Cyclists, insurance and road tax

Sono Topolino

Pinch Flat wrote: »

So using that logic no taxation for cyclists. Or are we saying perhaps a tax for breathing while cycling?

Tax the carbon inputs involved in making the bike. It will be a lot cheaper than the car. Tax the fuel for the car, unless renewable and electric.

Tax the car and bike for using the road, or tax neither. If there is a differential, it should be based on size/space.

85603

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Or else you could just try and put out some facts and evidence to support your ideas. Anytime you're ready there....

the facts can be seen in any cycling thread outside of the cyclist coven/forum.

for now cyclists are one of those p.c. groups where if you dont nod along with their list of demands then you're just being mean.

i suppose they could be seen in the same way as many vulnerable and/or progressive groups are, whereby their vulnerability equates with automatic unquestioned entitlement to basically everything they want.

and any objector is naturally some sort of mr burns type shtlord meanie.

Pawwed Rig

Sono Topolino wrote: »

Tax the car and bike for using the road, or tax neither. If there is a differential, it should be based on size/space.

Noone is taxed for using a road. They are taxed for emmissions. This has already been said 30 times on this thread.

85603 wrote: »

for now cyclists are one of those p.c. groups where if you dont nod along with their list of demands then you're just being mean.

The only demand I have seen is to not be run over which I don't think is unreasonable. What other demands are there?

mr potato head

Motor Tax is the tax on the people who choose to use an inefficient and expensive (to the taxpayer) form of transport.
For the privilege of using a Motor Vehicle, we very much underpay what it costs the country in terms of space, environmental impact and damage to our streetscape.

When we choose a more damaging vehicle (less efficient/heavier etc) we pay more.

mr potato head wrote: »

As this research indicates, automobility is heavily subsidized in the European Union, at an estimated €500 billion per year, while active transportation represents a benefit to society currently worth an annual €24 billion (cycling) and €66 billion (walking). Specifically, in cities, the long-standing focus on automobility as the favoured transport mode should consequently change. The Social Cost of Automobility, Cycling and Walking in the European Union. Gössling et al, 2019

Sono Topolino

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Noone is taxed for using a road. They are taxed for emmissions. This has already been said 30 times on this thread.

Why tax emissions by road users separately and differently from other emission sources?

Thelonious Monk

85603 wrote: »

i suppose they could be seen in the same way as many vulnerable and/or progressive groups are, whereby their vulnerability equates with automatic unquestioned entitlement to basically everything they want.

and any objector is naturally some sort of mr burns type shtlord meanie.

Not really, media presenters are allowed rile up the public on TV/Radio against people who use bikes. Channel 5 in the UK, a country who has a similar relationship with people on bikes, had a TV show a couple of years ago called Cyclists: Scourge of the streets?
You can knock people off bikes on purpose and the Garda dont want to know.
What other "vulnerable groups" get this kind of treatment?
Calling cyclists entitled is ridiculous, next to no fit for purpose infrastructure built for decades and we just get on with it and go to work anyway on our bikes, a few car park spaces or pedestrianisation plans for towns or cities and you all go feckin' nuts like someone's trying to take away your right to clean water or something.

harmless

Sono Topolino wrote: »

Why tax emissions by road users separately and differently from other emission sources?

Why is tax higher on alcohol compared to water?

mr potato head

Sono Topolino wrote: »

Tax the carbon inputs involved in making the bike. It will be a lot cheaper than the car. Tax the fuel for the car, unless renewable and electric.

Tax the car and bike for using the road, or tax neither. If there is a differential, it should be based on size/space.

To be honest, I would have no problem paying a tax on the energy and material impact of my bike, it's minuscule in comparison to my car.

If we used a correct model to allocate taxation based on space, weight and efficiency it would hardly be worth collecting the bike tax and the car tax would be unaffordable to most. Are you willing to pay your fair share of the true cost of car ownership?

Sono Topolino

mr potato head wrote: »

Motor Tax is the tax on the people who choose to use an inefficient and expensive (to the taxpayer) form of transport.
For the privilege of using a Motor Vehicle, we very much underpay what it costs the country in terms of space, environmental impact and damage to our streetscape.

When we choose a more damaging vehicle (less efficient/heavier etc) we pay more.

If the tax is based on emissions, then just tax carbon. Taxing people who drive cars, but not people who eat beef is unjust. On an emissions based system, cyclists will pay very little and a Tesla driver will pay a lot more. Tesla drivers will win compared to ICE car drivers because electricity will be taxed less than petrol.

If it is based on the space they take up, then tax vehicles based on size. Again, cyclists will pay for their cycle lane but this will pale by comparison to a Tesla driver.

I just want cyclists to pay something, via a road user tax which is sane.

VonLuck

Sono Topolino wrote: »

If the tax is based on emissions, then just tax carbon. Taxing people who drive cars, but not people who eat beef is unjust. On an emissions based system, cyclists will pay very little and a Tesla driver will pay a lot more. Tesla drivers will win compared to ICE car drivers because electricity will be taxed less than petrol.

If it is based on the space they take up, then tax vehicles based on size. Again, cyclists will pay for their cycle lane but this will pale by comparison to a Tesla driver.

I just want cyclists to pay something, via a road user tax which is sane.

Why don't we get pedestrians to pay footpath tax while we're at it?

ExMachina1000

John_Rambo wrote: »

Aaaaaww.. do you want me to get a ladder and climb up to you on your high horse to blow your nose and wipe your tears?

Fairly unnecessary do you not think

Fighting Tao

Sono Topolino wrote: »

If the tax is based on emissions, then just tax carbon. Taxing people who drive cars, but not people who eat beef is unjust. On an emissions based system, cyclists will pay very little and a Tesla driver will pay a lot more. Tesla drivers will win compared to ICE car drivers because electricity will be taxed less than petrol.

If it is based on the space they take up, then tax vehicles based on size. Again, cyclists will pay for their cycle lane but this will pale by comparison to a Tesla driver.

I just want cyclists to pay something, via a road user tax which is sane.

Your last line is key. You are just a grumpy person with a bee in your bonnet. As someone pointed out, alcohol is taxed. Surely that’s unfair on alcoholics as people who drink water don’t get taxed the same. Why aren’t you moaning about that?

Is it cyclists happy faces as they whizz by while you are stuck in traffic that gets to you? Buy a bike and enjoy the freedom!!!

km991148

Sleeper12 wrote: »

The cycling forum is an echo chamber. Nothing against cyclists or cycling but not the best forums to visit if you have an opinion on hi viz jackets etc.

I don't know about it being an echo chamber, lots of cyclists calling out other cyclists and looking for ways to improve. Mostly recognition that most people are 'multi' mode.

I.e. drive, cycle and even walk sometimes..

Not entirely sure why you would want to discuss building site health and safety equipment there tho, but I'm sure it's worth a try. Some cyclists are probably builders too.

Sono Topolino

mr potato head wrote: »

To be honest, I would have no problem paying a tax on the energy and material impact of my bike, it's minuscule in comparison to my car.

If we used a correct model to allocate taxation based on space, weight and efficiency it would hardly be worth collecting the bike tax and the car tax would be unaffordable to most. Are you willing to pay your fair share of the true cost of car ownership?

There will be no "bike tax" - it will be a carbon tax paid at the point of purchase based on the carbon inputs. Carbon tax tax on second hand bikes will be almost negligible.

The carbon running costs of a bike will be very small - you'll pay it on a new tube etc. I am prepared to pay the true cost of car ownership.

I am just irritated by how cyclists fail to recognise what a nonsense tax motor tax actually is, and how it favours wealthy tesla drivers and urbanites over working-to-middle class people in rural Ireland, despite often emitting less carbon.

Fighting Tao

Sono Topolino wrote: »

There will be no "bike tax" - it will be a carbon tax paid at the point of purchase based on the carbon inputs. Carbon tax tax on second hand bikes will be almost negligible.

The carbon running costs of a bike will be very small - you'll pay it on a new tube etc. I am prepared to pay the true cost of car ownership.

I am just irritated by how cyclists fail to recognise what a nonsense tax motor tax actually is, and how it favours wealthy tesla drivers and urbanites over working-to-middle class people in rural Ireland, despite often emitting less carbon.

There is bike tax. People who buy bikes pay VAT on all purchases.

Won’t someone please think of the tea totallers???

Sono Topolino

Fighting Tao wrote: »

There is bike tax. People who buy bikes pay VAT on all purchases.

Second hand bikes don't incur VAT.

Pawwed Rig

Sono Topolino wrote: »

I just want cyclists to pay something, via a road user tax which is sane.

Why are you so worked up about this? I have been driving decades and the longest I have ever been held up by a cyclist was around 10 seconds.
Why do you feel so strongly that cycling should be discouraged?
How would you hope to administer a situation where cyclist pay a road tax without registering every bike in the State?
Would my 4 year old be subject to this tax? She normally cycles on the footpath.
How about buggies? Should they also pay a road tax or do footpaths not count?
My little girl also has a scooter. Would this be more expensive to tax as it has 3 wheels? She doesn't have much money but maybe they could take pretend money.


See how ridiculous your argument is?

Fighting Tao

Sono Topolino wrote: »

Second hand bikes don't incur VAT.

Eh, neither do cars when it’s a private sale. Bid purchased from bike shops there is VAT, just like buying a second hand car from a dealer has VAT applied.

Sono Topolino

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Your last line is key. You are just a grumpy person with a bee in your bonnet. As someone pointed out, alcohol is taxed. Surely that’s unfair on alcoholics as people who drink water don’t get taxed the same. Why aren’t you moaning about that?

Is it cyclists happy faces as they whizz by while you are stuck in traffic that gets to you? Buy a bike and enjoy the freedom!!!

I'm grumpy at pretend environmentalists who are just comfortable people in cities who don't have a clue how much carbon they actually emit. They think that by cycling they save the planet, abd condemn me for needing a car.

Fighting Tao

Sono Topolino wrote: »

I'm grumpy at pretend environmentalists who are just comfortable people in cities who don't have a clue how much carbon they actually emit. They think that by cycling they save the planet, abd condemn me for needing a car.

Do you drink alcohol? If so, are you also angry at excise and duties compared to the next person in the bar that is drinking a soft drink? I wonder are they angry that they are paying a sugar tax and you are not.

Btw, owning a car is a choice. You choose to own a car, you are choosing to be liable for motor tax.

Sono Topolino

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Why are you so worked up about this? I have been driving decades and the longest I have ever been held up by a cyclist was around 10 seconds.
Why do you feel so strongly that cycling should be discouraged?
How would you hope to administer a situation where cyclist pay a road tax without registering every bike in the State?
Would my 4 year old be subject to this tax? She normally cycles on the footpath.
How about buggies? Should they also pay a road tax or do footpaths not count?
My little girl also has a scooter. Would this be more expensive to tax as it has 3 wheels? She doesn't have much money but maybe they could take pretend money.


See how ridiculous your argument is?

A better question is why tax road usage at all. Just blanket tax carbon on everything - from beef to tyres to cars/bikes/electric vehicles. And give a credit for planting trees.

Because right now I'm getting it in the ass for owning a car, but no credit for planting trees non-commercially. Yet some yuppie gets 50% off his bike.

Pinch Flat

Sounds like he needs a bike. Great for working off that stress.

Fighting Tao

Sono Topolino wrote: »

A better question is why tax road usage at all. Just blanket tax carbon on everything - from beef to tyres to cars/bikes/electric vehicles. And give a credit for planting trees.

Because right now I'm getting it in the ass for owning a car, but no credit for planting trees non-commercially. Yet some yuppie gets 50% off his bike.

What about non yuppies getting a tax break on their bikes? Are you not annoyed with them? You could also have the exact same tax break if you are working. It is not discriminatory like that.

Sono Topolino

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Sounds like he needs a bike. Great for working off that stress.

Rude.

Why don't you support a blanket carbon tax? Why do you prefer to tax specific sources of carbon emissions over carbon per se?

This seems more about getting one up on drivers.

mr potato head

Sono Topolino wrote: »

I am just irritated by how cyclists fail to recognise what a nonsense tax motor tax actually is, and how it favours wealthy tesla drivers and urbanites over working-to-middle class people in rural Ireland, despite often emitting less carbon.

It's not just about carbon. It's about the cost of space, particulate matter, repair, policing, sedentary diseases, lost time to traffic jams etc.
Even in its current state, the tax doesn't cover these. Cycling has a net benefit to taxation, so really people should be paid to cycle.

I've lived in rural Germany without a car, and with the proper infrastructure, it is very feasible to live car free.
My sister in law would love to cycle with her kids to the local school (Rural setting), however, the poor driving of parents rushing to bring others the 5km-10km to school makes it impossible or just outright dangerous in this country due to underinvestment in cycling infrastructure and focus on cars.

Pawwed Rig

Sono Topolino wrote: »

A better question is why tax road usage at all. Just blanket tax carbon on everything - from beef to tyres to cars/bikes/electric vehicles. And give a credit for planting trees.

Because right now I'm getting it in the ass for owning a car, but no credit for planting trees non-commercially. Yet some yuppie gets 50% off his bike.

Because some behaviours are encouraged via the taxation system. Healthy behaviours like cycling have low tax as the benefits far outweigh the cost while unhealthy behaviours (smoking for example) are heavily taxed. Again why are you so upset about cyclists that you have been furiously typing for 12 hours now.

I own a car as do most here but can still recognise the benefits of cycling.

Jeremy Sproket

Sono Topolino wrote: »

And in rural areas, the only cyclists I see are doing it as a form of exercise on a road built for cars and tractors, slowing all the traffic down and endangering all road users. If cyclists want to cycle on main roads in rural Ireland, then they should pay for greenways for this purpose.

As a matter of interest, how are they endangering traffic?

Would a hearse (which probably travels slower) or a horse endanger traffic?

Bikes are traffic too btw You should come to Sweden or our Danish neighbours, you'd blow your top buddy

Sono Topolino

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Do you drink alcohol? If so, are you also angry at excise and duties compared to the next person in the bar that is drinking a soft drink? I wonder are they angry that they are paying a sugar tax and you are not.

Btw, owning a car is a choice. You choose to own a car, you are choosing to be liable for motor tax.

There should be a tax on unhealthy food and beverages based on how unhealthy they are. Taxing negative externalities is perfectlt legit in my boat.

Sono Topolino

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Because some behaviours are encouraged via the taxation system. Healthy behaviours like cycling have low tax as the benefits far outweigh the cost while unhealthy behaviours (smoking for example) are heavily taxed. Again why are you so upset about cyclists that you have been furiously typing for 12 hours now.

I own a car as do most here but can still recognise the benefits of cycling.

So why not just tax carbon emissions? Much easier.

Fighting Tao

Sono Topolino wrote: »

There should be a tax on unhealthy food and beverages based on how unhealthy they are. Taxing negative externalities is perfectlt legit in my boat.

Driving is unhealthy too compared to other options, especially cycling. So you are arguing against yourself.