Bristol pay-as-you-go bike pilot scrapped

bugbear wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Tosspot wrote:
On 28/05/10 15:32, bugbear wrote:
JMS wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/8702011.stm

Oh dear - I wonder if Boris's scheme will go the same way?



I wonder if the newcomers to cycling in a city found it too dangerous?
I wonder if the rents were too high, or the
funding ran out?

Well, if Moody had actually read the article, well I'll help, here's the
relevant bit...

"Hourbike said more funding was needed"

Although, as usual, it works fine in Germany, you find a bike, call a
number on
your mobile, it automagically unlocks and off you go. When you
finish, you lock
it again, and it's debited to your mobile account.

Do users pay the entire cost, or is there a significant subsidy from
people deriving no benefit from it?

Since using a bike reducing crap in the atmosphere,
everybody *does* benefit from it.

Nonsense. There is no difference in CO2 emissions between the cases where a
Bristol University student cycles a mile or walks a mile.

Even if there was (there isn't), I'm not sure that subsidising the price of
cycle hire is a good use of my money, for which I have plenty of worthy
alternative uses.

bugbear wrote:
Tosspot wrote:
On 28/05/10 15:32, bugbear wrote:
JMS wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/8702011.stm

Oh dear - I wonder if Boris's scheme will go the same way?



I wonder if the newcomers to cycling in a city found it too dangerous?
I wonder if the rents were too high, or the
funding ran out?

Well, if Moody had actually read the article, well I'll help, here's the
relevant bit...

"Hourbike said more funding was needed"

Yes. I know. I was responding to JMS's
implied-assertion-in-the-form-of-a-question
in similar fashion.

There's always a clue in the wording.

"Funding" is invariably used as a weasel term (or euphemism) for "subsidy".

"Subsidy" simply means making non-beneficiaries pay.

Tosspot wrote:
On 28/05/10 16:22, JNugent wrote:
Tosspot wrote:
On 28/05/10 15:32, bugbear wrote:
JMS wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/8702011.stm

Oh dear - I wonder if Boris's scheme will go the same way?



I wonder if the newcomers to cycling in a city found it too dangerous?
I wonder if the rents were too high, or the
funding ran out?
Well, if Moody had actually read the article, well I'll help, here's the
relevant bit...

"Hourbike said more funding was needed"

Although, as usual, it works fine in Germany, you find a bike, call a
number on
your mobile, it automagically unlocks and off you go. When you finish,
you lock
it again, and it's debited to your mobile account.
Do users pay the entire cost, or is there a significant subsidy from
people deriving no benefit from it?

That's a very good question. DB run it, so my guess it likely in some part
subsidised since the rail system is, and Germany being a bit more
environmentally conscience tends to subsidise things like this. Next time I'm
in a station I'll try and find out.

I only meant the one in Bristol.

It's unlikely that any of my money goes to "fund" such facilities in Germany.

On 28/05/2010 19:31, JNugent wrote:
bugbear wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Tosspot wrote:
On 28/05/10 15:32, bugbear wrote:
JMS wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/8702011.stm

Oh dear - I wonder if Boris's scheme will go the same way?



I wonder if the newcomers to cycling in a city found it too
dangerous?
I wonder if the rents were too high, or the
funding ran out?

Well, if Moody had actually read the article, well I'll help, here's
the
relevant bit...

"Hourbike said more funding was needed"

Although, as usual, it works fine in Germany, you find a bike, call
a number on
your mobile, it automagically unlocks and off you go. When you
finish, you lock
it again, and it's debited to your mobile account.

Do users pay the entire cost, or is there a significant subsidy from
people deriving no benefit from it?

Since using a bike reducing crap in the atmosphere,
everybody *does* benefit from it.

Nonsense. There is no difference in CO2 emissions between the cases
where a Bristol University student cycles a mile or walks a mile.

Even if there was (there isn't), I'm not sure that subsidising the price
of cycle hire is a good use of my money, for which I have plenty of
worthy alternative uses.

Just a small point here. Bristol University and the University of the
West of England are not one and the same. The original Bristol
University is right in the centre of the city, albeit on the top of a
bloody great hill, whilst UWE (known as Bristol Polytechnic when I used
to lecture there some 20 years ago) is some 5 miles north of the city
and it is at the latter that the scheme was based.

Had the scheme been based centrally it might have had greater success,
given the lack of parking in the area, whereas with UWE there are acres
and acres of land dedicated solely to students' parking. Every other
student seems to drive a car, despite frequent buses from the city
centre to the main campus.

--
Moving things in still pictures

®i©ardo wrote:
On 28/05/2010 19:31, JNugent wrote:
bugbear wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Tosspot wrote:
On 28/05/10 15:32, bugbear wrote:
JMS wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/8702011.stm

Oh dear - I wonder if Boris's scheme will go the same way?



I wonder if the newcomers to cycling in a city found it too
dangerous?
I wonder if the rents were too high, or the
funding ran out?

Well, if Moody had actually read the article, well I'll help, here's
the
relevant bit...

"Hourbike said more funding was needed"

Although, as usual, it works fine in Germany, you find a bike, call
a number on
your mobile, it automagically unlocks and off you go. When you
finish, you lock
it again, and it's debited to your mobile account.

Do users pay the entire cost, or is there a significant subsidy from
people deriving no benefit from it?

Since using a bike reducing crap in the atmosphere,
everybody *does* benefit from it.

Nonsense. There is no difference in CO2 emissions between the cases
where a Bristol University student cycles a mile or walks a mile.

Even if there was (there isn't), I'm not sure that subsidising the price
of cycle hire is a good use of my money, for which I have plenty of
worthy alternative uses.

Just a small point here. Bristol University and the University of the
West of England are not one and the same. The original Bristol
University is right in the centre of the city, albeit on the top of a
bloody great hill,

Yes, I know that one.

whilst UWE (known as Bristol Polytechnic when I used
to lecture there some 20 years ago) is some 5 miles north of the city
and it is at the latter that the scheme was based.

Fair enough.

Had the scheme been based centrally it might have had greater success,
given the lack of parking in the area, whereas with UWE there are acres
and acres of land dedicated solely to students' parking. Every other
student seems to drive a car, despite frequent buses from the city
centre to the main campus.

Is there a problem with that?

"JNugent" wrote

Do users pay the entire cost, or is there a significant subsidy from
people deriving no benefit from it?

When I pay my taxes to use a car, I consider VFM to be related to the amount
of road I get. In order to get an extra 20 feet of road it is preferable to
give someone a pound not to use it than to spend 10 pounds making more
road.

On Fri, 28 May 2010 15:52:10 +0100, Tosspot
wrote:

On 28/05/10 15:32, bugbear wrote:
JMS wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/8702011.stm

Oh dear - I wonder if Boris's scheme will go the same way?



I wonder if the newcomers to cycling in a city found it too dangerous?

I wonder if the rents were too high, or the
funding ran out?

Well, if Moody had actually read the article, well I'll help, here's the
relevant bit...

"Hourbike said more funding was needed"

Although, as usual, it works fine in Germany, you find a bike, call a number on
your mobile, it automagically unlocks and off you go. When you finish, you lock
it again, and it's debited to your mobile account.



More funding was need - ie it was not financially self sufficient.

ie not enough people were using it.

When it started - it was stated : "The plan is to have nine hubs and
sixty bikes up and running starting in November and for the scheme to
grow from there according to demand. "


Get that : "according to demand".

There was not the demand.

It did not grow.

It ran out of money


Sorry sunshine - it has been scrapped - if it had been a roaring
success, then it would not have been.

--
Many cyclists are proving the need for registration by their contempt for the Highway Code and laws.

The answer:
All cyclists over 16 to take compulsory test, have compulsory insurance, and be registered.
Registration number to be clearly visible on the back of mandatory hi-viz vest.
Habitual law breakers' cycles confiscated and crushed.
(With thanks to KeithT for the idea)

JNugent wrote:
Tosspot wrote:
On 28/05/10 15:32, bugbear wrote:
JMS wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/8702011.stm

Oh dear - I wonder if Boris's scheme will go the same way?



I wonder if the newcomers to cycling in a city found it too
dangerous?
I wonder if the rents were too high, or the
funding ran out?

Well, if Moody had actually read the article, well I'll help, here's
the relevant bit...

"Hourbike said more funding was needed"

Although, as usual, it works fine in Germany, you find a bike, call
a number on your mobile, it automagically unlocks and off you go.
When you finish, you lock it again, and it's debited to your mobile
account.

Do users pay the entire cost, or is there a significant subsidy from
people deriving no benefit from it?

You mean like the subsidy Road Tax provides for cycle lanes etc?


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

DavidR wrote:

"JNugent" wrote

Do users pay the entire cost, or is there a significant subsidy from
people deriving no benefit from it?

When I pay my taxes to use a car, I consider VFM to be related to the amount
of road I get. In order to get an extra 20 feet of road it is preferable to
give someone a pound not to use it than to spend 10 pounds making more
road.

And?

Are you *really* claiming (or trying to) that road-users should be subsidised?

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
DavidR wrote:

"JNugent" wrote

Do users pay the entire cost, or is there a significant subsidy from
people deriving no benefit from it?

When I pay my taxes to use a car, I consider VFM to be related to the
amount
of road I get. In order to get an extra 20 feet of road it is preferable
to
give someone a pound not to use it than to spend 10 pounds making more
road.

And?

Are you *really* claiming (or trying to) that road-users should be
subsidised?

Perhaps it's a bribe not a subsidy (*). I am saying that when a tax payer
pays for a service the agency involved has a responsibility to try and spend
it in the most efficient manner. (Most people taking the bribe are likely to
be net contributors, anyway.)

(*) A subsidy usually involves taking money from the tax payer and passing
it on to an enterprise producing at a loss - because there is insufficient
demand to cover costs - and the government thinks it's better than having
unemployed people on the books. This doesn't seem to apply here.