Cyclists, insurance and road tax

osarusan

Sono Topolino wrote: »

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.

You have some bee in your bonnet about cyclists and are flailing around for something, anything, to make them pay somehow, or inconvenience them somehow, for no reason other than to make you feel a little less bitter.


Never noticed you/your posts before in CA, but you have come across terribly in this thread in my opinion.

harmless

Sono Topolino wrote: »

So why not just tax carbon emissions? Much easier.

The problem there is if you tax in proportion to how much carbon is emitted it will cost the state more money to collect from cyclists than they will gain.

I like the idea of putting all the tax into fuel but I think it's a bit late with electric vesicles becoming more popular. I also could see the government pushing petrol up to > €2/liter if they were to implement this.

Tony EH

Sono Topolino wrote: »

I just want cyclists to pay something

This is what you sound like...

oisinog

Marcusm wrote: »

Jaysus, you should Have dismounted and walked it (lawfully) across long before 15 minutes.

To be fair 15mins is me taking the pee a bit it was 5 mins

On a positive note I'm genuinely surprised by people around my area who would have dug out bikes or bought them this time last year due to the quiet roads and restrictions or boredom even.

There are a decent amount who seem to be still at it, be it for a spin or for going from a to b or work. Noticed a few people dropping their kids to school by bike or if they are old enough riding with them. Before I was usually the only one doing the school runs by bike.

People of all ages too which is great to see.

But yeah road tax wha?

micar

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.

You only get 50% off if the bike is €1000 and you pay tax at the higher rate.

Not sure if you know but about 80% of adult cyclists own a car.

I'm paying the same taxes as you albeit lower annual fuel costs.

TBH I'm more concerned about the 14% of drivers out there uninsured.

Pinch Flat

Sono Topolino wrote: »

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.

So if the government announced say at €50 flat tax per annum on cycling to satisfy people like your good self you'd stop moaning about cyclists? Or do we need to go further to discourage cycling?

km991148

Sono Topolino wrote: »

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.*

That seems to be your blinkered view.
I wonder how many cyclists over 17 who aren't drivers?

I just want cyclists to pay something? Lol I don't have a car at the moment and I'm sick fed up of my tax money going on ungrateful motorists like yourself (Never mind being held up by traffic ffs). Do you know how much I pay to cover your usage of oxygen to burn fuel. I hope you don't have kids in s school as I'm fed up paying for other people's brats. Hope you didn't get any tax breaks or mortgage interest relief. I'm sick of subsidising other people's homes. Hope you don't use any of the public health. Joke and a disgrace tbh

Sono would you not try some cycling yourself? I'm not being funny here, it does wonders for your headspace and might give you some perspective.

Of all the things to be wound up about in life and whats going on in the world these days people on bikes shouldn't even register.

Pawwed Rig

Pinch Flat wrote: »

So if the government announced say at €50 flat tax per annum on cycling to satisfy people like your good self you'd stop moaning about cyclists? Or do we need to go further to discourage cycling?

No he also wants obligatory insurance and a ban on cycling as a form of exercise outside of Dublin because it holds up tractors (not joking. Read post 1 of this thread). He also wants a test for cyclists but wouldn't commit to a format for said test for my 4 year old that can't read yet.

magicbastarder

85603 wrote: »

Its just not a done thing to ask anything of the almighty cyclist lobby.

i've met a lot of this almighty cyclist lobby. they'd be dead chuffed to be called 'almighty', and highly, highly amused too.

km991148

micar wrote: »

You only get 50% off if the bike is €1000 and you pay tax at the higher rate.

Not sure if you know but about 80% of adult cyclists own a car.

I'm paying the same taxes as you albeit lower annual fuel costs.

TBH I'm more concerned about the 14% of drivers out there uninsured.

I think it's 1250 now.. it was announced 5 days or something after I ordered my last bike. That should please the op..an extra few quid in the gov pot to repair some road damage. You know from all those bicycles tearing up the asphalt..

Spook_ie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Did you think about the number of cyclists on the road vs the number of motorists on the road when you came to your conclusion?

Interesting approach though - whenever you don't like any quantitative data outcome, just say that the methodology is flawed.

Actually it's a valid question, if 12% of the offenders were cyclists but (for arguments sake) say 24% of vehicles were cyclists then that surely means that for every 100 cars and bicycles that 50% of cyclists broke the red light?

Strumms

No real way to cost effectively enforce it, so basically all the extra effort to enforce it, collect it etc would be for nada..

Cyclists specific checkpoints ?

Cyclists court dates ?

It would have to become legal for them to carry ID with proof of address. More cost..

Hmmmmmm... difficult enough for a reasonable cohort of them to even ‘acknowledge’ that they should observe various regulations and restrictions legally made of and on them in the road traffic act.... such as observation of road markings / signs, red lights etc... trying to police payment of a tax would be just not be cost effective if we are being honest.

A bike purchase tax ? Couldn’t be done, a significant number of bike users are kids, under 18, heading to school, I wouldn’t agree with that.

km991148

Strumms wrote: »

Hmmmmmm... difficult enough for a reasonable cohort of them to even ‘acknowledge’ that they should observe various regulations and restrictions legally made of and on them in the road traffic act.... such as observation of road markings / signs, red lights etc... trying to police payment of a tax would be just not be cost effective if we are being honest.

I wonder if all these rule braking cyclists are the same rule breaking motorists? Maybe it's the same gobshytes that ignore the traffic laws regardless off the mode of transport..

magicbastarder

Spook_ie wrote: »

Actually it's a valid question, if 12% of the offenders were cyclists but (for arguments sake) say 24% of vehicles were cyclists then that surely means that for every 100 cars and bicycles that 50% of cyclists broke the red light?

your maths is incorrect. you're conflating the numbers on the road with the numbers breaking red lights.

micar

km991148 wrote: »

I think it's 1250 now.. it was announced 5 days or something after I ordered my last bike. That should please the op..an extra few quid in the gov pot to repair some road damage. You know from all those bicycles tearing up the asphalt..

Apologies.....totally correct.

Seth Brundle

Spook_ie wrote: »

Actually it's a valid question, if 12% of the offenders were cyclists but (for arguments sake) say 24% of vehicles were cyclists then that surely means that for every 100 cars and bicycles that 50% of cyclists broke the red light?

Aah nothing like made up statistics to help make your point :rolleyes:

Spook_ie

Captain Flaps wrote: »

Nothing you've said negates what I said, there are exceptions and if they aren't clear then you should speak to whoever made them. Motor tax is related to your car, roads are paid for through general taxation. This isn't a matter of opinion. The tax is on emissions, and as your aren't emitting anything when the car is parked up for a long stretch, you don't pay.

Why do zero emission vehicles pay motor tax?
https://www.motortax.ie/OMT/motortaxinfotype.do

Basis of Assessment:
PRIVATE CAR ELECTRICAL

The basis of assessment (BOA) is the vehicle detail which facilitates the calculation of the appropriate motor tax fee, e.g. engine capacity or CO2 emissions for private cars, weight for goods vehicles. The BOA for the details entered is STANDARD
The rates of taxation are as follows:


Tax Band Annual Half Year Quarter Year Arrears (Per Month)
120 66 33 12.00

km991148

micar wrote: »

Apologies.....totally correct.

No apology needed..! I only remember the change because it was announced and came into effect in between me ordering and taking delivery :pac:

magicbastarder

Spook_ie wrote: »

Why do zero emission vehicles pay motor tax?
https://www.motortax.ie/OMT/motortaxinfotype.do

do zero emissions car run on well wishes?
or have you bought into the bolloxology that they're zero emissions?

Fighting Tao

Spook_ie wrote: »

Why do zero emission vehicles pay motor tax?
https://www.motortax.ie/OMT/motortaxinfotype.do

Basis of Assessment:
PRIVATE CAR ELECTRICAL

The basis of assessment (BOA) is the vehicle detail which facilitates the calculation of the appropriate motor tax fee, e.g. engine capacity or CO2 emissions for private cars, weight for goods vehicles. The BOA for the details entered is STANDARD
The rates of taxation are as follows:


Tax Band Annual Half Year Quarter Year Arrears (Per Month)
120 66 33 12.00

Ever hear of an electric motor? The ’motor’ in ‘electric motor’ is the same as ‘motor’ in ‘motor tax’.

Fighting Tao

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Ever hear of an electric motor? The ’motor’ in ‘electric motor’ is the same as ‘motor’ in ‘motor tax’.

But some of them sound like Kit from Knightrider now, surely they should be exempt for that alone !!!!! :pac:

Fighting Tao

[Deleted User] wrote: »

But some of them sound like Kit from Knightrider now, surely they should be exempt for that alone !!!!! :pac:

Only if they look like Kit too

magicbastarder

ah here lads, you're reminiscing about knight rider, and calling the car 'kit'?

it's KITT. Knight Industries Two Thousand.

Seth Brundle

We're going around in circles and the facts don't seem to be sinking in
Motor tax and VRT are payable on cars because they're Mechanically Propelled Vehicles. Bikes aren't mechanically propelled and so aren't subject to the measures within the laws such as tax, NCT and insurance. This is why escooters were in the news over the last year or so. But the government is amending the legislation so that they aren't included which presumably some here will appreciate as it will give them yet another user-group to complain about.

Fighting Tao

magicbastarder wrote: »

ah here lads, you're reminiscing about knight rider, and calling the car 'kit'?

it's KITT. Knight Industries Two Thousand.

Nah. I’m remembering back to the days I had lovely hair like Hasslehoff. It’s been quite a while.

AndrewJRenko

Sono Topolino wrote: »

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

Would you be happy with a road user tax for all road users proportional to the wear and tear arising? This would be a big step along the road towards paying the full cost of motoring, as you've suggested.

Spook_ie

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Aah nothing like made up statistics to help make your point :rolleyes:

Sometimes with people you need to simplify figures for them to understand a concept.

Many people don't understand the concept that if a figure of 100 vehicles is 25% Cycles and 75% cars then if 12 of those cyclists break a law then it is actually 48% of cyclists who break that law.

Likewise if 12% of cyclists broke the red Luas light, on it's own ( which AJR and probably yourself often quote) it means nothing unless you have quantative figures for how many cars and cyclists pass the light.

Of course I imagine that you aren't that dense you wouldn't understand the concept and instead are just trying to deflect from the question/statement.

During the full near 18-month period of the trial, some 32 per cent of red light offenders were on bicycles and 68 per cent were in vehicles.

AndrewJRenko

Spook_ie wrote: »

Why do zero emission vehicles pay motor tax?
https://www.motortax.ie/OMT/motortaxinfotype.do

]

Where did you find this vehicle that doesn't emit tyre particles and brake pad particles?