Cyclists should do a theory test!

CramCycle

The Dark Side wrote: »

No thanks, I'm quite happy with my driving style and will continue to sound my horn, as and when I deem appropriate.

So long as your happy, the rest of the road users be damned, attitude like that you must be a full time cyclist :rolleyes: :pac:

RainyDay

SeanW wrote: »

Cars can be identified, there is no need for a "no id" rule for cars because the registration plate provides id in all cases, save rare cases of illegal alteration.

Bikes do not carry registration plates, so any enforcement that is taken against a lawbreaking cyclist depends on stopping and identifying the cyclist. There's nothing unequal about suggesting that a lawbreaker that has registration and ususally also id should be treated differently to a lawbreaker that has neither.

That’s very interesting, that cars can be identified. You should explain that to the Garda who took my report when I was assaulted while cycling by a passenger in the car. The Garda told me that the car was not registered, probably an insurance write-off put back on the road illegally – but for whatever reason, the passenger who assaulted me couldn’t be trace. You should also explain it to the Garda who took my report of yummy-mummy driving her luxury SUV the wrong way down a one-way st. Because the Garda who took my report told me that as the car was registered to company who refused to give the name of the driver, he was unable to progress the matter.
But I guess you must know better than those Gardai and have some magic solution to unregistered cars.

SeanW wrote: »

So you never break red lights on your bicycle? Never ride on footpaths? Never disregard lane directions?

We’re kind-of going round in circles here. If you want an answer, the answer is ‘rarely’ to the above questions. Or to be more specific, ‘rarely, but never in a manner that endangers other road users or myself’.
So now it’s your turn – have you EVER broken a speed limit in your car? Or EVER driven with a brake light bulb out of action? Or EVER failed to indicate?
Because it would be fairly hypocritical of you to make a huge song and dance about cyclists going through red lights if you (like most other motorists) break the speed limit most days on most journeys. I look forward to your response.

SeanW wrote: »

I speak from experience as a Dublin (and formerly Cork) pedestrian. Cyclists have no regard for the law. Full stop.

Yet, I also speak from experience as a motorist on boards, that cyclists tend to have a level of pathological hatred of motorists that is virtually unparalelled throughout society. Indeed I seem to remember a number of them promoting GPS trackers for cars, combined the idea that there was no such thing as a speed limit that was too low, as a limit dramatically below safe operating limits for no other reason could be used as a "test" Doubt she/he felt the same way about cyclists and traffic lights.

So as a pedestrian I face aggression from cyclists every day on the street - and I'm not the only one as another thread points out - while as a motorist I face aggression from cyclists (virtually all of whose names include "bike" or "cycl") whose views of motorists are only marginally less hateful than those of Stalin towards Eastern European nationalists.

You need help, Sean. You should consider talking to a professional about this paranoia. You are ‘threatened’ by cyclists all the time, yet the statistics show that cyclists don’t kill anyone, and don’t injure people to the extent that shows up in statistics.
I’d love to know what is really behind your entirely irrational and unfounded hatred of cyclists, which you try (badly) to mask by making up some ‘hatred’ of motorists by cyclists. Did you get reported to the Gardai by a cyclist or what? Or was it that I embarrassed you when you posted about how motorists rigorously obey traffic lights and I pointed out the gaping holes in your arguement?

SeanW wrote: »

If it were ringfenced to fund routine cancer screening (just as one example), I'm sure it would indeed work.

I see – so as I suspected, it is just your personal opinion.

SeanW wrote: »

Oh look, a cyclist accusing me of being pedantic. I had to seriosly LOL when I read that. Cyclists are the first to offer "corrections" to someone using the technically inaccurate term "ROAD TAX" to describe taxes that motorists pay to put their cars on the road.

There you go again, treating cyclists as a homogenous group, with homogenous views and opinions.

SeanW wrote: »

No, it's entirely accurate, because there will always be road deaths associated with motor usage. Unless you do something ridiculous like have a blanket 5MPH speed limit, there will always be mistakes that result in collisions. There will always be a "death toll" that "they" cause. Just like there will always be a "death toll" from plane crashes and train wrecks and the like.

The question is in finding the right balance between limiting regulations and limiting serious/fatal accidents. The balance was too far in the former direction during most of the 20th century. But we are now in danger of going too far in the latter direction, no prizes for guessing who I blame for this.

No prizes necessary when it comes to your blaming, regardless of all the facts pointing in the very opposite direction. It is interesting to see your continual apologising for the death toll of 200+ people on the roads, while making a huge song and dance about the dangers of cyclists who don’t kill anyone. Do you not apply the same logic to your mythical threat from cyclists – that it is just inevitable that some nervous and paranoid people will feel threatened?

Shenshen wrote: »

TBF, I'm still astonished that traffic lessons in schools don't seem to exist here.

They do; http://www.dlrcoco.ie/aboutus/councildepartments/transportation/findit/newroadsafetysection/cyclists/cyclingtrainingscheme/

ThisRegard

The Dark Side wrote: »

No thanks, I'm quite happy with my driving style and will continue to sound my horn, as and when I deem appropriate.

Fair enough, a clown car just isn't a clown car without the oversized comical horn being driven by a, well, a clown.

The Dark Side

CramCycle wrote: »

So long as your happy, the rest of the road users be damned, attitude like that you must be a full time cyclist :rolleyes: :pac:

Well, maybe next time I'll let him weave out if front of me so I can mow him down.
That's obviously far more preferable than sounding your horn.

ThisRegard wrote: »

Fair enough, a clown car just isn't a clown car without the oversized comical horn being driven by a, well, a clown.

Oh dear, descended to personal abuse already?

My that was quick.

Pinch Flat

The Dark Side wrote: »

Well, maybe next time I'll let him weave out if front of me so I can mow him down.
That's obviously far more preferable than sounding your horn.

No, just drive at the appropriate speed and to expect the unexpected. It's really not that difficult.

The RSA have oodles of instructional videos on their website and YouTube channel that are particularly useful

ThisRegard

The Dark Side wrote: »

Oh dear, descended to personal abuse already?

My that was quick.

You're a bit touchy. Not at all, I just assumed you worked in a circus.

The Dark Side

Pinch Flat wrote: »

No, just drive at the appropriate speed and to expect the unexpected. It's really not that difficult.

The RSA have oodles of instructional videos on their website and YouTube channel that are particularly useful

I'm sure they have, but thankfully I don't need them - I'm an excellent driver. I'd comfortably put myself in the top 1% of people using the road, be they cyclists or fellow motorists.

I'm not sure why you would think I was driving at an inappropriate speed and as for expecting the unexpected, that's why I pre-emptively sounded my horn at the errant cyclist. It seemed likely he would weave out in front of my given the way he was cycling.

RainyDay

The Dark Side wrote: »

Well, maybe next time I'll let him weave out if front of me so I can mow him down.
That's obviously far more preferable than sounding your horn.

Here's another possible course of action when you come up behind a cyclist. Overtake (just like you would for any other road user) leaving the 1.5m passing space recommended by the RSA, or if you can't overtake safely, use the brake pedal to slow down, and wait until you can pass safely.

Most of the 99% of drivers who you rate yourself ahead of have grasped this basic idea. You'll get the hang of it with practice.

The Dark Side wrote: »

Oh dear, descended to personal abuse already?

My that was quick.

Interesting to see that the guy who sits in his ton of metal, blowing his horn at other road users for having the temerity to be blown a bit by a gust of wind is the first one to call 'personal abuse' when challenged. It reminds of the HR bloke who told me that they had never seen a bullying case that wasn't taken by a bully.

steamengine

The Dark Side wrote: »

No thanks, I'm quite happy with my driving style and will continue to sound my horn, as and when I deem appropriate.

Indeed, that's what they're for - I've one on my bike too, much better than roaring and shouting or tinkling on a feeble bell ! It's only a bugle horn but it's very effective. Several cars emerging from driveways without looking have stopped immediately on hearing it. I give them a friendly wave and carry on.

If I saw a wobbling cyclist, whilst driving, I would probably sound the horn too - for 'safety reasons'. Tough if cyclists take exception to it, they always have the option of leaving the bike at home on wet and windy days.

From the ROR

Using a horn
Only use a horn to:
warn other road users of on-coming danger, or
make them aware of your presence for safety reasons when reasonably
necessary.
Remember, the horn does not give you the right of way.
Do not use a horn in a built-up area between 23.30hrs and 07.00hrs unless there
is a traffic emergency.

Pinch Flat

The Dark Side wrote: »

I'm sure they have, but thankfully I don't need them - I'm an excellent driver. I'd comfortably put myself in the top 1% of people using the road, be they cyclists or fellow motorists.

Well, if you haven't bother to watch them how can you claim to have any knowledge of how to behave around other road users, particularly cyclists? Most drivers feel they are that - perfect drivers. You never confirmed if you were legally using the bus lane as a bus or taxi driver - both cohorts how can at times have questionable interpretation of the ROR and traffic law.

The Dark Side wrote: »

I'm not sure why you would think I was driving at an inappropriate speed and as for expecting the unexpected, that's why I pre-emptively sounded my horn at the errant cyclist. It seemed likely he would weave out in front of my given the way he was cycling.

My apologies. I misread your original post obviously.

The Dark Side wrote: »

Had to blast the horn at him as I sped past, as I was concerned he was going to stray into my path.

The RSA advise drivers to do the following when approaching a cyclist:

"You should give extra space when overtaking a cyclist, as they may need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles. This is particularly important on wet
or windy days." The current recommended space is 1.5m, which is not unreasonable.

I'll go back and read the ROR the again, but I couldn't see any reference to 'blowing the horn as I sped passed them' as a recommendation when passing cyclists. You obviously possess a higher level of training than the average Joe, so I'm open to correction, you being in the to 1% or whatever.:rolleyes:

CramCycle

The Dark Side wrote: »

Passed a middle-aged guy wobbling all over the bus lane this morning on the Quays.
Had to blast the horn at him as I sped past, as I was concerned he was going to stray into my path.

The Dark Side wrote: »

I'm sure they have, but thankfully I don't need them - I'm an excellent driver. I'd comfortably put myself in the top 1% of people using the road, be they cyclists or fellow motorists.

I'm not sure why you would think I was driving at an inappropriate speed and as for expecting the unexpected, that's why I pre-emptively sounded my horn at the errant cyclist. It seemed likely he would weave out in front of my given the way he was cycling.

You did use your horn correctly, my issue is the speeding past him.

I have no time for people claiming to be excellent drivers, they are usually, and you may be the exception to the rule, jumped up speed freaks with no respect for the road, the rules or the other people on it.

How far out was he on the bus lane that you thought he would swerve into the next lane, might have been an ideal time to pull in once you were ahead and call traffic watch and report the danger.

The Dark Side

'Sped past' is more a description of our relative speeds than an indication I was driving too fast. He was cycling very slowly indeed and wobbling all over the lane. I though he may have been inebriated in fact, although it was very early in the morning - still pissed from the night before perhaps.

Glad we're all agreed that the use of the horn was appropriate and warranted though.

It's the small victories .

RainyDay

steamengine wrote: »

Indeed, that's what they're for - I've one on my bike too, much better than roaring and shouting or tinkling on a feeble bell ! It's only a bugle horn but it's very effective. Several cars emerging from driveways without looking have stopped immediately on hearing it. I give them a friendly wave and carry on.

If I saw a wobbling cyclist, I would probably sound the horn too - for 'safety reasons'. Tough if cyclists take exception to it, they always have the option of leaving the bike at home on wet and windy days.

From the ROR

You made a little mistake in not bolding one important bit from the ROTR, so I've bolded that important bit for you here;

make them aware of your presence for safety reasons when reasonably necessary.

The Dark Side

RainyDay wrote: »

You made a little mistake in not bolding one important bit from the ROTR, so I've bolded that important bit for you here;

Luckily I deemed it to be reasonably necessary.

Pinch Flat

The Dark Side wrote: »

Luckily I deemed it to be reasonably necessary.

Sounds like the type of driver that would beep their horn for every perceived transgression (in their eyes). Some people love beeping the horn.

There's a difference between using your horn to intimidate other road users or acting down right rude, which your post would seen to demonstrate, rather than warning them of your presence (where reasonably necessary as RainyDay has pointed out).

steamengine

RainyDay wrote: »

You made a little mistake in not bolding one important bit from the ROTR, so I've bolded that important bit for you here;

Of course, how remiss of me to miss out on such a minor detail - post corrected. :rolleyes:

Jan Laco

The Dark Side wrote: »

I'm sure they have, but thankfully I don't need them - I'm an excellent driver. I'd comfortably put myself in the top 1% of people using the road, be they cyclists or fellow motorists.

Aongus?

The Dark Side

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Sounds like the type of driver that would beep their horn for every perceived transgression (in their eyes). Some people love beeping the horn.

You seem to have formed a certain view based on very little evidence.
It's entirely appropriate to beep your horn at an errant cyclist when I deem it reasonably necessary. It's for his own good as well - he seemed oblivious to his own shortcomings but I imagine that I awoke him from his semi-stupor.

Pinch Flat

The Dark Side wrote: »

You seem to have formed a certain view based on very little evidence.
It's entirely appropriate to beep your horn at an errant cyclist when I deem it reasonably necessary. It's for his own good as well - he seemed oblivious to his own shortcomings but I imagine that I awoke him from his semi-stupor.

Fair enough. You seem to have formed an opinion about a cyclist in front of you that he / she was enibriated. Quite the feat from a speeding car. I guess those skills are only open to that exclusive 1%

Trent Houseboat

Jan Laco wrote: »

Aongus?

He's in a different 1%.

Zillah

The reason the guards aren't enforcing the rules for cyclists is because - despite the indignant rage experienced by a small subset of very loud and petty people - actual incidents where someone is hurt due to a cyclist are vanishingly rare. Thankfully the police force have a bit more cop on than that.

Whole lot of grown ups that should probably try to stop getting outraged at a light, tiny, slow-moving steel frame with no engine acting like a pedestrian on occasion.

[hysterical screaming]But they're breaking the rules![/hysterical screaming]

Spook_ie

machiavellianme wrote: »

Nicely pointed out.
But where is the motor on a bike?

It's a biological motor and surprisingly emits more CO2 than than 0g

Spook_ie

machiavellianme wrote: »

Nor do you, or anyone else in Ireland. There's no such thing.
Plus there's a mandate to reduce carbon emissions by 2020. The provision of cycle lanes helps meet that.

Does it though? Consider, the amount of CO2 produced when idling in traffic going nowhere because large sections of roadway are turned over to cyclists, would there not actually be a reduction in emissions if the traffic were more free flowing? One for you mathematicians out there.

Pinch Flat

Spook_ie wrote: »

It's a biological motor and surprisingly emits more CO2 than than 0g

Hah yeah I can see how this is going to work "excuse me sir can you just Pop up on that exercise bike, exhale into this tube and see what co2 you're emitting for tax purposes".

Spook_ie

ThisRegard wrote: »

You personally know every cyclist and how many cars they own?

I pay "road tax" on two cars. When I'm on my bike I deserve more of the road than all the crusty proles with one car

No you don't the "roadtax" relates to the vehicle it is on,, it's not a transferable item to be used on another vehicle otherwise we'd only need to tax one vehicle as you can only drive one vehicle at a time

Spook_ie

machiavellianme wrote: »

What about cyclists who are travelling over 50kph? It's not unthinkable on the flat.
Plus, if you think that a child cycling alone is an offence worthy of having intervention on your family, then you must've lived a sheltered life. How many of us or our parents would've been spoken to by "social services" if that were the case? There are kids out there who need help but you'd rather waste time on some trivial issue?

Time they extended speed limits to cyclists as well then

Zillah

Spook_ie wrote: »

Consider, the amount of CO2 produced when idling in traffic going nowhere because large sections of roadway are turned over to cyclists

Hahahahahaha you are detached from reality. Yes, tiny bikes with tiny narrow lanes on 30% of the roads are what cause thousands upon thousands of cars to clog each other into traffic jams. Delusional.

Pinch Flat

Spook_ie wrote: »

Does it though? Consider, the amount of CO2 produced when idling in traffic going nowhere because large sections of roadway are turned over to cyclists, would there not actually be a reduction in emissions if the traffic were more free flowing? One for you mathematicians out there.

My 8 year old could answer that - cars idling in traffic are going nowhere because of - you've guessed it - more cars. To think cycling causes traffic jams is stretch. Though the current plans fufvdublins North quays will address this - by restricting car access and creating better quality cycling infrastructure. Anyone that insists on driving down those and back the south quays must love traffic jams

Captain Chaos

Cyclists are causing jams on roads that are not built with enough space for them and traffic to pass each other. I used to get the 15B bus and every morning we were stuck behind a bike while a mile of road ahead was empty because the bus cannot overtake as the traffic is too heavy coming the other way.

When the bus got a chance it would overtake and then at a bus stop the bike would catch the bus and we'd end up stuck behind it again. It was madness. 3 mornings of that and I decided to get back in the car. It was the same guy on the bike every morning too.

Spook_ie

Clearlier wrote: »

I continue to be surprised at the level of vitriol directed towards cyclists. The number of adults on bikes who are not also licenced motorists is trivial.

<snipped>.

Official figures would seem to have the potential for disagreement
http://www.dttas.ie/press-releases/2012/bulletin-vehicle-and-driver-statistics-2011

There were 2.666 million driving licences current at 31st December 2011. There were 271,428 Learner Permits licences, a decrease of 8,449 on the 2010 figure.

http://www.cso.ie/multiquicktables/quickTables.aspx?id=cna15
According to CSO there are about 3.6 million adults (over 15 is the breakpoint so there is a margin of error ) in Ireland, so that is approx 27% of potential adult cyclists without a license, 942000 or so, hardly trivial

ThisRegard

Spook_ie wrote: »

No you don't the "roadtax" relates to the vehicle it is on,, it's not a transferable item to be used on another vehicle otherwise we'd only need to tax one vehicle as you can only drive one vehicle at a time

We have two cars in the house, I pay the motor tax on both. There's my tax for the road I use when on the bike. But you know yourself that there's no such thing as paying tax to use the roads when on a bike don't you.

I know you're good for an oul chuckle with your opinions on this at times Spook, but even you're reaching.

Spook_ie

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

<snipped>

Just doing a test once always seemed a bit pointless to me, like do any of you remember your algebra theories from your Leaving Cert? Or the definition of The Law of Diminishing Returns?

Continuous assessment is the way to go.
Plus it'll be a handy way to legally get all those old people off the roads....unless they pass of course....it's mad, like, people who passed their exams in the 40s/50s can still drive based on an exam they did 60 or 70 odd years ago. That's just wrong.

There's already a pseudo continuous assessment for licensed drivers, if you do something wrong and are caught you face penalty points and the ultimate sanctions of being disqualified from driving

steamengine

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Cyclists are causing jams on roads that are not built with enough space for them and traffic to pass each other. I used to get the 15B bus and every morning we were stuck behind a bike while a mile of road ahead was empty because the bus cannot overtake as the traffic is too heavy coming the other way.

When the bus got a chance it would overtake and then at a bus stop the bike would catch the bus and we'd end up stuck behind it again. It was madness. 3 mornings of that and I decided to get back in the car. It was the same guy on the bike every morning too.

There is absolutely nothing stopping such cyclists pulling in to the left and letting the bus pass. If I see one in my mirror , that's what I do, pull in and wave him on. But such procedures should be written into the ROR, buses carrying 70+ pax, should have priority over individual cycles.

Spook_ie

mikemac1 wrote: »

Motor tax doesn't pay for roads. It comes from central funds. The kid paying vat on a can on coke pays for roads same as you.

And if you believe you pay more because you have a tax disc on your windscreen well that money is paying for Irish Water these days

How much does the exchequer get from fuel duties, VRT etc. You know the associated costs for using a vehicle on the road, so that the kid can have his can of coke?

Spook_ie

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Hah yeah I can see how this is going to work "excuse me sir can you just Pop up on that exercise bike, exhale into this tube and see what co2 you're emitting for tax purposes".

Not so hard to figure, if you're a sport or long distance cyclist you'd emit more CO2, therefore for anything other than basic commuter bikes increase the VAT rate to 50%, problem solved

Spook_ie

Zillah wrote: »

Hahahahahaha you are detached from reality. Yes, tiny bikes with tiny narrow lanes on 30% of the roads are what cause thousands upon thousands of cars to clog each other into traffic jams. Delusional.

Sorry did I miss something in these proposals?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057399529

Spook_ie

ThisRegard wrote: »

We have two cars in the house, I pay the motor tax on both. There's my tax for the road I use when on the bike. But you know yourself that there's no such thing as paying tax to use the roads when on a bike don't you.

I know you're good for an oul chuckle with your opinions on this at times Spook, but even you're reaching.

No it's not it's the tax for using either of the two vehicles in question, otherwise what's stopping you getting a 3rd vehicle and say " I've paid tax on two of them and they're not being used"

Pinch Flat

Spook_ie wrote: »

Not so hard to figure, if you're a sport or long distance cyclist you'd emit more CO2, therefore for anything other than basic commuter bikes increase the VAT rate to 50%, problem solved

Genius idea. So we'll have a range of co2 emissons. So little ole lady popping to the shops one rate, post man another, commuter something else and then a nice hefty surcharge for the weekend cyclist who likes getting the miles in.

So double the Vat rate for cyclists? I love it. Your posts always give me a good laugh .

Spook_ie

ThisRegard wrote: »

We have two cars in the house, I pay the motor tax on both. There's my tax for the road I use when on the bike. But you know yourself that there's no such thing as paying tax to use the roads when on a bike don't you.

I know you're good for an oul chuckle with your opinions on this at times Spook, but even you're reaching.

BTW the bolded bit is what a lot of people say, cyclists should be paying something extra for having whole sections of public roadways turned over to their exclusivity

RainyDay

Spook_ie wrote: »

Official figures would seem to have the potential for disagreement
http://www.dttas.ie/press-releases/2012/bulletin-vehicle-and-driver-statistics-2011

http://www.cso.ie/multiquicktables/quickTables.aspx?id=cna15
According to CSO there are about 3.6 million adults (over 15 is the breakpoint so there is a margin of error ) in Ireland, so that is approx 27% of potential adult cyclists without a license, 942000 or so, hardly trivial

That's some highly entertaining misuse of statistics there. That's a huge assumption - that every non-licensed adult is likely to be a cyclist. Sorry to burst your bubble, but the reasons for such adults not having a driving license are very likely to be the same reasons that they don't cycle - such as age, disability etc.

The Dark Side wrote: »

Luckily I deemed it to be reasonably necessary.

I deemed it NOT to be reasonably necessary, given that you were speeding at the time. Slow down, and you won't need to bully other road users into submission.

The Dark Side wrote: »

You seem to have formed a certain view based on very little evidence.
It's entirely appropriate to beep your horn at an errant cyclist when I deem it reasonably necessary. It's for his own good as well - he seemed oblivious to his own shortcomings but I imagine that I awoke him from his semi-stupor.

As others have pointed out, that's a huge heap of conclusions that you've leaped to, while speeding up behind another road user. Just for your future reference, there are a whole pile of reasons while a cyclist might change position, including a gust of wind, a pothole, debris on the road etc.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Does it though? Consider, the amount of CO2 produced when idling in traffic going nowhere because large sections of roadway are turned over to cyclists, would there not actually be a reduction in emissions if the traffic were more free flowing? One for you mathematicians out there.

'large sections of roadway turned over to cyclists' - that's really quite funny. Where exactly are these 'large sections of roadway? Addressing our traffic jams by widening roads is like fixing obesity by buying bigger trousers.

Zillah wrote: »

Delusional.

Indeed.

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Cyclists are causing jams on roads that are not built with enough space for them and traffic to pass each other. I used to get the 15B bus and every morning we were stuck behind a bike while a mile of road ahead was empty because the bus cannot overtake as the traffic is too heavy coming the other way.

When the bus got a chance it would overtake and then at a bus stop the bike would catch the bus and we'd end up stuck behind it again. It was madness. 3 mornings of that and I decided to get back in the car. It was the same guy on the bike every morning too.

Did you manage to work out how much time the bus spent behind other cars on your journey? Any chance it was more than the time spent behind the cyclist?

I'd love to know where is this mile on the 15B route that has no chance for the driver to overtake. Where did this happen?

Spook_ie wrote: »

There's already a pseudo continuous assessment for licensed drivers, if you do something wrong and are caught you face penalty points and the ultimate sanctions of being disqualified from driving

Pseudo is right. Look around you on the road. Look at the number of drivers speeding, phoning, texting, eating breakfast, doing make-up - where's your CPD?

steamengine wrote: »

There is absolutely nothing stopping such cyclists pulling in to the left and letting the bus pass. If I see one in my mirror , that's what I do, pull in and wave him on. But such procedures should be written into the ROR, buses carrying 70+ pax, should have priority over individual cycles.

Just curious - should buses also have priority over 1 pax cars? Should every car pull over every time a bus appears in the mirror?

Spook_ie

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Genius idea. So we'll have a range of co2 emissons. So little ole lady popping to the shops one rate, post man another, commuter something else and then a nice hefty surcharge for the weekend cyclist who likes getting the miles in.

So double the Vat rate for cyclists? I love it. Your posts always give me a good laugh .

No only two rates, one for the generic Dublin Bikes, Halfords commuter bike type of thing at 0%, and one for those of you who buy light framed bikes purely for sporting reasons, at 50% don't see any disparity there

ThisRegard

Spook_ie wrote: »

BTW the bolded bit is what a lot of people say, cyclists should be paying something extra for having whole sections of public roadways turned over to their exclusivity

Public is the keyword there, or is your interpretation of Public different than everyone else ? Can I take it that in your eyes roadways should be exclusive to people driving vehicles with engines ?

And I know you know this because you've been told over and over, motor tax does not go to fund road building exclusively.

Spook_ie wrote: »

No it's not it's the tax for using either of the two vehicles in question, otherwise what's stopping you getting a 3rd vehicle and say " I've paid tax on two of them and they're not being used"

Not comparable at all, it's simply a counter to the logic that cyclists don't pay motor/road tax.

Spook_ie

RainyDay wrote: »

<snipped>
Just curious - should buses also have priority over 1 pax cars? Should every car pull over every time a bus appears in the mirror?

They already do, they're called bus lanes, perhaps we should build more bus lanes and remove all cycle lanes

Clearlier

Spook_ie wrote: »

Official figures would seem to have the potential for disagreement
http://www.dttas.ie/press-releases/2012/bulletin-vehicle-and-driver-statistics-2011

http://www.cso.ie/multiquicktables/quickTables.aspx?id=cna15
According to CSO there are about 3.6 million adults (over 15 is the breakpoint so there is a margin of error ) in Ireland, so that is approx 27% of potential adult cyclists without a license, 942000 or so, hardly trivial

From the numbers you provided:
2.66 (full) + 0.27 (learner) = 2.93
Assuming that 1/4 of the 15 - 24 are ineligible you get a population of 3.46.

So, more like 533,000 or 15% of the population. I'll agree that I could have chosen better language than trivial but my point still stands that a large majority of adult cyclists also have drivers licences. It's not a questions of not knowing the rules of the road or not paying motor tax.

RainyDay

Spook_ie wrote: »

They already do, they're called bus lanes, perhaps we should build more bus lanes and remove all cycle lanes

And on non-bus lanes? Will you be pulling over every time a bus appears in your rear view mirror?

Spook_ie

ThisRegard wrote: »

Public is the keyword there, or is your interpretation of Public different than everyone else ? Can I take it that in your eyes roadways should be exclusive to people driving vehicles with engines ?

And I know you know this because you've been told over and over, motor tax does not go to fund road building exclusively.



Not comparable at all, it's simply a counter to the logic that cyclists don't pay motor/road tax.

But cyclists DON'T pay motor/road tax, vehicle owners pay motor/Road tax, being a vehicle owner paying motor/road tax doesn't equate to " well I can be a cyclist as well now because I've paid my road/motor tax "

Spook_ie

RainyDay wrote: »

And on non-bus lanes? Will you be pulling over every time a bus appears in your rear view mirror?

as I said perhaps we should dispense with cycle lanes and build more bus lanes

Pinch Flat

Spook_ie wrote: »

No only two rates, one for the generic Dublin Bikes, Halfords commuter bike type of thing at 0%, and one for those of you who buy light framed bikes purely for sporting reasons, at 50% don't see any disparity there

Oh I see. so a sporting bike gets hit with 50% vat. So why are they singled out?

RainyDay

Spook_ie wrote: »

But cyclists DON'T pay motor/road tax,

Oh yes they do. I'm a cyclist, and I pay motor tax.

Spook_ie wrote: »

as I said perhaps we should dispense with cycle lanes and build more bus lanes

Nice evasion. I guess you're not going to answer the question.

As the reporter said to Homer "Your silence will only incriminate you further"

http://exploregram.com/mr-simpson-your-silence-will-only-incriminate-you-further-from-homer-badman/

ThisRegard

Spook_ie wrote: »

But cyclists DON'T pay motor/road tax, vehicle owners pay motor/Road tax, being a vehicle owner paying motor/road tax doesn't equate to " well I can be a cyclist as well now because I've paid my road/motor tax "

And right back to the mutual exclusive argument. Can a person who owns a vehicle not also be a cyclist ?

And WTF, being a vehicle owner paying motor/road tax doesn't equate to "well I can be a cyclist as well now because I've paid my road/motor tax ". You spout a lot of nonsense on this subject, but seriously.

Of course it doesn't, because there's no requirement to pay any kind of additional taxes to cycle a bike.