Cyclists, insurance and road tax

mr potato head

Spook_ie wrote: »

Does your cycling run on zero food consumption? or do you believe in your own bolloxology?

Spook_ie wrote: »

So you have no objections then to electrically assisted bicycles and electric scooters paying motor tax then?

Spook_ie wrote: »

Do you have to change brake components and tyres on a bicycle, wonder where all the bits you wore off went?

By nearly all measures, the taxation required based on any of these methods would be so small relative to cars that they would not be financially viable to collect.

Ash.J.Williams

Fair enough there’s the letter of the law but those cops are utter scum bags . As a native Irish person I guarantee this could never happen to me , not accusing them of racism or anything


https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/courtandcrime/arid-40269938.html

Spook_ie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why is the percentage of offending road users relevant? Is this some kind of gold star competition to find the best team, or is it about identifying dangerous behaviours that need to be stopped?

If the latter, then you might want to focus on the 88% of red light jumping done by the 1-4 tonne vehicles. If you focus on anything else, stop pretending that you're interested in safety.

My only interest is in factuality which is why I've never questioned your assertion that more people are killed by motor vehicles per year, your constant bandying of half truths when it comes to other facts is something different

Spook_ie

magicbastarder wrote: »

But let's run with your maths. It means that 88% of RLJers are motorists, but 75% of road users are motorists, so 117% of motorists are RLJers.

Rather than just working with percentages try putting some figures to your math

1000 road users, 75% motorists i.e 750
88% of detections are motorists i.e 880 if it's the same 1000,
however
if it's the 88% of the 750 i.e 660
unless you have a correlation between the two sets of numbers you will always be incorrect.

But taking your math one step further it is probably demonstrable that if people jumped the red light more than once ( return journey maybe ) then yes you could have 100%+ as a figure

MrStuffins

Spook_ie wrote: »

But taking your math one step further it is probably demonstrable that if people jumped the red light more than once ( return journey maybe ) then yes you could have 100%+ as a figure

Are you proposing a red-light jumping tax?

Spook_ie

km991148 wrote: »

Yep. You pay a tax to use an MPV in a public place.

Where it gets interesting tho is that the claim is often made that it is to use the roads (which is also false). However due to them banding it based on emissions (or an approximation of such, pre 2008) it is pretty close to a tax on emissions (or out another way, close to being a tax in using the air).

No, you don't pay emissions or motor taxes unless the vehicle is on a public road or in a public place, as I stated in the example I need not be paying any taxation emission or motor if the vehicle is on private land, you can call it whatever you like tax but at least have the common sense to realise when it's a tax for using the roads

liamog

mr potato head wrote: »

Use CO2
ICE Petrol - 162-259 g CO2e/km
EV - 90-120 g CO2e/km (Irish Grid)
Bike - 16 g CO2e/km
Ebike - 9 g CO2e/km

Out of interest, where did you source the EV figure from, it's about twice what was calculated for the most common EV on Irish roads? Which came to 48g/ CO2e/km.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116558958&postcount=182

Spook_ie

MrStuffins wrote: »

Are you proposing a red-light jumping tax?

There already is one, just not collected in any quantity by the Gardai
Failiure to stop at traffic lights €80 and 3 PP as a motorist and a €40 fine as a cyclist ( IMO as cyclists want to be treated like traffic then the fine should at least match )

MrStuffins

Spook_ie wrote: »

There already is one, just not collected in any quantity by the Gardai
Failiure to stop at traffic lights €80 and 3 PP as a motorist and a €40 fine as a cyclist ( IMO as cyclists want to be treated like traffic then the fine should at least match )

Great.

Then this is all sorted.

Motor cars will pay Motor Tax, cyclists don't have motors so won't, and everyone will pay a tax on jumping red lights.

Happy days!

mr potato head

liamog wrote: »

Out of interest, where did you source the EV figure from, it's about twice what was calculated for the most common EV on Irish roads? Which came to 48g/ CO2e/km.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116558958&postcount=182

It was from an EU comparison of CO2e/km for various vehicle types.
The document was a few years old, so the grid mix and EV efficiency may be out of date and the main focus was on ICE cars

I'm not writing a paper, so I didn't spend too long finding dataðŸ˜႒

I've an e208 so I really should know the numbers better

liamog

mr potato head wrote: »

I'm not writing a paper, so I didn't spend too long finding dataðŸ˜႒

I've an e208 so I really should know the numbers better

I wasn't trying to call you out, just wanted to make sure I hadn't missed something in the calculations. The Irish grid has got a lot cleaner over the last few years, hopefully Irish agriculture will too, that way the number for a cyclist will drop too.

Spook_ie

MrStuffins wrote: »

Great.

Then this is all sorted.

Motor cars will pay Motor Tax, cyclists don't have motors so won't, and everyone will pay a tax on jumping red lights.

Happy days!

No that's only your RLJ tax partially sorted

MrStuffins

Spook_ie wrote: »

No that's only your RLJ tax partially sorted

Your RLJ tax. Was your idea.

Motor Tax is already sorted.

Spook_ie

MrStuffins wrote: »

Are you proposing a red-light jumping tax?

MrStuffins wrote: »

Your RLJ tax. Was your idea.

Motor Tax is already sorted.

Could have sworn it was you!

And motor tax is far from sorted except in minds that can't encompass anything other that what they've learnt mantra style, I mean FFS you are actually worse than the " I pay road tax" people

SeanW

MrStuffins wrote: »

Cars wreck the road the cyclists. I'd like to see an increase in Motor Tax to subsidise repairs for bicycles ruined by damage done by cars.

Why should cyclists pay for damage done by cars?

If a cyclist cannot see a pothole in good enough time to slow down for it or avoid it as necessary, they shouldn't be on the road.

Captain Flaps wrote: »

There's no elephant in the room. You're paying a tax for the car that you own which is based on emissions. You are not paying a tax to use the road because the roads are paid for by general taxation, everyone pays for their upkeep regardless of usage. You pay a seperate tax on your private motor vehicle. It's the same way that you pay property tax if you own a house and you don't if you don't. I'm sorry if I'm being snarky but this is a really black and white discussion and you're looking for grey areas.

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.

This. is. false. Full stop. You can own however many motors you like, they are only liable for tax if they are on a public road. Any other distinction, such as emissions, engine capacity on pre-'08 vehicles etc. are secondary. Your liability for motor tax is your usage of the roads with said motor. There is no other criteria. That's why some people call their motor tax, road tax. The claim that there is a tax on motor ownership is a falsehood. Pure and simple.

smurgen

If cyclist should pay road taxes the suv/ jeep drivers should be paying twice what they are now. The space and damage these lads entail is disproportionate to their charges. Needs to go weight based.

TrangiaCoffee

Be careful what you wish for.

If cyclists pay road tax they will be cycling in the middle of the lane as that is where the best of their money will lie and the same whiners will be on here complaining about being held up more.

AndrewJRenko

Spook_ie wrote: »

My only interest is in factuality which is why I've never questioned your assertion that more people are killed by motor vehicles per year, your constant bandying of half truths when it comes to other facts is something different

If you'd like to be specific about what you claim to be half truths, I'll be glad to spell out the full truth for you.

AndrewJRenko

SeanW wrote: »

This. is. false. Full stop. You can own however many motors you like, they are only liable for tax if they are on a public road. Any other distinction, such as emissions, engine capacity on pre-'08 vehicles etc. are secondary. Your liability for motor tax is your usage of the roads with said motor. There is no other criteria. That's why some people call their motor tax, road tax. The claim that there is a tax on motor ownership is a falsehood. Pure and simple.

This. is. false. Full stop.

Not all vehicles on the road pay motor tax. There is no tax for usage of roads. Pure and simple.

AndrewJRenko

Spook_ie wrote: »

There already is one, just not collected in any quantity by the Gardai
Failiure to stop at traffic lights €80 and 3 PP as a motorist and a €40 fine as a cyclist ( IMO as cyclists want to be treated like traffic then the fine should at least match )

What cyclist said that they wanted to be treated like traffic btw? Cyclists ARE traffic.

The fines don't match because the danger of breaking a red light in a tonne or two of metal is different to the danger of breaking a red light on a 10-20kg bike.

SeanW

There are some exemptions. But they don't disprove the rule. There is no tax on motor ownership. There is no "motor" tax on motors that are not on the road. Those who are liable for motor tax are liable on the basis that their vehicle is on the road. There is no other criteria.

AndrewJRenko

SeanW wrote: »

There are some exemptions. But they don't disprove the rule. There is no tax on motor ownership. There is no "motor" tax on motors that are not on the road. Those who are liable for motor tax are liable on the basis that their vehicle is on the road. There is no other criteria.

There is no tax for all motors on the road. That is not the criteria.

SeanW

There are some exemptions. I think emergency vehicles and some other cases. Doesn't disprove the rule. Motor tax is linked to road usage by liable vehicles. That's why a road-going Nissan Leaf is liable for motor tax but a Formula 1 race car, lawnmower, stationary generator, off-road agricultural motor, or a normally liable vehicle that has been declared off the road in advance is not liable. Why?

It's because they're off the road.

With a small number of exceptions, liability (or not) for motor tax is solely linked to usage of the roads with said motor. Ergo, road tax.

lawrencesummers

44 pages.


That’s Gas.

km991148

Spook_ie wrote: »

No, you don't pay emissions or motor taxes unless the vehicle is on a public road or in a public place, as I stated in the example I need not be paying any taxation emission or motor if the vehicle is on private land, you can call it whatever you like tax but at least have the common sense to realise when it's a tax for using the roads

Eh? I think I quite clearly stated that it is a tax to use the vehicle in a public place.

It's not a tax to use the roads, nor is it s tax on emissions.

The banding of the tax tho is based on emissions. So if you want to make up wording, it could be argued that it's as close to an emissions tax as it is to a tax to use the roads. But neither are correct - common sense will tell you that.

You don't get a discount if you use fewer roads, for example. You do if you pollute less via a smaller car (but not if you do fewer miles in a larger car in a public space or on private land).

AndrewJRenko

SeanW wrote: »

There are some exemptions.
With a small number of exceptions, .

Apart from that Mrs Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?

Fighting Tao

Spook_ie wrote: »

So you have no objections then to electrically assisted bicycles and electric scooters paying motor tax then?

Might as well charge a mobile phone charging tax if you want to go down that route. The amount would be so insignificant that it would cost more to administer than would be collected. Then you’d be moaning about it being a waste of money.

SeanW

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Apart from that Mrs Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?

Refuse carts and fire engines = the assassination of a US president.

AndrewJRenko

SeanW wrote: »

Refuse carts and fire engines = the assassination of a US president.

Motor tax = road tax

km991148

Anyway, feck it, if it's some new tax based on some function of usage that takes in to account millage, road wear and emissions I'd be tempted to say feck it, why not if it's fair.

Might take some more cars out if the cities and the country lanes and means I'll get held up less often. Means we can have new internet arguments in the future as well!

Maybe there is a new market in aero odometers? Or will we just be arguing about tax dodging by under reporting distance?