One for Lucas and the coalition perhaps
beastie said:
summerdays said:
I don't know that it should only be available to those on low incomes ... it re-enforces the idea that a bike is a mode of transport for those who can't afford anything better. However the scheme currently does seem to exclude those on the lowest of incomes ... my income fluctuates monthly so that some months I don't earn enough and therefore I'm not eligible. But in reality I can afford to pay for a bike anyway.
I think that companies/government could start to offer incentives to encourage cycling rather than the staff subsidized car parks that are currently the norm.
Those are some fair points, and I understand that risk of stigmatisation. However, one of the roles of a Government is to ensure a springboard for the most economically vulnerable so that they can become self-sufficient.
By continually segregating communities by cutting them off from each other and their resources via fast roads, and allowing unscrupulous companies to monopolise public-transportation, serve select neighbourhoods, run until 8pm in parts, and set exorbitant fares for these poorly served journeys; we are effectively widening the gap between the haves and have-nots.
There is an higher degree of conformance amongst the 'less wealthy' and for many (especially men) owning a bike is shameful thing, seen as something for kids, toffs, and the poor.
Therefore, such a poorly implemented scheme risks worsening the stigma on cyclists (esp. in car-centric places) since many will -understandably- be less willing to risk taking up cycling independently without the scheme, there will be more animosity shown towards cyclists upon its gaining publicity (think white-van men and taxi drivers, not excluding the 'road-tax arguement', and resentment following the supposed 'war on drivers'), and those less well-off that do cycle will generally be too poor to afford a car nor an enjoyable bike hence the omnipresent BSO - should they improve their lot, a new bicycle will be far from their minds.
To be frank, whilst our welfare state is far too lax and generous, I would be happier to know that those on it got monthly bus-passes (and a decent bus service that covers the town / city, runs frequently, and has a reliable night service) as well as free bikes which upon finding a job they can continue to pay off, or exchange for a more expensive model. For this to work, it has to be implemented well, and more cycling facilities need to be set up in important parts of towns and cities (including more 1-way and pedestrianised centres.)
If it is to be a government scheme than let it be one for the citizenry, not just an unmonitored annual perk for the few.
