Summary of Key Points
This article discusses the phenomenon of rising prices for shared bicycles, analyzing the various underlying business strategies, utilization of public resources, and user dependence. Platforms disguise price increases as "extended usage times" and use membership cards to lock in users. Shared bicycles rely on public spaces and the implicit benefits of urban governance to reduce costs. As they have evolved from an optional service to a necessary infrastructure, the question of whether their pricing is purely commercial becomes prominent.
1. The Deceptive Strategy behind Price Increases: Longer Usage Times are a Cover for Higher Prices
Platforms have raised the starting price from 1.5 yuan per 30 minutes to 1.88-1.99 yuan per 60 minutes, claiming that this "extends usage time to meet demand." However, data from the China Bicycle Association shows that the average single ride by a regular user is only 10-15 minutes (2.7 kilometers), which hardly warrants 60 minutes of service. This is similar to a noodle shop charging 20 yuan for 15 yuan worth of noodles plus three extra steamed buns that no one will eat, under the guise of "ensuring you get enough food"—in essence, using increased quantity as a cover for a price hike, with most users paying for additional time they don't even use.
2. The Hidden Motives behind Membership Cards
Platforms don't make money on individual rides; instead, they offer monthly or quarterly subscription plans (e.g., 18.6 yuan per month). It may seem economical at first glance, but commuting is unpredictable: if it rains, you wake up late, or you don't ride on weekends, the membership fee still applies, allowing the platform to earn money with no effort. Even more problematic is that during peak hours, there might only be bicycles from other platforms available at subway stations. To ensure always having a bike available, frequent users end up subscribing to multiple services (e.g., Meituan, Hello, Qingju), effectively paying a monthly fee to three different companies, allowing the platform to collect "protection fees" with little effort.
3. The Implicit Benefits of Public Resources
Shared bicycles are parked on public sidewalks (built with public funds), but costs such as road occupation are not fully reflected in the price. Additionally, the low theft rate of shared bicycles in China is due to urban surveillance and police support: individuals may have difficulty recovering their bikes, but platforms can have them recovered by the police, who may even arrest suspects. These public resources (space + security) are essentially a "free lunch" for the platforms, yet they are not reflected in the 1.99 yuan per ride pricing.
4. From an Optional Service to a Necessary One: Users Lose Their Power to Negotiate
Shared bicycles have replaced unlicensed taxis and become the only reasonable option for short distances. Once users get used to them, there is no option of not paying. The monthly cost, calculated based on round-trip rides, can amount to nearly 88 yuan. Moreover, subscribing to multiple platforms may be necessary due to varying usage patterns. Now, they have become as essential as water and electricity, but their pricing still follows purely commercial logic. The article raises the question: should an essential infrastructure be completely priced by the market?
This article does not accuse the platforms of being "unscrupulous"; rather, it highlights a structural issue: when a commercial service becomes a necessity of urban life, it is no longer just a commodity but requires a reevaluation of pricing mechanisms as if it were a quasi-public service. Behind the millions of people scanning codes and paying every day lies the balance between public resources and commercial interests.