The "all public" system means a municipality contracts a single vendor (or owns it) to build all the stations and manage everything. This is what we have where I live, dublin. It's a stagnant system. They don't add stations. Problems with stations being full/empty at certain times of the day persist indefinitely. Basically, you can feel the lack of competition.
The all private system (like they have in China) is more innovative. They use technology better. You can feel the existence of competition. It's more scalable with bikes, rides and users increasing all the time.
But... It makes a mess. Bikes everywhere. Companies can go bust, can chase market cap & investment. Mostly, bikes end up abandoned all over the place.
This is fixable, for a local municipality that's willing to get clever and design a market. Create infrastructure, mostly it's the stations or the ability to rent space for them. Make rules, but not too many. Let competition happen within parameters.
The problem with those bikes, apart from the fact that they look atrociously is that the quality is so bad to make them borderline unusable.
I have hardly seen them in use, but there are a lot of those bikes lying around broken. There is no customer service, whatsoever and no point of contact. Aparently the manager they put in place for Switzerland left some month ago.
Add to all this that according to C'T they are a massive privacy violator with all the data they suck about their renters.
Lime Bike seems to fare a bit better, alas the bikes are of better quality.
According to press reports they should be collected and removed. Reading about the shenanigans of that company probably at the tax payers dime.
With that method, dump a shitton of crap bikes on a city and let them fend for themselves, OBike created a hellishly hostile territory for the dockless bike sharing concept.
Advantage of Boris Bikes: bigger, better quality bikes which tend to be better maintained. Usually no trouble finding docking stations with available bikes within the service area.
Disadvantages: Limited service area. High cost of building docking stations means that expansion is slow.
Advantages of ofo/mobike: Typically (but not always) cheaper. Can park bikes (more or less) anywhere you like. Much bigger service area.
Disadvantages: Relatively crappy bikes, not fun to ride over longer distances. Not always easy to find a bike, and you might have to flip between apps to find one.
To me they seem like a totally dodgy company (which is consistent with the blog post).
My guess is that the company signed up a bunch of people, took a sizeable deposit from all of them, and then cut and run? Where does the ICO (or ICOs) come into the picture?
Bike were almost everywhere. Initially they had lots of free ride promotions.
A few days ago, they claimed that they ceased operations due to newly imposed government restrictions. (To prevent bikes from lying/standing around just about everywhere and have them be rented/returned at designated parking areas)
A while ago I think they dropped the deposit requirement, as other competitors did not have the deposit requirement. You could ask for your deposit to be returned. This would take up to 30days, but apparently took much longer, according to some comments on Facebook.
They also offered a VIP subscription for 3years or so for S$49, which would entitle you to a certain amount of free rides per month, I think.
All in all, I don’t know how I feel about my deposit. I’m pretty sure it’s gone. On the other hand I’ve used the bikes a few times with all the “free”/promotional rides, without giving them any additional money. After all I got some value for the S$49. Did I ride for 25hs in total? I doubt it.
I guess the ICO stuff is just trying to draw a parallel defrauding scheme?
[Edit] Also this whole concept of dockless bikes is very unsightly. Singapore has changed the law to have the companies pay for the bike removal.
Bike sharing company in Singapore. Initially collected a S$49 to use its service.
What happens to the bikes then? I can imagine they're being stored left and right now.
As an example here a (German) video comparing oBike and a "normal" bike rolling down a small hill: https://youtu.be/9bTnwJc5gzc
There are probably better ways to spend those bucks.
German c't magazine did a review of various rental bikes in Germany and found OBike to be the worst by far. They also got their hands on an offer for their bikes. Apparently these bikes cost 69€ (S$112) if you buy 1000 of them.
Eventually the government told oBike they would be given a $3,000 fine for every bike in violation, which is obviously far more than the small cost of the bike itself.
They left soon afterwards.
Cars are allowed in the city center, but they are mostly commercial vehicles (taxis, delivery drivers, construction, etc).
Most people use public transport to commute to and from work.
Many bike share schemes have been tried, but are not popular in Melbourne because trams are free and bicycles require helmets by law.
This is not true at all, a ridiculous number of people drive to work and park in the city. Over 60% of all traffic is private cars.
So much for taking livability seriously.
I grew up in Melbourne. I've worn bike helmets since I was a kid. They have been compulsory since 1990. It's not a big deal. Everyone knows it is just common sense, just like wearing seatbelts in a car.
Over the years, I have had bike crashes and hit my head on the road three times. The one time I was seriously injured was in Amsterdam, where no one wears helmets. My front wheel jammed and I fell over the handlebars face-first onto the road. I had to go to hospital for stitches. I was very, very lucky I didn't end up brain-damaged.
Helmets reduce serious brain trauma by 50-60%. That's well worth the small inconvenience for me.
Importantly, requiring helmets deters many normal people from biking in the first place — in Australia, bike commuting rates plummeted when mandatory helmet laws went into effect
While it's obvious that wearing a helmet reduces damage if you're in an accident, there's studies suggesting that wearing a helmet makes you more likely to be in an accident in the first place - car drivers drive more dangerously around helmeted riders, and helmeted riders ride more dangerously.
It's all very interested and not as straight forward as I (or maybe you) would have thought.
Studies and factions mentioned are from here: https://www.vox.com/2014/5/16/5720762/stop-forcing-people-to...
After having had three falls and having been very lucky I totally reversed that sentiment and always wear a helmet now.
It may be less freewheeling and comfortable. But I figured that maybe next time I'm less lucky, so it's definitely worth it.
I didn't wear a helmet when renting a bike in Japan. But I've seen nobody wear a helmet there.
1) almost all Dutch drivers are also cyclists. They know how bikes behave, how it feels to be a cyclist around cars, and are therefore far more conscientious of bikes
2) in an accident involving a car and a bike, Dutch road laws have a high presumption that the car is at fault.
In Amsterdam, I don't worry about a car running me over. In London and Melbourne I do, and so never ride there without a helmet.
When? In what specific situation?
He cited evidence from the University of Bath that suggests that wearing a helmet may even put cyclists at greater risk. The research showed that drivers get around 3 inches closer to cyclists who wear helmets because they perceive them as safer. 
So it sounds like you're more likely to get hit when you wear a helmet, that can't be safe. Why don't cyclists wear a proper fitting motorcycle helmet if helmets are safer?
One thing that does correlate -- the more cyclists there are, the fewer accidents per mile. 
Something else that may be uncomfortable reading, Australian helmet laws reduce levels of cycling  (and explain why cycle hire schemes in Melbourne don't work).
The scheme, which is costing taxpayers $5.5 million over four years, has been crippled by Melbourne's compulsory helmet laws. Bike share schemes are established in 135 cities around the world, but Melbourne's is the only one operating under such strict laws. 
If more cyclists is good (and I'd argue it is - as it means fewer drivers, and has the crowd benefit), you need to get rid of these helmet laws - they do more harm than good 
Given that, suggesting that helmet laws are a plot to reduce cycling puts you firmly in conspiracy theory territory in my book.
Of course adults should be free to choose for themselves what risks they are willing to take. The relevant populations are at so much lower risk for any number of misfortunes than their ancestors that helmet fans' pearl-clutching on their behalf is completely misplaced. But this too is beside the point.
Try reading my two sentences again, this time without your "conspiracy everywhere" glasses. The following propositions, which comprise the entirety of that post, are all literally true: "cycling doesn't require helmets", "helmet laws reduce cycling", "those who write helmet laws know that helmet laws reduce cycling". Every study of the effect of helmet laws shows that they reduce cycling. There might be some dangerously uninformed people writing cycling regulations, but most will have seen the relevant studies.
It's not universally the case though (see: drugs, seatbelts), and if you think it should be, you're in a small minority with that opinion. I think it's fair to consider externalities and then make laws that strike a nice balance between individual and collective interests. Bicycle helmets are a very small inconvenience, so i find it entirely appropriate to make them mandatory.
> "those who write helmet laws know that helmet laws reduce cycling"
Right, but that doesn't mean it's their motivation. That assumption, given that there are other prohibitions on dangerous behaviour, is a conspiracy theory.
Maybe in your community I would be? Where I live, it would be hard to find anyone who didn't feel adults should take responsibility for the consequences of their own actions. I really don't understand this compulsion to measure oneself against the herd, however. "Oh no some randoms I've never met might disagree with me!" Why would I care about that? Perhaps you're not so experienced with reasoned discussion, but "that's fringe" and "that's conspiracy" are not really arguments. By focusing on these propositions you've conceded the factual claims I've made, which by themselves really settle the question of whether helmets ought to be mandatory for cycling.
That assumption... is a conspiracy theory.
I haven't made such an assumption. I would still question the opposite assumption, however. Are you certain that no one values the primacy of the automobile in traffic?
This is a very general statement and probably won't hold up in a number of specific cases, such as the total legalisation of the drug trade. But i do believe that "people" (as in: the majority) draw that line in a culture specific way and it appears that the US leans more towards personal freedom than the rest of "the west".
However, this discussion was about laws in Australia. I think it's reasonable to assume that the laws reflect the majority opinion. Now i'm not discounting fringe opinions in general and i certainly don't think the majority is always right. But in this case it's relevant because it offers a much simpler explanation for why helmet laws exist: because people living in those jurisdictions overwhelmingly want them.
Let me turn the argument around to illustrate: Not wearing helmets increases head injuries, and the people in power know that. Having a pro-helmet-law stance, it would make sense to see a conspiracy between lawmakers and health care providers (more brain damaged people, more revenue!). It seems much more reasonable to assume that places without helmet laws don't have them because people living there draw the line between personal freedoms and collective interests differently.
> I haven't made such an assumption.
Well, you wrote "Imposing helmets by law is a way to reduce cycling" and i really can't parse it any other way than to mean that the sole (or at least main) motivation for helmet laws is to reduce cycling. I stand by my words.
That helps converting some car users to motorbikes or scooters instead, as driving to work is generally much faster than in a car (for Melbourne traffic anyway).
Not sure I can take that seriously seeing how much Melbourne favours cars and is spending billions building more roads.
They seem to be working on refund now:
The problem come when I wanted to lock the bike and finish the trip. It wouldn’t allow me to lock the bike. The app didn’t recognize the parking location and alerted to bring the bike to a one.
I ended up putting it somewhere on the streets unlocked. Anyone could have made use of it.
I can understand why bike rental system without proper stations where the bikes are stored would be considered corporate littering.
Which is terrible, obviously.
I think it was a scam. The idea was to take people's deposits and then declare bankruptcy.
What does "ownership and democratic control of the means of production" have to do with littering bikes on the sidewalk?
2 examples I've seen.
- In the middle of a forest with at least 2KM of trail before the bike could be reached.
- Inside a secure defence facility.
In theory, identifying who left it there should be feasible.
That may mean asking the defence facility people nicely (letters and bureaucracy, etc).
> Some fake news circulating around lately, to clarify: 1. I'm a shareholder of oBike, owning 23.58% stake, my title has always been Founding Investor&Chairman in that company 2. Avazu was founded by me sorely, my grandparents are 80+ and can't even handle computers
> 3. oBike Singapore has been shut down due to economics, the decision was made among all shareholders, no need to generalize/personalize 4. oBike has no intention or need to run away with deposit, instead the company is proactively looking for a solution with the related parties
> 5. I'm an investor and shareholder in 100+ startups and companies globally, I'm also the direct founder of DotC United Group, some of these ventures cooperate with other block chain companies, that doesn't mean all these companies belong to me.
Then again they ended up having to spend a lot of money in Melbourne cleaning them up which would have buggered their modelling.
Bottom line of my comment above: the bikes has to come first with a reasonable lead time before the deposit. I see now that they could have borrowed against it as well but it doesn’t look like they had large inflows of PE or VC money?
It's also possible they overestimated the real world demand for using these bikes as well. From the article, it sounds like the main people involved are from cities with a very significant bicycle using populace.
They may have thought they'd be introducing that culture elsewhere, and be on the "ground floor" (pun intended). ;)
That they went with bikes so crap that no one wants to use them, sounds like very poor research / product planning. :/
Subsequent reported problems all seem to stem from that.
That's not taking the shonky sounds bits into account though, which may have become their plan B. Or been the real plan all along, of course. :)
1. I bet they got payed off, or they got their money laundered in some other way?
2. So many Chinese companies seem to go out of their way to be fraudulent; I don't have much sympathy for investors anymore.
3. There used to be Investment Guys out there trying to expose shady Chinese companies, companies like NQ mobile, but I just don't hear much from them. I guess they figure if you invest with shady entities, don't expect your money back?
4. I love the back stories on these boy geniuses. Just lie until you thrive?
I have never heard deposits not being paid back if a company ceases operation by leaving a market.