"Because the sight of a scooter on a sidewalk is annoying in a city where 95% of the sidewalks go un-walked on?? "

Yeah, we've all heard the song "Walking in L.A.", right? I'd say the antagonism is a combination of: (1) the usual leftist hatred of any technology that provides individual transportation to the masses, and (2) the self-unawareness of progressives who are turning into their parents, or rather into the caricature of their parents that the progressives have built. Leftism is teenage rebellion, and the one thing that a rebel hates more than anything is being rebelled against.

I move them to the side on my block with some frequency.

You're going to send them an invoice, right? your time is valuable, and you shouldn't be providing a free service.

But I have questions: does Bird have a sweetheart deal with the City of Venice? and who is financially responsible if a Bird user is at fault in an accident??

The dweeb who's vandalizing these scooters is missing out. What he really should be doing is tripping over them, and then filing suits in small claims court against the company for injuries suffered. At least initially, the lawyers will advise paying him off, presuming they even show up to the hearing.

What's a couple hundred or thousand here or there? right up until the rest of the pedestrians realize that a Bird in the middle of the sidewalk is easy money. Death by a thousand paper cuts.

I'm not opposed to the concept. It is the implementation of mixing incompatible vehicle types, be that Birds vs cars, or pedestrians vs Birds that draws my ire.

This has some additional information. I like this one Just like other vehicles, electric scooter should not be used on sidewalks.

https://www.ticketsnipers.com/article/rules-of-the-road-bird-lime-scooters

Some people focus only on the inconvenience to themselves and not on the convenience to others. My uncle is like that. At 88, he hates bike share programs because the bikes, when not in use, are parked on sidewalks, making it inconvenient for him to get around them on his daily walks.

Now, at 88, it's impressive he walks 10-15 miles per day, but he doesn't have to be anywhere quickly. Others, who have deadlines, may prefer to be able to use a shared scooter or bike. So, the shared transportation models have utility to them.

...the usual leftist hatred of any technology that provides individual transportation to the masses.... ~ Cousin Dave at August 14, 2018 6:53 AM

For the collectivists, the subway is preferred to the scooter because it moves masses and is centrally planned and controlled.

These scooters solve one of the big problems with transit: you get off the train or bus and still have 1/2 mile to go to your destination. This is a brilliant idea.
And the hatred of "genrification" is so insane--they would prefer that rundown neighborhoods with abandoned buildings continue to decline? Gentrification is renewal. The idea that the people living in some neighborhood "own" the neighborhood is so tribal. People can move if prices are going up due to renewal. Why don't they rail against a city that will not allow housing to be built? That is what keeps prices high.

Seems like if it's OK for an entrepreneur to park a row of scooters or bicycles on a sidewalk and collect fees from customers who use them, it should also be OK for a different entrepreneur to set up a small folding table or display rack on a sidewalk and peddle watches or flowers or cookies.

http://dailybruin.com/images/2018/04/web.ns_.birdscrackdown2.NS_-640x516.jpg

See the smiles on their faces?

http://matchbin-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/public/sites/351/assets/6XN_2_web_DSC_4575.jpg

That's enough to make me like the idea.

Here we see happy people of color:

https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/5ac284ff2f2ece30008b4847-750-563.jpg

Opposition to scooter and bicycle sharing is racist.

Scooter sharing has opened up entrepreneurial opportunities for others. Somebody has to recharge all those scooters every day. They get paid per-scooter. Here we see an independent scooter recharger happily making money in San Jose, CA.

https://i0.wp.com/www.eastbaytimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/SJM-L-JUICERS-XXXX-20.jpg?fit=620%2C9999px&ssl=1

We can't even get bicyclists off the sidewalks and into the bike lanes, how are we going to be kept safe from these pinheads?

I found one of their scooters dumped in the bushes the other day. Awesome. Thanks, environmental scooter saviors, Earth needs you!

"And the hatred of 'genrification' is so insane--they would prefer that rundown neighborhoods with abandoned buildings continue to decline? "

The drug dealers and gang-bangers, yes, they would prefer that. Given what we're starting to discover about the connections between the gangs and the Democratic Party in Chicago...

I hope the company fails, but not for the reasons complained about
here. The concept is good, but look at what you have to agree to:
-----------------
6. License to Image and Likeness. For good and
valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of
which are hereby acknowledged, You do hereby knowingly,
voluntarily, and irrevocably: (1) give Your full and
unconditional consent to Bird and its affiliates,
successors, and assigns to use at any time and from
time to time, without any restriction, Your appearance
and voice in photographs, videos, and other recordings
related to Your use of the Bird Services, on all
websites and for all press, promotional, advertising,
publicity, and other commercial purposes, including all
formats and media, whether now known or hereafter
devised, throughout the world and in perpetuity; (2)
grant to Bird and its affiliates, successors, and
assigns (a) the right to photograph, videotape, and
otherwise record Your appearance and voice related to
Your use of the Bird Services, at any time and from
time to time, (b) all rights, copyrights, title, and
interests in the results of such photographs, videos,
and other recordings, as a work for hire for copyright
purposes, and (c) the right to use, reproduce, exhibit,
distribute, transmit, alter, and exploit, at any time
and from time to time and as Bird may decide in its
sole discretion, such photographs, videos, and other
recordings, or any component thereof, and all related
merchandising, promotions, advertising, and publicity;
and (3) waive, release, and discharge all Released
Persons from all Claims (defined below in Section 15)
that You have or may have for any libel, defamation,
invasion of privacy, right of publicity, infringement
of copyright, or violation of any right granted by You
in this paragraph.
-----------------
There's no possible excuse for having to give them this release
just to rent a vehicle. If this company fails, maybe a less
sleazy company will eventually fill the gap.

If this company fails, maybe a less sleazy company will eventually fill the gap. ~ Ron at August 15, 2018 9:46 AM

If Bird fails, there will be no gap to fill.

Companies enter markets where money can be made. If Bird proves that the shared transportation model is untenable, no one will jump in, seeing such an effort as a money loser.

Bird's success, despite its sleaze, will entice other companies to enter the field, perhaps with better business models.

I highly doubt the condition you cited is driving away customers as I highly doubt many subscribers have actually read the licensing agreement.

"a postal carrier in Venice, pushed his mail cart down Innes Place recently and recounted several occasions in which he nearly hit scooters head-on"

literal clash between innovation and stagnation.

"And because some people "drive" Birds badly doesn't mean all do."

No, it indicates a correlation with a likely causality basis that indicates most do.
It's built into the business model, which depends on a lack of barriers to entry. I ride a motorcycle, and because small, lightweight motor vehicles amplify human mobility without amplifying human durability, the state required me to take specialized training and a test in order to be licensed to do so. It also requires me to display a conspicuous identifier, tied to my identity, on my vehicle to help enforce accountability for bad driving. Bird's business depends upon one's ability to, on a moments' notice, become a customer, with no planning, training, or other considerations that tend to motivate people to take operating them seriously. This encourages people to treat them like toys requiring neither responsibility, accountability, nor any particular level of competence or skill, and pretty much guarantees that they will be operated badly. They fall into a category someone once labeled slob enabled technology variants. The concept is very familiar to someone who, because they invested the price of a house in their boat, actually learned how to safely operate it, who then finds the waterways choked with recklessly operated jetskis.

These things are motor vehicles, and require a level of skill, knowledge, and situational awareness to operate safely in a crowded urban environment. Nothing in Bird's business model conveys, let alone controls for this. If I go to Hertz or Avis, they're going to require a license, and if I can't prove I'm insured, a hefty upcharge for insurance. With Bird, any clown with a smartphone is instantly qualified to go tearing up the sidewalks at speeds incompatible with other users. If I park a rental car someplace other than the designated spaces, often with a fee involved, it will be towed and I will be fined, but people are encouraged to just abandon Birds wherever they cease to need them. Sharing creates distributed responsibility, but Bird has not given this any consideration.

"It is the implementation of mixing incompatible vehicle types, be that Birds vs cars, or pedestrians vs Birds that draws my ire."

Darth is triangulating in on the problem here.

"Just like other vehicles, electric scooter should not be used on sidewalks."

But why not? It's no harder to obtain than a toy, so why shouldn't I treat it like one?

"Seems like if it's OK for an entrepreneur to park a row of scooters or bicycles on a sidewalk and collect fees from customers who use them, it should also be OK for a different entrepreneur to set up a small folding table or display rack on a sidewalk and peddle watches or flowers or cookies."

Bingo. Every other business has to pay for space it occupies. Bird turns normal costs of doing business into externalities with which everybody else (i.e. taxpayers) have to deal with. Hey Amy, I thought you were against government subsidies and bailouts for businesses.

This would be an example of the "tragedy of the commons" - but in this case the commons are phony. It's the same "feel good and forget we're making money" nonsense that had Google branding itself with "don't be evil."

We have these scooters all over Tel Aviv. They fold up. And the owners (hint hint) schlep them on and off the train or bus, unfold them, and set off.

The problem here - as always - is the "social justice" business model (I know that's an oxymoron...). If scooters work for someone's needs and lifestyle, the cost of entry is not very high and no additional infrastructure is required. Why is the government getting involved - and picking winners in an emerging technology?

Tel Aviv also has a "borrow a bike" system that works because there is electronic tracking of the bikes and when you deposit them back in a rack, and users get charged if they just leave them for people to trip over.