Cycling in Melbourne Australia
The New bike share contract
As I'm sure you know, RACV-ALTA has just signed a contract to bring Bixi-style street rental bikes to Melbourne.
Bixis come from Montreal (The word is a combination of bike and taxi) where 5000 of the bikes have just finished a very successful summer, with millions of rides taken. These sturdy bikes are now spreading around the world. There will soon be Bixis in Boston, 6000 Bixis in London and, yes, 600 in Melbourne, well, maybe.
I found out there's a stumbling block. At the Melbourne Bike Futures Conference, where ALTA made a presentation, it was revealed that Bike Share has never been set up successfully in a city with compulsory helmets.
Why is that? The near impossibility of automatically dispensing a legal, sterilized, helmet on the street along with the bike.
In the movie I've made at the conference, viewable on my blog, And So To Bike, Http://datillo.wordpress.com/ Alison Cohen, presnting for ALTA, candidly admits the difficulties they face because of helmets .
There is no doubt for me that Bike Share would be a huge plus for any city, and it's no surprise that its speading around the world like a bushfire, despite the much publicised vandalism problems of the 30,000 Velibs in Paris.
. Bike share decongests cities, bike share brings in a whole new class of riders, people who've never thought of using a bike for transport before, now try doing so for free, and love it. (The first half hour is usually free)
Most importantly, bike share is making cycling safer, both by upping the number of bikes on the roads, and by bringing in the sit-up-and -beg style of bike (All bike share schemes use this type of bike)
Whilst they are solid, slow, and heavy, Bixis are safer because you see better, and are seen better. This is, after all, the way 89% of Eurpeans who are using bikes as transport, ride. And they, even without helmets, since it's always a choice in Europe, have less serious accidents than we do.
How ironic it would be if the only thing our Federal Govenrment has ever done for bike safety, namely bring in the compulsory helmet law, proves to be the one thing which prevents this far greater, in my opinion, contribution to safety, from hitting our roads.
In any case, true safety under the wheels, not on the head as they Dutch with their 29,000 kms, of bike ways and tiny accident rate, prove
Anyway, this is a drama which is just beginning ,and one we'll all be watching with great interest, I'm sure. Mike Rubbo
Bixis come from Montreal (The word is a combination of bike and taxi) where 5000 of the bikes have just finished a very successful summer, with millions of rides taken. These sturdy bikes are now spreading around the world. There will soon be Bixis in Boston, 6000 Bixis in London and, yes, 600 in Melbourne, well, maybe.
I found out there's a stumbling block. At the Melbourne Bike Futures Conference, where ALTA made a presentation, it was revealed that Bike Share has never been set up successfully in a city with compulsory helmets.
Why is that? The near impossibility of automatically dispensing a legal, sterilized, helmet on the street along with the bike.
In the movie I've made at the conference, viewable on my blog, And So To Bike, Http://datillo.wordpress.com/ Alison Cohen, presnting for ALTA, candidly admits the difficulties they face because of helmets .
There is no doubt for me that Bike Share would be a huge plus for any city, and it's no surprise that its speading around the world like a bushfire, despite the much publicised vandalism problems of the 30,000 Velibs in Paris.
. Bike share decongests cities, bike share brings in a whole new class of riders, people who've never thought of using a bike for transport before, now try doing so for free, and love it. (The first half hour is usually free)
Most importantly, bike share is making cycling safer, both by upping the number of bikes on the roads, and by bringing in the sit-up-and -beg style of bike (All bike share schemes use this type of bike)
Whilst they are solid, slow, and heavy, Bixis are safer because you see better, and are seen better. This is, after all, the way 89% of Eurpeans who are using bikes as transport, ride. And they, even without helmets, since it's always a choice in Europe, have less serious accidents than we do.
How ironic it would be if the only thing our Federal Govenrment has ever done for bike safety, namely bring in the compulsory helmet law, proves to be the one thing which prevents this far greater, in my opinion, contribution to safety, from hitting our roads.
In any case, true safety under the wheels, not on the head as they Dutch with their 29,000 kms, of bike ways and tiny accident rate, prove
Anyway, this is a drama which is just beginning ,and one we'll all be watching with great interest, I'm sure. Mike Rubbo
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Mike rubbo on -
Adrian, that's a great report. Glad it worked so well. Two questions. A film on velibs which I'll post on my blog, says that unless they are every where, and start everywhere, not grow, the idea does not work. Montreal has 5000 bikes, Melbourne to have 600.
Secondly, explain how you think helmets can be rented. . Most experts say it's impossible to have them all the places they need to be, and checked an sterilized after each ride.I think Montreal had 400 docking stations. tht would mean 400 human manned rental facilities. Mike
-
Permalink Reply by Adrian on -
Having used Montreal and given the climate and livability of Melbourne, I'd prefer to see 5000 bikes on start-up.
With only 600, people will get frustrated when they are all being used.
It was easy using Montreal without the need for helemts.
There would need to be novel ideas for hiring helmets. A disposable paper hat (like those used in food service could be worn under the helmet. Helmet dispensing machines, similar to food/drink vending machines is one option.
I actually believe that tourists, given advance warning, will bring a helmet or buy a cheap one.
On day one in Montreal, I checked out Bixi. I found it difficult at first because I wanted a Bixi key and didn't want to use the credit card & PIN as per ad hoc users. I thought they might have a Bixi shopfront or seller but could only get a key buying it online or ordering by phone and then waiting 3 days to get it by post. That was the only draw back I found.
If they'd said I needed a helmet. Not a problem. I would have bought something cheap.
The biggest users will be city workers or residents. They will already have helmets. I'm already hoping that I can use Bixi to get from work to Docklands to go ice skating at lunchtimes when the new Ice House opens.
It really adds another dimension to city life. I used Bixi to get to and from restaurants for instance. Or to and from meetings.
I don't see helmets as an issue although it would be good to have the law relaxed for Bixi users.
I think people will be surprised at how Bixi will take off.
Regards
Adrian
-
Permalink Reply by Steve Jay on -
I hope it takes off, it's a great idea. I would also like to see them relax the helmet law for Bixi users, because that would be thin edge of the wedge for bringing back personal choice ;-)
-
Permalink Reply by Adrian on
-
It's worth checking out http://www.bixi.com and selecting english unless you are happy to view the web site in French.
They have an interactive map showing all the Bixi stations.
Unlocking and docking the bicyles was very easy.
Adrian
-
Permalink Reply by SlowCoach on -
This same topic of the possible fate of the bike share in Melbourne is also being debated on a popular international blog here:
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/11/sue-mr-rubbo-and-australian-bi...
It has triggered a lively international debate with input from all other the world.
worth having a look.
-
Permalink Reply by Mike rubbo on
-
It has indeed, Slowcoach. Mikael of that famous blog (It's the world's most thoughtful and powerful bike blog actually) has become very useful to us in covering touchy subjects here, such as our helmet laws.
No doubt Mikael's aware that our press seems scared to go near this question. So too,our cycle looby groups. As the guy in my film explains which Mikael ran, "It's an off limits topic." So, we find ourselves in the strange situation of relying on a Danish blog on the other side of the world to break local news for us.
Here's the movie with Melbourne bike share nervousness revealed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fF9l0ooic
But even more significant is this story in the Vancouver Metro.
http://www.metronews.ca/vancouver/comment/article/363926--bike-shar...
It reports that Vancouver, which was no doubt looking forward to treating the thousands of foreign visitors to the winter Olympics in 2010 to a scenic bike ride, now wont get Bike Share till after in the summer, if ever, says the writer
He specifically fingers their helmet laws. British Colombia is one of the Canadians provinces which has compulsory helmets like us, and now also like us, they face same difficulties.
Thewprobably will be denied bike share too. I wonder if we can join forces to break out of this trap. I'm waiting with great curiosity for the bike accident statistics from Montreal for this past summer, the first season of the Bixis.
If the 5000 Bixis they had on the streets, attracting new and inexperienced riders, foreign visitors too who did not know the city, if this dangerous mix got through the summer without a dramatic rise in injuries, esp. head injuries then to me it's strong evidence that this helmet business is a bogeyman, magic stuff, and that we've been freaked by for no good reason Oh, I forgot to say helmets are voluntary in Quebec and few wear them.
Mike Rubbo
-
Permalink Reply by SlowCoach on
-
"the only thing our Federal Govenrment has ever done for bike safety, namely bring in the compulsory helmet law"
Maybe not. Apparently, since the compulsory helmet law was introduced, bicycle injuries have increased.
It seems absurd, but this it is what a poster is saying in here:
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/11/sue-mr-rubbo-and-australian-bi...
"Let's have a look at the evidence, starting with the Australian govt own research reports.
The govt released a study in 1997, aimed at assessing whether helmets had made cycling safer. It compared injuries the period before (1986-1989) and the period after (1993-1996) the helmet law was introduced. It reported that cyclist injuries had decreased by 12% relative to other road injuries. However, It failed to take into account the drop in cycling usage. Adjusted for lower cycling usage, injuries per cyclist INCREASED.
Helmet wearing and cycling safety
The govt released a report on bicycle deaths in 2006.
After the law was introduced, from 1993 until 1996, cyclist deaths INCREASED over the 4 years.
Deaths of cyclists due to road crashes"
It's rather odd.
-
Permalink Reply by Steve Jay on
-
I've been inspired to Google "compulsory bicycle helmet laws" and there is so little evidence either way that it could be a conspiracy theorist's masters thesis. In one of the best cited wikipedia articles of them all (110 citations), the article entitled "Bicycle Helmet", in the section "Is_cycling_risky_enough_to_require_helmets?", is the following cited claim...
"Cycling is no more dangerous than being a pedestrian.[30][31] A UK opponent of compulsion has pointed out that it "still takes at least 8000 years of average cycling to produce one clinically severe head injury and 22,000 years for one death."[32] Ordinary cycling is not demonstrably more dangerous than walking or driving, yet no country promotes helmets for either of these modes.[33] "The inherent risks of road cycling are trivial... Six times as many pedestrians as cyclists are killed by motor traffic, yet travel surveys show annual mileage walked is only five times that cycled; a mile of walking must be more "dangerous" than a mile of cycling..." The proportion of cyclist injuries which are head injuries is essentially the same as the proportion for pedestrians at 30.0 % vs. 30.1 %"
I've seen figures for pre-airbag cars where head injury rates were above cycling head injury rates, even in in crashes around 30km/h to 40km/h. (Some of you may be aware that "Fifty on our streets" started life in the early 90s as a campaign for 30km/h in residential zones and was watered down to 50 by the political process - this figure was from that original report.)
There seem to have been very few impartial reports done, and most reports seem to focus solely on the head injury issue, dismissing reduced cycling as desirable on congested city streets.
Now, as I always say in this debate, I wear a helmet in traffic by choice, not by compulsion, but not because I'm afraid of traffic, rather that I try to ride my fastest pretty much wherever I go and a helmet gives me a degree of confidence. The fact is, there is no evidence helmets have protected cyclists or not, and the indicators are that in non-compulsion countries (pretty much most of the world), even those places with high levels of car addiction (Europe and North America), don't seem to have any worse rates of head injury than here. there also seems to be NO separation between off-road and on-road cycling. With mountain biking's main appeal being surviving the risks, it must surely skew any results.
That said, there's really eff all evidence either way as the rest of the world doesn't seem to think it's an issue, preferring rules which protect everybody, rather than trying to protect "victims" from "themselves".
-
Permalink Reply by Steve Jay on
-
...and pay dirt!
"Cycling - The Actual Risks" (PDF)
The fact remains that wearing a helmet while cycling on public roads (and possibly cycleways, yet to test this one in Victoria) is absolutely compulsory, and all of the science in the world doesn't amount to a defence against such an infringement.
However, if you want the BIXIs to succeed, if you want cycling to be the wind in the hair it is supposed to be, write to every politician you can spare a stamp for and send them a printed copy of the above-linked PDF.
-
Permalink Reply by Neil on -
So in fact, Steve, wearing a helmet encourages you to take greater risks, thereby increasing the danger of you actually having a crash which would necessitate the protection of a helmet, though in reality you would probably just break other bones instead.
Which suggests that compulsory helmet laws raise the cyclist injury rate rather than lower it a scenario which was observed after MHL came in. Despite fewer cyclists on the roads, the injury rate was higher per capita.
Counterproductive law in so many ways.
Educate people to use helmets but don't deter bicycle use by mandating them.
-
Permalink Reply by Steve Jay
-
Actually, I'm quite risk averse. I like to challenge my boundaries, but one at a time in controlled conditions. I may ride fast when helmeted, but never beyond the conditions. ;-)
As for the efficacy of MHL, that depends on your perspective. For the car lobby, the law is very effective, it blames the victim (taking the heat off the cause) and discourages riding.
-
Permalink Reply by Mike rubbo
-
Steve, I'll be soon posting a fascinating interview with Mikael of the famous blog, addressing exactly what you are talking about. I've changed the name of my blog to situp-cycle.com to make is more searchable , by the way Cheers, Mike
Videos
Badge
Music
Latest Australian Bicycle Blogs
© 2009 Created by DamianM
