Cyclists, insurance and road tax

Padre_Pio

Spook_ie wrote: »

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

Here you go love https://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Speed/RRD_Res_20190204_FreeSpeedSurvey2018FINAL.pdf

In the study, 98% broke the 30kph, 81% broke the 50kph and 70% broke the 60kph.

During a Mid-Term Evaluation of the Strategy conducted in 2016 it was acknowledged that focus
must be on the main killer behaviours, i.e. the behaviours that have been proven to contribute to
fatal collisions on our roads, of which speeding is one. Reducing the number of collisions and
casualties caused by these killer behaviours is the single most important means for Ireland to
achieve the target on fatalities by 2020.

Spook_ie

km991148 wrote: »

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).

Would you ever pay attention, you CAN NOT legally have a motor vehicle on a public road or place without the required tax paid, ergo it is a public road/ public place tax and it doesn't matter how many hoops you want to jump through or what name you wish it to be called.

Thelonious Monk

Do anti bike people think we should be encouraging people off bikes and into cars and continuing to base society around the private car? Surely you can all see how much of a failure that has been? How would penalising people on bikes help turn the situation around?

magicbastarder

Spook_ie wrote: »

Would you ever pay attention, you CAN NOT legally have a motor vehicle on a public road or place without the required tax paid, ergo it is a public road/ public place tax and it doesn't matter how many hoops you want to jump through or what name you wish it to be called.

i cannot bring my car out onto the public road without insurance, therefore we need to start calling it 'road insurance'. not 'car insurance'.

Spook_ie

Fighting Tao wrote: »

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.

But you would have no objection, because it is an electric motor yes or no?

ek motor

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Do anti bike people think we should be encouraging people off bikes and into cars and continuing to base society around the private car? Surely you can all see how much of a failure that has been? How would penalising people on bikes help turn the situation around?

How have cars been a failure ?

John_Rambo

Spook_ie wrote: »

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

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Here you go love https://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Speed/RRD_Res_20190204_FreeSpeedSurvey2018FINAL.pdf

In the study, 98% broke the 30kph, 81% broke the 50kph and 70% broke the 60kph.

Spook_ie, literally hundreds of anti-cycling posts over the last decade! And like above ^^ constantly being schooled by motorists with facts and superior knowledge. Still hammering away in the keyboard. :pac:

km991148

Padre_Pio wrote: »

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/

To maintain the current roads real estate, sure I guess as cars on the road decreased, someone would have to pay more - so like all taxes, they would keep rising for bicycles too.

However - the maintenance bill would presumably also fall over if there were fewer cars (assuming that the population would remain static, another variable). Fewer new roads would be needed etc.

Its all pie in the sky anyway - my point was really to illustrate that the whole "Its not fair, cyclists don't pay" - when really the majoritarian probably do pay the same as "drivers only" and the system isn't fair anyway (if measured in road usage and/ or emissions) - i.e. - I could do 3k a year in an big engined m5 or 25k in an small engined VW Up and do more environmental or road damage in the latter.

but hey.. something something they don't even wear helmets something..

meeeeh

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.

What would those who actually do the research know. As long as Rambo says it's true it must be true.

I have nothing against exercise of any kind or healthier lifestyle and very much in favour of more and safer cycling. I suspect I'm fitter than majority of people in this thread. However I also love dearly someone who is obese and one of the hardest working, smartest people I know. If kicking the fat people is the way to get more on your side then you can fight this alone. I think i'm above that and so are many more.

Dyr

Padre_Pio wrote: »

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.

Something like 2% of all journeys are cycling

Most cyclists stated the reason for cycling is enjoyment/excercise

Maybe I should have a lane put on the roads so I can jog along, sure plenty of space on the roads for me to excercise

magicbastarder

Bambi wrote: »

Something like 2% of all journeys are cycling

are you saying we shouldn't invest in cycling infrastructure because too few people cycle?

flasher0030

Spook_ie wrote: »

Would you ever pay attention, you CAN NOT legally have a motor vehicle on a public road or place without the required tax paid, ergo it is a public road/ public place tax and it doesn't matter how many hoops you want to jump through or what name you wish it to be called.

You're getting seriously mixed up. Not being able to use the motor vehicle on a public road/public place is the consequence/punishment of not paying the tax.
The actual reason the tax is payable in the first place is because it is a mechanically propelled vehicle (as far as I know). Nothing to do with having a plethora of roads spread across our country.
I don't know the answer to this - maybe someone could answer. If a farmer uses his tractor back the fields on his farm, and say the tractor was never ever used on a road, does the farmer need to tax the tractor i.e. because it is a mechanically propelled vehicle. Or does the fact that the tractor is used on the farmers private property make it exempt. Just out of curiosity.

km991148

ek motor wrote: »

How have cars been a failure ?

I think its more to do with the "policy" of promoting/ relying on private car usage (Or more the lack of alternative policy - yes we have a luas and a few other bits, but its not very cohesive compared to other major cities) - which seems to be pretty common in Ireland.

Imaging if every bicycle journey was done by car (or even bus!) - those that hate cyclists and only drive - Jesus - most are actually doing you a favour..

km991148

flasher0030 wrote: »

I don't know the answer to this - maybe someone could answer. If a farmer uses his tractor back the fields on his farm, and say the tractor was never ever used on a road, does the farmer need to tax the tractor i.e. because it is a mechanically propelled vehicle. Or does the fact that the tractor is used on the farmers private property make it exempt. Just out of curiosity.

Exempt - as the tax is required to use on public roads. If the farmer had to drive up a public road to access another field, then tax would be required.

Seth Brundle

flasher0030 wrote: »

I don't know the answer to this - maybe someone could answer. If a farmer uses his tractor back the fields on his farm, and say the tractor was never ever used on a road, does the farmer need to tax the tractor i.e. because it is a mechanically propelled vehicle. Or does the fact that the tractor is used on the farmers private property make it exempt. Just out of curiosity.

If it is bought and never used in a public place (road, Tesco car park, public park, etc.) then VRT would not required (and so it would not have a reg plate) nor is annual motor tax payable. It would need to be brought from the tractor showroom to the farm on a trailer (as it can't go on the road).

jimmycrackcorm

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

Who is the tiny demographic? Everyone can cycle compared to a smaller number of people who can afford to run cars and have the licence to do so.

I often see objections to housing developments because of "increased traffic concerns" so even car drivers are a cause of our housing crisis.

Padre_Pio

Bambi wrote: »

Something like 2% of all journeys are cycling

Most cyclists stated the reason for cycling is enjoyment/excercise

Maybe I should have a lane put on the roads so I can jog along, sure plenty of space on the roads for me to excercise

Sure, 5% are by public transport. Should we stop the trains and the LUAS too? Get rid of bus lanes?

I'm going to start putting sources in my posts, it riles people up if they're not there: https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-nts/nts2016/hwt/

Seth Brundle wrote: »

If it is bought and never used in a public place (road, Tesco car park, public park, etc.) then VRT would not required (and so it would not have a reg plate) nor is annual motor tax payable. It would need to be brought from the tractor showroom to the farm on a trailer (as it can't go on the road).

There was a story in the paper, some farmer got caught with no tax. Last tax disk was 14 years out of date.

Thelonious Monk

ek motor wrote: »

How have cars been a failure ?

Spending billions on roads while ignoring rail and other forms of public transport has meant a huge amount of the population is reliant on owning cars. The planning or lack of planning in rural Ireland means families need to own 2 or 3 cars just to function. We wouldn't have one off housing splattered all over the country and dead country towns if it wasn't for cars.
Cities and towns are completely dominated by private cars leading to pollution and traffic and noise and unwelcoming environments for pedestrians and cyclists.
No one should have to own a car just to be able to live.

oisinog

Spook_ie wrote: »

But you would have no objection, because it is an electric motor yes or no?

Okay how much should this tax be?

Will it be based on emmissions?

Sure if we tax an e-bike we need to look into taxing electric Wheelchairs and mobility scooters.

Seth Brundle

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I often see objections to housing developments because of "increased traffic concerns" so even car drivers are a cause of our housing crisis.

Car drivers are a bigger cause of issues in the housing market than just traffic concerns.
The space required for roads and driveways is quite significant in terms of a housing project and along with the cost to build them is all payable on the property buyer. So our low density housing preferences leads to higher property prices.
Low density housing projects means that more land is required to build upon which in turn causes urban sprawl.
The slow rollout (and NIMBYist objections) to public transport changes means that many homeowners in these new estates now require a car.
Car ownership is contributing to car dependency.

magicbastarder

oisinog wrote: »

Okay how much should this tax be?

Will it be based on emmissions?

i think it should be based on the power of the motor. a nissan leaf has an 80kW motor, from what i can see, or 320 times what a legal e-bike is allowed.

so the annual 'road tax' on an e-bike would be one three hundred and twentieth of what is due on a leaf (€120), so 37.5c per annum.

flasher0030

km991148 wrote: »

Exempt - as the tax is required to use on public roads. If the farmer had to drive up a public road to access another field, then tax would be required.

Ok. Thanks. I didn't know that.
I'm just being diplomatic here, in seeing seeing some elements in both sides of the coin. I know it's not called road tax, but there seems to me to be more of a connection to roads use than I thought. If we are referring to it as motor tax (which is the correct name) and we are effectively trying to distance the motor tax from the idea that it has anything to do with roads (i.e. based on emissions, pollution issues etc) - why is the tractor exempt when it does the same thing i.e. climate issues.

magicbastarder

ek motor wrote: »

How have cars been a failure ?

not a failure per se, but they are by *quite* a margin the most inefficient way of getting around for doing your daily routine.
if i drive to the shop to pick up the paper, i've used a one and a half ton vehicle to move around an 80kg bag of flesh and water. that brings the efficiency of the fuel used to approx 5%, no matter what fuel is used. and if it's petrol or diesel, about half the fuel is wasted through inefficiencies anyway; so of the fuel burned, maybe 3% has actually been used to move me around.

Hurrache

John_Rambo wrote: »

Spook_ie, literally hundreds of anti-cycling posts over the last decade! And like above ^^ constantly being schooled by motorists with facts and superior knowledge. Still hammering away in the keyboard. :pac:

Taxi for Spook_ie. That'll be one of those cars he uses for private use but pays a tax payers subsidised motor tax on.

Spook_ie

Fighting Tao wrote: »

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

Spook_ie wrote: »

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

Fighting Tao wrote: »

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.

So to be clear then, do you think electric motors should be taxed but only if it's in a motorised phone!

You are some piece of fruitcake

km991148

flasher0030 wrote: »

Ok. Thanks. I didn't know that.
I'm just being diplomatic here, in seeing seeing some elements in both sides of the coin. I know it's not called road tax, but there seems to me to be more of a connection to roads use than I thought. If we are referring to it as motor tax (which is the correct name) and we are effectively trying to distance the motor tax from the idea that it has anything to do with roads (i.e. based on emissions, pollution issues etc) - why is the tractor exempt when it does the same thing i.e. climate issues.

Yeah I get you. That's why I said earlier that it's wrong to say it's about road use or emissions.

To use the (public) road, the tax is of course due. To make it more complicated tho, the bandings are based on an approximation of emissions (but as pointed out, not if used privately). Its really just a way to bring in more central taxation. The roads are funded from general tax. The environmental impact is also funded from general tax.
Because of the requirement to have tax to access public space doesn't give an exclusive right as we all pay for that public space.

In reality, the system isn't fair in general (look at my other examples). The system already isn't fair amongst different usages of cars, never mind trying to but some 'balance' in for cyclists to pay.

oisinog

magicbastarder wrote: »

i think it should be based on the power of the motor. a nissan leaf has an 80kW motor, from what i can see, or 320 times what a legal e-bike is allowed.

so the annual 'road tax' on an e-bike would be one three hundred and twentieth of what is due on a leaf (€120), so 37.5c per annum.

So civil servant is on €14 an hour say it takes 15 mins to prepare the forms (€3.50)
€0.95 to post the item
€0.95 for the return item

Yip I can see the goverment being delighted to support a proposal to lose money.

Spook_ie

Fighting Tao wrote: »

So you don’t choose to own a car? You don’t choose wether or not to use it in a public space??? It’s all choices, so please don’t misrepresent what I am saying.

What has the fact it's a choice to do with it, it's a choice if you drink and pay tax on your beer it's still a drinks tax.

liamog

magicbastarder wrote: »

not a failure per se, but they are by *quite* a margin the most inefficient way of getting around for doing your daily routine.

A helicopter would be much worse for a trip to your local tesco

John_Rambo

meeeeh wrote: »

What would those who actually do the research know. As long as Rambo says it's true it must be true.

I have nothing against exercise of any kind or healthier lifestyle and very much in favour of more and safer cycling. I suspect I'm fitter than majority of people in this thread. However I also love dearly someone who is obese and one of the hardest working, smartest people I know. If kicking the fat people is the way to get more on your side then you can fight this alone. I think i'm above that and so are many more.

Would you cop on and stop whining. I didn't kick anyone, all I said was that exercise is good for weight loss from personal experience.

Jesus, the anti-cycling brigade have turned in to a right pack of sensitive whingers.