Old 01-29-19, 08:29 PM
Happy Feet
Senior Member
Happy Feet's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 3,196
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1212 Post(s)
Liked 107 Times in 64 Posts
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
It's not a question of dystopianism or communism or anything like that. It's just that scooters are small, simple vehicles and you can't justify charging lots for them the way you can a car where everything from the windshield-wiper motors to the automatic door locks are complex parts. Simplicity is a good thing for the consumer and investors, who then don't have to deal with so many suppliers, etc. that drive up costs. But when people start vandalizing them because they see the potential for lost automotive business in them, things do start getting a little dystopian...
Whooza whatsit? You specifically said:

...because local people aren't willing to do the kind of work needed at the cost/wages that workers in China will.
and now you're not saying that? and mixing in a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory that people vandalize scooters because they see the potential for lost automotive business in them? Really?
Rather than a grand conspiracy by the auto pact I think people vandalize things because people vandalize things. Leave scooters lying around unattended and that's just what happens. Leave your bike out unlocked on a street corner for a couple of days as an experiment.

An electric scooter is simply the smallest-possible iteration of a personal motor vehicles. The regulations and laws are very biased in favor of passenger vehicles with a lot of weight, crash-protection, etc. so it is difficult to whittle down the size and complexity of personal motor-vehicles to something that requires less lane-width, less materials, is more cost/energy-efficient, etc.
Huh? what does that have to do with leaving them unattended?

You are mixing two issues: 1. Viable means of transportation 2. Administering said means. I won't argue that public use scooters may have a role somewhere, somehow but will argue that if administered wrong they will probably fail. Try to keep the two concepts separate. Otherwise, you wind up arguing that they ought to work just because they are a good idea. It's also a good idea to love one another but that doesn't always work out so well either.

It's good to have options for LCF where all those various conditions aren't met. Otherwise, the people who live in places that don't meet those conditions end up driving-dependent.
Except, if you live in places where those conditions don't exist, you won't be turning to e scooters as a solution will you.
To review. For LCF using e scooters you need: density, good mass transport infrastructure (unless you plan to drive to the scooters), bicycle scooter friendly corridors/roads, security and a decent bike scooter.

I don't mind engaging in a conversation but you really seem to have a hard time doing that without slipping into evil world order rhetorical baffegab. To me that's boring. The problem with dockless scooters is not the vehicle itself but that no one is taking responsibility for them. You seem to think it is the anticipated end user and/or casual bystander who should be doing that. I disagree. I believe it is the company who wants to implement them that needs to provide intelligent foresight to set the program up and administer it in such a way that it doesn't fail due to easily anticipated and predictable behaviors such as vandalism.

Last edited by Happy Feet; 01-29-19 at 08:41 PM.
Happy Feet is offline