Cyclists should do a theory test!

Paz-CCFC

You know it's time to stop following this thread when someone is suggesting that people who exercise more should pay tax for breathing.

Pinch Flat

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 "

I'm afraid it does. There's nothing your pathological dislike of cyclists is going to change this. I'm a commuter who (up to recently) taxed and insured 2 pre-2008 cars that were uneconomical to run and cost a fortune in motor tax. I made a choice to sell one car and trade in the other for a lower emission car that's cheaper to tax. I now cycle to and from work. My wife travels over and back by train.

It saves us thousands annually and greatly adds to quality of life - journey times that are the same and divorced from traffic. Health benefits and not adding to dublins daily chaos. In no point in my 14km journey do I hold up any traffic and, if I do perceive this, I will pull in if safe to do so.

I fail to see the reason I should be punished for this choice financially.

steamengine

RainyDay wrote: »

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

Captain Chaos was referring to the situation where:-

1 The bus has it's own lane
2 There is no cycle lane
3 Your 1 pax cars are bumper to bumper in the outside lane.

So the cars are out of the way, ergo - no need for them to pull over.

Some time back, I was on the 15 heading into Dublin city centre and approaching Newcomen Bridge, the bus was stuck behind a cycling snail on the bridge incline. The cyclist was clearly oblivious to the fact that a cycle lane existed on the footpath to the left, and this is the sort of stupidity that needs to be sorted out.

Jimoslimos

Pinch Flat wrote: »

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

Stupid sexy bikes :pac:

Grandpa Hassan

Wow....the anti cyclist brigade have actually lost the plot here!

Pinch Flat

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Stupid sexy bikes :pac:

yeah but the thing is I have a junker for commuting and a sexy bike for the weekends. I better check with spook 0% for the commuter and 50% for the weekend bike. Or maybe I'll pay 50% vat on both to be on the safe side

Pinch Flat

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Wow....the anti cyclist brigade have actually lost the plot here!

Usually a good reason

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/effects-of-traffic-jam-on-human-brain.html

Sometimes it's just stupid for a cyclist to obey a red light.

Most obviously at a pedestrian crossing. Like, you'll just be standing here with two feet on the road, and absolutely nobody is crossing the empty road. If there is no cycle lane, he's going to accelerate so slowly that he's going to impede the flow of traffic behind.

Similarly, I have no problem with cyclists carefully mounting empty pavements and whizzing back onto the road as a means of avoiding traffic lights altogether.

Everybody hates the legalistic cyclist who demands he has a right to cycle in the centre of the road and angrily screams his rights in your direction. Lets not be that guy either. There are times when bending the rules is entirely appropriate.

Rules are for the obedience of fools, and the guidance of wise men.

steamengine

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Sometimes it's just stupid for a cyclist to obey a red light.

Most obviously at a pedestrian crossing. Like, you'll just be standing here with two feet on the road, and absolutely nobody is crossing the empty road. If there is no cycle lane, he's going to accelerate so slowly that he's going to impede the flow of traffic behind.

Similarly, I have no problem with cyclists carefully mounting empty pavements and whizzing back onto the road as a means of avoiding traffic lights altogether.

Everybody hates the legalistic cyclist who demands he has a right to cycle in the centre of the road and angrily screams his rights in your direction. Lets not be that guy either. There are times when bending the rules is entirely appropriate.

Rules are for the obedience of fools, and the guidance of wise men.

Would you be amenable to mounting a footpath, to facilitate a bus passing ?

mikemac1

Paz-CCFC wrote: »

You know it's time to stop following this thread when someone is suggesting that people who exercise more should pay tax for breathing.

Tax for breathing?

Don't give Michael Noonan ideas!

endacl

Come to think of it, maybe anybody who got their driving license pre-2001 should have to do a theory test? Would certainly clarify things for many drivers who think all cycle lanes are compulsory...

Unknown Soldier

I love to pay a tax to use my bike on the road, as well as my car.

That way I'd be happy knowing that all the people in their cars, while I am out on my bike, would be happy and content to see me peddling along.

Probably giving me thumbs up n'sh1t as they pass.


Spook... can you sort that out for me? Thanks!

steamengine

steamengine wrote: »

Would you be amenable to mounting a footpath, to facilitate a bus passing ?

A two-metre-wide car is not really comparable to a push-bike carefully mounting a pavement for a few feet.

Cyclists are not only vulnerable when turning left at busy junctions, they're a distraction and often a hindrance. I'd much rather they hopped up on the pavement for a few feet, and tottered left with a headstart back onto an empty road.

Or Irish cities could just give them their own lanes like most well-planned cities.

Pinch Flat

Unknown Soldier wrote: »

I love to pay a tax to use my bike on the road, as well as my car.

That way I'd be happy knowing that all the people in their cars, while I am out on my bike, would be happy and content to see me peddling along.

Probably giving me thumbs up n'sh1t as they pass.


Spook... can you sort that out for me? Thanks!

I think it's only fair we pay it based on the weight of the bikes. Spook seems to have a particular issue with sports bikes - mine weighs a modest 8.2kg according to the manufacturer (but U.S. Sports cyclists know how they manipulate things like pedals, tubes and other items for make them look good) and some I understand are considerably lighter.

That equates to about 1% the weight of my car - which costs €200 annually in motor tax. Anyone any idea where I can post my €2 cheque?

07Lapierre

steamengine wrote: »

Captain Chaos was referring to the situation where:-

1 The bus has it's own lane
2 There is no cycle lane
3 Your 1 pax cars are bumper to bumper in the outside lane.

So the cars are out of the way, ergo - no need for them to pull over.

Some time back, I was on the 15 heading into Dublin city centre and approaching Newcomen Bridge, the bus was stuck behind a cycling snail on the bridge incline. The cyclist was clearly oblivious to the fact that a cycle lane existed on the footpath to the left, and this is the sort of stupidity that needs to be sorted out.

As a cyclist I totally agree... WTF is the point of a cycle lane on a footpath geez!

steamengine

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

A two-metre-wide car is not really comparable to a push-bike carefully mounting a pavement for a few feet.

Cyclists are not only vulnerable when turning left at busy junctions, they're a distraction and often a hindrance. I'd much rather they hopped up on the pavement for a few feet, and tottered left with a headstart back onto an empty road.

Or Irish cities could just give them their own lanes like most well-planned
cities.

Sorry I thought you were a cyclist - I like the suggestions though. Hypothetically then, I take it if you were a cyclist you would be prepared to pull in to let a bus pass.

steamengine

steamengine wrote: »

Hypothetically then, I take it if you were a cyclist you would be prepared to pull in to let a bus pass.

Under what circumstances? Obviously that would be a ridiculous and unnecessary reaction in most circumstances.

Everybody has to be pragmatic on the road. If you're obstructing the flow of traffic, get out of the way when it is safe to do so: regardless of whether one is on a bicycle, or whether you are a driver blocking a cycle lane or any other traffic.

Chips Lovell

Would a bus pull in to let a cyclist pass?

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.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Under what circumstances? Obviously that would be a ridiculous and unnecessary reaction in most circumstances.

Everybody has to be pragmatic on the road. If you're obstructing the flow of traffic, get out of the way when it is safe to do so: regardless of whether one is on a bicycle, or whether you are a driver blocking a cycle lane or any other traffic.

In the above circumstance as a cyclist would you pull in to let a bus pass out of courtesy, as it's transporting 70 pax whereas a bike only transports 1 ?

You have already answered it above, but they were the specific circumstances.

steamengine

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Would a bus pull in to let a cyclist pass?

In all practicality, I've never seen a bicycle stuck behind a bus - there is always a way, the 3 foot safety margins and the centre lane positions disappear rapidly plus there's usually a footpath around too - (dismount and walk of course).

Pinch Flat

steamengine wrote: »

In all practicality, I've never seen a bicycle stuck behind a bus -

Happens to me frequently on the quays at the croppy acre - buses pull in just beyond it on top of the cycle lane. It doesn't really bother me - Its a couple of minutes until it pulls off again and I can use the cycle lane to the four courts. I'll pass in the let a bus pass if it's safe to do so - as long as I'm not squeezed against the kerb I've no issues. In 99% of cases this works out without any issues.

steamengine

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Happens to me frequently on the quays at the croppy acre - buses pull in just beyond it on top of the cycle lane. It doesn't really bother me - Its a couple of minutes until it pulls off again and I can use the cycle lane to the four courts. I'll pass in the let a bus pass if it's safe to do so - as long as I'm not squeezed against the kerb I've no issues. In 99% of cases this works out without any issues.

And really that's it at the end of the day, a bit of give and take, and everyone benefits that little bit more.

Spook_ie

RainyDay wrote: »

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


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/

Typical obfuscation, as a cyclist you need pay no further tax to use your cycle in public, as a motorist you have paid a tax to use one vehicle in public. You seem unable to comprehend that paying a tax for one vehicle does not translate to being a tax paid for another type of vehicle.

I see no reason why cyclists should not be required to pay more tax by a higher VAT rate on certain types of cycle.

What evasion, I'm just in favor that public transport be given priority over ALL traffic including cyclists, as cyclists are no longer required to use cycle facilities at all, then I see no reason to actually provide them.

Spook_ie

Pinch Flat wrote: »

I'm afraid it does. There's nothing your pathological dislike of cyclists is going to change this. I'm a commuter who (up to recently) taxed and insured 2 pre-2008 cars that were uneconomical to run and cost a fortune in motor tax. I made a choice to sell one car and trade in the other for a lower emission car that's cheaper to tax. I now cycle to and from work. My wife travels over and back by train.

It saves us thousands annually and greatly adds to quality of life - journey times that are the same and divorced from traffic. Health benefits and not adding to dublins daily chaos. In no point in my 14km journey do I hold up any traffic and, if I do perceive this, I will pull in if safe to do so.

I fail to see the reason I should be punished for this choice financially.

And that's your personal choice, but having paid and taxed your two vehicles only provided for the use of those two vehicles, in no way , in no world would it translate to "I've paid for this vehicle on the road, so I can use my cycle because of it" which is the usual crud that cyclists argue when motor and road taxation is brought to the fore.

Spook_ie

Pinch Flat wrote: »

yeah but the thing is I have a junker for commuting and a sexy bike for the weekends. I better check with spook 0% for the commuter and 50% for the weekend bike. Or maybe I'll pay 50% vat on both to be on the safe side

Why would you pay VAT on them now, you've already purchased them. However, when it comes to replacing them then0% on the commuter and 50% on the weekend bike ( whatever one of those is ) seems equitable

Spook_ie

endacl wrote: »

Come to think of it, maybe anybody who got their driving license pre-2001 should have to do a theory test? Would certainly clarify things for many drivers who think all cycle lanes are compulsory...

But as anybody who knows, knows that since 2012 they're not, so remove the duplicity and remove the cycle lanes. After all you can still use bus lanes anyway

Knasher

Spook_ie wrote: »

I see no reason why cyclists should not be required to pay more tax by a higher VAT rate on certain types of cycle.

I disagree, so I guess that leaves us at an impasse then.

Spook_ie

Unknown Soldier wrote: »

I love to pay a tax to use my bike on the road, as well as my car.

That way I'd be happy knowing that all the people in their cars, while I am out on my bike, would be happy and content to see me peddling along.

Probably giving me thumbs up n'sh1t as they pass.


Spook... can you sort that out for me? Thanks!

Pay some tax and who knows! After all I've never noticed people giving out about motorbikes unless they're riding like a cyclist

steamengine

07Lapierre wrote: »

As a cyclist I totally agree... WTF is the point of a cycle lane on a footpath geez!

Sure yea, good question, there's no room for it on the road plus the wall separating road and footpath at that point presents an extra hazard, leaving no escape for a cyclist should a vehicle encroach on a hypothetical road side bike lane.

Kalman

lickme wrote: »

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

Huh, then there is an argument for car drivers over the age of sixty taking a re-test. [same meat, different gravy]

Pinch Flat

Spook_ie wrote: »

And that's your personal choice, but having paid and taxed your two vehicles only provided for the use of those two vehicles, in no way , in no world would it translate to "I've paid for this vehicle on the road, so I can use my cycle because of it" which is the usual crud that cyclists argue when motor and road taxation is brought to the fore.

Again I'm afraid it does. Maybe in your head it doesn't. You buy a car and you can cycle any kind of bike including tricycle or a unicycle in a public road if you like. You don't have to pay any further tax. Other than the vat when you purchased your bike

Spook_ie wrote: »

Why would you pay VAT on them now, you've already purchased them. However, when it comes to replacing them then0% on the commuter and 50% on the weekend bike ( whatever one of those is ) seems equitable

This is one of the most laughable things I've read in ages. Your ideas are so whacky it's hard to figure out when you're on the wind up.

Spook_ie

Pinch Flat wrote: »

I think it's only fair we pay it based on the weight of the bikes. Spook seems to have a particular issue with sports bikes - mine weighs a modest 8.2kg according to the manufacturer (but U.S. Sports cyclists know how they manipulate things like pedals, tubes and other items for make them look good) and some I understand are considerably lighter.

That equates to about 1% the weight of my car - which costs €200 annually in motor tax. Anyone any idea where I can post my €2 cheque?

Why should it be based on weight? or even size, it's something that should be based on supply, now if it costs €50,000 ( arbitrary figure ) to provide 500m of roadway that has 3 meters width designated as cycle lanes and 30 meters width as other traffic then I see no reason why 10% of the cost shouldn't be recouped by increasing taxation on cyclists to cover it, after all they are the only ones in the cycle lane, but then again seeing as the counter will be cyclists don't have to use the cycle lane then just get rid of cycle lanes altogether

Spook_ie

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Would a bus pull in to let a cyclist pass?

Quite often at bus stops, the question is would you allow the bus carrying upto ( what ever the capacity of a DB double decker is ) to overtake again if it's on a longer stretch between stops

Pinch Flat

Spook_ie wrote: »

Why should it be based on weight? or even size, it's something that should be based on supply, now if it costs €50,000 ( arbitrary figure ) to provide 500m of roadway that has 3 meters width designated as cycle lanes and 30 meters width as other traffic then I see no reason why 10% of the cost shouldn't be recouped by increasing taxation on cyclists to cover it, after all they are the only ones in the cycle lane, but then again seeing as the counter will be cyclists don't have to use the cycle lane then just get rid of cycle lanes altogether

If that model was applied to motor tax, versus the capital expenditure and subsidies to fund the road network, motor tax would be many multiples of what it is currently. I'm assuming the vast majority of motorists wouldn't mind digging deep when their next motor tax demand hits the hall mat, bearing in mind people are protesting over a few euros a week for water.

Ah yeah the whole weight thing is unreasonable - the weight of a car has nothing to do with the wear and tear it exerts on the road. Ok let's be reasonable - I think it's only fair that cyclists should be taxed based on emissions as motorists currently are - again, how do you propose this is calculated? Clinics with exercise bikes that people breath into so they can collect co2 data? Another laughable suggestion.

Unknown Soldier

Spook_ie wrote: »

Pay some tax and who knows! After all I've never noticed people giving out about motorbikes unless they're riding like a cyclist

I would but it doesn't exist. Start a petition or contact your MP.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Typical obfuscation, as a cyclist you need pay no further tax to use your cycle in public, as a motorist you have paid a tax to use one vehicle in public. You seem unable to comprehend that paying a tax for one vehicle does not translate to being a tax paid for another type of vehicle.

I see no reason why cyclists should not be required to pay more tax by a higher VAT rate on certain types of cycle.

What evasion, I'm just in favor that public transport be given priority over ALL traffic including cyclists, as cyclists are no longer required to use cycle facilities at all, then I see no reason to actually provide them.

You're the one doing the "obfuscation" tbh.

You don't pay motor tax to "use" your car. You don't pay tax to "use" lots of things. I'm struggling to think of one but when I do i realise it's usually called a "Licence" or "permit"

It's a tax.

The original meaning behind road/motor tax was for the upkeep of the road infrastructure.


You don't like cyclists being on the road. They annoy you. Lets forget about the "tax" and all that.

You just don't want them using the same road as you.

It's really that simple.

If it's not that simple, then please put up a definitive list of "pre being allowed to cycle" on the road things that you think should be mandatory to make you "OK" with cyclists being on the road.

I don't think you can.

Burning Bridges

Should we tax pedestrians?
Same logic?

Pinch Flat

Burning Bridges wrote: »

Should we tax pedestrians?
Same logic?

Only depending on how much they breath apparently. Stick with him - he's gong somewhere with this one though

Spook_ie

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Again I'm afraid it does. Maybe in your head it doesn't. You buy a car and you can cycle any kind of bike including tricycle or a unicycle in a public road if you like. You don't have to pay any further tax. Other than the vat when you purchased your bike



This is one of the most laughable things I've read in ages. Your ideas are so whacky it's hard to figure out when you're on the wind up.

Why do you not think that you can have two vat rates for two different things?
You can have two VAT rates for the same item in garages depending on if it's fitted or just supplied, so no problem applying 0% and 50% to two different types of bicycle

Knasher

Spook_ie wrote: »

Why should it be based on weight? or even size, it's something that should be based on supply, now if it costs €50,000 ( arbitrary figure ) to provide 500m of roadway that has 3 meters width designated as cycle lanes and 30 meters width as other traffic then I see no reason why 10% of the cost shouldn't be recouped by increasing taxation on cyclists to cover it, after all they are the only ones in the cycle lane, but then again seeing as the counter will be cyclists don't have to use the cycle lane then just get rid of cycle lanes altogether

I don't live in Dublin, I don't see why they can't increase the tax on Dubliners to pay for the current Luas upgrades. I haven't been in Dublin in a while, and I've only once ridden on the Luas, I see no reason why the cost shouldn't be recouped by increasing taxation on Dubliners to cover it.

Spook_ie

Pinch Flat wrote: »

If that model was applied to motor tax, versus the capital expenditure and subsidies to fund the road network, motor tax would be many multiples of what it is currently. I'm assuming the vast majority of motorists wouldn't mind digging deep when their next motor tax demand hits the hall mat, bearing in mind people are protesting over a few euros a week for water.

Ah yeah the whole weight thing is unreasonable - the weight of a car has nothing to do with the wear and tear it exerts on the road. Ok let's be reasonable - I think it's only fair that cyclists should be taxed based on emissions as motorists currently are - again, how do you propose this is calculated? Clinics with exercise bikes that people breath into so they can collect co2 data? Another laughable suggestion.

Why would you think that, I pay (as do you ) other taxes beside motor and fuel taxes, the only difference being that the tax I pay on fuel and the tax I pay to use a motor on the road are direct taxes for the use of the road for that vehicle, not some away with the fairies theory like yours that " I pay motor tax on a car so I can use a cycle under the same basis" the tax you've paid is for the car NOT your cycle

Spook_ie

Pinch Flat wrote: »

If that model was applied to motor tax, versus the capital expenditure and subsidies to fund the road network, motor tax would be many multiples of what it is currently. I'm assuming the vast majority of motorists wouldn't mind digging deep when their next motor tax demand hits the hall mat, bearing in mind people are protesting over a few euros a week for water.

Ah yeah the whole weight thing is unreasonable - the weight of a car has nothing to do with the wear and tear it exerts on the road. Ok let's be reasonable - I think it's only fair that cyclists should be taxed based on emissions as motorists currently are - again, how do you propose this is calculated? Clinics with exercise bikes that people breath into so they can collect co2 data? Another laughable suggestion.

Nothing says that the tax you pay on emissions has to be based on empirical data, after all the emissions based motor tax is €120 for 0g, so perhaps we should begin there as a starting rate

Pinch Flat

Spook_ie wrote: »

Why do you not think that you can have two vat rates for two different things?
You can have two VAT rates for the same item in garages depending on if it's fitted or just supplied, so no problem applying 0% and 50% to two different types of bicycle

Oh oh straw man territory. Your assertion was that if you pay motor tax on a car that you have no entitlement to use the road as cyclist until you pay an equivalent 'cycle tax'. Your comment regarding 50% vat on cycling - higher than booze, fags or fuel - is totally laughable and doesn't even warrant a reply.

Throughout this thread (which incidentally was to discuss theory tests for cyclists - how many taxi I drivers have a theory test or engage in cpd to bring them up to speed in road safety and legal developments btw?) we haven't been able to agree how you propose to tax cyclists - emissions (which apparently involves recording the co2 passing from their lungs) or asking them to stump up for the costs of roads (which the vast majority do anyway as motorists, excise /duty and tax payers).

So let's say in the morning the government introduced a €200 flat fee for cyclists to use the roads (what I pay on a 1.6 diesel car annually), would your attitude towards cyclists change? I don't think so.

Spook_ie

Unknown Soldier wrote: »

I would but it doesn't exist. Start a petition or contact your MP.



You're the one doing the "obfuscation" tbh.

You don't pay motor tax to "use" your car. You don't pay tax to "use" lots of things. I'm struggling to think of one but when I do i realise it's usually called a "Licence" or "permit"

It's a tax.

The original meaning behind road/motor tax was for the upkeep of the road infrastructure.


You don't like cyclists being on the road. They annoy you. Lets forget about the "tax" and all that.

You just don't want them using the same road as you.

It's really that simple.

If it's not that simple, then please put up a definitive list of "pre being allowed to cycle" on the road things that you think should be mandatory to make you "OK" with cyclists being on the road.

I don't think you can.

I don't need to because I don't actually want to get rid of cyclists, but I do get fed up with the same old tripe trotted out by cyclists on boards that they have a car and therefore they pay motor tax which somehow magically equates providing cycle lanes for nothing

Pinch Flat

Spook_ie wrote: »

Nothing says that the tax you pay on emissions has to be based on empirical data, after all the emissions based motor tax is €120 for 0g, so perhaps we should begin there as a starting rate

Lol I can see the headlines "Ireland leads the way in charging cyclists the equivalent of motor car tax and doubles vat on new bike purchases".

Kalman

Spook_ie wrote: »

But as anybody who knows, knows that since 2012 they're not, so remove the duplicity and remove the cycle lanes. After all you can still use bus lanes anyway

Un-like cars, cyclists do not damage the environment. Cities and towns are actually encouraging people to use bikes. [the bike was there before the car] .

awec

Spook_ie wrote: »

Why should it be based on weight? or even size, it's something that should be based on supply, now if it costs €50,000 ( arbitrary figure ) to provide 500m of roadway that has 3 meters width designated as cycle lanes and 30 meters width as other traffic then I see no reason why 10% of the cost shouldn't be recouped by increasing taxation on cyclists to cover it, after all they are the only ones in the cycle lane, but then again seeing as the counter will be cyclists don't have to use the cycle lane then just get rid of cycle lanes altogether

Where on earth have you got this notion that motor tax pays for roads?

Your entire argument is based on nonsense. By your logic people who pay higher bands of motor tax have more right to use the road than those on the lower bands. Rubbish.

Spook_ie

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Oh oh straw man territory. Your assertion was that if you pay motor tax on a car that you have no entitlement to use the road as cyclist until you pay an equivalent 'cycle tax'. Your comment regarding 50% vat on cycling - higher than booze, fags or fuel - is totally laughable and doesn't even warrant a reply.

Throughout this thread (which incidentally was to discuss theory tests for cyclists - how many taxi I drivers have a theory test or engage in cpd to bring them up to speed in road safety and legal developments btw?) we haven't been able to agree how you propose to tax cyclists - emissions (which apparently involves recording the co2 passing from their lungs) or asking them to stump up for the costs of roads (which the vast majority do anyway as motorists, excise /duty and tax payers).

So let's say in the morning the government introduced a €200 flat fee for cyclists to use the roads (what I pay on a 1.6 diesel car annually), would your attitude towards cyclists change? I don't think so.

Once again seeing as you can't seem to understand simple logic.

The money you pay in motor tax on a motor is for the use of THAT vehicle on a public highway, there is no provision that allows that motor tax to be magically transferred to another vehicle!

50% is an arbitrary figure it could be 0% on clunkers ( I think thats the term some one used ) and 25% on mid range cycles and 50% on specialist cycles, the actual figures matter less than the principle of the user pays and the more the user can afford the more he should pay

Why pick on taxi drivers, I think all drivers should have refresher courses but of course training should be aimed at those most likely to benefit from it, which would in general opinion seem to be cyclists

If you paid €200 a year, I'd have suggested the €120 zero emission rate personally ) then at least you'd put paid to all the " I pay road tax arguments, you don't " which is true because the vehicle that you paid your tax on is by your choice sitting on the drive way costing you money to leave it standing there

awec

Spook_ie wrote: »

Once again seeing as you can't seem to understand simple logic.

The money you pay in motor tax on a motor is for the use of THAT vehicle on a public highway, there is no provision that allows that motor tax to be magically transferred to another vehicle!

50% is an arbitrary figure it could be 0% on clunkers ( I think thats the term some one used ) and 25% on mid range cycles and 50% on specialist cycles, the actual figures matter less than the principle of the user pays and the more the user can afford the more he should pay

Why pick on taxi drivers, I think all drivers should have refresher courses but of course training should be aimed at those most likely to benefit from it, which would in general opinion seem to be cyclists

If you paid €200 a year, I'd have suggested the €120 zero emission rate personally ) then at least you'd put paid to all the " I pay road tax arguments, you don't " which is true because the vehicle that you paid your tax on is by your choice sitting on the drive way costing you money to leave it standing there

A public highway. Not a "for people who pay motor tax" highway.

The only person with limited understanding here is you.

Knasher

Spook_ie wrote: »

Why pick on taxi drivers

I would have thought you would be very eager to increase the tax rates that taxi drivers pay. Considering the amount of road use a taxi driver benefits from, it seems ridiculous that that should pay the same "road/motor tax" that somebody down the country does, when they only use their cars once a day for a quick spin to the shops.

CramCycle

I missed these old threads, nonsensical ramblings, rantings, no understanding of economics, public health misunderstanding, narrow singular viewpoint rather than a population wide view, no understanding of traffic and traffic adaption.

And these are only from the last three pages, and only the stuff I could recall from a brief skim through.

Fantastic.