On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 10:11:16 AM UTC-8, sms wrote:
On 11/25/2017 12:57 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-11-25 12:45, wrote:
look around, the lot is for recycling


Yeah, right, into the crusher, sort, melt. The usual. If you take a look
at the height of the pile it becomes obvious that the bicycles were
likely literally thrown onto that pile without any care whether they'd
be damaged. Many won't even have a straight frame anymore.

This is how it's done right:

http://www.keeploupbasinbeautiful.or...life-to-bikes/

Two companies want to set up dockless bike sharing in my city. They've
come to City Council meetings with their bicycles to pitch their
company. There's a Limebike in my city hall office. I have my doubts as
to the success of such a venture and I have concerns about the liability
of the City. The bicycles are so incredibly heavy that I doubt that they
would be stolen.

Vandalism can be more widespread and as expensive as theft. http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/i...ands_bike.html

Bike share programs also bite into private business. http://www.wweek.com/bikes/2017/04/2...nd-bike-shops/

Cities are inefficient business operators and already subject to enormous risk. In Cupertino, I think there would be a very low reward versus risk. It would be a novelty program. Is there any similarly diffuse area where bike share programs have really worked. Do they work anywhere? I think the jury is still out in Portland.

-- Jay Beattie.