Dock dockless bikes

London Cycling Campaign (LCC) is an organisation that promotes cycling for all Londoners (and beyond!). As a campaign group, they to talk to all sorts of organisations and individuals, such as local governments (i.e. the Mayor of London and each of the councils), entities like Transport for London (TFL), business groups, etc... down to individuals like me (disclaimer: I am a fee-paying member of the campaign, but I am not taking "active" part in any of their current initiatives, so what follows is entirely my own opinion).

One of their visible outcomes is their quarterly magazine "London Cyclist", which contains updates on their initiatives, articles and reviews, interesting routes and interviews with "key players" of the cycling scene.

In general, I am a little bit disappointed with organisations that could do so much more than they actually do at the moment, and in particular I feel that LCC tends towards "the soft" side when they interact with those organisations (e.g when interviewing them).

Yes, I am fully aware that the process of improving cycling for all is a delicate act of diplomacy as you have to square circles on a very tight budget, so to speak, and thus you can't just be too hard on everyone or you would not be able to achieve any advancement.

But the interview with Lime's director of policy in the latest issue of the magazine is... quite something else. I tried to find an exact adjective to describe how I perceived Lime as I read the interview, and ended up constructing a rainbow of disappointment: whitewashing, egotistical, exploitative, gaslighting, deluded...

blocking the crossing for a corner A number of Forest and Lime bikes entirely blocking the crossing for a corner

Aside: what is this "Lime" thing?

For those who don't know what Lime is, it is an operator for dockless e-bikes and e-scooters. Which means that, unlike what happens with the "classic" local hire bikes that TFL run, where there are docking stations for the bikes, and the journeys start and end on a station, these "dockless bikes" can be picked up anywhere that the user finds them, and then left anywhere when their journey finishes (the same applies to the e-scooters).

There are rules that describe where the bikes can be left, but the general gist is that bikes are meant to be left in an unobtrusive place that causes no disruption to other users of the street (pedestrians or otherwise). Some boroughs specify that bikes are to be left in some specific areas (often parking spaces for cars that have been marked as for e-bike parking now).

These rules are in theory enforced by the operators by using GPS and asking drivers to take a picture of their hired vehicle when they finish the journey, to prove that it was left in the right way and following the rules.

e-scooter numbers are limited by the borough (or TFL, I am not 100% sure). e-bike numbers are not limited so operators can distribute as many as they want around the city.

This is the theory.

Lime e-bike parked horizontally on a pedestrian crossing, entirely blocking it and obstructing the tactile paving A Lime e-bike parked horizontally on a pedestrian crossing, entirely blocking it and obstructing the tactile paving for blind people

"A rainbow of disappointment"? So harsh, aren't you?

OK, let's see, going paragraph by paragraph that elicited the responses:

  • whitewashing: Lime has set up a "community fund" to "help local organisations spread cycling joy across London". This screams whitewashing to me: trying to distract from the harm they are causing by making themselves look nice by funding community projects.
  • egotistical: on the question of how important cycling infrastructure was for shared bike schemes, the answer is recentered immediately on e-bikes and the "lack" of parking spaces.
  • exploitative: when asked about growth, he answers that "(...) a network of 1.5 million people who rely on the availability and convenience of our service to make hundreds of thousands of trips a month (...) The growth is only set to continue (...)" and also conveniently avoids discussing or even acknowledging the negative impact the introduction of these bikes in the city is causing and will continue to cause, even more so if they continue adding more numbers of bikes into the system. No mention of taking away pavement space from pedestrians.
  • gaslighting: in response to the question about bikes littering the pavement, he answers "we understand the importance of preventing pavement obstructions (...) have made a number of investments in our technology (...) to help improve this". Yet there's no week that I don't have to move at least one bike from the pavement because it is blocking it, or a week in which I don't see them parked outside the mandatory parking areas, or a week in which I don't see them parked in bike stands for private bikes, or anywhere else that is wrong. Whatever it is they say they're doing, it's achieving close to nil.
  • deluded: on the question about vandalism, he says they actually have very low rates of vandalism. Likewise, there's hardly any week when I don't see bikes being used in "hacked" mode and cycling irresponsably, even more than "regular" users. Proving my point: I literally just saw (and heard) a person cycling with one of those hacked bikes as I typed this paragraph.

It's not just me who's disappointed—here are some links about Lime disappointing boroughs and members of the public:

Assortment of e-hire vehicles parked anywhere but the designated area, some tipped onto the floor creating trip hazards Assortment of e-hire vehicles parked anywhere but the designated area, some tipped onto the floor creating trip hazards

To be 100% clear...

... I don't have a problem with Lime. I have a problem with dockless bikes (or scooters) being used in an inconsiderate manner:

  • Bikes parked inconsiderately are harmful for:
    • people with disabilities such as blind people,
    • people using crutches, canes and other mobility aids,
    • people on wheelchairs,
    • people pushing prams,
    • people pulling trolleys,
    • smaller (kids) and frail (weakened) people,
    • people with suitcases or other luggage,
    • people walking dogs and people who rely on their dogs to be autonomous,
    • and people using any other way of carrying people and/or things that makes them "wider" or "bulkier" or less able to move around obstacles, like, for example, carrying heavy groceries
    • and etc etc etc and etc,
    • and for everyone else as we try to move those heavy pieces of machinery to a safer position or move around them (and have to step into the road).

Additionally, not only are they UGLY but also add clutter to an already very busy environment, causing additional overwhelm in people and making streets less attractive to spend time in.

  • Bikes driven inconsiderately are dangerous to pedestrians and other people on bikes, and also dangerous to drivers of cars and other heavier vehicles, apart from evidently being dangerous to the person(s) using them. These are some of the behaviours I see every week from users of dockless bikes:
    • jumping red lights and cycling AT pedestrians
    • cycling in the wrong direction
    • cycling in the pavement
    • zigzagging or cycling erratically
    • cycling while using a phone, and not paying due attention to the road
    • cycling with another person sitting on the basket (sometimes with the back to the front) or above the rear wheel

You could argue all that you want that it's not the operator's fault, but somebody else's: the boroughs for not providing space to park, or the users for acting the way they do, or other people for daring to want to walk on a straight line rather than through an obstacle race...

Three Lime bikes blocking a narrow pavement, creating an obstacle race close to a traffic barrier Three Lime bikes blocking a narrow pavement, creating an obstacle race close to a traffic barrier

But my experience is that people will do what the system lets them do. And if your system is enabling harm to take place, you should proactively fix the system. You shouldn't wait until a government puts a law in place to avoid you creating harm.

Although that would take a cup and a half of ethics and personal responsibility...

A Lime bike blocking a narrow pavement, next to a lamp post so there's no space to walk but the road A Lime bike blocking a narrow pavement, next to a lamp post so there's no space to walk but the road

In the meantime, as an engineer, when I see problems, I think of solutions. These are my ideas for fixing the problem:

In short: dock dockless bikes

  1. Dockless bike schemes to be banned. Every bike should be docked in a standardised station. This fixes the problem of bikes parked in the wrong place.
    • critics would argue this makes the schema "less attractive". To which I say: we would all love to do whatever we please, but we live in a congested city with limited space and have to respect other people's right to move so the city remains attractive for all.
  2. Standardised docks are built following the normal planning processes and consultations that are already in place for elements like parking spaces or TFL docking stations. This fixes the issue of too many bikes flooding an area, as it introduces a hard, physical limit.
    • or rather than building new docks, operators could use the same existing docks that we use for TFL bikes.
  3. If a user can't find space to park the bike at the end of the journey, they can request extra bonus time at the station, to find an available dock in a nearby station. This could help with regulating demand and distributing it towards other times or means of transport. It is also what you can currently do with TFL bikes, so it's proved to work, and users would understand it.
    • Critics would say this is annoying, but so is having to wait for the next bus/train if the one you wanted to board is full. Get a grip, this is a busy city.
  4. TFL to regulate the operators and the number of hire vehicles each operator can run, based on the number of available standardised docks. Operators should get a license to operate and pay a fee for each bike they run in the city, to help sustain the docking systems and the cycling infrastructure, and to reflect the fact that they're making a profit from common public space (roads and pavements). If that means the prices of private operators need to go up, then so be it. They should reflect the true cost of providing the service and let "the market" decide if the service is so convenient.
  5. BONUS: Traffic lights to be fitted with sensors for cycle hire schemas, to detect users that jump red lights. If a bike is sensed to be in immediate proximity to a traffic light, and the speed sensor in the bike detects sufficient movement, it should report to the operator, who should fine the user. GPS is notoriously unreliable when you want less than 10 metres precision, but this feature could be implemented with relatively cheap sensors (like an accelerometer) that can be fitted on bikes and do not rely on GPS or mobile signals.
    • Why? Lime and other dockless hire users tend to jump lights like they don't understand the concept of "waiting", putting themselves and everyone else in danger and thus worsening the infrastructure for everybody.
    • Evidently: this would also be paid by operators as part of the conditions to operate. Funds from the fines should be paid to TFL to fund cycling in London.
    • BONUS to the BONUS: regular offenders to be banned from the system (not from the operator, but from the system).
      • Problem: establishing identities. Are they tied to a mobile phone? to a government ID? To a credit card? Although it's probably not a problem worth thinking of until the above are implemented...

A Lime bike parked perpendicular to the pavement and blocking more than half of the space A Lime bike parked perpendicular to the pavement and blocking more than half of the space

One can dream!

We could even go beyond separate operators running incompatible systems and creating all this work for separate boroughs and competing to become "the" choice, and imagine instead a city in which users have choice of hire operator and type of bikes (electric, not electric, lightweight, sturdier, cargo...), and also benefit from guaranteed commonalities such as the docking stations, APIs for station and bike availability, perhaps even the possibility of hiring any bike without having to sign up for separate accounts, etc, instead just using the same credentials.

Think about that for a second: right now we can board any bus using Oyster or contactless (the credentials) and without having to sign up first for the company that is running the bus, the same way that we can board any tube line and change lines without paying a separate operator on each change (as it used to be the case when separate operators set up shop in London, back in the 19th century).

We are so used to this that when we go anywhere else in the world -hey, even in the UK- it's like "how can they even tolerate that?".

Why can't we have the same for bikes?