End of the road for Lime?

Posted on by
Reply

Earlier this month, Yarra City Council announced it was ending a 6-year trial programme for ride share e-bikes, after the incumbent commercial operator, Lime failed to meet the Council’s procurement requirements.

Despite this, Lime continues to operate elsewhere in the State of Victoria (City of Melbourne and the City of Port Phillip), and in other local government areas in Australia (Sydney, Brisbane, Canberra).

Some of the reasoning behind Yarra Council’s decision appears to echo safety concerns and public complaints regarding Lime in other cities around the world, such as London.

These issues include:

  • Riding on footpaths and in pedestrian-only zones
  • Inappropriate “parking” of ride-share vehicles
  • Joy-riding
  • Speeding
  • Tandem riding
  • Riding without helmets (a requirement in Australia)

In the case of Yarra Council, the original 1-year pilot programme had been extended or renewed unchanged since 2020. According to the Council’s website announcement and FAQs, Yarra did not receive any operating fees, and did not have the certainty and enforceability a commercial contract would have provided.

The biggest obstacle in Yarra appears to be Lime’s refusal or inability to take more responsibility for tracking and retrieving abandoned and illegally parked vehicles – which meant the Council has been picking up the cost.

If this is true, then it appears to be incredibly short-sighted behaviour on the part of Lime – and perhaps reveals a degree of obstinacy bordering on arrogance that comes with incumbency (and a degree of ubiquity).

I can’t believe that Lime cannot do a better job of tracking and retrieving its assets – if I was a shareholder, I would be concerned about this lack of financial management and poor corporate governance. If we can track our suitcases around the world with a simple e-tag, surely Lime knows where all its bikes are located at any given time, and identify which vehicles are illegally parked?

Likewise, Lime should be able to do a better job of immobilising vehicles so they cannot be used for joy-riding, or by under-age riders?

I’m sure we have all seen the social media posts of Lime bikes strewn across footpaths, dumped in waterways, or “parked” on bus shelters. Anecdotally, I’ve also seen ride share vehicles lined up outside my local pub – I get that we don’t want people to drink and drive, but should operators be implicitly encouraging intoxicated pub patrons to use their e-bikes and e-scooters instead?

I have also seen branded ride share helmets littered all over the place – I’ve even had them chucked in my garden. Most of these discarded helmets end up in landfill (as confirmed by one council street cleaner I spoke to in Melbourne’s CBD) because once they are damaged, they can’t be used again. (This also points to a lack of asset management and poor financial governance by the operators.)

There have also been increased incidents of accidents and serious injuries involving e-bikes and e-scooters. I’m not suggesting these are only caused by ride share vehicles, but there is no doubt an element of “don’t own, don’t care” when people use these short-term rental bikes. It would be illuminating to measure the percentage of accidents involving ride share vehicles (and food delivery drivers), as compared to privately-owned e-bikes and e-scooters.

I’d be interested to see more data on programme objectives, and whether or not those goals are being met. For example, a common argument in favour of the local ride share schemes is they help to reduce the number of cars on our roads – but again, anecdotally, where I live in the City of Yarra, I’ve not seen any reduction in car traffic in recent years. Other stated benefits are increased local mobility (easier to take short trips from A to B) – but Yarra is well-served by public transport (trains, trams and buses), and no-one is that far from a tram stop or train station. Another aim might be improved public health (less people using their cars) – but if these schemes result in more trips to A&E (and worse), surely that outweighs any perceived benefit?

Going forward, maybe we will see more local authorities take a similar stance to Yarra Council, or at least tighten up the operating licenses granted to ride share providers, and do more to weigh up the pros and cons of such schemes.

Next week: No More Songs

 

Reverb-erations

Posted on by
Reply

“This is a journey into sound” reads the sub-title of ACMI’s Melbourne edition of “Reverb”, the London exhibition organised by Vinyl Factory and hosted by 180 Studios in 2024-25.

Spoiler alert: the ACMI show is a heavily edited/remixed/redacted version of the original, and because it was grafted on to the concurrent Rising festival, it feels like the original’s agenda has been co-opted due to curatorial choices.

Overall, I found ACMI’s Reverb a quite underwhelming experience – with the disappointment being compounded by high expectations. For a start, Vinyl Factory described their show as a celebration of “art and sound with [an] immersive exhibition”. 180 Studios called it an exploration of “the lasting impact and influence of electronic music on contemporary art and culture”. Both of which are big calls, and quite different in terms of scope and intent, despite describing the same exhibition.

ACMI’s re-adapted synopsis boasts that the exhibition “explores music’s influence on art, film and social movements, traversing hip hop and rap, house, techno, dancehall and Jamaican sound system culture”. Quite a different purpose to the original event.

For logistical reasons, I understand that ACMI could not simply replicate the London show, and many items were omitted. But given ACMI’s success in bringing “David Bowie is” to Melbourne, their world premiere of Julian Rosefeldt’s “Manifesto”, and the “Light” show comprising works from the UK’s Tate Gallery, it’s a shame that “Reverb” didn’t deliver to the same level.

First, there was only one interactive work, by Carsten Nicolai (aka Alva Noto) – so hardly an “immersive” experience, unless you include the ACMI Listening Room, which served more as a passive audio space and vinyl lounge (albeit a very nice one!).

Second, the only two works that really engaged with and explored the interaction between electronic music and popular culture were: a semi-educational documentary by Jeremy Deller on the second summer of love and the UK rave culture; and an informative and creative account of the Detroit techno scene by Jenn Nkiru.

Third, as much as I enjoy the work of William Kentridge, his video installation of animated drawings seemed out of place and out of context – although it appears this same work was included in the original London show.

Not having had the opportunity to see the original version, direct comparisons are difficult. But it felt like there were huge gaps. For example, nothing about the role of music videos on MTV (much of it electronic music) in shaping the visual packaging of pop artists and how these videos themselves brought a cross-fertilisation of different sub-cultures, fashion styles and musical genres into mainstream publishing, advertising and the broader entertainment industry. Nothing about the technology that helped electronic music to propagate and which led to scratching, remixing and sampling, and also shaped how, where and when we listen to music. I could go on but hopefully the point is made.

Maybe the point is that the original exhibition was simply the source material for galleries and museums to each put their own spin on the impact of music on art and culture, like a series of reverberating events around the world.

But at the very least, surely there should have been a video of Coldcut’s classic remix of “Paid In Full” by Eric B and Rakim? Now that’s what I call a “journey into sound!”

Next week: End of the road for Lime?

 

Accidental Album

Posted on by
Reply

A lot of music released these days is just “product”, calculated to maximise streaming algorithms backed by social media engineering and a 24/7 PR machine. Which is why so many new albums feel contrived, manufactured and just part of a conveyor belt production. A bit like processed food on supermarket shelves.

So it was really refreshing to hear David Chesworth introduce his first solo album, “50 Synthesiser Greats” as part of the “Reverb” listening room sessions at Melbourne’s ACMI. (More on Reverb itself next week.)

Originally released in 1979, the music was mostly self-recorded at home, using just a Mini Korg 700S synthesizer, and an Akai 4000 DS reel-to-reel tape deck. By the artist’s own frank admission, there had never been any intention to release the tracks as a record. It was only when he played the recordings to a friend that Chesworth was encouraged to put out an album.

Self-releasing a record in those pre-digital, pre-internet days was not unheard of, although still relatively rare. But thanks to the proliferation of independent labels alongside punk music in the mid- to late-70s, there were enough examples for aspiring musicians to follow. Chesworth’s account of how he made an appointment with a Melbourne pressing plant (“men in white lab coats”), and then came up with the cover design, was endearing and self-effacing. Each step in the production process was just another part of the overall experiment he had begun with those somewhat naive recordings. Yet there was also a benign knowingness behind the artistic experimentation: the deliberately cheesy sleeve artwork, the slightly cryptic album title, etc.

The resulting album is as much a work of conceptual art as it is product of recorded music. A similar thought came to mind when listening to the recently re-released inaugural album by The Durutti Column, an album I have loved since its first release in 1980. Again, something of an accidental album, the music on “The Return of….” had never been intended for release – and was issued without the artist’s formal consent or knowledge. As critic Alexis Petridis wrote in his re-appraisal in late 2025:

“And perhaps the peculiar circumstances of its creation – people experimenting for their own benefit, rather than actively making an album for public consumption – helped forge its distinctly beguiling atmosphere.”

Somehow, you can’t imagine many of today’s pop singers experimenting in similar vein, such is their focus on output.

Next week: Reverb-erations

 

 

Charting Australian Music

Posted on by
Reply

Following on from last week’s blog, and a related post, I was intrigued by a recent headline in The Guardian, which implied “Australian music” (whatever that means…) is facing extinction. Perhaps The Guardian is looking in the wrong place, or is too fixated on the ARIA chart data to get the full picture.

First, I think the local music scene is doing OK, as evidenced by the latest Independent Music Exchange in Melbourne. Sure, this may not be the music getting into the charts, or even getting radio airplay, but it’s obviously music that people want to hear, judging by the number of participating labels and punters turning up. Alongside this independent industry is a solid live circuit, and better distribution thanks to companies like Sound Merch, and the network of independent records stores.

Second, let’s assume that “Australian music” means music written, recorded and released by Australian artists and artists based in Australia. I could suggest that one reason “Australian” music does not feature in the charts is because Australian artists aren’t releasing music the general public wants to hear. Or as I have mentioned before, maybe the charts are the wrong measure of success. But another reason might be a case of cultural cringe.

For example, back in the 1980s, when I was living in London, there was a constant stream of Australian bands who always seemed to be touring the UK. I’m referring to artists like Nick Cave, The Go-Betweens, The Triffids, The Moodists, The Apartments, Ed Kuepper and The Underground Lovers. These bands seemed to have more of a following overseas than back home. It’s the challenge of Australia having a small domestic market, so that bands had to explore overseas opportunities. But I also suspect that their particular music was not widely appreciated at home – where pub rock was more in favour. (I recall going to house parties in Kangaroo Valley aka Earl’s Court, in London’s inner west, where the only music blasting out on the stereo was AC/DC, Cold Chisel and The Angels – requesting Nick Cave or The Triffids would probably cause offence!)

Finally, to show that I’m not living in an ’80s time-warp, here are just a few of the current and active Australian bands I have enjoyed seeing in Melbourne over recent months: Mildlife, Black Cab, Essendon Airport, All India Radio, Oren Ambarchi, Mick Harvey, Karate Boogaloo, The Laughing Clowns, The Underground Lovers, User, Scattered Order and Tongue Dissolver. And they continue to release new music – just don’t expect to hear it on local radio or see it in the local charts!

Next week: Accidental Album