Originally Posted by
badger1
You see? This is the problem. You, like me, are (apparently) just another member of the Brigade of "the anti-LCF that like to throw their weight (and spit) around wherever ideas for car-free innovations dare to rear their heads."
Sad -- not. Why these latter-day variations on Ponzi schemes (for that is what they are) like Bird, Lime, and their ilk (not to mention Uber, Lyft etc.) are not recognized for what they are is beyond me.
Funny, I've never heard of a Ponzi scheme that gives people access to share vehicles.
As for these negative comments being anti-LCF, it's just a no-win scenario with the nay-sayers. They are expecting these simple forms of transportation to generate as much revenue as cars and automotive infrastructure and there is simply no rational reason why they would do that. As a result, they dismiss them as being financially doomed, but that's a bit like what I read today about Apple not being able to make devices outside China because the tiny specialized screws they need are too cheap for anyone to bother making in the US.
If share bikes/scooters are too cheap to bother with, then that translates into a driving mandate; just like Apple's cheap Chinese screws translate into a mandate to import them from a high-skill/low-wage economic region.