Team Performance review midway checkpoint.
I don't always post something on checkpoints that I do regularly. Often it's just for my own review purpose but since this is a 'reflective' diary I thought I'd put my thoughts here.
DC3 has by far been the worst challenge in IFB103 yet. Appology to my Tutor and Lecturer's who may read this, but it has been terrible.
The scope leaves ALOT to the imagination, and with general confusion about what is to be done, who it's supposed to represent, and how it's to be represented has left at least 90% of the unit at a complete loss.
With this said however, I want to reflect on my teams performance post 'test pitch' last week.
Our meetings whilst have gone largely undocumented (that's mostly because nobody had a clue about what was to be done!!! How do you document in minutes "what do we have to do?"), they have been well conveyed in conversation and agreements, both in person and online forum.
Our team has been committed to meeting, participating and providing quantifiable contributions. The outlook has always been positive, and we have all got along very well.
Unlike DC2, I feel there is more confidence between the team, and whilst being fun, a professional approach has been displayed in respect to the actual research and cost effectiveness of the solutions we have come up with.
Each of my team members have taken to their roles in the 'Roleplay' with dedicated passion and are focussed on delivering the user/stakeholder problem that has been identified.
We were very happy that we managed to get closest to the result that was wanted in the practice pitch and had fun putting together something different, engaging, humorous and managed to get the stakeholders, problems and solutions out there in the time period given.
Is there anything I would change for DC3?
Yes... the content... but that's out of my hand. CityCycle is the best of a bad bunch of subject, with a notable amount prior research to draw upon, high profile news articles, and lots and lots and lots of public opinion!
The problem I've personally faced is getting positive opinion and actual user needs for the service. For every 1 person I've found that likes CityCycle and intends to use the service, there appears to be 20 who don't.
It's been really difficult to separate actual needs from useless cycle hater's comments, and I think this has a much larger effect on the use of the bikes more than the bikes themselves. Cyclists are the bane of existence on the road for motorists. And since the vast majority of people drive to work are motorists, the cycling community is often considered elitist and arrogant with road usage.
There appears to be an larger underlying problem to the usage of CityCycle. And I feel it's more related to a hatred towards cyclists as a whole by Motorist groups. And if I'm perfectly honest, I'm not a fan of cyclists myself.
Living on the Gold Coast, I encounter large groups of cyclists at this time of year, riding at speed (40-60kph) in groups of 5 to 25!!! Little to no indication of lane changes. Riding 3 across and hogging a full lane on a dual lane road which is rated for 80kph is rediculous when there is a perfectly empty hard shoulder to ride in. Then when you get to your destination, there's already 40 of them, all talking loudly in their stretched to breakpoint spandex outfits and littering all the coffee shops! With a sense of arrogance that they have spandex pants and are elitist road users!!!
Okay, so I've made my point. I hate cyclists... I don't like the elitism they portray and arrogance when they congregate in groups. I don't like how fast they ride on footpaths, over bridges but too slow on fast flowing roads, making them a danger to both pedestrians and motorists alike. And I especially hate how they think that they are legitimate road users and that because they are less protected on a bicycle, it is by default the motorists fault if they fail to be able to avoid them when they show little to no regard for the road rules.
Has this made an impact on my opinion on how 'I' perceive CityCycle? You bet it does! Take bicycles and put inexperienced tourists, families and commuters on a bicycle and your asking people to take their lives into their own hands. I have enough problem with the 'professionals' on the road, I don't want to see any amateurs being smeared on the road!!!
So I'm a keen motorist. Hating cyclists doesn't make me racist. But it does make me not want to use a CityCycle service on this principle! It's not something I feel I can bring up in this subject as a legitimate Problem/Solution.
But I do think a public perception of cyclists as a whole has more to do with the adoption and acception rate of the CityCycle service than we think.
Tuesday 27 May 2014
Sunday 25 May 2014
Child Seats
+
+
Child Seats are completely omitted from the scheme all together. This is foreseen as being the major problem for families using this service.
So, here are some sketches as to how I would tackle this also...
So with a child seat fitted to the bicycle, there is additional advertising space on the back. But I also would like to see a cover for the baby seat.
This flip cover will keep the seat dry when not being used. But also it would allow people to use it as a rain cover for other items to store in there whilst riding. Basic bread, milk groceries? A backpack for Uni?
A flip cover makes perfect sense.
Note on the bike I also recommend a sturdy double sided kick stand. This would help reduce the risk of a child wriggling in the seat from toppling the bike as the user has just got off and is preparing the bike to be redocked. This was something that was highlighted as a concern by a mother when it was mentioned.
Helmet Lockers
No Helmet Lockers!!!
+
+
Here are some quick sketches of my Helmet locker ideas. A simple row of lockers with electronic GoCard lockers. Why GoCard? To stop people using the lockers for extended periods of time and impose fees for excessive usage.
I propose a $10 fee per 24 hour period, billed at the end of each 24 hour period.
Taking to Google Sketchup, I did some proof of concept 3D models of how this may look.
I added some advertising panels for potential advertising revenue from these lockers as well. I proposed a double rolling advertising panel would make good revenue.
Helmets cramp my style....
+
Helmets are the Law!
... another problem identified was that people hated helmets. Well okay, not necessarily the actual helmet. Just carrying them? It turns out that when I did a little more research and probing into their opinions on them. People often agreed that the helmet was a necessary piece of safety equipment. Even though most would be happy not to wear one. It's the principle of being fined for not wearing one which is the sticking point.
Now this is a heavily contested topic on helmet laws, and I'll post some links to the research below about them. Note that the author of the blogs reference is also a QUT student and has performed a very extensive research paper into the bike sharing scheme and it's failures. You can read this paper here http://eprints.qut.edu.au/53329/
(Fishman, Elliot, Washington, Simon, & Haworth, Narelle L. (2012) Barriers and facilitators to public bicycle scheme use : a qualitative approach. Transportation Research Part F : Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 15(6), pp. 686-698.)
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2013/12/18/did-the-helmet-law-reduce-commuting-by-bicycle/
Turns out it didn't have the impact you might think... Although children were most influenced and stopped using bicycles in the early 90's because of the law. The interesting part is that those 90's kids are now grown up, and make up a large portion of those opposed (still) to the helmet laws! Interesting read.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2012/10/09/why-is-brisbane-citycycle-an-unmitigated-flop/
This blog echo's that in the paper linked above. The chart below very quickly shows the authors opinions as to why it is a failure.
Most of these issues are being or have been addressed since his research, but I propose a different solution to abandoning the helmet law altogether.
Problem: Don't have a helmet, and don't want to carry one.
Solution: Providing the helmet free of charge when subscribing to the CityCycle service. (No Excuses that you don't have one).
Pick it up from a local authorised stockist like a 7 Eleven/Post office/Coles etc (much like the Melbourne CityCycle service)
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/citycycle-wont-follow-melbournes-5-helmet-lead-20110808-1ii05.html#ixzz31qFGf8zQ
Helmet storage lockers at the docking station. This allows users of the service to safely store their helmet at the dock and keep it dry for the afternoon return trip. To stop users storing items long term, a 24 hour fee would be applied for people failing to remove items within a reasonable time period. Users could use their GoCard to lock the lockers and hence a way to charge users for leaving objects in them.
The stakeholder we identified as being effected here was Business professionals working in the CBD. These stakeholders are not just users of the scheme. A business man/woman may use a CityCycle to get from point to point for meetings and business lunches. Having to carry a helmet into a business meeting or when meeting clients is less than favourable. This is why we considered the locker solution. It alleviates the problem of using the scheme and having to carry anything more than you needed for the normal day's work.
With business professionals having more accessibility and exposure to the service, there is potential advertising and financial backing to be canvassed from these users/clients.
The CityCycle scheme should make more effort to not just attract users, but financial backers also.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)