New Minister for Transport Eamon Ryan

markad1

Oh fook

RandomViewer

RandomViewer wrote: »

Grid struggling with demand, add in a few thousand electric cars charging at 4 kw an hour ,Brown out every few weeks. Infrastructure isn't there

I don’t know much about our national grid, but it it is approaching anything like that of South Africa in terms of population/use, then we could be in for that country’s “loadsharing” where every district experiences a scheduled blackout for at least two hours per day, particularly in hours of high use/darkness. It’s a place you need an awful lot of torches and batteries.

KaneToad

Lundstram wrote: »

Why should people who don't cycle pay for cycle lanes?

You could apply that logic to all govt exp/tax collection.

Why should people with no children contribute to children's allowance payment?

Why should blind people pay for arts grants for sculptors?

Why should the ambulatory have to contribute to the cost of ramps for wheel chair users?

And the old favourite, why should those who "don't watch RTE" have to pay their TV licence?

Seth Brundle

Lundstram wrote: »

I have two cars and have to tax them both so your first point is bullsh*t.

It's called motor tax.

Lundstram wrote: »

Your second point; you need to learn to read posts you reply to. I said a flat tax of €100 per year, I never mentioned engine emissions. "bike tax", if it has two wheels and no engine, and uses public roads, tax it. Let them pay for their cycle lanes that they refuse to use.

The vast majority of cycle lanes are unfit for purpose and in many cases more dangerous than staying out on the road.
Secondly, you want to tax children cycling to school should pay €100?
You want to tax a five year old who wants to use the bike that Santy brought them?

Lundstram wrote: »

Why should people who don't cycle pay for cycle lanes?

Many motorists happily park in cycle lanes also.
Many motorists drive on cycle lanes.
Many people walk on cycle lanes.

Also I pay tax for many things that I don't get a direct benefit from. Shoukd we start allocating direct funding to everything?

Pkiernan

Wouldn't it be funny if motorists protested like the anti water charges rabble did?

lawrencesummers

Lundstram wrote: »

Tax cyclists. They use the road, cause traffic disruption and get the same benefits as cars.

€100 per year flat tax. Subject them to the same punishments as motorists if caught without.

Cyclists don’t cause traffic disruption.
The lack of infrastructure for all roads users causes it.

Marcusm

RandomViewer wrote: »

Think they'll only allow insurance for damage, there will be no personal injury claims .It's the only way it could be practical. Can see cyclists having to have third party insurance,

They will mandate personal injury coverage for anyone hit by the scooter though which will just create a whole new claims avenue.

Lundstram

Seth Brundle wrote: »

It's called motor tax.


The vast majority of cycle lanes are unfit for purpose and in many cases more dangerous than staying out on the road.
Secondly, you want to tax children cycling to school should pay €100?
You want to tax a five year old who wants to use the bike that Santy brought them?


Many motorists happily park in cycle lanes also.
Many motorists drive on cycle lanes.
Many people walk on cycle lanes.

Also I pay tax for many things that I don't get a direct benefit from. Shoukd we start allocating direct funding to everything?

Deflecting from the issue doesn't make you bright.

I haven't see a kid cycling to school in about 10 years.

"many" "many" "many" Have you real stats to back this it up?

Cyclists use the roads like motorists. Tax them. Simple really. I'm sorry if you're lycra clad feelings are hurt but the fact of the matter is they need to pay for their share.

Lundstram

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Cyclists don’t cause traffic disruption.
The lack of infrastructure for all roads users causes it.

Good one.

Okay so force them to pay tax so we can improve the infrastruture.

Marcusm

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Couldn't they do it the same as they do in Germany? Pedestrians have third party private liability insurance - if they do something that causes a RTA, they will be personally liable.

It’s not pedestrians who have that in Germany, it’s everyone and it covers all sorts of acts like breaking a coffee cup in a neighbours house. Truly I do not see that type of cover being mandated in Ireland and without that broad coverage, it gets very expensive which is why I see an issue for e-scooter users.

Jizique

Marcusm wrote: »

They will mandate personal injury coverage for anyone hit by the scooter though which will just create a whole new claims avenue.

They shouldn’t - should be treated the same as bicycles; doesn’t mean that a case can’t be brought but shouldn’t be mandatory

Markcheese

Lundstram wrote: »

I have two cars and have to tax them both so your first point is bullsh*t.

Your second point; you need to learn to read posts you reply to. I said a flat tax of €100 per year, I never mentioned engine emissions. "bike tax", if it has two wheels and no engine, and uses public roads, tax it. Let them pay for their cycle lanes that they refuse to use.

Why should people who don't cycle pay for cycle lanes?

Careful what you wish for , if bicycle tax is 100 euros a year ,and based on how much room they take on the road cars (and my van ) could end up at extortionate levels ,
And what if these do gooder cyclist start demanding decent cycle lanes for their money ....not the stupid stop /start ,short term car parking areas that are currently designated bike Lanes ..

sdanseo

If you actually read the GP transport paper there's quite a bit of good in it. It just seems disjointed and there are a couple of parts that simply aren't in the real world (such as cancelling the M20, and thinking railfreight is viable on a small Island with a terrible rail network), but on the whole it is positive.

Improving the cycling infrastructure and prioritising them for a bit will make life as a motorist a lot easier as well. Think about it, bikes actually on the segregated cycle lanes means no more obstructions and no more difficult overtaking or trying to judge what the hell 1.5m is.

If the flip side is we can no longer drive into a congested Dublin but instead have to take upgraded public transport before emerging onto peaceful cleaner streets, and pay a few cents more on a litre of Diesel while paying less for the DART - I think I'm OK with that.

The biggest question is can the man himself procure all of these changes. He seems like he's never quite sure what he has to say. Rambles and gaffes, and not the strong management material needed for a Minister of anything.
Best he resigns ASAP and give one of the newer TDs like Ossian Smyth a shot at the Minister's role (Catherine Martin already being a different Minister).

Jizique

Pkiernan wrote: »

Wouldn't it be funny if motorists protested like the anti water charges rabble did?

They need to ban SUVs in built up areas and prevent commuting by single occupant cars

Moragle

RandomViewer wrote: »

Donegal, don't listen to RTE radio,

Where in donegal? I live in rural west donegal and I don't think we've lost power more than twice in the last year, once from a thunderstorm and once from a major power outage that hit the whole of area from dungloe to dunfanaghy

RandomViewer

Pkiernan wrote: »

Wouldn't it be funny if motorists protested like the anti water charges rabble did?

FF were anti water charges, row in the camp already?

Seth Brundle

Lundstram wrote: »

Deflecting from the issue doesn't make you bright.

What did I deflect from?
The idea of taxing cyclists is stupid and regressive. In addition, it has been shown widely that any measures that discourage cycling have a negative impact on both traffic and health putting further financial burdens on thebyaxpayer

Lundstram wrote: »

I haven't see a kid cycling to school in about 10 years.

Why on earth would that be? Go on, have a guess!

Lundstram wrote: »

"many" "many" "many" Have you real stats to back this it up?

Cyclists use the roads like motorists. Tax them. Simple really. I'm sorry if you're lycra clad feelings are hurt but the fact of the matter is they need to pay for their share.

Pay for their share of what?
The wear and maintenance costs on the roads?
The cost of the deaths and injuries on the roads?
It is an utterly stupid idea! Your even think it is ok to tax children who choose to cycle to school rather than have their parents drive them there adding to the already congested roads.

But thankfully it takes more to hurt my lycra clad feelings :rolleyes:

RandomViewer

Jizique wrote: »

They need to ban SUVs in built up areas and prevent commuting by single occupant cars

So all retail will be on the outskirts, leave the centres to junkies and winos?

Jizique

Jizique wrote: »

They need to ban SUVs in built up areas and prevent commuting by single occupant cars

The latter would be bordering on removal of humanitarian rights.

MrMusician18

sdanseo wrote: »

If you actually read the GP transport paper there's quite a bit of good in it. It just seems disjointed and there are a couple of parts that simply aren't in the real world (such as cancelling the M20, and thinking railfreight is viable on a small Island with a terrible rail network), but on the whole it is positive.

Improving the cycling infrastructure and prioritising them for a bit will make life as a motorist a lot easier as well. Think about it, bikes actually on the segregated cycle lanes means no more obstructions and no more difficult overtaking or trying to judge what the hell 1.5m is.

If the flip side is we can no longer drive into a congested Dublin but instead have to take upgraded public transport before emerging onto peaceful cleaner streets, and pay a few cents more on a litre of Diesel while paying less for the DART - I think I'm OK with that.


The biggest question is can the man himself procure all of these changes. He seems like he's never quite sure what he has to say. Rambles and gaffes, and not the strong management material needed for a Minister of anything.
Best he resigns ASAP and give one of the newer TDs like Ossian Smyth a shot at the Minister's role (Catherine Martin already being a different Minister).

It's not a few cents per litre, it will be 6c/l for every €20/tonne CO2 that the carbon tax is increased by. Iirc today this tax accounts for about 9c/l before VAT.

Before covid, fuel prices were around €1.40/l - we can call that the price in normal times. At the end of the carbon tax path set out, the normal price will be €1.85/l or there abouts

MrMusician18

Marcusm wrote: »

It’s not pedestrians who have that in Germany, it’s everyone and it covers all sorts of acts like breaking a coffee cup in a neighbours house. Truly I do not see that type of cover being mandated in Ireland and without that broad coverage, it gets very expensive which is why I see an issue for e-scooter users.

It's not mandatory in Germany either to my knowledge. It's just the consequences of not having it are potentially financially ruinous, since liability is unlimited.

At the moment, all poor pedestrian and cyclist behaviour is excused and if an accident happens the liability falls on the car driver. Didn't spot the pedestrian recklessly walking out into traffic? Yep, your fault for not paying attention.

Odyssey 2005

Will we have to share the car with everyone in the village now ?

Masala

How will be standup to Michael O Leary and his beef on airport charges by the DAA. And what will he do when Shannon Airport come calling playing the poor mouth.

Overall.... how is he on Aviation??? Does he feel that we should only have 1 airport and all the others should be let go

Masala

Masala wrote: »

How will be standup to Michael O Leary and his beef on airport charges by the DAA. And what will he do when Shannon Airport come calling playing the poor mouth.

Overall.... how is he on Aviation??? Does he feel that we should only have 1 airport and all the others should be let go

His only answer to everything seems to be bikes so it should be interesting anyway.

Yurt2

screamer wrote: »

I expect to see all kinds of stupid taxes and crazy suggestions for transport.

Yeah, decent public transport is crazy. Absolute loons.

Dutch, Japanese and Swedes are eco-communnazis that want to steal our precious bodily fluids with their trains and bicycles.

Not on my watch I say. Where'd I put my rifle to defend my liberties?

The J Stands for Jay

Lundstram wrote: »

But you're happy to punish rural dwellers who have no alternative to get to work?

Cyclists use roads like motorists, let them pay for it too.

We should get the motorists to pay the full cost of the roads too then.

flutered

lalababa wrote: »

I think his overall transport strategy would be the green party policy. ��
What was it again..??? Hmmmh oh yeah: improve public transport and cut emissions in both public and private transport. Plan for better commute experiences.
Gee whiz .. the man is obviously off his little pee sized fairy brained rocker if he thinks I'm gonna give up driving my 2 liter diesel SUV for two hours every morning and evening. F**k him and the bicycle he rode in on.

is he not driving a 2ltr desiel himself

The J Stands for Jay

RandomViewer wrote: »

So all retail will be on the outskirts, leave the centres to junkies and winos?

The SUVs will be in the countryside, going off-road as they were designed to be used.

Dravokivich

Jizique wrote: »

They need to ban SUVs in built up areas and prevent commuting by single occupant cars

Eh, no and no.

bazza1

What could possibly go wrong?....Although I said that about Shane Ross also!

*Applies online for mortgage for EV car*

TrailerBob

Jizique wrote: »

They need to ban SUVs in built up areas and prevent commuting by single occupant cars

The most laughable comment on the whole thread. On your logic I'm banned from towns and from going to work so.. I drive a landcruiser for genuine reasons, and there's nobody else to go to work with me from here, so I may just stay at home.. or I'll try tow the big Ifor Williams out of a wet field with a Nissan Leaf..

The J Stands for Jay

TrailerBob wrote: »

The most laughable comment on the whole thread. On your logic I'm banned from towns and from going to work so.. I drive a landcruiser for genuine reasons, and there's nobody else to go to work with me from here, so I may just stay at home.. or I'll try tow the big Ifor Williams out of a wet field with a Nissan Leaf..

Why are you towing a load of turf onto Kildare Street?

flutered

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

His only answer to everything seems to be bikes so it should be interesting anyway.

does he not sell bikes

Moragle

The main issue with him is the problems he will cause in rural areas. For example at the moment we have 4 private bus companies that go to letterkenny, all of them are off because of coronavirus. So if you work in letterkenny hospital for example and you're expected to get to work by public transport there is absolutely none.

AndrewJRenko

KaneToad wrote: »

Why should he wear a helmet? It's not a legal requirement and research is mixed about their efficacy. It's usually non-cyclists who insist cyclists should always wear helmets and always use cycle lanes.

Indeed

https://twitter.com/magnatom/status/1252894383432704000?s=19

Mr Meanor

He's FFs new minister version of Flanagan, He'll antagonise everyone in the country while FF will go 'what's wrong???'

TrailerBob

Why does it have to be Dublin city centre to be built up? And I did have a full trailer load of timber into Gardiner St. last year... But that's besides the point. Banning one particular style of ICE vehicle is plain nonsense. Not everyone in an 'SUV' is doing it for image or being a sheep

AndrewJRenko

Lundstram wrote: »

Tax cyclists. They use the road, cause traffic disruption and get the same benefits as cars.

€100 per year flat tax. Subject them to the same punishments as motorists if caught without.

It's an interesting idea. If you want a comparable charge based on the wear and tear arising on the road, your €100 fee per cyclist would work out at about €2 million annual charge per motorist, based on the fourth power engineering calculation.

Are you up for that?

And as for punishments, cyclists are fined all the time, though as with motorists, enforcement levels are negligible.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/almost-5-000-on-the-spot-fines-issued-to-cyclists-1.3977141

Are you proposing that traffic rules should apply equally to all types of road users regardless of the danger involved?

Fred Cryton

Titzon Toast wrote: »

His first job should be to take on the Irish insurance federation/cartel.

If it was such a cartel and so profitable, why are insurance providers leaving Ireland?


Maybe it's because of €25k payouts each for imaginary whiplash for the mother, father and baby when they're involved in an incident which scratches the paint of their car.



The Irish people and the legal system are to blame.

AndrewJRenko

Moragle wrote: »

The main issue with him is the problems he will cause in rural areas. For example at the moment we have 4 private bus companies that go to letterkenny, all of them are off because of coronavirus. So if you work in letterkenny hospital for example and you're expected to get to work by public transport there is absolutely none.

He's been less than 24 hours in the job, so perhaps you might like to direct your blame for the current situation elsewhere?

AndrewJRenko

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Why not? They are using the same infrastructure so shouldn't they help pay for it? We pay to use the bus.

I'd be more inclined to change the rules that where a cyclist or pedestrian does something dangerous that unlimited liability will fall on them personally - rather than the car drivers insurance shouldering the cost all the time. So stumble out drunkenly onto a road and get struck? Yeah the pedestrian should pay at least part for the replacement bumper, where their negligence was a partial cause of the accident.

Can you point to any actual examples of cases where motorists insurance paid for people stumbling drunkenly out on the road please?

And you know drivers are required by law to drive in a manner that allows you stop within the distance you can see to be clear?

Fred Cryton

Fred Cryton wrote: »

If it was such a cartel and so profitable, why are insurance providers leaving Ireland?


Maybe it's because of €25k payouts each for imaginary whiplash for the mother, father and baby when they're involved in an incident which scratches the paint of their car.



The Irish people and the legal system are to blame.

The insurance companies pay out these without question and pass on the expense to the person being claimed from.

Moragle

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

He's been less than 24 hours in the job, so perhaps you might like to direct your blame for the current situation elsewhere?

I'm not really worried about the current situation its the future situation. Theres been no real alternatives proposed by him for basically pricing rural dwellers out of being able to run a car except sharing 1 between 30 people!

AndrewJRenko

micosoft wrote: »

His focus is on public transport not cars.

If people must have cars then electric cars are far cleaner than ICE cars. They certainly don't have "huge" environmental cost vs ICE. Batteries are easily recyclable and are recycled.

Electric cars use regenerative breaking so use considerably less brake pad wear. Most electric cars use low resistance tyres minimising wear.

Are you suggesting subsidising e-bikes at the same rate as cars is not insane? People can have both a car and a e-bike (and a regular bicycle) as they have, you know what, completely different use cases and price points.

Tax breaks are tax breaks and this is the way they all work. The higher rate starts at a very low €35,300. But sure make a case it should be a fixed grant (and you need to propose a way to stop that being abused given you've not really thought through any of your other policy suggestions).

His focus is on sustainable modes of travel. https://www.greenparty.ie/green-party-launches-transport-policy/

When you create a post where literally every sentence is wrong or deeply misleading yet finding out the honest answers is easy... I have to wonder... why do you seem to need to "invent" things to critique Eamonn Ryan. plenty of reasonable things to critique both him and the green party.

I'm suggesting that subsidising cars for middle and upper class families makes no sense.

https://www.westernjournal.com/study-driving-electric-cars-can-dirtier-using-diesel-engines/

lawrencesummers

Lundstram wrote: »

Good one.

Okay so force them to pay tax so we can improve the infrastruture.

Thats a good idea.

Tax bikes for using Roads.
Out of interest would bikes pay them same rate of Tax then as prams?
And Skateboards?
And maybe we can tax people out walking as well.
And if their kids have those shoes with the wheels in them we can tax them as well.

Then the best part is because as a cyclist paying tax for using the roads I can go cycling up the Motorway, and through tool booths and in the port tunnel.

You should be in politics.

whisky_galore

So what about them wolf powered cars?

AndrewJRenko

Moragle wrote: »

I'm not really worried about the current situation its the future situation. Theres been no real alternatives proposed by him for basically pricing rural dwellers out of being able to run a car except sharing 1 between 30 people!

So why did you bang on about people not being able to get to work now if you're not worried about it?

Lundstram

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Thats a good idea.

Tax bikes for using Roads.
Out of interest would bikes pay them same rate of Tax then as prams?
And Skateboards?
And maybe we can tax people out walking as well.
And if their kids have those shoes with the wheels in them we can tax them as well.

Then the best part is because as a cyclist paying tax for using the roads I can go cycling up the Motorway, and through tool booths and in the port tunnel.

You should be in politics.

That list of things don't use public roads, disrupt traffic or cause accidents.

Next time, engage your brain before replying.

Jizique

TrailerBob wrote: »

The most laughable comment on the whole thread. On your logic I'm banned from towns and from going to work so.. I drive a landcruiser for genuine reasons, and there's nobody else to go to work with me from here, so I may just stay at home.. or I'll try tow the big Ifor Williams out of a wet field with a Nissan Leaf..

Diesels should be banned from built up areas ergo no SUVs; no problem with a land cruiser out the country but it doesn’t have a role in towns and cities; if the height of our ambition is a >2t vehicles to allow a single person of 80-90kg to commute, we really haven’t evolved much

So, in the case someone needs an SUV, the solution to one car is two cars? Splendid logic.