Velib like bicycle rental kiosks are being constructed in Dublin

blorg

JC Decaux is trying to reduce their financial commitment in Paris as profit-making companies are wont to do. This does not mean the scheme is by any means a failure.

I don't see how anyone who has actually been to Paris and seen the scheme in use can deem it a disaster. Paris has a much stronger cycling culture now than it did ten/fifteen years ago (when it would have been in the "are you crazy" bracket) and Velib has brought it front and centre into the mainstream for everyone. Ditto for Barcelona.

Second annual survey found:

What:
50,000,000 usages since start in July 2007
6,000,000 single day passes
170,000 yearly subscriptions
23,900 bicycles in service by the end of the 2009

Why:
94% of the users of Vélib’ are satisfied with the service.
90% stressed the ease of use and the price.
84% like swiping the subscription card rather than entering in numbers to access a bike.
54% are dissatisfied with the condition of the bikes - as a result, a new public service advertising campaign against Vélib’ vandalism has begun
56% are satisfied with the availability of bikes, but only 42% are satisfied with the availability of empty racks when returning a bike.
The best reasons for using Vélib’: 90% said it reduces pollution and it makes it is easier to get around, 86% said it helps complete the trip when using public transportation, 85% said it is good for their health and 69% noted the cost.

Sure there are problems but it is overall very positive.

TinyExplosions

kona wrote: »

Because,



Secondly,
The scheme is currently a mess in this country and we havnt got the bikes. The ads have been up For over a year, however the bikes havnt shown up yet, even after deadlines being pushed back. At the earliest it will be winter when this is introduced,(joe public isnt gunna pay to ride a crap bike in the pissing rain in dublin) The whole scheme is off to a terrible start.

Thirdly,
From my point of view, The bikes are crap, they are of poor quality for the use they are intended for.They are heavy, ugly, and of poor quality, these traits in a bike will do more harm to cycling than good IMO. There are no support services in place at the moment, and it doesnt look like they are about to put one together anytime soon.

Fourthly,
The ads have been up a year and we havnt seen the bikes. We are being ****ed over, and I do not like this, The whole thing stinks of some lying prick of a politician getting a little on the side.

So to conclude, The scheme is already off to a bad start, now if it was a strong scheme It could have redemption, but looking to other citys where the scheme has failed or is in trouble, the same citys which are far more pro cycling than dublin ever will be, makes it extremely likely this scheme will be a disaster.

Im not going to be sayng its great when, we were promised bikes a year ago and got none, but we sure as hell got the ads.

Now, I do believe the idea is a good one, and Seen as Im slating the scheme let me put forward a idea that would benefit dubliners alot more.

DCC rents out the ad space for what its worth(not far less:rolleyes:) We take the millions of euro generated, and pump it into cycling infrastructure, and subsidized bikes and maintenace for people in DCC areas.

We could have:
Segragated cycle lanes.
Better Driver eductaion RE: cyclists.
Better Cyclist Education.
More places to lock your bikes in the city centre securely.
Howth & Bray head could have a proper MTB trail built around them.
People could get bikes subsidized, which would promote buying better bikes.
DARTs could be retrofitted to take bikes.

IMO its a better Idea, and doesnt involve having a company thats only interested in profit and couldnt care less about cyclists, as a partner

kona wrote: »

Ive given a long post with plenty of reasons why it will fail. You can pick away and find holes and look for a argument.
Im still going to believe that the whole scheme is a giant **** up, that it is not going to work in this city because its already being badly planned, couple this with a city thats extremely ignorant to cyclists and you have yourself a disaster.
How anybody can think the scheme is going to be a success, jusdging by whats going on here and whats been proven abroad , i cannot believe. I thik you are looking for a argumentwith me.
I could say the sky is blue and youd disagree and say its pink, then request proof that its blue, then speculate that its photoshopped:p

The only reason you have given to support your idea of it failing is that there is some talk about a contract renegotiation in Paris, one of the many schemes around the world. That's like saying that football fans in Argentina were rioting, so we ban crowds from football matches around the world. One failure does not make an entire idea invalid, which is what you seem to be getting at.

You give four reasons why the scheme will fail. The first is the Paris example which I've addressed above. Your second and fourth points are a tautology, but don't prove that the scheme will fail. The fact is that we don't have the bikes yet, so the fact that advertising has gone up is a problem with the original contract, not a problem with the bike scheme, and isn't an indication that it's failed.

Your third reason is personal speculation, and I would agree that the bikes may not be the best quality, but they've worked in other countries, so there's no reason that they won't work here.

JC Decaux are a bunch of money grabbing b***ards, and they have shafted us over the whole thing, but that does not mean that the scheme will be a failure. Look at the example of the LUAS -the project ran late, had huge overruns on budget and everyone said it was going to be an abject failure, yet now it's in it's a success.

Give it a chance, and if it does fail, then you can lord over everyone that you were right, but until then you're just banging on like a broken record

kona

blorg wrote: »

JC Decaux is trying to reduce their financial commitment in Paris as profit-making companies are wont to do. This does not mean the scheme is by any means a failure.

.

Do you reckon the amount of ad boards will proportinally drop too? Jc decaux are getting a sweet deal, buy a bunch of cheap bikes, in return for ad space worth millions? then they want to reduce the cost more!
Great from a company point of view, from a public view its terrible.
If its costing too much, they should cut jc decaux out and rent them their ad space in return for cash, and put this cash into running the scheme properly, where cost isnt going to be the #1 factor in deciding everything.

kona

TinyExplosions wrote: »

The only reason you have given to support your idea of it failing is that there is some talk about a contract renegotiation in Paris, one of the many schemes around the world. That's like saying that football fans in Argentina were rioting, so we ban crowds from football matches around the world. One failure does not make an entire idea invalid, which is what you seem to be getting at.

You give four reasons why the scheme will fail. The first is the Paris example which I've addressed above. Your second and fourth points are a tautology, but don't prove that the scheme will fail. The fact is that we don't have the bikes yet, so the fact that advertising has gone up is a problem with the original contract, not a problem with the bike scheme, and isn't an indication that it's failed.

Your third reason is personal speculation, and I would agree that the bikes may not be the best quality, but they've worked in other countries, so there's no reason that they won't work here.

JC Decaux are a bunch of money grabbing b***ards, and they have shafted us over the whole thing, but that does not mean that the scheme will be a failure. Look at the example of the LUAS -the project ran late, had huge overruns on budget and everyone said it was going to be an abject failure, yet now it's in it's a success.

Give it a chance, and if it does fail, then you can lord over everyone that you were right, but until then you're just banging on like a broken record

I cant prove somthing is a failure if it doesnt exist. I can only look to similar situations, and put them into a irish enviroment...its not good IMO. Id say the chances of success are under 40%

TinyExplosions

kona wrote: »

Do you reckon the amount of ad boards will proportinally drop too? Jc decaux are getting a sweet deal, buy a bunch of cheap bikes, in return for ad space worth millions? then they want to reduce the cost more!
Great from a company point of view, from a public view its terrible.
If its costing too much, they should cut jc decaux out and rent them their ad space in return for cash, and put this cash into running the scheme properly, where cost isnt going to be the #1 factor in deciding everything.

Maybe we need to get to the bottom of what you consider a successful scheme to be? How would you quantify the scheme as being a success or failure?

eightyfish

kona wrote: »

RE: proof from other cities

Interesting. As the article says, it has been undertaken in other cities before Paris and it worked. Paris has problems. Lessons have been learned since then in terms of distribution of drop-off points etc.

Look, it may not have been the best route getting to where we are now, but here we are. We're getting bikes and we've already got stations. I'm not saying we won't have problems, I'm not saying it's going to be well run and I'm not saying they won't be vandalised and stolen. I'm saying cheap rental bikes available around Dublin is better than f*ck all. I am saying wait and see.

DePurpereWolf

I think Kona is upset that they didn't consult him here on the cycling boards.ie before going ahead with it.

In all fairness, they should have asked us first.

TinyExplosions

kona wrote: »

I cant prove somthing is a failure if it doesnt exist. I can only look to similar situations, and put them into a irish enviroment...its not good IMO. Id say the chances of success are under 40%

Yes, but what I am saying is that the similar situation (yes, singular) that you allude to is not a failure. So, if you looked at the schemes in place around Europe, the only conclusion you can draw is that they have problems, but by no means are they a failure.

kona

Well ive no choice but to wait and see. Its a discussion and I think its going to be a **** up. The fact that we have gotten shafted makes it a disaster no matter how big a succes it unlikely will be.
This whole thing could have been done better cheaper.

Its like buying a Ford fiesta for e100k, sure you got shafted but it still works, gets you to work.

However you will always know you could have had a 100k ferrari.

TinyExplosions

kona wrote: »

Its like buying a Ford fiesta for e100k, sure you got shafted but it still works, gets you to work.

However you will always know you could have had a 100k ferrari.

But it doesn't make the Fiesta a failure, and that's the whole point of what I've been saying!

kona

DePurpereWolf wrote: »

I think Kona is upset that they didn't consult him here on the cycling boards.ie before going ahead with it.

In all fairness, they should have asked us first.

they should have had a consultation with sombody who actually had a clue about the dynamics of cycling in dublin.
Not some overpaid civil servant clown who gets to work everyday, cutting up and abusing* cyclists in his BMW X5 so he can look down on us "hippies"

* may be a exaggeration

kona

TinyExplosions wrote: »

But it doesn't make the Fiesta a failure, and that's the whole point of what I've been saying!

nope its sure doesnt, until the horn beeps when you use the wipers:D

But I dont know about some people but personally i dont really want to settle for 2nd best, I want 1st class.

I suppose thats what Im trying to say.


At the end of the day im not going to be using these bikes, ive my own bike(s). But as a huge way of getting the public on bikes its not the best way. In Ireland, to promote cycling as viable, we need the absoloute best we can get.

maninasia

Me too, but that's not the way Ireland works or most people think here....

Chips Lovell

kona wrote: »

DCC rents out the ad space for what its worth(not far less:rolleyes:)

What is it worth?

Chips Lovell

It's also interesting that everyone who's ridden the bikes (like blorg) says there fine, but someone who hasn't ridden one is slating them.

kona

el tonto wrote: »

What is it worth?

Alot more than, a couple hundred cheap bikes and a few stations IMO.
Im suprised the bikes dont have ads on them:D

Can anybody involved in ads here give us a idea?

kona

el tonto wrote: »

It's also interesting that everyone who's ridden the bikes (like blorg) says there fine, but someone who hasn't ridden one is slating them.

A cheap dual suspention feels Fine, if you ride it once.
Use it frequently, will all different riders who couldnt give a **** about it, then we will see if its fine.
The fact that jc decaux "cant afford the upkeep" of them points to this.
Throw in inexperienced mechanics and its gunna be fun.
They are cheap bikes. Maybe translated its like having a cheap bike from halfords used everyday in all weather, serviced by a 15 year old in halfords.

Now if sombody posted a thread here with that in it. There wouldnt be such a sympathetic point of view.

lukester

kona wrote: »

they should have had a consultation with sombody who actually had a clue about the dynamics of cycling in dublin.

I don't know if you've actually seen the scheme in Paris in operation, I assume you haven't.

In spite of the evident problems already discussed, it is undoubtedly a huge success. I used the bikes a good bit on my last visit there, as did lots of other visitors, but locals were the main users.

There was much scepticism of it in Paris when it was launched, too much traffic, too dangerous, theft, vandalism, etc. And yet it has succeeded. I'd argue Dublin has a stronger cycling culture now than Paris did pre-Velib.

But if you haven't seen the scheme in operation, it's hard to imagine how it can work. A scheme like this can create a cultural shift beyond the mere fact of being able to pick up a cheap rental bike for half an hour.

Chips Lovell

kona wrote: »

Alot more than, a couple hundred cheap bikes and a few stations IMO.
Im suprised the bikes dont have ads on them:D

Can anybody involved in ads here give us a idea?

So if you don't have any idea of what it's worth why are you saying DCC is being ripped off?

kona

lukester wrote: »

I don't know if you've actually seen the scheme in Paris in operation, I assume you haven't.

In spite of the evident problems already discussed, it is undoubtedly a huge success. I used the bikes a good bit on my last visit there, as did lots of other visitors, but locals were the main users.

There was much scepticism of it in Paris when it was launched, too much traffic, too dangerous, theft, vandalism, etc. And yet it has succeeded. I'd argue Dublin has a stronger cycling culture now than Paris did pre-Velib.

But if you haven't seen the scheme in operation, it's hard to imagine how it can work. A scheme like this can create a cultural shift beyond the mere fact of being able to pick up a cheap rental bike for half an hour.

Velibs aside. Cycling in dublins momentum is growing everyday, Bike shops are finding it hard to keep up with demand.

Successful of not, I still think its a **** up, stinks of some greedy corrupt bastard sponging. Wed be far better off doing it ourselves, provided input from commuters was sought.

I guarantee you that this whole thing could be done cheaper and with better quality.

In a country thats on its knees, we dont have the cash to just write off this stuff, we need value for money and in a recession we should get it.

niceonetom

Kona, you're using criteria to judge the scheme a failure that aren't really applicable.

The scheme is painfully slow in arriving. OK. That does not make it a bad idea.

Some say (as I did) that the DCC massively overpaid (in ad space rather than cash) for the scheme. Given what has happened to the world economy since that deal, and the effect it has had on the market value of advertising space, it now looks like we were not ripped off at all, or at least not to the extent we thought we were. The bill boards ain't worth much. I still think they're a bloody eyesore and an invasive cheapening of public space - but that's another issue.

Your dismissal of the bikes as rubbish says a lot more about you (you haven't seen one of the bikes yet, right?) than it says about the bikes. The hipsters around here, no doubt, think that the velibs should be fixies (or singles). The roadies might want something nice and light. You, as an MTBer seem to think that the bikes should look like the ones at your gaff. These bikes necessarily won;t suit our refined taste. The design is meant to look friendly and usable. It's a design for non-cyclists, and I think they'll like it. Anything faster than walking will feel plenty fast to them - our frame of reference is distorted by spending too much time on €1000+ machines.

kona

el tonto wrote: »

So if you don't have any idea of what it's worth why are you saying DCC is being ripped off?

I can imagine placing a ad on a big sign in dublin isnt going to be cheap. Id say the weekly rent would be easaly into 1,000s. X by amount of signs, X time jc decaux have rented(or purchased) the sites for.

You looking at millions a year.

Now the bikes.

A per unit id say they cost e150 a pop. Now X by the amount. ad in the one off start up costs.

We are getting shafted. simple as.

kona

niceonetom wrote: »

Kona, you're using criteria to judge the scheme a failure that aren't really applicable.

The scheme is painfully slow in arriving. OK. That does not make it a bad idea.

Some say (as I did) that the DCC massively overpaid (in ad space rather than cash) for the scheme. Given what has happened to the world economy since that deal, and the effect it has had on the market value of advertising space, it now looks like we were not ripped off at all, or at least not to the extent we thought we were. The bill boards ain't worth much. I still think they're a bloody eyesore and an invasive cheapening of public space - but that's another issue.

Your dismissal of the bikes as rubbish says a lot more about you (you haven't seen one of the bikes yet, right?) than it says about the bikes. The hipsters around here, no doubt, think that the velibs should be fixies (or singles). The roadies might want something nice and light. You, as an MTBer seem to think that the bikes should look like the ones at your gaff. These bikes necessarily won;t suit our refined taste. The design is meant to look friendly and usable. It's a design for non-cyclists, and I think they'll like it. Anything faster than walking will feel plenty fast to them - our frame of reference is distorted by spending too much time on €1000+ machines.

Its noting got to do with the design, its got to do with the parts, they are cheap! Ive seen pictures of the bikes...enough for me to judge the cost.
Ive already said i dont really care as i wont use them. If thats the best we could do then fine.
The fact is we can do better.

Ive given my reasons why its a disaster...

If you settle for 2nd best thats your choice. personally i dont.

niceonetom

kona wrote: »

I can imagine placing a ad on a big sign in dublin isnt going to be cheap. Id say the weekly rent would be easaly into 1,000s. X by amount of signs, X time jc decaux have rented(or purchased) the sites for.

You looking at millions a year.

Now the bikes.

A per unit id say they cost e150 a pop. Now X by the amount. ad in the one off start up costs.

We are getting shafted. simple as.

You're just pulling this stuff out of your ass. How do you manage to construct and defend such strong opinions in the total absence of actual information? It must be wonderful to be so sure of things without having any recourse to, or need of, facts.

Vélo

niceonetom wrote: »

our frame of reference is distorted by spending too much time on €1000+ machines.

Ooh yeah!

Lumen

kona wrote: »

A per unit id say they cost e150 a pop.

No, they're €1000 a pop, according to today's Indo.

You really are speculating way outside your area of (no doubt considerable) expertise.

kona

niceonetom wrote: »

You're just pulling this stuff out of your ass. How do you manage to construct and defend such strong opinions in the total absence of actual information? It must be wonderful to be so sure of things without having any recourse to, or need of, facts.

I have asked for facts. Nobody has provided them. I dont work or am privilidged to advert costs.

Likewise how can you construct and defend your argument? have you ridden the bikes? are the in dublin? do you have facts to disprove what ive said?

kona

Lumen wrote: »

No, they're €1000 a pop, according to today's Indo.

You really are speculating way outside your area of (no doubt considerable) expertise.

do you believe they cost e1000 a pop.

Im more inclined to believe that as a inflated cost to make it look to the negotiator with DCC(who clearly doesnt know his bikes) that he is getting a good deal.

1k, your having a laugh.

would anybody here pay 1k for that(around e1400 retail actually)? this is a joke.

either that or they misplaced a decimal.

WicklowRacer

niceonetom wrote: »

You're just pulling this stuff out of your ass. How do you manage to construct and defend such strong opinions in the total absence of actual information? It must be wonderful to be so sure of things without having any recourse to, or need of, facts.

Thats his speciality.

Lumen

kona wrote: »

do you believe they cost e1000 a pop.

I'm not qualified to say, and I suspect neither are you, unless you have been party to the process of specifying and manufacturing the bikes.

kona

niceonetom wrote: »

our frame of reference is distorted by spending too much time on €1000+ machines.

looks like our 1,000+ machines, are in the same price range as these:o

kona

Lumen wrote: »

I'm not qualified to say, and I suspect neither are you, unless you have been party to the process of specifying and manufacturing the bikes.

I had no hand in the manufacture no, but surely as a cyclist and sombody who seems to have some common sense you can see that those bikes are not worth near to 1k cost.

kona

WicklowRacer wrote: »

Thats his speciality.

seems to be everybodys here not just mine.

Lumen

kona wrote: »

I had no hand in the manufacture no, but surely as a cyclist and sombody who seems to have some common sense you can see that those bikes are not worth near to 1k cost.

What do you mean "worth"? Would I pay that much for a similar bike for my own use? No. But I don't have the same requirements.

These things are supposed to be hired out up to 10 times a day for years on end. That's what JCD is paying for them. Why would they pay more than they needed to?

BeerNut

kona wrote: »

do you believe they cost e1000 a pop.

Im more inclined to believe that as a inflated cost to make it look to the negotiator with DCC(who clearly doesnt know his bikes) that he is getting a good deal.

1k, your having a laugh.

would anybody here pay 1k for that(around e1400 retail actually)? this is a joke.

either that or they misplaced a decimal.

Presumably the expensive bit isn't the frame-with-wheels, it's the locking station, the control kiosk and the software that runs it all. Quite possibly the money spent installing all the hardware in the ground is included in the €1,000 per bike as well.

kona

BeerNut wrote: »

Presumably the expensive bit isn't the frame-with-wheels, it's the locking station, the control kiosk and the software that runs it all. Quite possibly the money spent installing all the hardware in the ground is included in the €1,000 per bike as well.

how many bikes are there? hardly over 2,000 bikes.

lukester

The cost of replacing them in Paris is said to be 400 euro, that's if you rent one and it's stolen.

Judging by the bikes I rode, they felt very sturdy, and have plastic casings covering the drivetrain and a special locking mechanism. They also have a dynamo and lights.

They didn't feel cheap. 1000 euro sounds a bit steep, but bear in mind that you're not talking about a standard bike you can just go into a shop and buy. These are custom built for a specific purpose. They have to be tough as nails to withstand being ridden constantly every day.

Chips Lovell

kona wrote: »

I can imagine placing a ad on a big sign in dublin isnt going to be cheap. Id say the weekly rent would be easaly into 1,000s. X by amount of signs, X time jc decaux have rented(or purchased) the sites for.

You looking at millions a year.

So, we've established you're just guessing here about the figures.

From today's Indo:

In return for providing and maintaining 450 bicycles at 40 sites for 15 years, JC Decaux has been allowed to erect 120 advertising billboards across the city.

However, the company also had to remove 100 unauthorised billboards and provide a directions scheme, pointing tourists to places of interest in the capital, at a cost of €4m.

Now what the Indo doens't note is that they only received planning permission for about 70 of the new billboards. So they lose 100 big format billboards, gain 70 of them, have to pay for the bike scheme and another €4 million for the tourist scheme. Now, I don't know about anyone else, but that isn't screaming rip off to me. I think you'd need to get some figures together if you want to make a convincing argument.

kona wrote: »

I have asked for facts.

Who did you ask?

kona wrote: »

Likewise how can you construct and defend your argument? have you ridden the bikes? are the in dublin? do you have facts to disprove what ive said?

Asking someone to prove a negative is a logical fallacy.

Vélo

Do these bikes have some electronics/wiring?

I've never seen them but if they do that would increase the cost of the bike.

kona

lukester wrote: »

They have to be tough as nails to withstand being ridden constantly every day.

well judging by the Jc decaux trying to re-negotiate due to maintenance and replacement costs over budget, id say they arnt too sturdy.

also they are hardly custom, one off. How many are collectivley in all the citys invovled? once you have the design, the production is cheap and easy.

Any bike manufacturer given a cost per unit of 1,000 would produce a better bike. filling all criteria. IMO

kona

Lumen wrote: »

What do you mean "worth"? Would I pay that much for a similar bike for my own use? No. But I don't have the same requirements.

These things are supposed to be hired out up to 10 times a day for years on end. That's what JCD is paying for them. Why would they pay more than they needed to?

would they inflate the price to make it look like a better deal for DCC. You bet they would.

They arnt worth 1k at all, 150 production cost is alot for a generic noname to be mass produced bike.

kona

out of 20 pages there are possibly 2 pages of decent points. Its also had more views than the charter. All for a discussion that ends up as a messy pile of ****e.

The scheme is 2nd class, I want a first class scheme, ive given my points, im going to leave now,this thread is killing the will to live.

Vélo

kona wrote: »

out of 20 pages there are possibly 2 pages of decent points. Its also had more views than the charter. All for a discussion that ends up as a messy pile of ****e.

The scheme is 2nd class, I want a first class scheme, ive given my points, im going to leave now,this thread is killing the will to live.

And you take up the other 18 pages:D

kenmc

kona wrote: »

The scheme is 2nd class, I want a first class scheme

Well there's nothing stopping you from developing a business plan, finding backers, funding, sourcing the bikes and setting up a competitive rental scheme if you are so inclined. If you feel strongly enough about it, it's exactly what you should be doing instead of ranting on the internet. So how about it?

spurious

el tonto wrote: »

Now what the Indo doens't note is that they only received planning permission for about 70 of the new billboards. So they lose 100 big format billboards,

The problem is, JC Decaux don't take the billboards down.
They have a history of completely ignoring orders to do so, for years.


The bikes are a great idea and I hope they work - the problem is the JC Decaux 'deal'. No-one knows what the details of it are, they have not been made public, even at the request of councillors. Something very rum about it all.

maninasia

The problem is the lack of transparency...and we all know where that usually leads to in Ireland...brown envelopes floating around. If you hide financial details of ANY transaction there are always going to be people who take advantage along the way.
We've seen this time and time again in Ireland among politicians and businessmen. What's the big deal about doing a costing of every aspect of this scheme, then we could have an open debate??

But one thing I can say is that at least with this company JCDevaux we will have an action in the near future and the scheme has been 'paid up' as opposed to having had the scheme proposed and then cancelled as the gov't hits a massive credit crunch this year and next year...this time we just lucked out...

DePurpereWolf

Wasn't there supposed to be a tender sent out anyway?

We can't avail of the bicycle scheme here in the public sector because a purchase of a bike needs to be tendered, so they are trying to figure that out for 6 months now. But apparently a purchase of several million needs not to be tendered?

L'Enfer du Nord

kona wrote: »

I can imagine placing a ad on a big sign in dublin isnt going to be cheap. Id say the weekly rent would be easaly into 1,000s. X by amount of signs, X time jc decaux have rented(or purchased) the sites for.

You looking at millions a year.

Now the bikes.

A per unit id say they cost e150 a pop. Now X by the amount. ad in the one off start up costs.

We are getting shafted. simple as.

Kona, one might almost believe that you want the scheme to fail...:)

ROK ON

Just a query - what happens when on the bike if you get a puncture/mechanical of some description, and thus cant complete your journey on the bike.

What do they do in the other countries where they have these bikes.

I may use these bikes, in that there will be bikes at Hueston station and bikes close to where I work, so it would be handy for me some days to use these bikes.

blorg

kona wrote: »

Any bike manufacturer given a cost per unit of 1,000 would produce a better bike. filling all criteria. IMO

Why then has every single municipal bike scheme in Europe gone for the Paris-style bikes over your supposed alternative? I'd like to see a description of you proposed alternative incidentally, it was basically a hardtail MTB with slicks IIRC?