But I thought SDOT was killing these programs.

It's questionable whether bicycle helmets save lives. What is not questionable is that getting people on bikes - with or without helmets - saves lives.

But go ahead, get in a car. For "safety".

"Our irrational fear of the relatively small risk of a blow to the head is overriding the guaranteed health benefits of bicycle commuting. Our assessment of risk in this context is, to be blunt, pretty messed up." Link

What the hell is the business model? Are bike rentals just the hot new saltlick to the VC herd?

"Get me a bike-share with motor, some body armor, and a roof, then let's talk." Sounds like you're more of a Car2Goer.

I don't understand why helmets aren't required? Yes, yes helmets aren't the lifesaver we're made to think (according to #2), but most of these bikes are rented by amateur cyclists and tourists who don't know the city, where they're going, the bike lanes, etc. I've seen people on these bikes do some crazy shit already, and I just wonder when the first law suit will come in...

@2

This isn't a tradeoff.

You will gain significant health benefits if you replace enough driving with cycling, AND you are significantly less likely to experience serious injury or death from a cycling accident when you are wearing a helmet.

#2:

As someone who has lived with a 55 year significant disability due to a head injury resulting from a bike accident (in the days before bicycle helmets), I question both your "statistical" support and your common sense. You may think you look stupid in a bike helmet; I think you'd look smart.

These business models likely won't survive a court challenge no matter how much legalese they dress up their user agreements with. And the City could be on the line for effectively exempting these operations from helmet law requirements.

And that's aside from the public safety risk posed by these bicycles being left in the middle of sidewalks, at intersections, etc.

And people, please, stop pretending these bikes are being "shared". They're being rented.

#2 (con't because I can't edit my prior post)

The injury was so severe I was not expected to survive. I was taken to a Catholic hospital and given last rites moments after arrival. Luck matters but helmets save lives.

I'm genuinely torn about the bike helmet debate, but with Seattle's relatively poor bike infrastructure forcing you to ride with cars, I currently think helmets are important. I would still wear one if they weren't required by law.

This is a regulatory arbitrage play pure and simple, much like Uber or Air BnB. As a publicly funded venture, Pronto had to abide by the helmet law. I'm not at all sure these services won't survive a court challenge on the helmet thing. And in any case, that will take time. This is bigger than just Seattle. If this works here, they'll roll out elsewhere in places where the helmet law isn't a concern. Seattle just happens to be a large, young, tech friendly city without an effective bike share in place. So it's a good test bed. The hills and helmet law are obstacles, but if these services succeed in spite of those obstacles, it'll be a good sign that they'll likely be even more successful in flat cities without helmet laws.