61–70 of 83 posts
OBike is also pulling all 600 bikes out of Zürich, Switzerland but there was no reason given, just that OBike will pay for the removal. [1] [1] https://www.nzz.ch/zuerich/veloverleih-in-zuerich-o-bike-zie...
To me they seem like a totally dodgy company (which is consistent with the blog post).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Our building in Vienna Austria became a dump for those bikes. They keep putting there on our bike stands but the bikes there are so broken that nobody uses them.
We have a bike sharing system in my city, but one must always return the bike to an automated bike rental station where the bike is locked. This is how it works in London as well AFAIK. A bike left just somewhere is a violation of the service terms and a penalty comparable to the fine for riding public transport without a ticket is charged from your credit card. I can understand why bike rental system without proper…
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.…
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...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I don’t think it’s at all a fringe position that adults should have considerable latitude about personal safety choices. That said not everyone agrees with that and that, rather than reducing cycling, is the impetus behind helmet laws.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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).
> 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.