Just bought a bike!

gent9662

I went for the Trek 7200 WSD. Got it as part of the cycle to work scheme. I bought it more so for my wife! Would anybody see any problems with a man cycling this?

Ardennes1944

dclane wrote: »

I went for the Trek 7200 WSD. Got it as part of the cycle to work scheme. I bought it more so for my wife! Would anybody see any problems with a man cycling this?

Em.....well I don't think I would but it all depends, do you really care what people think?

Lumen

dclane wrote: »

I went for the Trek 7200 WSD. Got it as part of the cycle to work scheme. I bought it more so for my wife! Would anybody see any problems with a man cycling this?

Men and women tend to find different sorts of saddles comfortable due to obvious differences in anatomy, and if you're not the same size you'll be regularly moving the saddle up and down.

Also, you may have problems going on cycles together.

muad_dib77

well wear..

it not going to be a problem as such.. but it IS a ladies bike.

If you dont mind, Im sure nobody else will.

poochiem

enjoy. who cares what people think. and all theyll think is youve borrowed herself's bike. big deal.

gent9662

poochiem wrote: »

enjoy. who cares what people think. and all theyll think is youve borrowed herself's bike. big deal.

I think we made the right decision given that this model can hold a child seat at the back whereby the mens version can't.

Kintarō Hattori

Arrghh a huge image and then it's quoted!!! Any chance of resizing it there OP?

Lumen

dclane wrote: »

I think we made the right decision given that this model can hold a child seat at the back whereby the mens version can't.

I'd be surprised. I've used rear seats on a number of mens bikes and never had any problems. Womens bikes tend to be more difficult due to less available seat tube.

gent9662

Lumen wrote: »

I'd be surprised. I've used rear seats on a number of mens bikes and never had any problems. Womens bikes tend to be more difficult due to less available seat tube.

I guess the thing is if both my wife and i are using it then its makes for sense to go for the stepthrough!

Hungrycol

I might have had an issue with approving the purchase of a womens bike for a male employee. Not in the spirt of it ol'chap.

AstraMonti

Hungrycol wrote: »

I might have had an issue with approving the purchase of a womens bike for a male employee. Not in the spirt of it ol'chap.

What would it matter if he is using too? For all the scheme cares, it can be anything with wheels and pedals.

gent9662

Hungrycol wrote: »

I might have had an issue with approving the purchase of a womens bike for a male employee. Not in the spirt of it ol'chap.

Why? It has two wheels and a saddle does it not?

Hungrycol

Aye, and a Raleigh Ben 10* bike at Christmas time.

* made that up to illustrate a point

poochiem

lock it up it's turning 'friday'.

gent9662

Hungrycol wrote: »

Aye, and a Raleigh Ben 10* bike at Christmas time.

* made that up to illustrate a point

Well you pick me out a unisex bike on sale in Ireland and I'll gladly buy that one. So if you have a company car would you see usage of such at weekends and for recreation against the rules also?

Kintarō Hattori

dclane wrote: »

Well you pick me out a unisex bike on sale in Ireland and I'll gladly buy that one. So if you have a company car would you see usage of such at weekends and for recreation against the rules also?

If the bike does what you need it to do and you're both happy with it then you don't need anyone's approval. Just get out and enjoy it.

Lumen

dclane wrote: »

Well you pick me out a unisex bike on sale in Ireland and I'll gladly buy that one. So if you have a company car would you see usage of such at weekends and for recreation against the rules also?

Since you asked...

The cycle to work scheme is for people buying bikes with the intent of using them mainly for commuting to their place of work. You stated that "I bought it more so for my wife!" so you're admitting to a breach of the scheme. It is not the same as a company car because a company car is a taxable benefit.

As far as unisex bikes go, all bikes are technically unisex because you don't operate them with your genitals. Bikes with a stepthrough are designed for people in long, flappy clothing and in this country those people are usually women, but many women would cycle in shorts or trousers on bikes with horizontal top tubes.

jb-ski

dclane wrote: »

I guess the thing is if both my wife and i are using it then its makes for sense to go for the stepthrough!

If both of you were using it a crossbar would be handy for you, while Mrs. dclane does all the hard work:)

langdang

Well you have it now so work away on it? I don't see a problem with it now that you've taken possession of it. If it doesn't have a quick release for the saddle, get one - will make it easier to switch between heights for the two of ye. (mark both positions with a little scratch on the seatpost)
Although if the babyseat is fixed to the saddle it might be trickier to adjust up and down frequently.

gent9662

Lumen wrote: »

Since you asked...

The cycle to work scheme is for people buying bikes with the intent of using them mainly for commuting to their place of work. You stated that "I bought it more so for my wife!" so you're admitting to a breach of the scheme. It is not the same as a company car because a company car is a taxable benefit.

As far as unisex bikes go, all bikes are technically unisex because you don't operate them with your genitals. Bikes with a stepthrough are designed for people in long, flappy clothing and in this country those people are usually women, but many women would cycle in shorts or trousers on bikes with horizontal top tubes.

The cycle to work scheme covers part journey or all journey. It does not specify how many days a week you are supposed to use it or whether or not the bikes usage is strictly limited to one family member only. So I do stand over the statement that I bought it for my wifes use more so than mine. I still very much intend to use it to cycle to work one or two days a week. Does children's allowance have to be spent directly on the children that is allows for? In my case it does, but I am sure there are plenty of people out there who blow it on anything but. Doesn't mean it's against the law.

Lumen

dclane wrote: »

The cycle to work scheme covers part journey or all journey. It does not specify how many days a week you are supposed to use it or whether or not the bikes usage is strictly limited to one family member only. So I do stand over the statement that I bought it for my wifes use more so than mine. I still very much intend to use it to cycle to work one or two days a week. Does children's allowance have to be spent directly on the children that is allows for? In my case it does, but I am sure there are plenty of people out there who blow it on anything but. Doesn't mean it's against the law.

Children's allowance is neither here nor there.

The Revenue says:

The bicycle/safety equipment must be used by the employee or director mainly for qualifying journeys. This means the whole or part (e.g. between home and train station) of a journey between the employee’s or director’s home and normal place of work, or between his or her normal place of work and another place of work. While an employer will not be required to monitor the use of the bicycle/safety equipment, the employer will be required to obtain a signed statement from the employee or director that the bicycle is for his or her own use and will be used mainly for qualifying journeys.

My interpretation of the statement "I bought it more so for my wife!" in light of the above wording obviously differs from mine.

gent9662

Lumen wrote: »

Children's allowance is neither here nor there.

The Revenue says:

The bicycle/safety equipment must be used by the employee or director mainly for qualifying journeys. This means the whole or part (e.g. between home and train station) of a journey between the employee’s or director’s home and normal place of work, or between his or her normal place of work and another place of work. While an employer will not be required to monitor the use of the bicycle/safety equipment, the employer will be required to obtain a signed statement from the employee or director that the bicycle is for his or her own use and will be used mainly for qualifying journeys.

My interpretation of the statement "I bought it more so for my wife!" in light of the above wording obviously differs from mine.

As I said, I intend to use the bike one/two days a week. So by your rationale, nobody else should be allowed to use a bike (other than the employee who purchased the bike) for any type of recreational purposes other than cycling to work?

So my wife gets on the bike the other five days (in the evening) and spends more time cycling it than I do, and that in your book is against the rules of the scheme? Pedantic I have to say!

Lumen

dclane wrote: »

So my wife gets on the bike the other five days (in the evening) and spends more time cycling it than I do, and that in your book is against the rules of the scheme? Pedantic I have to say!

main·ly/ˈmānlē/Adverb
1. More than anything else: "he is mainly concerned with fiction".
2. For the most part: "the west will be mainly dry".

Beasty

No Lumen's analysis is simple and correct

You are required to have intended using the bike mainly for commuting.

This means that if it is intended to be used 51% for commuting and 49% for other things, everyone is happy

If it's intended to be used 49% for commuting and 51% for other things, you have robbed the rest of us taxpayers and the Revenue can seek the return of our cash to allow the country to repay some of its debts (although in practice this may be very unlikely - I mean it's unlikely the Revenue will come after you, actually probably as unlikely as the country paying off its debts)

Beasty

...now returning to your original question - if it had a bell, reflectors or a pie plate I think you would have a problem. However the fact it's a girl's bike is neither here nor there ...

petethedrummer

Oh you two. How long have you been living here? Its not a crime until you are caught. And anything tax related isn't a proper crime.

Undercover Elephant

dclane wrote: »

The cycle to work scheme covers part journey or all journey. It does not specify how many days a week you are supposed to use it or whether or not the bikes usage is strictly limited to one family member only. So I do stand over the statement that I bought it for my wifes use more so than mine. I still very much intend to use it to cycle to work one or two days a week. Does children's allowance have to be spent directly on the children that is allows for? In my case it does, but I am sure there are plenty of people out there who blow it on anything but. Doesn't mean it's against the law.

You are Finian McGrath and I claim my five pounds.