4 ms·

> Can't it be considered public transport as well if they're owned by a transportation company, to be used by the public, and not an individual? Sure. But then

> Can't it be considered public transport as well if they're owned by a transportation company, to be used by the public, and not an individual? Sure. But then you would have something that is actively managed and planned by the local municipal government (implemented by a commercial or semi-governmental public transport company). It wouldn't look like the current mess where coverage is decided exclusively on the basis of profitability, multiple companies battling for dominance in the same area, and externalities such as misuse of public space left completely unaddressed (because not technically illegal). A proper solution that could be considered part of public transport would have rentable (e-)bicycles with fixed terminals to retrieve and return from/to. Like Citybike Wien or StadtRAD Hamburg. > If you have a link and/or some keywords I'd also be curious to read your source material btw! I read it in a column in NRC, the source referred to is this report by the Amsterdam municipality: https://docplayer.nl/221773234-Tussentijdse-rapportage-deelvervoer-in-amsterdam-deelscooter-en-deelauto.html https://docplayer.nl/221773234-Tussentijdse-rapportage-deelv...

lucb1e 5y ago
Just one little note, not to disprove your argument or anything, but there's this little paragraph in the middle of the report: > In de open antwoorden wordt door gebruikers meerdere keren aangegeven dat het openbaar vervoer wordt gemeden vanwege besmettingsgevaar. ("In the open answers, multiple users indicate public transport is being avoided due to the contagion risk.") So it's also partially a covid thing, but yeah I don't expect that this will be the majority. Personal transport is favored over mass transport by virtually everyone after all, everything else being equal. Also interesting in relation to sibling comments is this part: > Fout en hinderlijk parkeren is een vast onderwerp op de reguliere overleggen tussen gemeente en aanbieder. In de vergunnings-uitvraag is specifiek gevraagd om een klachtenafhandelingsplan. De vergunning verplicht de aanbieders om binnen een bepaalde tijd klachten af te handelen, waarbij beide aanbieders in hun klachtenafhandelingsplan hebben aangegeven dit nog sneller dan de gemeentelijke criteria te doen. In de eerste voortgangsrapportage (15 januari 2021) werd duidelijk dat dit door aanbieders is gehaald. Loosely translated: incorrect parking is always an item on the agenda between municipalities and service providers. The permit to operate the service requires a complaint procedure to be in place and the processing speed requirements from the municipality were more than met in the first evaluation. People seem to keep bringing this up, saying the scooters are a curse that would be eradicated from their city if it were up to them, not even considering that there could possibly be a fix for this. Well...
- Freak_NL 5y ago
  The complaints procedure entails reporting each and every misplaced bicycle/moped to the rental company. Complaining works in that they do act on it (the thing is moved out of the way), and that they can then prove to the municipality that their complaints procedure works. But it is also (perhaps counter intuitively) completely pointless. These things are moved about all the time, being rented and used or just redistributed. I.e., if you do nothing, a misplaced moped will be moved as well — and another one parked right in the middle of the sidewalk a little later. The problem is not that any specific moped is blocking the sidewalk for days on end, it is that there always some or several mopeds doing so — the mopeds involved vary, the problem doesn't. Actually penalizing riders who misplace them might work, but there is no indication that the complaints procedures actually leads to these companies doing that (it is not a transparent process). They will pick out the worst offenders of course, but the people who rent these things are their paying customers; the rental companies have no economic incentive to actually punish the rider who put it there, quite the opposite!
  - lucb1e 5y ago
    True, good points

lucb1e 5y ago

Just one little note, not to disprove your argument or anything, but there's this little paragraph in the middle of the report: > In de open antwoorden wordt door gebruikers meerdere keren aangegeven dat het openbaar vervoer wordt gemeden vanwege besmettingsgevaar. ("In the open answers, multiple users indicate public transport is being avoided due to the contagion risk.") So it's also partially a covid thing, but yeah I don't expect that this will be the majority. Personal transport is favored over mass transport by virtually everyone after all, everything else being equal. Also interesting in relation to sibling comments is this part: > Fout en hinderlijk parkeren is een vast onderwerp op de reguliere overleggen tussen gemeente en aanbieder. In de vergunnings-uitvraag is specifiek gevraagd om een klachtenafhandelingsplan. De vergunning verplicht de aanbieders om binnen een bepaalde tijd klachten af te handelen, waarbij beide aanbieders in hun klachtenafhandelingsplan hebben aangegeven dit nog sneller dan de gemeentelijke criteria te doen. In de eerste voortgangsrapportage (15 januari 2021) werd duidelijk dat dit door aanbieders is gehaald. Loosely translated: incorrect parking is always an item on the agenda between municipalities and service providers. The permit to operate the service requires a complaint procedure to be in place and the processing speed requirements from the municipality were more than met in the first evaluation. People seem to keep bringing this up, saying the scooters are a curse that would be eradicated from their city if it were up to them, not even considering that there could possibly be a fix for this. Well...

Freak_NL 5y ago
The complaints procedure entails reporting each and every misplaced bicycle/moped to the rental company. Complaining works in that they do act on it (the thing is moved out of the way), and that they can then prove to the municipality that their complaints procedure works. But it is also (perhaps counter intuitively) completely pointless. These things are moved about all the time, being rented and used or just redistributed. I.e., if you do nothing, a misplaced moped will be moved as well — and another one parked right in the middle of the sidewalk a little later. The problem is not that any specific moped is blocking the sidewalk for days on end, it is that there always some or several mopeds doing so — the mopeds involved vary, the problem doesn't. Actually penalizing riders who misplace them might work, but there is no indication that the complaints procedures actually leads to these companies doing that (it is not a transparent process). They will pick out the worst offenders of course, but the people who rent these things are their paying customers; the rental companies have no economic incentive to actually punish the rider who put it there, quite the opposite!
- lucb1e 5y ago
  True, good points