[mulmen]

I’m not anti-VC but if you have followed the development of bike share in Seattle it seems to be more about making businesses work than about making transit work. My problem also has to do with the selective enforcement of the helmet law to enrich investors.

I don’t mind if investors make money. I mind when they circumvent our laws and endanger the public to do so.

I also admit to some ignorance about e-bikes which has now been cleared up by you and sibling commenters.

My comparison to motorcycle helmet laws and seat belt laws was just to reinforce that if we are going to selectively enforce the bicycle helmet law we should just repeal it because it’s clearly not as important as motorcycle helmets or car seat belts.

[macroexpanse]

Point taken. There should not be a double standard. City legislators need to have the spine to change the law.

I have been following the story of bike share in Seattle. It's a shame that Pronto and Motivate lost the contract.

[mulmen]

Did you catch the part where the city council member that wanted to bail out Pronto was an investor in Pronto? Fun times.

[macroexpanse]

Indeed. Bike share schemes don't need to be publicly funded if run properly. Citi Bike has been a huge success in NYC without taking a dime from taxpayers. Perhaps an ebike system would have been more economically viable in a hilly city like Seattle.

[mulmen]

LimeBike is rolling them out so we will see!