OBike Refund in Singapore, Australia, and Malaysia • Hacker News Board

Re: OBike Refund in Singapore, Australia, and Malaysia

#51

Post by stevesimmons » Mon, Jul 02, 2018, 12:48 PM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #40

guidedlight wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Melbourne has the world's largest tram network. It has a massive train 869km train network too, plus current construction of a new $10 billion tunnel in the city center. 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 M…

...bicycles require helmets by law. So much for taking livability seriously.

Helmets are for those who take 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.

Re: OBike Refund in Singapore, Australia, and Malaysia

#52

Post by justinclift » Mon, Jul 02, 2018, 12:51 PM UTC

konschubert wrote: post #18

guidedlight wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were notorious for dumping bikes all over Melbourne, Australia. A city that takes its liveability seriously. 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. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-12/obike-dockless-bicycle...

Looking at aerial photography of Melbourne, it there are an awful lot of cars for a city that takes its liveability seriously. I can't imagine that bikes were taking MORE space than the cars?

Somewhat related to this, "lane filtering" on motorbikes is also legal in Melbourne.

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).

Re: OBike Refund in Singapore, Australia, and Malaysia

#53

Post by justinclift » Mon, Jul 02, 2018, 12:54 PM UTC

1ba9115454 wrote: post #22

I've seen these bikes in some crazy places. There seems to be a minority of people who take joy in leaving them in not so easy to reach places. 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.

> 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).

Re: OBike Refund in Singapore, Australia, and Malaysia

#54

Post by ponyfleisch » Mon, Jul 02, 2018, 12:59 PM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #49

guidedlight wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Helmets are $5 in Melbourne, people still won’t wear them.

Cyclists won't wear helmets because cycling doesn't require helmets. Imposing helmets by law is a way to reduce cycling, and those who write those regulations know it.

Are you making the argument that bicycle helmets are ineffective or that people should be free to choose for themselves what risks they are willing to take? The former is a dubious claim and the latter is likely a fringe position.

Given that, suggesting that helmet laws are a plot to reduce cycling puts you firmly in conspiracy theory territory in my book.

Re: OBike Refund in Singapore, Australia, and Malaysia

#55

Post by justinclift » Mon, Jul 02, 2018, 1:01 PM UTC

robbiep wrote: post #26

stirlo wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s a screenshot showing bikes selling for $199 RMB ($30USD) in China. With a $49SGD ($36USD) deposit they could afford to buy one for every user and still have cash left over.

I’m aware that they’re low cost, they’re everywhere in sydney. I guess I just am trying to look at the unit economics and reverse engineer the business fundamentals. The bikes came before the users, and i guess even with a couple thousand (probably high end numbers now I think about it) bikes in sydney, Melbourne and then 10s is thousands (if that) in Singapore they could do it with a small capital base, especially w…

> I’m aware that they’re low cost, they’re everywhere in sydney. I guess I just am trying to look at the unit economics and reverse engineer the business fundamentals.

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. :)

Re: OBike Refund in Singapore, Australia, and Malaysia

#56

Post by Reason077 » Mon, Jul 02, 2018, 1:08 PM UTC

dalbasal wrote: post #50

I think it's becoming clear that (a) bike sharing is good to have in a city. People want it. (b) neither an all public or an all private system can work as well as we'd like it to. 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…

In London, we have both systems. Santander Cycles, aka "Boris Bikes" which is operated by the city, as well as ofo, mobike, and (until recently?) obike. The later operate with the blessing of local councils, and are required to designate certain areas as "no parking" etc.

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.

Re: OBike Refund in Singapore, Australia, and Malaysia

#57

Post by CaptainZapp » Mon, Jul 02, 2018, 1:08 PM UTC

dalbasal wrote: post #50

I think it's becoming clear that (a) bike sharing is good to have in a city. People want it. (b) neither an all public or an all private system can work as well as we'd like it to. 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…

OBike dumped some 800 bikes in Zurich without asking, or telling creating a huge mess.

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.

Re: OBike Refund in Singapore, Australia, and Malaysia

#58

Post by JoeAltmaier » Mon, Jul 02, 2018, 1:12 PM UTC

CaptainZapp wrote: post #57

dalbasal wrote: post #50

I think it's becoming clear that (a) bike sharing is good to have in a city. People want it. (b) neither an all public or an all private system can work as well as we'd like it to. 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…

OBike dumped some 800 bikes in Zurich without asking, or telling creating a huge mess. 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 plac…

Lots of reasons to dump on oBike. Their recent 'coin' public funding scheme was a fraud apparently - the money disappeared, investors are feeling cheated. Unsurprised to hear they polluted a river with the junk bikes, seems like a pattern.

Re: OBike Refund in Singapore, Australia, and Malaysia

#59

Post by CaptainZapp » Mon, Jul 02, 2018, 1:13 PM UTC

angerman wrote: post #6

llampx wrote: post #3

As someone who is not familiar with oBike or the situation, could someone clue me in as to what happened? 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 sharing company in Singapore. Initially collected a S$49 to use its service. With the deposit paid you were entitled to rent their bikes at S$0.5/15min. 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…

  Bike sharing company in Singapore. Initially collected a S$49 to use its service.

In Zurich they initially charged a deposit of CHF 150 (later halved). That comes to S$206 and is probably three times the amount of what those atrocities are worth.

Re: OBike Refund in Singapore, Australia, and Malaysia

#60

Post by CaptainZapp » Mon, Jul 02, 2018, 1:19 PM UTC

stevesimmons wrote: post #51

jessaustin wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...bicycles require helmets by law. So much for taking livability seriously.

Helmets are for those who take 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.…

I hated the concept of bike helmets, which are not mandated here.

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.