Cyclists, insurance and road tax

AndrewJRenko

Joe4321 wrote: »

Car drivers were set belts, have air bags in there car, have day time lights on, are you suggesting that kids should not were a helmet?? Please inlighting me

Yes, seat belts, air bags, and still vastly higher numbers of head injuries happening in cars than on bikes.

So are you suggesting that motorists should not wear a helmet? Please inlighting me?

Speaking of day time lights, have you any plans for dealing with the drivers I see each day in winter time driving round in the dark with no back lights because they don't know how their DRLs work?

wpd

I am a cyclist and have insurance through my cycling ireland licence
I own two cars so pay "motor tax" however I am still almost killed every time i cycle by dangerous motorists who do not treat me with
any respect or even follow the rules of the road in relation to overtaking cyclists

prosecution of rule breaking cyclists and motorist is what is required
Green party acting like they are doing great things for cyclists while drivers attitudes to cyclists makes the roads
more dangerous and commuting by bike is a death defying experience

Padre_Pio

I dunno.
Just seems like bitching tbh and a serious Us vs them mentality.
Motorists have no high ground to argue about cyclist safety or responsibility.

I went for a spin this weekend and got held up in a tailback behind a car doing the speed limit.

I set my cruise control for 120 on the motorway and I'm constantly overtaken.

There's several sets of traffic lights near me that always have amber gamblers and clear red light breakers.

The GATSO van on the road near me makes an absolute fortune. Several of my friends have gotten stung there.

In risk vs harm, bicycles are safer, and that's really all there is to it.

lawrencesummers

When we get done taxing bikes can we then tax prams?

Pesky prams out using the roads and footpaths and not a cent of tax paid.

Then Skateboards.

And scooters then after that.

And then we should have enough money to get the OP a long overdue education

AndrewJRenko

Joe4321 wrote: »

@ted1, really, that's your argument, a little bit of discomfort that could save you life, tells me everything

So you'll definitely be wearing a crash helmet in the car in future now? Surely a little bit of discomfort wouldn't put you off something that would save your life?

fergiesfolly

Why is it, that people get riled when posters refer to car tax as road tax.
It's the same thing.
I can have a hundred cars out the back of my house and if they don't go on a public road, I don't have to pay a penny in "car tax"
The minute I drive onto a public highway, I must have tax on my car.
A tax to allow me use my car on the road.
A road tax.

AndrewJRenko

Joe4321 wrote: »

@Seth, your obsest with cost, why do we have to follow other countries, why can't we lead in this,

Mainly because you haven't set out what problem you're trying to solve here, along with some actual evidence.

Joe4321

@Andrew, nó one is saying cycling is bad for you, don't try spin it that people are saying that, cycling alone will not stop obesity, just like walking or going to the gym will, personal responsibility about the amount of and type of food you put into body will, all types of exercise is a beneficial for you health but that alone will not stop obesity,

Joe4321

Set have you come back as Andrew

Padre_Pio

fergiesfolly wrote: »

Why is it, that people get riled when posters refer to car tax as road tax.
It's the same thing.
I can have a hundred cars out the back of my house and if they don't go on a public road, I don't have to pay a penny in "car tax"
The minute I drive onto a public highway, I must have tax on my car.
A tax to allow me use my car on the road.
A road tax.

Because car tax and road tax don't exist.

It's motor tax. A tax paid by owners of motor vehicles who wish to use them on public roads.

It's like people saying "Pacific" instead of "Specific"

AndrewJRenko

Joe4321 wrote: »

@Seth, your options are so far away from reality, nobody here suggests that they want less cyclists on the road, why do you say this? People giving there option which disagrees to cyclists is condemned straight out, you have cyclists on here suggesting it is safer to not were a helmet, how is that been a roll model for kids? People have different options but anyone who tries to suggest anything regarding cycling is out to get them, just because something has not been done before or is not been done in other countries does not mean it does not need to be done,

If you want to persuade people that something 'needs to be done', you're going to need some evidence - some facts.

km991148

lawrencesummers wrote: »

When we get done taxing bikes can we then tax prams?

Pesky prams out using the roads and footpaths and not a cent of tax paid.

Then Skateboards.

And scooters then after that.

And then we should have enough money to get the OP a long overdue education

And those runners with the wee wheels in the heel!

Joe4321

Seth or is it Andrew,

AndrewJRenko

TomTomTim wrote: »

Why would less people cycle? I'm an avid cyclist and I've nothing but contempt for the clowns who go around wearing all black like they are a thief in the night. I wear high vis nearly all through winter, purely because I feel safer doing so. I don't agree with mandatory enforcement, but at the same time people should be wearing helmets and making themselves as visible as possible.

Every extra requirement is a barrier to cycling. Any requirements for special clothing or equipment will kill off bike sharing schemes in particular, which have been hugely successful in reducing car journeys in cities.

I'll start taking lectures about helmets and hi-vis from motorists when they start wearing crash helmets and putting hi-vis panels on their vehicles.

AndrewJRenko

Eric Cartman wrote: »

If how unsafe it is to cycle is whats pushing the agenda to harm cars in the city then I absolutely do , the favourite approach is just to harm motorists and let cyclists live a feckless life. 'make cycling more inconvenient' that some 'seatblets discourage car ownership' level crap there.

The solution can't just be to let cyclists behave like children with no regard for their own safety. Mandatory helmets, cycling training in schools, more police enforcement on fines . Thats what we need.

Given that we have finite police resources, more enforcement for cyclists means less enforcement for motorists. Motorists kill 2 or 3 people each week. Cyclists kill 1 person each decade. Explain to me again please why we should divert resources away from motorists to chase cyclists?

Mandatory helmets for drivers would be a great idea though, I agree with you on that.

AndrewJRenko

zerosugarbuzz wrote: »

What silly nit picking... as for speed bumps, I’ve no problem with them, no doubt the put manners on cyclists too.

Not really, cyclists are rarely travelling at enough speed for the bumps to have an impact, and you can usually cycle round the edge anyway.

AndrewJRenko

Eric Cartman wrote: »

we already have an insane level of traffic policing in Ireland, check out the Garda traffic twitter, enforcement on motorists isn't the issue, we already have it. As I explained - Dublin cyclists behave like feckless children, no amount of 'but motorists' changes that.

We have 98% of motorists breaking urban speed limits and the majority of drivers using their phones while driving.

I would respectfully suggest that enforcement on motorists is absolutely the big issue.

Eric Cartman

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Every extra requirement is a barrier to cycling. Any requirements for special clothing or equipment will kill off bike sharing schemes in particular, which have been hugely successful in reducing car journeys in cities.

I'll start taking lectures about helmets and hi-vis from motorists when they start wearing crash helmets and putting hi-vis panels on their vehicles.

Crash helmets arent needed in cars because of the active and passive safety systems fitted, cyclists have no safety systems without a high gis and helmet.

Should motorcyclists abandon helmets ?

Tombo2001

Joe4321 wrote: »

@Andrew, nó one is saying cycling is bad for you, don't try spin it that people are saying that, cycling alone will not stop obesity, just like walking or going to the gym will, personal responsibility about the amount of and type of food you put into body will, all types of exercise is a beneficial for you health but that alone will not stop obesity,

The flip side is that cycling as a replacement for driving brings immense health benefits.

Particularly, it is exercise that doesnt require you to find extra time in the day.......you are replacing the same task - going from A to B - from one being that is inactive to one that is active.

In the scheme of things - cycling instead of driving is one of the easiest ways to improve your health.





And feel free to state the complete obvious that not every journey can be done with a bike......please do.

km991148

Being visible in low light conditions is necessary and we have laws on that. For me that means good working lights (the law and just commonsense) and possibly a bit of reflective material on gloves or top etc. For others it might mean head to toe dayglow. But the latter isn't a law nor does it necessarily mean it's safer, especially if everyone was forced to wear the same. This might seem counterintuitive but there is research showing that there is 'high via blindness'.


Anyway, I digress... Fkn road tax.. they don't. Even. Pay. ROAD TAX.

AndrewJRenko

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Sure lets let builders work without helmets and high vis jackets so we can get more houses built , Helmets are a proven safety device as are reflectors, lights and high vis clothing. We cant have the attitude of reducing safety just to get cycling to ‘critical mass’

Please do show the proof supporting these opinions.

Are you in favour for mandatory helmets for car occupants and hi-vis panels on all vehicles?

fergiesfolly

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Because car tax and road tax don't exist.

It's motor tax. A tax paid by owners of motor vehicles who wish to use them on public roads.

It's like people saying "Pacific" instead of "Specific"

It's not a tax on ownership though.
I can own a motorcar and not tax it.
It's essentially a road tax.
A tax paid to use the road.

km991148

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Please do show the proof supporting these opinions.

Are you in favour for mandatory helmets for car occupants and hi-vis panels on all vehicles?

I can only assume they mean cycling might seem as dangerous as working on a building site because of the amount of dangerous drivers, but really you may as well draw comparison with astronauts.

Astronouts need helmets AND an oxygen supply. That's safer, cyclists must need the same.

AndrewJRenko

Eric Cartman wrote: »

They're designed to prevent injury to cyclists coming off a bike and hitting the road, be it caused by vehicle or road debris etc..

Every car has reflectors, headlights, trucks have side markers and reflective strips , there are tonnes of crumple zones and safety systems in cars to protect occupants. Cars are built with safety systems built in. Every road user should have safety and visibility equipment on them , cyclists are not immune to this.

Yes, cars have loads of safety systems, and still have vastly more head injuries than cyclists - so, mandatory crash helmets for car occupants? Why not?

Eric Cartman wrote: »

A motorist driving around in a car with no lights on at night, no working reflectors etc. is illegal , for good reason. The same should be for cyclists.

It is illegal for cyclists to have no lights or no reflector at night. Please do some research before posting.

AndrewJRenko

Joe4321 wrote: »

@statto25, nó problems, just having a laugh at how sensative all the cyclist are and that there is knotting that they are doing is wrong, or knotting they can do to suggest how they can improve their safety and other road users safety. How are you today, hope you are enjoying this wonderful Monday.

Any thoughts on how we can stop drivers from killing two or three people on the road each week, mostly car occupants?

km991148

fergiesfolly wrote: »

It's not a tax on ownership though.
I can own a motorcar and not tax it.
It's essentially a road tax.
A tax paid to use the road.

It's really not tho. It's probably closer to a tax to pollute the atmosphere (in terms of permission to do something based on money paid).

It's general taxation that pays for the roads. The only tax to use them are toll roads.

AndrewJRenko

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Id love to see where either of those stats come from.

The 98% breaking urban speed limits comes from the RSA Speed Survey.

The majority of drivers using their phones while driving comes from two separate surveys conducted in recent years, one from Liberty Insurance and one from Toyota, both came to the same conclusion.

If you don't notice this stuff happening all around you on the road, you need to improve your observation.

AndrewJRenko

Joe4321 wrote: »

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

Maybe you need to do some research yourself and answer your own questions before you can come up with a coherent proposal?

Padre_Pio

fergiesfolly wrote: »

It's not a tax on ownership though.
I can own a motorcar and not tax it.
It's essentially a road tax.
A tax paid to use the road.

Here's the website: https://www.motortax.ie/OMT/
Now is it motor tax or road tax or car tax? :rolleyes:

Anything else is just semantics.

Joe4321

OK Andrew, you convinced me to sell my car and buy a better bycicle, who can I phone now to get insurance from