Cyclists, insurance and road tax

km991148

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

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.

I'm all for the compromise - I will even agree to smaller groups at the weekend - in exchange for this new "fair" carbon tax and town/city centre restrictions (min occupancy of vehicles, congestion charge etc).

mrslancaster

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

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?

I thought the department of transport changed the motor tax bands years ago to account for that & decided on the rates based on engine size & emissions etc but as I said already i'm no expert. Maybe you know more about it than me. I don't think a nominal charge/tax on anything really changes people's behaviour but again that's just my opinion.

maestroamado

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

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

The charity events i mention are generally cycling events over considerable distance, they are usually well ran and i be all for it.
Driving generally is not a factor except for a few support to tend with bike repairs etc...

Tokyo

Mod: Thread is becoming an anti-cyclist dumpster fire, which is why threads on this topic nearly always get shut down. Consider this a general warning to all - keep it on topic, keep discussion civil, or I will start infracting people.

km991148

Sono Topolino wrote: »

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.

For it to solve the problem (traffic, mainly cause by vehicular traffic) there would need ot be some tax rebates for replacing car journeys with bicycle ones.

Stick a few cents on the inner tube prices if you want - probably even a couple of quid - to help with the environmental impact there.

Pawwed Rig

Sono Topolino wrote: »

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.

Let's say that in this fantasy land you somehow managed to convince the government to put a charge on cycling - would all your anger at cyclists then disappear?

km991148

mrslancaster wrote: »

I thought the department of transport changed the motor tax bands years ago to account for that & decided on the rates based on engine size & emissions etc but as I said already i'm no expert. Maybe you know more about it than me. I don't think a nominal charge/tax on anything really changes people's behaviour but again that's just my opinion.

I think they have been adjusted - but the existing system ins't really fair - if you drive 2k miles in a big engined car you will be paying a heck of a lot more that someone doing 25k in a more efficient vehicle (but still managing to pollute more due to distance covered) - so I would say they can go further.

AndrewJRenko

Sono Topolino wrote: »

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

Yet 98% of you don't follow the urban speed rules. And the majority of you don't follow the mobile phone rules.

AndrewJRenko

maestroamado wrote: »

The charity events i mention are generally cycling events over considerable distance, they are usually well ran and i be all for it.
Driving generally is not a factor except for a few support to tend with bike repairs etc...

I'm talking about other charity events - fundraisers, planning meetings, board meetings. The people driving to these are always slowing me down when I'm cycling in the city. So we should cap them, right?

harmless

Sono Topolino wrote: »

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

Would this tax be proportional to carbon output.
So let's say the car was in B2 class and pays €280 a year
A cyclist would pay about €15 a year.

The J Stands for Jay

maestroamado wrote: »

If you think interfering with other road users is ok i certainly do not and i am a cyclists.

But every single road user (whether a pedestrian, cyclist, horse rider, bus driver, motorist, lorry driver etc.) interferes with every other road iser they encounter.

Duckjob

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?

To satisfy some people with toxic mindsets mired in petty spitefulness about people on bikes. Luckily though, even our Gov are not that clueless - they know if they did something like that Ireland would be the laughing stock of Europe.

They also know the whole "motorists are paying for cyclists" schtick is a load of hole.

If more people cycling and less people driving was bad for governement coffers you wouldnt' see governments in Europe falling over themselves offering incentives like tax breaks for people to cycle to work.

km991148

harmless wrote: »

Would this tax be proportional to carbon output.
So let's say the car was in B2 class and pays €280 a year
A cyclist would pay about €15 a year.

I can only see it working by expanding the range.

Bicycles woul fall into a category where you get -500 (i.e. tax credit) and high usage (low milage high emissions or low emissions high milage) vehicles would see motortax roughly double. Probably more than double for the low emissions high mileage folks as they are really getting a sweet deal at the moment. In fact anyone with high mileage is getting good subsidiaries right now as we never take it into account. How is that fair?

AndrewJRenko

mrslancaster wrote: »

I thought the department of transport changed the motor tax bands years ago to account for that & decided on the rates based on engine size & emissions etc but as I said already i'm no expert. Maybe you know more about it than me. I don't think a nominal charge/tax on anything really changes people's behaviour but again that's just my opinion.

So when occasional cyclist Paddy has the choice of using his car, or paying an additional charge to use his bike, you reckon he's equally likely to use his bike than when there was no additional charge?

Btw, the nominal charge for you is this month's heating bill for other people.

No, the current tax regime is based on emissions. I reckon wear and tear would be much fairer to get a fair contribution to maintenance costs. Would you be open to this?

AndrewJRenko

harmless wrote: »

Would this tax be proportional to carbon output.
So let's say the car was in B2 class and pays €280 a year
A cyclist would pay about €15 a year.

It costs about €15 to process an online transaction - to build and maintain the website and provide the customer service.

km991148

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So when occasional cyclist Paddy has the choice of using his car, or paying an additional charge to use his bike, you reckon he's equally likely to use his bike than when there was no additional charge?

Btw, the nominal charge for you is this month's heating bill for other people.

No, the current tax regime is based on emissions. I reckon wear and tear would be much fairer to get a fair contribution to maintenance costs. Would you be open to this?

I didn't think this thread would end up with cyclists campaigning for a genuine road tax, but I think it's actually the right direction to go in!

The more you pollute/damage the road, the more you pay. Nice and simple.


Means I'll be keeping to 23/25mm tyres I guess :pac:

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It costs about €15 to process an online transaction - to build and maintain the website and provide the customer service.

Yeah motor tax ,(i.e. new road tax) will need to increase a lot to offset the tax credits for the lower bands. Completely workable and more importantly- fair for all.

harmless

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It costs about €15 to process an online transaction - to build and maintain the website and provide the customer service.

We could increase it to €30 and change the motorists tax from €280 to €560

Problem solved, everyone is happy.

AndrewJRenko

jaffusmax wrote: »

And cyclists who use the roads!

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

I'm happy to pay a tax or fee proportional to the wear and tear arising. Would you be agreeable to that?

Sono Topolino

km991148 wrote: »

For it to solve the problem (traffic, mainly cause by vehicular traffic) there would need ot be some tax rebates for replacing car journeys with bicycle ones.

Stick a few cents on the inner tube prices if you want - probably even a couple of quid - to help with the environmental impact there.

In order to qualify for a rebate, you need to reduce carbon outputs in a meaningful way or sequester carbon.

A few ideas for this:
1. Rebates for cycling infrastructure
2. Rebates to dispose of a carbon-emitting vehicle and not replace it within 5 years
3. Grants for planting forestry and annual payments.

But first you need a carbon tax.

AndrewJRenko

harmless wrote: »

We could increase it to €30 and change the motorists tax from €280 to €560

Problem solved, everyone is happy.

Do you think that this will result in more people cycling or less?

harmless

Sono Topolino wrote: »

But first you need a carbon tax.

But that is unfair because if you change cyclist a meaningful amount the carbon tax rate will be too high for most people to afford a car.

harmless

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do you think that this will result in more people cycling or less?

This would result in less cycling and also many no longer being able to afford a car.

AndrewJRenko

Sono Topolino wrote: »

In order to qualify for a rebate, you need to reduce carbon outputs in a meaningful way or sequester carbon.

A few ideas for this:
1. Rebates for cycling infrastructure
2. Rebates to dispose of a carbon-emitting vehicle and not replace it within 5 years
3. Grants for planting forestry and annual payments.

But first you need a carbon tax.

You'd be in favour of this French scheme then?

https://www.reuters.com/technology/trading-clunkers-electric-bikes-france-moves-offer-financial-incentive-2021-04-11/

meeeeh

I don't really read thread but few posts every so often but since everyone is so enthusiastic about additional taxes, can we just add and extra 2% usc and extra 2% to Vat and be done with this nonsense.

It's actually hard to believe this thread could get even stupider.

Trekker09

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.

Yours isn't an opposing view, it's a misinformed rant, and your grievances are squarely aimed at the cyclists without acknowledging how wrong all of your assumptions/grievances are! Numerous people have pointed out where you are blatantly wrong.

I choose to cycle to work. My commute is 50 - 90km a day depending on the route I take home. Every day I have at least 1 near miss due to driver carelessness. This is standard and any regular cyclist will confirm this. Attitudes like yours fuel this animosity towards cyclists and yet here you are, scratching your head and wondering why we cyclists defend our stance with fact, logic and a passion that is born out of pure frustration towards the minority of drivers that constantly put us in danger

The J Stands for Jay

Sono Topolino wrote: »

And digital advances mean that you can just use a QR code.



but laugh at me when I say that we should replace motor tax with a common carbon tax.

"What was the reg of the vehicle that hit you?"
"Eh, a load of squares?"

Carbon tax on fuel, and everyone fills up in the north. The other option would be some sort of emissions based system.

Sono Topolino

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You'd be in favour of this French scheme then?

https://www.reuters.com/technology/trading-clunkers-electric-bikes-france-moves-offer-financial-incentive-2021-04-11/

A step in the right direction, but what should be incentivised is ditching cars - not acquiring bikes.

The reason I like carbon-added tax is that it is so flexible, while you can add specific rebates to accelerate carbon-neutral and carbon-negative behaviour, it already incentivises reducing car usage/beef consumption in its basic form.

HorseSea

I am not bothered about cyclists paying road tax or any tax, but they should definitely be insured and it should be a legal requirement. Cover under a house policy only applies if you have one.

Also I wish they would finally get around to regulating electric bikes, scooters, electric skate boards etc etc - it should be clear when and where they are legal and illegal and that insurance is required in any public area, same as for a car / motorcycle etc.

magicbastarder

i wonder what the carbon footprint of going round in circles in a thread like this is.

one thing to bear in mind too in relation to levying taxes is that bikes are often the transport of last resort for people on no or minimum wage. for example, there are several large fruit and veg places in north county dublin not reachable by public transport, and i see lads (usually men, anyway) cycling there to get to work. they quite likely work on packaging production lines, etc.
their method of transport is cheap, as low in carbon as is possible without walking (and they can't walk there), so to put extra costs on them would be unfair.

Sono Topolino

Trekker09 wrote: »

Yours isn't an opposing view, it's a misinformed rant, and your grievances are squarely aimed at the cyclists without acknowledging how wrong all of your assumptions/grievances are! Numerous people have pointed out where you are blatantly wrong.

I choose to cycle to work. My commute is 50 - 90km a day depending on the route I take home. Every day I have at least 1 near miss due to driver carelessness. This is standard and any regular cyclist will confirm this. Attitudes like yours fuel this animosity towards cyclists and yet here you are, scratching your head and wondering why we cyclists defend our stance with fact, logic and a passion that is born out of pure frustration towards the minority of drivers that constantly put us in danger

So I assume you're absolutely in favour of a carbon tax which funds better cycling infrastructure?