They Said You Could Leave Scooters Anywhere, Then the Repo Men Struck Back

I live in San Diego, and have followed this with great interest. From my understanding, they are only doing this for scooters that are parked illegally: e.g. on the shop owners property, blocking vehicle access, etc.

It's very interesting, because the riders don't have an incentive to park appropriately (and that is sometimes a guessing game -- street signs don't exist for where you can park scooters legally). However, I'd warrant that it's the sheer carelessness of riders who cause this issue.

Without people like these repo folks, there would be no disincentive for either the riders or the scooter companies. The riders don't care (and making them care would hurt the companies' growth/user retention -- part of the appeal is that "drop anywhere" thing).

In short, I see no problem with this. We allow tow truck companies to do the same, with private citizens as the victims. This only forces the scooter companies to solve the problem they created.

Totally. They're making almost criminally high margins while they wait for the law to catch up. The story of several disruptive startups.

> and they are now upset with another business model that found /their gap is actually well-covered by existing towing law/

FTFY

Not that I am a Bird defender, but people dump things all of the time.

Go to the store, buy a bike, get a flat eventually, "screw it im chucking it in the field over there"

Now definitely the rate of people dumping rented bird scooters is higher than everything else, but the real issue is the behavior of riders for not at least trying to be tidy in storing the scooter.

They can't because their business is fundamentally built on the "leave anywhere" promise to their customers, who are the ones that actually leave the scooters illegally.

There's just no customer-acceptable way of disincentivizing their bad behavior and unlike parked cars, the scooters can be trivially moved from "legal" to "illegal" parking by a single person, which means that the customer may not even be at fault.

Based on their (lack of) interactions with local governments, goodwill does not seem to be one of their chief concerns.

So how is them 'being in it for the money' any different from any other type of repossessor? I'm not aware of any tow truck operators that do the work as a charity or public service. If the scooter companies had any sort of plan to reburse people for moving the scooters to appropriate parking places, then I would feel differently, but AFAIK none of the scooter companies operates such a program.

Why would they spend 12 hours day 7 days a week doing what the rider should have done in the first place? If the companies gave incentives for riders to put the scooters in those places these two wouldn't have a business model.

If the scooter companies were playing ball, they would have a place to return scooters to that a tow team could bring the offending scooters back to instead of their lot. The alternative of 'dump it on a public sidewalk' is a terrible suggestion. If they get 100 scooters on their property are they supposed to stack them like cordwood and block a public way? I wouldn't say it is masquerading as a public service, these are just some people being paid for labour. A business owner would have to expend resources moving all of these scooters, so they outsource this effort to a tow team and ask them to look for compensation from the scooter owners which are the large companies in lieu of direct payment.

Instead the scooter companies try to defer all responsibility to the riders and charging contractors. The scooter companies have an equal opportunity to pay for a different kind of contractor to fix scooters that are parked poorly, or pay the tow team that collects them on behalf of private property owners. If the private property owners are not permitted to destroy/dispose of the scooters as trash, it is only reasonable for them to be removed and the scooter companies pay up for the nuisance.

Instead? They are going to courts, which they will lose. So they may try to get some local ordinances/laws in their favour instead. Once again it's just a gamble to hit it big before the hammer comes down, and I wish this scooter generation of companies learned from Uber/Lyft and work with the communities instead of just taking advantage of their goodwill and make it harder for the next companies to try the next big idea. I can't place these tow guys in the wrong here, it is unreasonable to force a private property owner to manage whatever non-trash things end up being dumped on it on behalf of the thing's owner at the property owner's expense.

Nope, only the scooter companies.

Like the scooter companies and riders aren't exploiting a gray area? Most areas the law is perfectly clear, if you park in an unlawful space, you will be towed at owner's expense. The police don't have anything to do with it, unless you're parked in a revenue generating space for the city.

GPS may not be accurate enough, especially in urban areas. And the current geofence isn't detailed enough. For example: it doesn't account for things like a wheelchair ramp from a private property intersecting with a public walkway.

In San Francisco, scooters were picked up by the city and impounded. I don't see why it's unfair for private property owners to do the same.

"If [a scooter was in a legit place], then their argument goes out the window."

What about if it wasn't, if it was square on the private property of whoever called the towers?

> So in america, if something is on my private property, it becomes mine?

No, I think the argument is the same as with a car being impounded:

1. You left shit on my property.

2. It's still yours, but I had to move it off my property.

3. The problem you created has cost me money.

4. You need to reimburse me. I'll hold onto the item for collateral.

Even if it is on private property, that doesn't mean you can take it. If you park on someone else's driveway, they don't get to take your car.