How Should Cities Improve Dockless Bike-Sharing Services?

Recently， transport authorities in Guangzhou in south Chinas Guangdong Province released information that it had conducted talks with bike-sharing companies with business in the city， demanding that they suspend the deployment of new bicycles until they have rectifi ed and improved their current practices.

In April， in order to keep the bike-sharing service in order， the citys transport bureau issued a tender where companies like Mobike and Hellobike won certain quotas. However， it has now been found that these firms are not making efforts to improve their operation modes， which has led to pileups of bicycles that damage the image of the city and disrupt public transport.

Many people have voiced their opinions on how to rein in the reckless sprawling of shared bikes in urban areas so that the service can better satisfy users needs while at the same time integrate into city transport.

Integration ahead of quantity

Zi Chang （Nanfang Daily）： Shared bicycles can often be seen scattered everywhere on city streets， diminishing their positive function and causing many cities to prohibit the entry of bike-sharing companies. This should be partly blamed on relevant watchdogs for their underestimation of these bikes negative impact on urban order and also their slow response to the mess they have caused. Bike-sharing fi rms， especially at the start of development， are so eager to win clients that they almost totally neglect the management of their bicycles.

In the early days， it was understandable that bike-sharing companies were not experienced enough to cope with the business， thus they recklessly deployed huge numbers of bikes onto the streets.

So why is the scene still so messy？ The answer is that either these firms are not really paying attention to this problem or they have yet to find an effective solution. Indeed， to acquire a large number of users and high frequency use is crucial for these companiessurvival， but in the long run， the key to the industrys development is effective bike management so that they will become a natural part of a citys public transport.

At the beginning of its development， the bike-sharing service was acclaimed as an innovative， low carbon transport and Internet Plus application. However， its edge should not be limited to the concept level， but should also extend to real-time operation. Its supposed to balance effi ciency， urban public order and service supply. Therefore， an innovative concept is not enough； there must also be technological and management innovation to match it.

Years have passed since this business emerged， but old problems still linger. The focus of these fi rms should be shifted from quantity to integration with cities public management.

Healthier model needed

Liu Zhiqiang （Peoples Daily）： Some cities have taken actions to standardize dockless bike-sharing services in their cities in a bid to ban random docking and vandalism. At the same time， groaning under pressure， some bike-sharing companies are secretly raising their prices instead of continuing to offer subsidies for the use of their bikes.

As far as the whole bike-sharing sector is concerned， this declining mania is good news. Since its birth， the bike-sharing service—with high investor expectations—has never developed an efficient operation model. Its boom was often based on discounts， subsidies and even company losses. Price hikes will help to bring the price to a reasonable level and better refl ect cost. More importantly， this will save a lot of resources that would otherwise be wasted. The practice will help with the long-term development of the business.

When it comes to society， the shrinking of dockless bike-sharing services is also a boon. The past three years have seen shared bikes clogging streets and invading urban space. It is a huge waste of resources. According to statistics from Beijings transport authorities， of the more than 1.9 million shared bikes in the city， more than half were not used for over a month.

The waning tide of shared bike services in cities does not necessarily mean a failure of this innovation. Rather， it reflects the maturing of this sector.

Actually， before the current problems， some cities had tried to adopt measures to curb the bike sprawl. However， at the time， public opinion was on the side of the new fi rms， arguing that the innovation should not be killed in the cradle. Now we have realized that those proposed measures were farsighted.

In this sense， stringent regulation is sometimes effective protection for startups， rather than suppression. As we can see， to let the bikesharing startups do whatever they want is the major reason why they are now facing such diffi culties.

Of course， tough regulation is not equal to arbitrary management that may throttle innovation. We need targeted and effective measures. On the one hand， there should be enough tolerance for startups based on careful regulating. On the other hand， there must be a bottom line and startups should not be allowed to expand recklessly.