How Much Should "Cycling Allowance" Be?

The usual suspects on uk.rec.cycling.censored are whinging that
someone is only being given 6p/mile "cycling allowance" when
travelling for work purposes. Apparently in some places it's *20p/
mile*!

But why should it even be as much as 6p/mile when we're told that one
of the "many benefits" of cycling is that it costs so little? Do
these people really want 20p/mile because they think that's what
cycling actually costs and it's fair restitution, or do they simply
think that hard-pressed companies should be giving them 20p/mile to
reward them for being "morally superior" and "saving the planet"? Why
exactly should any company care about that? Don't they just care
about you getting from A to B?

So, what should "cycling allowance" be, if anything? (And why do some
cyclists always think they should be getting things they're not
entitled to simply because they're "saving the planet", whether it's
an inflated "allowance", exemption from safety laws, or basically
anything they can think of?)

On 06/08/2011 18:20, Nuxx Bar wrote:

The usual suspects on uk.rec.cycling.censored are whinging that
someone is only being given 6p/mile "cycling allowance" when
travelling for work purposes. Apparently in some places it's *20p/
mile*!

But why should it even be as much as 6p/mile when we're told that one
of the "many benefits" of cycling is that it costs so little?

Certainly, it is puerile to argue on the one hand that that cycling costs 20p
a mile and on the other that it costs nothing (eg, where posters boast that
they have saved themselves hundreds of pounds a month by cycling to work).

Given that a bike will eventually wear out, and that there are some trivial
consumable costs (brake blocks and tyres) as well as potential servicing
costs, it can be argued that there ought to be a mileage rate, but there is
no way on God's Earth that it is anywhere near 20p a mile. That's about what
my 1.6 litre diesel car costs me a mile (and only half of that in fuel).

I'd have thought 2p-3p a mile would be adequate.

On 06/08/11 18:39, JNugent wrote:
On 06/08/2011 18:20, Nuxx Bar wrote:

The usual suspects on uk.rec.cycling.censored are whinging that
someone is only being given 6p/mile "cycling allowance" when
travelling for work purposes. Apparently in some places it's *20p/
mile*!

But why should it even be as much as 6p/mile when we're told that one
of the "many benefits" of cycling is that it costs so little?

Certainly, it is puerile to argue on the one hand that that cycling
costs 20p a mile and on the other that it costs nothing (eg, where
posters boast that they have saved themselves hundreds of pounds a month
by cycling to work).

Given that a bike will eventually wear out, and that there are some
trivial consumable costs (brake blocks and tyres) as well as potential
servicing costs, it can be argued that there ought to be a mileage rate,
but there is no way on God's Earth that it is anywhere near 20p a mile.
That's about what my 1.6 litre diesel car costs me a mile (and only half
of that in fuel).

I'd have thought 2p-3p a mile would be adequate.


How is the car mileage allowance worked out (bearing in mind car costs
vary enormously depending on the vehicle you are driving)?

Surely it must be possible to do an analogous calculation for cycling.

2-3p/mile seems too low. Don't forget that bike components wear out much
quicker than car components, which will partly offset the lower cost of
these components.

"Nuxx Bar" wrote in message
...

The usual suspects on uk.rec.cycling.censored are whinging that
someone is only being given 6p/mile "cycling allowance" when
travelling for work purposes. Apparently in some places it's *20p/
mile*!

But why should it even be as much as 6p/mile when we're told that one
of the "many benefits" of cycling is that it costs so little?
================================

Cycling has mileage-related costs just like using using cars although much
less. I haven't done the maths to work out how much but 6p/mile sound
reasonable but generous. 20p/mile would be a ridiculously generous. The
mileage rate has to reflect the financial cost.

Has anyone calculated what the real costs associated with cycling are per
mile travelled? I assume wear and tear will dominate the cost. What about
the cost of food calories?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 06/08/2011 19:30, Adam Lea wrote:

How is the car mileage allowance worked out (bearing in mind car
costs vary enormously depending on the vehicle you are driving)?

Surely it must be possible to do an analogous calculation for
cycling.

2-3p/mile seems too low. Don't forget that bike components wear out
much quicker than car components, which will partly offset the lower
cost of these components.

20p/mile is the Inland Revenue's figure. We all know that the Inland
Revenue are bastions of charity and love nothing more than handing out
lavish allowances to taxpayers.

- --
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.
PGP public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public.key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOPaCwAAoJEJx9ogI8T+W/kpkH/R0sYt7MgrXsWKMyxmz3V4u8
t9n21ZuIugpxkd84Cj4AnP4AyeSXTWDwryGtYeeobHiV+Mp2TP/8VnNdQWEiF+UJ
RGU9Xk4xo65sX7x6XPHGgPmUvDv/abDDmbkO2yXbOv2rEhixkwtUU6m0VfXKxpYd
gmhS6E31yJmu+DJO/MOvwO70yeRgIP5ABfidw/EcxKHOrLxIKLkyuUGJ9Cojs7My
XTWx11rWUiejpIYadw5+wQMGLVtxd/FCDMnWQV55J8hUKWsvmyaRwSYqEEg7DpkS
3wnNxipamLMIe1Jk15SPHzIkwvVLnPLIoKH25oBRcXy85Fa6Qo an8VGjlJXuhWs=
=jM6u
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On 06/08/11 21:14, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 06/08/2011 19:30, Adam Lea wrote:

How is the car mileage allowance worked out (bearing in mind car
costs vary enormously depending on the vehicle you are driving)?

Surely it must be possible to do an analogous calculation for
cycling.

2-3p/mile seems too low. Don't forget that bike components wear out
much quicker than car components, which will partly offset the lower
cost of these components.

20p/mile is the Inland Revenue's figure. We all know that the Inland
Revenue are bastions of charity and love nothing more than handing out
lavish allowances to taxpayers.


That does sound a lot. I got just under 10p/mile for jury service and I
thought that was quite generous.

On 06/08/2011 20:46, Mr. Benn wrote:
"Nuxx Bar" wrote in message
...

The usual suspects on uk.rec.cycling.censored are whinging that
someone is only being given 6p/mile "cycling allowance" when
travelling for work purposes. Apparently in some places it's *20p/
mile*!

But why should it even be as much as 6p/mile when we're told that one
of the "many benefits" of cycling is that it costs so little?
================================

Cycling has mileage-related costs just like using using cars although
much less. I haven't done the maths to work out how much but 6p/mile
sound reasonable but generous. 20p/mile would be a ridiculously
generous. The mileage rate has to reflect the financial cost.

Has anyone calculated what the real costs associated with cycling are
per mile travelled? I assume wear and tear will dominate the cost.
What about the cost of food calories?

On a 4+ thousand mile yearly commute I can easily get costs up to £600
(equivalent 15p per mile). I'm sure I forgot some stuff. Still about
half what I would claim for public transport.

Food used for cycling is negligible (although I do bill for lunch
separately), clothes are not.

Personally I think if they are offering travel subsidies the rate should
be the same regardless of transport method. Why subsidise a polluting
car more than an environmentally friendly bike.

Best would be to invent a method that most advantaged those who avoided
the travel.

On Sat, 06 Aug 2011 21:14:40 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

20p/mile is the Inland Revenue's figure. We all know that the Inland
Revenue are bastions of charity and love nothing more than handing out
lavish allowances to taxpayers.

Actually this is one very lavish allowance given as a green sop to
some pressure group. Using the same calculation as for cars the
comparable figure for bikes comes to about 5p/mile. This assumes
most cyclist either have no insurance or pay nothing extra for what
cover they have and the depreciation and maintenance on a typical
work cycle. It doesn't include wear on the Lycra (this was
specifically excluded as HMRC thought it had "other uses" .

The calculation was published a few years back by HMRC as part of a
consultation document but some idiot nulabor politician decide they
could look "green" by inflating it while being confident few would
ever claim it.

On 06/08/2011 20:46, Mr. Benn wrote:

"Nuxx Bar" wrote:

The usual suspects on uk.rec.cycling.censored are whinging that
someone is only being given 6p/mile "cycling allowance" when
travelling for work purposes. Apparently in some places it's *20p/
mile*!
But why should it even be as much as 6p/mile when we're told that one
of the "many benefits" of cycling is that it costs so little?
================================

Cycling has mileage-related costs just like using using cars although much
less. I haven't done the maths to work out how much but 6p/mile sound
reasonable but generous. 20p/mile would be a ridiculously generous. The
mileage rate has to reflect the financial cost.

And the reason is that it is tax-free. Mileage allowances must not be - and
are not allowed to be - a form of extra income. They are supposed to cover
the costs incurred and no more, rather like having bus and train fares
reimbursed. You wouldn't expect to present a used rail ticket and get back
more than has actually been expended on it.

Has anyone calculated what the real costs associated with cycling are per
mile travelled? I assume wear and tear will dominate the cost. What about the
cost of food calories?

The usual assertion is that the energy expended in cycling (calories) is a
good thing. There is no need to benefit the rider twice.

As for wear and tear, one has to start by considering the marginal mileage
rate for a motor vehicle, which for a car (if the averaging method is used)
is 25p per mile (it's only 40p for the first so many thousand miles per
annum, then 25p after that).

25p will approximately meet something between 150% and 200% of a small and
economical car's fuel. For an average car, it will not even meet 150% of the
fuel costs.

The amount in excess of the fuel cost (ie, somewhere between about 6p and 12p
a mile) therefore addresses extra mileage-related depreciation (a real
concept with an odometer-equipped vehicle, less so with a bicycle, which does
not have a recognised s/h value), wear and tear on mileage-related
consumables (tyres, brakes, oil and filters, windscreen wipers, etc), extra
and servicing costs.

That's a maximum of about 12p a mile for all those things (and not even
thinking about road tax, insurance, AA membership or anything similar). And
more like 6p for the average car.

The idea that the wear and tear on a bike costing a few hundrd pounds is
directly comparable to the wear and tear and other losses (especially
depreciation) on a vehicle typically costing £12,000+ is unrealistic.

If the marginal business mileage-related wear and tear on a car cannot be
lawfully covered past a rate of about 12p a mile (more typically about 6p a
mile), the rate for bicycle must be a fraction of that. The 2p or 3p I
mentioned earlier seems quite adequate in that context.

How many business miles (as opposed to personal, private or commuting miles)
can a cyclist realistically do in a year, and how much extra wear and tear,
therefore, can be inflicted upon the machine?

On 06/08/2011 21:54, Adam Lea wrote:
On 06/08/11 21:14, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 06/08/2011 19:30, Adam Lea wrote:

How is the car mileage allowance worked out (bearing in mind car
costs vary enormously depending on the vehicle you are driving)?

Surely it must be possible to do an analogous calculation for
cycling.

2-3p/mile seems too low. Don't forget that bike components wear out
much quicker than car components, which will partly offset the lower
cost of these components.

20p/mile is the Inland Revenue's figure. We all know that the Inland
Revenue are bastions of charity and love nothing more than handing out
lavish allowances to taxpayers.


That does sound a lot. I got just under 10p/mile for jury service and I
thought that was quite generous.

Casual public service (such as attendance at court for any reason) does
attract about that rate - *if* the cost has actually been incurred.

That makes sheer nonsense of any idea that the *cost* of cycling could be as
much as 20p a mile. At the margin, a user will only get 25p a mile in a big car.

Arguing that a bike costs 80% of that is absolutely laughable.