don't have to.
• If you're a motorist and a cyclist, your motor tax only covers your car usage. It doesn't mean you've paid for bike usage.

smash wrote: »

Not at all. There's the motorists who use the age old nonsense of "They don't even pay for the roads" and then there's the cyclists who point out that they pay for the roads through their taxes, which is true.

My point is that everyone pays for the roads, but only motorists pay for road usage. In the form of a motor tax. Some cyclists seem to think that paying motor tax for car usage entitles them to use for their bike. My point is that it doesn't, as cyclists don't have to pay for usage at all. Paying tax for usage rights on your car does not transfer the usage rights to your bike, because you don't need a usage right for your bike. That's all.

As was pointed out earlier, motorists don't pay motor tax FOR road usage, they pay motor tax BECAUSE they use the road. It is not a payment for a service. It's a tax, based on opportunity.

Also, I don't pay tax as a motorist, or a cyclist, or a water drinker. I just pay tax - it all comes out of the same pocket. So, to summarise;

- most cyclist pay motor tax
- roads are funded from general taxation
- general taxation is funded from all taxes paid by everybody - income tax, VAT, customs and motor tax etc

Motor tax is not a payment for a service or payment for an entitlement - it's a tax.

rubadub

ardmacha wrote: »

A better analogy is that if you own two cars you have to pay tax for both of them, you cannot drive the second one on the basis that you paid for the first one.

And I was saying this is not ideal. It should be in accordance to the usage if there was an easy way to do it. It shoudl not be yearly, but if it was it should be on the highest tax, on the vehicle which command the higest. I also think insurance is odd like that. I know a guy who owns about 5 cars and think his bulk insurance should be a lot less as he is never driving them all at once. I think time would be better spent campaigning TDs to recifiy this situation.

Your example is not a better analogy as you do not have to pay 2 licences if you watch TV and RTE online. And you do not have to pay 2 tv licences if you have 2+ tvs in the same house.

smash wrote: »

Some cyclists seem to think that paying motor tax for car usage entitles them to use for their bike. My point is that it doesn't, as cyclists don't have to pay for usage at all.

I think it's more like the cycliss seem to think/hope that paying motor tax for cars might shut the whining cunts up who make out that they are freeloaders who do have never paid anything towards the roads in anyway shape or form. But it doesn't.

RainyDay

smash wrote: »

My point is that not everyone seems to know this:


I was just clarifying for RainyDay that no, he has not paid tax to use his bike on the roads. He has only paid tax which funds the road network infrastructure development.

That's quite correct. Just like you haven't paid motor tax TO USE your car on the roads. You paid motor tax BECAUSE YOU USE your car on the road.

smash

RainyDay wrote: »

As was pointed out earlier, motorists don't pay motor tax FOR road usage, they pay motor tax BECAUSE they use the road. It is not a payment for a service. It's a tax, based on opportunity.

Also, I don't pay tax as a motorist, or a cyclist, or a water drinker. I just pay tax - it all comes out of the same pocket. So, to summarise;

- most cyclist pay motor tax
- roads are funded from general taxation
- general taxation is funded from all taxes paid by everybody - income tax, VAT, customs and motor tax etc

Motor tax is not a payment for a service or payment for an entitlement - it's a tax.

Motor tax is a payment for an entitlement. Payment of motor tax entitles the motorist to use that particular vehicle a public road. Without payment they are not compliant and are not entitled to use that vehicle on a public road.

I don't pay motor tax because I use the roads, I pay motor tax to be allowed use the roads in the first place.

RainyDay

smash wrote: »

Motor tax is a payment for an entitlement. Payment of motor tax entitles the motorist to use that particular vehicle a public road. Without payment they are not compliant and are not entitled to use that vehicle on a public road.

I don't pay motor tax because I use the roads, I pay motor tax to be allowed use the roads in the first place.

You can keep saying it as often as you like, but that doesn't make it true. There is no entitlement to use the road. By your logic, any banned driver just has to pay their motor tax, and then they are 'entitled' to drive.

Could you please explain where your 'entitlement' comes from? What bit of legislation entitles you to use the road?

Because the legislation that I've seen requires you to pay motor tax, but doesn't entitle you to diddley-squat. The entitlement exists only in your mind.

beauf

smash wrote: »

....I don't pay motor tax because I use the roads, I pay motor tax to be allowed use a motorised vehicle on the roads in the first place.

Fixed that.

It is a legal requirement to have motor tax if you want to drive your vehicle in a public place. Motor tax is a charge imposed by the Government on some motor vehicles. Motor tax is collected by local authorities.

Drive should be use. Because you need it even when you are not driving.

smash

RainyDay wrote: »

You can keep saying it as often as you like, but that doesn't make it true. There is no entitlement to use the road. By your logic, any banned driver just has to pay their motor tax, and then they are 'entitled' to drive.

Could you please explain where your 'entitlement' comes from? What bit of legislation entitles you to use the road?

Because the legislation that I've seen requires you to pay motor tax, but doesn't entitle you to diddley-squat. The entitlement exists only in your mind.

No, you're twisting it to suit your agenda.

If you are unlicensed yet you have paid motor tax on your vehicle then that vehicle is entitled to be used the road network providing it is driven my a licensed and insured driver. It's true that there are steps such as a license, valid NCT and insurance but the entitlement to use the road network lies with the car having a valid motor tax certificate.

"Liability for motor tax arises when a vehicle is used in a public place/road" https://www.motortax.ie/OMT/staticContent.do?page=faq

RainyDay

smash wrote: »

No, you're twisting it to suit your agenda.

If you are unlicensed yet you have paid motor tax on your vehicle then that vehicle is entitled to be used the road network providing it is driven my a licensed and insured driver. It's true that there are steps such as a license, valid NCT and insurance but the entitlement to use the road network lies with the car having a valid motor tax certificate.

"Liability for motor tax arises when a vehicle is used in a public place/road" https://www.motortax.ie/OMT/staticContent.do?page=faq

Liability is not entitlement. Can you provide any proof or evidence of this entitlement - such as legislation? Or is it a matter of faith perhaps?

smash

RainyDay wrote: »

Liability is not entitlement. Can you provide any proof or evidence of this entitlement - such as legislation? Or is it a matter of faith perhaps?

If I have a car and have not paid motor tax, am I entitled to use it on a public road?

Pinch Flat

smash wrote: »

If I have a car and have not paid motor tax, am I entitled to use it on a public road?

Nope.

RainyDay

smash wrote: »

If I have a car and have not paid motor tax, am I entitled to use it on a public road?

Nope. The absence of entitlement does not create entitlement either.

Where is the entitlement?

smash

RainyDay wrote: »

Nope. The absence of entitlement does not create entitlement either.

Where is the entitlement?

Here's two specific questions for you because you're very pedantic. Answer them and explain please...

If I'm a fully licensed and insured driver who owns a car that has a valid NCT but has not paid motor tax, am I entitled to drive my car on a public road?

If I'm a fully licensed and insured driver who owns a car that has a valid NCT and up-to-date motor tax, am I entitled to drive my car on a public road?

The Dark Side

smash wrote: »

If you are unlicensed yet you have paid motor tax on your vehicle then that vehicle is entitled to be used the road network providing it is driven my a licensed and insured driver. It's true that there are steps such as a license, valid NCT and insurance but the entitlement to use the road network lies with the car having a valid motor tax certificate.

Do Boards hand out a medal to the guy who can turn up in the most threads and spout nonsense on topics about which he patently knows nothing?

seamus

smash wrote: »

Here's two specific questions for you because you're very pedantic. Answer them and explain please...

If I'm a fully licensed and insured driver who owns a car that has a valid NCT but has not paid motor tax, am I entitled to drive my car on a public road?

If I'm a fully licensed and insured driver who owns a car that has a valid NCT and up-to-date motor tax, am I entitled to drive my car on a public road?

No and No. There is no absolute entitlement to drive on any public road, regardless of whether motor tax has been paid.

Motor tax is a requirement for operating a vehicle in a public place, but it does not confer an entitlement to do so.

smash

The Dark Side wrote: »

Do Boards hand out a medal to the guy who can turn up in the most threads and spout nonsense on topics about which he patently knows nothing?

You tell me. You're clearly a re-reg and seem to be following me around for some obscure reason.

smash

seamus wrote: »

No and No. There is no absolute entitlement to drive on any public road, regardless of whether motor tax has been paid.

Motor tax is a requirement for operating a vehicle in a public place, but it does not confer an entitlement to do so.

Owning a valid license entitles me to dive a vehicle for which the licence is valid:

"Whether you have a driving licence or a learner permit, you are only entitled to drive the category of vehicle for which the licence or permit has been issued."
Source

So I am entitled to drive the vehicle, however I've stated already that the entitlement for the car to be used on a public road lies in detail of a valid motor tax disc.

RainyDay

smash wrote: »

Here's two specific questions for you because you're very pedantic. Answer them and explain please...

If I'm a fully licensed and insured driver who owns a car that has a valid NCT but has not paid motor tax, am I entitled to drive my car on a public road?

If I'm a fully licensed and insured driver who owns a car that has a valid NCT and up-to-date motor tax, am I entitled to drive my car on a public road?

seamus wrote: »

No and No. There is no absolute entitlement to drive on any public road, regardless of whether motor tax has been paid.

Motor tax is a requirement for operating a vehicle in a public place, but it does not confer an entitlement to do so.

Thanks for saving me the time, Seamus.

smash wrote: »

Owning a valid license entitles me to dive a vehicle for which the licence is valid:

"Whether you have a driving licence or a learner permit, you are only entitled to drive the category of vehicle for which the licence or permit has been issued."
Source

So I am entitled to drive the vehicle, however I've stated already that the entitlement for the car to be used on a public road lies in detail of a valid motor tax disc.

Now you're clutching at straws;
1- Citizens information is just that - information - not a legal position
2- It doesn't matter what licence you have or don't have - there is no legal entitlement to drive on the road created by motor tax.

Motor tax (like all taxes) is not a contract for service - you don't get anything specific for it. It is a tax. The hint is in the name.

So I guess that no matter how many times you are asked, you will not be able to produce any evidence of your mythical entitlement. You've dug a bit of a hole for yourself here. Time to stop digging.

ThisRegard

Fuel is required to make your car go. Therefore are you entitled to that fuel?

beauf

smash wrote: »

......I've stated already that the entitlement for the car to be used on a public road lies in detail of a valid motor tax disc.

Not on its own.

This is all irrelevant. If you are a cyclist, or a pedestrian, you don't have to pay tax to use the road.

smash

RainyDay wrote: »

Motor tax (like all taxes) is not a contract for service - you don't get anything specific for it. It is a tax. The hint is in the name.

I never said it's a contract for service. It's a fee for usage rights.

"Liability for motor tax arises when a vehicle is used in a public place/road."
https://www.motortax.ie/OMT/staticContent.do?page=faq

RainyDay wrote: »

So I guess that no matter how many times you are asked, you will not be able to produce any evidence of your mythical entitlement. You've dug a bit of a hole for yourself here. Time to stop digging.

Even the RSA used the word entitled when referring to categories of vehicles a license holder can drive. I've dug no hole.

RainyDay

smash wrote: »

I never said it's a contract for service. It's a fee for usage rights.

"Liability for motor tax arises when a vehicle is used in a public place/road."
https://www.motortax.ie/OMT/staticContent.do?page=faq

Where are these 'usage rights' specified in law?

smash wrote: »

Even the RSA used the word entitled when referring to categories of vehicles a license holder can drive. I've dug no hole.

You've hung your hat on this 'entitlement' thing - but we both know that it doesn't exist. There is no legal entitlement. So now you're calling it something else. You can call it Mildred if you like - it still doesn't make it real.

ThisRegard

smash wrote: »

I never said it's a contract for service. It's a fee for usage rights.

"Liability for motor tax arises when a vehicle is used in a public place/road."
https://www.motortax.ie/OMT/staticContent.do?page=faq


Even the RSA used the word entitled when referring to categories of vehicles a license holder can drive. I've dug no hole.

Driving licence is not motor tax.

And your quote says you're liable for tax if you use public roads. Not that road tax gives you an entitlement to use them.

scdublin

Yes, yes they should.

Saw this and thought of this thread: http://www.theladbible.com/articles/cyclist-gets-instant-karma-after-turning-to-have-a-go-at-driver?utm_source=lboz&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=lboz

Pinch Flat

Maybe someone with some specific legal knowledge could clarify, but my understanding is that everyone within Ireland has a Right to Travel enshrined in Common Law. This is a similar situation in the UK.

The difference being that to exercise this right in a motorized vehicle, you need to have paid tax and licensed the vehicle. Per the attached from the DVLA in the UK, which was in reply to a similar query to this thread.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/12619/response/29685/attach/2/Letter%20Mr%20Hinks.pdf

smash

RainyDay wrote: »

Where are these 'usage rights' specified in law?

Finance Act 1976, Section 73

73.—(1) Where a vehicle to which this Part applies is used, parked or otherwise kept at any time in a public place, if while the vehicle is being so used, parked or kept there is not fixed to and exhibited on the vehicle in accordance with section 5 (5) of the Act of 1920 a licence which is both issued in respect of the vehicle and is for the time being in force, then the person by whom the vehicle is so used, parked or kept at the time shall be guilty of an offence, and in addition to the person aforesaid, the person (if he is not the person aforesaid) who on the day on which the offence is committed is in relation to the vehicle the relevant person shall also be guilty of an offence.

That good enough for you?

RainyDay wrote: »

You've hung your hat on this 'entitlement' thing - but we both know that it doesn't exist. There is no legal entitlement. So now you're calling it something else. You can call it Mildred if you like - it still doesn't make it real.

Entitle: to give (a person or thing) a title, right, or claim to something
Entitlement gives you a right. In order to receive the right to use the vehicle on a public road, you must be compliant with the law. The law states that a vehicle must have a valid motor tax license if it is to be used.

Now. Want to drop this?

Chips Lovell

Regardless of your opinion on the matter, it's such an odd thing to get exercised about since it's completely academic. It's hard to imagine any government either extending motor tax to cover bicycles or banning bicycles from roads.

MadDog76

scdublin wrote: »

Yes, yes they should.

Saw this and thought of this thread: http://www.theladbible.com/articles/cyclist-gets-instant-karma-after-turning-to-have-a-go-at-driver?utm_source=lboz&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=lboz

Now THAT'S funny!!!!!

CramCycle

smash wrote: »

I never said it's a contract for service. It's a fee for usage rights.

"Liability for motor tax arises when a vehicle is used in a public place/road."
https://www.motortax.ie/OMT/staticContent.do?page=faq


Even the RSA used the word entitled when referring to categories of vehicles a license holder can drive. I've dug no hole.

Your missing their point, if the council closes a road, you can't waltz up with a motor tax disc and say, actually, I am entitled. Or if a Garda stops you from driving along a road and says they are not letting people through, you can't just flash your motor tax disc and tell the Garda to jog on.

You require it to operate said vehicle on a public road or in a public place but you are not entitled to use said public space.

This is just pointless though.

Nothing to do with the thread in general, cyclists are not required to pay motor tax on their vehicle. Therefore there is nothing that makes their use of the road unless they breach the RTA or they are instructed not too be AGS or a council through a closed road order. The same thing for vehicles only they have other requirements.

Cyclists do not have an entitlement to use the road, neither do motorists, neither do cyclists who are motorists, motorists who are cyclists, they have permission to use the roads once certain guidelines are met. For cyclists, these are minimal and less cumbersome than for motorists.

This is for a range of reasons, they cause less damage, hence they draw less attention in regards the imposition of regulation. Motorists, particularly single occupancy vehicles (excluding delivery vehicles, as I know nothing about their benefits but am sure they have loads), cost the economy more in general. The more motorists on the road, the more they cost to maintain. Every crash/collision that results in a death costs the state about 1million euro from my understanding (although someone maybe able to get the exact figure as I read that last year), cyclists re not known for their huge number of deaths on the roads. There are many benefits to the state for keeping cars off the roads in built up areas, and reducing their dependency in more rural areas but since we have become a very car centric country we won't see any shift soon.

RainyDay

smash wrote: »

Finance Act 1976, Section 73

73.—(1) Where a vehicle to which this Part applies is used, parked or otherwise kept at any time in a public place, if while the vehicle is being so used, parked or kept there is not fixed to and exhibited on the vehicle in accordance with section 5 (5) of the Act of 1920 a licence which is both issued in respect of the vehicle and is for the time being in force, then the person by whom the vehicle is so used, parked or kept at the time shall be guilty of an offence, and in addition to the person aforesaid, the person (if he is not the person aforesaid) who on the day on which the offence is committed is in relation to the vehicle the relevant person shall also be guilty of an offence.

That good enough for you?



Entitle: to give (a person or thing) a title, right, or claim to something
Entitlement gives you a right. In order to receive the right to use the vehicle on a public road, you must be compliant with the law. The law states that a vehicle must have a valid motor tax license if it is to be used.

Now. Want to drop this?

Not really, no.

Let's just focus on the bolded bit. Yes, I agree with you 100% that the law states that a vehicle must have a valid motor tax license to be used.

Now let's get back to my question - where is the entitlement? An obligation to pay a tax is not an entitlement to use - it is an obligation to pay tax. You're pointing at an apple and telling me it is an orange.

Where is the entitlement (outside of your own imagination, that is)?

MadDog76

To answer the Op's question ......... yes, of course cyclists should do a Theory Test ....... obviously.

Timberrrrrrrr

I don't think they should do a theory test but there should definitely be some mandatory road safety classes ( cycling/pedestrian/and motor for older kids) in schools. Start educating them young and hopefully the next generation might be able to show us older folk how it should be done.

smash

RainyDay wrote: »

Not really, no.

Let's just focus on the bolded bit. Yes, I agree with you 100% that the law states that a vehicle must have a valid motor tax license to be used.

Now let's get back to my question - where is the entitlement? An obligation to pay a tax is not an entitlement to use - it is an obligation to pay tax. You're pointing at an apple and telling me it is an orange.

Where is the entitlement (outside of your own imagination, that is)?

I honestly just don't care any more about this whole argument. It's nonsense. This all stemmed from you saying that you paid to use the roads through your taxes. You didn't. Your taxes paid solely for road construction and maintenance.