
SF Is Fighting the Scooter Trend with Poop and Vandalism - dtien
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/wj79jq/san-francisco-is-fighting-the-scooter-trend-with-poop-and-vandalism-bird
======
phendrenad2
If you think the homeless people smearing fecal matter on scooters are of
sound enough mind to be consciously “fighting” anything, you’re sadly
mistaken.

~~~
repsilat
I didn't look closely enough, could it have been dog poop? People walking dogs
often carry plastic bags, and I bet some of them dislike the scooters enough
to vandalize them.

~~~
phendrenad2
That’s true, but if I saw someone stooping down to smear their dog’s droppings
on a scooter I wouldn’t expect that someone with such a petty mentality would
be a productive member of society.

------
andrei_says_
What would be very interesting for me to read about in this discussion, is
some of the motivations of the people disabling / vandalizing the scooters.

Here are some I imagine:

1\. scooters parked in ways that are perceived as inappropriate, obtrusive,
invasive, dangerous etc.

2\. “get off my sidewalk” sentiment.

3\. Scooters as being perceived as “another aspect of the rich people’s
colonization of our city/communities” + “F the rich/hipsters” attitude.

4\. Systematized anticompetitive activity from ...?

What else? I’m sure I’m just scratching the surface.

Anyone from SF with some insight?

~~~
lovich
Could just be the attitude of the companies. I know bird and lime bike are
trying to enter Somerville and Cambridge MA despite being told no by the local
government.

Some people have taken to throwing the bikes or scooters into the rivers when
they show up now as a "fuck you" to the companies who are giving a "fuck you"
to their town

~~~
wahern
Or cities could actually implement reasonable legislation that directly
addresses the problem.

For example, require standard, short, clearly identifiable serial codes to
make it easy to issue tickets when scooters are parked inappropriately.
Because the scooter companies track the users, they then have the capability
to push the costs onto the irresponsible rider.[1]

Frankly, I just don't get how people manage to use a nuisance to justify
vandalism. I mean, I do get it--it's thinly veiled class and anti-corporate
anger. But it's cowardly. Once upon a time real civil disobedience came with
consequences, and even then activists didn't shamelessly destroy private
property. Indeed, the personal consequences are what made the activism both
substantive and powerful. Perhaps if these people invited the police to come
watch them dump the scooters into the river en masse then I'd respect them
even if I disagreed with them.

[1] Yes, you can't prove a passerby didn't move the scooter. But the scooter
company would have to pay regardless, and enough of the costs will be passed
on to users that behaviors would change.

~~~
linksnapzz
The cities have reasonable legislation. There's a permitting process for
getting commercial access to public space.

Of course, I'm not going to conflate "reasonable" with "expedient to the
growth needs of <random_startup>".

Having dispensed with any decent respect for the city's prerogative to
legislate commercial conduct for the well-being of all residents, the scooter
companies chose to annex public sidewalks for storing their assets. As a
citizen, that sort of flagrant disrespect for civil mores doesn't make me very
sympathetic to whatever problems their littering policy causes the scooter-
rental entrepreneurs.

It's not civil disobedience to get rid of these things when they're left on
the sidewalk. It is fidelity to an ideal of civil society where sidewalks are
for walking, and not to be blithely annexed by people with more venture
funding than manners.

My preferred take would be to collect a bunch of em, pull the electronics &
batteries, and weld them into a jungle-gym for a park or elementary school
that needs one.

------
m0llusk
I travel all around the city for work and have encountered many scooters but
none of them vandalized as described. Just some anecdata to consider.

