Old 06-08-19, 07:02 AM
  #3  
UniChris
Senior Member
 
UniChris's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: NYC
Posts: 767

Bikes: 36" Unicycle

Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 332 Post(s)
Liked 56 Times in 48 Posts
The dispute in the article on the surface has nothing to do with app-hailed for hire vehicles, rather it's a simple contract dispute over the question if the exclusivity in the docked bike share contract also applies to dockless offerings.

To argue that the so called "rideshare" app-hailed hire industry is to blame, is to argue that they're only in the bike share business to keep a lid on it. As a possibility that is a legitimate question, but is there actual evidence to indicate it is the case?

Consider for example, if the goal were to keep a lid on bike share to keep people hailing cars rather than to actually run it as a business, why would they be competing against each other in the bike share realm? Wouldn't one of the companies doing a bad job in an existing city be enough of an impediment?
UniChris is offline