Doohickie

Just going off observation. They are trash littering the landscape.

I'm not sure why you're so in favor of such a universally reviled business model.

StephenK

I'm amazed the concept has even been tried. If I were at a business meeting discussing it I would have ridiculed the concept. I have been wrong at times. But I'm familiar with bicycle thieves stealing even junk bikes cable locked near a bus stop. Every thug seems to have bolt cutters. Any unattended bicycle is an attractive nuisance.

The high tech solutions proposed in this thread seem really expensive. For the bike to communicate its location it must have a GPS & cell link, that alone is a monthly cost. The proposed camera idea is ludicrous. The increased bandwidth and electrical consumption alone nix that. I guess the camera could just record to memory and you could see the perp "after" the bike is recovered. I can imagine how interested the police would be in studying a suspected bike thief's photo against mug shots.

The business model is flawed because it doesn't adequately account for the bell curve of human behavior.

jon c. 

We have a dockless system here where you're supposed to park at either their racks or any public rack. I haven't seen evidence of problems with people leaving them in places other than racks. The main service area is the central business district and the adjacent university campus and there are ample racks in those areas. But I don't see many people using them at all. It really doesn't appear possible that this venture could be profitable.

I-Like-To-Bike

Maybe it is the result of a brave non-conforming rogue "critically thinking" about strange blips on the historical radar?

tandempower

If there's free parking available, that is obviously the better option. But if they're going to tow scooters for parking illegally, then they have to use a legal parking spot. Paying for a parking meter is not that different from having to leave a share-car with a certain amount of fuel in the tank for the next user. Share bikes/scooters could be parked in a metered parking spot with the rule that if someone else has already paid for a certain amount of meter time, you enter that time on the app and it gets factored into your share bill. In fact, you probably wouldn't have to do anything because the share bikes/scooters are automatically tracked by GPS so if several are parked in the same spot, the system could automatically reimburse the one who paid by adjusting payments due on everyone's account.

Why shouldn't cyclists and scooter riders use parking spots if parking is not allowed elsewhere? If a certain parcel is available to park a car, what law says you can't use that parcel to park something else besides a car? I've never seen a "cars only" sign on a parking spot.

tandempower

I'm not sure why people don't 'revile' the cars, trucks, and pavement that litter the landscape, but I'm pretty sure it's because they drive and so they accept it as a necessary evil. Share bikes/scooters may also 'litter the landscape,' but they are a lot smaller than cars and trucks so they require less pavement and so the more people use them instead of cars and trucks, the smaller the total volume of litter in the landscape.

badger1

The answer is very, very simple; took me approximately 15 seconds to find it. I would bet that across most of North America -- it is certainly the case in my region -- where a municipal authority has established metered on-street and other forms of parking, the use of those spaces is restricted to vehicles licensed under our provinical Highway Traffic Act. In other words, what you propose is in fact illegal.

In my city, anyone 'parking' a bicycle, scooter, unlicensed e-bike, pair of roller skates, skateboard, hoverboard, etc. etc. in, for example, a metered on-street parking spot, will have that 'vehicle' either confiscated by municipal authorities -- and rightly so -- or thrown into the gutter or boulevard etc. by an irate operator of a licensed vehicle seeking to use that parking space. Whether or not the scooter operator has paid for time at the meter is completely irrelevant.

badger1

... again, simple. 'Most people' -- by far the vast majority, I should think -- in North America do not see cars, trucks, pavement, etc. as "litter". They see these things simply as part of the urban/suburban, and even rural, landscape; a given feature of our current environment.

In contrast, most folks probably do consider share scooters, dockless bike-share bikes, etc. etc. left laying about as "litter": a public nuisance to be dealt with through civic regulation. That is certainly how I see it.

And no ... my view has nothing whatsoever to do with my being "anti" LCF/LCL, or being unconcerned with environmental matters, improving access to public transit, improving the ability of pedestrians and cyclists to move freely and efficiently through the urban landscape without having to own and operate a personal motor vehicle. All of these things I, like most others on here, am in favour of.

tandempower

You may be right about having to be a registered vehicle, idk; but nothing justified vandalism. In fact, I highly doubt that a car with an expired tag can be towed instead of just ticketed for having an expired registration. Certainly no one would be justified by law or morality in vandalizing the car.

I suppose what you are saying now is that bikes and scooters can't be registered as motor-vehicles and therefore can't be legally parked anywhere, but that would mean that private bicycles can't be legally parked anywhere. Are you suggesting that anyone who wants to vandalize any bicycle locked in public is justified, or that local authorities should be entitled to remove any locked bicycle or scooter parked anywhere in public? Just because a bike/scooter is a share vehicle doesn't formally distinguish it from a private bike or scooter, just as a rental car isn't formally distinguished from a privately owned car.

tandempower

That is just subjective bias, but there is another way to distinguish between litter and non-litter, which is that litter is discarded property. Share bikes/scooters are not discarded property, so they aren't litter. Calling them litter is derogatory toward the owners and users.

How you see it doesn't give you the right to seize property without first properly assessing it as abandoned. Admittedly, it can be difficult because it's not always easy to track down the owner of something lost-and-found to find out whether they planned to return for the item or not. I think this is why things are stored in places like impound lots and lost-and-found areas, i.e. to give people a chance to find their property.

The attitude you express is aggressive. You call certain people's property 'litter' on the basis of some other people's opinion, and assume that the rights of the property owners can be totally disrespected because the negative view of others. Whatever you are for or against, that attitude is not right and you should respect other people, even when you see potential problems arising and see a need to solve them.

prj71

A.) I don't want my movements being tracked by GPS when I'm on a bike.

B.) The police have more important things to worry about...thugs, drugs and real crimes.

prj71

Producing motor vehicles and selling them and the fuel, insurance etc. IS profitable.

And who is to say these people are miserable?

tandempower

Then don't use share bikes. They use gps to help users find nearby available bikes/scooters.

This is not a crime against the bike/scooter. It's a crime against the users. If you park your bike and it gets vandalized, you report it to the police, no? Maybe not if it is a one-time occurrence and you don't expect them to be able to catch the vandal, but especially if you experienced repeated instances of vandalism against your bike, wouldn't you file a complaint with the police?

I-Like-To-Bike

Vandalizing a parked "shared" dockless bike/scooter is a crime against the owner of the bike/scooter, not the last user. The last user's responsibility for a dockless bike/scooter ends when he/she parks it and closes the share through the locking mechanism or smartphone app (however it is done) and all responsibility for it returns to the owner. Just another reason, among many, why these dockless "share" operations are doomed to financial failure in the U.S.

The last user may never know what happens to a dockless bike after he/she parks it. The owner may have redistributed it or the police impounded it. Someone else may have shared it, stolen it, thrown it down a railroad embankment or into a river. The last user has no way of knowing and no legal/financial reason to care either.

badger1

LOL!!! Where did I say anything ... anything??? ... about 'justified vandalism'?

In the post to which I responded you were suggesting a 'parking' solution for bike-share items. I explained to you, as simply as possible, why that was very likely ... in most North American jurisdictions ... a non-starter. As ever, you just switch the ground in order to continue your polemic, inter alia attributing views to a poster which they have given you no reasons whatsoever to suppose that they hold.

Oh, and by the way, it would really help if you were able and willing to make some very, very elementary distinctions from time to time. It does not follow, from the illegality of 'parking' non-licensed objects in metered or other designated parking facilities where regulation prohibits such parking, that "that would mean that private bicycles can't be legally parked anywhere." Everything depends on the by-laws, and customs/practices, prevailing in a given jurisdiction. In my city, for example, it is perfectly legal to lock one's bicycle to municipal bike racks and business-provided bike racks, of course, and to 'public' property such as street lamp/sign standards and so on provided that doing so does not impede the flow of pedestrian or other traffic.

Finally, your last sentence is non sequitur. It is true that there is no formal distinction: a bike/scooter-share object is indeed 'owned', just as is a rental car. That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not -- in the eyes of the relevant authorities and in the eyes of other people -- the object in question is demonstrably under the care and control of someone or whether circumstances yield a justified inference that the object in question (bicycle; scooter; car; truck; whatever) has been abandoned.

badger1

Paragraph 1: Non sequitur. Where in what you quote and respond to did I suggest otherwise? Of course bicycles and scooters, whether 'share' objects or not, are not by definition litter. Of course the issue is whether or not a particular object is abandoned (cf. my post #90 above).

Paragraph 2: Of course not. Again, see my post #90 .

Paragraph 3: LOL!!!!! Here you go again with the personal attacks. Whenever someone on here takes up your claims etc. in a genuinely critical manner, your response is ... almost invariably ... to start with what you refer to, I believe, as 'ad homming'. This little salvo of yours is particularly delicious, as it does so in combination with your other common tactic: to attribute views to another poster which you have absolutely no ground for supposing that they hold.

You never disappoint!

2manybikes

Exactly. The docking system bikes has your credit card number, thus making you accountable for the bike. Like renting cars. scooters, bikes, skis etc. Without this they all fail.

cooker

Cities have had 100+ years to work out parking regulations for cars (and it is highly regulated - you can't just leave your car anywhere for an indefinite period of time, and in many cases you do have to pay), but have not yet figured out how to accommodate dockless bikes. Therefore dockless bikes are creating a nuisance or hazard because there often is no agreed-upon location to put them, so wherever you leave it someone is going to be inconvenienced, endangered or at least just irritated.

To resolve this problem the companies are going to have to negotiate solutions with municipalities and businesses. That could include arranging for some existing curbside car parking spots to be used by bikes or scooters (free or metered), or the city putting up a lot more public bike racks like in Copenhagen and Amsterdam, or the companies collaborating with private businesses like Starbucks to put up more bike racks for general use - not just for their customers. It makes economic sense to do it - cities and businesses spend a lot accommodating cars and if they can accommodate bikes more cheaply they may see it as a good thing. However, until some of that happens, we're going to continue to see these "growing pains".

Mobile 155

Doohickie

You're just being contrarian. No use even talking to you.

To Ignore you go.

tandempower

I've actually been thinking along these lines and there may be another way to share bikes/scooters, which would bring the users a little closer to taking personal ownership responsibility:

Instead of the share company being the owner of all the bikes/scooters, they could franchise them out to individuals, who would buy, say, 10 bikes/scooters for, say, $1000. Then, the ride-share company becomes more of a dispatch service, like Uber with ride-sharing or Ebay with online sales. It would also be similar to what Amazon is talking about doing with contracting out deliveries to sub-contractors who buy their own fleet of vans. So you could buy a franchise of 10 or 20 share bikes/scooters and keep track of them, maintain them, register them if required, etc.

In addition to dispatch, the logistics company could also provide you with insurance and/or parts and maintenance supplies. It could also arrange backups when your fleet vehicle is in service or lost, etc. So you would own the share bikes/scooters, but they would be insured in case of vandalism, theft, disappearance, etc. Then, like any other insurance company, the share company would require you to file a police report for theft or vandalism to get them to send you a replacement.

There are many different ways to 'share' ownership from franchising to publicly listed stock offerings, to insurance, extended warranty plans, etc. etc. None of these dooms any other business to failure . . .or do they?

Machka 

Why do we have to share all these things? Why not just buy one of your own?

badger1

That would be far, far too sensible, Machka.

Where's the fun in purchasing and using one's own little scooter thingy, or bicycle, or relying on Shank's pony for that matter?

No, what is needed is an incredibly complex hypothetical solution, involving all sorts of high tech gadgetry and expense, to rather predictable problems created by coming up with a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist in the first place.

cooker

Because you can decide whenever you want, to ride from wherever you are one way to somewhere else and not have to have your own bike with you, or need to ride back if you don't want to.

Mobile 155

You mean you can walk to find a bike to ride anywhere you want? What are the chances a dock-less bike will be outside of your office? Well unless you have a docking station right outside and then you still have to drop it off at a station and walk to where you don't have to ride back.