The Guardian has published a photo essay on the plight of sharebikes in China. We’ve had a similar scheme launched recently here in Melbourne, with bikes ending up being thrown into rivers or hanging from trees. This all goes to the complexities as we shift to the rent/share economy; how do we get people to treat these objects with respect or do these objects need to account for our human-ness?
Some of these images are quite beautiful, the randomness adds its own touch of nature. Of course scale is the key thing here. It just boggles the mind that there can be so many of these; whether rejected, or damaged, or whatever has happened to them.
You can see the rest of this series at The Guardian, here.
Very interesting Don. The photos in the linked article are weirdly beautiful.
The respect for objects is an interesting thought. I don’t think people have enough of that these days although it can be argued that I personally have TOO MUCH respect for objects myself.
Too much respect for objects? As in, to the point where you never throw things away, because ‘There’s still life in it yet’ or ‘Someone could fix that’? That’s me.
Stephanie showed me the whole gallery in the Guardian, and they are amazing photographs as well as documenting a strange phenomena. It’s ironic, since China was once a land of bicycle riders, and every bike was a precious possession. Now they’re just the colorful detritus of an affluent society.
As someone with an environmental bent ever since the late 60s, I used to see these pictures from China in the 70s with the streets full of bikes and very few cars, and I would think to myself: Be smart China, and bypass the whole automobile era, and just stick to bicycles. But of course not; humans have to go through the inevitable phases of development until they realize they’re destroying the environment and make the requisite changes. Now bikes, e-bikes and EVs are seen as the solution to China’s massive environmental and traffic problems.
Super-cool, compelling, strangely melancholy images. Thanks for sharing them (and that link).
Ride share bikes are a small example of Socialism, and a good example of how it doesn’t work anywhere, anytime, and in any manner that it is tried.
When there is no pride in ownership, there is no care of responsibility.
Actually, it’s rampant capitalism, out of control. Literally. The (socialist) government had to pick these up because the capitalist companies that put them out there didn’t care enough to do so themselves, and they were left littering and blocking sidewalks. That’s what the government is there for: to clean up when companies won’t do it themselves.
Obviously the capitalist companies have no pride in the ownership of their bikes, eh?
Absolutely. Here in Munich, a Singaporese company called oBike suddenly dumped 6000 bicycles all around town, counting on the city to take care of them once they’re used up. Not happening: after many of them ending up in the most random places (up trees and lampposts, in the locks on the river Isar) and various states of disrepair, the city is now forcing oBike to clean up the mess it made. Most of them will be gone soon, they’ll keep 1000 of them.
Also, I’ve ridden a few of those bikes, and they suck for what are supposedly new bikes. Review (in German).
oBike was the brand in Melbourne. Still is apparently, but I haven’t seen one in a couple of months.
One problem with the claim of Socialism being at fault is bike sharing companies are just that, private bike sharing companies. These companies operate on the hope of generating a profit, not converting people into pick fork waving communists.
People often use the socialism label to describe things they don’t like, without really considering whether or not it really is socialism.
I thought they’re more about (capitalists) data mining.
https://www.bikebiz.com/news/data-mining-is-why-billions-are-being-pumped-into-dockless-bikes
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-19/bike-share-schemes-economics-makes-sense-the-conversation/8957404
This will be the future, with public owned autonomous cars, I think. Tossed after being abused.
Wow – that’s a horrifying thought, yet quite plausible.
San Francisco is now going through the problem of electric scooters. Companies have been doing a Uber by dropping them on the streets and ignoring all laws. Motorized anything cannot be on a sidewalk. Motorized drivers must wear helmets. No provisions for storage.
So what do we have? Scooters on the sidewalks among pedestrians. I know if one ran close to me they would be going down. Scooters dropped anywhere on the sidewalks blocking access. Companies ignore the City and dare them to do something. Same tactic Airnb and Uber did in the City when they first started out. So, yes, these are capitalist companies leaving it to the local governments to deal with their messes.
Was wondering if anyone would bring up those stupid scooters. So friggin’ annoying. Same goes for Uber and Airbnb.
No, that’s a case of another modern phenomenon, namely the state (for political or other reasons) _decides not to enforce the law_. There are enough examples of this all around the Western world but using those will mean this deteriorates into a political discussion, so I’ll leave at that.
Ownership and pride in ownership are universal themes. Bikes have another layer to them: they are like shoes. First priority is fit. And they will really fit once they are worn in. Even though the rider is only in contact with the bike on a few spots (grips, pedals and seat) the adjustment of these points make the bike either feel right or torturous.
Once you have owned a bike that fits you well you wouldn’t want to use a share bike. It takes trial and error to find the correct adjustment….and time.
I take it that these are “dockless” sharebikes? We’ve only just gotten the type where they don’t count your rental as having ended until you return it to a docking station; I’ve heard nothing good about the dockless kind.
Like socialism, the dockless bike rental (‘Limebike’ is the one I’m familiar with) sounds like a good idea but, in practice, doesn’t work out so well. The main issue is simply that a bicycle is generally a lightweight conveyance that is easily lifted. So, even if a dockless bike has a method of locking (the device is behind the seat on the rear tire), like any other bike, it is easy to walk away with and vandalize. Most times, if there’s a nearby body of water (like a river), they’ll get tossed into the drink. Hoisted up into a tree sounds like another popular occurrence.
It’s a shame because the idea does seem like a good alternative for urban transportation. OTOH, it could be considered a candidate for urban blight as those Limebikes crop up everywhere.
Again with the “socialism”…this is pure capitalism, with a badly-thought-out business model.
It smacks of having been built to be as buzzwordy as possible to attract venture capital (“Sharing economy! Internet of Things! China, The World’s Biggest Market!”) and hang together just long enough to sell out to a tech giant at which point the founders become billionaires, rather than to build something lasting and useful to a customer base who doesn’t know how they ever got along without it.
I am curious as to how the bike sharing system works in Melbourne since you mention bikes being vandalized, Don. When I lived in Minnesota, my sister and I would use the Nice Ride MN rental bikes to go all over Minneapolis and St. Paul (this was circa 2013-14), and the system had several things built in that specifically would deter that sort of a scenario.
For one, in order to rent, a credit card was a must, either linked to a trackable membership, or swiped directly at the docking station. If you swipe at the station, a $200 hold would be placed on the card until the bike was returned. Don’t have over $200 available? You won’t get a bike. The rental itself was $3 for every half hour, however if you check in at another docking station within that time window, the clock resets without further charge, allowing you to make longer trips if needed. Failure to return the bike would result in the hold fee being processed the following day. I’m not sure how a broken returned bike would be handled, but according to the city, that setup seemed to work exceptionaly well, and the program continues to expand.
I haven’t looked too deeply into the Melbourne system, but it is dockless. Hence people just leave the bike on the sidewalk once they’ve finished with it, and it’s more often others (non-users) who do the vandalising. Our CBD council tried docked bikes, but that had its problems too – the main one being helmets (which are required by law). The other problem is availability of docks, which would need to be on every block to make the idea sustainable or else you’re walking as much as you’re riding.
I live in downtown Ottawa, near the Canal. Perhaps one of the best cities in the world to get around by bike. However, the company the city gave the bike share contract to (VeloGo), offers bikes I wouldn’t recommend to anyone. They are cheap, heavy and cumbersome. Obviously designed to take abuse, but offering little in the way of riding pleasure.
Rentabike Ottawa is the recommended way to rent a quality bike and accessories, at a reasonable price. Well worth the extra cost to enjoy a biking vacation.
http://www.rentabike.ca/
There has always been a SHARP line between privately owned vehicles and public taxis or coaches.
The SHARP division was true with oxen, true with horses, true with bicycles, true with autos, and it will still be true with jetpacks or antigravity whatsits.
The middle ground of shared (unowned) single-occupant vehicles has never worked.
I was hoping someone from Amsterdam would pipe in. As I understand it, that city had a successful bike rent/share system but it too has been overrun by private enterprise.
https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/08/amsterdam-fights-back-against-rogue-bike-share/535791/
well, i’m not from amsterdam but i am intimately familiar with nyc’s citibike. we definitely don’t have a problem with abandoned bikes because the system has docks and you are liable for the bike you rent. i imagine that china could fix the bike abandonment problem just by only allowing docked services
in nyc, citibike is a public/private partnership where citibike gets exclusive rights to put the docks in public spaces. it’s been going on for a few years and i believe they are still losing money but not as much as in the beginning. it’s extremely popular but i gave up my membership because i found it to be less than reliable. i was often finding the docks empty when i needed a bike or full or broken when i needed to return the bike. another thing that bothers me, is that there are no helmets available and i would say that 90% of the citibike riders don’t wear helmets vs. about 10% for privately owned bikes.
Thanks for that. I’d wonder how much this would need to be a profit centre, as the advantages to a city/community would come about in other aspects; fewer cars/less congestion and less localised pollution. The other aspects you touch on seem just as important; the line between using and not using the service.
yes, i agree there are many social benefits for the city as a whole. also, i haven’t seen how the profit/loss is calculated. does this account for the fact that the system also acts as major halo marketing for citibank? i would be ok if the nyc picked up part of the tab but that’s not how it’s setup.
also, even though the bike redistribution doesn’t work for me personally, it is undoubtedly good for the majority of riders. bike shares also brings a lot of decent jobs for people without a fancy education. they have to redistribute hundreds possibly thousands of bike per day. mostly by van, but some of the redistribution is actually by bike trailer.
there is a lot of room for improvement especially concerning our bike lanes. i’m hopeful that the bike share movement will grow and work out these bugs. i definitely think the regulated public/private partnership model makes a lot more sense than the private app model that’s causing all the bike abandonment in china.
I’m not sure if it will reduce congestion all that much. A lot of the congestion is from people driving to work. The bike share doesn’t really work for workers since it’s really expensive to rent for 8 hours. The local system is dockless so there’s no guarantee you’ll find another bike when you get out. You may find one outside, you may find one a block away, you may find one half a mile away, who knows. This is not a situation I really want to face after 12 hours of work.
It can’t be taken as a silver bullet on its own, but theoretically part of a wider range of programs. London has its congestion tax for the CBD which seemed to reduce traffic, but that has ultimately created a more stratified have/have-not class system where stockbrokers and the like can afford the tax quite easily out of their exorbitant incomes.
@Bogman57 i don’t know how it works in other cities but with citibike, there are different pricing tiers. when they started it was $99/yr. now it’s $169. you get a keyfob that you plug into the dock and away you go. the timelimit for yearly members is 45 mins. you are allowed to stop and switch out bikes at kiosk and continue on and on in 45 minute intervals. it is, in fact, popular with commuters. i would guess it’s a few thousand per day. there is data available online:
https://www.citibikenyc.com/system-data
Wtf? Isn’t anyone smart enough to put these bikes into 100+ dump trucks, and cashing in on the recycling value of the steel, aluminum and rubber? I see evidence of incredible stupidity here!
Can we keep the political feces-slinging out of here? That crap is what drove me away from TTAC and numerous other websites. If I want political discussion and comment, I’ll go to DKos or RedState okay?
This is a social issue, touched upon by politics. No-one here got out of hand.
Yeah but I’ve had to tape my fingers together to restrain myself. I’m typing this with my nose.
If you don’t agree with the sharing system, say so. That’s the point of this. But to blame it on a political side is to step over the line. This sort of thing is emerging in all types of economies. What’s clear is that right now, it’s a much less than perfect approach to transport.
I have no comment on the article.
Recently on this and other articles there has been a disappointing outbreak of witless political comments which I find irritating, and I assume MK64 was referring to those too.
I am familiar with these and the problems in Scottsdale.
There are two competing services. Both are “dockless” – meaning leave the bike anywhere when the rider is done. One brand’s bikes are yellow; the other brand is green.
The bikes are heavy, durable and not fun to ride (from my biking snob point of view). They offer no pleasure to a rider of any slight experience. Scottsdale is very much a tourist town and they seem to serve the tourist community – especially in the “Old Town” area.
However the bikes have become an eyesore and an impediment to other people – drivers of cars and pedestrians. Not only do they end up in the canals but they also block sidewalks, block driveways, are left in yards, etc.
The city seems to gotten over its head with what was thought to be a good plan beneficial to tourism. There is backtracking going on. Blight is not tolerated in Scottsdale; the dockless bikes may be overstaying their welcome.
We’ve been getting LimeBikes here in the Miami area over the past couple of years.