Unpopular Opinions - OP Updated with Threadban List 4/5/21

JimmyVik

FileNotFound wrote: »

Many lycra wearing cyclists actively compete in racing or Tri so are actually athletes. :D:D

Come on be honest. 90% of the people down the cycling club are not athletes or competing in triathalon. And the races we compete in, you can hardly be called an athlete for competing in them.

85603

Cyclists should be taxed a small amount for the use of public roads, and paths.

Just as e-sccoters should be.

Its only fair.

The Raging Bile Duct

My brother's a friend with a Freeman of Ireland type on Facebook who rants about the sheeple obeying the corporate enforcers (the Garda) and wearing masks during this scandemic. He blames fluoridation for the meekness of the Irish and fights everybody he can about not wearing a mask in public areas because he is 'exempt on medical grounds' and then goes on about GDPR and data protection if anyone challenges him on this. This all gets wrapped up in images of the brave men and women of 1916. Oh and chemtrails make an appearance as well.

He's an absolute tool but I can't help doomscrolling his facebook page every couple of days and being fascinated by the absolute bilge he believes in and the amount of idiots that are out there that support him.

FileNotFound

85603 wrote: »

Cyclists should be taxed a small amount for the use of public roads, and paths.

Just as e-sccoters should be.

Its only fair.

If you charge road tax then you automatically give permission for cyclists and scooters to take the middle of the road they equally pay for.

Then you would have to obey overtaking rules accordingly.


Otherwise you are asking for a group to pay for the road and then tell them to use a path????


I'd rather cyclists not pay and stay in the cycle paths.

FileNotFound

JimmyVik wrote: »

Come on be honest. 90% of the people down the cycling club are not athletes or competing in triathalon. And the races we compete in, you can hardly be called an athlete for competing in them.

That would be just plain incorrect now.. Being as the definition of an athlete is:

A person who has undertaken training or exercises to become proficient in physical activities such as competitive sports

So by definition they are athletes. Even if the level of competition is abysmal. :D:D

freshpopcorn

Jeremy Sproket wrote: »

If a person is found to be speeding in the lead up to an accident, they and they alone should be held accountable regardless of what happened.

So if Sally and Gail are driving down to London on the M6 they are overtaking traffic in lane 3 and are breaking the speed limits by 8mph.
Audrey gets confused and drives the wrong way down the motorway and crashes into Sally and Gail.
Is Audrey correct because she wasn’t speeding?

JimmyVik

FileNotFound wrote: »

That would be just plain incorrect now.. Being as the definition of an athlete is:

A person who has undertaken training or exercises to become proficient in physical activities such as competitive sports

So by definition they are athletes. Even if the level of competition is abysmal. :D:D

See what i mean

cnocbui

Vehicle taxation should be solely on the weight of the vehicle, not on whether it's private or commercial or it's energy source.

Damage to roads is a whopping 4th power relationship by weight - meaning a lightly taxed, but heavy, Tesla LR does 4.3 times as much damage to a road as say a 1285 Kg petrol driven hatch back. But the Tesla will be taxed 1/6th as much in road tax, which is based on emissions.

A large Semi truck will do as much damage to a road as 9,600 cars.

The weight of a vehicle also makes a massive difference in terms of societal cost due to injuries in vehicle accidents, with drivers of heavier vehicles reducing their own level of injuries if they collide with a lighter vehicle, while worsening the injuries - or killing - those in the lighter vehicle.

It's beyond weird that governments seem to see no moral hazard to allowing heavy vehicle drivers to basically transfer their share of personal injury and deaths to people in lighter vehicles, with no consequence or cost. In the US, it's basically a vehicle weight and size arms race, which has lead to 'trucks' being the most popular vehicle segment. You even have a few utter loons here in Ireland who are champing at the bit to import and drive 4,550Kg Tesla Cybertrucks - a guaranteed death sentence for almost any other motorist involved in anything but a minor collision with one.

Taxing vehicles by their weight would be more appropriate than by their emissions.

The Raging Bile Duct

cnocbui wrote: »

Vehicle taxation should be solely on the weight of the vehicle, not on whether it's private or commercial or it's energy source.

Damage to roads is a whopping 4th power relationship by weight - meaning a lightly taxed, but heavy, Tesla LR does 4.3 times as much damage to a road as say a 1285 Kg petrol driven hatch back. But the Tesla will be taxed 1/6th as much in road tax, which is based on emissions.

A large Semi truck will do as much damage to a road as 9,600 cars.

The weight of a vehicle also makes a massive difference in terms of societal cost due to injuries in vehicle accidents, with drivers of heavier vehicles reducing their own level of injuries if they collide with a lighter vehicle, while worsening the injuries - or killing - those in the lighter vehicle.

It's beyond weird that governments seem to see no moral hazard to allowing heavy vehicle drivers to basically transfer their share of personal injury and deaths to people in lighter vehicles, with no consequence or cost. In the US, it's basically a vehicle weight and size arms race, which has lead to 'trucks' being the most popular vehicle segment. You even have a few utter loons here in Ireland who are champing at the bit to import and drive 4,550Kg Tesla Cybertrucks - a guaranteed death sentence for almost any other motorist involved in anything but a minor collision with one.

Taxing vehicles by their weight would be more appropriate than by their emissions.

The problem with that is the cost of transporting goods absolutely skyrockets and hits everybody in the pocket.

magicbastarder

there's a balance to be struck there between the maximum weight the vehicle can carry, versus the actual weight of the vehicle
for the tesla (i did not know it weighed that much), the vehicle itself *vastly* outweighs its expected payload. for a truck carrying 20 tons of veg, the payload considerably outweighs the vehicle.

maybe that could be used as a metric. the tesla can carry passengers weighing maybe 10% of its weight, but a delivery truck can carry a load four times its weight. so the tesla has its road tax weighted 40 times more than the delivery truck, because its actual utility is one fortieth that of the delivery truck.

Stihl waters

The Raging Bile Duct wrote: »

doomscrolling his facebook

What?

EDit

freshpopcorn wrote: »

So if Sally and Gail are driving down to London on the M6 they are overtaking traffic in lane 3 and are breaking the speed limits by 8mph.
Audrey gets confused and drives the wrong way down the motorway and crashes into Sally and Gail.
Is Audrey correct because she wasn’t speeding?

Is this a plot from Coronation Street?

The Raging Bile Duct

The Raging Bile Duct wrote: »

My brother's a friend with a Freeman of Ireland type on Facebook who rants about the sheeple obeying the corporate enforcers (the Garda) and wearing masks during this scandemic. He blames fluoridation for the meekness of the Irish and fights everybody he can about not wearing a mask in public areas because he is 'exempt on medical grounds' and then goes on about GDPR and data protection if anyone challenges him on this. This all gets wrapped up in images of the brave men and women of 1916. Oh and chemtrails make an appearance as well.

He's an absolute tool but I can't help doomscrolling his facebook page every couple of days and being fascinated by the absolute bilge he believes in and the amount of idiots that are out there that support him.

Come on now! Freemen, fluoride and chemtrails? 2010 called and wants its conspiracies back.

Stihl waters

freshpopcorn wrote: »

So if Sally and Gail are driving down to London on the M6 they are overtaking traffic in lane 3 and are breaking the speed limits by 8mph.
Audrey gets confused and drives the wrong way down the motorway and crashes into Sally and Gail.
Is Audrey correct because she wasn’t speeding?

By their logic, yes, it's a pretty bomb proof theory tbf

suicide_circus

The Raging Bile Duct wrote: »

doomscrolling his facebook page .

Stihl waters wrote: »

What?

The Raging Bile Duct

Stihl waters wrote: »

What?

Continually scrolling through bad story after bad story and concentrating on the negative on social media even though it's no good for your mental health.

It is melting my head knowing many absolute loolahs are out there that believe that scutter but it's kind of hypnotic as well.

The Raging Bile Duct

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Come on now! Freemen, fluoride and chemtrails? 2010 called and wants its conspiracies back.

They never went away you know...

magicbastarder

JimmyVik wrote: »

Come on be honest. 90% of the people down the cycling club are not athletes or competing in triathalon. And the races we compete in, you can hardly be called an athlete for competing in them.

ah here, this is the thread for *unpopular* opinions. if you don't get significant pushback, you're in the wrong thread.

castletownman

Jeremy Sproket wrote: »

If a person is found to be speeding in the lead up to an accident, they and they alone should be held accountable regardless of what happened.

I would hazard a guess that slow drivers are just as accountable for causing crashes, as they tend to cause frustration in someone caught behind them.

Most rationale people don't intend to drive over the speed-limit or try risky over-taking (those that do it deliberately are a different story), but if your caught behind someone crawling well BELOW the speed limit and are late to wherever your going, mistakes can happen.

I think there should be a minimum speed limit on certain sections/types of roads. I mean I've seen an ould one pottering along on the M50 and cars zig-zagging around lanes to overtake. If L plates and tractors aren't allowed on motorways, there should be a certain standard of driving too.

nullzero

FileNotFound wrote: »

Many lycra wearing cyclists actively compete in racing or Tri so are actually athletes. :D:D

By that logic every fat auld fella playing 5 a side astro league is a professional footballer.

freshpopcorn

If you knowingly and willingly get into a car with a drunk/drug driver or an over crowded car, etc.
You should receive points, fine, maybe even a driving ban.

Antares35

I don't understand why people who have twins get 1.5 times the normal child benefit rate for each child for a full 18 years (or longer). I can understand that there's more initial outlay expense at the beginning, but after a year or two, what's the difference between having two X 2 year olds and a 2 and 3 year old?

Antares35

freshpopcorn wrote: »

If you knowingly and willingly get into a car with a drunk/drug driver or an over crowded car, etc.
You should receive points, fine, maybe even a driving ban.

Would this be considered to be "contributory negligence"? I know some awards can be reduced if say, you aren't wearing a seatbelt at the time. Proper order too.

freshpopcorn

Antares35 wrote: »

Would this be considered to be "contributory negligence"? I know some awards can be reduced if say, you aren't wearing a seatbelt at the time. Proper order too.

I don't know.
There was a case a few years ago and two women and a fella spent a good while in the pub. The fella drove them home and crashed. He was wearing a seatbelt and was fine but they were thrown from the car and died.
Now what happened was wrong and they guy should have being jailed but there was no real mention of them being an way at fault.
Some people would consider it victim blaming I suppose.

Antares35

Antares35 wrote: »

I don't understand why people who have twins get 1.5 times the normal child benefit rate for each child for a full 18 years (or longer). I can understand that there's more initial outlay expense at the beginning, but after a year or two, what's the difference between having two X 2 year olds and a 2 and 3 year old?

A 2 and a 3 year old is a choice. Twins is a massive financial shock. And that year gap means a lot of hand me downs, but you can't do that with twins.

Bit of a waste of time to even have an opinion on it considering how rare twins are.

Antares35

[Deleted User] wrote: »

A 2 and a 3 year old is a choice. Twins is a massive financial shock. And that year gap means a lot of hand me downs, but you can't do that with twins.

Bit of a waste of time to even have an opinion on it considering how rare twins are.

The fact that it's a choice to have them a year apart doesn't make is easier though, which is the aim of the benefit. I'm not judging anybody's choice.

And why is an opinion a waste of time? It's the unpopular opinion thread FFS.

Antares35

Antares35 wrote: »

The fact that it's a choice to have them a year apart doesn't make is easier though, which is the aim of the benefit. I'm not judging anybody's choice.

And why is an opinion a waste of time? It's the unpopular opinion thread FFS.

It is easier financially to have a year's gap between children. And people don't plan for twins so it is an economic shock.

I'd say your opinion is uncommon, not unpopular. Based on 2016 births in Ireland, the measure increases child benefit expenditure by the state by 1.86%.

Antares35

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It is easier financially to have a year's gap between children. And people don't plan for twins so it is an economic shock.

I'd say your opinion is uncommon, not unpopular. Based on 2016 births in Ireland, the measure increases child benefit expenditure by the state by 1.86%.

How? Even a year apart, while one is still in a buggy, you need to get a travel system - a double of course and unless you planned the second, you will be starting from scratch. Second babies can be unplanned too and as much of a shock fyi!. There's also another car seat, another cot. Your first baby doesn't magically stop needing these things after 12 months. Plus my post specifically recognised that it's not especially the first year where I don't get the rationale for the extra payment, but rather the 17 years after that. How is a twin pregnancy still an economic shock for the next 17 years? Really what is the financial difference when they are past baby stage?

There was some rumblings about doing away with it a few years ago, so I'm not alone in my thinking. It didn't come to pass. I don't really care either way, and in my mind there are far worse things they blow money on - child benefit is still relatively low - it's just an opinion

I can't believe I'm having a debate about this. If you plan your finances around one child, and then you find out you're having two, that is a financial shock. Any brief look around the internet will show parents confirming that especially in the early years, it is more expensive than two separate children.

No hand me downs of clothes or things like bottles. First day of school. Books. Birthday presents. Any class trip. Any new hobby. Any sports event. First communion and confirmation. Grinds. Driving lessons. Debs. Moving to university.

Tonnes of expensive things happen at the same time if you have twins. No one plans for it.

Antares35

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Driving lessons. Debs. Moving to university.

Tonnes of expensive things happen at the same time if you have twins. No one plans for it.

You realise that parents of children a year apart also have these expenses?? There's one year where you have two kids starting school at the same time, after that the back to school expenses are still doubled for 12 years. You can't "hand me down" a school trip or a communion.

Tonnes of expensive things also happen if you plan your finances around one, and three months later find out you're expecting again. Maybe you think those people don't deserve the same help.