Putting the "oh no" into obikes

human909
Posts: 8914
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Putting the "oh no" into obikes

Postby human909 » Thu Jun 14, 2018 2:01 pm

I give up. You seem to be moving the goal posts all the time.

Calvin27 wrote:Same goes if it was my car that was vandalised and dumped. Just because you have insurance that deals with it doesn't mean they can just leave it there.

Insurance has nothing to do with this. The EPA isn't handing out 2hr notices with the threat of fines.

Calvin27
Posts: 1705
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 5:45 pm

Re: Putting the "oh no" into obikes

Postby Calvin27 » Thu Jun 14, 2018 2:06 pm

human909 wrote:I give up. You seem to be moving the goal posts all the time.

Calvin27 wrote:Same goes if it was my car that was vandalised and dumped. Just because you have insurance that deals with it doesn't mean they can just leave it there.

Insurance has nothing to do with this. The EPA isn't handing out 2hr notices with the threat of fines.


How is that different? If a car is a hazard it gets removed straight away (i.e. 2 hours) and you fork out for the costs. :?:
Fast light bike
Cushy dirt bike
Workhorse bike
No brakes bike
Ebike :)

Jmuzz
Posts: 513
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:42 pm

Re: Putting the "oh no" into obikes

Postby Jmuzz » Thu Jun 14, 2018 2:38 pm

48hrs is not reasonable for a "strange place" eg in a floodway canal, in a rail corridor, underwater.

You need permits to access the canals and certain weather forecasts make it impossible for regular workers.
You can't just expect a dive salvage operator to show up with <48hrs especially on weekends and the boat callout fee will be a couple of thousand for a single bike.

With the high rate of vandalism they would need an army of workers to keep up.
Total lack of anti-vandalism enforcement and public education campaigns saying how trashing someone's/corporate/public property is a dog act (eg the NSW "don't be a tosser" campaign) so no improvement in sight. Vandalism has basically been cheered on.
"Yeah smash that non rego paying road toad yeehaw".

So it's destroyed.
And what did Australia learn? Still ok to wreck bikes they aren't real property and deserve it because they don't pay rego. Still a lack of bike parking areas. Loss of slow bikes which were a good argument for helmetless footpath riding. Inadequate cycleway infrastructure.

Bicycle parking is still a big debate our society has to face, the same issue of "bikes everywhere" (translation = 4 bikes in a street lined with cars) is still going to happen when (if, if anti-bike lobby keeps on a winning streak) bikes become more mainstream transport.

Calvin27
Posts: 1705
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 5:45 pm

Re: Putting the "oh no" into obikes

Postby Calvin27 » Thu Jun 14, 2018 3:23 pm

Jmuzz wrote:48hrs is not reasonable for a "strange place" eg in a floodway canal, in a rail corridor, underwater.


7 days for any oBike found in a waterway

better?
Fast light bike
Cushy dirt bike
Workhorse bike
No brakes bike
Ebike :)

User avatar
AUbicycles
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 13154
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:14 am
Location: Sydney & Frankfurt
Contact:

Re: Putting the "oh no" into obikes

Postby AUbicycles » Thu Jun 14, 2018 3:53 pm

Some media reporting here (age)

A month before the rollout, then-lord mayor Robert Doyle met oBike representatives, who passionately outlined their vision for a radical shake up of the city's cycling opportunities.

Verdict - Massive failure of oBike, four months before a launch when production and planning had already been running so long.

Mr Doyle was sceptical, and told them he wasn't interested.

Verdict - Possibly poor and insufficient presentation by oBike and unwillingness of the government

It didn’t matter. The company didn't need a permit to operate and within several weeks Melburnians began to spot yellow bikes lining the pavements of the inner city.

Verdict - While the barriers shouldn't be too high so that very small operators also have a fair chance, the lack of any framework meant the company rolled out on their terms and faced a backlash. Again, fingers pointing at both parties.


NextSteps
How smart are other share bike companies to understand and learn from this?

It should be in the interest of the government to be involved and guide the development and growth. Of course this costs money (time) but it can be compared the short term cost in dealing with the repercussions and long term cost because there is no bikeshare which means that the transport mix is more limited and, forexample, increases the reliance on other modes such as cars.

Calvin27
Posts: 1705
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 5:45 pm

Re: Putting the "oh no" into obikes

Postby Calvin27 » Thu Jun 14, 2018 4:11 pm

AUbicycles wrote:It should be in the interest of the government to be involved and guide the development and growth. Of course this costs money (time) but it can be compared the short term cost in dealing with the repercussions and long term cost because there is no bikeshare which means that the transport mix is more limited and, forexample, increases the reliance on other modes such as cars.


Why would government guide the development and growth if they already have their own pet bike share scheme?
Fast light bike
Cushy dirt bike
Workhorse bike
No brakes bike
Ebike :)

human909
Posts: 8914
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Putting the "oh no" into obikes

Postby human909 » Thu Jun 14, 2018 4:43 pm

A novel thought. Maybe the government should govern for the benefit of their citizens?

<insert laughter and a Yes Minister clip here>


But I am in complete agreement with AUbicycles again here. Obikes failed badly in many ways. However that doesn't mean that the government should actively trying to sink the ship. Especially when the ship is potentially a VERY cheap way to reduce congestion.

Jmuzz
Posts: 513
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:42 pm

Re: Putting the "oh no" into obikes

Postby Jmuzz » Thu Jun 14, 2018 4:57 pm

AUbicycles wrote:NextSteps
How smart are other share bike companies to understand and learn from this?


Don't bother with a hostile local government who are already in monopolized business with a Royal Automotive Club for one.


I don't know why they avoid cable locks so bikes can't be thrown places so easily?
Require the hirer to use the app to submit photo of bike properly cable locked at appropriate location.
Surely it solves a lot of the problems but they avoid it worldwide. Must be some reasoning behind it?

I guess in places like China there are so many bikes it's just not possible to find spare posts to use. But that's not the case here.
Foreign countries probably don't comprehend just how much Australians vandalize, you don't see it in asia especially China, Malaysia, Singapore where these are based.

Calvin27
Posts: 1705
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 5:45 pm

Re: Putting the "oh no" into obikes

Postby Calvin27 » Thu Jun 14, 2018 4:58 pm

human909 wrote:However that doesn't mean that the government should actively trying to sink the ship. Especially when the ship is potentially a VERY cheap way to reduce congestion.


I think hey have to let go of heir Melbourne bike share connection to do that. The problem is the Government took the opportunity to fill a niche with no real transition plan to exit the scene when the market came to the party. So the question is what should they do? Divest their bike share system and sell to the highest bidder? Last I checked they were making a loss. Give it to the RACV so they can kill bicycles more?
Fast light bike
Cushy dirt bike
Workhorse bike
No brakes bike
Ebike :)

User avatar
AUbicycles
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 13154
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:14 am
Location: Sydney & Frankfurt
Contact:

Re: Putting the "oh no" into obikes

Postby AUbicycles » Thu Jun 14, 2018 5:09 pm

Calvin27 wrote:Why would government guide the development and growth if they already have their own pet bike share scheme?


You mean the successful one?

human909
Posts: 8914
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Putting the "oh no" into obikes

Postby human909 » Thu Jun 14, 2018 5:15 pm

Jmuzz wrote:I don't know why they avoid cable locks so bikes can't be thrown places so easily?

Even better, integrate the cable lock with the wheel lock. (Plenty of existing designs that do this.) Incorporate an integrity check on the cable lock and hold the last user responsible for the location placement of the bike. Suddenly 90% of the potential problems are gone.

However Obike didn't foresee this and retrofitting a fleet is uneconomic. Add punitive fines and hostile local authorities they had to pull out.

Jmuzz
Posts: 513
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:42 pm

Re: Putting the "oh no" into obikes

Postby Jmuzz » Thu Jun 14, 2018 5:33 pm

human909 wrote:However Obike didn't foresee this and retrofitting a fleet is uneconomic. Add punitive fines and hostile local authorities they had to pull out.


I guess the big problem in the China market is related to the bikes being parked on private property, which results in the property parking guards roughly throwing them in a pile on the footpath.
Plus clusters of bikes.

They don't vandalize them maliciously, they don't snap the locks to ride free, they don't ram them into gutters and try to jump and wheelie, they wouldn't dare plus their young people just don't have that lout culture. Beer in every shop with no age restriction for example but they don't want it unlike the bogan vommitfest which would happen with Australian youth given unrestricted access to 50c beers.

So in that situation they don't want or need them immobilized, it only makes the private property and cluster issue worse.
They just wouldn't understand how it is here.

It will probably need a USA company to understand our market.

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 4115
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

The Converstation says

Postby Thoglette » Thu Jun 14, 2018 6:59 pm

Oh no, oBikes are leaving Melbourne! But this doesn’t mean bike sharing schemes are dead
Dorina Pojani, Senior Lecturer in Urban Planning, The University of Queensland
Jonathan Corcoran, Professor, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland
June 14, 2018 6.35am AEST

Basically a potted history. The comments (25 so far) capture the key talking points
1. failure to charge a single vandal and the general acceptance of this behaviour
2. the unusual business model (and rumoured resale of personal data)
3. failure of oBikes to do, well, anything other than privatise the profits and externalise the costs

If the bikes cost maybe $250 landed they only needed 4 subscribers per bike to make a profit just on the joining fee.
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 19081
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Putting the "oh no" into obikes

Postby mikesbytes » Thu Jun 14, 2018 7:12 pm

When I was in China in April there were hire bikes everywhere and they were being used. Out of all of those hire bikes while I was there I only saw 2 damaged ones, one of which looked like it had been run over by a truck.

Took one for a spin, the cost was 1 Yuan, about 20c

Perhaps in China its a crime to vandalise, unlike Australia where vandalism is not prevented by any sort of law enforcement. In Australia your more likely to get booked riding a bike that doesn't have a bell than get arrested for vandalism
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

Calvin27
Posts: 1705
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 5:45 pm

Re: Putting the "oh no" into obikes

Postby Calvin27 » Thu Jun 14, 2018 11:14 pm

AUbicycles wrote:
Calvin27 wrote:Why would government guide the development and growth if they already have their own pet bike share scheme?


You mean the successful one?


Not sure if I'd call that a success, but the blue ones. I believe they are still government (local and state) funded.
Fast light bike
Cushy dirt bike
Workhorse bike
No brakes bike
Ebike :)

human909
Posts: 8914
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Putting the "oh no" into obikes

Postby human909 » Fri Jun 15, 2018 12:19 am

Jmuzz wrote:Beer in every shop with no age restriction for example but they don't want it unlike the bogan vommitfest which would happen with Australian youth given unrestricted access to 50c beers.

There is a big factor of people acting in accordance with the respect and responsibility given to them. The more you try to control people the more they act out when the rules aren't there. It can be seen in classrooms or in regard to alcohol (ir)responsibility. The classic example is the contrast between the bars in NSW,QLD and VIC. Lock out laws etc...

mikesbytes wrote:Perhaps in China its a crime to vandalise, unlike Australia where vandalism is not prevented by any sort of law enforcement. In Australia your more likely to get booked riding a bike that doesn't have a bell than get arrested for vandalism

I reckon you'd have a much greater than 50% chance of getting off without much more than a stern look if you gave a Obike a good kicking in the spokes in front of the police. If you rode past without a helmet though....


Regarding the EPA involvement. What is ignored in all the to-and-fro debate earlier is the general complete lack of involvement of the EPA on this issues in the normal course of events. (vandalism, neglected good on council property, etc). Basically the councils wanted Obikes gone and they didn't have the direct tools to do it. So instead they got the sweeping powers of the EPA to do their dirty work. It stinks because it isn't due process.

Calvin27
Posts: 1705
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 5:45 pm

Re: Putting the "oh no" into obikes

Postby Calvin27 » Fri Jun 15, 2018 9:08 am

human909 wrote:Regarding the EPA involvement. What is ignored in all the to-and-fro debate earlier is the general complete lack of involvement of the EPA on this issues in the normal course of events. (vandalism, neglected good on council property, etc). Basically the councils wanted Obikes gone and they didn't have the direct tools to do it. So instead they got the sweeping powers of the EPA to do their dirty work. It stinks because it isn't due process.


That's conjecture. Maybe you could FOI the dealings with obike to find out for yourself. I very highly doubt they haven't followed due process. I also don't think vandalism is their problem so why would they get involved?
Fast light bike
Cushy dirt bike
Workhorse bike
No brakes bike
Ebike :)

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 19081
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Putting the "oh no" into obikes

Postby mikesbytes » Fri Jun 15, 2018 9:26 am

Bicycles are a big threat to large companies that build motorways, a study of a road in Copenhagen showed that 7% of the road corridor was allocated to cycling and that carried 51% of the the traffic. There's no need to build expensive motorways if the existing road corridor's are handling the traffic.

How to solve this, discourage cycling
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

human909
Posts: 8914
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Putting the "oh no" into obikes

Postby human909 » Fri Jun 15, 2018 10:20 am

:roll: There was no suggestion the EPA hasn't been following its due process.

fat and old
Posts: 3536
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Putting the "oh no" into obikes

Postby fat and old » Fri Jun 15, 2018 1:32 pm

human909 wrote::roll: There was no suggestion the EPA hasn't been following its due process.


Basically the councils wanted Obikes gone and they didn't have the direct tools to do it. So instead they got the sweeping powers of the EPA to do their dirty work. It stinks because it isn't due process.


I have to admit I wondered what you meant about "due process". Obviously not the EPA. Are you referring to council?

human909
Posts: 8914
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Putting the "oh no" into obikes

Postby human909 » Sun Jun 17, 2018 12:14 pm

fat and old wrote:I have to admit I wondered what you meant about "due process". Obviously not the EPA. Are you referring to council?

Council or state based law making to address the situation. Not by leveraging the powers of a different authorities to drive the company out of town.

NSW is at least attempting to address the issue through due process of state law making. (Though I'm not crossing my fingers on it being accommodating with the bikeshare companies.)

THISis a decent coverage on the issue:

"Depending on the space available, this would see new bike racks reserved specifically for bike share bikes, or a car parking bays being converted for bikes, Dr Fishman said.

This should be funded by state government, with a smaller share funded by the bike share operator through a levy."


Can't dispute that.


Obike made the mistake of trying to enter the market without the blessing of the local authorities. Sometimes that succeeds, (UBER) but it can also fail as demonstrated. On the other hand the council didn't adhere to their own stated goals regarding active transport by their failure to engage and then active fight against the bike share scheme.

User avatar
queequeg
Posts: 5325
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 10:09 am

Re: Putting the "oh no" into obikes

Postby queequeg » Sun Jun 17, 2018 12:49 pm

mikesbytes wrote:Bicycles are a big threat to large companies that build motorways, a study of a road in Copenhagen showed that 7% of the road corridor was allocated to cycling and that carried 51% of the the traffic. There's no need to build expensive motorways if the existing road corridor's are handling the traffic.

How to solve this, discourage cycling


Let's build an 8 lane motorway from Menangle to Box Hill instead!

http://roadsaustralia.weebly.com/m9-motorway.html
'11 Lynskey Cooper CX, '00 Hillbrick Steel Racing (Total Rebuild '10), '15 Cervelo S5

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 19081
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Putting the "oh no" into obikes

Postby mikesbytes » Sun Jun 17, 2018 1:24 pm

queequeg wrote:
mikesbytes wrote:Bicycles are a big threat to large companies that build motorways, a study of a road in Copenhagen showed that 7% of the road corridor was allocated to cycling and that carried 51% of the the traffic. There's no need to build expensive motorways if the existing road corridor's are handling the traffic.

How to solve this, discourage cycling


Let's build an 8 lane motorway from Menangle to Box Hill instead!

http://roadsaustralia.weebly.com/m9-motorway.html

I wasn't even aware that this one was on the radar. Is this part of the $45 billion being spent on the infrastructure upgrade [bad word], is it an additional expenditure?
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

User avatar
queequeg
Posts: 5325
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 10:09 am

Re: Putting the "oh no" into obikes

Postby queequeg » Sun Jun 17, 2018 3:28 pm

mikesbytes wrote:
queequeg wrote:
mikesbytes wrote:Bicycles are a big threat to large companies that build motorways, a study of a road in Copenhagen showed that 7% of the road corridor was allocated to cycling and that carried 51% of the the traffic. There's no need to build expensive motorways if the existing road corridor's are handling the traffic.

How to solve this, discourage cycling


Let's build an 8 lane motorway from Menangle to Box Hill instead!

http://roadsaustralia.weebly.com/m9-motorway.html

I wasn't even aware that this one was on the radar. Is this part of the $45 billion being spent on the infrastructure upgrade [bad word], is it an additional expenditure?


It's part of the new airport, but they just announced the "corridor" in the last few weeks. Seems the "corridor" is cutting through a lot of rural land, and came as a bit of surprise to those in the sleep areas in the North West. It also seems to go right through Box Hill, which is where they are currently building thousands of new houses, then extending out to Maraylya, which is a sleepy rural area surrounded by Scheyville National Park (which is very nice to ride through). Only reason it goes out there is some pie in the sky plan to link it to the central coast (presumably by bulldozing tens of thousands of hectares of pristine national park!).

https://www.collaborativemap.com/WesternSydneyCorridors
'11 Lynskey Cooper CX, '00 Hillbrick Steel Racing (Total Rebuild '10), '15 Cervelo S5

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 19081
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Putting the "oh no" into obikes

Postby mikesbytes » Sun Jun 17, 2018 7:12 pm

queequeg wrote:
mikesbytes wrote:
queequeg wrote:
Let's build an 8 lane motorway from Menangle to Box Hill instead!

http://roadsaustralia.weebly.com/m9-motorway.html

I wasn't even aware that this one was on the radar. Is this part of the $45 billion being spent on the infrastructure upgrade [bad word], is it an additional expenditure?


It's part of the new airport, but they just announced the "corridor" in the last few weeks. Seems the "corridor" is cutting through a lot of rural land, and came as a bit of surprise to those in the sleep areas in the North West. It also seems to go right through Box Hill, which is where they are currently building thousands of new houses, then extending out to Maraylya, which is a sleepy rural area surrounded by Scheyville National Park (which is very nice to ride through). Only reason it goes out there is some pie in the sky plan to link it to the central coast (presumably by bulldozing tens of thousands of hectares of pristine national park!).

https://www.collaborativemap.com/WesternSydneyCorridors


This should be a separate topic...

It's hard to see any realistic way to connect it to the central coast, perhaps take it thru Arcadia but the cost will be mega and we already have the M7 which will be connected eventually via the northconnex. Perhaps a future Govt will turn it North West and fill the current farm land around the Hawkesbury into a housing estate.

BTW when you click in the rail extensions on that map, it shows tiny bits compared with the motorways and other road mods. No mention of cycling or bus's
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BrisBoy