Cyclists, insurance and road tax

Spook_ie

km991148 wrote: »

Its also "linked to emissions" but you reject others saying that.

Colloquially it is known as a road tax. But saying its based on usage (of roads) is as incorrect as saying its fully based on emissions. You need the tax paid to access public roads, but your usage of them is irrelevant.

I'm not really wanting to get into some pedantic debate on it - I just don't understand why others are arguing it (and somehow managed to get sucked into it myself..).

So if you keep saying "based on usage" you are going to keep getting people arguing over it (like has happened on every single thread I've seen on this). Same as when people keep saying its a tax on emissions you will keep arguing back with them (you are both wrong! - Although emissions does factor into the calculation in some form at least.)

Fine - its your time I guess, I'd just rather you didn't wave the "common sense" stick at me in the middle of such nonsense!

But it isn't linked to emissions because if a car isn't moving it isn't emitting anything but you would still have to pay for the road space you take up with it being parked, in fact you would likely be paying twice over as there is little free parking in cities.

It's often been argued that the place place for motor tax/road tax etc. is on fuel duty where if you drive or run the engine more you pay more, would it be a road tax then, NO it would be a fuel tax

magicbastarder

liamog wrote: »

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

all the cool kids are using jetpacks these days.

Paddigol

oisinog wrote: »

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.

At some point, you'd like to think anyway, the proponents of this line of 'reasoning' must - SURELY MUST! -sit back and realise what foolishness they're coming out with. They must realise that if they'd just spent a few minutes teasing the issues out quietly to themselves before posting, they'd have come to the conclusion that there is no logical basis to their arguments. Which, you'd hope, would cause them to question why they agitate so easily/ frequently against cycling. And they'd then conclude that bitterness (quite where it comes from and why is beyond me - I think some people just have to have a cohort who they are 'against', be it members of the opposite sex, a different religion, race, demographic) is counterproductive to a happy life.

And yet, as sure as night follows day, these threads will continue. "They don't even pay road tax Joe!!! They don't even pay it Joe!!!". Hopefully OP has at least been somewhat educated over the past 24 hours.

Fighting Tao

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

So commuting by bike can’t be exercise or enjoyable? Odd way of thinking.

Duckjob

Regardless of the embarassing whinging that comes from certain quarters in Ireland, the fact is cycling is being embraced the world over as the way forward to simultaneously tackle the climate crisis, global chronic traffic congestion in cities, a global obesity crisis, and a myriad of other health related problems.

This is not being done blindly- far from it. In particular, Netherlands are a text-book study in the benefits on offer and the Dutch are now at the stage where they are richly reaping the benefits of their choices over the past 40-50 years. The nordics and other northern European countries in particular are falling over themselves trying to catch up with NL, in other to enjoy those benefits for themselves.

If the Irish government was to start tomorrow trying to charge people to cycle, Ireland would instantly take its place as the most backward backwater of Europe, and rightly so.

It's embarassing enough knowing our fellow Europeans might be reading Irish forums like this and realising how behind and doggedly resistant to new ideas some people here are.

JimmyVik

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.

Does anywhere in the world tax cyclists or require that they be insured?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBFFrsvgu1Y

Fighting Tao

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.

The footpath where many of these cars are stored is not the road, so road tax is obvious just wrong.

magicbastarder

Fighting Tao wrote: »

So commuting by bike can’t be exercise or enjoyable? Odd way of thinking.

that was the great thing about cycling to work. commuting, leisure, *and* exercise all in one. and quicker than driving. much cheaper too.

VonLuck

You're arguing over the semantics of the words "Motor Tax". Next we'll be talking how Property Tax is a misnomer because it doesn't cover personal property like phones or laptops.

Spook_ie

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.

Yeah grand now let's get past the headline grabber
Cars
Sample No. No.
Speeding
%
Speeding
Avg.
Speed
(km/h)
Percentile
Free Speed
Road Type – km/h 50th 85th
Urban National - 30 140 137 98% 46 46 54
Urban National - 50 980 789 81% 61 61 74
Urban National - 60 420 294 70% 69 67 85
Urban Arterial - 50 980 584 60% 54 53 66
Urban Arterial - 60 1120 549 49% 61 59 72
Residential - 30 508 340 70% 37 38 48
Residential - 50 1120 57 5% 36 37 47
Motorways - 120 1120 252 23% 112 112 123



As I said AJR likes his headline figures only.
Do you not think that something is wrong somewhere, signposting, placement etc. that gives an average speed of 70% @ Avg. 37Kph in residential 30Kph limits against 98% @ Avg. 46Kph in Urban National or are you just one of those like AJR that seize upon a headline grabber?

AndrewJRenko

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

Tiny demographic? More people cycle to work or college in Dublin than use Luas, DART, and suburban rail combined.

So not so tiny really.

Fighting Tao

Spook_ie wrote: »

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

Thanks for the personal insult. What a lovely person you must be.

Spook_ie

magicbastarder wrote: »

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

Not so, there is AFAIK no requirement to have a motor insured when it is not being driven, not withstanding that under normal circumstances it is technically the driver who is insured not the vehicle.

Fighting Tao

Spook_ie wrote: »

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.

Choice has everything to do with this tax. You don’t have a car in public spaces.

AndrewJRenko

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.

Wrong again, one of those half truths that you're so fond of. There are exemptions to motor tax so you can have certain vehicles on the public road without the tax paid, ergo it is NOT a public road tax.

AndrewJRenko

Spook_ie wrote: »

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)

Perhaps you missed my question, or just chose to ignore it

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

Spook_ie

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:

I will hammer away at any people who use clickbait and headline grabbers to further their attempts to get uninformed people onside to their arguments.

Like there is no such thing as road tax or 98% of motorists speed ( with no further details.)

I mean I could keep on about the near 100% of cyclists who break red lights according to Trinity college, but it's just headline grabbing.

AndrewJRenko

Bambi wrote: »

Something like 2% of all journeys are cycling

Most cyclists stated the reason for cycling is enjoyment/excercise

What's your source for this please?

And did you ask the same question of motorists - how many of them are driving to or from exercise or leisure activities?

AndrewJRenko

Spook_ie wrote: »

I will hammer away at any people who use clickbait and headline grabbers to further their attempts to get uninformed people onside to their arguments.

Like there is no such thing as road tax or 98% of motorists speed ( with no further details.)

.

I always gave the further details - that 98% of motorists break urban speed limits.

Why do you get so offended when the evidence is presented?

John_Rambo

Spook_ie wrote: »

I will hammer away at any people who use clickbait and headline grabbers to further their attempts to get uninformed people onside to their arguments.

Like there is no such thing as road tax or 98% of motorists speed ( with no further details.)

It's motor tax not road tax!!! go out and look at the disc on your car!! And you were given an RSA document that stated 98% of motorists break the 30kph limit!!!!

Lol!! :pac:

Pinch Flat

magicbastarder wrote: »

that was the great thing about cycling to work. commuting, leisure, *and* exercise all in one. and quicker than driving. much cheaper too.

Miss my cycle commute. Not a day I didn't love heading into town on the bike. Hopefully get it back soon

Dyr

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?

Cars are the most popular form of transport in this country by a mile, presumably because they are just so versatile, they're hugely succesful despite all the weirdos pushing for yet more punitive measures against car owners

Bikes on the other, box office poison but no-one dares to stand up and point out that they're a white elephant which we indulge to show virtue.

Spook_ie

flasher0030 wrote: »

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.

AFAIK it's exempt until they take it on a public road when all roads legislation driver age, licensing, insurance and taxation apply

https://www.vrt.ie/faq/irish-motor-tax-rates-cars-miscellaneous/

Hurrache

VonLuck wrote: »

You're arguing over the semantics of the words "Motor Tax". Next we'll be talking how Property Tax is a misnomer because it doesn't cover personal property like phones or laptops.

Ahem, it's actually Local Property Tax

AndrewJRenko

Spook_ie wrote: »

But it isn't linked to emissions because if a car isn't moving it isn't emitting anything but you would still have to pay for the road space you take up with it being parked, in fact you would likely be paying twice over as there is little free parking in cities.

There is little free parking in city centres.

There is vast amounts of free parking in cities - large shopping centres, retail parks, workplaces, on street in the burbs.

Hurrache

John_Rambo wrote: »

It's motor tax not road tax!!! go out and look at the disc on your car!!

Like I said, if he did actually go and check he'd find that tax payers are subsidising his motor tax, unlike the rest of us who pay motor tax. He's always good for a laugh when he gets wound up on this topic given his hypocrisy on it.

magicbastarder

Bambi wrote: »

Cars are the most popular form of transport in this country by a mile, presumably because they are just so versatile

and the fact that the infrastructure of this country has been so heavily invested in (and under invested in) to result in that scenario.
so when there's talk of actually spending money on neglected cycle infrastructure, people make this argument 'but sure very few people cycle' as if they cannot understand cause and effect.

Spook_ie

oisinog wrote: »

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.

That's where we came into this, why are electrical vehicles paying motor tax then if it's based on having an electrical motor, rather than being an ergo Road Tax

MrStuffins

Spook_ie wrote: »

Like there is no such thing as road tax...........

There is no such thing as Road Tax.

If you've been paying Road Tax on top of your Motor Tax then i'd hate to see how much you're paying the Wallet Inspector.

Dyr

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

What's your source for this please?

And did you ask the same question of motorists - how many of them are driving to or from exercise or leisure activities?

CSO transport survey.

Hopefully lots of them are driving to and from leisure activities rather than expecting the exchequer to provide them with roads for their leisure activities.