"Ten ways to cut the cost of driving"

Iwannahurl

Number 10 is "get a bike", but walking and public transport are not mentioned.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/oct/25/ten-ways-cut-cost-of-driving

corktina

no 11 don't be me.

Cookie_Monster

'drive less' doesn't feature...

MGWR

Well well well. The Grauniad publishing a strictly pro-driving (aside from getting a bike) article? They're suddenly "right wing"?

Iwannahurl

Curiously enough, Patrick Collinson says he cycles on weekdays.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2010/may/01/save-800-pounds-year-petrol

Cycling ought to have been 'sold' harder, while walking and public transport ought to have been mentioned at least, in context.

'Driving less' is another omission.

L1011

"get a bike" doesn't cut the cost of driving - it eliminates it (for what trips you do on it). It, and your other suggestions, don't belong in that list as named at all.

If it was "cut the cost of transport" or "cut the cost of your commute" or similar, sure.

AltAccount

Yeah, seems a bit stupid.

Wanna cut the cost of driving? Don't drive

Genius!!

No Pants

AltAccount wrote: »

Yeah, seems a bit stupid.

Wanna cut the cost of driving? Don't drive

Genius!!

Not forgetting that bikes are free, so it's an easy money saver...

Greenmachine

I have friend who exclusively cycle and use public transport. One of them spent €1600 on his bike. Granted you can get a bike for much less. It is an over simplification to suggest it would save on the cost of driving. No idea what the costs of having work done on a bike typical cost, new tubes etc. Secondly you can't carry passenger on a bike, never mind the increased risk of a bicycle being stolen or vandalised vs the same happening to a car. I saw it infact only a few day ago from the bus going through summerhill a child of about 10 :O trying to rip someones bike from the pole it was tied to.

sonny jim bob jones

No Pants wrote: »

Not forgetting that bikes are free, so it's an easy money saver...

Where can I get my free bike?

alastair

Greenmachine wrote: »

I have friend who exclusively cycle and use public transport. One of them spent €1600 on his bike. Granted you can get a bike for much less. It is an over simplification to suggest it would save on the cost of driving. No idea what the costs of having work done on a bike typical cost, new tubes etc. Secondly you can't carry passenger on a bike, never mind the increased risk of a bicycle being stolen or vandalised vs the same happening to a car. I saw it infact only a few day ago from the bus going through summerhill a child of about 10 :O trying to rip someones bike from the pole it was tied to.

A practical commuting bike can be bought for far less than €1600, and can last you years. Bike maintenance is a relatively cheap and simple DIY activity, and tubes are both cheap and shouldn't need replacing often (I think I've replaced maybe four tubes over the last six years). You can certainly carry a child passenger on a bike, but how many of your car journeys are passenger-free (if we're looking for ways of reducing your driving overhead)? I've seen cars being stolen in the Summerhill area as well, is this an argument against all means of private transport then?

Clearly there are pros and cons for both driving and cycling, but to suggest that mixing cycling into your transportation mix won't cut down your driving commitment is not overly simplistic. It's a cheap and viable alternative for many.

Disclaimer - I both drive and cycle (an 18 year old bike), with the car reserved for longer journeys and/or 'big shop' trips.

No Pants

sonny jim bob jones wrote: »

Where can I get my free bike?

I was using sarcasm to highlight the author ignoring the substantial cost of a bike.

SeanW

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Number 10 is "get a bike", but walking and public transport are not mentioned.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/oct/25/ten-ways-cut-cost-of-driving

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Curiously enough, Patrick Collinson says he cycles on weekdays.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2010/may/01/save-800-pounds-year-petrol

Cycling ought to have been 'sold' harder, while walking and public transport ought to have been mentioned at least, in context.

'Driving less' is another omission.

Why would these be advocated? To include those as a way to reduce the cost of driving would be the same as saying.

"Cut the cost of your morning coffee by drinking water"

If someone seriously suggested that, you would laugh them into the next century. Even the Guardian seems to have limits on the depth of questionability to which it will descend.

bk

Greenmachine wrote: »

I have friend who exclusively cycle and use public transport. One of them spent €1600 on his bike. Granted you can get a bike for much less. It is an over simplification to suggest it would save on the cost of driving. No idea what the costs of having work done on a bike typical cost, new tubes etc. Secondly you can't carry passenger on a bike, never mind the increased risk of a bicycle being stolen or vandalised vs the same happening to a car. I saw it infact only a few day ago from the bus going through summerhill a child of about 10 :O trying to rip someones bike from the pole it was tied to.

That is an extreme, obviously an enthusiast cyclists, you can buy a perfectly good commuting bike for €100.

A person who spends €1600 on a bike, is probably a member of a racing or mountain biking club and it is their hobby. Such a person would still have spent that money on a bike, even if s/he drove to work every day.

Maintenance is relatively very cheap and you can easily learn to do it your self off the internet or even get lessons from rothar.ie

Doing your own maintenance on a bike is relatively easy compared to a car, bikes are mechanically very simple.

You can also get a dutch bike which are built like bricks and need almost no maintenance.

Tires only cost about €5 and need replacing for most people only every few years.

There is no more risk of your bike getting stolen then a car, in particular if you follow advice on how to properly secure your bike. You can also get insurance for a bike.

You can also get trailers for carrying children or food/shopping.

I would agree cycling isn't totally free, but practically it is easily the cheapest form of transport after just walking.

Previously I cycled for 10 years on a bike that I paid €500 for and probably spent €50 more on parts for. Show me any form of transport that comes close to €55 per year!

Iwannahurl

bk wrote: »

I would agree cycling isn't totally free, but practically it is easily the cheapest form of transport after just walking.

According to the AA, most drivers fork out €250 every month just for fuel:

Keeping cars in good condition, taxed and full of fuel is no easy thing. Fuel alone sets most of us back nearly €250 per month. That’s €3,000 a year and you will need to earn €6,000 to bring that home. And that’s only the fuel.

Servicing, parts and maintenance cost a fortune as well and of course we are all paying road tax [sic]. At least we all should be – there are artful dodgers out there too who we are all subsidising.

I have a trailer for the bike which cost nearly €900 including accessories. Compared to the fuel costs quoted above, it paid for itself in four months, without taking any other motoring expenditure into account.

I also bought an expensive new bike recently for the eldest child, to do the 3 km school run.

Even adding the purchase and maintenance costs of my own bike to the above, the total is still far less than owning and running a car.

I'd be nuts to buy another car, or to use the existing one more.

Aard

I recall reading somewhere (granted it's a few years ago now) that the average annual cost of running a car in Ireland (including fuel, maintenance, tax, depreciation) is €11,200. That seems like a very luxurious outgoing, for what you get for your money.

Of course, for many drivers cutting out driving entirely is not an option. But I can see many drivers becoming more "multi modal", especially in areas with good public transport and good mix of landuse (nearby shops, offices etc).

While perhaps cycling shouldn't feature on the Guardian's list, it is nonetheless part of the wider debate on how expensive it is to own and run a car.

No Pants

The problem with car ownership is that pretty much once you have one, you have costs whether you use it or not; motor tax and insurance.

My missus has changed offices and is now taking the bus to work. I'm going to look into either insuring her car only for the weekends or getting rid of it altogether.

Aard

Understandably, the "upfront" costs of a car make you want to get your money's worth once you buy one. There's not much scope though to put more of the tax burden on fuel rather than on motor tax. Increasing fuel excise is far more politically suicidal than increasing motor tax.

That said, we also have a very specific problem in Ireland: we drive too much. Again this is something I read a couple years back so it could be incorrect by now, but Irish people on average drive much more than Germans and even Americans. (I think the figures were around 22,000 km/annum versus half that for Germans and Americans, surprisingly enough). If people are worried about the cost of driving, they have to ask themselves how much of their driving is absolutely necessary, and how much of it is discretionary.

No Pants

Aard wrote: »

Irish people on average drive much more than[...]Americans.

Now that is surprising.

monument

MYOB wrote: »

"get a bike" doesn't cut the cost of driving - it eliminates it (for what trips you do on it). It, and your other suggestions, don't belong in that list as named at all.

If it was "cut the cost of transport" or "cut the cost of your commute" or similar, sure.

Most Irish cyclists have a car and a bicycle -- getting a bike and using it for some trips does not eliminate the cost of motoring, it just reduces or cuts the cost.

AltAccount wrote: »

Yeah, seems a bit stupid.

Wanna cut the cost of driving? Don't drive

Genius!!

There's quite a bit of a difference between saying "don't drive" and saying "don't driver as much".

SeanW wrote: »

Why would these be advocated? To include those as a way to reduce the cost of driving would be the same as saying.

"Cut the cost of your morning coffee by drinking water"

If someone seriously suggested that, you would laugh them into the next century. Even the Guardian seems to have limits on the depth of questionability to which it will descend.

Saying drive less isn't like saying cut out coffee in the morning. It's more like saying cut down on coffee -- say, from four cups a day to two.

No Pants wrote: »

I was using sarcasm to highlight the author ignoring the substantial cost of a bike.

It's not substantial compared to just running a car (even with annual costs excluded).

No Pants

monument wrote: »

It's not substantial compared to just running a car (even with annual costs excluded).

Agreed, but the price of a decent bike plus panniers and whatever gear you need is more than most people could afford at once without savings or a loan.

Or maybe it's just me.

Iwannahurl

Aard wrote: »

Understandably, the "upfront" costs of a car make you want to get your money's worth once you buy one. There's not much scope though to put more of the tax burden on fuel rather than on motor tax. Increasing fuel excise is far more politically suicidal than increasing motor tax.

That said, we also have a very specific problem in Ireland: we drive too much. Again this is something I read a couple years back so it could be incorrect by now, but Irish people on average drive much more than Germans and even Americans. (I think the figures were around 22,000 km/annum versus half that for Germans and Americans, surprisingly enough). If people are worried about the cost of driving, they have to ask themselves how much of their driving is absolutely necessary, and how much of it is discretionary.

I'm not challenging you on Irish versus American levels of driving, because I have no evidence to the contrary, but I would like to see some official figures.

My gut instinct would be that Americans top the league in that regard. Their modal share for car use is generally higher than in the EU, and I would have thought that outside the main cities development is very low density, leading to greater car dependency and bigger travel distances.

Regardless, we still drive way too much in Ireland even over short distances, despite the allegedly prohibitive costs.

SeanW

monument wrote: »

Saying drive less isn't like saying cut out coffee in the morning. It's more like saying cut down on coffee -- say, from four cups a day to two.

But I am sure you would agree that other items should feature higher e.g.
"If you go to Starbucks, consider going to a cheaper coffee shop"
"Consider getting an in-office brewing kit and using store bought beans"
"Then, shop around, including Aldi and Lidl for better value beans"

I am sure you would agree that these ideas should feature higher than stuff like
"Dilute your coffee"
"Drink less of it"
"Give it up"

Iwannahurl

No Pants wrote: »

Agreed, but the price of a decent bike plus panniers and whatever gear you need is more than most people could afford at once without savings or a loan.

Cheap credit fuelled the Irish housing bubble, and it's currently fuelling the boom in UK car sales. (Alternative URL: http://www.just-auto.com/news/record-credit-levels-drive-uk-car-boom_id138966.aspx)

Perhaps we need a government-sponsored low-cost credit scheme for purchasing bicycles and bus passes, to augment the Bike to Work Scheme and tax relief on public transport expenditure?

No Pants

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Perhaps we need a government-sponsored low-cost credit scheme for purchasing bicycles and bus passes, to augment the Bike to Work Scheme and tax relief on public transport expenditure?

Okay, okay, you got me. Right now, I'm poor. Happy now?

(I have no smilies to use)

Iwannahurl

I'm being serious.

If such one-off costs are out of reach for some people, why should they not be able to avail of cheap credit? Why should such opportunities only be available for car purchase?

Another possible option for commuters with liquidity problems, subject to availability, is a Shared Bike Scheme.

No Pants

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I'm being serious.

If such one-off costs are out of reach for some people, why should they not be able to avail of cheap credit? Why should such opportunities only be available for car purchase?

Another possible option for commuters with liquidity problems, subject to availability, is a Shared Bike Scheme.

My main problem is not a lack of funds, rather convincing the missus that it's a worthwhile purchase. Liquidity if you prefer.

Idbatterim

well the costs of car ownership are relatively fixed i.e insurance, motor tax etc, they arent cheap, so people drive everywhere and are lazy to an extent to get value out of their investment...

monument

SeanW wrote: »

But I am sure you would agree that other items should feature higher e.g.
"If you go to Starbucks, consider going to a cheaper coffee shop"
"Consider getting an in-office brewing kit and using store bought beans"
"Then, shop around, including Aldi and Lidl for better value beans"

I am sure you would agree that these ideas should feature higher than stuff like
"Dilute your coffee"
"Drink less of it"
"Give it up"

In this case that actual thing being done is travel. A version of "If you go to Starbucks, consider going to a cheaper coffee shop" applies: "If you make all trips by car, consider using a bicycles as a cheaper way to make some trips."

bk

No Pants wrote: »

Agreed, but the price of a decent bike plus panniers and whatever gear you need is more than most people could afford at once without savings or a loan.

Or maybe it's just me.

It is just you.

I'm sorry but a bike really is by far the cheapest form of transport.

You don't need an expensive bike, panniers and all that expensive gear you see people buying under the cycle to work scheme. They can help and make cycling easier and more fun, but cycling can be really cheap and almost free:

1) Ask family and friends do any of them have a bike you can borrow for a few months that they aren't using? (many people buy a bike with good intentions and then don't use it, everyone knows someone like that).

2) Buy a bike second hand for €50 off adverts, etc.

3) Even better buy a refurbished good bike for €130 off www.rothar.ie

4) You don't need panniers, just use whatever old backpack you have lying around.

5) Just use whatever rain jacket you already have.

Seriously, cycling can be seriously cheap. I think you are just looking for excuses now.

oppenheimer1

bk wrote: »

That is an extreme, obviously an enthusiast cyclists, you can buy a perfectly good commuting bike for €100.

A person who spends €1600 on a bike, is probably a member of a racing or mountain biking club and it is their hobby. Such a person would still have spent that money on a bike, even if s/he drove to work every day.

Maintenance is relatively very cheap and you can easily learn to do it your self off the internet or even get lessons from rothar.ie

Doing your own maintenance on a bike is relatively easy compared to a car, bikes are mechanically very simple.

You can also get a dutch bike which are built like bricks and need almost no maintenance.

Tires only cost about €5 and need replacing for most people only every few years.

There is no more risk of your bike getting stolen then a car, in particular if you follow advice on how to properly secure your bike. You can also get insurance for a bike.

You can also get trailers for carrying children or food/shopping.

I would agree cycling isn't totally free, but practically it is easily the cheapest form of transport after just walking.

Previously I cycled for 10 years on a bike that I paid €500 for and probably spent €50 more on parts for. Show me any form of transport that comes close to €55 per year!

I have an old bike that I cycle the short distance to work on every day. Granted I live in the UK now, but the costs of getting a bicycle on the road are not as small as I imagined they would.

I had my bicycle already, but to get it road ready, and all the safety gear cost in the region of the equivalent of £200. The idea of €5 tyres, you wouldn't even get a tube for that price. Tyres are €25 minimum each, and for a better tyre you're looking at €35-40. Cycling isn't expensive over all, but it does have start up and running costs that should not be brushed over as being insignificant.

The Government should be looking at ways to inventivise bicycle ownership and use. Perhaps something worth looking at is the EU Bicycle import levy of 48.5% that is on bicycles imported from China.

Banjoxed

I have a helmet and a hi viz, but buying a load of other gear to dress up before cycling I find frankly risible. Unless someone really wants to buy a gimp suit.

Iwannahurl

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The Government should be looking at ways to inventivise bicycle ownership and use. Perhaps something worth looking at is the EU Bicycle import levy of 48.5% that is on bicycles imported from China.

I wasn't aware of that levy, but I'd be interested in the EU's economic justification for it.

Not sure I'd buy a cheap Chinese bike though. I already have enough rust to be getting on with.

In the Irish context, what I find odd is the way we are joined at the hip with the UK. As far as I can see, most of our bikes come from or through the neighbouring island, and even specialist importers of Dutch bikes are somehow or other tied in with British dealers. It's as if Ireland hasn't yet noticed that it's a member of the EU.

I'd be happy to buy a European (Dutch, Danish, German) bike in Ireland if I was allowed to.

bk

Banjoxed wrote: »

I have a helmet and a hi viz, but buying a load of other gear to dress up before cycling I find frankly risible. Unless someone really wants to buy a gimp suit.

You don't even need a helmet or high viz.

Neither are legally required in Ireland and it is very questionable if a helmet adds any safety in slow moving commuting type cycling.

As you say you certainly don't need any other special gear.

oppenheimer1, why would you need to replace tyres? Unless you are using a bike for hours every day, a set of tyres should last you years. In fact I expect most people never replace the tyres that the bike originally came with.

If you are using your bike enough that you have to replace the tyres regularly, well you are getting great use out of it anyway and a car would cost you vastly more.

Tubes might need to be replaced every few years, but they only cost €5 and you can patch them too.

I find many people look for excuses not to cycle.

In fairness to the government, the cycle to work scheme is pretty fantastic way to promote cycling, has been a massive success and is the envy of many foreign friends of mine living in other EU countries with no similar schemes.

The cycle to work scheme offers:
- Up to 52% off the cost of a bike and all the gear
- Payments spread out over 12 months.

However I do agree this scheme could be improved upon. The biggest problem with it at the moment is that your employer has to run the scheme and some smaller employers don't bother to run it.

I'd rather see the revenue department run it directly, so that all people who work can avail of it.

They should also do the same with the tax saver travel scheme.

For students and the unemployed, I'd like to see them introduce an interest free loan to reduce the start up costs and allow people to pay it off gradually over 2 years.

L1011

monument wrote: »

Most Irish cyclists have a car and a bicycle -- getting a bike and using it for some trips does not eliminate the cost of motoring, it just reduces or cuts the cost.

I said "for that trip".

Nothing in a massive argument about the cost of cycling changes the fact that throwing "use a bike" in an article about reducing the cost of driving is about as valid as "buy some condoms" in an article about reducing the cost of childcare.

alastair

MYOB wrote: »

I said "for that trip".

Nothing in a massive argument about the cost of cycling changes the fact that throwing "use a bike" in an article about reducing the cost of driving is about as valid as "buy some condoms" in an article about reducing the cost of childcare.

It makes perfect sense in the terms the article outlines:

As the government launches a campaign to bring down motoring costs, we look at some of the best ways to put the brakes on your spending

The condom route has the undoubted benefit of putting the brakes on childcare costs, no?

AltAccount

alastair wrote: »

The condom route has the undoubted benefit of putting the brakes on childcare costs, no?

It makes sense in an article about "How not to have childcare costs", not so much in "how to reduce your childcare costs".


It's amazing that they bothered putting the bike advice in there when there are more obvious things still available:
-Turn off aircon, on hotter days park in the shade
-Keep your windows & suroof closed
-Remove your roofrack when not in use
-They shouldn't have glossed over shopping around for insurance quotes
-Remove any unnecessary weight you're carrying
-Better route planning


"Take a bike instead" is up there with "Move house so you're closer to your destination" when you're talking about cutting the cost of driving IMHO.

alastair

AltAccount wrote: »

It makes sense in an article about "How not to have childcare costs", not so much in "how to reduce your childcare costs".

Not really. It removes additional childcare costs - very effectively.

Removing the need for additional driving is a perfectly reasonable strategy to reduce driving costs.

bk

AltAccount wrote: »

"Take a bike instead" is up there with "Move house so you're closer to your destination" when you're talking about cutting the cost of driving IMHO.

And you know what, such advice can often be very useful.

Far too many people don't think out of the box and look for alternative ways of fixing a problem.

If you are renting, then moving closer to your work place can be a perfectly valid way to reduce motoring costs and also improve quality of life (less time spent commuting).

Too often I've seen friends and colleagues who are single/have no kids who have gone and brainlessly bought a three bed semi-d out in the middle of nowhere and then have to commute for three hours every day to work and are wrecked from it and have no social life due to lack of time and money.

Personally I actually thought about it and took a different approach, I bought an apartment close to the city and where I work. My commute consists of a pleasant 10 minute cycle to work. My friends out in the semi-d's are all very jealous now as they see my great social life where I'm out at some concert, comedy gig, cinema, etc. almost every night of the week as I have both the time and the money (due to not having the expense of owning a car).

So sometimes it really is a good idea to point out alternatives to people.

As an example we often get threads on this forum with people asking about long distance commutes to work or college. We often point out it might be cheaper and easier to move closer to the work/college and I'd say in over 50% of the cases people go, oh right, I didn't think of that and actually move instead!

Padraig Mor

bk wrote: »

- Up to 52% off the cost of a bike and all the gear

Up to 62.5% for public sector workers.

bk

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Up to 62.5% for public sector workers.

Really? Why is that?

No Pants

bk wrote: »

Seriously, cycling can be seriously cheap. I think you are just looking for excuses now.

Not at all. I have plenty of gear already and I do cycle to work, but more between April and September. I'm more looking for reasons to buy another road bike.

Padraig Mor

bk wrote: »

Really? Why is that?

You escape the pension levy (up to 10.5%) as well. The employer also saves the 10.75% employer PRSI contribution so it's win win all round. I'm presuming here that the tax treatment of the bike scheme is the same as the Taxsaver commuter scheme, which I'm 99% sure it is. I haven't used the bike scheme but did use the Taxsaver scheme previously and this was how it was treated - although I did have to tell my (large, public sector) employer about the pension levy bit!

_Kaiser_

bk wrote: »

And you know what, such advice can often be very useful.

Far too many people don't think out of the box and look for alternative ways of fixing a problem.

If you are renting, then moving closer to your work place can be a perfectly valid way to reduce motoring costs and also improve quality of life (less time spent commuting).

Too often I've seen friends and colleagues who are single/have no kids who have gone and brainlessly bought a three bed semi-d out in the middle of nowhere and then have to commute for three hours every day to work and are wrecked from it and have no social life due to lack of time and money.

Personally I actually thought about it and took a different approach, I bought an apartment close to the city and where I work. My commute consists of a pleasant 10 minute cycle to work. My friends out in the semi-d's are all very jealous now as they see my great social life where I'm out at some concert, comedy gig, cinema, etc. almost every night of the week as I have both the time and the money (due to not having the expense of owning a car.

But surely by living closer to the city you paid significantly more, and probably a higher property tax, service charges etc than your friends in the country?

This problem is worse again if you're renting due to the annual increases that has started again in Dublin.

What you're saving on the car you're paying on your mortgage/rent and generally higher costs of living.

All that said, I do agree that buying a semi-D in the middle of nowhere and spending 3/4 hours a day commuting to and from it isn't sustainable either in the long term but really both issues are the result of the Irish obsession with owning property ("Get on the property ladder" is a term I particularly despise as it led to situations like your friends find themselves in, but it'll no doubt soon be back as the bubble starts to expand again!).

A better idea would be sustainable, high-density housing with proper facilities and infrastructure (schools, shops, decent roads, public transport etc) rather than our one-off's everywhere with the nearest shop being 3 miles away down a windy country lane!

A reformed rental market with long term leasing options (rather than the current situation where 2 years in the same place is considered "ages") would also be a significant improvement, AND have the added benefit of weaning us off our Irish need to buy and sell overpriced property to each other - cause we've already seen how well that works out!

oppenheimer1

bk wrote: »

You don't even need a helmet or high viz.

Neither are legally required in Ireland and it is very questionable if a helmet adds any safety in slow moving commuting type cycling.

As you say you certainly don't need any other special gear.

oppenheimer1, why would you need to replace tyres? Unless you are using a bike for hours every day, a set of tyres should last you years. In fact I expect most people never replace the tyres that the bike originally came with.

If you are using your bike enough that you have to replace the tyres regularly, well you are getting great use out of it anyway and a car would cost you vastly more.

Tubes might need to be replaced every few years, but they only cost €5 and you can patch them too.

I find many people look for excuses not to cycle.

I agree, many people often use excuses for not cycling, usually citing the weather as the reason (which is a bogus excuse btw). I'm actually very pro-cycling and use my bicycle every day. What I don't like to see is people essentially saying is that once the bicycle is purchased thats the end of spending money on it.

If it gets moderate use and is looked after reasonably well will probably on get 1500 miles out of brake pads, tyres, bearings, chain, and sprocket set. Like any machine there is a maintenance cost for bicycles too. This is something thats never discussed by bicycle advocates at all.

Banjoxed

bk wrote: »

You don't even need a helmet or high viz.

Neither are legally required in Ireland and it is very questionable if a helmet adds any safety in slow moving commuting type cycling.

As you say you certainly don't need any other special gear.

oppenheimer1, why would you need to replace tyres? Unless you are using a bike for hours every day, a set of tyres should last you years. In fact I expect most people never replace the tyres that the bike originally came with.

If you are using your bike enough that you have to replace the tyres regularly, well you are getting great use out of it anyway and a car would cost you vastly more.

Tubes might need to be replaced every few years, but they only cost €5 and you can patch them too.

I find many people look for excuses not to cycle.

In fairness to the government, the cycle to work scheme is pretty fantastic way to promote cycling, has been a massive success and is the envy of many foreign friends of mine living in other EU countries with no similar schemes.

The cycle to work scheme offers:
- Up to 52% off the cost of a bike and all the gear
- Payments spread out over 12 months.

However I do agree this scheme could be improved upon. The biggest problem with it at the moment is that your employer has to run the scheme and some smaller employers don't bother to run it.

I'd rather see the revenue department run it directly, so that all people who work can avail of it.

They should also do the same with the tax saver travel scheme.

For students and the unemployed, I'd like to see them introduce an interest free loan to reduce the start up costs and allow people to pay it off gradually over 2 years.

I don't legally have to have the helmet and hiviz but in the rural area where I live it would be suicidal not to have them, along with front and back lights. Whether they should be compulsory or not I don't give a damn, but a cyclist here would be a dead or injured wanker if they didn't have them.

Iwannahurl

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Like any machine there is a maintenance cost for bicycles too. This is something thats never discussed by bicycle advocates at all.

Because the cost is negligible perhaps?

I've had a few occasions where I've needed to fork out for repairs (eg wheel damage) or upgrades (eg puncture-resistant tyres) but it's chicken feed compared to the car.

Just today I was speaking to a woman who had to pay €600 for repairs to her van, and when the garage returned it there was no diesel in the tank (another €90 maybe?).

That's more than I paid for my bike a few years ago, and two-thirds the cost of the trailer.

monument

AltAccount wrote: »

"Take a bike instead" is up there with "Move house so you're closer to your destination" when you're talking about cutting the cost of driving IMHO.

Just to add to BK's point:

For a huge bulk of people moving house is a lot harder than getting on a bicycle and replacing some car trips with cycling.

oppenheimer1

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Because the cost is negligible perhaps?

I've had a few occasions where I've needed to fork out for repairs (eg wheel damage) or upgrades (eg puncture-resistant tyres) but it's chicken feed compared to the car.

Just today I was speaking to a woman who had to pay €600 for repairs to her van, and when the garage returned it there was no diesel in the tank (another €90 maybe?).

That's more than I paid for my bike a few years ago, and two-thirds the cost of the trailer.

I wouldn't say negligable. Keeping the bicycle on the road costs about €150 for me, or three months of bus tickets. Its a considerable cost to me.

monument

Banjoxed wrote: »

I don't legally have to have the helmet and hiviz but in the rural area where I live it would be suicidal not to have them, along with front and back lights. Whether they should be compulsory or not I don't give a damn, but a cyclist here would be a dead or injured wanker if they didn't have them.

If you want to call people suicidal **** you can do so elsewhere.

Read the charter.

Mod.

MGWR

No Pants wrote: »

Not forgetting that bikes are free, so it's an easy money saver...

Where are they giving away bikes? You get free maintenance as well?