kazevedo
Joined 15 years ago
Joined 15 years ago
As someone who works to provide better access to bikes via bike-sharing, I've seen that it's actually an incredible way to prevent bike theft. Sharing systems are over-engineered to the point where they're very difficult to mess with. However, deterrence for personal bike theft is an interesting problem. Despite the prevalence of bikes, nobody has found a method to secure or track them that's better than a standard U-lock. We're close to the point where GPS units could be installed on many bikes at reasonable cost, but it's still not easy. Something to work towards, or perhaps there's an easier solution out there.
It's difficult to offer helmets with each bike trip, but we do offer ways for users to get subsidized helmets, and are always working to educate and improve safety. As the system becomes more popular, we hope users consider keeping helmets at their desk or at home for easy access.
We do take payment info on signup. Right now programs are localized so we set up different websites for each, but we hope to link everything together in the future. You can see an example at http://gt.viacycle.com
Your article on Velib is from 2009, and while they did have a lot of theft early on, it was due to a design flaw. They've since fixed the problem and recently celebrated their 100 millionth ride. Also, theft hasn't been a problem at all in the US:
http://www.streetsblog.org/2010/11/29/theft-and-vandalism-ju...
A $1K bike may seem expensive, but they have a lot of differences from your local $100 Walmart cruiser. Our bikes are meant to last for years while being used 24/7 and withstanding any weather. They're also hardened against theft.
The financials are good as well. DC breaks even on operations, while Denver has made a sizable profit:
http://www.commuterpageblog.com/2012/02/capital-bikeshare-st...
Their main issue is high capital cost, which viaCycle solves. We can do a large city programs or let organizations install bikes on a grass-roots level, so you don't need to splash out $5+M to have reliable transportation.
Edit: a few of us did graduate transportation research as well, your work sounds cool. Is it published anywhere?
As the common wisdom goes, the best way to raise money is to not need it. Whether you decide to take funding at that point to accelerate your growth is up to you.
While looking to raise capital and "go big or go home" is perhaps a good barometer of desired impact, I don't think it necessarily correlates to actual impact. From personal experience, there are plenty of companies that go through accelerators or do the "startup" route that are completely optimized for a flashy launch and raising a few $MM. Even if they do eventually prove to be disruptive and earn an exit, the definition of "impact" is a separate discussion, and, I would argue, not solely based on sale price or how many users you've obtained.