Cyclists, insurance and road tax

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,

Pawwed Rig

Sono Topolino wrote: »

I was tailing them for an entire mile.

So about 3 minutes

Scrabbel

Seth Brundle wrote: »

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!

I'm both a cyclist and a driver. I'd disagree with you there - that's just one opinion (which you're quite entitled to hold, like the original poster) that you equally can't back up with evidence. In any event, if 1 hanging back looks like they're in the middle of 3 abreast, then clearly the gap between the front 2 is too big anyway. Just as I think people who are cycling 3 (or even 2) abreast should be a bit considerate and go single file for a minute to let a hold-up clear I also think people who are driving should be a little bit patient and not immediately try to overtake if the space is narrow or immediately beep to make their presence know. A bit of give and take goes a long way.

harmless

Scrabbel wrote: »

. Just as I think people who are cycling 3 (or even 2) abreast should be a bit considerate and go single file for a minute to let a hold-up clear I also think people who are driving should be a little bit patient and not immediately try to overtake if the space is narrow or immediately beep to make their presence know. A bit of give and take goes a long way.

I completely agree with this but the cyclists need to be very careful when they go single file as many will take it as a signal to overtake immediately.

I've seen some close calls when groups go single file while there is still traffic coming the other direction on a rural road. And of course the same caution applies to bends in the road.
Then you have situations where one group goes single file when it is safe but another does not because it is not and the motorist gets angry.

John_Rambo

Sono Topolino wrote: »

A cyclist made a crass remark about how many taxi drivers are in receipt of pandemic unemployment payments

That was me, never mentioned how many, just about the mouthpiece on the thread and his tax money. It was a valid point, not crass. I'm a motorist by the way.. Haven't been on a bike in well over a year.

BUT IT WAS THE CYCLISTS FAULT, THEY MADE MY SAY IT!!

Tell us more about your anecdote, conveniently.. just this Saturday!! Where you were stuck behind three cyclists for a mile and you couldn't overtake! Sounds like a great yarn. In all my years of driving vans and cars throughout Ireland and Europe I've never come across such a situation.

Where was this? Sounds terrible. Poor you.

Expand.. Explain....

magicbastarder

Sono Topolino wrote: »

I was tailing them for an entire mile.

cyclists don't cycle in miles, we cycle in kilometres.
as does your car, unless it's quite old.

AndrewJRenko

SeanW wrote: »

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.

What does an inherently dangerous road look like? Does it have bombs and barbed wire or what? I've never seen a road hurt anyone.

Would the extra checkpoints you're looking for in Donegal not be part of the 'collective punishment' that you were railing against a few hours ago?

Seth Brundle

BanditLuke wrote: »

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

I've no agenda to push. I'm just tired of the anti-cycling rhetoric that some here keep spouting. I think at this stage we've seen all of the traditional anti-cycling prejudices and it is tiresome

Ronaldinho

magicbastarder wrote: »

cyclists don't cycle in miles, we cycle in kilometres.
as does your car, unless it's quite old.

The rules of the forum are simple but absolute.

We have one guiding principle: Don't be a dick.

SeanW

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

What does an inherently dangerous road look like? Does it have bombs and barbed wire or what? I've never seen a road hurt anyone.

Some roads due to design flaws, inappropriate routing, poor engineering etc. make a collision or fatality more likely.

Like a main road routed through a small town - that town becomes choked with through traffic. That's inherently dangerous. We also used to build dual carriageways with uncontrolled median crossings. Those used to be accident blackspots, so they were replaced with either grade separation or roundabouts, the latter being the preferred (i.e. inherently safer) way of providing access to modern "2+2" dual carriageways. A road can be designed in such a way that it mitigates risk, or aggravates it.

In extreme cases (fortunately this is not a thing in Ireland) people have to use really narrow roads on the side of a mountain with no guardrail at the precipice, and that's basically guaranteed to get people killed.

Would the extra checkpoints you're looking for in Donegal not be part of the 'collective punishment' that you were railing against a few hours ago?

Having the odd checkpoint here and there, now and then, to make sure that people aren't driving with suspended licenses, drunk, no insurance, people hanging out of the boot etc. is entirely reasonable. And there does seem to be something weird going on in Donegal. Maybe all the Nordies are coming across the border and completely taking the piss?

swarlb

Sono Topolino wrote: »

1. Motor tax is road-user tax paid only by car-drivers. I want this scrapped and replaced with a single carbon tax which applies to everything.

2. How many cyclists are members of cycling clubs? And why are they the only ones with insurance?

3. Cyclists break lights all the time with impunity. Please stop pretending that this does not happen.

4. Motorists who break speed limits should of course be punished. More speeding cameras is something I support. I'd also like cameras to police red-light breaking.

I admit I really get annoyed at gangs of Lycra libertarians clogging up the road on Saturdays and not allowing cars to pass, but as you see I can work past my prejudices.

Does the wearing of Lycra upset you more than the non payment of tax ?? Lycra wearing cyclists seems to be a catch phrase. I only ask, because I come from a cycling era before Lycra was used as an apparel. Back then I never heard of motorists jumping up and down at the sight of 'woolen wearing cyclists' clogging up our roads...
So, now we are getting to the heart of the matter...

And it's 'Lycra'

Fighting Tao

swarlb wrote: »

Does the wearing of Lycra upset you more than the non payment of tax ?? Lycra wearing cyclists seems to be a catch phrase. I only ask, because I come from a cycling era before Lycra was used as an apparel. Back then I never heard of motorists jumping up and down at the sight of 'woolen wearing cyclists' clogging up our roads...
So, now we are getting to the heart of the matter...

And it's 'Lycra'

I was on the bike in jeans and a T-shirt the other day. I wonder if his hate applied to me.

BanditLuke

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I've no agenda to push. I'm just tired of the anti-cycling rhetoric that some here keep spouting. I think at this stage we've seen all of the traditional anti-cycling prejudices and it is tiresome

Maybe there is a reason it's been brought up again and again, could it be that it's an issue maybe?

Fighting Tao

BanditLuke wrote: »

Maybe there is a reason it's been brought up again and again, could it be that it's an issue maybe?

There is an irrational hate towards people on bikes who they have had no interaction with before. It’s in a minority of peoples heads, and seems to stop as soon as the person is no longer on a bike. Do you not find that extremely weird and effed up? I do, and I think those people should seek professional help for their anger issues.

AndrewJRenko

BanditLuke wrote: »

Maybe there is a reason it's been brought up again and again, could it be that it's an issue maybe?

That's correct Luke, anti-cycling prejudice from you and others is indeed an issue, just like other forms of prejudice. That's why people have patiently explained the relevant facts and the logical flaws in your position over and over again.

Have those explanations helped you to move on to a more rational place?

AndrewJRenko

SeanW wrote: »

Some roads due to design flaws, inappropriate routing, poor engineering etc. make a collision or fatality more likely.

Like a main road routed through a small town - that town becomes choked with through traffic. That's inherently dangerous. We also used to build dual carriageways with uncontrolled median crossings. Those used to be accident blackspots, so they were replaced with either grade separation or roundabouts, the latter being the preferred (i.e. inherently safer) way of providing access to modern "2+2" dual carriageways. A road can be designed in such a way that it mitigates risk, or aggravates it.

In extreme cases (fortunately this is not a thing in Ireland) people have to use really narrow roads on the side of a mountain with no guardrail at the precipice, and that's basically guaranteed to get people killed.

Having the odd checkpoint here and there, now and then, to make sure that people aren't driving with suspended licenses, drunk, no insurance, people hanging out of the boot etc. is entirely reasonable. And there does seem to be something weird going on in Donegal. Maybe all the Nordies are coming across the border and completely taking the piss?

1) Any design flaws, inappropriate routing, poor engineering are visible to the approaching driver, and given that we have the best drivers in the world apparently, surely they should adjust their style slow down and drive to the conditions?

2) So collective punishment is okay for Donegal but not anywhere else - gotcha.

maestroamado

km991148 wrote: »

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

3 is illegal simple as that...

Fighting Tao

maestroamado wrote: »

3 is illegal simple as that...

So in your imagination one cyclist can’t overtake two others who are side by side?

maestroamado

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

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

That's a silly comment as 3 abreast was illegal unless the law was changed when mass cycling became fashionable...

maestroamado

Fighting Tao wrote: »

So in your imagination one cyclist can’t overtake two others who are side by side?

No that is 3 which is breaking the law..

Fighting Tao

maestroamado wrote: »

No that is 3 which is breaking the law..

As I said, it’s your imagination. The law states differently to what you believe. You should refresh yourself as you are probably a danger to others on the road. From your posts here I have to ask, how do you have a license? Did you get it when the government were giving them out in Skelligs boxes with Snap, Crackle, and Pop images on them? :pac:

AndrewJRenko

maestroamado wrote: »

3 is illegal simple as that...

Not when overtaking.

Do you ever break a speed limit yourself?

maestroamado

Fighting Tao wrote: »

As I said, it’s your imagination. The law states differently to what you believe. You should refresh yourself as you are probably a danger to others on the road. From your posts here I have to ask, how do you have a license? Did you get it when the government were giving them out in Skelligs boxes with Snap, Crackle, and Pop images on them? :pac:

Show me where the law states there can be 3 abreast on single carriage road.
You check it out as i know what i am talking about.


Your losing control of the game...

maestroamado

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Not when overtaking.

Do you ever break a speed limit yourself?

Its illegal to cycle 3 abreast , simple as...

I know break the speed limit every day...

Weepsie

maestroamado wrote: »

Its illegal to cycle 3 abreast , simple as...

I know break the speed limit every day...

Again not if one is overtaking. Its stated in the road traffic act. Have a read of it.in fact lots of people here should. Enlighten Yourselves

AndrewJRenko

maestroamado wrote: »

Its illegal to cycle 3 abreast , simple as...

I know break the speed limit every day...

It is legal to be three abreast when overtaking. Simple as...

Try again re speeding