A Software Malfunction Is Throwing Riders Off of Lime Scooters (qz.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Quartz: Riders in Switzerland and New Zealand have reported the front wheels of their electric scooters locking suddenly mid-ride, hurling riders to the ground. The malfunction has resulted in dozens of injuries ranging from bruises to broken jaws. Lime pulled all its scooters from Swiss streets in January when reports of the incidents surfaced there. When the city of Auckland, New Zealand voted to suspend the company earlier this week following 155 reported cases of sudden braking, the company acknowledged that a software glitch was causing the chaos. The company claims that fewer than 0.0045% of all rides worldwide have been affected, adding that "any injury is one too many." An initial fix reduced the number of incidents, it said, and a final update underway on all scooters will soon be complete. "Recently we detected a bug in the firmware of our scooter fleet that under rare circumstances could cause sudden excessive braking during use," Lime wrote in a blog post Saturday. "[I]n very rare cases -- usually riding downhill at top speed while hitting a pothole or other obstacle -- excessive brake force on the front wheel can occur, resulting in a scooter stopping unexpectedly."

Comments

Sounds like they have

[50000BTU_barbecue]

Lime disease! ...

Yeah!

Re:Sounds like they have

[DontBeAMoran]

https://instantrimshot.com/

Re:Sounds like they have

[Anonymous Coward]

Lime disease! ...

Yeah!

Leading to cement poisoning.

Re:Sounds like they have

[Anonymous Coward]

Lime? Sounds like they got a Lemon!

Yeah!

Understatement

[Anonymous Coward]

Stopping suddenly.

By which they mean the front wheel locks up at speed and causes the back to come around throwing the rider unless they're lucky.

Re:Understatement

[DontBeAMoran]

And let's be honest here, there's probably not a lot of Limer Scooter riders named Lucky.

Re: Understatement

[Anonymous Coward]

i cant imagine what a SW hazard analysis would contain if not this scenario, other than electrical shock maybe.

Re:Understatement

[arglebargle_xiv]

Something is also up with the photo that Qz used to illustrate this. WTF have they done with this, the rider is obviously moving at low speed (look at her hair), and then the background is smeared to imitate motion blur, but look at the railing, theres' breaks in it and features that appear and disappear across different regions of blurring. What a mess!

Re:Understatement

[arglebargle_xiv]

My guess is they grabbed sections of the image and stretched them to fake motion blur.

Re:Understatement

[Anonymous Coward]

direct link for people who don't want to give them page views
It's got nice high resolution for those who have seen some and can tell by the pixels.

Sounds like the complaints are just a case of sour

[Anonymous Coward]

limes

what a stupid design

[FudRucker]

who was stupid enough to decide to put the brake controls though computer/software??? the brakes should be the old fashioned hand/lever brakes with a cable going down to the wheels then you dont have to worry about the software for it, by running the brakes though a computer/software is just making a scooter more complicated than it needs to be, the best philosophy is to Keep it Simple

Re:what a stupid design

[Entrope]

They use electronically activated brakes to keep people from using the scooters without paying.

Re:what a stupid design

[FudRucker]

now Lims is paying for that decision, they should have just prevented the motor from turning until it was rented

Re:what a stupid design

[Ol Olsoc]

now Lims is paying for that decision, they should have just prevented the motor from turning until it was rented

Sounds like an attack vector for the Internet of Scooters as well. I guess those old school keys are just not cool enough.

Re:what a stupid design

[mobby_6kl]

Whether or not they normally use an actual physical brake instead of brake by wire (which they probably are, never used one), the bug could be just unintentionally turning on motor braking, causing pretty much the same problem.

Re:what a stupid design

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Sounds like an attack vector for the Internet of Scooters as well.

These scooters seem to have a lot of enemies.

My first thought that this braking was caused by malevolent hackers who are annoyed by scooters.

Re:what a stupid design

[OzPeter]

who was stupid enough to decide to put the brake controls though computer/software???

There is nothing inherently wrong with using computer controlled brakes. This is done in all sorts of industrial automation.

However, with that said the Safety integrity level (SIL) is a well known specification used to asses failure levels and the consequence of said failures. And in order to meet the higher levels, you have to have all sorts of fancy analysis that predicts the likelihood of a failure, and provides mechanisms to mitigate that failure.

And I bet that these clowns haven't even considered such a thing and are producing a device that could potentially kill someone (EG sudden braking flipping the rider into the path of a moving vehicle).

As an example I am working on automated cranes used in places where people could be killed if a software/hardware failure occurs. In order to reach our required SIL level we require a safety computer that is physically separate (and runs independently) from the main computer and can shut down operations when it detects certain conditions.

Re:what a stupid design

[Anonymous Coward]

It's explained in their app TOS. Just an IoT cloud connected antipiracy DRM scheme.

Re:what a stupid design

[guruevi]

Anyone that has actually used two-wheeled vehicles knows that to safely disable or brake, you do that on the rear wheel, that way malfunctions don't cause you to flip head over.

Re:what a stupid design

[OzPeter]

Sounds like an attack vector for the Internet of Scooters as well.

These scooters seem to have a lot of enemies

It comes from being a "disruptor". Which is hipster speak for

I'm going to do what I want and I don't care what you think or how it affects you because you are not our target demographic, (even if doing so breaks laws)

Re:what a stupid design

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like an attack vector for the Internet of Scooters as well.

These scooters seem to have a lot of enemies.

My first thought that this braking was caused by malevolent hackers who are annoyed by scooters.

It's not the scooter itself that's the problem.

It's that the scooters have increased the danger to humans by increasing the impact velocity of Meanderthalus iDioticus.

Normally, Meanderthals just blindly walk into you. Or telephone poles. Or traffic.

Now the Meanderthals are propelled at a greater and actually dangerous-to-others speed.

Re:what a stupid design

[dunkelfalke]

Anyone who has actually learned to use two-wheeled vehicles properly knows that the rear brake locks the wheel which leads to skidding and is generally very weak and hence should only be used when riding downhill. Otherwise use either just the front brake or both brakes at the same time while moving your weight backwards and pushing against the handle bars.

Re:what a stupid design

[Anonymous Coward]

> My first thought that this braking was caused by malevolent hackers who are annoyed by scooters.

Steve Gibson is reporting a proof-of-concept for exactly this, in his Security Now (https://twit.tv/shows/security-now/episodes/702?autostart=false) podcast this week.

See page 6 of his show notes (https://www.grc.com/sn/SN-702-Notes.pdf). It's barely 6 paragraphs and worth the quick read.

Re:what a stupid design

[Anonymous Coward]

Otherwise use either just the front brake or both brakes at the same time while moving your weight backwards and pushing against the handle bars.

It's hard to do that when the damn thing just breaks without warning, dumbass.

Re:what a stupid design

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, honestly, who would ride one of these ridiculous things anyway? I have seen the things laying around, but I've never seen anyone actually ride one. Why would you? "Hey, there's this scooter thing that makes you look like a giant dork and isn't safe to ride because our cities aren't designed for them. Let's try it!" said mostly nobody unless they were seriously inebriated at the time. In which case PB (Premature Breaking) isn't their biggest concern anyway.

Re:what a stupid design

[Anonymous Coward]

Putting that brake on the rear wheel would have been a lot safer, but we wouldn't want to cut into their profit margin....

Re: what a stupid design

[Anonymous Coward]

First-generation Bird and Lime scooters in Austin have mechanical, lever-operated front disc brakes.

The new garbage only has electronic regenerative braking.

I expect that any of them could use the drive motor (front wheel) as a brake regardless.

However, your comment is garbage because in no case can you ride them without payment, as the motor will not turn on. This is what keeps them from being ridden, not an active brake. If you move them far enough for GPS to notice, they start beeping bloody murder.

Re:what a stupid design

[hey!]

Which in a sound design would be controlled by a circuit that was disabled when the wheel is in motion, *thus preventing a software or malware mediated accident*.

Re:what a stupid design

[Rick Schumann]

Friend, so far as I'm concerned, putting a motor on a stand-up scooter is a momumentally stupid idea to begin with, and when they did it anyway it should have been limited in speed to a fast walk, not double-digit miles-per-hour speed.

Re:what a stupid design

[Rick Schumann]

Anyone who actually is proficient in using two-wheeled vehicles knows you're supposed to use both brakes simultaneously in all but a very short list of circumstances.
Source: being a motorcycle rider for over 35 years, being on a road racing team for the last 10 years.

Re:what a stupid design

[thegarbz]

who was stupid enough to decide to put the brake controls though computer/software???

Let's flip this around. Here's the functional requirements:

1. You have your toys publicly lying in the street.
2. An interface is required to rent your toys and it needs to electronically work with a mobile phone.
3. This interface should lock the wheels to prevent the toy being used without being hired.

Go forth and design. Let's see if you're as stupid as the rest of those engineers.

Re:what a stupid design

[thegarbz]

Your industrial knowledge points you towards safety but the standard you are pointing to is about active safety interlocking for mitigating an event. If you're looking at a system whereby failure of control automatically leads to an incident you're working in the continuous operation realm, the standards for SIL in this case are typically applied where failure will result in multiple millions of dollars of damage along with killing multiple people. Additionally to apply SIL need to have a determined safe state ... in this case the safe state is applying the brakes and applying the SIL standards would not prevent people from kissing the pavement.

You don't need to point to this kind of standard to achieve a safe system. Instead another industrial principle should be applied. Rather than applying safety standards for the mitigation of events, the principles of "Inherently Safer Design" should apply. e.g. Other hire companies: The system which locks the wheel electronically on for example O-bikes is 100% decoupled from the braking system while under normal operation and requires a person to actively push a pin through the wheel against the force of a spring, the result of which reports back to the mobile phone that the hiring period has finished.

Re:what a stupid design

[Cmdln Daco]

To say nothing about putting a motor on a stand-up scooter and placing many of said scooters at random places on the sidewalk where the random public can just get on and ride them.

Re:what a stupid design

[gweihir]

Well, they probably have some nice piece of software that is supposed to assure that. After all, software does not have faults, right?

Re:what a stupid design

[Anonymous Coward]

The latter is sensible design, but what goes for a bike can't be done the same way for a scooter. There would be a way though: how about reacting to the moment the user deploys the parking stand? This always means a) the scooter is at rest and b) the user has finished riding.

Re:what a stupid design

[OzPeter]

I am not precluding inherently safe design, but if you manufacture a system that has a failure mode that causes injury or death then you need to take that into account, and SIL levels are the appropriate method of assessing it. And in those cases mitigation is the correct term to use. SIL analysis is statistical in nature, thus there can be no absolutes, so can only mitigate the affects of a failure, you can't completely design out the possibility of a failure. And yes, even intentionally applying the brakes and causing a face plant could be considered a failure mode.

And as for

standards for SIL in this case are typically applied where failure will result in multiple millions of dollars of damage along with killing multiple people

I don't think you understand the scope of SIL. Even minor injuries can fall under SIL classifications if the frequency of occurrence is high enough.

Re:what a stupid design

[OzPeter]

Friend, so far as I'm concerned, putting a motor on a stand-up scooter is a momumentally stupid idea to begin with, and when they did it anyway it should have been limited in speed to a fast walk, not double-digit miles-per-hour speed.

Do your requirements also include a person walking in front of them waving a red flag?

Re: what a stupid design

[Anonymous Coward]

I suggest we bloody murder them. A small block of C4 should do it.

Re:what a stupid design

[Anonymous Coward]

Old school keys? So you want people to 1) be handed a key in person to use a scooter and then 2) return the key to a lime station after riding?

Do you know how lime scooters work?

Re: what a stupid design

[Anonymous Coward]

I prefer PHOFA design. Yes, otherwise as known as a Pull your Head Outbofbyour Fucking Ass design. The requirements are that you actually bother to think about what the fuck youâ(TM)re doing and try not to create death traps.

Re: what a stupid design

[Anonymous Coward]

They should use a separate mechanical lock instead, one that can be unlocked via software but locked only by the rider when he reach his destination (or in this specific case his "final destination").

Re:what a stupid design

[kevmeister]

It comes from being a "disruptor". Which is hipster speak for

I'm going to do what I want and I don't care what you think or how it affects you because you are not our target demographic, (even if doing so breaks laws)

Palm Springs dealt with Bird by simply pointing out that they were operating with no business license. They then sent out crews to pick up all of the scooters. Bird was informed that they could pick up their property by paying the impound and storage fees. At last report Bird had not responded. I've seen no recent reports as to whether the scooters have been auctioned off as unclaimed property.

Re:what a stupid design

[c]

I'd expect that if they didn't have a way to lock the brakes, they'd have no way to prevent someone from using the scooter "manually".

Re:what a stupid design

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear sheep boy,

It is important to us that you always believe in us and assume that any problem with our products is the fault of someone besides us. To show how much we appreciate your slavish devotion and unquestioned loyalty to us, we have partnered with Facebook and will share all of your data with them in order to protect your privacy as well as we've protected your health.

Warmest regards,
Corporate

Re:what a stupid design

[QRDeNameland]

If your functional requirements don't include:

4. The toy should not arbitrarily cause injury or death to the user;

...guess where the stupid starts.

Re:what a stupid design

[thegarbz]

Well that much is a given in the functional requirements, but then actual injury is not a given of the design.

Can you come up with another system where a computer is in control of brakes, has a system to engage them if it so chooses without any mechanical interlocking mechanism, and is designed to not be fail safe meaning the brakes would be rendered in operative in certain failures?

If you guess the common car then you should give yourself an internet cookie.

Re:what a stupid design

[Rick Schumann]

Nice sarcasm by way of a historical reference, and by the way calling me a 'luddite' out of the side of your mouth is fucking lame.

It's not the scooters themselves it's the idiots using them which is pretty much all of them, which apparently you aren't picking up on for some reason. Too many of these people have problems walking down the street without screwing up, then you put them on a stand-up scooter that can go 10+ miles per hour, and actually expect there won't be any problems? Unsecured load (the rider, standing) plus that speed plus traffic plus the distinct probability that they'll have to stop quick for a pedestrian, car that didn't see them, or whatever? Yeah sure what could possibly go wrong?

Re:what a stupid design

[Ol Olsoc]

Old school keys? So you want people to 1) be handed a key in person to use a scooter and then 2) return the key to a lime station after riding?

Do you know how lime scooters work?

Yeah I know how Lime works - and it's insecure, and leads to software problems. Kinda like what the story is about.

Dearest Coward, you can get keys sent to you in the mail, you can even use your key with an app to unlock the scooter. All it will take is the app and acceptance of the key's programming. Since these things are internet connected, it's not hardly difficult at all. That way the software can be kept away from the brakes.

Re:what a stupid design

[aix tom]

Unless you are holding it wrong....

Re:what a stupid design

[Aighearach]

Yeah I know how Lime works - and it's insecure, and leads to software problems.

Are we sure about cause and effect here? If my software had this sort of problem, I'd feel insecure too! Maybe they just know it is a shit design?

Re:what a stupid design

[Aighearach]

This was my thinking too; this is safety-critical stuff, and it only costs one IO pin and a transistor to do a hardware lockout based on the intended vehicle state. For a lockout when the wheel is in motion, they could use an op-amp for a timed delay. Making sure it is locked out at very low speed is hard, but if you're moving over 1 MPH it should be trivial to detect.

This attitude of, "oh goody, it is smaller than a car, so safety doesn't matter! Yeehah! Freedom Fries!" is just stupid.

Re:what a stupid design

[Ol Olsoc]

Yeah I know how Lime works - and it's insecure, and leads to software problems.

Are we sure about cause and effect here? If my software had this sort of problem, I'd feel insecure too! Maybe they just know it is a shit design?

Yeah, it could be - well it is a shit design. Something like a scooter should never lock the sprags. And running such a simple machine with software control like that just tells me that some people are trying to extend software where it shouldn't be.

Re: what a stupid design

[pointybits]

They also have cable-actuated drum brakes on the rear wheel. They are terribly weak and usually badly adjusted though.

Re:what a stupid design

[pointybits]

That exploit was for a Xiaomi scooter, but the Limes are not Xiaomis. I expect Lime have slightly better security, although they definitely do have a Bluetooth interface to the app and their software quality is generally diabolical so perhaps not.

Re: what a stupid design

[Anonymous Coward]

If the "lock" was just a generator, free rides could reduce charging needs and / or annoy the hell out of people

Re:what a stupid design

[mlyle]

The "front brake" is almost certainly regenerative braking on the motor, while the rear brake is a mechanical brake.

There is really relatively few choices besides the front motor effort (including regenerative effort) to be under software/firmware control.

Re:what a stupid design

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of these things are using 3-phase brushless motors with Back EMF measurement and micro-stepping. They can control and detect speeds much less than 1mph.

Re:what a stupid design

[Kejiro]

I doubt that. If there is one thing that seems like a common thread with all these new services and IoT devices is that they have no idea what security is at all, or that ease of use and speed of idea to market takes more precedence. Security can always be added after an incident.

Re:what a stupid design

[samwichse]

"...usually riding downhill at top speed while hitting a pothole or other obstacle..."

It sounds like that's how the software worked, but those darn users found an edge case.

Downhill at top speed: user is not applying motor. So the "motor called for" lockout on braking is off.

While hitting a pothole: User is braking, hits a big pothole with the non-suspension front wheel. This would cause the wheel to momentarily stop turning. Now the "wheel is in motion" lockout on braking is off.

Now imagine their time is up, and the software is ticking down waiting for the wheels to stop turning and power to stop being applied to lock the brakes. And then the above scenario happens.

The fix will probably be as simple as changing the "wheels not turning" value to "wheels not turning for 2s." Those silly users break everything :)

Sam

Re:what a stupid design

[AnotherBrian]

There is no need for electronic breaks. (I'm actually quite surprised they went to the expense of powered breaks.) They're powered by a DC motor so a relay across the terminals will put a massive load on the motor making it effectively unusable. That relay is not triggered by software, the user pushes a button to latch it in (that has to be done to end the ride and end the billing). You can do the same thing with solenoid activated latch on a traditional mechanical hand break.

Re:what a stupid design

[Anonymous Coward]

yep. I build machines for fun that are capable of causing bodily harm and you just don't mess around at all. Double redundancy and failsafes across the board. Always.

this is shocking, but not surprising given my experience in the corporate software world.

(basically, we live in a world where finance departments and profit margins deem it too expensive to make things that are safe and work properly. knowingly or not.)

Re:what a stupid design

[Anonymous Coward]

who was stupid enough to decide to put the brake controls though computer/software???

You must hate modern cars (disclaimer: I do).

Much, of not all, of the powertrain, including braking, is regulated by software.

Re:what a stupid design

[thegarbz]

I'm actually quite surprised they went to the expense of powered breaks.

You can do the same thing with solenoid activated latch on a traditional mechanical hand break.

You're surprised they went to the expense of an electric brake (which can use up to no additional parts depending on the motor controller) but instead you propose a far more expensive mechanism?

Follow the money, they went with powered brakes precisely because alternatives are an additional expense.

Re:what a stupid design

[AnotherBrian]

By powered breaks, I was meaning electrically actuated mechanical breaks, (traditional bicycle hand breaks + a servo to close them). I'm not familiar with these scooters so I'm assuming they are not relying totally on motor breaking. That would be massively irresponsible for a vehicle that they know isn't going to be subjected to actual fail-safe designs standards and qualifications.

Re:what a stupid design

[thegarbz]

I'm sure they didn't go with powered braking. It's almost certainly electrical brakes on the DC motor (I haven't used these scooters but I've used other electric scooters). Remember you don't need to lock the wheel to make the scooter completely useless for theft, and a DC brake is capable of a large force when the motor is spinning.

 

That would be massively irresponsible for a vehicle that they know isn't going to be subjected to actual fail-safe designs standards and qualifications.

As a quick comparison do you realise that your car has both non fail-safe brakes (loss of braking system results in loss of brakes), as well as electronic control capable of reducing your ability to brake, and depending on how much you paid for your last car a system where the computer is able to apply the brakes at whim?

Irresponsibility bears out in engineering, not in the original design. Some incredibly critical safety systems are purposefully not "fail-safe" for a reason, which is precisely why we don't

As an exercise of engineering:
You have a scooter. It has a singular braking mechanism. What should the "safe" action be? Brakes engaged, or brakes failed?

Re:what a stupid design

[ct_zero_interupt]

from the transcript
"Leo: Oh, Lime uses these scooters. Oh, never mind. Then it is a huge issue. I take it all back. Lime is all over the place, those Lime scooters. And if Lime uses these, then what that means is, well..."

https://www.grc.com/sn/sn-702....

Autonomous

[fluffernutter]

I can't wait until this technology is in cars!

Re:Autonomous

[Anonymous Coward]

It is in modern cars with adaptive cruise control, you don't even need to go to autonomous. How do you think the cruise control slows the car down? By letting off the accelerator, yes. But also by software activated braking.

Re:Autonomous

[fluffernutter]

As the ruleset becomes too complex for humans to understand it there will always be glitches and no way to prevent them. I guess it's up to society whether they want to accept slightly safer driving overall in exchange for rare 20 car pileups because the brakes locked on the highway.

Re:Autonomous

[Anonymous Coward]

So the rental I'm driving while typing this will lock up its brakes to prevent me from going any further because I didn't pay to go a foot/meter further? Sweet!
Lawsuit here I come! Ain't 'merka great!

Re:Autonomous

[Anonymous Coward]

As the ruleset becomes too complex for humans to understand it there will always be glitches and no way to prevent them. I guess it's up to society whether they want to accept slightly safer driving overall in exchange for rare 20 car pileups because the brakes locked on the highway.

We're talking about brakes here. They can be applied anywhere from not at all, to fully.
This isn't that fucking complicated. The computer controls on a modern combustion engine (in the very same car) are many many times more complex.

Re:Autonomous

[Rick Schumann]

You, like more and more I'm pleased to see, are starting to realize the trap that is so-called 'self-driving cars'. Imagine the utter horrror of realizing that the vehicle you're in is out of control, about to crash, and there's nothing you can do about it, other than sit there and scream. Worse than a 'normal' accident between two human-piloted vehicles, because it'll happen slower; you'll have more time to fully realize what's about to happen and how you have zero ability to prevent it.

We humans, being tool-makers and tool-users, can do so because the tool becomes, to our brain, an extension of our bodies. So it goes with driving a car (ideally, at least); you drive long enough, become proficient enough at it, the car feels like it's part of you. But you have to have control of the tool you're using, regardless of whether it's a knife, or a hammer, or a screwdriver, or an automobile; with a so-called 'self-driving car', you will have zero control. Thus, terror.

Re:Autonomous

[thegarbz]

I can't wait until this technology is in cars!

Wait no longer. (Also side note, how old is your car that it doesn't have these systems? They've been standard in Mercedes for >20 years now).

And for some real fun you should check out how truck brakes are designed, whereby any failure, not just a computer bug would result in the brakes activating.

Re:Autonomous

[Cmdln Daco]

There will be facial gestures on the bodies they pull out of wrecks similar to the facial gestures found on bodies in exumed graves of people who died of Anamita Phalloides mushroom poisoning in the Middle Ages.

It will gradually serve as a warning to us.

Re:Autonomous

[danomac]

Mine's 34 years old.

It doesn't have all these computers in it (outside of fuel injection, which is very dumb - you can unplug sensors and the engine will still run.) It's very reliable and no gimmicks are needed.

I prefer driving it compared to newer cars (I've driven some newer cars - they all feel muddy, especially the steering.)

Re:Autonomous

[rv6502]

My car is from 2014 and has none of those. I can buy this year's model and they still have none of those "features". Not all cars cost $40,000.

Re:Autonomous

[pointybits]

GM has had it for years!

Re:Autonomous

[thegarbz]

*golfclap*. Did you stumble on Slashdot by accident on your way to "Amish Online"? Seriously I don't understand why people jump on a technology forum to praise the fact that they don't like technology and prefer to keep mechanical clunkers running.

I hope you don't get in an accident. And since I'm sure you genuinely like your car I also hope that it doesn't eventually get banned from the roads.

Re:Autonomous

[thegarbz]

My car is from 2014 and has none of those.

Indeed it doesn't. What it does however have is ABS, an electronic system that is designed specifically to inhibit your braking. Government standards are there to protect the likes of you who prefer to sacrifice your own safety over a few dollars, expect these listed to be a standard safety feature even for your cheaper car in the near future.

You are right about one thing, not all cars with this feature cost $40k. Mercedes make cars for less than that with this feature standard. Hell my neighbours crappy Ford Mondeo has the listed features as well, and costs less than half that.

Re:Autonomous

[fluffernutter]

Will you be able to sue them? Is it not your ultimate responsibility to operate the car safely even if it doesn't have a steering wheel or brakes? That's a big part of the problem.

Re:Autonomous

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the way I feel when I fly until I realize I am powerless to control the situation and give in to it. Then sweet, sweet serenity.

Also, no way to "it'll happen slower". It'll happen way faster. We'll all be looking down at our phone or our the window and then BOOM!

It's not a bug,

[William-Ely]

it's a feature!

Maybe I'm to old to understand the attraction to these things.

Re:It's not a bug,

[Yosho]

Maybe I'm to old to understand the attraction to these things.

Imagine, if you can, that there is a place you need to physically be. Let's say it's a place you could physically walk to, but maybe doing so would take longer than you'd like, plus if you're not in good physical condition -- which I'd expect a old person would be able to sympathize with! -- it may be physically taxing or difficult to walk that long. Even for a young, fit person, if the weather isn't very nice, you might arrive either all hot and sweaty or half-frozen.

Now, imagine that I've got a vehicle you can ride that will get you there in a third of the time and with minimal physical effort, and it'll only cost you about a dollar. To top it off, you don't have to worry about maintenance or security. Do you see the attraction now?

Re:It's not a bug,

[nnet]

Except the scooter doesn't protect you from the elements, so

if the weather isn't very nice

why would you use one of these things?
Paying a dollar to freeze your ass off, or get soaked in the rain is not at all an attraction, at least to me, how is it one for you?

Re:It's not a bug,

[gweihir]

No. And you forgot to state in your hypothetical that the vehicle in question is dangerous even without the software problems and requires you to be perfectly healthy and agile to get an approximation of a safe ride.

Re: It's not a bug,

[jnork]

True, but let us not forget the Nirvana fallacy.

Re:It's not a bug,

[Anonymous Coward]

plus if you're not in good physical condition
.
you can ride that will get you there in a third of the time and with minimal physical effort,
.
Do you see the attraction now?

No, because I can foresee negative consequences for riding on some device with tiny wheels that I'm not accustomed to, while not being in good physical condition. Why can't you? With tiny scooter wheels, you hit one pothole on this thing and you could easily hurt yourself.

Also, I don't know if you young people realize this, but most cities have public transportation. If they don't there's Ueber. Why would I take one of these silly, dangerous scooter things?

Re: It's not a bug,

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you get there faster than walking. If you have a car just use the car.

Re:It's not a bug,

[swillden]

No. And you forgot to state in your hypothetical that the vehicle in question is dangerous even without the software problems and requires you to be perfectly healthy and agile to get an approximation of a safe ride.

I'm 50 years old and 70 pounds overweight. I find e-scooters to be convenient, fun, cheap and adequately safe urban transportation when I'm traveling. Quicker and less tiring than walking, more convenient, cheaper and more fun than taxi/Uber or renting a car.

I wouldn't use a scooter in bad weather, though. If it's too hot, too cold or too wet, I'll get enclosed transportation. Though I do agree that a scooter widens my tolerance for heat and cold a bit, especially heat.

Re:It's not a bug,

[Spy Handler]

Now, imagine that I've got a vehicle you can ride that will get you there in a third of the time and with minimal physical effort, and it'll only cost you about a dollar. To top it off, you don't have to worry about maintenance or security. Do you see the attraction now?

I can see the attraction for a jobless millennial living in his parents' basement who can't afford a car because he has crushing student debt payments from his Gender Social Studies degree. But for actual adults with adult jobs who own cars and/or motorcycles, no. There is no attraction.

Re:It's not a bug,

[Anonymous Coward]

Call a cab ...

Re:It's not a bug,

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine, if you can, that there is a place you need to physically be.

Yes, I imagine the trip and plan accordingly. Even my 70 year old brain can work that out.

Re: It's not a bug,

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not familiar with Basel or Zurich, but many European cities were built well before people had cars. In many cities that means there simply isn't enough room in the streets to have a nearby parking space for each home. The effect is that, even without traffic jams, finding a free parking space within walking distance of your destination takes more time than you gain by using a car. Because of the scarcity parking can be quite expensive too. Even if you have a car the fastest and most convenient option can be not to use it for travel within a city.

Re:It's not a bug,

[Anonymous Coward]

When I watch people using those things on the street, they're not the elderly or people that have any physical conditions. They're young, able-bodied hipsters. Who can walk. With their feet. Possibly wearing Nike Shoes with bricked firmware if they really want the connected experience down to the heels.

Re:It's not a bug,

[Anonymous Coward]

Just another whining Boomer. Go yell at clouds elsewhere.

Poor...

[Anonymous Coward]

Poor architecture and design, terrible engineering and engineers, no testing, no internal built- in fault detection is the way you go there.

Iâ(TM)ve never seen such thing on other cars!

Re:You, Sir, Are a NIGGER

[DontBeAMoran]

Ah, I see you are familiar with my previous posts! Clearly a sign of good taste, sir!

Success!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes!

My hack worked!

Re: Success!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Lennart, is that you?

Re: Success!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Lennart, is that you?

Can't be.

GP poster is claiming his code worked as intended to produce a planned result.

So finally

[fredrated]

the machine rebellion has begun!

Re:So finally

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey man! I'm not a machine, but I am made of rocks which is sort of like raw metal I guess? Can I join your revolution? - Korg

Happened to me

[Anonymous Coward]

I had the same issue with my Ninebot ES1. Throttle hall effect sensor goes bad. My assumption is the software flips out when receiving garbage data. I got thrown off and luckily only came out with a seriously busted and bruised hand.

Exclusive!

[DontBeAMoran]

Here is what users of Lime Scooters have to say about this problem.

Clotheslining, The Olympic Sport

[Anonymous Coward]

Debuting in Tokyo 2020.
Three different events:

1. Glued to phone/tablet screens
2. Scooters
3. Cyclists

systemd to the rescue

[Anonymous Coward]

systemd-scooter-brake.

Reset: So it only over brakes in the most dangerou

[Anonymous Coward]

So it only over brakes in the most dangerous situation? Downhill, after hitting a pothole?

Sounds like an airbag that only goes off when you ate making a sharp turn on a mountain road.

0.0045%? more like 100%

[Anonymous Coward]

"[I]n very rare cases -- usually riding downhill at top speed while hitting a pothole or other obstacle -- excessive brake force on the front wheel can occur, resulting in a scooter stopping unexpectedly."

Crazy down play... here's an equivalently nonsense statement: Sometimes the breaks don't work, but this is only in 0.0045% of the time when you are going very fast and need to break.... i.e when they are useful. % of time should be of when safety features are _needed_ to operate, not during the whole use of the device, you are just covering up their uselessness.

Note to Lime (and others):

[gweihir]

Do not write critical real-time software if you do not have what it takes to make it work right. This cannot be done on the cheap successfully. But I guess you are learning that now.

Re: You, Sir, Are a NIGGER

[Anonymous Coward]

Just kidding. I'm sorry

Lucky

[Anonymous Coward]

Fortunately, it only happens at top speeds going down hill. If it only happened at near zero speeds, they might have never found the bug.

Note sure why anyone is against scooters

[SuperKendall]

riding downhill at top speed while hitting a pothole or other obstacle -- excessive brake force on the front wheel can occur

Just when we thought humanity might be avoiding evolutionary correction, along come scooters to redress the problem!

Say "Bye-bye to Lime ... "

[thomst]

Posting a software fix for this "very rare" occurrence - that has happened in at least 155 reported instances in New Zealand alone, according to TFS - isn't going to do Lime any good, at this point. It's going to face product liability suits, personal injury suits, and class-action suits (despite the laughable prohibition against filing or participating in class action suits in Section 5.8 of its User Agreement, and other language restricting its users available forum for remedies to binding arbitration, and - rather hilariously, IMnsHO - attempting to limit Lime's maximum financial liability for any injury a user might suffer to a princely $100) that are unquestionably going to be financially ruinous for the company.

Fatally so, because it's a venture-capital-funded startup, and the lawyers for Uber, Google Ventures, and other firms that have financed it to the tune of more than $300 million thus far are undoubtedly going to advise their respective management teams that it's now time to cut their losses, write off their investment in Lime, and apply the losses to offset taxes on companies they've funded in the past that are now producing actual profits, rather than liabilities.

The thing that gets me is how the idiots running Lime's software development team decided that rolling out untested code to their deployed fleet of vehicles could in any way have been considered a good idea. I mean, it's one thing for Mark Zuckerberg to flog his coders to "move fast and break things." Bugs in Facebook's code have no potential to physically injure or kill its users. Motor vehicles operated by biological humans on non-virtual streets, in real-world traffic conditions. are a completely different matter. They entail a whole different order of risks: both to their riders' lives, physical health, and safety, and to the company's own existence, should it be found legally liable for any injuries suffered by the former due to its employees' negligence.

And it almost certainly will be held liable. All a plaintiff's lawyers have to establish is that the code that caused the brake lock-ups had not been sufficiently-well tested (if, indeed, it was tested at all) before it was rolled out to the fleet of scooters that Lime's customers paid it to rent, and it's "Game over! Thank you for playing," because I can't see any court in any country ruling that the company's attempt to duck liability for its negligence via the ham-handed provisions of its User Agreement as enforceable, or in any way reasonable or fair.

Disclaimer: IANAL. If Lime's broken-ass software has caused you to sustain an injury of any kind, I strongly advise you to consult an actual, admitted-to-practice-before-the-bar-type barrister about it - preferably one who has a long record of winning product liability cases against companies with a history of employing predatory user agreements to try to prevent their customers from holding them responsible for their negligence ...

Re:Say "Bye-bye to Lime ... "

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt that it really matters whether or not the code received sufficient testing (or any testing at all). The fact of the matter is that any rational person can forsee that deploying code which engages the front brake incorrectly can cause the rider to be thrown over the handlebars and suffering injury, and the defendant having deployed code and that result then ensuing, one must presume that the result so obtained was intended. Alternatively, the defendant was reckless as to whether harm ensued.

Whether the damages for intentional infliction of harm or being reckless as to whether harm was caused (when it was) is probably immaterial.

You simply need a lawyer who knows how to plead properly. Unfortunately, those are very rare.

Re:Say "Bye-bye to Lime ... "

[Anonymous Coward]

WRONG

You agree to RIDE at YOUR OWN RISK. It say so on the handlebars

Re: Say "Bye-bye to Lime ... "

[Anonymous Coward]

Um. No. In the 1970s New Zealanders gave up the right to sue in exchange for a no fault national compensation scheme. The only parties who were upset were the lawyers. Imagine that: almost 50 years ago a nation woke up to the dire societal consequences if lawyers captured a harm redress mechanism.

On balance it's worked ok, except the government has forgotten its origins and treats it like a social welfare payment. Not helped by its administration being handed over to the social welfare departments where that mode of thinking is embedded.

Where the lawyers add value is the EULA. New Zealand law trumps the EULA, at least it did until the Trans Pacific Partnership.

Re:Say "Bye-bye to Lime ... "

[del_diablo]

"Ride at your own risk" means that if you start doing stupid things, then swerve uncontrollably, and hit something(i.e a fence and fly over it), its at your own risk.
However if you are riding in traffic, and behaving as expected in traffic? Its one thing that vehicles in traffic are expected to yield to ANY perceived obstacle. Which means distance and braking. So you are expected to be awake, and don't hit anything. And thats reasonable.
But what happens once you are in traffic, in a device that is self or user balanced on 2 wheels, and it stops in a fashion where the user is flung across the asphalt or sidewalk? Its one thing if thats a device quirk. In bicycles you often have front brakes that is capable of doing this, when used incorrectly. And its a fun learning experience for youngsters.
And thats to some degree within riding at your own risk. For training people for using heavier machines such as ton range excavators it gets a bit more complex, since the hazards are far less obvious and dangerous.

But what happens when you are in traffic, passively following all the rules, and the device throws you off due a software error?
This is interesting because hardware error often means that you lose a function, where software errors lead to redundancies being activated. In a hardware error on a bicycle you might lose a gear wire, a brake, the mechanism that connects the rear wheel to the gear might have worn ball bearings and lose friction to keep on going, and many other exciting errors. And then you need to fix the part thats worn or destroyed to regain function.
On software it gets more interesting. There might be no damage or worn parts, and everything is okay. But the routines to read that data might not be robust enough to handle realworld input, so it throws a error. You might have seen this with a lot of measurement equipment, where the message barely flickers on screen before producing more values again. But measure equipment doesn't halt, but might indicate it wants to recalibrate.
So what about a electric kick bike, which is named for scooters? It gets a value or data it doesn't like, and then it needs to do a safe action until it can be sure its working or receive input it can handle. One option is to ignore the error, and operate as normal. Another is to cut assistance until its working again, or reduce power output. But because this is a user balanced vehicle: If slam on the breaks a unexpected user will experience hazard.

At which point this isn't about my own risk. But about the risk exposed to me by poor software decisions.
Another post in this thread mentioned Safety_integrity_level(SIL), which go far beyond that since its applied to hardcore industrial design. Where moving parts, hydraulics, air pressure, cooling, production halts, continuous feeding of material, and many other parts interplay in what could lead to some extreme dangers and malfunctions. What happens when a PLS system receives a error? Well, it must be able to handle the error without damaging the user, production, equipment, material or system.

Re:Say "Bye-bye to Lime ... "

[Anonymous Coward]

Er but in NZ the right to sue has been taken away from individuals. Hence companies get off scot free and even if they kill people they can walk away without paying a cent. Lookup NZ laws and ACC. No personal right to sue and the taxpayer covers all faulty company business by paying minimal medical costs then harassing the injured and disabled until they want to die instead. A goldmine for a company like Lime to market a faulty product for rental which is very likely to cause serious and disabling injuries purely by design.

Just wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

a competitor will arise and the first order of business will be rounding up all the Lime scooters and chucking them in the harbour. This hypothetical company I shall dub Lemon.

^ This.

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the ideas these guys had many others of us also had.

The difference being we dismissed them because you would be insane to take on that liability and you would never become profitable before being sued out of oblivion. We obviously got that last part wrong because we didn't know pitchmen good enough to get vulture capitalists picking the bones of legality clean by just marching right on through doing whatever they want whether safe/legal/ethical or not on an even larger scale than the robber barons of the industrial revolution.

That's a killer flaw, however "rare"

[EdZep]

Anyone that's ever endo'd on a bike, skateboard, etc. can tell you how unpleasant and really dangerous sudden deceleration is. On a device that leaves you exposed, it's your worst nightmare.

But, hey, when it does (rarely) happen, it's when you're going downhill, at high speed! And, that's when an endo is most dangerous.

"[I]n very rare cases -- usually riding downhill at top speed while hitting a pothole or other obstacle -- excessive brake force on the front wheel can occur, resulting in a scooter stopping unexpectedly."

Are the scooters made in Kansas?

[Anonymous Coward]

Switzerland.
New Zealand.
Speed.
Potholes.

"rare events" *koff* *koff*

Let's think about this for a moment here. I call bullsh*t.

Not out of service everywhere in New Zealand

[Anonymous Coward]

Taken out of service in Auckland and Dunedin but not yet Christchurch in New Zealand.

Re:what a stupid person

[Anonymous Coward]

Dearest Coward, you can get keys sent to you in the mail, you can even use your key with an app to unlock the scooter.

OK Grandpa. Why not start your own old-fashioned scooter rental business instead of playing armchair entrepreneur?

Not really

[rsilvergun]

old folk probably can't balance on the things (AFAIK no gyroscope) and would either drive or call a cab.

It's a buck to rent plus 15 cents per minute. They can go for about 50 minutes on a charge at around 12 mph (15mph is the max, but that's gonna rise and fall depending on terrain). You could pretty easily spend $8 bucks getting somewhere on one. For a few dollars more I could call a lyft. Maybe even for the same price.

I think they're just a novelty at this point.

Re:Not really

[Anonymous Coward]

"For only a few dollars more, I could spend more money, be more environmentally damaging and encourage abuse of labourer". Well, that's epic, can I have the scooter please?

Besides, you're not putting a lot of faith in "old" people; I regularly see people in their 70's or even 80's on bikes and they seem to do fine. They, however, actually want to use their bikes, not have everyone pushed into stinking, polluting four wheeled metal boxes.

Re:what a stupid person

[Ol Olsoc]

Dearest Coward, you can get keys sent to you in the mail, you can even use your key with an app to unlock the scooter.

OK Grandpa. Why not start your own old-fashioned scooter rental business instead of playing armchair entrepreneur?

Y'all even know what a key is these days? many are just electronic devices you plug in or even wear. I can design a key that will record the speed, the location, calculate the cost and take payments. But it is on the key end, not something that might kill you like this system has come close to

Thats the awesome thing about you cowards - standing up for something that is obviously, provably, and in practice, dangerous.

Glitch

[Anonymous Coward]

[ED-209 has malfunctioned during a demonstration, killing Kinney in the boardroom]

The Old Man: Dick, I'm very disappointed.

Dick Jones: I'm sure it's only a glitch, a temporary setback.

The Old Man: [raises his voice in anger] You call this a GLITCH?

[pause]

The Old Man: We're scheduled to begin construction in six months. Your "temporary setback" could cost us fifty million dollars in interest payments alone!

Oops

[Anonymous Coward]

Braking bad...

Re:Oops

[Anonymous Coward]

or Move fast and brake things

IoT attack?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't infosec twitter going on about how the firmware was basically an open can of worms, and somebody postulated what would happen with a DDoS of sorts where you randomly triggered braking...

Oops

[Rocketboy0]

A case of braking bad, or moving fast and braking things