Cycle To Work Scheme.

Status
Not open for further replies.
dereko1969 said:
This is one of the dumbest ideas put forward here in quite a while. What is the actual purpose of it? To punish those working from home? To ensure fewer people take up cycling?
Click to expand...


An experimenter puts 5 monkeys in a large cage. High up at the top of the cage, well beyond the reach of the monkeys, is a bunch of bananas. Underneath the bananas is a ladder.
The monkeys immediately spot the bananas and one begins to climb the ladder. As he does, however, the experimenter sprays him with a stream of cold water. Then, he proceeds to spray each of the other monkeys.
The monkey on the ladder scrambles off. And all 5 sit for a time on the floor, wet, cold, and bewildered. Soon, though, the temptation of the bananas is too great, and another monkey begins to climb the ladder. Again, the experimenter sprays the ambitious monkey with cold water and all the other monkeys as well. When a third monkey tries to climb the ladder, the other monkeys, wanting to avoid the cold spray, pull him off the ladder and beat him.
Now one monkey is removed and a new monkey is introduced to the cage. Spotting the bananas, he naively begins to climb the ladder. The other monkeys pull him off and beat him.
The experimenter removes a second one of the original monkeys from the cage and replaces him with a new monkey. Again, the new monkey begins to climb the ladder and, again, the other monkeys pull him off and beat him, including the monkey who had never been sprayed.

By the end of the experiment, none of the original monkeys were left and yet, despite none of them ever experiencing the cold, wet, spray, they had all learned never to try and go for the bananas.
 
while not strictly its intended purpose it does help people to get fit and enjoy some exercise, and keep cycle shops going even if these were not its primary intention.
It should be maintained if only for these reasons
 
roker said:
picture yourself cycling to work at 67yrs age with arthritic joints in lashing rain and when you get there you've no energy left to do your job
Click to expand...
Irrelevant to the issue as no one is forcing anyone to cycle to work . My neighbour is still cycling to work at 65, not a bother on him. I’m on my 50s and I have arthritis . Cycling is the recommenced exercise . I always have more energy for work when I cycle . Sleep better too .
 
The cycle to work scheme has been a success . It was deliberately designed to be easy to use and cheap to administer. This means it’s open to abuse. But lets face it , the people abusing it are not moving millions out of the Irish economy or failing to pay PRSI for employees , theyre just buying bikes.
It’s also not going to encourage everyone to cycle . national government , local government and employers have to put in more infrastructure to make cycling a safe and viable commuting option for more people.
IMHO , it’s still a good idea .
 
Would it not be an idea to make bikes Zero rated vat. Thus reducing the cost for the whole population and taking out any hassle of administration.
 
Drakon said:
80% of Coronavirus transmission is person-to-person. The less people interact while we “live with the virus”, fewer people will contract the virus. The fewer people commute to the workplace the less the virus will spread.
The CMO re-iterated this yesterday.
People need to listen, to telecommute, to stay away from their workplaces if at all possible.
Click to expand...

Who decides if you are allowed to WFH or not? Your Job. They don't decide based on if you own a bicycle.

One thing has no connection with the other.


WolfeTone said:
....
I would rather see a system where the cost of bicycle repairs, servicing, upgrading etc was deductible against income tax.
Click to expand...

For the the vast majority of people servicing and repairs will be pittance. The only people who will spend any significant money on such things are those doing massive mileages, the vast major of those will be leisure, not commuting. It does nothing to get people out of their cars, or new people to cycling.
 
AlbacoreA said:
Who decides if you are allowed to WFH or not? Your Job. They don't decide based on if you own a bicycle.

One thing has no connection with the other.
Click to expand...

Many people who had been telecommuting during the initial lockdown (ie March/April/May) are now commuting (walk/bike/car/bus/whatever) to their workplaces again. Given the pandemic, they should not be doing so. They are spending eight hours or so indoors with other people. Potentially spreading the Coronavirus and prolonging the crisis. If they WFH six months ago, they should be doing so now, and a tax incentive to do so should be stopped.



AlbacoreA said:
If you want to discourage people from going to work, you need to target cars not bicycles.
Click to expand...

I think you need to read all the posts.
We’re in a pandemic, we need to discourage people from going to the workplace, again.
 
50 posts. By far the most popular thread in the first two pages of the Budget 2021 forum.
Whether people agree or disagree with me, it’s been a popular argument.
 
Drakon said:
We’re in a pandemic, we need to discourage people from going to the workplace, again.
Click to expand...
How many people who can work from home are now going into work? I don't know of any, though I'm sure there are some. I think the people on the road are the ones who were on the PUP but are now back in work.
 
Drakon, I disagree with you that it’s an incentive to go into the workplace. Anyone that I know that has gone back into the workplace has done so because their employer told them to, not because they missed cycling in traffic
 
Anecdotally, I know plenty of, “hhhhh, I think I’ll go to the office today, get out of the house, y’know”.

AARoadwatch is a good barometer.
Dunkettle Roundabout, Headford Road, every intersection in Dublin...
 
Drakon said:
50 posts. By far the most popular thread in the first two pages of the Budget 2021 forum.
Whether people agree or disagree with me, it’s been a popular argument.
Click to expand...
Interesting isn’t it. I’m always amazed how controversial cycling discussions get
 
huskerdu said:
Anyone that I know that has gone back into the workplace has done so because their employer told them to...
Click to expand...

That is very interesting. I wouldn’t like to have an employer like those.

A friend of mine who is a public servant told me three months ago about the radical changes made to the office. Desks spaced out, Perspex screens, etc.
No “veal fattening pens” as Douglas Coupland describes them in Generation X.

The main reason, apart from Covid, was to avoid being sued for an unsafe workplace should someone get Covid in the office.

Those people you refer to could be in for a litigation lotto win...

‘It’s an ill wind blows no good!
 
Drakon said:
Many people who had been telecommuting during the initial lockdown (ie March/April/May) are now commuting (walk/bike/car/bus/whatever) to their workplaces again. Given the pandemic, they should not be doing so. They are spending eight hours or so indoors with other people. Potentially spreading the Coronavirus and prolonging the crisis. If they WFH six months ago, they should be doing so now, and a tax incentive to do so should be stopped.
Click to expand...


Drakon said:
I think you need to read all the posts.
We’re in a pandemic, we need to discourage people from going to the workplace, again.
Click to expand...

I see you've not you've not answered the fundamental question of who decides if they have to go into the work place.
Its not the employee. Unless they resign their job. Its the employer.

There a range of tax things we could stop. Grants and low tax on EVs. BIK. Taxsaver tiockets and Taxsaver parking.
However none would stop an employer requiring a employee to be onsite.
 
Drakon said:
That is very interesting. I wouldn’t like to have an employer like those.

A friend of mine who is a public servant told me three months ago about the radical changes made to the office. Desks spaced out, Perspex screens, etc.
No “veal fattening pens” as Douglas Coupland describes them in Generation X.

The main reason, apart from Covid, was to avoid being sued for an unsafe workplace should someone get Covid in the office.

Those people you refer to could be in for a litigation lotto win...

‘It’s an ill wind blows no good!
Click to expand...

The Public sector employer is the Govt and they have told them to work from home if possible.
They also have to answer to the unions.
 
Drakon said:
That is very interesting. I wouldn’t like to have an employer like those.

A friend of mine who is a public servant told me three months ago about the radical changes made to the office. Desks spaced out, Perspex screens, etc.
No “veal fattening pens” as Douglas Coupland describes them in Generation X.

The main reason, apart from Covid, was to avoid being sued for an unsafe workplace should someone get Covid in the office.

Those people you refer to could be in for a litigation lotto win...

‘It’s an ill wind blows no good!
Click to expand...
I'm sure most employers who make such a request do so for sound commercial reasons.
I'm also sure that the same sort of lowlifes who exaggerate their whiplash after car accidents will also sue their employer if they get Covid19.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top