Cyclists, insurance and road tax

Dinging

Genuine question for the OP. I drive, my wife drives, between us we pay €560.00 motor tax every year, 2 car family. No problem with that. I commute to work by bike (pre Covid). Is this enough revenue for pay for the road and cycle lane usage or would I need under the OP's proposal to pay a bicycle tax?

Weepsie

Sono Topolino wrote: »

1. There's no VAT on second hand bicycles - even if they're as good as new.
2. Cyclists can get 50% off the price of a new bike via the BTW scheme. Note, there's nobody checking if they use this bike to get to work!
3. Motor tax and VRT are taxes on road vehicles.

The Irish people are subsidising people owning bikes, which would be fair enough in the middle of Dublin but makes no sense in Castlepolard, Co. Westmeath.

Irish people are subsidising private vehicle use through general taxation. Even people who don't drive, but work are paying for the roads.

We are also giving over a huge amount of public space for the storage of what is private property (cars) this is f*cking ludicrous in this day and age.

most equitable way is to link it to the damage or maintenance required due to vehicular use. As I assure you, the bikes are not causing much.


Those subsidised bikes are helping reduce the burden on the health system too, so should we then maybe leverage something on motorists to balance that?

Sono Topolino

Joe4321 wrote: »

Agree cyclist are not likely to kill but are very likely to injure people and cause danage while zig zagging through traffic

And cycling insurance should be a lot cheaper than car insurance.

km991148

Joe4321 wrote: »

Agree cyclist are not likely to kill but are very likely to injure people and cause danage while zig zagging through traffic

Yep, that's what the numbers show alright. I guess that's why we have go safe vans randomly targeting this behaviour at known locations where people were injured.

Joe4321

Yes you should pay for your bicycle, that's like saying I pay for one car tax and insurance why should I pay for a second one

Smee_Again

doughef wrote: »

Thanks - although I asked you already not to edit my posts on a separate forum ?

The ‘fixed it for you’ bit is hilarious though - every time .

Just making sure your point gets across clearly, it'd be a real shame if people were denied your valuable insights due to your poor spelling and grammar.

km991148

Sono Topolino wrote: »

And cycling insurance should be a lot cheaper than car insurance.

It already is.

ExMachina1000

Sono Topolino wrote: »

And cycling insurance should be a lot cheaper than car insurance.

It should be. Not wearing a helmet should invalidate your policy in the event of an accident too.

Eventually it will happen.

Gregor Samsa

You seem bitter, OP, and latched onto a crusade that you have no hope of achieving. Not a healthy mix.

Maybe take a nice leisurely cycle to take your mind off it. It's a cheap and easy way to get physical exercise, mental space and fresh air. Plus there's no tax, insurance or licencing requirements. You can use it for transport, leisure, fitness or sport. You'd love it, and it would do you the world of good.

Weepsie

We could also start by making sure all drivers are properly taxes and insured and the thousands out there who are not are moved permanently off the road.

Seth Brundle

Sono Topolino wrote: »

1. There's no VAT on second hand bicycles - even if they're as good as new.
2. Cyclists can get 50% off the price of a new bike via the BTW scheme. Note, there's nobody checking if they use this bike to get to work!
3. Motor tax and VRT are taxes on road vehicles

The Irish people are subsidising people owning bikes, which would be fair enough in the middle of Dublin but makes no sense in Castlepolard, Co. Westmeath.

1. Is there VAT on all second hand cars?
2. The BTW scheme is there for any employee who wants to avail of it. It's not some secret thing only for people who wear cycling clothing :rolleyes:
3. Motor tax and VRT are taxes on mechanically propelled vehicles

Facts really aren't a strength of yours, are they?

km991148

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

It should be. Not wearing a helmet should invalidate your policy in the event of an accident too.

Eventually it will happen.

Any other random rules that should apply to this fantastic fantasy insurance system?

ExMachina1000

Weepsie wrote: »

We could also start by making sure all drivers are properly taxes and insured and the thousands out there who are not are moved permanently off the road.

We can do multiple things at once. Tax everyone

Sono Topolino

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

It should be. Not wearing a helmet should invalidate your policy in the event of an accident too.

Eventually it will happen.

Insurance requirements will mean better behaviour - i.e. no helmets/lights/high vis will invalidate policies. As will not using a cycle lane where one is available, and engaging in dangerous practices like zig-zagging through traffic.

This is precisely why cyclists don't want mandatory insurance.

km991148

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

You seem bitter, OP, and latched onto a crusade that you have no hope of achieving. Not a healthy mix.

Maybe take a nice leisurely cycle to take your mind off it. It's a cheap and easy way to get physical exercise, mental space and fresh air. Plus there's no tax, insurance or licencing requirements. You can use it for transport, leisure, fitness or sport. You'd love it, and it would do you the world of good.

Apparently there is a subsidised 50pc off new bikes as well!

growleaves

Roads are paid for out of general taxation.

The use of the phrase "road tax" is dishonest. Anyone who pays any tax at all has put towards paying for roads.

The cyclist vs motorist fake feud is silly.

km991148

Sono Topolino wrote: »

Insurance requirements will mean better behaviour - i.e. no helmets/lights/high vis will invalidate policies. As will not using a cycle lane where one is available, and engaging in dangerous practices like zig-zagging through traffic.

This is precisely why cyclists don't want mandatory insurance.

Ah the mandatory cycle lane nonsense too.

The mandatory insurance stuff worked out well for motorists..

Seth Brundle

Joe4321 wrote: »

Totally agree, when you purchase a bike you should need to have it registered and a number attached so you can be identified just like a motor vehicle, cyclists that use public roads should have insurance. Anyone who cycles on public roads should have a licence or certificate to say that they are proficent in the rules of the road, but unfortunately we have no one in government including that clown in the green party to implament these things, oh and cyclists need to be allocated 90% of the road for their use.

Would this also apply when you take your small kids out to the park on their bikes?
Leaving aside the complete absurdity of your proposal, how much would it cost to administer and to what benefit?

Sono Topolino

km991148 wrote: »

Apparently there is a subsidised 50pc off new bikes as well!

It's called the bike to work scheme. There's no requirement to actually use the bike to cycle to work, so it's basically the taxpayer subsidising the purchase of new bikes.

km991148

Sono Topolino wrote: »

It's called the bike to work scheme. There's no requirement to actually use the bike to cycle to work, so it's basically the taxpayer subsidising the purchase of new bikes.

Oh that (assuming you meant cycle to work). That's different from what you are talking about.

I only got just under 500quid off my last bike. Still one small benefit from the massive amount of tax I pay towards random sh*t like healthcare in this country.

If only the gov took a more proactive approach to encouraging better health in our population then maybe we would have fewer taxes.

Joe4321

@set, yes it would, iit would be called family insurance, as for price, that would be down to the insurance companys just like car insurance is, I would say it would be very reasonable at first but as the claims rise just like motor claims so would the cost, why would you have a problem with having cover in place for your family, we buy motor, house, travel insurance why not cycle insurance

dubrov

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.

I think you'll find it's the cars that are the danger to road users, not the bikes

km991148

Joe4321 wrote: »

@set, yes it would, iit would be called family insurance, as for price, that would be down to the insurance companys just like car insurance is, I would say it would be very reasonable at first but as the claims rise just like motor claims so would the cost, why would you have a problem with having cover in place for your family, we buy motor, house, travel insurance why not cycle insurance

Maybe if car insurance was raised it would encourage better driver behaviour and there would be fewer accidents?

I mean it's the same argument, but applied to the more problematic road users? Should probably address the worst offenders first, no?

Padre_Pio

Sono Topolino wrote: »

It's called the bike to work scheme. There's no requirement to actually use the bike to cycle to work, so it's basically the taxpayer subsidising the purchase of new bikes.

There was never a requirement to use it to cycle to work.
Those who avail of the scheme are also taxpayers.

Seth Brundle

Sono Topolino wrote: »

It's called the bike to work scheme. There's no requirement to actually use the bike to cycle to work, so it's basically the taxpayer subsidising the purchase of new bikes.

The Revenue Commissioners reserve the right to audit companies that have used the scheme but deem it to be unnecessary. Why might that be, do you think?

While we're on it, there's tax relief for electric cars and hybrids. There are also some BIK exemptions and discounts on electric cars. Will you be starting a thread on them?

easygoing39

Don't tell the OP,but the government isn't going to make Motor Tax or Insurance mandatory for all the electic scooters and bicycle's that are appearing on the roads,so no chance a normal pushbike will ever have to pay.

Hurrache

Smee_Again wrote: »

Its been a while since we've had this thread.

And it continues to get stupider with every occurrence.

zerosugarbuzz

Sono Topolino wrote: »

My opinions on this are not welcome on the cycling forum, so here we go.

Why is it such a taboo to request cyclists to get insurance and pay taxes for the roads that they use, just like car drivers do?

"There is no such thing as road tax" cyclists bleat - except there are plenty of taxes that other road users have to pay, and cyclists pay none of them. There are plenty of tax breaks which cyclists can avail of, and second hand bikes which are dickied up to be as good as new are even VAT free.

I agree that cycling is worth encouraging in big cities like Dublin, where it is a superior form of transport, but the cycle lanes have to be paid for from somewhere. 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.

Until then, they're a nuisance and a menace. So cyclists really have no arguments against mandatory insurance either. Before giving them insurance, I assume those companies will want evidence that cyclists know the rules of the road - something which currently they are not required to be remotely aware of.

It's a pity I can't actually address this point to cyclists in the cycling forum.

Fully agree that cyclists should have insurance and pay road tax. I’d go a step further and have them sit a test and undergo NCTs for their bikes too. The vast majority of them display either pure ignorance or total disregard for the rules of the road, putting themselves, pedestrians and drivers at risk. If the same rules applied to them as say motor cyclists it might sharpen their behavior.

Padre_Pio

Seth Brundle wrote: »

The Revenue Commissioners reserve the right to audit companies that have used the scheme but deem it to be unnecessary. Why might that be, do you think?

While we're on it, there's tax relief for electric cars and hybrids. There are also some BIK exemptions and discounts on electric cars. Will you be starting a thread on them?

Let's not start on the whole commercial car tax too.

The J Stands for Jay

Joe4321 wrote: »

Totally agree, when you purchase a bike you should need to have it registered and a number attached so you can be identified just like a motor vehicle, cyclists that use public roads should have insurance. Anyone who cycles on public roads should have a licence or certificate to say that they are proficent in the rules of the road, but unfortunately we have no one in government including that clown in the green party to implament these things, oh and cyclists need to be allocated 90% of the road for their use.

A pedestrian walked past my car and the zipper of their jacket scratched it. I think all the above things should apply to pedestrians too.