Or maybe it's just that the majority of this city's residents don't want to commute on a bike.

Maybe you should ask them again.

Reach out directly:
Pedestrian and bicycle program: (206) 684-7583

Ask the director:
Director: scott.kubly@seattle.gov

Request the notes on the Pilot Study decision:
Public Disclosure Request for RECORDS
Questions? Contact: DOT_CentralPDR@seattle.gov

I think it has something to do with the introductory period that lasts until, I think, November. LimeBike is also starting with 500 bikes within the next few days. After November, when SDOT writes the permanent rules, I believe it is expected that they will be able to expand beyond 500.

@2, ahh, so i have to go the ghetto of transportation.

@2, ahh, so i have to go [to] the ghetto of transportation. i should have known better.

I don't know what you're talking about, Charles. Who do you want to answer you, if not the people directly administering the program?

To get answers to these questsions, one must simply read the work of reporters who have been trained to collect information, reporters who do not get flummoxed when an email is not immediately returned, reporters who do not stare in bafflement at the strange instrument on their desk labelled "telephone."

Reporters like David Gutman at The Seattle Times:

Each company will open with 500 bikes (a number mandated by the city), but plans to expand. The city’s rules allow them to expand to 1,000 bikes each in early August, 2,000 bikes in September and however many they want in October.

I don't know from SDOT's supposed anti-bike animosity, but I do know the new bike share systems already kick Pronto's ass. Going from station to station never made sense.

I'm not against bike sharing*—it seems fine, but I've always been unsure of exactly whom it's targeting. The cost of bicycle ownership isn't an obstacle, bicycle infrastructure seems to be the foremost issue.

*Except for when I am. https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/09/1…
Lesson: If your rides are being tracked, you can bet the company isn't in the business of bicycles, foremost.

@7, i called. i gave detailed information. i waited two days. so, fuck off.

@10

The trained reporter knows when to be belligerent, and when to be patient.

David Gutman got the answers, and you did not. Who is doing his job well here, and who is not?

The timing for the launch of bike-sharing programs in Seattle seems haphazard and unstrategic, which I don't think can be blamed on SDOT.

Pronto launched in October - not exactly a month when a casual, infrequent cyclist thinks "weather looks great, I think I'll try bicycling to work today..." and it's hard to imagine they had a realistic expectation to grow ridership over the next six consecutive months as the weather shifted from bad to worse. 'Lime' and 'Spin' are a bit less clueless on timing a launch, but have still waited well into the dry season.

SDOT does, however, have have a well-earned reputation for a mode-biased transportation philosophy that prioritizes moving vehicles over moving people to such an outragous degree that the storage of vehicles on public right-of-way is prioritized over dedicating curbside lanes to transit and/or bicyclists. We have poorly managed signalization for pedestrians to cross busy streets, crappy signage in general, and inadequate bike lanes.

I don't know if these new ones will work, but they are a hell of a lot lighter, and therefore almost usable in Seattle. I like them for short stints.

I also hope they work as they weren't the product of city nepotism, as the heavy, poop-dicked Prontos were.

When you need drunken meditations on pigeon feet and their relation to Marxist dialectics, go to Mudede. But when it comes to actual journalism, well, the choice is clear. Go with the Seattle Times.

Oh, Charles. You're such a drip. Just what is "The History" of SDOT?

The helmet law isn't "anti-bike," Charles. It's pro-human. Helmets save lives. Lives are more important than your twisted, demented, fraudulent urbanist dogma.

nice dashiki!

It bumps up to 1,000 after a month, then 2,000 for the duration of the pilot! You can read the license rules here: http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/do…

@18

"After the third month, permitted operators can expand beyond 2,000 assuming they fulfill the other requirements in the permit."

Also (emphasis added):

"All permitted operators shall have a minimum bicycle fleet of 500 bicycles if using standard (non-electric) bicycles"

At this point, I think it's time for The Stranger should issue an apology for this SLOG post. It's beyond being a bit poorly-informed or strongly opinionated; it's an active disservice to their readers.

I agree robotslave.

Per the helmet law, which I really don't see the question Mudede has about it, let's make a deal. Anyone not wearing a helmet on a motorcycle or bicycle or similar conveyance becomes a de facto organ donor requiring no family consent until such time as they are no longer on said conveyance or they have adorned a qualifying helmet.

@19 Whoops! You are correct! Even moreso, then.

It's already known that Seattle Department of Transportation is there first of all for cars.

This is not known. You would know yourself if you had talked to anyone involved in actual planning at SDOT.

Keep in mind, these bike share pods are, in fact, privatizing public space. The horse is out of the barn on parking - the precedent was set generations ago and there's not too much SDOT can do about it now - but that doesn't obligate them to give up the ghost on further endeavors.

The last time I was in Amsterdam it occurred to me that the Dutch do not generally wear helmets. Perhaps helmet laws are simply another tool being use to enforce the dominance of cars; I had not considered this before. Whatever though, I don't think a city can become Amsterdam over night.

I do like the Spin bikes. I discovered by own bike tire was flat this morning and it was easier just to hop on a Spin instead of getting dirty before work.I can easily imagine them supplementing my own bike in other scenarios.

I don't have a horse in this race, as I work from home and also have my own bike. So just out of curiosity, how many other cities worldwide have a robust biking culture AND giant hills? Any? It seems like most of the cities I hear touted as bike meccas are relatively flat.

Time and again, it's been proven that helmet use does not contribute to bicycle rider safety. See, e.g., the findings published by John Pucher and Ralph Buehler at Rutgers University in 2008, and the 2017 study from Kay Teschke et al at UBC. Other factors do have an effect on keeping bicyclists out of the hospital, things like separated cycling lanes, traffic calming, intersection modifications, changes in traffic laws, and driver education. You know, things Charles repeatedly writes about.

@26

The point of a bicycle helmet is not to prevent accidents, but to reduce the severity of injury in an accident. Compare to seat belts in cars: they don't reduce your risk of accident, but the drastically reduce the severity of injuries suffered in accidents.

In one large study of 6,267 patients with bike accident injuries, helmets were found to reduce the likelihood of severe traumatic brain injury by half, as well as reducing the likelihood of facial bone fractures, and the likelihood of death.

So no, it definitely has not "been proven that helmet use does not contribute to bicycle rider safety." In fact quite the opposite appears to be true.

What we have learned from the studies that have been done to date is very clear, and should not be at all surprising:
1) wearing helmets does not appear to prevent accidents, and
2) wearing helmets does appear to substantially reduce the severity of injuries sustained in accidents.

Did you read the pilot requirements? See Requirement O16. MINIMUM of 500 scaling up to beyond 2000 for each company. We will have double the number of bikes of Pronto in just the first month.

@25 Have you ever been to Asia? Central and South America? Britain? Eastern Europe? The Mediterranean? Greece? France?

I know a couple of the very liberal scientists involved in the original bike helmet study and the suggestion that they were part of some conspiracy to undermine bicycle ridership is as laughably ridiculous as it is journalistically irresponsible, No doubt the reason SDOT didn't return Mudedes one call (go get 'em tiger) is for the same reason I find myself reading The Stranger less and less - sophomoric screeds like this article. "SDOT wants to destroy all bikes and kill their riders! Sad!!!" Indeed.

@30

My geography is a little rusty, but I don't think any of those are cities.

And Charles managed to prove once again why The Stranger should never be a source of news or reasoned commentary.

So just fuck off! Someone didn't answer me in two whole days!!! *WHAAAAA!!!* I amazed Charles didn't work racism into the piece.

So you never used Pronto (socialism), but you jump right on Spin (capitalism)? Interesting.

Some of the more recent studies confirm that while there's no longer any doubt that wearing a helmet during an actual crash dramatically reduces ones chance of getting a head injury, the bad news is that car and truck drivers tend to be far more cautious around riders who aren't wearing helmets, but assume that riders in the kinky vegan road warrior outfits can look out for themselves and end up hitting more of them as a result. I also suspect that I'm not alone in getting the occassional urge, however fleeting, to run the rudest and most self-righteous of these types off the road, and I can only imagine what role that might play in this very real statistical anomaly.

@9 I'm not against bike sharing*—it seems fine, but I've always been unsure of exactly whom it's targeting.

When you don't know something, Wikipedia is a good source of information. Don't feel bad for being ignorant, a lot of people don't bother researching the subject at all, then explain why it won't work, or makes no sense. Anyway, to quote Wikipedia:

A bicycle-sharing system, ... is a service in which bicycles are made available for shared use to individuals on a very short term basis. Bike share schemes allow people to borrow a bike from point "A" and return it at point "B".

These two parts (short term and point A to point B) are crucial. Being able to drop off a bike somewhere different than where you picked it up means it can operate somewhat like a taxi. It compliments, instead of competes with transit. If the trip is a bit too long for a walk, but a bit too short (or inconvenient) for transit, then it makes sense to use it. People often take it in conjunction with transit. In our case, someone could take the train to the UW, then ride a bike to Fremont.

The most successful plans have bike stations available every block or two, throughout the city. This makes it it a lot more convenient, as folks don't have to walk very far (and if one station is empty, the next one is around the corner).

This particular type of system is actually the oldest (although the first one was free). So far as I know, it is relatively rare. Or at least, not with a large system. Without docks it isn't clear whether you can expect to see a bike nearby, and if you can't expect to see it, then my guess it won't be as popular. On the other hand, it is fairly cheap to implement, as building docking stations is a significant amount of the cost.

@27. I don't think you get it. The studies have shown that

A) If you are in a bike accident, your chance of injury goes down with a helmet.

B) The chance of an accident goes up when they require helmets for bike shares.

These are two correlations that work against each other. The number of injuries goes down, but the ratio of head injuries increases. Studies have also shown that at least as far as bike share systems are concerned, the former is more influential than the latter. In other words, if you allow bike share users to ride without a helmet, there will be way fewer accidents, and thus fewer head injuries.

There are various theories, and the general consensus is that when helmets are not required for bike shares, ridership goes up. Increased bike use leads to drivers being more careful, and thus reduces the number of accidents. Then there is the overall health benefits from riding a bike. No helmet required means more bike riders, and while some get hurt (very badly) most don't, and are much healthier as a result. This doesn't mean encouraging helmet use is a bad thing, but it does mean requiring helmet use is.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archi…
https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2…

@38

Erm, I'm not sure you're in a good position to decide who "gets it" here.

The first article you cite suggest that chance of an accident goes down when helmet laws are in place (there is a hypothesis that this is simply due to reduced ridership, but there is no follow-up research to support this hypothesis).

The second article you cite says nothing at all about helmet laws. In fact, it doesn't even say anything about helmet usage. It does say that total cycling head injuries went down in bike-share cities, while the proportion of accidents resulting in head injuries increased (i.e., total accidents declined faster than likelihood of head injury increased). There is a hypothesis that the decline in accidents can be attributed to bike-friendly infrastructure improvements and public education/outreach that typically accompany the launch of of a bike-sharing program, but there is no follow-up research to support this hypothesis. Again, nothing at all was concluded about helmets; there was no helmet data in the study.

Regardless of what local laws might be, all research to date agrees that wearing a helmet substantially reduces your risk of brain damage or death in a bicycle accident.

That, to me, seems like the most useful piece of information for a cyclist of any political stripe, and trying shout it down or bury it does not seem like something anyone would want to do if their first concern were for the cyclist, and not for some idealized conception of cycling itself.

So typical of the Stranger. Speak before you are informed.

Ever heard of investigative journalism? Read the Seattle Times if nothing else