Slashdot Mirror
San Jose May Start Cracking Down On Rampant Use of Scooters (mercurynews.com)
If you've ever visited San Jose, you may have noticed something rather unusual: there are electric scooters littering the streets. The scooters are placed randomly throughout the city and can be rented by users via an app. They're reportedly bothering pedestrians enough for the city to take notice and consider a number of possible restrictions, "including issuing revocable permits to a limited number of scooter companies such as Lime and Bird, requiring the companies to pay a deposit to cover potential scooter-involved damage to city property, and charging annual fees to operate in the city," reports The Mercury News. From the report: In recent weeks, the city has fielded complaints about people zooming down crowded sidewalks instead of riding in the street and parking scooters in front of driveways or leaving them tipped over outside stores. But the city currently doesn't have any rules governing the relatively new scooter-sharing industry, enabling both the companies and users to operate freely. In addition to paying operating fees, [...] the city wants the companies to provide multilingual customer service at all times, and to commit to addressing problems quickly. And like Ford GoBike -- which currently has an exclusive contract with San Jose to operate a docked bike sharing program in the city -- the city says scooter companies should be required to offer discounts to low-income residents and operate in what it calls "communities of concern."
To understand how and where people are riding scooters, the city says it also wants the companies to share their data, something they so far have been reluctant to part with, at least publicly. Most residents at the meeting seemed supportive of having scooters in San Jose, calling them an easy and environmentally friendly way to commute or run errands quickly.
To understand how and where people are riding scooters, the city says it also wants the companies to share their data, something they so far have been reluctant to part with, at least publicly. Most residents at the meeting seemed supportive of having scooters in San Jose, calling them an easy and environmentally friendly way to commute or run errands quickly.
Why not simply allow people to haul away abandoned and/or illegally parked scooters and sell them for scrap? Of course the scooter companies should be allowed to come by and pick up their property- as long as they pay the same reasonable towing and storage fees that tow companies charge for cars.
When you share it, you should, but most won't, take care of it.
It is inevitable that once the element of ownership is taken out of the equation, that people become careless.
Irresponcible to the point of creating a hazzard for the general populace. A mess to clean up.
This applies to so many things on so many levels.
It is absurd that many people forget about this or would simply like to believe otherwise.
The city finally took some action and have been cracking down on the companies operating these skooters.
Most Respectfully Yours Mark Allyn Bellingham, Washington
After the inevitable scooter share startup bankruptcies, the problem will essentially solve itself. The scooters will then be auctioned off in bankruptcy to satisfy creditors.
See also: the mountains of abandoned sharing bicycles in China.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
What is the speed and range of these scooters?
Anyone hacking them yet?
I guess I shouldn't be surprised when the vast majority of the responses blame the scooters, the government, and everything but the PEOPLE RIDING THE SCOOTERS. It's just people refusing to aknowledge where the responsibility truly lies. Lock the things up, require a credit card to use them, then have a set of rules that the police can enforce. Done. You know who was using the scooter and can enforce fines.
Their target audience can't read.
-- Cheers!
I think you've hit on the problem, but missed that the current status leaves governments unable to take action. The governments can (currently) legally target the users, since the laws were written with individual owners of individual bikes or scooters. The governments cannot target the companies, or even require that the companies provide data about their customers or pass through fines through to the customers without changes to the laws.
Hence why you're going to continue seeing stories like this as governments go through the inherently slow process of revising policies and regulations.
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
I pretty sure that civil asset forfeiture laws could be applied if they government really cared. Sure it would end up in court, but that will drag on forever. The companies won't like having their scooter and revenue seized, but they'll just bill the customer for it. Eventually, people learn to be responsible. It doesn't matter what you do as the companies will pass the costs on to the customers, so just ticket the scooter and note the date and time. The company doesn't need to tell the government who was responsible for leaving it illegally parked as they'll just pass on the bill.
Try to show some empathy. There are some impoverished areas in east SJ with median housing prices barely reaching $1M. From 237 to Alum Rock, there is not a single Tesla Supercharging Station east of 680. People should not have to live like that. We should all be concerned.
Our government may not care about hunger, housing, or healthcare, but at least they can make sure we all have equal access to rent-a-scooters.
scooter companies should be required to offer discounts to low-income residents and operate in what it calls "communities of concern."
Personal responsibility? Can't crack down on the drugged-out hobos. Never mind that they can claim poverty when it comes time to pay a fine (but they have a smart phone and credit card with which to unlock a bike or scooter). But just try to enforce laws with the 'disadvantaged' and the SJWs will be out with protest signs and block freeways.
...because no problems should be addressed in the first world unless they involve clean drinking water and warlords disrupting food shipments?
That attitude is cute.
If I rent a vehicle and drive through a red light camera, or park at an expired meter, the rental company receives the traffic ticket and it's up to them to track me down. Same thing should apply here. Ticket the scooter company, and it's up to them to identify the user (pretty simple, who was using it/just used it prior to the infraction) and pass the fine along.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Primary link is to a website that only has an auto-playing video.
Can reporters in the USA still write?
Primary link is to a website that only has an auto-playing video.
Can reporters in the USA still write?
No. They were too busy with their social justice classwork to study English and writing skills. Is writing even an elective in journalism schools these days? Even big money national "news" websites routinely misspell words in articles, use the wrong words - often homophones - or even omit words in a sentence, mangling the meaning. Sometimes, it looks like a middle school book report. I read an article today on one of those national "news" sites where the first paragraph referenced a "she" with nothing to identify who "she" was. Nowhere, in the entire article, did it identify exactly who "she" was or why I should care what "she" says or thinks.
Authoritarian city bureaucrats, NIMBY landowners, and joyless ne'er-do-wells sure do hate clean, quiet, efficient shared transportation options.
A scooter or bicycle available for rent is essentially a commercial, app-controlled vending machine. Why should it be legal for these things to be left anywhere for rental? If this is permitted, then there is no longer any non-commercial space. Can I set up a rental booth anywhere I like? In Walnut Creek across the Bay, hideous LimeBikes for rent litter nature trails and parks. A boycott seems appropriate if the local governments won't restrict rental areas to something reasonable.
Legalese: bicycles are not federally regulated, but there is a technical definition that the CPSC uses when defining them, and that most states use as well.
Now then...
1) In pretty much all US jurisdictions the ONLY non-motor-vehicle device that can be used on public roads is bicycles*, and these electric scooters would not technically qualify as bicycles under the Federal CPSC definition. So they would not be legal for adults to use on public roads, at all...
*(-draft animals and drawn carts and wagons are still legal too, on most US roads but not all roads-)
2) Also in most US jurisdictions, the ONLY powered devices that can be used on sidewalks is mobility devices for assisting the handicapped, and they have their own set of requirements under the Federal ADA regulations. Among those requirements is that the person using them is medically handicapped...
3) The last option is if the scooters were declared as motor vehicles--but for that to happen, they would need to meet the Federal DOT regulations for one class of motor vehicles already defined, and the scooters would need to be issued VIN numbers (a standard format serial number issued by the Federal Dept of Transportation). And since the scooters cannot technically qualify as any class of motor vehicle, they can't do this either.
These scooters are only considered to be "motorized toys", and are only legal to use on private property--just like pocket bikes. Absent any special law to exempt them, they cannot legally be used on public sidewalks OR public roads.
This is also the reason that a few communities had to enact special laws for people to use Segways when they first came out.
Nowadays there are some handicapped people using Segways, and in that instance they could qualify for sidewalk use as in point #2 above.
Eh? The primary link is to the San Jose Mercury News, which has a well-written (if somewhat short) article on the subject. It's one of secondary links within the TFA itself - to KPIX 5 - that has the video. Unsurprisingly, a TV news station will have a video.
Of course we have cute problems that why we are first world. Now go back to your shithole and try to live beyond 40yrs old..... I have to try figure out my optimal air conditioning temperature..... fuck when I up the temp my head feels too warm but if I lower it my legs feel cold... dammit! If I cover my legs with the blanket, the leg feels too warm so i have to stick out one leg, but then the left leg feels cold and the right leg feels warm.... then I have to alternate my legs in the blanket.... which is too much effort.... FUCK!
I think you've hit on the problem, but missed that the current status leaves governments unable to take action. The governments can (currently) legally target the users, since the laws were written with individual owners of individual bikes or scooters. The governments cannot target the companies, or even require that the companies provide data about their customers or pass through fines through to the customers without changes to the laws.
Except for moving violations, (when tickets are directly issued to the driver), the government should just target the registered owner of the vehicle. If I rent a car from Hertz and park it illegally, the ticket is issued to Hertz. Hertz then goes after me for the money - as they make clear they will in the rental agreement. This model is already in place and would work fine for rented scooters and bicycles. It is up to the scooter company to keep track of their property and deal with citations.
Still the rental company's problem. A guy with a dolly could push a Zipcar into the middle of a street and leave it. Assuming the rando isn't caught, it is Zipcar's responsibility to pay for the tow.
Much simpler solution: the owner of the vehicle gets the fine. It's up to them to recover the money from the driver/rider. This works fine for rental cars, it will work fine for rental scooters too.
Scooters pollute less and use less petroleum than cars. They should be encouraged. Sounds like more traffic and parking enforcement is needed for them, however. Add that into the licensing fees.
Table-ized A.I.
Actually it all started with electric wheel chairs. There is no way that those chairs could use the streets rather than the sidewalks. Then we had electric bicycles followed by electric scooters. Most of these do belong on the sidewalks. There are some electric bicycles that if misused can reach speeds that should not be on the sidewalks. There are also some scooters of which the same could be said but again it comes back to the person who is using the scooter or electric bike. A scooter capable of 25 mph can easily work nicely at 6 mph and at the lower speeds serious accidents would be quite rare. considering that my human powered bicycle can hit 25 mph and is legal on sidewalks in my state it really comes down to the same thing. It is the responsibility of the rider to act in a decent manner. But soon enough we will see a serious legal challenge. Many times crossing lights for pedestrians for pedestrians to wait way too long to cross. worse yet even some fast walkers can not cross the street before the lights change much less in a manual wheel chair. That discriminates against the handicapped and will surely tip off numerous law suits and cause traffic systems to change and really seriously enrage auto drivers. Picture your grandma try to use her walker to cross US1 or any other major hwy during rush hour. That 15 seconds provided by the light timer won't cut the mustard and it might need to be two minutes.And people in wheel chairs should not be forced to fry in the sun or drown in the rain until the light changes four times to give them a super short time to cross the roads. The traffic system discriminates against seniors and the disabled as well as younger children.
"They're reportedly bothering pedestrians enough for the city to take notice"
This sounds like a few random complaints (possibly from competitors). Is there any real evidence that they are bothering pedestrians e.g., surveys?
The scooters have a user agreement that set the weight limit to 200 lbs
"1.10 Weight and Cargo Limits. You must not exceed the maximum weight limit for the Vehicle (200 pounds)."
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
You think that's bad, visit Washington DC. We have thousands of scooters and dockless bikeshare bikes littering the sidewalks. The companies literally dump their scooters and bikes outside the Metro entrances.
Riders just dump the scooters and bikes wherever they are done with them. It doesn't matter if it's in the middle of the sidewalk or the street or even on the grounds of a national monuments.
DC Council still thinks dockless scooters and bikes are the greatest thing since the "Taxation Without Representation" license plate.
Kriston
That requires a policy or legislative change. In most jurisdictions they have internal rules that require them to go through public input and review processes to ensure they aren't singling people or companies out.
Can they do it? Yes. But it will take some time. Hence why you're hearing about it as they start the processes.
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
Yes, because there's existing laws that cover that scenario. Those laws specifically cover "motor vehicles" and probably even make different scenarios for different types of rental vehicles (commercial trucks vs cars, fleets vs. rentals, in-state vs. out-of-state, etc.).
Bikes and scooters are new transportation vehicle types not covered under existing laws. Hence why towns are having to work through the process of dealing with them.
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
See my other comments in this thread. The Hertz scenario is covered by existing laws and regulations. Scooters are not.
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....