Cyclists, insurance and road tax

Cilldara_2000

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

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

It used to be the case that it separately went into the pot that funds local authorities but, from 2018 I think, it all just goes into central funds now.

km991148

Cilldara_2000 wrote: »

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.

it's not really irrelevant when the demand is to make the category of road users who does the most for reducing maintenance to pay even more to support others tho.

I agree tho - a fairer charging model tho would be useful.

In my mind it would go from about 500-1k per year tax rebate for cycling to a trebling of motor-tax for the biggest polluters/highest millage drivers.

Appropriate tax breaks for disabled/old/commercials.

Would encourage more to ditch the car and speed things up all round.

Cilldara_2000

Fighting Tao wrote: »

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

Hurrache wrote: »

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

You pay that to be a motorist. You pay nothing to be a cyclist. Anyone can right now cycle anywhere they like on roads that they're allowed to cycle on without paying a cent. (Edit: To clarify: I'm not anti-cyclist so I have no problem with the burden of maintaining roads falling solely on motorists.)

Cilldara_2000

km991148 wrote: »

it's not really irrelevant when the demand is to make the category of road users who does the most for reducing maintenance to pay even more to support others tho.

I agree a more fair charging model tho would be useful.

In my mind it would go from about 500-1k per year tax rebate for cycling to a trebling of motor-tax for the biggest polluters/highest millage drivers.

Appropriate tax breaks for disabled/old/commercials.

Would encourage more to ditch the car and speed things up all round.

I guess I just don't agree with tax rebates just because you happen to also own a bicycle. Should I also get a rebate for when I walk to the shop?

km991148

Cilldara_2000 wrote: »

I guess I just don't agree with tax rebates just because you happen to also own a bicycle. Should I also get a rebate for when I walk to the shop?

Ideally if there was a way to prove driving less, I would have to say so - but its hard to prove a negative.

Its not (just) the cyclist that gets the benefit - its all of society.

Pay people to take up cycling is a win win for everyone - including those that only ever want to drive (especially if they live in cities).

Charging people to cycle (as originally proposed) is a complete nonsense and will make things worse for society.

Cilldara_2000

km991148 wrote: »

Ideally if there was a way to prove driving less, I would have to say so - but its hard to prove a negative.

Its not (just) the cyclist that gets the benefit - its all of society.

Pay people to take up cycling is a win win for everyone - including those that only ever want to drive (especially if they live in cities).

Charging people to cycle (as originally proposed) is a complete nonsense and will make things worse for society.

+1.

And I think we agree on the fairer taxation point too.

Fighting Tao

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

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

If you read the thread your whole post has been discussed maybe 20 times already. You may need to back about a page

Fighting Tao

Cilldara_2000 wrote: »

You pay that to be a motorist. You pay nothing to be a cyclist. Anyone can right now cycle anywhere they like on roads that they're allowed to cycle on without paying a cent. (Edit: To clarify: I'm not anti-cyclist so I have no problem with the burden of maintaining roads falling solely on motorists.)

I pay nothing to be a pedestrian either and so not sure what your point is. People can walk the same roads they are permitted to cycle on.

Hurrache

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

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

Ah jaysus, 100 pages and you still have posters coming out with no clue, is there a tag team system going on?

doughef

Seth Brundle wrote: »

If you've ever gone for a run in a regular cotton tee shirt, how were your nipples afterwards? Any chafing? Any bleeding?
People wear appropriate clothing for all forms of sports. Even golfists have their own gear.

What’s a golfist? ... a type of fish ? A car?

km991148

doughef wrote: »

What’s a golfist? ... a type of fish ? A car?

Dunno but they better be paying golfist tax

doiredoire

Ok I think it is time for the following:

Yea but what about cyclists who break red lights, don’t wear helmets or hi viz or don’t have bells on their bikes (or have bells but ring them too loudly) and don’t pay any road tax and hold me up when driving on important business.

Don’t get me started on the lycra crowd who deliberately try and upset motorists

Padre_Pio

doiredoire wrote: »

Ok I think it is time for the following:

Yea but what about cyclists who break red lights, don’t wear helmets or hi viz or don’t bells on their bikes (or have bells but ring them too loudly) and don’t pay any road tax and hold me up when driving on important business.

Don’t get me started on the lycra crowd who deliberately try and upset motorists

And what's the deal with airline food?!:mad:

doiredoire

Padre_Pio wrote: »

And what's the deal with airline food?!:mad:

I have never been on a plane. I am too busy trying to annoy motorists.

km991148

doiredoire wrote: »

I have never been on a plane. I am too busy trying to annoy motorists.

Ah no.. the idea is to take the bike with you and do it internationally.

Bonus points if you can hold up a few more at check in!

doiredoire

km991148 wrote: »

Ah no.. the idea is to take the bike with you and do it internationally.

Bonus points if you can hold up a few more at check in!

Good idea never thought about that

Pinch Flat

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

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

Rent free. As I said up thread.

Seth Brundle

doughef wrote: »

What’s a golfist? ... a type of fish ? A car?

https://bfy.tw/Qmxq

Ok, ok, there's still time to get your tickets for tonights bingo, line up in an orderly fashion there now folks



Yes I was bored and the latest version of this thread is so boringly predictable that I made this

Pinch Flat

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.

Plot twist. The majority of cyclists also own a car and drive.

Seth Brundle

doiredoire wrote: »

Ok I think it is time for the following:

Yea but what about cyclists who break red lights, don’t wear helmets or hi viz or don’t have bells on their bikes (or have bells but ring them too loudly) and don’t pay any road tax and hold me up when driving on important business.

Don’t get me started on the lycra crowd who deliberately try and upset motorists

Are these cyclists in single file or pairs or are they riding three abreast?

Padre_Pio

Deleted User wrote: »

Ok, ok, there's still time to get your tickets for tonights bingo, line up in an orderly fashion there now folks



Yes I was bored and the latest version of this thread is so boringly predictable that I made this

Can we sticky this??!

doiredoire

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Are these cyclists in single file or pairs or are they riding three abreast?

Does it matter? They don’t pay road tax so shouldn’t be on the road

John_Rambo

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Plot twist. The majority of cyclists also own a car and drive.

Further more, it's been scientifically proven that cyclists make better drivers.

And this fact has been thoroughly proven on this thread one hundred times over.

AndrewJRenko

Cilldara_2000 wrote: »

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.

Motorists don't just cost the State on roads.
Motorists should pay for roads building and maintenance, motorway building, the National Roads Authority, the Road Safety Authority, the large sections of the Fire Brigade, Ambulance services, Gardai and the Courts Service that cover traffic issues, the costs of the hundreds of premature deaths each year resulting from air pollution and all the public space used for free parking.

Are you up for that?

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

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

I hate that motorists drive in groups on busy and non-busy roads with no motorways causing delays, vastly more delays that cyclists.

Cilldara_2000 wrote: »

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.

Emissions aren't the only burden on the State. Motorists cause huge wear and tear on the roads, and this isn't proportional to fuel usage. We need a road usage tax proportional to wear and tear.

Cilldara_2000 wrote: »

You pay that to be a motorist. You pay nothing to be a cyclist. Anyone can right now cycle anywhere they like on roads that they're allowed to cycle on without paying a cent. (Edit: To clarify: I'm not anti-cyclist so I have no problem with the burden of maintaining roads falling solely on motorists.)

I'm not racist, but.....

Hurrache wrote: »

Ah jaysus, 100 pages and you still have posters coming out with no clue, is there a tag team system going on?

Cilldara_2000

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Plot twist. The majority of cyclists also own a car and drive.

Christ on a bike. :pac:

That they are also cyclists is irrelevant to this taxation. You don't pay all those taxes for cycling - you do pay them for motoring.

This "argument" that they are also cyclists - it'd be like saying someone who drinks tea should get a rebate on the duty on the booze they also drink.

Cilldara_2000

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'm not racist, but.....

Wtf are you on about?

Fighting Tao

Cilldara_2000 wrote: »

Christ on a bike. :pac:

That they are also cyclists is irrelevant to this taxation. You don't pay all those taxes for cycling - you do pay them for motoring.

This "argument" that they are also cyclists - it'd be like saying someone who drinks tea should get a rebate on the duty on the booze they also drink.

What about pedestrians and horses that are allowed and do use the same roads as people on bikes?

Cilldara_2000

Fighting Tao wrote: »

What about pedestrians and horses that are allowed and do use the same roads as people on bikes?

What about them?

MangleBadger

Cilldara_2000 wrote: »

Christ on a bike. :pac:

That they are also cyclists is irrelevant to this taxation. You don't pay all those taxes for cycling - you do pay them for motoring.

This "argument" that they are also cyclists - it'd be like saying someone who drinks tea should get a rebate on the duty on the booze they also drink.

The argument is that cyclists don’t pay tax. They do pay tax. Just not on their bike.
It’d be like somebody saying the sugar tax that applies to fizzy drinks should also apply to zero calorie drinks because why should they get to drink fizzy drinks tax free!