Cycle to Work scheme to remain in place

C2W = middle class tax break, those on minimum wage can not take up C2W, when I was made redundant from halfords the guys i left behind selling boardmans etc to C2W customers could themselves not sign up to the scheme, being on min wage, despite the benefits it would have brought to them Food for thought. In my experience most of the bikes bought on the scheme will never be ridden to work I lost count of the number of times I put C2W bikes into the back of upmarket motors, not to mention the dodgy geezers sent packing, trying to buy sat nav for the motor and kid's bikes for xmas with C2W vouchers they did not seem bothered that they were trying to involve me in tax fraud.

My lot have encouraged C2W - and good for them too - it costs them nothing and I am less likely to get run over by a lorry than crushed in the tube.
Unfortunately they just haven't joined up the dots yet and realised that people will actually ride to work so need to increase secure parking provision to match - the space is there (for Directors' cars).

Anyway I bought a bike, and then another, and then another as they each got nicked and I remain on the list for a parking space in our building (and please dont tell me about decent locks, I had them). I just hope the latest one is still there because I rather like it.

My firm is also a 2012 sponsor, and is generally quite supportive. It does promote a cycle2work scheme, and provides parking, lockers and showers free, plus a daily towel for a small charge. It also sponsors a major national charity ride and has a thriving sports cycling club.

So what's wrong? Only that, when staff suggested that the firm reimburse staff for the cost of an annual sub to the Boris Bikes, they demurred. 70% of us are based in central London and we travel daily around the centre. We have a huge annual bill with Addison Lee and pay shedloads to black cabbies. Boris Bikes would be an ideal alternative in the right weather - much cheaper, faster, and good for our health.

The problem? Lawyers. Legal advice told them that they could open themselves to injury claims by staff who argued that they had been encouraged to place themselves at risk. Elf & safety gone mad.

The next step is to repond with a proposal for a bank of helmets and high vis tabards which staff can sign out when they plan a BB journey.

My boss has said no to the cycle to work scheme on the grounds that it could pose risks of injury. This is despite the fact that our firm's MD (my boss's business partner) is a keen cyclist who clocks regular miles on his hybrid, or that our sales director is another keen rider (not to mention myself or my immediate colleague - four senior staff are keen cyclists in other words). It has been pointed out to my boss that the health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks of injury by a factory of around 20:1 but he has a remarkable capacity to ignore what he doesn't want to hear.

Mind you, the keen cyclists at my firm all have at least one bike anyway.

Quote:

"Not cost effective"

Which means "we don't care". Hardly a progressive, enlightened, forward-thinking organisation. And people wonder why businesses don't like competition (especially smart competitors).

Less than nothing it would seem as they already run/ran salary sacrifice schemes for share purchasing, broadband take up, home computing and private healthcare.

I'm not going to name and shame who I work for, but they are a major supporter of the 2012 Olympics.

It also doesn't directly affect me as I do not have to cycle to work (being a full time 'agile' employee) but the benefits of cycling, a cause they seem happy to champion through their corporate responsibility department, don't appear to extend to assisting with the purchase of a newer/safer vehicle.

"Not cost effective" - what is it costing them exactly?

My employer doesn't deem it beneficial to offer this fantastic incentive to its drones, despite the subsidiary in Northern Ireland embracing it.

"Not cost effective"