| |
Main
Date: 16 Jun 2007 15:04:25
From: Matt O'Toole
Subject: Why does it cost more to rent a bike than a car?
|
I've been thinking about this, since I'm about to be traveling for almost
3 months, without my own bike:
http://washcycle.typepad.com/home/2007/04/why_does_is_cos.html
Seems absurd, doesn't it?
Matt O.
|
|
| |
Date: 17 Jun 2007 16:23:19
From: David L. Johnson
Subject: Re: Why does it cost more to rent a bike than a car?
|
Matt O'Toole wrote:
> I've been thinking about this, since I'm about to be traveling for almost
> 3 months, without my own bike:
>
> http://washcycle.typepad.com/home/2007/04/why_does_is_cos.html
Well, from that perspective, there are a lot of rental things that we
should be upset about. I recently rented a floor sander, and it cost
more than a car rental, also; plus is was considerably less fun.
There are 20 companies in my general area that rent cars, and they rent
a lot of them. Market forces apply to keep prices low and volume up.
But there is maybe one place to rent a bike, and you'd be lucky to be
able to rent a road bike anywhere. Maybe there is too little market,
since bikes are more easily portable than cars (on, say, planes).
--
David L. Johnson
It is probable that television drama of high caliber and produced by
first-rate artists will materially raise the level of dramatic taste
in the nation.
-- David Sarnoff, 1939
|
| |
Date: 17 Jun 2007 11:42:12
From: Luigi de Guzman
Subject: Re: Why does it cost more to rent a bike than a car?
|
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 01:07:05 -0700, Kenny wrote:
> On Jun 17, 3:04 am, Matt O'Toole <mattoto...@letterboxes.org> wrote:
>> I've been thinking about this, since I'm about to be traveling for almost
>> 3 months, without my own bike:
>>
>> http://washcycle.typepad.com/home/2007/04/why_does_is_cos.html
>>
>> Seems absurd, doesn't it?
>>
>> Matt O.
>
> Damn right it's absurd. If the Dutch can do it why can't Americans?
> http://www.holland.com/global/geninfo/travelinfo/bikerent.html
Probably because Americans don't ride bicycles as a rule, or, if they do,
treat them as toys rather than means of transport.
-Luigi
|
| |
Date: 17 Jun 2007 01:07:05
From: Kenny
Subject: Re: Why does it cost more to rent a bike than a car?
|
On Jun 17, 3:04 am, Matt O'Toole <mattoto...@letterboxes.org > wrote:
> I've been thinking about this, since I'm about to be traveling for almost
> 3 months, without my own bike:
>
> http://washcycle.typepad.com/home/2007/04/why_does_is_cos.html
>
> Seems absurd, doesn't it?
>
> Matt O.
Damn right it's absurd. If the Dutch can do it why can't Americans?
http://www.holland.com/global/geninfo/travelinfo/bikerent.html
|
| |
Date: 17 Jun 2007 00:39:27
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: Why does it cost more to rent a bike than a car?
|
> I've been thinking about this, since I'm about to be traveling for almost
> 3 months, without my own bike:
>
> http://washcycle.typepad.com/home/2007/04/why_does_is_cos.html
>
> Seems absurd, doesn't it?
>
> Matt O.
Inefficiency, pure & simple. Rental cars live their life on the road;
utilization is very high. Plus, cars are insured (by everyone down the line
on a rental) while bikes are not. Add the fact that used bikes get a much
lower fraction of their cost returned than used cars. Then look at how many
different sizes are needed for a bike rental fleet. It starts to get ugly
fast. And finally, there's that "treat it like a rental" mentality. Cars
command more respect from their users than bikes do. Basically, a lot of
people just don't take bikes (and the damage they might do to one)
seriously, while they know full well that even a minor fender ding is going
to cost them several hundred dollars.
But pretty much all of that was covered in the article you referenced.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
|
| | |
Date: 17 Jun 2007 08:26:10
From: fred
Subject: Re: Why does it cost more to rent a bike than a car?
|
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> I've been thinking about this, since I'm about to be traveling for almost
>> 3 months, without my own bike:
>>
>> http://washcycle.typepad.com/home/2007/04/why_does_is_cos.html
>>
>> Seems absurd, doesn't it?
>>
>> Matt O.
>
> Inefficiency, pure & simple. Rental cars live their life on the road;
> utilization is very high. Plus, cars are insured (by everyone down the line
> on a rental) while bikes are not. Add the fact that used bikes get a much
> lower fraction of their cost returned than used cars. Then look at how many
> different sizes are needed for a bike rental fleet. It starts to get ugly
> fast. And finally, there's that "treat it like a rental" mentality. Cars
> command more respect from their users than bikes do. Basically, a lot of
> people just don't take bikes (and the damage they might do to one)
> seriously, while they know full well that even a minor fender ding is going
> to cost them several hundred dollars.
>
> But pretty much all of that was covered in the article you referenced.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
>
Good points all.
Could rental outlets simplify things by using folding bikes? My father
had a Raleigh Twenty for more than 20 years (maybe they should have
called it a Thirty?) while I was growing up. With a highly adjustable
seat and handlebars, I was able to ride it as I was growing.
Rental outlets might still need a variety of bikes, but a highly
adjustable folder might reduce the required scope of variety.
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Jun 2007 14:01:30
From: Dane Buson
Subject: Re: Why does it cost more to rent a bike than a car?
|
fred <fred@fred.com > wrote:
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>
>> Inefficiency, pure & simple. Rental cars live their life on the road;
>> utilization is very high. Plus, cars are insured (by everyone down the line
>> on a rental) while bikes are not. Add the fact that used bikes get a much
>> lower fraction of their cost returned than used cars. Then look at how many
>> different sizes are needed for a bike rental fleet. It starts to get ugly
>> fast. And finally, there's that "treat it like a rental" mentality. Cars
>> command more respect from their users than bikes do. Basically, a lot of
>> people just don't take bikes (and the damage they might do to one)
>> seriously, while they know full well that even a minor fender ding is going
>> to cost them several hundred dollars.
>>
> Good points all.
>
> Could rental outlets simplify things by using folding bikes? My father
> had a Raleigh Twenty for more than 20 years (maybe they should have
> called it a Thirty?) while I was growing up. With a highly adjustable
> seat and handlebars, I was able to ride it as I was growing.
It would help, but there would still be a fairly low utilization rate...
in the US. Other places seem to do better. Lyons and Paris are using
step through frames in their rental bike schemes. Given a decent
design, they will accomodate a good range of riders.
> Rental outlets might still need a variety of bikes, but a highly
> adjustable folder might reduce the required scope of variety.
Well, it doesn't really need to fold does it? Just 26" or less sized
wheels, a good adjustable seapost, and maybe an adjustable stem.
--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
When in doubt, do it. It's much easier to apologize than to get permission.
-- Grace Murray Hopper
|
| |
Date: 17 Jun 2007 03:03:07
From: Luigi de Guzman
Subject: Re: Why does it cost more to rent a bike than a car?
|
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 15:04:25 -0400, Matt O'Toole wrote:
> I've been thinking about this, since I'm about to be traveling for almost
> 3 months, without my own bike:
>
> http://washcycle.typepad.com/home/2007/04/why_does_is_cos.html
>
> Seems absurd, doesn't it?
>
> Matt O.
Probably because you're paying for the convenience of leaving the bike
behind? I seem to recall a rake once realizing that he hadn't paid the
hooker to go to bed with him--he had paid her to *leave*; the price was
about consummating the act without any of the nasty social/personal
obligations.
So it is with rented bikes, eh?
-Luigi
http://ouij.livejournal.com
|
|
