Oh, and this: "I am certain that people who ride Bird scooters don't read newspapers..."

Like Sarah Palin, the crime is not that they do not read newspapers, but that they do not read our newspapers, they do not think like we do, they annoy us.

If they are an actual threat then defend yourself and call the cops to clean up the mess afterwards. If they are just an annoyance learn to ignore them.

He who, despite all that, is still traveling up to 15 mph on the street or sidewalk.

Mixing pedestrians who are enthralled with their phones with vehicle operators also enthralled with their phones is a recipe for lots of pain.

Hate to point this out, but sidewalks are for foot traffic primarily. I'm willing to share with bicycles, scooters and the like if there is no good option for them on the road where vehicles are supposed to operate.

Not knowing what a "Bird scooter" is, I googled it. It's a scooter sharing service. I predict that they will go the way of bike sharing services, and should be rebranded as "Dodo".

http://www.wsmv.com/story/38188670/nashville-other-cities-share-concerns-about-bird-scooters

But hey, you might be able to pick up one of their scooters on the cheap after the Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

I hate them. They’ve been introduced in Austin recently and idiots are driving them all over the sidewalks AND in the bike lanes AND on roads. So basically, they manage to inconvenience everyone.

How bad is it that when I first read your post I thought he was talking about those mobility scooters old people ride? I was more interested in his secondary argument... that tech companies cause homelessness. Amy, since you live in that area is what he says about the abundance of affordable housing before the techs moved in true?

The article is poorly argued and incoherent. Bird scooters do not cause homelessness, that's just dumb.

That said, Bird is going to face some significant hurdles that they don't seem willing to confront - in fact they've already been fined 300K over these issues.

1. People leave the scooters on private property and just walk away. You see them cluttering up door wells or just laying in the middle of someones driveway entrance or sidewalk.

There are no drop points for them, rather Bird expects everyone in the community to deal with abandoned scooters laying all over the place.

Compounding this problem is the fact that the scooters possess an alarm that emits a loud beep if it is moved. So if you do move them out of the way, they create a loud noisy nuisance.

2. The scooters are too fast for sidewalks, yet that's where they are used. Bird is going to have to slow them down considerably, which will reduce the appeal.

They also don't have any lights or reflectors, which makes them dangerous to use in low light.

3. Bird doesn't care to meet the legal requirements for operating a business or attending to the health and safety requirements of the communities they operate in. This is why they're being sued and have already had to pay 300K to Santa Monica.

Once they have start having to behave responsibly, the model will lose its appeal.

The dockless transport model is causing all kinds of issues across the country. Look for legislation to outlaw it soon.

This has become a global issue.

One additional problem dockless bike companies are having is that users are hiding the bikes when they're finished a trip. That way, the bike is available for their exclusive use. As a result, the company's app users are told there is a bike nearby, but the user cannot find it and any revenue from the new user is lost.

1. People leave the scooters on private property and just walk away.

Score, if someone abandons crap on my private property I now own it

Oh, and this: "I am certain that people who ride Bird scooters don't read newspapers..."

of course they do. Everyone knows, newspapers always line the bottoms of Bird-cages.
Couldn't resist.

Most states require a special license/endorsement to operate a motor vehicle with fewer than 4 wheels on a public right of way. The test is typically more challenging than the automotive drivers'
test. There's good reason for this.

This business model is dependent for success on use by people who are not properly licensed, and probably not trained. Anyone who doesn't question being rented, effectively, a motorcycle, without any training or licensing is not going to take its operation seriously, and will not operate it legally or safely.

Removing barriers to entry lowers the quality of entrants. These scooters are not toys, but the business model encourages people to treat them like toys.

Imagine a gun-sharing business set up along similar lines. That's the basic principle at work here - broaden the market for a dangerous implement by encouraging the untrained, unprepared, and unqualified to blithely ignore their shortcomings regarding its responsible use.

> I'd guess they read all sorts
> of stuff, including newspapers,
> on their phone.

Verily.

A couple points here for the misinformed:

1. The scooters are equipped with a decent headlight and taillight.
2. Upon signing up for the the app that controls the scooters, you have to provide a working drivers license.
3. To the best of my knowledge, theyre not intended to be used on sidewalks, and it's likely against the law to do so.

My experience here in LA is that no one walks anywhere, and I'm surprised by anyone who complains about such a thing. I know that's hyperbole, because of course people walk, but generally speaking, the sidewalks are basically empty.

I chalk most of this up to "good service, operated by bad people, sometimes." The cell phone analogy is apt. Once people get used to them, most will operate them responsibly, while a few bad apples will remain. Plus, change is difficult for everybody.