So, Lime Bikes are back in the news, it seems.
Last week, we reported that Muhammed Butt, the leader of Brent Council, appeared on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme to complain that the green hire bikes, and the American company’s dockless parking system, were causing a “nuisance” in the London borough, and were “just being dumped on the streets, parks, rivers and canals, outside the high streets”.
> “Banning bikes won’t help anyone”: Lime Bikes responds to London council leader trying to get rid of “annoying” hire bikes causing a “nuisance” in his borough
“They’re just sort of being left there with no care and attention. Lime do need to take some responsibility because it’s their users who are causing that nuisance,” Butt told Today presenter Amol Rajan.
However, the Labour-controlled council leader’s comments about “inconsiderately parked” and “abandoned” Lime bikes – rather inevitably – invited a few of Brent’s residents to post videos on social media of the borough’s pavements being blocked and used as a dump by a lot more than green e-bikes:
Nevertheless, Butt has doubled down on his criticism of Lime’s hire scheme, issuing an ultimatum this week that all 750 of the US-based operator’s bikes in the borough will be removed by 31 October unless requests for improved safety measures are acted upon.
As part of their ultimatum, Brent Council is calling for the introduction of dedicated Lime Bike parking bays and ‘no parking zones’ (which the local authority says would align with Transport for London’s planned e-mobility contract for 2026 and are already applied in 10 other London boroughs), resources for the council to removed abandoned bikes, and for Lime to increase the £10 in-app fine for users who fail to park their bikes correctly, neatly to the side of the footpath or in a parking bay.
“Lime bikes left scattered across our streets are causing havoc for other road users, especially for pedestrians and disabled people,” Butt said in a very pun-heavy statement yesterday.
“Residents have gone sour on Lime, and the council is receiving repeated, regular complaints about the bikes left across paths and roads in a haphazard way.
“This is putting unsustainable pressure on council staff who are spending time cleaning up after Lime. Something needs to change as the current situation is unsustainable and leaves a bitter taste in the mouth.
“To date, Lime has not satisfied our proposals, which we consider vital to ensuring the safe and efficient operation of the scheme in Brent. Unless Lime changes the way it works with us, we are out of road for its activities in Brent.”
> Is a common contract for London e-bike and e-scooter share schemes on the way?
Butt’s Halloween deadline for Lime has appeared to have been welcomed by some Brent residents, with 86-year-old Pat telling the Guardian that she wants the ubiquitous green bikes “rounded up and crushed”.
Life’s bad enough when you’re getting older and you’re not very steady on your feet without these bikes in your way. Good riddance,” she said.
“People just dump them with no consideration. People don’t think of other people,” added florist Heidi.
Meanwhile, Lime user Jude was also ambivalent about the scheme’s overall impact on the local community, telling the newspaper: “It’s convenient having them on the pavement but it’s a health and safety thing. In the morning they’re pretty much everywhere.”
> Lime hire scheme under fire as residents claim e-bikes "deliberately" left in "dangerous places"
However, cycling campaigners in the capital have been scathingly critical of Butt’s attack on Lime Bikes – which they believe comes from a council that has done little to make cycling easier in the borough.
“Dockless cycle hire is opening up cycling to more and more diverse Londoners,” the London Cycling Campaign said in response to Butt’s statement.
“Councils that have done nothing on active travel for years shouldn’t ‘ban’ bikes, but work with operators who offer funding for appropriately-placed parking.”
“Dockless cycling is an integral part of moving away from an overly car reliant transport system in the suburbs,” added Tom Houston on Twitter.
“The short sightedness of this man’s position is ridiculous.”
“They’ve given me so much independence, especially seeing as TfL don’t have the money/will to expand the docked cycle hire scheme,” added Chris.
Meanwhile, Kate argued that, if Lime parking bays are to become mandatory in Brent, “we should make sure that this parking replaces car parking – not pedestrian and parklet space”.
“Can we do something about the problem of dockless car parking?” asked Chris, who wasn’t alone in questioning the discrepancy between attitudes towards car and cycle parking, illegal or otherwise.
“Southside shopping centre in Wandsworth, has car parking capacity for well over 2,000 cars. There are probably bike hoops for approximately 40 bikes. And there are complaints that bikes are left on the pavement,” said Matt.
Echoing the LCC’s stance, another user said: “The lack of infrastructure to make cycling safer is noticeable in Brent, along with generally very poor driving standards.”
> Lime contractor tracked seized e-bikes to council lock-up and took them back
Responding to Brent Council’s ultimatum, a Lime spokesperson said that the company wants to work with the local authority to address its concerns.
“We are proud to have worked with our partner councils over the last six years to build a safe and reliable shared e-bike service across London,” the spokesperson said. “Local residents in Brent and across the capital use our bikes for essential journeys every day, with 11.5 million commuting trips already taken this year.
“We recognise that a small proportion of e-bikes are obstructing pavements and busy junctions, creating difficulties for those with access needs, and we understand the importance of keeping our pavements safe for all,” Lime told The Independent.
Lime also said that, due to Brent Council currently having just 10 pilot e-bike parking locations across the borough, it is “not possible to enforce mandatory parking rules”.
Add new comment
66 comments
Or just insist they be parked in any existing car parking space - almost all the freedom of dockless, all the same guarantees of not being an obstruction as if a car were there.
I'm not sure who they think they are helping, but I don't think it does the cycling community any good to get quite so aggressive at what is a very reasonable complaint that is shared by all responsible cyclists.
It is absolutely fair to say that councils should provide space for considerate bike parking wherever it can reasonably be predicted to be needed, and if that means removing a few existing car parking spaces at key locations - so be it.
I'd also suggest a bike equivalent of yellow hatching. In an ideal world all bike hire users would would automatically pick a location that won't block the path of pedestrians or block fire exits, but some people need reminding. Many otherwise considerate able bodied people won't be thinking whether a guide dog navigate the space. The down-side of hatching is it can send the message that everywhere else is fair game.
Even if I wasn't already personally frustrated by badly abandoned bikes, as a community it is in our interests to stick up for the disabled community on this one, as it puts us in a better position to make our case for keeping protected bike lanes by bus-stops etc. Anti-cycling and pro-motoring groups already like to claim everything that is good for cycling is ablist, which is usually nonsense. However, they would have a point when it comes to abandoned bike hires.
And, based on this, that does seem to be very much the point being made by the LCC and others on the 'pro cycling' side of this argument. The agression, such as it is, is largely coming from the 'ban it' and 'crush them' side.
I was agreeing with them on that point. I just think they do that message and the pro-cycling movement harm by being so aggressive in their attitude. At best it means that part of the message is lost, and at worst it gives the impression that cyclists really are all selfish and couldn't care less about those with disabilities.
Please take it as read that my respect for the anti-cycling movement is already low.
Well... this is true. But as brooksby points out "just wait 'till they hear about cars".
Of course, because this is "normal" we don't notice it in the way we notice the dumped / fallen bikes. And bikes are much less likely to be dumped (still inconsiderately / not following the rules) *in* the road, as motor vehicles are.
If we expect people to care about things:
- they need to be invested in them. This means "public hire" anything (as opposed to "personally owned") already has issues to overcome.
- there need to be suitable consequences for breaking the rules / misusing the system - and the penalties have to be greater than the benefits to users of not bothering with the rules
- ideally the system needs set up so it's easy (beneficial to the user) to follow the rules and harder / less inviting not to do so.
Couple all those with expectation of bicycles being low cost (to users, compared with e.g. cars) plus being easily portable / stealable / easily damaged (usually zero consequences for any of those) and we can see that "dockless bike share" as an idea for the good of the public at large has lots of potential problems. (Never mind the funding models - and the fact that in practice most of these are set up to expect bikes to be trashed in short order because that's what happens).
People are selfish. How they are may change over the years but the "in my day..." arguments (some seen in other posts here) are dubious at best.
It seems it's quite hard - and/or there is rarely sufficient pressure on firms - to enforce more social behaviour. I suspect expecting e.g. the police to sort things out would be ignoring potential massive costs.
But who lets the firms get set up and sets conditions? Would that be the boroughs / councils / TfL? In which case I think there's definitely responsibility there.
Ultimately it goes all the way up the tree to the politicians who continue to go along with "the most important form of transport is private motorised transport" and direct the policies and the lion's share of the money accordingly.
Car drivers for many years have been more than happy to leave their parked motor vehicles wherever they think they can get away with it. Just sayin'…
Pages