extension of C2W scheme

User avatar
simonineaston
Posts: 8003
Joined: 9 May 2007, 1:06pm
Location: ...at a cricket ground

extension of C2W scheme

Post by simonineaston »

sounds really good idea to extend provision of scheme - see here for newspaper article
In a letter being sent on Monday to the chancellor, Rishi Sunak, groups including the Federation of Small Businesses, the Co-op and British Cycling, have called for this to be changed, arguing that amid rising prices those on lower incomes are most in need of the chance to save money on travel.
My Brompton was bought via the scheme, when I was travelling to and fro' Oxford & Bristol inc by train. I'd concluded that the Brompton was the best tool for the job, as indeed it turned out to be, allowing me to get on board inceasingly packed mainline trains, where a full-size cycle or a lesser folder might have been problematic. The C2W scheme allowed me to buy the Brompton and be confident that I was paying the lowest price I could. I'd already decided that buying a Brompton via ebay had its own drawbacks, not least the rumour, still popular, that a high proportion of Brompton on the auction site could be stolen.
S
(on the look out for Armageddon, on board a Brompton nano & ever-changing Moultons)
Bonzo Banana
Posts: 416
Joined: 5 Feb 2017, 11:58am

Re: extension of C2W scheme

Post by Bonzo Banana »

These sort of schemes seem great in principle but the UK is running a huge trade deficit and has huge debts and motivating people to import more goods is hardly good for the economy. Last figure I heard was £83 billion is being paid in interest per year which is approaching £3k of interest for every working person per year. So basically the government borrows more money to subsidise more imports of bikes to further increase our debts and destroy the economy. Same issue with electric vehicle subsidies. It is critical we return to a trading surplus, live within our means and start paying our debts, rather than continue as we are to the point where financial institutions stop lending us money and maybe we even default on our debts and the economy crashes.

I would of thought a scheme where the chancellor encourages shops to offer second hand and refurbished goods especially bicycles and offers grants for the unemployed etc to get a healthy discount of the price of a secondhand bike from such stores. It's not just a benefit to the economy but its a benefit to the environment too. We need to motivate companies to do more refurbishing of goods in general.

Also bicycles with high levels of proprietary parts and not recyclable should be excluded from any scheme. You get so many bikes that are based around extremely high cost parts and repairs or ebikes that get to be beyond economic repair and are only fit for scrap because of their proprietary nature. Any such product should not be allowed in such a scheme.

Schemes should be about providing basic cycling transport at the minimum cost to the taxpayer.

I totally agree in principle though that providing a basic bicycle to anyone who needs one is definitely a good thing but we need to stop being so idealistic and more realistic about the economy and our debts. You don't keep throwing money about when your are knee deep in debt.
User avatar
simonineaston
Posts: 8003
Joined: 9 May 2007, 1:06pm
Location: ...at a cricket ground

Re: extension of C2W scheme

Post by simonineaston »

motivating people to import more goods
Well, the Brompton I bought was made here. I agree re recycling cycles - there's a ton of viable bikes around which could be used. A mate works up at Avonmouth stripping and sorting bikes on an industrial scale. We run a scheme here in Bristol during which youngsters attend bike mechanics sessions, build up a bike and then get to keep it at the end.
S
(on the look out for Armageddon, on board a Brompton nano & ever-changing Moultons)
User avatar
Paradiddle
Posts: 123
Joined: 7 Jul 2020, 10:39am
Location: London

Re: extension of C2W scheme

Post by Paradiddle »

The C2W extension is a step forward but it's still quite limited. It is also very dependent on what scheme your employer signs up to and which shop takes it.

I agree that there should be more focus on repairing and upcycling old bikes to ensure more supply and access to workers with lower income. IMO the bike maintenance voucher scheme last year (or was it 2 years ago?) was a good initiative, but it could've done better to target the people who needed it the most. There were loads of people with well-maintained bikes who got the voucher just because they could.
User avatar
simonineaston
Posts: 8003
Joined: 9 May 2007, 1:06pm
Location: ...at a cricket ground

Re: extension of C2W scheme

Post by simonineaston »

It's just another example of the tension between reduce, re-use, recycle & build more, build more - it's a shame that we couldn't capitalise on decent, basic British-made bicycles more. I spent some time y'day with a chum who arrived on his BSA roadster, complete with full chain guard and mudguards, 3 speed hub gear, rack and dynamo lighting.
S
(on the look out for Armageddon, on board a Brompton nano & ever-changing Moultons)
Bonzo Banana
Posts: 416
Joined: 5 Feb 2017, 11:58am

Re: extension of C2W scheme

Post by Bonzo Banana »

simonineaston wrote: 23 May 2022, 6:23pm It's just another example of the tension between reduce, re-use, recycle & build more, build more - it's a shame that we couldn't capitalise on decent, basic British-made bicycles more. I spent some time y'day with a chum who arrived on his BSA roadster, complete with full chain guard and mudguards, 3 speed hub gear, rack and dynamo lighting.
I love those old BSA bikes and similar Raleigh bikes. Just seems like a product built to last with extreme levels of practicality. I'm a huge fan of the old 3 speed Sturmey Archer hubs.
User avatar
simonineaston
Posts: 8003
Joined: 9 May 2007, 1:06pm
Location: ...at a cricket ground

Re: extension of C2W scheme

Post by simonineaston »

oh, and I forgot the bell ! :lol:
S
(on the look out for Armageddon, on board a Brompton nano & ever-changing Moultons)
Psamathe
Posts: 17650
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: extension of C2W scheme

Post by Psamathe »

I do think the Gov. needs to act to encourage more people to cycle more often. Everybody here is more than aware of the many and scope of benefits both to the individual and to society.

I doubt the Gov. could come up with a single scheme to address all the different potential cyclists. I've always been a bit uncertain (not necessarily against) the C2W scheme as I question that, whilst it serves a purpose I wonder if it encourages many non-cyclists to start cycling or encourage existing cyclists to cycle to work. Whatever the target or scope I'm sure it gets people on bikes more than not having it.

But the Gov. should be doing far more e.g. 0% VAT on bikes, bike spares, bike servicing, etc.. More investment in cycling infrastructure, etc.

Ian
mattsccm
Posts: 5101
Joined: 28 Nov 2009, 9:44pm

Re: extension of C2W scheme

Post by mattsccm »

In my experience the C2W scheme allows regular cyclist the chance of N+1. I don't know anyone who did it to start to cycle to work. Indeed most of the people I know using the scheme don't ride to work.
To my mind, if it is to get people commuting it should be limited to basic commuter type bikes. Maybe Uk brands which although using imported parts might bring a bit more cash into our economy. These tend to last longer, given appropriate care and it would stop the N+1 idea thus presumably saving the country some cash.
Having said that I actually think thats all of this is a waste of time. We'll never do enough to make much difference.
User avatar
simonineaston
Posts: 8003
Joined: 9 May 2007, 1:06pm
Location: ...at a cricket ground

Re: extension of C2W scheme

Post by simonineaston »

I do think the Gov. needs to act to encourage more people to cycle more often.
I'm sharing some time between two food projects at the mo' - one is down the bottom of the hill and is easy to get to, the other is further away in the s. of the city. I'm feeling my way into the best route to get there and was struck by the piece-meal fashion of the cycle paths. Sections peter out, sections are blocked off by road-works, sections cross roads and then cross back again. I took a straw pole amonsgt the other workers and found that while at least three of cycle, others didn't, describing the route as difficult and bitty.
So I'm sympathetic to the observation that the C2W scheme is OK but that efforts better spent on improving local infrastructure.
S
(on the look out for Armageddon, on board a Brompton nano & ever-changing Moultons)
PH
Posts: 13106
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: extension of C2W scheme

Post by PH »

I've always been a bit dubious about the ability of the scheme to encourage anyone to cycle, but compared to the subsidies car drivers get it's always looked like a small perk. Maybe if they taxed free workplace parking as a benefit they could afford to give bikes away to those not using the space. Excluding those on minimum wage has always been unfair, that's also deterred some employers from offering it at all, there's rules about a company offering it needing to do so for all employees. There are ways round that, though they're complicated enough to have stopped a previous employer from introducing it, even when they started out quite enthusiastic.
I do know a few people who commute on bikes purchased with C2W, Bromptons have been popular because they're rarely discounted and some C2W vouchers are not redeemable on discounted bikes so the supposed savings can be eaten up by paying a higher price. I don't know anyone who doesn't cycle because of the cost, I'm sure there's some, but you don't need to spend £100's to get a serviceable commuter bike and cost doesn't seem to be a barrier for those low earners who've bought £400 scooters. The raising of the limit a couple of years ago was a good thing, it made purchasing an E-bike on the scheme possible, and the cost of those is possibly a barrier to some.
User avatar
gazza_d
Posts: 453
Joined: 30 Oct 2016, 8:20am

Re: extension of C2W scheme

Post by gazza_d »

I've bought 3 bikes on the scheme over the last 8 years or so.
It's good if you have access, but limited. Widening to lower paid workers will probably just need a relaxation of the rule around ability to repay.
It's not enough. There should be an expansion to allow the self employed and those on benefits to be eligible for the scheme.

I don't know, but I wonder if legit second hand sellers could use the scheme to offer cheaper pre loved bikes at a really good rate, or if the percentage the companies running the schemes take would wipe out any profit margin.

Also it's a permanent bug bear with me that my NHS trusts c2w scheme has a £3k limit and is only open a couple of times a year for about a month, but the similar salary sacrifice scheme they run for lease cars is open all year round and has no limit as long as you can afford it.
awavey
Posts: 300
Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:04am

Re: extension of C2W scheme

Post by awavey »

Id think we all would like the Gov to encourage more to cycle more often, but I dont believe the C2W scheme is the answer to that, and there are very valid reasons why unions actually campaign to keep that tax rule in place for those on the minimum wage, so they arent left disadvantaged or forced into schemes they might not want or fully understand the financial implications of as employers often use these types of salary sacrifice schemes as a way for them to offer employee package benefits instead of real wage increases.

also remember if the employee keep the bike,and thats what we want them to do to keep cycling, the scheme hits them with the final payment ownership fee, which will be multiples of the money they had already been paying monthly, that could make it even harder to cope financially by being paid even further below the minimum wage.

Id probably drop VAT on bike sales/accessories if sales of new bikes is the answer, but really someone who wants to cycle to work, you can buy a brand new bike for £115 from Sports Direct, Halfords sell some for 140, there are cheap bikes out there, even cheaper 2nd hand ones even if ownership provenance is harder to prove,

I just dont think the issue here is cheap access to bikes, one of the advantages of bicycles over pretty much any other type of vehicle you can buy and own is they are much cheaper to buy and available to all.

its putting these people on roads where theres no safe route for them to ride thats the real problem
pete75
Posts: 16370
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: extension of C2W scheme

Post by pete75 »

Bonzo Banana wrote: 23 May 2022, 3:37pm
Also bicycles with high levels of proprietary parts and not recyclable should be excluded from any scheme. You get so many bikes that are based around extremely high cost parts and repairs or ebikes that get to be beyond economic repair and are only fit for scrap because of their proprietary nature. Any such product should not be allowed in such a scheme.

That would ban Bromptons from the scheme despite the fact they are the most sensible RTW bike for cycle/public transport commuting.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
User avatar
simonineaston
Posts: 8003
Joined: 9 May 2007, 1:06pm
Location: ...at a cricket ground

Re: extension of C2W scheme

Post by simonineaston »

An excellent example of how we will fail to tackle climate change successfully and so become extinct. A failure to agree. Things were so much simpler back when our main concern was which turnip to dig up.
S
(on the look out for Armageddon, on board a Brompton nano & ever-changing Moultons)
Post Reply