You know, it’s very important that Melbourne’s bike share scheme is a success.
Around the world it’s been proven that these schemes have the power to turbo charge bike use in car clogged cities.
It’s obvious why. With easy to ride bikes scattered all over the streets, in Montreal the stations are every 300 meters, for example, its very tempting for people who’d normally never think of riding a bike as transport, to just have ago.
You don’t have to purchase the bike, worry about it being stolen, about the brakes and gears needing adjustment. It’s all done for you, and, as long as you ride is for half an hour or less, it’s free.
No wonder Bixis have helped transform Montreal into the 5th. city in the world for cycling, or that in the first two months of this, their second season, Bixi has already clocked up a million rentals.

Melbourne should be ideal of such a scheme. It’s not hilly in the CBD, and it already has a comparatively high level of bike use and bike consciousness.
Yarra City, close to the CBD, has the highest bike commuter use in Australia, over 10%. Amazing! (See; Councillor on a bike)

So it’ s depressing to read that in the first three weeks of the MBS, the bikes were rented only 700 times. That’s an average of 7 times per bike, one rental every couple of days.
Compare this with the overwhelming demand which met Barcelona’s Bicing schemewhen it was launched, 30,000 rentals in just over twice that time.

Of course it’s winter in Melb, and they are starting with one of the smallest number of starting bikes of any scheme, (100) These might be factors.
The name doesn’t help. Melbourne Bike Share sounds so institutional and so correctional. “Now, don’t forget to share your bike, children.”
It’s at variance with the fun and flair one usually associates with Melbourne.
Not to say that all the names of the various bike shares, which is spreading around the world with the speed of a music craze , are catchy. Montreal’s Bixi is a great name, arrived at through a popular competition. Paris’ Velib name is fine too.
Barcelona’s Bicing leaves you wondering how it’s pronounced. Bicincitta, the Italian scheme, sounds fun and feminine. The Milan version, BikeMi, sounds encouraging.
Here’s some BikeMi’s waiting for riders.

I like Ecobici, the Mexican city scheme name .
These Ecobicis look fun and don’t require helmets apparently.

and Nice Ride, Minneapolis is a name promising pleasure to come.

By the way, if you want to keep up with the latest on Bike share around the world, check out the bike sharing blog.
So whilst Melbourne might be stuck with its stuffy name as far as the bike logo is concerned, how about the nickname of Mixi?
It is appropriate because the bikes are the same bike as in Montreal, both made by a very clever Quebec company, Devinci, and so a variant on Bixi, suits.
Mixi it is?
That out of the way, the real problem is harder to solve, and that’s our stupid helmet law. I say, stupid advisedly, because this law not only may kill MBS, it has for years, stifled utility cycling in this country.
Our helmet law has acted as a selective herbicide , killing off casual utilitarian cycling and favoring, racing, mountain biking etc, all those more extreme forms of cycling which helmets naturally suit.
If you read MBS web page, you’ll find this as evidence of how important Bike share is around the world.
“As of Dec. 2009 there were over 90 (bike share) programs in approximately 136 cities.. with another 45 programs planned in 22 nations in 2009-2010 ”
What they neglect to mention is that in none of those other programs, most of which you can assume care just as much about the safety aspects of their program as do we, are adults forced to wear helmets. It’s always a choice.
Ponder that all of you with your stories of how your life was saved by your helmet, how do you explain this apparent safety everywhere but here?
How do you explain too, that for the 2009 season in Montreal when over a million Bixi Kms. were ridden, many by new riders and often without helmets, there were only 4-5 Bixi associated accidents, and none of them serious.
Should not all that extra riding by novices, have resulted in a nightmare of broken heads by your calculations?
Or is is that our drivers are worse and, as cyclists, we are much more careless? You tell me.
The safest place in the world for cycling is Holland where no one wears a helmet, not even kids.
Take a look at how relaxed and safe non helmet riding can look here in the Waltz of the Bikes
What you see here, in Amsterdam, is this not ideal? Is this not something we should be aiming for. Mixi can help us get there.
I am waiting for some stats to clinch my case, for the percentage of bike riders wearing helmet in Montreal, both for the general cycle population and for Bixi riders specifically.
Bixi itself will furnish some data and the rest I hope to get from Velo Quebec.
In any case, given that MBS Mixi could well be in danger of failing due to the helmet law, I feel quite responsible in recommending that the riders of these bikes, indeed the riders of all the slower sit-up style bike, be exempted from the compulsory helmets .
Wade Wallace of Cycle tips doesn’t understand the value of these schemes when he claims to be glad our helmet law will keep some people off Mixis.
Here’s Wade.

Wade says;
The helmet law will definitely be prohibitive in the uptake of the bike share program. Yesterday I wanted to try one of the bikes on an impulse however I didn’t have a helmet with me and wasn’t about to go and purchase another one.
The times I’ll get the most benefit out of using these bikes is exactly that – on impulse. I imagine many other people will be the same. Tourists will likely be one of the biggest users of the bikes and the helmet requirement could be the simple decision maker on whether or not to bother.
I think the helmet law is a good thing however. Very few people who don’t own a bike will be magically converted into a cyclist because of the appearance of the bike share program anyway.
The helmet law acts as a filter to sway non-cyclists away from using this program, which would be much safer for everybody. It’s dangerous riding amongst pedestrians, trams, vehicles, etc. if you don’t know what to watch out for.
If you don’t own a helmet, you probably don’t have the basic skills to ride in heavy traffic. Certainly not everyone who does own a helmet is qualified to ride in traffic, but it’s a massive first step in the right direction.
Wade, you are quite right as to why the bikes wont be used, that one cant take one on impulse, but then ponder those Montreal stats.
Ponder the huge success of Bixi in that city in your former homeland, and rethink this curse you’ve placed on Mixi with your outburst of Nanny state-ism.
I feel strongly enough about this to have done one thing and plan another. I’ve joined MBS for the year, even though I live 1000 kms from the nearest Mixi. It’s my way of being supportive.
Secondly, when I go to Melbourne very soon to hear the legendary Mikael Colville-Andersen speak, (He too is dead against compulsory helmets)
I, and at least one friend, are going to ride Mixis without a helmet and see what happens.
We’ll do so on Saturday morning, the 24th. July (Mikael speaks in the afternoon at the Design conference) most probably starting from the docking station in Carlton close to Lygon st.
Dr Paul Martin from Brisbane feels equally strongly that the helmet law is over control of our lives, and will ride with me. Sue Abbott is the one who got us going. It would be great if she turned up too.
We are ready to pay the fine of $154 to draw attention to what we feel is a very destructive law.
Indeed, we will argue, necessity, a well established civil defense. In this case, the necessity of challenging the helmet law in order to save MBS Mixi from possible failure.
If MBS Mixi fails, great damage will be done to utility cycling in Australia, since, as explained, the scheme are such a powerful energizer of that form of cycling.
Moreover, bike share is the fastest way to persuade a population, not only to ride bikes as transport, but to understand that the type of bike is important.
Go to any bike friendly city in Europe and note what they ride.
Whereas here, most riders are hunched over flat bars or drops, often in Lycra even when commuting, over there you’ll see that the way everyone rides, weekdays, is in their normal clothes, and sitting up very straight.
There, unlike here , bikes are equipped as true transport vehicles with bike racks or baskets, mudguards, lights and chain guards.
Does it matter, that the typical Aussie cyclist is hunched over on a bike with none of this gear, especially if the rider gets to work faster?
I think it does, because the head down way of riding which is fine for speed, looks aggressive and uncomfortable, discouraging others from the very idea of utility cycling. By transposing the racing mode to city streets, by combining training and commuting, other undesirable things tag along as well
With one’s shoes in the obligatory toes clips that go with these bikes, you are less apt to accept stop-and-go riding, more apt to run a red light to keep moving, or to veer onto a footpath to use a pedestrian cross-way, also to avoid stopping and un-clipping.
Seems to me that riding this way, head down, one also sees less well .
The hunched rider can’t look back over a shoulder without losing balance so one perfects a sort of under arm look which is not nearly as effective
Thus this rider is, I suggest, much more likely to have nasty surprises in traffic, compared with the slower sit-up rider.
More likely too, to get angry with motorists whose careless moves have not been predicted, such as opening the door of a parked car, such as cutting one off at a corner.
I realize this is contentious but think it’s true. When I ride upright, I see very well and am seen well in turn. I easily make eye contact with drivers when necessary, both to warn them I’m around and maybe flash a smile if they are courteous, which they often are. I also make my displeasure known, eye to eye, when they do stupid things.
With my rear vision mirror, I am constantly monitoring what’s coming up behind me and how they’re behaving.
I guard against my greatest fear, the driver who, not paying attention, cuts across me with a left turn. Indeed, I’m waiting for signs this might happen. If a passing car is about to turn left, I note the flicker, and I’m ready for evasive action.
Is it not also true that rider of a light weight bike is much more concerned than I am about his/her wheel going into a pothole than I am with my thick sturdy tires?
Is it not true that his/her attention is much more fixed on the fragile front wheel, than on the road as a whole? Does this not make for a less safe ride, especially at speed?
No bike shop in Australia will suggest that the sit-up bike is safer and more practical for commuting. No one asks if these are the reasons why most people such bikes in Europe during the week, keeping their lightweight bikes and Lycra for the weekends
We badly need to ride these MBS Mixis to find out for ourselves how much safer and more comfortable casual riding can feel when you sit up straight.
There are negatives. Having no rear vision mirror on these Bike share bikes is not good in my opinion. , And the three gears on a Mixi may not be enough for such heavy bikes. In Montreal, the Bixi has switched to 7 gears.
If you want to support our Mixi ride, please leave a message.
Mike Rubbo