4 ms·

The companies operating them seem to actively encourage users not to give a shit. They're dockless, you can end a ride anywhere, if the battery dies or you get

The companies operating them seem to actively encourage users not to give a shit. They're dockless, you can end a ride anywhere, if the battery dies or you get bored you're just supposed to leave it wherever and let it be someone else's problem. The companies running them all seem content to just proliferate scooters all over the street with no regard for expense or the non-scooting public since they're all trying to out-compete each other. Here in the DC area I have a particular love for Capital Bikeshare because they're extremely affordable and (mostly) use dedicated docking stations.

Reason077 4y ago
Here in London they’re pretty strict about parking them in designated marked spots, not leaving them littering streets randomly. The apps will remind you repeatedly to park correctly and will fine you if you don’t, which I’m pretty sure they’re required to do as part of their licensing conditions.
- acdha 4y ago
  Yeah, all of these problems just come down to local politics. If your city’s political class values pedestrians, they’ll make the companies liable and it’ll magically turn out that they are actually capable of enforcing where their GPS-tracked devices are parked.
  - sofixa 4y ago
    No, it's down to companies exploiting lack of regulations to get away with as little as possible ("free market"). Ideally they shouldn't be assholes, but failing that, local authorities should restrict them.
    - acdha 4y ago
      That’s just restating what I said. If the city has political will, the regulations will be enforced. Letting companies ignore the law is a policy choice. As a thought exercise, any time we see widespread lawlessness ask whether it’d still happen if, say, a random citizen could get $100 by sending a video to the city (ala NYC’s truck idling law) or if the city employees like cops or parking enforcement had similar incentives. There are downsides to that kind of thing and I’m not suggesting it as the ideal general policy but I think it is important to remember that most of the time these are not problems we don’t know how to fix but rather problems people don’t think are their job to fix.
  - vkou 4y ago
    Doing so would also require the city to provide parking spots for them - which is the real reason for the bans. Drivers aren't interested in losing any parking spots to scooters/bicycles/???. It's shooting themselves in the foot (because people driving less results in less congestion and competition for car parking spots), but as this thread demonstrates, there's no shortage of counter-productive thinking around non-automotive transportation.
    - acdha 4y ago
      Nobody has a right to city-subsidized on-street parking. In most cases there is considerably more off-street parking than needed, not to mention easy opportunities to park within transit/bike/modest walking distance, and removing street parking removes a significant portion of congestion and pollution because you don’t have guys driving around for 20 minutes looking to save a couple bucks, or blocking a traffic lane while they spend 5 minutes trying to inch their Denali into a Camry-sized spot.
      - vkou 4y ago
        > Nobody has a right to city-subsidized on-street parking. In theory, you are correct. In practice, drivers feel that they are entitled to it, to the exclusion of parking for all other vehicles.
        acdha 4y ago
        Very strong agreement on that. I'm hoping that this is changing, especially with younger generations having less financial margin to soak up the cost of private vehicles. The amount of money we spend trying to indulge that 1940s commuter dream is unsustainable.
    - Reason077 4y ago
      Scooter parking takes up very negligible street space. You can fit a huge number of scooters into the space occupied by one car. If London can find plenty of space for scooter parking (and it has), I’m sure any North American city can.
techsupporter 4y ago
> They're dockless, you can end a ride anywhere This is, for me and my wife, the entire point. We had a docked bikeshare system in Seattle and the docks were never where we needed one, particularly since Seattle's topology--a city known internationally for being incredibly flat and dry--meant that the docks on the bottom of a hill would be perpetually full and the ones at the top of the hill were always empty. But these things are an absolute godsend for someone who can walk, but can't walk far, or who has the occasional struggle with hills. The bus or train can't go everywhere, but a scooter can get you between the spot where the bus let you off and the spot where you want to go. That's how my wife and I use them and they're amazing and, frankly, I hope they never go away. > The companies running them all seem content to just proliferate scooters all over the street with no regard for expense or the non-scooting public This is probably true, but I think a lot of people just don't see themselves as "the scooting public" except for the brief time they might be using one. It's the same problem with cars, just downsized a great deal. We're incapable of building separated infrastructure, mostly due to cost, partially due to fear of loss from space given over to cars. We try these bandage workarounds, like scooters, but because we've half-assed everything except the infrastructure for cars (and because people's expectations are so high around the new idea), we wind up with a situation where everyone is frustrated because no one's needs feel met even though there are clearly uses for them.
- bombcar 4y ago
  Are the scooters powerful enough to take you up Queen Anne hill? Much could be done to "fix" the scooter issue by working with the city rather than antagonistically against it, for example, on streets with parking (almost all of them) the first parking space on each block could be a designated "scooter pile". Then modify the app to charge you a $10 "you're a dick" fee that is refunded when the scooter detects that it was thrown in the scooter pile, or similar. If you make it more advanced, let anyone with the app claim the fee if they return a scooter.
  - techsupporter 4y ago
    > Are the scooters powerful enough to take you up Queen Anne hill? No, but the 2 or 13 are and then a scooter can go where we want if that's not close enough or if it's a particularly bad walking day. > Much could be done to "fix" the scooter issue by working with the city rather than antagonistically against it I completely agree! However... > for example, on streets with parking (almost all of them) the first parking space on each block ...this is astoundingly difficult to pull off in Seattle because people who drive cars have a very high fear of loss, as a general rule, and vehemently oppose efforts to turn car storage areas over to areas for other vehicle types. It's why we've wound up with painted-off areas that get used for refuse bins instead (blocking off where the scooters should go). > Then modify the app to charge you a $10 "you're a dick" fee The two apps we use require that you take a picture of where you left the thing when you park it and both of us in the past few months have gotten an email, one apiece, saying "you parked wrong, next time it's $25." (They were right, we didn't leave enough space, we've gotten more diligent.)

Reason077 4y ago

Here in London they’re pretty strict about parking them in designated marked spots, not leaving them littering streets randomly. The apps will remind you repeatedly to park correctly and will fine you if you don’t, which I’m pretty sure they’re required to do as part of their licensing conditions.

acdha 4y ago
Yeah, all of these problems just come down to local politics. If your city’s political class values pedestrians, they’ll make the companies liable and it’ll magically turn out that they are actually capable of enforcing where their GPS-tracked devices are parked.
- sofixa 4y ago
  No, it's down to companies exploiting lack of regulations to get away with as little as possible ("free market"). Ideally they shouldn't be assholes, but failing that, local authorities should restrict them.
  - acdha 4y ago
    That’s just restating what I said. If the city has political will, the regulations will be enforced. Letting companies ignore the law is a policy choice. As a thought exercise, any time we see widespread lawlessness ask whether it’d still happen if, say, a random citizen could get $100 by sending a video to the city (ala NYC’s truck idling law) or if the city employees like cops or parking enforcement had similar incentives. There are downsides to that kind of thing and I’m not suggesting it as the ideal general policy but I think it is important to remember that most of the time these are not problems we don’t know how to fix but rather problems people don’t think are their job to fix.
- vkou 4y ago
  Doing so would also require the city to provide parking spots for them - which is the real reason for the bans. Drivers aren't interested in losing any parking spots to scooters/bicycles/???. It's shooting themselves in the foot (because people driving less results in less congestion and competition for car parking spots), but as this thread demonstrates, there's no shortage of counter-productive thinking around non-automotive transportation.
  - acdha 4y ago
    Nobody has a right to city-subsidized on-street parking. In most cases there is considerably more off-street parking than needed, not to mention easy opportunities to park within transit/bike/modest walking distance, and removing street parking removes a significant portion of congestion and pollution because you don’t have guys driving around for 20 minutes looking to save a couple bucks, or blocking a traffic lane while they spend 5 minutes trying to inch their Denali into a Camry-sized spot.
    - vkou 4y ago
      > Nobody has a right to city-subsidized on-street parking. In theory, you are correct. In practice, drivers feel that they are entitled to it, to the exclusion of parking for all other vehicles.
      - acdha 4y ago
        Very strong agreement on that. I'm hoping that this is changing, especially with younger generations having less financial margin to soak up the cost of private vehicles. The amount of money we spend trying to indulge that 1940s commuter dream is unsustainable.
  - Reason077 4y ago
    Scooter parking takes up very negligible street space. You can fit a huge number of scooters into the space occupied by one car. If London can find plenty of space for scooter parking (and it has), I’m sure any North American city can.

techsupporter 4y ago

> They're dockless, you can end a ride anywhere This is, for me and my wife, the entire point. We had a docked bikeshare system in Seattle and the docks were never where we needed one, particularly since Seattle's topology--a city known internationally for being incredibly flat and dry--meant that the docks on the bottom of a hill would be perpetually full and the ones at the top of the hill were always empty. But these things are an absolute godsend for someone who can walk, but can't walk far, or who has the occasional struggle with hills. The bus or train can't go everywhere, but a scooter can get you between the spot where the bus let you off and the spot where you want to go. That's how my wife and I use them and they're amazing and, frankly, I hope they never go away. > The companies running them all seem content to just proliferate scooters all over the street with no regard for expense or the non-scooting public This is probably true, but I think a lot of people just don't see themselves as "the scooting public" except for the brief time they might be using one. It's the same problem with cars, just downsized a great deal. We're incapable of building separated infrastructure, mostly due to cost, partially due to fear of loss from space given over to cars. We try these bandage workarounds, like scooters, but because we've half-assed everything except the infrastructure for cars (and because people's expectations are so high around the new idea), we wind up with a situation where everyone is frustrated because no one's needs feel met even though there are clearly uses for them.

bombcar 4y ago
Are the scooters powerful enough to take you up Queen Anne hill? Much could be done to "fix" the scooter issue by working with the city rather than antagonistically against it, for example, on streets with parking (almost all of them) the first parking space on each block could be a designated "scooter pile". Then modify the app to charge you a $10 "you're a dick" fee that is refunded when the scooter detects that it was thrown in the scooter pile, or similar. If you make it more advanced, let anyone with the app claim the fee if they return a scooter.
- techsupporter 4y ago
  > Are the scooters powerful enough to take you up Queen Anne hill? No, but the 2 or 13 are and then a scooter can go where we want if that's not close enough or if it's a particularly bad walking day. > Much could be done to "fix" the scooter issue by working with the city rather than antagonistically against it I completely agree! However... > for example, on streets with parking (almost all of them) the first parking space on each block ...this is astoundingly difficult to pull off in Seattle because people who drive cars have a very high fear of loss, as a general rule, and vehemently oppose efforts to turn car storage areas over to areas for other vehicle types. It's why we've wound up with painted-off areas that get used for refuse bins instead (blocking off where the scooters should go). > Then modify the app to charge you a $10 "you're a dick" fee The two apps we use require that you take a picture of where you left the thing when you park it and both of us in the past few months have gotten an email, one apiece, saying "you parked wrong, next time it's $25." (They were right, we didn't leave enough space, we've gotten more diligent.)