Rapha signs up to Cyclescheme – and there’s a competition to win £700 of kit to celebrate

ClubSmed wrote:

Even so, as ~66% of the population are of working age and we have 74.6% employment in this country it means that more than half of the population is actually employed even when you add in all of the children and pensioners.
I appreciate that this would still mean that less than half of the population had access to the Cycle to Work Scheme but would argue that those more likely to want to spend money on cycling would be those in employment?

66% of 74.8% is not more than half. It's nearly half. I don't know what % if employed people have access to c2w schemes, I suspect less than half. Either way we are left with a minority of people with access to the scheme, not the majority.

Regardless, the Cycle to Work scheme was set up to take two things:

1) Health of the nation

2) Pollution

The best way to deal with the second point is to reduce single person vehicle trips during rush hour. As the people who make these journeys are working it makes the most sense to target these people specifically. Agreed that there may be better or more inclusive ways of dealing with the first point but if you want to replace this with something else it should deal with both points

Kestevan wrote:

A healthy dose of common sense

If you want to be arsey about it the cws Is only open to a minority of the population.... Less than half of the UK population is in employment, and of these not all are eligible for the scheme.

Good enough? or would you like to add further spurious caveats.

Less than half the populating is in employment? I take it that you are including children and pensioners in this figure then?

Kestevan wrote:

About time the whole cycle scheme was scrapped. It's only available to a few and benefits high rate tax payers more than the poorer sections of society who would gain more actual benefit.

I'd much rather it was scrapped, and the money used  to reduce/remove VAT from cycling/sports kit for everyone.

 

Do you have an evidence base for the above?

bendertherobot wrote:

Kestevan wrote:

About time the whole cycle scheme was scrapped. It's only available to a few and benefits high rate tax payers more than the poorer sections of society who would gain more actual benefit.

I'd much rather it was scrapped, and the money used  to reduce/remove VAT from cycling/sports kit for everyone.

 

Do you have an evidence base for the above?

He doesnt need evidence its a fact, if you earn under £45,000 you save about £200 on £1000 worth of kit and if you earn over £46,000 you save £400 on the same £1000 worth of kit.

The VAT thing would make sense to me as it seems that the frustration on this board is due to the confusion about the purpose of the scheme, if the pupose is to make it easier for people to buy cycle kit of anykind then the scheme seems fit for purpose, if it is to buy a bike in some kind of utilitarian way as a means of transport then obviously not so much. The name of the scheme suggests the latter but everything else seems to suggest the former.

Velomark wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Kestevan wrote:

About time the whole cycle scheme was scrapped. It's only available to a few and benefits high rate tax payers more than the poorer sections of society who would gain more actual benefit.

I'd much rather it was scrapped, and the money used  to reduce/remove VAT from cycling/sports kit for everyone.

 

Do you have an evidence base for the above?

 

He doesnt need evidence its a fact, if you earn under £45,000 you save about £200 on £1000 worth of kit and if you earn over £46,000 you save £400 on the same £1000 worth of kit.

The VAT thing would make sense to me as it seems that the frustration on this board is due to the confusion about the purpose of the scheme, if the pupose is to make it easier for people to buy cycle kit of anykind then the scheme seems fit for purpose, if it is to buy a bike in some kind of utilitarian way as a means of transport then obviously not so much. The name of the scheme suggests the latter but everything else seems to suggest the former.

 

The saving. Can you tell me what the saving will be on that sports kit once c2w is scrapped. 

Velomark wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Kestevan wrote:

About time the whole cycle scheme was scrapped. It's only available to a few and benefits high rate tax payers more than the poorer sections of society who would gain more actual benefit.

I'd much rather it was scrapped, and the money used  to reduce/remove VAT from cycling/sports kit for everyone.

 

Do you have an evidence base for the above?

 

He doesnt need evidence its a fact

Not sure it is a fact unless it can be evidenced.
The statement of "It's only available to a few" is ambiguous and needs classifying and evidencing

ClubSmed wrote:

Velomark wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Kestevan wrote:

About time the whole cycle scheme was scrapped. It's only available to a few and benefits high rate tax payers more than the poorer sections of society who would gain more actual benefit.

I'd much rather it was scrapped, and the money used  to reduce/remove VAT from cycling/sports kit for everyone.

 

Do you have an evidence base for the above?

 

He doesnt need evidence its a fact

Not sure it is a fact unless it can be evidenced.
The statement of "It's only available to a few" is ambiguous and needs classifying and evidencing

Ffs.....There's always one...

Ok, replace few with "not everyone". There are plenty of employers who don't/won't support the ctw scheme, and if you're self employed it's out too.

Kestevan wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

Velomark wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Kestevan wrote:

About time the whole cycle scheme was scrapped. It's only available to a few and benefits high rate tax payers more than the poorer sections of society who would gain more actual benefit.

I'd much rather it was scrapped, and the money used  to reduce/remove VAT from cycling/sports kit for everyone.

 

Do you have an evidence base for the above?

 

He doesnt need evidence its a fact

Not sure it is a fact unless it can be evidenced.
The statement of "It's only available to a few" is ambiguous and needs classifying and evidencing

Ffs.....There's always one...

Ok, replace few with "not everyone". There are plenty of employers who don't/won't support the ctw scheme, and if you're self employed it's out too.

So you are basically saying that I should have read your post and changed the wording so that it meant the opposite and accepted it?
Few having access to it would infer that only a minority can benefit
Not everyone having access to it infers that only a minority are not benefiting from it

Or am I missing something?

Kestevan wrote:

About time the whole cycle scheme was scrapped. It's only available to a few and benefits high rate tax payers more than the poorer sections of society who would gain more actual benefit.

I'd much rather it was scrapped, and the money used  to reduce/remove VAT from cycling/sports kit for everyone.

 

Surely if that happend then the biggest saving would be on the most expensive kit so it would benefit the people who can afford more and therefore not change the bias?

Kestevan wrote:

About time the whole cycle scheme was scrapped. It's only available to a few and benefits high rate tax payers more than the poorer sections of society who would gain more actual benefit.

I'd much rather it was scrapped, and the money used  to reduce/remove VAT from cycling/sports kit for everyone.

 

I wouldn't say that.  I'm a "normal rate" tax payer and the scheme allowed me to get my S-Works Tarmac frame at a lower price and allowed me to pay it off over 12 months.  Win/win for me.

That was when our Cycle Scheme mentality was "if you can afford to pay it back then we'll give you the money" though.  Sadly, we're now much bigger & restricted to the voucher scheme.

macrophotofly wrote:

Not done the cycle scheme before but is it possible to buy the items from more than one retailer? Or do you have to buy your entire annual (applied for) allowance at just one shop?  (e.g. can i buy some new tyres from Wiggle and a new raincoat from Rapha?)

I think it would depend on who provides the scheme. The scheme at my work currently is run by Evans so all has to be obtained from there. In a previous job the scheme was limited to Halfords but there are many other providers and some that allow you to use any cycle shop I believe.

ClubSmed wrote:

For me the issue is not what people spend their Cycle to Work Scheme voucher on (as long as it is cycling related it's fair imho), it is when people use the scheme but never cycle to work!

Interesting one.

My wife bought her bike on her company's bike to work scheme, but has never once ridden it to work, nor is ever likely to.

This is for several reasons:

- she is mostly home based.

- it is an horrific journey to her local office by bike. Even I wouldn't want to do it, as it involves a couple of miles of a terrifying dual carriage way in rush hour (no footpath) and any route that avoids that adds quite a chunk of distance and a couple of big hills.

- other company offices are at least 60 miles away.

- these days, having to drop kids off on the way when she is in the office.

- often, she is visiting customers with samples.

On the other hand, she has a better bike than she would otherwise have been able to afford = nicer to ride = more incentive to ride it at weekends. I've just fitted a child seat on it, so we can go on family rides.

She's not the only one, many of her other colleagues did the same, one of whom bought a full-on Enduro rig!

LastBoyScout wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

For me the issue is not what people spend their Cycle to Work Scheme voucher on (as long as it is cycling related it's fair imho), it is when people use the scheme but never cycle to work!

Interesting one.

My wife bought her bike on her company's bike to work scheme, but has never once ridden it to work, nor is ever likely to.

This is for several reasons:

- she is mostly home based.

- it is an horrific journey to her local office by bike. Even I wouldn't want to do it, as it involves a couple of miles of a terrifying dual carriage way in rush hour (no footpath) and any route that avoids that adds quite a chunk of distance and a couple of big hills.

- other company offices are at least 60 miles away.

- these days, having to drop kids off on the way when she is in the office.

- often, she is visiting customers with samples.

On the other hand, she has a better bike than she would otherwise have been able to afford = nicer to ride = more incentive to ride it at weekends. I've just fitted a child seat on it, so we can go on family rides.

She's not the only one, many of her other colleagues did the same, one of whom bought a full-on Enduro rig!

Sounds like she needs her car during the day so she has no option but to take it in then. My issue is more with people who use the scheme, could commute by bike, but don't.
However I would hope that if possible that the morning run with the kids is done by bike when working from home. I don't see dropping the kids of as an excuse not to cycle, it is quite the reverse.

ClubSmed wrote:

Sounds like she needs her car during the day so she has no option but to take it in then. My issue is more with people who use the scheme, could commute by bike, but don't.

However I would hope that if possible that the morning run with the kids is done by bike when working from home. I don't see dropping the kids of as an excuse not to cycle, it is quite the reverse.

Nope - she walks, which is nearly as good Cycling may become a possibility when the older one gets more confident on her own bike.

On the other hand, I commute by bike and didn't buy mine on the BTW scheme. I probably won't buy it's replacement on BTW, either, depending on circumstances when it comes to that. I will be looking to buy a set of new wheels soon...

LastBoyScout wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

For me the issue is not what people spend their Cycle to Work Scheme voucher on (as long as it is cycling related it's fair imho), it is when people use the scheme but never cycle to work!

Interesting one.

My wife bought her bike on her company's bike to work scheme, but has never once ridden it to work, nor is ever likely to.

This is for several reasons:

- she is mostly home based.

- it is an horrific journey to her local office by bike. Even I wouldn't want to do it, as it involves a couple of miles of a terrifying dual carriage way in rush hour (no footpath) and any route that avoids that adds quite a chunk of distance and a couple of big hills.

- other company offices are at least 60 miles away.

- these days, having to drop kids off on the way when she is in the office.

- often, she is visiting customers with samples.

On the other hand, she has a better bike than she would otherwise have been able to afford = nicer to ride = more incentive to ride it at weekends. I've just fitted a child seat on it, so we can go on family rides.

She's not the only one, many of her other colleagues did the same, one of whom bought a full-on Enduro rig!

I am in no way sexist, but you put the child seat on her bike and not yours?

Grahamd wrote:

LastBoyScout wrote:

- these days, having to drop kids off on the way when she is in the office.

I am in no way sexist, but you put the child seat on her bike and not yours?

Kids = multiple. I already have a bike seat on my bike for the older one.

LastBoyScout wrote:

Grahamd wrote:

LastBoyScout wrote:

- these days, having to drop kids off on the way when she is in the office.

I am in no way sexist, but you put the child seat on her bike and not yours?

Kids = multiple. I already have a bike seat on my bike for the older one.

Fair enough, I used a trailer a few times for mine; was great until you got a headwind.