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
24567…14

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,826 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    :rolleyes:
    So if its down to 'road usage' how come pedestrians, horses and cyclists don't have to pay it?
    Because the tax on road usage is limited to motorists.
    magicbastarder wrote: »
    so the fact that a) it only applies to motorised vehicles and not all road users, and b) is explicitly based on emissions from those motors (except for the 'legacy' regime), you're still arguing it's a 'road' tax?
    It's tied to a motorists' usage of the road, so yes. It's a road tax that just happens to be limited to motorists.
    it's also interesting to note your 'ON THE ROAD' phrasing. i would rephrase that as 'the tax must be paid TO USE SAID MOTOR'. because that is the sole use of 99.99% of the cars in this country, driving on public roads. the tax ceases to be payable if the motor is taken out of use.
    I use the term "ON THE ROAD" because that is the legal standard. You can use any motor that is not on the road and not pay motor tax.
    You can use lawnmowers, stationary petrol/diesel generators, motorised work/construction equipment, non-road going farm equipment and road-going motor vehicles that have been declared off road, for any off road use you may find such a vehicle useful for, all without paying motor tax.

    If it actually was a "motor" tax, one would be liable for this tax for all of the above.
    ThisRegard wrote: »
    You actually posted this? You're changing the name of a tax in order to fit into some off the wall points you're trying to make?
    No. I am merely pointing out that as an accurate description of the tax, the term "Road tax" is an appropriate colloquial term that can and should be used as a de-facto substitute for longer and less descriptive but de-jure terms such as Motor tax and Vehicle Excise Duty.


  • Options
    #33
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    SeanW wrote: »
    ....It's tied to a motorists' usage of the road,.....

    No it isn't doesn't matter how much you use the road the tax doesn't change. if you use the road less you don't pay less then someone who uses the road more.
    SeanW wrote: »
    Because the tax on road usage is limited to motorists....

    Also applies to a bicycle with a petrol motor. But not to an bicycle with an electric motor. But does apply to Electric Mopeds.


  • Options
    #34
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users Posts: 24,506 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    SeanW wrote: »
    Because the tax on road usage is limited to motorists.

    so it could be call something like "Motor Tax" perhaps?
    I use the term "ON THE ROAD" because that is the legal standard. You can use any motor that is not on the road and not pay motor tax.
    You can use lawnmowers, stationary petrol/diesel generators, motorised work/construction equipment, non-road going farm equipment and road-going motor vehicles that have been declared off road, for any off road use you may find such a vehicle useful for, all without paying motor tax.
    still have to pay fuel taxes on these*

    * for the most part at least.


  • Options
    #35
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,536 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    guys, you're missing the point. a (quote) 'key advantage' of the term 'road tax' is that it (again, quote) 'rolls off the tongue a lot easier than motor tax'.

    i vote we change the name of PAYE to 'happy tax'. it's a snappier name, will make people happier to pay; what's to lose?


  • Options
    #36
    Arthur.beaker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 179 ✭✭Arthur.beaker


    They don't even pay road tax on their bicycles.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    eeguy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,478 ✭✭✭eeguy


    Arthur.beaker wrote: »
    They don't even pay road tax on their bicycles.

    I wonder how much tax you'd pay on a 5 year olds bike from Santa. ;)


  • Options
    #38
    Arthur.beaker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 179 ✭✭Arthur.beaker


    eeguy wrote: »
    I wonder how much tax you'd pay on a 5 year olds bike from Santa. ;)

    How about a handle bar or saddle tax?


  • Options
    #39
    eeguy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,478 ✭✭✭eeguy


    Arthur.beaker wrote: »
    How about a handle bar or saddle tax?

    Sorry Timmy, you can't cycle your new bike because the tax disk didn't arrive :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #40
    check_six
    Registered Users Posts: 2,245 ✭✭✭check_six


    Wasn't the change in nomenclature from Road Tax to Motor Tax in the 1930s in the UK specifically made to discourage motorists from the misapprehension that they were uniquely 'paying' for the roads and therefore 'owned' the roads?

    This is a stupid debate. Apologies for contributing.


  • Options
    #41
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    SeanW wrote: »
    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.

    Could you outline the lawlessness of the Grand Canal Cycle path?
    Could you also state which part of the Grand Canal cycle path you mean?
    It is in different guises from Clondalkin into the Dock
    Shared Use, wide path, out near the M50,
    Shared use, narrower path at Davvitt Road
    On road Mandatory cycle lane at Dolphin's Barn
    Segregated cycle track Charlemont Place

    What is it as a pedestrian you wouldn't want to replicate?

    Cyclists don't have to use cycle lanes except in narrow circumstances like pedestrianised streets or contraflow cycle lanes. Just like motorists don't have to use motorways.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,536 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    actually, why don't we turn the 'we should not give cyclists infrastructure until they learn to behave' approach on its head?
    inspired by the place (in sweden, i think) which entered motorists who didn't speed into a raffle to win the fines of those caught speeding - how about we introduce a model where cycling and pedestrian infrastructure is paid for (but not exclusively) from the fines from motoring offences?
    so the more motorists misbehave, the more infrastructure is given to non-motorists.

    sounds fair, yes?


  • Options
    #43
    Arthur.beaker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 179 ✭✭Arthur.beaker


    eeguy wrote: »
    Sorry Timmy, you can't cycle your new bike because the tax disk didn't arrive :rolleyes:

    Exactly, teach them responsibility from a young age. Can't go wrong with that. :)


  • Options
    #44
    Arthur.beaker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 179 ✭✭Arthur.beaker


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    actually, why don't we turn the 'we should not give cyclists infrastructure until they learn to behave' approach on its head?
    inspired by the place (in sweden, i think) which entered motorists who didn't speed into a raffle to win the fines of those caught speeding - how about we introduce a model where cycling and pedestrian infrastructure is paid for (but not exclusively) from the fines from motoring offences?
    so the more motorists misbehave, the more infrastructure is given to non-motorists.

    sounds fair, yes?

    Will we also be punishing cyclists for cycling offences such as cycling on foot paths, wrong way on one way streets and breaking pedestrian crossing lights?


  • Options
    #45
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,833 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    Where the law permits, they already do.


  • Options
    #46
    Arthur.beaker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 179 ✭✭Arthur.beaker


    ThisRegard wrote: »
    Where the law permits, they already do.

    When caught, which is extremely rare.


  • Options
    #47
    Arthur.beaker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 179 ✭✭Arthur.beaker


    Deedsie wrote: »
    We already do have cycling fines for those things. AGS don't police it widely but the fines exist.

    But are rarely enforced.


  • Options
    #48
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,833 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    Arthur.beaker wrote: »
    When caught, which is extremely rare.

    And why is that the fault of cyclists? You see people doing illegal activities in all forms of transports on a daily basis, they all don't get caught either.


  • Options
    #49
    eeguy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,478 ✭✭✭eeguy


    Arthur.beaker wrote: »
    But are rarely enforced.

    They're probably as well enforced as motorist fines in fairness.

    On my 3k cycle home from work yesterday (where I didn't break any red lights), I saw 5 cars break red lights, two instances of cars stopped in a yellow box and in the latter incident a taxi mounted the kerb to get around the stopped car.

    No penalties for any of these lads.


  • Options
    #50
    ED E
    Registered Users Posts: 36,167 ✭✭✭✭ED E


    Arthur.beaker wrote: »
    But are rarely enforced.

    Just like parking in a Cycle Lane/Bus Corridor which is enforced only on the 5th tuesday of every month if the moon is at its fullest.


    Writing any roads legislation is pointless in this country as the traffic corps won't enforce it.


  • Options
    #51
    Arthur.beaker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 179 ✭✭Arthur.beaker


    ThisRegard wrote: »
    And why is that the fault of cyclists? You see people doing illegal activities in all forms of transports on a daily basis, they all don't get caught either.

    So it isn't the fault of cyclists that they break the law?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Arthur.beaker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 179 ✭✭Arthur.beaker


    ED E wrote: »
    Just like parking in a Cycle Lane/Bus Corridor which is enforced only on the 5th tuesday of every month if the moon is at its fullest.


    Writing any roads legislation is pointless in this country as the traffic corps won't enforce it.

    Why are we bringing up motoring offences in response to my posts? Where have I said that I am a motorist?


  • Options
    #53
    Arthur.beaker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 179 ✭✭Arthur.beaker


    eeguy wrote: »
    They're probably as well enforced as motorist fines in fairness.

    On my 3k cycle home from work yesterday (where I didn't break any red lights), I saw 5 cars break red lights, two instances of cars stopped in a yellow box and in the latter incident a taxi mounted the kerb to get around the stopped car.

    No penalties for any of these lads.

    How many cyclists did you see cycling on the path or breaking red lights?


  • Options
    #54
    Arthur.beaker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 179 ✭✭Arthur.beaker


    Deedsie wrote: »
    Similar to both motorists and cyclists in my experience.

    Relevance?


  • Options
    #55
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,536 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Arthur.beaker wrote: »
    Will we also be punishing cyclists for cycling offences such as cycling on foot paths, wrong way on one way streets and breaking pedestrian crossing lights?
    since it was my post which started this particular round of responses - i posted it tongue in cheek.
    as alluded to, i don't think the fines levied come close to the amount of money needing to be spent.


  • Options
    #56
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,833 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    Arthur.beaker wrote: »
    So it isn't the fault of cyclists that they break the law?

    You're predictable, I knew you'd immediately move your goal posts.


  • Options
    #57
    Arthur.beaker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 179 ✭✭Arthur.beaker


    ThisRegard wrote: »
    You're predictable, I knew you'd immediately move your goal posts.

    Just like you did. Toupe.


  • Options
    #58
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,833 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    Arthur.beaker wrote: »
    Just like you did. Toupe.

    I've a full head of hair thank you very much.

    But I don't think you quite understand the meaning of moving the goalposts to think I did such a thing.


  • Options
    #59
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,536 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    i'm sorry now i linked the idea of motoring offences to cycling infrastructure. i was just trying to be funny. can we rewind the thread, back to the other stupid debate about what motor tax means?


  • Options
    #60
    Cienciano
    Registered Users Posts: 14,294 ✭✭✭✭Cienciano


    I dislike the holier than thou cyclist as much as the next guy, but you can't deny that we need to improve cycling facilities. The whole "paint a red strip along a footpath and call it a cycling lane" thing needs to stop and proper infrastructure needs to be brought in. It seems like a competition to just say how many meters of cycle lane is included in your development so it's just done as an after thought now, or in a place it's not needed on some outer ring road. We need to spend money and do it right on the busy routes, and do it right. Not another half arsed job.
    secman wrote: »
    Must be true so if it's in the indo , the thought that it's bollocks never cross your mind ?

    It's an opinion piece by Ian O'Doherty designed to wind up cyclists. Judging by this thread, looks like it's working very well


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Arthur.beaker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 179 ✭✭Arthur.beaker


    ThisRegard wrote: »
    I've a full head of hair thank you very much.

    But I don't think you quite understand the meaning of moving the goalposts to think did such a thing.

    So bringing up other forms of transport as justification or to divert attention isn't moving goalposts? Why does every cyclist bring up motorists when cyclist rule breaking is brought up? Why can it not be discussed for what it is rather than muddying the water with references to motorists?


Advertisement