[peterw_diy]

@Henry 211419 wrote:

Admitting this is broken and I’m working with Lyft to fix it, one work-around is to call Customer Service, have them cancel your account, then you can re-register with the code right away.

Thanks. I wrote CaBi again yesterday, asking about my request status.

Minor fail: despite my doing this by replying to the last email I got from the ticketing system per its instructions (“To add additional comments, reply to this email.”), my reply yesterday generated a new ticket number and “Request received” email.

Likely success: Lyft support replied to that new ticket to say they’d done what the CaBi site doesn’t seem** to allow me to do on my own: disable automatic membership renewal, so that after my term ends I should be able to reactivate with the employer-provided code. I’m crossing my fingers.

@Henry 211419 wrote:

Next up, I guess, is writing my local jurisdiction so they’re aware (I don’t live in ArlCo

Please do. It will help escalate the priority.

I have done so.

Thanks!

** There’s no toggle for auto-renewal, only a Cancel button, which I was reluctant to use because there were no assurances of what would happen once it was clicked, e.g., nothing reassuring me that there would be a confirmation screen next. I see now that CaBi does have a support page on cancellations but first off, it’s pretty vague (the bit about refunds within 14 days implies I shouldn’t expect money back, but it doesn’t clarify whether cancellations are immediate [which I might want if I’d lost my key and didn’t want to use CaBi any more] or if I’d retain membership benefits through the end of my current membership term); second, over the years I’ve come not to trust the correctness of CaBi’s online information; third, I’ve usually found customer support to be pretty bad & at best slow to resolve issues, so I am inclined to try to avoid anything that seems likely to cause a problem requiring their assistance.

[peterw_diy]

Such awful online customer service from CaBi. It’s been a full week since I last wrote CaBi about my trouble renewing with an employer-provided code, and they have not replied at all. This is so what I recall about Motivate — fast initial response with obviously canned text, and no follow-through.

My membership is set to renew next Wednesday, so at this point I’ve set an alarm to remind myself to just flat out cancel on Tuesday to avoid either of my payment methods being charged. I’ll worry about re-upping with a code on Thursday — thank goodness I don’t actually rely on CaBi to get around.

Next up, I guess, is writing my local jurisdiction so they’re aware (I don’t live in ArlCo, so my particular trouble doesn’t need to be Henry’s concern).

[peterw_diy]

I’m sure you won’t be surprise to hear that the initial response to my support request included a new set of instructions that also did not work. Those instructions have seven steps, and I couldn’t even get through the second because they don’t align with the actual CaBi website behavior.

BTW, my memmbership is no longer listed as “expired” on the site. It now says it will renew in about two weeks, though it doesn’t indicate which of my two payment methods will be used, nor give me any way to remove either of those methods from my account, nor to disable automatic renewal!

I’m not at all surprised. For years CaBi has occasionally exhibited problems suggesting ineffective development and change management processes. What I’m seeing this week suggests both that management hasn’t thought through some user activity paths [like somebody with a corporate freebie wanting to continue as an employer-paid subscriber after one year, or somebody wanting their account not to be renewed], and that they’re deploying software updates (changing the coupon renewal process) and making configuration changes (switching SMS to a regular 10-digit phone number) without also revising their online public-facing documentation and internal customer service boilerplates. Lyft is just carrying forward many of the bad habits developed at Motivate.

[peterw_diy]

Thanks, Henry.

Here’s another one: the “corporate membership” info on https://help.capitalbikeshare.com/hc/en-us/articles/360039402571-Renewals is also out of date — it says to log in to https://account.capitalbikeshare.com/, find “See Plans”, which is not on that page, and then click “Join & Save”, which also isn’t on that page.

(BTW my employer provided me a PDF with a Student/Corporate program code and slighly different, although still useless, instructions. I have also opened a CaBi support ticket in hopes of at least retaining my access to their bikes.)

[peterw_diy]

@dbehrend 211349 wrote:

It would be helpful if the profile page was more explicit about whether you’re enrolled for automatic renewal and when a special type of membership (e.g., employer-sponsored) is set to expire

Amen. I’m not sure how well that could work — for years my employer has provided benefits by handing out “coupon codes”. I guess all they should need to do is keep track of the purpose of each unique code, or ask you, when renewing with a coupon, if you intend to do the same next time.

@dbehrend 211349 wrote:

Do we know that folks who qualify for a discounted or free membership through their local government would actually experience similar issues? I would hope not. I would hope that the local government would be the entity determining eligibility and when to end benefits, not CaBi.

I’d be shocked if they fare any better. I know CaBi has different account classes, e.g. some who qualify for free memberships also are able to keep a bike out for considerably more than 30 minutes without incurring an overage fee.

BTW, the login system is even worse today, as in: it doesn’t work at all. It won’t send texts, and if you click the right button combination to see the “Call me” option, the website displays “Oops. Something went wrong. Please try again.”. Also, no surprise here, their “Fix log-in issues” page seems outdated, e.g. it suggests they text from a five digit “short code” when, as recently as three days ago, they were using a regular 10-digit US phone number.

[peterw_diy]

Let’s not forget the awfullness of the website now insisting that you have cell phone service and use (insecure) SMS text messages to log in, rather than providing your account password over an encrypted, authenticated web connection. While the rest of the world is using things like Google Authenticator, USB security keys, and, yes, SMS in addition to passwords to make logins more secure, CaBi has switched to 100% SMS, making things less secure (and less convenient — I can’t be the only person who regulary finds himself in buildings with terrible cell service).

IME there’s no point complaining to CaBi, as it seems to be a complete mess. Maybe complaining to your elected officials would help since they own the system.

[peterw_diy]

@Judd 211241 wrote:

There’s lots of kids around this bridge and the hole looks big enough that a kid could get hurt doing kid stuff around it.

Agree to disagree. The hole had been pretty effectively blocked with an impressive combination of cones, caution tape, and one of those steel barricades, and I’ve never seen unsupervised kids in 4MR park that weren’t old enough to know how to stay safe around that kind of damage. “could” get hurt, I guess, but the same thing could be said of the 6″ steep drop off the edge of the asphalt trail that remains open there.

[peterw_diy]

Yesterday I rode by there for the first time in weeks. The surface of the now closed bridge looks as it has since late May — the damage doesn’t seem any worse, they’ve just closed the bridge, forcing us to use the marsh route, which unfortunately is unlit and feels more cramped than it sometimes does because of foliage overhanging the trail. Anyhow, I wonder why the City closed the bridge entirely after two months of merely keeping people away from the damage. Does anybody know?

[peterw_diy]

@Alcova cyclist 211213 wrote:

I still don’t understand how the county allows a company to operate with a business model that is basically, “we will have our customers abandon our equipment on private property or blocking public rights-of-way all the time and not do anything about it.”

Well, the county is a co-owner of Capital Bikeshare; Motivate/Lyft is just the management company. Your tax dollars at work.

[peterw_diy]

I’d call the police who I expect have experience removing bicycles that are improperly located. Good luck.

[peterw_diy]

@Judd 211190 wrote:

Took a peek at this yesterday. It appears that the decking is reinforced concrete with a layer of asphalt. The hole appears to be the result of the rebar rusting out. It doesn’t look like it’s going to be an easy fix. [emoji853]

Rebar rusting out, perhaps aggravated by recreation and police staff driving over that bridge repeatedly? Recreation seems to use full-size trash compaction trucks to collect the bags from the few trash cans between the baseball and soccer fields, and for the past year or more it has been very common for one or more police SUVs to be parked by the elementary school and baseball fields — I expect these are the same officers chasing folks off the trail after 10pm.**

Initially the damage was just a 6″ hole; see this Alex311 case from May for a photo; I think it’s subsequently been enlarged by staff investigating the problem. The initial hole lined up pretty well with where you’d expect automotive tire tracks. I’m no civil engineer, but the design does not look sufficient for motor vehicles — the internal I beams are very beefy but there’s very little material on top of them. I’m surprised to hear there was rebar, since from my recollection I don’t think the concrete could have been much thicker than rebar. The visible cupping on the bridge suggests that it’s been used (and degraded!) by autos for years; having looked in the hole I’m suprised that it held out as long as it did, considering the deck thickness. There seems virtually no support between the I beams so I imagine the old concrete provided virtually no strength, and merely served as a substrate to hold new asphalt in place while it cooled and hardened — only because of the rebar was that decking able to support autos.

ISTM the City should just replace the decking with pressure treated lumber and perhaps not cross it with those big trash trucks (not that I’ve ever actually seen that happen). The I beams are close enough together that load shouldn’t be a problem (the sagulator suggests even with I-beams 18″ apart –and I think they’re spaced closer than that– the police should be able to cross safely even if the decking were made of generic 2x6s). A wooden deck would be less expensive to build than asphalt etc, easier to inspect, and might discourage parks staff from using the bridge as a shortcut when picking up 4MR park trash. Traction shouldn’t be a concern since this is straight, short, in the middle of a > 90 degree turn, and with so many pedestrians that nobody should be racing across it.

** It seems some APD and RPCA staff consider these trails to be subject to the City ordinance that sets default “park” hours, which would mean use would be forbidden between 10pm and 5am.

[peterw_diy]

“the budget was just $1,500… The rims came from Velocity USA in Michigan. The hubs, cranks, and headset are from White Industries in California. Sram, in Chicago, supplied the derailleurs and gear shift levers. The saddle came from Selle Anatomica, also in California”

$1500???

[peterw_diy]

@n18 210829 wrote:

The latest MUTCD edition(which the OP cited) is from 2009 with revisions from 2012, so it’s 9 Years old at least. I don’t know if LPI existed back then, or at least the push for road cyclists to use it.

Well, FWIW the City webpage baiskeli cited in 2019 said of general pedestrian LPI that “Localities across the country and around the world (including Alexandria) have been implementing this solution for decades”.

[peterw_diy]

@baiskeli 210822 wrote:

Here it is.

January 15, 2019
New Leading Pedestrian Intervals Installed as Part of Vision Zero Initiative
…
https://www.alexandriava.gov/tes/info/default.aspx?id=107668

I could be mistaken, but I think that only regards the adjustments to the timing of the roadway and pedestrial signals. I’m pretty sure the R9-5 “[bike] USE PED SIGNAL” signs only appeared this year, which explains why that old news release only talks about improving “safety for people walking and driving”.

[peterw_diy]

It’d also be nice if the MUTCD clarified whether this sign only means bicyclists may start early, in the LPI phase, or if it’s also true that they must obey the Don’t Walk ped signal, which tends to appear earlier than the motor vehicle red signal. On its face it seems to say that bicyclists at such intersections must obey all ped signals — Walk and Don’t Walk because the “indications”, plural, “control” the bicyclists. I expect that’s not what was intended, that somebody in FHWA edited too agressively (or wrote too lazily). Certainly I think it seems potentially dangerous for a lane-taking bicyclists to come to a stop when Don’t Walk lights up, as any motor vehicle operators behind them likley won’t be paying any attention to the ped signals, and the roadway signal will be at least yellow, if not actually still green, when Don’t Walk appears. On its face, R9-5 seems to pit cyclists’ obligations to follow pedestrian controls against their obligation not to impede motor vehicle traffic. So, yeah, probably it’s just poor writing.

Also I think giving cyclists something like an LPI is at best a little silly. Between motorists being distracted by their phones and cyclists having better peripheral vision and, especially in the case of e-bikes, acceleration, there seems little reason for the people on bikes to start first — we usually cross the intersection first anyway. Add in Virginia’s new change-lanes-to-pass law (and two abreast law!) and it also seems like a setup for some dangeous and/or annoying leapfrog moves as the motorists try to pass the cyclists who just shoaled them (excercising their rights under § 46.2-841) as soon as the motorists get a green light. I know DC has had universal LPI rights for people on bikes for a few years, but does it also allow two bikes abreast? And require motorists to change lanes to pass even a single bicyclist? Allowing cyclists to shoal you at the red and then get a jump on you during the LPI wouldn’t be as significant an imposition on motorists if the motorists just had to hug the left side of the lane to overtake the single-file cyclists. In Virginia starting July 1, theoretically, my kid & I can ride two abreast and set the pace any time or place where the motorists can’t easily change lanes to pass — like on the sections of Commonwealth with big medians and heavily-uitlized on-street car parking. LPI + R9-5 just makes it easier for us to legally do things that effectively disrupt traffic.

[Author]

Posts