Author: north wind source: beifengxuelin (id:beifengxuelin)
Since the 26th, some friends in Huanggang, Hubei Province, have sent me messages saying that “Qingju motorcycles” have been unable to “brush the code for cycling” for a day or two.
Some users buy “riding tickets” according to the time, and they will naturally suffer losses if they are unable to ride. The key point is that there is no response from contacting the official customer service, which can not solve the problem.
Qingju motorcycle is a product of didi company, so some friends asked, “does didi want to withdraw from the market” and run away?
Will Didi’s Qingju motorcycles withdraw from the third and fourth tier cities? And it happened after didi was fined more than 8 billion by the state. There is “inside story” to dig!
My initial investigation direction was toward “didi company”.
But after I learned about the “green orange motorcycle can’t operate” incident these two days, I found two problems.
First, the friends who told me that “Qingju stopped operating for no reason” were concentrated in Huanggang City, Hubei Province.
Second, in Huanggang City, the “Xiaoyu trip” motorcycle operated together with Qingju electric vehicle was also reported to be unable to start. The small fish travel has nothing to do with didi capital.
Therefore, the two “shared motorcycles” in the whole city cannot be used, which is not a pot of capital, but a local problem.
First, the taxi driver “crossed the border and rolled in”, and the shared motorcycle was stopped
In my opinion, the sharing of motorcycles is also on the “motorcycle license plate”. The operation on the road, of course, belongs to the transportation department.
So I asked my colleagues to contact “12328” in Huanggang City, which is [transportation service phone].
As a result, the operator of the other party said that the operation of “sharing motorcycles” was not under the control of the transportation department. He needed to call “12345” for consultation, which was the “mayor’s hotline”.
After dialing 12345, the operator was very enthusiastic and “honest” to tell the reason why “shared motorcycles in Huangzhou District” could not operate.
“Some time ago, taxi drivers concentrated on petitioning, so Qingju and Xiaoyu travel have been stopped. Xiaoyu travel will resume operation from today. Whether Qingju can recover and when it will recover are uncertain!”
I hope this operator will not be “blamed”, because she has hundreds of specious “bullshit” answers, which can cover up the event that the motorcycle stops operating.
But she didn’t. She accurately told that after the “taxi drivers” filed a collective petition, the shared electric vehicle was stopped.
As for why “Xiaoyu trip” can be restored and Qingju motorcycles can’t be used, she didn’t explain. She didn’t reply whether Qingju was just “temporary rectification” or “forced withdrawal”.
My colleagues and I checked the information and found that Qingju motorcycles entered Huanggang City for the first time last September, and at that time, they were introduced as a “project for the urbanization development of Wuhan City Circle”.
It is considered to be an important “benevolent government” of urban civilization and humanization.
As a result, after less than a year of operation, the “taxi driver” was directly suspended in the centralized petition of “no social publicity”.
For ordinary “people on behalf of the people”, this is obviously neither civilized nor human.
A few years ago, we heard about the collective petition of “taxi drivers” in many cities, but it was mainly aimed at the online car Hailing platform of “peer competition” or the black car drivers of “illegal passenger carrying”.
This obviously also belongs to the internal competition of different modes of the “taxi industry”.
However, this year, the poor income growth of ordinary people, the relatively contracted consumption habits and the reduction of “taking taxis” are natural choices.
Because of the impact of epidemic prevention and control on public transport, the way of personal driving and personal travel such as “motorcycles” has increased rapidly.
Of course, we know that the convenience of “short trip” of motorcycles makes the business of taxi drivers worse, but this should not be a legitimate reason for an industry to stifle people’s “another consumption choice”.
Second, the operation logic of motorcycles is much more mature than that of the “bicycle era”
When it comes to “shared electric vehicles”, many people will think of the brutal expansion a few years ago, the “shared bike” mode of a chicken feather.
Bike sharing did provide convenience to the public a few years ago, but there are two major shortcomings.
First, many bike sharing platforms have expanded savagely, charging “high deposit rolling operation”, or a huge deposit for illegal investment. Finally, after the thunderstorm, users across the country cannot refund the deposit.
Second, shared bicycles lack the human and material resources of “urban management” and the treatment measures for “damaged and depreciated” bicycles. So we see many urban “bicycle cemeteries” shocking.
A few years ago, the “negative impression” of bike sharing was brought to the “bike sharing” industry by many people.
But in fact, sharing motorcycles now needs to enter a city, and the “maintenance and operation threshold” is very high.
In addition, at this stage, the charging rules of four tier cities are basically “2 yuan for 20 minutes and 4 yuan for 40 minutes”.
In contrast, it is “illegal parking outside the designated parking area, and the scheduling fee is 15 yuan per time”.
According to the actual operation experience of “sharing electric vehicles” in various cities in recent years, the first is to do a good job in “joint maintenance and joint construction” with the urban management department, and designate enough and convenient parking spots.
On the basis of sufficient and standardized parking spots, many people who choose to share electric vehicles go for “2 yuan cheap”, and the “illegal parking and dispatching fine” of 15 yuan per time is enough to scare many working-class people.
Therefore, “the most criticized illegal parking of motorcycles” is “a false proposition living in the old impression”.
I can guess that the reason for taxi drivers’ collective petition must not be “sharing motorcycles is too convenient and cheap, so we have no business, we must kill him”.
Taxi drivers’ reasons must be “motorcycles are parked indiscriminately, people are taken in violation of regulations, and safety helmets are not worn”. They must fight against the “illegal direction” in order to achieve the effect.
As for why “taxi drivers” suddenly become so “public welfare” and so worried about the safety of people’s lives, it only shows that people are “high-level”.
So does the problem of sharing electric vehicles “illegally carrying people” or “not wearing helmets” exist?
It must exist!
For example, the transportation department has long required that the sharing of electric vehicles must implement the “remote sensing helmet”, and advanced technology should be used to prove that cyclists wear helmets legally before the electric bicycle can be powered on and started.
Not to mention the increased “safety cost” of this design, but only the illegal manned and “not wearing a helmet”.
First of all, the seat design of shared motorcycles is more “non-human” than that of conventional electric vehicles, which is very difficult to carry people.
Secondly, all helmets for sharing electric vehicles are tied to bicycles, if not “100% mandatory”, at least semi mandatory.
Then a city should treat equally in the law enforcement of “illegal passenger carrying by electric vehicles” and “must wear safety helmets”.
If the illegal manned and non helmeted electric vehicles stop operating, then other illegal manned and non helmeted ordinary electric vehicles should also be of the same standard.
The current law enforcement measure is that shared motorcycles achieved 90 points in “no illegal passenger carrying” and “no helmet”, but they were stopped without implementing the prisoner policy of “no helmet and no electricity”.
Other citizens have only 50 points of law-abiding consciousness of illegally carrying people in electric vehicles and not wearing helmets, but they go on the road as usual.
This is obviously not the law enforcement of “equal treatment”.
Third, the “distribution according to the noise” continues, and the cross-border internal volume will “pass from line to line”!
It must be admitted that the business format of sharing electric vehicles gives people more convenient and economical choices, and also leads to a slight decline in taxi customers.
At the same time, the income, employment and consumption of all taxi drivers are solved in local cities, while the vast majority of the benefits of the shared electric vehicle platform are collected by the national platform. How many local operation and maintenance companies feed back to the operating cities, and no public information can be found.
From this perspective, it is “relatively normal logic” for local governments to damage the national platform that makes money for the benefit of the vast majority of local taxi drivers.
However, in today’s economic environment, there are two issues involved. The first is the issue of “national construction of a unified national market”.
The “logic” of local taxi drivers to stop all sharing motorcycles when they collectively appeal is obviously contrary to the construction of a national unified market.
Second, taxi drivers and shared electric vehicles are not “binary contradictions”, which involves the most important third party, that is, “user interests”, or the interests of the masses for convenient travel.
Although sharing electric vehicles makes a few taxi drivers think that “the source of passengers is reduced and the income is reduced”, it facilitates the travel of more people. In this year’s environment of “everyone living a tight life”, people should be given the right to “travel a tight life”.
Some readers do not have the habit of “riding a shared electric bike when traveling”, so they may not be able to understand the harm of the incident of “taxi drivers stopping a shared electric bike”.
We can imagine that this kind of “cross-border Involution” can easily lead to the phenomenon of “industry to industry” if it is “distributed according to noise”.
In the past, taxi drivers only used to roll on the Internet and ride illegally. Now they have to cross the line to prohibit sharing motorcycles.
This is just like in the past, we often criticized “some instant noodles or breakfast associations enforce the price of instant noodles or some kind of breakfast”.
In the future, such “bullying in the industry may really decrease”, but the inter-bank crackdown will increase. If you eat 5 pieces of hot and dry noodles in a bowl that is full, it will certainly hit “13 yuan a bowl of beef noodles”.
Your one yuan fresh meat bag is enough for the “common people”. Of course, there will be less customers for the seven or eight pieces of beef patties and rougamo.
Therefore, in the future, the action of “setting a minimum price for beef noodles and rougamo” will be reduced, but the cross-border riots of collective rioting and suppressing the killing of “cheaper breakfast varieties” will increase.
In fact, the outdoor temperature this summer is record high. There should be a big difference between users sharing motorcycles and air-conditioned taxis.
In such a high temperature, there are two main appeals of people who still choose to use shared electric vehicles.
First, people who don’t have a high income and usually don’t choose “taxis” will choose to walk or public transportation even if they don’t have electric cars.
Second, they have to go to some motor vehicle restrictions, or one-way lines, or pass through sections with special motor vehicle congestion, take a taxi to bypass the toll time, and are forced to choose electric vehicles.
What local governments really need to do is to implement policies aimed at “the core demands of the people”.
On the one hand, for low-income groups, local governments must maintain the option of “more economical travel mode”, which is part of “social disclosure”.
Forcing low-income groups to take taxis or walk on hot roads is against their original intention.
Second, some people are forced to choose motorcycles because of traffic restrictions, one-way lines and vehicle congestion. This is the direction for local governments to solve the pain points.
The main focus should be on road dredging, the further optimization of “traffic restrictions and one-way lines”, the improvement of the operation efficiency of taxis and the reduction of blocking points, rather than adopting the governance method of “blocking the cheap choices of ordinary people and increasing the income of troublemakers”.
In the second half of this year, the “consumption scene” of many third – and fourth tier cities will continue to shrink. Taxis and shared motorcycles that were originally “target users” without conflict are “torn up”. We should plan in advance to avoid “different industries” from making trouble and strife because of “robbing the source of customers”.
To avoid the phenomenon of “city to city” in “industry strife”, we must get rid of the bad habit of “distribution according to noise”.
In addition, Huanggang municipal government has the most wrong place, which is “closed without complaint”!
In today’s world, there are really few news that can’t be found on the Internet. Each local government has also released a similar “city release”, or the local Communist Youth League official account, the local influential “city we media”.
All “shared electric vehicle platforms” in a city can’t be used, which doesn’t matter to car owners like me, but for some people who “share motorcycles as commuter transportation”, it’s a big event four times a day.
There are so many official channels, so many local self media network channels, and the notice of “banning the motorcycle platform” has not been found for three days.
If it weren’t for getting through the mayor’s hotline, I wouldn’t even know the reason why “taxi drivers make trouble” led to the “shutdown of motorcycle platforms”.
There are only two possibilities. One is that “closing the electric vehicle platform is a short-term helpless measure to deal with trouble, and I don’t want to make it public to the public”, which seems to be lacking in confidence.
Otherwise, even the notice of “operation and maintenance enterprises should carry out relevant rectification for relevant reasons” is also an explanation to hundreds of thousands of people in the urban area and all motorcycle users.
The second possibility is “it doesn’t matter to the banned person. Here’s your motorcycle. You can ride it if you can scan the code, and you can’t ride it if you can’t. what’s the reason? Is it necessary to tell you?”
What I mentioned here is only the issue of “the right to know about banning electric vehicles”. In fact, this policy involving the travel of many people at the bottom, “does it not need to go through the hearing process to represent the political channels of members”?
In a third tier city, it’s a small matter to stop the operation of motorcycles because taxi drivers make trouble.
But this year and next, this will not be an “isolated case”. Many industries can apply this “shell model”.
To avoid the phenomenon of “industry to industry” and “city to city” in “distribution according to noise”, we must do a good job in source control!
The “cheap travel mode” that arbitrarily blocks the bottom people is the wrong “distribution according to noise”, or else!
“Seal up without prosecution” makes this mistake more disrespectful to the bottom people, even worse!