Con­sider com­mon stan­dard for bi­cy­cle-shar­ing schemes

Today - - VOICES - From cheang peng Wah

Ow­ing to the cur­rent lack of in­ter­op­er­abil­ity, a pro­posal for a uni­fied e-pay­ment sys­tem was sub­mit­ted re­cently (Razer sub­mits e-pay­ment pro­posal to Govern­ment; Sept 8).

The same prob­lem ap­plies to bi­cy­cle shar­ing.

Time and money as well as man­power in en­force­ment would be wasted if the author­i­ties stay in the back­ground in­stead of ac­tively de­sign­ing a de­sired out­come.

SG Bike’s ge­ofenc­ing trial ap­pears to be a so­lu­tion to in­dis­crim­i­nate park­ing by shared-bike users (4th bike-shar­ing op­er­a­tor tar­gets in­dis­crim­i­nate park­ing with technology; Aug 25).

So it would be con­fus­ing for users to know of an­other op­er­a­tor, ofo, that has con­cur­rently set up 25 park­ing zones in the city cen­tre and western area of Sin­ga­pore, with­out ge­ofenc­ing.

A com­mon stan­dard would cat­a­pult bike-shar­ing schemes to suc­cess, sav­ing all stake­hold­ers from wastages.

In Chi­nese cities, their author­i­ties’ cur­rent think­ing is to reg­u­late shared-bike park­ing in ar­eas of heavy hu­man traf­fic and to make a list of places in res­i­den­tial, in­dus­trial and recre­ational ar­eas where shared-bike park­ing is for­bid­den.

The ra­tio­nale is sim­ple: It is odd for users to spend 80 sec­onds lo­cat­ing a bike-shar­ing zone and then park there, say, 800m away, be­fore walk­ing to their fi­nal des­ti­na­tion an­other 880m away.

It also de­fies cost-ef­fec­tive­ness to ge­ofence many zones in many pos­si­ble res­i­den­tial, in­dus­trial and recre­ational ar­eas where users might wan­der.

Photo: na­Jeer Yu­SoF

the writer says sG Bike’s ge­ofenc­ing trial ap­pears to be a so­lu­tion to in­dis­crim­i­nate park­ing by users.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Singapore

© PressReader. All rights reserved.