Journalism and cycling

tomasrojo

I suppose if you were eligible you could get a bike on the BTW scheme for somebody else who is ineligible, and charge them slightly more for it than you paid.

It's not much of a scam: a few hundred euro max., every five years.

Lumen

tomasrojo wrote: »

I suppose if you were eligible you could get a bike on the BTW scheme for somebody else who is ineligible, and charge them slightly more for it than you paid.

It's not much of a scam: a few hundred euro max., every five years.

Whataboutery alert....

...compared to how many uninsured drivers?

tomasrojo

150 000, wasn't it?

plodder

Various reports have been brought to my attention in recent times. Not only are some employees claiming several times every five years, they allege their bike has been lost, stolen or damaged and reapply for a new one. Surprisingly, an employer is not required to verify this,” the Laois TD said.

How can that happen? As far as I know the scheme doesn't allow bikes to be replaced until the five years are up ...

Cabaal

plodder wrote: »

How can that happen? As far as I know the scheme doesn't allow bikes to be replaced until the five years are up ...

It didn't
He's making **** up

Fighting Tao

plodder wrote: »

How can that happen? As far as I know the scheme doesn't allow bikes to be replaced until the five years are up ...

One way it can happen is where companies pay for the bike directly rather than using a voucher company. Payroll/HR were not required (may have changed now) to inform revenue of individuals using the scheme. So if someone changed jobs within the 5 years they could get another bike.

In the last couple of years revenue have been clamping down on the voucher schemes and bike shops to ensure that they are operated correctly and that only bikes are bought. However, since this is done using receipts, there is still a tiny bit scope for abuse. It is not worth the risk of being caught to a bike shop.

Grassey

Deleted User wrote: »

Bit on the Fitzwilliam route http://irishcycle.com/2018/08/30/resident-group-makes-false-claims-ahead-of-fitzwilliam-cycle-route-meeting-this-evening/

Did anyone go to the meeting?

Residents worried about 'high-speed cyclists' on parking protected cycle lanes in Dublin city

Doc07

Grassey wrote: »

Residents worried about 'high-speed cyclists' on parking protected cycle lanes in Dublin city

Ahh, read the comments! These articles need to come with a ‘read comments at your own risk’ disclaimer !

Grassey

You should know better by now!!!

plodder

Fighting Tao wrote: »

One way it can happen is where companies pay for the bike directly rather than using a voucher company. Payroll/HR were not required (may have changed now) to inform revenue of individuals using the scheme. So if someone changed jobs within the 5 years they could get another bike.

I've heard of that all right. Against the rules, but the way the scheme is setup easy to get away with. Though the article seemed to imply that companies were allowing people to get bikes more often within the same job. Again, it's probably something they could "get away with" but the employer woulld be knowingly breaking the rules then.

buffalo

Grassey wrote: »

Residents worried about 'high-speed cyclists' on parking protected cycle lanes in Dublin city

Full marks for use of the phrase 'cyclist driven'.

Grassey

buffalo wrote: »

Full marks for use of the phrase 'cyclist driven'.

Will nobody think of the poor pedestrians trapped on their grade separated raised path :rolleyes:

CramCycle

I am more impressed that a TD has went on the record saying he has several examples of tax fraud and is not being hauled over the coals for it. He has claimed he knows of people, presumably names and all, who are committing tax fraud and he is not reporting them to revenue. FFS. Only in Ireland (I know he is making it up)

Fighting Tao

plodder wrote: »

I've heard of that all right. Against the rules, but the way the scheme is setup easy to get away with. Though the article seemed to imply that companies were allowing people to get bikes more often within the same job. Again, it's probably something they could "get away with" but the employer woulld be knowingly breaking the rules then.

I can’t see why companies would allow that. They are subject to Revenue audit at any time. I’m sure that if they are caught doing it, there would be consequences.

Macy0161

Introduced under FF, and I would say I here about far more abuse of it now than when it was first introduced, where I did here people at least claiming to have got their children's bikes, or just vouchers that they used for random DIY things like lawnmowers. Anything I've heard recently has been pretty much people getting a bike for themselves.

Probably harder to argue that every bike from the scheme is being cycled to work though...

plodder

Fighting Tao wrote: »

I can’t see why companies would allow that. They are subject to Revenue audit at any time. I’m sure that if they are caught doing it, there would be consequences.

I don't either. The whole article is a bit: Dúirt bean liom go ndúirt bean léi

CramCycle

Macy0161 wrote: »

Introduced under FF, and I would say I here about far more abuse of it now than when it was first introduced, where I did here people at least claiming to have got their children's bikes, or just vouchers that they used for random DIY things like lawnmowers. Anything I've heard recently has been pretty much people getting a bike for themselves.

Probably harder to argue that every bike from the scheme is being cycled to work though...

I think the issue is though that he is claiming it is being multiple times (so theft from the state coffers). More ridiculously that they are being sold on for profit. Lets be honest about this, the amount you would make from a second hand sale of a 1000euro bike, would mean that you were committing tax fraud for, at best, 100euro profit if at 52% and more realistically alot less, in fact, probably making a loss on it.

The idiocy of the statement is magnificent. Just because it is not being actively monitored by Revenue, there are enough checks there that if you were audited or have your accounts done by an accountant, it would stick out like a sore thumb.

cdaly_

Macy0161 wrote: »

Probably harder to argue that every bike from the scheme is being cycled to work though...

It doesn't have to be cycled to work. You just have to intend to cycle to work...

tomasrojo

There's a presumption of honesty in a lot of work the Revenue does. If the FF guy thinks BTW is open to abuse, wait till he finds out that the profits of the self-employed are overwhelmingly self-declared.

magicbastarder

cycling the only sustainable mode of transport which has seen a relative increase in the last decade:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/revealed-car-still-king-as-fewer-trips-made-by-bus-or-walking-37275880.html

tomasrojo

magicbastarder wrote: »

cycling the only sustainable mode of transport which has seen a relative increase in the last decade:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/revealed-car-still-king-as-fewer-trips-made-by-bus-or-walking-37275880.html

At this stage, it's important to separate Dublin from the rest of the country. It really is on a completely different course, especially in the city centre.

I'd be interested to see if the census data can be reconciled with the canal cordon counts, which I think suggested a rise in journeys by bus? Maybe it's just trips to the city centre?

This is a bit odd:

The highest use of the car is in Waterford city, at just over 65pc of all trips, followed by Cork (60.16pc), Limerick (57.88pc), Galway (53.58pc) and Dublin (42.04pc).

It then goes on to list a bunch of places that have higher car use than Dublin that aren't Cork, Limerick or Galway. Perhaps they mean cities, but I assume Kilkenny, for example, has higher car use than Dublin

The Car is King framing is a bit undermined by all the places that have car journeys at less than 50% too.

Doc07

‘The idiocy of the statement is magnificent.’

A new entry into my top ten sentences, Thanks CramCycle. Hope you don’t mind if I use it, I need a few clean insults.

JMcL

magicbastarder wrote: »

cycling the only sustainable mode of transport which has seen a relative increase in the last decade:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/revealed-car-still-king-as-fewer-trips-made-by-bus-or-walking-37275880.html

Depressing article.

The chronic underfunding of public transport has a part to play. Waterford is singled out in the article, and in terms of the Tramore-Waterford bus service (12km) the fares have crept up steadily over the past few years with not great frequency (in fact they used not have a bus at all at all at the height of morning rush hour a few years ago - go figure). The sad fact is that it's cheaper to take the car for a return trip to Waterford - even for single occupancy - the bus is €6 return. Their 10 journey ticket bizarrely seems to work out more expensive than 10 individual tickets. Most people here wouldn't even consider taking the bus given the choice.

To give the city council their due, they have invested a fair bit in cycle infrastructure over the past few years (to howls of outrage from the usual suspects), but on the Tramore side there's a narrowish 2 lane section of about 2km inside the ring road with barriers, non-existent hard shoulder and an 80km/h limit which is intimidating for less confident cyclists. It's a shame as it's a pretty much flat route between the two towns and there's a cycle track for most of the way which just stops short at the ring road.

Chiparus

JMcL wrote: »

Depressing article.

The chronic underfunding of public transport has a part to play. Waterford is singled out in the article, and in terms of the Tramore-Waterford bus service (12km) the fares have crept up steadily over the past few years with not great frequency (in fact they used not have a bus at all at all at the height of morning rush hour a few years ago - go figure). The sad fact is that it's cheaper to take the car for a return trip to Waterford - even for single occupancy - the bus is €6 return. Their 10 journey ticket bizarrely seems to work out more expensive than 10 individual tickets. Most people here wouldn't even consider taking the bus given the choice.

To give the city council their due, they have invested a fair bit in cycle infrastructure over the past few years (to howls of outrage from the usual suspects), but on the Tramore side there's a narrowish 2 lane section of about 2km inside the ring road with barriers, non-existent hard shoulder and an 80km/h limit which is intimidating for less confident cyclists. It's a shame as it's a pretty much flat route between the two towns and there's a cycle track for most of the way which just stops short at the ring road.

The council has terrible cycle routes, the "two lane " bit is dreadful no one uses it , and dont get me started on the Manor Street contraflow.- its safer and quicker to go the long way around with traffic.There is even signs telling people they can park in the contraflow lane. !

magicbastarder

https://www.todayfm.com/podcasts/90656/Almost-1-Cyclist-A-Day-Treated-For-Head-Injuries

today fm - last word - discussion on cycling and head injuries.
only just started listening to it. twitter says it was good.

rubadub

magicbastarder wrote: »

https://www.todayfm.com/podcasts/90656/Almost-1-Cyclist-A-Day-Treated-For-Head-Injuries

I would like to know if they mention any other groups at risk, how many pedestrians were treated for head injuries in hospital. Of course there are more pedestrians out there, but it hard to put a figure on cyclists. The guy falling off a bike could be cycling home drunk on a mates bike, first time he's been on a bike in 5 years.

What other injuries to cyclists sustain. I expect the vast majority of the head injuries are not life threatening in anyway, and possibly not that debilitating while recovering. While for every head injury there could be a broken wrist, arm or collar bone.

CramCycle

It was interesting to see how well coached Robert Troy was on not falling into the obvious stupid arguments that Matt was throwing out and he had some good figures to hand. The Galway Cycling guy was also well versed and great at not doing the same, the texts in where a bit like a censored version of the Journal.

This said, I would prefer if they got in opposing views with a good moderator in the middle rather than either everyone pro, or everyone against, as Today FM and Newstalk seem to manage.

Have a proper discussion, and stop reading out idiotic tweets and texts in the middle of it.

magicbastarder

30c a text, isn't it? i'm sure that must be a good revenue generator; they want people to think they'll have a good chance of getting their voice heard.

LeoD

CramCycle wrote: »

This said, I would prefer if they got in opposing views with a good moderator in the middle rather than either everyone pro, or everyone against, as Today FM and Newstalk seem to manage.

I think it would be better if they just left the helmet 'debates' behind at this stage as it is nothing but a distraction and an obvious form of audio click-bait. It would be better if they got people in to debate the spending and investment in transport infrastructure, from policies to specific projects.

mr spuckler

CramCycle wrote: »

It was interesting to see how well coached Robert Troy was on not falling into the obvious stupid arguments that Matt was throwing out and he had some good figures to hand. The Galway Cycling guy was also well versed and great at not doing the same, the texts in where a bit like a censored version of the Journal.

you're right about Robert Troy - very interesting how he's stepped forward as a leader on this in a short space of time. I was impressed at how he spoke tbh.
also interesting how his Wikipedia page states that he supports re-opening the railway from Athlone to Mullingar, which now has a greenway running alongside or on top of it for the entire distance!