[URBAN NOTE] "Is the Bixi the middle ground between motorists and couriers?"

[rfmcdonald]

The Globe and Mail's Les Perreaux wonders if Bixi--the bicycle-sharing service that has taken off in Montréal, among other world cities--will work. Certainly it has potential.

In a place like Toronto, which was a tough city for cyclists even before new mayor Rob Ford expressed his disdain for the mode of transportation, changing the tone is vital, enthusiasts say.

“It’s not going to change things overnight, but it's a lot harder for a motorist to become angry at someone on a Bixi bicycle than a bicycle courier or a racer. And I think that's important in bridging the gap between these two road users,” said James Schwartz, a Torontonian who blogs about cycling issues at The Urban Country.

The evidence is anecdotal, but several urban affairs and cycling experts who have examined bicycle sharing around the world report bikes such as the heavy Bixi, which carries riders in an old-fashioned upright stance, most often without a helmet and at speeds drastically slower than your average road rider, has a calming effect both on motorists and more aggressive cyclists.

[. . .]

Under the Bixi system, automated docking stations are scattered around cities. Users in Toronto will have the option of signing up for a year ($95), a month ($40) or a day ($5). Once a rider has signed up, usage is free for the first 30 minutes of any ride. The system is designed for short hauls, such as inner-city commutes or running an errand across downtown.

Critics of bike sharing say it’s a marketing exercise that does little to reduce road congestion. Fans say it gets casual riders back on bikes and in big, dense cities such as London it’s by far the cheapest and easiest way to get around the centre of town.

Toronto's mandatory helmet laws, it seems, might doom the system.

One of the awkward truths of shared bicycle systems around the world is that the shorn inconveniences often include helmets. Few Bixi riders wear them.

Helmets are a source of much controversy in the cycling world. While governments and public health officials encourage their use, pointing to statistics that show the severity of head injuries is reduced by helmets, many cycling organizations argue they discourage casual riders by sending the message the sport is dangerous. Fewer riders means fewer public health benefits from the exercise. A lower critical mass of riders raises risk for the remaining riders, they say.

Authorities are left in the awkward position of promoting both helmet use and a bicycle system that unintentionally and indirectly discourages it.

Melbourne, Australia is one of the only cities with both a shared bicycle system and a mandatory helmet law. Bixi usage there has languished badly compared with other cities. Bixi’s parent company, Public Bike System, and the city have searched for solutions, such as introducing helmet rentals and vending machines.

Michael Rubbo, an Australian-Canadian cycling enthusiast and film maker who is now based near Sydney, has closely examined bicycle sharing in Montreal, Barcelona, Dublin and closer to home in Melbourne. He says the Melbourne system is at risk of failure unless the helmet law is softened.

But then, if one of the major complaints of Toronto cyclists--justifiably, to a non-trivial extent--is that it isn't as safe for bikers as one might like, does it really make sense to rescind entirely defensible safety regulations? Letting more people get their heads cracked apart to help a bike-sharing system get off the ground doesn't seem very defensible. All IMHO, of course.