Remind me again why they are allowed to litter all the public sidewalks and street corners with their scooters?
Regulation hasn't caught up yet?
Regulation hasn't caught up yet?
Also, your comment is a logical fallacy.
Since the majority of places don't have statues for scooters, the default actually is littering, it's no different than dumping anything else on the sidewalk.
Because car owners pay extra in taxes, specifically to cover the additional costs to society.
We massively subsidize drivers in this country. It's a natural consequence of people voting for their own short-term self-interests.
https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2015/05/debunking-the...
Let's leave the "get off my lawn" comments off HN.
These scooter companies are operating in a grey area; that's a fact. Please don't quickly dismiss discussion about this issue, especially in such an ignorant manner.
If you've ever biked as a mode of transport, even in most US 'bike-friendly' cities, you'll know how few bike racks are available.
That's not true at all where I live. Santa Monica often bans them for not following rules, makes deals with other companies, etc.. Every app is forced to implement geofencing for not allowing riding on the beach walkways, for example. On popular roads like Abbot Kinney there are small fenced off corals where the government has replaced a car parking spot with a scooter and bicycle one. So yes, scooter companies do have specific laws they have to follow. It's actually a drawback since the city favors Jump over local companies like Bird, and Jump has a lot less availability.
I mean, do you say "No no, you can't complain about all those chemicals being dumped into that river... look at all the value people are deriving from thing the factory is producing!"
Cars and drivers, in my view, push MUCH more externalities onto everyone else (and let's not limit ourselves to thinking locally, all that CO2 we emit from driving disproportionately affects those in the third world and those yet unborn).
I don't think we should be using the argument of 'well, the externalities for cars are worse' when deciding how to deal with the externalities of scooters, though. By that argument, we only have to ever make sure our externalities are better than the very worst offender in order to be beyond reproach.
I like the Bird idea, but why should people who find them a nuisance not be able to voice their opinions here? They are literally being thrown on people's lawns. I think those companies have some responsibility to develop spaced waypoints with the city which act as hubs for birds. Private businesses should be allowed to register their space as a hub for a payment by the Bird company.
The different users would be: Hub owners (colleges, cities, private homes, businesses), riders, chargers. Hub owners and chargers would get paid to host hubs and charge birds, respectively. The riders would pay for use between hubs.
Scooters have markedly improved life around where I live. Fewer noisy cars and less emissions.
Is the night riding banned by the app? I though they had lights built into them?
Is it really that big of a nuisance? You literally walk around them, I don't see the issue.
You should give them a ride one day to "see what all the fuss is about." They really are an incredible idea and allowing them to be "parked" anywhere is one of its main appeals.
I’ve seen scooters literally blocking entrances and pathways, heck people even take them inside buildings up to the 5th floor; not to mention that at night they emit a high pitched disrupting sound. Some people are plain lazy and highly inconsiderate. We need some rules because some people lack common sense.
It's not an issue for most people but I live up the road from an old folks home and often see the residents heading to the shops in their mobility scooters. If there's a dumped lime scooter blocking the footpath it completely stops them from using the footpath until someone moves it out of the way for them.