4 ms·

SF Is Fighting the Scooter Trend with Poop and Vandalism

24 points by dtien 8y ago

andrei_says_ 8y ago
What would be very interesting for me to read about in this discussion, is some of the motivations of the people disabling / vandalizing the scooters. Here are some I imagine: 1. scooters parked in ways that are perceived as inappropriate, obtrusive, invasive, dangerous etc. 2. “get off my sidewalk” sentiment. 3. Scooters as being perceived as “another aspect of the rich people’s colonization of our city/communities” + “F the rich/hipsters” attitude. 4. Systematized anticompetitive activity from ...? What else? I’m sure I’m just scratching the surface. Anyone from SF with some insight?
- lovich 8y ago
  Could just be the attitude of the companies. I know bird and lime bike are trying to enter Somerville and Cambridge MA despite being told no by the local government. Some people have taken to throwing the bikes or scooters into the rivers when they show up now as a "fuck you" to the companies who are giving a "fuck you" to their town
  - wahern 8y ago
    Or cities could actually implement reasonable legislation that directly addresses the problem. For example, require standard, short, clearly identifiable serial codes to make it easy to issue tickets when scooters are parked inappropriately. Because the scooter companies track the users, they then have the capability to push the costs onto the irresponsible rider.[1] Frankly, I just don't get how people manage to use a nuisance to justify vandalism. I mean, I do get it--it's thinly veiled class and anti-corporate anger. But it's cowardly. Once upon a time real civil disobedience came with consequences, and even then activists didn't shamelessly destroy private property. Indeed, the personal consequences are what made the activism both substantive and powerful. Perhaps if these people invited the police to come watch them dump the scooters into the river en masse then I'd respect them even if I disagreed with them. [1] Yes, you can't prove a passerby didn't move the scooter. But the scooter company would have to pay regardless, and enough of the costs will be passed on to users that behaviors would change.
    - RodericDay 8y ago
      cowardly is how I'd describe the behavior of companies the direct action seems pretty upfront to me, and the suggestion that they should invite the cops strikes me as idiotic faux-even-handedness
    - linksnapzz 8y ago
      The cities have reasonable legislation. There's a permitting process for getting commercial access to public space. Of course, I'm not going to conflate "reasonable" with "expedient to the growth needs of <random_startup>". Having dispensed with any decent respect for the city's prerogative to legislate commercial conduct for the well-being of all residents, the scooter companies chose to annex public sidewalks for storing their assets. As a citizen, that sort of flagrant disrespect for civil mores doesn't make me very sympathetic to whatever problems their littering policy causes the scooter-rental entrepreneurs. It's not civil disobedience to get rid of these things when they're left on the sidewalk. It is fidelity to an ideal of civil society where sidewalks are for walking, and not to be blithely annexed by people with more venture funding than manners. My preferred take would be to collect a bunch of em, pull the electronics & batteries, and weld them into a jungle-gym for a park or elementary school that needs one.
    - lovich 8y ago
      The town's had laws and we're reaching out to the companies to see how they would deal with their new business model. The companies decided to ignore all of that and just start doing things they were explicitly told not to do. Once you start ignoring the law it's pretty hypocritical to start complaining that other people are treating you the same way. Honestly I'm surprised the town's havent done more to these companies. Apparently they confiscate equipment when found but the company is can pick it up with no cost. It degrades the rule of law when one entity can blatantly disregard the laws for their own benefit Edit: Additionally, what's the economic difference between someone destroying a bit of capital, a scooter for example, and someone performing a sit in and blocking a service oriented business from serving paying customers. Both cost the businesses money, but the current behavior is somehow morally different? If the companies had attempted to stay within the confines of the law I might agree with you, but once they ignored it they lost all ability to claim any sort of high ground. A number of people are tired of these giant vc backed companies coming into their towns and completely ignoring all laws and not even pretending to be civil.
  - rjbwork 8y ago
    We've got both Bird and Lime here in Atlanta. While some people act a little holier than thou, I've seen riders of all shapes, colors, and classes (determined by dress, worn down street clothes all the way to 3 piece suits). I ride it sporadically, but not rarely. I am concerned about the fact that lots of the money is leaving the community, but at the same time it comes back from people collecting and charging them.
    - lovich 8y ago
      Money leaving the community wasnt really a problem. Space is at a premium here and the mayors asked the companies to register their bikes/scooters and have some sort of plan of dealing with them being left all over the place. The companies response was to ignore that entirely and just drop their equipment in the city overnight and announce they were in town. They ignore the law when given the least bit of inconvenience , so why would anyone respect their property rights is the thinking that's going on.
      - jpetso 8y ago
        The counter-argument to that is that the public benefit vs. compensation aspect is massively biased: http://cityobservatory.org/e-scooters-and-paying-for-roads/ http://cityobservatory.org/e-scooters-and-paying-for-roads/ I'm really not a fan of companies flouting the law, but Atlanta complaining about bad use of space by vehicles is like Trump complaining about the lack of fact-checkers in journalism. If you're going to make regulations, there should be some semblance of equitable treatment for all involved.
      - gamblor956 8y ago
        The police consider the scooters to be abandoned property in jurisdictions where the scooter company did not get a permit, and are totally fine with people doing whatever they want to them. (Technically in CA and most other states you need to turn the property over to the police before it can be considered lost or abandoned by its owner.)
  - andrei_says_ 8y ago
    That makes total sense. I’m wondering if some of these companies will wise up and what they could do to be more respectful to the communities they enter.
- erulabs 8y ago
  It's not so much "F the rich/hipsters" as "F the young/yuppies/techies". I saw guy getting on a Bird and the person walking to my left scoffed audibly at him. I would guess the average 55 year old banker in the FiDi gets more smiles from locals than a newly arrived 22 year old in SoMa. The scooters are _very much_ associated with young techies, who for the most part would be the main users.
- draw_down 8y ago
  Well, what do you suppose are the motivations of the people putting the scooters on the street? I'm guessing they aren't any nobler than what you've listed.
phendrenad2 8y ago
If you think the homeless people smearing fecal matter on scooters are of sound enough mind to be consciously “fighting” anything, you’re sadly mistaken.
- repsilat 8y ago
  I didn't look closely enough, could it have been dog poop? People walking dogs often carry plastic bags, and I bet some of them dislike the scooters enough to vandalize them.
  - phendrenad2 8y ago
    That’s true, but if I saw someone stooping down to smear their dog’s droppings on a scooter I wouldn’t expect that someone with such a petty mentality would be a productive member of society.
m0llusk 8y ago
I travel all around the city for work and have encountered many scooters but none of them vandalized as described. Just some anecdata to consider.

24 points by dtien 8y ago

What would be very interesting for me to read about in this discussion, is some of the motivations of the people disabling / vandalizing the scooters. Here are some I imagine: 1. scooters parked in ways that are perceived as inappropriate, obtrusive, invasive, dangerous etc. 2. “get off my sidewalk” sentiment. 3. Scooters as being perceived as “another aspect of the rich people’s colonization of our city/communities” + “F the rich/hipsters” attitude. 4. Systematized anticompetitive activity from ...? What else? I’m sure I’m just scratching the surface. Anyone from SF with some insight?

lovich 8y ago
Could just be the attitude of the companies. I know bird and lime bike are trying to enter Somerville and Cambridge MA despite being told no by the local government. Some people have taken to throwing the bikes or scooters into the rivers when they show up now as a "fuck you" to the companies who are giving a "fuck you" to their town
- wahern 8y ago
  Or cities could actually implement reasonable legislation that directly addresses the problem. For example, require standard, short, clearly identifiable serial codes to make it easy to issue tickets when scooters are parked inappropriately. Because the scooter companies track the users, they then have the capability to push the costs onto the irresponsible rider.[1] Frankly, I just don't get how people manage to use a nuisance to justify vandalism. I mean, I do get it--it's thinly veiled class and anti-corporate anger. But it's cowardly. Once upon a time real civil disobedience came with consequences, and even then activists didn't shamelessly destroy private property. Indeed, the personal consequences are what made the activism both substantive and powerful. Perhaps if these people invited the police to come watch them dump the scooters into the river en masse then I'd respect them even if I disagreed with them. [1] Yes, you can't prove a passerby didn't move the scooter. But the scooter company would have to pay regardless, and enough of the costs will be passed on to users that behaviors would change.
  - RodericDay 8y ago
    cowardly is how I'd describe the behavior of companies the direct action seems pretty upfront to me, and the suggestion that they should invite the cops strikes me as idiotic faux-even-handedness
  - linksnapzz 8y ago
    The cities have reasonable legislation. There's a permitting process for getting commercial access to public space. Of course, I'm not going to conflate "reasonable" with "expedient to the growth needs of <random_startup>". Having dispensed with any decent respect for the city's prerogative to legislate commercial conduct for the well-being of all residents, the scooter companies chose to annex public sidewalks for storing their assets. As a citizen, that sort of flagrant disrespect for civil mores doesn't make me very sympathetic to whatever problems their littering policy causes the scooter-rental entrepreneurs. It's not civil disobedience to get rid of these things when they're left on the sidewalk. It is fidelity to an ideal of civil society where sidewalks are for walking, and not to be blithely annexed by people with more venture funding than manners. My preferred take would be to collect a bunch of em, pull the electronics & batteries, and weld them into a jungle-gym for a park or elementary school that needs one.
  - lovich 8y ago
    The town's had laws and we're reaching out to the companies to see how they would deal with their new business model. The companies decided to ignore all of that and just start doing things they were explicitly told not to do. Once you start ignoring the law it's pretty hypocritical to start complaining that other people are treating you the same way. Honestly I'm surprised the town's havent done more to these companies. Apparently they confiscate equipment when found but the company is can pick it up with no cost. It degrades the rule of law when one entity can blatantly disregard the laws for their own benefit Edit: Additionally, what's the economic difference between someone destroying a bit of capital, a scooter for example, and someone performing a sit in and blocking a service oriented business from serving paying customers. Both cost the businesses money, but the current behavior is somehow morally different? If the companies had attempted to stay within the confines of the law I might agree with you, but once they ignored it they lost all ability to claim any sort of high ground. A number of people are tired of these giant vc backed companies coming into their towns and completely ignoring all laws and not even pretending to be civil.
- rjbwork 8y ago
  We've got both Bird and Lime here in Atlanta. While some people act a little holier than thou, I've seen riders of all shapes, colors, and classes (determined by dress, worn down street clothes all the way to 3 piece suits). I ride it sporadically, but not rarely. I am concerned about the fact that lots of the money is leaving the community, but at the same time it comes back from people collecting and charging them.
  - lovich 8y ago
    Money leaving the community wasnt really a problem. Space is at a premium here and the mayors asked the companies to register their bikes/scooters and have some sort of plan of dealing with them being left all over the place. The companies response was to ignore that entirely and just drop their equipment in the city overnight and announce they were in town. They ignore the law when given the least bit of inconvenience , so why would anyone respect their property rights is the thinking that's going on.
    - jpetso 8y ago
      The counter-argument to that is that the public benefit vs. compensation aspect is massively biased: http://cityobservatory.org/e-scooters-and-paying-for-roads/ http://cityobservatory.org/e-scooters-and-paying-for-roads/ I'm really not a fan of companies flouting the law, but Atlanta complaining about bad use of space by vehicles is like Trump complaining about the lack of fact-checkers in journalism. If you're going to make regulations, there should be some semblance of equitable treatment for all involved.
    - gamblor956 8y ago
      The police consider the scooters to be abandoned property in jurisdictions where the scooter company did not get a permit, and are totally fine with people doing whatever they want to them. (Technically in CA and most other states you need to turn the property over to the police before it can be considered lost or abandoned by its owner.)
- andrei_says_ 8y ago
  That makes total sense. I’m wondering if some of these companies will wise up and what they could do to be more respectful to the communities they enter.
erulabs 8y ago
It's not so much "F the rich/hipsters" as "F the young/yuppies/techies". I saw guy getting on a Bird and the person walking to my left scoffed audibly at him. I would guess the average 55 year old banker in the FiDi gets more smiles from locals than a newly arrived 22 year old in SoMa. The scooters are _very much_ associated with young techies, who for the most part would be the main users.
draw_down 8y ago
Well, what do you suppose are the motivations of the people putting the scooters on the street? I'm guessing they aren't any nobler than what you've listed.

phendrenad2 8y ago

If you think the homeless people smearing fecal matter on scooters are of sound enough mind to be consciously “fighting” anything, you’re sadly mistaken.

repsilat 8y ago
I didn't look closely enough, could it have been dog poop? People walking dogs often carry plastic bags, and I bet some of them dislike the scooters enough to vandalize them.
- phendrenad2 8y ago
  That’s true, but if I saw someone stooping down to smear their dog’s droppings on a scooter I wouldn’t expect that someone with such a petty mentality would be a productive member of society.

m0llusk 8y ago

I travel all around the city for work and have encountered many scooters but none of them vandalized as described. Just some anecdata to consider.