Listened to a small bit of Henry McKean’s cycling thing yesterday. He was out with a few gowlbags cycling around Dublin. The lad he was talking to, some Ryder fella representing cyclists. The two of them were at a set of traffic lights and he was moaning about how badly they were being treated when Henry spotted a cyclist racing through the red light beside them. He pointed this out to the cunt and he just said “ya, he nipped through”. Fucking prick.
1 Like
we funds it to the extent of €100 per year
No one said there wasn’t a duty of care on the cyclist.
You realise those bikes and other variations are extremely common in other countries? In some countries I would say more people use such bikes than walk or drive their kids to school.
There is a big economic benefit to cities in reducing traffic and increasing numbers of cyclists. We should be developing infrastructure to do this. This is exactly what @Fagan_ODowd is arguing against.
I proposed at the meeting the other night that all cyclists should drive to work 1 day , let people see how much time we are saving.
nothing better than seeing a fat fuck stuck in traffic as I scoot by
1 Like
hugely popular in the Netherlands, the safest cycling country in Europe
I’m not arguing against it at all. All I am suggesting is that we apply the user pays principle to it, which appears to be entirely just and equitable. Once that principle is laid down , I’m all for better infrastructure.
an equitable share of funding is what is needed
If the economic cost of roads congestion was applied to motorists you shit your pants. Be careful what you wish for.
Also, your reasoning is specious for a number of reasons. Say the aim is to reduce traffic and increase numbers of cyclists, where does your user pays principle fit in? Say another aim is protect cyclists from being killed or injured by drivers, should cyclists pay for this through taxes, or should the drivers that are injuring (the users in this case)?
Going off on a bit of a tangent but I never agree with this health benefits being good for the economy thing. Being healthier just makes people live longer so the net benefit is surely minimal or even negative over time. You could equally argue that being less healthy leads to shorter lifespans producing huge savings for the economy in the long run.
1 Like
the simple difference here is motor tax. we are all paying c. 300 a year as ordinary joe soap motorists to share the road and have equal rights with a group who dont pay anything, which is grossly unfair.
Your straying into dangerous territory here!!
you are paying it to own a car
you gombeen, i am only required to have if i am driving it on the road and if i am parking it up and just ‘owning it’ then no obligation to tax it.
i thought you were top dog down the motor tax office?
would you not think that most cyclists also own cars and therefore do actually pay your “road tax”. certainly the case in the UK anyway.
Some findings in the UK actually find that cyclists actually spend more on “road tax” than those who only use a car.
also, anyone who has built a house or buys a house has for the most part to contribute quite a large sum of fees to “roads” regardless of their mode of transport.
Cyclists are cunts, but they might be less of a cunt if they had adequate lanes for them to use. What is there at the moment is quite often a bit of red paint splashed over the drain at the side of a road.
1 Like
When people tell me I’m wrong I at least expect them to be able to prove it.
Ian Doherty sticking the boot in, in today’s Indo
Against cyclist? It changes everything if so?
1 Like
For the record I would like to clarify that I am not Ian O’Doherty.
1 Like
Thank fucking christ.