Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Living Car Free
Reload this Page >

GM to make e-bikes

Living Car Free Do you live car free or car light? Do you prefer to use alternative transportation (bicycles, walking, other human-powered or public transportation) for everyday activities whenever possible? Discuss your lifestyle here.

GM to make e-bikes

Old 11-22-18, 07:21 PM
  #126  
Mobile 155
Senior Member
 
Mobile 155's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: So Cal
Posts: 4,942

Bikes: 72-76 Peugeot, 89 Klein Quantum Road Bike, 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.

Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1369 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times in 7 Posts
Originally Posted by badger1 View Post
No, there is no 'conflict of interest'.

If GM promotes a 'multimodal transportation vision-thing' as part of its on-going efforts to sell the products it makes, that is not inherently or even potentially a 'conflict of interest' -- it is part of GM's on-going efforts to sell the products it makes. Provided its advertising is not wilfully false/misleading to the point of illegality, and its actions are lawful, there is nothing wrong with its attempts to do so.

GM is not under a duty to subscribe to, let alone promote/serve goals that you deem appropriate. Look up even a basic definition of conflict of interest, never mind a legal one. The concept is tied to the notion of duty owed: a conflict of interest may exist where the self-interest of a corporation or person might work against a duty that corporation or person is under to make decisions for the benefit of someone other that itself. GM is under a duty to obey the laws and regulations of the state jurisdictions in which it operates. That is all; it is not under a duty to conform itself to your idea of what it should do or promote -- it is not under a duty to make corporate decisions for your benefit, or mine, or the Little Birdies and Trees and Streams and Bambi, except as required by law.
i believe you have presented the crux of the problem with so many of the concepts espoused as LCF.

What I see is people unsuccessful at accomplishing their goal complaining about others that have accomplished, or at least are on their way to accomplishing a goal they have set for themselves.

When we break things down into their basic components we have companies looking find a product people are interested in buying or at least desiring and achieving some success. The natural method would be for the ones complaining about the success to offer a better product that people are interested in. If that product is LCF and for whatever reason it is not as successful it is not the duty of the successful company to sabotage their own product to help the former out.

However experts that spend all their time gathering lint rather than starting companies that provide something most people want to buy or work for are full of excuses of why no one else has been successful promoting what others want.

You are right GM has no obligation towards LCF and every reason to insert itself into any and all other forms of transportation if there is a return to be offered to stockholders. That is how the system works.
Mobile 155 is offline  
Old 11-22-18, 07:27 PM
  #127  
tandempower
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,302
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8007 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Machka View Post
Why can't people do both?
They can, but they should be free to LCF and not drive, buy/own cars, or otherwise do business with automotive businesses. If GM and/or other automotive interests get involved with LCF transportation options, they will be able to use their market position to make LCF more difficult and thus push people into car ownership by making alternatives more difficult to achieve and support.
tandempower is offline  
Old 11-22-18, 08:18 PM
  #128  
Machka 
In Real Life
 
Machka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Down under down under
Posts: 51,322

Bikes: Lots

Mentioned: 123 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2815 Post(s)
Liked 23 Times in 16 Posts
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
They can, but they should be free to LCF and not drive, buy/own cars, or otherwise do business with automotive businesses. If GM and/or other automotive interests get involved with LCF transportation options, they will be able to use their market position to make LCF more difficult and thus push people into car ownership by making alternatives more difficult to achieve and support.

Or maybe GM etc. will expand their businesses by offering several options ... because people can both own a motor vehicle AND own a bicycle or 17.
Machka is offline  
Old 11-22-18, 08:46 PM
  #129  
jon c. 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 3,662
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 952 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
I've noticed that it is mostly local/municipal governments that are restricting the dockless scooters and bikes, so it is difficult to know what interests are behind those restrictions. It may be local car dealerships, insurance companies, auto mechanics, etc. who are afraid of losing business. Somehow these anti-competitive actions need to be stopped.
I see no reason to think that those entities play any role. Restrictions are imposed because the scooters are a nuisance. They annoy pedestrians and all the other folks who need to use already busy and congested urban sidewalks. City officials would be negligent if they allowed an unfettered proliferation of these vehicles to continue. It has nothing to do with being anti-competitive, it's a responsible action city officials are compelled to take in the interests of the majority of citizens using the public sidewalks. I believe these enterprises will prove economic failures and they'll be substantially gone in a few years in any case, but in the interim I understand why a lot of people would think they were a PITA.
jon c. is offline  
Old 11-22-18, 09:32 PM
  #130  
badger1
Senior Member
 
badger1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Southwestern Ontario
Posts: 3,935
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 961 Post(s)
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by jon c. View Post
I see no reason to think that those entities play any role. Restrictions are imposed because the scooters are a nuisance. They annoy pedestrians and all the other folks who need to use already busy and congested urban sidewalks. City officials would be negligent if they allowed an unfettered proliferation of these vehicles to continue. It has nothing to do with being anti-competitive, it's a responsible action city officials are compelled to take in the interests of the majority of citizens using the public sidewalks. I believe these enterprises will prove economic failures and they'll be substantially gone in a few years in any case, but in the interim I understand why a lot of people would think they were a PITA.
This ^^^, full stop.
badger1 is online now  
Old 11-22-18, 09:41 PM
  #131  
badger1
Senior Member
 
badger1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Southwestern Ontario
Posts: 3,935
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 961 Post(s)
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
Many companies are barred from getting into rival industries because of potential conflicts of interest like this one. You would have to do a market analysis and see if the overall competitive landscape would be threatened by them getting into these markets.

It is a difficult thing to assess because there are multiple levels of government in play. E.g. I've noticed that it is mostly local/municipal governments that are restricting the dockless scooters and bikes, so it is difficult to know what interests are behind those restrictions. It may be local car dealerships, insurance companies, auto mechanics, etc. who are afraid of losing business. Somehow these anti-competitive actions need to be stopped. People may need to take local municipal governments to court, etc. Stopping car companies from getting involved with LCF transportation may just be one prong of a broader strategy.


They are claiming to support a more multimodal vision of transportation, but if their true motive is to subvert it so they can sell more cars, then why should they be allowed to insert themselves into market positions that allow them to manipulate markets against the interests of people who truly want to invest in alternatives to driving?
qed.

As I said, you do not understand the meaning of the phrase 'conflict of interest'.

Last edited by badger1; 11-22-18 at 10:08 PM.
badger1 is online now  
Old 11-23-18, 09:13 AM
  #132  
tandempower
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,302
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8007 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by jon c. View Post
I see no reason to think that those entities play any role. Restrictions are imposed because the scooters are a nuisance. They annoy pedestrians and all the other folks who need to use already busy and congested urban sidewalks. City officials would be negligent if they allowed an unfettered proliferation of these vehicles to continue. It has nothing to do with being anti-competitive, it's a responsible action city officials are compelled to take in the interests of the majority of citizens using the public sidewalks. I believe these enterprises will prove economic failures and they'll be substantially gone in a few years in any case, but in the interim I understand why a lot of people would think they were a PITA.
By this logic, cars and sprawl are a tremendous nuisance, yet regulators and developers go to tremendous lengths to accommodate them. The fees imposed on share scooters should also be applied to rental cars and privately owned cars as well. Why should local municipalities be able to tax shared vehicles and/or small vehicles more than cars? Likewise, nuisance and obstruction should be measured in the volume and footprint of vehicles, and thus cars and trucks regulated and taxed in proportion to their size relative to bikes and scooters.

If cars and trucks were taxed and regulated proportionally to bikes and scooters for their size, it would be interesting to see how many people would choose bikes and scooters at that point instead of their much larger cousins, cars and trucks.
tandempower is offline  
Old 11-23-18, 09:18 AM
  #133  
tandempower
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,302
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8007 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Machka View Post
Or maybe GM etc. will expand their businesses by offering several options ... because people can both own a motor vehicle AND own a bicycle or 17.
If I trusted these companies not to be anti-competitive, I would agree with you. The problem is that they are not all welcoming to every option that people might choose. Rather, they try to deter people from making more affordable choices and steer them toward more expensive ones, because that is what makes them more money.

All you have to do is think of common sense ways to make alternative transportation more affordable and more convenient and then see how these are blocked by regulations, etc. It is obvious that there is anti-competitive activity going on in markets, and government doesn't do anything about it because they have been bought off in more than one way.
tandempower is offline  
Old 11-23-18, 04:21 PM
  #134  
Mobile 155
Senior Member
 
Mobile 155's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: So Cal
Posts: 4,942

Bikes: 72-76 Peugeot, 89 Klein Quantum Road Bike, 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.

Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1369 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times in 7 Posts
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
If I trusted these companies not to be anti-competitive, I would agree with you. The problem is that they are not all welcoming to every option that people might choose. Rather, they try to deter people from making more affordable choices and steer them toward more expensive ones, because that is what makes them more money.

All you have to do is think of common sense ways to make alternative transportation more affordable and more convenient and then see how these are blocked by regulations, etc. It is obvious that there is anti-competitive activity going on in markets, and government doesn't do anything about it because they have been bought off in more than one way.
Dude you are just being contrary. If a company was anticompetitive it would go out if business. To survive every company has to become competitive. Nothing else works.

The companies do do not have to make alternative forms of transportation more affordable, even if they already are.

People right now have every opportunity to choose walking, biking, trains, buses, and even air travel as an alternative to cars.

As as far as taxing cars compared to bicycles and scooters are you serious? Do you have any clue how much people pay to have a car in taxes and fees? Are cyclists and scooter riders required to pay higher taxes and fees than cars? Not even close. Are cyclists mandated a requirement to have license to operate or just a plate and registration? Is insurance mandated to operate a bike or scooter or to ride a bus or take the train?

in the argument that there is a cabal squashing alternative forms of transportation there has been no evidence presented, other than the suspicion that people unknown to the accuser are plotting late at night, that Car manufactures are conspiring against other forms of transportation. Unless offering a choice to people that they prefer is unfair?

There red are no monsters in the closet or killers under the bed.
Mobile 155 is offline  
Old 11-23-18, 04:41 PM
  #135  
jon c. 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 3,662
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 952 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
By this logic, cars and sprawl are a tremendous nuisance
Not on city sidewalks. Which is the issue at hand.

Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
Likewise, nuisance and obstruction should be measured in the volume and footprint of vehicles,
And therein lies the problem from what I've witnessed. The volume of dockless scooters in 'service' and their footprint as they're left lying haphazardly on the sidewalk creates a level of obstruction and nuisance that is not otherwise allowed on city sidewalks.
jon c. is offline  
Old 11-23-18, 06:03 PM
  #136  
badger1
Senior Member
 
badger1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Southwestern Ontario
Posts: 3,935
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 961 Post(s)
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Mobile 155 View Post


Dude you are just being contrary. If a company was anticompetitive it would go out if business. To survive every company has to become competitive. Nothing else works.

The companies do do not have to make alternative forms of transportation more affordable, even if they already are.

People right now have every opportunity to choose walking, biking, trains, buses, and even air travel as an alternative to cars.

As as far as taxing cars compared to bicycles and scooters are you serious? Do you have any clue how much people pay to have a car in taxes and fees? Are cyclists and scooter riders required to pay higher taxes and fees than cars? Not even close. Are cyclists mandated a requirement to have license to operate or just a plate and registration? Is insurance mandated to operate a bike or scooter or to ride a bus or take the train?

in the argument that there is a cabal squashing alternative forms of transportation there has been no evidence presented, other than the suspicion that people unknown to the accuser are plotting late at night, that Car manufactures are conspiring against other forms of transportation. Unless offering a choice to people that they prefer is unfair?

There red are no monsters in the closet or killers under the bed.
This, +1000.

These kinds of 'debates' or discussions are utterly pointless. Karl Popper (and others) described the 'logic' (sic) involved in this kind of 'critical thinking' (sic) quite some time ago. One simply asserts as 'truth' some unsupportable/unprovable assumption as 'fact', and then relies on it in the face of any reasonable opposition. Usually, as in the present case, that involves the assertion of the existence of some sort of hypothetical, conspiratorial 'motivation' for which no evidence exists, and then 'reasoning' (sic) from that assumption.

E.G. 'the earth is flat, and held up by turtles'. 'How do you know?' 'It just is.' 'But there's no evidence to support either proposition.' 'Of course not; you don't see the Truth as I do because the Round Earthers have a financial stake in deluding you into ignoring the fact that the earth is flat and held up by elephants standing on turtles. I, however, have used the power of my mind, sitting in my basement, to escape their pernicious, all-pervasive influence, and to deduce the Truth.'

Anyway, if you're interested here's a True depiction of Earth's progress through space. Makes perfect sense to me.
badger1 is online now  
Old 11-23-18, 08:17 PM
  #137  
350htrr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Canada, PG BC
Posts: 3,659

Bikes: 27 speed oryx with over 39,000Km on it, 11,000Km with a BionX assist on it

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 901 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mobile 155 View Post


Dude you are just being contrary. If a company was anticompetitive it would go out if business. To survive every company has to become competitive. Nothing else works.

The companies do do not have to make alternative forms of transportation more affordable, even if they already are.

People right now have every opportunity to choose walking, biking, trains, buses, and even air travel as an alternative to cars.

As as far as taxing cars compared to bicycles and scooters are you serious? Do you have any clue how much people pay to have a car in taxes and fees? Are cyclists and scooter riders required to pay higher taxes and fees than cars? Not even close. Are cyclists mandated a requirement to have license to operate or just a plate and registration? Is insurance mandated to operate a bike or scooter or to ride a bus or take the train?

in the argument that there is a cabal squashing alternative forms of transportation there has been no evidence presented, other than the suspicion that people unknown to the accuser are plotting late at night, that Car manufactures are conspiring against other forms of transportation. Unless offering a choice to people that they prefer is unfair?

There red are no monsters in the closet or killers under the bed.
Really...??? Have you read anything about the history of transportation here in N America where GM has bought out other forms of transportation that were profitable, but then scrapped them.., Why would they scrap them...??? if the were "profitable" at the time... Maybe because they "conspired" to make cars even more "profitable"...
350htrr is offline  
Old 11-23-18, 08:20 PM
  #138  
350htrr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Canada, PG BC
Posts: 3,659

Bikes: 27 speed oryx with over 39,000Km on it, 11,000Km with a BionX assist on it

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 901 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by badger1 View Post
This, +1000.

These kinds of 'debates' or discussions are utterly pointless. Karl Popper (and others) described the 'logic' (sic) involved in this kind of 'critical thinking' (sic) quite some time ago. One simply asserts as 'truth' some unsupportable/unprovable assumption as 'fact', and then relies on it in the face of any reasonable opposition. Usually, as in the present case, that involves the assertion of the existence of some sort of hypothetical, conspiratorial 'motivation' for which no evidence exists, and then 'reasoning' (sic) from that assumption.

E.G. 'the earth is flat, and held up by turtles'. 'How do you know?' 'It just is.' 'But there's no evidence to support either proposition.' 'Of course not; you don't see the Truth as I do because the Round Earthers have a financial stake in deluding you into ignoring the fact that the earth is flat and held up by elephants standing on turtles. I, however, have used the power of my mind, sitting in my basement, to escape their pernicious, all-pervasive influence, and to deduce the Truth.'

Anyway, if you're interested here's a True depiction of Earth's progress through space. Makes perfect sense to me.
Yea, NOT...
350htrr is offline  
Old 11-23-18, 08:40 PM
  #139  
jon c. 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 3,662
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 952 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Originally Posted by 350htrr View Post
Really...??? Have you read anything about the history of transportation here in N America where GM has bought out other forms of transportation that were profitable, but then scrapped them.., Why would they scrap them...??? if the were "profitable" at the time... Maybe because they "conspired" to make cars even more "profitable"...
How long ago was this? Does this "history" lead you to believe auto manufacturers are conspiring against bicycles and scooters?
jon c. is offline  
Old 11-23-18, 08:51 PM
  #140  
Mobile 155
Senior Member
 
Mobile 155's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: So Cal
Posts: 4,942

Bikes: 72-76 Peugeot, 89 Klein Quantum Road Bike, 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.

Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1369 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times in 7 Posts
Originally Posted by 350htrr View Post
Really...??? Have you read anything about the history of transportation here in N America where GM has bought out other forms of transportation that were profitable, but then scrapped them.., Why would they scrap them...??? if the were "profitable" at the time... Maybe because they "conspired" to make cars even more "profitable"...
i read about Giant Bicycle buying out several small bicycle companies to become the worlds largest bicycle manufacturer. There is profitable and there is. Lot more profitable.

What other forms of transportation has proven to be bought by GM and scrapped? The old Red Car story? The Red Cars were becoming obsolete and were way underfunded. Ripe for a buyout. Ever hear of Microsoft? Do you remember that there office suite used to be stand alone companies like Dbase?

If the companies bought and scrapped by GM were indeed profitable what would stop a foreign company from starting them back up? Nothing. Another conspiracy that starts to unravel under the light of reality?

Ford or Chrysler would have done the same thing. So who did they conspire with? The public that bought cars by the boat load and let the bicycle industry fold and move to foreign shores? Remember GM made a lot of buses back then and that was a alternate form of transportation.

Last edited by Mobile 155; 11-23-18 at 08:55 PM.
Mobile 155 is offline  
Old 11-23-18, 09:02 PM
  #141  
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 27,596

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 17 Times in 12 Posts
Originally Posted by 350htrr View Post
Really...??? Have you read anything about the history of transportation here in N America where GM has bought out other forms of transportation that were profitable, but then scrapped them.., Why would they scrap them...??? if the were "profitable" at the time... Maybe because they "conspired" to make cars even more "profitable"...
Yes I have read about the myth which you choose to repeat. Perhaps you can point out where you read that GM bought out other forms of transportation that were profitable, but then scrapped these profitable operations. All the smilies in the world won't put your old wives tale/alternate reality back together again.

I suggest you start reading at these two sites but there are plenty more that tell the same story.
http://https://www.citylab.com/trans...-scandal/5771/
http://www.honolulutraffic.com/TQOrigin.pdf

Of course you can read the screenplay of Roger Rabbit if you prefer to believe in fiction.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 11-23-18, 09:30 PM
  #142  
Mobile 155
Senior Member
 
Mobile 155's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: So Cal
Posts: 4,942

Bikes: 72-76 Peugeot, 89 Klein Quantum Road Bike, 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.

Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1369 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times in 7 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike View Post
Yes I have read about the myth which you choose to repeat. Perhaps you can point out where you read that GM bought out other forms of transportation that were profitable, but then scrapped these profitable operations. All the smilies in the world won't put your old wives tale/alternate reality back together again.

I suggest you start reading at these two sites but there are plenty more that tell the same story.
http://https://www.citylab.com/trans...-scandal/5771/
http://www.honolulutraffic.com/TQOrigin.pdf

Of course you can read the screenplay of Roger Rabbit if you prefer to believe in fiction.
even better read the court ruling that indicates several companies including GM, Firestone and Standard oil were trying to monopolize national or Pacific to make money on Buses and supplies for said buses not for scrapping light rail or bicycles. National and Pacific had already started replacing light rail. And this all took place in the mid 1930s. Hardly relevant to today. Back then Schwann was a good company. Now it isn’t.
Mobile 155 is offline  
Old 11-24-18, 12:59 AM
  #143  
Rollfast
What happened?
 
Rollfast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Around here somewhere
Posts: 7,339

Bikes: 3 Rollfasts, 3 Schwinns, a Shelby and a Higgins Flightliner in a pear tree!

Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1448 Post(s)
Liked 16 Times in 16 Posts
80 years ago?

Dorothy killed the Wicked Witch of the West, remember.
__________________
I don't know Everything...I've just been at it long enough to know why it's probably messed up.
Rollfast is offline  
Old 11-24-18, 01:00 AM
  #144  
Rollfast
What happened?
 
Rollfast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Around here somewhere
Posts: 7,339

Bikes: 3 Rollfasts, 3 Schwinns, a Shelby and a Higgins Flightliner in a pear tree!

Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1448 Post(s)
Liked 16 Times in 16 Posts
Slow holiday.
__________________
I don't know Everything...I've just been at it long enough to know why it's probably messed up.
Rollfast is offline  
Old 11-24-18, 11:15 AM
  #145  
tandempower
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,302
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8007 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mobile 155 View Post
Dude you are just being contrary. If a company was anticompetitive it would go out if business. To survive every company has to become competitive. Nothing else works.

Being 'anti-competitive' is a form of competition, but it's a dirty form. It means you get involved in your competitors' business to thwart their ability to compete with you. It's like a form of market sabotage. I.e. if there are real companies trying to provide non-automotive mobility solutions and then car companies get involved pretending to also be offering such solutions, but their real motive is to steer people toward buying cars by providing inadequate alternatives or causing problems for companies and regulators who are trying to improve access to alternative transportation, that is anti-competitive.

The companies do do not have to make alternative forms of transportation more affordable, even if they already are.
They can set their prices as high as they want, but they shouldn't interfere with others competing with them by undercutting their prices.

People right now have every opportunity to choose walking, biking, trains, buses, and even air travel as an alternative to cars.
Obviously that's not the case if there are new forms of mobility being developed and deployed and local governments and others are interfering with those emerging markets.

As as far as taxing cars compared to bicycles and scooters are you serious? Do you have any clue how much people pay to have a car in taxes and fees? Are cyclists and scooter riders required to pay higher taxes and fees than cars? Not even close. Are cyclists mandated a requirement to have license to operate or just a plate and registration? Is insurance mandated to operate a bike or scooter or to ride a bus or take the train?
When a local government charges a $500 annual fee per scooter for share companies to have the scooter available on the street, why aren't they charging the same fee for rental cars? Because those aren't dockless? Well then why can't share companies rent small docks to stack share bikes/scooters instead of paying $500 per unit? $500 per year is a high tax to pay to have a share scooter available.

in the argument that there is a cabal squashing alternative forms of transportation there has been no evidence presented, other than the suspicion that people unknown to the accuser are plotting late at night, that Car manufactures are conspiring against other forms of transportation. Unless offering a choice to people that they prefer is unfair?
When you deny it, it just puts you on their side, which you don't actually need to deny anyway because it's obvious.
tandempower is offline  
Old 11-24-18, 11:19 AM
  #146  
tandempower
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,302
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8007 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by jon c. View Post
Not on city sidewalks. Which is the issue at hand.
What you seem to fail to realize is that travel lanes and parking spots take land away from other vehicles and trees/greenspace.

And therein lies the problem from what I've witnessed. The volume of dockless scooters in 'service' and their footprint as they're left lying haphazardly on the sidewalk creates a level of obstruction and nuisance that is not otherwise allowed on city sidewalks.
They need to have better methods for stacking them. Scooters could easily be stacked so that their handlebar stems clip onto each other as the decks are stacked. Share bikes can also be stacked neatly if they are equipped with folding handlebars and pedals. I don't know if any of the share vendors already install these simple space-savors but it's a mistake not to.
tandempower is offline  
Old 11-24-18, 12:45 PM
  #147  
Mobile 155
Senior Member
 
Mobile 155's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: So Cal
Posts: 4,942

Bikes: 72-76 Peugeot, 89 Klein Quantum Road Bike, 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.

Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1369 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times in 7 Posts
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
Being 'anti-competitive' is a form of competition, but it's a dirty form. It means you get involved in your competitors' business to thwart their ability to compete with you. It's like a form of market sabotage. I.e. if there are real companies trying to provide non-automotive mobility solutions and then car companies get involved pretending to also be offering such solutions, but their real motive is to steer people toward buying cars by providing inadequate alternatives or causing problems for companies and regulators who are trying to improve access to alternative transportation, that is anti-competitive.


They can set their prices as high as they want, but they shouldn't interfere with others competing with them by undercutting their prices.


Obviously that's not the case if there are new forms of mobility being developed and deployed and local governments and others are interfering with those emerging markets.


When a local government charges a $500 annual fee per scooter for share companies to have the scooter available on the street, why aren't they charging the same fee for rental cars? Because those aren't dockless? Well then why can't share companies rent small docks to stack share bikes/scooters instead of paying $500 per unit? $500 per year is a high tax to pay to have a share scooter available.

When you deny it, it just puts you on their side, which you don't actually need to deny anyway because it's obvious.
I don’t think making up your own definition of how things work constitutes any kind of proof. Now if you could show a codified set of rules of how a successful company must deal with a non related startup company you could prove GM or any auto company has broken the rules and that caused elected officials, elected by you and your neighbors, to inact specific regulations that they have never applied to any other company you would have the beginnings of a conspiracy claim against the city, county, or state.

Still tgere is no legal requirement that a car company has to assist other transportation startups to become successful. You will not even find that concept in a book on ethics.

Perhaps if the concerns you have expressed about how scooters and bikes “could” be better managed and so less obtrusive to the people that object to them were sent to the scooter and bike companies they could evaluate their plans and approach the cities effected.

It it might be helpful if you had a basic knowledge of how corporations work and the fees and taxes they paid before you assume they aren’t paying way more than $500.00 a unit. Not to mention what the customer is required to pay.

But I know that would take looking at both sides of the issue and that requires objectivity rather than advocacy.
Mobile 155 is offline  
Old 11-24-18, 07:13 PM
  #148  
Machka 
In Real Life
 
Machka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Down under down under
Posts: 51,322

Bikes: Lots

Mentioned: 123 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2815 Post(s)
Liked 23 Times in 16 Posts
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
When a local government charges a $500 annual fee per scooter for share companies to have the scooter available on the street, why aren't they charging the same fee for rental cars?
Since you seem to know ... how much are they charging for rental cars?
Machka is offline  
Old 11-24-18, 07:23 PM
  #149  
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 27,596

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 17 Times in 12 Posts
What the heck are " share" companies and what makes them different than any other company trying to sell/rent a product or a service? And what makes anyone think that they do anything so dang special?
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 11-24-18, 07:44 PM
  #150  
dedhed
SE Wis
 
dedhed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 4,902

Bikes: '68 Raleigh Sprite, '02 Raleigh C500, '84 Raleigh Gran Prix, '91 Trek 400

Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 620 Post(s)
Liked 15 Times in 15 Posts
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
When a local government charges a $500 annual fee per scooter for share companies to have the scooter available on the street, why aren't they charging the same fee for rental cars? Because those aren't dockless? Well then why can't share companies rent small docks to stack share bikes/scooters instead of paying $500 per unit? $500 per year is a high tax to pay to have a share scooter available..
http://www.ncsl.org/research/fiscal-...car-taxes.aspx

https://www.revenue.wi.gov/DOR%20Publications/pb410.pdf
dedhed is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.