Over the weekend, Lime Bikes – and the issues surrounding the e-bike hire company’s ‘virtual’ docking system – were once again thrust into the spotlight, and the national press (and no, I don’t mean because Fulham full back Kenny Tete was pictured riding one), with both the Guardian, the Times, and the Telegraph all publishing lengthy think pieces on the pros and cons of the ubiquitous green bikes and their apparent status as a “menace” on Britain’s streets.
While noting the success of bike hire schemes across the country in recent years, the Times also pointed out that ”anger is growing” at e-bikes that “have encountered widespread opposition because of the thoughtless way they are often strewn across pavements at the end of a ride. Pictures of badly parked machines have become a staple of social media.”
In the Guardian, the tone was much the same. “As Lime’s e-bike service has grown,” writes Stuart McGurk, “so have the problems associated with it. Its cycles are left strewn across pavements. Bikes have fallen on to parked cars, causing hundreds of pounds’ worth of damage. One was photographed in a tree.
“Are [Lime] bikes a convenient and sustainable form of transport or a menace clogging up pavements?”
> Wandsworth says it may start impounding Lime e-bikes if pavement parking isn’t tackled
And in the Telegraph, perhaps unsurprisingly, the tone was just as harsh – though the journalist responsible did also note the “profitable and eco-friendly” characteristics of bike hire schemes.
“Of the many plagues currently blighting Britain, dockless cycle schemes are among the most bizarre,” the Telegraph’s article begins. “Who would have guessed that in 2024, one of the many hazards facing parents with pushchairs, wheelchair users, and blind people would be an infestation of lithium-powered e-bikes?”
The dockless nature of Lime’s bikes – which allows users to drop off and pick up their bikes anywhere, rather than from a designation docking station used by the likes of Santander – was heavily criticised in the articles by Sarah Gayton, a campaigner for the National Federation of the Blind.
“We want dockless bikes to be taken off the road. They can have as much technology as they want, they can send people out to retrieve them, but once that bike is dumped on a pavement, it becomes a hazard to the visually impaired. This model does not work,” she said.
> Lime hire scheme under fire as residents claim e-bikes "deliberately" left in "dangerous places"
This criticism of Lime’s dockless approach is nothing new, and has been covered quite a few times over the years on road.cc and our sister site ebiketips.
Last July, residents of the west London borough of Hounslow spoke about what they claim were Lime e-bikes being “deliberately” left in “dangerous places”, as some locals called for the trial of the bike hire scheme to be paused immediately, arguing that it was only a matter of time before “somebody gets killed”.
The previous December, we also reported on the blog that one London cyclist had been given a ‘parking ticket’ for leaving a Lime bike in a car parking pay.
> TikTok videos showing how to hack Lime bikes result in them being "dumped with impunity" says council
When we contacted Lime at the time, they said users need to “park like your gran is watching” and should “never leave your e-bike in a way that obstructs the pavement or could create an access issue for pedestrians, including those with disabilities or access needs”.
However, a photo sent to us by a reader at the weekend – perhaps inspired by the surge of publicity in the national press – demonstrates quite clearly that Lime’s advice remains largely unheeded.
The photo, sent to us by Robert Smith, shows the unmistakable green machines left clustered around a pedestrian crossing at London Bridge. Which, unless they’re actually all waiting to cross the road themselves, isn’t the best look for the tech brand.
“I regularly commute to work on my bike and hire bikes are also a good idea but not having designated docking stations causes nuisance. Needs to be better regulation,” Robert said.
What do you think? Do the pros of dockless hire bikes outweigh the cons? And is “better regulation” the way forward? Or is just a healthy dose of common sense when it comes to parking your bike required?
Add new comment
47 comments
Lime bikes are a pain in the A. What genius though the ability to leave them strewn around anywhere was a good idea when docs have workds just fine for years? Absolute nightmare for visually/mobility impared people, and a massive "own goal" for cycling advocates.
Nope - only an "own goal" for local authorities. But actually not even that (in their view) as they only care a minimum about the safety of pedestrians / cyclists, and probably worry even less about a small fraction of those with disabilities. Less still about the convenience of walking / cycling...
The real "own goal" is not so much letting a couple of private companies dump cycling stuff in a couple of places (although that is ill-advised, I agree). It's letting all private companies AND the general public dump their motor vehicles all over the place, taking up an amazing fraction of public space. That includes them breaking existing laws (which have been de facto decriminalised) by doing so e.g. by driving on the pavement / cycle path.
Overall the own goal is failing to tame the car (keep some of the benefits, reduce the excesses and negatives) by a) taking some of that space and making provision of a networks of sufficient quality for walking, wheeling cycling and b) increasing the effectiveness of public transport. Because combining the two can replace a significant amount of demand for driving journeys in private cars even in "advanced economies" like ours. Here's how that might look like.
Classic utter twaddle. This has nothign to do with any of that, it's stupid dumping of hire bikes all over pavements and doorways and other places. You can try a hamfisted deflection onto cars driving on pavements for this, but you just look stupid. Let's try to have a grown-up response to this, and not the usual silo-based anti-car "it's all their fault" balls, because no one is going to win that one, especaily with your level of "argument".
Er... so presumably the local authorities and police are going after Lime bike users for their criminal littering? Or perhaps - being grown ups - they could figure out it makes more sense to go after the company - as clearly the local authorities weren't notified about this / didn't approve of it in any way?
Pretty sure this is ultimately about "how we allocate public space". That chat *has* to involve the vast amount we allocate to motor vehicles. If only because any change will provoke lots of noise from people who do store / drive their vehicles there.
FWIW as I said previously I don't think "dockless" is a good thing anyway - spend the money on actual cycle infra if you want cycling. Or fixing public transport if you have extremely deep pockets, you're just trying to provide a car alternative and don't care for cycling.
It would make so much sense to convert parking spaces on the road into e-bike docs, but that's going to cost more money than just letting people dump the bikes wherever. It's a similar issue with e-scooters although they don't really have docks - they could just have specific marked bays taking up a parking space or two.
Agree that if you are doing e.g. city bike hire that docks are the way. I just think that it would be far better to copy what has been found to work. That is a) much better surface public transport that we have in most places in the UK and b) tons of proper cycle parking everywhere. Because even now many people in the UK own bikes. I think it's no coincidence that in NL the main cycle hire provision is tied to the public transport network.
In Milton Keynes at least, please leave the Lime bikes alone!
I love that there may be one within spitting distance of my home that I can use to get to the station. My only question is - where have all the Lime bikes outside the station gone?
"Guinness truck driving over cycle lane wands, Dublin (via Kevin Nolan on Twitter)"
should be
"Guinness truck DRIVER bulldozing over cycle lane wands, Dublin (via Kevin Nolan on Twitter)"
At least I now know where to park my bike in London without fear of it being stolen!
I think this is the source of the 17 million drivers claim. I'm not sure what question was asked, but as it's inherently more difficult to see at night than during the day it's no surprise that a lot of people say they "struggle" to see after dark.
Was this 'one agency' predicting 17 million motorists the Daily Mail by any chance?
Driving in the dark recently I thought the best /easiest improvement to night time safety would be the regulation of ridiculously overbright LED lamps in cars.
Agreed - it's becoming a light escalation and makes bike lights and hi viz less useful.
Exactly this!
Regarding the new eyesight tests being more stringent, yay.
I'm all for it.
Presumably it is based on evidence that a significant number of incidents in darkness were caused by poor vision.
For me, the interesting thing might be the knock on effect of removing all those drivers who fail:
Would motor insurance premiums go down by taking a chunk of the costly drivers off the road?
When I first got glasses for seeing things at distance, the optician made sure that I understood that although I could read a plate at 20m unaided, my vision at night would not be good enough and I should always use my glasses at night.
When I last went to the optician, they informed me that although my eyesight was sufficient to drive without my glasses, they strongly recommended I should wear them driving in the dark. I took their advice, and I am so much happier with what I can see whilst driving now. In particular, I get less dazzle from other cars' headlights and I can see non-illuminated things (like pedestrians!) much more clearly. This change can only be a good thing.
Or go up due to adding a chunk of unlicenced (and therefore uninsured) drivers to the road?
I was wondering that too.
If driving requirerments are continually tightened and all law abiding drivers who are found to be unsafe do the right thing and stop driving ...
This could mean a proportional increase in illegal drivers... which would likely mean increased premiums for the rest.
"But cyclists..."
Of all the many things that won't happen in this world, removing 17 million drivers' licenses is certainly one of them. Can you imagine the 'war on motorists' hysteria?
If a new eyesight test removes 17 drivers I'd be amazed.
True.
17 million is a tad optimistic...
Being cynical I can imagine some calculation like "we'll collect stats on the eyesight of current drivers and set the standard as the 85th percentile of these".
OTOH it sounds like this is a bit like the version I did back when e.g. "see that number plate over there, could you read it?" so not exactly highly calibrated!
It's funny how the turned in lever debate amongst the pros specifically has a bit of "didn't see it so didn't happen".
When you have someone like Sam Bennett come forward and said that he saw someone using extreme lever position holding on to them with just one finger, which potentially caused a crash, and then understanding the dangers, it's almost like those that didn't see it don't understand.
The pros are claiming discomfort but both Shimano and Sram claim that the levers are designed for comfort between 0 and 5 degrees of insweep and that more extreme angles are not supported.
I get that most WT teams don't pay for their equipment and have no connection to warranty processes that customers may face if something went wrong. But that still doesn't mean equipment should deliberately be used outside of its intended remit.
This line at the end made me laugh out loud.
"The industry has to be careful not to push younger drivers into other modes of transport and that's a real risk when prices get this high,"
From:
"Young drivers face £3,000 cost for car insurance"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67991154
Indeed. Suggesting that the industry should choose to lose money on these customers rather than lose them as customers.
depends whether by lose you mean "extort less profit from" or actually lose money on the policy, and also considering the loss of future customers. Because if young people learn that driving is not as essential as has been made out and learn they can navigate their life just fine without paying £250 a month for a car, £2000 a year for insurance £200 Vehicle tax annually and £400 for servicing. The motor industry and motor insurance bisiness will see a decline in revenue for many years to come.
Carrying on from yesterday's furore about red-light-jumping cyclists, Surrey police now seem bizarrely to be implying that all cyclists' right to be treated as vulnerable road users may be compromised if some jump red lights. Curiouser and curiouser…
Yes, a really badly worded tweet from a normally very good account.
I agree, they usually are very good – it's as if the usual guy has gone on holiday and it's been handed over to someone who doesn't understand their ethos.
Black Belt Barrister seemed to agree with this angle too...
https://youtu.be/pRnswmWZoxI?feature=shared&t=299
Pages