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

Campaign calls for cyclists to hold insurance, pay road tax

Options
1246

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    durtybit wrote: »
    Currently motorbikes dont need any test

    Someone let the press know!


  • Subscribers Posts: 41,642 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    how would this be implemented? clearly said means of identification would be much smaller than on a car, rendering it probably ineffective.

    Means of identification has already been suggested. it's this means of identification that I'm discussing here.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,367 ✭✭✭✭mickdw


    Unless it's the size of a car or motorbike number plate it would be ineffective. Peoples eyesight is bad when it comes to spotting cyclists as we know well. Also bikes would need one front and back. Number plates would possibly end up causing more damage to cars when filtering due to it being wider than the bike so another law would have to be changed to stop filtering and also the advance stop boxes would have to be removed to stop the temptation to filter. I can see exactly how this works now. :D
    Hence my idea of identifier displayed on back on high viz vest. No need for plates at all and one on the back is plenty. Any cyclist making his get away having caused damage will have his back to you unless he peddles off backwards.


  • Registered Users Posts: 935 ✭✭✭Roadhawk


    Unlike my previous views, I dont believe taxing cyclists is the way forward. Making road/motor tax applicable to them is completely counter productive and pointless.

    As for insurance...very simple...this should be optional.

    I do however feel that licensing by means of a mandatory theory test should apply. The training could be undertaking in secondary schools...perhaps transition year. The license should apply to anyone over that age of 16. It makes sense that all people using vehicles have the same level of training on how to use a road. Each cyclist should also be required to have their license on them for identification purposes in the event of being issued with a fixed penalty notice. Accountability is fundamental in improving behavior towards safety.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,538 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    mickdw wrote: »
    Hence my idea of identifier displayed on back on high viz vest. No need for plates at all and one on the back is plenty. Any cyclist making his get away having caused damage will have his back to you unless he peddles off backwards.

    And how often does it happen? Weigh up the pros and cons


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 20,522 Mod ✭✭✭✭Weepsie


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    Means of identification has already been suggested. it's this means of identification that I'm discussing here.

    Vehicle Reg plates are not merely for identifying the driver. Stolen cars, VRT, Insurance, Government Vehivles, Defence forces, Import cars. They serve a few functions and not merely for the benefit of someone who may be in an accident.

    This seems to be just a case of wanting to be able to identify someone, which if the case, every body, on foot, on bus, on car, on boat should be forced to wear some form of identifying number.

    Now if you're happy to live in some type of Orwellian dystopian world (we may already be), have at, but it's a silly idea.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,769 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    terrydel wrote: »
    Is there any other country on the planet where this issue is even discussed, or seen as viable?

    Switzerland had bicycle registration for a few decades but they got rid of it a few years back. Don't think anyone else ever had it.

    New South Wales makes cyclists carry ID, but it's motivated mostly out of spite, as far as I can see, rather than addressing any particular problem.


  • Registered Users Posts: 935 ✭✭✭Roadhawk


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    New South Wales makes cyclists carry ID, but it's motivated mostly out of spite, as far as I can see, rather than addressing any particular problem.

    Spite of what? Surely the cyclists only needs to produce an ID to officials such as the Police. Without ID there is nothing stopping the cyclists giving false details. Is having an ID too much to ask?


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,769 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    It's pretty much an attempt to suppress the number of cyclists (it came in train with a massive increase in fines), which isn't large to begin with. New South Wales is, allegedly, the worst place in the developed world to cycle, and they're keen to build on that.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,618 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Roadhawk wrote: »
    Spite of what? Surely the cyclists only needs to produce an ID to officials such as the Police. Without ID there is nothing stopping the cyclists giving false details. Is having an ID too much to ask?
    the gardai have the legal power to confiscate the bike if they believe a cyclist is given false details, IIRC.

    are there any other pursuits where you have a legal requirement to carry ID? not including driving, as driving requires a licence, so the requirement is more to carry proof you are qualified to drive, rather than a requirement to prove your identity AFAIK.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Roadhawk wrote: »
    Spite of what? Surely the cyclists only needs to produce an ID to officials such as the Police. Without ID there is nothing stopping the cyclists giving false details. Is having an ID too much to ask?

    Likewise pedestrians - if cyclists, to aid the enforcement of road traffic legislation, are to be required to carry ID, why not pedestrians? I'd suggest they infringe more parts of the legislation more often than any other class of road user.

    Plus as the ongoing points fiasco shows, making a class of road user carry id, even to prove their competency to operate their vehicle, is no guarantee of anything.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,660 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Has the size of the problem actually been calculated?

    I mean, in my experience there are clearly aholes on bikes out there (with me possibly being one on occasion!) but we are talking about implementing a massive bureaucratic system to get fit all bikes with numbers plates and/or force all cyclists to wear personalised clothing with numbers on the back.

    On top of that a whole new industry around cycling insurance needs to be developed, which will have to be new as we can see from the massive price rises in motor insurance that the current one is not fit for purpose.

    We then need to bring in new legislation to make it an offence to be without either insurance or reg numbers and then set aside a system on which to adequately police that such that is it actually a deterrent rather than just another piece of useless legislation. Together with the large cost involved in actually framing the legislation, the civil servants time, dail time etc you then have the additional expense of the obligatory Supreme Court case taken to tackle the new legislation.

    That is quite a bit of time and money, and I have not seen the extent of the problem it is supposed to resolve. For that is the bottom line. There are plenty of things that we should fix in society, but there simply is not the political will to spend the time and money to resolve it. You need to put forward the social case.

    A few stories about wing mirrors and scratched panels isn’t going to be enough.

    So, what are the statistics?


  • Registered Users Posts: 935 ✭✭✭Roadhawk


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    It's pretty much an attempt to suppress the number of cyclists (it came in train with a massive increase in fines), which isn't large to begin with. New South Wales is, allegedly, the worst place in the developed world to cycle, and they're keen to build on that.

    I dont think this law was designed to suppress the number of cyclists directly. It may have that adverse effect but as far as google has shown me there seems to be a lot of fines governing cyclists in New South Wales. If there is a need for fines there is clearly a problem...they have a €300 fine for jumping red lights. I can only assume that they are making the ID mandatory as a response to cyclists getting away with not paying fines. I could be wrong...


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,393 ✭✭✭Grassey


    mickdw wrote: »
    Hence my idea of identifier displayed on back on high viz vest. No need for plates at all and one on the back is plenty. Any cyclist making his get away having caused damage will have his back to you unless he peddles off backwards.

    So compulsory high-vis for all non-car drivers also as part of this?

    Does the high-vis go over or under backpacks?
    Does high-vis serve any benefit? Currently drivers appear unable to see it, so expecting them to read text/numbers is a bit of a stretch no?


  • Registered Users Posts: 935 ✭✭✭Roadhawk


    the gardai have the legal power to confiscate the bike if they believe a cyclist is given false details, IIRC.

    are there any other pursuits where you have a legal requirement to carry ID? not including driving, as driving requires a licence, so the requirement is more to carry proof you are qualified to drive, rather than a requirement to prove your identity AFAIK.

    Yes but the Gardai usually dont confiscate bikes due to a number of reasons like lack of storage space at the station, responsibility whilst confiscated and the works that goes with processing a confiscated article.

    My point is to include cyclists, as vehicle users, in the licensing categories with other vehicle users. Showing that they have the savvy to use the roads aswell as identifying offenders when required.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,769 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    Roadhawk wrote: »
    I dont think this law was designed to suppress the number of cyclists directly. It may have that adverse effect but as far as google has shown me there seems to be a lot of fines governing cyclists in New South Wales. If there is a need for fines there is clearly a problem...they have a €300 fine for jumping red lights. I can only assume that they are making the ID mandatory as a response to cyclists getting away with not paying fines. I could be wrong...

    I have never been to NSW so I'm loth to opine too strongly on it. Except that ID laws extended to cyclists should also be extended to pedestrians, if they're intended to stop law-breaking, rather than make cyclists life as much a hassle as motorists'.

    The fines are preposterous too. They completely ignore the principle of proportionality.

    This guy has been to NSW:
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2016/jul/28/roundabout-arguments-cant-disguise-sydneys-cycling-laws-are-taking-the-public-for-a-ride
    Are cyclists feeling much safer? It’s fair to say the impact has been mixed. In May it turned out that while police had by then energetically handed out 1,500 of the new fines to cyclists, mainly over helmet use, just four motorists had felt the force of the law for close overtakes. There were also reports of overzealous enforcement of the rules, including a dangerous cycling citation for someone trackstanding at a red light.


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    If the Guards say they've serious problems identifying miscreant cyclists and pedestrians, then mandatory ID may be worth considering.

    If they don't have a problem, then its a waste of time and taxpayers' money.


  • Registered Users Posts: 935 ✭✭✭Roadhawk


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Likewise pedestrians - if cyclists, to aid the enforcement of road traffic legislation, are to be required to carry ID, why not pedestrians?

    Well the difference here is quite noticeable. A cyclist is in control of a vehicle and therefore should be licensed. Pedestrians are not in control of any vehicle and therefore should be exempt.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,769 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    Roadhawk wrote: »
    My point is to include cyclists, as vehicle users, in the licensing categories with other vehicle users. Showing that they have the savvy to use the roads aswell as identifying offenders when required.

    If I understand you, cyclists should have a licence, like a driving licence?

    Nowhere does it, or will do it, not even Australia (NSW looked into that, and it was too much effort even for them).


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,769 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    ID laws often end up as a handy pretext for harassing minorities too.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,504 ✭✭✭✭DirkVoodoo


    Roadhawk wrote: »
    Well the difference here is quite noticeable. A cyclist is in control of a vehicle and therefore should be licensed. Pedestrians are not in control of any vehicle and therefore should be exempt.

    What about scooters? The little foot powered ones?

    Licensing for something that is incredibly powerful, big and proven to cause a lot of death and destruction, makes sense. Guns, cars, etc.

    Licensing something that, in general, produces the same power as a light bulb is ridiculous. And doing it because people don't like the idea of bikes riding through traffic is even more so.


  • Registered Users Posts: 935 ✭✭✭Roadhawk


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Has the size of the problem actually been calculated?... So, what are the statistics?

    Cyclists as a main/regular mode of transport is the only vehicle group that does not require a license...how is this sane?


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,769 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    Roadhawk wrote: »
    Cyclists as a main/regular mode of transport is the only vehicle group that does not require a license...how is this sane?

    You're implying that the way things are done in every country in the world is insane, including the countries with excellent crime and road safety statistics.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 27,833 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    Roadhawk wrote: »
    Pedestrians are not in control of any vehicle and therefore should be exempt.

    But wouldn't it be easier to track a pedestrian down that assaulted someone, or stole something, if they have mandatory yellow clothing with a unique number? I believe this happens more regularly than someone on a bike causing an accident and leaving the scene


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 20,522 Mod ✭✭✭✭Weepsie


    Roadhawk wrote: »
    Well the difference here is quite noticeable. A cyclist is in control of a vehicle and therefore should be licensed. Pedestrians are not in control of any vehicle and therefore should be exempt.

    Are you going to require them for people on scooters (there's an increasing amount of adults on them), people on skate boards, people on roller blades?


    You only need to do a theory test to legally drive a car, it doesn't prove any ability or competence in driving, so what is the point in one for people on bikes as there is no adequate explanation here, or anywhere else.

    Cycling a bike is incredibly easy for any able bodied person. Driving a car may not be. The licensing is about competence as much as the ROTR if not moreso.

    It also misses the point that an awful lot of cyclists are also fully licensed drivers.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    Roadhawk wrote: »
    Cyclists as a main/regular mode of transport is the only vehicle group that does not require a license...how is this sane?
    Because bikes are the only vehicle group that can be used by a 2 year old?
    How would you license someone aged 2?
    How would you deal with them cycling without a license?

    The law defines a pedal cycle as either a pedal bicycle or pedal tricycle
    and defines a pedal bicycle as
    rta61, S3 wrote:
    pedal bicycle means a bicycle which is intended or adapted for propulsion solely by the physical exertions of a person or persons seated thereon

    Which includes balance bikes.


  • Registered Users Posts: 658 ✭✭✭Johnny Jukebox


    mickdw wrote: »
    Hence my idea of identifier displayed on back on high viz vest. No need for plates at all and one on the back is plenty. Any cyclist making his get away having caused damage will have his back to you unless he peddles off backwards.

    Yes Mick, you're right. Like a big yellow star with a number on it.

    Because remember how that worked out last time...


  • Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,727 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭hullaballoo


    I'm not sure about compulsory insurance for everyone who ever gets on a bike (little Johnny can cycle around the green uninsured all he wants!) but surely it's a good idea for those using public roads?

    What happens when a cyclist causes their own injuries at present? They cover the costs themselves, right? What happens if the injury is catastrophic, like a broken back? This sort of thing costs multiple millions over a lifetime, impossible for most individuals to cover.

    What happens when a cyclist causes an accident between two cars? The cyclist is at fault and the legal system requires the party who is to blame to be held responsible but at present, the car drivers' insurers have to do battle to see who of the two victims is the least victim-y.

    What happens when a cyclist causes a catastrophic injury to a pedestrian?


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,660 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Roadhawk wrote: »
    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Has the size of the problem actually been calculated?... So, what are the statistics?

    Cyclists as a main/regular mode of transport is the only vehicle group that does not require a license...how is this sane?

    Ok, so you pointed out the fact that cyclists don't need a licence. Not sure how many people didn't know that but thanks for clearing it up.

    Now, why do you think they should have a licence? Simply saying others do is pointless as that assumes that the reasons for motorists requiring licences is the same.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,769 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    The current system (which is geographically widespread to the point of being universal) isn't based on the utter impossibility of a cyclist causing harm to others. It's based on the likelihood of that happening, which is small. People in charge of cars, on the other hand, have a very much larger likelihood, so they're treated differently.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement