Chris Froome divides opinion with topic even MORE controversial than disc brakes — shows off his new “trendsetter” Crocs; Reaction to bike shops urging MPs for changes to Cycle to Work scheme + more on the live blog

19 thoughts on “Chris Froome divides opinion with topic even MORE controversial than disc brakes — shows off his new “trendsetter” Crocs; Reaction to bike shops urging MPs for changes to Cycle to Work scheme + more on the live blog”

1. Cycling + crocs = nope.

   Cycling + crocs = nope.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Existence + crocs = nope.

     Existence + crocs = nope.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • I saw a next level

       I saw a next level abomination once – Catering Crocs (No, it was not in April!). Huge Health & Safety no-no. All catering shoes need to be fully enclosed with steel toe caps to prevent a dropped knife entering the skin. Yet they still have holes! My head hurts thinking about them.

       Log In or Register to post comments

2. Crocs are bloody amazing and

   Crocs are bloody amazing and the only people who don’t think so are those that have never worn them. 

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • exactly that, when you want

     exactly that, when you want an easy slip on shoe to wear whilst prepping your bike or kit pre or post ride, so you arent slipping over or tripping over yourself wearing cycling cleats, theyre perfect.

     Log In or Register to post comments

3. I once did a 150 mile cycling

   I once did a 150 mile cycling holiday with two kids and trailer full of camping gear using Crocs as my only footwear. And I’m not ashamed of it.

   Log In or Register to post comments

4. I have to agree with the

   I have to agree with the various comments RE the Cycle To Work scheme. Whilst I have used it myself, I do think it is deeply flawed on many levels. In no particular order:

   It is technically a requirement that at least 50% of journeys are for work-related purposes (either commuting or work-related travel). Why is that the only permissible use? Cycling to the shops, cycling for education (including accompanying children to school by bike), cycling to visit friends/family, etc., would all seem to me perfectly legitimate uses of a bike that benefit society (by replacing car journeys), yet would not qualify towards that 50%. I note that my current employer also offers an electric vehicle salary sacrifice scheme, which (as far as I can tell) has no such requirement or restriction on how the vehicle is used. It is simply recognised that using an EV is, on balance, better than using an ICE vehicle, no matter what the purpose of the journey. (There is also an argument that even leisure cycling benefits society by means of reduced healthcare burden).  

   On that note, the above requirement is never actually enforced. I suspect I myself technically fall foul of the rules, although I sleep with a clear concience knowing that the majority of the useage of that bike is “utility” cycling, and replacing car use. But there is nothing to stop anyone from buying whatever bike they want and using it purely for leisure. No-one involved cares – the employee saves money; the employer gets happy employees and also saves money (employer NI contributions are reduced); the scheme provider gets their cut for doing basically nothing, and the bike shop gets a sale (discussed more below; for now it’s sufficient to note that the bike shop doesn’t care what the bike is used for; the bike shop may of course decide to refuse CycleScheme vouchers if they don’t think the sale would be profitable). The only loser is the general public by means of reduced tax income – but HMRC don’t seem to care either.

   As a salary sacrifice scheme, it is only available to employees who earn above minimum wage and with employers who offer the scheme, and the savings are greater the more you earn. This seems deeply regressive – the people who benefit most are those who least need the support. Huge swathes of those who would most benefit from having affordable access to a bicycle are excluded – students; the unemployed; those on low incomes; “gig economy” workers and other self-employed people. And people who’s employers simply don’t offer the scheme are also excluded. 

   The scheme providers (especially CycleScheme) seem to be the primary winners, raking in cash for doing basically nothing. The 10% commission they take on the sale seems very high, especially on more expensive bikes (as noted in the article, the amount of admin work required would not seem to vary with the value of the bike, and nor is CycleScheme exposed to any greater risk given the employer stumps up the cash upfront). Most employees won’t even realise that the bike shop is getting 10% less revenue for the sale. It is also, arguably, simply unfair that this commission comes out of the bike shop’s revenue – if there is a cost to providing the cycle to work scheme, should that not be bourne by either the employee (the primary beneficiary) or the employer (who choose to offer the scheme as a benefit)?

   And then there’s the “pay now own later” fudge at the end of the initial year. This is clearly a tax dodge – after paying the “deposit” there is zero further communication and nothing to prevent the employee doing whatever they want with the bike. The person does, to all intents and purposes, own the bike. This is another area where CycleScheme rake in profit. With CycleScheme, the “own later” date is set for three years hence (i.e. four years since buying the bike). Under HMRC’s rules, to buy a four year old bike, the employee needs to pay 7% of the bikes value (for bikes originally costing >£500). Other schemes, such as the GCI, apply the same tax dodge but set the “own later” date at five years hence, i.e. a six year old bike. At that point, HMRC state the value is negligible, and so GCI take a nominal £1 “deposit”. As mentioned, after this deposit is taken, the employee has no further contact with the scheme provider and so it makes no actual difference when the employee “officially” owns the bike – they already do. There is therefore no practical difference between CycleScheme’s approach or GCI’s approach, beyond that under CycleScheme’s approach the employee has to stump up a not-insignificant sum of money (which is again pure profit for CycleScheme). 

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • The 10% is very high. I’ve

     The 10% is very high. I’ve seen some shops price this in now, particularly on sale items. Cycle Exchange in Kingston charge 10% more if you buy a bike from them on Cycle to Work. Sigma Sports and Certini both apply a 10% fee if you try and buy a sale product on Cycle to Work.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Not anymore they don’t. This

       Not anymore they don’t. This is one of the main points of the story – CycleScheme now forbidding retail ‘partners’ from adding CycleScheme costs back onto discounted products.

       Log In or Register to post comments

5. Froome goes Partypace!

   Froome goes Partypace!

   Log In or Register to post comments

6. the thing with C2W for all

   the thing with C2W for all the moans & criticism it gets, no-one has ever come up with a better workable solution. Every alternative that someone suggests usually has at least one if not more drawbacks that impacts someones ability to buy a bike through it. There is no perfect scheme, so accept C2W will always have its limitations.

   Because really getting people out on bikes isnt about C2W, you can buy a bike quite cheaply, and with better discounts than C2W gives you, if you really have the mindset to want to ride a bike.

   Its more about as an employer providing facilities to safely & securely store bikes & kit, many even in London still dont do that, and wont even let people leave stuff in lockers overnight. And its about providing safer cycling routes for people to use.

   Survey after survey, there was that one just last week, repeatedly list the main barriers to people cycling come down to safety first and foremost, then security & facilities in the workplace.

   Affordability of a bike never comes up as a barrier, let alone people complaining about if only their employer had C2W theyd be totally cycling for sure.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • stonojnr wrote:

     […] no-one has ever come up with a better workable solution […] There is no perfect scheme, so accept C2W will always have its limitations.

     — stonojnr

     It’s not a dichotomy – there is also the third option of scrapping the scheme altogether and not replacing it.

     In many ways I think nothing would be better than the current system. If it’s not actually achieving anything useful, then it’s just harmful. The primary beneficiaries would appear to be high-income employees and bankers (IIRC CycleScheme is ultimately owned by an American private equity firm) whilst the general public and the bike industry lose out.

     In terms of options to replace the scheme, I still think something like scrapping VAT on the first £500 of a bike purchase would be preferable. It would knock 20% off the price of basic but perfectly good bikes, which is more-or-less on par with the C2W scheme savings for basic rate taxpayers. In order to avoid burdensome further admin it would apply to all bikes – so yes this would benefit people buying expensive bikes purely for recreation, but the benefit would be capped at £100 which is arguably far fairer than the current system (someone on a £110k salary who buys a £10k superbike on C2W would effectively only spend £4k, i.e. subsidised £6k from the taxpayer).

     Such an approach would have limitations. For example a good quality electric cargobike, which is probably one of the best options for reducing car dependency, is pretty expensive, and so a £100 saving is hardly going to make a difference. So I would like to see more support for people wanting to make that kind of purchase. But having limitations is not the same as being unworkable or harmful. I would also note that, as mentioned in my other post, if you’re using the bike primarily for general errands (shopping, school run etc.) that is technically contrary to the C2W scheme rules. 

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • OnYerBike wrote:

       In terms of options to replace the scheme, I still think something like scrapping VAT on the first £500 of a bike purchase would be preferable. It would knock 20% off the price of basic but perfectly good bikes, which is more-or-less on par with the C2W scheme savings for basic rate taxpayers. In order to avoid burdensome further admin it would apply to all bikes – so yes this would benefit people buying expensive bikes purely for recreation, but the benefit would be capped at £100 which is arguably far fairer than the current system (someone on a £110k salary who buys a £10k superbike on C2W would effectively only spend £4k, i.e. subsidised £6k from the taxpayer).

       — OnYerBike

       There are more flaws with this.

       Firstly, when VAT is 20%, removing it does not reduce the price by 20%, it reduces it by 16.7%. You can bet shortly after this, RRP on bikes will mysteriously increase to where it was before.

       Secondly, I’m sure retail businesses such as small LBS already find VAT returns onerous. Having to cope with split rate sales (and would this apply to purchases too?) would turn a chore into a much, much bigger one. I’ve experienced this with books (exempt) that have an enclosed DVD (standard rate) in an e-commerce platform, it was painful.

       Finally, the example of the £110k salary and £10k bike, the subsidy is less than £6k, it’s more like £4k. Assuming that individual is paid via a normal payroll and has a standard tax code, their total PAYE/NIC annually to the exchequer is over £36k. I don’t have a problem with that individual getting the odd £4k of that back on a bike purchase, given their overall net contributions, and typically that individual may well be spending that tax saved elsewhere in the economy. 

        

       Log In or Register to post comments

   • stonojnr wrote:

     the thing with C2W for all the moans & criticism it gets, no-one has ever come up with a better workable solution.

     — stonojnr

     Scotland has (had?) a scheme of grants and interest free loans to allow people to buy eBikes. Something along those lines would probably be better at helping those who need it most.

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • Well said on primary factors

     Well said on primary factors that are barriers.

     For most people cost is not much of an issue.
     Given the financial benefits of cycling over other modes of transport, people can make the money back pretty quickly.
     So overall the C2W scheme is pretty pointless compared to the other elements.

     If authorities (and businesses) want to encourage cycling, they need to make it safer to do so, provide easy/safe storage and good shower facilities.

     I believe currently building regulations require all new offices to have a set number of bike spaces and shower facilities available.

     Given studies have shown that employees who cycle are generally healthier and happier, it is in business’ interest to promote it.
     From a purely capitalist point of view, it is a no brainer.

     So the only thing left to work on is safety.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • So the only thing left to

       So the only thing left to work on is safety

       It’s a pretty big ‘only’, though when we have irrational and bent cyclist-hostile and motorist-forgiving police running the show in many parts of the country (yes, it’s WU59 UMH with the police protection back again today!)

       https://upride.cc/incident/m222sgb_troc_closepass/

       https://upride.cc/incident/k7ddy_audia4_redlightpass/

        

       Log In or Register to post comments

7. Froome’s taste in clothing =

   Froome’s taste in clothing = Frome’s taste in music

   Log In or Register to post comments

8. What happened to Adidas

   What happened to Adidas Adilettes or whatever they were called? 

   Log In or Register to post comments

9. “What about you admitting
   “What about you admitting that you ride one handed should the police make you take a cycle awareness course????”

   LED indicating helmets required!

   Log In or Register to post comments