Dock-less bike share is ready to take over U.S. cities
slate.com
slate.com
It’s a cool idea, and I’m still optimistic, but I can’t think of a city where this idea works well. Riding a mobike is rough when it’s hot, or when it’s cold. It’s imposible in a city that’s not flat. And in cities where biking is nice, people already have bikes.
Interested to see where this goes, but pretty cautiously optimistic
But it seems people at least try to put them in rows and local security (there's rarely a public space that's really public) shouts at people for dropping bikes randomly.
Around midnight the maintenance workers check every bike for damages / battery level and take them back to warehouses leaving just a few dozens in a neatly ordered lines.
What's more at least Ofo notifies you that the bike you used was park against the rules. They probably give you a few strikes and then terminate your account.
It definitely could fill a niche because sometimes the docked bike stations are too far or empty, but right now they're a huge nuisance and I'm seeing a bit of a backlash.
Edited for clarity.
The bigger question is how to generally proceed with making users responsible for anything, without driving them away?
The only reason I’m not using them is the helmet problem.
I also don't understand why it would happen. They have GPS, and the company knows who rents them. Maybe it's inconsiderate riders leaving them in the middle of the sidewalk, plus inconvenienced pedestrians damaging them in revenge?
Even in that somewhat possible scenario: I wonder why people don't similarly take matters into their own hands when inconvenienced by, for example, illegally parked cars.
It's also worth mentioning that no bike, parked anywhere but the middle of a busy street, could create as much inconvenience and health risks as any car.
People always assume a city full of cars as the "default", that has to be accepted. Yet in large cities, a quarter to half of all people (and far more in Manhattan) live good lives without owning a car. Imagine how quality of life would skyrocket if more people made the responsible choice: you'd win back 1/3 of public space that is currently used for parking. Possibly another 1/6th by converting most streets to one-ways, as would be possible if the remaining traffic is just public transport, deliveries & the elderly. With less traffic, most intersections could function without traffic lights.
Biking, walking, and public transport would each become far more attractive than it is right now. Seriously: in dense areas, car usage has become a collective action problem.
In regards to bikes being picked up and moved, a simple alarm might help. But I really doubt that there would be much vandalism against parked bikes that don't get in the way. After all the streets are full of parked bikes, and vandalism is quite rare.
(Yes, I have seen plenty of bikes with parts missing or bent wheels. But these usually remain in place for years, based on my observations, skewing superficial impressions. I've parked my bike on public streets for years, and the only thing that ever happened was my fancy saddle once being stolen.)
I don't understand this attitude.
You can't solve transportation problems by reducing supply of A and increasing supply of B. You need to increase supply over-all. An over crowded subway, bike lane and highway all suck. Which you prefer to endure is only a matter of personal taste.
If you make transportation via one method expensive (time, money or some other metric) people will do less of that and more of something else but the net result is harm because the cost of physical distance increases and that has a negative impact on quality of life because people are forced to use the wrong tool for the job. Examples include commuting via car or carrying groceries on a bike.
The "food desert" issue is a good example of how a high cost of getting from A to B hurts people. People can't buy good food because they can't afford to go where they can afford to buy it. Sure you could ride your bike 10mi to get groceries but that's not a time/money/quality trade-off most people are ok with (they'd rather eat junk food).
Another example, there's a bunch of clothes that I've been meaning to donate to charity but haven't because my schedule, my SO's schedule and the business hours of the thrift store need to sync up so one of us can circle the block or donating said clothes will cost $8 of parking. If so many people biked or public transit was so good that one of us could find free/cheap parking the thrift store would have the clothes by now.
I also like that it is putting pressure on the stupid nanny-state helmet law.
As much as I love the idea of accessible bikes, the lack of helmets and sheer amount of space consumed feels overwhelmingly unsafe at times.
What? Is this hyperbole, or are there actually companies making bikes out of plastic? That sounds like a terrible idea.
A few years ago when Citi bike started I remember it being pretty sparse, and I could have seen the benefit of dockless programs to encourage faster expansion. At this point they are everywhere, except farther out areas of Brooklyn and Queens where many people have cars and likely wouldn't use them. Citi bike seems (to me) to bring all the benefits of a dockless system without any of the downsides. Granted the price is higher, but it's still cheaper than the subway if you buy the membership, and for tourists if they are here for 3+ days and get the $24 pass.
Got to get working on that bike-mounted lidar.
I got a bigger chuckle than apt from this quote:
“It’s like the internet in 1999.”
Suuuuure.
At least engauge if you disagree.
More generally, please don't post unsubstantive comments here.
Of course, someone would have to click through these photos, but seems like a simple enough mechanical turk task.
I guess someone could take a photo then dump the bike onto the sidewalk, but it seems that wouldn't be worth the effort. of properly parking it in the first place.