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
A cordless drill is your friend here…
What is wrong with bike parking designers?
Not everyone has the required upper mobility and strength to lift their bike up into an unnatural position just to please the designer. Also, a supermarket is a likely place for people to want to use cargo-bikes and panniers etc. so how about providing cycle parking that can actually fit non-standard bikes?
I don't even understand who pays these "designers" - they must work very cheaply (probably a few packs of edible crayons). The design of a Sheffield stand (with a tapping bar) has yet to be improved upon.
I would argue that in some cases, sheffield stands with slide out racks above is a valid alternative (i.e. two level racks with bottom level being sheffield stands).
On the basis that I am capable of lifting my bike onto a slide out rack and securing it to that (given a properly designed lock point, which somehow isn't guaranteed?!?), squeezing more bikes into a given footprint, while leaving sheffield stands for those who can't lift bikes into racks/have non standard bikes that don't fit.
Of course the supermarket racks in article:
1. Won't take any bike with full mudguards
2. Can't be locked through frame + rack with a d-lock
3. Probably fail on some bikes just on tyre width (and I suspect this goes both ways - too thick and it won't go into slot. To thin and the bike will fall off the rack without being tied down...)
4. Require rider can actually lift bike (See 93 year old meeting club ride at cafe with relatively heavy e-bike this weekend - I would query if they can get the bike into that rack)
It seems strange to heavily optimise the space that bike racks take up (to the point of making them not usable for quite a few cyclists) when so much space is given over purely to parking cars. It'd make more sense to have double-decker car parking as that would save a lot more space and cars are more or less the same size and shape.
The problem with providing both Sheffield stands and abomination stands is that a lot of people would just choose to use the Sheffield stands if they're available as they're easy to use and very effective. That would then mean that the double-decker only-fits-standard-bikes parking would be left until last to be used, so it wouldn't necessarily help the people with e.g. wide tyres if they arrive too late.
Just provide Sheffield stands - they don't really take up that much space and the other "bike" parking solutions are just marketing gimmicks for people that don't actually know about bikes or trikes.
For now, in most-of the UK? Fair.
BUT I hope we'll need to get more efficient before I retire... https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2018/06/26/two-bicycles-per-second/
After a bit of digging, I found out those strange contraptions are called "Cyclepods" and the designers won a £10,000 prize from well-known cycle-friendly global mega-corp, Shell. (https://newatlas.com/cyclepods-build-a-better-bikerack/5849/)
More details on the Cyclepods website, including a glowing endorsement from the London Cycling Campaign (for a different product!)
https://www.cyclepods.co.uk/cyclepods/
You can buy a lot of crayons for £10,000!
It always seems like a stupid idea to have bike parking that aims to "capture" a wheel with some kind of slot as they need to take into account that bikes have a lot of variation with the width of tyres. Most of the time, MTBs won't fit into them and certainly fatbikes won't. Also, by trapping just the very outside of the wheel and not supporting the rest of the bike, they're essentially transforming the bike into a rim-snapping lever.
The other stupid idea is thinking that bikes take up less space if they're lifted upright. I mean, yes that can work with some bikes and reasonably able-bodied cyclists, but it discriminates against people with heavy bikes and/or upper body mobility issues (e.g. frozen shoulder which can affect almost anyone). It also causes issues with mudguards and luggage racks.
And, these monstrosities don't work with trikes or tandems as far as I know.
I'd like to see these designers put their wonderful, prize-winning designs into practice for car parks. What we need is two grooves that the wheels have to slot into (make them so they only fit some vehicles) and a sharply inclined ramp that the drivers have to accelerate into to get the front up into the air and then quickly slam on the handbrake to prevent the vehicle sliding down again. I'd like to laugh at the drivers struggling to get out of their car whilst being suspended a few feet into the air.
I also noticed that the cyclepods are too ashamed to list their price, whereas you can just buy Sheffield stands (with tapping bar please) for less than £100: https://www.vsafety.co.uk/Site-Security/Cycle-Storage/Cycle-Stands/Sheffield-Cycle-Stands-With-Tapping-Bars
Edit: Whilst I'm ranting, I noticed that the cyclepods can have umbrella-like things attached to the top. Great idea for preventing vertical rain from getting your wheels wet, but not so good for protecting the saddles that stick further out (and the one part of your bike that you'd most like to keep dry) and not much use if there's a wind blowing.
Agree that the humble Sheffield stand is preferable to all manner of odd alternatives. But I still dislike the potential for frame-on-stand contact, and my bike's paint being at the mercy of whoever parks on the other side of the stand.
You could always wrap a bit of cardboard or protective material over your frame or the bike stand. That's what makes Sheffield stands good - they provide flexibility as bike owners typically know their preferred way to lock their bike up, rather than being forced to comply to some clueless designer's fevered ideas.
Agreed. TBH I rarely leave mine outside so it's only an occasional problem / only a problem because it's occasional. If I was doing it regularly, I might be using a different bike anyway, or it would be easy to take protective measures - e.g. inner tube or pipe insulation wrapped around the top tube.
I like the idea of pipe insulation wrapped around the Sheffield stands - they should come like that as standard.
Then they just need to plumb them in - Sheffield stand radiators. Keep all those delicate machines cosy in winter, the grease doesn't freeze *, and there's nothing nicer than returing to your bike and getting on to a warm saddle **.
* Obviously we'd only doing this in places regularly subject to very low temperatures, like Haymarket station cycle stands.
** Not at the moment of course because that probably means that something terrible has happened in your absense.
Heating the stands won't work so well if they're wrapped in pipe insulation. What we need is roof mounted infrared heat lamps or something.
Something I've never figured out is why train stations are always much colder than anywhere else?
Hmm... maybe not every bike deserves the mark1a bicycle-hotel treatment.
Agree that for the UK the message should probably be "just put in Sheffield stands (since there are so many ways people manage to screw a very simple idea up). Ideally with the extra bar (makes it twice the effort to cut). Which are securely fixed in place (Edinburgh Tram failed there). Spaced so you can easily park bikes by them (avoid toast rack designs, installing them with one end abutting a wall or otherwise providing insufficient space). Not placed where motor vehicles are obviously going to run into them (many UK placements - although those motor vehicles get all kinds of places).
Although it's miles easier getting your bike from a sea of Sheffield stands than an equivalent-capacity car park I think another good reason for e.g. double-height racks is to increase the "door to door" convenience factor. Increasing the parking density means you can have thousands of bikes parked in a space it doesn't take you five minutes to navigate. That leaves more space for the much less densely-packing "non-standard bikes" e.g. trikes, bakfietsen, other adapted cycles (even recumbents or velomobiles for oddballs).
Interestingly - several of the parking garages in Amsterdam don't seem to have good provision for this though (see NotJustBikes on the subject).
The reason why I think tapping bars are so useful is that it prevents thieves from unbolting one of the legs and then sliding the lock under the leg. They more or less force the thieves to cut through the stand which then makes it obvious that the stand is not to be used, whereas if thieves loosen the fixing bolts, then it might not be clear to people that the stand has been tampered with.
I do think we should actually already be adding double-height racks at least at railway stations / transport hubs.
Pros and cons:
Most bikes - even in the UK - are roughly the same shape.
Several of the rack designs I've tried are actually quite easy to use, even the upper racks. They can be made so when down they rest on the ground and you can effectively roll your bike up them over the rear wheel holder instead of having to lift. (Here is a not-so-good example - you have to lift part of the bike into the air). There should be a spring / gas piston so you get some assistance with lifting them back up again.
OTOH there are certainly poor designs! Usual UK standardisation (not) - Edinburgh Haymarket station ones are pretty good while the Edinburgh Waverley ones have several issues and some "anti-features".
Dutch style: someone using one here, or here (again - the latter design could be slightly easier by having a lower rear-tyre holder).
A difference between NL and UK is that many bikes in NL come with built-in ring locks (just like you don't have to buy a separate lock for your car). That makes parking and locking them very simple. For various reasons in the UK we want to lock bikes to things. Making rack designs which facilitate that for a range of bikes is perhaps a little more tricky (not impossible though).
Larger tyre sizes? Yeah, because "cool" (I'm guessing?) and "ebike" there are now increasingly "SUV bikes" with e.g. fat bike tyres around. Perhaps we should not be falling over ourselves to cater for what are effectively "city off-road vehicles" though.
So my final thought would be "mostly Sheffield stands, and at stations double height racks but with a number of Sheffields for less-standard machines". Of course ideally with staffing - mainly to discourage theft / for "social safety" but also to discourage "tragedy of the commons" where people who just don't fancy using the double-height racks monopolise all the Sheffields and then someone can't park their trike...
Someone round our way's got the first of those covered - by yarn-bombing them.
At least the Sainsbury's cycle parking pimple is a step-up from something like this; https://startsafety.uk/products/economy-bike-rack
These cowboys even have the cheek to say "all you need to do is choose where to put it, and bolt it down if you choose to do so."
Their website invites people to leave reviews ...
In some respects, I prefer that design to the cyclepods as they're not pretending to be something they're not. They suffer from being wheel-bending devices and are much too easy to pick up, but at least they're nice and cheap.
Well, nearish. Not exacly quite as handy for the station or the bus rank though.
Seems to me there would be plenty of space for parking bikes on the opposite side, outside the Said Business School. I wonder* why they didn't choose to put it there.
[* I don't really wonder.]
What the actual F- is that???
If there wasn't a bike attached to it I'm not sure I'd realise what it was.
On BBC Breakfast this morning they did a piece, including an interview with someone from Cycling UK, about a police crackdown on dangerous e-bike riders/the (usually illegaly-modified) bikes.
I can't remember if it was just for London or nationwide.
But I can't find anything about it on the BBC news website, nor generally online.
It was to counter all those "bicycles are fantastic" stories that the BBC has been running. Balance, don't you know.
If you are in the UK, and have a TV Licence you can go to IPlayer and it starts at about 1h 16m.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m00231b7/breakfast-17092024
Don't seem to be able to clip it
https://github.com/get-iplayer/get_iplayer
Brent and Butt have history; from the Brent Cyclists website:
"Ahead of the Cabinet Council meeting on Monday 17 January, we wrote to Cllr Butt to express our extreme frustration at the entire process of how many of the active travel trials, especially the Healthy Neighbourhood schemes, have been conducted. Let’s not forget that the pop-up cycle lane was removed abruptly before the end of the consultation for dubious reasons like removing the wands for cleaning. They never made it back. We never had a report or a recommendation on that."
"As council leader, Cllr Butt bears ultimate responsibility for their failure, as well as a total failure to implement adopted Brent Council policies and follow guidance from the Department for Transport (DfT) and Transport for London (TfL)."
"Brent Council keeps stating their commitment, while at the same time weakening or removing active travel trial schemes." (19/01/2022)
https://www.brentcyclists.org.uk/2022/01/18/open-letter-to-cllr-muhammed...
Butt is just another bike-hating, car-loving petrolhead. I wonder why the BBC, that bastion of unbiased fairness and balance, didn't interview anyone from Brent Cyclists?
I'm not sure this is really Lime Bikes' problem - as I see it the real problem is the explosion of selfish cock Wimbledon in society - some of whom also use Lime bikes.
On my daily commute it's almost exclusively the Lime / e-scooter riders that blast through the red lights on the cycle lane and at pedestrian crossings.
I'd put good money on these same selfish idiots tossing their fast food wrappers wherever they like, talking during the film at the cinema, spitting etc etc.
In London there's been a dramatic decline in personal responsibility - but it's not Lime bikes' fault any more than it's Vw's or Ford's fault when their cars are parked on the pavement.
Lime bikes issues - another symptom of a transport system in transition from motor vehicle dependency. London has recognised there is an issue (lack of efficient street-level transport / not enough flexibility in that). But they've not got to the "best class" solutions yet because they are "expensive" and or "disruptive" / controversial - so "how can we fill the gap - oh, these cycle hire companies say they are happy to help..."
London may have some particular issues through being a huge collection of merged towns and historic "organic" development. But in general I agree with the author of the NotJustBikes channel - when you see hire bikes (and particularly dockless ones) touted as a "solution" what was really wanted was an improved at-street-level public transit system and better support for high-capacity flexible private transport (cycling).
Bike share systems are all "costs" to operate (even if this is actually paid for via and advertising deal). And the vandalism / damage / loss which comes with "just leave it anywhere" (and sometimes the financial models behind it) ultimately ends up costing the public.
Look at how the places with the most cycling and arguably nicest streets do it:
NL - there is a nationwide bike rental scheme but it is "fixed location" and tied into public transport hubs so the bikes are less likely to be dumped. (Ultimately NL works because it's really easy to obtain, store, park and use your own bike).
Copenhagen - bit of a mix here but with a main rental purveyor with "parking zones"
Seville (still in transition) - they do have a city-wide rental system but I believe it's based on fixed locations.
Not sure I entirely agree with this analysis (though I certainly approve of the proposed improvements on their own terms). Maybe this is just me showing a lack of imagination for what an effective transit system could be, but I think dockless bikes fill a gap in the middle:
Sadly, I suspect dockless bikes have mainly taken modal share from public transport rather than private cars.
Pages