Two million new cycle commuters about to take to the roads, says CycleScheme

joemmo wrote:

Press Release says:

Company With Commercial Interest In People Cycling To Work Says More People Are Going To Cycle To Work And They Are Totally Going To Be Really Busy Just In Time For Annual Funding Reviews Shock.

Daily Fails says:

PREPARE FOR THE LYCROPALYPSE! TERROR IN THE STREETS AS MILLIONS OF LETHAL CANCER CAUSING CYCLISTS UNLEASHED ON BRITAINS TRADITIONAL ROADS UNTAXED AND READY TO STEAL YOUR HARD-EARNED TARMAC HERITAGE AND PROBABLY TAKE IT BACK TO BULGARIA FOR THEIR 9 CHILDREN TO EAT

Damn, you nearly forgot immigration

Probably next to a pic of a fruity female celeb straddling a dutch bike. Or, in the telegraph, with a half-page rapha advertorial overleaf.

joemmo wrote:

Daily Fails says:

PREPARE FOR THE LYCROPALYPSE! TERROR IN THE STREETS AS MILLIONS OF LETHAL CANCER CAUSING CYCLISTS UNLEASHED ON BRITAINS TRADITIONAL ROADS UNTAXED AND READY TO STEAL YOUR HARD-EARNED TARMAC HERITAGE AND PROBABLY TAKE IT BACK TO BULGARIA FOR THEIR 9 CHILDREN TO EAT

I can't remember if it was in the Fail, but during the recent coverage of the Paris smog cloud I saw a real comment from someone demanding that all cyclists be banned as he thought the pollution was caused by sweating.

I think my favourite news site comment though was from someone who got so angry they became a bit muddled and started calling cyclists "latex louts/loonies".

bikebot wrote:

joemmo wrote:

Daily Fails says:

PREPARE FOR THE LYCROPALYPSE! TERROR IN THE STREETS AS MILLIONS OF LETHAL CANCER CAUSING CYCLISTS UNLEASHED ON BRITAINS TRADITIONAL ROADS UNTAXED AND READY TO STEAL YOUR HARD-EARNED TARMAC HERITAGE AND PROBABLY TAKE IT BACK TO BULGARIA FOR THEIR 9 CHILDREN TO EAT

I can't remember if it was in the Fail, but during the recent coverage of the Paris smog cloud I saw a real comment from someone demanding that all cyclists be banned as he thought the pollution was caused by sweating.

I think my favourite news site comment though was from someone who got so angry they became a bit muddled and started calling cyclists "latex louts/loonies".

The Telegraph motor cycling correspondent, Erin Baker, wrote a few weeks ago words to the effect that cyclists stopping in the advance boxes caused pollution because they slowed motor traffic thus making it use more fuel.

Crosshouses wrote:

The Telegraph motor cycling correspondent, Erin Baker, wrote a few weeks ago words to the effect that cyclists stopping in the advance boxes caused pollution because they slowed motor traffic thus making it use more fuel.

When I get slowed down by long queues of cars I get hungry.
If I get really hungry I may have to buy a burger.
Burgers are made from cows.
Cows fart methane
Methane is a strong greenhouse gas.
This argument is incredibly dumb, but still not as stupid as Erin's.

bikebot wrote:

joemmo wrote:

Daily Fails says:

PREPARE FOR THE LYCROPALYPSE! TERROR IN THE STREETS AS MILLIONS OF LETHAL CANCER CAUSING CYCLISTS UNLEASHED ON BRITAINS TRADITIONAL ROADS UNTAXED AND READY TO STEAL YOUR HARD-EARNED TARMAC HERITAGE AND PROBABLY TAKE IT BACK TO BULGARIA FOR THEIR 9 CHILDREN TO EAT

I can't remember if it was in the Fail, but during the recent coverage of the Paris smog cloud I saw a real comment from someone demanding that all cyclists be banned as he thought the pollution was caused by sweating.

I think my favourite news site comment though was from someone who got so angry they became a bit muddled and started calling cyclists "latex louts/loonies".

The Telegraph motor cycling correspondent, Erin Baker, wrote a few weeks ago words to the effect that cyclists stopping in the advance boxes caused pollution because they slowed motor traffic thus making it use more fuel.

Neil753 wrote:

We should be careful not to read too much into the figures from the "cycle to work" scheme…
…We should all be asking ourselves whether giving affluent riders a 42% tax break on "yet another bike", and effectively asking other people to pay for that freebie through general taxation…

Tax adjustments to achieve shared objectives can be justified (as in the case of the Bike To Work Scheme) by showing that the Exchequer (and hence the nation) is likely to be better off by doing it than not doing it. Advantages to the individual beneficiaries are the mechanism, but only a dull witted or corrupt Chancellor would spend political energy trying to ingratiate the few. £400 to put one more bike in the road sends another £600 of spending into bike shops and their suppliers. It also adds to a range of savings in the public areas that benefit from more cycling and less driving. Pollution, congestion, long-term health, well-being and the rest.

To quibble with the effectiveness of that policy tool or to doubt its financial value is to sit in a very glum place. The same standard applied to fiscal measures in general would bring the Treasury (and the economy) to a full stop. It is only money of course and Government can print of much of that as they want. In periods of sluggish economic activity, shifting the money a bit more quickly is a good thing.

On another tack, I was embarrassed at the side swipes at new cyclists in some other posts. Very silly.

Sam Saunders wrote:

Neil753 wrote:

We should be careful not to read too much into the figures from the "cycle to work" scheme…
…We should all be asking ourselves whether giving affluent riders a 42% tax break on "yet another bike", and effectively asking other people to pay for that freebie through general taxation…

Tax adjustments to achieve shared objectives can be justified (as in the case of the Bike To Work Scheme) by showing that the Exchequer (and hence the nation) is likely to be better off by doing it than not doing it. Advantages to the individual beneficiaries are the mechanism, but only a dull witted or corrupt Chancellor would spend political energy trying to ingratiate the few. £400 to put one more bike in the road sends another £600 of spending into bike shops and their suppliers. It also adds to a range of savings in the public areas that benefit from more cycling and less driving. Pollution, congestion, long-term health, well-being and the rest.

To quibble with the effectiveness of that policy tool or to doubt its financial value is to sit in a very glum place. The same standard applied to fiscal measures in general would bring the Treasury (and the economy) to a full stop. It is only money of course and Government can print of much of that as they want. In periods of sluggish economic activity, shifting the money a bit more quickly is a good thing.

Sam, do you have a vested interest in the "cycle to work" scheme by any chance? You talk a good talk, but the scheme is expensive, poorly targeted, easily exploited, and excludes pensioners, students and the self employed, all of whom are obliged to collectively pay for a subsidy of up to £420 (sometimes more, if the firm has a credit licence), for the purchase of bikes by many higher earners, who may not use them to cycle to work, and who may own one or more bikes already.

The thing is, it isn't "£400 to put one more bike on the road", is it? If half the scheme applicants already have a bike, and of that subset only half will ride to work, then that £400 becomes £1,600. And, if you take the ten percent figures that some believe to be more realistic, that £400 becomes £40,000.

Neil753 wrote:

Sam Saunders wrote:

Neil753 wrote:

We should be careful not to read too much into the figures from the "cycle to work" scheme…
…We should all be asking ourselves whether giving affluent riders a 42% tax break on "yet another bike", and effectively asking other people to pay for that freebie through general taxation…

Tax adjustments to achieve shared objectives can be justified (as in the case of the Bike To Work Scheme) by showing that the Exchequer (and hence the nation) is likely to be better off by doing it than not doing it. Advantages to the individual beneficiaries are the mechanism, but only a dull witted or corrupt Chancellor would spend political energy trying to ingratiate the few. £400 to put one more bike in the road sends another £600 of spending into bike shops and their suppliers. It also adds to a range of savings in the public areas that benefit from more cycling and less driving. Pollution, congestion, long-term health, well-being and the rest.

To quibble with the effectiveness of that policy tool or to doubt its financial value is to sit in a very glum place. The same standard applied to fiscal measures in general would bring the Treasury (and the economy) to a full stop. It is only money of course and Government can print of much of that as they want. In periods of sluggish economic activity, shifting the money a bit more quickly is a good thing.

Sam, do you have a vested interest in the "cycle to work" scheme by any chance? You talk a good talk, but the scheme is expensive, poorly targeted, easily exploited, and excludes pensioners, students and the self employed, all of whom are obliged to collectively pay for a subsidy of up to £420 (sometimes more, if the firm has a credit licence), for the purchase of bikes by many higher earners, who may not use them to cycle to work, and who may own one or more bikes already.

The thing is, it isn't "£400 to put one more bike on the road", is it? If half the scheme applicants already have a bike, and of that subset only half will ride to work, then that £400 becomes £1,600. And, if you take the ten percent figures that some believe to be more realistic, that £400 becomes £40,000.

Well pensioners, by definition, don't go to work (so don't need to commute) and anyway are being given pension money by the State every week. Obviously they could use that to buy a bike if so desired.

The self-employed could actually write the entire bike and accessories off their tax bill if they could justify that the bike was necessary to do their work. They can also buy cars and vans as a business expense too. Even if a car is largely for private use you can also write off any interest paid on a loan used to buy it.

You are also ignoring the tremendous health benefits of more people cycling regularly too. Imagine the difference in costs to the State of just one person avoiding an early heart attack or stroke and thereby continuing to work and pay their taxes ... or instead them suffering the stroke, then requiring months/years of expensive treatment, then having to leave their job and then spending the rest of their 'working life' being supported on incapacity benefits. What about fewer people being overweight and therefore requiring fewer hip operations and diabetes treatment for example? Your "£40K" guessimate is starting to look like small beer in comparison. The CTW scheme costs next to nothing compared to the potential cost savings of a healthier nation and less congested roads.

Sam Saunders wrote:

Neil753 wrote:

We should be careful not to read too much into the figures from the "cycle to work" scheme…
…We should all be asking ourselves whether giving affluent riders a 42% tax break on "yet another bike", and effectively asking other people to pay for that freebie through general taxation…

Tax adjustments to achieve shared objectives can be justified (as in the case of the Bike To Work Scheme) by showing that the Exchequer (and hence the nation) is likely to be better off by doing it than not doing it. ... Pollution, congestion, long-term health, well-being and the rest.

To quibble with the effectiveness of that policy tool or to doubt its financial value is to sit in a very glum place. The same standard applied to fiscal measures in general would bring the Treasury (and the economy) to a full stop. ...

Interesting post, but not sure I agree.

Without wanting to sound glum (which is not me, generally) I would say that perhaps you are looking at it from the wrong perspective. If we applied evidence based policy to all categories of government spending, we wouldn't have the massive debt mountain that we have at the moment, that has built up over many, many decades (irrespective of the colour of the governments) and we would have a much healthier, more functional society. Instead, it seems that governments only stop a spend when the evidence is irrefutably against - and even then, sometimes short-term political gains override it.

Lets face it, our economy doesn't live within its means, just like the vast majority of western (and probably eastern) economies.

jacknorell wrote:

I expect a bunch of cyclists riding into other cyclists this spring...

Takes a while to get used to commuting.

That's already upon us, one last week saw me having to readjust my rear brake, one shot past me when overshooting a pet crossing last night only to then witness one ride straight into the back of the other 200m down the road.

jacknorell wrote:

I expect a bunch of cyclists riding into other cyclists this spring...

Takes a while to get used to commuting.

Sad to say, I had someone on a brand new bike, huffing and puffing, ride right into me just this morning. Thankfully not going to fast so I got my foot down, instead of my face. He did apologise and I accepted. Just gonna have to be more vigilant until the newbies find their wheels.

Even 1 more bike and 1 less car is an improvement.

Timsen wrote:

but..... " there may be trouble ahead " whilst our new cycling friends and other road users get used to one another !

md6 wrote:

bad as lots of them are not exprienced in traffic and around other cyclists which can make them a little dangerous

jacknorell wrote:

I expect a bunch of cyclists riding into other cyclists this spring...

workhard wrote:

...the number of cyclist-on-cyclist SMIDSY's will go up whilst the noobs learn to expect other cyclists.

Sigh.

Who needs cyclist haters, Jeremy Clarkson and the Daily Mail when we've got our very own bike snobs - who presumably already ride bikes.

Everyone might wish to cast their mind back to the launch in 2010 of London's Barclays bike hire scheme. The usual suspects - and no doubt many on here - were predicting carnage on the streets as cycling newcomers and those from abroad cycled under the wheels of buses, taxis and other motor vehicles.

News flash - it never happened.

congokid][quote=Timsen wrote:

Who needs cyclist haters, Jeremy Clarkson and the Daily Mail when we've got our very own bike snobs - who presumably already ride bikes.

Everyone might wish to cast their mind back to the launch in 2010 of London's Barclays bike hire scheme. The usual suspects - and no doubt many on here - were predicting carnage on the streets as cycling newcomers and those from abroad cycled under the wheels of buses, taxis and other motor vehicles.

News flash - it never happened.

Except in some cases there were problems. I was taken out twice by people on those bikes, one rode into me through a gap between me and a car both stopped at lights (with no advanced box) - they weren't stopping and in order not to hit the car took me out. In a way that was lucky as a lorry came through the junction at about the time they would have been directly in front of (or should i say under) it had they not come off when hitting me. And another time they just pulled the bike out of the rack stepped back without looking and blocked half the road with it - i was unable to swerve as a car was passing me and so i hit the bike they had just shoved in front of me. Admittedly that's only 2 instances, but both i would put down to inexperience, lack of consideration and stupidity (or a combination of each). My experience with tube strike days indicates there are a lot of extra cycle commuters - which is good. However, some of them are dangerous for the same reasons. Lack of experience around traffic and other cyclists and doing wildly unpredicatable things. This is a minority.and in general it is a good thing that there are more people chosing to commute by bike. I think generally people on here have been positive about it, but wary of the minority who may/will be dangerous.

congokid wrote:

Timsen wrote:

but..... " there may be trouble ahead " whilst our new cycling friends and other road users get used to one another !

md6 wrote:

bad as lots of them are not exprienced in traffic and around other cyclists which can make them a little dangerous

jacknorell wrote:

I expect a bunch of cyclists riding into other cyclists this spring...

workhard wrote:

...the number of cyclist-on-cyclist SMIDSY's will go up whilst the noobs learn to expect other cyclists.

Sigh.

Who needs cyclist haters, Jeremy Clarkson and the Daily Mail when we've got our very own bike snobs - who presumably already ride bikes.

Everyone might wish to cast their mind back to the launch in 2010 of London's Barclays bike hire scheme. The usual suspects - and no doubt many on here - were predicting carnage on the streets as cycling newcomers and those from abroad cycled under the wheels of buses, taxis and other motor vehicles.

News flash - it never happened.

More cyclists can only be a good thing. I agree with the less snobbery, more be helpful approach. We need to encourage new cyclists by showing them other cyclists are helpful and courteous and commuting on a bike is the way forward. We have all been noobs, weaving our way along the road, unaware of how to position ourselves, too busy looking at what we're doing rather than what everybody else is doing even if that was when we were kids.

I do find myself cringing in horror at some of the close calls starting at this time of year though, I've even been run into a couple of times myself by other cyclists. This isn't just noobs but also summer cyclists being rusty in city traffic, I wish they'd just take there time for the first few weeks if they're on a bike for the first time, or the first time in 5 months. Other road traffic (vans, taxis and lorries) does seem to take a couple of weeks to adjust to the increase in cyclists too. It's my least favourite time of year to cycle.

As with everything it seems there's a minority of people with bad manners and an elevated sense of self importance spoiling the fun for most by shoaling, red light jumping, etc. I just try to be even more diligent and courteous to all other road users (including pedestrians)