Perhaps it was even better to start with incentives to use and only later with those for the purchase of new vehicles. Certainly not least in importance, as a corollary of everything, there is always the great theme of safety and the need to offer as soon as possible cycling infrastructure with safe and continuous routes, well indicated and pleasant to follow.
Security and fraud risks
Above all, we list the biggest problems that incur in pushing the purchase of the bike at present in Italy. We still talk about it with Sgalla, who criticizes a scenario that is anything but reassuring for the user: «The bicycle remains a good thing not registered, not insured (it can hardly be made mandatory, but in terms of accidents, the perplexity of the damage caused by cyclists remains), which lends itself to being easily fenced at both because it is not attributable to the owner and for the intrinsic value which can also be very high. As for incentives, now the risk of theft goes up for a simple “law” of the criminal market.
With more assets available, there is more chance of getting hold of them. Let’s not forget – continues Sgalla – that they are often easily accessible in a public place. Everywhere well equipped parking spaces are missing for bikes but Italy stands out for having them particularly insecure. It is a problem mainly borne by local authorities: in addition to identification, it is very urgent to create valid, central and convenient parking infrastructures ».
The fact is that the problems don’t end here yet. This mobility bonus, at least as it was designed in the first draft of article 229 of the Relaunch Decree and in relation to the mechanisms provided as indicated in the Faq of the Ministry of the Environment, as well as in the dissemination conferences by Ancma and Fiab, could have aspects that erode its effectiveness in creating a real gain in mobility, since the mechanism for obtaining it seems easily circumvented by unscrupulous individuals who think more of the bonus as an economic value to be pocketed rather than as credit to buy a means of transport (or a service) that is actually useful for themselves.
“Risk of wrong hands”
If, in short, it might not satisfy many patrons for pure arithmetic considerations (with the budget set aside today, you could be satisfied no more than a few hundred thousand people, assuming a contribution that is not always required, but with potential target of several million of citizens), the mobility bonus risks ending up in the wrong hands and not turning into that sought after “more sustainable means of transport” on the roads, capable of replacing a private vehicle or a public service at least for shorter distances.