What is better than not owning a Brompton?
By user12625760 on May 09, 2008
...not owning two Bromptons!
As I mentioned previously there is a rule in the house that you can only own three bikes which thankfully since the Brompton is leased not owned meant I was o.k. However the lease runs out after a year at which point the bike goes back or I can buy it. If I buy it I break the three bikes rule. Hence the problem. Simon suggested that I claim that the Brompton is not a bike, which I thought was an interesting defence but since it clearly has 2 wheels (bi) and can be cycled it would be a bicycle. Although I may yet try that defence in the future, I mean for goodness sake look at the picture. You can't ride them like that!
The other problem is that is just seems wrong not to take advantage of the bike scheme. A Tax free bike to ride, where is the downside?
So I signed on for a second year and ordered an identical model\* having found a suitable home for the first one (my sister needs a brommy). When the lease runs out I'll buy the first Brompton and on the same day sell it to her so at close of business I still don't own one.
I think I may never need to have a Brompton that is more than a year old......
\* It is not completely identical as the new model now has a clip that will stop the rear wheel dropping if you lift the saddle. Useful if you are man handling a bike down station steps. I can confirm it is both useful and easy to use.