Cyclists, insurance and road tax

VonLuck

km991148 wrote: »

These threads do worry me tho - I mean in terms of the intelligence levels on display.. and we let these people drive.. fuk me.. no wonder the roads are such a mess.

I don't think it's a lack of intelligence. It's pure anger that fuels wilful ignorance.

Padre_Pio

All the data is given by the RSA:

Figures based on sample size of 971 cyclist injuries
In the vast majority of cases, cyclists were injured in collisions with at least one other vehicle.
There were 77 cyclists injured (7.9% of the total) in a single vehicle collision in 2016, where no other person or vehicle was involved14. There were 7 (0.7%) cyclists injured in a collision with a pedestrian.
Of the 887 (91.3%) cyclists injured where at least one other vehicle was involved, the majority of these (over 8 in 10; 84%) were injured in a collision with a car. Just over 1 in 10 (11%) were injured in a collision with a goods vehicle. The remainder involved miscellaneous or unknown vehicles

In 41.4% (268) of cases where a cyclist was injured in a collision with a car, it was reported
that the car driver had failed to observe. Car drivers being blinded by sun/headlights
accounted for 3.2% (21) of cyclist injuries in collisions with cars. In 43.7% of cases no
contributory actions by the car driver(s) involved were identified.

In 19.8% (128) of cases where a cyclist was injured in a collision with a car, it was reported
that the cyclist had failed to observe, and in 3.9% (25) of cases, it was reported that the
cyclist had failed to stop or yield. In 63.4 % of cases no contributory actions by the cyclist(s)
involved were identified.

Thelonious Monk

km991148 wrote: »

These threads do worry me tho - I mean in terms of the intelligence levels on display.. and we let these people drive.. fuk me.. no wonder the roads are such a mess.

And they just continually ignore the facts and the logic and carry on blindly believing the rubbish they're spouting.
At least it seems more and more people are realising we can't keep focusing on promoting private car usage and need more walking and cycling, still not enough though when they are still being given a voice through arseholes like Mannix Flynn.

AndrewJRenko

maestroamado wrote: »

Disrupting traffic is an offence so if there is a windy piece of road we can be stuck behind a string of bikes for considerable time. The simple solution is capping the numbers...

maestroamado wrote: »

This is more or less what i am talking about, 12 bikes will take as much road space as an Artic truck, they are travelling slower than motor traffic so people stuck behind, for this reason i think numbers should be capped.
I was behind a string of bikes one Sunday in a line of traffic, this was before Covid as things seem to pretty ok at the moment...

I get stuck behind strings of cars on busy roads every day. Can we cap their numbers please?

Tombo2001

km991148 wrote: »

These threads do worry me tho - I mean in terms of the intelligence levels on display.. and we let these people drive.. fuk me.. no wonder the roads are such a mess.

Well thats the thing.

And the other scary part - is that if you look back ten years ago on boards you'd have an identikit thread.

All comes back to the fear of challenging the status quo in Ireland.

Drivers have always had it their way. And they want to keep it that way.

Get off that windy road cyclists - this is for 'Us' and you are not one of 'Us'.

mrslancaster

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Almost all Government spending creates employment and revenue, including cycle lanes and other facilities, so you don't get any brownie points for that.


Motor tax doesn't contribute - motoring is a huge cost drain on society. So it's not unreasonable to say that those who get the 'pleasure' and usage out of it should be the ones who pay that cost, instead of expecting society as a whole to subsidise their transport choices. You indicated that cyclists need to pay for cycle lanes, so why don't we expect motorists to pay for motoring?

As regards your proposed tax, do you reckon it would; a) encourage more cycling and cyclists, resulting in less traffic congestion, less pollution, improved public health, or b) discourage more cycling and cyclists, resulting in more traffic congestion, more pollution and worsening public health?

But tell you what - would you be agreeable with a road user tax proportional to the wear and tear resulting from the vehicle?

but motor tax is a contribution made by those driving on the roads & I thought it was proportional, ie larger vehicles & older vehicles paid more for extra wear & tear and for more emissions but I could be wrong. I don't think buses or other government vehicles pay any motor tax but I could be wrong there too.

I said that as far as tax is concerned anything is possible if the current motor tax income keeps falling as a result of more people cycling instead of driving. another poster suggested €50 yearly which I'd have no problem with or some similar nominal amount. And presumably we will be paying a carbon tax at some point.

BTW, not looking for brownie points, just joining in the discussion.

Thelonious Monk

Sono Topolino wrote: »

You took that definition of filtering from the RSA manual for motorcyclists.

The RSA does not recommend filtering for cyclists. In fact, they specifically recommend AGAINST it.

So? Why do you think people cycle to work in the mornings in cities? Because you can whizz past the traffic, and weave in and out, and all those other things that make you motorists so concerned for our safety.

Padre_Pio

Sono Topolino wrote: »

You took that definition of filtering from the RSA manual for motorcyclists.

The RSA does not recommend filtering for cyclists. In fact, they specifically recommend AGAINST it.

Again, pure lies and pure ignorance. Are you not tired of being proven wrong?

Here's a statement from the RSA:

Elaine Gibson, a spokeswoman for the RSA said: “There is a difference between weaving in and out of traffic and filtering, namely; Weaving refers to a situation where a road user moves erratically left and right and left again through moving or very slow moving traffic ie moving along in a winding or zigzag course through traffic.”

“Filtering involves a road user correctly overtaking static traffic, observing the Rules of the Road. Once the traffic starts moving freely again, it is important to reintegrate into the traffic flow in a safe manner. It is important to point out that the Rules of the Road apply to all road users,” she added.

It doesn't matter if you're on a motorcycle or a bicycle, filtering is all the same.

MrStuffins

Sono Topolino wrote: »

Cycling advocates in Ireland are a bunch of anti-car extremists and morons who are fine advocating practices that lead cyclists to die horrible deaths because they get a martyrs for their dumb cause......

People like you always out themselves in the end.

The alarming thing is that there are enough people like this behind the wheel, with irrational hatred for those on bicycles, to make cyclists feel unsafe on the roads.

Tombo2001

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Wrong. Cyclists contribute VAT on bike sales, servicing, accessories.

Though motorists pay nothing near the true cost of motoring.

Cyclists should get together and post this on big billboards all around the country.

Why do we have to listen to the same misinformation from motorists year after year after year........

Hurrache

Sono Topolino wrote: »

"Filtering" is not recommended by anyone except cyclist advocacy groups. Cyclist advocacy groups are the only ones who call it "filtering" btw.

The Road Safety Authority has specifically recommended against "weaving in and out of traffic" (filtering). https://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Campaigns/Wrecked/Downloads/Cycle%20safety%20booklet.pdf

Cycling advocates in Ireland are a bunch of anti-car extremists and morons who are fine advocating practices that lead cyclists to die horrible deaths because they get a martyrs for their dumb cause. Hence, their supporting of weaving in and out of traffic, overtaking from the left, not wearing high visibiity vests and helmets.

Another thing the red misters have in common when it comes to cycling is comprehension issues.

coolbeans

VonLuck wrote: »

I don't think it's a lack of intelligence. It's pure anger that fuels wilful ignorance.

If you can't control your "pure anger" you're not fit to be behind the wheel of anything.

Hurrache

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Motor tax is a tax on owning a car and has nothing to do with roads.

If you don't take your car onto a public road, you don't have to pay motor tax.

km991148

VonLuck wrote: »

I don't think it's a lack of intelligence. It's pure anger that fuels wilful ignorance.

yeah - true - but not a good mix - anger and 2000KGs of steel..

magicbastarder

regarding being stuck behind cyclists.
watch in this video as these heroic motorists actually use the oncoming lane completely as they overtake. i.e. it doesn't matter if cyclists are cycling two abreast, as (by definition) the oncoming lane should be clear for your overtake.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swnGEbKp7QY

km991148

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Cyclists should get together and post this on big billboards all around the country.

Why do we have to listen to the same misinformation from motorists year after year after year........

I'd pay that - some slogans like "No need to thank us for helping reduce traffic jams" etc

Unfortunately - it goes against my other principle of not winding up other road users as ultimately they ill just take their blame and anger out on some other poor sod.

maestroamado

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I get stuck behind strings of cars on busy roads every day. Can we cap their numbers please?

Cars around here travel a little faster than bicycles...
I am all for bicycles but only if they do not disrupt other traffic.
I think capping number at 4 in a group would work.
Then if there is an organized event have it monitored...

magicbastarder

maestroamado wrote: »

I am all for bicycles but only if they do not disrupt other traffic.

in a nutshell, you regard yourself as more important because you're driving a car?
the biggest disruption to motorised traffic is other motorised traffic.

km991148

maestroamado wrote: »

Cars around here travel a little faster than bicycles...
I am all for bicycles but only if they do not disrupt other traffic.
I think capping number at 4 in a group would work.
Then if there is an organized event have it monitored...

perfect - and where I live the cars disrupt the other traffic - so yeah - I will stick to a max cycle group of 4 if motorists stick to say - minimum occupancy of 3 in the vehicle? Id even limit it to between 8 and 10 am Mon-Fri? Maybe you'd be willing to compromise and open up the roads on a Sunday morning?

I actually think as population continues to grow we will need to look at more efficient usages of our spaces. This seems like maybe we will solve something on boards.

Absolutely sick of slow moving cars impeding my progress across town. Most of them don't even pay a fair share of tax!

Paddigol

mrslancaster wrote: »

but motor tax is a contribution made by those driving on the roads & I thought it was proportional, ie larger vehicles & older vehicles paid more for extra wear & tear and for more emissions but I could be wrong. I don't think buses or other government vehicles pay any motor tax but I could be wrong there too.

I said that as far as tax is concerned anything is possible if the current motor tax income keeps falling as a result of more people cycling instead of driving. another poster suggested €50 yearly which I'd have no problem with or some similar nominal amount. And presumably we will be paying a carbon tax at some point.

BTW, not looking for brownie points, just joining in the discussion.

Well, put it this way - on my 3 year old SUV I pay just over €200 a year motor tax. Proportionally speaking, how much do you think I should pay for my 4 bikes? €50 each?

I'm not having a go at you, because you're posts seem to be reasonable explorations of ideas, but when you tease out the logic you can see that it makes little to no sense to impose a tax on bicycles. If anything, we should be doing all we can to get more people cycling. And running, and swimming, and walking etc etc., but cycling specifically is a perfectly good mode of transport (not just exercise) that reduces traffic congestion and carbon emissions.

Most suggestions around helmets, 'hi viz', tax, insurance, registration plates are not made from a place of concern for cyclists - that is abundantly clear from the refusal to look at evidence from other countries and the tone in which the suggestions are made - but from a place of disdain for cyclists.

km991148

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Are you really so stupid that you believe in the bullsh*t you're coming out with?
Or are you just trolling?

No I actually think it might work - group sizes of 4-6 max. Min occupancy rules in vehicles and city centre congestion charges?

magicbastarder

€50 a year is ~40% what is due on a nissan leaf. you cannot begin to compare a bicycle with a nissan leaf, in terms of manufacture, weight, size, carbon emissions, etc.

The J Stands for Jay

maestroamado wrote: »

Cars around here travel a little faster than bicycles...
I am all for bicycles but only if they do not disrupt other traffic.
I think capping number at 4 in a group would work.
Then if there is an organized event have it monitored...

It's be far too hard to police. Do you define cars that have caught up to a slow driver as being in a group that needs to be called or broken up? As for organised events, they shouldn't be on the roads. Plenty of places like mondello for driving like a lunatic.

km991148

magicbastarder wrote: »

€50 a year is ~40% what is due on a nissan leaf. you cannot begin to compare a bicycle with a nissan leaf, in terms of manufacture, weight, size, carbon emissions, etc.

I think cyclists genuinely need tax rebates.

I think we should start more closely tying motor tax to road usage and reward properly those that complete more journeys by bike.

Paying 50 quid? I want a 500 a year+ tax credit. Since we want to talk about fairness.

Seth Brundle

km991148 wrote: »

These threads do worry me tho - I mean in terms of the intelligence levels on display.. and we let these people drive.. fuk me.. no wonder the roads are such a mess.

There is a relatively low bar for passing the test given the potential for disaster if a driver gets it wrong.
Furthermore, kill someone through recklessness and you'll be punished but you will not be deprived of your ability to drive around for the rest of your life. :rolleyes:

maestroamado

McGaggs wrote: »

It's be far too hard to police. Do you define cars that have caught up to a slow driver as being in a group that needs to be called or broken up? As for organised events, they shouldn't be on the roads. Plenty of places like mondello for driving like a lunatic.

So you are basically saying the Gardai do not want to police cyclists.
Just cap the number and problem solved, there are loads of charity cycle runs and i have done a few, generally charity funding etc.
I don't think mondello suitable for these charity events, its a motor racing venue...

Effects

StemCell wrote: »

If you use the road and are subject to the rules of the road you should have identifying reg number.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Also pedestrians are covered under the road traffic acts. Do they now need a registration aswell?

Probably best to have pedestrians wearing high vis, and identifying numbers.
Maybe some kind of mandatory training and insurance, as a lot of them seem to have a bad understanding of how to walk around cycle lanes.
I've been knocked down twice by pedestrians, and both time they ran away, and I was left with injuries and damages that had to be paid for.
Wasn't a pedestrian responsible for killing a cycling in the Phoenix Park a few years ago too?

Thelonious Monk

maestroamado wrote: »

So you are basically saying the Gardai do not want to police cyclists.

They don't need to be policed because they don't cause any harm. What part of that don't you understand?

The J Stands for Jay

maestroamado wrote: »

So you are basically saying the Gardai do not want to police cyclists.
Just cap the number and problem solved, there are loads of charity cycle runs and i have done a few, generally charity funding etc.
I don't think mondello suitable for these charity events, its a motor racing venue...

What? Were discussing your suggestion to limit cars to travelling in groups of 4 or less. It's be too difficult to police, how do you define a group?

And how is mondello not suitable for organised car events? It already does this. Almost anyone can show up for a track day.

Fighting Tao

maestroamado wrote: »

So you are basically saying the Gardai do not want to police cyclists.
Just cap the number and problem solved, there are loads of charity cycle runs and i have done a few, generally charity funding etc.
I don't think mondello suitable for these charity events, its a motor racing venue...

Cap the number of motor vehicles. Let’s say one per every 5 people in the country as that how many people they generally carry the extremely odd time. Sounds smarter than your ideas.