Chris Froome divides opinion with topic even MORE controversial than disc brakes — shows off his new "trendsetter" Crocs; Reaction to bike shops urging MPs for changes to Cycle to Work scheme + more on the live blog

"What about you admitting that you ride one handed should the police make you take a cycle awareness course????"

LED indicating helmets required!

What happened to Adidas Adilettes or whatever they were called? 

Froome's taste in clothing = Frome's taste in music

the thing with C2W for all the moans & criticism it gets, no-one has ever come up with a better workable solution. Every alternative that someone suggests usually has at least one if not more drawbacks that impacts someones ability to buy a bike through it. There is no perfect scheme, so accept C2W will always have its limitations.

Because really getting people out on bikes isnt about C2W, you can buy a bike quite cheaply, and with better discounts than C2W gives you, if you really have the mindset to want to ride a bike.

Its more about as an employer providing facilities to safely & securely store bikes & kit, many even in London still dont do that, and wont even let people leave stuff in lockers overnight. And its about providing safer cycling routes for people to use.

Survey after survey, there was that one just last week, repeatedly list the main barriers to people cycling come down to safety first and foremost, then security & facilities in the workplace.

Affordability of a bike never comes up as a barrier, let alone people complaining about if only their employer had C2W theyd be totally cycling for sure.

Froome goes Partypace!

I have to agree with the various comments RE the Cycle To Work scheme. Whilst I have used it myself, I do think it is deeply flawed on many levels. In no particular order:

It is technically a requirement that at least 50% of journeys are for work-related purposes (either commuting or work-related travel). Why is that the only permissible use? Cycling to the shops, cycling for education (including accompanying children to school by bike), cycling to visit friends/family, etc., would all seem to me perfectly legitimate uses of a bike that benefit society (by replacing car journeys), yet would not qualify towards that 50%. I note that my current employer also offers an electric vehicle salary sacrifice scheme, which (as far as I can tell) has no such requirement or restriction on how the vehicle is used. It is simply recognised that using an EV is, on balance, better than using an ICE vehicle, no matter what the purpose of the journey. (There is also an argument that even leisure cycling benefits society by means of reduced healthcare burden).  

On that note, the above requirement is never actually enforced. I suspect I myself technically fall foul of the rules, although I sleep with a clear concience knowing that the majority of the useage of that bike is "utility" cycling, and replacing car use. But there is nothing to stop anyone from buying whatever bike they want and using it purely for leisure. No-one involved cares - the employee saves money; the employer gets happy employees and also saves money (employer NI contributions are reduced); the scheme provider gets their cut for doing basically nothing, and the bike shop gets a sale (discussed more below; for now it's sufficient to note that the bike shop doesn't care what the bike is used for; the bike shop may of course decide to refuse CycleScheme vouchers if they don't think the sale would be profitable). The only loser is the general public by means of reduced tax income - but HMRC don't seem to care either.

As a salary sacrifice scheme, it is only available to employees who earn above minimum wage and with employers who offer the scheme, and the savings are greater the more you earn. This seems deeply regressive - the people who benefit most are those who least need the support. Huge swathes of those who would most benefit from having affordable access to a bicycle are excluded - students; the unemployed; those on low incomes; "gig economy" workers and other self-employed people. And people who's employers simply don't offer the scheme are also excluded. 

The scheme providers (especially CycleScheme) seem to be the primary winners, raking in cash for doing basically nothing. The 10% commission they take on the sale seems very high, especially on more expensive bikes (as noted in the article, the amount of admin work required would not seem to vary with the value of the bike, and nor is CycleScheme exposed to any greater risk given the employer stumps up the cash upfront). Most employees won't even realise that the bike shop is getting 10% less revenue for the sale. It is also, arguably, simply unfair that this commission comes out of the bike shop's revenue - if there is a cost to providing the cycle to work scheme, should that not be bourne by either the employee (the primary beneficiary) or the employer (who choose to offer the scheme as a benefit)?

And then there's the "pay now own later" fudge at the end of the initial year. This is clearly a tax dodge - after paying the "deposit" there is zero further communication and nothing to prevent the employee doing whatever they want with the bike. The person does, to all intents and purposes, own the bike. This is another area where CycleScheme rake in profit. With CycleScheme, the "own later" date is set for three years hence (i.e. four years since buying the bike). Under HMRC's rules, to buy a four year old bike, the employee needs to pay 7% of the bikes value (for bikes originally costing >£500). Other schemes, such as the GCI, apply the same tax dodge but set the "own later" date at five years hence, i.e. a six year old bike. At that point, HMRC state the value is negligible, and so GCI take a nominal £1 "deposit". As mentioned, after this deposit is taken, the employee has no further contact with the scheme provider and so it makes no actual difference when the employee "officially" owns the bike - they already do. There is therefore no practical difference between CycleScheme's approach or GCI's approach, beyond that under CycleScheme's approach the employee has to stump up a not-insignificant sum of money (which is again pure profit for CycleScheme). 

I once did a 150 mile cycling holiday with two kids and trailer full of camping gear using Crocs as my only footwear. And I'm not ashamed of it.

Crocs are bloody amazing and the only people who don't think so are those that have never worn them. 

Cycling + crocs = nope.