Yellow Bike program fails due to apathy
Casey Goodyear - April 10th, 2008A few weeks ago, NAU released another series of yellow bikes, intended to improve student mobility around campus. Much like the first attempt last October, though, the bright yellow bicycles have become exceedingly rare. On the few occasions I’m lucky enough to spot one, it’s often lying mangled and discarded in an area out of the way.
The failure of this program highlights both a lack of practical sense on the university’s part and a void of responsibility on students’ parts. Also, it shows that NAU is seriously deficient in the qualities that actually define a community.
I don’t think anyone was too horribly surprised that the first round of bikes failed. Most of them were donated, meaning that most bikes were already shot before entering the program. The bikes were painted, reassembled in working order and then thrown into the hands of about 19,000 bored, often drunken students.
Anyone taking all this into account could easily have predicted the necessity of constant maintenance of these bikes, yet no university program or system is designated for this function.
I have a hard time blaming some of those who vandalized these first bikes. I’d be awful angry, too, if the bike I was riding nearly fell apart under me while screaming down a hill or trying to cross traffic. Hitting, kicking or throwing a bike after such an ordeal follows as a natural reflex.
The new set of bikes released this spring took care of some of these problems. These new beach cruisers were actually nice bikes, and for a few days I could spot them regularly. The fact that they were in good shape, though, may have been their downfall.
Less than a week after they came out, I couldn’t find one anywhere, probably because many of them were already stolen or hidden. If you are lucky enough to find a bike somewhere now, you can expect broken seats, flat tires and missing parts.
The problem with this program was obvious from the outset, but unfortunately, it was also the program’s entire point. The common honors system can’t function in a population with no sense of community.
Community means more than living in the same area as others. It means having a sense of obligation to the people who live around you. The yellow bikes belong to everyone, but no one feels any responsibility for them. Sadly, most students don’t seem mindful enough to realize that everyone benefits if each individual treats the bikes with respect.
If any version of this program is to work out, the university needs to find a way to hold people accountable for their treatment of the bikes. Also, the bikes need to be maintained, not set free until entropy takes its final toll.
This is an excellent opportunity for the administration to create more student jobs. While it may cost the university a little money, what better way to boost the student economy and make more people feel responsible for their community?
April 11th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
I am glad that this is in the Opinion Section, apparently Casey thinks that 19,000 students are bored and drunk more often than not. According to the Health and Wellness Survey administered by Fronske in 2006, 29% of respondents reported being abstinent from alcohol.
I have to agree that apathy was the cause for the percieved failure of the Yellow Bike Program. If more people took the program seriously it would work but the attitude that “it doesn’t belong to me” and the lack of respect for property ruins the bikes for those that want to use them. Instead of complaing about wanting parking right outside of classes or dorms, maybe that energy should be used in promoting alternative transportation.