As Vancouverites await word on the city’s public bike-sharing program, New Yorkers are getting set to welcome their own later this summer. From the New York Times:
More than 200 cities around the world have bike-share programs. [New York’s is] not the first, but [it] will be one of the largest systems. The program will start with 420 stations spread through the lower half of Manhattan, Long Island City and much of western Brooklyn; eventually more than 10,000 bikes will be available. It will cost just under $10 for a day’s rental. The charge includes unlimited rides during a 24-hour period, as long as each ride is under 30 minutes.
New York, unlike Vancouver, doesn’t have mandatory helmets laws for people over the age of 13. As it’s been well-documented, B.C.’s compulsory helmet law is why some, like former city councillor Peter Ladner, say bike sharing is doomed to failure in Lotusland.
But is there a lesson from New York here? Could a mandatory children-only helmet law alleviate some of the safety concerns? As mentioned in today’s MorningFile, it’s a subject that was touched on by Craig McInnes in the Vancouver Sun this morning:
For me the most compelling argument for mandatory helmets is that children are the most likely to suffer permanent brain damage from a bike accident. The research clearly shows that in jurisdictions where helmets are mandatory, the percentage of children who wear helmets goes up.
While some jurisdictions, including Manitoba last week, have brought in mandatory helmet laws just for children, as a parent it was always much easier to get my kids to follow safety rules if the adults had to follow them too.
My argument here is that there are a lot of things children can’t do that adults can (like driving, drinking alcohol, and watching movies with swear words). Also, making a parent’s job a little easier isn’t enough of a justification for a law that affects everyone (again, in my opinion). But I digress.
Continuing to consider the issue of successful versus unsuccessful bike sharing programs, we consider Bixi, the Montreal-based communal bike service that’s often cited as a model for Vancouver’s eventual program (and one of the bidding companies in the running to operate it). According to a story that ran in Sunday’s National Post, Bixi’s finances are looking shaky. The program’s financial woes are something that our friends at OpenFile Montreal covered earlier this month:
Operated by the city of Montreal’s parking authority through a quasi-public firm, the Public Bike System Company, Quebec’s auditor general called in 2011 for the city to spin off Bixi’s international operations. The auditor could find no law that allowed a municipality to run an international for-profit company.
After the first Bixis hit Montreal’s streets in 2009, the distinctive bikes and stations have spread around the world, with thousands now in London, Toronto, New York, Boston and Chicago. Despite the international success, the system owes Montreal $37 million in loans used to finance the rash of orders.
Should Vancouver get in on the Bixi game? In Montreal, some local politicians (according to the Post) are leaning towards making it a public service and giving up on the idea of a profitable bike-sharing business. Now that it’s proven popular, says opposition councillor Richard Bergeron, “now Montrealers love BIXI, so we will have to pay.”
So here’s the thing: bike sharing has been around long enough in cities like Montreal for people to have gotten critical about it. Here in Vancouver—supposedly one of the most bicycle-friendly cities in North America—we’re still in the wide-eyed and hopeful stage, eagerly waiting any tidbit of information from city hall that might hint at what our program will look like and when it will finally get here.
With files from John Michael McGrath
Blog photo by MaxGag via Flickr.
