"The main issue for me is somebody jumping on a bike that for all intents and purposes looks fine to ride," said our mechanic. Plus: Paying subscribers can view an exclusive documentary of our test.
"The company told London Centric it is hiring 100 extra staff to check bikes on the streets of the capital"
Well I've not seen these roles being advertised. Are they really hiring skilled mechanics or just more contractors using the juicer app? I am doubtful.
Mad that there is zero regulation. You could literally kill yourself or seriously injure someone else if the brakes fail (along with the other things) but how can you test the brakes before you hire the bike as you can’t move the thing until you’ve signed in.
Mad that there is zero regulation. You could literally kill yourself or others by riding on the pavements, running red lights, not using designated bike lanes and riding against traffic on one way streets. I’m all for cleaner and healthier transport options and I run to work myself but I’m astounded by how many people are risking life and death on a daily basis on these like bikes. Mad that there is zero regulation!
This video is really well done! I use Lime bikes almost daily and I'd say the ratio of broken vs "perfect" bikes is higher than reported, at least in my personal experience.
Thanks for the kind words on the video! I'm still a regular user of Lime bikes myself... but my personal experience is that you can find some serious clangers. No one pretends it's easy to maintain them but it feels they might need to up the standards a bit.
So the privatisation of footpaths by Silicon Valley tech bros has made it to London too. Here in Sydney these things are an absolute menace to pedestrians and there is zero control or regulation of them. And the studies that have been undertaken show users predominantly use these bikes to replace walking or public transport use. "Micromobility" is a sham.
"Very handy" is subjective and is a pretty weak data point when not including the impact on pedestrians, injuries, respurce intensity etc. These bikes are justified on the grounds that they replace car traffic. They do not. They replace walking and public transport use.
They do not contribute to the cost of footpaths and are essentially free riders with a very questionable net impact on mobility and amenity. How they justify being undocked is beyond me (lazy policy makers) and their use on footpaths come at the direct expense of pedestrians. Docking, prohibition of use on footpaths, readily identified licensing and a more stringent registration scheme and yes, they MAY be of benefit.
They are a sham and they are perpetuated by techbro investors trying to profit from that sham.
“Very handy” is a way of saying the bikes have transport utility, which can be quantified. Walking will only get you so far, in a certain time, and heavily dependent on a person’s fitness or ableness. Public transport is only on selected routes and is often infrequent or late and suffers from the first and last mile problem. Bikes fill in those gaps. E-bikes overcome barriers of steepness and sweatiness etc often raised for not using bicycles.
As far as replacing car use goes, e-bikes mean many people don’t need a car or a second car, and are far cheaper to run, and not as dangerous to other pedestrians and cyclists as cars. A recent study often cited shows that they are 10 times more cost effective at reducing CO2 as e-cars, so we’ll worth subsidising.
Any rate or tax payer contributes to the cost of footpaths and roads.
Car use does not contribute much if anything to pleasant neighbourhoods or urban amenity of cities, and have many negative effects.
Geofencing and requirement to take a photo of where you parked your bike go some way to address footpath and cluttering issues. No need to dock bikes if footpaths are widened at intersections and space provided at the kerb or mid block.
Footpath cycling can be reduced by provision of more bike lanes and paths and lowering urban speed limits.
Instructive to read the 32 recommendations of the NSW Parliamentary Inquiry into e-bikes.
Yeah the 32 recommendations after intense lobbying by Lime and Ario. Don't you worry, impressive efforts on their part, all designed to pave he way for e scooters.
But again this is just regurgitating the lobbying messages form those companies without addressing the core issues. Why do they need to be undocked -wheres the data to justify them being strewn all over footpaths? What cars are they replacing - wheres your data? How do they justify the reduction in amenity for pedestrians? These bikes ar located almost exclusively in dense inner urban areas where transport is also widely available and walking distances are short.
The disabled are NOT using these bikes. Of anything they are more of an impediment to disabled pedestrian and other access to footpaths as they block pedestrians access, impeding their right of way.
Again there is zero justification for the privatisation of footpaths. Cars do provide an important amenity and pay fornit. Our streets are designed to accommodate them. Bikes are a jip and the lobbying in NSW proves it.
The solution is surely to conduct a massive London-wide expansion of the public bike scheme, which would be more affordable, safer and easier to regulate. Why should public transport be left to the market?
Do you think that once the faulty bike issue is fixed, the faulty rider issue will be attacked? There are far too many careless riders causing real danger to other road users. There is a disaster ready to pounce at any moment in London, even with non-faulty bikes.
Not sure how eco friendly having vans collecting and moving bikes around is. These sound like death traps. How is a missing saddle or handles not an immediate issue? Who is riding them in that state?
Missing saddles aren't an immediate issue - it's easy to spot and no-one will hire that bike. That bike won't be earning for Lime, but it will be cheaper to wait until several bikes in that area need to be collected for repairs than to rush out and get it at once.
I'd assume the service vans are electric - it's the perfect use case for an electric vehicle.
That said, I'd question the eco friendliness of the whole setup. Where they replace walking, public transport or non-electric bikes they are a less eco friendly alternative. Where they replace car journeys it's great of course, but I don't think there's much of that in (central) London.
Mindblown that there is actually an incentive to break the bikes, and it seems there is not enough measures to blacklist users...
"The company told London Centric it is hiring 100 extra staff to check bikes on the streets of the capital"
Well I've not seen these roles being advertised. Are they really hiring skilled mechanics or just more contractors using the juicer app? I am doubtful.
Mad that there is zero regulation. You could literally kill yourself or seriously injure someone else if the brakes fail (along with the other things) but how can you test the brakes before you hire the bike as you can’t move the thing until you’ve signed in.
That's such a good point - you've already hired by that point.
Sign out immediately and report?
Mad that there is zero regulation. You could literally kill yourself or others by riding on the pavements, running red lights, not using designated bike lanes and riding against traffic on one way streets. I’m all for cleaner and healthier transport options and I run to work myself but I’m astounded by how many people are risking life and death on a daily basis on these like bikes. Mad that there is zero regulation!
This video is really well done! I use Lime bikes almost daily and I'd say the ratio of broken vs "perfect" bikes is higher than reported, at least in my personal experience.
Thanks for the kind words on the video! I'm still a regular user of Lime bikes myself... but my personal experience is that you can find some serious clangers. No one pretends it's easy to maintain them but it feels they might need to up the standards a bit.
All hail Vassily’s Lime-Lessons
So the privatisation of footpaths by Silicon Valley tech bros has made it to London too. Here in Sydney these things are an absolute menace to pedestrians and there is zero control or regulation of them. And the studies that have been undertaken show users predominantly use these bikes to replace walking or public transport use. "Micromobility" is a sham.
Poor brakes definitely an issue, as is lack of suspension.
But very handy for many trips beyond walking distance and to get to train stations so trips can be chained. Not a sham in those respects.
"Very handy" is subjective and is a pretty weak data point when not including the impact on pedestrians, injuries, respurce intensity etc. These bikes are justified on the grounds that they replace car traffic. They do not. They replace walking and public transport use.
They do not contribute to the cost of footpaths and are essentially free riders with a very questionable net impact on mobility and amenity. How they justify being undocked is beyond me (lazy policy makers) and their use on footpaths come at the direct expense of pedestrians. Docking, prohibition of use on footpaths, readily identified licensing and a more stringent registration scheme and yes, they MAY be of benefit.
They are a sham and they are perpetuated by techbro investors trying to profit from that sham.
“Very handy” is a way of saying the bikes have transport utility, which can be quantified. Walking will only get you so far, in a certain time, and heavily dependent on a person’s fitness or ableness. Public transport is only on selected routes and is often infrequent or late and suffers from the first and last mile problem. Bikes fill in those gaps. E-bikes overcome barriers of steepness and sweatiness etc often raised for not using bicycles.
As far as replacing car use goes, e-bikes mean many people don’t need a car or a second car, and are far cheaper to run, and not as dangerous to other pedestrians and cyclists as cars. A recent study often cited shows that they are 10 times more cost effective at reducing CO2 as e-cars, so we’ll worth subsidising.
Any rate or tax payer contributes to the cost of footpaths and roads.
Car use does not contribute much if anything to pleasant neighbourhoods or urban amenity of cities, and have many negative effects.
Geofencing and requirement to take a photo of where you parked your bike go some way to address footpath and cluttering issues. No need to dock bikes if footpaths are widened at intersections and space provided at the kerb or mid block.
Footpath cycling can be reduced by provision of more bike lanes and paths and lowering urban speed limits.
Instructive to read the 32 recommendations of the NSW Parliamentary Inquiry into e-bikes.
Yeah the 32 recommendations after intense lobbying by Lime and Ario. Don't you worry, impressive efforts on their part, all designed to pave he way for e scooters.
But again this is just regurgitating the lobbying messages form those companies without addressing the core issues. Why do they need to be undocked -wheres the data to justify them being strewn all over footpaths? What cars are they replacing - wheres your data? How do they justify the reduction in amenity for pedestrians? These bikes ar located almost exclusively in dense inner urban areas where transport is also widely available and walking distances are short.
The disabled are NOT using these bikes. Of anything they are more of an impediment to disabled pedestrian and other access to footpaths as they block pedestrians access, impeding their right of way.
Again there is zero justification for the privatisation of footpaths. Cars do provide an important amenity and pay fornit. Our streets are designed to accommodate them. Bikes are a jip and the lobbying in NSW proves it.
The solution is surely to conduct a massive London-wide expansion of the public bike scheme, which would be more affordable, safer and easier to regulate. Why should public transport be left to the market?
Do you think that once the faulty bike issue is fixed, the faulty rider issue will be attacked? There are far too many careless riders causing real danger to other road users. There is a disaster ready to pounce at any moment in London, even with non-faulty bikes.
Not sure how eco friendly having vans collecting and moving bikes around is. These sound like death traps. How is a missing saddle or handles not an immediate issue? Who is riding them in that state?
Missing saddles aren't an immediate issue - it's easy to spot and no-one will hire that bike. That bike won't be earning for Lime, but it will be cheaper to wait until several bikes in that area need to be collected for repairs than to rush out and get it at once.
I'd assume the service vans are electric - it's the perfect use case for an electric vehicle.
That said, I'd question the eco friendliness of the whole setup. Where they replace walking, public transport or non-electric bikes they are a less eco friendly alternative. Where they replace car journeys it's great of course, but I don't think there's much of that in (central) London.
I always consider Lime as a replacement for Uber/Cabs/Cars, not public transport.