Talk:Bicycle-sharing system

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 October 2018 and 11 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Michael LSY. Peer reviewers: Michael LSY.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2020 and 6 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rc4230.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): C3law. Peer reviewers: C3law.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update Boston please[edit]

The Boston info is hopelessly out of date. Please fix. 38.111.33.34 (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge Experiment[edit]

"In one program tried in 1993 in Cambridge, United Kingdom, all 300 bicycles were stolen on the first day of operation, and the program was abandoned." I tagged this as needing a source because i have heard the tale before and i think it is possibly an urban legend or at least an exaggeration, I mean 300 bikes in one day? If i can't find a source i'll remove it, because it could over-emphasise the theft risks in community bicycle programs.MrFire 18:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This still needs to be updated, the reference given does not state that all 300 bicycles were stolen on the first day. Rather, that "the overwhelming majority were lost or stolen". I'll just go ahead and change this. 128.243.253.114 (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of community bike programs[edit]

Anyone knows what happened to this entry?! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/List_of_community_bike_programs Mario J Alves 14:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the first search result: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of community bike programs -SCEhardT 16:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the above article, as far as I know, never existed on Wikipedia, but instead on the Bicycle Collective Network's wiki. The homepage of the Bicycle Collective Network (BCN) has been, as of this writing "hacked" but searching google for the wiki still turns up what I'm sure is the article refered to above as missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.92.247 (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

beijing olympics[edit]

Did anyone else notice during the coverage of the 2008 olympics that Beijing has the most interesting bicycle sharing program? For the curious, it was one the local news, channel 6, WDSU in New Orleans. They are not locked up, and alot of destinations in the city in general are not right at the roads, but are usually a distance off the road. Family Guy Guy (talk) 18:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title[edit]

"Bicycle hire system" might work for the UK and Australia but not in Canada in the U.S. In North America bikes and cars aren't 'hired' they are rented. We need a more generic term. I also suggest it meets the criteria that these programs are not simply rental or hire systems but they represent something unique, defined by high-turnover and users who are usually paying members. This differentiates from traditional bike rental systems. I won't undertake renaming it yet, but I strongly suggest it take place. Nubeli (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First a minor procedural matter, please remember to follow the Talk Page guidelines and put new discussions at the bottom.
Getting a bit closer to the substance, the article has been renamed twice in the past two weeks, the first time with no discussion or even notice and the second with a few days notice. Me, despite being a New Yorker where indeed "hire" is not used except for hiring people, I like all three names. If there's a need to classify rental systems as "traditional" and "paying members" and "unique" and others, surely the distinctions should be explained in the body of the article. But please, slow down, read Help:Moving a page, and let's talk it over before any more renames.
Finally down to substance, seems to me the scope of the article should be as broad as can be without trespassing on other articles. Thus it should mention rentals with or without system, systems with or without members, schemes unique or conventional or both or neither, etc. Of course this doesn't mean equal coverage to all. If one of the mentioned classes is barely WP:Notable then it deserves at most a sentence, while if one class is far more important than the others, it should get the majority of attention. But don't narrow the scope of the article, particularly in the title, without deciding where to cover the broader questions. Thus my preference would be for a fourth, broader name, such as Bicycle rental unless someone comes up with a better idea.

Jim.henderson (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is more than enough territory to cover in just the different bike sharing systems without adding bike rental/hires. I don't see why the page needs to be so broad so as to negate the fact that there is something significant in bike sharing that sets it apart from bike rentals. If anything bike sharing is closer to public transit than to bike rentals since it is geared towards the commuting population and not occasional use by tourists. Members purchase yearly access to the whole system, not to rent a particular bike. If we go further and want to cover the 'free bike' systems we obscure them by calling them rental schemes.
I argue that "bicycle sharing" is a notable all on its own since it is a phrase that has been used often in the mainstream media (plenty of google hits, including the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/us/27bikes.html?ref=science). Calling it bike rental barely elicits excitement or explains why it's different. I think we should avoid confusion by sticking to bike sharing as the general category that covers a whole range of systems operated by community groups or large advertising companies and cities. Bike rental operations are usually operated by small bike shops to tourists who typically want to bike along the waterfront and get some ice cream. The operations often co-exist and are not necessarily targeting the same groups. I argue that bike rentals may be adequately covered in single sentence in the cycling page while also including a link to bicycle sharing system (and the argument can continue there on whether to call them rentals or hires).
Jim, thanks for pointing out I should put the new talks at the bottom. I didn't know that since I often prefer to read the manuals after the fact.

Nubeli (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure; we all started some time with preconceived notions and bumped our heads on Wikipedia customs and folkways. That's why there's a Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers guideline. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means for starters it's WP:NOT a bunch of other things. For example, it's not about promoting, discouraging or eliciting excitement over bagels, bicycles, blankets or any of the other subjects of articles. Here in talk pages we can be looser, but encyclopedic prose is formal in WP:TONE sometimes even unto pedantry.

Yes, the new share schemes are significant, also known as WP:NOTABLE, else I'd be calling for the article's destruction, not expansion. Other rental methods are less new, less exciting, and perhaps not as obviously notable, but still they are significant segments of a fairly wide and diverse business. One large shop about a kilometer from where I'm sitting lives almost entirely by renting bikes to tourists to pedal along the waterfront. Smaller ones inland do rentals as a sideline to selling. Seems to me, however, that all belong in an article about schemes to use someone else's bike, with whatever number of sections, paragraphs or sentences are appropriate to commuters, shoppers, tourists or other segments of the rental market. That's approximately how rental car does it, and seems proper to me. I haven't looked into whatever articles cover renting movies but assume they too do not use separate articles for schemes with and without memberships, but just mention the different kinds in one place.

Come to think of it, this article hasn't yet been categorized into category:Vehicle rental which is definitely a much more appropriate cat than category:Public transit would be, since the provider is providing the use of a vehicle rather than transporting the customer. Ho hum; getting sleepy and I have to use public transit tomorrow instead of my own power; first time in a couple weeks. Oh, before signing off, thanks for reorganizing the article. Good work. Nighty-night. Jim.henderson (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not arguing for a term that is simply "exciting", though there is obviously some of that. It makes no more sense to collapse bike sharing into bike rental than it makes sense to collapse computers into the Babbage Difference Engine. Sure there's a lot of overlap and you could also find a historical and logical progression from one to the other, but it doesn't make them the same thing. Someone looking up "computers" on wikipedia shouldn't be redirected to "difference engines". There has to be some acknowledgment that the terms people actually use is important. Take for example the entries on car rental and carsharing. They are two separate entries even though they refer to each other. People seem to be comfortable to keep the two pages separate. This may be partly because a substantial portion of carsharing is cooperatively owned (more true in Europe than in North America), and most of them don't sign up users with the idea that they are renting any particular car. They are paying for access not the vehicle.
Bike sharing has a historical trajectory that doesn't fit neatly into "rental". The beginnings of bike sharing began with the idealism of the free bikes where bikes are just left unlocked throughout the city. It would be a stretch to call this phenomena "renting". Some other groups decided to make it communally-owned or membership based. Some of them offer the bikes for free and only require a deposit. Still others decided to massively scale up the number of bikes and integrated smart cards and other technology. Like Velib with over 20,000 bikes. I'll grant Velib is more like renting than the other schemes, but even here people can buy yearly memberships and what they get is access to the system, not access to any particular bike, much like public transportation. It also allows the users to smoothly go intermodal between subway, bus to bike to subway again. Because of this there is increased the interest among public transportation authorities in some cities.
In sum, let's start a bike rental page, and acknowledge there that there is some overlap with certain types of bike sharing systems.
Nubeli (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just read through all the above conversation and am going to make a few changes to the stylistic approach this article takes. The above rental vs. share discussion is not so much my focus as is making much more clear the nuances that exist within what can be called "bicycle sharing" (where "system" fits in, we shall see). But I wanted to put this on the table to solicit some discussion more in this direction. -ramon martinez —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.92.247 (talk) 02:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merger_proposal[edit]

Does Campus bicycle sharing system warrant its own article or should it be merged with this one? PDCook (talk) 15:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Great minds think alike! (Or is it that fools seldom differ?) Anyway, I have put "merge" tags on both articles, as I feel that it should be merged with this one, as the unique information given on the Campus article appears to be minor. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just after I moved the page to the new title, I was going to add the mergeto tag, but you beat me to it! Nonetheless, the campus bicycle sharing system article has a lot of non-notable information about specific programs at various universities. WP:Run-of-the-mill comes to mind. The entire article could probably be condensed down into a decent section in this article. PDCook (talk) 16:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

This article has an enormous number of images, most of which add little to the article. I was about to remove some, but decided I might discuss which should be removed.

File:Vélo'v station.jpg gives a good view of a station with surroundings. File:Punto de recogida situado en el conservatorio.JPG give a better view of the payment station. File:CityBikesStockholm.jpg and File:Velibvelo1.jpg are fairly close shots of the bikes themselves.

Are there any others that really need to stay in this article? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 22:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado Tea Party[edit]

Colorado Tea Party candidate Dan Maes believes bike sharing along with environmental initiatives is part of a United Nations plot that would take away people's personal freedoms.[1]

I've removed User:Joe2832's edit from the Introduction: the point is too minor and single-country to warrant inclusion in such a prominent place. Feel free to add it to a USA-specific or Criticism section. •Λmniarix• (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Separate page for list of systems[edit]

The list of systems has reached the point where it deserves its own page, I think. Unless anyone objects, I'll implement that in a few days. Earthlyreason (talk) 10:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Both the historic and geographic list would fit well into one sortable table. That would allow sorting based on other criteria as well (i.e. nr.of stations/pods, bicycles, users, etc). --Elekhh (talk) 11:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections to this -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Big support, great move. SeveroTC 11:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Elekhh, it makes sense to combine the historic and geographic tables. Have you experience of making sortable tables? Perhaps you could take it on? Earthlyreason (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I support the proposal. Nevertheless, we need to list all the systems included in sections "Current programs" and "Current systems" (not just the latter) and I believe we should leave a brief one paragraph summary (perhaps listing countries with bike sharing systems and the most relevant facts).-Mariordo (talk) 15:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to a separate list article. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 16:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mariordo, your point perhaps relates to a wider issue with this article, which is that much of the content is factoids about specific schemes, which detracts from overall understanding, and could usefully be hived off to individual articles on each scheme, leaving a slimmed-down article that conveys the nature, status and history of share schemes. But we can do that after separating out the list of systems. Earthlyreason (talk) 17:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is certainly a good idea but in my opinion it will require a good deal of additional research. For example, if you take Copenhagen, the system listed is Bycyklen but that is just a name for City Bike. The system is actually one produced by CIOS or C.I.O.S., Cycle Imports of Scandinavia. The same system is used in Århus. In addition, the city is developing a new system... And if you take Luxembourg, the system is called Vel'oh but it is actually the same as the Vélo'v system in Lyon and the systems in operation in Vienna, Cordoba, Gijon, Seville, Brussels, Paris, Marseille, Aix-en-Provence, Toulouse, Rouen, Besançon, Mulhouse and Amiens, all with different names but all produced by JCDecaux SA. So there seems to be a need not only to identify the name of the system used by each city but also the manufacturer or supplier. Good luck. I'll try to help if I can. - Ipigott (talk) 07:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ipigott. It would be helpful if there were clear categories of cycle share system but I don't think things have settled down to that yet. Earthlyreason (talk) 11:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have to be wary of hype. Lots of cities want it to look as if they have just come up with their own new system while they are in fact adopting one that has already been in use elsewhere. In my opinion, we should be able to identify major trends and developments, or at the very least similarities between systems. It might also be useful to distinguish between "free" city bikes and those for which there is some kind of real cost to the customer. Keep me informed - Ipigott (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The list of systems has now been split off to a separate page. Many thanks to Elekhh for taking it up and doing a great job.
Earthlyreason (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And now 7 1/2 years later it was necessary to do it again.--Alternative Transport (talk) 18:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subsidies for bike share[edit]

Someone has added information on the cost to the sponsoring government (net of user fees) to many of the city information sections. Since almost no form of transport (busses, passenger rail, and even highways) operates without funding from the government beyond the user fees, it would add balance if someone could dig up some information on the average subsidy per trip for different forms of transport. I'm guessing that the ~$10 million cost of the bike share programs, divided by the number of trips taken, still compares very favorably with the subsidy per trip for city bus or metro systems. Walt (talk) 12:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is kind of hard for an article that covers a type of transportation system that has reached every part of the globe, but I added fees, volunteer, charity, advertisements, business interest groups and government subsidies, as forms of financing. If government funding is efficient or not depends from system to system and they need to be looked at individually or a researcher could put a whole lot of effort into trying to calculate accurate comparisons.--Alternative Transport (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Current programs' section[edit]

What is the purpose of the 'Current programs' section? It seems to mostly just describe a few programmes and is beginning to look like the old listing, now properly hived off to List of bicycle sharing systems.

This article should now be about the nature, history, growth etc of public bikes systems in general, and avoid details of particular systems except as examples or to support a better understanding of the whole. Pedalissimo (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Viewing http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vélos_en_libre-service seems like a much better way of managing the content here. Rather than introducing snippets of controversial information about each bike share, why not simply group bike shares directly and/or link to the newer bike sharing system link... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.213.66 (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dublin? Melbourne?[edit]

From the Melbourne section, I've removed this sentence: "In contrast, the Dublin bike scheme, with 450 bikes available, racked up 1 million journeys in less than a year. [ref]" ... where [ref] was a link to http://www.dublinbikes.ie/Magazine/News/One-million-journeys. Neither this sentence nor the linked-to page has nothing to do with Melbourne or Australia and does not belong in the Australia section. However, I note that there is no section for Ireland or Dublin. If someone decides to add one, feel free to use the above link. 132.165.76.2 (talk) 09:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it was put there because many press articles have analyzed the usage and cost/benefit return of the Dublin and MBS schemes to determine why the former has been so successful. I added a separate section for Dublinbikes under Dublin, Ireland.Dellant (talk) 15:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

China? Asia?[edit]

The Asian section is in a really bad shape. Aren't there reliable sources? There are plenty of dots on the bike sharing world map in China, but they are not well documented whereas they seem to be the largest such systems in the world. It is a pity! There is a Japanese wikipage but not a Chinese one.

Christian.Mercat (talk) 17:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The bike sharing system in Costa Rica and so on is also poorly documented.GipsyDanger3 (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Australia[edit]

I propose to rename the section to 'Australasia' and include information about the Auckland system Nextbike (New Zealand). Australia as a continent doesn't cover NZ, but Australasia as a region does. To me, it makes sense to deal with Australia and New Zealand in one go, as we (in NZ) also have a compulsory helmet law. As such, the current statement that the Australian schemes are the only ones that are subject to helmet wearing is wrong; the same applied of course in Auckland. Any thoughts? Schwede66 23:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Germany[edit]

Funny that Germany is left out, despite having bike sharing in all major cities via Deutsche Bahn [2], and many cities have extensive bicycle path systems. And the article even mentions the Munich Call-a-bike system (originally launched in 2000 AFAICT), in the "London" section. Anyone up for filling this gap in the article? --216.15.54.123 (talk) 23:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you know what you are talking about. Edit away! Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 23:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Europe section[edit]

It used data from 2004 stating that no bike-share program has yet to be profitable. This is no longer the case nor did it relate to Europe specifically.

Vehicle-to-grid[edit]

Rather than simply attaining power from a dynamo connected to the bicycle wheel, it seems better to store the braking power. This as using this system, no extra pedaling effort is demanded of the driver. This system could be created using the Copenhagen wheel, by slightly modifying it (ie removing the motor from the copenhagen wheel, and increasing the storage capacity, and adding a socket for a power plug to reroute the power to the mains elecricity grid once it is parked) 91.182.125.77 (talk) 13:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Effects[edit]

Can anyone tell me what the effects section means? Gnevin (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It means that people in a place that has a bike system tend to bicycle more after the system was implemented (I haven't read the paper so I can't comment on if they compared same-location only or attempted comparisons of places that have and have not implemented bike sharing systems). Best, Mattb112885 (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

It appears to me that this page is turning into a venue for users to advertise their company's bike sharing system. If we continue to let this happen, the whole page is going to consist of an overwhelming list of bike sharing systems. I realize that is the subject of the page but does adding to the already lengthy list improve the page? I would like to hear other user's thoughts on this. Best, Meatsgains (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is WP:TOOBIG. So, split. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim.henderson: Are you suggesting a split into a different article? Meatsgains (talk) 17:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That's a main way list articles start. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim.henderson: Is there a reason you tweaked my username in your last post? I'll work on splitting the article.
I added the list to List of bicycle sharing systems. Feel free to make any improvements. Meatsgains (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well done, @Meatsgains: I hadn't noticed the existing list article. It too is now oversize, but to my mind less important than this one, so I don't intend to find time to trim it. And the reason I munged your name is, I was in a big hurry all weekend, what with helping with a group ride of beginners on the East Side and attending a cancer event on Staten Island and a Wikipedia NYC meeting on the West Side. I used my clumsy little smartphone to edit on the go, instead of waiting to sit down at the more nimble real computer. I hope to avoid further such errors. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim.henderson: Yes, I agree the list article is now far too lengthy, but at least this article is improved. Ideally, the table on the list page should include the material I added. Hopefully another user can find the time to sort through it to clean up and condense the page. And in regards to my username, no worries. I assumed it was a simple mistake. Meatsgains (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Free Bike sharing results in theft and vandalism unsourced claims[edit]

Mentions that paid bike share programs exist to combat theft and vandalism as well as claims that free programs suffer significant losses from the same are unsourced and hard to determine judgment calls, throughout the article.

First a minor procedural matter, new comments go on the bottom and ought to be signed. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines discusses this at perhaps too much length. Now to the substance, yes, the systems, mostly gratis, that that were started but mostly not sustained in the 20th century are generally poorly sourced except a few mainly USA ones. Better histories would be pleasant, or perhaps you are suggesting drastic cuts to those historical descriptions, which would also bring a welcome shortening of the article. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More info needed about SoBi-type systems (smart bikes, dumb racks)[edit]

Since the last 2 years, SoBi systems have expanded greatly. These are the systems that puts all electronics on bikes, and use cheaper ordinary bike racks. There are currently several apparent observed advantages:

  • Lower capital cost, and
  • Lower operating cost, and
  • Crowdsourced bike rebalancing (member credits when you return a bike to a station).
  • Greater geographical coverage by installing more cheaper "dumb" stations
  • Ability to dock bike anywhere (regular bike rack, fence, roadside sign, etc)
  • No worry about full docks (unlike BIXI)
  • Greater geographical coverage per bike, thanks to ability to dock anywhere
  • Observed faster membership signup rate per bike with SoBi systems than BIXI systems in cities that switched BIXI to SoBi (e.g. Ottawa) due to more "coverage"
  • Operational self-sufficiency apparently appears better with SoBi systems than BIXI (whose parent company went bankrupt)

Hamilton, Ontario currently has the world's biggest smart bike system of 750 GPS tracked bikes. They were originally going to only get 300 BIXI bikes and 30 stations. But for the same money, they installed 750 bikes with over 100 stations (now 120 today) and became 100% operationally self-sufficient. Hamilton (750 SoBi) out-bikeshared Toronto (1000 BIXI), despite having fewer bikes in a smaller city than Toronto, and despite having fewer bike paths than Toronto. http://www.metronews.ca/news/toronto/2015/07/23/toronto-looks-to-emulate-hamiltons-bike-sharing-success.html ...

Also in 2015, Ottawa replaced BIXI with SoBi. VeloGo Ottawa started up their SoBi fleet to replace the discontinued BIXI bikes and are observing incredibly fast member signup rate that is observed to be far faster than with BIXI.

It appears as of year 2015, mounting evidence is showing the flaws of the BIXI system in many cities (Especially lower-density cities where it's hard to expand expensive BIXI-type bike-racks), and that no SoBi system that started operating, has run into operational difficulties (yet) at this time. This may be a new emerging textbook case study of the pros of a true GPS-tracked smartbike fleet of bikeshare bikes, as the heir apparent to smart docks (Velib/BIXI/etc), at least for cost-constrained lower-density deployments. Mdrejhon (talk) 17:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Mdrejhon:. First a procedural point, new entries go at the bottom, not the top. As to substance, it's an interesting development for which I don't intend to do the research necessary to get proper WP:SOURCEs but I hope someone does. Hoboken, New Jersey, across the river from my own little home island, experimented with such a system but seems to have abandoned it and decided to welcome an expansion of the smart-rack Citi Bike system now being set up in Jersey City. These places have density similar to the parts of Queens and Brooklyn to which Citi Bike has already expanded. So, in our part of the world, the Bixi (or Motivate) dumb-bike system seems to have triumphed. Of course, like most dense cities we are surrounded by less-dense suburbs, and the question of whether bike share in those areas should work by the dumb-rack method (or work at all) has been little discussed. Again, I would be pleased if someone less lazy than me would go more energetically into the research. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My error. Hoboken is not joining Citi Bike but is expanding its "smart lock" program from a pilot to full coverage of that municipality's small area, as seen here. I think it's a mistake, not technically as my ignorance precludes judgment, but commercially because it's incompatible with its neighbors. With any luck, I'll be proven mistaken. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bicycle-sharing system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bicycle-sharing system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Bicycle-sharing system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Type：Dockless Bike[edit]

When the article try to introduce dockless bike, it only mentions the size of dockless bike in China instead of its feature or how it worksGipsyDanger3 (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dockless Bike History Question？[edit]

In the history page, it sounds like the dockless bike is firstly invented in UK, Shouldn't it be invented by China first? GipsyDanger3 (talk) 17:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If researched correct, it was first invented in Germany, but further developed with GPS tracking and apps in China.--Alternative Transport (talk) 18:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Effect of Bike Sharing[edit]

The effect of bike sharing is poorly documented, especially the effect on environment sustainability once bike sharing is popularized.GipsyDanger3 (talk) 18:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for Bike Sharing[edit]

Why people started bike sharing, what is the reason at that time? Fashion? Sustainability?GipsyDanger3 (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will add.--Alternative Transport (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete information for some countries[edit]

The bike sharing system in Costa Rica, Mexico and so on is also poorly documented.GipsyDanger3 (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Missing information for SYDNEY Australia (as at 18 Oct 2017)[edit]

Looks like Australia's largest city doesn't get a mention. Needs an update please. Several Bike sharing/rental companies are operating in Sydney and should be mentioned. Some are getting media attention (at times negative, eg regarding Bike "dumping"). This would eb a useful edit to get some info in at least and then others can update it. Thank you wiki editors !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.0.215.3 (talk) 03:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bicycle-sharing system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By country[edit]

To me the article looks too big, because it covers two different topics. Half the article is world-wide, and the other half specific to countries and cities. Most transport articles don't work that way, and I think that's because this one is doing it wrong. "By country" is huge, with several subsections, many subsubsections, and even subsubsubsections. Better to break it off into its own article, No? Jim.henderson (talk) 17:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and it has a big overlap with List_of_bicycle-sharing_systems --Alternative Transport (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, where are you moving these to? I'm getting these flagged by WP:Huggle and I just want to clarify before I flag it as a good edit. Dark-World25 (talk) 11:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am moving these to List of bicycle-sharing systems--Alternative Transport (talk) 11:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at User talk:Sdkb § Regarding Dockless semi-autonomous bicycles[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Sdkb § Regarding Dockless semi-autonomous bicycles. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific results on last-mile problem and usage patterns[edit]

For the last-mile problem, the current version only cites a dissertation, which was not published in a scientific, peer-reviewed journal. The statement is important, but currently the paragraph lacks peer-reviewed sources. I wanted to add some results we have received in past project (well published in the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, of course peer-reviewed) and references for this topic. My changes were reverted with the suspicion that I had a conflict of interest. I do not have any COI, but I wanted to ask the community if you agree with adding peer-reviewed sources (in addition to the not-peer-reviewed dissertation, which is currently the only source).

The same applies to the section on the usage patterns, which is quite vague in the current form: "Cluster analysis shows that larger systems have different usage patterns in different stations, whilst in smaller systems the different stations have similar daily utilization patterns.".

What do you think about these changes? Let me know. If you agree I would add some more specific explanations and the corresponding references to these parts. Philot789 (talk) 13:41, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are one of the authors of the citation you want to add. That is clearly a WP:COI. Feel free to raise this at WP:TEAHOUSE or WP:COIN if you are confused about what is or is not a conflict as Wikipedia defines it. MrOllie (talk) 14:11, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:SELFPUB, it is not, but we already had this discussion before. Please let's focus on the article and the suggested changes. Philot789 (talk) 14:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ohh, I just see that WP:SELFPUB was wrong to link here. WP:SELFCITE is the correct references Philot789 (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is not how anyone else interprets that page. If you refuse to listen to me, again, please raise this at one of the venues I mentioned above so you can get additional advice. MrOllie (talk) 14:23, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think about the suggested changes content-wise? Let us have a constructive discussion about the contents of this page Philot789 (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was a trivial detail and should be omitted from the page. MrOllie (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your opinion. Should we think about deleting equally "trivial" information from the page? Philot789 (talk) 14:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bicycle-sharing_system&oldid=1194449666"