New stationless bike rental scheme in Dublin - BleeperBike

LeinsterDub

Bikes appear to be on the streets today

Macy0161

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Bikes appear to be on the streets today

Yep, a couple by the UCD gate on the Clonskeagh Road. Was on a run Happened to be passing the spot twice in around 40 minutes and no takers in that time.

buffalo

They're all over the city: http://irishcycle.com/2017/06/20/these-white-dublinbikes-rival-bicycles-can-be-found-from-howth-to-inchicore-to-mount-merrion/

LeinsterDub

Macy0161 wrote: »

Yep, a couple by the UCD gate on the Clonskeagh Road. Was on a run Happened to be passing the spot twice in around 40 minutes and no takers in that time.

Seen them out as far a Mobhi Rd in Glasnevin too. If the issues with abandoning , usage of public property cost of removing DublinBikes can be resolved I see this as being a great idea

Fian

Lumen wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/bleeper-bikes-dublin-3448895-Jun2017/

“It is an offence under Section 71 of the Roads Act 1993 to place unlicensed items in the public footpath/roadway,” the council said.



So a person who places a thing which provides a service or which advertises a service without consent from the road authority [council] is committing an offence.

ISTR various bikedorks on here asserting previously that (a) the footpad is technically "on the public road" (b) the council is the road authority in the city.

Not quite imo. there is a big difference between something "used to advertise a service" and something "used to cycle around but which incidentally also advertises a service. So you can legally park a car with the logo of your company on it if you are using the car for transport purposes when you pop into a shop or whatever, but you cannot permanently park a car with advertising emblazoned on it which is really a billboard rather than a vehicle being used as a vehicle.

I don't believe the co co are correct that they are legally entitled to seize these bikes. Even if they were it would be easy to remove/cover the advertising.

My phone is windows phone - great OS, crap app selection, no "my taxi2 or "bleeperbike" apps.

Chuchote

If you can't advertise a service on a rented bike, every rental bike in the country hired out to tourists is illegal.

magicbastarder

Fian wrote: »

Not quite imo. there is a big difference between something "used to advertise a service" and something "used to cycle around but which incidentally also advertises a service. So you can legally park a car with the logo of your company on it if you are using the car for transport purposes when you pop into a shop or whatever, but you cannot permanently park a car with advertising emblazoned on it which is really a billboard rather than a vehicle being used as a vehicle.

yeah, the advertising thing is a bit of a red herring. to draw the closest analogy with this solution, did go car consult with the various local authorities about where they could place their cars?

loyatemu

magicbastarder wrote: »

yeah, the advertising thing is a bit of a red herring. to draw the closest analogy with this solution, did go car consult with the various local authorities about where they could place their cars?

I'm pretty sure they did, seeing as they have a deal with the council to allow them free parking.

Lumen

Fian wrote: »

Not quite imo. there is a big difference between something "used to advertise a service" and something "used to cycle around but which incidentally also advertises a service. So you can legally park a car with the logo of your company on it if you are using the car for transport purposes when you pop into a shop or whatever, but you cannot permanently park a car with advertising emblazoned on it which is really a billboard rather than a vehicle being used as a vehicle.

I don't believe the co co are correct that they are legally entitled to seize these bikes. Even if they were it would be easy to remove/cover the advertising.

My phone is windows phone - great OS, crap app selection, no "my taxi2 or "bleeperbike" apps.

OK, fair enough.

There's still the "provides a service" objection though. If they are being left on the "road" for people to collect whenever they feel like it, that seems to be something like "providing a service".

LeinsterDub

Just seen a DCC van pass Stephen's Green with what looks to be 4 or 5 bikes in the back

magicbastarder

heh. if they did go ahead without meeting with the council - after (i believe?) saying they'd sit down with them, i have no sympathy for them.

actually, just to confirm - you do mean the bikes in the van were bleeperbikes?

ThisRegard

Expect the mayor to be on the warpath too, with them pesky 'illegal' bikes blocking up all the footpaths.

Fian

Lumen wrote: »

OK, fair enough.

There's still the "provides a service" objection though. If they are being left on the "road" for people to collect whenever they feel like it, that seems to be something like "providing a service".

True but:

71.—(1) (a) Any person who, without lawful authority or the consent of a road authority—

(i) erects, places or retains a sign on a public road, or

(ii) erects, places or retains on a public road any caravan, vehicle or other structure or thing (whether on wheels or not) used for the purposes of advertising, the sale of goods, the provision of services or other similar purpose,

shall be guilty of an offence.

(b) A consent under paragraph (a) may be given by the road authority subject to such conditions, restrictions or requirements as it thinks fit and any person who fails to comply with such conditions, restrictions or requirements shall be guilty of an offence.

the offence doesn't capture using a vehicle to provide a service (imagine if it did! no more pizza delivery ) - it captures using a vehicle to advertise the provision of a service (amongst other things).

We have all seen truck trailers permanently parked in fields to be used as advertising billboards. This offence prohibits parking them on a public road to do that.

Edit
>.< hang on a minute. There is a comma there that seems to contradict my interpretation. It seems to be intended to capture chip vans or trucks used as mobile banks etc. I still think they are on dodgy ground - considering the number of logo emblazoned company cars etc. used all the time. And the vehicle is being used for transportation ultimately.

Chuchote

ThisRegard wrote: »

Expect the mayor to be on the warpath too, with them pesky 'illegal' bikes blocking up all the footpaths.

Undocumented

LeinsterDub

magicbastarder wrote: »

heh. if they did go ahead without meeting with the council - after (i believe?) saying they'd sit down with them, i have no sympathy for them.

actually, just to confirm - you do mean the bikes in the van were bleeperbikes?

Only got a quick glimpse but appeared to be

DanDublin1982

Spotted a couple in inchicore this morning too. I reckon its a service I might use if they expand it out my direction.

LeinsterDub

DanDublin1982 wrote: »

Spotted a couple in inchicore this morning too. I reckon its a service I might use if they expand it out my direction.

With this type of scheme there is no expansion to be done the bikes basically end up where they end up.

magicbastarder

Fian wrote: »

>.< hang on a minute. There is a comma there that seems to contradict my interpretation. It seems to be intended to capture chip vans or trucks used as mobile banks etc. I still think they are on dodgy ground - considering the number of logo emblazoned company cars etc. used all the time. And the vehicle is being used for transportation ultimately.

whether it's captured in the law or not, i do see a qualitative difference between a company vehicle with the logo on the side, and these bikes.

the issue is that if one of these vehicles parks in a designated parking spot and pays for it, there's no issue there (and i think most metered on-street parking has a maximum stay time of three hours anyway?)

the issue here is that the council have provided bike locking stations for the public to use, and a private company have come along and decided they're going to take up a possibly significant number of these spaces for their own private enterprise - possibly denying cyclists a designated place to lock their bikes in the process. they're leeching off an infrastructure which was not designed to accomodate them.

as they are using what is meant to be a free public good for private profit, i don't have sympathy for them. whether the council have a legal basis on which to challenge them on this point is another matter.

the council themselves, when they rolled out the bike scheme, created dedicated stations for them.

Chuchote

Hope Bleeperbikes have GPS

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-40351409

A Chinese bike-sharing company has gone out of business after 90% of its bikes went missing in the first five months.
Chongqing-based Wukong Bikes said the bulk of its 1,200 two-wheelers were lost or stolen.
Unlike rivals, the firm did not put GPS systems on its bikes and by the time it realised the technology was necessary, money had run out.

HivemindXX

Chuchote wrote: »

Hope Bleeperbikes have GPS

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-40351409

They do, this is the method by which you find out where the nearest bike is as far as I understand it. They are going to need it based on what I can see of the quality of the locks included.

jon1981

Chuchote wrote: »

Hope Bleeperbikes have GPS

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-40351409

There's so many risks in this model, I wonder how many bikes they have to loose before they go bust, also how busy and therefore costly will the staff be running around trying to save bikes and move bikes to legal locations.

Fian

magicbastarder wrote: »

whether it's captured in the law or not, i do see a qualitative difference between a company vehicle with the logo on the side, and these bikes.

the issue is that if one of these vehicles parks in a designated parking spot and pays for it, there's no issue there (and i think most metered on-street parking has a maximum stay time of three hours anyway?)

the issue here is that the council have provided bike locking stations for the public to use, and a private company have come along and decided they're going to take up a possibly significant number of these spaces for their own private enterprise - possibly denying cyclists a designated place to lock their bikes in the process. they're leeching off an infrastructure which was not designed to accomodate them.

as they are using what is meant to be a free public good for private profit, i don't have sympathy for them. whether the council have a legal basis on which to challenge them on this point is another matter.

the council themselves, when they rolled out the bike scheme, created dedicated stations for them.

Couldn't you say the same thing about them using the roads?

The parking is there for people who use this scheme as well as for people who use their own bikes. More bikes on the road = good news as far as i am concerned - anything that encourages more people to cycle. A critical mass of cyclists -> more cycling infrastructure -> positive feedback loop -> everyone benefits - even those who don't cycle but just get spillover benefits from less traffic congestion.

magicbastarder

Fian wrote: »

Couldn't you say the same thing about them using the roads?

no, because they're not denying the use of the roads to another user.

the council don't allow car sales businesses from parking their cars in public parking places for a similar reason AFAIK.

ED E

magicbastarder wrote: »

no, because they're not denying the use of the roads to another user.

the council don't allow car sales businesses from parking their cars in public parking places for a similar reason AFAIK.

But the gardai let them block the roads

Chuchote

magicbastarder wrote: »

no, because they're not denying the use of the roads to another user.

Can bicycles now colocate in the same spot then?

magicbastarder

yes, but at different times.

papu

magicbastarder wrote: »

no, because they're not denying the use of the roads to another user.

the council don't allow car sales businesses from parking their cars in public parking places for a similar reason AFAIK.

The motorbike shop on camden street using public pathways for years. Plenty of antique and hardware shops bring things out onto the pavement with nothing said about it. Sandwich boards and signs are on public pathways all over the city. It really is the council picking and choosing their battles.

magicbastarder

does the motorbike shop have a licence for that - which they probably do, and are perfectly entitled to apply for?

you *can* apply for a licence to use the public footpath for your business - which bleeperbike have singularly failed to do. why should they be allowed get away with it when so many other businesses have adhered to the bye laws?

papu

magicbastarder wrote: »

does the motorbike shop have a licence for that - which they probably do, and are perfectly entitled to apply for?

you *can* apply for a licence to use the public footpath for your business - which bleeperbike have singularly failed to do. why should they be allowed get away with it when so many other businesses have adhered to the bye laws?

License or no, it takes the piss.
But I understand what you're saying.

desertcircus

So this is a euro a pop, and bikes will probably be heavily concentrated in areas that already have Dublinbikes. And outside of high-density areas, finding one within a reasonable distance probably won't be even slightly reliable.

And I feel we can't stress this enough - at a euro a go, ten weeks of commuting on one would cost you as much as your own basic bike.