MPs call for “urgent reform” of Cycle to Work scheme to tackle active travel inequality

Rendel Harris wrote:

PenLaw wrote:

Also, the mobility scheme is overkill too. The norm here, needs to be etrikes, not cars.

A lot of people leasing cars on the Motability scheme are not capable of mounting an etrike, let alone using it as their sole means of transport. Additionally, whilst for people who enjoy full health the axiom that there is no bad weather, just bad clothing choices, is very much true, asking people with compromised immune systems to use bicycle/tricycle transport in freezing and/or wet weather is asking for trouble. Also, many disabled people who lease cars under the scheme may work at a considerable distance from their home and/or live a long way from their families and public transport frequently isn't a viable option for them. Even if you have the battery range, asking people to do a 60 mile round-trip commute on a 15 mph tricycle isn't realistic. I'm all for any scheme that gets cars off the road provided it's realistic and equitable but telling disabled people they can't have cars isn't one of those.

I'd be very interested to see the venn diagram of people who are currently complaining about Motability and people who pray in aid disabled people to oppose LTNs/cycle lanes etc.  I suspect the overlap bit would be very large.

It's odd that it includes a recommendation to subsidise the purchase of e-bikes for those on low incomes, but not bikes generally.

Presumably "can't deliver a kebab on a racer?"

Guesses as to "it's not for *fun*, you know*", because EAPCs are expensive but you can get an unpowered bike for very little, or have they been advised by "experts from industry"?

There should be a disclaimer at the head of this report:

No drivers were annoyed or inconvenienced during the production of this report and we can reassure them that nothing will change as a result of it

This may seem harsh criticism of a collection of probably well-meaning people but there seems to have been a determination to avoid upsetting anyone while appeasing cyclists/ walkers with recommendations which they know are destined for the same place as the recommendations in the previous reports. CoaB has been persistent in pointing out that conditions for cyclists and walkers can only improve if the tradition of pandering to motorists is reversed- yet, we see in the Norwich roundabout topic that very pandering in full voice. The cheery recumbent, trike and handcycle riders in the report photos are not going to be so cheerful trying to get to those cycle parking bays at Norfolk and Norwich Hospital! There is a section in the report including the recommendations of the 2023 Road Justice report, but they have given up on the practice in that report of assessing progress on the recommendations in the previous 2017 Cycling and the Justice System. The reason for now avoiding this is that there wasn't any, and there hasn't been any now.

Oh!  how we laugh at the 2017 statement The Ministry of Justice should examine in more detail how these offences are being used, including the penalties available for offences of careless and dangerous driving; the 2023 reference to it: In December 2021, the Government recommitted to review road traffic offences, a commitment initially made in 2014. The review still has not commenced, however. And then we look at the progress made by March 2025...

The section to look at, if you're interested in 'progress', is Appendix 2 of the 2023 report. Unfortunately, this hard-hitting style has been abandoned in favour of 'Equality and Diversity' photos of a load of women on Bromptons in a park.

100% this. Policing mentality is formed by social 'norms', and the cyclist witchhunting across social media is the UK norm. Close passing a person with a 2 tonne machine at speed is the UK norm. Cycle theft is the UK norm. 

This is country where an newspaper can publish a editor's views on cutting peoples' heads off with a tightly strung wire across a cycle path and....nothing. This level of hatred towards people using a bicycle is the UK norm. 

Until THIS rotten vitriolic toxicity is stamped out, nothing will change. 

BBB wrote:

One of the major goals should be simplifing the C2W system so there is no need for middlemen taking their 10% share.There should be no need for those companies to exist.

I know what you mean, well-known militant and socialist man of the people Derek Hatton made millions out of it.

It's the 'sam vimes theory of socioeconomic unfairness', it's cheaper long term to buy a good set of boots that lasts you a lifetime than have to repeatably buy cheap boots that keep falling apart. The main obstacle is being able to afford that big initial lump sum. A train ticket might be £5 here and there, while a moderately nice bike is £1000 or more. So to a lot of people living pay cheque to pay cheque the £5 option is the only one.

Anyone living pay cheque to pay cheque is not in the market for a £1000 bike but since prices for used bikes start at £0 there are usually options if they can overcome the other obstacles.

You don't need a moderately nice bike. You just need a bike. You can pick up a perfectly good bike for £100. If you want to get into road cycling then yes, you will probably want to spend more but I have friends who ride thousands of miles a year on bikes they paid almost nothing for. 

This, exactly. I don't know where this myth that cycling is expensive comes from,

Yes you can make it expensive buying all the latest greatest tech, gadgets and kit.

But it really doesn't have to be expensive at all, and isn't remotely the main barrier for people.

mctrials23 wrote:

You don't need a moderately nice bike. You just need a bike. You can pick up a perfectly good bike for £100. If you want to get into road cycling then yes, you will probably want to spend more but I have friends who ride thousands of miles a year on bikes they paid almost nothing for. 

This is absolutely true, I've just come back from a 38 km potter around London during various errands having a wonderful time on my lovely Specialized Tricross workhorse that I bought secondhand for £135. However, I think there is an understandable attraction for people who are just getting into cycle commuting in buying a new bike with a warranty and an assurance that it has been professionally set up and isn't going to require any specialist knowledge to make it safe or efficient. I think that probably covers a lot of people using the C2W scheme, if you know about bikes and are a reasonably competent mechanic you can save much more money than the scheme would save you by searching out secondhand bargains, but not everybody has that skill/knowledge.

High grade components though are often less durable than much cheaper alternatives, just lighter and possibly a little slicker.

Amen.

This is in the same category as adjusting laws pertaining to errant cyclists, or promoting PPE. There are any number of things which would seem to be a higher priority or offer far better "returns".

What I'm going to infer from the whole situation is that since the government (ie voting majorities) aren't going to accept changes in their behaviour that improve the safety of cycling the most cyclists can expect is to get a tax break on buying a bike.

Pub bike wrote:

I think of all the barriers to cycling, the "high cost of cycles" comes pretty far down on the list.

As highlighted in the report, if you're disabled then the cost can be a significant barrier. E.g. I'm not seeing any budget options for handcycles.

Indeed, but given that *actual physical barriers* (never mind all the inconsiderate parking) are still being put up... perhaps they could have put that in a bigger font?

Or put in some stuff about classification of "mobility aids" (eg. Cycles can be these) or perhaps allowing use of more mobility vehicles on cycle infra?

But... As others have said it sounds like "well - we can't do much about actually making it safer and easier to cycle, never mind looking at the popularity and problems of driving, so... some tax breaks for ebikes? "