3 ms·

They should only be rebated if they come with an unconditional 10 year warranty and no features that depend on software running elsewhere. Otherwise it's just a

They should only be rebated if they come with an unconditional 10 year warranty and no features that depend on software running elsewhere. Otherwise it's just a handout to xiaomi to create landfill. Also scooters aren't the only compact mobility option. Trifold bikes are about as portable. They also have the ability to emergency brake without tipping you face first into the pavement.

AtlasBarfed 4y ago
Trifolds are simply too bulky, expensive, and greasy for the main populace. Don't get me wrong, I would like a subsidized push for that too, but the e-scooter seems like the best thing to get everyone going, which is why Bird/etc used that and not e-bikes.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Escooters also have risks that vehicles with a further back/lower center of mass and larger wheels do not. https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/e-scooter-injury-rate-los-angeles https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/e-scooter-injury-rate-los... Stats are heavily skewed by different demographics (ie. lower experience, more drunk people), so the real effect is probably nowhere as big as the stats indicate, but without specific training emergency braking or hitting a pothole on a scooter is much more dangerous (even more so than a racing bicycle). Electric unicycles and 'hoverboards' are even more dangerous in this regard. Also having pedals means you can make the battery a lot smaller a the 40-60W needed to overcome drag at 15mph is a relatively trivial input for 99% of people. I'd still be behind a subsidy for any vehicle that fits some portability critereon (fits on a train, or maybe an additional amount if it fits on a bus) and has strong evidence of longevity, durability and serviceability (so no walmart bikes, nothing that requires an app and no racing bikes that require expensive parts which change every four years), because even the most dangerous folding scooters (including the illegal 50mph ones) or other microtransit pose far less risk to others than a car. I'd also include mandatory documented standards for consumables (wheels, tyres, chains, batteries, motor controllers, gears, bearings etc)

AtlasBarfed 4y ago

Trifolds are simply too bulky, expensive, and greasy for the main populace. Don't get me wrong, I would like a subsidized push for that too, but the e-scooter seems like the best thing to get everyone going, which is why Bird/etc used that and not e-bikes.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
Escooters also have risks that vehicles with a further back/lower center of mass and larger wheels do not. https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/e-scooter-injury-rate-los-angeles https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/e-scooter-injury-rate-los... Stats are heavily skewed by different demographics (ie. lower experience, more drunk people), so the real effect is probably nowhere as big as the stats indicate, but without specific training emergency braking or hitting a pothole on a scooter is much more dangerous (even more so than a racing bicycle). Electric unicycles and 'hoverboards' are even more dangerous in this regard. Also having pedals means you can make the battery a lot smaller a the 40-60W needed to overcome drag at 15mph is a relatively trivial input for 99% of people. I'd still be behind a subsidy for any vehicle that fits some portability critereon (fits on a train, or maybe an additional amount if it fits on a bus) and has strong evidence of longevity, durability and serviceability (so no walmart bikes, nothing that requires an app and no racing bikes that require expensive parts which change every four years), because even the most dangerous folding scooters (including the illegal 50mph ones) or other microtransit pose far less risk to others than a car. I'd also include mandatory documented standards for consumables (wheels, tyres, chains, batteries, motor controllers, gears, bearings etc)