Because a Chicago bike rental company was sued after they violated their own unwritten policy of giving riders helmets and safe riding instructions to a cyclist who was subsequently injured in a dooring, some Chicago lawyers think that Divvy is a legal reciped for disaster. [The rental company settled, which is too bad because I'd love to see a lawyer try and prove that a helmet would have helped the cyclist in the dooring].
Jeff Kroll, a partner at Salvi, Schostok & Pritchard who negotiated the settlement for Cohen, sees similarities between the case he brought against Lakeshore Bike and Divvy’s policies. “I don’t think they’re dissimilar in the sense that you’ve got companies in the business of making money, but they’re not taking the extra steps to make sure people are safe,” Kroll says. “I think this is going to be Pandora’s box. With more pedestrians being hurt, more dooring accidents, the question will become, what responsibility does Divvy have?”
I think these two cases are very different, and that the bike rental company should not have settled, but I'm not sure what they think Divvy could do short of having someone stand by kiosks and make sure cyclists wear helmets.
“Harm is totally foreseeable,” says Christine Hurt, professor at the University of Illinois College of Law. “A kiosk in downtown Chicago that doesn’t provide bike helmets? I think that’d be a pretty good fight.”
Says someone who has no idea what the efficacy of helmets is or how rare it is that bikeshare users are injured or that city cycling is actually safer than suburban cycling.
And I suspect the average Divvy rider is not "clueless".