Top four types of cycle accidents

There are just so many holes in this proposal, it is hard to know where to start.

Given that the local authorities have been instructed not to commit to any further spend on road improvements (see [broken link removed]), the suggestion that motor tax pays for upkeep of roads is somewhat flawed.

Any tax on cyclists to cover the costs of road upkeep would need to be proportional to the damage caused to roads by cycling. The infinitesimally small taxes would probably cost more to collect than they would produce in income.

And of course, if we are going to take this approach, we will need to have a pedestrian tax, a library readers tax, a beach swimmers tax, a forest walkers tax and probably an oxygen breathers tax.

Not very sensible....
 
Bell Butts said:
I didn't suggest that they should pay 'motor tax' (they don't have a motor) - I suggested that they pay a road tax because they use up a scarce resource (road space) which costs money to maintain. Motor tax is paid into the local govt fund which pays for, among other things, the upkeep on national roads, which is where the cycle paths are.
Click to expand...

There must be very few places where a dedicated cycle lane has entirely replaced lane for motor vehicles thus using one up! I can't think of any.

Going by the horrendous state of the edge of the roads around Dublin they don't do much maintaining of them.
 
Complainer said:
There are just so many holes in this proposal, it is hard to know where to start.

Given that the local authorities have been instructed not to commit to any further spend on road improvements (see [broken link removed]), the suggestion that motor tax pays for upkeep of roads is somewhat flawed.

Any tax on cyclists to cover the costs of road upkeep would need to be proportional to the damage caused to roads by cycling. The infinitesimally small taxes would probably cost more to collect than they would produce in income.

And of course, if we are going to take this approach, we will need to have a pedestrian tax, a library readers tax, a beach swimmers tax, a forest walkers tax and probably an oxygen breathers tax.

Not very sensible....
Click to expand...

Your response is a jumble of non sequiturs and red herrings. It does not follow that because local authorities have had their budgets temporarily reduced that cyclists should never pay towards new facilities which they alone will use.

Secondly on the cost of collection being uneconomical - that is just your assumption. We already have a motor tax system that could accept payments and issue pieces if paper at close to zero additional cost. The main costs of cycling facilities is installing them in the first place, not road damage as you say (we'll leave aside the opportunity costs of excluding other road users from cycling space) - cost of installation has been €136,000 per km according to DTO.

Your final point is also a non sequitur: road users are already singled out for extra taxation. The question is who should pay for new cycling facilities, especially if the facilities are be improved over time: cyclists or someone else? My view, put simply, is that the cyclists should pay.
 
Bell Butts said:
I suggested that they pay a road tax because they use up a scarce resource (road space) which costs money to maintain. Motor tax is paid into the local govt fund which pays for, among other things, the upkeep on national roads, which is where the cycle paths are.
Click to expand...

You want them to pay for the upkeep of national roads not because they cause wear and tear but because that 2ft of space could be used for a motor vehicles instead.

You reason for discouraging cycling and getting more cars on the road is what exactly? Cars to fill the empty cycle lanes?
 
Bell Butts said:
Your response is a jumble of non sequiturs and red herrings. It does not follow that because local authorities have had their budgets temporarily reduced that cyclists should never pay towards new facilities which they alone will use.

Secondly on the cost of collection being uneconomical - that is just your assumption. We already have a motor tax system that could accept payments and issue pieces if paper at close to zero additional cost. The main costs of cycling facilities is installing them in the first place, not road damage as you say (we'll leave aside the opportunity costs of excluding other road users from cycling space) - cost of installation has been €136,000 per km according to DTO.

Your final point is also a non sequitur: road users are already singled out for extra taxation. The question is who should pay for new cycling facilities, especially if the facilities are be improved over time: cyclists or someone else? My view, put simply, is that the cyclists should pay.
Click to expand...

Bell Butts said:
you're not reading my posts. i specifically said facilities that they alone use.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's still not really making any sense.

Your point about using the motor tax infrastructure is way off base. You forget that a) there is no registration system for bikes, and b) the substantial cost of processing each transaction on that system.

But the bigger issue is that there are no facilities that cyclists alone use. I've never seen a cycle path that isn't used regularly by pedestrians or as I noticed in the Phoenix Park at the weekend, by rollerbladers. I've never seen an on-street cycle lane (even the few lanes that have the solid white line indicating that they are dedicated cycle lanes) that is used only by cyclists. They are used frequently by other road users.

So perhaps you could tell me where these mythical facilities that are only used by cyclists are?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top