Cyclists, insurance and road tax

Thelonious Monk

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I think without a doubt some sort of tax has to be applied on cyclists principally for new infrastructure. It will happen soon enough, it's just a case of how best to the levy charges. There is no free lunch.

Trolling obviously but no it will never happen that would be ridiculous. And there is a free lunch I've cycled to work for years and it costs nothing.

Captain Flaps

Fighting Tao

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I think without a doubt some sort of tax has to be applied on cyclists principally for new infrastructure. It will happen soon enough, it's just a case of how best to the levy charges.

People on bikes are already taxed. Sadly like everyone else, many times over.

Will my 1 and 3 year olds have to pay tax on their balance bikes? Will the tax man call and raid their piggy banks for it?

How are you going to identify all bikes, and apply a tax to them? What about tax disc's etc.

The laughable thing is that all this has been discussed here and it is obviously that there would be no workable system. If there was, then every country would be taxing cyclists.

Paddigol

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I think without a doubt some sort of tax has to be applied on cyclists principally for new infrastructure. It will happen soon enough, it's just a case of how best to the levy charges. There is no free lunch.

Incorrect. This has been addressed countless times in this thread already. You use public parks all the time without a public park tax/ entrance fee. You use footpaths everyday without a pedestrian tax. Keep on enjoying your free lunches.

85603

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

Should my 5yr old on her Barbie trike have insurance and be on the road , or should l let her cycle on the footpath.

Good question.

Well, she should be in your guardianship, and thus not on any road, path only, so no.

If youre on a bike shes covered by your policy.
If youre not then no. Doesnt count

Fighting Tao

85603 wrote: »

Good question.

Well, she should be in your guardianship, and thus not on any road, path only, so no.

If youre on a bike shes covered by your policy.
If youre not then no. Doesnt count

What about pedestrians, seeing you said that all road users should be taxed? Are you avoiding the argument you made?

85603

Fighting Tao wrote: »

You are the one that stated that road users need insurance, so it's your argument. Are you not backing it up?

Well pedestrian insurance would be a bit excessive.
Im sure you agree.

Cyclists are travelling at speed, on roads, accidents are inevitable.
So insurance is a reasonable ask.

namloc1980

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I think without a doubt some sort of tax has to be applied on cyclists principally for new infrastructure. It will happen soon enough, it's just a case of how best to the levy charges. There is no free lunch.

How much do you think pedestrians should pay in pedestrian tax? I mean there's far more infrastructure in the country for pedestrians than cyclists, between footpaths, zebra crossings, pedestrian crossing lights, wardens at schools etc. Surely freeloading pedestrians need to start stumping up??

Fighting Tao

85603 wrote: »

Well pedestrian insurance would be a bit excessive.
Im sure you agree.

Cyclists are travelling at speed, on roads, accidents are inevitable.
So insurance is a reasonable ask.

Pedestrians get into accidents too. They have a habit of tripping and falling over.

namloc1980

85603 wrote: »

Well pedestrian insurance would be a bit excessive.
Im sure you agree.

Cyclists are travelling at speed, on roads, accidents are inevitable.
So insurance is a reasonable ask.

Do kids need to get insurance with their bikes at Christmas?

RobbieTheRobber

85603 wrote: »

Well pedestrian insurance would be a bit excessive.
Im sure you agree.

Cyclists are travelling at speed, on roads, accidents are inevitable.
So insurance is a reasonable ask.

So if its speed based then surely we need to tax and insure joggers?

Above what speed of travel do you reckon tax and insurance should kick in?

Will we need speed checks on the paths to ensure no one breaks into a jog illegally?

Tombo2001

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I think without a doubt some sort of tax has to be applied on cyclists principally for new infrastructure. It will happen soon enough, it's just a case of how best to the levy charges. There is no free lunch.

Absolutely.

And a much larger tax to applied to motorists, given the current zero tax that they pay for infrastructure.

If we are applying like for like.

It makes sense.

Thelonious Monk

85603 wrote: »

Well pedestrian insurance would be a bit excessive.
Im sure you agree.

Cyclists are travelling at speed, on roads, accidents are inevitable.
So insurance is a reasonable ask.

Accidents aren't really inevitable to the extent that insurance would be required. How often do you see accidents in the news where cyclists have hurt someone or damaged something? Once every 15 years or so?

You people are losing this battle, your fantasy rules are never going to happen. More and more people are cycling to work and for leisure and more and more infrastructure is being built. Hahaha you're losing and I hope you get stuck in your car behind a bunch of middle aged men who "think they're in the Tour de France" this weekend.

Tombo2001

Gas how people are paying taxes and dont even know what the taxes are for.....

Paddigol

Hurrache wrote: »

What kind of eejit restarted a particularly dumb thread, presumably because they have some new and amazingly insightful points which nobody has made or heard before?

What can you do? The ignorance displayed is beyond infuriating and it's one of life's great challenges not to bite. You'll get a mod warning/ infraction if you use words like 'idiots' to describe such posts, yet no warnings for posting in topics without having read the thread. It's the great failure of online discussion forums unfortunately - a natural habitat for trolls and those who can't follow a debate. The only options appear to be a) start the debate all over again, b) lose the rag, or c) just ignore. And while c) seems to be the option most would tell you to do, that's just allowing ignorance to thrive.

Fighting Tao

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Gas how people are paying taxes and dont even know what the taxes are for.....

Gas how people can't read a thread they are posting in to see that all their new and exclusive points have been addressed, and how tax in Ireland works has also been explained with links to government sources.

Tombo2001

85603 wrote: »

Well pedestrian insurance would be a bit excessive.
Im sure you agree.

Cyclists are travelling at speed, on roads, accidents are inevitable.
So insurance is a reasonable ask.

More makey uppey facts....

Accidents are inevitable....

Really?

Because you say so?

Give me a break.

In the past twenty years, one pedestrian has been killed in a collision with a cyclist. One cyclist has been killed in a collision with a pedestrian (where the pedestrian was walking on a cycle path at night time).

In the mean time, how many hundreds and hundreds of both pedestrians and cyclists have been killed in collisions involving.......not drivers of course......but cars. As the media always likes to report it.

BabysCoffee

85603 wrote: »

Well pedestrian insurance would be a bit excessive.
Im sure you agree.

Cyclists are travelling at speed, on roads, accidents are inevitable.
So insurance is a reasonable ask.

My 70yr old mother does not travel at speed on her bike.....come to think of it, I prefer to cycle at a leisurely pace to work on my fold up bike. My husband barely uses his bike - but when we cycle in to Dublin he cycles slower than me :eek: Think it's a reasonable ask that we don't have to pay insurance so.

What about teenagers cycling to school? Are you proposing that if they are uninsured are they not allowed on the bike lanes on roads
But yet people give out that cyclists sometimes don't use bike lanes???

I just wish that car drivers would begin to understand that roads are not just for their use and that the roads must be shared by all users. Additionally, drivers need to understand that they have to make allowance for all of the vulnerable road users.....or else deaths will occur - caused by them and the powerful machinery they are in control of.

Car drivers are the ones that need insurance, not pedestrians or people on bikes

85603

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Gas how people can't read a thread they are posting in to see that all their new and exclusive points have been addressed, and how tax in Ireland works has also been explained with links to government sources.

Theres 100+ pages, Im not combing through all that.

If you dont like talking about it just leave.

namloc1980

Incredible that this thread is still going with the same old tired nonsense from the motorists looking to tax evil cyclists.

85603

Tombo2001 wrote: »

More makey uppey facts....

Accidents are inevitable....

Really?

Because you say so?

Give me a break.

In the past twenty years, one pedestrian has been killed in a collision with a cyclist. One cyclist has been killed in a collision with a pedestrian (where the pedestrian was walking on a cycle path at night time).

In the mean time, how many hundreds and hundreds of both pedestrians and cyclists have been killed in collisions involving.......not drivers of course......but cars. As the media always likes to report it.

There are more accident categories than just fatalities.

The cars are insured for the same reasons you list.

And yes cyclists will inevitably cause accidents, and do, if just through the laws of probability, and human negligence.

Thelonious Monk

namloc1980 wrote: »

Incredible that this thread is still going with the same old tired nonsense from the motorists looking to tax evil cyclists.

Take solace that it will never happen and our towns and cities will be further restricting car access and parking in future. I love nothing more than motorists freaking out over plans for pedestrianisation and new cycle lanes, Owen Keegan is ruining the city!!!!1 etc. Warms my heart.

Thelonious Monk

85603 wrote: »

There are more accident categories than just fatalities.

The cars are insured for the same reasons you list.

And yes cyclists will inevitably cause accidents, and do, if just through the laws of probability, and human negligence.

Yeah maybe bikes hit the odd granny and hurt them, because we do like to cycle on footpaths sometimes, sometimes even at speed!
Still though, there will NEVER BE MANDATORY CYCLING INSURANCE. You lose.

Fighting Tao

85603 wrote: »

Theres 100+ pages, Im not combing through all that.

If you dont like talking about it just leave.

Hey everyone that certain motorists don't agree with....skedaddle off now...only certain motorists are welcome here to reinforce their own false beliefs.

All joking aside. How can you jump into a thread that is so long, backing up the OP without any new information, and expecting that the OP hasn't been addressed?

Tombo2001

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Gas how people can't read a thread they are posting in to see that all their new and exclusive points have been addressed, and how tax in Ireland works has also been explained with links to government sources.

Cyclists dont pay road tax.....?

Lets talk about that (again).

Also, by the way the Beatles have split up..

Jimmy Carter lost the election.

We know who shot JR.

Fighting Tao

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Cyclists dont pay road tax.....?

Lets talk about that (again).

Also, by the way the Beatles have split up..

Jimmy Carter lost the election.

We know who shot JR.

:eek: NO WAY!!!! Tell me more!!! I was just listening to them on my gramophone this morning :pac:

Tombo2001

85603 wrote: »

There are more accident categories than just fatalities.

The cars are insured for the same reasons you list.

And yes cyclists will inevitably cause accidents, and do, if just through the laws of probability, and human negligence.

That is stating the obvious.

The problem with you is that you make points without any evidence to back them up.

'Cyclists will cause accidents'.

Makey uppey stuff.

First of all, an accident isnt caused.....if it was, then it wouldnt be an accident.

Second, where a collision happens on the road its either because of poor infrastructure or road user negligence. Its very rarely an actual accident (e.g. a blown tyre due to glass on the road).

The real problem with a discussion like this is that drivers just dont like cyclists, and more importantly they dont respect cyclists.......but they wont say that.....instead they list things that cyclists apparently do wrong......and then when this is refuted over and over, they are like ....Meh, but I still dont like cyclists so here is another thing they do wrong......

Thats this conversation.

Fighting Tao

85603 wrote: »

Theres 100+ pages, Im not combing through all that.

If you dont like talking about it just leave.

Hmm...seems like you are not so new on this thread....stop acting the innocent!

85603 wrote: »

the facts can be seen in any cycling thread outside of the cyclist coven/forum.

for now cyclists are one of those p.c. groups where if you dont nod along with their list of demands then you're just being mean.

i suppose they could be seen in the same way as many vulnerable and/or progressive groups are, whereby their vulnerability equates with automatic unquestioned entitlement to basically everything they want.

and any objector is naturally some sort of mr burns type shtlord meanie.

Necro

85603 wrote: »

Theres 100+ pages, Im not combing through all that.

If you dont like talking about it just leave.

Threadbanned

magicbastarder

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I think without a doubt some sort of tax has to be applied on cyclists principally for new infrastructure. It will happen soon enough, it's just a case of how best to the levy charges. There is no free lunch.

again, people misunderstand tax. taxes are not a form of entry fee. they're a way of generating income for running of government, public services, etc., and are not necessarily linked to the category in which they are levied.