Incentivising cycling at work

[Wooger]

Riding a bike does not stop people from picking up illnesses like a cold or the occasional virus, by far the most common reason for absence. And everyone having to shower on arrival would knock a massive hole in the environmental stuff.

And why on earth would people need to shower after a five or six mile commute? It isn't a Grand Tour mountain stage.

I have to shower every day, why would I choose to do it before a hilly bike ride rather than after?
Also, in the UK for 2/3 of the year there's no way I'm wearing anything that's suitable for work on a bike - it'll be soaked.

 

[Wooger]

Typical internet failure to engage with the substantive point:
: If you give a benefit to workers it must be equally available across all groups/characteristics. If any group with a protected characteristic is excluded the scheme is illegal. And not just the existing workforce.

Great, so no work trips to the pub due to that one guy...
The reality is that many places will deal with it by just not employing any of those problematic employees. Good work.

Some people would be appalled at the thought of theft from work, but it happens all the time, browsing the internet, ordering goods on line, checking Fleecebay, checking Faecesbook, going in 5 minutes late, slightly longer lunch, slipping away early on a Friday, calling at the supermarket whilst out on a job, all these are theft of time from the employer.

I reckon I could 100% guarantee that in both of your places of work it happens, it's you don't class it as theft.

Are you kidding? We're recommended to take a 10 minute break every hour at a computer screen, but noone does. Skiving off a few minutes is literally nothing.

 

[Deleted member 26715]

Are you kidding?

No, are you?

 

[fossyant]

 

[newts]

DIstance is their own fault, and they only choose to live so far because of our cheap subsidised car use.

People cant always pick & choose where they work especially low paid jobs. They wouldn't be able to afford to move either.

 

[Deleted member 26715]

DIstance is their own fault, and they only choose to live so far because of our cheap subsidised car use.

I presume you are in a secure occupation where there has never been a need to find another employer, some form of Government paid position maybe?

 

[rivers]

DIstance is their own fault, and they only choose to live so far because of our cheap subsidised car use.

I live 20 miles from work. If we wanted to live in a nicer area than our old house, that's how far out we needed to buy. And the reason we moved was due to the area we lived in (2 of the neighbourhood children decided to rip the back of our shed off and nick two of my bikes, come back and try to nick my dive kit). Saying that, I only take the car one day/week (when I take the dog in), and bike-train-bike (and sometimes even just bike, like tonight) the rest of the week. It takes no longer than driving really.

 

[Bazzer]

DIstance is their own fault, and they only choose to live so far because of our cheap subsidised car use.

Some choose the distance the distance they do from work for a variety of reasons. Others may have little choice, be it economic, family responsibilities, schooling etc. Or their employer may create the distance for them. For example, my employer has closed a number of smaller offices. The closure of an office I moved out of some years before it was closed, left people with the choices of resignation, or commutes, (assuming they lived close to the former office), of 14 miles one way or 20 miles the other way. If they lived north or south of the office the distances would be longer.
Then there is the matter of a crap public transport infrastructure. At the time of moving into a property, there could have been adequate public transport links, which have now all but disappeared. Where I live used to be served on a 14 mile or so route, by two buses an hour. Usually you were kicking your heels for a while if you used the bus service for appointments, but was tolerable. That route is now down to an hourly service and the service starts later and finishes earlier than it used to.

 

[Andy in Germany]

DIstance is their own fault, and they only choose to live so far because of our cheap subsidised car use.

I think there's some truth in that. As others have pointed out, it isn't entirely black and white; on the other hand I think it's possibly less "impossible" than people like to imply.

My own experience, in a country where our land use and transportation is somewhat different, is that it does take some work and organisation to get myself in a position where I can regularly ride to work; it was possible, but not as easy as finding a house within an hours drive and then looking up the route on G**gle.

When I changed to my current employer I was faced with a 15km commute which was achievable because there was a decent cycle lane alongside the main road for much of that ride, in fact I rarely touched a road, much less a busy one. Today I've got a 10km ride, I'll be on roads a couple of times with a 30km/h limit (and one short section on a derestricted road because I'm lazy and confident in traffic and can't be bothered to take the slightly longer traffic free alternative).

The game changer is infrastructure, but I think there a significant number of people who "Can't live without a car" could really, but they don't think they can or don't want to.

 

[Andy in Germany]

Typical internet failure to engage with the substantive point:
: If you give a benefit to workers it must be equally available across all groups/characteristics. If any group with a protected characteristic is excluded the scheme is illegal. And not just the existing workforce.

Surely it is available to all groups, but they have to pay the cost of providing a space? charge for secure cycle parking on the same basis and it'll still work out cheaper for cyclists.

We have to remember that fairness isn't the same as equality. My clients with disabilities get all kinds of assistance which I don't have access to including free cinema tickets or extra assistance on trains; this isn't equal, but it's certainly fair because it helps them be part of the wider society.

 

[cougie uk]

I have to shower every day, why would I choose to do it before a hilly bike ride rather than after?
Also, in the UK for 2/3 of the year there's no way I'm wearing anything that's suitable for work on a bike - it'll be soaked.

WHERE are you to get that much rain ?
I rode to work for a few years. It was very rare to get wet. Couple of days a month maybe ?

 

[wiggydiggy]

Not even enough to cover even a short public transport commute, let alone a train journey. A laughably low amount for anyone with a decent job.

The solution is to make parking a car expensive, limited and a hassle. At present due to free / subsidised parking, cheap petrol, zero public transport investment outside London for ~70 years & offensive price gouging on what does exist - car drivers are effectively being subsidised and saving money over everyone else while taking the most harmful and selfish transport there is.

It's between 4 & 8 quid to park all day near my workplace in the centre of a city (far too much parking available), while the train alone is gonna cost 20 quid a day for anyone living outside, and is subject to delays and less convenient - so they all drive. They should be paying 10x what anyone cycling or training it does just to park. We have a clean air zone charge, but again, at 10 a day it's less than many people's public transport commute, and in any case, doesn't apply to 99% of vehicles at present.

For my car I calculated my "cost per journey" (includes tax, petrol, insurance, depreciation etc - not just parking) and it was around £20. I averaged 2-3 times a week in the car pre-pandemic so that was enough to convince me my car is no longer a viable choice for regular commuting. Before it was confirmed I'm WFH on a full time basis (occasional days in, maybe once a month so far) I'd decided for a 5xday commute I was going to go electric bike.

My Cycle2Work scheme had recently increased the repayment term to 24mnths meaning a very good commuter bike for around £2.5k was affordable for me, after after approx 6 months of commuting the cost of per commute would be a fraction of what it is by car.

Thats the way to incentivise cycling to me, show people the true cost of commuting by car as I think they'd be surprised.

Surely it is available to all groups, but they have to pay the cost of providing a space? charge for secure cycle parking on the same basis and it'll still work out cheaper for cyclists.

We have to remember that fairness isn't the same as equality. My clients with disabilities get all kinds of assistance which I don't have access to including free cinema tickets or extra assistance on trains; this isn't equal, but it's certainly fair because it helps them be part of the wider society.

Technically my work charges £10 one off fee for cycle parking, though it's actually a refundable deposit for a key

 

[PK99]

For my car I calculated my "cost per journey" (includes tax, petrol, insurance, depreciation etc - not just parking) and it was around £20.

That calculation is only valid for a dedicated commuting car.

If you would own a car independently of the commuting use, then only marginal commuting costs are relevant: Parking, Commuting Fuel, and Commuting proportion of service*/consumables. Standing charge elements eg Insurance, tax, MOT etc are not saved.

* Even service cost might be irrelevant if the interval is annual rather than mileage

 

[Alex321]

WHERE are you to get that much rain ?
I rode to work for a few years. It was very rare to get wet. Couple of days a month maybe ?

This year has been unusually dry, but even so, in Wales I have been rained on in every month while cycling. More in the winter than the summer of course. And in the winter, even when it isn't raining, the roads are more often than not wet enough that spray will get you wet.

 

[Alex321]

That calculation is only valid for a dedicated commuting car.

If you would own a car independently of the commuting use, then only marginal commuting costs are relevant: Parking, Commuting Fuel, and Commuting proportion of service*/consumables. Standing charge elements eg Insurance, tax, MOT etc are not saved.

* Even service cost might be irrelevant if the interval is annual rather than mileage

If he is calculating "cost per journey" based on all journeys, then it is perfectly valid.

It wouldn't be if he is only calculating it based on commuting journeys and is dividing the "standing" charges just by those.