Cyclists, insurance and road tax

Spook_ie

magicbastarder wrote: »

the legislation specifically states going three abreast is permitted for overtaking. so the answer is no.
otherwise your claim is that the legislation is self-contradictory.

Gotta get that wriggle on, try reading it as one sentence..


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

Spook_ie

VonLuck wrote: »

You can't give that a single yes/no answer to all scenarios. Three abreast where you are obstructing oncoming traffic? Yes. Three abreast whilst staying on your side of the road? No.

Wriggle wriggle

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

magicbastarder

i genuinely don't know what point you're trying to make. are you asking whether it's possible for a cyclist to overtake two others, and stay within the law?

Spook_ie

oisinog wrote: »

I would imagine the bit in bold would refer to oncoming traffic

from the same regulations

10. (1) A driver shall not overtake, or attempt to overtake, if to do so would endanger, or cause inconvenience to, any other person.

(2) A driver shall not overtake, or attempt to overtake, unless the roadway ahead of the driver—

( a ) is free from approaching traffic, pedestrians and any obstruction, and

( b ) is sufficiently long and wide to permit the overtaking to be completed without danger or inconvenience to other traffic or pedestrians.

Wriggle along with the others

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

micar

MrStuffins wrote: »

Can't believe this thread is still going. Mother of God!

Keep it going.....so close to 100 pages








Most of it is pure drivel

Fighting Tao

Spook_ie wrote: »

You just have to love cyclists when someone posts something in an SI how they wriggle and squirm to try and put a different complexion on what is actually just a binary decision.

If I go three abreast to overtake someone am I "and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians"
breaking that section of the SI Yes/No

Why is everyone who disagrees with you labeled a cyclist? Is it due to some abstract thinking that all cyclists are evil due to more people on bikes and less people in your taxi?


So far here are my stats for this year:
Cycled: 3 times, 72km
Drove: 2 times a day, >3000km.

Only in your view would that make me a cyclist rather than a motorist.

As for the SI. Your interpretation is wrong, and that is not unique from past discussions with you on legalities on the road.

Spook_ie

magicbastarder wrote: »

i genuinely don't know what point you're trying to make. are you asking whether it's possible for a cyclist to overtake two others, and stay within the law?

No I'm asking nothing, just pointing out the actual SI relevant to overtaking 3 abreast and that there is a stipulation about it.

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

Spook_ie

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Why is everyone who disagrees with you labeled a cyclist? Is it due to some abstract thinking that all cyclists are evil due to more people on bikes and less people in your taxi?


So far here are my stats for this year:
Cycled: 3 times, 72km
Drove: 2 times a day, >3000km.


Only in your view would that make me a cyclist rather than a motorist.

As for the SI. Your interoperation is wrong.

Oh my mistake, I made an assumption that anyone trying to argue against a specific SI about cycling 3 abreast except when overtaking would be a cyclist. Keep wriggling whichever way you commute

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

magicbastarder

someone reboot spook_ie, he's stuck in a loop.

Fighting Tao

Spook_ie wrote: »

Oh my mistake, I made an assumption that anyone trying to argue against a specific SI about cycling 3 abreast except when overtaking would be a cyclist. Keep wriggling whichever way you commute

Not wriggling at all. Ask the legal forum if you need further clarification.

Spook_ie

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Not wriggling at all. Take it to the legal forum if you need further guidance.

I'm not the one arguing about the interpretation of the words

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

So why don't you put up a counter argument about why you think it doesn't mean

and then only

but something entirely different

Fighting Tao

Spook_ie wrote: »

I'm not the one arguing about the interpretation of the words


So why don't you put up a counter argument about why you think it doesn't mean
but something entirely different

You are the only* one arguing about the interpretation. If looks like everyone else has been in agreement with my understanding. So I challenge you to test your expertise on the legal forum....if you dare!


*highlighted because you seem to love that word in your own highlighting :pac:

John_Rambo

Spook, go and lie down.

Thelonious Monk

magicbastarder wrote: »

someone reboot spook_ie, he's stuck in a loop.

Imagine allowing people who use bikes to occupy your headspace that much, something which only benefits society.

Fighting Tao

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Imagine allowing people who use bikes to occupy your headspace that much, something which only benefits society.

It frees up so much road space so he can do his daily job. Weird that there could be tens of thousands more cars on the road in Dublin if people gave up their bikes, thus hindering someone from doing their job, and they are not pushing for less cars.

One role I have on some projects in work is to remove blockers and any obstructions from others doing their work. It makes my team members so much happier when they don't have as many obstructions/annoyances (cars in their lanes) when they are trying to get a project delivered on time.

statto25

100 Pages Folks....Well done all!

Fighting Tao

statto25 wrote: »

100 Pages Folks....Well done all!

I'm only at 38.

Jaysus....I can see this one dragging out to 100 though. The topic has changed so many times because a few people hate people (but only when they are on bikes).

Tokyo

Mod: Spook_ie - don't post in the thread again.

Necro

Sono Topolino's threadban lifted after discussion with poster

magicbastarder

Fighting Tao wrote: »

I'm only at 38.

Jaysus....I can see this one dragging out to 100 though.

we're stuck in a vicious cycle.

km991148

magicbastarder wrote: »

we're stuck in a vicious cycle.

Mainly due to people pedalling nonsense!

Cilldara_2000

gmacww wrote: »

This is true but it's also based of most people ignorance. Not entirely their own fault to be fair. Roads are built and maintained out of the general taxation pot. So if you pay any sort of tax regardless of owning a car or not you're pay for the roads.



As the great Reg of the PFJ once said: "Yeah well obviously the roads I mean the roads go without saying don't they?"


Motor tax on the other hand is an environmental levy. This is split from the last breakdown I saw between our carbon fines and general taxation pot.

This is true but motorists pay in a huge amount to the general taxation pot.

Excise duty on autodiesel in 2019 was €1.55bn. VRT was €941m. Carbon tax on diesel was €193m, on petrol was €47m.

There was a total of €568m excise duty collected on light oils which includes petrol and kerosene. I can't find a split between the two though.

I can't find motor tax receipts in the years since 2016, but in 2016 it was €1.05bn.

That's a lot of money going into the state from motorists every year without even addressing VAT. The state does not spend this much on roads every year. Motorists pay in more than is spent on roads.

km991148

Cilldara_2000 wrote: »

Motorists pay in more than is spent on roads.

And cyclists (particularly those who also drive) proportionally pay even more when you factor in damage caused. i.e. more journeys by bicycle means less maintenance required as fewer journeys are completed by car.

Cilldara_2000

km991148 wrote: »

And cyclists (particularly those who also drive) proportionally pay even more when you factor in damage caused. i.e. more journeys by bicycle means less maintenance required as fewer journeys are completed by car.

What does proportionally even mean here?

Cyclists pay in nothing as regards any of the tax heads I mentioned: VRT, excise duty on diesel or petrol, carbon tax or motor tax.

km991148

Cilldara_2000 wrote: »

What does proportionally even mean here?

Cyclists pay in nothing as regards any of the tax heads I mentioned: VRT, excise duty on diesel or petrol, carbon tax or motor tax.

When I own a car I drive. Most cyclists own a car.
When I choose to leave the car at home I cycle.
I am paying the same tax/motortax/vrt all of it as the next motorist
I cause less damage than the motorist that doesn't drive.
The slight reduction in duty on fuel may offset this somewhat, but then there are also tax receipts on the purchase and maintenance of a bicycle.

In effect, people who are cycling (and also own cars) are subsidising motorists that don't cycle by reducing the overall maintenance bill and generally making things better for motorists (less traffic, less pressure on healthcare to name a couple of other benefits).

So by proportionally - I mean costs incurred to the state per KM travelled.

When the question around tax and cycling arises it should be more along the lines of "how much of a tax credit should we give to cyclists" - not how much to charge them.

Fighting Tao

Cilldara_2000 wrote: »

What does proportionally even mean here?

Cyclists pay in nothing as regards any of the tax heads I mentioned: VRT, excise duty on diesel or petrol, carbon tax or motor tax.

Didn’t someone post that over 80% of cyclists own a car and so do pay those taxes?

Hurrache

Cilldara_2000 wrote: »

What does proportionally even mean here?

Cyclists pay in nothing as regards any of the tax heads I mentioned: VRT, excise duty on diesel or petrol, carbon tax or motor tax.

Erm, I pay that, on the double, as I pay and contribute to both cars in the house.

JP Liz V1

What does motor tax go on now? I believed it was for road maintenance

I hate that cyclists in groups go on busy roads with no cycle lanes causing delays

Cilldara_2000

km991148 wrote: »

When I own a car I drive. Most cyclists own a car.
When I choose to leave the car at home I cycle.
I am paying the same tax/motortax/vrt all of it as the next motorist
I cause less damage than the motorist that doesn't drive.
The slight reduction in duty on fuel may offset this somewhat, but then there are also tax receipts on the purchase and maintenance of a bicycle.

In effect, people who are cycling (and also own cars) are subsidising motorists that don't cycle by reducing the overall maintenance bill and generally making things better for motorists (less traffic, less pressure on healthcare to name a couple of other benefits).

So by proportionally - I mean costs incurred to the state per KM travelled.

When the question around tax and cycling arises it should be more along the lines of "how much of a tax credit should we give to cyclists" - not how much to charge them.

I get what you're saying now but I think it's a bit irrelevant. What you do with your car after you buy it is neither here nor there. You bought and you paid the tax on buying it and keeping it on the road etc. And I'm sure there's plenty of car owners who also occasionally get a lift, or the bus or a train, or walk, or do part of their journey by more than one method. Cyclists are no more special than any of these groups.

There is a separate discussion to be had that taxation on motoring could be more weighted towards fuel so that those who drive the most and cause the most emissions should bear a greater burden of the tax. More than half of the figures I outlined there are collected regardless of whether the motorist does 100 miles or 100,000 miles a year.

km991148

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

What does motor tax go on now? I believed it was for road maintenance

General taxation. Its all one big pot.

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

I hate that cyclists in groups go on busy roads with no cycle lanes causing delays

yeah and I hate when cars are in big lines, causing delays.

Sh!t happens I guess - Imagine how much more you would hate it if you weren't having your road use subsidised!
I.e. you were subsidising everyone else and were being called an arsehole for it!