Cyclists, insurance and road tax

Paddigol

SeanW wrote: »

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

EPIC LOLZERS ALERT - have you actually read any of the posts in this thread demanding road taxes for bike, registration plates for bikes, insurance for cyclists... and that's not even getting started on the classic mandatory hi viz, mandatory helmets demands that get flung into any discussion. Are you telling me that they aren't intended to be a collective punishment for the temerity to use the roads for cycling on? That they're borne out of a deep concern for the wellbeing of cyclists?? Stop.

Edit: I have to say it's actually encouraging to see how many posters who I've never seen in the cycling forum are pointing out the nonsense and clear bitterness in so many of the above posts from people desperate to turn any discussion into a The Rest of Us v. Cyclists campaign.

Sono Topolino

Sono Topolino wrote: »

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

The Horror!! :eek::eek::eek::eek:

How ever will you manage op

harmless

Paddigol wrote: »

and that's not even getting started on the classic mandatory hi viz, mandatory helmets demands that get flung into any discussion.

This one really upsets me, not because of the ignorant people who believe it but it reminds me of when velocity, the international cycling conference was held in Dublin in 2019. Many people from other European countries traveled by ferry and then bike to the conference.

They were horrified by our road infastructure and then bemused when they arrived to see the likes of the RSA handing out free hi vis jackets.

Zebra3

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 just general outrage from sad Jeremy Clarkson types.

Angry about being stuck in traffic and being passed out by someone getting some healthy exercise.

They think because they pay a lot of money for their car and petroleum that it gives them a certain level of entitlement without them realising how much entitlement they already have.

That rampant me féin attitude that runs through Ireland is alive and spitting.

AndrewJRenko

SeanW wrote: »

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

So being expected to obey speed limits or put your phones away is now some kind of "punishment"?

You've truly jumped the shark Sean.

micar

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.

Ultimately road traffic deaths get very little public online comments.....just look at The Journal and Facebook.

The vast majority of adults are drivers and seem be immune and desensitized to there types of accidents.

But an article on cycling brings them coming in their droves

Anyway......look at the RSA .... almost every ad you see is focused on the motorist/motorcyclist.....

Speeding, drink driving, drug driving, mobile phone, insurance,......


The odd "be safe, be seen" campaign during winter for cyclists.

The RSA are fully aware of who the problem on our roads lie.....pity the average motorists doesn't

Pinch Flat

BabysCoffee wrote: »

Would you make a 12 yr old put their bike through an NCT? :eek:

How would you propose to test a 6 yr old kid on their bike?

Would there be higher insurance for a mother bringing her kids to school in her cargo bike?

This silly post raises so many questions for me.

I'm curious why a bicycle would require an "NCT" when a motor bike - most of which can easily travel well over 120 kph - doesn't require one. Are there really that many bicycles with mechanical defects that require such a test?

SeanW

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So being expected to obey speed limits or put your phones away is now some kind of "punishment"?

You've truly jumped the shark Sean.

Actually no, I just oppose disproportionate and absurd laws like the proposed 30kph across Dublin, that are being pushed by cyclists. And the repeated claims that Ireland has a horrifying road safety record requiring massive crackdowns despite the fact that Ireland is literally global best practice for road safety. Ya know, proportionality.

And this comment is quite amusing coming from an Irish cyclist - if you want to generalise (and I know you do) - to whom the entire concept of obeying laws is a funny idea in theory. Maybe you and the rest of the cycling lobby should get off the footpaths before you complain about motorists driving at 35kph on a suburban distributor road.

SeanW

SeanW wrote: »

Actually no, I just oppose disproportionate and absurd laws like the proposed 30kph across Dublin, that are being pushed by cyclists. And the repeated claims that Ireland has a horrifying road safety record requiring massive crackdowns despite the fact that Ireland is literally global best practice for road safety. Ya know, proportionality.

And this comment is quite amusing coming from an Irish cyclist - if you want to generalise (and I know you do) - to whom the entire concept of obeying laws is a funny idea in theory. Maybe you and the rest of the cycling lobby should get off the footpaths before you complain about motorists driving at 35kph on a suburban distributor road.

The 30k limit is coming. Maybe not this year, maybe not next year, maybe only bits will be brought in now but it is coming and it will be rolling out across cities, towns and villages across the country. It will become the standard approach that a justification will be needed for a road to not be 30k as opposed to the other way around

As for the rest, only people who don't regularly cycle on Irish roads would say they are safe for cycling on

harmless

SeanW wrote: »

Actually no, I just oppose disproportionate and absurd laws like the proposed 30kph across Dublin, that are being pushed by cyclists. And the repeated claims that Ireland has a horrifying road safety record requiring massive crackdowns despite the fact that Ireland is literally global best practice for road safety. Ya know, proportionality.

After driving in some other countries I agree with this, the issue is not safety it's congestion with Dublin making the top 20 on many lists for most congested city in the world. I'm not a great cyclist but I can average 30km/h. Not in urban areas though, too much traffic.
What is the solution?

Zebra3

SeanW wrote: »

Actually no, I just oppose disproportionate and absurd laws like the proposed 30kph across Dublin, that are being pushed by cyclists. And the repeated claims that Ireland has a horrifying road safety record requiring massive crackdowns despite the fact that Ireland is literally global best practice for road safety. Ya know, proportionality.

And this comment is quite amusing coming from an Irish cyclist - if you want to generalise (and I know you do) - to whom the entire concept of obeying laws is a funny idea in theory. Maybe you and the rest of the cycling lobby should get off the footpaths before you complain about motorists driving at 35kph on a suburban distributor road.

Global best practice in something where huge levels of deaths are accepted? Wow. :rolleyes:

What consolation is it to an innocent pedestrian slaughtered by a motorist that their death came after x amount of kms driven?

Decades of propaganda has society accepting the deaths of large numbers of innocent people as inevitable. Amazing how car industry propaganda never shows what you get from your car. Deaths and congestion. The colonisation of public spaces for cars. Residential areas being ruined.

Motorists moaning and whinging about anything that has ever restricted them. Seat belts, drink driving legislation, penalty points, being caught speeding and endangering the lives of innocent people.

Their solution? Let's target people who don't cause congestion, pollution, and deaths. Even if they're six years old.

The absolute state of them.

But you know, we're killing less people than in Vietnam. :rolleyes:

Thelonious Monk

micar wrote: »

Ultimately road traffic deaths get very little public online comments.....just look at The Journal and Facebook.

The vast majority of adults are drivers and seem be immune and desensitized to there types of accidents.

But an article on cycling brings them coming in their droves

Anyway......look at the RSA .... almost every ad you see is focused on the motorist/motorcyclist.....

Speeding, drink driving, drug driving, mobile phone, insurance,......


The odd "be safe, be seen" campaign during winter for cyclists.

The RSA are fully aware of who the problem on our roads lie.....pity the average motorists doesn't

Women being left dead at the side of roads in hit and runs get no attention either. This happened a few months ago in Mayo and the journal article had 3 or 4 comments, they often try and make excuses for the drivers too. A couple with their toddler in a buggy were hurt in a hit and run accident recently and got one or two comments.
When a cyclist gets killed immediately you'll have 100 comments with many blaming the death on the cyclist because they saw one break red lights.

The anti cycling bullsh*t needs to be called out for what it is, it's anti-vaxer Qanon level rubbish - the problem is it is often encouraged and facilitated by the media, that needs to stop too.

km991148

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).

And I already said some inconsiderate motorist pulled out in front of me and proceeded to drive at about 30kmph, forcing me to stay behind.

If you are gonna pull out in front at least keep moving.

What fancy alliteration do you want to call that? Entitled (unt in a car, perhaps? :pac:

Wish I came on here to start a thread about modifying driver behaviour through taxation.

BabysCoffee

Jeez some people on this thread need to lighten up and get out on a bike. It would do their humour the world of good

km991148

Sono Topolino wrote: »

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

Shouldn't be 3, no, unless it was changing over who was at the front?

AndrewJRenko

km991148 wrote: »

Shouldn't be 3, no, unless it was changing over who was at the front?

That's what the law says, for sure.

Though it is worth exploring what difference two abreast vs three abreast makes for the vehicle behind. Usually, the answer is : none.

Witcher

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Did you get it on dashcam for us all to see or is this yet another anecdote with no supporting evidence?
Did you contact the gardai about this law breaking?
For the record, I've cycled three abreast on public roads and it was perfectly safe and perfectly legal!

Section 47, S.I. No. 182/1997 - Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations, 1997

A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than two pedal cyclists driving abreast, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists, and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians

CHESSMUTANT

This thread is embarrassing.

km991148

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That's what the law says, for sure.

Though it is worth exploring what difference two abreast vs three abreast makes for the vehicle behind. Usually, the answer is : none.

I wouldn't encourage it - not with the current state of our roads. Too many obstacles to swerve etc.

I suspect it doesn't matter anyway - it has a made up feel to it.

Seth Brundle

Witcher wrote: »

Section 47, S.I. No. 182/1997 - Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations, 1997

I assume that you're backing up my point that it is possible to cycle three abreast legally!

Seth Brundle

km991148 wrote: »

I wouldn't encourage it - not with the current state of our roads. Too many obstacles to swerve etc.

I suspect it doesn't matter anyway - it has a made up feel to it.

I have often overtaken two people cycling abreast who were travelling slower than I was. It isn't uncommon.

km991148

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I have often overtaken two people cycling abreast who were travelling slower than I was. It isn't uncommon.

Overtaking is obviously fine and don't consider that cycling 3 abreast.

I mean't some roads are hopeless with holes and ditches and wouldn't encourage cycling 3 abreast.

Padre_Pio

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I assume that you're backing up my point that it is possible to cycle three abreast legally!

Is that three abreast though?

Would a car overtaking another car be considered as driving two abreast?

Seth Brundle

km991148 wrote: »

Overtaking is obviously fine and don't consider that cycling 3 abreast.

Many drivers simply see three cyclists before seeing red as they make the assumption that the three are all travelling together and three abreast (before coming on boards telling everyone that all cyclists travel three abreast).
In much the same way that drivers see three abreast when in fact you have two abreast and one behind but in the middle.

km991148

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Many drivers simply see three cyclists before seeing red as they make the assumption that the three are all travelling together and three abreast (before coming on boards telling everyone that all cyclists travel three abreast).
In much the same way that drivers see three abreast when in fact you have two abreast and one behind but in the middle.

yep - I get you. Its why I asked if maybe there was a change of rider at the front going on - I was good faith questioning the situation before jumping on them or the cyclists.

Seth Brundle

I think the vast majority of times people see three abreast isn't actually three abreast but merely looks that way momentarily.
No doubt some of the anti-cycling posters will retort with an incident they saw but didn't get on camera but they will see what they want to see!

Sono Topolino

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Many drivers simply see three cyclists before seeing red as they make the assumption that the three are all travelling together and three abreast (before coming on boards telling everyone that all cyclists travel three abreast).
In much the same way that drivers see three abreast when in fact you have two abreast and one behind but in the middle.

I was tailing them for an entire mile.

SeanW

harmless wrote: »

After driving in some other countries I agree with this, the issue is not safety it's congestion with Dublin making the top 20 on many lists for most congested city in the world. I'm not a great cyclist but I can average 30km/h. Not in urban areas though, too much traffic.
What is the solution?

I'd start with providing a lot more public transport. Every train and tram (and quite a few buses) serving Dublin during the peak hour are over-used beyond belief. One thing both the DART and Luas lines have shown is that if you give people a fast, easy, comfortable way to get from residential districts to the city centre, people will plan their lives around it. Having visited cities on the continent I've always been impressed not just with how extensive their railway public transport systems are, but often how they are planned as part of a coherent whole, such that a simple paper ticket works equally on a cities metro, suburban rail, trams etc. And yes, I would include cycle tracks, no issue there. If a cyclist isn't a total bellend and they just want to cycle somewhere, more power to them. IMHO speed limits are not really an issue in Dublin, but if there are specific places where vehicle speed really seriously needs to be reduced, then traffic calming measures should be introduced in those places.

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Women being left dead at the side of roads in hit and runs get no attention either. This happened a few months ago in Mayo and the journal article had 3 or 4 comments, they often try and make excuses for the drivers too. A couple with their toddler in a buggy were hurt in a hit and run accident recently and got one or two comments.

I'm guessing those comments were along the lines of "I hope they catch the bastard" or "RIP."

Zebra3 wrote: »

Global best practice in something where huge levels of deaths are accepted? Wow. :rolleyes:

What consolation is it to an innocent pedestrian slaughtered by a motorist that their death came after x amount of kms driven?

Decades of propaganda has society accepting the deaths of large numbers of innocent people as inevitable. Amazing how car industry propaganda never shows what you get from your car. Deaths and congestion. The colonisation of public spaces for cars. Residential areas being ruined.

Motorists moaning and whinging about anything that has ever restricted them. Seat belts, drink driving legislation, penalty points, being caught speeding and endangering the lives of innocent people.

Their solution? Let's target people who don't cause congestion, pollution, and deaths. Even if they're six years old.

The absolute state of them.

But you know, we're killing less people than in Vietnam. :rolleyes:

Not sure where to start with this tbh. First of all, it's not just Vietnam, it's most of the world bar about 3 or 4 countries. And even then, we're separated from the objective best (Norway) by a thin margin. Second, motorised traffic offers enormous inherent benefits to any society, and those benefits far outweigh the costs. It's not just that mass motoring allows anyone to go wherever they want, whenever they want, carrying as much as they want, but also society's ability to ensure that goods and materials are delivered where they are needed, when they are needed. Everyone's quality of life is massively improved, even if they don't own a car themselves, they benefit indirectly. It's got nothing to do with "car industry propaganda". Alas, the risks are also inherent. That's what the global data shows. The question isn't whether or not there will be collisions and fatalities, but rather how well those risks are managed. The data are clear on that point, the evidence clearly indicates that good decisions are being made on a very widespread basis in this country.

It's also clear that many of the people who do die, do so due to some extreme act of recklessness, not some fully licensed, insured driver driving at 36kph on some suburban distributor road. Like that "driver" that caused the recently discussed deaths in Donegal, a good enforcement policy would focus on finding people like that before they kill. Like how a checkpoint by either the Gardai or the PSNI would have found him driving with a suspended license and no insurance, even before he got blind drunk and decided to go on a rampage with people stuffed in his car boot. Many other fatalities are caused (and this is a known risk factor worldwide) by inherently dangerous roads, and good policy includes ensuring that routes are fit for purpose (like bypassing towns so that you don't have thousands of vehicles going through them every day that have no business there).

It is clear that there is widespread singling out of Irish motorists for demonisation (as a collective), that is not commensurate with objective reality. And that unlike some random person on the Internet suggesting cyclists pay road tax, the people doing that demonisation have power, as we can see in Dublin. And yet many of the countries those people want us to emulate have road safety records that are legitimately horrifying.

Seth Brundle

Sono Topolino wrote: »

I was tailing them for an entire mile.

To be honest, at this point, I neither believe you nor do I really care what you may or may not have seen.

BanditLuke

Seth Brundle wrote: »

To be honest, at this point, I neither believe you nor do I really care what you may or may not have seen.

Ah the old it doesn't suit my agenda so i don't believe you,