5 ms·

They were notorious for dumping bikes all over Melbourne, Australia. A city that takes its liveability seriously. Eventually the government told oBike they wou

• konschubert 8y ago
  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?
  • guidedlight 8y ago
    Melbourne has the world's largest tram network. It has a massive train 869km train network too, plus current construction of a new $10 billion tunnel in the city center. Cars are allowed in the city center, but they are mostly commercial vehicles (taxis, delivery drivers, construction, etc). Most people use public transport to commute to and from work. Many bike share schemes have been tried, but are not popular in Melbourne because trams are free and bicycles require helmets by law.
    • megablast 8y ago
      > Cars are allowed in the city center, but they are mostly commercial vehicles This is not true at all, a ridiculous number of people drive to work and park in the city. Over 60% of all traffic is private cars.
    • keir-rex 8y ago
      They also get dumped every where. The oBikes look awful too. Ofo bikes are of a reasonable quality but obikes on the other hand have never tempted me to use them.
    • jessaustin 8y ago
      ...bicycles require helmets by law. So much for taking livability seriously.
      • guidedlight 8y ago
        Helmets are $5 in Melbourne, people still won’t wear them.
        • jessaustin 8y ago
          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.
          • ponyfleisch 8y ago
            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.
            • ghaff 8y ago
              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.
              • madeofpalk 8y ago
                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.
  • justinclift 8y ago
    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).
    • burger_moon 8y ago
      I wish they would legalize this in the US too (outside of just California). It makes it much safer for the rider to lane filter during rush hour than sitting in congestion.
• megablast 8y ago
  > A city that takes its liveability seriously. Not sure I can take that seriously seeing how much Melbourne favours cars and is spending billions building more roads.