Journalism and cycling

robyntmorton

Chuchote wrote: »

Naah, there are some people whose illnesses are not caused by environmental factors - for instance, I have familial high-bad-cholesterol-low-good-cholesterol; diet and exercise doesn't control it. Natural-health friends are constantly trying to get me to go off statins and onto the coenzyme Q10…

You're right there. I unfortunately have secondary hypertension caused by a kidney complaint. Nothing environmental about it.

Chuchote

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Are you confusing it with tax? I can't see how insurance could be incorporated into fuel as there would be no way of assessing/penalising re risk. I've never had a claim yet I'd be paying the same as a boy racer.

But maybe the correct approach is to tackle the boy racers legally? And indeed maybe that would be more likely to happen if insurance was paid through petrol. And you're paying for the boy racers anyway because they don't pay insurance

buffalo

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/cyclists-and-motorists-1.2818150

It's somewhat emasculating when someone not only writes the same letter as you, but communicates your points far more effectively. He is from the School of Communications though, so I'll let him have it.

Wishbone Ash

buffalo wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/cyclists-and-motorists-1.2818150

It's somewhat emasculating when someone not only writes the same letter as you, but communicates your points far more effectively. He is from the School of Communications though, so I'll let him have it.

But unfortunately, he tears the arse out of an otherwise good letter with the following glaring error:

Motor tax is a tax on using a mechanically propelled vehicle (whether on-road or off-road) and reflects the negative externalities associated with the use of such vehicles (primarily pollution).

There is no requirement to tax a vehicle which is not used on public roads regardless of how much pollution it causes - hence the reason so many refer to it as 'road tax'.

buffalo

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

There is no requirement to tax a vehicle which is not used on public roads regardless of how much pollution it causes - hence the reason so many refer to it as 'road tax'.

The very first FAQ on the motor tax website says:

Liability for motor tax arises when a vehicle is used in a public place/road

https://www.motortax.ie/OMT/staticContent.do?page=faq

So public off-road areas would be included - I don't think it's the glaring error you think it is.

Wishbone Ash

buffalo wrote: »

The very first FAQ on the motor tax website says:


https://www.motortax.ie/OMT/staticContent.do?page=faq

So public off-road areas would be included - I don't think it's the glaring error you think it is.

Public off road which is very limited. By 'off road' most people mean private property.

endagibson

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

But unfortunately, he tears the arse out of an otherwise good letter with the following glaring error:

There is no requirement to tax a vehicle which is not used on public roads regardless of how much pollution it causes - hence the reason so many refer to it as 'road tax'.

I disagree. I tax my car and it spends approximately 5 out of 7 days in my private driveway every week.

If I wanted to officially take it off the road, I'd have to do it at least a month in advance, coinciding with the date that my present tax disc expires as I don't think there's any way to get a refund of less than three months worth.

The off road period is supposed to be at least three months I think, but it could probably be put back on the road by taxing it again. Might need a trip to the motor tax office, which is never fun.

check_six

OK, so just to be clear here:
To avoid paying motor tax I am entitled to claim my "cyclists don't pay road tax" allowance?
Likewise, to avoid paying insurance all I have to do is hang some furry dice on my rear view mirror, and wear a dodgy baseball hat?

The cost of my occasional motoring is plummeting!

Chuchote

Seriously, just put the insurance and the tax - and indeed the cost of the first NCT though not the repeats - on to the price of fuel. Then every driver will have to pay for all of them. At the moment, you've got a load of insurance companies with lots of staff driving costs up, not to mention gardaí checking tax and insurance.

It won't cost any more because boy racers don't pay tax and insurance anyway, so those who do are effectively paying for them. And if the insurance is paid to and investigated by the State, there will quickly be a return to standard amounts for specific damage and injuries and no messing.

ThisRegard

buffalo wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/cyclists-and-motorists-1.2818150

It's somewhat emasculating when someone not only writes the same letter as you, but communicates your points far more effectively. He is from the School of Communications though, so I'll let him have it.

Great letter by him, but WTF is Anne on about?

Chuchote

ThisRegard wrote: »

Great letter by him, but WTF is Anne on about?

I think she mistakes boasting for gurning, poor lady.

magicbastarder

i think the concept of 'a right to talk' is being conflated with 'being within earshot'.

unless she's actually annoyed at the laws of physics.

endagibson

Chuchote wrote: »

It won't cost any more because boy racers don't pay tax and insurance anyway

Are you sure that's true?

boardbeer

ThisRegard wrote: »

Great letter by him, but WTF is Anne on about?

Repeal free speech rights for: cyclists, joggers, 5-a-side soccer players.

Chuchote

endagibson wrote: »

Are you sure that's true?

By my definition of boy racers, which is those wild little lads who buy a car for €50 online, pile in en masse with their friends, drive it up to the mountains, drag-race it with other similar and then burn it out.

ThisRegard

They'd be company car owners rather than those who would normally be seen as boy racers.

Chuchote

ThisRegard wrote: »

They'd be company car owners rather than those who would normally be seen as boy racers.

Ah, maybe I'm misusing the term. Perhaps I should have said joyriders don't tax or insure their cars anyway.

mcgratheoin

boardbeer wrote: »

Repeal free speech rights for: cyclists, joggers, 5-a-side soccer players.

The irony of writing a letter to the Times complaining about whingers....

NiallBoo

Chuchote wrote: »

Seriously, just put the insurance and the tax - and indeed the cost of the first NCT though not the repeats - on to the price of fuel. Then every driver will have to pay for all of them.

a difficulty with this is that if fuel costs significantly more than in northern Ireland, a lot of people will just buy it there.
You'll also get raises in smuggling laundering and petrol-stretching

Chuchote wrote: »

the moment, you've got a load of insurance companies with lots of staff driving costs up, not to mention gardaí checking tax and insurance.

i think we should have traffic cameras that do this automatically anyway. I'd love to see sensorss at every traffic light and frequently along roads that check all vehicles against a database of tax, insurance, nct, non-standard plates - as well as checking for braking red lights and speeding. They could alert gardai about unreadable plates.

Chuchote wrote: »

It won't cost any more because boy racers don't pay tax and insurance anyway,

It's a mistake to think motor-tax evaders are only, or even mostly, boy racers. Sweeping statements are very tempting but in reality you get a wide range of folks not paying.

Peterx

NiallBoo wrote: »

a difficulty with this is that if fuel costs significantly more than in northern Ireland, a lot of people will just buy it there.
You'll also get raises in smuggling and petrol-stretching

I really think loading all the current taxes and insurances onto the fuel is the right way to do it.
Car insurance in it's current format should be scrapped and replaced with a version of the Australian/NZ registration system and then if you wish to actually insure yourself or your car above a standard third party contained within the registration then you go to an insurance company.
Hauliers could get a rebate.

NiallBoo

Peterx wrote: »

I really think loading all the current taxes and insurances onto the fuel is the right way to do it.
Car insurance in it's current format should be scrapped and replaced with a version of the Australian/NZ registration system and then if you wish to actually insure yourself or your car above a standard third party contained within the registration then you go to an insurance company.
Hauliers could get a rebate.

Sure it's a good idea - it's just worth considering that some of the increased revenue won't materialise.
Obviously nz and aus won't have this problem - though they could still get petrol stretching and diesel laundering.

RandomAccess

Chuchote wrote: »

If lawbreaking has an impact on sentiment, ok, let's start posting photos and videos of drivers using mobile phones, zipping through lights after they've turned red, whipping right around no-right-turn turns, close-passing cyclists, speeding, parking in cycle lanes, failing to indicate in time or at all, dooring, suddenly deciding they want to park on the other side of Dame Street and hanging a speedy U-ey, using bus lanes, taking to the wrong side of solid-white-line roads to pass cyclists then swinging across in front of them to turn left, blaring music that must make them unconscious of the road and its other users…
People only notice the few cyclists who act like brats because they have been fed the idea that "cyclists" break road rules.
Perhaps if they realised how little drivers keep the same rules it might soften their cough for them?

The "they're just as bad as us!" argument..

No thanks

Peterx

NiallBoo wrote: »

Sure it's a good idea - it's just worth considering that some of the increased revenue won't materialise.
Obviously nz and aus won't have this problem - though they could still get petrol stretching and diesel laundering.

Ahh but unlike the poor unfortunates who must balance the bukes in this one financial year I don't have to worry about increased revenue in 2016/7.

Charging by use by putting all the costs onto the fuel encourages price conscious people to consider other forms of transport. Over time some discover that cycling works for them, especially in their pocket.
Public transport becomes more attractive, it gets more passengers and thus more money and becomes less dependent on government subsidy.
Introducing a rego like the Aussies have kills the current cartel that insurance companies run. It's ridiculous that something that is a legal requirement, car insurance in this case, is provided by private companies and not by the people who made it a legal requirement - the government.

sorry now - getting well off the point here..

NiallBoo

Peterx wrote: »

Charging by use by putting all the costs onto the fuel encourages price conscious people to consider...

Sure there's good in the idea. I think it would just take some number-crunching to see if it will work out vs. revenue loses from it not being paid in the state.

Peterx wrote: »

It's ridiculous that something that is a legal requirement... is provided by private companies and not by the people who made it a legal requirement - the government.

^^government policy on everything, innit?

Carawaystick

boardbeer wrote: »

Repeal free speech rights for: cyclists, joggers, 5-a-side soccer players.

What about when only nine players show up so you've a fly goalie?

Chuchote

NiallBoo wrote: »

a difficulty with this is that if fuel costs significantly more than in northern Ireland, a lot of people will just buy it there.
You'll also get raises in smuggling laundering and petrol-stretching


i think we should have traffic cameras that do this automatically anyway. I'd love to see sensorss at every traffic light and frequently along roads that check all vehicles against a database of tax, insurance, nct, non-standard plates - as well as checking for braking red lights and speeding. They could alert gardai about unreadable plates.
It's a mistake to think motor-tax evaders are only, or even mostly, boy racers. Sweeping statements are very tempting but in reality you get a wide range of folks not paying.

Whoever the evaders are, they couldn't evade if the insurance and tax were part of the petrol.

RandomAccess wrote: »

The "they're just as bad as us!" argument..
No thanks

Well, yeah. Good point.

Someone mentioned that people could go to the North to buy fuel, and this is true. However, if the Northerners saw that we didn't have to pay insurance and tax (and to pay for all the admin of insurance companies and gardaí and civil servants processing and checking etc), they might quite easily say "Oho, good idea" and do the same.

Chuchote

Deedsie wrote: »

I think you are dreaming if you could see a unionist party agreeing to streamline anything that would bring Northern Ireland in line with Ireland.

And I can see their point in that, insane though it is; and of course when their civil service payments aren't coming out of their own taxes, they have less incentive to look for efficiencies in police and admin work.

RandomAccess

Singapore and Malaysia share a border.

There are fines discouraging fuel tourism

http://www.singapore-the-fine-city.com/2009/05/your-fuel-tanks-is-not-three-quarter.html?m=1

We'll have a 20 foot high wall surrounding the north anyway paid for by Brussels and London soon enough.

Wishbone Ash

endagibson wrote: »

I disagree. I tax my car and it spends approximately 5 out of 7 days in my private driveway every week.

If I wanted to officially take it off the road, I'd have to do it at least a month in advance, coinciding with the date that my present tax disc expires as I don't think there's any way to get a refund of less than three months worth.

The off road period is supposed to be at least three months I think, but it could probably be put back on the road by taxing it again. Might need a trip to the motor tax office, which is never fun.

You're missing the point. I'm referring to vehicles which are roadworthy but are used entirely off road - i.e. on private property. There is no requirement to tax these vehicles and that is the point I was trying to make about the letter.

It's irrelevant how much time your car spends in your driveway each week as I presume you like to utilise it on public roads from time to time and are therefore required to have it taxed when doing so.

Chuchote

Irish Times piece on the Pat Kenny show about the Liffeyside Cycleway

http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/tv-radio-web/radio-cyclists-get-a-rough-ride-as-pat-kenny-revs-up-his-outrage-1.2819330

As Kenny talks to the AA’s Conor Faughnan about proposals to ban cars from the city’s north quays in order to make way for cyclists, the conversation is hostile to the idea from the off.
This is unsurprising. We’re hearing the views of an unabashed fan of the internal combustion engine, who misses no opportunity to bemoan the bad behaviour of cyclists. Faughnan, on the other hand, merely works for the Automobile Association.

Chuchote

The protests and outrage at journalistic whataboutery are starting to take effect: creditable editorial in The Irish Times today:

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/editorial/making-cycling-safer-1.2820837

Government ministers with chauffeur-driven cars need to step outside their privileged position to consider the needs of our most vulnerable road users and to allocate a greater share of the transport “capital envelope” to cycling, including the provision of cycleways that would be physically-separated from the real dangers posed by vehicles travelling at speed.

tomasrojo

Chuchote wrote: »

Irish Times piece on the Pat Kenny show about the Liffeyside Cycleway

http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/tv-radio-web/radio-cyclists-get-a-rough-ride-as-pat-kenny-revs-up-his-outrage-1.2819330

I saw that and meant to post it. The second part of his discussion chimes with Deedsie's more positive assessment of Pat Kenny. He can keep his distance healing though.

buffalo

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/dublin-and-traffic-planning-1.2824247

I'm not sure if this guy is a boardsie...

Chuchote

buffalo wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/dublin-and-traffic-planning-1.2824247

I'm not sure if this guy is a boardsie...

Cian Ginty's letter is good - calm and considered; he makes the point that a lot of people don't need to drive, and finishes up -

The latest Liffey cycle route plan does not just give priority to cycling. Walkers, buses and Luas were going to be affected in some previous proposals, and all will be prioritised in the new plan. Asking some drivers to go an extra mile is a small price to pay compared to the benefits of a more attractive, sustainable, and healthier capital city.

Pinch Flat

My letter here about insurance (second one). Can't find a bleedin' Irish Times from yesterday so I can frame it and put it in the downstairs toilet for all visitors to read in awe.....

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/cyclists-and-insurance-1.2822475

magicbastarder

i'm not 100% comfortable with the argument that many cyclists already have insurance; yes, it's clearly valuable and has it's use.
but as can be seen by several comments on the irish times page on facebook, it's being seized on as a way of normalising the idea that all cyclists should have insurance; there's no deeper understanding of why the insurance is present.

NiallBoo

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'm not 100% comfortable with the argument that many cyclists already have insurance; yes, it's clearly valuable and has it's use.
but as can be seen by several comments on the irish times page on facebook, it's being seized on as a way of normalising the idea that all cyclists should have insurance; there's no deeper understanding of why the insurance is present.

Step 1. Cyclists get insurance
Step 2. With insurance now normal, cyclists become more inclined to claim when hit.
Step 3. Motor insurance rises

Pinch Flat

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'm not 100% comfortable with the argument that many cyclists already have insurance; yes, it's clearly valuable and has it's use.
but as can be seen by several comments on the irish times page on facebook, it's being seized on as a way of normalising the idea that all cyclists should have insurance; there's no deeper understanding of why the insurance is present.

I'm partially in agreement. Many motorists with a car centrist mind think that cyclists should have insurance in case a cyclist scratched their car or damages a wing mirror when passing, and there seems to be loads of anecdotes to support this.

Cyclists, on the other hand, will primarily have cycling insurance to cover their own injuries, medical expenses time off work etc. Some cyclists also seem to be vehemently against it. My own view is that for €30 odd it's well worth having - I I've head many stories of people who used it to claim for not only accidents with motorists but also when they were alone and came off.

tomasrojo

I do feel sorry for the first author on that page, but, as so often when I hear others talking about getting about by bike in the media, I can't believe they're talking about the same thing I've been doing virtually every day for decades.

Chuchote

Where can cyclists get insurance? (I hate insurance companies with a passion, but I'm curious.)

Chuchote

I asked Cycling Ireland and they said they no longer did insurance, I think…? (Still hate insurance companies, but was thinking about it.)

Pinch Flat

Chuchote wrote: »

I asked Cycling Ireland and they said they no longer did insurance, I think…? (Still hate insurance companies, but was thinking about it.)

http://www.cyclingireland.ie/page/membership/membership-overview

Maybe you need to check if you can join CI as an individual, I'm a member through an affiliated a club.

Lemming

I've got insurance with my membership of BritishCycling, but I routinely see adverts on facebook for insurance for mountain bikers and the like so there are insurance companies specialising in cover for activities like cycling.

TonyStark

Pinch Flat wrote: »

My letter here about insurance (second one). Can't find a bleedin' Irish Times from yesterday so I can frame it and put it in the downstairs toilet for all visitors to read in awe.....

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/cyclists-and-insurance-1.2822475

I find the first one more interesting, especially the line:

"The cause of this accident was another cyclist."

What really he bemoans is a failed criminal justice system.

Chuchote

Pinch Flat wrote: »

http://www.cyclingireland.ie/page/membership/membership-overview

Maybe you need to check if you can join CI as an individual, I'm a member through an affiliated a club.

As far as I know, anyone with home insurance has third party cover if they hurt someone in a bike crash, am I wrong in this?

cdaly_

I understand this to be true.

RandomAccess

TonyStark wrote: »

I find the first one more interesting, especially the line:

"The cause of this accident was another cyclist."

What really he bemoans is a failed criminal justice system.

Without a reg plate of some kind it's unlikely the cyclist could be prosecuted.

Tombo2001

NiallBoo wrote: »

Step 1. Cyclists get insurance
Step 2. With insurance now normal, cyclists become more inclined to claim when hit.
Step 3. Motor insurance rises

When were cyclists not inclined to claim when hit.

The motorist who hits the cyclist was previously insured, and remains insured.

The issue is that cyclists don't have third party insurance.

Indeed, its not that easy to find.

On the flip side, how is it enforced.

There is no record of who owns a bike at time of accident.

There is no obligation on cyclists to be ensured.

It would be very difficult to enforce - e.g. how would insure for third party a 7 year old cycling to school.

Tombo2001

Pinch Flat wrote: »

I'm partially in agreement. Many motorists with a car centrist mind think that cyclists should have insurance in case a cyclist scratched their car or damages a wing mirror when passing, and there seems to be loads of anecdotes to support this.

Cyclists, on the other hand, will primarily have cycling insurance to cover their own injuries, medical expenses time off work etc. Some cyclists also seem to be vehemently against it. My own view is that for €30 odd it's well worth having - I I've head many stories of people who used it to claim for not only accidents with motorists but also when they were alone and came off.

The issue is third party.

You hit a pedestrian or other cyclist, as per the letter.

Would you intend to pay for it? if so, then third party cycle insurance is really a must.

Unless, as mentioned, its covered by home insurance......

RandomAccess

The last time I explored this thread of thought I arrived at the conclusion that it is people that should be insured rather than cars, bikes, etc.

In that case I was considering an assault case where the victim suffered serious injuries and an award was made through the courts.

So since the root cause of an assault, collision by car or cyclist is a person, that the person is who needs to be insured.