Skip to main content

Mobilty schemes must consider the people who use them – and those who don’t

There is a temptation to present ITS as part of an endless upward curve towards better, easier, safer, quicker, and so on. But it is important to acknowledge that there can be (sometimes literally) bumps in the road. When mobility schemes go wrong, it’s not pretty. Take bicycle-share company oBike, which recently stopped its operations in Melbourne, Australia. Having no docking stations massively increases convenience for users – you can leave the bikes anywhere - but opens up the whole shebang to the threa
September 6, 2018 Read time: 2 mins

There is a temptation to present ITS as part of an endless upward curve towards better, easier, safer, quicker, and so on. But it is important to acknowledge that there can be (sometimes literally) bumps in the road. When mobility schemes go wrong, it’s not pretty. Take bicycle-share company oBike, which recently stopped its operations in Melbourne, Australia. Having no docking stations massively increases convenience for users – you can leave the bikes anywhere - but opens up the whole shebang to the threat of abuse (precisely because you can leave the bikes anywhere). Residents were understandably unimpressed to see them abandoned on the streets – and even in more creative places, proving that there are few limits to human beings’ sense of mischief when they think there’s no-one watching: pictures of the distinctive yellow cycles left halfway up trees, on top of bus shelters and in the Yarra river circulated widely on social media. So, there has to be a balance between usability and the (potential) anti-social aspects of any initiative. Having said that, the capacity of ITS to make things better is clear. In the US, Detroit was once a byword for urban decay. But, happily, things change. The city and regional authorities have big plans for improvement, much of which involves thinking clearly about how people can get around. Crucially, they don’t view the streets as a laboratory: but are committed to understanding the needs of residents and working out how technology can help – not least for those who can’t afford car insurance, or don’t have smartphones or even credit cards. Everyone agrees there is still a long way to go. But then, nobody ever said that the path to improved urban mobility was going to run smooth. Solutions must indeed be developed for the people that will be using them – but must also take into account the lives of those who don’t.

Related Content

  • May 5, 2022
    Nothing basic about universal basic mobility
    The concept of universal basic mobility is here: but Shared-Use Mobility Center CEO Benjamin de la Peña tells Ben Spencer that such schemes may not be looking at the right targets
  • February 22, 2018
    Wellington embraces smart parking solution
    A smart parking solution can ease pain for drivers and increase efficiency for local authorities - and New Zealand’s capital is feeling the benefit. Adam Hill reports. ITS technology has the power to ease headaches for local authorities and car drivers alike when it comes to parking. For urban dwellers, few things are more irritating than driving slowly around crowded city centre streets, anxiously searching for a parking space – indeed, in congested downtown areas, as much as 30% of traffic can be driving
  • April 27, 2020
    Smart cities: first, define your strategy
    How smart are we really being about smart mobility? Martin Howell of Worldline UK and Ireland reckons we could do better – but to do so you have to start asking the right questions…
  • March 8, 2024
    Annika Lundkvist of Pedestrianspace.org: "How are you moving today?"
    It’s easy to say that people should embrace active travel – but it’s often not as simple as that. Advocates must beware of a disconnect with people’s lives and options on the ground, says Annika Lundkvist