Telegraph claims “rich, Lycra-clad cyclists tearing through red lights” are riding “hugely expensive” bikes paid for by taxpayer in “nasty” tirade against Cycle to Work scheme

The Telegraph, which in the past year has not been shy when it comes to publishing critical and often questionable stories about cycling, has once again been accused of promoting a “nasty, culture wars” agenda against cyclists, after the newspaper’s head of money claimed this morning that “middle-aged men in Lycra earning six figures” were “shamelessly” exploiting the government’s Cycle to Work scheme to buy “fancy new toys”.

In the article, titled ‘Rich cyclists are getting brand new bikes – courtesy of you, the taxpayer’, Ben Wilkinson argued that since the Cycle to Work scheme was revamped six years ago, enabling employers to offer bikes worth over £1,000, it is now being “routinely abused by wealthy cyclists who have no intention of using their expensive gift from the taxpayer on their commute”.

Introduced in 1999, the UK government’s Cycle to Work employee benefit scheme offers a tax-friendly initiative which enables people to buy a bike and cycling accessories through salary sacrifice.

Effectively, the initiatives see employees ‘loan’ a bike from their employer tax-free, initially for a year. That loan can then be extended, with employees able to eventually buy the bike at a nominal price, calculated factoring in the bike’s depreciated value over time.

During its first 20 years, tax-free purchases using Cycle to Work were nominally capped at £1,000 (though some providers did not impose this limit and former cycling minister Michael Ellis pointed out that the £1,000 ceiling never officially existed for larger employers registered with the Financial Conduct Authority).

Nevertheless, in 2019, the Conservative government announced a revamp of the Cycle to Work scheme, making it easier for bikes worth over £1,000 to be purchased using the initiative, as part of a drive to “increase the use of e-bikes to help tackle congestion, speed up commutes, and cut travel costs”.

Cyclists in London talking in cycle lane (credit: Simon MacMichael)

However, six years on, the Telegraph’s Wilkinson has called for another rethink of the scheme, arguing that “commuters simply do not need a bike worth more than £1,000”.

“The next time you see a Lycra-clad cyclist tearing through a red light, consider this: their hugely expensive bicycle was likely paid for by you, the taxpayer,” Wilkinson’s column begins.

But despite that provocative opening paragraph, the journalist maintained that “this isn’t an anti-cyclist article”.

“I own three bikes, none of which the taxpayer helped pay for. The world would be a better, and healthier place, if more of us rode bicycles,” he continued.

“Cyclists should stick to road rules like anyone else, and any suggestion that cyclists should pay road tax is moronic. Roads are maintained using money from all taxes, and vehicle excise duty is levied on emissions.

“However, there are gaping holes in this tax break that mean your money is not being spent as it should be.”

> Telegraph journalists told "check your research" after front page claims cyclists hit 52mph chasing London Strava segments... despite that being faster than Olympic track cyclists

According to Wilkinson, since the cap was lifted in 2019, the cost to taxpayers has been £615m, the writer also noting a “spike in demand” for the scheme in 2020 and 2021, which he links to increased leisure time during the Covid-era lockdowns.

While admitting that more expensive e-bikes should be subject to a higher ceiling, Wilkinson argued: “There can be no justification for asking the taxpayer to give a dentist earning £200,000 a £4,200 discount on a £10,000 bike. My commuter bike cost £300 and has saved me thousands in Tube fares.”

He continued: “I suspect Whitehall and the City are full of top earners who have exploited this scheme to buy an expensive bike that they would not dare to bring into London for fear of it being stolen.

“And there’s no doubt that some have used it to drop their incomes below £100,000 so they can still continue to qualify for tax-free childcare.”

> “Unfair” Cycle to Work scheme “problems” need to be addressed, admits government minister

The financial journalist also pointed to a report published by cycling and walking charity Sustrans in September, which found that 38 per cent of people in the UK on low incomes or in unemployment (or around 1.9 million people) are currently priced out of buying a bike due to the high costs and lack of discounts available.

Sustrans noted that, in its current guise, Cycle to Work excludes anyone who would earn less than the minimum wage of £17,000 a year once the scheme’s salary deductions are taken into account, as well as those who are not in work, self-employed, or work for a non-participating employer.

The consequence of the scheme’s minimum entry point, the charity pointed out, is that just 30 per cent of people on a low income or not in employment have access to a cycle. On the other hand, data from Sustrans’ Walking and Cycling Index found that 59 per cent of people in professional occupations have access to a bike.

The report prompted Simon Lightwood, Labour’s Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, to admit that the government “absolutely recognises” there are “problems” with the current Cycle to Work scheme.

Cyclists in London male and female in cycle lane (credit: Simon MacMichael)

In his article in the Telegraph today, Wilkinson concluded: “It’s a good example of a policy that came with good intentions that has been allowed to mutate into something it was never supposed to be.

“Cycle to Work should not be scrapped, but ministers should consider if taxpayer cash should really be going towards fancy new toys for middle-aged men in Lycra earning six figures.”

However, despite his insistence that his criticism of Cycle to Work didn’t amount to an “anti-cyclist article”, Wilkinson’s depiction of “Lycra-clad” cyclists “tearing through red lights” has been resoundingly criticised by cyclists on social media.

“I couldn’t read it behind the paywall, I could only see the first sentence. But as that mentioned Lycra and red lights, I knew I didn’t want or need to read any more,” Christopher Day wrote in response to the Telegraph’s story.

Referring to Wilkinson’s assertions that expensive bikes are being paid by “the taxpayer”, Adespoto said: “Because cyclists and taxpayers are distinct demographics? It’s a nasty culture-wars article from a petro-industrialist Tory shit rag.”

“‘Now, let’s be clear. This isn’t an anti-cyclist article’. It absolutely is,” added Wiebes.

> "People won't bother reading the truth, the damage is done": Cyclists frustrated Telegraph newspaper not required to put "52mph cyclists creating death traps" correction on front page like original headline

Of course, as noted above, this isn’t the first time that the Telegraph has been criticised for its attitude towards cyclists.

In August, press regulator IPSO (the Independent Press Standards Organisation) ruled that the newspaper was in breach of its Editors’ Code for an inaccurate front page story claiming cyclists are riding at 52mph in London’s 20mph zones while chasing Strava segments.

Telegraph front page/ cyclists in Richmond Park (credit: Simon MacMichael/Telegraph)

The headline appeared on the newspaper’s front page last May and told readers “Lycra lout cyclists are creating death traps” and riding at 52mph in London, a bizarre claim that turned out to be the result of dodgy GPS data taken from Strava that would, if true, have meant that people are cycling through London’s streets at speeds faster than what Olympic track sprinters hit in the velodrome.

Unsurprisingly, the story was much criticised and ridiculed, Active Travel Commissioner Chris Boardman calling it “bonkers” and the IPSO receiving 96 complaints.

> "Mums, dads, sons and daughters being labelled as killers. It’s just got to stop": Chris Boardman comments on Telegraph '52mph in a 20mph zone' article as it emerges co-author is former BBC fact-checker

However, despite the IPSO’s intervention, which described the error as “significant”, many expressed frustration that the newspaper was not required to publish a front-page correction, as the regulator instead accepted that the original acknowledgement made six days after publication and hidden away in the Telegraph’s ‘Corrections and Clarifications column’ was sufficient.

But just two months after the IPSO’s intervention, the Telegraph was again accused of manipulating and blurring photos of cyclists riding at 15mph through Regent’s Park to make it look like they were travelling at faster speeds than they were, for a column titled ‘Let’s get tough on the scourge of rogue cyclists’.

And later in November, the Telegraph published information from a “dossier of collision data” from The Royal Parks in London and claimed it revealed “the full threat posed to pedestrians by dangerous and illegal cycling in the country's most famous parks”.

In the article, titled ‘How rogue cyclists in London’s parks have knocked down children and the elderly’, the Telegraph published information from the dossier and said it referenced “speeding” and “aggressive” cyclists being involved in hit and runs, ignoring zebra crossings, travelling on illegal bikes, and hitting pedestrians so hard they are “catapulted into the air”.