http://www.bjreview.com AUGUST 15, 2019 BEIJING REVIEW 47FORUM
Copyedited by Rebeca ToledoLI (^) S
HIG
ON
G
their urban management regulations and rules
to follow, so they should also impose these
existing regulations on the shared bike industry.
As for risks, we know that millions of users are
now waiting for their deposits to be refunded
IURPIDLOLQJELNHVKDULQJĶUPVWKXVLQRUGHUWR
protect users’ interests, there must be enough
transparency about where their deposits have
gone. Relevant authorities must take tangible
actions to curb such risks.
After the birth and success of shared bike
services, the concept of shared motorbikes was
a very hot topic among startups. Fortunately,
considering road order and safety, many cit-
ies have denied this model or limited them to
certain areas. As a result, they have avoided the
fate of other shared bikes and also the waste of
resources. We hope to see more of this kind of
timely and effective regulation so that the shar-
ing economy can follow a healthier model of
development.
Improving urban management
Chen Qingbiao (www.cenews.com.cn): It’s
time to rectify the policies regarding shared bi-
cycle services. Frankly speaking, since the birth
of this new service, neither economic profits
QRUVRFLDOEHQHĶWVKDYHEHHQVDWLVIDFWRU\6RPH
companies have defaulted on users’ deposits
and have managed to survive only on venture
capital. This implies that the current shared
bicycle service model is unsustainable. If the
service is allowed to expand under its current
model, it will pose huge challenges to urban
management, especially to order on the streets.
In other words, the current urban management
model can’t bear this type of operation model.
Of course, shared bicycle services are not
without merits. In big cities, some areas are
inaccessible by public transport or even taxi. In
this case, these bikes play a particularly useful
role. However, the limited marginal benefit
stemming from this kind of convenience is not
enough to offset the huge marginal cost cre-
ated by the mess and waste of this operation
model. This problem is increasingly striking in
cities that have a large deployment of shared
bikes. Convenience for a limited number of
users is gained at the expense of the vast
PDMRULW\RIWKHFLW\WKXVLWLVKLJKWLPHXUEDQ
management and transport authorities tackle
this issue.
No matter how the problem is solved,
social management cost will inevitably rise. If
relevant companies bear the cost, that would
be the best solution. If the cost is distributed
among taxpayers, it means everyone is pay-
ing for the convenience of a small number of
users and the mess the shared bike service
has caused.
Currently, since there is still no successful
shared bicycle service model that comple-
ments urban management, the expansion
of this service should be halted. If possible,
relevant firms should try to redeploy their
existing bicycles in a more rational way and
improve their operation so that existing bikes
can be better used to minimize the waste of
UHVRXUFHV(YHQLQVRPHĶUVWDQGVHFRQGWLHU
cities, some users still feel their demand for
shared bicycles is not being met, therefore,
WKLVJDSFDQEHĶOOHGE\WKHSURSHUUHGHSOR\
ment of existing bicycles instead of flooding
the streets with more bikes.
To a large extent, it’s due to the lack of ef-
fective supervision and regulation that shared
bicycle firms are recklessly expanding their
business while paying no attention to bike
management. If a quota is assigned based on
companies’ managerial capability and actual
performance, then the impulse to sprawl the
service can be curbed. The moderate develop-
ment of this service system will satisfy some
people’s demand for bikes while keeping urban
transport in order. Q
SHARED
BICYCLE