Cyclists, insurance and road tax

AndrewJRenko

Bambi wrote: »

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

Cars are the most popular form of transport because we have prioritised the needs of private car owners above all others.

Let's start giving serious consideration to the needs of others.

Tony EH

John_Rambo wrote: »

It's motor tax not road tax!!!

I think the bolded text should be part of the driving test. And if you cannot understand it, then you shouldn't be allowed onto the fucking road in the first place.

MrStuffins

Bambi wrote: »

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.

I pay the exchequer, the exchequer pays for the roads, I cycle on the roads.

Pretty simple!

magicbastarder

the 'why should we give space to cyclists, when there are so few of them' argument seems like a good example of the 'when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like persecution' maxim.

Hurrache

MrStuffins wrote: »

I pay the exchequer, the exchequer pays for the roads, I cycle on the roads.

Pretty simple!

It's amazingly simple, and yet people can't seem to figure out how taxation works and how it's used.

km991148

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.

Of course it's linked (apologies if English isn't your first language or something).

It's not absolutely determined by usage or emmisions but the fact that the banding are based on emissions means it's linked.

The only way you could say there is no link is if you are actually looking for an argument.

Spook_ie wrote: »

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

And here you go, you are now starting some new argument based on historic arguments..

PeadarCo

Bambi wrote: »

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.

Well you'd expect that in a country that has relatively low population densities outside a handful of Urban areas. Most people in Urban areas don't drive that far. The lock down is a perfect example of this. Large amounts of people have been able to about their business while staying with 10km of their homes. A distance which is perfect for a bike in an urban area.

Cars have their advantages however in urban areas cars are very space inefficient ie cars take up a lot of space relative to the number of people they transport. This is critical in areas with high population densities where road space is at a premium. If you want to transport more people in urban areas bikes and public transport in general are essential. However that means prioritising these modes of transport above motor vehicles that are rubbish at transporting large amounts of people at busy times of the day.


To call supporting bikes virtue signaling is basically ignoring all the benefits associated with bikes.

Fighting Tao

magicbastarder wrote: »

the 'why should we give space to cyclists, when there are so few of them' argument seems like a good example of the 'when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like persecution' maxim.

Since there are so few cyclists why are a few people here getting their knickers in a twist over them. Surely it’s not worth cutting off circulation to their dangly bits.

MrStuffins

Bambi wrote: »

Something like 2% of all journeys are cycling

So what you're saying is that cyclists are paying tax to provide the country with roads, but only get 2% of use for them?

That's scandalous!

Dyr

MrStuffins wrote: »

I pay the exchequer, the exchequer pays for the roads, I cycle on the roads.

Pretty simple!

I pay the exchequer, the exchequer pays for the roads, I walk on the roads. In my own lane.

Pretty simple!

Tony EH

FileNotFound wrote: »

46 Pages of ranting.

What's gas, too, is that even without looking at the thread you could make a pretty accurate guess at which posters would be doing the ranting. :pac:

MrStuffins

Bambi wrote: »

I pay the exchequer, the exchequer pays for the roads, I walk on the roads. In my own lane.

Pretty simple!

What?

Dyr

PeadarCo wrote: »

Cars have their advantages however in urban areas cars are very space inefficient ie cars take up a lot of space relative to the number of people they transport. This is critical in areas with high population densities where road space is at a premium. If you want to transport more people in urban areas bikes

What takes up more space on a road? 4 people in a car or 4 people on bikes?

What takes up more space on a road? 80 people on a bus or 80 people on bikes?

Just facts and logic.

MrStuffins

PeadarCo wrote: »

To call supporting bikes virtue signaling ....

It's incredible.

The same posters pop up in every and any thread with the exact same attitude.

There is something they don't like, others only like it because they're virtue signaling/liberals/cucks/snowflakes etc.

It's hilarious! I picture them sat in a dark room with a confederate flag whilst stroking a plastic gun.......... in a gaff in Clontarf.

breezy1985

Bambi wrote: »

What takes up more space on a road? 4 people in a car or 4 people on bikes?

What takes up more space on a road? 80 people on a bus or 80 people on bikes?

Just facts and logic.

Yes but facts also show that most car journeys are single occupancy.

Facts and logic as you say

km991148

Bambi wrote: »

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.

If everyone gave up their bikes and only drove, then drivers would be shafted. The punitive measures are not because of some vendetta against car owners (which most cyclists are..) but because there are simply too many people. I'd say for most people growing up, families were one car max and not every family would have a car. Now 2/3 car families normal.


People who cycle are doing those that don't a massive favour. Especially if you live in a large town or city.

MrStuffins

Bambi wrote: »

Just facts and logic.

Like the fact that there's no such thing as Road Tax and cyclists pay an equal amount for the roads than motorists do.

And the other fact that, despite the above, only 2% of all journeys are by bicycle.

Thelonious Monk

How is it a leisure pursuit if I only use it to get shopping or cycle to work? Not all of us are in cycling clubs or wear lycra, I just use one to get around as it's a lot quicker than walking.

Duckjob

Spook_ie wrote: »

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

That one is very simple if you consider the role of motor tax in the wider context of compensating for environmental damage / carbon footprint.

Electric cars, though they have no exhaust emission still have a sizeable enough carbon footprint in their manufacture, mainly on account of the battery. I believe that EVs, particularly larger battery ones like Tesla's can take several years into their lifecycles before their carbon footprints get overtaken by their equivelant petrol/diesel model.

So overall it's perfectly sensible and reasonable that EV drivers do not escape scot free from motor tax.

Thelonious Monk

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

How is it a leisure pursuit if I only use it to get shopping or cycle to work? Not all of us are in cycling clubs or wear lycra, I just use one to get around as it's a lot quicker than walking.

Admit it , you've all the gear on under your monks robes

AndrewJRenko

Bambi wrote: »

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.

You are conflating reasons for cycling with purpose of journey. These are two different things.

magicbastarder

Duckjob wrote: »

Electric cars, though they have no exhaust emission still have a sizeable enough carbon footprint in their manufacture

and in charging them too!

AndrewJRenko

Bambi wrote: »

What takes up more space on a road? 4 people in a car or 4 people on bikes?

What takes up more space on a road? 80 people on a bus or 80 people on bikes?

Just facts and logic.

More realistic scenarios for Ireland would be

- four people in four SUVs each with four empty seats vs four people on bikes

- 80 people in. 60 vehicles, about half of them SUVs, about 3/4 of them with four empty seats vs 80 people on bikes

Thelonious Monk

Deleted User wrote: »

Admit it , you've all the gear on under your monks robes

It doesn't count if you can't see it.
No but I think a lot of the hatred comes from people living in areas where they might get held up behind cycling clubs at the weekends for a few minutes, where I live there are cars absolutely everywhere and traffic is often really bad, the last thing people should want is someone else driving.

AndrewJRenko

Duckjob wrote: »

That one is very simple if you consider the role of motor tax in the wider context of compensating for environmental damage / carbon footprint.

Electric cars, though they have no exhaust emission still have a sizeable enough carbon footprint in their manufacture, mainly on account of the battery. I believe that EVs, particularly larger battery ones like Tesla's can take several years into their lifecycles before their carbon footprints get overtaken by their equivelant petrol/diesel model.

So overall it's perfectly sensible and reasonable that EV drivers do not escape scot free from motor tax.

Don't forget tyre particles and brake pad particles too.

PeadarCo

Bambi wrote: »

What takes up more space on a road? 4 people in a car or 4 people on bikes?

What takes up more space on a road? 80 people on a bus or 80 people on bikes?

Just facts and logic.

Buses obviously take up less space than bikes but obviously due to scheduling and fixed routes aren't as flexible as a bike. A bike isn't the be all and end all the same as any mode of transport.

On your question about cars v bikes it assumes a car is driven with its max car capacity used. As another poster pointed out that's generally not the case. And even if they are there is not going to be a massive difference space wise between 4 people in a car versus 4 people on bikes with a bit of variation depending on car size and the exact speed the bikes are going.

See a link that gives a graphic example of how much space 80 single occupancy cars take up versus the same number of people on cars and bikes.

https://humantransit.org/2012/09/the-photo-that-explains-almost-everything.html

Duckjob

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Don't forget tyre particles and brake pad particles too.

Tyre particles yes.

Brake particles on EVs would be significantly lower than their ICE counterparts due to the use of regenerative braking. Brake pads on EVs typically tend to last up to 4 times longer AFAIR

liamog

Duckjob wrote: »

That one is very simple if you consider the role of motor tax in the wider context of compensating for environmental damage / carbon footprint.

Electric cars, though they have no exhaust emission still have a sizeable enough carbon footprint in their manufacture, mainly on account of the battery. I believe that EVs, particularly larger battery ones like Tesla's can take several years into their lifecycles before their carbon footprints get overtaken by their equivelant petrol/diesel model.

An average petrol car emit's about 1.5 tonnes of CO2 per year, your looking at around 2 tonnes extra during the production of an EV versus an ICE vehicle. The payoff for the extra production is usually within the first 18 to 24 months.

The main reason we still apply tax to EVs in Ireland, is that we do not pay road tax. We pay tax on owning a vehicle that is used on public roads, the tax then goes into general taxation. It used to be ringfenced for local government, but nowadays it just goes into the regular pool.

Not that I agree with any requirement to tax cyclists, but for all the naysayers who claim the system wouldn't work. We manage to successfully tax dog ownership so I'm not sure why bicycles would be any different. At least the bicycle won't attack you when you try to enforce payment

Pinch Flat

breezy1985 wrote: »

Yes but facts also show that most car journeys are single occupancy.

Facts and logic as you say

And a huge amount of car journeys are less thank 5km. Distance that can easily be walked or cycled. More Facts and logic I guess.

FileNotFound

So say i already pay tax on 2 cars, but have a bike that i sue once in a blue moon - usually when there is a sunny day.

Do i now need to pay a fixed yearly tax on my bike whether or not its in use just to use it for the little bit of good weather? Then what about the bikes of the missus and 4 kids.

While it sounds lovely when we apply it to every day road warriors - it falls flat in the real world.

Especially one where kids sitting down and being more lethargic means we need to encourage positive movement to counteract obesity.