Lock-To Requirements Lockout Consumer Choice and Limit Access

By: David London, head of Government Relations, ofo North America

Next-generation shared mobility is sweeping the US, with free-standing bikes and e-scooters now serving millions of rides in dozens of cities across the country. This increasingly popular way to get around is changing lives and communities, helping to enhance transportation ecosystems, ease congestion and reduce carbon emissions.

Truly dockless mobility is a proven success in major cities around the globe, though some in the US are pushing for new rules that require users to lock the vehicles to a bike rack or a fixed object. This “lock-to” requirement is intended to reduce so-called bike litter and is now making its way into city ordinances and permit requirements. But if you look into the issue a bit further, it is clear such a requirement has significantly negative ramifications for riders, as well as for cities.

If lock-to regulations are enacted, they will create a variety of unintended consequences, severely limiting the ability for communities to realize the many benefits that station-free shared mobility was intended to bring. Rather than trying to solve a problem by creating a new one, each company should instead commit to operational excellence, close collaborations with cities, and rider education.

It’s important to understand just what the implications of a lock-to requirement will be, as outlined below:

• Ineffective at preventing bike litter. Lock-to does not solve the one problem it is designed to solve. Under a lock-to system, bikes can still be improperly parked, and are frequently locked to trees, street signs, subway railings, wheelchair ramps, private property and other places where they should not be. When riders cannot find something to lock the bike to, they often just leave it freestanding anyway. While a bike or e-scooter locked only by the back tire can easily be moved, a bike locked to a fixed object requires the next rider, the operator, or local authorities to unlock it.
• Lock-to models are not scalable. Lock-to systems have never seen success at scale, unlike true dockless systems, which are thriving in major cities throughout the world. Dockless systems can support significantly more bicycles than a lock-to or docked model because of the lack of need for proprietary parking infrastructure. It is inefficient and expensive to have a docked station every block or two, while station-free modes can easily be integrated into the “furniture zone” of a city block as long as they are not required to have supporting infrastructure to lock to. As critically, no city considering lock-to has addressed who will build the infrastructure, how it will be paid for, and what it will actually look like.
• Less reach and decreased equity. Dockless shared mobility was designed to flexibly go where docked systems cannot and serve the broader community. Enacting a lock-to system will result in the reduction of geographic coverage, greatly limiting the ability to offer service to areas of a city where fewer transportation options exist. That means dockless mobility will not be an equitable option for all, continuing to only be easily accessible in dense downtown areas.
• Harmful economic impact through lost jobs. ofo creates jobs by hiring locally, building rebalancing teams with local knowledge and community connections to help us operate successfully. Lock-to could result in reduced job opportunities by requiring fewer local staff to be hired, as some transportation providers have noted a lock-to model would be a way to reduce expenses.
• Stifles market innovation and consumer choice. Lock-to regulations effectively remove the largest differentiator between docked and dockless systems, preventing innovation by deterring transportation companies from operating and artificially limiting competition. Government regulations should protect consumers, but also promote innovation and fairness as consumers benefit from competition and greater choices. Mandating bicycle lock-to capabilities codifies some business models, ultimately picking winners and losers in the private sector.
• Harms local businesses and disadvantages other bike riders. Creating an inconsistent and unfair standard will make riding and parking a bicycle more challenging and less appealing for both users of shared mobility but also owners of private bicycles such as delivery workers and commuters. A lock-to mandate will quickly cause bikeshare bikes to overwhelm public bike parking, taking spaces away from bicyclists who need them for work or to get to work, causing frustration and increasing the likelihood these bikes will be parked improperly.
• Creates a fixed model rather than a flexible one. Dockless mobility can constantly adapt and adjust to the needs of riders, cities, or trends in data, meeting demand and traffic patterns that emerge. With a lock-to model, the need to build bike infrastructure makes it more difficult to shift bikes to areas experiencing increased ridership, and creates a cost for building bike parking in areas with anticipated demand that may never materialize.

With a commitment to operational excellence, we know that true dockless mobility is the thoughtful approach for building and enhancing cities for people. ofo is excited to continue collaborating with cities to craft smart regulations that will ensure mobility remains open, fair and provides the most amount of utility and benefit to all. With any new technology it will take some time for riders to understand best practices, but we know the long-term benefits of next generation shared mobility are real and can have a significant and lasting effect.

By: David London, head of Government Relations, ofo North America