Cyclists, insurance and road tax

Sono Topolino

swarlb wrote: »

Like most threads on Boards this has descended into a roundabout of tit for tat nonsense (in most cases) and has veered long beyond the OP's original post.
There was a snippet on the news the other day about a man being fined for having no insurance on his E scooter. The judge said that every powered vehicle should have insurance. The man was fined and his scooter confiscated and destroyed. There was also a snippet of Eamonn Ryan speaking in the Dail about forthcoming 'legislation'.
We here in Ireland love 'rules' and 'legislation'. Lets take sports for example, in football (soccer) it's enough to have a simple yellow card and red card system.
But in the GAA, that's not enough, they have to have yellow, red and black.
So, we have E scooters, E Bikes and 'bicycles'.... and I guarantee before long there will be new rules, because if they implement insurance for e scooters, then e bikes will follow... and you'll have the E Bike 'brigade' giving out how unfair it is that they will be hit and not ordinary bikes.
Remember there was a time when you didn't need a licence to tow a trailer, or a safe pass card to drive a truck.... or even a time when you could go into a shop and the guy behind the counter was not requited to wear 'safety equipment'.
Chances are at some stage, to appease one sector of the community there will be charges imposed on cyclists. Better to discuss it now, rather than let some politician impose it on you.
If they cannot get a simple thing right like taxing a car (how many different rates do we have ??) , can you imagine the hell that will be taxing a bike...

Oh... and a warning to all those without children who shout for a tax on bikes.... be careful what you wish for. The last thing you need on a Christmas morning is for some Garda to arrive at your door, 6 year old in handcuffs, and a crushed 'illegal' Christmas present in the boot of a Garda car.

Well I have made several suggestions to this effect which would be a huge improvement on the current system:
1. Cycling insurance will cost very little because cyclists are not a 2 ton moving mound of death (as cyclists call cars). But where they do injure people or damage property, the cost will be covered.
2. Abolishing motor tax and replacing it with a carbon tax which applies to everything - cars, electric vehicles, bikes, equipment, fuel, beef. One tax to rule them all.
3. Compulsory registration of all road vehicles, including scooters and bikes. People have said that this "failed" in Switzerland, but this is simply not the case because it worked just fine for over 100 years. And digital advances mean that you can just use a QR code.

Everything I have said has been ignored due to an attitude of "whatever, I do what I want". They claim that this is due to environmentalism, but laugh at me when I say that we should replace motor tax with a common carbon tax.

Newsflash - motorists hate having to follow rules and pay tax too. Yet, we have to follow them because it is in the common good.

AndrewJRenko

JimmyVik wrote: »

I

Why can road users not think of the point of view of anything but themselves. That goes for cyclists, drivers and pedestrians.
Think about the road from everyones point of view when using it.
Of course I might as well be talking to a wall, i know.

Most cyclists are also drivers, so they get the motorist pov.

Unfortunately, the reverse isn't true.

Fighting Tao

km991148 wrote: »

Motor tax increases will balance it somewhat. The admin can be worked out. Revenue spot checks would happen - the costs could be managed.

Usually when there is a rules change in revenue they clamp down heavily on it initially. Over time abuse would probably rise, but you are making a declaration and the fines would be heavy for those that do abuse it.

Assuming admin can be worked out, what else?

It’s still a solution for a nonexistent problem. The only problem is that some people just don’t like others that choose to use a bike at times. It’s irrational hate. It would be cheaper to send them to China for re-education :pac:

Paddigol

mrslancaster wrote: »

We are a family that use cars and also cycle. I know that cycling has always played second fiddle to cars in ireland but it does seem to be changing and more people have started cycling - I have seen a huge increase in our local area since the start of covid. One of our neighbours sold their car because they found walking, cycling & public transport suits them just as well & another close friend just made the same decision.

Agree that cycling has a lot of benefits, health, less congestion, lower pollution etc but I'm sure most posters would agree that cycling doesn't suit everyone, older people or those with physical impairments for instance might find it impossible so they have to use a car or public transport and that brings its own problems. IMo, bad public transport is probably the very reason we have so many cars in the first place.

I'm not familiar with evidence from other countries but take your word for it. I know we'd be happy to pay a nominal amount if it was introduced, but have no idea if that's a feasible idea or even how it would work. I just wondered if there's a shortfall in motor tax revenue what will replace it?

The exchequer is being decimated by covid supports according to some reports so I'd say we can look forward to all sorts of new taxes & charges soon but that's for a different post...

Fair questions.

If there's a fall off in motor tax revenue, it means there are less cars, which means there's less cost to the exchequer. General taxation is already making up the shortfall between the amount taken in by motor tax and the cost of maintaining roads and offsetting carbon emissions.

Agree regarding the lack of public transport. That's an issue for another thread but I'd love to see it actually prioritised by the Govt. I'm pretty sure the motor lobby groups and the business lobby groups would finds ways to shoot any proposals down.

Also agreed that cars are needed. It's been great seeing the amount of older people using eBikes in the last couple of years. That should be encouraged. I'd be tempted to get one myself, especially as the technology is only going to get better.

km991148

Sono Topolino wrote: »

Lycra fascist is a misnomer, I admit. It's more "Lycra libertarian"
I really find it hilarious how car drivers who want cyclists to pay their fair share get labelled all sorts of hiliarious things, from libertarian to fascist, and yet the real libertarians here are the cyclists who:

1. Have professional comfortable jobs
2. Live within 20-30 minutes bike ride from their job
3. Want to use the road for free
4. Expect no interference from the state.

And they laugh at motorists who want the exact same things for themselves.

Every time I cycle instead of driving I am subsidising your car usage by causing less damage to these wonderful roads that you love so much.

Your arguments for charging cyclists are a joke, but I suspect you know this already.

Padre_Pio

Sono Topolino wrote: »

Lycra fascist is a misnomer, I admit. It's more "Lycra libertarian"
I really find it hilarious how car drivers who want cyclists to pay their fair share get labelled all sorts of hiliarious things, from libertarian to fascist, and yet the real libertarians here are the cyclists who:

1. Have professional comfortable jobs
2. Live within 20-30 minutes bike ride from their job
3. Want to use the road for free
4. Expect no interference from the state.

And they laugh at motorists who want the exact same things for themselves.

A jaysus you're still here.

Sure lets go:

1. Chances are most cyclists can't afford a car, and cycle out of necessity. Look at how popular Dublin bikes is. These are people who can't or don't want even a bike.

2. Again, looking at Dublin, that's a huge area. Pretty much all of Cork and Galway City.

3. We all use the road for free. As has been explained many times, motor tax doesn't give you a right to use the road. Some vehicles don't pay motor tax and still use the road.

4. Cyclists just want the state to provide infrastructure that doesn't actively put them in danger.

Your posts are a joke.

AndrewJRenko

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.

Could you point to any specific examples of these horrible deaths that resulted from advocating practices please?

Thelonious Monk

Sono Topolino wrote: »

Lycra fascist is a misnomer, I admit. It's more "Lycra libertarian"
I really find it hilarious how car drivers who want cyclists to pay their fair share get labelled all sorts of hiliarious things, from libertarian to fascist, and yet the real libertarians here are the cyclists who:

1. Have professional comfortable jobs
2. Live within 20-30 minutes bike ride from their job
3. Want to use the road for free
4. Expect no interference from the state.

And they laugh at motorists who want the exact same things for themselves.

So it's all just about your personal gripes and frustrations and you want to see people on bikes punished in some way. Would you ever f**k off.

Sono Topolino

Trekker09 wrote: »

I've read every one of your posts and have come to the conclusion that you're a troll, but not a very good one. The alternative is frightening

Opposing views are often frightening, but it's good to air grievances instead of letting them fester and in the cycling forum my posts were just deleting because nobody wanted to hear opposing views.

AndrewJRenko

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.

It's not proportional to wear and tear though. Would that be a good basis for a road user tax?

You didn't really answer the question about your proposed cycling tax - will it result in more people cycling or less?

Paddigol

Sono Topolino wrote: »

Lycra fascist is a misnomer, I admit. It's more "Lycra libertarian"
I really find it hilarious how car drivers who want cyclists to pay their fair share get labelled all sorts of hiliarious things, from libertarian to fascist, and yet the real libertarians here are the cyclists who:

1. Have professional comfortable jobs
2. Live within 20-30 minutes bike ride from their job
3. Want to use the road for free
4. Expect no interference from the state.

And they laugh at motorists who want the exact same things for themselves.

I'm pretty sure that in over 70 pages of this thread, you're post is one of the very few if not the very first one to mention all of those things/ terms. I've no idea why you're so angry and bitter at people using another form of transport and a specific form of exercise which has absolutely MINIMAL impact on everyone else's use of the roads.

km991148

Fighting Tao wrote: »

It’s still a solution for a nonexistent problem. The only problem is that some people just don’t like others that choose to use a bike at times. It’s irrational hate. It would be cheaper to send them to China for re-education :pac:

No - there is a problem. The problem is too much vehicular traffic. My tax credits and increase of motor tax will encourage more to walk/cycle when they can.

Especially if the motor tax is genuinely linked to road usage (which is what many claim already right?).

So own a car - because a lot of us need them, but if you use it less you get rewarded via tax rebated which will offset the increase in motortax. I can only see fairness (another claim!).

Padre_Pio

Sono Topolino wrote: »

Opposing views are often frightening, but it's good to air grievances instead of letting them fester and in the cycling forum my posts were just deleting because nobody wanted to hear opposing views.

It's like saying that flat earth, homeopathy or anti-vax is an "opposing view".

No, it's a nonsense view.

AndrewJRenko

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...

Cyclists are consistently faster than motorists round here, in the city.

So what number of motorists would be a good cap to ensure cyclists aren't delayed?

5uspect

Seth Brundle wrote: »

What struck me most was that you access Strawberry Beds through the Park rather than up Knockmaroon Hill.
I thought you were hardcore

Think of the poor cars stuck behind me! The cycle through the park is probably the nicest part of my cycle.

Sono Topolino

Paddigol wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that in over 70 pages of this thread, you're post is one of the very few if not the very first one to mention all of those things/ terms. I've no idea why you're so angry and bitter at people using another form of transport and a specific form of exercise which has absolutely MINIMAL impact on everyone else's use of the roads.

A cyclist made a crass remark about how many taxi drivers are in receipt of pandemic unemployment payments. Someone earlier in the thread called me a fascist, and another called me a libertarian.

My point is that everyone wants to get their own way, and nobody wants to compromise. I've posted about welfare and insurance reforms which would be quite reasonable and improve public safety and fund better cycling infrastructure. I note that these proposals get laughed at/ignored and the other kind of post gets a lot more engagement.

AndrewJRenko

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...

Can we cap the number of drivers driving to charity events too then?

In Germany people buy haftpflicht insurance which is general purpose insurance for accidents like knocking over product in a shop or damaging a neighbours property by accident. It costs usually 30 to 40 euro and would cover cycling accidents to third parties in general outside of total recklessness. It wouldn't be theft protection. It is just a third party insurance to protect you if you cause damage because in Germany you will be taken to court and you will be expected to make good. If you don't have insurance then they'll seize property to compensate the injured party.

km991148

Sono Topolino wrote: »

Well I have made several suggestions to this effect which would be a huge improvement on the current system:
1. Cycling insurance will cost very little because cyclists are not a 2 ton moving mound of death (as cyclists call cars). But where they do injure people or damage property, the cost will be covered.
2. Abolishing motor tax and replacing it with a carbon tax which applies to everything - cars, electric vehicles, bikes, equipment, fuel, beef. One tax to rule them all.
3. Compulsory registration of all road vehicles, including scooters and bikes. People have said that this "failed" in Switzerland, but this is simply not the case because it worked just fine for over 100 years. And digital advances mean that you can just use a QR code.

Everything I have said has been ignored due to an attitude of "whatever, I do what I want". They claim that this is due to environmentalism, but laugh at me when I say that we should replace motor tax with a common carbon tax.

Newsflash - motorists hate having to follow rules and pay tax too. Yet, we have to follow them because it is in the common good.

#3 I think is impractical.

I'm with you on #2 - I look forward to my tax rebates when it is implemented.

#1 is hard to say how it will go - the insurance industry is tricky.

Your bias is affecting your posting style as no one is saying "Whatever, I do what I want" and most of these cyclists are motorists anyway - which you don't want to acknowledge..

Newsflash yourself - you are coming up with solutions to what you think are problems - and not looking at the real problems - that put you in the "Whatever" camp..

doiredoire

Sono Topolino wrote: »

Opposing views are often frightening, but it's good to air grievances instead of letting them fester and in the cycling forum my posts were just deleting because nobody wanted to hear opposing views.

But you are airing silly grievances and the only thing festering are those frothing at the mouth at cyclists.

Can’t decide if you are really that cerebrally challenged or just a troll.

km991148

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Cyclists are consistently faster than motorists round here, in the city.

So what number of motorists would be a good cap to ensure cyclists aren't delayed?

Think its too impractical to cap motorist, but I think a minimum occupancy at peak times would be a good compromise?

AndrewJRenko

mrslancaster wrote: »

We are a family that use cars and also cycle. I know that cycling has always played second fiddle to cars in ireland but it does seem to be changing and more people have started cycling - I have seen a huge increase in our local area since the start of covid. One of our neighbours sold their car because they found walking, cycling & public transport suits them just as well & another close friend just made the same decision.

Agree that cycling has a lot of benefits, health, less congestion, lower pollution etc but I'm sure most posters would agree that cycling doesn't suit everyone, older people or those with physical impairments for instance might find it impossible so they have to use a car or public transport and that brings its own problems. IMo, bad public transport is probably the very reason we have so many cars in the first place.

I'm not familiar with evidence from other countries but take your word for it. I know we'd be happy to pay a nominal amount if it was introduced, but have no idea if that's a feasible idea or even how it would work. I just wondered if there's a shortfall in motor tax revenue what will replace it?

The exchequer is being decimated by covid supports according to some reports so I'd say we can look forward to all sorts of new taxes & charges soon but that's for a different post...

So cycling doesn't suit older people

https://twitter.com/SilkeRichard/status/1271844709519024128?s=19

or disabled people
https://twitter.com/Wheels4Well/status/1379376143707615234?s=19

Driving doesn't suit everyone - particularly the young, the old, many people with disabilities and perhaps most importantly, those who can't afford it.

Isn't it time that we stopped building society around the needs of those who can afford a car?

Fighting Tao

km991148 wrote: »

Think its too impractical to cap motorist, but I think a minimum occupancy at peak times would be a good compromise?

Yes, every seat occupied at peak times.

magicbastarder

Sono Topolino wrote: »

2. Abolishing motor tax and replacing it with a carbon tax which applies to everything - cars, electric vehicles, bikes, equipment, fuel, beef. One tax to rule them all.

i will be going cycling later. the bicycle i will be cycling weighs less than a single tyre from my car.
you do recall that the government are *removing* taxes from bikes for many people, to a far higher extent than this tax would add. why would they do this?

jaffusmax

Perhaps just abolish motor tax and let general tax increases make up for the shortfall?

AndrewJRenko

Sono Topolino wrote: »

A cyclist made a crass remark about how many taxi drivers are in receipt of pandemic unemployment payments. Someone earlier in the thread called me a fascist, and another called me a libertarian.

My point is that everyone wants to get their own way, and nobody wants to compromise. I've posted about welfare and insurance reforms which would be quite reasonable and improve public safety and fund better cycling infrastructure. I note that these proposals get laughed at/ignored and the other kind of post gets a lot more engagement.

It's nothing to do with not wanting to compromise.

It is to do with none of your proposals having significant benefits. You're looking for problems to solve, to suit your own personal bias.

Meanwhile, in the rest of the world, sensible governments are doing everything they can to encourage and incentivise cycling.

You've missed the point.

km991148

magicbastarder wrote: »

i will be going cycling later. the bicycle i will be cycling weighs less than a single tyre from my car.
you do recall that the government are *removing* taxes from bikes for many people, to a far higher extent than this tax would add. why would they do this?

Tax can be applied at a negative rate. One could only assume that a genuine carbon tax would lead to the highest users (high millage or emissions) paying significantly more and those on bicycles getting a rebate.


I am not sure where horse riders fit in - any horse people on the thread?

AndrewJRenko

jaffusmax wrote: »

Perhaps just abolish motor tax and let general tax increases make up for the shortfall?

So you want society as a whole to subside your personal transport?

Sono Topolino

magicbastarder wrote: »

i will be going cycling later. the bicycle i will be cycling weighs less than a single tyre from my car.
you do recall that the government are *removing* taxes from bikes for many people, to a far higher extent than this tax would add. why would they do this?

The carbon tax levied on bikes will be a lot less than on a car. Carbon tax would also catch Teslas.

Car users would pay carbon tax a lot more than cyclists - every time they fill their tank basically. Cyclists will pay a few cents every time they get a part replaced.

Carbon tax would work like VAT - Carbon-added tax basically.

jaffusmax

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So you want society as a whole to subside your personal transport?

And cyclists who use the roads!

Name anyone in Ireland who does not benefit from a road network