Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Irish cyclists looking for a €1b investment? - note stay on-topic warning, post #160
Options
-
05-10-2016 4:29pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
cajonlardo wrote: »Roadhawk has a harrowing life sharing his roads with cyclists.
Cyclists seek funding for infrastructure that will separate them from Roadhawk ( and all the other drama queens ) and Roadhawk still whinges.
Go figure.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Well, in actual fact Roadhawk, Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council have reported a 49% increase in cycling as a transport modal share on the Rock Road alone as per the following link:
http://www.dlrcoco.ie/en/news/general-news-press-releases/council-announce-49-increase-cyclists-rock-road-blackrock
Now, I will admit to being more than just a bit nuanced or skeptical about the improvements made to this infrastructure prior to when they were carried out. However, it actually isn't that bad. The only exception is that there is a bit of a hairy situation on the turn off for Merion Avenue which used to be a slip lane. A few slip lanes have been removed where logically, they weren't needed.
Any to answer the question you raised:Is this a realistic amount to invest in infrastructure that may or may not be used?
Yes. But, in installments. Alluding to HivemindXX, it will probably be spent over a 5 year period instead of in one fell swoop.You haven't lived till you cycle in Athlone. A brief list of 10 years of injuries sustained just coming and going from work.
Broken wrist (x2)
Broken fingers (x3)
Torn anterior cruciate ligament
Concussion (x2)
Hospitalisation (x3)
My point is this.
Can I have the billion euros please.
Sorry to hear about that sirwin357. Get well soon!
I do hope that some of this €1 billion will go towards making the roads in smaller cities and big towns safer for cyclists.
As per the article in the Indo itself, it is riddled with factual/idealistic errors. Here are 3 that I have seen:- Road Tax: It's actually called Motor Tax (which in my opinion should be rebranded to Carbon Tax or Emissions Tax) as it is essentially a tax based on the Carbon Dioxide emissions of a car. In the not too distant past, I used to call it Road Tax as well but, a few of the posters on this site rightly corrected me on this.
- Reg Plates for Cyclists: As someone who used to cycle a lot as a kid, this is just an obstacle to the one accessible fast means of transport readily available for kids. Plus, it should be promoted as an alternative to the over use of yummy-mummy mobiles (SUVs)
:D! - Taxing Cyclists: Like point 2, taxing a means of transport with literally zero negative effects to the environment is like taxing pedestrians for walking and is another obstacle to progress.
The only good point the article makes is the whole "a capital city where pedestrian, cyclist and motorist coexist in a state of mutually blissful harmony". Nevertheless, the way he says it, you'd swear there was some ethnic divide between the three principle road user archetypes.
The word in "bold red" implies that all cycling infrastructure expenditure should be Dublin-centric which is a possible 4th error to the above list.
I still think the Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets needs to be reworked in some areas. But, that's a topic for another thread.
For the most part, the article reeks of ignorance.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
The tax is not linked to motor ownership, but the placement of said motor on the road.HivemindXX wrote: »They couldn't even get through the headline without spouting nonsense about road tax. The Independent really is the after hours of newspapers.
Well, firstly, the Grand Canal cycle path is totally lawless, so as a pedestrian that's out there sometimes it's not something I'd be keen to replicate. Second, cyclists will ignore a cycle lane for any reason, up to and including just plain laziness.You'll find the cycle paths along the Grand Canal are used. There is no reason why cyclists won't use infrastructure that is better than the roads, you would have to be suffering from paranoid delusions to think otherwise.
Did the cycling body ask for €1bn? Yes or no? There are only two possibilities here:The €1bn figure is designed to appear unreasonable, which no doubt it why you chose to use it in your subject. This is over the next five years by the way, a standard trick used to make things appear bigger than they really are. Why not quote annual figures? 10% seems much more reasonable.- The cycling groups did ask for €1bn, and that fact is being reported accurately. Your post is a complaint that this factually quoted figure was not massaged from €1bn to "10%" or "X over Y years".
- The cycling groups did not ask for €1bn, so the article is wrong and those who quote it are inaccurate.
Where to start >_<- Road Tax: It's actually called Motor Tax (which in my opinion should be rebranded to Carbon Tax or Emissions Tax) as it is essentially a tax based on the Carbon Dioxide emissions of a car. In the not too distant past, I used to call it Road Tax as well but, a few of the posters on this site rightly corrected me on this.
- Reg Plates for Cyclists: As someone who used to cycle a lot as a kid, this is just an obstacle to the one accessible fast means of transport readily available for kids. Plus, it should be promoted as an alternative to the over use of yummy-mummy mobiles (SUVs)
! - Taxing Cyclists: Like point 2, taxing a means of transport with literally zero negative effects to the environment is like taxing pedestrians for walking and is another obstacle to progress.
The technical term is indeed "Motor Tax" however the use of the term "Road Tax" provides three key advantages.
1) It accurately reflects that the tax must be paid to place said Motor ON THE ROAD. If a tax is tied to the roads, or usage of the roads, in any way, it is a Road Tax.
2) The use of the term "Road Tax" allows for a fast and easy comparison between Motor Tax in the Republic of Ireland, vis-a-vis Vehicle Excise Duty in the United Kingdom. Both taxes operate in a similar way and serve the same function, the only difference is that Irelands' is 2-5 times higher in all categories.
3) It rolls off the tongue a lot easier than Motor Tax.
Additionally, the tax is not linked to emissions, for two reasons:
1) Motors registered on or before June 30th 2008 are taxed according to engine size. Or more specifically, the use of a car with the specified engine size on the road.
2) "Emissions" based motor tax takes no account of the cars actual emissions - a 1 Litre Micra that drives 500+ miles per week emits more CO2 than a Ferarri that is only driven 100 miles or less on the weekend.
Secondly. Reg plates for cyclists. Without reg plates for cyclists, lawbreakers who cycle on footways, jump red lights and so on, it's extremely hard to enforce laws on cyclists without such measures. And it shows.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Cheap, lazy, lowest-common-denominator pseudo-journalist tripe. Like, even just the most basic factual checking: no such thing as road tax. In the title. Barely warrants a reply, but shure let's give it a go:
A) No one pays road tax.
Most cyclists are also drivers, who therefore pay motor tax.
C) Tax is not only spent on those who pay it. I have no children and have never been in hospital, but I'm happy for my taxes to be spent on schools and hospitals.
D) You think the road system doesn't owe pedestrians anything...? Like, well-maintained footpaths and pedestrian crossings? I think we owe them that.
E) It's not to fund lecturing, in the very quote you reference they say "cycle-friendly road design" - that is infrastructure, which costs money.
F) You don't tend to find cyclists defending other rude cyclists.
Utter, hate-stirring tripe. It's like the sort of petty rabble-rousing you hear against immigrants. I'd write a letter to the editor but that would be confirming for them that their reckless shite is provoking the exact sort of destructive controversy they were hoping for.
Indo isn't worth burning for warmth.0
Advertisement