Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

OBike Refund in Singapore, Australia, and Malaysia

obikerefund.livejournal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 83 posts

Re: OBike Refund in Singapore, Australia, and Malaysia

#71

Post by ghaff »

madeofpalk wrote: post #68
ghaff wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's also the part of the equation that while decided to wear a helmet is a personal choice, the negative impacts affect the taxpayer in Australia due to having a reasonably good public health system.

There are certainly externalities to individual health and safety decisions. I find prohibiting “dangerous” activities (how about rock climbing? Say) a pretty slippery slope.

Re: OBike Refund in Singapore, Australia, and Malaysia

#72

Post by Sujan »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #58
CaptainZapp wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I asked as a comment to original post already [1], how are the ICOs and oBike directly connected? I didn't really understand that :/

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17440730

Re: OBike Refund in Singapore, Australia, and Malaysia

#73

Post by dragonsh »

Sujan wrote: post #70

For some context, here is a reply of the accused / singled out person on their Twitter account: > 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,…

We will know when the deposits are returned back. Let's see if the company run away again legally with people's deposit. Given people waiting for deposit return, it's a clear sign of fraud. Removing the deposit option from mobile app is a direct indication of that intention. Crypto currency is not protected investment, but the financial deposit taken in fiat currency should be, not sure if Singapore govt will protect the poor depositors who may loose their money and this guy will still continue to keep raking in money with Ponzi crypto schemes.

Re: OBike Refund in Singapore, Australia, and Malaysia

#74

Post by isostatic »

guidedlight wrote: post #44
jessaustin wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

It's crazy, I saw a pedestrian walking down the street the other way, didn't have a helmet on. It's like she had a death wish.

Re: OBike Refund in Singapore, Australia, and Malaysia

#75

Post by isostatic »

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.…

> Helmets reduce serious brain trauma by 50-60%.

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. [0]

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. [1]

Something else that may be uncomfortable reading, Australian helmet laws reduce levels of cycling [2] (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. [3]

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 [4]

[0] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/10866273/Cycle-... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/may/07/cycling... [2] https://theconversation.com/australian-cycling-boom-nope-its... [3] https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/a-new-helmet-to-... [4] https://theconversation.com/make-helmets-optional-to-double-...

Re: OBike Refund in Singapore, Australia, and Malaysia

#76

Post by ensignavenger »

cproctor wrote: post #65

Maybe it's time for a raw materials recycling startup. Cruise around the city with a van, pick up bikes, and sell them for scrap.

This is how cities handle abandoned vehicles (sort of). While bikes don't have us much recyclable material in them, they don't cost as much to pick up.

Re: OBike Refund in Singapore, Australia, and Malaysia

#77

Post by jessaustin »

ponyfleisch wrote: post #54
jessaustin wrote: post #49

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.

In any particular collision, a helmeted brain is more protected than a non-helmeted brain, although because of factors like risk compensation and the effect of overall cycling frequency on road safety that is completely beside the point.

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.

Re: OBike Refund in Singapore, Australia, and Malaysia

#78

Post by stevesimmons »

ghaff wrote: post #63
stevesimmons wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 suspect this is one of those things people just won’t agree on. On the one hand there are those who argue it’s common sense safety and a proper matter for laws. On the other there are those arguing it’s wholly unnecessary (look at Amsterdam!) and requiring it will make fewer people cycle especially in the case of bike shares.

Having lived in both Melbourne and Amsterdam, the two crucial differences are in the Netherlands:

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.

Re: OBike Refund in Singapore, Australia, and Malaysia

#79

Post by ponyfleisch »

ghaff wrote: post #71
madeofpalk wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's also the part of the equation that while decided to wear a helmet is a personal choice, the negative impacts affect the taxpayer in Australia due to having a reasonably good public health system.

There are certainly externalities to individual health and safety decisions. I find prohibiting “dangerous” activities (how about rock climbing? Say) a pretty slippery slope.

Wouldn't it follow then that all drugs, even the potent opiates, should be legal to produce, sell and consume? I know some people think that way, but it's a fringe position.

Re: OBike Refund in Singapore, Australia, and Malaysia

#80

Post by ponyfleisch »

jessaustin wrote: post #77
ponyfleisch wrote: post #54

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.

In any particular collision, a helmeted brain is more protected than a non-helmeted brain, although because of factors like risk compensation and the effect of overall cycling frequency on road safety that is completely beside the point. 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 th…

> Of course adults should be free to choose for themselves what risks they are willing to take.

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.

Post reply on HN