tandempower

People doing right and respecting each other is just an ideal. When it fails, there is no way to make things good through regulation. All that happens is you end up with a battle between those who misbehave and those who try to control them. Eventually people tire of the conflict and decide to behave themselves. Do you disagree with this general pattern?

Mobile 155

I can tell the difference between organized criminals and opportunistic ones in my area. I can tell when outside agitators come into our area and when they are local. I know where not to park a good bike even with a lock and where a lock will help. I cannot believe anyone that lives in an area doesn't know the good and bad areas. When I live in Seattle I knew where single ladies worked at night and where the street pharmacies operated. They were places you wanted to avoid. I don't believe anyone sitting in their house in another state has a clue. I can even tell you where the high desert mall is that has one of the highest car theft rates in San Bernardino County. I an sure I have a better grasp on why people committed the crimes in those areas than someone that hasn't even been there. I can even tell you what streets near me have the best chances of a drunk getting hit crossing the highway after the bars close.


So if I wanted to know how those areas have changed or who is committing crimes in the areas I have mentioned I would first contact the officers and relatives I have in those areas before I would ask someone in Minnesota.

tandempower

How? Someone can be put up to something by someone else. Someone can have a 'friend' or drug dealer that makes suggestions to people for crimes and provides support services in exchange for kickbacks. Why would you think criminals are any less business-savvy than anyone else?

Quote:

I can tell when outside agitators come into our area and when they are local.

'Outside agitators?' Who is an 'outside' person? Don't people move around all the time?

Quote:

I know where not to park a good bike even with a lock and where a lock will help. I cannot believe anyone that lives in an area doesn't know the good and bad areas.

Dockless share bikes/scooters weren't getting vandalized in 'bad areas.' They were getting vandalized in creative ways and then videos of their desecration posted on youtube channels specially created for that purpose. That is basically like opening a purchasing kiosk for desecrated dockless share bikes/scooters. It is basically putting a bounty in order to encourage bounty hunters to try for the bounty.

Quote:

When I live in Seattle I knew where single ladies worked at night and where the street pharmacies operated. They were places you wanted to avoid. I don't believe anyone sitting in their house in another state has a clue. I can even tell you where the high desert mall is that has one of the highest car theft rates in San Bernardino County. I an sure I have a better grasp on why people committed the crimes in those areas than someone that hasn't even been there. I can even tell you what streets near me have the best chances of a drunk getting hit crossing the highway after the bars close.

All you have is weak statistical correlations between certain areas and certain crimes. You have no insight into why the individual perpetrators committed the crimes or why they chose those areas instead of others.

Quote:

So if I wanted to know how those areas have changed or who is committing crimes in the areas I have mentioned I would first contact the officers and relatives I have in those areas before I would ask someone in Minnesota.

You don't think criminals lie to police officers? You don't think they keep secrets to protect their associates, which earns them rewards later on, even if they are incarcerated?

Walter S

Well said. When you listen to the voice of experience, you may not have direct exposure to any reality upon which that is based, but you're far closer to it than when you listen to the more isolated ponderings of the critical mind and what *might be*.

Mobile 155

Mobile 155

It doesn't take a CEO from the auto industry to get a criminal to act like a criminal. I believe that in all of the examples I gave I could convict the people I named of committing the crime I suggested before a jury of their peers. I could do it with the observations of people living in their area. I do not see any evidence ever that someone could convict the vandals that have been the bane of dock less bikes of working for the auto industry. I sure don't believe they could be convicted by someone living half way around the globe that just, "thinks" they know who is doing it. That to me is like people that call into police after a missing child is being searched for and says, "they had a vision and they could see the child is by water." Not creditable in my opinion. By the way if a criminal has been paid by someone else to vandalize another's business they would be easy to turn with the offer of immunity. Criminals don't like jail or fines.

tandempower

This article tells of an instagram account that was specifically set up to celebrate (and thus stimulate) share-scooter vandalism: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/v...share-scooters

The article represents the vandalism as being due to the public viewing the scooters as garbage, but I think that's a naive interpretation.

There is another theme that runs throughout these share-scooter stories, which is that local governments are not consulted before the companies release the scooters in an area. That is not really a problem, because if these scooters were bought by mail order, they would not have to be cleared by local government. However, it seems fairly obvious that local governments are beholden to local economic interests, car dealerships for example, who would frown upon any new form of transportation that grows in popularity while making transit-use more convenient, and thus making it possible for more people to get around without driving.

Exactly who is doing what and how is not going to be easy to pin down, if it's even possible at all, but it is clear that there are mechanisms for suppressing transportation developments. It is not just the scooter vandalism. Widespread smear campaign against Uber was also obviously funded by the taxi industry and/or whatever interests maintained the taxis monopoly on ride-sharing prior to ride-sharing apps. It is glaringly obvious that established transportation businesses are not willing to adapt to changing technologies and market entries. They are territorial and they put effort into discouraging and attacking things like ride-sharing and dockless sharing. I think they will do it to any new market entry until that business 'falls into line' by cutting back its market share to some minority niche.

I think they've also been turning up the heat against Tesla since the Model3 launch as well for this same reason. As long as a company just wants to serve a certain elite niche, they are tolerated, but when they start to pursue significant growth of market share, the territorialism against them starts. Can't you see the logic of this business competition strategy and how it would naturally lead to anti-competitive behavior like putting subtle bounties (like the scooter-bashing instagram account) that stimulate vandals to wage war against the market newcomer?

jon c. 

I think it's obvious that local governments don't want anything blocking public thoroughfares, whether streets or sidewalks, and are doing their job by trying to control that. I see no reason not to have dedicated parking (aka bike racks) to reduce this concern. "You can just leave it anywhere" is simply not a responsible or viable business model.

badger1

Did you actually read the article you cite? Nothing in it, including comments by the 'vandals' themselves and representatives of the scooter companies, nothing even remotely supports your overheated fantasies about the direct/indirect orchestration of such vandalism by various shadowy, conspiratorial 'interests'.

The only naiveté, interpretive or otherwise, on display here is yours.

Walter S

You've been around a while. You don't get that conspiracies sprinkled with hypnotic mind-controlling propaganda don't need to be sited in an article to be relevant? It's just part of the TP backdrop that covers all domains.

badger1

Sigh. I know, but like you and Mobile 155 I sometimes like to bash my head against The Great Wall of Unargued (and unarguable) Assumptions.

I-Like-To-Bike

You might try having a "constructive discussion" with the Village Jester for a similar entertaining experience.

tandempower

I can see how it would obstruct public right-of-way in some areas to have things like bikes and scooters parked there, but I think the default is supposed to be that people are free to do things except where prohibited. The idea that something is by default prohibited until the local government permits it reverses that fundamental assumption of freedom.

tandempower

The Instagram account is the social media equivalent of posting a bounty, or at least it is a marketplace where bounty hunters can display their 'scalps' to potential buyers.

badger1

qed.

Mobile 155

I pictured you walking away, shoulders hunched over, and mumbling that under your breath. I have shut down the site and gone on to other things just like that myself.

badger1

jon c. 

It's a long established principle that we cannot be free to do as we please within the commons. For the commons to be equitably available to all, some restrictions in usage are essential. The municipality exists to serve the commonweal and in that context they serve the public at large in protecting the commons. In practice, your freedom cannot be assumed to extend to any acts that impinge on others.

And the fundamental assumption of freedom exists for people, not corporations. Depending on where one lives, there are likely a lot of place where you can park a bike without bothering anyone. But the short term bike rental corporations are basing their business model on a lot of bikes. They should have no assumption of freedom to be able use the commons for their profit making enterprises. The people who own the commons need to at least be consulted first and the municipality exists to represent the rights and interests of the people. A corporation intending to use the commons for profit has no assumption of freedom. That doesn't alter my assumption of personal freedom. It serves to protect that freedom.

tandempower

There's no clear delineation between individuals and corporations because corporations solicit the free/voluntary cooperation of individuals in pursuing corporate interests and individuals utilize corporate organizations to support their own independent interests.

BIke/scooter sharing boils down to being able to take transit, walk, or use some other mode of transportation without having to carry you bike/scooter along with you wherever you go. As long as small vehicles like bikes and scooters don't obstruct other uses of public right-of-way, there shouldn't be any problem with allowing people to park them responsibly wherever they want.

The problem begins not when a corporation is the owner, but when the usage/parking starts causing problems. It would be the same if rental cars were being parked everywhere and causing traffic congestion on the roads. It wouldn't matter whether the cars were owned by rental companies, share companies, or by private individuals or as corporate fleets. The problem would be the traffic and parking problems, and those would have to be resolved in a way that prevents certain individuals or corporations from obstructing others' right-of-way. Likewise, if individual behavior begins to have collective effects that obstruct right-of-way, that also has to be dealt with. But the objective is always to default in the direction of achieving freedom to make one's own choices responsibly, not to prohibit everything except that which is permitted by governmental and business authorities.

jon c. 

I understand some people now wish this to be true. I don't believe it is or ever should as I think the idea is ultimately antithetical to the concept of individual liberty.

But this is straying from the topic of vehicle rental. Which is what is under discussion. Calling it "sharing" doesn't change what it really is. It's a semantic dodge. Ubers are taxis you summon through an app rather than by raising your arm or calling on the phone. Bike "share" companies are renting bicycles for short periods. These are companies engaging in business for profit, not people freeing sharing their own transportation with their neighbors. Which doesn't mean there's anything wrong with these businesses. In many instances, I think they're great. But they need to play by the rules. When they don't, problems arise as we are seeing now. It has nothing to do with a secret conspiracy against these businesses.

tandempower

I wasn't saying anything about the status of individuals vs. corporations on any kind of general political level.

I don't think these dockless share 'rentals' are as profitable as keeping everyone dependent on cars and driving, and that is the reason there is a bounty out on them, imo. Why I say it doesn't matter if they're owned by individuals or corporations is because the bottom line is that for people to be able to utilize a variety of vehicles at different points of their journey(s) as per 'multi-modal transportation,' they need vehicles available where they go, which they don't need to carry with them.

The share company is really just making it possible for someone to leave a bike/scooter somewhere and then pick another one up somewhere else later. If the share bikes/scooters weren't organized as a corporate fleet, they could be managed by an app the way Uber is a dispatch for private independent contractors. The issue is how to prevent regulators from abusing their power to favoring automotive culture because it is more costly and therefore lucrative overall.

Rollfast

You still have to abbr it and say it to anyway...kinda doesn't work out.

cooker

There are laws already on the books about not obstructing sidewalks and roads or littering on private property - it is not a default assumption, it's explicitly forbidden, and for valid reasons. At the same time private and public society has adapted to the ubiquity of cars and put in facilities and regulations on how they can be accommodated and where they can be parked, so let's do the same for bikes.

tandempower

I don't mind bike lanes and bike parking, etc. but I wouldn't want to be ticketed for leaning my bike against a wall and locking it because I didn't park it in 'designated bike parking.' Sometimes people create regulations just to make life more difficult for well-behaving people. I have always parked my bike in a way that keeps it out of people's (and harm's) way as much as possible, and I also never rode with any kind of Critical Mass rides to obstruct traffic (though I think they sent a reasonable message in doing so). The bottom line is that cars litter public space with their huge numbers and relatively huge volume per capita and it offends me when people turn a blind eye to that because mass driving has become normalized.

Bikes and scooters aren't the problem with public space, cars and trucks are.

cooker

I totally agree that cars and trucks are a far bigger blight on the streetscape and a far bigger burden on public wellbeing and public finances than dockless bikes or scooters would be, but that doesn't mean the deluge of dockless two wheelers dumped on the streets of China is somehow to be forgiven there, or welcomed here. Infrastructure has been built over 100 years and both regulations and etiquette have developed to somewhat accommodate cars and the same has to happen if we are going to have dockless bikes. I can't object to people parking cars in front of my house, because it's legal, but I don't want people parking dockless bikes there because there is no space where they won't be in the way. Once that is sorted out, I will much prefer them over cars.