Tax incentive to cycle to work!

Evangelion

At the end of the day, cyclists are a danger to themselves and others, and shouldnt be encouraged (I thought the same when I was a cyclist).

Not even any insurance, WTF

Cianos

elviscostello wrote: »

What are you on about? Of course those of us that are forced to drive are losing out...

I commute a 80km round trip every day. I HAVE to drive, there is no public transport to get me there on time. They have now also cut back on spending for transport. WTF?



It wont reduce traffic on the road I travel every day. Because it's a pile of shi*e road. It's too dangerous for cyclists.

If your road leads in to or goes through urban areas, and if people travelling (not necessarily on your road) to those areas switch to cycling, then it will reduce traffic for you, as there will be less cars congesting the areas you have to drive through or get to. Anyway, even if this still doesn't apply to you and your road, my point above was that if it doesn't effect you directly you still benefit from a healthier population (less strain on health system) and less pollution.

In summary, the more cyclists the better for everyone.

Cookie_Monster

Smellyirishman wrote: »

For me it's the lack of shower facilities.

Can people that have a problem with this explain why? I'm genuinely interested.

+1 on both points

_feedback_

Cianos wrote: »

If your road leads in to or goes through urban areas, and if people travelling (not necessarily on your road) to those areas switch to cycling, then it will reduce traffic for you, as there will be less cars congesting the areas you have to drive through or get to. Anyway, even if this still doesn't apply to you and your road, my point above was that if it doesn't effect you directly you still benefit from a healthier population (less strain on health system) and less pollution.

In summary, the more cyclists the better for everyone.

Ha! I travel through two small villages. I don't see the farmers parking up the tractor and putting the trailer on the back of the bike.

Benefit from it???? 8c a litre of petrol? 4% motor tax? Bigger charges if I crash the bleedin' thing and end up in A&E? Cop on.

Silenceisbliss

I cycle 9km to and from work EVARY day....my balls hurt

Vegeta

c - 13 wrote: »

As others have said its all well and good for those living in cities but not a lot of good for those who aren't.

When I was living in Ireland I lived about 70 KM (round trip) from where I worked and the roads were bad. Chances are high that if you tried to cycle it you'd be cleaned out of it by a truck.

If I had lived nearer my job and the roads were a bit better I would definitely have cycled.

Once again the government seems to forget that there are people who actually live outside Dublin

Yup I live 23 miles from work. So it would be a 46 mile round trip daily. Cycling is not really an option, unless of course I enjoy commuting for an extra 3 hours everyday.

Its fine though they've spent my previous taxes well, the roads are perfectly surfaced, well thought out and really safe for cycling.......oh wait. If I had an accident I'd have to go to A&E which is fine again because its really efficient and a cheap service......oh, my bad.

Also its cool I can easily fit the kids on the bicycle, its got 4 seats after all, so when I have to drop them to school on my way to work there'll be no problems.

What kind of stupid fcuking fantasy land are they living in?

You're not doing too bad in this budget if you live in a city. If you live in a rural town and have to commute, you got raped. Price of running your car (which is really a necessity living rurally) has gone up. You also have to pay 200 euro because your employer has a car park and they will take 1% extra off you for the pleasure of wasting your money. Sound

Anyone who votes FF (or Greens) is mentally disabled.

Some will get more out of cycling than others...

As Virginia confesses: "There is nothing like the pleasure of a leather bicycle seat in between one's thighs...a long ride once a week usually does the trick for me...you know what I mean...bicycle smile."

jebuz

I'm tyred of all their sh*t pedalling, give us a brake!

sorry...

I cycle to work but I don't have an opinion on this matter until I clearly see how it can benifit me. Does it mean everyone has to go out and splash out on a new bike in order to benifit?

blorg

AnonoBoy wrote: »

I get the LUAS.

Where's my money/tax incentive?

Here you go

http://taxsavertickets.luas.ie/

Vélo

Evangelion wrote: »

At the end of the day, cyclists are a danger to themselves and others, and shouldnt be encouraged (I thought the same when I was a cyclist).

Not even any insurance, WTF

That's just complete ignorance.

Explain how cyclists are a danger to themselves and others. It's actually very good for you. There are some cyclists that are a danger to themselves, the ones without proper lighting, cycling through red lights and who don't seem to care for other people but you can't say all cyclists are like that. There does need to be more education when it comes to cycling , not just for cyclists but for motorists too.

robinph

One Cold Hand wrote: »

He said 3 miles, to be fair.

But it's still pretty slow.

Oops, I thought we'd gone all continental and metricified everything now though.

It is still slow though.

thelordofcheese

Vegeta wrote: »

Yup I live 23 miles from work. So it would be a 46 mile round trip daily. Cycling is not really an option, unless of course I enjoy commuting for an extra 3 hours everyday.

Its fine though they've spent my previous taxes well, the roads are perfectly surfaced, well thought out and really safe for cycling.......oh wait. If I had an accident I'd have to go to A&E which is fine again because its really efficient and a cheap service......oh, my bad.

Also its cool I can easily fit the kids on the bicycle, its got 4 seats after all, so when I have to drop them to school on my way to work there'll be no problems.

What kind of stupid fcuking fantasy land are they living in?

You're not doing too bad in this budget if you live in a city. If you live in a rural town and have to commute, you got raped. Price of running your car (which is really a necessity living rurally) has gone up. You also have to pay 200 euro because your employer has a car park and they will take 1% extra off you for the pleasure of wasting your money. Sound

Anyone who votes FF (or Greens) is mentally disabled.

It's like you people can't fucking read.

blorg

Evangelion wrote: »

At the end of the day, cyclists are a danger to themselves and others, and shouldnt be encouraged (I thought the same when I was a cyclist).

Depends on the person really, myself I obey the rules of the road, stop at red lights, have good lighting at night time. The British Medical Association assessed the health benefits as outweighing the risks by a factor of 20:1.

"At the end of the day, motorists are a danger to themselves and others, and shouldn't be encouraged." ?

rubadub

Gran Hermano wrote: »

I fancy a new mountain bike for the odd spin once a month around Wicklow
but I'll still use the old SUV for commuting to work- too comfy listening to the radio and
I always found it a pain cycling in the rain.

Does this mean I can get my company to pay for a new bike for me even if
it's just for the odd spot of recreational use? How would they know whether
I'm using the bike or not daily?

Dunno, I expect many will do this scam. Maybe buy a nice $1k carbo fibre seatpost for that 1 spin per year.

On the cycling forum I read in the UK they have the scheme but with approved shops. This is probably to stop "Micks Bike n' Plasmas" selling you a crap mountain bike for 1k and throwing in the plasma for free.

It also means this incentive is useless to a lot of people since you can save huge amounts buy importing a bike, far more than the potential tax savings here. The VAT here has further increased, and similar to the new owner house savings where builders/developers jacked up the price, I can imagine Irish approved bike shops will jack up the prices too.

People are also saying that kids will just be bought the bikes instead, but that is not so bad, I presume one of the aims is getting roads clearer, and a ridiculous amount of kids get driven everywhere these days. Should just take VAT off all bikes (and other exercise equipment if they are really serious about obesity)

Evangelion wrote: »

At the end of the day, cyclists are a danger to themselves and others, and shouldnt be encouraged (I thought the same when I was a cyclist).

Not even any insurance, WTF

Pedestrians, by far the biggest road/traffic law breakers and danger to themselves do not have insurance either, MADNESS :rolleyes:

Would you suggest banning bicycles altogether?

Evangelion

blorg wrote: »

Depends on the person really, myself I obey the rules of the road, stop at red lights, have good lighting at night time. The British Medical Association assessed the health benefits as outweighing the risks by a factor of 20:1.

"At the end of the day, motorists are a danger to themselves and others, and shouldn't be encouraged." ?

Haha, you have a point with that 2nd bit, red lights dont seem to mean anything to alot of motorists these days.

I would have assumed the obey the traffic laws in my statement. The unfortunate reality is that a huge amount of cylists are unable to cycle at the side of the road. I often see a snake of traffic in the oncoming lane just to avoid them.
It doesnt help that if a motorist hits them, then its always going to be the motorists fault. I think all adult cyclists not in college should pay insurance, they can easily damage a car or cause an accident as much as anyone else

Vegeta

thelordofcheese wrote: »

It's like you people can't fucking read.

Care to elaborate or are your points too piss poor to even voice them?

CtrlSource

DarkJager wrote: »

Will this green nonsense ever end?

Wertz wrote: »

A grand for a f*cking bike? WTF? What planet do these nincompoops inhabit?

This is superdy dooper for anyone living within an urban area or with a short trip to work...so what about the other 60% of us?

As others have said, what exactly is your problem with this? It might seem like a small and almost laughable gesture to you cynics, especially given this toughness of yesterday's budget. But i think it's a great idea of itself and am sick of the whinging of Armchair Generals about every Green policy.

c - 13 wrote: »

As others have said its all well and good for those living in cities but not a lot of good for those who aren't...

...Once again the government seems to forget that there are people who actually live outside Dublin

Just because it doesn't appeal to those living longer distances from their destinations doesn't mean the scheme is without merit. i don't moan about farming grants just because i can't avail of them

_feedback_

CtrlSource wrote: »

Just because it doesn't appeal to those living longer distances from their destinations doesn't mean the scheme is without merit. i don't moan about farming grants just because i can't avail of them

Nobody is complaining that they can't avail of the stupid fu*king incentive. They're complaining because motoring is essential to live in rural areas, and we got fuc*ed over with this green crap.

CtrlSource

No you didn't get ****ed over. It just doesn't apply to you

WindSock

I live too far from work to cycle. I used to be great at letting people out of roads in Clontarf in my way in in the mornings but recently I've said stuff it. They live right beside the city centre, they can fcuck right off. I'd love to cycle in to work if I lived closer.

Vegeta

CtrlSource wrote: »

Just because it doesn't appeal to those living longer distances from their destinations doesn't mean the scheme is without merit. i don't moan about farming grants just because i can't avail of them

For me I know it is not this policy in particular but instead of this policy they could implement something which might actually be helpful to people who have to drive longer distance to work. Yeah 21.5% off the price of a bike is really going to make me haul ass and leave the car at home on nearly a 50 mile trip.

Its a bullsh1t token gesture. 900 million on public transport next year but 1.4 billion for the NRA. Its ok though there's 21.5% off the price of a bike. :rolleyes:

Yes this is a good thing for people who are about to start cycling to work or will buy a new bike (I don't dispute that) but it doesn't really sort out the problems (lack of viable alternative to driving) for a lot of people. That's where my anger comes in especially as they have hit the driver again.

c - 13

CtrlSource wrote: »

As others have said, what exactly is your problem with this? It might seem like a small and almost laughable gesture to you cynics, especially given this toughness of yesterday's budget. But i think it's a great idea of itself and am sick of the whinging of Armchair Generals about every Green policy.

Just because it doesn't appeal to those living longer distances from their destinations doesn't mean the scheme is without merit. i don't moan about farming grants just because i can't avail of them

Yes but there no taxes being brought in against you becasue you don't/cant farm either is there ?

Those living longer distances still have to deal with the Tax and petrol increases with no other option.

Even where I used to live if I wanted to take public transport to my workplace I would have to travel about another 25KM in the opposite direction first. Arrive about 2 Hours late becasue of transport timings. Then walk the last 3/4 KM to my office.

I'm all for not using my car but why present a situation thats unfeasible to a lot of people ? Surely some provision could have been made to those in rural areas as well ?

thelordofcheese

Vegeta wrote: »

Care to elaborate or are your points too piss poor to even voice them?

The scheme clearly isn't targeted at you, i mean they're bikes for fucks sake. Of course nobody is suggesting that you swap your car for a bike and cycle 46 miles while balancing your sprogs on your head.

But for people who can cycle to work realisitically it's an incentive to get them to do so and therefore take those cars that don't need to be on the road, off. It's not a complex concept, by any stretch of the imagination.

Honestly.....

pickarooney

Vegeta wrote: »

Yes this is a good thing for people who are about to start cycling to work or will buy a new bike (I don't dispute that) but it doesn't really sort out the problems (lack of viable alternative to driving) for a lot of people. That's where my anger comes in especially as they have hit the driver again.

I can understand your frustration, but what has it got to do with this thread? There are enough rant-about-the-budget threads around without dragging this one off course.

Chips Lovell

According to the last census, 83% of commuters have a jouney of less than 24km. That's a hell of a lot of people who could potentially take a bike.

Vegeta

thelordofcheese wrote: »

The scheme clearly isn't targeted at you, i mean they're bikes for fucks sake. Of course nobody is suggesting that you swap your car for a bike and cycle 46 miles while balancing your sprogs on your head.

But for people who can cycle to work realisitically it's an incentive to get them to do so and therefore take those cars that don't need to be on the road, off. It's not a complex concept, by any stretch of the imagination.

Honestly.....

Well I'll quote myself where I said pretty much exactly that

Yes this is a good thing for people who are about to start cycling to work or will buy a new bike (I don't dispute that) but it doesn't really sort out the problems (lack of viable alternative to driving) for a lot of people. That's where my anger comes in especially as they have hit the driver again.

I just think it doesn't go far enough and its a weak half arsed token "green" policy which deserves criticism for being pretty spineless.

Vegeta

pickarooney wrote: »

I can understand your frustration, but what has it got to do with this thread? There are enough rant-about-the-budget threads around without dragging this one off course.

Well I am ranting about this part of the budget in particular (mainly transport)

Quazzie

I'm from Offaly so will Biffo come out and teach me how to cycle. If not I demand that the government pays for stabalizers too.

CtrlSource

c - 13 wrote: »

Yes but there no taxes being brought in against you becasue you don't/cant farm either is there ?

Those living longer distances still have to deal with the Tax and petrol increases with no other option.

Hey, i'm a motorist too! But the points you mention are subjects of other threads.

I'm all for not using my car but why present a situation thats unfeasible to a lot of people?

Because it's feasible to a lot of people.

Surely some provision could have been made to those in rural areas as well ?

It could and should. Life's not fair. Maybe next year...

thelordofcheese

Vegeta wrote: »

I just think it doesn't go far enough and its a weak half arsed token "green" policy which deserves criticism for being pretty spineless.

And i think you're mad, or at least differently sane. "It doesn't go far enough" what exactly are you suggesting as an alternative?
I'm assuming you mean some sort of break for you because you live > X miles from where you need to go?

It's a green policy it's not targeted at makeing us use our cars the same or more, it's purpose is to make us use them less. Fine, it's not for you but that doesn't mean that it's weak. Nor does it mean you should get something too because that's just not fair.

milod

Vegeta wrote: »

Yes this is a good thing for people who are about to start cycling to work or will buy a new bike (I don't dispute that) but it doesn't really sort out the problems (lack of viable alternative to driving) for a lot of people. That's where my anger comes in especially as they have hit the driver again.

This is a fair point, but I suppose the only answer is that drivers will continue to be hit as they are a more legitimate target. Bikes don't emit CO2, cause wear and tear to road surfaces, or delay traffic - and a small contribution to encouraging cycling is a cheap and Green initiative (why do people make 'Green' sound like a bad word btw?).

While drivers are being hit, the measures are in a sense leaning toward forcing drivers to use more economical cars that emit less CO2. Just because someone lives in Kells, or Ashbourne for example, it doesn't mean they need a 4x4. There's a difference between having to drive out of necessity, and the choice of car you make.

blorg

Evangelion wrote: »

I would have assumed the obey the traffic laws in my statement. The unfortunate reality is that a huge amount of cylists are unable to cycle at the side of the road. I often see a snake of traffic in the oncoming lane just to avoid them.

You are meant to leave adequate space (at least 1.5m is generally accepted) when overtaking; in effect on many/most roads this generally means that you need to cross the line in order to overtake and as such the road must be clear of on-coming traffic. Cyclists sticking right to the edge of the road encourages dangerously close overtaking from certain motorists; there may also be potholes or other obstacles in that part of the road that it is necessary to avoid. All traffic is meant to keep left, but only insofar as it is safe to do so.

It doesnt help that if a motorist hits them, then its always going to be the motorists fault. I think all adult cyclists not in college should pay insurance, they can easily damage a car or cause an accident as much as anyone else

Mandatory third-party insurance for motor vehicles is chiefly a result of the significant injuries (and deaths) they can inflict, with the potential damage far in excess of the ability of the person at fault to pay. The corresponding likelihood of a cyclist causing such an amount of damage is tiny. You could as well argue for compulsory insurance for pedestrians; they cause more traffic accidents than cyclists.

Vegeta

thelordofcheese wrote: »

And i think you're mad, or at least differently sane. "It doesn't go far enough" what exactly are you suggesting as an alternative?
I'm assuming you mean some sort of break for you because you live > X miles from where you need to go?

Ah no, just spend more of my tax money on better public transport for a start. Or stop taxing the bejaysus out of motorists in the country who have no choice but to use their cars, impose a congestion charges or similar in places where public transport/cycling is possible (not a lot of places in Ireland then :pac:)

It's a green policy it's not targeted at makeing us use our cars the same or more, it's purpose is to make us use them less. Fine, it's not for you but that doesn't mean that it's weak. Nor does it mean you should get something too because that's just not fair.

Believe me I would cycle if I could. I have a sh1t banger of a car as I hate spending money on things like that, which is why these things annoy me. I bought a cheap small engined reliable car as I wanted to keep the price of commuting down but they keep making it more and more expensive.
The only thing I want is them to stop taxing people without giving them viable alternatives.

thelordofcheese

Vegeta wrote: »

Ah no, just spend more of my tax money on better public transport for a start. Or stop taxing the bejaysus out of motorists in the country who have no choice but to use their cars, impose a congestion charges or similar in places where public transport/cycling is possible (not a lot of places in Ireland then :pac:)

This I like, but it's one of those circles of a vicious nature isn't it. You can't upgrade and overhaul the public transport system without pumping more money into it, but in order to do that you have to justify it by getting more people to use it, which won't happen unless the system is improved.

Actually, if this had been the system you're proposing (i.e more tax into public transport, congestion charges) i think AH would have actually exploded with E-rage.

Vegeta

thelordofcheese wrote: »

This I like, but it's one of those circles of a vicious nature isn't it. You can't upgrade and overhaul the public transport system without pumping more money into it, but in order to do that you have to justify it by getting more people to use it, which won't happen unless the system is improved.

Actually, if this had been the system you're proposing (i.e more tax into public transport, congestion charges) i think AH would have actually exploded with E-rage.

Well I suppose as it stands motor taxes have been raised anyway. I would not get annoyed if I saw decent returns for that increase, but is there going to be a proportional improvement in the countries infrastructure or public transport? I am skeptical.

Ah I am just a cynical bastard anyway. The scheme in itself as a stand alone entity is positive but when it comes to commuting to work generally, for me and a lot of people I know, it has been pretty brutal.

Insect Overlord

robinph wrote: »

You must be really slow at cycling, I'd have the 3km covered on foot in that time. Anyway, you'd soon be getting the distance covered quicker once you started doing it and get a bit fitter.

One Cold Hand wrote: »

He said 3 miles, to be fair.

But it's still pretty slow.

robinph wrote: »

Oops, I thought we'd gone all continental and metricified everything now though.

It is still slow though.

Stop ganging up on me!

I'm just estimating the 3 miles thing, it might be longer than that, I don't know the exact distance. At least half the journey is up-hill though.

As someone else mentioned already, the quality of the bike in question can make a big difference. I got mine, a cheap mountain bike, for about €130 nearly four years ago. At the same time a friend of mine bought himself a racing bike for €600. It's designed for getting places quickly, while mine is not. If some day I'm in a position where buying an expensive bike is the best option for getting me to work, then that's what I'll get.
For now, I'll stick to the one I've got (despite its dodgey gears and punctured rear tyre) and keep my short commute as part of my over-all training scheme.

robtri

elviscostello wrote: »

Ha! I travel through two small villages. I don't see the farmers parking up the tractor and putting the trailer on the back of the bike.

Benefit from it???? 8c a litre of petrol? 4% motor tax? Bigger charges if I crash the bleedin' thing and end up in A&E? Cop on.

well move closer to work...
What do you expect the government to do, provide special transport for just you????
its an incentive for people, it will not benifit everyone, but hopefully it will benifit a lot of people in Urban area's

Id cycle to work only its slightly too far, I have training after work which id never make on a bike + gear bags would be a bastardo, and I dont wanna shower in the shower in work cos its absolutely filthy!

_feedback_

robtri wrote: »

well move closer to work...
What do you expect the government to do, provide special transport for just you????
its an incentive for people, it will not benifit everyone, but hopefully it will benifit a lot of people in Urban area's

I don't want to move closer to work. I'm not talking about special transport, for me. I'm talking about decent public transport between two large urban areas (Athlone to Mullingar). They have branded Athlone, Mullingar and Tullamore as the midlands Triangle, with talk of upgrading one to a city. What sort of fuc*ing triangle is it, when it's not possible to commute from one point to another by public transport? There is a unused rail line between Athlone and Mullingar that will stay unused, probably for the remainder of my lifetime at least. It's a fuc*ing joke.

blackbox

Deleted User wrote: »

...and I dont wanna shower in the shower in work cos its absolutely filthy!

Why do you want to have a shower? Just cycle a bit more slowly and you won't work up a sweat - or wear less clothes. It's not exactly the Bahamas here!

Amd by the way, I don't consider this a win / win. It's only a win for people who are reasonably close to work, have safe roads and don't mind getting soaked. Where do people think the subsidy is coming from - not from Gormless's pocket, that's for sure.

thelordofcheese

blackbox wrote: »

Why do you want to have a shower? Just cycle a bit more slowly and you won't work up a sweat - or wear less clothes. It's not exactly the Bahamas here!

Amd by the way, I don't consider this a win / win. It's only a win for people who are reasonably close to work, have safe roads and don't mind getting soaked. Where do people think the subsidy is coming from - not from Gormless's pocket, that's for sure.

"Gormless", ohh wow, you're so witty......

robinph

An Fhile wrote: »

Stop ganging up on me!

I'm just estimating the 3 miles thing, it might be longer than that, I don't know the exact distance. At least half the journey is up-hill though.

Sorry.

blackbox wrote: »

Amd by the way, I don't consider this a win / win. It's only a win for people who are reasonably close to work, have safe roads and don't mind getting soaked. Where do people think the subsidy is coming from - not from Gormless's pocket, that's for sure.

It's not going to cost them anything though, they just don't get to collect the VAT on a bunch of new bike purchases. Admittedly some of those purchases would have happened anyway so they miss out on that VAT, but anyone actually taking up this offer as a new cyclist as the plan is intended is not costing the government a penny, apart for a bit of admin maybe.

blorg

Also the cyclist in question doesn't have to pay income tax on the money used to buy the bike, but you are right, it is not a "subsidy" but a tax break.

JuliusCaesar

What I want is MILAGE for travelling by bike. My work is in town; I'm there in 20 minutes cycling, so far so good. If I need to go out somewhere though, I'll get milage for driving my own car, or they'll pay a taxi for me. But I can't get milage for the bike, even though my employers used to pay this years ago.

Bring Back Bike Milage!



(o and give us the bike sheds back! toss out those smokers!)

Stark

AnonoBoy wrote: »

I get the LUAS.

Where's my money/tax incentive?

Taxsaver commuter tickets.

nicksinthemix

An File wrote: »

As someone else mentioned already, the quality of the bike in question can make a big difference. I got mine, a cheap mountain bike, for about €130 nearly four years ago. At the same time a friend of mine bought himself a racing bike for €600.

Your friend might have got that bike for about €300 if the scheme was in operation then. I'm amazed that more people haven't used this as a way to get something back from the taxman.

I suppose not everyone want a bike from the revenue. Good luck getting anything else though.

charloman

Right... my problem is... I want to do the cycle commute to work... I want to buy a new bike... a decent one too... and my employer wont partake in the scheme... how about that eh?

Anyone know of another way around this situation????

Chips Lovell

Not really. Unless you find a new employer.

K4t

Carparks should be opened in fields a few miles outside the city where commuters can park for a small charge and then cycle into town.

General Zod

I love this scheme. I got a bike, am cycling to work, getting more exercise and not having to deal with the Luas in the mornings is great.