Bradley Wiggins slammed for saying Sam Bennett could be "considered British"; Speeding drivers doubled risk for London cyclists during lockdown; Confusion over new govt rules for cyclists; Peloton launch Bike+; 45g 9-in-1 multitool + more on the live blog

Jack Sexty wrote:

lbmxj560vr46 wrote:

I don't understand the derogatory tone towards Peleton and its costs.  It's mentioned that a smart trainer costs half the amount of a Peleton bike... but that cost doesn't include a bike!  If you add the cost of a bike, plus a subscription to Zwift/TrainerRoad/Sufferfest and you're looking at a very similar cost.  Yes, you can ride your actual bike outside, but that seems like a lost art anyway.

And as BOOBOOJMMOJ stated, they're not targeting cyclists.  They're targeting gym-goers who will happily pay £60+ a month to be a member of a gym to do spin classes.  

All in all, it seems to me that there is a good argument to say that £1750 plus £40 per month is fair value for what appears to be a pretty decent product and service.  

That's fair enough... have you tried a Peloton bike though? My personal opinion having done so is that it definitely doesn't represent the same value for money as a leading smart trainer, £1000 bike and Zwift subscription combined, but understand their audience differs and plenty of people will disagree. 

Re Peloton are doing very well: $195.6 million net losses in 2019. 

And you've just proved my point entirely.

Yes, I have ridden a Peleton bike, a number of times.  My first experience was in NYC at 2 in the morning wide awake with jet lag.  I thought it was genuinely excellent.  I found a session I liked the look of, went on, and was soon competing with plenty of others to have the best numbers for the session.  The 45 minutes flew by.   I've had pletny of similar experiences afterwards.  It's also worth noting that the infrastructure behind Peleton is far superior to Zwift.  It works, every time.  That cannot be said for Zwift.

And, again, you're comparing apples and oranges.  It's like saying "I don't think spending £50 a month on the gym offers the same value for money as £20 a month on Zwift".  The value for money is in the eye of the beholder.  For you, maybe it doesn't offer value for money, but for 500,000+ (and growing) people it does.  It's not for you, or anyone else, to tell them it's a waste of their money and only goes to aid the perception of cyclists being a 'clique'.

And you clearly don't understand how businesses like Peleton operate.  It's not about making a profit.  It's about market capitalisation. On that front, they're doing amazingly.  I seem to recall your beloved Zwift loses money had over fist, so perhaps quoting losses isn't the best way to judge the success, or otherwise, of a business or its platform.

Yes, some of their marketing has been questionable.  Hopefully they've learned from that.  But they are getting more people riding, and getting more people fit, which is fantastic.  Good on them and long may it continue

lbmxj560vr46 wrote:

It's not for you, or anyone else, to tell them it's a waste of their money and only goes to aid the perception of cyclists being a 'clique'.

I think maybe you missed the bits that said "That's fair enough" and "My personal opinion...".

lbmxj560vr46 wrote:

I don't understand the derogatory tone towards Peleton and its costs.  It's mentioned that a smart trainer costs half the amount of a Peleton bike... but that cost doesn't include a bike!  If you add the cost of a bike, plus a subscription to Zwift/TrainerRoad/Sufferfest and you're looking at a very similar cost.  Yes, you can ride your actual bike outside, but that seems like a lost art anyway.

And as BOOBOOJMMOJ stated, they're not targeting cyclists.  They're targeting gym-goers who will happily pay £60+ a month to be a member of a gym to do spin classes.  

All in all, it seems to me that there is a good argument to say that £1750 plus £40 per month is fair value for what appears to be a pretty decent product and service.  

There are a lot of similarities between this and the way e-bikes were originally presented in the media towards roadies and so on. They (and Peleton) are for the most part aimed at totally different markets and there's no reason for people to get enraged about them. 

Just be happy that people are getting exercise

Many people dislike Peloton inc. because they've tried to take a word in general usage by cyclists and trademark it.  To the point that they've actually treatened well known blogers like GPLama for using the word to describe a group of cyclists.

If their product isn't aimed at cyclists they should stop trying to appropriate the culture of cyling and call their company something else.

Six people or FEWER!

As a cyclist myself who pays a zillion quid in road tax to drive via roads blocked with unused cycle paths stuffed full of lycra louts in black clothes who I can't see to avoid and are in my way so I can't stop in the distance I can see and on the pavement in huge swarms causing plumes of that covid virus that doesn't actually exist with their total lack of proper lighting which dazzles everyone and not wearing yellow which I could have seen but the sun was in the sky and not wearing helmets so only themselves to blame when the law abiding hard pressed motorist runs them down on the way to Barnard Castle which is 3 minutes away on foot but an hour in the car because of the traffic...

I'm just grateful they didn't mention wing mirrors.

brooksby wrote:

Quote:

£2,000 price tag and 40 quid month subscription,

I know right, it's outrageous!

*says me whilst considering a wattbike @ £1900 and zwift subscription @ £12pcm to go alongside my strava subscription @ £4pcm... 

We should stop giving peloton a mouthpiece on this site, it's not relevant for us cyclists any more than a gym subscription or boxercise class is relevant. (Their marketing is worthy of a chuckle from time to time though)

"I'm not racist but........"

"Some of my best friends are ..."

A pretty smart idea. I work for a local highway authority and I've regularly said they should spend the money they use on white lines, cycle symbols and sections of green paint on education campaigns instead.

It staggers me that a good chunk of people have been paying hundreds of pounds on this VED for years without knowing what it's for, nor that they could reduce the amount they pay. 

Zermattjohn wrote:

A pretty smart idea. I work for a local highway authority and I've regularly said they should spend the money they use on white lines, cycle symbols and sections of green paint on education campaigns instead.

It staggers me that a good chunk of people have been paying hundreds of pounds on this VED for years without knowing what it's for, nor that they could reduce the amount they pay.

Most car owners are very much aware of how much VED they pay. However, they care far more about how impressive their shiny new oversized vehicle looks on their driveway than anything else.

I'd be very happy for it to be renamed Pollution Tax (great idea, Luca!). Perhaps incorporate a vehicle kerb weight component, plus an additional fixed fee if a towball is fitted, to acknowledge that larger and heavier vehicles cause significantly increased damage to the roads.

However, as has been suggested many times before, it would be simpler, and maybe more effective, to scrap it entirely and put a dollop on fuel duty.

Increasing fuel duty won't work. Petrol and diesel vehicles are on borrowed time in Europe. Sales of new internal combustion engine vehicles will stop in Norway in 2025. Other countries in Europe are following. 

EVs will be taxed and road user charging is likely to be introduced in coming years.

Replacing VED with a tax relating to the weight of the vehicle would also be easy. Road wear increases exponentially with weight. This new calculation could come straight from the vehicle's V5 and you wouldn't even need bands for emissions groups as it would correlate directly to the specific unladen weight of the vehicle. 

Regarding emissions, I've just got the VED reminders for my two motorbikes. The little bike is a two stroke and produces far more emissions than the big bike. But I pay more for the big bike. As the little bike turns 40 next year, it'll be a historic vehicle and therefore become exempt from VED.

OldRidgeback wrote:

Increasing fuel duty won't work. Petrol and diesel vehicles are on borrowed time in Europe. Sales of new internal combustion engine vehicles will stop in Norway in 2025. Other countries in Europe are following. 

EVs will be taxed and road user charging is likely to be introduced in coming years.

Replacing VED with a tax relating to the weight of the vehicle would also be easy. Road wear increases exponentially with weight. This new calculation could come straight from the vehicle's V5 and you wouldn't even need bands for emissions groups as it would correlate directly to the specific unladen weight of the vehicle. 

Regarding emissions, I've just got the VED reminders for my two motorbikes. The little bike is a two stroke and produces far more emissions than the big bike. But I pay more for the big bike. As the little bike turns 40 next year, it'll be a historic vehicle and therefore become exempt from VED.

I've been advocating increased fuel duty instead of VED for years. It would have the effect of taxing most those who pollute most. The point you make about the sales of EVs is a valid one but a large hike in fuel duty would accelerate the process, which can only be a good thing from the point of view of emmisions. The other effect it would have would be to discourage the use in general of ICE vehicles as the cost per mile would go up, encouraging car owners to look at cheaper alternatives such a cycling or an E-bike. The important thing in all this is that extra revenu raised through such a tax should be spent on active transport infrastructure. There are so many people who would love to cycle for local journeys but won't if they have to share the road with cars.

I think taxing use rather than ownership makes more sense (confession: I have 3 (old) cars but only drive 3000 miles a year in total) but any change needs to have considered rural and disabled drivers.

Fuel duty is really easy to vary and cheap to collect, but road pricing would help, so that driving from Torridon to Cape Wrath is free and you don't have to wait for the bus (there isn't one), but driving your gargantuan Range Rover in Kensington in rush hour is furiously expensive in addition to fuel. And of course exemptions that would be better policed than blue badges.

No need to cover the whole UK in sensors to do this either. Just urban areas and motorways, as the rest of the country can be zero rated.

I saw an interesting proposal to tax cars based on miles driven with each car having a certain number of 'tax free' miles per year.

At the annual MOT the mileage would be recorded and billed accordingly.

Those living in rural areas could have more 'tax free' miles than those living in urban areas to reflect the necessity of rural private car use.

You could bring multipliers in for kerb weight in order to target the worst polluting vehicles.

The name of the tax should specifically reference pollution (and possibly pollution deaths) in order that drivers are clear why they're paying.