Food for thought alright
There are many solutions to tackle the SUV problem, which will need bold action from policymakers. These solutions – taxation, education and exclusion – have parallels with the successful campaign against cigarette smoking.
How would you know how many people in your workplace availed of the grant?
It's a bit rich to be complaining about the scheme while your own family are abusing it?
We should fund public transport, not private transport.
Like we all heard about the welfare mammies who left their buggy at the bus stop and got a new buggy the next day?
It's funny how your concern for poorer people only extends to poorer people with cars. Did you ever stop to think about actually poorer people who can't afford cars?
That's a strawman argument. Why would I be sharing my views on people who can't afford cars on a motors forum?
Because you're talking about public expenditure. Why would public expenditure, supposedly to benefit poorer people, be designed to exclude the many of the poorest people, those who don't have cars?
We shouldnt fund anything. Notionally.
However we are indirectly currently funding fossil fuels by continuing to pay these emissions fines. A better use of this money - and to prevent future fines - would be to incentivise those who can to use public transport and those who cant to buy an EV.
There is no turning back on SUVs, they are here to stay. Volvo have announced they will stop supplying saloon cars to the UK and focus only on SUVs, it’s possible other car makers will come to the same conclusions about buyers preferences. The government’s should embrace the reality of this and strive for more PHEV/EV SUVs by improving the EV charging network and incentivising their sales.
All of my staff availed of it, every one of them, none cycle to work, their kids have nice bikes though.
I think the process is already underway but making pedestrian areas bigger and roads narrower with fewer parking spaces in urban areas will make driving less convenient. The less you use a vehicle the less you'll be willing to pay to have it sitting in your driveway unused.
Less traffic, less D4 Tractors blocking Bus lanes. People use more buses because they're fast and efficient. You're walking from the bus stop to your home or place of work. Before you know it the birth rate is increasing because your partner has lost a few kg and you've recovered some stamina.
Baby Boom, can't carry all these sprogs I need an SUV.
More subsidies for wealthy people who drive SUVs?
C’mon, a lot of SUVs are bought by average income earners.
Tell me you're a crap line manager without telling me you're a crap line manager.
Lots of incredibly worse things happening on our roads than people driving SUVs. If you are worried / annoyed about it you’ve little to be worried / annoyed about.
the general standard of driving for me is something that will trump any annoyance of people driving any particular vehicle type.…
Everything was done precisely as required by the scheme.
The scheme states clearly that the main purpose of the bike is to be for cycling to work.
But sure enabling your employees on a bit of a fiddle, what could possibly go wrong?
I don't think a policy designed to address the inequity in charging costs between solar provided home charging and public charging costs for those without off street parking is targeted at people who don't have cars. The government can spend money on more than policy at a time.
After the employee signs a statement confirming it is for personal use and qualifying journeys, can you show me where an employer responsible for enforcing its use?
If I had a manager working for me who was wasting his time checking how staff got to work I'd have words with him.
There was no requirement in the scheme for employers to make staff use the bicycles.
There is a requirement in the scheme for the main purpose of the bike to be for cycling to work.
Yes. But it is not the employers responsibility to make employees cycle to work, even if they avail of the scheme.
In summary then it appears size matters!
I know that but do you really expect managers to be out checking who cycled and on which bike.
On your side of the argument I already said in an earlier post that I reckon the scheme was more successful in urban areas.
Did anyone ever do a survey to find out ?
We actively encourage employees to use the bike to work scheme. It's a tax break all should use. It's not monitored. They give me an invoice I give them a cheque to fill in themselves down the bike shop.
I drive a 10 year old "SUV".
Next stop is a proper 4x4.
He’d be labeled a fûcking stalker and quite rightly… next there will be bosses sending their employees to get yearly medicals to see about their health, pending seeing what if any pay increases they’ll get 🤪
Absolutely nothing other than his coworkers not conaidering him a knobhead.
So countries can choose to be like the UK, and externalise the cost of SUV ownership on the wider public, or choose to be like Japan, with specific policies which discourage large car ownership, and whose best selling car is a Toyota Yaris.
Only number ten is indisputably an SUV, and a small one at that. There are a couple among the other nine which look like nothing available here, and which have a high bonnet, with the increased danger to pedestrians that entails, but have a low weight and footprint which somewhat mitigates it.
It's a policy choice. We don't have to make the same choices as the UK.
Interesting you used Japan to make your point, a country with a very low birth rate, high density city dwelling with very little space for parking cars and fantastic public transport. I had the great privilege to visit there in 2019, if I lived there I probably wouldn’t have a car, nor as many children either.
Interestingly, Japanese people change their cars frequently to new ones, and write off/demolish perfectly good cars after 10 years due to the strictness of the government car inspection programme. That is hardly environmentally friendly, is it?
What “specific policies” are you referring to? I doubt the lack of space for parking would be considered a speciific policy aimed at cars, the density, and tiny size of residential accomadation really has to be seen to be believed ( I suspect property developers here would very much welcome a change in government policy which allowed for a reduction in minimum living space), every piece of available ground is either residential, commercial or green/amenity.
And what's the problem if it isn't? It's a win for all in all cases, people get a nice bike and they will ride it simply because it's new and nice, their health improves, maybe they see the advantages and they convert their habit from car to work to bike to work. The state expenses are negligible.
Yeah, because enabling and encouraging your employees to play fast and loose with Revenue rules could never have any possible downside.
There are indeed many advantages to the scheme. Using the tax break to buy kids bikes or lawnmowers is a step too far.
Revenue rules need to be pushed to the point of breaking but not beyond, that's how it works. Both employees and employers are doing it.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/a46418388544fe9f8f6352b57fb2f921.svg)
