Cyclists, insurance and road tax

magicbastarder

FileNotFound wrote: »

They won't tax or insure bikes as they want people to use them and get out of cars

yep; how do we get more kids to cycle to school; not by turning them into a cash cow anyway.

km991148

Hurrache wrote: »

It's hilarious to see some of the same eejits attracted to this thread after it's being on going so long. Two of them most active in the small hours trotting their same crap out.

A good looking cyclist, aren't they all, must have wiped their eye at some point and they've been bitter ever since.

Ah sure, feck it sometimes I can't sleep and the TV is crap.

Not bitter tho.. it's all nonsense on these parts of the internet..

John_Rambo

Anti cyclist brigade being absolutely owned on this thread by modern, European thinking motorists & cyclists.

Great to see them calmly educated on tax matters, safe driving and responsible car ownership.

km991148

SeanW wrote: »

Whether or not to own a car, and whether or not to put a car on the road are entirely separate decisions. You're only taxed on the latter, not the former.

Mainly because it only applies to vehicles registered after July 2008 and even then, is still predicated on the same main criteria - being on or off the road.

I'm not sure what the difference is between usage and access in this context. It's really simple. If your motor is on the road, it's liable for motor tax. If it's off the road, (and declared to be so, or is a type of motor that was never on the road in the first place, e.g. a stationary generator or any other type of off-road motor) it's not liable for motor tax.

I think the reason is that the cycling brigade have declared a jihad (metaphorically speaking) on the term "road tax" because ... reasons ...

I'm really not calling out the 'road tax' aspect... Nor am I representative if the cycling brigade.

I'm happy to call the tax that's paid to use a vehicle 'road tax' because that's what everyone calls it and is the accepted term.
I just find it funny that you go a chastise others for their interpretation and made up terminology while doing the same yourself. You are causing confusion by doing this..

Usage and access.. 'usage' implies a lot more and when you say 'based on usage' it doubles down on that and sound like 'the more you use, the more you pay' sorta stuff.

magicbastarder

though, to string this argument out a little more, an example of how cars are a grossly inefficient use of public space, which is why we want to 'subsidise' cyclists by not charging them to cycle.
the M50 is one of the biggest investments in public infrastructure ever undertaken in this country; and yes, it's a vital piece of road infrastructure, i'm not arguing that.

but if you were to place cars (with one driver each) literally bumper to bumper - actually touching - on the M50, on the wide section from the M1 interchange to the sandyford junction, using all four lanes in each direction, so eight lanes of cars actually touching - all those drivers would *easily* fit into croke park. they'd take up roughly two out of every three seats.

other countries have now started to subsidise people to get rid of their cars and replace them with bikes. but we're drawn back to this argument here time and again about making cycling less appealing with talk of tokenistic and ineffectual charges.

meeeeh

FileNotFound wrote: »

It reduces your chances of being a fat slob and helps the environment. Win win

It doesn't reduce the chances to be a judgemental prick though. Is there really always the need to put down fat people just to make yourself feel better. Even the nonsense thread about nonsense tax ends up an easy punch down for those some feel are bellow them. Btw exercise doesn't really help with weight loss.

Thelonious Monk

meeeeh wrote: »

It doesn't reduce the chances to be a judgemental prick though. Is there really always the need to put down fat people just to make yourself feel better.

If you're ever in Holland the lack of fat people is really noticeable, a country where 25% of all journeys are made by bike. No coincidence.

AndrewJRenko

Sour Lemonz wrote: »

As for insurance, that i can totally get behind as cyclists have been known to cause incidents on roads and paths and as such should have similar accountability as motorists.

maestroamado wrote: »

I do not think they should pay road tax, however i do think they should have insurance for their bikes + personal liability with the usual claim bonus etc, then if there is an incident the insurance companies can sort this out, whoever is at fault takes the hit, as things are now the car insurance company will have to pay if there is damage or injury...

Pedestrians have been known to cause incidents on roads and paths. Do they need similar accountability to motorists with mandatory insurance too?

Do we really, really need similar accountability for those who kill 2 or 3 people each week and those who kill 1 person each decade?

John_Rambo

meeeeh wrote: »

exercise doesn't really help with weight loss.

:pac:

meeeeh

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

If you're ever in Holland the lack of fat people is really noticeable, a country where 25% of all journeys are made by bike. No coincidence.

I'm it is not. I'm Slovenian people there are slimmer too and more active. However the main difference is that dinner is not eaten in front of TV and every Friday isn't take out night, sandwich isn't accompanied by bag of crisps and so on. I'm active, every morning I run past discarded fast food cartons.

Anyway that's not the point, I despise the need to just kick an odd fat person because you know we can.

Thelonious Monk

https://twitter.com/WMPolice/status/1384194971176030211

Can you imagine the Garda ever doing something like this in Ireland? The I pay road taxers would be up in arms.

Thelonious Monk

meeeeh wrote: »

I'm it is not. I'm Slovenian people there are slimmer too and more active. However the main difference is that dinner is not eaten in front of TV and every Friday isn't take out night, sandwich isn't accompanied by bag of crisps and so on. I'm active, every morning I run past discarded fast food cartons.

Yes our diet is pretty bad here in Ireland generally so that doesn't help either.

SeanW

km991148 wrote: »

I'm really not calling out the 'road tax' aspect... Nor am I representative if the cycling brigade.

I'm happy to call the tax that's paid to use a vehicle 'road tax' because that's what everyone calls it and is the accepted term.
I just find it funny that you go a chastise others for their interpretation and made up terminology while doing the same yourself. You are causing confusion by doing this..

Usage and access.. 'usage' implies a lot more and when you say 'based on usage' it doubles down on that and sound like 'the more you use, the more you pay' sorta stuff.

Fair enough. I had not intended to imply that the tax in question was like a sliding scale or something, just that it was based on a vehicle being on (and thus using) public roads at all.

meeeeh

John_Rambo wrote: »

:pac:

https://www.vox.com/2016/4/28/11518804/weight-loss-exercise-myth-burn-calories

This is quick one the last I read on subject was in The Times which won't bother looking for because it's behind pay wall.

Padre_Pio

meeeeh wrote: »

It doesn't reduce the chances to be a judgemental prick though. Is there really always the need to put down fat people just to make yourself feel better. Even the nonsense thread about nonsense tax ends up an easy punch down for those some feel are bellow them. Btw exercise doesn't really help with weight loss.

Plenty of judgemental prick motorists on the other side.

Exercise along with a healthy diet will result in weight loss. Exercise is incredibly important for your fitness and health.

FileNotFound

meeeeh wrote: »

It doesn't reduce the chances to be a judgemental prick though. Is there really always the need to put down fat people just to make yourself feel better. Even the nonsense thread about nonsense tax ends up an easy punch down for those some feel are bellow them. Btw exercise doesn't really help with weight loss.

Exercise seems to work for most, the people you see doing it are generally in better shape than those that don't - physical and mental.

And in the context of people complaining bout the cost of cycling infrastructure to the tax payer, well the health bills of the less healthy will cost the state far more.

John_Rambo

meeeeh wrote: »

https://www.vox.com/2016/4/28/11518804/weight-loss-exercise-myth-burn-calories

This is quick one the last I read on subject was in The Times which won't bother looking for because it's behind pay wall.

Believe me, exercise is good for weight loss, and I'm talking from personal experience, not a website!!

This is gas, the die hard anti-cycling brigade are really clutching at straws now.

seamus

meeeeh wrote: »

https://www.vox.com/2016/4/28/11518804/weight-loss-exercise-myth-burn-calories

This is quick one the last I read on subject was in The Times which won't bother looking for because it's behind pay wall.

I don't even need to read past that headline. No, you shouldn't exercise to lose weight. Because you won't keep it up and you will put the weight back on once you get fed up.

But moving more on a daily basis, getting more exercise as part of your daily routine, does have a cumulative effect. People who get more exercise are less likely to be obese than those who don't. And because it's part of your routine, you don't give it up.

Here's something that's more relevant; https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(20)30079-6/fulltext

compared with commuting by private motorised vehicle, bicycle commuting was associated with a 20% reduced rate of all-cause mortality, a 24% decreased rate of cardiovascular disease mortality, a 16% lower rate of cancer mortality, and an 11% reduced rate of incident cancer

Trying to argue that there's no health benefit to promoting active commuting over driving is mind-boggling tbh.

mr potato head

liamog wrote: »

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.

No problem, didn't think you were. I wrote it on my phone and the smile emoji didn't come through

seamus

seamus wrote: »

I don't even need to read past that headline. No, you shouldn't exercise to lose weight. Because you won't keep it up and you will put the weight back on once you get fed up.

But moving more on a daily basis, getting more exercise as part of your daily routine, does have a cumulative effect. People who get more exercise are less likely to be obese than those who don't. And because it's part of your routine, you don't give it up.

Here's something that's more relevant; https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(20)30079-6/fulltext



Trying to argue that there's no health benefit to promoting active commuting over driving is mind-boggling tbh.

Yeah lifestyle change over going on a diet. This is what bugs me about stuff like operation transformation and the like. You see it every year a big up tick in people out walking and running then the show stops and it's back to the sofa every evening. From what I've seen it didn't really hammer home the permanent lifestyle change aspect and focuses too much on the diet side.

magicbastarder

compared with commuting by private motorised vehicle, bicycle commuting was associated with a 20% reduced rate of all-cause mortality, a 24% decreased rate of cardiovascular disease mortality, a 16% lower rate of cancer mortality, and an 11% reduced rate of incident cancer

i would suspect that it's a fairly simple choice between what is better for the public purse - allow cyclists to cycle without financial cost on the roads, and enjoy the benefits above, or tax them off the road.
anyway, this calculation has been done in multiple jurisdictions; getting people to cycle is better for the public purse, pretty much without caveat.

km991148

magicbastarder wrote: »

i would suspect that it's a fairly simple choice between what is better for the public purse - allow cyclists to cycle without financial cost on the roads, and enjoy the benefits above, or tax them off the road.
anyway, this calculation has been done in multiple jurisdictions; getting people to cycle is better for the public purse, pretty much without caveat.

Lets take the thought experiment tho - say we did move to a "fair usage" - a calculation that takes into account road usage (KMs travelled on public road, ignoring the impracticalities of that) and probably emissions as well.

I reckon it would turn out to be the case that people who don't cycle (or e-sccoter or e-bike or walk more) would pay a lot more.

Actually - the more I think about it- assuming you have three groups with regards to cycling and driving:

# 1 Exclusive motorists (quite a lot, proportionally)
# 2 Exclusive cyclists (proportionally, not many)
# 3 Those who drive and cycle (the majority of cyclists, not the majority of motorists).

I would say that actually group #3 are subsidising those in #1. I.e. they pay the same rate of tax on their vehicles, but for potentially a lot less usage as they complete more journeys by bicycle.

I think really a paltry tax break on the first 1250 of a bicycle isn't really enough for the amount of extra slack that those who cycle and drive pay. The OP should really be paying more.

magicbastarder

km991148 wrote: »

I would say that actually group #3 are subsidising those in #1. I.e. they pay the same rate of tax on their vehicles, but for potentially a lot less usage as they complete more journeys by bicycle.

on a related note, there is that motor insurance company in the UK who offer lower premiums to cyclists because they found that cyclists were less than half as likely to put in a claim as non-cyclists.
i'd have been interested to see how that broke down into 'cyclists are better drivers' and less likely to have an accident per km travelles' vs. 'cyclists don't drive as much as non-cyclists so drive fewer km'.

Padre_Pio

km991148 wrote: »

Lets take the thought experiment tho - say we did move to a "fair usage" - a calculation that takes into account road usage (KMs travelled on public road, ignoring the impracticalities of that) and probably emissions as well.

I would say that actually group #3 are subsidising those in #1. I.e. they pay the same rate of tax on their vehicles, but for potentially a lot less usage as they complete more journeys by bicycle.

Interesting take.

In 2019 Shane Ross said it would take €630 million a year to just stand still on road maintenance for local and regional roads. At that time they were spending €480 million.
No cost on what extra is needed for new roads or redevelopments.

Motor tax makes the state €707 million a year, down from €880 million in 2015.
The motorway from Cork to Limerick will cost a cool €1 billion.

So yep, it makes sense that right now, if motor tax was ringfenced, motorists would barely cover the cost of maintaining the roads and that non-motorists pick up the slack.

So for all the "dey use de roads Joe! Dey shud pay de road tax", even if cyclists had to pay, it still would be nowhere near enough.
But hey, it's a tax on engine size and emissions right now, neither of which affects cyclists.
If you want to change it to road damage, it still wouldn't affect cyclists.
If you want to change it to road space taken up, it would barely affect cyclists.

It would only affect cyclists if you wanted to actively punish people who might, sometimes, make your 1 hour commute home a 1 hour and 30 second commute.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/tax-group-eyes-diesel-levies-and-motor-tax-bands-ahead-of-budget-1.4354690
https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2019-11-21/1/

Dyr

John_Rambo wrote: »

Believe me, exercise is good for weight loss, and I'm talking from personal experience, not a website!!

This is gas, the die hard anti-cycling brigade are really clutching at straws now.

It's an interesting idea, that infrastructure for transport should be geared towards use by a tiny demographic for excerise, at a significant cost to the taxpayer.

Seems kinda backwards

John_Rambo

Bambi wrote: »

It's an interesting idea, that infrastructure for transport should be geared towards use by a tiny demographic for excerise, at a significant cost to the taxpayer.

Seems kinda backwards

Silly post, stop confusing yourself, nobody said this.

I just said exercise is good for weight loss.

Padre_Pio

Bambi wrote: »

It's an interesting idea, that infrastructure for transport should be geared towards use by a tiny demographic for excerise, at a significant cost to the taxpayer.

Seems kinda backwards

1. What infrastructure, apart from cycle lanes, is geared towards a tiny demographic? How much tax money is involved? What are the social benefits?

2. Cyclists are taxpayers.

3. Maybe if the infrastructure is there, the tiny demographic will grow?

4. It's not only exercise, it's also travel/commuting/tourism.

FileNotFound

Bambi wrote: »

It's an interesting idea, that infrastructure for transport should be geared towards use by a tiny demographic for excerise, at a significant cost to the taxpayer.

Seems kinda backwards

The increase in people using this form of transport will result in a healthier population and thus reduce the cost on the taxpayer down the line. The bigger the person, the bigger the health problems, the bigger the cost)

I bet obesity and all the related medical issues will cost us far more than a few cycle lanes.

Then you add in reduced emissions from less cars and the reduced enviro impact.

And once again cycling becomes something that should be promoted.

Spook_ie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

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.

Well let's start with the full facts about your claims of 98% of drivers speeding, then we'll move on from there, and I do mean "Full" facts not the headline grabber, clickbait you so love

Spook_ie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

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.

Yes, and as is so trotted out by you and others is you want to be treated as traffic (when it suits), I just think you want to be treated equally, you face the same monetary fines as a motorist for transgressing the same law that applies to ALL traffic, not even looking for the PPs to be applied (yet)