Learning to drive

[Eamonnca1]

Yes you pay income tax the same as everyone else who are not cyclists, so why should you be allowed special treatment and allowed to use the road without paying additional tax like other road users.

Excellent question. Thanks for asking.

• Less noise than if I took the car.
• Less danger to pedestrians.
• Less congestion, which helps other people to get there.
• Less infrastructure used up getting from A to B, lowering the tax bill.
• Less infrastructure used up storing the vehicle, lowering the tax bill and lowering my employer's expenses.
• Less damage to the road surface.
• Fewer greenhouse gas emissions.
• Fewer toxic NOx emissions.
• Fewer cancer-causing particulate emissions.
• Greater health benefits for myself, which contributes to greater public health and less stress on the health care system (smaller premiums for everyone, in American parlance).
• Making the city a more pleasant place for everyone.

Next question.

[t_mac]

Eamon have a f**king cop on. Everything you've said about drivers can be said about cyclists, if you don't think so then you've lost the argument.

Motorists turn cities into congested hell holes, spew greenhouse gases and all sorts of poison into the atmosphere, kill millions of people, and mow down innocent pedestrians in vast numbers every year.

Try saying that about cyclists and I'll have a good laugh.

From the moment I wanted to drive 25 years ago, I sat 12 lessons with a qualified instructor, passed a theory test about the rules of the road, then passed a driving test, it probably was 6 months from start to finish, I then got a wee R sticker for my car as having just qualified I was restricted to 45 miles an hour maximum, this is to allow me to get used to driving and the rules of the road, apart from tucking the fat into the lycra and buying a 3 grand bike what do cyclists do before using public roads.  Also when I got my wee car I paid road tax to use the roads and had to get insurance to ensure if I had an accident no one involved was out of pocket, when my wee car got a bit older I also had to get a wee certificate to say it was road worthy - again do cyclists do any of this, or do they just not give a shite? 

[Milltown Row2]

Yes you pay income tax the same as everyone else who are not cyclists, so why should you be allowed special treatment and allowed to use the road without paying additional tax like other road users.

Excellent question. Thanks for asking.

• Less noise than if I took the car.
• Less danger to pedestrians.
• Less congestion, which helps other people to get there.
• Less infrastructure used up getting from A to B, lowering the tax bill.
• Less infrastructure used up storing the vehicle, lowering the tax bill and lowering my employer's expenses.
• Less damage to the road surface.
• Fewer greenhouse gas emissions.
• Fewer toxic NOx emissions.
• Fewer cancer-causing particulate emissions.
• Greater health benefits for myself, which contributes to greater public health and less stress on the health care system (smaller premiums for everyone, in American parlance).
• Making the city a more pleasant place for everyone.

Next question.

You never answered my question Eamon, I'll ask again, have you been home lately?

[t_mac]

Yes you pay income tax the same as everyone else who are not cyclists, so why should you be allowed special treatment and allowed to use the road without paying additional tax like other road users.

Excellent question. Thanks for asking.

• Less noise than if I took the car.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48815968

• Less danger to pedestrians.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48815968 - Also mounting the path to get pass obstructions isn't that safe for the pedestrian.

• Less congestion, which helps other people to get there.

Is it Eastenders now everyone working beside their house?

• Less infrastructure used up getting from A to B, lowering the tax bill.

Love you to explain this - are you redesigning the whole country?

• Less infrastructure used up storing the vehicle, lowering the tax bill and lowering my employer's expenses.

See above

• Less damage to the road surface.

Surely just need footpaths and bike lanes 

• Fewer greenhouse gas emissions.

Except for those on here flying all over the place to ride their bikes in foreign clims!

• Fewer toxic NOx emissions.

Except for those on here flying all over the place to ride their bikes in foreign clims! Or strapping the bikes to the 4X4 to go on hols!

• Fewer cancer-causing particulate emissions.

See above

• Greater health benefits for myself, which contributes to greater public health and less stress on the health care system (smaller premiums for everyone, in American parlance).

I'd wager to guess your mental health will be your major premium.

• Making the city a more pleasant place for everyone.

Yip everyone doing what they want on a bike obeying no rules whatsoever.
[/list]

Next question.

[t_mac]

Eamon have a f**king cop on. Everything you've said about drivers can be said about cyclists, if you don't think so then you've lost the argument.

Motorists turn cities into congested hell holes, spew greenhouse gases and all sorts of poison into the atmosphere, kill millions of people, and mow down innocent pedestrians in vast numbers every year.

Try saying that about cyclists and I'll have a good laugh.

And yet you are one.

65 was the speed limit. Just about every other driver on the road seems to think speed limits are a suggestion. I feel like a snail driving at the speed limit.

Why not lead the charge and pack your 4x4 in. 

[RedHand88]

Never understood the "They don't pay road tax so they shouldn't be on the road" argument. Alot of newer cars are £0 road tax.

[t_mac]

They should be insured, if a cyclist causes damage to my car, who pays for it, my insurance?  They should also not be allowed on the road without some training just today two lycra chicks struggling to pedal on a country road all over the shop, veering in and out from edge to middle, the mind boggles!

[thewobbler]

The problem isn't with road tax, it's with insurance and licensing.

The reason why the overwhelming majority of drivers "stay legal" is not because it's the law or because it's dangerous, but because of the deterrents  a) their insurance premiums will escalate quickly if making driving mistakes, and b) if caught, they can lose their licence, and eventually end up behind bars.

The reason why a hefty percentage of cyclists (from the lycra clad, right down to Johnny casual) will happily break, bend and ignore rules - even ones designed for their own safety - is because the only deterrent is a ticking off. Technology will eventually bring answers to this problem. But in the short term, it would be much better if pedestrians were entitled to push them off their bikes when cycling on paths, and that helmet cam footage is only admissible as evidence, if provided alongside say 8-10 hours of recent, unedited  footage of same cyclist's road behaviour.

[omaghjoe]

Yes you pay income tax the same as everyone else who are not cyclists, so why should you be allowed special treatment and allowed to use the road without paying additional tax like other road users.

Excellent question. Thanks for asking.

• Less noise than if I took the car.

Are you pumping out the rave music in your car or what? its way quieter in a car.
But sticking to the point noise level doesnt pay your way

• Less danger to pedestrians.

Yeah if you stick to the road which cyclists dont, some twit nearly ran me over the other day while I was standing waiting to the cross the road.

• Less congestion, which helps other people to get there.

No, you actually create congestion by interupting the flow of traffic.

• Less infrastructure used up getting from A to B, lowering the tax bill.

Less infrastructure? huh The point is you want to use the existing infrastructure that is paid for by other road users.

• Less infrastructure used up storing the vehicle, lowering the tax bill and lowering my employer's expenses.

Ok so you reduce your employers overheads thanks for making the rich richer, now could you get them to pass it on to Caltrans? Beside as I point out a lot of cyclists dont work and dont even pay tax

• Less damage to the road surface.

You got me there... the saving here should cover the $200 or so a year you dont pay

• Fewer greenhouse gas emissions.

But then EV pay registeration fees should they pay nothing also.... what about if all road users had EV who would make up the shortfall?

• Fewer toxic NOx emissions.
• Fewer cancer-causing particulate emissions.
• Greater health benefits for myself, which contributes to greater public health and less stress on the health care system (smaller premiums for everyone, in American parlance).

Your actually breathing in more toxins than car drivers and putting yourself at greater risk of being in an accident so your actually putting health and motor insurance premiums up

• Making the city a more pleasant place for everyone me.

I hate to break it to ye but your an irritant to most people

Next question.

Answer this one first and try to keep it on point and not congest the debate (like you do the roads) with irrelevant point about making a more pleasant place. We've established that you increase congestion, engage in a high risk activity thereby increasing health insurance premiums and vehicle insurance premiums which you dont pay but it should all be evened out because the monsterous savings to road maintenance

[Eamonnca1]

[Eamonnca1]

From the moment I wanted to drive 25 years ago, I sat 12 lessons with a qualified instructor, passed a theory test about the rules of the road, then passed a driving test, it probably was 6 months from start to finish, I then got a wee R sticker for my car as having just qualified I was restricted to 45 miles an hour maximum, this is to allow me to get used to driving and the rules of the road, apart from tucking the fat into the lycra and buying a 3 grand bike what do cyclists do before using public roads.  Also when I got my wee car I paid road tax to use the roads and had to get insurance to ensure if I had an accident no one involved was out of pocket, when my wee car got a bit older I also had to get a wee certificate to say it was road worthy - again do cyclists do any of this, or do they just not give a shite?

Cyclists have a common law right to use the road, unlike drivers who have to apply for a special permit and meet strict criteria. And rightly so. A motor vehicle is a big heavy steel box on wheels that can kill someone, and they frequently do. It's entirely appropriate that they be strictly regulated.

[Eamonnca1]

You never answered my question Eamon, I'll ask again, have you been home lately?

I was home last year. Why do you ask?

[Eamonnca1]

They should be insured, if a cyclist causes damage to my car, who pays for it, my insurance?  They should also not be allowed on the road without some training just today two lycra chicks struggling to pedal on a country road all over the shop, veering in and out from edge to middle, the mind boggles!

So a 10-year old girl on a Barbie bike should pay tax, insurance, and have a number plate? Catch yourself on.

[Eamonnca1]

Why not lead the charge and pack your 4x4 in. 

Haven't got one. Front wheel drive is good enough for me. We have a station wagon (estate car to you) which we only ever use for a bit of grocery shopping or trips to see relatives. Most of the time it sits in our garage from one day to the next.

[Eamonnca1]

The problem isn't with road tax, it's with insurance and licensing.

The reason why the overwhelming majority of drivers "stay legal" is not because it's the law or because it's dangerous, but because of the deterrents  a) their insurance premiums will escalate quickly if making driving mistakes, and b) if caught, they can lose their licence, and eventually end up behind bars.

The reason why a hefty percentage of cyclists (from the lycra clad, right down to Johnny casual) will happily break, bend and ignore rules - even ones designed for their own safety - is because the only deterrent is a ticking off. Technology will eventually bring answers to this problem. But in the short term, it would be much better if pedestrians were entitled to push them off their bikes when cycling on paths, and that helmet cam footage is only admissible as evidence, if provided alongside say 8-10 hours of recent, unedited  footage of same cyclist's road behaviour.

LMAO! Drivers obey the traffic laws? Since when?

If your little theory were correct then the proportion of drivers who obey the traffic laws would be above 1%. But it isn't.