Cyclists, insurance and road tax

zerosugarbuzz

Duckjob wrote: »

So lets see...

Point about studies that universally show cyclists no worse behaved than motorists.... IGNORED


Point about why speed bumps are needed everywhere in built up areas .... IGNORED


Feel free to actually address either or both of the points made.

In fairness neither point is worth addressing, though I did mention the speed bumps being a positive IMO.

Joe4321

What risks are are cars insured for, third party?? What risk are builders covered for???

AndrewJRenko

Joe4321 wrote: »

A question for all the cyclist here, would you be in favour for a registration for your bike so you could be identified just like car owners can be from there Reg plates, if yes, why and also if no, why??

Would you wear a registration plate when out walking on the footpath or crossing the road, so you can be identified just like car owners? If not, why not?

Chips Lovell

If a cyclist is not insured, they are still potentially liable for any damages they cause. Some cyclists are insured. Some aren't.

Mandatory motor insurance exists because the number and cost of accidents was high enough that it was decided that the cost of enforcement was outweighed by the societal benefit of obligating motorists to insure themselves. You'd need a massive increase in the number of accidents for the same argument to be made for cyclists.

Simply saying you should have compulsory insurance because you might have an accident means the same logic would call for compulsory pedestrian insurance and suchlike.

Regarding tax, even if motoring taxes covered the entire road building and maintenance budget, there is little likelihood that cyclists will ever be taxed. The policy of successive governments has been to incentivise cycling and disincentivise private car journeys. Nobody is going to change that.

kirving

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Demanding high-viz for cyclists is simply placing the onus for safety on the vulnerable road user and away from the road user who is the one who can do the damage. Is your car high-viz?

FWIW I agree on mandatory hi-vis and reflective being a bad thing for society in general, but have you done the safepass course? Pardon the pun but it's eye opening to say the least. It's the little glimpse of a yellow jacket that in the corner of the drivers eye that has saved many peoples lives.

Provis 360 jackets are fantastic IME, I find drivers see me age away in the city, and generally have plenty of time to plan an overtake, rather than seeing me late and becoming impatient. That's their problem of course, but I would suffer the consequences

On the car point, darker coloured cars are more likely to be involved in collisions, are are light greys and greens as they are more likely to blend in with the environment. They're not banned, but they do pay higher premiums in some cases. Daytime running lights are also mandatory for all new cars, and if I remember correctly, cut collisions in some areas by over 30%.

Thelonious Monk

The announcement that the Gov is to spend 360 million on walking/cycling must be salt in the wounds of the bike haters. The tide is turning! The government are spending the road tax you worked so hard to pay for, on cycling. Brilliant!

Joe4321

@Statto25, not haveing a laugh but laughing at how all the cyclist are saying that everyone else is the problem

statto25

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Would you wear a registration plate when out walking on the footpath or crossing the road, so you can be identified just like car owners? If not, why not?

You could place it across your ar$e

AndrewJRenko

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

How about some kind of cushioning system around the outside of cars incase of an impact with a cyclist or pedestrian?

Or maybe just we could take those vehicles with bull bars off the road? And those vehicles with high fronts that smash up the pelvis and vital organs in a crash instead of just smashing up the lower legs, can we get those off the road too?

Eric Cartman

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

The announcement that the Gov is to spend 360 million on walking/cycling must be salt in the wounds of the bike haters. The tide is turning!

Thats well known and was the fee to get Eamon Ryan to bring the greens into government, They had to conceed on loads more of their looney policies to get that. Thankfully many councils will misappropriate the funds into fixing roads that benefit motorists.

AndrewJRenko

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Sure even asking them to wear helmets is met with scorn, they want it every way

Yes, everytime I point out that vastly more head injuries happen in cars than on bikes, even with seat belts and airbags, my asking of motorists to wear helmets is indeed met with scorn, they want it every way.

Fighting Tao

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Thats well known and was the fee to get Eamon Ryan to bring the greens into government, They had to conceed on loads more of their looney policies to get that. Thankfully many councils will misappropriate the funds into fixing roads that benefit motorists.

Fixing potholes is surprisingly good for cyclists too. It encourages more people to cycle as there is one less potential excuse

FileNotFound

I personally think that we should have cameras on every lights, and average speed cams throughout the whole of urban areas.
Then we should have congestion charges in any city center location and increased parking costs.

Then the state can found a company to create cycling insurance and we can add a new on the road tax to all transport forms so that everyone is paying a tax of sorts. Then we can equip bikes with a system of identification (what i've no idea).

Then we can do away with cycle lanes as bikes care now insured and taxed so can use the general road, overtaking rules apply as with cars.

Then we can heavily fine any road user that does not use the road as the law states.

ExMachina1000

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Or maybe just we could take those vehicles with bull bars off the road? And those vehicles with high fronts that smash up the pelvis and vital organs in a crash instead of just smashing up the lower legs, can we get those off the road too?

I'm not aware of those vehicles.

What brand or type of vehicle are they?

AndrewJRenko

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

No I don't think so. Accidents will always happen regardless.

Maybe a cushioning system around bicycles then? To protect the pedestrians

They're not accidents, they are crashes, and they are mostly avoidable.

https://crashnotaccident.com/

Thelonious Monk

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Thats well known and was the fee to get Eamon Ryan to bring the greens into government, They had to conceed on loads more of their looney policies to get that. Thankfully many councils will misappropriate the funds into fixing roads that benefit motorists.

I think they're being held to account a bit more this time as to where the money goes, and you can see this already that actual infrastructure is being built.
All so middle class lefties like me can cycle to work as I can afford to live close to the city centre while the hard working road taxed penalised men like yourself have to live in the middle of nowhere and drive 2 hours to work every day.
Our leftie plan is in full motion, I love it.

AndrewJRenko

Joe4321 wrote: »

@Set, you say most clubs are covered and you are covered when out, so you do agree with insurance,???

Do you need someone to explain to you the difference in risk and danger between club cycling and everyday cycling?

Joe4321

Andrew why are you getting annoyed,

micah537

A (probably stupid) question for cyclists.
Some have bikes worth a couple of grand. Can you or do you insure them incase they are stolen or damaged? How much would it cost?

I haven't cycled since I was a kid and have no intention of getting into it but, why tax them since they don't cause damage to roads or pollute? They reduce traffic and the cyclists normally aren't obese so they won't be taking up hospital beds due to related illness.

AndrewJRenko

Joe4321 wrote: »

So the people that you look up to in the tour de France are been inconvenienced by weeing helmets, wowwww

Well, weeing in helmets is definitely an inconvenience. It tends to leave a nasty smell.

And the people you look up to in Formula 1 are been (sic) inconvenienced by wearing helmets? Why don't you wear a crash helmet in the car?

Duckjob

micah537 wrote: »

A (probably stupid) question for cyclists.
Some have bikes worth a couple of grand. Can you or do you insure them incase they are stolen or damaged? How much would it cost?

I haven't cycled since I was a kid and have no intention of getting into it but, why tax them since they don't cause damage to roads or pollute? They reduce traffic and the cyclists normally aren't obese so they won't be taking up hospital beds due to related illness.

That's far too much common sense in one post, my friend.

Joe4321

Andrew, calm down, I hope your not on your bike

AndrewJRenko

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

They could be dealing drugs. Nipping around cities delivering class A product.
Theres one example

So should all wearers of Canada Goose coats wear registration numbers too, given that they could be dealing class A product?

AndrewJRenko

Joe4321 wrote: »

@Seth, I do agree with having insurance, and yes if a kid is out on a public road it would be required also, the registration is also a big thing for identification, the guards could also use this for issueing fines, but I sure I will be told that cyclists don't break any traffic rules, why would you be against registering your bycicle?

Are you against insurance and registration for pedestrians? Why are you against registering your shoes?

AndrewJRenko

Joe4321 wrote: »

Helmets save lives, fact, I can't believe cyclist on here are against the wearing of them, very interesting, you don't need to be traveling 100kpm to get a head injury,

Do you wear helmets in the car, or when doing other activities with similar head injury rates to cyclist, such as walking, or when in the shower? If helmets save lives, why do you solely focus on helmets for cycling, and not other equally dangerous activities?

Odyssey 2005

That didn't take long

Tony EH

Sono Topolino wrote: »

My opinions on this are not welcome on the cycling forum, so here we go.

Why is it such a taboo to request cyclists to get insurance and pay taxes for the roads that they use, just like car drivers do?

"There is no such thing as road tax" cyclists bleat - except there are plenty of taxes that other road users have to pay, and cyclists pay none of them. There are plenty of tax breaks which cyclists can avail of, and second hand bikes which are dickied up to be as good as new are even VAT free.

I agree that cycling is worth encouraging in big cities like Dublin, where it is a superior form of transport, but the cycle lanes have to be paid for from somewhere. And in rural areas, the only cyclists I see are doing it as a form of exercise on a road built for cars and tractors, slowing all the traffic down and endangering all road users. If cyclists want to cycle on main roads in rural Ireland, then they should pay for greenways for this purpose.

Until then, they're a nuisance and a menace. So cyclists really have no arguments against mandatory insurance either. Before giving them insurance, I assume those companies will want evidence that cyclists know the rules of the road - something which currently they are not required to be remotely aware of.

It's a pity I can't actually address this point to cyclists in the cycling forum.

You can't address it, Mickey Mouse, because it's bollocks. The IS no such thing as "road tax". There's a motor tax, which a bicycle doesn't have.

Plus, cyclists DO pay taxes, just like everyone else. It goes into general taxation...some of which goes towards roads.

Into the bargain, most cyclists are also motorists.

AndrewJRenko

Joe4321 wrote: »

How much damage do cyclists cause to cars as they zigzag between then, its about taking responsibility for you actions on the road, be able to be identified if by chance to cause damage as you pass through traffic, but I'm sure that never happens

That's a really great question - how much damage do cyclists cause?

Is there any possibility that you got an answer to this question BEFORE you came up with your great ideas?

Padre_Pio

Eric Cartman wrote: »

. Thankfully many councils will misappropriate the funds into fixing roads that benefit motorists.

And cyclists.
And motorists who are also cyclists.

This topic came up before and someone did a calculation based on road damage , car Vs bicycle.

Basically, if cyclists were to pay "road" tax, they would pay so little the system would lose money.

ExMachina1000

Padre_Pio wrote: »

And cyclists.
And motorists who are also cyclists.

And also pedestrians who are motorists