Cycling UK Forum

But if the £2 isn't saved for another 20 years or so, government isn't interested.

Or more to the point if spending £1 on cycling facilities saves £2 of NHS cost then it is in the tax payer interest to spend that £1

Cycling England calculated that for every £1 invested in the cycling town, £2.59 was saved in NHS costs alone but it didn't stop them being abolished. BUT this is a hidden saving arising from a visible cost. Would it be better if the

Returning to the subject, cycling isn't really free, what with 3rd partyy and theft insurance, maintenance etc and wouldn't it be better to acknowledge that whilst being very cheap compared to a car it isn't free and that cyclists should expect a cost of ownership.

It's not that I disagree with the societal benefit arguments it's just that it doesn't seem to be the mood of the times. If costs and benefits were clearly visible and visibly linked would this make it easier to defend cycling investment?

OldGreyBeard wrote:... wouldn't it be better to acknowledge that whilst being very cheap compared to a car it isn't free and that cyclists should expect a cost of ownership.

I think we do all acknowledge this. We know there is a cost to possessing a bike, and an extra cost per mile. Some folk on these forums calculated about 2p per mile, IIRC.

OldGreyBeard wrote:It's not that I disagree with the societal benefit arguments it's just that it doesn't seem to be the mood of the times. If costs and benefits were clearly visible and visibly linked would this make it easier to defend cycling investment?

I'm in favour of publicising the costs (low) and benefits (high) of cycling, if that's what you mean.

snibgo wrote:I think we do all acknowledge this. We know there is a cost to possessing a bike, and an extra cost per mile. Some folk on these forums calculated about 2p per mile, IIRC.

Ignoring the purchase price doesn't make sense to me. The more you use a bicycle the quicker the parts wear out and the sooner you reach the point where it's cheaper to buy a new bike than replace the parts. I think including the purchase price means it costs more like 5p/mile plus maintenance labour costs.

The costs to other people of a person cycling are far lower than the costs of other people's driving.

I wasn't ignoring the purchase price. There is a cost of possessing a bike, plus a per-mile cost which others have estimated at 2p if I recall correctly.

The possession cost will vary widely, but could be more significant. A £1000 bike might do 1000 miles over a 5-year life (£1/mile or £200/year). Or a £500 bike might do 100,000 miles over 20 years (0.5p/mile or £25/year). This is plus the cost of borrowing the purchase price, or the lost interest on the money.

The costs to other people of a person cycling are far lower than the costs of other people's driving.

Totally agree.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs ... ition.html

Cobblers (For anybody who wonders what on earth I'm on about, his main business is just that.)

Many status seeking employees would be more aroused by the prospect of a key to the executive wc or traveling 1st class on trains than a car.

No doubt there are workplaces where people show off how expensive a bicycle they are worth

I think we should try to agree that cycling is not free, but nevetheless a very cheap way to get about.

The Inland Revenue recognise a per mile rate of 20p. I think that's actually rather generous. Some cyclists will spend more than that, but only by indulging their hobby in riding a more sporty and hence less economical type of bicycle. I'm sure that many people spend less than 10p a mile on their cycling, but I'll not argue with the Taxman's figure. It still makes riding a bike a good option.

Likewise I'm happy with IR's judgement on the Cycle to Work scheme. Their default assumption that a bike is worth 25% of its purchase price after one year's use is to my mind also generous of them, to give away so much tax. If asked I would reckon that the average one-year-old bike that's been properly maintained (which is a condition of the scheme) should still be worth about 50%. (If we would rather have it that a bike depreciates to only 5% of its value over that time, that would actually make cycling rather expensive!)

With regard to the OPs main point, the cost of cycle parking, that should also be cheap - or free, it depends what you're getting. Do not forget that people also expect to park their cars for free whenever they can, on the road, even though it is then an actual obstruction. Bikes locked to railings and posts are on the other hand seldom in anyone's way. And whenever the cyclist's own lock is the only security provided (I don't count CCTV), I can see no justification for any charge.

Where there is an actual security system on the other hand, where the bike goes into a secure storage facility and cannot be retrieved without the appropriate ticket or key, that's worth a small fee. One or two £ per day seems fair. It's about what I've paid when using facilities like that abroad. The cost of parking a bike has to be in proportion to the cost of using a bike and has to deliver more security than just using the lock the cyclist has to carry anyway - for those stops were there is no such facility.

If this country's government(and previous governments) was serious about its population's health (polution,heart disease,obesity,etc)and short journey efficiency it would implement sweeping changes to include decent cycle parking,strict liability for colisions,real punishments for those who are responsible for negligent/dangerous driving,and a host of other measures that I'm too bored to go into but which everone who cycles regularly knows are needed.
We have had decades of cycling promises of jam tomorrow (which now include buying off the CTC by funding it through charity status)by various governments but lets face it in this country the cars rules and its subsidised to that end.
I could go on, but you get the picture.

reohn2 wrote:If this country's government(and previous governments) was serious about its population's health (polution,heart disease,obesity,etc)and short journey efficiency it would implement sweeping changes to include decent cycle parking,strict liability for colisions,real punishments for those who are responsible for negligent/dangerous driving,and a host of other measures that I'm too bored to go into but which everone who cycles regularly knows are needed.
We have had decades of cycling promises of jam tomorrow (which now include buying off the CTC by funding it through charity status)by various governments but lets face it in this country the cars rules and its subsidised to that end.
I could go on, but you get the picture.

Completely agree.

One sad facet of this is that for relatively little effort/cash, much of the above could be implemented resulting in huge transfer of journeys to bikes, and thus ...
LESS CONGESTION!

So actually the diehard motorists would be better off anyway. They just don't see it that way ...

Here's my offer MrToad; i can halve your commute time, but you have to accept strict liability for colisions, triple penalties if you speed, and a less stretched NHS. What'll it be?

mattheus wrote:Completely agree.

One sad facet of this is that for relatively little effort/cash, much of the above could be implemented resulting in huge transfer of journeys to bikes, and thus ...
LESS CONGESTION!

So actually the diehard motorists would be better off anyway. They just don't see it that way ...

Here's my offer MrToad; i can halve your commute time, but you have to accept strict liability for colisions, triple penalties if you speed, and a less stretched NHS. What'll it be?

Yep,but theres more money to be made from motorists and we all know we live in a capitalist society, where profit comes above all else.

reohn2 wrote:we live in a capitalist society

for the time being

hubgearfreak wrote:

reohn2 wrote:we live in a capitalist society

for the time being

I wish I had you're optimism Hubbers

Outside Oxford railway station there are stands for 600 cycles and about a dozen lockers (taking up space that could provide stands for 50 bikes). The lockers take up much more space, and there's absolutely no way they can ever be a mass-market solution. Around Ghent station there is parking for a few thousand bikes, including a caged area with swipe-card entry (for which you pay a small annual fee) - that's more realistic.

Hi Richard,
There's no reason there shouldn't be both open and secure enclosed parking available. One of the Councils we have dealt with have a 'secure' cage shared by 12 cyclists and our liaison guy had his lights pinched! No CCTV.. That's the ultimate really - he knows it's one of his 11 co workers - not good.


Cheers,
Simon