Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

SeanW

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Doesn't matter what's in the link. There is no road tax in Ireland. That's the law.

The Irish Motor Tax system still meets the dictionary definition of a road tax. Bitch about it all you want, it will still be true.

You know that your opinion on speed limits doesn't count for anything. That's how speed limits work, they apply to everyone, regardless of their opinion.
But it's fascinating to see your flexibility around speeding by motorists (one of the top three causes of road deaths) compared to your zero tolerance attitudes to cyclists.

The fact that you have "urban" speed zones in the middle of nowhere gives me reason to question the relevance of your 98% figure. But like I said, I'll be more than happy to take a lecture on obeying "urban" speed limits from cyclists when they stop breaking every law in the book as a matter of routine.

By showing you that making up your own names for things doesn't change what those things are.

I didn't "make up" anything. People have probably been calling it "road tax" since before I was born.

At a guess, the reason might have something to do with being hit by a tonne or two of metal.

But you haven't explained the increase. Did Irish motorists get 100% worse over the past year?

Oh, wait, I thought that's how things worked round here? When you see a road death, you automatically spew out 'hi-vis' as the solution, regardless of what happened? Is that not the SOP here?

The ****? Where did I suggest anything of the sort? I suggested that you should err on the side of being more visible not less in a variety of contexts, including things like hi-vis. Because you're sharing the road with other people and it's a good idea to be as visible as possible, given that your bicycle is small and generally does not have the same lighting arrangements as a car.

Are you sure that hi-vis wouldn't not have helped in any of those crashes?

3 of the 4 cases involved drivers that quite simply should not have been on the road. In the fourth case, there's not enough information.

Hurrache

Motor tax.

Pinch Flat

Hurrache wrote: »

Motor tax.

https://www.motortax.ie/OMT/

Had to go on and check if the name had been changed since I taxed the new car in March. Yep, motor tax.

Seth Brundle

SeanW wrote: »

The Irish Motor Tax system still meets the dictionary definition of a road tax. Bitch about it all you want, it will still be true.

Exactly what dictionary would that be then?

Zebra3

SeanW wrote: »

And I'm going to keep calling the tax I pay on road usage "road tax" and I'm going to keep calling accidental collisions "accidents" and if you don't like it, you take a long walk off a short pier.

"Correct" me all you want.

There are, however, very, very few accidental collisions.

ewc78

magicbastarder wrote: »

you seem angry, maybe you should go for a cycle to work that tension out.
.

Yeah it's what all the cool people do...;)

average_runner

meeeeh wrote: »

I hope you need it for work because otherwise you bought a bucket on four wheels that handles like a pig just because you don't want to be outdone on school run.

I have a SUV, it's great for the dog and camping.
Have a exodus bike rack on the tow bar.

Dont use the SuV for school run, usually walk the kids as e silly to drive to.a school.

micar

SeanW wrote: »

And I'm going to keep calling the tax I pay on road usage "road tax" and I'm going to keep calling accidental collisions "accidents" and if you don't like it, you take a long walk off a short pier.

"Correct" me all you want.

You can call it "road tax" all you want. I couldn't careless.

You're not alone there. Many adverts by car dealerships ca it road tax.

Ultimately, they and you are wrong.

This is from cartell.ie

"According to the Minister for Environment, Heritage, Local Government John Gormley has stated that motor tax receipts are paid directly into the local government fund which is ring fenced for local government purposes.

Each year the motor tax receipts are supplemented by an exchequer contribution. The fund is used primarily to finance regional and local roads and the general purpose needs of local authorities.

In 2008 motor tax receipts were circa €1.1 billion and this was subsidised by circa €500 million or 30% by the exchequer. The local government fund of €26,442,599 didn’t cover that.

However KCC was to be granted €12,430,978 by the National Roads Authority and central government. It also had to be funded €3,616,169 in parking fees fines and agency services and repayable works.

So the total road transport budget which KCC could have used was €42,489,746.

Therefore €11,297,686 was to be used on other non road related expenditure.

However around €8m of the local government fund was from central government and not from road tax."

Now, I'm off to Homebase in my car which is insured, taxed and filled with petrol.

Pinch Flat

Ah look road tax is trotted out in these arguments all the time. Those with their motoring blinkers on like to think of it as a subscription to some sort of club with the childish belief being that they paid this tax, therefore those who don't shouldn't be on their roads that they've paid for. It's incredible really

Duckjob

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Ah look road tax is trotted out in these arguments all the tines. Those with their motoring blinkers on like to think if it as a subscription to some sort of club with the childish belief being that they paid this tax, therefore those who don't shouldn't be on their roads that they've paid for. It's incredible really

And to top it off, those same people tend to be the ones that throw out the "entitled"slur most loudly at others. Talk about projecting....

average_runner

So am I right in saying some people believe you shouldn't use the road unless you pay road tax(normal folk motor tax)

So what about pedestrians that uses the road? Should they stop also?

Also ambulances dont pay motor tax, should they stop?

Stark

Trying to dig out the hard data (seen it posted a few times) but motoring in Ireland is very heavily subsidised from the general taxation pot (which is where all taxes end up, no such thing as ring-fenced taxes in Ireland). The poxy little 200 euro a year that most people pay through motor tax, as well as fuel excise and whatever doesn't even come close to paying for the roads. Despite all the "hard pressed motorist cash cow" rhetoric.

The whole argument is as moronic as saying only smokers and fizzy drinks tax payers should get to use hospitals.

Edit: I see micar posted some high level figures. There was another more detailed document I'm looking for which is even more damning and weighed up the full economic costs of private motor transport. (Cycling on the other hand was a significant net benefit to the economy).

Pinch Flat

There's about 20 odd category of road users that don't pay "road tax". https://www.vrt.ie/faq/vehicles-exempt-irish-motor-tax/

Includes garda cars. Don't see to many going around blowing their horns at garda cars for holding them up.

AndrewJRenko

ewc78 wrote: »

Yeah it's what all the cool people do...;)

Oooh, oooh, the guilt by association game. Can I play too?

SeanW wrote: »

The Irish Motor Tax system still meets the dictionary definition of a road tax. Bitch about it all you want, it will still be true.

Would you like someone to explain the difference to you between 'a road tax' and 'Road Tax'?

There is no Road Tax in ireland.

SeanW wrote: »

The fact that you have "urban" speed zones in the middle of nowhere gives me reason to question the relevance of your 98% figure.

You're entitled to question. You're not entitled (as 98% of motorists seem to think) to break the law for your own convenience or because you're a crap driver or because you get a little hard-on whenever you do the zoom zoom thing. You're not entitled to break the law, regardless of your questions.

SeanW wrote: »

But like I said, I'll be more than happy to take a lecture on obeying "urban" speed limits from cyclists when they stop breaking every law in the book as a matter of routine.

You're not getting a lecture from 'cyclists'. You're getting a lecture from me, one cyclist. I don't break every law in the book as a matter of routine.

So now you're ready to listen to the lecture, right?

SeanW wrote: »

I didn't "make up" anything. People have probably been calling it "road tax" since before I was born.

Indeed, people have. But there is no Road Tax in Irish law now. Names change, when legislation changes in this case.

Have you tried walking into Quinnsworth to buy an Marathon bar and a bottle of Jif creme and a packed of Opal Fruits and a tub of Oil of Ulay for your missus recently? You could pay for it all with your National Irish Bank Laser card, and give your missus a call on the way home from your Esat Digifone to tell her you're on the way.

Names change.

SeanW wrote: »

But you haven't explained the increase. Did Irish motorists get 100% worse over the past year?

Personally I prefer not to jump to conclusions without evidence, as the inquests into those cases haven't yet been reported. But at a guess, some motorists decided that the lockdown was a great time to play zoom zoom on public roads, and ended up killing people as a result.

AndrewJRenko

Spook_ie wrote: »

Once again I said " Black or Burgandy or Navy Enviroment" it's a grammatically correct sentence not some source of Boolean logic where you can take seperate parts of it and de-contextualize parts of the sentence.

Actually, that’s not what you said. What you said was; “Black, Burgandy or Navy Enviroment” (one OR, not two ORs) – but it’s good of you to confirm that what you meant was ‘Black or Burgandy or Blue Environment’.
And yes, given that it is an OR statement, I can take individual parts out without changing the meaning. I can take one or two out of three options, and reflect it as your position. It’s not a 100% complete representation of your position, but it is a 100% accurate representation of your position – that hi-vis for cars would help in blue or black environments, such as those we see around us at hight time.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Pretty much the same as hi viz on cyclists when not cycling, maybe you'd get a kick out of it but I see no reason when you've parked your bike and gone to bed for you to wear it, maybe if you've gone over all pedestrian and are walking along the road after a puncture or something yeah but not in bed. If they are reading this then yes if you're getting out of your car to offload luggage make sure you can be seen and if necessary wear the high viz jacket in your emergency kit, as to mandatory Hi Viz I think you're the first to mention mandatory I haven't, only that I find it much easier to distinguish pedestrians and cyclists when they're wearing Hi Viz and would prefer it if they wore it.

I suppose the key difference here is that I don’t park my bike on public roads when I go to bed, so the comparison doesn’t really hold. But why don’t you direct your campaign at your fellow taxi drivers, getting them to hi-vis up every time they step out of the car, or indeed at all motorists, getting them to hi-vis up for their walk to/from your car? You do really believe in this hi-vis thing, don’t you?

Spook_ie wrote: »

We back onto your fantasy voyage of what I didn't say, twice in the same post

No fantasy – your words are clear and specific, and confirm that hi-vis for cars would be beneficial in blue or black environments, such as night time.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Not really, but you should look at yourself more often and think "Hmmm that probably applies to AJR, as well "

Do you think that being slightly more wordy in your Bart Simpson approach gives it any more credibility? [It doesn’t]

Spook_ie wrote: »

You're right I did make the assumption that you wouldn't have deleted any photographs or video you'd have of them if you'd reported them, so did you report them?

You know what they say about ASSumptions, right? And more of the questions, why you still fail to answer mine? That’s some neck you have.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Nope but given that the capacity for PT has been slashed and we now have ( June 8th ) a greater return to work are they still parking there, no is the time we need social distancing on the general footpaths, not the previous 3 months when most people should have been staying at home.

People should not have been ‘staying at home’. People should have been exercising to keep up their health and fitness to put them in the best position to fight the virus if it did come knocking. Given the 2km limit at the time, for most people this exercise meant walking or running – on footpaths, right? So having ten tonnes of bus parked up on the footpath or cycle path, sometimes with the engine idling doesn’t create an environment conducive to exercise.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Why the twitter about a lorry under a bridge?

I just thought you might apply your hi-vis logic that you apply to pedestrians and cyclists to bridges also. Should we add even more hi-vis to bridges to stop drivers driving into them regularly?

Spook_ie wrote: »

Would be less of them if we didn't have criminals trying to make reckless get aways, or people drink driving Hi Viz in any shape or form won't prevent those accidents, and you're the one that selected those reports, I just happen to read them rather than rely on your interpretation.

So hi-vis won’t prevent those collisions, but it will prevent collisions for cyclists and pedestrians? How did you work that out?

Spook_ie wrote: »

I must see if I can root out some old videos of cyclists without Hi Viz or Lights and compare them to vids of cars without Hi Viz or lights and see which ones are visible from the greater distance, especially at night time which is when reflected light comes into it's own Did I not answer this already in this post, can you try and tidy your posts up so I'm not having to repeat myself so often in the same post

You can root all you like, but it doesn’t answer the question I’m asking. The question isn’t ‘which one is more visible, cyclists or cars’. The question is ‘which is more visible, cars with hi-vis or cars without hi-vis’? Have you got any videos to answer that one?

Spook_ie wrote: »

Which would you sooner be assaulted with then an AK47 or a bladed weapon, both can kill you

I reckon I’d have a better chance of coming out alive against a Swiss army knife, which is why the laws around them are very different to the laws around AK47s. Which would you prefer to be assaulted by?

Spook_ie wrote: »

WTF definite deja vu here but again check how the grammar would have needed to change to make it read correctly

Black or Burgandy or Navy environment
Black and Burgandy and Navy environment

See above. OR not AND.

Spook_ie

Road Tax and Motor Tax are interchangeable terms for the same thing.

Arguments about Motor Tax not equating to a tax to use the roads are disingenuous, it's not a Motor Tax just because it's called a Motor Tax. Unless the "motor" is parked on a public road or other public place then you don't need "Motor Tax" therefore it's a tax for a motor to be used in a public place or on the road therefore it is a Road Tax. You don't even need the motor to be capable of running. Likewise you can't argue it's an Emissions Tax as you don't have to pay it if the motor is only emitting emissions on private land and therefor the tax is not required.

Just in case (sarcasm ON) Now if it were labelled Partial Road Fund Licence it would be much more accurate and cyclists could use their partially funded cycle lanes on their partially funded bicycles (bike to work schemes seem so popular even if they don't cycle to work) and motorists could use their partially funded roads, unless there is no cycle lane, in which case we could all use our partially funded road network (sarcasm OFF)

magicbastarder

there are multiple different classes of user allowed to use the road, and there is one common factor which unifies all those who must pay a tax on their vehicle.
hmm, what's the best name we could give to this tax?

the tax is paid *on the motorised vehicle*. i paid my motor tax last night and it's tied very specifically to that one vehicle, and is linked to the emissions band of the vehicle in question. if i don't use the car in public, it simply does not enter the regulatory structure required to tax it.

calling it a road tax is like calling water charges a pipe tax. the 'but i can't use X without Y, therefore it's a tax on Y' is a superficial argument.

if you paid 'road tax' on your driving licence (an intriguing idea, but i'm one of those lunatics who believes motor tax should be abolished and the shortfall made up with increases in fuel duty), i would accept there's more argument to be made for it to be called a road tax, but still would argue that a better term would be 'driving tax'.

Duckjob

Can't speak for others here but I honestly wouldn't give a flying f**k what it was called if the use of that particular phrase didn't come 95% of the time with the an implied or even direct claim of ownership of the road by some of those using it.

Duckjob

In all seriousness though I think the registration plate needs to be overhauled so that the reg plate includes the level of road tax paid and therefore the priority each road user has. It could be done on a scale of 1 to 10, 1 meaning you're a little worm that needs to be thankful you don't get run over and 10 meaning you've paid top dollar and people need to clear the way for you.

The number could be printed in nice large font and also in reverse, like ambulances , so more freeloading motorists know by looking in the rearview mirror to scatter to the kerb when something really important like a pre '08 3 litre is coming through.

AndrewJRenko

Spook_ie wrote: »

Road Tax and Motor Tax are interchangeable terms for the same thing.

Interchangable in the way that Tesco and Quinnsworth are interchangeable.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Arguments about Motor Tax not equating to a tax to use the roads are disingenuous, it's not a Motor Tax just because it's called a Motor Tax. Unless the "motor" is parked on a public road or other public place then you don't need "Motor Tax" therefore it's a tax for a motor to be used in a public place or on the road therefore it is a Road Tax. You don't even need the motor to be capable of running. Likewise you can't argue it's an Emissions Tax as you don't have to pay it if the motor is only emitting emissions on private land and therefor the tax is not required.

Just in case (sarcasm ON) Now if it were labelled Partial Road Fund Licence it would be much more accurate and cyclists could use their partially funded cycle lanes on their partially funded bicycles (bike to work schemes seem so popular even if they don't cycle to work) and motorists could use their partially funded roads, unless there is no cycle lane, in which case we could all use our partially funded road network (sarcasm OFF)

How about a Partial Road Fund Licence in proportion to the wear and tear caused on the road by the different vehicle types? If you look up the fourth power rule of engineering to calculate wear and tear, you'll see that a €50 annual fee per cyclist would be proportional to a €1.4 million annual fee per motorist.

Bring it on.

Spook_ie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Actually, that’s not what you said. What you said was; “Black, Burgandy or Navy Enviroment” (one OR, not two ORs) – but it’s good of you to confirm that what you meant was ‘Black or Burgandy or Blue Environment’.
And yes, given that it is an OR statement, I can take individual parts out without changing the meaning. I can take one or two out of three options, and reflect it as your position. It’s not a 100% complete representation of your position, but it is a 100% accurate representation of your position – that hi-vis for cars would help in blue or black environments, such as those we see around us at hight time.

Only in some perverted twist of your imagination, once again seeing as you can't seem to stay in context

Spook_ie wrote: »

Just keep digging

It's unlikely, unless it were parked in a black or burgundy or navy environment, maybe if it was speeding perhaps or killing 4 or 5 people a week it would benefit from hi viz stripes

And with that because you seem able to ignore what's actually typed and in what context. I'm done with Black OR Burgundy OR Navy environments

I suppose the key difference here is that I don’t park my bike on public roads when I go to bed, so the comparison doesn’t really hold. But why don’t you direct your campaign at your fellow taxi drivers, getting them to hi-vis up every time they step out of the car, or indeed at all motorists, getting them to hi-vis up for their walk to/from your car? You do really believe in this hi-vis thing, don’t you?

Actually yes, I do believe in it and if anyone were spending time on a road not in a highly visible shell, then I would recommend they utilise the sciengifically proven safety aspects of hi viz

No fantasy – your words are clear and specific, and confirm that hi-vis for cars would be beneficial in blue or black environments, such as night time.

Do you think that being slightly more wordy in your Bart Simpson approach gives it any more credibility? [It doesn’t]

No, I just think the coherence of your arguments might hold more water if you took a step back and realised that you postulate the same kind of anti arguments in exactly the same manner, perhaps you are the Lisa to my Bart postings?

You know what they say about ASSumptions, right? And more of the questions, why you still fail to answer mine? That’s some neck you have.

I did make an assumption and I will ask the question again and a simple yes or no answer would likely suffice, did you report them?

People should not have been ‘staying at home’. People should have been exercising to keep up their health and fitness to put them in the best position to fight the virus if it did come knocking. Given the 2km limit at the time, for most people this exercise meant walking or running – on footpaths, right? So having ten tonnes of bus parked up on the footpath or cycle path, sometimes with the engine idling doesn’t create an environment conducive to exercise.

So did you report them?

I just thought you might apply your hi-vis logic that you apply to pedestrians and cyclists to bridges also. Should we add even more hi-vis to bridges to stop drivers driving into them regularly?

Not really, more a case of ensuring that drivers of high vehicles are more aware of their vehicle heights, the signage on approach to that bridge would probably need improving and maybe even a gantry installed some distance before so that people would be aware they will strike the bridge because they struck the gantry, but you can't deal with all levels of dumbness.

So hi-vis won’t prevent those collisions, but it will prevent collisions for cyclists and pedestrians? How did you work that out?

I doubt there's anything that would prevent criminals or drunk drivers hitting your cycle or my car or my garden wall or the lamppost outside my house but then again we aren't talking about preventing criminality were trying to discuss common sense for the common good.

You can root all you like, but it doesn’t answer the question I’m asking. The question isn’t ‘which one is more visible, cyclists or cars’. The question is ‘which is more visible, cars with hi-vis or cars without hi-vis’? Have you got any videos to answer that one?

Ah, you don't want to discuss if HI viz actually helps motorists to see VRUs anymore, fine. I do believe I actually have video somewhere of a car without lights contrasting to a car with its HI Viz on

I reckon I’d have a better chance of coming out alive against a Swiss army knife, which is why the laws around them are very different to the laws around AK47s. Which would you prefer to be assaulted by?

Neither to be honest, but the odds are stacked that it would be a knife of some kind rather than any kind of gun, so I wouldn't be convinced of the odds you're giving.

See above. OR not AND.

Spook_ie

magicbastarder wrote: »

there are multiple different classes of user allowed to use the road, and there is one common factor which unifies all those who must pay a tax on their vehicle.
hmm, what's the best name we could give to this tax?

the tax is paid *on the motorised vehicle*. i paid my motor tax last night and it's tied very specifically to that one vehicle, and is linked to the emissions band of the vehicle in question. if i don't use the car in public, it simply does not enter the regulatory structure required to tax it.

calling it a road tax is like calling water charges a pipe tax. the 'but i can't use X without Y, therefore it's a tax on Y' is a superficial argument.

if you paid 'road tax' on your driving licence (an intriguing idea, but i'm one of those lunatics who believes motor tax should be abolished and the shortfall made up with increases in fuel duty), i would accept there's more argument to be made for it to be called a road tax, but still would argue that a better term would be 'driving tax'.

None the less, this constant "there's no such thing as road tax, it's a motor tax" is incorrect, and as such people who use that in their arguments need correcting.

magicbastarder

Spook_ie wrote: »

None the less, this constant "there's no such thing as road tax, it's a motor tax" is incorrect

well, you've convinced me anyway.

Spook_ie

Duckjob wrote: »

In all seriousness though I think the registration plate needs to be overhauled so that the reg plate includes the level of road tax paid and therefore the priority each road user has. It could be done on a scale of 1 to 10, 1 meaning you're a little worm that needs to be thankful you don't get run over and 10 meaning you've paid top dollar and people need to clear the way for you.

The number could be printed in nice large font and also in reverse, like ambulances , so more freeloading motorists know by looking in the rearview mirror to scatter to the kerb when something really important like a pre '08 3 litre is coming through.

At least I turned sarcasm on :rolleyes:
Sarcasm on
Anyways yeah would mean of course that cyclists ( I assume you're not referring to them as worms), would need registration plates to place them above the worms sarcasm off

Chiparus

Spook_ie wrote: »

None the less, this constant "there's no such thing as road tax, it's a motor tax" is incorrect, and as such people who use that in their arguments need correcting.

It is not a road tax, it is a motor tax, a tax to use a motor on the road, I pay motor tax to drive on the road, I dont pay walking tax or cycling tax or horse tax.
There is no tax to use the road.

Spook_ie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Interchangable in the way that Tesco and Quinnsworth are interchangeable.



How about a Partial Road Fund Licence in proportion to the wear and tear caused on the road by the different vehicle types? If you look up the fourth power rule of engineering to calculate wear and tear, you'll see that a €50 annual fee per cyclist would be proportional to a €1.4 million annual fee per motorist.

Bring it on.

How about we set it to the amount of space required, seeing as we've already decided that road/motor tax is nothing to do with wear and tear or environment.
So cyclist 2m length, 2 meters wide ( allowing for 1.5 m legislated passing they want ) 4 sq meters at times
car what 2 meters wide (Skoda) plus the 1 meter space between traffic so 3 x 4 meters long 12 sq meters

yeah a 1/3 may be let you off down to 5% to 10 % because you don't take up as much space at traffic lights (well some of you don't)

micar

Spook_ie wrote: »

None the less, this constant "there's no such thing as road tax, it's a motor tax" is incorrect, and as such people who use that in their arguments need correcting.

You are the one that needs correcting.

You have been corrected multiple time and are refusing the accept the correction.

micar

Spook_ie wrote: »

How about we set it to the amount of space required, seeing as we've already decided that road/motor tax is nothing to do with wear and tear or environment.

How about we set it to the amout of weight.

Average Bicycle: 10kg
Average car: 1300 kg

130 bicycles = 1 car

That would be about 0.77%. Based on my Motor Tax would be €2.78 per annum.

AndrewJRenko

magicbastarder wrote: »

well, you've convinced me anyway.

It's the Trumpian approach. Keep repeating a lie often enough and hope that it sticks.

Spook_ie wrote: »

How about we set it to the amount of space required, seeing as we've already decided that road/motor tax is nothing to do with wear and tear or environment.
So cyclist 2m length, 2 meters wide ( allowing for 1.5 m legislated passing they want ) 4 sq meters at times
car what 2 meters wide (Skoda) plus the 1 meter space between traffic so 3 x 4 meters long 12 sq meters

yeah a 1/3 may be let you off down to 5% to 10 % because you don't take up as much space at traffic lights (well some of you don't)

When exactly did we decide that motor tax is nothing to do with wear and tear or environment? Motor tax IS an emissions based tax, which is everything to do with wear and tear and environment.

And you might want to revisit some of your dimensions, both for bikes and cars. Are you saying that you're happy to be overtaken by a 40-tonne truck on the road at 100kmph leaving 1m distance?

AndrewJRenko

SeanW wrote: »

A road usage tax paid by motorists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_tax

Technically known as "Motor Tax."

Did you bother to read the page that you linked to?

Ireland
Motor tax is payable as an annual duty (subject to exemptions) in Ireland.

And look at what it links to;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_tax_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland