Tackling the misuse of e-bikes in London
On behalf of Transport for London (TFL) and the City of London
In partnership with the University of the Arts London
Overview
In recent times, London has seen a boom with new e-bike schemes arriving in the city. These bike schemes are owned by major companies such as Santander, Lime and Barclays, among others.
As yet, there is no set legislation for the use of e-bikes in major cities such as London. Since their introduction, issues have arisen due to the misuse and mismanagement of the e-bikes. This has caused significant disruption to the public and the city has now decided to address the issue.
Objectives
Develop a new system, process and service in order to reduce the negative impact of the misuse of e-bike schemes is currently having on people throughout the city of London.
Stakeholders
Transport for London (TFL)
City of London
Santander
Lime
University of the Arts London
Barclays
12 October to 23 November 2024
Project dates
Service Designer
My role in the project
User flows
Journey maps
Creating service blueprint
User research interviews
Secondary desk research
Competitor benchmarking
Methods of work
Miro
Figma
Adobe Creative Suite
Dovetail
Microsoft Office
Software and applications used
Project insights
London has numerous e-bike services with no legislation
1 round of user testing and 2 rounds of design iterations
100% of users interviewed want accountability from local authorities
Legislation is viewed as the best way to control
e-bike services
Defining the problem
London has been at the heart of the e-bike boom see across the United Kingdom in recent years. Introduced by Transport for London (TFL) as well as global banking firms such as Santander and Barclays, the e-bike schemes are viewed as a fun, accessible way to explore the UK capital.
However, the introduction of e-bike schemes has also raised issues relating to their use and misuse. We’re now seeing e-bike schemes having a negative and detrimental impact on communities throughout London owing to misuse of the biking equipment. Problems faced include but are not limited to:
bikes not being returned to stations properly, causing hazards
driveways and pavement areas are blocked due to bikes being abandoned
pedestrians falling over e-bikes not parked properly
The challenge faced in this project was to consider how we might stop the misuse of e-bikes from becoming disruptive to the public in London. And look at designing a new system, process or service that will prevent this from happening in future.
Reframing the problem
From early in the project, I felt it was obvious that removing e-bike schemes from major metropolitan cities was not the answer to the problem.
Instead, I focused on reframing this problem by asking the following question:
“How might we find a way of accommodating the new e-bike schemes throughout London in a way that causes minimal disruption to the public?”
Reframing the problem allowed the team and I to look at it through another lens. This time, I focused on the opportunities this provided and how to maximise these to ensure the e-bikes and the public could co-exist in London.
The original problem
“How might we design a way to reclaim the sidewalks, obstructed by shared micro mobility schemes”
The reframed problem
“How might we find a way of accommodating the new e-bike schemes throughout London in a way that causes minimal disruption to the public?”
Challenges presented
From research, I became aware that e-bike schemes are managed to different standards by different companies. This provided 2 challenges:
There was no consistency in the approach to the service, making it difficult to identify similar patterns among the e-bike users.
The e-bike schemes are viewed differently by the public depending on the owner and manager of the programme.
It was also apparent that e-bikes are viewed in a positive light among some people in the city. Namely, as they help towards environmental challenges and changes in behaviours.
This presented a unique challenge in both positive and negative connotations existing towards the e-bike schemes. This is a key aspect that backed my decision to reframe the problem.
Approach to solving the problem
Insights through research
Research was always going to be key to success in this project.
Early in the project, the decision was taken to focus on conducting user interviews. The feeling was that user interviews would yield rich findings and insights.
I designed interview scripts, and users were selected based on their geographic location. I looked for users staying in major metropolitan cities, including London. The reason for this is this increased the likelihood of users having first-hand experience of encountering or using e-bikes previously.
The user interviews were a success as they provided information which was key to shaping the design ideation phase as well as the recommendations made to stakeholders after the project.
100%
of users feel that e-bike scheme regulations need to be introduced
75%
of users are in favour of introducing minimum standards for bike schemes
50%
of users feel introducing mandatory bike licences will be difficult to implement
Mapping out the new service approach
Carrying on from the user research interviews, the attention turned to considering what a new approach to the service may look like.
From here, I began looking at design ideation as well as how to map the user journey and how best to illustrate the journey for all stakeholders.
Two design assets I knew I needed to use in order to convey the new service were:
A user flow process map.
An end-to-end service blueprint.
Both resources would help give the new service life and reflect the changes I proposed making to the existing journey.
Defining new user flows
A user flow map often provides the most comprehensible outlook for how a service will work in practice for users. As I was suggesting substantial changes to the existing user journey with the e-bike service, I had to create and plan a new user flow to illustrate how this revised service offering would work for e-bike users as well as organisations operating these programmes.
When creating a new user flow, I find the best approach to take is to first list out all the steps we’re asking users to take in their journey using our service. After establishing all the steps involved, I then re-ordered them into chronological order based on the anticipated journey they’ll go on. From here, I started forming links for what steps are intrinsically linked together during the user journey.
Following this holistic approach for considering everything involved in the user journey shows what the journey will look like in practice when accounting for every action we’re asking users to complete.
As you can see from the new user flow proposing changes to how the e-bike services will work, I am suggesting introducing more steps to the existing journey. While more steps are normally discouraged or frowned upon, in this instance more steps will help reduce friction and provide a more seamless journey for both the user and e-bike operator. This will also help drive improvements in how the e-bike services are managed by operators. This should also help with the overall project objective of reducing the disruption e-bike services have on the public.
Creating the service blueprint
After establishing the new user flow and showing what steps I was asking e-bike users and e-bike operators to take, my attention turned to creating the service blueprint.
The service blueprint is important for illustrating the relationships between the different elements associated with the service. It is also beneficial for providing a comprehensive picture of what steps take place in the entire journey and how these link together.
Another benefit of me creating the service blueprint is it shows me where there are pain points for users as well as what opportunities this provides to help optimise the service.
This is the key part of the service blueprint as it also enables me to the recommendations I’m making to the stakeholders further by shaping these into a future roadmap that can be used for continued development of the new service.
For this service, the focus was primarily on providing an online user journey that allows users to rent e-bikes throughout London. However, several of the pain points have shown there is a direct requirement for an offline user journey that can be handled via a manual process. This is where the future roadmap will focus, where I’ll look to combine the new online journey with a new offline service offering.
Design ideation
Reframing the challenge early in the process to look for ways for London to co-exist with e-bikes provided us with a wealth of different options to explore.
To start, solving a problem by taking a positive approach allowed me to look at solutions through a different lens. This also provided more options to work through.
This also leads us to look at both ends of the solution scale when trying to solve the problem. This provided me with full sight and scope when trying to find a suitable solution that met the needs of e-bike users, the public and e-bike operators.
When referring to both ends of the scale for finding a solution, the following options were considered:
Introducing licences for e-bike schemes.
Looking at using fingerprint ID to unlock e-bikes from docking stations.
Petitioning for e-bikes to be banned from city centres completely.
During the design ideation process, coupled with the user insights from the user interviews conducted, the same theme continued coming up time and time again – accountability. And latterly, responsibility.
People wanted accountability from both local authorities and e-bike operators for managing the e-bike services in a better way than they are currently. They wanted this as they viewed both these stakeholders as those responsible for e-bikes being allowed on the streets of London. This is something most people do not have a problem with as long as their bikes are being used properly.
Accountability became one of the key themes to work towards after establishing this. Using this theme allowed me to investigate further solutions that factored accountability into the result. These potential solutions included:
Introducing strict legislation to control the use of e-bikes.
Making e-bike operators responsible for misuse.
Task local authorities with working closer with e-bike operators to introduce control measures.
Once I had identified the patterns the general public had identified as needs, this allowed for continued exploration of different solutions that would see a marked improvement over behaviours associated with using e-bike services.
Results of the project
✔
Legislation must be introduced as soon as possible
✔
Minimum e-bike standards for all operators
✔
Manned e-bike docking stations to be introduced
✔
Accountability to be shared by all stakeholders
Key recommendations to TFL and other stakeholders
After the project concluded, I made several recommendations to the following stakeholders:
Transport for London
City of London
Local authorities
E-bike operators
Transport for London, the City of London and London local authorities to work together to:
Introduce strict legislation for e-bike operators to follow.
Establish new minimum e-bike standards that all operators must follow.
Share accountability with e-bike operators for upholding better standards of operation and scheme management.
E-bike operators to:
Follow new minimum e-bike industry standards as set by local authorities.
Introduce manned docking stations where their bikes can be picked up and dropped off.
Upgrade mobile and desktop booking apps to attribute more accountability to people using their e-bikes.
Share accountability with local authorities for upholding better standards of operation and scheme management.
The recommendations are designed to help the stakeholders accommodate e-bike schemes in and around the city of London with minimal disruption to the public.
While there is a degree of work attributed to key recommendations that include legislation, the recommendations are intended for immediate implementation.
People accept there is a place for e-bikes in society
One of the primary findings from the project is that the public, generally, is receptive to the use of e-bikes throughout the city of London.
This came as a bit of a surprise to me given the nature of the problem was to find a way of reducing the negative impact the use of e-bikes was having on people in the city.
However, from conducting user interviews and asking people for their honest opinions on e-bike programmes, it’s clear they do not harbour any ill will against their use. And can clearly see the positive impact they’re having on both the environment and people’s health.
This was encouraging to see throughout the project as it made looking for the correct solution to the problem clearer in terms of what needed to be solved.
After establishing that the public was receptive to e-bike use, the approach was clear – find a solution that allowed e-bikes to continue being used in London while also introducing some form of control measures for them.
Learnings to take forward
Make time to prototype
Due to the tight timeline on this project, no prototype reflecting a new service offering based on the recommendations was created.
This prevented me from carrying out any real-time testing of a newly revised service proposal with users.
This new service would have included:
updated e-bike mobile applications to make bookings with
identification checks via the mobile app
bike pick-ups from managed docking stations
new terms and conditions all users would have to agree and adhere to
Time permitting, I would have created a usability test to allow users to try accessing this new service offering and new e-bike application.
Embrace unconventional approaches
At the outset of this project, I chose to reframe the problem I was trying to solve. I did so as it was clear a bigger problem lay within the original challenge.
Focusing on finding a way for the city of London to accommodate their e-bike services, it opened the challenge up and provided more room to find a suitable solution for both e-bike users and the public. As well as e-bike operators and the local authorities.
This approach was unconventional given the challenge itself was to ‘reduce the negative impact the misuse of e-bike schemes is having on people throughout London’. And, as shown in this case study, sometimes, an unconventional approach is the best approach to take.
Here, I’ve found a solution to the problem by looking at the problem through a different lens and from different perspectives. I’ve provided both recommendations and a working plan for implementing change that will yield positive results and outcomes.