Tax breaks for electric bikes?

[thirdcrank]

Back to the OP, I think it's based on misunderstanding of the tax regime for cars. Starting many years ago, the "company car" was an increasingly popular perk, which initially exploited the tax relief on things provided for work. I think this went some way to increasing the numbers of cars on our roads. Chancellors have tried to rein some of this in with different policies and with little success, partly because of the popularity of having a car provided, as people accept the tax hit and distributors find ways of mitigating it. AFAIK, all that's happened with electric cars etc., is that part of the tax burden has been lifted to encourage company car users to change from diesel and petrol. There's no comparable company bike tax to discount.

There have been tax reduction schemes to allow firms to provide bikes and an agreed rate was set for business cycle mileage expenses, presumably to deal with the idea in some quarters that travelling by bike incurred no costs.

[MikeF]

There should be NO tax breaks for motorised bikes full stop. Any tax breaks should solely be for conventional all your own effort bicycles with NO motor. I cannot understand how people can even consider riding these things let along buying one. Are they so ignorant about the environment or that lazy? The bicycle is one of the most efficient machines ever made with low environmental impact. But the lazy brigade who cannot be bothered to pedal want to stick a motor and li ion batteries on a bicycle making them highly un environmentally friendly. Manufacture of these motors and batteries causes tremendous environmental damage and then again when they are worn out or knackered and chucked in land fill. They are the work of the devil and should be taxed heavily or banned.

I would much prefer people use an E bike for a mile or so trip to the shops than a car, which most seem to do at the moment.

One can walk a mile

Indeed, many could, but they don't. If they used E bikes it would reduce the clutter of ironmongery and make the roads safer for those who cycle.

[reohn2]

I feel I need to clarify my reasons for my two previous posts.
E-bikes provide a means of transport for people who may never consider cycling as an alternitive to the car,therebye causing less congestion on the roads,they may also lengthen a life long cyclist's cycling career.
If any of the naysayers think an e-bike does all the work for the rider or means the rider gets no meaningfull exercise they're very much mistaken,the e-bike provides ASSISTANCE to not ABSENCE of exercise.
The claims of 'speed kills' in this context is completely unfounded and erroneous as any reasonable fit human on an unassisted pedal cycle can easily exceed 15mph(25kph),what kills,extremely rarely, or causes injury to rider and or others is inappropriate speed,which again is easily achieved on an unassisted pedal cycle.In other words it's dangerous cycling that occasionally causes injury or very occasionally death.
Compare that with motoring KSI's and there is no real comparison.

On health issues, e-bikes offer a level of exercise that is totally absent when using a motor car,and so lessens the chances of a burden on the NHS by the better overall health both mental and physical by that exercise the rider may not otherwise have exerienced,and whilst lessening the pollution levels,also offering the opportunity and freedom of open air travel and exhilaration cycling provides.

As for the environmental impact e-bikes have on the planet,compared to car journeys of 5miles or less,and it is minute by comparison.

The purists can cling to their beliefs,but they're wrong,they're wrong everytime the switch on their computer,kettle,light,tv,radio,in fact everytime they use anything that has been 'tainted' by fossil fuels in one form or another and that includes their own bicycle(s)
What e-bikes have the potential to do is reduce the take from the planet by providing an alternative to the car for short journeys and because of that they should be encouraged by tax breaks.

One more point for the purists,have you ever thought that if e-bikes take off in a big way in the UK the possible impact their popularity could have on the improvement to cycling infrastructure?

[Oldjohnw]

I feel I need to clarify my reasons for my two previous posts.
E-bikes provide a means of transport for people who may never consider cycling as an alternitive to the car,therebye causing less congestion on the roads,they may also lengthen a life long cyclist's cycling career.
If any of the naysayers think an e-bike does all the work for the rider or means the rider gets no meaningfull exercise they're very much mistaken,the e-bike provides ASSISTANCE to not ABSENCE of exercise.
The claims of 'speed kills' in this context is completely unfounded and erroneous as any reasonable fit human on an unassisted pedal cycle can easily exceed 15mph(25kph),what kills,extremely rarely, or causes injury to rider and or others is inappropriate speed,which again is easily achieved on an unassisted pedal cycle.In other words it's dangerous cycling that occasionally causes injury or very occasionally death.
Compare that with motoring KSI's and there is no real comparison.

On health issues, e-bikes offer a level of exercise that is totally absent when using a motor car,and so lessens the chances of a burden on the NHS by the better overall health both mental and physical by that exercise the rider may not otherwise have exerienced,and whilst lessening the pollution levels,also offering the opportunity and freedom of open air travel and exhilaration cycling provides.

As for the environmental impact e-bikes have on the planet,compared to car journeys of 5miles or less,and it is minute by comparison.

The purists can cling to their beliefs,but they're wrong,they're wrong everytime the switch on their computer,kettle,light,tv,radio,in fact everytime they use anything that has been 'tainted' by fossil fuels in one form or another and that includes their own bicycle(s)
What e-bikes have the potential to do is reduce the take from the planet by providing an alternative to the car for short journeys and because of that they should be encouraged by tax breaks.

One more point for the purists,have you ever thought that if e-bikes take off in a big way in the UK the possible impact their popularity could have on the improvement to cycling infrastructure?

+1

I am taking my holidays by bike and train now. The benefits are almost incalculable. I had more or less to give up cycling about 10 years ago. I am mow purchasing a trailer so that our main shopping can be done with the bike. There is now one car which apart from emergencies gets used less than once per week instead of daily.

[Psamathe]

Or what about

(and whilst not common, this was far from a "one-off").

Ian

[PH]

Or what about
IMG_0325 copy.jpg
(and whilst not common, this was far from a "one-off").

Ian

I've been buzzed by them on the cycle paths, at least 25 mph and £85 on ebay. Local police have confiscated several, but at that price the owners probably don't care.

[MikeF]

I feel I need to clarify my reasons for my two previous posts.
E-bikes provide a means of transport for people who may never consider cycling as an alternitive to the car,therebye causing less congestion on the roads,they may also lengthen a life long cyclist's cycling career.
If any of the naysayers think an e-bike does all the work for the rider or means the rider gets no meaningfull exercise they're very much mistaken,the e-bike provides ASSISTANCE to not ABSENCE of exercise.
The claims of 'speed kills' in this context is completely unfounded and erroneous as any reasonable fit human on an unassisted pedal cycle can easily exceed 15mph(25kph),what kills,extremely rarely, or causes injury to rider and or others is inappropriate speed,which again is easily achieved on an unassisted pedal cycle.In other words it's dangerous cycling that occasionally causes injury or very occasionally death.
Compare that with motoring KSI's and there is no real comparison.

On health issues, e-bikes offer a level of exercise that is totally absent when using a motor car,and so lessens the chances of a burden on the NHS by the better overall health both mental and physical by that exercise the rider may not otherwise have exerienced,and whilst lessening the pollution levels,also offering the opportunity and freedom of open air travel and exhilaration cycling provides.

As for the environmental impact e-bikes have on the planet,compared to car journeys of 5miles or less,and it is minute by comparison.

The purists can cling to their beliefs,but they're wrong,they're wrong everytime the switch on their computer,kettle,light,tv,radio,in fact everytime they use anything that has been 'tainted' by fossil fuels in one form or another and that includes their own bicycle(s)
What e-bikes have the potential to do is reduce the take from the planet by providing an alternative to the car for short journeys and because of that they should be encouraged by tax breaks.

One more point for the purists,have you ever thought that if e-bikes take off in a big way in the UK the possible impact their popularity could have on the improvement to cycling infrastructure?

Spot on with all those points. The more e-bikes the better.

[reohn2]

What get's me is that some people need it spelling out !

[Cyril Haearn]

Perhaps people could be enticed to take up e-biking, as they get fitter they could upgrade to 'real bikes' (no motor)*
..
I cycle to work, 10 km, not hilly, too many cyclists and too little space
Increasing speeds would be disastrous
Maybe they could be limited to 15 kmh

* vocab suggestions please, 'real bike' or what term for a motorless cycle?

[Oldjohnw]

Perhaps people could be enticed to take up e-biking, as they get fitter they could upgrade to 'real bikes' (no motor)*
..
I cycle to work, 10 km, not hilly, too many cyclists and too little space
Increasing speeds would be disastrous
Maybe they could be limited to 15 kmh

* vocab suggestions please, 'real bike' or what term for a motorless cycle?

Real bike is awful. Mine is a real bike to which I added a motor.

What about bike and ebike?

[Cyril Haearn]

Maybe the law of unintended consequences shall rear it's ugly head, Anything Could Happen

I am afraid that TDEC, the tragedy of drive-cycling electric will arise

Better to restrict driving, make it less attractive, than to promote cycling I think, else where might Space for Cycling be found?

[PH]

Peoples' hypocrisy knows no bounds.

You've got that bit right.

[Cyril Haearn]

I read Ivors post again
Plus One, I agree mostly
The only use for e-bikes might be for old and weak people to cycle uphill only

[Oldjohnw]

I'm not remotely interested in a so-called tax break, whatever that is. But I question the need to describe people who happen, for their own reasons, to acquire an e-bike as lazy, hypocritical, ignorant and selfish. Those characteristics can be found in quite a few people who ride bikes and walk.

Messrs Tingling and Poeth may one day become old and limited. I hope they experience generosity and not hate. But I can't help wondering if they have electric lights and torches at home.

Buying an e-bike is not compulsory: you have choices. Using vitriolic language is not compulsory either.

[Cugel]

I'm not remotely interested in a so-called tax break, whatever that is. But I question the need to describe people who happen, for their own reasons, to acquire an e-bike as lazy, hypocritical, ignorant and selfish. Those characteristics can be found in quite a few people who ride bikes and walk.

Messrs Tingling and Poeth may one day become old and limited. I hope they experience generosity and not hate. But I can't help wondering if they have electric lights and torches at home.

Buying an e-bike is not compulsory: you have choices. Using vitriolic language is not compulsory either.

I find zealots of all and every kind a hoot. Tingting's wall-of-text rant is worthy of a very wild-haired Hyde Park Corner jabberer and I'd have him up on his sopbox there in a trice, for all to "admire" in their various fashions of showing "admiration" for his performance.

Bryn just gets a bit obsessive and wants to be "different". Why deny him this harmless hobby?

Cugel, believing tolerance is a virtue, especially of the intolerant themselves.