21–30 of 161 posts
A bike share being owned and operated by one of the biggest threats to cyclist safety is, well, it’s something.
I like these commute options that make it easier to get around but starting at $2/ride seems a bit high. If I were to use this twice daily for 200 days a year, I'd be looking at $800/year! I'd rather buy a bike in that case, and just use the bikeshare for one offs. I've never used a GoBike, but are those prices real & what are the typical usage patterns? Edit: I see, there are monthly and yearly plans that make it mu…
The last time I renewed, the annual membership was I decided to take the membership and use the bikes for short trips within SF. I figured I've saved more that $100 in Uber/Lyft rides in the last year (+ it's healthier, better for the environment etc)
After Lyft/GoBike removed all their electric bikes, SFMTA decided to expand dockless bikeshare so people can continue to commute by bikeshare. But Lyft decided to sue instead: https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/7/18657312/lyft-bike-share-l...
The city fucked up hugely by making an exclusive deal with Ford/Motive (acquired by Lyft).
If you want to be mad at someone, be mad at SF government.
The rule of law means that you don't get to change contracts you've signed.
It was a bad contract but SF Government does many bad things, like repressive zoning and banning scooters.
Go vote them out of the office.
After Lyft/GoBike removed all their electric bikes, SFMTA decided to expand dockless bikeshare so people can continue to commute by bikeshare. But Lyft decided to sue instead: https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/7/18657312/lyft-bike-share-l...
Have you read the contract terms in the article you're linking to? SFMTA is saying the contract was for 'docked bikes only' while Lyft is saying it was for a Bike Sharing Program, which could include docked or dockless bikes. Lyft does a good job describing what 'Bike sharing' is in that document so it will be up to the courts to decide if they're right.
-
“Bike sharing” is a public biking system concept that allows customers to rent a bike on a short-term basis from one section of a city and leave it in another section of the city that same day.
-
The Term Sheet provided, among other terms, that Motivate was to be the exclusive operator of any bike share system in the Participating Cities for at least ten (10) years.
The Term Sheet provided (emphasis added): “During the Term of this Agreement, Motivate shall have the exclusive right to operate a bike sharing program that utilizes public property and public right of way anywhere within San Francisco, Berkeley, Oakland, San Jose and Emeryville.”
A bike share being owned and operated by one of the biggest threats to cyclist safety is, well, it’s something.
I would guess from my own experience as a frequent ride hailing passenger that Lyft/Uber drivers are less of a threat to cyclist safety on average than regular drivers.
- City buses. Slow and predictable.
- Normal passenger vehicles.
- Lyft/Uber. Will often swerve right in front of me while they're pulling over. (Presumably because they're watching their phone to make sure they're dropping off in the right spot, or watching the sidewalk looking for their next fare.)
- Large pickup trucks. Not sure if it's the ride height that gives you the illusion you're further away or just a personality trait of their drivers, but a disproportionate number of my close calls are pickup trucks blasting by at high speed with no clearance.
- Old beater cars with dents/stuff falling off. These drivers can behave very unpredictably.
I like these commute options that make it easier to get around but starting at $2/ride seems a bit high. If I were to use this twice daily for 200 days a year, I'd be looking at $800/year! I'd rather buy a bike in that case, and just use the bikeshare for one offs. I've never used a GoBike, but are those prices real & what are the typical usage patterns? Edit: I see, there are monthly and yearly plans that make it mu…
You used to only be able to purchase 1-day, 3-day, or 5-day passes, it was about the same price as long as you used it at least twice a day. At $2 per ride, it's much more flexible, so you can choose transit or bikes depending on the weather or whatever.
I see you've updated your post, but for completeness I'll list their plans (from https://www.lyft.com/bikes/bay-wheels/pricing):
Monthly no-commitment is $15 and you get unlimited 45-minute rentals. If I go work downtown for a week even, I'd get this. 45 minutes is great for a little after work exploration. When I'm in SF for business, I often bike somewhere after work (along the Embarcadero, Market street, South Beach, or around Chinatown), then drop off the bike, walk around some more, get food, then get another bike back to my hotel.
Edited to add: looks like they now have docking stations in the Haight-Ashbury, so you could get a bike to Golden Gate park, switch bikes, have 45 min around the park, and switch again to get back downtown.
Annual is $149 per year for unlimited 45-minute rentals. That is really cheap for a maintenance-free bike whenever you're in the city. I used to commute with my bike on Caltrain, and this would make it not worth the hassle (depends on how you get to your home station and how close your office is to one of their docking stations).
Also, monthly and annual plans might be paid for by your employer as part of your transit benefits.
I was an early subscriber given how cheap it was, but I often struggled to find a bike that worked.
After Lyft/GoBike removed all their electric bikes, SFMTA decided to expand dockless bikeshare so people can continue to commute by bikeshare. But Lyft decided to sue instead: https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/7/18657312/lyft-bike-share-l...
You're painting Lyft to be the bad guys because they're suing. It seems like SFMTA is trying to weasel out of a contract. Lyft isn't trying to prevent people from continuing to commute by bikeshare; they're trying to secure their ROI on their Motivate acquisition through the exclusivity contract with SF. Have you read the contract terms in the article you're linking to? SFMTA is saying the contract was for 'docked bi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're painting Lyft to be the bad guys because they're suing. It seems like SFMTA is trying to weasel out of a contract. Lyft isn't trying to prevent people from continuing to commute by bikeshare; they're trying to secure their ROI on their Motivate acquisition through the exclusivity contract with SF. Have you read the contract terms in the article you're linking to? SFMTA is saying the contract was for 'docked bi…
What if I don't care whether Lyft gets their ROI and just want the best bike share possible?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're painting Lyft to be the bad guys because they're suing. It seems like SFMTA is trying to weasel out of a contract. Lyft isn't trying to prevent people from continuing to commute by bikeshare; they're trying to secure their ROI on their Motivate acquisition through the exclusivity contract with SF. Have you read the contract terms in the article you're linking to? SFMTA is saying the contract was for 'docked bi…
What if I don't care whether Lyft gets their ROI and just want the best bike share possible?