Scooters littering US city streets alarm: 'Unlock me or I'll call the police'
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
I'm afraid of the police, but I'm more afraid of no police.
Let's assume for a moment that it's a good idea for the scooters to threaten to call someone. (It isn't, but let's bear with this). Who should the the scooters threaten to call? "I will call Reverend James from the parish down the street?" "I will call your mother?" "I will call the fire department?"
Homeowners/renters insurance?
So, let's get this straight: it would be an improvement for the scooters to blast: "Don't steal me, or else I will call the insurance company to be replaced".
First, in this particular case, I'd doubt my ability to determine if I'm actually seeing a theft in progress. I've used Starbucks mobile ordering and always feel like someone's gonna think I'm stealing stuff - it's a weird experience.
Second, calling the cops for a property crime like theft/vandalism is something I'm not 100% comfortable with. I've got insurance on my stuff, I think our prison system sucks and is frequently counter-productive, and I don't like the idea that calling the police can cause people to die for non-capital crimes (or complete innocence, like the swatting case a while back).
Also how do you weigh the risk that a criminal will do physical harm to you (or their next victim) versus the risk that the police do physical harm to them?
But aside from that I think the racism angle is a bit distracting. The real problem seems to me that scooter companies are allowed to push all these ugly externalities on us without paying for them. I see that there is a role for police in private property protection, but is there some point at which we ask a company to pay for a certain amount of their own protection? It seems to me that these scooter services introduce the possibility of crime to a level we don't normally see. Maybe they should pay for that.
Are parked cars litter? What about when a restaurants put a chair or table outside on the sidewalk?
Maybe a closer analogy is the other kind of electric scooter (as in the mopeds like Scoot). Never heard them called litter. So is being on the sidewalk vs the street what determines if it's litter?
If you leave them outside of a designated parking spot, sure.
> What about when a restaurants put a chair or table outside on the sidewalk?
That probably depends on who owns the sidewalk.
What if designate about a third of the city's public space as scooter parking spots? Would that be ok?
To me all the cars that fill my city, standing around being useless 90% of the time, are nothing but litter.
You assume an answer to this question that not everyone agrees with.
As in: are they in the way? Yes.
As in: are they useless from pedestrians' point of view? Yes.
As in: would the person who put the car there mind if it was towed and tossed away? Likely yes.
Where I live, I can't see incoming traffic from all the cars that <strike>are parked on the sides of streets</strike> are blocking the street view and constricting capacity. I would be happy if every single one of them would be treated as trash.
Disclosure: we have a private driveway. I walk and cycle, I don't drive.
This is so effed up it's beyond words.
> said Kaplan, who is crafting legislation to regulate the scooters and now plans to add a proposal to prohibit loud noises and threats.
Sure that's the right way to approach the problem of black people fearing for their lives every time anyone decides to loudly announce the possible need for involvement of government employees to conform with the laws.
This is a nonsensical, straw man argument that is propped up over and over in these threads. I pay taxes and registration fees to the state every year for the privilege of using public roads (and parking on them). I pay the city for parking. I pay CDOT to use the bridge. We have laws regarding the proper and improper usage of motor vehicles, with appropriate law enforcement to implement those rules.
None of this exists with these scooters. It's just another bullshit VC play at making money off arbitraging public safety and wellbeing in an environment they don't have to deal with. The hubris has become absolutely disgusting.
Dodging a parked scooter on the sidewalk is no more burdensome to me than having to step around every parking meter that crowds the sidewalk presently.
If I randomly leave any of them in the middle of the street or sidewalk, they'll be ticketed, towed, or removed.
Exactly. To be fair though this was only after a fair amount of vehicular chaos.
So the question is not "how many people are inconvenienced on average?" but "how many people are inconvenienced during peak times?" If the second figure is non-insignificant, you have a problem.
Gamers and UX designers understand this. ANY latency peaks or waiting time hikes are detrimental.
The biggest concern that citizens and the city has is the mentality that when your done with the scooter you can just leave it in the middle of the sidewalk or anywhere you please. Bird needs to be proactive about it, and start charging fines and fees to users who don't properly put the scooters away. Ultimately Bird needs to setup "nests" pod that are designated pickup and dropoff points to fully address the problem.
[1] https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2018/06/07/bird-scoote...
Just in theory. I have no opinion on these scooters.
This is the Oakland police we are talking about here, who are recently coming off a number of major controversies including child sex trafficking. Getting them to show up for a robbery is a challenge. 0% chance they show up for dumping calls (there is a dumping spot a few blocks from our apartment people have been trying to get OPD to watch for months, to no avail).
This is different from leaving your personal scooter for a few minutes while you shop, or from someone accidentally dropping their wallet or phone. If you intentionally strew things around in public and leave them there, why shouldn't anyone do with them as they like? How is this not littering for profit?
The reasoning of, "I left this thing on the sidewalk...I have no plans to come back for it any time soon...I hope someone comes along and wires me money to use it for a bit then drops it somewhere else...but don't you dare touch it unless you pay me!" seems specious.
That is not part of the social contract. No one has a reasonable expectation to use the sidewalk as an unattended warehouse or storefront for as long as they like. At best, this is gaming the question of what is or isn't abandoned property.
In some cases, there are posted limits: 2-hour parking; 72-hour maximum; etc.
You can also often leave temporary signs/markings (like sidewalk chalk or "garage sale"/"lost pet" posters). You can hand out flyers/coupons or solicit signatures on the sidewalks. You can monopolize a public field/court for a temporary period simply by starting to play/picnic there with friends. You can leave boxes/deliveries/garbage on sidewalks and in parking-spaces for later pick-up.
How can there be confusion that a branded scooter, which squawks when moved without authorization (just like other laptop/vehicle/shopping-cart/shoplifting security devices), is "abandoned property"?
Further, both the proprietor's needs (to recharge/inventory) and typical usage patterns mean these scooters seldom stay in one spot for more than a few hours – the same commons impact as if they were widely-owned personal scooters.
So dockless scooters look to me like an innovative use of the commons, fairly analogous to other precedents. Sure, if specific negatives are detected, and outweigh the positive until ameliorated, new rules could then be required.
But in a free, high-trust country, the default should be permissiveness until harm can be shown. It's obtuse to shoehorn something new into the category of "litter", when that's clearly not the intent of those responsible nor the practical impact.
Looks like the company doesn't even make a call, probably to avoid the high fines for nuisance calls.
>Built-in alarm sparks anger from city officials amid concerns over racism and policing: ‘This is a threat to people’
For example, I'll presume you've never lived in a neighborhood where a black man got shot by police while literally laying on the ground motionless with his arms up. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna74...
I'm white, yet when I'm near police, I feel anxious. Does that mean that police are racist against white people too?
> Blacks and whites have very different perceptions of how much police are held accountable for misconduct. In a December 2014 poll, over twice as many whites as blacks said that they were very or somewhat confident that police are held accountable.
> Whites today are more than twice as likely as blacks to say they are confident that the police in this country are adequately trained to avoid the use of excessive force.
> 37% of blacks, compared to 17% of whites, say police in their community make them feel mostly anxious instead of safe. Only 38% of blacks give their local police good or excellent ratings for controlling crime – the same proportion as said back in 1969 that the police in their neighborhood were doing a good job. Nearly seven in ten whites today give their local police excellent or good ratings.
That said, this bit is kinda fascinating given the above:
> When asked about preferences for police presence in their local area, blacks are 20 percentage points more likely to say they would prefer a larger police presence, indication that many blacks see underpolicing in their communities as a problem. Blacks and whites are equally unwilling to decrease police numbers in order to lower taxes.
They should all be launched into the sun.
A polite "Hey! Looks like you're checking out our scooter! For more info, head to example.com - use COUPONCODE for $5 off your first ride!" seems like it'd be equally effective at getting the message across and far less off-putting.
If a smashed window + stolen laptop (total loss: ~$2,500) can't convince the SF police to lift a finger, I doubt a scooter (~$400) will. Sad situation all around.
The city has all sorts of tricks it uses to make life easy for people on it's side and hard for its perceived enemies.
If the city cared about resolving this it would do these (or similar) things because that's how government works. It makes a bunch of rules that are insane when followed at either extreme, normally runs near the middle and then picks and chooses which extreme to apply for situations it thinks warrant special treatment (when the government is bad at choosing this is called corruption).
They can impound the scooters without due process and then just say "oops" when ordered to return them. If you're a big enough jerk (as defined by the city's opinion which doesn't necessarily correlate with the truth) to be known to the traffic enforcement people this is probably exactly what would happen.
Alternatively they can just make a big show out of not prosecuting people for stealing them.
Clearly this isn't really a problem as far as the city government cares so they're just letting it run its course.