nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Expanding the Cycle to Work scheme

fobster

So after a friend saying they were going to stand-up paddle to work, I joked there should be a paddle to work scheme... of course my friend was all for it!

It got me thinking any means of transport which gets people fit and active regardless of whether they use said means for getting to work should be incorporated into the scheme, I don't use my tax-reduced bike to cycle to work... do you?! Items such as roller-blades, skateboards and of course stand-up paddle-boards should be tax-deductible.

What say ye? Why should it be limited be bikes anyway?!

Find more posts tagged with

work

cycle

paddle

scheme

Quick Links

Comments

Jawgap

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

how long is your commute? a tyre only lasts about 2000km so you're looking at at least one set a year I'd imagine, if not more. brakes about the same. Regular servicing, lubes, grease etc every 3 months or so.

It's super cheap, but not that cheap. I guess if you don't care about keeping the bike in a decent and safe condition you might be able to spend less than 100 per year.

Chains as well - I get about 2,000 to 5,000 km from a tyre and about 2,000 to 3,000km for a chain.

As you say, it's dirt cheap (if you want it to be

) and you can do most of the servicing yourself. The only thing, recently, I have had to drop a bike into the shop for is replacing a bottom bracket and headset which given it was my winter bike and it's five years old isn't too bad.

Jawgap

L1011 wrote: »

If they're going to increase the amount they need to seriously look at excluding racers and/or making sure people actually use the damn things. There's roughly ten people in work who've bought a bike on the scheme and ONE of them cycles to work.

I suspect providing employer incentives for secured storage and showers is a much better use of funding than anything more to the end-user at this stage.

In my view if you want more people to cycle then perception has to match reality.

Take Dublin for example - it's a nice city to cycle around. It's relatively flat, the weather is pretty good nearly all the time and it's reasonably small and compact. Yet, most people will tell you it's dangerous, wet and journey times are too long - and people like the RSA and Guards don't help with their constant banging on about hi-vis and helmets.

If they really want to do something useful to promote safer cycling then the RSA should promote the use of decent lights (instead of giving away sh1tty ones) and the Guards should hammer poor road use (by cyclists and motorists to send out the message that any road user putting another at risk will face consequences.

BTW - I don't know how or why you'd want to exclude 'racers' from the scheme - are those bikes with dropped handlebars? If so does it include cyclo-cross and touring bikes? My 'fast commuter' is a dropped handlebar 'audax' bike with a couple of upgrades - is that a 'racer'?

ezra_pound

Jawgap wrote: »

Chains as well - I get about 2,000 to 5,000 km from a tyre and about 2,000 to 3,000km for a chain.

As you say, it's dirt cheap (if you want it to be ) and you can do most of the servicing yourself. The only thing, recently, I have had to drop a bike into the shop for is replacing a bottom bracket and headset which given it was my winter bike and it's five years old isn't too bad.

One bottom bracket and headset change in five years would surely be statistically low.

Jawgap

ezra_pound wrote: »

One bottom bracket and headset change in five years would surely be statistically low.

I would've thought so - especially as it was the bike I use in the real crappy weather. The only reason I dropped it into the shop was because it has some weird bottom bracket! Anyway he sorted that out and in the process noticed the headset was weeping gunk so I got him to do that while it was in.

Plus I think years is not a useful comparison - I could use my bike for years and still do less distance than someone cycling for a shorter period of time. The headset and bottom bracket had nearly 20,000km of winter riding put through - so not bad.

pwurple

Jawgap wrote: »

In my view if you want more people to cycle then perception has to match reality.

I think that's correct. And I think there is something to be gained from asking former Cycle To Work users, why they gave up!

I've asked a couple of the guys here, and for some of them, it was the gear they used. They felt unprofessional showing up at work in lycra, hi vis, their hair was funny under the helmet, etc. Even if it was just to the door to the showers, they would see the director getting out of his lexus in the smart suit, and their appearance felt inappropriate. I don't know how address that one.... I don't wear special gear on the bike, I wear my work clothes. Maybe that's why it works easily for me.

For others, the bike maintenance got on top of them. So, they got a puncture, didn't have time to get it sorted, got out of the habit and that was that. Bike rusts in the shed. - Maybe maintenance incentives? Free servicing?

For some others, they felt it was uncool. One guy was cycling home, he is slightly overweight, and got off to walk the bike up a steep hill because he was turning beetroot coloured trying to get up it on the bike. Some gang of teenagers started shouting and jeering at him, and that was it for him.