Cyclists, insurance and road tax

km991148

liamog wrote: »

Road damage in relation to vehicle weight rises with the 4th power of weight. An average lorry weighing 32 tonnes will do the same damage as 65,000 2 tonne cars, or 10.5 billion cyclists. If we tried to implement a system of "fairness" we'd end up with incredibly high logistics costs.

Yep. Commercials would need tax breaks too. Same as other things where there is a different rule for businesses Vs private citizens.

Either way asking cyclists to pay more, because it's "fair" is ridiculous considering most cyclists are already subsidising most non cycling motorists to a fair tune.

maestroamado

Fighting Tao wrote: »

The text of the law has been posted twice. Are you trolling now?

What thread number i must have missed it...

Sono Topolino

LollipopJimmy wrote: »

I really don't get it, why do road users see others as the enemy, I cycle, I ride a motorbike and I drive a car and its only when cycling I get abuse for nothing. Funnily enough as part of a college course I was asked to stand at a city centre junction at rush hour and count the number of people breaking lights, I was shocked in the end to note more cars and vans had broken the lights than cyclists and this was the junction of leeson St. and Fitz place.

Every road user needs to be courteous and patient, if you're not then you're a ****.

It's ridiculous - I don't see cyclists as an enemy and I don't understand why justifiable criticism is considered an existential threat to cycling. The responses I've gotten here show that people think I'm an irrational rage-filled dinosaur or a troll, but I have actually tried hard to meet people half way and every attempt has just been spurned.

Cyclists are not infallible angels and pointing this out does not mean that they don't have rights. I would rather that they have their own cycling infrastructure for their own protection and my own peace of mind. As I have pointed out multiple times, I have no problem paying more tax for this.

There is a subset of cyclists, the Lycra Libertarians as I call them, which go out of their way to cause a nuisance and pointing this out shouldn't be controversial. Every group has it's assholes. Again, this doesn't mean I don't think cyclists have rights, but let's keep this real, ok?

Happily, once cyclists have their own greenways and places to enjoy the sport off main roads, Lycra Libertarians can be obnoxious to other cyclists without putting their own lives at risk. That seems fair?

km991148

Other ways of leveling the field would be congestion charging in towns or cities and minimum occupancy rates of vehicles at peak times (private cars must have a minimum of two occupants).

In the interest of fairness, like..

Sono Topolino

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Fixed your post for you :cool:

It's nice that you exercise your right to be a dick. Now I assume you accept that cyclists can act in bad faith on the road as well as online, yes?

That's why we have laws regulating people's behaviour.

oisinog

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Fair play to the lad in the van all the same.

I agree nice bloke and didnt have to take the time to do it, but it goes to show as a professional driver he is probably sick of the reputation he has with other road users.

km991148

Sono Topolino wrote: »

Happily, once cyclists have their own greenways and places to enjoy the sport off main roads, Lycra Libertarians can be obnoxious to other cyclists without putting their own lives at risk. That seems fair?

And now we want to restrict usage as well?
This thread just keeps getting better!

So no driving for social reasons as well I assume? Or to go to the gym? I guess it makes sense I mean it's probably unethical to just go for a drive these days considering we know the damage it causes to the environment.

Out of interest, who will publish this list of allowed road use purpose?

Sono Topolino

km991148 wrote: »

Other ways of leveling the field would be congestion charging in towns or cities and minimum occupancy rates of vehicles at peak times (private cars must have a minimum of two occupants).

In the interest of fairness, like..

I would assume that carbon taxes and parking charges would make cycling and public transport the obvious choice except maybe on days when it is raining heavily.

Honestly, as stated in my OP, I think cycling is a no brainer in cities. It's on narrow country roads where there's no alternative but to drive to get from A to B that cyclists are a major annoyance for motorists.

Cyclists have the right to enjoy the natural splendour of rural Ireland, but they should have their own greenways for that.

km991148

Sono Topolino wrote: »

I would assume that carbon taxes and parking charges would make cycling and public transport the obvious choice except maybe on days when it is raining heavily.

Honestly, as stated in my OP, I think cycling is a no brainer in cities. It's on narrow country roads where there's no alternative but to drive to get from A to B that cyclists are a major annoyance for motorists.

Cyclists have the right to enjoy the natural splendour of rural Ireland, but they should have their own greenways for that.

Would be nice to have a network of dedicated cycleways alright, but it's just not practical. We can barely cover the costs of the infrastructure that we need to keep things as they are.

Besides the roads are built for everyone anyway so it doesn't really make sense.

oisinog

Sono Topolino wrote: »

There is a subset of cyclists, the Lycra Libertarians as I call them, which go out of their way to cause a nuisance and pointing this out shouldn't be controversial. Every group has it's assholes. Again, this doesn't mean I don't think cyclists have rights, but let's keep this real, ok?

Happily, once cyclists have their own greenways and places to enjoy the sport off main roads, Lycra Libertarians can be obnoxious to other cyclists without putting their own lives at risk. That seems fair?

At the same time there is a larger subset of motorists who go out of their way to cause a nuisance and also pointing this out shouldn't be controversial.

You also say you dont think cyclists havent got rights and in the next paragraph telling cyclists to go to a greenway or off road to to enjoy their sport.

So what is it do you want us to do, set up a rota so you can have the road to yourself or bugger off somewhere else so you can have the road to yourself?

liamog

km991148 wrote: »

Either way asking cyclists to pay more, because it's "fair" is ridiculous considering most cyclists are already subsidising most non cycling motorists to a fair tune.

No it's grand we make the cyclists pay their fair share, equivalent road damage to 1 car is 160,000. The bike is zero emissions so we'll baseline against the EV rate which is €120/year, as such I will now require you to pay 1c every 13 years. That should cover it

AndrewJRenko

Sono Topolino wrote: »

When I pointed out that the fairly common behaviour of cycling three abreast is illegal, plenty of posters started pointing out a narrow exception to this rule.

Any complaints I have about cycling three abreast obviously does not involve a single cyclist overtaking two cyclists who are cycling three abreast. Overtaking takes ~30 seconds - no skin off any motorist's nose.

I'm obviously complaining about cyclists doing this for an extended amount of time, not with the intention of overtaking, as happened last Saturday.

There is no time limit on overtaking.

Seth Brundle

Sono Topolino wrote: »

It's ridiculous - I don't see cyclists as an enemy and I don't understand why justifiable criticism is considered an existential threat to cycling. The responses I've gotten here show that people think I'm an irrational rage-filled dinosaur or a troll, but I have actually tried hard to meet people half way and every attempt has just been spurned.

Meet them half way to what?
You simply dislike them on your roads. But you don't own the roads! It could actually be interpreted that cyclists have more right to be on the roads than drivers (as people on bikes don't need to be licenced).

Sono Topolino wrote: »

Cyclists are not infallible angels and pointing this out does not mean that they don't have rights.

I don't think anyone here said that people on bikes are angels or anything of the sort.

Sono Topolino wrote: »

There is a subset of cyclists, the Lycra Libertarians as I call them, which go out of their way to cause a nuisance and pointing this out shouldn't be controversial. Every group has it's assholes. Again, this doesn't mean I don't think cyclists have rights, but let's keep this real, ok?

So you object to people on bikes who wear certain type of clothing?
Are you the fashion police?
Now you want to keep it real but preceed this by throwing out an insults.

Sono Topolino wrote: »

Happily, once cyclists have their own greenways and places to enjoy the sport off main roads, Lycra Libertarians can be obnoxious to other cyclists without putting their own lives at risk. That seems fair?

When I commute I am training so I'll still use the roads that my taxes contributed towards.
Greenways for your information are tourism amenities and successful ones at that. They are not designed for commuters or people training. Hopefully this corrects your mistaken understanding of them.
As for putting my life atr risk, sitting on a bike does not put my life at risk. In fact my cardiologist and GP both encourage me to do it. What is a danger is the likes of this asshole (who I have reported to the gardai)...

...or this one (outside a school)...

km991148

liamog wrote: »

No it's grand we make the cyclists pay their fair share, equivalent road damage to 1 car is 160,000. The bike is zero emissions so we'll baseline against the EV rate which is €120/year, as such I will now require you to pay 1c every 13 years. That should cover it

The current scales are wrong. Most cyclists would be driving if they weren't cycling, so it should really be a rebate! That's the crazy thing. Motorists who only drive are getting a fantastic deal and some are so ignorant to it they come here or down the pub or the blowhards in the workplace and moan their faces off about it!

AndrewJRenko

Sono Topolino wrote: »

I would assume that carbon taxes and parking charges would make cycling and public transport the obvious choice except maybe on days when it is raining heavily.

Honestly, as stated in my OP, I think cycling is a no brainer in cities. It's on narrow country roads where there's no alternative but to drive to get from A to B that cyclists are a major annoyance for motorists.

Cyclists have the right to enjoy the natural splendour of rural Ireland, but they should have their own greenways for that.

If there was no alternative but to drive, there would be no cyclists.

The presence of cyclists confirms that there is an alternative.

Greenways are great for tourists but aren't generally in the right places for people cycling to work or college or shopping.

You own a car, not the road.

Cilldara_2000

km991148 wrote: »

If it really was about fairness we would have a system genuinely tied to usage, measured in terms of environmental impact and damage to roads.

This would massively push up motor tax for most.

This could be counteracted by giving tax rebates to those that choose to replace done of these journeys by bicycle.

But it's not about fairness, is it?

Nice to see that some people want to rip off motorists even further. If you take the total of what motorists pay in VRT, motor tax, VAT on the purchase of the car, VAT on the fuel, excise duty on the fuel, motorists pay in far more than is spent maintaining and building roads. Maybe that's fair enough in order to pay for the pollution but this "fair" system you want already exists.

The idea of the thread is nonsense. Some cyclists are bad at using the road but I'd maintain that a greater proportion of motorists are bad at using the road. We should be after these people first considering the potential harm they can cause to everyone else in their one tonne killing machines.

Seth Brundle

Sono Topolino wrote: »

Honestly, as stated in my OP, I think cycling is a no brainer in cities. It's on narrow country roads where there's no alternative but to drive to get from A to B that cyclists are a major annoyance for motorists.

If drivers get annoyed then they need to resolve that. It is not for me to change someone elses emotions.
As for no alternative for getting from A to B - that is just in your head. People managed to get from A to B long before cars. How was that possible?

Sono Topolino wrote: »

Cyclists have the right to enjoy the natural splendour of rural Ireland, but they should have their own greenways for that.

So you still don't understand what a greenway is after being told a number of times in this thread?

km991148

Seth Brundle wrote: »

...or this one (outside a school)...

Fuk me.. and we want to talk about illegal overtaking (on the left this time) as well!

Seth Brundle

km991148 wrote: »

Fuk me.. and we want to talk about illegal overtaking (on the left this time) as well!

According to this thread all cyclists break red lights too!

Pinch Flat

Ah lads getting bored of this now. Can we move onto helmets? Or bells? Or lights?

Seth Brundle

Bells haven't really been covered here.
I'll start: I don't have a bell on my road bike!

km991148

Cilldara_2000 wrote: »

Nice to see that some people want to rip off motorists even further. If you take the total of what motorists pay in VRT, motor tax, VAT on the purchase of the car, VAT on the fuel, excise duty on the fuel, motorists pay in far more than is spent maintaining and building roads. Maybe that's fair enough in order to pay for the pollution but this "fair" system you want already exists.

My point is that motoristrs are already getting a good deal, especially compared to cyclists who also drive (most of them).

The luxury of motoring is, by its very nature expensive - and that's including that its already heavily subsidised.

I am well aware of how much of a rip off my annual tax bill is. And you want me to pay even more to fund this crazy system of transport we have in Ireland..

liamog

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Bells haven't really been covered here.
I'll start: I don't have a bell on my road bike!

Isn't that one an actual legal requirement? unlike the oft trotted out helmets and high vis.

km991148

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Bells haven't really been covered here.
I'll start: I don't have a bell on my road bike!

Animal

Seth Brundle

liamog wrote: »

Isn't that one an actual legal requirement? unlike the oft trotted out helmets and high vis.

Not quite.
A bell is required unless you're on a bike that is adapted for racing.

AndrewJRenko

Sono Topolino wrote: »

It's ridiculous - I don't see cyclists as an enemy and I don't understand why justifiable criticism is considered an existential threat to cycling. The responses I've gotten here show that people think I'm an irrational rage-filled dinosaur or a troll, but I have actually tried hard to meet people half way and every attempt has just been spurned.

Cyclists are not infallible angels and pointing this out does not mean that they don't have rights. I would rather that they have their own cycling infrastructure for their own protection and my own peace of mind. As I have pointed out multiple times, I have no problem paying more tax for this.

There is a subset of cyclists, the Lycra Libertarians as I call them, which go out of their way to cause a nuisance and pointing this out shouldn't be controversial. Every group has it's assholes. Again, this doesn't mean I don't think cyclists have rights, but let's keep this real, ok?

Happily, once cyclists have their own greenways and places to enjoy the sport off main roads, Lycra Libertarians can be obnoxious to other cyclists without putting their own lives at risk. That seems fair?

Going to work or school or college or shopping isn't really a sport. It is going to work or school or college.

If you're unable to face up to sharing roads with cyclists, then stop driving.

liamog

Me: Well officer, my bike doesn't have a bell because its adapted for racing.
Officer: What adaptations have you made?
Me: I removed the bell!

Pinch Flat

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Bells haven't really been covered here.
I'll start: I don't have a bell on my road bike!

I have three bikes. bell on One, two without. Maybe a bell tax?

km991148

It's actually mad - you want the people who are doing the most to slow rate of increase of traffic to pay more to save the most heavily subsidised road users money in order for them to have no encouragement to make the traffic situation any better. And then make cyclists go even slower in town as result.

Sign me up - also I'll give you my address and you can store some stuff in my house and even have use of my property too.

AndrewJRenko

Cilldara_2000 wrote: »

The idea of the thread is nonsense. Some cyclists are bad at using the road but I'd maintain that a greater proportion of motorists are bad at using the road. We should be after these people first considering the potential harm they can cause to everyone else in their one tonne killing machines.

The proportions of bad road users by type of road user is entirely irrelevant.

The actual source of danger on the roads is the drivers who kill two or three people each week.