Cyclists, insurance and road tax

PauloMN

namloc1980 wrote: »

It's pretty sad, and quite frightening, that there are people out there driving around in 2 ton metal boxes with these types of attitudes.

That's the problem, I couldn't give a shít what the OP or anyone else thinks of cyclists. It's the fact that some drivers view cyclists as a nuisance which can lead to dangerous overtaking or other risky behaviour.

Have to say the vast vast majority of drivers around here (country roads) are considerate when it comes to cyclists, and I think it's gotten better in recent years, thanks to road safety campaigns.

As for tax, well we all pay it and the roads are funded from general tax (not just "motor tax"). If the OP doesn't like how his/her taxes are used, he/she should take it up with their TDs.

daragh_

This thread makes me want to chuck my laptop on a fire and never go on the internet again.

I need some time away from screens. Would love to go for a spin on my bike but the roads we all own are clogged up with trouser-clad drivertarians.

AndrewJRenko

Sono Topolino wrote: »

Smaller, lighter vehicles use more fuel, no?

I admit I have not thought this part through but there are two options:

1. Add a surcharge at the point of purchase based on weight- but this way people who use a car for local journeys only (including elderly and disabled people) get charged the same as someone who uses their car for longer journeys.

2. Adding a surcharge to fuel at the pump. But this way drivers of heavy but fuel efficient vehicles get punished.

I don't see a third option.

Third option is an annual tax for all road users based on wear and tear, which in turn is based on vehicle weight. Sounds good?

Sono Topolino

PauloMN wrote: »

That's the problem, I couldn't give a shít what the OP or anyone else thinks of cyclists. It's the fact that some drivers view cyclists as a nuisance which can lead to dangerous overtaking or other risky behaviour.

Have to say the vast vast majority of drivers around here (country roads) are considerate when it comes to cyclists, and I think it's gotten better in recent years, thanks to road safety campaigns.

As for tax, well we all pay it and the roads are funded from general tax (not just "motor tax"). If the OP doesn't like how his/her taxes are used, he/she should take it up with their TDs.

How many appear considerate but seething internally?

Last Saturday, a group of cyclists were out three abreast and wouldn't give me room to pass. If they had been cycling single file, I could have passed them safely but they refused to budge.

When I say "Lycra libertarians", this is what I'm complaining about.

And despite this, I'm proposing paying higher taxes (carbon taxes) to fund cycling infrastructure (among other things).

magicbastarder

Sono Topolino wrote: »

Last Saturday, a group of cyclists were out three abreast and wouldn't give me room to pass. If they had been cycling single file, I could have passed them safely

where? a google maps link would be good.

funnydoggy

Sono Topolino wrote: »

How many appear considerate but seething internally?

Last Saturday, a group of cyclists were out three abreast and wouldn't give me room to pass. If they had been cycling single file, I could have passed them safely but they refused to budge.

When I say "Lycra libertarians", this is what I'm complaining about.

And despite this, I'm proposing paying higher taxes (carbon taxes) to fund cycling infrastructure (among other things).

You encountered road users? Shocking!

Sono Topolino

magicbastarder wrote: »

where? a google maps link would be good.

53°24'48.1"N 9°19'49.9"W

Sadly very common behaviour near Shannapheasteen.

doiredoire

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Third option is an annual tax for all road users based on wear and tear, which in turn is based on vehicle weight. Sounds good?

Any fair system either based on wear and tear of the roads or a carbon tax on fuel and the manufacture of the vehicles/bikes or a combination of both would mean a negligible tax on cyclists as they cause practically no wear and tear and produce hardly any carbon. Its would be so low as to render it not worth collecting.

Add in the savings cyclists make to our health service for being healthier both in physical and mental heatlh.

The anti bike brigade will never agree to pay the real cost of motoring as they know it will be much more expensive. Any argument to the contrary is simple dishonest and not rational.

There are no serious arguments for not trying to reduce private car use, increase walking, cycling and public transport. The government, planners and councils know this but are afraid of the reaction of car owners.

AndrewJRenko

Sono Topolino wrote: »

How many appear considerate but seething internally?

Last Saturday, a group of cyclists were out three abreast and wouldn't give me room to pass. If they had been cycling single file, I could have passed them safely but they refused to budge.

When I say "Lycra libertarians", this is what I'm complaining about.

And despite this, I'm proposing paying higher taxes (carbon taxes) to fund cycling infrastructure (among other things).

Any competent driver would have worked out that single file means a much longer obstruction, which makes it even more difficult to ensure that you have adequate time and space to pass safely.

They did you a favour by bunching up. You're welcome.

Take a driving lesson from Anne Doyle
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJiixtKuVq8i

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJiixtKuVq8i

PauloMN

Sono Topolino wrote: »

How many appear considerate but seething internally?

Last Saturday, a group of cyclists were out three abreast and wouldn't give me room to pass. If they had been cycling single file, I could have passed them safely but they refused to budge.

When I say "Lycra libertarians", this is what I'm complaining about.

And despite this, I'm proposing paying higher taxes (carbon taxes) to fund cycling infrastructure (among other things).

Well neither I nor you can estimate how many drivers are "seething internally" - but if drivers are being considerate (i.e. safe) when it comes to cyclists on the road, then that's a result. It's the ones who perform dangerous manoeuvres I would take issue with.

Single file - the problem there is many car drivers assume it's safe to pass a single file cyclists when it really isn't. I do most of my cycling alone, I see it sometimes when drivers cannot just wait literally a few seconds for a car coming the other direction to pass before performing their overtake, so they overtake while the car on the other side of the road is passing, hence leaving hardly any wobble room for the cyclist. It's very dangerous, and a lot of motorists do not even realise it.

Cyclists tend to cycle in groups for safety, and to not have one long line of single file bikes that would be harder to overtake (assuming you are overtaking correctly).

Treat a group of cyclists like a car, overtake when safe to do so. It really isn't hard. Just have a bit of patience, you'll get to your destination.

doiredoire

Sono Topolino wrote: »

53°24'48.1"N 9°19'49.9"W

Sadly very common behaviour near Shannapheasteen.

As someone who is regularly on Shannapheasteen this statement is just not true. It is rare to meet a single cyclist never mind a group of cyclists on the Shan.

Sono Topolino

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Any competent driver would have worked out that single file means a much longer obstruction, which makes it even more difficult to ensure that you have adequate time and space to pass safely.

Take a driving lesson from Anne Doyle
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJiixtKuVq8i

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJiixtKuVq8i

But three abreast, potentially obstructing traffic in two directions?

AndrewJRenko

Sono Topolino wrote: »

But three abreast, potentially obstructing traffic in two directions?

What difference did three abreast make to you? Would you tried to squeeze past them if they were two abreast?

MrStuffins

Sono Topolino wrote: »

I admit I have not thought this part through........

You're joking! :eek:

Sono Topolino

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

What difference did three abreast make to you? Would you tried to squeeze past them if they were two abreast?

No, that would not have been safe.

I wouldn't have judged them to be rude and inconsiderate though.

Pawwed Rig

Sono Topolino wrote: »

No, that would not have been safe.

I wouldn't have judged them to be rude and inconsiderate though.

I was stuck behind cars 2 abreast this morning.
The inconsiderate aresholes wouldn't let me by.
Bloody motorists slowing me down in my faster car. I lost at least 3 minutes out of my day because of it.

Raging

Sono Topolino

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I was stuck behind cars 2 abreast this morning.
The inconsiderate aresholes wouldn't let me by.
Bloody motorists slowing me down in my faster car. I lost at least 3 minutes out of my day because of it.

Raging

Seems like even cycling Ireland agrees with me that cycling more than two abreast is just plain wrong. So why are you defending these arseholes?
http://www.cyclingireland.ie/downloads/ci%20ride%20leader%20-%20guide%20to%20cycling%20on%20the%20road.pdf

AndrewJRenko

Sono Topolino wrote: »

No, that would not have been safe.

I wouldn't have judged them to be rude and inconsiderate though.

So two abreast or three abreast - didn't make any difference to you, but somebody was rude for doing something that didn't impact you at all?

Why would you think that your journey was more important than theirs?

VonLuck

Sono Topolino wrote: »

53°24'48.1"N 9°19'49.9"W

Sadly very common behaviour near Shannapheasteen.

I have my sincere doubts you were driving on that road last Saturday.

doiredoire

VonLuck wrote: »

I have my sincere doubts you were driving on that road last Saturday.

It’s also a very quiet road that gets so few cyclists. I think he is making up stuff

Fighting Tao

VonLuck wrote: »

Why do you insist on applying a carbon tax to bicycles? They don't emit any emissions. If it's solely based on the carbon produced in their production, by that logic practically all mass produced items should have a carbon tax.

Carbon tax for bikes €5. Carbon tax for a micra €7665. Sounds about right if it is applied for the manufacture process.

Thelonious Monk

There's a thread about the horrible uninsured, unlicensed, drunk person who killed two people in his car and then fled the scene. It wont attract anywhere near as much attention as this thread. You wont see one person in there fuming about harder restrictions on motorists, they'll just shrug their shoulders and say god that's terrible.
Being held up by cyclists is far more important than death and destruction on the roads.

Fighting Tao

meeeeh wrote: »

When were the taxes fair? They have to be simple, easy and catch the biggest possible amount of people.

They should be fair to everyone. Sure let’s add €1000 onto motor tax to buy people cars if they can’t afford one. That seems fair. Rather than have them cycle, walk or use public transport, they can get stuck in traffic with you. Sounds equal for all.

Sono Topolino

doiredoire wrote: »

It’s also a very quiet road that gets so few cyclists. I think he is making up stuff

Ummmm no it attracts cyclists and even runners from March through until September.

harmless

Is it a coincidence that this thread has attracted so much attention now that traffic is really ramping up again.
Are people just frustrated with our poor infrastructure and cyclists are an easy target for that frustration?

Let's be honest, this thread is not really about tax.

AndrewJRenko

harmless wrote: »

Is it a coincidence that this thread has attracted so much attention now that traffic is really ramping up again.
Are people just frustrated with our poor infrastructure and cyclists are an easy target for that frustration?

Let's be honest, this thread is not really about tax.

It's not about safety either.

VonLuck

Sono Topolino wrote: »

Ummmm no it attracts cyclists and even runners from March through until September.

Seems like a narrow local road. Sure you must know most of the people in such a rural area. Why don't you have a word with the cyclists next time?

MrStuffins

harmless wrote: »

Let's be honest, this thread is not really about tax.

These threads are never about tax.

Whenever these threads pop up, it takes exactly 3 seconds for someone to start with the "117% of all cyclists run red lights" rubbish, which has absolutely zero to do with tax.

Tombo2001

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

There's a thread about the horrible uninsured, unlicensed, drunk person who killed two people in his car and then fled the scene. It wont attract anywhere near as much attention as this thread. You wont see one person in there fuming about harder restrictions on motorists, they'll just shrug their shoulders and say god that's terrible.
Being held up by cyclists is far more important than death and destruction on the roads.

Well thats the serious issue with a discussion like this.

It sucks the air out of things that matter.

SeanW

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

You wont see one person in there fuming about harder restrictions on motorists

We don't need to. Cyclists do plenty of that. The rest of us do not believe in collective punishment.