Helmet laws throw wrench in bike-sharing plans

Reported by Luke Brocki
Thursday, September 22, 2011

When a public bike sharing system arrives in Vancouver next year, the winning operator will face a number of challenges, from the city’s hilly topography and rainforest climate to the BC Motor Vehicle Act, which makes helmets mandatory for all cyclists.

This last point has proven troubling for other jurisdictions, including Melbourne, Australia, where critics blamed the failure of bike sharing almost entirely on that city’s push for mandatory helmets. Still, Vancouver officials insist they help can facilitate (but not pay for) a private or non-profit bike share system under current regulations in time for next June’s Velo-city Global 2012, the world’s largest international cycling conference.

“The number of public bike share programs around the world is growing exponentially and I don’t see why the helmet would be a deterrent to that,” says Vancouver city councillor Geoff Meggs. “Melbourne has a mandatory helmet law and they’ve had some problems with it, but we’ve had the advantage of their experience and the experience of many other cities.”

While it’s true similar systems are receiving widespread support around the world–Momentum Magazine recently called bike sharing the future of public transportation, praising it for allowing short, one-way trips through urban environments without the headaches of parking, storage, maintenance and theft–local cyclists worry helmets could complicate things.

The Vancouver Area Cycling Coalition supports and encourages the use of helmets by cyclists of all ages, but also believes “the over-emphasis of helmet use is detrimental.” VACC vice-president Lori Kessler suggests the winning operator of a local bike sharing business could argue for an exemption to the mandatory use of helmets on business grounds.

“Pedi-cabs are a business that currently has this exemption,” Kessler said in an email. “This would require a change to the BC Motor Vehicle Act.”

Meggs says that’s not an option, and bike sharing and helmets will have to be compatible.

“We’re not seeking to change the law,” he says. “We made it a requirement that there would have to be a helmet solution. We got five bids and they’re all being assessed. I think there will be some successful ideas in there.”

Speaking of successful ideas, the poster child of public bike sharing is Montreal, a city where helmets are optional for cyclists 18 and older. Montreal’s BIXI (think bike taxi), run by a private non-profit Public Bike System Company, launched in 2009 with a fleet of 5,000 bulky three-speed commuters and quickly found tens of thousands of users.

Despite a $108-million bailout package approved by the City of Montreal in May 2011 to cover debts and loan guarantees, the project is already expanding to other cities. Just recently, New York City picked BIXI to operate its planned 10,000-bike PBS. BIXI is also in the running for the Vancouver contract, but so is BikeShare BC, a local non-profit looking to win the deal by solving the helmet issue.

“In Melbourne, [helmets] completely destroyed the spontaneity and convenience of a bike share,” says Keith Ippel, executive director of BikeShare BC. “Helmets need to be available at the station and the payment for that has to occur at the exact same time that you’re doing your payment for the system.”

Ippel knows he can’t make everyone wear a helmet. For the scofflaws among us, there’d be a waver to sign, transferring liability away from the operator. Everyone else would use a new one-size-fits-all design, cleaned and inspected nightly to meet health and safety standards.

A 1,000-bike pilot is expected to cost between $3 and $6-million. City hall is facilitating the selection process, but not kicking in any money, so corporate sponsorship is expected to be an integral part of the project, regardless of who ends up running it.

City council was expected to announce a winner before the end of September, but the selection process has been postponed without a clear timeline. On September 21, city staff told me it was unclear whether a winner would be chosen ahead of November’s civic election.

“Launching in spring 2012 is still possible, but the city will have to make its decision no later than January for that to happen, just for production lead times,” says Ippel.

I've just returned from Montreal, a city whose bike taxi (BIXI) program is a thing of beauty and envy for a Vancouverite keen on public cycling.

Cycling advocates claim bike sharing could well be the future of public transit and while the City of Vancouver has expressed interest in a similar project, critics are quick to point out the city's mandatory helmet bylaw is a major stick in the spoke for a would-be bike sharing program.

Is there any chance Vancouver would consider amending its helmet bylaw (ie: mandatory under 18, recommended for adults) to help drum up interest in cycling?

Failing that, what chance of success does BIXI, or another system, have in a city where helmets are a must? Would they offer helmet rentals? How would something like that even work?

POST A COMMENT

Submitted by Luke Brocki on Fri, 2011-09-23 15:37.

Looks like we found a talker, ladies and gents!
Here's a link to more comments aggregated on reddit.com:

http://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/kocbg/helmet_laws_throw_wrenc...

Submitted by Brad Kilburn on Fri, 2011-09-23 15:12.

There is always hope and I don't think there's anything wrong with experimentation either.

I do think supplying a customer with choice is a good option but wonder how the choice of government will limit usage of our system.

One other concern with a helmet kiosk at stations. As I understand it, other systems use stations where each bike can be accessed individually, so if 2 or 3 patrons want to use a bike, they can do so at the same time as they could when returning a bike. It sounds as if with these stations there will only be a single access point to rent a bike, so if there are 2 or 3 patrons wanting to use a bike, one would have to wait their turn, just as when they return the bike.

Isn't it possible that there may be patrons that would see 2 or 3 people waiting in line to use or return a bike and and make the decision to not wait?

Also, is it confirmed that these helmet kiosks will be at every station, or would someone wanting to use or return a bike and helmet have to go to specified stations? If so, wouldn't that search make the use of Vancouver's PSB a little less convenient?

Submitted by Keith Ippel on Fri, 2011-09-23 16:26.

Solid points. Choice of government in this case is indeed inherently limiting.

Helmet Kiosk at the station. We have a few thoughts on this. First, local citizens with passes and helmets can still access the bikes directly at the dock. In addition, helmets will have an embedded RFID tag (also helps deter theft). If you keep the helmet over multiple uses, say during a lunch stop, then you could just tap the helmet at the dock and go. As such, there are a few entry point options.

Modern PBS is the like the Starbucks of the coffee world. Anywhere you go it's consistent. Same experience each time - predictable, easy. As such the "logical" thing to do is have helmets at every location. Where the operator needs to get smart is to manage helmet supply and demand based on the type and location of each station. For example, City Square Skytrain station will need to have a lot of helmets. Perhaps the west side of Olympic village has much less. So the helmet kiosk needs to be able to scale up or down to match demand patterns.

Last point, you NEVER want to have people returning helmets coming to the same spot as those who are signing out bikes and getting helmets. As such, payment and helmet access should always been at one end of a station (say to the right) and helmet return always on the left side. In doing so, the layout should minimize line-up and also create a consistent user experience each time they come to a PBS station.

Submitted by Keith Ippel on Fri, 2011-09-23 13:02.

Brad, great comments. All cities that have put bikehare into a mandatory helmet law city has not shown success. None of those attempted to be customer centric and at least attempt to provide helmets in the most spontaneous and convenient way possible. The question of VPD enforcement is also a great one.

If we look at Melbourne, they get about .75 rides/bike/day. In Montreal it's roughly 5 rides/bike/day. That's a big gap. Now, most PBS cities indicate that roughly 80% of all PBS trips are full spontaneous - people decide likely at the moment they see the PBS station. If that's true, that might indicate why PBS in Melbourne has it's stat - 4 out of 5 trips are spontaneous and if they don't provide helmets in a convenient and spontaneous way then they are getting exactly Zero of those trips. Their .75 rides are purely those who plan for a PBS ride in advance.

If that is the case, let's assume Vancouver starts with a base of .75 rides/bike/day - those who plan. Now, can that number be improved. 4 out of 5 riders don't use the system. Now, let's assume for a moment that we provide clean, safe, and aesthetically pleasing (critical - more than half the battle is style and fashion, people don't want to look like dorks) helmets right at the station. So, how many of the 4 spontaneous riders will now try the system?

If I assume 1 out of the remaining 4 are fundamentally opposed to wearing helmets, the maximum opportunity is cut down by one. Let's then assume that 1 person would never wear a helmet as they view all helmets as dorky or will mess their hair. Now only 2 of the 4 potential spontaneous users are available to the system. Now, to play it safe I'll cut another one to allow those who are a little fashion conscious and a little opposed to helps. If all this is true a system that provides smart looking helmets in a convenient, spontaneous way will secure 1 out of 4 spontaneous users. That gets the system to 1.75 to 2 rides/bike/day. Would that constitute a success or failure?

Let's compare to other cities. Nice Ride Minnesota achieved roughly 1.2 rides/bike/day in their first year, and I've heard are closer to 1.5 this year. Denver BCycle is viewed in the same light with similar stats. They are generally viewed as being moderately successful. NOw let's look at Capital BikeShare. They have 1,100 bikes in their system and are considered by most to be a runaway success. They announced at their first birthday that they had 1,000,000 trips in their first year. Straight math would indicate that they are doing 2.5 rides/bike/day (maybe up to 2.8 if you consider ramp time at launch and some bikes being off line for maintenance).

Suddenly a system that delivers 1 planned rider + 1 spontaneous rider moves into the marker of success. Clearly not the widely successful Montreals or Londons of the world, but solid none the less. If it's safe to assume that the 1 planned rider is a local citizen, and with 8 million visitors to Vancouver, is it not possible to achieve 2 rides per bike per day. If a system in Vancouver could achieve an extra 730,000 bicycle trips per year would that be progress. And finally, would a system providing helmets at the station be the perfect "pro choice" option if the helmet law were exempt or repealed?

All food for thought. At the end of the day there is risk as a real bike + helmet system has never been tried (ever notice that Melbourne is operated by the local AUTO club at CITY expense?). If the City puts in little/no cash then that risk is borne by the owner/operator and may once and for all be the siren call for an exemption. But as I note above, perhaps there is hope.

Submitted by Brad Kilburn on Fri, 2011-09-23 10:44.

Melbourne isn't the only place where a PBS has failed. Aukland NZ had a small system requiring helmet use that has folded, and Brisbane, Aus., is having a similar experience as Melbourne. In Canada, both Montreal and Toronto are having great success without a helmet law.

Success of a bike sharing system relies on use by people who otherwise would not have used a bicycle for short trips. One has to wonder if those people who don't ride bikes, don't ride because of the helmet law.

And, if one of the key elements of success is easy and quick access, I wonder how adding a helmet kiosk will affect that access.

Another question is how, or if, the law will be enforced. If the VPD does not ticket helmet-less PSB users, usage could be increased, if they do, well I wouldn't want to rent a PSB and walk it back again.

Whatever the outcome, the world will be watching the first NA PSB system that requires helmet use. Can it work? I guess we'll see, but I fear this will be a white elephant subject to criticisms of investment in cycling promotion if it doesn't.

Submitted by fancyfancy on Fri, 2011-09-23 04:29.

Please, get rid of the helmet laws. They don't make any sense. At least, just leave them for children who need protection. Adults should be old enough to know how to take care of themselves. Just stop.

Submitted by CityRider on Fri, 2011-09-23 00:38.

There are only 2 public bike hire schemes in the world that are failing: Melbourne and Brisbane (where I live). They are the only 2 schemes in cities which have mandatory helmet laws.

The Australian schemes are getting about 10% of the usage that they need to be considered acceptable, and about 4% of the usage of the most successful schemes.

Anyone who says: "I don’t see why the helmet would be a deterrent to [bike share]" clearly has not done any research into the various bike share schemes in operation, and would appear to not even understand the concept of what bike share is and what it is used for.

Bike share is not intended to replace private bike ownership - it is intended to provide a form of bike travel which can be used for spontaneous and one-way travel, or to link in with other forms of public transport. Mandatory helmet laws prevent people from using bike hire in this way.

In Brisbane we have attempted to increase usage by providing free helmets which sit on the bikes. It has increased usage a little, but not much. Most people are not interested in wearing a helmet that has been worn by hundreds of other people (often you can smell the sweat in them), and sits out in the rain all the time.

Bike share schemes will not work with helmet laws - this is a fact. The only "solution" is to get an exemption or repeal the law altogether.

If Vancouver goes ahead with bike share without an exemption from the helmet law, there will then be 3 failing schemes in the world.

Submitted by Arno Schortinghuis on Thu, 2011-09-22 18:25.

The law is provincial, but Vancouver provides a bylaw which dictates that riders must wear helmets on certain bike paths. Vancouver could and should rescind this bylaw.

As Lori Kessler mentioned, there is already an exemption to the provincial helmet law for pedicabs. Experience with bike share sysltems worldwide has shown that riding a bike share bike is extremely safe - probably safer than walking. If helmet law proves to be a serious impediment to a bike share system, the bike share operator could apply to the provincial government for a similar exemption.

Another option is for the provincial government to provide an exemption to the helmet law for cities which have a bike share system. The was done in Mexico City and in two cities in Israel in order to ensure the success of their bike share systems.

Ulitmately, the BC government should look seriously at repealing the helmet law as it is probably of no benefit to society and may actually cause more harm than good. Research shows that helmet law reduces ridership, so the many benefits of cycling to society are reduced. Helmet usage by adults should be an individual choice.

Submitted by James Twowheeler on Thu, 2011-09-22 15:50.

Ok, I retract some of my previous comment. I hadn't seen the BikeShareBC website before, and it is gorgeous, complete and very, very, very smart. These guys will clearly win the mandate, and I'm almost ready to predict success.

Onus is still on VPD to continue to turn a blind eye on quiet streets (people will put helmets in baskets on 10th ave for example) but this will nevertheless build a large constituency of pro-choicers.

Submitted by Keith Ippel on Fri, 2011-09-23 13:20.

Thanks for the vote of confidence! :-) The reality is that we have stiff competition including Bixi and BCycle, Both have shown an ability to put in great PBS systems. We at Bikeshare BC have put a lot of thought and effort into tackling Vancouver. That has included many rounds of testing, user feedback, and prototyping of helmets, systems, branding, and communications.

All that said, it's still a risk. We just don't know how well it will be received. For us, our ability and confidence to bid was based on the work we did and belief that, like any great start-up, we have a solid risk/reward profile.

Submitted by James Twowheeler on Thu, 2011-09-22 15:16.

Cleaning the helmets is all very well, but shared helmets fail the safety test. Manufacturers say you have to buy a new one if you even drop it. http://www.bhsi.org/replace.htm http://www.bellsports.com/faqs/product-faqs "Some or all of the helmet’s protective capacity is used up when impacted, and the damage to a helmet is not always visible."

If you don't know the history of the helmet, you can't trust it.

Therefore we conclude all this offering of helmets is just for show; that the operators of the system, and the city, fully expect mass civil disobedience. The question then becomes whether VPD side with the public or the Victoria legislature: whether they ticket the dutch tourists enjoying the seawall, or let it pass. If the latter, Vancouver ends up with a good strong mandate for provincial law change.

I ran through the slightly less optimistic scenario here: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=221045921257206

Submitted by Samantha Durnford on Wed, 2011-09-21 13:33.

I'm not sure sharing helmets would work out well. Unless people would carry their own helmets, I don't think people would even want to share helmets (Some may not find it sanitary). Also, it seems theft would be an issue unless there was a way to ensure the helmets were returned, which seems more complicated. Also, you can't just leave a helmet sitting outside all day/night like you can a bike.

I think the best step would be revisiting the bylaw. They can look at bike programs like the ones in Toronto and Montreal and see the benefits of it, and how we don't really suffer by not wearing helmets. It can be up to the users discretion and those who wish to wear helmets can supply their own, just like regular bike riders.

Submitted by Luke Brocki on Wed, 2011-09-14 11:01.

It's a very interesting discussion...
I understand there are certainly potential solutions, such as in the form of helmet rentals, but renting helmets introduces all sorts of other issues (inconvenience, health, sizing, safety, etc).

There are also loads of news stories out of Australia about Melbourne bike share's spectacular lack of ridership, where critics put the blame square on the city's mandatory helmet laws:

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/helmet-law-makes-nonsense-of-bike-hire...

http://www.marcuswestbury.net/2010/12/08/australias-arts-and-culture-sce...

http://www.grist.org/biking/2011-08-22-helmet-laws-get-in-way-of-bike-sh...

I'm not saying it's impossible to make bike sharing work with current helmet laws, but they certainly introduce some problems... anyone else want to weigh in?

Submitted by Keith Ippel on Wed, 2011-09-14 01:37.

Vancouver can't amend the law as it is provincial. Australia, NZ, and WA state all have similar laws.

The issue is not as dire as most make it out to be. Bike sharing is about short, spontaneous, convenient trips. Makes helmets available at the station on a rental basis, provide a decent looking helmet, and use common cleaning and presentation techniques to ensure safety and confidence. Very doable. Most naysayers come from an advocacy background and the motivation lies in eliminating the laws, and as such don't take a customer-centric approach.

Submitted by fancyfancy on Fri, 2011-09-23 04:32.

>> Most naysayers come from an advocacy background
Are you so sure about this? Last time I checked, I was just an ordinary person.

>> and the motivation lies in eliminating the laws
Yes. Bad laws should be eliminated.