Talk:Vélib'

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Effect on Smaller Cycle Renting Agencies

Does anyone have any data on the effect this comparatively large, state-mandated programme has had on the smaller, commercial rental agencies? If so, please report. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.152.69 (talk) 14:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No impact on smaller rental companies whose clientele are visitors to Paris. Velib is intended for those living and working in Paris. The Velib system only accepts payment from those with French Bank Cards. Visitors to Paris are unlikely to have a French bank card so those rental companies who historically cater to tourism industry have, so far, not been affected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evan1261 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect; all Europeans have a Maestro ATM/debit/bank card and those cards can be used to rent bikes. AxelBoldt (talk) 11:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I was able to rent with a Australian Visa Credit card in 2007 88.165.237.42 (talk) 21:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update to other simailr systems section[edit]

I propose to add that Brisbane has become the first city in Australia to adopt the system appointing JCDecaux, thoughts? Relevant link http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuId=2&ContentID=119992 Matthewdoyle (talk) 14:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Velib Problems Section[edit]

I added in two problems with the Velib system regards stations being too busy for a user to return a bike and also machines opening accounts without printing receipts. These were subsequently reverted. Can someone explain to me why? I was only in Paris for 5 days and not only did I fall victim to both, I met several other tourists (I was staying in a hostel) who had also been "ripped off" by the machines not printing receipts. As for returning the bikes, having a system which charges the user for not returning the bikes within 30 minutes whilst overcrowding at stations prevents a user from returning the bike is a severe problem. I honestly can't understand why both entries were removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.252.236 (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't doubt that you are right, but according to our rules, we are not allowed to write Wikipedia entries based on our personal experience. All Wikipedia content must be verifiable, that is, it must be based on reliable sources. Personal experience is original research, which we are not supposed to engage in.  Sandstein  20:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, are reviews of the system by the Guardian Newspaper and the International Herald Tribune acceptable sources? Both of which mention the problems I and many others have faced.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/aug/16/ethicalliving.france http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/22/europe/velib.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.252.236 (talk) 21:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, certainly. You should provide direct references to these articles if you intend to write encyclopedic content based on them. This will make your content verifiable and less likely to be deleted. Instructions on how to do this are found at WP:CITE.  Sandstein  21:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I took a quick look at the sources listed above, and they don't seem to me to reliably verify the removed anecdotes. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photo[edit]

The photo of the young man and the upturned bike is completely misleading, if a bike has a puncture all you do is return it to a station, there is no need for someone to wonder how to fix a punctured tire. It misrepresents the Velib experience and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.247.253 (talk) 01:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Velib bikes spotted in Romania[edit]

The NYTimes article that claims that Velibs have been spotted in Romania does not offer any sources for this, and there is no mention on the entire Internet before the publishing of that particular article of Velibs spotted in Romania.

Because the reference is a prestigious source, it is hard to argue with; however I'd like emphasize that a journalist working for the NYTimes could have included hearsay in the article on a problem seen as not important enough to warrant more investigation, but a problem that in the right location might contribute to ethnic hatred.

I would like to include in the Wikipedia entry a note regarding the lack of source for the presence of Velibs in Romania. This would not be original research, as I have found a Romanian newspaper article from Gandul that cites the UK journal the Telegraph regarding Velibs in Romania, but does make a note about the absence of a source (Romanian article)

Ultimately, because it can be a controversial topic in certain places, and because you cannot really have a source showing non-existence of Velibs in Romania, I would like to make some changes to the article. But I do not wish to start an edit war. Please let me know of your opinions about how you feel about handling this situation. Gabiteodoru (talk) 13:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the New York Times used the newspaper Le Parisien as a source, and I know that Vélibs have also been spotted in Morocco too. But I would agree that without "realistic" sources, it's pretty hard to let this part in the article. Slasher-fun (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you're awesome! Yeah, a picture like that totally convinces me. I added it as a reference. Thanks for digging that up! Gabiteodoru (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Separate Autolib' article?[edit]

Should the Autolib' section be spun out into its own article? PeterEastern (talk) 11:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. Slasher-fun (talk) 11:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support the creation of the new article as Autolib' (Paris), considering there is an Autolib '(Lyon) that also could be created. See here the links to the French Wikipedia articles: Paris and Lyon.--Mariordo (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done as per consensus. See new article Autolib'.--Mariordo (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Theft and Vandalism Section[edit]

I've made several edits to this section-- here's a detailed list of what and why:

First para. [starts "At least 3,000 bicycles…"]: All references in this section were from 2008 or 2009. I've added more recent references and included updated info from the Financial Times on a decline in Vélib loss rates. Also named New York Times as the source of 2009 report on damages (so users can evaluate it in relation to the recent Financial Times report). Reference to some bicycles hung on lampposts was moved up from a lower paragraph, mainly for reasons explained below; grouping this point with reports of Vélib cycles thrown in the Seine also more closely reflects the reporting in the NY Times article cited here, which mentions them together.

Second para. [starts "JCDecaux officials…]: In first sentence, changed " have admitted they underestimated the degree of potential losses" to "told reporters they underestimated…". It's very likely that JCDecaux did in fact underestimate this problem; however, company spokespeople are at present the only source for that. Given that JCDecaux won the contract through competitive bidding, and given subsequent accusations (see below) that they promoted coverage of vandalism and theft to provide more leverage in bargaining over the terms of their contract in the future, it is at least possible that executives might have deliberately low-balled initial cost estimates in order to win the contract, figuring they could obtain increased payments later. Saying simply that company officials "told reporters they underestimated…" is thus more certain to be accurate.

At end of the second para: The prior text said an assessment of the system's profitability had been postponed until recent measures to reduce losses had time to take effect. I've replaced this with more recent info-- a quote from JCDecaux's board chair, and a 2012 press report, saying that the system lost money the first three years, but has gone into the black since then. The fact that JCDecaux does not disclose exact figures is noted, so readers can form their own opinion on the credibility of reports that the system has become profitable. [This para. formerly ended with a bit on "the tragedy of the commons"; I've moved this down to a new final paragraph, see below for rationale.]

Also in the second para: updated the source for 1500 repair/maintenance actions daily from a 2009 article to also include a source from 2012. Added "and maintenance," since "tire re-inflation" (cited in this para.) is not really a repair issue as such. About the article's statement (retained from prior text) that these 1500 repair/maintenance actions are mainly for tire re-inflation: the source cited on this point (2009 NY Times article) does mention tire inflation but doesn't say it's the most common kind of repair/maintenance. On a quick search online, I couldn't find any confirming source (on frequency of tire inflation compared to other kinds of Vélib maintenance or repair). I believe I've seen this stated elsewhere, however, so for now I didn't change this part of the text. Does anyone else know a source for this? If none is found, the statement about "focusing" on tire inflation should be changed to just list it as one of several kinds of maintenance/repair.

Third para. [starts " Vandalism and theft of Vélib cycles received a wave of press coverage…"]: I added this para., on reports that JCDecaux promoted media coverage of theft and vandalism in 2009 as a negotiating tactic, to help readers evaluate the context for some of the media reports cited elsewhere in this section. Two company critics, a politican and an academic researcher, are quoted. JCDecaux's refusal to comment on this point is noted also.

Fourth para. [starts " Sociologist Bruno Marzloff.."}: Former text said "At least one sociologist…", and then cited an article quoting only Marzloff. I've made this more direct by naming him, and added a sentence or two quoting Marzloff to make clearer to readers what he is saying. Also in this sentence, I've changed "immigrant youth gangs" to simply "immigrant youth." While Marzloff does refer to "gangs" in the NY Times article cited, this is only in relation to the torching of autos in France's 2005 riots. With respect to contemporary anti-Vélib vandalism, the Times only quotes Marzloff as discussing immigrant youth more generally.

Also fourth para.: This para. originally ended by saying, " In an ominous allusion to historical Parisian revolutionary history, some Vélib bicycles have been found vandalised and hanging from lampposts." However, this connection (to history of revolutions in Paris) is not made in the source cited (2009 NY Times article), which simply lists hanging some vandalized biked from lampposts as part of a list of other damages (bikes thrown in the Seine, stolen & sent abroad for sale, etc.). I retained the factual reference to some bikes being hung from lampposts and moved this up to the first para., where the other examples of damages listed by the NY Times article are described. I deleted the assertion that this was intended as a reference to "Parisian revolutionary history," as this is not supported by the cited source and appears to be speculation. (If this sentence was to be retained, it would need some copy-editing: "historical Parisian revolutionary history" is redundant, and where the sentence says this is "ominous" it does not reflect a neutral POV.)

Fifth para. [starts with "The program's critics…]: Added this as a new para. This begins with a point (on "tragedy of the commons") that was originally at the end of the section's second paragraph. It seemed to me to work better as part of a summary of the Vandalism and Theft section. No examples of such critics are given, and the statement is unsourced. But it would be a logical point for some critics to make, so I've left this sentence in and simply noted that a citation is needed. To improve the article's neutral POV in this summarizing paragraph, I've added a sentence on views of the program's supporters.

PrintHead55 (talk) 01:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

removed anecdote[edit]

i removed the following from the article as it doesn't seem encyclopaedic. Nicoli nicolivich (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anecdote

In late 2012 a Vélib' bicycle was moved to Lyon and parked among the Velo'v bicycles, Lyon equivalent of the Vélib'. Initially intended by a small studio as a way to gain celebrity it resulted in the studio being fined 175 euros.[34][35]

Market penetration[edit]

The article says "As of July 2013, Velib' has the highest market penetration with 1 bike per 97 inhabitants". The link in the reference seems to be broken. My calculation for today shows a much smaller market penetration: there are ~14.5k bicycles which serve Paris and some additional municipalities around it. The population of Paris alone is, according to Wikipedia, roughly 2.2m people. With these numbers, it seems like the market penetration is roughly 1 bike per 150 inhabitants. Perhaps we should refresh the numbers? Who updated the numbers recently? Peleg (talk) 19:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Vélib'. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Velib' and Velib' Metropole[edit]

It is recommended to merge the Vélib' Métropole stub into the more general Velib' page. It does not make sense to keep two seperate pages since the service is essentially the same, the only difference being a marketing rebranding.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vélib%27&oldid=1205910408"