Should You Build a Bike or Buy Your Own?

The post Should You Buy a Bike or Build Your Own?​ appeared first on Ride The City.

Here’s a map showing bike helmet laws by country:

As you can see, wearing a helmet when cycling is mandatory in Canada’s British Columbia and Newfoundland and Labrador, Namibia, Australia and New Zealand. These are the places where you can actually get a ticket for not wearing a helmet. In a few other countries it’s also mandatory, but without any fines in case of non-compliance.

What is more interesting, in the most bike-friendly countries like Denmark and Netherlands it’s not even recommended, let alone mandatory. Why so? Because they have infrastructure in place which makes it safe to ride without helmets. Not only that, the motorists are used to nearby bicycles and any accidents are very rare. Here’s how a typical street looks like there:

Did you notice someone wearing a helmet? Still, these are two safest countries in the world to ride a bicycle.

You see, many governments try to fix the problem of accidents involving cyclists by enforcing usage of helmets, instead of creating infrastructure for cyclists, and that, we think, is a major problem here. What is worrying, more and more cities see it as an ultimate way to fix the issue. Of course, it’s cheaper compared to construction projects, separating traffic, educating motorists, etc. But is it a better way?

Enforcement of helmet use is often based on fear. You will see terrifying statistics of brain injuries, interviews with those who survived, etc. But, several new problems arise here.

First, people don’t usually like to be told what to do. Secondly, fear is a great tool to make people do what you want them to. Let’s take an average Joe trying to lose weight who considers cycling a new alternative way to commute to work. It’s a hard decision for Joe, but he’s almost ready to buy a bike. Next day, Joe’s city council passes a bylaw, under which it’s now mandatory to wear a helmet, or you’re getting a heft fine. Joe now thinks, well, they wouldn’t pass such a law unless there’s a threat to me, right? So cycling is now perceived as something dangerous and less appealing. Joe goes back to his car.

When mandatory use of helmets was introduced in Australia, the number of cycling commuters has fallen significantly. As a result, with fewer bikes on the road, cycling is becoming more dangerous for those who still ride. Motorists are becoming less accustomed to their two-wheeling neighbours and accidents happen.

In addition to that, a number of studies show that drivers seeing a cyclist without a helmet are tending to pass him closer or perform a dangerous maneuver. On the opposite, when a cyclist has no helmet, passing motorists will be more careful, slow, and pass with a bigger gap.

This angle becomes even more fascinating when you look at a public health from this standpoint. It’s a known fact that regular cycling helps prevent a number of diseases caused by inactive lifestyle. Now, if we compare a number of deaths caused by non-wearing a helmet and those deaths caused by non-cycling, the difference would be staggering.

What we think is the right approach, is enforcing helmet use by kids. First, because they can’t decide by themselves, yet. Secondly, because kids tend to be less cautious than adults when it comes to cycling.

The post Should You Wear a Bike Helmet? And Should It Be Enforced By Law? appeared first on Ride The City.

Even though bike sharing can be a way (not the only one, however) to make our life a little easier in large metropolitan areas, it faces lots of impediments on its way – from citizens opposing the concept in general to city authorities who don’t like the idea in general.

The reasoning they have to support their claims oftentimes makes sense.

Argument 1: If a bike sharing station replaces a parking space, it causes even more traffic congestion

That’s partially true, but let’s have a look at a bigger picture. How many passengers can a car carry? Well, usually four. However, when compared to bike sharing’s target audience, it’s fair to compare those who drive alone, and ride a bike alone, for that matter.

So instead of one car parked along the curb, we could place eight or even ten bikes on a rack. Oh, and at least the drivers are practicing perfect parallel parking skills, they need some space to enter and exit a parking spot, so that’s another eight bikes, easily.

By now the math tells us that one car parked takes space from approx. sixteen bikes.

Argument 2: Most of the time we see the bike sharing stations, they are stacked with bikes, no one is using them.

Well, that’s true for some periods of the day, but the same applies to cars, right? If you have a look at your city’s main highways or freeways in the morning and compare that to lunch break, these would be two completely different roads.

What’s interesting, sometimes you can see people oppose bike sharing in cities where these problems are critical, and whether a coincidence or not, these are the same towns that have the lowest percentage of bike commuters.

On the positive note, as opposed to car commuting, bike sharing is heavily used during weekends, thus boosting the economy of downtowns on less active days.

Argument 3: Bike sharing only make things worse – sharing stations are vandalized, bikes are damaged and thrown around

This indeed was a problem when bike sharing was a new phenomenon. Now, as we’re getting used to them, so are vandals, and as a result, less and less accidents like that occur.

Argument 4: Bike sharing companies are for-profit businesses, why do we need to share public space with them, not to mention tax-payer dollars?

Well, that’s a fair argument. It’s worth mentioning, though, that tax dollars are rarely spent on these initiatives, if any, at all.

The way these businesses keep working is largely because of private capital and investments, and they don’t make any money. Big funds and private companies keep pouring the cash in, hoping for future profit. But the latter never comes from the bike sharing itself, most often through other channels like ads on the rear wheel.

As for public spaces, that’s true. Even though the racks and stations are often placed with considerations of public comfort and in order to minimize the effect on business, that can cause inconveniences.

However, let’s imagine an ideal world where we commute by (mostly) bikes, at least in the most crowded areas. How much of that space occupied by cars could actually be reclaimed?

While these arguments above are certainly not the only disagreements you can hear related to bike sharing, they are the most commonly used.

And we need to trace why it’s actually opposed to the roots of the issue. It just could be that people oppose change, even if this change is the right thing to do.

Yes, it’s not encouraging to see images like this:

But, maybe, just maybe, the problem is not bike sharing or bikes in general, but the problem is us – not willing to give a new way of transportation a try on our streets?

The post Arguments Against Bike Sharing (and how to oppose them) appeared first on Ride The City.