Subsidies for ebikes

Gekko

Interesting to see that the government is beginning to look at this

Coupled with proper infrastructure being built it would be very welcome

I was thinking of buying an ebike but will now wait to see what happens before doing so

ted1

Gekko wrote: »

Interesting to see that the government is beginning to look at this

Coupled with proper infrastructure being built it would be very welcome

I was thinking of buying an ebike but will now wait to see what happens before doing so

The way I see it is that an annual travel pass can give a tax saving of about 1500 euro per year.
The bike to work is worth 85 euro saving a year.

There’s a lot of scope to bring incentives for environmental friendly travel up online with grants/ tax savings for other modes of transport

Look at the subsidies for electric cars which do nothing to elevate traffic congestion.

loyatemu

Gekko wrote: »

Interesting to see that the government is beginning to look at this

Coupled with proper infrastructure being built it would be very welcome

I was thinking of buying an ebike but will now wait to see what happens before doing so

where have you seen that?

Tenzor07

Gekko wrote: »

Interesting to see that the government is beginning to look at this

Got a link for this?

Seth Brundle

Gekko wrote: »

Interesting to see that the government is beginning to look at this

Coupled with proper infrastructure being built it would be very welcome

I was thinking of buying an ebike but will now wait to see what happens before doing so

When are they planning to look into the idea of creating proper infrastructure?

Utter Consternation

Seth Brundle wrote: »

When are they planning to look into the idea of creating proper infrastructure?

'If you build it, they will cycle.'

A famous quote from an old movie.

Kaisr Sose

ted1 wrote: »

The way I see it is that an annual travel pass can give a tax saving of about 1500 euro per year.
The bike to work is worth 85 euro saving a year.

There’s a lot of scope to bring incentives for environmental friendly travel up online with grants/ tax savings for other modes of transport

Look at the subsidies for electric cars which do nothing to elevate traffic congestion.

I don't see and economic or environmental correlation between a subsidy on a travel pass and a bike. At least when you buy the travel pass it's a bearer instrument and used as per the intention of the scheme. A subsidy on e-bike is no guarantee it would take a co2 producing vehicle off the road. It may just buy a bigger lawnmower or fancier something else. Even if an e-bike is bought, the person my not use it for work trips it may be a leisure bike.

Grassey

Kaisr Sose wrote:

the person my not use it for work trips it may be a leisure bike.

No different than the BTW scheme then. But getting people to use ebike for short trips to shops, neighbours, gym etc would be better then having them sat in a car for a 2/3 km journey

loyatemu

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

I don't see and economic or environmental correlation between a subsidy on a travel pass and a bike. At least when you buy the travel pass it's a bearer instrument and used as per the intention of the scheme. A subsidy on e-bike is no guarantee it would take a co2 producing vehicle off the road. It may just buy a bigger lawnmower or fancier something else. Even if an e-bike is bought, the person my not use it for work trips it may be a leisure bike.

anything that gets more people out cycling is good IMO. eBikes have a lot of potential for people who may not be (or feel) fit or young enough for a normal bike, or for longer commutes.

They've become very popular in the Netherlands, in general I think they know what they're doing there when it comes to active travel.

Padre_Pio

loyatemu wrote: »

anything that gets more people out cycling is good IMO. eBikes have a lot of potential for people who may not be (or feel) fit or young enough for a normal bike, or for longer commutes.

They've become very popular in the Netherlands, in general I think they know what they're doing there when it comes to active travel.

Totally agree.

Most people see daily cycling as a PITA. I think ebikes are fantastic at getting people onto a bike, and they quickly see the benefits.

I know plenty of workplaces have showers etc, but it's hard to justify arriving to work sweaty to most people.

Macy0161

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

I don't see and economic or environmental correlation between a subsidy on a travel pass and a bike. At least when you buy the travel pass it's a bearer instrument and used as per the intention of the scheme. A subsidy on e-bike is no guarantee it would take a co2 producing vehicle off the road. It may just buy a bigger lawnmower or fancier something else. Even if an e-bike is bought, the person my not use it for work trips it may be a leisure bike.

I don't know whether the non-bike purchase is as rampant as it was when the scheme first launched. However, the vast majority of Bike To Work bikes I see people in my organisation buy, are used for cycling to work. Those that aren't, mostly it's a case of an older bike becoming the commuter, so they are cycling to work more.

The biggest blocker of people using BTW bikes for biking to work imo, is actually security of parking. This would be my personal concern with an ebike too, and why it wasn't really on my agenda.

I don't see why ebikes shouldn't be subject to the same schemes and benefits as electric vehicles, which take zero cars off the road, a 100% of the time! That should be the way they are classified, rather than as bikes and on the bike to work scheme.

Just as an aside, plenty in my work who have a travel pass drive in often too.

Kaisr Sose

I am not against e-bikes. They are great way to open the joy of cycling to those who may not otherwise partake. No argument there.

I don't however see the need for a substantial subsidy for them. In my opinion, and based on experience of how these schemes are run, it will be abused. Lots of kids bikes have been bought on the current B2W scheme, as well as prams, lawnmowers, domestic appliances, etc.

Its all well and good citing Holland as an example, but this is not Holland. Our culture is different and our history with cycling, motoring attitude to cyclists, our traffic laws and infrastructure are all substantially in deficit.

Other than having a growing number of people who choose to cycle, or just own bikes, we have very little in common with it, or Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, all of whom are way ahead in supporting cycling as a safe and viable alternative to the motor vehicle. That is where the focus need to be, not getting more people on bikes on poor, or incomplete infrastructure.

A question for the poster that raised Holland, do they subsidise e-bikes, and if so, how?

Tenzor07

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

I don't however see the need for a substantial subsidy for them.
A question for the poster that raised Holland, do they subsidise e-bikes, and if so, how?

The Netherlands and Belgium too I believe, pay people something like 26c per KM to cycle to work, as well as €1000 towards the purchase of the bike iirc.

The whole issue is that eBikes of any decent quality would start at around €2,500.
So the BTW scheme allowance needs to double.

loyatemu

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Lots of kids bikes have been bought on the current B2W scheme, as well as prams, lawnmowers, domestic appliances, etc.

I can believe the kids bikes, or buying a bike for your partner (and I don't really have a problem with it, the more cyclists the better). Lawnmowers, domestic appliances etc, really? The retailer is putting themselves at risk doing stuff like that, why would they?

Utter Consternation

loyatemu wrote: »

I can believe the kids bikes, or buying a bike for your partner (and I don't really have a problem with it, the more cyclists the better). Lawnmowers, domestic appliances etc, really? The retailer is putting themselves at risk doing stuff like that, why would they?

I've heard it happens but i've never heard that it has actually happened. It's always some lad who knows a lad who knows a lad.

LeinsterDub

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

I am not against e-bikes. They are great way to open the joy of cycling to those who may not otherwise partake. No argument there.

I don't however see the need for a substantial subsidy for them. In my opinion, and based on experience of how these schemes are run, it will be abused. Lots of kids bikes have been bought on the current B2W scheme, as well as prams, lawnmowers, domestic appliances, etc.

Its all well and good citing Holland as an example, but this is not Holland. Our culture is different and our history with cycling, motoring attitude to cyclists, our traffic laws and infrastructure are all substantially in deficit.

Other than having a growing number of people who choose to cycle, or just own bikes, we have very little in common with it, or Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, all of whom are way ahead in supporting cycling as a safe and viable alternative to the motor vehicle. That is where the focus need to be, not getting more people on bikes on poor, or incomplete infrastructure.

A question for the poster that raised Holland, do they subsidise e-bikes, and if so, how?

So just continue with the massive subsidy for cars? Holland wasn't Holland in the 60's

Macy0161

Utter Consternation wrote: »

I've heard it happens but i've never heard that it has actually happened. It's always some lad who knows a lad who knows a lad.

Yeah, never actually had anything concrete on someone not getting a bike.

Holland made a decision to move away from car domination in the 70's.

ebikes reduce the physical exertion and increase the potential commuting distances. Both of which are blockers to people commuting by bike.

magicbastarder

Macy0161 wrote: »

I don't see why ebikes shouldn't be subject to the same schemes and benefits as electric vehicles

it's probably been made above, but it's a trivial argument that e-bikes are subsidised if bought through the BTW scheme.
however, as also mentioned above, subsidies are a minor factor in reasons why we don't see more e-bikes.

Dr_Colossus

Macy0161 wrote: »

The biggest blocker of people using BTW bikes for biking to work imo, is actually security of parking. This would be my personal concern with an ebike too, and why it wasn't really on my agenda.

+1 and not just cycling to work but cycling to shops etc. Until proper secure facilities are provided and bike theft is taken seriously with severe punishment imposed on thieves cycling has a higher risk than most modes of transport of your means of transport being stolen. I commute 140km a week by bike but have secure facilities at work and thus I only ever have my bike either at work or home. Shops are a fraction of the distance but it’s probably in excess of 10 years since I last cycled to one, much more convenient to bring the car. For instance the likes of Roselawn or Blancherstown shopping centres only have a few railings to attach your bike to where you often hear of stolen possessions or see remnants left behind. Train and luas stations are another hot spot for thieves whereas otherwise it would be convenient for commuters to cycle to the train/luas station and commute the remaining distance by rail.

Pigeon Reaper

Dr_Colossus wrote: »

+1 and not just cycling to work but cycling to shops etc. Until proper secure facilities are provided and bike theft is taken seriously with severe punishment imposed on thieves cycling has a higher risk than most modes of transport of your means of transport being stolen. I commute 140km a week by bike but have secure facilities at work and thus I only ever have my bike either at work or home. Shops are a fraction of the distance but it’s probably in excess of 10 years since I last cycled to one, much more convenient to bring the car. For instance the likes of Roselawn or Blancherstown shopping centres only have a few railings to attach your bike to where you often hear of stolen possessions or see remnants left behind. Train and luas stations are another hot spot for thieves whereas otherwise it would be convenient for commuters to cycle to the train/luas station and commute the remaining distance by rail.

Secure parking is a huge difference between here and countries with high modal use of bicycles. Many train stations and cities in Holland and Germany have monitored secure bicycle parking which allows the safe parking of e-bikes for commuters.

Kaisr Sose

LeinsterDub wrote: »

So just continue with the massive subsidy for cars? Holland wasn't Holland in the 60's

I did not say that. Its not a fir comparison. Holland have a goal and took a long term view and planned for it. This is not what happens here. Its always short term and more reactionary than vision. Subsidies are not a replacement for infrastructure, but subsidies are short term, infrastructure is long term.

Bigus

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

I am not against e-bikes. They are great way to open the joy of cycling to those who may not otherwise partake. No argument there.

I don't however see the need for a substantial subsidy for them. In my opinion, and based on experience of how these schemes are run, it will be abused. Lots of kids bikes have been bought on the current B2W scheme, as well as prams, lawnmowers, domestic appliances, etc.

Its all well and good citing Holland as an example, but this is not Holland. Our culture is different and our history with cycling, motoring attitude to cyclists, our traffic laws and infrastructure are all substantially in deficit.

Other than having a growing number of people who choose to cycle, or just own bikes, we have very little in common with it, or Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, all of whom are way ahead in supporting cycling as a safe and viable alternative to the motor vehicle. That is where the focus need to be, not getting more people on bikes on poor, or incomplete infrastructure.

A question for the poster that raised Holland, do they subsidise e-bikes, and if so, how?

Yes , We are not Holland, we have lots of hills, we also have lots of wind and we also sometimes have headwind with rain , ebikes mitigate against all of the above in Ireland( heavyer rain gear can be worn ), plus I can go to meetings on my ebike dressed appropriately in chinos shirt and brogues, and not sweating in Lycra and cleats.

Kaisr Sose

Bigus wrote: »

Yes , We are not Holland, we have lots of hills, we also have lots of wind and we also sometimes have headwind with rain , ebikes mitigate against all of the above in Ireland( heavyer rain gear can be worn ), plus I can go to meetings on my ebike dressed appropriately in chinos shirt and brogues, and not sweating in Lycra and cleats.

Very windy in Holland and they have hills too. They also get lots of rain. Under 25kmph, the batter power you will use on an e-bike will not differ on a windy or calm day, or on flat or hilly terrain. The bike and you moving through the air will make up most of the resistance and draw on the battery.

However, you seem to have lots of good reasons to buy an e-bike without a subsidy. The thread is about a subsidy for them, not the merits of them.

LeinsterDub

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Very windy in Holland and they have hills too. They also get lots of rain. Under 25kmph, the batter power you will use on an e-bike will not differ on a windy or calm day, or on flat or hilly terrain. The bike and you moving through the air will make up most of the resistance and draw on the battery.

However, you seem to have lots of good reasons to buy an e-bike without a subsidy. The thread is about a subsidy for them, not the merits of them.

Are you also opposed to the subsidy for eCars? What about the subsidy motoring in general needs? I'm happy not to have eBike subsidy if cars fully pay their way.

Bigus

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Very windy in Holland and they have hills too. They also get lots of rain. Under 25kmph, the batter power you will use on an e-bike will not differ on a windy or calm day, or on flat or hilly terrain. The bike and you moving through the air will make up most of the resistance and draw on the battery.

However, you seem to have lots of good reasons to buy an e-bike without a subsidy. The thread is about a subsidy for them, not the merits of them.

You’re totally incorrect about cycling an ebike into a head wind or up a hill, the extra battery power mitigates against both hills and headwinds and will keep average speed well up compared to a non assisted bike especially under 25 kmh in windy or hilly conditions. This makes cycling more palatable and journey times more predictable.

As for the thread being about subsidies, the point I’m making is that subsidized ebikes would allow for a much broader use by a more diverse range of people in both age fitness that they can replace more and more car and vehicle journeys justifying such subsidies.

ted1

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

I am not against e-bikes. They are great way to open the joy of cycling to those who may not otherwise partake. No argument there.

I don't however see the need for a substantial subsidy for them. In my opinion, and based on experience of how these schemes are run, it will be abused. Lots of kids bikes have been bought on the current B2W scheme, as well as prams, lawnmowers, domestic appliances, etc.

Its all well and good citing Holland as an example, but this is not Holland. Our culture is different and our history with cycling, motoring attitude to cyclists, our traffic laws and infrastructure are all substantially in deficit.

Other than having a growing number of people who choose to cycle, or just own bikes, we have very little in common with it, or Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, all of whom are way ahead in supporting cycling as a safe and viable alternative to the motor vehicle. That is where the focus need to be, not getting more people on bikes on poor, or incomplete infrastructure.

A question for the poster that raised Holland, do they subsidise e-bikes, and if so, how?

Tax fraud is an issue for revenue and not to do with an e bike initiative.

Increasing the number of cyclists will eventually lead in better infrastructure

beauf

ted1 wrote: »

The way I see it is that an annual travel pass can give a tax saving of about 1500 euro per year.
The bike to work is worth 85 euro saving a year.

...

Where do you get those figures from?

ted1

beauf wrote: »

Where do you get those figures from?

Well the bike 2 work is 520 every 5 years. So 104 a year. (Instead of 85)

And the annual tax saver tickets are here

https://www.taxsaver.ie/Ticket-Types/Annual-Tickets/Annual-DARTCommuter-Rail-Dublin-Bus-and-Luas2/

I might have over estimate the tax saver it’s worth up to €946 a year. So over 5 years that’s 4,730 as opposed to 520 for the bike 2 work.

Let’s not forget that every single public transport journey is already being subsidised

LeinsterDub

ted1 wrote: »

Let’s not forget that every single public transport journey is already being subsidised

And car journeys. The only modes not being subsidised in any really sense it seems are the two most sustainable walking and cycling

Gekko

I read something saying Paris is looking at giving a €500 subsidy towards ebikes

Doesn’t seem enough: €1000 would be good

For those asking I can’t find the original article I’m afraid...I think it was in the Indo or Irish Times but searches yielded nothing. Hopefully I didn’t imagine it 🤣

what_traffic

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

I did not say that. Its not a fir comparison. Holland have a goal and took a long term view and planned for it. This is not what happens here. Its always short term and more reactionary than vision. Subsidies are not a replacement for infrastructure, but subsidies are short term, infrastructure is long term.

Agree - considering the overall transport cost allocated for cycling; Government should be doing both. Subsidies for e-bikes/bicycles should only be a small fraction though from that allocation IMHO.

Macy0161

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's probably been made above, but it's a trivial argument that e-bikes are subsidised if bought through the BTW scheme.
however, as also mentioned above, subsidies are a minor factor in reasons why we don't see more e-bikes.

I'm not sure it is. I considered an ebike for my full commute, rather than a park and drive. Bike to Work wasn't enough to make it work, for a decent ebike, for me. Yeah, a bottom end one, that wouldn't last, wouldn't be servicable for the expected time line, limited range...

At the very least, ebike purchases should have a higher limit and be multi-year deductible. It would also clearly differentiate them in terms of mindset of the type of commute that might be possible - the 30km + that some guys do on here, comes into range of the current car or bus punter*. That's why I'd prefer it in a separate scheme.

*my reason for looking was prevailing headwind and terrain heading home, when I'm under time pressure for childcare.

what_traffic

Macy0161 wrote: »

At the very least, ebike purchases should have a higher limit and be multi-year deductible. It would also clearly differentiate them in terms of mindset of the type of commute that might be possible - the 30km + that some guys do on here, comes into range of the current car or bus punter*. That's why I'd prefer it in a separate scheme.

This is a good idea; ability to pay back over 2-3 years should help uptake; not sure employers would like that though?

Kaisr Sose

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Are you also opposed to the subsidy for eCars? What about the subsidy motoring in general needs? I'm happy not to have eBike subsidy if cars fully pay their way.

Fully in favour of e-cars subsidy, and would love to see Ireland follow the Norway model. The thread is about e-bike subsidy, its not about cars.

However, what subsidy do standard cars get (or need) ? Do you mean roads getting built with EU grants or general funding from the exchequer? It has to be Bourne in mind there is more to roads than just driving from A to B for social, domestic and pleasure. Roads are a critical part of the national infrastructure and support economic activity, e.g movement of goods and labour.

Motoring is already heavily taxed, VAT and excise on fuel, motor tax and VAT and penal VRT on new cars. I don't think there is scope to increase that. Maybe I am wrong there.

Anyway, talk of an e-bike subsidy may be moot. I have not heard or read nothing about it in general media and the OP says they can't find the reference to it.

If they do introduce one, I would hope they put together a robust grant application process, with a verification that the stated e-bike was purchased.

ted1

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

If they do introduce one, I would hope they put together a robust grant application process, with a verification that the stated e-bike was purchased.

There’s a cost associated with that which could in all likelihood cost more than is lost by the grant being abused.

Any abuse of the grant would be already covered under revenue laws.

LeinsterDub

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Fully in favour of e-cars subsidy, and would love to see Ireland follow the Norway model. The thread is about e-bike subsidy, its not about cars.

However, what subsidy do standard cars get (or need) ?

Motoring has a massive externalised cost. https://rdrf.org.uk/2012/12/31/the-true-costs-of-automobility-external-costs-of-cars/

Parking is also massively subsidised

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Do you mean roads getting built with EU grants or general funding from the exchequer? It has to be Bourne in mind there is more to roads than just driving from A to B for social, domestic and pleasure. Roads are a critical part of the national infrastructure and support economic activity, e.g movement of goods and labour.

The same can be said of walking , cycling and PT . Yet they get a pittance compared to cars

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Motoring is already heavily taxed, VAT and excise on fuel, motor tax and VAT and penal VRT on new cars. I don't think there is scope to increase that. Maybe I am wrong there.

Any yet you've an issue with a few million going towards eBikes but the billion propping up cars is basically 'shrug what are you going to do'

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Anyway, talk of an e-bike subsidy may be moot. I have not heard or read nothing about it in general media and the OP says they can't find the reference to it.

If they do introduce one, I would hope they put together a robust grant application process, with a verification that the stated e-bike was purchased.

Isn't that the process we already have with bike to work?

keane2097

Honestly the idea of the grant being misspent on lawnmowers strikes me as a laughably trivial issue.

Kaisr Sose

keane2097 wrote: »

Honestly the idea of the grant being misspent on lawnmowers strikes me as a laughably trivial issue.

Tax fraud is not trivial. What is laughable is that people think it'd OK to do this.

I am not against a subsidy, just that it is given and used for the stated purpose. What's so wrong with stating that? Only those who would prefer to buy something else would have a problem with it. Tough is what I would say.

Try getting a grant for attic or external insulation, or a gas boiler. It's checked and signed off. I would be happy to see such a system for an e-bike subsidy.

ted1

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Tax fraud is not trivial.

On the scale it’s happening with the bike to work scheme , then yes it’s trivial

keane2097

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Tax fraud is not trivial. What is laughable is that people think it'd OK to do this.

I am not against a subsidy, just that it is given and used for the stated purpose. What's so wrong with stating that? Only those who would prefer to buy something else would have a problem with it. Tough is what I would say.

Try getting a grant for attic or external insulation, or a gas boiler. It's checked and signed off. I would be happy to see such a system for an e-bike subsidy.

You can't state it away and I completely agree with you but there are already mechanisms in place to ensure this non-issue is not an issue.

Mr. Grieves

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Tax fraud is not trivial.

Using the potential for fraud as an argument against a subsidy is nonsensical.

Imagine rates of fraud are 1% (if you have a more accurate estimate based on real data, please provide).You would deny 99 people the potential to avail of a subsidy which has also benefits society generally, just in order to ensure 1 person does not get something they are not entitled to.

LeinsterDub

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Try getting a grant for attic or external insulation, or a gas boiler. It's checked and signed off. I would be happy to see such a system for an e-bike subsidy.

Checked and signed off , wink and a nod to the builder, few bits under the table , some how the VAT goes missing or the price is inflated to qualify for the higher grant! What an outrage best cancel the entire scheme!

Macy0161

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Checked and signed off , wink and a nod to the builder, few bits under the table , some how the VAT goes missing or the price is inflated to qualify for the higher grant! What an outrage best cancel the entire scheme!

Same price to the punter with or without those grants is the biggest fraud/ issue. Paying VAT either way.

And yes, I do have direct experience of this when getting quotes, rather than "someone down the local's brother's pal got a lawnmower on the bike to work"...

cdaly_

Macy0161 wrote: »

Same price to the punter with or without those grants is the biggest fraud/ issue. Paying VAT either way.

And yes, I do have direct experience of this when getting quotes

Not clear on this. Did you get the same price quoted whether you said you had the grant or not? Or was it a case of cheaper if you didn't have the grant?

nikkisscy

Seth Brundle wrote: »

When are they planning to look into the idea of creating proper infrastructure?

well, as with most plans for "proper" things ....its gonna take maybe several decades!

Padre_Pio

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Checked and signed off , wink and a nod to the builder, few bits under the table , some how the VAT goes missing or the price is inflated to qualify for the higher grant! What an outrage best cancel the entire scheme!

It's increasingly rare that this happens.
Revenue are the only government dept that actually seem to work.

Kaisr Sose

Again, I have no problem with any grant or subsidy for an e-bike. Can the detractors stop misquoting me on that.

A % of people in this country still think nod and winkonomics is acceptable once you don't get caught. I pay a lot of tax and have a problem with this.

Rather than say would I wish 'trival' fraud by a few prevent the majority getting a beneficial grant or subsidy, why not take the view that potentially a small few risk ruining something for everyone else that is not acceptable.

Those who will comply with robust terms for a grant (and are the majority) have nothing to fear from a robust process. Whereas, the few that would prefer to buy something else would of course prefer it was run in a loose way and then complain when it gets shut down.

LeinsterDub

Padre_Pio wrote: »

It's increasingly rare that this happens.
Revenue are the only government dept that actually seem to work.

I know it is but for people like Kaisr Sose if one person cheats the system we shouldn't have a system at all

LeinsterDub

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Again, I have no problem with any grant or subsidy for an e-bike. Can the detractors stop misquoting me on that.

So after 4 pages of posts what exactly is your position or point?

rubadub

Macy0161 wrote: »

Bike to Work wasn't enough to make it work, for a decent ebike, for me. Yeah, a bottom end one, that wouldn't last, wouldn't be servicable for the expected time line.

they could at least give options for longer times between purchases. Like instead of 1k per 5 years it could have been 2k for 10 years if you chose to do so.

My ebike is coming up on 5 years old and fingers crossed it might last another 5.

I think it could go lower too, like 500 every 2.5 years, especially with the high rate of theft and minimal sentencing that goes along with it. If your bike is legitimately nicked the first day hard luck, wait another 5 years.

AndrewJRenko

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Rather than say would I wish 'trival' fraud by a few prevent the majority getting a beneficial grant or subsidy, why not take the view that potentially a small few risk ruining something for everyone else that is not acceptable.

Those who will comply with robust terms for a grant (and are the majority) have nothing to fear from a robust process. Whereas, the few that would prefer to buy something else would of course prefer it was run in a loose way and then complain when it gets shut down.

There is a cost to a 'robust process' - a cost to the public body administering, a cost for each participant, a cost to the businesses selling the product. You reach a stage of diminishing returns, where the cost of compliance exceeds the compliance savings.