Private transport infrastructure is worse than public infrastructure. These bike rentals exist in place of a public option and can only function due to the public infrastructure, which they make worse in a great many ways - among others the fact that they have no function of accountability, so they always end up cluttering the bike paths and their drivers are reckless tourists not knowing or caring for local rules
The point is that when a private company creates a "service" that stands in place of a public option, and that "service" worsens the infrastructure for the rest of the people using it, then it is a bad thing.
The point is that the way it is done now is bad, and that should be criticised.
The point is that it could be done in a good fashion if it was not focused on profit but on people, and that the current focus actually makes it bad and harmful rather than good and helpful
The point is that when a private company creates a "service" that stands in place of a public option, and that "service" worsens the infrastructure for the rest of the people using it, then it is a bad thing.
I agree with you entirely here, it just also absolutely goes for the cars that the twitter post doesn't seem to mind.
Rental bikes offer a service that no other public transport service can. Of course it'd be better if they were public owned but unfortunately they're usually not. Still, I'd rather they exist under private ownership than not at all. In places where they're implemented properly they're great, though I understand why you'd not agree if you've never actually seen them used well.
It's not like a public bikeshare system is going to pop out of the ground when all the private bikes are thrown on traintracks. Of course there are reasons to criticise these companies but I still feel their presence is better than a complete absense.
Bad take. Welcome the bikes; private transport infrastructure is better than no transport infrastructure.
Shitty move to block DLR rails either way.
Private transport infrastructure is worse than public infrastructure. These bike rentals exist in place of a public option and can only function due to the public infrastructure, which they make worse in a great many ways - among others the fact that they have no function of accountability, so they always end up cluttering the bike paths and their drivers are reckless tourists not knowing or caring for local rules
What's the point here, that goes for all types of transportation?
The point is that when a private company creates a "service" that stands in place of a public option, and that "service" worsens the infrastructure for the rest of the people using it, then it is a bad thing.
The point is that the way it is done now is bad, and that should be criticised.
The point is that it could be done in a good fashion if it was not focused on profit but on people, and that the current focus actually makes it bad and harmful rather than good and helpful
I agree with you entirely here, it just also absolutely goes for the cars that the twitter post doesn't seem to mind.
Yeah I agree
Rental bikes offer a service that no other public transport service can. Of course it'd be better if they were public owned but unfortunately they're usually not. Still, I'd rather they exist under private ownership than not at all. In places where they're implemented properly they're great, though I understand why you'd not agree if you've never actually seen them used well.
Which is why I'm arguing for a public option and against a private one and pointing out how a private one is bad in ways that is specific to that
It's not like a public bikeshare system is going to pop out of the ground when all the private bikes are thrown on traintracks. Of course there are reasons to criticise these companies but I still feel their presence is better than a complete absense.