The Bicycle Wars

If you’re a regular reader of my blog, you’ll know that I have a very keen interest in urban mobility, and especially in the bike-rental sector. If you’re not a regular reader yet, you now know that as well. More and more countries and municipalities are coming to the conclusion that these systems play a vital role in providing a sustainable public transport offering. The fact that Ireland and its population have significant difficulties in following suit is very telling indeed, but also not the subject of this article. As these systems become more and more popular, more and more companies are trying to jump on the bandwagon and profit from this popularity. While this is generally not a bad thing, there are definitely downsides to it, not least because it has lead to a series of „bicycle wars“ in a number of cities, a battle of systems and philosophies. 

On one side, you have the „classic“ station based bike rental systems. As the term suggests, these systems are built around permanent stations for renting and returning bikes, stations where the bikes are secured while not being in use. Examples of such systems include my own „home“ system, Coca Cola Zero Bikes in Cork, Dublinbikes, Santander Cycles in London, or German bike-sharing pioneer Nextbike.  

Yep, it's time for another bike-based article ;)

Right off the bat, there’s some obvious upsides to such systems. The stations are easily reconisable, but still don’t interfere too much with the surroundings, something important for tourists or newcomers to the city. The terminals that usually accompany every station make the systems accessible to people without smartphones. What’s more, bikes left at these stations are usually locked in place by rather solid locking systems, making vandalism or theft a lot harder, and unattractive to all but the most determined „individuals“. Finally, the stations, with their neat rows of bike stands and docked bikes, appear much much cleaner than a bunch of scattered bikes. 

Neat rows of docked bikes are easily one of the biggest advantages of a station-based bike-share system, as demonstrated by this Nextbike station in Speyer, Germany.

However, there are downsides to these systems as well. In most cases, a city council will be unwilling and unable to simply inundate the entire city with docking stations, meaning there will invariably be areas without coverage. Then, there’s the whole matter of installation and maintenance. Even though providers like nextbike spend a whole lot of time, money, and effort to make their stations as low maintenance as possible, a network of fixed docking stations naturally means a considerable amount of capital expenditure for setting up the stations, and operational expenditure for keeping them running, connected to power and the internet, and all the other associated costs. All this leads to a significant lack of flexibility and scalability, especially when it comes to the expansion of the network. Jesus, I’ve really spent too much time in a corporate environment, given those last few sentences! But in all seriousness, that last point is an issue that we here in Cork have been battling with for years, ever since the launch of Coca Cola Zero Bikes. 

DB Call a Bike, by German rail operator Deutsche Bahn, was the pioneer for bike-sharing in Germany. The system started out as a purely stationless system.

To be fair, DB Call a Bike is also available as a station-based system, as demonstrated by this docking station in Berlin, or the bike-sharing system in Hamburg.

On the opposing side of this „battle“ of systems, we find the „stationless“ systems, that simply consist of bikes left at bike racks at strategic locations. Here, rentals and returns are managed exclusively through a smartphone app. Among these are DB Call-a-Bike from Germany, oBike and ofo, from Singapore and China respectively, and, closer to home, Bleeperbike. The advantages of such systems are immediately obvious. The amount of capital expenditrue required to get such a system off the ground is significantly lower, since infrastructure costs are limited to building up a suitable IT system, as well as a maintenance base for the bikes themselves. What’s more such a system is a lot more flexible both for customers and operating companies. Customers can just rent a bike wherever one is available, and return it just as easily. Operators, on the other hand, can simply reposition bikes as required, for example if a major concert, conference, or sports event is about to take place. And while relying on an app for rentals may scare off some more technophobic customers, renting a bike via a terminal isn’t always that great either, as I found out when using Citybike Liverpool, or more recently Dublinbikes. 

Station-based systems aren't always all they're cracked up to be as well, something I learned the hard way when using Citybike Liverpool. The terminal, while rock solid, is also hard to read and uncomfortable.

However, it is precisely this flexibility that is ironically the biggest achilles heel of these systems. Even though many of these systems use rock solid bicycle locks, these locks by their very nature are still less secure than a stationary pylon bolted into the ground. Therefore, vandalism and theft are a much bigger issue for these systems. In addition, the fact that a bike can be returned pretty much anywhere means that bikes will inevitably end up being scattered throughout the cityscape. Some users simply don’t give a damn, which leads to bikes lying around in parks and gardens, or twisted around railings and lightpoles in a bizarre M.C. Escher kind of way. I myself witnessed that repeatedly with DB Call-a-Bike bikes in Frankfurt before moving to Ireland. 

Finally, allow me to go back to the topic of smartphones for a moment. As far as I’m concerned, smartphones are simply a part of life these days, and most people have them, even in what could be considered electronic third-world countries, like Germany. Most people will at least have a basic smartphone, which is why it makes sense to concentrate on apps for Android or iOS. However, this means that people who don’t have such a device are effectively barred from using these stationless bike sharing systems. Okay, how large this section of the population is is up for debate, not least since many of the people who don’t have a smartphone also tend to be people who are allergic to sharing anything, and find the very concept of public transport revolting in my experience. Still, this will cut into any potential customer base to a certain degree. Granted, certain providers, once again DB Call-a-Bike and nextbike are among them, offer a rental option via a regular phone call, however in my eyes, this is not much more than a stopgap measure. 

Now, I hear you asking, where the hell are the „bicylce wars“ you kept yapping about in the intro? Well, stationless systems have been popular in Southeast Asia, and more precisely in the People’s Republic of China, for years now. Given the vast scale of the Middle Kingdom, the providers there are operating on a vastly larger scale than most providers here in Europe, and are using that advantage in scale to push into the market here in Europe. Okay, granted, stationless systems aren’t really new, after all that’s exactly how DB Call-a-Bike got started in the first place. However, Asian bikeshare providers such as ofo and oBike are much more ruthless and aggressive when it comes to entering new markets, and don’t shy away from riding roughshod over city councils, even in cities that are already covered by other providers. Take Munich in Germany for example. The city has for years been covered by both DB Call-a-Bike and MVG Bike, the latter operated by nextbike. However, in August 2017, oBike, a bikeshare provider from Singapore, effectively flooded the streets and bike racks of the city with over 4000 of its own bike. Frankfurt has similarly been forcibly „delighted“ with 500 bikes. None of this would be too dramatic if the bikes were at least good, or even decent. However, oBike is once again doing its best to lower the bar. I must confess that I don’t have any first hand experience with these bike since I’ve been avoiding Germany like the plague ever since my father’s funeral in January 2018. However, reviews in German magazines and websites have been universally devastating, not least because the bikes use full-rubber tyres instead of the more regular air-filled variety, and braking systems that are mostly seen with kids bikes. Oh, and did I mention that those bikes are single-speed only? Not really the best way to make a good impression, especially when you’re trying to make it in the same country that gave birth to the likes of Audi or BMW. 

oBike has recently been in the news over in Germany... and not in a good way!

Apart from the absolutely basic single-speed bikes that are so hard to pedal on that you have a feeling that the dynamo is powering a bitcoin mining computer, there are the questionable business practices. As far as I'm concerned, it's providers such as these that are sabotaging the bike-sharing concept as a whole!

Oh, but that’s not all. Once again it’s oBike who have taken the „lead“. You see, the parent company in Singapore went insolvent back in early July 2018. As a consequence, oBike in Germany went underground and has since been unreachable, even for city officials in the very cities it operated in. Once again, it’s Munich and Frankfurt that are on the forefront of this story. Local media reports in Frankfurt are quoting a statement of oBike founder Shi Yi stating that he intends the company to keep operating in Europe. Given the communications blackout, the abandoned and often times damaged bikes scattered throughout the city, and other issues, any continued operations appear doubtful to say the least. And that’s without the massive data leak uncovered earlier in the year, which saw thousands of user names and other information publicly accessible in the internet. 

While oBike is sending mixed signals, another provider, namely Chinese company ofo is withdrawing completely. They had been operating in Vienna, however the regulatory environment in that city made it impossible for them to continue operating there, according to a statement by the company. Mind you, nextbike is already operating in Vienna, and has been doing so for years, so the statement appears to be a bit „weird“, if not outright disingenuous.  

Then, there's ofo, whose exit from the European Market has left a weird aftertaste for many.

While this company has bikes that are a "bit" more comfortable than oBike, though that's not hard, their business practices in Vienna aren't something you'd like to boast about on your CV.

However, it isn‘t just Asian operators that like to play fast and loose with the rules. Back in spring 2017, a new bikeshare provider called Bleeperbike was preparing to launch operations here in Ireland, or more precisely in and around Dublin. Founder and CEO Hugh Cooney had witnessed the scale and utility of Chinese bikeshare providers first hand during a trip to China in 2016, and had set about replicating such a system here in Ireland. Launching in Dublin was a smart move, as the city was already host to Dublinbikes, a successful bikesharing system that was however still very much centered around the inner city area. So the concept of a stationless system to complement the existing network made sense. There was just one small issue. The legal situation in Dublin didn‘t allow for such a system. In fairness, Dublin City Council wasn‘t actually hostile towards Bleeperbike. However, the bylaws and regulations for bike sharing systems dated back to the launch of Dublinbikes back in 2009, and primarily aimed at station-based systems. Efforts were underway to rectify this, however, as anyone who‘s ever had ANYTHING to do with a public body will know, these things take time. When Bleeperbike continued to plan for a launch without waiting for the newly adapted bylaws to take effect, the city council decided to slam on the brakes, and barred the company from launching operations. 

To be fair, Dublinbikes, seen here in the colours of their former sponsor, Coke Zero, isn't a bad system, although the bikes are surprisingly uncomfortable. Unfortunately, most of the stations are concentrated in the Docklands and the Inner city, making it unusable for anyone not living or working in that area.

To give credit where credit is due, Dublin City Council did follow through on its promise to update the bylaws, which came into effect in January 2018, and after an earlier start in some of the outskirts of Dublin, the full Bleeperbike system in the capital became operational in May 2018. What‘s more, the company has since expaned beyond the confines of the Pale, starting operations in Sligo on March 1st. It‘s in smaller cities like Sligo that Bleeperbike is really showcasing the advantages of a stationless system. Having been up there myself, and having seen the rather narrow streets and alleys, it is obvious to me that a station-based system would have just clogged up the city and impeded traffic.  

Judging from the photos available online, the bikes of bike-sharing startup Bleeperbike seem pretty solid and well thought out. Now that the teething troubles have been sorted out, this system should quickly develop into a valuable addition to Dublinbikes.

This last example shows that this „battle“ of bike station-based and stationless bikesharing systems doesn‘t necessarily have to be a battle. When properly deployed, both systems can complement each other, as Bleeperbike is currently demonstrating in Dublin. This is all the more important for us down here in Cork, where An Rothar Nua and the NTA have blocked any attempt to expand Coca Cola Zero Bikes in the city beyond the current 30 stations, in addition to generally neglecting the system in Cork. Therefore, using a stationless bike sharing system to complement the current infrastructure is certainly a viable option. However, any decision to go for such a two-pronged approach will need to be carefully made, with due consideration given to the quality of the bikes and locks, the reliability of the operator, and the ease of use of the app. What‘s more, the examples of Munich, Frankfurt, and other cities clearly demonstrate the need for a solid regulatory framework, to prevent questionable operators from flooding the market. Cheaper is not always better!