Community Bike Scheme
Fevric J. Glandules
initiatives under way to introduce a community bike scheme,
as per any number of European cities?
[1] shaft drive bikes are particularly suited in this application
and some schemes do use them.
John Burnham
> Talk of shaft drive bicycles has reminded me [1]: are there any
> initiatives under way to introduce a community bike scheme,
> as per any number of European cities?
>
Heh. Remember the green bike scheme ? How long did that last before all
the bikes were languishing in ditches or the Cam ?
J
Jon Green
> Talk of shaft drive bicycles has reminded me [1]: are there any
> initiatives under way to introduce a community bike scheme,
> as per any number of European cities?
Tried quite a few years ago. Failed, completely.
Jon
--
SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam'
with 'green-lines'.
The Natural Philosopher
> Fevric J. Glandules wrote:
>> Talk of shaft drive bicycles has reminded me [1]: are there any
>> initiatives under way to introduce a community bike scheme,
>> as per any number of European cities?
>
> Tried quite a few years ago. Failed, completely.
>
> Jon
that do the same, fails miserably in the Real World (TM)
Fevric J. Glandules
> Heh. Remember the green bike scheme ? How long did that last before all
> the bikes were languishing in ditches or the Cam ?
<sigh>
I'm quite sure that the various community bike schemes in cities such as
Lyon, Paris, Barcelona, etc., have been widely covered in the UK media.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velib
"All avoid the downfall of free city bike schemes - the most famous of
which was the 1960s White Bicycles scheme of Amsterdam - by making
users liable for a big fine if bikes are not returned or kept on hire.
Hence the free 30 minute period to encourage bikes to circulate, and
exponential increases in hire rates for longer periods, very much like
City Car Clubs. Most schemes use heavy bikes designed for very low
maintenance and some like the CIOS-designed bikes in Copenhagen are
rebuilt annually (some Copenhagen bikes are twelve years old). Their
unique design makes them easily recognizable and if someone tries to
sell a stolen bicycle from the program, they can immediately be
recognized as being stolen."
The schemes are, of course, not without problems of their own.
Fevric J. Glandules
> Jon Green wrote:
>> Fevric J. Glandules wrote:
>>> Talk of shaft drive bicycles has reminded me [1]: are there any
>>> initiatives under way to introduce a community bike scheme,
>>> as per any number of European cities?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This was the important bit.
>> Tried quite a few years ago. Failed, completely.
>
> Relies on people being model citizens, as with all socialist policies,
> that do the same, fails miserably in the Real World (TM)
The new schemes rely on technology, credit cards, and massive fines if
you don't return the bike soon-ish.
The London scheme:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/davehillblog/2009/aug/12/boris-johnson-serco-bike-hire-london
Honestly. I had some hope that cam.misc was reasonably well-informed
and wouldn't need all this info spoon fed to 'em. Or at least
intelligent enough to infer that there are working schemes in
operation in other cities. OTOH perhaps I shouldn't draw such
conclusions from a sample size of three.
John Burnham
> John Burnham wrote:
>
>> Heh. Remember the green bike scheme ? How long did that last before all
>> the bikes were languishing in ditches or the Cam ?
>
> <sigh>
Yes, sigh. People are scum.
>
> I'm quite sure that the various community bike schemes in cities such as
> Lyon, Paris, Barcelona, etc., have been widely covered in the UK media.
Oh indeed.
>
> The schemes are, of course, not without problems of their own.
Yep. For a start, discouraging theft by imposing a fine on those people
who don't return the bike relies on there being some way of identifying
the person who took the bike. One obvious way is some form of credit card
reader as part of the locking mechanism. However, with that you've already
excluded a set of people who don't have credit cards. Then you have to
make sure the system doesn't end up fining people for not returning the
bikes due to inevitable technical problems (like there being insufficient
bays or whatever to return the bike to in the place you've used the bike
to travel to). Then there's the fact that it appears there are a hefty
number of people who have no respect for anyone else's property and will
take great delight in trashing the bikes. Then there's the logistics to
ensure that you don't end up with all the bikes in the centre of town
because that's where everyone who used the bikes rode them to. The
logistics should be the easiest part, but having watching people around
here cock up what should be fairly straightforward logistical exercises,
pardon me if I have no faith in any new scheme being any better.
Unfortunately, as has been said elsewhere in this thread, such schemes
rely on a spark of human decency - a spark which seems to be sorely
lacking these days (although I'll point a part of the blame at the "me,
me, me" attitude that the 80s sparked). I'd love to see a community bike
scheme in place, but I don't predict any different result to the green
bike scheme.
J
John Burnham
>
> Honestly. I had some hope that cam.misc was reasonably well-informed
> and wouldn't need all this info spoon fed to 'em. Or at least
> intelligent enough to infer that there are working schemes in
> operation in other cities. OTOH perhaps I shouldn't draw such
> conclusions from a sample size of three.
Ah, insults. Perhaps we are well enough informed, but having seen this
place screw up such schemes in the past, we are a little cynical about the
idea ?
J
Fevric J. Glandules
> Ah, insults.
And why not? It's only Usenet. Your turn.
> Perhaps we are well enough informed, but having seen this
> place screw up such schemes in the past, we are a little cynical about the
> idea ?
So why then, did you refer to the failed pre-technology Cambridge scheme
rather than the currently operational post-technology European schemes?
John Burnham
> John Burnham wrote:
>
>> Ah, insults.
>
> And why not? It's only Usenet. Your turn.
Nah, I prefer to keep things civil. Carry on if you wish, my killfile has
more than sufficient capacity for people who can't carry on a civilised
discussion.
>
>> Perhaps we are well enough informed, but having seen this place screw
>> up such schemes in the past, we are a little cynical about the idea ?
>
> So why then, did you refer to the failed pre-technology Cambridge scheme
> rather than the currently operational post-technology European schemes?
Because we're talking about Cambridge ? Bringing up the scheme that failed
in Cambridge might be relevant ? And, personally, I don't think this is
one of those "the technology wasn't good enough" issues, I'm sad to say
it's a human issue. Hey, prove me wrong :) I'd welcome such a scheme, so
long as someone using the scheme, taking a bike and returning it doesn't
end up getting charged a fine because some little scrote knifes the tyres
after the bike was returned.
Oh, and whilst on the subject, did you read the comments on that article
you linked to ? Seems I'm not the only cynic.
<http://www.theage.com.au/national/public-bikes-popular-till-wheels-fall-off-20090312-8wi4.html>
Ah yes, and the fact that the Paris scheme had half its bikes stolen or
badly damaged in the first year ? Yeah....
Honestly, I'd love to see schemes like this working but I'm not convinced.
J
Fevric J. Glandules
> Yep. For a start, discouraging theft by imposing a fine on those people
> who don't return the bike relies on there being some way of identifying
> the person who took the bike.
This is exactly what happens. You take your keycard (or whatever) along
to a station and enter it and your PIN (perhaps, I'm not 100% au fait
with the mechanics of it) and then the bike in bay number 12 is
unlocked. When you then pop the bike in bay number 6 somewhere else
in the city you again use your keycard. An individual bike is always
tracked; they always know who's taken it out. (Unless you swap with
a friend, I guess, but RFID could take care of that).
> One obvious way is some form of credit card
> reader as part of the locking mechanism. However, with that you've already
> excluded a set of people who don't have credit cards.
Tough. No doubt some provision could be made for people on low
incomes...
> Then you have to
> make sure the system doesn't end up fining people for not returning the
> bikes due to inevitable technical problems (like there being insufficient
> bays or whatever to return the bike to in the place you've used the bike
> to travel to).
Simple enough (if a pain for the person wanting to return the bike);
you register yourself at the station: the system *knows* that the
bays are all full and grants you another half an hour's free usage
(and could provide directions to the next bay with free spaces).
(Don't know if this *is* how it works in Other Places, but the
point is that it is possible).
> Then there's the fact that it appears there are a hefty
> number of people who have no respect for anyone else's property and will
> take great delight in trashing the bikes. Then there's the logistics to
> ensure that you don't end up with all the bikes in the centre of town
> because that's where everyone who used the bikes rode them to. The
Yes, any scheme requires periodic redistribution of bikes. The hillier
the place, the more of it.
> Unfortunately, as has been said elsewhere in this thread, such schemes
> rely on a spark of human decency
You might say that about *any* public amenity.
The fact that a handful of people delight in trashing bus shelters
doesn't stop us building and refurbishing the things. We still build
playgrounds for children. And so on.
As with so many other things, it is the availability of cheap-enough
technology that *completely* changes the landscape.
The Natural Philosopher
The general principle is that if stuff is 'free' its not regarded as
being worth anything, not even a trip to take it back. If yu make it
only accessible to people who have xcerdit cards and names and
addresses, then ist probab;ly being very elitist anywaty.
Look at the punts, many a time the punters have to push upstream to
Grantchester to collect all the punts that people looked at their
watches, said 'bugger me, I've already gone nearly to the deposit price,
I'll phone me mum and get us picked up, and sod the punt: it too far and
I am bored with it'
J. Chisholm
> Honestly. I had some hope that cam.misc was reasonably well-informed
> and wouldn't need all this info spoon fed to 'em. Or at least
> intelligent enough to infer that there are working schemes in
> operation in other cities. OTOH perhaps I shouldn't draw such
> conclusions from a sample size of three.
There are issues...
In Paris I gather half the bikes have gone missing, a far higher
percentage than expected, significantly increasing the costs.
In Cambridge any commercial scheme would want 'prime' sites to display
bikes as much income is from advertising.
Those of us who use bikes every day would be somewhat P!$$�d off if
suddenly all the good bike parking spots were taken over by a commercial
oufit and we had even more difficulty finding a safe, secure and
convienent place to park our bike.
Most Cambridge residents already have bikes, so the 'target' customers
would be people such as vistors.
A conventional hire scheme, such as at the station, could if extended to
say P& R sites meet much need. I'm told, in some cities even hotels have
bikes for hire (managed by a local bike shop?)
A scheme is to be started in Bristol. I'd expect many people would use a
bike to get from say, Clifton Heights, to the City Centre, but I think
the bus might be a more attract way of getting back. Will they have
enough lorries to cart all the bikes back up the hill.
Jim
John Burnham
> John Burnham wrote:
>> Unfortunately, as has been said elsewhere in this thread, such schemes
>> rely on a spark of human decency
>
> You might say that about *any* public amenity.
>
> The fact that a handful of people delight in trashing bus shelters
> doesn't stop us building and refurbishing the things. We still build
> playgrounds for children. And so on.
>
> As with so many other things, it is the availability of cheap-enough
> technology that *completely* changes the landscape.
That's another point raised in the comments on the article you linked to,
the London scheme is the huge cost - I quote (from the comments)
"6,000 bikes at a cost of £140 million is over 23 grand per bike - over
twice the price of a top of the range BMW motorbike "
Given public spending is likely to be a little, ah, shall we say "pinched"
over the next few years - does the benefit justify the cost ?
Personally ? I just wish humans weren't such scum that a trust based
scheme would work.
J
Espen H. Koht
"J. Chisholm" <jc...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> In Cambridge any commercial scheme would want 'prime' sites to display
> bikes as much income is from advertising.
> Those of us who use bikes every day would be somewhat P!$$�d off if
> suddenly all the good bike parking spots were taken over by a commercial
> oufit and we had even more difficulty finding a safe, secure and
> convienent place to park our bike.
Are there any good official parking spots in prime sites though?
John Burnham
>
> Are there any good official parking spots in prime sites though?
I quite like the cycle parking at Park Street - but is that somewhere you
would regard as a prime site ?
J
Espen H. Koht
John Burnham <jo...@jaka.demon.co.uk> wrote:
It's not one that I've ever used; most places in Cambridge I would
actually want to leave my bike briefly has no cycle parking of
significance at all, so it goes up against a wall or railing like
everyone else's.
Jon Green
>
> Honestly. I had some hope that cam.misc was reasonably well-informed
> and wouldn't need all this info spoon fed to 'em. Or at least
> intelligent enough to infer that there are working schemes in
> operation in other cities. OTOH perhaps I shouldn't draw such
> conclusions from a sample size of three.
Well, I don't know about you, but I've a business to run, and a lot of
rush work to get done for an exhibition starting Monday halfway across
the country. Pardon me if I didn't do extensive research before I
posted a factually accurate comment that relates to experiences
specifically in Cambridge.
J. Chisholm
Downing St entrance to JLP
St Andrews St by Christs Lane
all around Guildhall
Trinity St opp Trinity
all prime sites for a commercial operation
Jim
Henry Lockwood
I think the definition of "good" might be contested here; all of those
have Sheffield stands or similar, but as far as I'm aware they're
nearly always over-full. There's a reason I have a hack bike for town
centre journeys!
HenryL
J. Chisholm
> On 19 Nov, 16:22, "J. Chisholm" <jc...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Espen H. Koht wrote:
>>> In article <he3ntu$mf...@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
>>> "J. Chisholm" <jc...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>> In Cambridge any commercial scheme would want 'prime' sites to display
>>>> bikes as much income is from advertising.
>>>> Those of us who use bikes every day would be somewhat P!$$�d off if
>>>> suddenly all the good bike parking spots were taken over by a commercial
>>>> oufit and we had even more difficulty finding a safe, secure and
>>>> convienent place to park our bike.
>>> Are there any good official parking spots in prime sites though?
>> By Gt St Mary's
>> Downing St entrance to JLP
>> St Andrews St by Christs Lane
>> all around Guildhall
>> Trinity St opp Trinity
>>
>> all prime sites for a commercial operation
> I think the definition of "good" might be contested here; all of those
> have Sheffield stands or similar, but as far as I'm aware they're
> nearly always over-full. There's a reason I have a hack bike for town
> centre journeys!
Exactly
And if a commecial operation came to town they'd want spaces at all
those locations, and the only way to do that would be to reduce the
limited stock of good places for local cyclists.
Even the GA one is full omn many days
Jim
Espen Koht
"J. Chisholm" <jc...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> And if a commecial operation came to town they'd want spaces at all
> those locations, and the only way to do that would be to reduce the
> limited stock of good places for local cyclists.
> Even the GA one is full omn many days
They could try but there are good spots with no facilities at the moment
(King's Parade for example) and a high probability that if they displace
too many local parking stands, the locals will more than likely be
inventive enough to lock their bikes to the scheme's stands if needed.
Jules
Elevate the lot on tracks, then there's space below, the bikes have to
follow fixed routes, and are also less likely to get stolen. A bit like a
monorail*, really.
* I just thought that it's been ages since I've seen one mentioned on
cam.misc ;)
Theo Markettos
> Most Cambridge residents already have bikes, so the 'target' customers
> would be people such as vistors.
I'm not convinced. What about people who live in, say, Cambourne? They
can't take their bike on the bus, and only the fit can cycle all the way.
So they might get the bus into town and cycle to wherever they want. This
will quite often work out quicker than changing buses.
Of course they could have a 'town' bike to do this which is left in town
most of the time. But where do they keep it? And what if they do this
journey once a fortnight, not once a day? And they have fit in servicing of
this bike at some point in their working day (since taking the bike back to
Cambourne will be a hassle)
IMHO the key to increasing bike usage is to attract people who aren't
'traditional' cyclists. This would seem to be one way.
Theo
Fevric J. Glandules
>> So why then, did you refer to the failed pre-technology Cambridge scheme
>> rather than the currently operational post-technology European schemes?
>
> Because we're talking about Cambridge ? Bringing up the scheme that failed
> in Cambridge might be relevant ?
A) there's a *big* difference between a free scheme and a hire scheme.
B) I don't think Cambridge is *that* much more packed with guile than
elsewhere.
> And, personally, I don't think this is
> one of those "the technology wasn't good enough" issues, I'm sad to say
I think the technology (and the change of focus from "free" to "hire")
changes everything.
Fevric J. Glandules
> Fevric J. Glandules wrote:
>>
>> Honestly. I had some hope that cam.misc was reasonably well-informed
>> and wouldn't need all this info spoon fed to 'em. Or at least
>> intelligent enough to infer that there are working schemes in
>> operation in other cities. OTOH perhaps I shouldn't draw such
>> conclusions from a sample size of three.
>
> Well, I don't know about you, but I've a business to run, and a lot of
> rush work to get done for an exhibition starting Monday halfway across
> the country. Pardon me if I didn't do extensive research before I
> posted a factually accurate comment that relates to experiences
> specifically in Cambridge.
No research needed - just an acknowledgement that the appropriate
comparison is with hire schemes in other cities, not a free scheme
locally.
Fevric J. Glandules
> "6,000 bikes at a cost of �140 million is over 23 grand per bike - over
> twice the price of a top of the range BMW motorbike "
That's 140 million over six years. That's just over 10 pounds per
bike per day. A quick poke of Google [bicing journeys per day]
suggests of the order of ten trips per day per bike. (One reference
gives 15). So that's roughly one pound per bike trip.
> Given public spending is likely to be a little, ah, shall we say "pinched"
> over the next few years - does the benefit justify the cost ?
There are clear economic benefits to people being able to spend more
time in A and B and less time getting from A *to* B. If we value
people's time at six quid an hour (more or less minimum wage) and
assume ten minutes saved per journey, does it follow that we've
broken even?
There are of course other benefits: e.g. health benefits from people
doing something slightly more strenuous than walking / waiting
for a bus.
The Natural Philosopher
Tim Ward
news:he4ami$qfr$1...@news.albasani.net...
>
> I used to, when you could park a car there.
But you don't come into Cambridge any more, so you're a problem solved as
far as Cambridge traffic is concerned.
--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor
The Natural Philosopher
> "The Natural Philosopher" <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:he4ami$qfr$1...@news.albasani.net...
>> I used to, when you could park a car there.
>
> But you don't come into Cambridge any more, so you're a problem solved as
> far as Cambridge traffic is concerned.
>
making pedestrian areas and cycle ways and putting in traffic lights.
Now there are no shops, no income from shops, no shopping visitors and
no income.
Its a paradise!
Not.
Duncan Wood
You've not been here recently have you?
--
Duncan Wood
Jon Green
> Jon Green wrote:
>> Well, I don't know about you, but I've a business to run, and a lot of
>> rush work to get done for an exhibition starting Monday halfway across
>> the country. Pardon me if I didn't do extensive research before I
>> posted a factually accurate comment that relates to experiences
>> specifically in Cambridge.
>
> No research needed - just an acknowledgement that the appropriate
> comparison is with hire schemes in other cities, not a free scheme
> locally.
*sigh* You said "community bike scheme". You didn't say "community bike
_hire_ scheme". Sorry -- either I failed to read your mind, or you
didn't leave a channel open. And I'm not sure that anything
administered for profit by a commercial operator could reasonably be
described as "community".
Chris Lamb
> Fevric J. Glandules wrote:
>
>> Honestly. I had some hope that cam.misc was reasonably well-informed
>> and wouldn't need all this info spoon fed to 'em. Or at least
>> intelligent enough to infer that there are working schemes in
>> operation in other cities. OTOH perhaps I shouldn't draw such
>> conclusions from a sample size of three.
>
> There are issues...
>
> In Paris I gather half the bikes have gone missing, a far higher
> percentage than expected, significantly increasing the costs.
And a large number get broken beyond repair - google for "extreme velib".
I go to Paris twice a year and the velib cycles are in worse repair each
time I go. In addition the locking posts are frequently vandalized.
It does surprise me - as the cycles and posts are 'robust'. Yet vandals
always seem up to the task of decommissioning just about anything.
C
Fevric J. Glandules
> *sigh* You said "community bike scheme". You didn't say "community bike
> _hire_ scheme". Sorry -- either I failed to read your mind, or you
> didn't leave a channel open.
I'm sorry, I thought the reference to "as per [other] European cities"
would have been sufficient to indicate that I was talking about modern
hire schemes in operation elsewhere.
> And I'm not sure that anything
> administered for profit by a commercial operator could reasonably be
> described as "community".
Fair point: I should not have used the word.
Fevric J. Glandules
> It does surprise me - as the cycles and posts are 'robust'. Yet vandals
> always seem up to the task of decommissioning just about anything.
That doesn't mean we should give up providing bus shelters for the
elderly and playground equipment for the young.
Duncan Wood
Given whoever supplies the Cambridge doesn't seem to put seats in bus
shelters that would also appear to be policy.
--
Duncan Wood
Jon Green
> Jon Green wrote:
>
>> *sigh* You said "community bike scheme". You didn't say "community bike
>> _hire_ scheme". Sorry -- either I failed to read your mind, or you
>> didn't leave a channel open.
>
> I'm sorry, I thought the reference to "as per [other] European cities"
> would have been sufficient to indicate that I was talking about modern
> hire schemes in operation elsewhere.
Eh? Why should the European connection imply hire? The one "community
bike scheme" I know of in any detail is the Amsterdam scheme, which was
a free borrow-and-leave scheme like the failed Cambridge one.
Paul Bird
It's not so much that as the fact that over the years they have shrunk,
presumably in a (successful) attempt to stop drunks sleeping on them
overnight, now your lucky if you can do much better than park part of your
backside on what amounts to a shelf. That might be ok for 18-30 but not
much fun for older folks who actually want to take the weight off their
feet, no I'm with you, let's hear it for proper bus shelter benches. Sadly
I think those days have gone.
--
Paul Bird
Fevric J. Glandules
> Fevric J. Glandules wrote:
>>
>> I'm sorry, I thought the reference to "as per [other] European cities"
>> would have been sufficient to indicate that I was talking about modern
>> hire schemes in operation elsewhere.
>
> Eh? Why should the European connection imply hire? The one "community
> bike scheme" I know of in any detail is the Amsterdam scheme, which was
> a free borrow-and-leave scheme like the failed Cambridge one.
I assumed that knowledge of the Paris, Barcelona, etc. schemes would
be common knowledge amongst cam.misc folk.
Martin
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Fevric J. Glandules wrote:
> Talk of shaft drive bicycles has reminded me [1]: are there any
> initiatives under way to introduce a community bike scheme,
> as per any number of European cities?
http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/63/article14.html
may be worth a read.
>
>
> [1] shaft drive bikes are particularly suited in this application
> and some schemes do use them.
>
Martin
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Address In.Sig}) wrote:
> Fevric J. Glandules wrote:
>
> > Talk of shaft drive bicycles has reminded me [1]: are there any
> > initiatives under way to introduce a community bike scheme,
> > as per any number of European cities?
>
> Didn't Cambridge try this a few years ago? ISTR they all got nicked
> in record time.
The Cambridge fiasco was free bikes. The Paris and proposed London schemes
are charged for (hired).
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Paul Rudin
> The entity calling itself Dave {Reply Address In.Sig} wrote:
>>
>> Fevric J. Glandules wrote:
>>
>>> Talk of shaft drive bicycles has reminded me [1]: are there any
>>> initiatives under way to introduce a community bike scheme, as per
>>> any number of European cities?
>>
>> Didn't Cambridge try this a few years ago? ISTR they all got nicked in
>> record time.
>
> Seems to be working in Paris. It's more than just bikes left on the
> steet - you have to enrol to use them, and get an ID card that is swiped
> at the pick up stati when you take the bike, so they know who has got
> what, so theft is rather harder.
You just need is a credit card to get a card to use the bikes. If you
don't return a bike your credit card gets charged...