Originally Posted by
acidfast7
As far as my fiscal constraint comment, I think people shouldn't be buying a bike until that have at least 12 months of net salary saved in the US or 6 months in Europe (due to differences in the unemployment insurance). At which point, I'd still hesitate to spend more than 20% of a month's net salary on a commuting bike (this is the commuting forum, right?).
Hope that clarifies my perspective.
Seems like a lot of money to expect people to have saved up before buying something that might make it cheaper to get to work in the first place. Back when I worked in central London I used to pay £140/month for my train journeys that routinely took a bit over an hour each way. The bike I bought for £350 will get me to the same place just as fast, and including repairs and upgrades I've got about £600 in that bike. So for all I wouldn't want to lose that £600 bike (and wouldn't leave it unattended all day) if I used it to commute to work in London it would have paid for itself in a little over four months (probably more like three months now, as I don't suppose the monthly season ticket is any cheaper than it was then).
As to how much to spend I guess on a commuter bike that would depend on how far the commute was. If it's a couple of miles to the station to take the train from there then I'd agree with the idea of having something as cheap as possible, although for a couple of miles I'd probably walk it rather than faff around with a bike, locks, lights etc. If it's a longer commute I'd want to be doing it on a bike that was fast enough and comfortable enough that I'd get to work in a state to work rather than spend the first hour soothing the assorted pains from riding on a bike that wasn't really up to the job.
If the commute were long enough to want to do it on a decent bike but there was nowhere to adequately secure a bike at the other end I'd look for a different means of commuting.