Velib like bicycle rental kiosks are being constructed in Dublin

kona

Tails wrote: »

On another note I think this thread has devolved in Kona's argument thread. Please for the love of god stop going on personal crusades.

who me? Im just answering what people were putting to me.

At this minute My perception of the plan is spot on. I have seen the ads, I havnt seen the bikes and its been that way for over a year now.

I still think its a load of ****e, weve been ****ed over and now were being told that its the best thing to happen to cycling since the invention of the wheel.:rolleyes:

On a related topic:
I havnt seen any ads for jobs going at this velib thing.
It needs mechanics, it needs other support staff. Putting a team in place of people who are trained with bike mechanics to a standard that they can deal with the public, also the whole taking payments , administration and planning manpower needed takes a while.
Id imagine it would take a couple of months to get these places filled. The office side will fill quick. They will Have to train their own mechanics IMO as bike shops are booming now and you will be hard pushed to find maybe 10 or so mechanics trained to the standard needed to fill these jobs straight away.(Unless they are well paid I cant imagine a mechanic giving up a job in a bike shop to deal with all the crap associated with these yokes)

kona

kona wrote: »

who me? Im just answering what people were putting to me.

At this minute My perception of the plan is spot on. I have seen the ads, I havnt seen the bikes and its been that way for over a year now.

I still think its a load of ****e, weve been ****ed over and now were being told that its the best thing to happen to cycling since the invention of the wheel.:rolleyes:

On a related topic:
I havnt seen any ads for jobs going at this velib thing.
It needs mechanics, it needs other support staff. Putting a team in place of people who are trained with bike mechanics to a standard that they can deal with the public, also the whole taking payments , administration and planning manpower needed takes a while.
Id imagine it would take a couple of months to get these places filled. The office side will fill quick. They will Have to train their own mechanics IMO as bike shops are booming now and you will be hard pushed to find maybe 10 or so mechanics trained to the standard needed to fill these jobs straight away.(Unless they are well paid I cant imagine a mechanic giving up a job in a bike shop to deal with all the crap associated with these yokes)

I agree with what you say, but on the issue of mechanics, surely the fact that they'll only ever have to deal with one type of bike should mean they won't require as extensive a degree of knowledge and training as a bike shop mechanic, who has to deal with everything from pinnarello princes to 30 year old BSO's

kona

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree with what you say, but on the issue of mechanics, surely the fact that they'll only ever have to deal with one type of bike should mean they won't require as extensive a degree of knowledge and training as a bike shop mechanic, who has to deal with everything from pinnarello princes to 30 year old BSO's

Unfortuatley Insurance will say otherwise. Anything that is open to use by the public, is open to being sued.
Also, For the bikes to be useful they need to be in steady supply. Having a newbie "mechanic" taking 10mins to fix a puncture for example is going to restrict this. A more experienced mechanic will fix a bike quicker and keep them on the streets longer. It will also work out cheaper for DCC in the long run.

If they are going to train sombody up for being a bike mechanic then id budget 2 months to get them up to a standard thats required. Then another few years to get to knowing exactley whats going on.

Your either a bike mechanice or not, being restricted to one type of bike isnt a bike mechanic.

A novic bike mechanic would not be able to fix punctures in a couple mins, true a wheel still in the bike, adjust brakes, gears in a few minutes, quick repairs comes with practice(years of it). Id imagine any heavy repairs will be returned to base. Brakes, punctures, gears etc will be done at the side of the road(if its not its pretty pathetic and a waste)
we wont see these bikes until next spring IMO.

My guess is all this jazz will be tendered, including supply of consumables and tools.....roll on months of backhanders, bum bum licking , pencil pushing. In the end we will end up with a company who dont have a clue what they are doing( but its okay its run by some head civil servants brothers friend), who will use ****e parts and untrained staff(but its okay they will make a fortune) and the scheme will be ****ed even more before it starts.

Gavin

You've made your point. Seriously, could you please give it a rest ?

kona

Gavin wrote: »

You've made your point. Seriously, could you please give it a rest ?

seriously:rolleyes: I didnt bring the thread back. My points last night were not made before either;)

seriously

Lumen

Youtube debater + Kona = match made in heaven.

kona

Lumen wrote: »

Youtube debater + Kona = match made in heaven.

whats youtube debater?

spurious

Regardless, Kona has a point, those horrific JC Decaux signs will be with us a lot longer than any of these bikes.

The bike scheme could have been done without the involvement of JC Decaux who don't exactly have a good record in terms of getting rid of their illegal signage. For example the enormous scrolling signs at Newcomen bridge - illegal for quite some time now, but still there.

eightyfish

spurious wrote: »

The bike scheme could have been done without the involvement of JC Decaux who don't exactly have a good record in terms of getting rid of their illegal signage.

Illegal? Do tell us more.

kona

eightyfish wrote: »

Illegal? Do tell us more.

well they havn't paid for it for a start.:p

spurious

I don't have time to search the Dublin City site for exact quotes just now, but I will later on today.

Condition 3 of 2541/01 said they were to be removed - that's years ago.
As far as I know it is now with the legal Dept in DCC who tend to take their time, but JC Decaux are well aware those signs are illegal and they continue to make a large sum of money every week renting them out. To make matters worse, they're trying to stick one of those awful Metropole things there instead.

These are the people DCC do business with in secret deals.

kenmc

kona wrote: »

well they havn't paid for it for a start.:p

"Free" != "Illegal"

kona

kenmc wrote: »

"Free" != "Illegal"

Signing a contract to supply a service in return for ad space....then not providing this service within the stated time.

Thats a breach of contract, and legally speaking(im no law guy so i could be wrong) this is illegal.

Its exactly what has been done.

Silly statement to say that they were given free ad space, no strings attached, because they were not.

lukester

kona wrote: »

Thats a breach of contract, and legally speaking(im no law guy so i could be wrong) this is illegal.

Logically speaking, that's illogical.

kona

lukester wrote: »

Logically speaking, that's illogical.

but logic has never been the same as legal. I thought this was from a legal point of view? didnt see logic asked in any previous post

Nietzschean

legally speaking breach of contract is exactly that, doesn't mean something is illegal, they could goto court and have the agreement terminated or possibly seek damages(i've no idea whats in the contract).

kenmc

Breach of contract is not illegal.

You may not like the way it has been done. We may have gotten a raw deal with number of bikes vs amount of ad space etc, this has been discussed ad naseum. At the end of the day the result is this: We are getting a velib scheme. Maybe it could have been done better, but equally maybe it would never have been done. As the old proverb goes, "Half a loaf is better than no bread".

Bunnyhopper

spurious wrote: »

Condition 3 of 2541/01 said they were to be removed - that's years ago.
As far as I know it is now with the legal Dept in DCC who tend to take their time, but JC Decaux are well aware those signs are illegal and they continue to make a large sum of money every week renting them out. To make matters worse, they're trying to stick one of those awful Metropole things there instead.

And from what I can see they were more recently refused permission to retain:

http://137.191.231.240/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=2129/09&theTabNo=2

lukester

Walking around town this weekend, seeing the Velib' style racks in preparation, made me happy. There are undoubtedly flaws in the way the system has been implemented, which have been enumerated at length already, and they should be addressed.

But having used the system in Paris and having seen it in Barcelona, I think it's great to have something similar here. It's a start. I hope it succeeds and we see the number of stations and bikes increase.

Bunnyhopper

@spurious It looks as if JCD have been granted permission for "Metropoles" at that location:

http://137.191.231.240/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=2224/09&theTabNo=2

kona

kenmc wrote: »

Breach of contract is not illegal.

You may not like the way it has been done. We may have gotten a raw deal with number of bikes vs amount of ad space etc, this has been discussed ad naseum. At the end of the day the result is this: We are getting a velib scheme. Maybe it could have been done better, but equally maybe it would never have been done. As the old proverb goes, "Half a loaf is better than no bread".

Well considering crap is a closer description than bread for this scheme:

Half a crap is better than no crap?

nah

No crap is better than half a crap.:pac:

kona

Nietzschean wrote: »

legally speaking breach of contract is exactly that, doesn't mean something is illegal, they could goto court and have the agreement terminated or possibly seek damages(i've no idea whats in the contract).

but putting stuff up on other peoples property and making money off it, is surley trespassing.
Building something with no planning permission is all illegal.

So breaking the contract may be legal, but whats left(the ads) isnt legal.

Perhaps we should remove the ads for a year? then delay putting them up for another year and see how they like it.

TinyExplosions

kona wrote: »

but putting stuff up on other peoples property and making money off it, is surley trespassing.
Building something with no planning permission is all illegal.

So breaking the contract may be legal, but whats left(the ads) isnt legal.

Perhaps we should remove the ads for a year? then delay putting them up for another year and see how they like it.

It doesn't work like that. You said above that you "are no law guy", so why not stop speculating on the legality of things, and leave that to the people who have a clue.

Regardless of how distasteful the scheme may be, or how big the bee in your pretty little bonnet is about the whole thing, there's nothing illegal that has been done. Yes, they have flown close to the wind on a few points, but haven't actually broken any laws

eightyfish

kona wrote: »

Well considering crap is a closer description than bread for this scheme:

Why are you so negative about something that hasn't even happened yet? Let the bikes come, give it a couple weeks, then criticise.

Lumen

Illegal != criminal

TinyExplosions

Lumen wrote: »

Illegal != criminal

but cake = delicious

Nietzschean

TinyExplosions wrote: »

but cake = delicious

Q.E.D. , something we can all agree on.

eightyfish

Nietzschean wrote: »

TinyExplosions wrote: »

but cake = delicious

Q.E.D. , something we can all agree on.

I don't like cake. :rolleyes:

flickerx

I cant understand the negativity towards this scheme. I think its great.

Lets give it a shot, I think its an experiment worth doing. If it doesnt work out, so be it, at least we can say that the city council tried. But I hope it works.

Stark

What happens to all the JC Decaux billboards if the "experiment" doesn't work?