Old 02-01-19, 09:58 AM
  #42  
Happy Feet
Senior Member
 
Happy Feet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 3,176
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1213 Post(s)
Liked 109 Times in 66 Posts
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
Share/bike scooter vandalism is due to these things being new. Who knows what is going through the mind of each vandal as they trash a share scooter or bike. There are probably plenty of people angry about their economic situation, who see the scooters/bikes as representing a new economic paradigm where money doesn't flow as easily as it did when everyone was driving cars everywhere. So they see the scooters/bikes as a scapegoat. It's not a conscious conspiracy but it amounts to the same at a cultural level.

I'll leave the conspiracy stuff alone as it is just speculating on your own biased theories.

Then why aren't cars and trucks being vandalized just as much?

Really? Vandalism and theft happens with cars all the time. Keying is common, as is breaking windows and popping tires. Theft is so rife a whole industry of prevention has grown from it. First simple doors locks, then the club, then alarms and immobilizers and now even smart phone alert and lowjack systems. How do you explain that if people are so pro car culture? I explain it because people are just people and a segment will always vandalize and steal stuff - more so if it is perceived to be left unattended or uncared for.

It's just the reason they make sense as a vehicle option. It's like if a computer company made and sold computers as powerful as a large desktop that fit in the size of a smartwatch and they had trouble getting people to use them because of cultural norms, etc. This actually happens with laundry detergent, soda, etc.. You can get concentrated detergent or soda and mix it with water at home, but pre-mixed stuff sells better because people think they are getting more when there is more volume in the package when they buy it.

Just like people think they are getting more value from non GMO, organic I guess. Welcome to reality. But, leave that small computer out in a public space unattended and see how long it takes to get stolen or vandalized. Do you remember some of the problems with the old public phone booth? Graffiti, used for coordinating crime, dirty, no phone book, broken parts... Why didn't people value a public phone on every street corner they could use for a dime? We used to be able to send our kids out places with a quarter to call home but now need to supply them with a $500 smart phone.

I'm just not willing to accept that it's natural that every challenge to ubiquitous car ownership and driving fail. I think it's because there are business/economic motives to keep as many people as possible buying and paying all these automotive expenses. It's ridiculous otherwise that rationality doesn't prevail in achieving progress beyond the inefficiencies of vehicle size and infrastructure that are currently causing environmental/economic/social problems to stagnate.

I don't think it needs to be a fail at all. Edison made like100 attempts for the first light bulb. The companies only need to analyze what happened, how it can be fixed and try again. I just took a training course on how to implement change in the workplace and they called it the PDSA cycle: Plan, Do, Study, Act (accept, adapt, abandon). In this case you are anticipating Plan, Do, Abandon, without the study part. There is always the adapt part to consider. Like I said earlier: Identify key use areas, create a series of docks for security and recharging. Two problems solved.

Why are you now putting 'scooter' with 'bicycle' crossed-out next to it? Are you implying that there's not enough room on the roads for bikes and scooters both? If so, why not? It is the cars and trucks that are the road/space hogs. Bikes and scooters are relatively small in comparison.

No. I changed the text to show how scooter could be interchangeable with bicycle and my main premise would still hold. It's not a conspiracy.

The bottom line is that progress beyond ubiquitous driving must be possible. All the failure and blaming is just for the sake of buying time for the economic investment/financial complex sustained by the driving paradigm. Achieving progress is better than stagnating for morale, and morale is eroding under all the environmental/climate awareness. Traditionally the solution has been to pull the wool over our eyes and go on as if the problems weren't worsening, but that only drags out the misery and makes things worse in the long run. It is better to be working toward sustainability than dragging feet and denying there's a need for reform.

It is possible and people are actually doing it all the time (look to Europe) but no one likes a moralizing zealot. Tell me I'm doing this or that negative thing all the time and I'll probably stop listening. Then one has failed to create change based on their own lack of effort to find a receptive means of messaging.

Functional share bikes/scooters would be a good option to establish everywhere, so people should stop vandalizing, mismanaging, or otherwise thwarting progress in achieving the affordable dockless car-free vehicle option.

Sure. But I think most real LCF riders will agree that one of the basic needs is more bicycle security so one feels better about taking and leaving their bikes places. Dockless scooter companies try to solve this for the consumer by providing the vehicle (no consumer security worries) but fail to address their own need for vehicle security. It's as if they think the general norm does not apply to them. Pretty simple problem to identify and fix I think so they can be more successful - if they choose. Or they can just blame big "something" or society and make themselves feel morally superior and not at fault.
Bolding is mine

Last edited by Happy Feet; 02-01-19 at 10:48 AM.
Happy Feet is offline