Abuse of cycle to work scheme

Raiser

I'm sure some tiny proportion of people entered into this in good faith etc. and actually cycle to work as intended by the morons of the green party.....

- But anyone I've ever met or directly heard of who signed up for it drives to work (often ridiculous distances away making cycling never feasable), including seemingly the sad greens themselves

Heard recently that Done Deal and other advert websites have shedloads of these bikes for sale for €500-1000 making it nice little earner for smart gobshítes out there straight from the poor honest PAYE workers pocket. A quick glance seems to bear this out - ie. adverts like "brand new bike, 1 week old, my left leg fell off bargain at €750......"

Why hasn't this idiotic idea been axed yet? Theres a load of new shops open even on the strenght of this making the owners filthy rich on this absurd scheme (don't talk about job creation, its just 1 man and his new BMW)

- We can't afford the continue to indulge the Greens brain farts so long after they were run out of public life surely?

HeidiHeidi

I'm one of your "tiny proportion" who actually uses my bike for commuting (weather permitting ).

Most of the people I know who had acquired bikes under this scheme, basically half price, have got them for racing/triathlon/adventure-race purposes, and they'll never be seen locked up outside work.

I'm as sceptical as the next person (or you) about the whole thing - but the story I heard was that we (Ireland) have signed up to some deal to have so many people commuting to work using bikes instead of cars - so we're tied into the whole BTW thing and it can't be done away with, even though it's patently and obviously being abused.

No idea if that's right or wrong, but that's what I heard.....

Icepick

Raiser wrote: »

making it nice little earner for smart gobshítes out there straight from the poor honest PAYE workers pocket.

Yes, the person who actually bought the bike.

Mongfinder General

Raiser wrote: »

I'm sure some tiny proportion of people entered into this in good faith etc. and actually cycle to work as intended by the morons of the green party.....

- But anyone I've ever met or directly heard of who signed up for it drives to work (often ridiculous distances away making cycling never feasable), including seemingly the sad greens themselves

Heard recently that Done Deal and other advert websites have shedloads of these bikes for sale for €500-1000 making it nice little earner for smart gobshítes out there straight from the poor honest PAYE workers pocket. A quick glance seems to bear this out - ie. adverts like "brand new bike, 1 week old, my left leg fell off bargain at €750......"

Why hasn't this idiotic idea been axed yet? Theres a load of new shops open even on the strenght of this making the owners filthy rich on this absurd scheme (don't talk about job creation, its just 1 man and his new BMW)

- We can't afford the continue to indulge the Greens brain farts so long after they were run out of public life surely?

Long may it continue. It's one of the few tax reliefs that can be manipulated by those paying 60 odd % on everything they earn above €33k. Most of the people exploiting this are probably doing it to make their next mortgage payment or whatever ridiculous tax we get hit with next. These are the very people being battered just to pay for everything else in this country.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I'll fill out the forms in work in the morning. Should be at least a 2 or 3 tonne in this for me.

K-9

Raiser wrote: »

I'm sure some tiny proportion of people entered into this in good faith etc. and actually cycle to work as intended by the morons of the green party.....

- But anyone I've ever met or directly heard of who signed up for it drives to work (often ridiculous distances away making cycling never feasable), including seemingly the sad greens themselves

Heard recently that Done Deal and other advert websites have shedloads of these bikes for sale for €500-1000 making it nice little earner for smart gobshítes out there straight from the poor honest PAYE workers pocket. A quick glance seems to bear this out - ie. adverts like "brand new bike, 1 week old, my left leg fell off bargain at €750......"

Why hasn't this idiotic idea been axed yet? Theres a load of new shops open even on the strenght of this making the owners filthy rich on this absurd scheme (don't talk about job creation, its just 1 man and his new BMW)

- We can't afford the continue to indulge the Greens brain farts so long after they were run out of public life surely?

I'd assume these bikes are easily identifiable on donedeal, model or make, that type of thing.

Tax reliefs tend to get abused, I doubt there is any tax relief that isn't manipulated to some degree.

Thread is very close to "I heard down my pub" levels of discussion and has a short shelf life. "Greens brain farts" remarks don't help.

cee_jay

K-9 wrote: »

I'd assume these bikes are easily identifiable on donedeal, model or make, that type of thing.

[/b]

I don't think they are. It is up to each individual person to choose the bike and equipment they want/need up to the agreed limit. So this seems like an anecdotal musing that the bikes seen on done deal are from the Bike to Work Scheme.

Jonny7

A 750 euro bicycle is not needed to get in and out to work.

Half that is more than enough.

stoneill

I think it's a great scheme - I did the BTW work thing, now I have an option to cycle when weather permits, plus it's used for leisure.
I can't see very many people getting extremely rich from it, why would you buy a bike on done deal for €800 when you can have the same for €400 using the scheme?

Cookie_Monster

Jonny7 wrote: »

A 750 euro bicycle is not needed to get in and out to work.
Half that is more than enough.

:rolleyes:
a 5k car isn't needed, a 1k one is enough. better yet just walk, it's free. etc. who are you to tell people how much their bike should cost, and what they're allowed use it for?

750 for a decent bike that'll last and not fall apart straight away is a fair price. If you want to go a bit further and use it for exercise at the weekends and buy the allowable gear (lights, lock, a few peices of comfortable kit) you're well over 1200 for anything decent.

It's a great scheme and should be used and lauded for trying to get the population fitter and healtheir. But I do think it's massivly abused by people who just want a non commuting bike for less. the real problem is most workplaces don't give a shite about people cycling and won't provide secure storage or shower facilities but will provide plenty of car parks for those looking to drive.

opti0nal

Raiser wrote: »

I'm sure some tiny proportion of people entered into this in good faith etc. and actually cycle to work as intended by the morons of the green party.....Heard recently that Done Deal and other advert websites have shedloads of these bikes for sale for €500-1000 making it nice little earner for smart gobshítes ...We can't afford the continue to indulge the Greens brain farts so long after they were run out of public life surely?

Have you considered that maybe those bikes are being sold by people who've lost their jobs and have no work to cycle to?

Much like cars, bikes lose much of their value once they're walked out of the shop, and people who behave as you imagine would be risking prosecution for the sake of a few hundred euro profit.

Maybe find some other way of working through your hatred of the Greens. This is the wrong vehicle for you, I think.

ednwireland

i bought a bike on it and i cycle to work on it most days

in fact here it is on my cycle home (no really that is on one of my routes home)

https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/5461/197794.jpg

Raiser

cee_jay wrote: »

I don't think they are. It is up to each individual person to choose the bike and equipment they want/need up to the agreed limit. So this seems like an anecdotal musing that the bikes seen on done deal are from the Bike to Work Scheme.

And be damn sure they do, apparently theres a well known bike shop in limerick where they are happy to throw in a couple of kids bikes too on a nod and a wink - sure why be short of the absurdly high limit? Gotta hit your targets $

Jonny7 wrote: »

A 750 euro bicycle is not needed to get in and out to work.

Half that is more than enough.

What sort of a bike would ya get for a mere €375 though, would it still be of carbon fibre construction with a gold plated chainset? I'd be cycling from Blackrock and have some pedestrian crossings and 6 sets of traffic lights to deal with, and a very tricky roundabout - oh and I'm fairly sure theres a slope

* Remember though the actual limit is €1,000 with BIK kicking in for anything in excess of that.....

stoneill wrote: »

I think it's a great scheme - I did the BTW work thing, now I have an option to cycle when weather permits, plus it's used for leisure.
I can't see very many people getting extremely rich from it, why would you buy a bike on done deal for €800 when you can have the same for €400 using the scheme?

I'd assume the vendors are taking advantage of peoples good nature as well as the State/taypayer.

Certainly its a crap scheme in any instance where its being abused and used to buy very expensive bikes for racing, triathlons or weekend mountain biking.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

:rolleyes:
a 5k car isn't needed, a 1k one is enough. better yet just walk, it's free. etc. who are you to tell people how much their bike should cost, and what they're allowed use it for?

750 for a decent bike that'll last and not fall apart straight away is a fair price. If you want to go a bit further and use it for exercise at the weekends and buy the allowable gear (lights, lock, a few peices of comfortable kit) you're well over 1200 for anything decent.

It's a great scheme and should be used and lauded for trying to get the population fitter and healtheir. But I do think it's massivly abused by people who just want a non commuting bike for less. the real problem is most workplaces don't give a shite about people cycling and won't provide secure storage or shower facilities but will provide plenty of car parks for those looking to drive.

Who are you to tell us we've no say as a public on a publically funded horseshít scheme?

I don't care if you want to spend €1,200 on a push bike because your notions of design, quality and performance are somehow wrapped up in an odd materialistic gauge where price paid is a substitute for common sense.

You should go to some European city such as Berlin or Amsterdam and watch in awe as thousands of people glide past you effortlessly on perfectly adequate bikes that obviously cost a fraction of what your skewed sense of entitlement leads you to believe to be acceptable.

Perhaps you're an unlucky exception seeing that obviously your workplace is located on the far side of the Alps or something?

optional wrote: »

Have you considered that maybe those bikes are being sold by people who've lost their jobs and have no work to cycle to?

Much like cars, bikes lose much of their value once they're walked out of the shop, and people who behave as you imagine would be risking prosecution for the sake of a few hundred euro profit.

Maybe find some other way of working through your hatred of the Greens. This is the wrong vehicle for you, I think.

Clutch at straws much? Yes I'm sure thats an accurate portrayal, poor innocent workers buying bikes for a grand cause they woke up some morning feeling like Lance Feckin' Armstrong and then they suddenly lose their jobs and have to sell it real quick in order to survive.

ednwireland wrote: »

i bought a bike on it and icycle to work on it most days

in fact here it is on my cycle home (no really that is on one of my routes home)

https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/5461/197794.jpg

Heres a typical example of rampant abuse - This man bought himself an iCycle

Jonny7

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

:rolleyes:
a 5k car isn't needed, a 1k one is enough. better yet just walk, it's free. etc. who are you to tell people how much their bike should cost, and what they're allowed use it for?

750 for a decent bike that'll last and not fall apart straight away is a fair price. If you want to go a bit further and use it for exercise at the weekends and buy the allowable gear (lights, lock, a few peices of comfortable kit) you're well over 1200 for anything decent.

It's a great scheme and should be used and lauded for trying to get the population fitter and healtheir. But I do think it's massivly abused by people who just want a non commuting bike for less. the real problem is most workplaces don't give a shite about people cycling and won't provide secure storage or shower facilities but will provide plenty of car parks for those looking to drive.

Poppycock! Its cycling to and from work, not Mammoth mountain.

350 euros is reasonable.

Nwm2

Is it true that the brother of one of the top Green ministers owns a bike shop, or is that just urban legend?

There is no doubt that it is a massively abused scheme. My company has processed over 200 bike invoices, and there is only a handful of bikes parked outside the front any day.

seamus

Jonny7 wrote: »

Poppycock! Its cycling to and from work, not Mammoth mountain.

350 euros is reasonable.

Would you buy a 1 litre fiat punto to drive 200km a day to work?
A cheaper bike is fine for short distance. If someone is commuting 10km+ every day, then the difference between a cheaper bike and another few hundred euro becomes very apparent.

It's all a bit of a non-issue really. Research shows that every km which someone cycles to work instead of driving or bussing actually saves the state money, from things as varied as road maintenance and carbon taxes, to long-term things like health spending and community projects.

From what I can tell, the vast majority of people who bought a bike on this scheme did so with the intention of riding the bike to work. A small minority would go to the trouble of signing up to it, only to sell the bike on.

The IBBA published a report last year showing a fairly extensive list of benefits that the B2W scheme has brought to the economy.
http://ibba.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/IBBA_Report.pdf

Not least that each cycling trip to work actually earns the state €0.70 (versus a cost to the state for bus, LUAS or driving commuters), but that it also created 617 jobs and generated €20m in revenue for the state.

Now, there's a fair argument that the report above has biase, but I'll take their cited figures and shown calculations far above the hearsay and anti-cyclist rhetoric shown the OP.

gizmo555

The problem is with the way the scheme was designed. While the bikes must be used for commuting to be eligible for the tax relief, there is no way of enforcing this requirement. The Revenue leaflet says this:

The bicycle/safety equipment must be used by the employee or director mainly for qualifying journeys. Qualifying journeys 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.

but . . .

There is no obligation on an employer to keep a record of the usage of the bicycle/safety equipment by an employee or director. However, the employer should obtain a signed statement from the employee or director that the bicycle/safety equipment will be for his or her own use and will be used mainly for qualifying journeys.

All employees have to do is to sign the statements, then once they have the bikes simply say they have changed their mind and find for whatever reason cycling to work doesn't suit them after all.

As for "hearsay", my recent first hand experience buying a bike for my child was the shopkeeper insisting that I was entitled to the relief even though I explained that I work from a home office. I suppose I could do a lap of the house every morning before sitting down at my desk to qualify . . .

Stark

Raiser wrote: »

Heard recently that Done Deal and other advert websites have shedloads of these bikes for sale for €500-1000 making it nice little earner for smart gobshítes out there straight from the poor honest PAYE workers pocket. A quick glance seems to bear this out - ie. adverts like "brand new bike, 1 week old, my left leg fell off bargain at €750......"

If it's on Scumdeal, chances are it was stolen from someone who bought it for cycling to work.

Gurgle

The more people have a bike the more likely they are to use it and get some exercise every now and then.

Its for a bike + accessories of value up to €1k once every 5 years.
Taking it for the maximum, you'll save 51% of that cost, €510.

Fromhttp://www.bikescheme.ie/how-claim

The Government is trying to encourage commuters to give up the car for shorter journeys.

I think the fault with the scheme was calling it 'bike to work' instead of 'get some exercise before your heart bursts'.

Just this once, its a government health and environment initiative that actually doesn't involve a punitive tax. The only success of the greens in government.

Chips Lovell

Bikes lose a massive amount of their value the minute you wheel them out of the store, so you'd be reliant on finding some idiot who'd be willing to pay nearer full whack. TBH, I've yet to hear of anyone using this as a money making scheme. It seems like a lot of trouble to go to for minimal and unguaranteed gains.

€700 is about the minimum I'd spend on a road bike. Below that and you're straying into the territory of paying more in maintenance than you would have on a better bike.

Kinski

ednwireland wrote: »

i bought a bike on it and icycle to work on it most days

I see Apple are getting into the whole bike area now...;) Could sure go for an iCycle myself.

And I'd be delighted if more people in Dublin would cycle to work - this all sounds just a bit moany to me.

femur61

Yes I know people who have abused the system. One bought a ride on mower with the money, and how he did that is the sop which sells bikes happens to sell lawn mowers as well. The other bought a €600 bike and they got half the money back, but did he need such an expensive bike.

Gurgle

femur61 wrote: »

Yes I know people who have abused the system. One bought a ride on mower with the money, and how he did that is the sop which sells bikes happens to sell lawn mowers as well.

That's not abusing the system, that's fraud.

femur61 wrote: »

The other bought a €600 bike and they got half the money back, but did he need such an expensive bike.

He spent barely over half the limit, but you call it abuse because you don't approve?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

seamus

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Citation please.

I got wet on my cycle home yesterday. Third time this year I've needed to wear a jacket on the commute to avoid getting wet. No, really. I had one morning with some light snow late last year and practically no ice most mornings this winter.

The "it's always raining and it's too cold" excuse is just that - an excuse. It's a complete fallacy that Ireland gets too much rain. Amsterdam gets 10% more rainfall than Dublin.

It's one of the most commonly trotted out excuses in this country, but in reality it's completely baseless.

AngryLips

Well the scheme works and the figures on the number of people cycling during rush hour between the canals would support that. To say that the scheme doesn't work and is open to fraud ignores the fact that the same point could be made about any of the low value tax credits on offer (union membership, rent relief etc). This would have been costed when the scheme was designed as it was for all the other unverified tax credits.

Stark

seamus wrote: »

Citation please.

I got wet on my cycle home yesterday. Third time this year I've needed to wear a jacket on the commute to avoid getting wet. No, really. I had one morning with some light snow late last year and practically no ice most mornings this winter.

Same here, cycle most days and have probably encountered rain only 2/3 times this year. It rains more often than that (had a run of miserable evenings over the past few weeks) but doesn't always rain during the commuting window.

antoobrien

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I have to disagree with you there. I've cycled & walked to work in Dublin for years, you don't get wet nearly as often as people make out. I think I needed to catch a bus/dart because of rain maybe a dozen times last winter.

Ice and snow is a problem, when it happens but that's so rare as to be laughable as an excuse.

No the biggest problem with cycling in Ireland is actually cyclists themselves. They cause so many problems for themselves it's unreal. From not paying attention to what they're at, not signaling, no lights/reflective gear, improperly maintained equipment (brakes in particular), inability to select the correct gear when approaching a junction (foolishly thinking it's the the clutch in a car), unwillingness to obey the rules of the road, blaming others for cycling into the side of cars that are turning (as opposed to the car turning into the bike) .......I could go on all day listing the sheer stupidity of cyclists that I've witnessed over the years.

It's no wonder people won't cycle when they witness that kind of crap on a regular basis.

Tipp Man

What a ridiculous opening post

It is obvious that the number of cyclists in Dublin has increased dramatically since the scheme was introduced.

I don't spend much time in Dublin now but this increase is blatantly obvious to me - especially on a fine day - my sister only last week commented on how many cyclists there are in the city

and with the huge levels of tax on petrol/diesel the number of cyclists is only going to increase

With regards to weather - bear in mind that there are significantly more rainy and wet days along the western seaboard than the are along the eastern seaboard. IMO Dublin has a lot less wet days than Limerick for example

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

seamus

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Most of the year, it rains constantly

Well, good for you; thankfully, we had an exceptionally mild winter this year. How did you fare during the winters of 2009-10 and 2010-11?

2010/11 was fun, but definitely for the more hardy cyclist. But then 2010/11 doesn't really prove any point since most people were incapable of driving during that weather as well.
I don't recall the winter of 2009/10. It obviously didn't inconvenience me in any serious way to make it memorable. I remember it snowed on New Year's Eve. That was pretty cool.

Amsterdam is also consistently ranked as one of the most bike-friendly cities in the world. Dublin is not.

True, but that wasn't the point. Amsterdam gets more rain than Dublin, but sees an immeasurable difference in cycling rates.

Therefore the weather is inconsequential in relation to cycling rates, it's a lazy red herring.

Gumbi

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

:rolleyes:
a 5k car isn't needed, a 1k one is enough. better yet just walk, it's free. etc. who are you to tell people how much their bike should cost, and what they're allowed use it for?

750 for a decent bike that'll last and not fall apart straight away is a fair price. If you want to go a bit further and use it for exercise at the weekends and buy the allowable gear (lights, lock, a few peices of comfortable kit) you're well over 1200 for anything decent.

It's a great scheme and should be used and lauded for trying to get the population fitter and healtheir. But I do think it's massivly abused by people who just want a non commuting bike for less. the real problem is most workplaces don't give a shite about people cycling and won't provide secure storage or shower facilities but will provide plenty of car parks for those looking to drive.

I've cycled to college for the past year (5 miles) on a 200 euro bike, bought last summer. I've only put 60 euro into it for a pair of good tyres. Lots of people have this or less to work.

Anyway, to address your comment. The analogy is not accurate as the government is not supporting your buying your car. One should not be able to buy a luxury bike (I've seen people buy 900 plus euro bikes simply because of the discount) simply to go in and out to work.

johnwest288

Does it apply to Electric Bikes too:D

seamus

antoobrien wrote: »

No the biggest problem with cycling in Ireland is actually cyclists themselves........I could go on all day listing the sheer stupidity of cyclists that I've witnessed over the years.

It's no wonder people won't cycle when they witness that kind of crap on a regular basis.

But that doesn't make any sense. I could go an all day about the kind of crap I see cars doing on the road. Parking on footpaths, crossing the white line, exceeding the speed limit, breaking lights, endangering pedestrians, etc etc etc.
You cannot go 60 seconds on any road without seeing someone breaking the law.

Yet somehow despite constant and persistent law breaking by motorists, it hasn't deterred anyone from driving.

The problem with cycling in Ireland is that private and commercial vehicular traffic has been prioritised above all others and this has been backed up by government and local authority transport policies for more than 50 years. This has created a public perception that cyclists have a lower priority on the road, with the obvious offshoot idea that cycling is dangerous.

This is turn it could reasonably be inferred has caused cyclists to become less adherent to the law since none of it seems to have been written with cyclists in mind, and they need to bend the rules to keep themselves safe. Note - this isn't my view necessarily, but I can easily see how someone would come to that conclusion.

blaming others for cycling into the side of cars that are turning (as opposed to the car turning into the bike)

So if I turn my vehicle in front of another, it's the other guy's fault for failing to stop? Are you serious?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

seamus

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes I did. But I didn't say (a) is wrong, therefore (b) and (c) are wrong. I simply said (a) is wrong.

Dubhlinner

Still think it was worth it overall. Even if used solely for leisure/recreation I don't think people should be paying tax on equipment that helps them get healthy.

damoz

Dubhlinner wrote: »

... I don't think people should be paying tax on equipment that helps them get healthy.

Agreed. Thats it in a nutshell. It should be expanded to cover other health initiatives (club membership etc) with the long term goal to reduce the amount of taxpayer money going into the HSE.

EDIT - Of course this will never happen, because the political system is not designed for long term strategic planning. Just do enough to get elected every 4 years.

Owen

seamus wrote: »

Citation please ... It's one of the most commonly trotted out excuses in this country, but in reality it's completely baseless.

I'm closing my business this week because of the non stop rain in this country. I do call out bodywork repairs, and if there's even a bit of drizzle, I can't work. I've eeked out a living for 3 years now, but can't do it anymore. There have been very few rainless days in the last 3 years.

I appreciate thats a totally different argument to 'it's so wet I can't cycle', but it irks the hell out of me to hear someone say the weather isn't as bad as we think it is. Yes it is! It's like living in a f*cking sponge.

Back OT, I'm starting a PAYE job at the end of the month, and provided my employer has this scheme, I'll be using it. I'd much rather cycle to work than give the Government nearly a euro for every litre of petrol I put in my car, and I abhor public transport.

femur61

Gurgle wrote: »

He spent barely over half the limit, but you call it abuse because you don't approve?

Yes it is abuse, the man would hardly walk to the car he is so lazy. Plenty of friends cycle and thisn is the money they would spend on a bike that would invlove 20km bike rides. He less than 3km from his work.

ednwireland

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

you are wrong its actually suprising how few days a year you get properly wet

antoobrien

seamus wrote: »

But that doesn't make any sense. I could go an all day about the kind of crap I see cars doing on the road. Parking on footpaths, crossing the white line, exceeding the speed limit, breaking lights, endangering pedestrians, etc etc etc.
You cannot go 60 seconds on any road without seeing someone breaking the law.

Yet somehow despite constant and persistent law breaking by motorists, it hasn't deterred anyone from driving.

On the balance of probability, which is safer being inside something weighing a ton that moves or being outside it with no protection? It might give you an idea of how driving is still a popular way of getting around.

I notice you don't actually deal with what cyclists do to make their onw lives more dangerous.

seamus wrote: »

The problem with cycling in Ireland is that private and commercial vehicular traffic has been prioritised above all others and this has been backed up by government and local authority transport policies for more than 50 years. This has created a public perception that cyclists have a lower priority on the road, with the obvious offshoot idea that cycling is dangerous.

This is turn it could reasonably be inferred has caused cyclists to become less adherent to the law since none of it seems to have been written with cyclists in mind, and they need to bend the rules to keep themselves safe. Note - this isn't my view necessarily, but I can easily see how someone would come to that conclusion.[/quote]

I honestly don't know how I can deal with that without breaking the charter. I'll just say that as a cyclist of 20 years, that bit I've just quoted must be the most idiotic thing I've heard outside of the galway cycling campaign calling for cycle tracks to be ripped up.

The reason people think cycling is dangerous is because they don't know how and don't get any training. Christ I remember the "training" I got as a 10 year old: "Don't trust the cars to see you and don't get hit".

seamus wrote: »

So if I turn my vehicle in front of another, it's the other guy's fault for failing to stop? Are you serious?

Yes, if somebody hits you from behind it's generally their fault not yours, as they have failed to leave adequate space between their vehicle and yours.

Now if you turned right to cross traffic it's more than likely your fault though I can think of a few ways how it wouldn't be).

Gurgle

femur61 wrote: »

Yes it is abuse, the man would hardly walk to the car he is so lazy. Plenty of friends cycle and thisn is the money they would spend on a bike that would invlove 20km bike rides. He less than 3km from his work.

Maybe he bought it to support a new years resolution to get fit ... we all know how that works.
Besides, its his own money. He doesn't profit from it, a tiny percentage of the PAYE he would have paid goes into the bike shop instead, along with an equal amount of cash from his pocket.
Whats the issue?

seamus

antoobrien wrote: »

I notice you don't actually deal with what cyclists do to make their onw lives more dangerous.

Why should I? I don't represent cyclists, nor could I ever claim to. The point is that idiots exist, and they ride bikes and they drive cars and they go for walks. Cyclists aren't some discrete group any more than drivers are a discrete group. They overlap, significantly, so statements about the behaviour of cyclists in general are largely empty rhetoric.

They're not some uniform community displaced from the rest of society who have to "make an effort" to be treated normally. They're individuals, and as such each cyclist must be treated as an individual, not as a representative of some perceived closed community of law-breaking daredevils. That's the problem with cycling - that many motorists seem to feel that I am obliged to take responsibility for the actions of some idiot just because we use a similar form of transport.

You've tried to claim that people cycling dangerously somehow deters other people from cycling, but you've failed to explain why. Logically people should similarly consider driving to be dangerous - steel box or not, people don't drive around terrified of crashing. Why not?

This is turn it could reasonably be inferred has caused cyclists to become less adherent to the law since none of it seems to have been written with cyclists in mind, and they need to bend the rules to keep themselves safe. Note - this isn't my view necessarily, but I can easily see how someone would come to that conclusion.

I honestly don't know how I can deal with that without breaking the charter. I'll just say that as a cyclist of 20 years, that bit I've just quoted must be the most idiotic thing I've heard outside of the galway cycling campaign calling for cycle tracks to be ripped up.

Why? If someone is being treated with lesser priority on the roads, would they not naturally seek ways to improve their own safety, even if those ways contravened the rules?

In some ways, the attitude of many motorists that "cyclists shouldn't be on the road", may be to blame for cyclists adopting the attitude that the ROTR don't apply to them. After all, if they shouldn't be there, then they don't have to obey the rules.

Yes, if somebody hits you from behind it's generally their fault not yours, as they have failed to leave adequate space between their vehicle and yours.

That's not what you said. You said someone hitting you from the side. If another vehicle crashes into the side of yours, it's usually because you've turned across their path.

creedp

Gumbi wrote: »

I've cycled to college for the past year (5 miles) on a 200 euro bike, bought last summer. I've only put 60 euro into it for a pair of good tyres. Lots of people have this or less to work.

Anyway, to address your comment. The analogy is not accurate as the government is not supporting your buying your car. One should not be able to buy a luxury bike (I've seen people buy 900 plus euro bikes simply because of the discount) simply to go in and out to work.

I'd agree that the scheme is being used to purchase more expensive bikes than a person would otherwise so in my view its not an effective use of taxpayers money. €1,200 is a mad cap value. Unfortunately that the problem, its not a bad idea to encourage people to cycle to work but its the size of the subsidy thats the issue. On the point that the Govt not subsidising your car for commuting .. wait till the EV boys get going in full swing .. €5,000 grant to buy, free charge points, driving in bus lanes, no fuel duty. You can forget your bikes lads, park em up and get on the EV train for the next mad cap plan to save the environment!!

Gurgle

creedp wrote: »

On the point that the Govt not subsidising your car for commuting ..

Scrappage scheme anyone?

Marinjohn

I got my bike on the cycle to work scheme! Then I lost my job and now I cycle to the dole office on it...

Chips Lovell

For what it's worth, the one area of fraud under the scheme that does seem to have occurred is bike shops allowing people to buy other stuff and issuing an invoice for a bike. I've heard of a few instances of that, but I'm not sure how long it will last since I gather at least one shop has been reported to the Revenue already.

Anyway, the conversation seems to have moved on...

Gumbi wrote: »

I've cycled to college for the past year (5 miles) on a 200 euro bike, bought last summer. I've only put 60 euro into it for a pair of good tyres. Lots of people have this or less to work.

Anyway, to address your comment. The analogy is not accurate as the government is not supporting your buying your car. One should not be able to buy a luxury bike (I've seen people buy 900 plus euro bikes simply because of the discount) simply to go in and out to work.

€900 is not a luxury bike by any means. Don't believe me? Well take a look at Chain Reaction Cycles, which is Ireland's biggest online retailer for bikes (one of the world's biggest in fact).

Road bikes start at €692 and range up to €8,800. Hyrbrids and city bikes (which are suitable for shorter journeys) would start around €200 and range up to €2,200.

So if someone was to buy under the scheme the most they'd get fully subsidised is either an entry level road bike or a mid-range hybrid or city bike. I think that's fairly reasonable for commuting requirements.

I've done the supermarket mountain bike thing myself when I was young and poor, but having worked on countless bikes over the years I'd never encourage anyone to buy one. Fpr someone with a job who's got the alternative of driving or public transport, a cheap bike isn't going to incentivise them to start cycling to work.

Gurgle wrote: »

Scrappage scheme anyone?

There's also tax incentives for buying electric cars. Or at least there used to be. Not sure if they're still in place.

antoobrien

seamus wrote: »

You've tried to claim that people cycling dangerously somehow deters other people from cycling, but you've failed to explain why.

Yes I have - I'd suggest you go back and read my post again but since you didn't get it the first time I'll try again. I stated that people see the results of dangerous behaviour of cyclists and think the activity itself is dangerous as a result, hence acting as a deterrent to people that may cycle if they believed it was safe.

AngryLips

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

For what it's worth, the one area of fraud under the scheme that does seem to have occurred is bike shops allowing people to buy other stuff and issuing an invoice for a bike. I've heard of a few instances of that, but I'm not sure how long it will last since I gather at least one shop has been reported to the Revenue already.

This is entirely permitted as part of the scheme.

Owen wrote: »

I'm closing my business this week because of the non stop rain in this country. I do call out bodywork repairs, and if there's even a bit of drizzle, I can't work. I've eeked out a living for 3 years now, but can't do it anymore. There have been very few rainless days in the last 3 years.

In the grand scheme of things most cyclists would spend on average 30 minutes commuting each way whereas, if you're working outside all day, then of course your chances of being rained on are much higher.

Chips Lovell

AngryLips wrote: »

This is entirely permitted as part of the scheme.

Issuing fake invoices is permitted under the scheme? You're only allowed buy complete bikes or listed safety equipment. What I'm talking about are people buying new race wheels or, in one case, several hundred euro worth of energy gels.

antoobrien

seamus wrote: »

That's not what you said. You said someone hitting you from the side. If another vehicle crashes into the side of yours, it's usually because you've turned across their path.

Actually what I said was:

antoobrien wrote: »

blaming others for cycling into the side of cars that are turning (as opposed to the car turning into the bike)

Now, lets clarify something if you're turning in a car it changes the angle of the car wrt the traffic on the road. So if a car is going to be hit from the original road, the car is going to be hit in the side (i.e. not head on, front or rear) as the side surface is the one that will be most exposed.

For a left turn, it will be on the passenger side - which means you will be approaching the car from the rear - so it's your fault for not leaving adequate slowing space behind the vehicle in front (car, truck, bus or bike - this is immutable).

There is a specific incident I have in mind, which I have seen repeated a number of times with a number of variations. Here's the basic, which I witnessed from behind the car in question as I was driving:
Car driving along the road indicates in good time (several seconds in advance).
Cyclist (in this case on the path) fails to note the signal (despite coming up to traffic lights) and continues on at the same speed.
The gap when the car signals is 50m, more than enough time to make most left turns (bearing in mind we are in an urban setting) so the car starts to turn.
The cyclist fails to notice, while cycling on a footpath (no cycle lane) closing the without slowing.
Cyclist proceeds to hit the car in the rear passenger door.

In this case the cyclist is clearly at fault for failing to observe traffic on on the road and act accordingly.

If on the other hand the car was turning right and the same thing happened the car driver would have been at fault - for precisely the same reason.