Putting the "oh no" into obikes

human909
Posts: 9123
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Putting the "oh no" into obikes

Postby human909 » Tue Jun 12, 2018 5:34 pm

AUbicycles wrote:So obikes will leave Melbourne.... they really hate bikes there.


That is an odd conclusion...

Jmuzz
Posts: 567
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:42 pm

Re: Putting the "oh no" into obikes

Postby Jmuzz » Tue Jun 12, 2018 5:39 pm

Australia's vandalism problem is extreme, the bikes have been a good opportunity to improve Australian culture but unfortunately lots of people seem to welcome the vandalism to make sure change fails.

They probably need a lock which allows them to lock to a secure object. Some are doing that like the Uber Jump bikes (which are e-bike too).
But with most of the big players just using the wheel lock system there might not be anyone filling the gap for a while.

human909
Posts: 9123
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Putting the "oh no" into obikes

Postby human909 » Tue Jun 12, 2018 5:49 pm

Yes it is all a bit sad. Even just a little leadership from ANY of the relevant authorities could have helped. Unfortunately law enforcement and the state government are far from being pro cycling. The councils are very much pro cycling however they are hardly pro vandalism and littering on their turf. Especially because from their perspective it was all headaches and no gains.

There are no winners here. The EPA's reaction was extreme and made the obikes untenable. :cry:

User avatar
OnTrackZeD
Posts: 151
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2013 12:35 pm

Re: Putting the "oh no" into obikes

Postby OnTrackZeD » Tue Jun 12, 2018 6:00 pm

1Rowdy1 wrote:
OnTrackZeD wrote:On the radio this morning they said there was a rumor that obikes was pulling out of Victoria and were trying to get conformation but obike was not returning there calls.


Good

I have to agree, especially when I see those pictures of mass bike pile's in China.

biker jk wrote:
Calvin27 wrote:Out with Obike, in with Mobike?


And soon, Nobike.

Gold.

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 19287
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Putting the "oh no" into obikes

Postby mikesbytes » Tue Jun 12, 2018 6:04 pm

The time frames they have been given to remove bikes are unrealistic, they are effectively being blamed for the wrong doings of others
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 19287
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Putting the "oh no" into obikes

Postby mikesbytes » Tue Jun 12, 2018 6:06 pm

How many arrests have the police done for vandalising the Melbourne Obikes? I'll be surprised if the answer is different to zero. Its telling the public that its OK to vandalise bicycles
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

Jmuzz
Posts: 567
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:42 pm

Re: Putting the "oh no" into obikes

Postby Jmuzz » Tue Jun 12, 2018 6:13 pm

mikesbytes wrote:How many arrests have the police done for vandalising the Melbourne Obikes? I'll be surprised if the answer is different to zero. Its telling the public that its OK to vandalise bicycles


There was one where people were filmed throwing them in the river and the police got involved when it made the media, they turned themselves in.

human909
Posts: 9123
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Putting the "oh no" into obikes

Postby human909 » Tue Jun 12, 2018 6:15 pm

Nail on the head mikesbytes.

Imagine if the EPA turned around and tried to hold CocaCola responsible for every bottle littered. Or Coles and Woolies for every shopping trolley that ends up in an inappropriate location. Double standards.

Even if arrests are difficult. How many statements were made the police, the state government or the council regarding the appropriateness of this behaviour? You might find a couple but most of the messages I received laid the blame on the company.

Jmuzz wrote:There was one where people were filmed throwing them in the river and the police got involved when it made the media, they turned themselves in.

I'm guessing the EPA didn't get involved and fine them $3000 for each bicycle.

human909
Posts: 9123
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Putting the "oh no" into obikes

Postby human909 » Tue Jun 12, 2018 6:33 pm

https://www.theage.com.au/national/vict ... 4zkyk.html

Port Phillip mayor Bernadene Voss said trucks had been collecting abandoned bikes in St Kilda over the weekend.

"They can't cope with the new regulations that's been imposed on them," she said.

A new bike share company called Mobike is set to launch next month, Ms Voss said.


So another bike company is planning to launch... Seem like a whole lot of waste for the Obikes. Obikes were put in an untenable position by the EPA. Instead of working to find a solution they brought out the BIG stick. From an environmental perspective I don't see any wins from the EPAs actions.

Jmuzz
Posts: 567
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:42 pm

Re: Putting the "oh no" into obikes

Postby Jmuzz » Tue Jun 12, 2018 8:43 pm

Seems some people claiming refunds on the deposit are hitting problems finding that the deposit has been used as credit for the unlimited rides subscription without their knowledge.

So could get interesting.

It's a lot of money they are going to have to pay back, could be a worry for Sydney members if they declare bankrupt over it.
I doubt obike Australia has any of the deposit money still in cash.

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 19287
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Putting the "oh no" into obikes

Postby mikesbytes » Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:12 pm

human909 wrote:
Jmuzz wrote:There was one where people were filmed throwing them in the river and the police got involved when it made the media, they turned themselves in.

I'm guessing the EPA didn't get involved and fine them $3000 for each bicycle.

Do the new penalty rules apply to those who cause the hire bikes to be in breach of the new rules? I'm guessing that your guessing right
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

Jmuzz
Posts: 567
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:42 pm

Re: Putting the "oh no" into obikes

Postby Jmuzz » Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:53 pm

Someone caught throwing it in the river would probably get a $100 fine and 8 hours community service.
If police even felt it was in the public interest to charge.

Things are messed up when the victim gets a $3000 fine and offenders don't even get a slap on the wrist.
Any business is going to bail out of a state going down that dystopian path.

User avatar
Ivanerrol
Posts: 202
Joined: Thu May 26, 2016 9:12 pm

Re: Putting the "oh no" into obikes

Postby Ivanerrol » Tue Jun 12, 2018 11:54 pm

The new mob moving bikes into Melbourne claim they have a better business model.
Maybe that was the problem with O bike in the first place - bad business model.
Maybe it was a scheme where dumping a few cheap Chinese bikes around the streets of Melbourne and then milking subscribers $65.00 deposit. Interesting to see whether the deposits are refunded. If they aren't - the new mob might be in for a hard time.
"Follow your passion - go Broke. Follow an opportunity get wealthy" - Mike Rowe - Dirty Jobs

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 4365
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

Re: Putting the "oh no" into obikes

Postby Thoglette » Wed Jun 13, 2018 12:26 am

Ivanerrol wrote: Interesting to see whether the deposits are refunded.

It'll all be up to the details of the fine print....you know, those 51 pages you read (in detail) when you swiped your c'card for the first ride?
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

User avatar
AUbicycles
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 13318
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:14 am
Location: Sydney & Frankfurt
Contact:

Re: Putting the "oh no" into obikes

Postby AUbicycles » Wed Jun 13, 2018 4:27 am

The subsequent responses have essentially explained my ‘curious’ comment. Although I view the approach by these bikeshare schemes with scepticism, the city and authorities certainly did everything they could to make it harder.

There is a genuine middle-ground solution for cities truely interested in accomodating a diverse transport mix and if the cities help create the framework then it can be far more beneficial.

fat and old
Posts: 3757
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Putting the "oh no" into obikes

Postby fat and old » Wed Jun 13, 2018 7:39 am

AUbicycles wrote:The subsequent responses have essentially explained my ‘curious’ comment. Although I view the approach by these bikeshare schemes with scepticism, the city and authorities certainly did everything they could to make it harder.

There is a genuine middle-ground solution for cities truely interested in accomodating a diverse transport mix and if the cities help create the framework then it can be far more beneficial.


Yes, it's easy. The business model should be centred around paying the appropriate permits for having the bikes available, permits to park them, leasing of council space to provide docking, a deposit on the future costs of retrieving them form rivers, trees etc, a contribution to the council to cover the costs of relocating the essential street furniture displaced by parking/docking stations etc etc.....

1Rowdy1
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2017 10:51 am

Re: Putting the "oh no" into obikes

Postby 1Rowdy1 » Wed Jun 13, 2018 8:32 am

No other business has the right to dump there product on the foot path when ever and where ever it likes.Even poor old mum and dad run coffee shops need a permit and pay a fee to be able to put a single seat on the footpath, so why should a multi national hire bike company be exempt and get special treatment?

Jmuzz
Posts: 567
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:42 pm

Re: Putting the "oh no" into obikes

Postby Jmuzz » Wed Jun 13, 2018 8:37 am

fat and old wrote:
Yes, it's easy. The business model should be centred around paying the appropriate permits for having the bikes available, permits to park them, ..


So basically the usual rego for bikes chestnut.

And what is fair rego for a bike?
A trailer in NSW is $65 a year and that grants it rights to a permanent parking space, 6sqm.

So about 1/10th that for a bike? $6.50?

The bikeshares comply with all law, there is no such thing as bicycle rego or permits to hire bikes or formal bike parking spaces.
It's governments job to legislate those things if justified. Not to kill them off by stealth of police inaction and impossible 48hr water salvage times and huge fines for being the victim of crime.

Jmuzz
Posts: 567
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:42 pm

Re: Putting the "oh no" into obikes

Postby Jmuzz » Wed Jun 13, 2018 8:42 am

1Rowdy1 wrote:No other business has the right to dump there product on the foot path when ever and where ever it likes


Everyone has the right to park a bicycle in legal bicycle parking.
That's the law, the bikeshares comply with the law what more can anyone do?

There is a formal process for debating, creating and changing laws in parliament if need be.

human909
Posts: 9123
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Putting the "oh no" into obikes

Postby human909 » Wed Jun 13, 2018 8:46 am

1Rowdy1 wrote:No other business has the right to dump there product on the foot path when ever and where ever it likes.Even poor old mum and dad run coffee shops need a permit and pay a fee to be able to put a single seat on the footpath,

Because they aren't dumping their product on the foot path. They are parking bicycles in spots where they are legally allowed to. Some users and many vandals are what caused the bigger nuisance.

1Rowdy1 wrote:so why should a multi national hire bike company be exempt and get special treatment?

Good question, you should ask the EPA. The special treatment Obikes got was far from favorable.

I completely agree a better system from Obikes should have been implemented. One which included a good discussion and agreement with local authorities. However given the rhetoric on the matter from the authorities I'm not sure they were at all receptive on the matter. We aren't privy to the discussions so maybe the councils did try in good faith to allow the system to work but given their public statements that seems less likely.

Jmuzz wrote:
1Rowdy1 wrote:No other business has the right to dump there product on the foot path when ever and where ever it likes


Everyone has the right to park a bicycle in legal bicycle parking.
That's the law, the bikeshares comply with the law what more can anyone do?

There is a formal process for debating, creating and changing laws in parliament if need be.

Exactly. Instead they sidestepped this process by involving a regulatory body and big threats of fines for actions that Obike were not responsible for. If there was reasoned debate and laws introduced to regulate bike share bicycles in public spaces there would be far less controversy.

1Rowdy1
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2017 10:51 am

Re: Putting the "oh no" into obikes

Postby 1Rowdy1 » Wed Jun 13, 2018 9:11 am

human909 wrote:
1Rowdy1 wrote:No other business has the right to dump there product on the foot path when ever and where ever it likes.Even poor old mum and dad run coffee shops need a permit and pay a fee to be able to put a single seat on the footpath,

Because they aren't dumping their product on the foot path. They are parking bicycles in spots where they are legally allowed to. Some users and many vandals are what caused the bigger nuisance.

1Rowdy1 wrote:so why should a multi national hire bike company be exempt and get special treatment?

Good question, you should ask the EPA. The special treatment Obikes got was far from favorable.

I completely agree a better system from Obikes should have been implemented. One which included a good discussion and agreement with local authorities. However given the rhetoric on the matter from the authorities I'm not sure they were at all receptive on the matter. We aren't privy to the discussions so maybe the councils did try in good faith to allow the system to work but given their public statements that seems less likely.

Jmuzz wrote:
1Rowdy1 wrote:No other business has the right to dump there product on the foot path when ever and where ever it likes


Everyone has the right to park a bicycle in legal bicycle parking.
That's the law, the bikeshares comply with the law what more can anyone do?

There is a formal process for debating, creating and changing laws in parliament if need be.

Exactly. Instead they sidestepped this process by involving a regulatory body and big threats of fines for actions that Obike were not responsible for. If there was reasoned debate and laws introduced to regulate bike share bicycles in public spaces there would be far less controversy.


Funny how you keep blaming vandals, I watch 3 obike blow over in the wind outside Richmond station, one of witch hit a parked car, so I say obike are the vandals.

But then again I could follow obikes lead and start my own business by placing 1000 odd pool tables on the footpaths around Melbourne design an app so people can get the balls out, wont be an inconvenience to anyone, after all they have had plenty of practice walking around all the obikes that have been left all over the paths that have been placed there by that dastardly vandal I keep hearing about, as I would be using the same logic of obikes as in there is no law that say's pool tables can't be on foot paths, and if people trip on balls left on the ground, well that's not my fault, I did not put them there. I'd be happy to put the first one out the front of your place human909, I'm sure you wont mind.


"Everyone has the right to park a bicycle in legal bicycle parking.
That's the law, the bikeshares comply with the law what more can anyone do?"

Well the EPA only enforces laws it has been granted to enforce threw the formal processes of parliament, that you seem to think have been ignored.

fat and old
Posts: 3757
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Putting the "oh no" into obikes

Postby fat and old » Wed Jun 13, 2018 9:24 am

Jmuzz wrote:
fat and old wrote:
Yes, it's easy. The business model should be centred around paying the appropriate permits for having the bikes available, permits to park them, ..


So basically the usual rego for bikes chestnut.

And what is fair rego for a bike?
A trailer in NSW is $65 a year and that grants it rights to a permanent parking space, 6sqm.

So about 1/10th that for a bike? $6.50?

The bikeshares comply with all law, there is no such thing as bicycle rego or permits to hire bikes or formal bike parking spaces.
It's governments job to legislate those things if justified. Not to kill them off by stealth of police inaction and impossible 48hr water salvage times and huge fines for being the victim of crime.


Rego for bikes???

Maybe I was too subtle. My POV is that the various authorities got a hard on about someone being able to make money without said authorities getting a cut, the RACV got a hard on about having legit competition for their blue bikes and the media/public outcry played right into their hands. In fact, I’d believe that the media coverage which was pretty negative from day one was deliberate and directed.

human909
Posts: 9123
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Putting the "oh no" into obikes

Postby human909 » Wed Jun 13, 2018 10:00 am

1Rowdy1 wrote: Well the EPA only enforces laws it has been granted to enforce threw the formal processes of parliament, that you seem to think have been ignored.

I haven't ignored that. That is blooming obvious.

The EPA has been very selective in its targeting here. If they were targeting the perpetrators or if they equally targeted supermarkets and their trolleys with the same tight time frames then one could understand the equal treatment. Instead they selectively through the book at Obikes.

fat and old wrote:Maybe I was too subtle. My POV is that the various authorities got a hard on about someone being able to make money without said authorities getting a cut, the RACV got a hard on about having legit competition for their blue bikes and the media/public outcry played right into their hands. In fact, I’d believe that the media coverage which was pretty negative from day one was deliberate and directed.


:D I missed that subtly too! On that matter I don't see an issue with councils getting a cut of the business. Pass the relevant state or council laws and find some suitable model that works.

Obikes obviously did a terrible job of playing the Game of Thrones Councillors. :wink:

1Rowdy1
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2017 10:51 am

Re: Putting the "oh no" into obikes

Postby 1Rowdy1 » Wed Jun 13, 2018 10:05 am

human909 wrote:
1Rowdy1 wrote: Well the EPA only enforces laws it has been granted to enforce threw the formal processes of parliament, that you seem to think have been ignored.

I haven't ignored that. That is blooming obvious.

The EPA has been very selective in its targeting here. If they were targeting the perpetrators or if they equally targeted supermarkets and their trolleys with the same tight time frames then one could understand the equal treatment. Instead they selectively through the book at Obikes.


Not sure about around your area but here supermarkets have been targeted quit hard for a number of years in regards to trolley's. But yes I do get your point about how hard the EPA have gone after them.

BJL
Posts: 628
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 6:45 pm

Re: Putting the "oh no" into obikes

Postby BJL » Wed Jun 13, 2018 10:07 am

I'm going to add my 2 cents here and say that there are a couple of issues here.

One, the lack of bicycle parking. Lot's of complaints about O-bikes left all over the place. Well let's try an experiment. Close 95% of ALL parking in all of Melbourne currently available for motor vehicles for a week and we'll see where motorists dump their vehicles?

Two, the anti-bike society that we live in. How it's acceptable to vandalize bicycles, but don't you dare touch my precious car. One of the biggest worries I have (and it's why I don't leave my bike out in public out of my sight) is theft or vandalism. If motorists who leave their cars at railway stations or shopping centre car parks faced anywhere near the amount of vandalism that cyclists face, just about every car in the parking lot would be keyed, kicked or windows smashed everyday and there would be an outcry. Neil Mitchell would probably have a heart attack and Derryn Hinch would need another liver. People don't like it when their own property is stolen or vandalized, but don't care if they do it to cyclists. Many don't even care if they injure or kill a cyclist. Then there are the close shaves, abuse and objects thrown at cyclists. But dare do the same to motorists? :evil:

Three, the $3000 fee to remove abandoned O-bikes. Since bikes weigh about 1% (or less) of the average motor vehicle and motor vehicles being full of dangerous chemicals, fuel, oil, battery acids, etc, then surely the fine to remove an illegally parked motor car should be around $300k, payable by the owner. Some might say that's utterly ridiculous but by mass, that's what the owner of the O-bikes is expected to pay.

And as for the shopping trolleys someone mentioned, my local Safeway must have the laziest, dumbest customers in the known universe. They can't stack the trolleys in the bays properly so 3 trolleys take up the space that 10 should and so they resort to putting trolleys in the Aldi trolley bay so Aldi customers can't get their tokens back. Not to mention all the trolleys just left wherever all over the place.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users