Vancouver’s not the only place struggling with the impact of a helmet law on the introduction of bike-sharing. But as Ansel Herz reports in The Stranger, there is an upside: cool free helmets.
Earlier this month, I looked at bike share programs around the world and found that the only places where they weren’t wildly successful were cities with helmet laws. Places like Mexico City and Dallas repealed and scaled back their helmet laws, respectively, before the launch of their bike share programs.
Here in Seattle, the people planning Pronto Cycle Share thought they had an elegant solution: helmet-dispensing machines at every bike kiosk.
How’s that working out so far? Not well. HelmetHubs, the maker of these helmet vending machines—which have never been fully tested in a big-city bike share program—won’t have them ready until next February at the earliest. That’s five months after Pronto Cycle Share launches on October 13. …
The system will launch with boxes of helmets at bike share stations where you can just walk up and pull out a helmet—for free. …
One incentive to hang on to the free helmets, rather than toss them to the curb: Local politicians (and bicycling advocates) have been treating our local helmet law like a sacred cow and Seattle police just announced they’re going to more aggressively enforce it, despite the lessons from other cities that have struggled to incorporate both helmet laws and bike share programs.
The enforcement of this counterproductive law is costly enough. But now Seattle is throwing thousands of subsidized, imported pieces of plastic at the (non-existent) problem. Boxes of free helmets on the sidewalk? Absolute lunacy.
Meanwhile, north of the border: HUB, the BC Cycling Coaltion, City of Vancouver, and Alta Bike-Share *ALL* refuse to take a stand, and make the obvious business case for exemption, as the Pedicab industry successfully managed to do in the 90s. This despite Seattle authorities estimating vending machines would double the startup and maintenance costs, and result in 30% fewer users as a result of the helmet barrier.
The misallocation of funds is one thing. But seeing how bike-share *CAN* flourish and ultimately transform a city (see Montreal, New York, Washington DC) – if we let it – makes this situation all the more tragic.
Back from 2 days in WashDC bike hopping around the National Mall and the National monuments using their bike share system. I was thoroughly impressed with their bike share program.
Returning, I thought “we should have this in Vancouver” until my more politically astute neighbour pointed out the unyielding helmet law obstruction. Then another friend pointed out that if you wear a turban for religious reasons, you don’t need to wear a helmet. So there ARE dispensations after all!
Also, keep in mind also that these are heavier, front weighted (battery), beach cruiser-class, 3-speed style bikes, not titanium speed bombs.
Bike sharing can completely change a visitor’s experience of a city, perhaps even local residents as well.
When I was in Hangzhou, the little red bicycles were seen everywhere. Hangzhou has a very large urban park called “West lake” right in the heart of the city just like Stanley Park. For tourists, bike rentals are cheaper, and I was able to rent a bike for a day for 30Y ($5). Around west lake, those red bikeshare bikes are far outnumbered by the green rental bikes. The moral is that bike shops, don’t fret, you will not loose your business.
Though I have been a long supporter of bike share programs, recent experiences in some cities have had me doubt their effectiveness. These programs obviously work best when cities have density over a large area, like Vancouver, New York & Paris.
But in Toronto, the bikeshare has been far from a wild success. I attribute its failure to the fact that toronto’s bikeshare stands are too far apart, their system is too small, and their downtown is not designed for short trips.
I have no doubt that bikeshare will more than succeed in Vancouver, because the various neighbourhoods (Yaletown, Downtown Triangle, Coal Harbour, West End, Kits) warrant many short trips.
But the criticism I have is that bicycle advocates assume that bikeshare will succeed in any environment and any city. A lot of the success must be attributed to how the bikeshare stations are laid out — are the stations close together (good) or far apart (bad) — and the size of the area the system covers.
But equally important is the layout of the city in which the bikeshare system is built. In most cities in China (Beijing, Shjiazhuang) bikeshare would fail outright, but others (Shanghai, Tianjin, Xian) would be a resounding success. Going on a 3 month trip to china, there are subtle differences in each city. The biggest aspect that determines success of bikeshare is the width of the streets, and block length. In North America, bikeshare in cities like detroit, LA, Victoria, Ottawa, would fail outright.
The problem with advocating bikeshare everywhere is that cities in which the system is less than wildly successful, opponents have low hanging fruit to convince politicians that bikeshare will be a financial disaster.
One exception to your first sentence: Rome’s bike share has been a complete disaster and is now basically dead, without any helmet law.
Sorry, meant as response to the article.
Your send link appears to be wrong. It’s pointing to the Stranger article. Did you do another post where you looked at bike share cities with helmet laws around the world?
*second link
Author
That’s the link embedded in The Stranger article. I don’t have another.