Originally Posted by Moe Zhoost

The whole thing is fishy. It sounds like the victim wrecked without much more than a bit of impeding by the scooter guy, which she says was intentional. Was this because of her impatience or ineptness, or were the scooter guy's actions the direct primary cause? Then we have the scooter guy staying at the seen until he is spooked by either by the police arrival or by the belligerent crowd. Then we have an attorney filing a motion anonymously (and like you, I wonder if this is possible). What precipitated this? Did he hear the news report and freak out, or did Bird tip him off? In either case, why would he not just come forward if he felt he was not at fault. My guess is that he already has court trouble and this incident messes things up a bit more for him. As far as Bird's goes, whether their statement is a spin or not, their strategy is most likely designed to limit their liability since they are likely the deep pocket. I doubt that we'll ever know the nitty gritty on the case. The slow moving justice system confounds the motivation to track something like this.

Bird scooters showed up yesterday in my city. They are plastered with all sorts of warnings about helmets, not riding on sidewalks, and the 18 year minimum age, yet neighbors report all of those being ignored on the first day of availability. I anticipate a bit of concern when I first encounter them while riding.