Cyclists, insurance and road tax

Fighting Tao

Cilldara_2000 wrote: »

What about them?

Well if I walk I cause the same damage to roads as I do on my 10kg bike. Horses weigh far more than me, so do some other pedestrians...yet you want to tax people on bikes.

BabysCoffee

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

Oh yes those darned cyclists that you see not wearing hi-viz......

So even though they are seen not wearing hi-viz, they still need to wear hi-viz.



That just doesn't add up in my mind

AndrewJRenko

Cilldara_2000 wrote: »

Wtf are you on about?

I'm on about your claim to not be anti-cyclist while you expound anti-cyclist thoughts and proposals.

It's what we usually hear from those who start out with 'I'm not racist' and then follow it with the 'but'.

magicbastarder

Cilldara_2000 wrote: »

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.

to tease this open a bit - you don't pay them 'for' motoring, in the sense that they're not a fee for motoring. they're a tax; a tax is simply a way of getting money off the public or off corporations to pay for public services.

i have no right when i pay income tax to expect the tax will be spent on *me*, i accept it goes into a large pool which will provide services i don't use, and many of which i hope never to need to use.
motor tax should not be ringfenced at all to pay for the roads; the (luxury rate!) VAT i paid on my bike helmet is not ringfenced to pay for cycling infrastructure.

oisinog

Spook_ie wrote: »

And not one of those lines counters "and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians"

As I pointed out the same rules worded slightly different Also applies to motorists.

The final line in b.

If a cyclist couldn't overtake then there is no was a car can

Cilldara_2000

magicbastarder wrote: »

to tease this open a bit - you don't pay them 'for' motoring, in the sense that they're not a fee for motoring. they're a tax; a tax is simply a way of getting money off the public or off corporations to pay for public services.

i have no right when i pay income tax to expect the tax will be spent on *me*, i accept it goes into a large pool which will provide services i don't use, and many of which i hope never to need to use.
motor tax should not be ringfenced at all to pay for the roads; the (luxury rate!) VAT i paid on my bike helmet is not ringfenced to pay for cycling infrastructure.

You absolutely do pay them for motoring. If you didn't own a car, you'd pay none of these taxes.

Regarding VAT - I specifically did not bring VAT into it precisely for this reason - it's levied on all sorts of things.

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Well if I walk I cause the same damage to roads as I do on my 10kg bike. Horses weigh far more than me, so do some other pedestrians...yet you want to tax people on bikes.

Where have I said anything about taxing people on bikes?

MangleBadger wrote: »

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!

Yes, not on their bike and not in relation to their usage of roads on their bikes. Same as all the other ways people use roads.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'm on about your claim to not be anti-cyclist while you expound anti-cyclist thoughts and proposals.

It's what we usually hear from those who start out with 'I'm not racist' and then follow it with the 'but'.

I haven't made any proposals relating to cyclists at all here.

You can take my claims about motorists paying all the tax for roads as me being anti-cyclist if you wish but you'd be wrong.

Edit: Are you all cyclists? Is merely bringing up that motorists pay a wild amount of tax anti-cyclist or something? Seems a bit over sensitive to me.

AndrewJRenko

Eric Cartman wrote: »

How would it trigger, a bicycle hasn't got a big enough radar trail to set off a radar camera, hasn't got enough steel to set off an inductive loop, would be ruled out by any kind of image recognition camera. The question is more how would you build a camera to detect cyclists crossing.

Have a look at the video please Eric and tell me again how cameras can't detect cyclists?

https://streamable.com/115bc8

magicbastarder

Cilldara_2000 wrote: »

You absolutely do pay them for motoring. If you didn't own a car, you'd pay none of these taxes.

yeah, it hinges on a subtle meaning of the word 'for'.
you pay it for motoring, as in you pay it because you motor.

but it's not paid 'for' motoring in the sense that it's not paid specifically for the provision of motoring infrastructure.

maestroamado

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?

Your a mod so you will know this.
I tried to put up a video clip but i got error.
What am i doing wrong.....

magicbastarder

inductive loops don't need the metal to be ferrous to set them off AFAIK; though obviously even given that, a carbon frame bike with carbon wheels won't be nearly as likely to trigger one.
and many radar cameras do detect cyclists, but many don't also.

magicbastarder

maestroamado wrote: »

Your a mod so you will know this.
I tried to put up a video clip but i got error.
What am i doing wrong.....

youtube? if it's youtube, go to advanced editing mode and use the youtube tagging, but only use the youtube ID.

it should look like this (i've deliberately misspelt so it doesn't parse it correctly)

[YOOTUBE]hjkk12j3ns[/YOOTUBE]

Cilldara_2000

magicbastarder wrote: »

yeah, it hinges on a subtle meaning of the word 'for'.
you pay it for motoring, as in you pay it because you motor.

but it's not paid 'for' motoring in the sense that it's not paid specifically for the provision of motoring infrastructure.

There's nothing subtle about this meaning of this sense of the word for. "For motoring" (my claim) is not at all equal to "for motoring infrastructure". Had I meant to say for motoring infrastructure, I'd have said it.

I mean like my first comment in the thread, only a few pages back was this:

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.

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.

km991148

Cilldara_2000 wrote: »

There's nothing subtle about this meaning of this sense of the word for. "For motoring" (my claim) is not at all equal to "for motoring infrastructure". Had I meant to say for motoring infrastructure, I'd have said it.

I mean like my first comment in the thread, only a few pages back was this:

Yeah I think there is a little bit of issue over the wording here, this is mainly because the opening posts are all about 'paying motortax gives more of right to be on the roads' (as opposed to cyclists who have fewer rights to use the road as they don't pay a bicycle tax equivalent).

I don't think you are saying this tho, you are just saying 'christ motoring is expensive'?

maestroamado

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why would you think that your journey is more important than anyone else's journey?

I did not say my journey was important or not as usually i am not in a hurry but prefer not have to drive behind a train of bicycles for 10+ mins and this is what's happening...

Jeremy Sproket

OP get a bike and cycle. The exercise will do you good and the endorfins will make you forget your hate of cyclists

maestroamado

magicbastarder wrote: »

youtube? if it's youtube, go to advanced editing mode and use the youtube tagging, but only use the youtube ID.

it should look like this (i've deliberately misspelt so it doesn't parse it correctly)

[YOOTUBE]hjkk12j3ns[/YOOTUBE]

I want to put up here as i was asked here.
I got error, it can be done here.
I just had a lovely cycle...

doughef

Seth Brundle wrote: »

https://bfy.tw/Qmxq

Is a ‘golfist’ as big of a sh*thead as a cyclist ??

magicbastarder

i'd use the phrase in the same sense of (and i'm not linking the behaviours in a moral sense!)
'i paid €80 for littering'
as in i paid €80 *because* i littered, not that i paid €80 so i *could* litter.

it's not as if it's central to the dicussion, to be fair.

Cilldara_2000

km991148 wrote: »

Yeah I think there is a little bit of issue over the wording here, this is mainly because the opening posts are all about 'paying motortax gives more of right to be on the roads' (as opposed to cyclists who have fewer rights to use the road as they don't pay a bicycle tax equivalent).

I don't think you are saying this tho, you are just saying 'christ motoring is expensive'?

Well that's it exactly. I think my first post was a reply to your post that your system would push up motor tax for most, so my reply is effectively "hang on, we're already being crucified!"

Fighting Tao

Cilldara_2000 wrote: »

You absolutely do pay them for motoring. If you didn't own a car, you'd pay none of these taxes.

Owning a car is a choice. You know the taxes before purchasing.

Hurrache

maestroamado wrote: »

I did not say my journey was important or not as usually i am not in a hurry but prefer not have to drive behind a train of bicycles for 10+ mins and this is what's happening...

Unless you're driving a broom wagon, this never happened. It's a lie or gross exaggeration.

flazio

I've not gone through the previous 130 pages (on mobile site) of discussion, but I'm just curious what impact taxing and charging insurance for cyclists will have on children taking up cycling on public roads to school? Is this something that should be discouraged? Who would pay for their tax and insurance? Also what about greenways? Could we forego tax and insurance by buying a ticket at the former train stations to use the greenways?
How exactly does taxing cyclists make cycling a family friendly activity?

AndrewJRenko

maestroamado wrote: »

I did not say my journey was important or not as usually i am not in a hurry but prefer not have to drive behind a train of bicycles for 10+ mins and this is what's happening...

I prefer not to have to drive behind a train of 80% empty cars when I'm driving in traffic for 60+ minutes and this is what's happening, but unless I get a big estate with private roads, I'd expect it's going to keep happening.

Same for you.

maestroamado

Hurrache wrote: »

Unless you're driving a broom wagon, this never happened. It's a lie or gross exaggeration.

Half of it is recorded...

mr potato head

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?

It's happening in some countries because motor vehicle use is hugely subsidized by the taxpayer.

mr potato head wrote: »

As this research indicates, automobility is heavily subsidized in the European Union, at an estimated €500 billion per year, while active transportation represents a benefit to society currently worth an annual €24 billion (cycling) and €66 billion (walking). Specifically, in cities, the long-standing focus on automobility as the favoured transport mode should consequently change. The Social Cost of Automobility, Cycling and Walking in the European Union. Gössling et al, 2019

That's the guts of €1750 per year per car based on about 265 million cars in the EU.
Sounds like we all should be arguing to do everything we can to encourage alternative transport solutions.

On my 10km commute today, I stopped counting at 30 cars parked on pavements blocking pedestrian access (a particular issuer for the visually impaired and wheelchair users), I saw 4 dangerous passes on cyclists and dozens of red-light runners/amber-gamblers (including one close call)

I had to drive today as I was carrying 25kg of camera gear, cables and laptops, but I will happily switch to a cargo bike as soon as I can afford one. An incentive would help take me out of my car sooner for all my commutes and probably pay for itself in a couple of years.

Hurrache

maestroamado wrote: »

Half of it is recorded...

I still don't believe you.

Thelonious Monk

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Owning a car is a choice. You know the taxes before purchasing.

It's not a choice for the people who wouldn't live in certain areas of Dublin so they chose to live in Clonee where they could afford a much bigger house and there were no ruffians and now have to drive 2 hours a day to work and the city should be designed to accommodate them driving to work because of their choices, not the yuppie cyclists who actually live in the city.

Hurrache

I'm fabulously yuppyish, but my commute is 20k or so, so not in the city.

It was the main reason for my legs of steel and rock hard butt . Since lockdown they're getting more like aluminium though.

micar

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 am on of those 80% who own a car.

I am paying the same taxes as you for the privilege of leaving my car for the most part in the driveway.

I'm paying about €365 per annum to drive about 9,000km.

Compared to most motorists, I am paying more per 1,000km than most people

maestroamado

Hurrache wrote: »

I still don't believe you.

Well if you want to see it its available for free...