
What Dockless Bikes and Scooters Are Exposing - andrewfromx
http://haveago.city/disgraceful-dockless-drama/
======
hapless
If Hertz or Avis attempted to use public space to park their inventory, local
residents and city officials would pitch a fit. Public parking exists for the
benefit of the public at large, not as a cost-saving measure for rental firms.

The same is true of bicycles. You can store your private bicycle almost
anywhere you like in public. But city fathers will naturally take a dim view
of a business using that public space without permission.

~~~
gkoberger
You mean... like Getaround and Zipcar already do?

The streets are filled with companies using public spaces: Fedex deliveries
blocking the road, sidewalk signs for bars, Getaround rentals, food carts,
mailboxes, ATMs, parking meters, Scoot scooters, taxi lines, Lyft/Ubers,
Redbox DVD rentals, annoying Greenpeace petition people, construction,
billboards, etc.

I don't think it's a cost-saving measure for scooter/bike companies, but
rather convenience for users. I wouldn't use scooters if I had to walk 4
blocks to a "designated pickup zone".

Yes, these scooters/bikes are making money. But they also really improve
cities, by cutting down on traffic congestion and car emissions. As long as
they're regulated via permits (meaning the government makes a bit of money to
pay for maintenance), they should be allowed... and if people dislike them,
they'll go out of business, and it'll solve itself.

~~~
bunderbunder
_Fedex deliveries blocking the road_ for a short time are generally considered
preferable to removing a whack of on-street parking from every block in order
to have an excess of loading zones, or not being able to have deliveries at
all.

 _sidewalk signs for bars_ are regulated, at least in my city. They have to
leave (IIRC) 6' of clearance on the sidewalk so they don't obstruct pedestrian
traffic. Whether those rules are being followed is perhaps another issue, but
I haven't generally found them to be a nuisance.

 _Getaround rentals_ are private cars that you rent from the owner. If the
city requires a fee to be paid for overnight on-street parking, that fee will
be paid by the owner. If the street is meter parking, that fee will be paid by
whoever is using the car.

 _food carts_ typically pay the city a fee in exchange for use of public
space.

 _mailboxes_ are either owned by the government or installed on private
property.

 _ATMs_ are installed on private property.

 _parking meters_ are government property.

 _Scoot scooters_ (don't know what those are)

 _taxi lines_ are a government designated thing. Note that most cities that
have them also make money from taxi licensing.

 _Lyft /Ubers_ are a minor menace, I agree with you on that one.

 _Redbox DVD rentals_ are installed on private property.

 _annoying Greenpeace petition people_ are required to get permits, at least
in my city.

 _construction_ also requires permits.

 _billboards_ are installed on private property.

Long story short, I think you're being hyperbolic here.

~~~
darawk
> Fedex deliveries blocking the road for a short time are generally considered
> preferable to removing a whack of on-street parking from every block in
> order to have an excess of loading zones, or not being able to have
> deliveries at all.

You mean the way that the minor inconvenience of having a few scooters laying
around is considered acceptable in return for having a cheap, efficient, green
solution for last mile transportation?

~~~
bunderbunder
If it's just a few, that's not a big deal. But what a lot of people are
envisioning isn't just a few scooters and bikes left around, it's the nuisance
and eyesore of public areas being absolutely littered with these things that
people are seeing in photos from cities that have had these services for a
while.

I don't think they're wrong. I also don't think it's a non-solvable problem.
It seems that the worst of it is largely due to there being simply too many of
the things -- far more than are needed to actually meet the demand for short-
to medium-distance transportation -- in many cities. Requiring companies to
get a permit for each of their bikes so that the city has a way to limit the
total volume, and so that it can ensure that the rollout happens incrementally
so any apparent problems can be addressed before they create a major nuisance,
would probably be more than sufficient.

~~~
TheCoelacanth
Extremely minor compared to the massive eyesore of parked cars littered all
over the place.

------
chroma
The status quo bias extends to more than just cars. I work in SF and some of
my coworkers have complained about having to step over poorly-parked scooters.
A couple of times, I've had to do the same.

When it comes to things I've had to avoid on SF sidewalks, the scooters are a
non-problem. Far more often I am stepping over used needles, feces, and
garbage. There are some alleys where I'm forced to walk in the road because
the sidewalks are taken up with tents. Yet scooters are the thing we want to
crack down on? What absurd priorities.

~~~
gamblor956
Cracking down on the scooters is relatively easy: there are a handful of major
actors, and dealing with them solves the problem.

Human waste, needles, garbage on the sidewalk is the result of hundreds of bad
actors, which correspondingly takes significantly more resources to deal with.
(And on that note, the state of Texas is the worst offender. Their official
policy for dealing with their homeless during the Perry era, and still their
unofficial policy, was to give their homeless showers and then a bus ticket to
SF.)

~~~
lifeisstillgood
And does California charge them for this?

That's an incredible story, especially from a Europe where immigration
controls is on everyone's lips.

~~~
gamblor956
We don't, and legally we can't. Once they accept the ticket to SF and choose
to make their home on the sidewalk, they become our problem, legally. And SF
(even now) is so much nicer than Texas that few of the homeless are willing to
go back.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
Disputes between states are always political and only occasionally legal.

But yeah I can see it being difficult to prove, and harder to action. If one
state wanted to sue the other, what is the process? Congress? Supreme court?

~~~
lev99
States do get into law suites with each other from time to time. The issue has
to be about federal law.

Nebraska and Oklahoma vs Colorado was recently declined to be heard by the
Supreme Court.

------
jwilliams
I'm pro scooters and dockerless bikes in general -- but I also don't really
buy into the logic of this article.

In the key markets for these things - there is no presumption of parking. I
imagine avoiding parking is the #1/#2 reason for most users would use this
service (I'd include ride sharing here too). I _specifically_ don't have a car
in San Francisco because I have nowhere to park it.

When dockerless bikes were launched in other markets (e.g. Sydney, Melbourne)
it really was a mess. Bikes thrown in rivers. Stacked up as hazards. In trees.
On the top of stuff in general. And Melbourne is a much more bike-friendly
city than many North American ones. But it was still a huge bomb. It's
probably sensible for the SFMTA to at least _consider_ the consequences and
stage a rollout.

The SFMTA was actually being pretty co-operative. And for a government agency,
they were moving pretty fast - i.e. getting stuff going in weeks/months.
Instead, one of the companies launched early on St Patrick's Day. When the
others felt they were losing first mover advantage, they did too.

~~~
mrharrison
As a biker, having to park my bike at Walgreens and seeing the same Jump bikes
parked at the bike stand, from the day before, and nowhere to park my bike is
definitely a nuisance. Didn't really encounter this issue before, people
normally come and go with their bikes. As a walker, when entitled scooter
peeps jump on the sidewalk and start whizzing around you, and at almost hit
you, it's a nuisance as well. I like the Ford Go Bikes/Citi Bikes, it's
organized and it's a proven system in NYC and other cities, that doesn't
burden others. Except those who lose parking spots in their neighborhood to
docking stations.

~~~
woah
The inconvenience and danger caused by cars is so much more. You have to be on
alert to avoid being killed by them. Huge swaths of valuable city real estate
are devoted to free or low priced subsidized storage of cars for entitled car
owners. It's astounding that this has gone on for so long and it needs to be
stopped.

~~~
Angostura
I seldom see cars driving on the pavement.

~~~
stupidcar
When bikes are ridden on the pavement, it's usually because road design and/or
car drivers are making the road too dangerous for them. If you think about it,
the pavement is not somewhere the average cyclist wants to be any more than a
pedestrian wants them there. Even without people filling them, pavements are
irregular, uneven and cluttered spaces, optimised for slow-moving bipeds who
can stop, start and turn on a dime. If there's a safe roadway available,
cyclists will use it.

~~~
comicjk
If my bike can't use the road, I dismount and walk it. Riding on the sidewalk
is illegal. I don't begrudge anyone who does it perforce - say, if there are
no alternative roads and they need to get to work - but I do begrudge cyclists
who seem to forget that dismounting is even possible.

------
burlesona
From the article: “If cities allow, and mandate that we be able to park cars
everywhere, why shouldn’t bikes have the same convenience, especially
considering they require 10 times less space than cars and offer the enormous
efficiency, environmental, cost, and health benefits listed above?”

Alternatively we could drop the entitlement to drive and park cars everywhere
and the regulations forcing that choice on the country.

But either way, I’m all for bikes and scooters etc. getting the same benefit
that cars get.

~~~
the-pigeon
> entitlement to drive and park cars everywhere

Most places in the US at least are not very livable without a car. You majorly
hurt commerce and people's quality of life by removing vehicles without
completely changing the layout of cities to make them work with other options.

Not that we shouldn't pursue those sorts of changes but that thinking of it as
"entitlement" is shallow and not constructive. The entire system was
engineered around the car. To remove the car you have to reengineer the
system.

~~~
subpixel
> Most places in the US at least are not very livable without a car.

Let me rephrase that for you: In most place in the US public transport is
woefully under-funded, under-utilized, and overly stigmatized (as a thing only
poor 'others' would use).

That is changing, slowly, as places that basically gave up on public transport
are discovering that less and less people in their cities want to own a car.

~~~
pdonis
_> In most place in the US public transport is woefully under-funded, under-
utilized, and overly stigmatized_

You misspelled "in most places in the US public transport cannot meet people's
needs". Yes, it can in inner cities, but most of the US is not inner cities.

~~~
chillwaves
> According to new numbers just released from the U.S. Census Bureau, 80.7
> percent of the U.S. population lived in urban areas as of the 2010 Census

[https://www.citylab.com/equity/2012/03/us-urban-
population-w...](https://www.citylab.com/equity/2012/03/us-urban-population-
what-does-urban-really-mean/1589/)

I assume that number has only gone up since 2010.

~~~
pdonis
_> 80.7 percent of the U.S. population lived in urban areas as of the 2010
Census_

"Urban areas" includes where I live, which is not dense enough for public
transportation to work well. Reading the article you cited, it looks like
about half of the population labeled "urban" by the Census Bureau lives in
areas that are like mine (or even less dense).

~~~
chillwaves
> which is not dense enough for public transportation to work well

You lose me here. I live in a major metro area and public transportation works
fine, even out into the suburbs where it is not as dense, but the public
transit spokes out to the major hubs and people drive to those transit
stations and park for the day.

Public transportation works for the vast majority of the country.

------
analog31
In my view, when bike parking becomes a problem in urban areas, cities do take
steps towards regulating it. In my locale, there are numerous places where
I've seen little signs forbidding bike parking, such as trees and hand
railings. I don't know if these signs are backed up by real ordinances or
what, but it does seem to point to a problem that's interesting enough for
somebody to have addressed it. The nearby college used to be laissez faire
about gas scooters, and now those have designated parking spaces and
registration tags.

One feature of the system for enforcing parking ordinances, is that if your
car is illegally parked, you're on the hook. Your license plate is tied to
your identity, and you will be found. Even rentals or shares could have a way
to identify the most recent user, otherwise the rental company has to eat the
fine. With some random bike or scooter, not so easy, if there is not some kind
of enforced numbering system.

I'm also guessing that with things such as bikes that are cheap enough (e.g.,
bikes and scooters), a growth strategy for a start-up is to address
availability and ease of use first, and deal with cleaning up their mess
later. Move fast and break things.

I'm an avid cyclist and cycling advocate, so I'd love to see bike sharing
thrive, but I'm not brimming with great ideas.

~~~
CydeWeys
One obvious solution would be to add more bike parking. Bike parking is rare
in most cities, which is why you end up with people locking their bikes to
poles, fences, trees, benches, and anything else available.

It's amazing how much urban space we're willing to dedicate to cars in the way
of streets and parking (most of it free!), and yet bicycle parking is often a
rarity.

~~~
skookumchuck
When I was a kid, the schools had long rows of bike racks festooned with
bikes. These days, a school has a single 5 foot rack with one forlorn bike in
it and parents have to authorize their kids to bike to school.

When I drive by a school when they let out, the 20mph speed limit is a bit
pointless because there are hardly any kids walking home (unlike the mobs when
I was a kid). Their moms are all waiting in a long line with their SUVs idling
(for some reason they never turn off the motor) while they text away.

~~~
humanrebar
The risk is that some kid runs around the car and into traffic to get in on
the other side. You want cars to go slowly enough to quickly brake if small
children dart into traffic.

------
phsource
Site's down, so alternative (Google Cached) link:
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:paAIFbe...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:paAIFbeyMBcJ:haveago.city/disgraceful-
dockless-drama/)

------
sebleon
> One quick fix: designate one car parking stop near every street corner as
> drop-off spots for dockless lightweight EVs. Problem solved.

Yes, this seems like an efficient and practical solution. Personally very
happy to see how quickly people have begun adopting alternative transportation
options, need for cars is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

------
terenig
Hi all! My name is Terenig, I'm the author of this post and founder of Have A
Go.

My friend messaged me giving me the heads up that this article was on Hacker
News. I was really surprised!

I'll do my best to reply to some of the thoughtful comments.

~~~
s17n
The problem isn't parking, it's where are these things going to drive? Bikes
work OK on the street but scooters really don't (even where there are
protected lanes, they really need a smoother road surface) so they end up
riding on the sidewalk, hence the backlash from pedestrians.

The solution is obvious (make dedicated lanes, pave them like a sidewalk) but
it would mean taking a _lot_ of space away from cars, not as painless as 1
spot per block.

~~~
s0rce
Roads are way smoother than sidewalks. Not to be condescending but do you bike
around the Bay Area? There are certainly bad roads (potholes, patches, etc)
but overall the roads are fairly smooth and sidewalks are bumpy from the
joints between the slabs and uneven.

~~~
s17n
Not to be condescending but do you live in the city? Cause the roads are not
really scooter ready.

------
austinl
I'd much rather have scooters parked on the sidewalk than cars on the road. I
previously used Lyft or Uber to get to work, now I primarily use Scoot, Bird,
or Jump (depending on the distance/availability).

I've found all of these solutions are much more enjoyable and cost efficient
than a car. Generally excited to see less and less people using cars in the
city.

------
sarreph
> What’s the issue? Some blocked sidewalks. As if that was a new issue in
> cities.

Yes, blocked sidewalks is the issue. And while I'm glad the author suggests a
remedy — of creating designated parking zones — this is essentially describing
dockable bikes. In my experience, docked bikes do not solve the convenience
and availability problem well enough.

I've used dockless bikes recently in both Europe and Asia, and in the cities
of both, dockless bikes are being literally strewn about the place. Flower-
beds, narrow sidewalks, pedestrian junctions, private grounds, etc. are all
being used as dumping grounds for users' dockless bike destinations. I've even
been on wild-goose-chases after multiple consecutive 'available' bikes, only
to realise that they must be _literally taken inside_ peoples' property and
homes.

Why?

For the former, I'm pretty sure it's simply a 'not my problem / not my bike'
issue. Private bike owners usually have to lock their bikes up somewhere out
of the way, and generally seem more respectful of their bikes' surroundings.
With dockless bikes, it's just to easy to dump your bike in the middle of the
sidewalk and not have to deal with any consequences. Certain bike hire
companies are trying to deal with this by incentivizing certain parking
spaces; however, why would you bother getting +10.CoolBikeXP for going out of
your way when you can chuck your bike on someone's lawn right outside your
office?

And as for the latter, because people seem to be getting away with it. People
are so lovely [/s] that they'd seriously consider just keeping a rental bike
inside their home, thus ruining the service for nearby users.

I want dockless bikes to be the future, and I think they should be, but we
really need to fix users' docking behaviour, or else we'll end up with
tragedy-of-the-commons[0] type consequences once enough people start using
them.

[0] — this is a tenuous analogy, but for lack of better phrasing, I'm
referring to the ultimate widespread abuse of potential public / open docking
spaces.

~~~
EnderMB
We have dockless bikes in Bristol, and we've had similar issues. The biggest
issue I've found is that most services require you give up use once you park,
meaning that you could use one to get lunch and then come back to see that the
bike you used is gone, with no bike nearby.

There are definitely solutions out there to these problems, but I think the
space is still relatively new for companies to have these problems fully
addressed. I don't share the sentiment or the entitlement of the article,
though. Rather than addressing the problems, they're largely complaining about
vehicles that don't really have a choice but to be parked for a long period of
time (i.e. lorries running deliveries).

------
swrobel
"We don’t ask GM, Ford, or Toyota to solve car parking"

A more apt comparison would be Avis, Hertz, etc but I think that would still
be disingenuous. Car rental companies certainly penalize you for abandoning a
rental car whereas these scooter/bike rental companies just let you dump them
wherever.

~~~
randyrand
The comparison to rentals is dumb imo. I own my own electric scooter. Many
people do. This problem has to do with scooter ownership in general,
regardless of the owner.

~~~
swrobel
Really you just leave yours anywhere even though you own it?

~~~
randyrand
it's heavy enough that most people dont steal it. i leave my motorcycle
sitting out too. Sometimes I lock it up though.

~~~
swrobel
"most people." lol.

------
terenig
One additional thing to think about. Cars in general use what were for
thousands of years historically public spaces: the streets. Now, people are
pretty much banned from using streets and are relegated to small or
nonexistent sidewalks or sparse public parks.

We forget that cities are quite old and cars are very new and our acceptance
of streets being for cars isn't actually historically normal and is really a
huge concession by cities and citizens to historically public, spaces for
walking, commerce, festivals, meetups, musicians, artists, kids, the elderly,
etc. The right to freely use and leave bikes/scooters anywhere is simply one
tiny push back to this historic uses of streets.

------
sankyo
I am all for scooters that are not on the sidewalk. I am all for making it
more difficult to own and maintain a car to help eliminate all the problems
that they cause.

    
    
      We don’t ask GM, Ford, or Toyota to solve car parking, or even 
      pedestrian deaths, traffic, and other car issues. So why are we asking 
      LimeBike, Bird, or Spin to figure out bike/scooter storage?
    

Lime Bird and Spin _own_ the scooters that are blocking the sidewalk. Not so
for Toyota. Zipcars arranges parking for their cars when they are not being
rented.

~~~
s0rce
There are car rental services like gig car that don't have dedicated spots and
work perfectly. Maybe we can just let people leave the scooters in car parking
spots. I'm sure that would go over great.

------
matttproud
This article's author has a chip on the shoulders regarding automobiles:

> pick up their cars and drop them off _anywhere_ in the city

(emphasis mine)

Really? One may not park a car _anywhere_. There are typically laws dictating
when, where, and for how long. Whether the laws are respected or enforced are
a different matter.

Individuals inconsiderately stranding means of transportation across the city
is patently unsafe. I can sure as hell see a car misparked on the sidewalk
when walking and avoid it because it is big and in the field of view; but with
a bikecycle or scooter there is no guarantee given its small size. Each day
feels like game of Mario Kart: am I going to trip over a banana someone left
in the streets? FFS.

I would be happy if the cities issued fines/citations to the individuals
responsible for improperly discarding the conveyances. A protocol already
exists for rental car companies; why not for rental scooters/bikes? This is
perfectly solvable.

(I am no defender of automobiles and view even the most urban cities of the
United States as hopelessly car-bound.)

~~~
T-N-T
>One may not park a car _anywhere_. There are typically laws dictating when,
where, and for how long. Whether the laws are respected or enforced are a
different matter.

The law is broken so often it might as well not exist AT all, at least in my
country. Vigilantes here have started to take pictures of cars that are
"parked like shit" to shame the drivers publicly because the law has been
insufficient, the punishments not applied often enough or not harsh enough to
truly dissuade car drivers from not parking on a sidewalk, bikelane, in front
of a shop or even at times directly on a part of a road...
[http://www.garecommeunemerde.fr/gcum/galerie/](http://www.garecommeunemerde.fr/gcum/galerie/)

The website gallery isn't showing a tiny minority. I see examples of this
every day as soon as I leave my home.

------
YeGoblynQueenne
>> These new lightweight EVs keep most of the benefits of cars, cut travel
times, are easy and convenient, help flatten hills, increase range, and
marginalize fatigue and sweating, without the terrible drawbacks of cars:
their enormous weight, size, danger, inefficiency, huge parking costs,
pollution, expensive infrastructure, degradation of neighborhoods, etc.

Everybody is trying to sell you something. The worst are trying to sell you
what you want. The best are trying to sell you what you need.

Of course, there is always an alternative. In this case: walk everywhere,
reduce your risk of a heart attack.

~~~
owenversteeg
Walking is simply not an alternative for moderate distance with a bike. For
example, Google Maps's biking time for a common route near me (train station
to university) is 6 minutes. Walking time is 26 minutes. The distance is 2km,
so that's 20km/hr biking or about 4km/hr walking. I've tested this with longer
distances and it seems to hold. In my experience, Google's biking speed is
fairly spot on for me, and its walking speed is a bit faster than I walk. So
I'd imagine that biking is at least six times faster than walking for me
personally.

Also, if I really have somewhere to be, I can bike substantially faster and be
OK, but running for half an hour with a heavy backpack and bags is much
harder.

I spend a decent amount of time getting around on a bike - an hour and a half
yesterday, maybe a half an hour today, so just the last two days alone I'd
have spent twelve hours walking! That's totally unacceptable.

Finally, I imagine that biking (although easier) isn't that much less healthy
than walking. Still much healthier than driving.

------
e_tm_
The management community at the apartment complex I live in (Wash. DC) has
issued notices to all residents about parking bikes/scooters physically on
their property. The main point being to avoid blocking ingress and egress
points into the buildings themselves, but also gives the private property
owner a way to force the problem onto the City.

This leads to large groups of bikes all colocated on the nearest sidewalk,
safely in the public domain. From a practical standpoint this _is_ an issue
when the sidewalk gets fully blocked, although it is not an everyday
situation.

------
s17n
The problem isn't parking, the problem is that to work well they need
dedicated lanes. I agree that this should happen but it's not as easy as
taking a parking space per block - you'd have to eliminate half of all the
parking or reduce the number of car lanes or something.

~~~
woolvalley
You ride on the side of the road, like with bikes.

Nobody really does dockless bikes with their personal bikes because of theft.

~~~
s17n
Have you tried that with a scooter? It's not pleasant.

For bikes, sure.

~~~
woolvalley
I do it with a boosted board, which is even worse.

These e-scooters are not your typical kid scooters, they have pneumatic tires,
and those tires are bigger than the 80-90mm skateboard tires that are
available on electric skateboards.

Here is one example: [http://www.mi.com/us/mi-electric-
scooter/](http://www.mi.com/us/mi-electric-scooter/)

~~~
s17n
I've only tried the Birds but it was awful.

~~~
woolvalley
California's roads are pretty horrible. If you live somewhere where they
actually maintain roads, it's a lot nicer.

------
Jaruzel
Site offline; Archive copy:

[https://web.archive.org/web/20180418200143/http://haveago.ci...](https://web.archive.org/web/20180418200143/http://haveago.city/disgraceful-
dockless-drama/)

------
erdojo
This story total propaganda and a load of horse manure.

They are not green. They are not convenient. And cityfolk hate them. Go back
to LA bros.

------
staticautomatic
This article reeks of spin. I'll bet real money that it's a PR piece.

~~~
BrainInAJar
Yes the all powerful bike lobby

~~~
terenig
Ya, Have A Go is now totally drowning in all the bike lobby cash. Please don't
tell anyone!

In all seriousness, Have A Go is not affiliated with any bike sharing/renting
companies. If you visit our site, you'll see that we are actually based on the
ownership model. Our mission is to help transition us to green, healthy, fun,
affordable, and efficient modes of personal mobility, and that's why we wrote
this piece! Not because of the $13,500 dollars we received......d'oh!!!

~~~
staticautomatic
Thank you for clarifying that. I find your position on the subject
indistinguishable from what I'd expect of PR spin, but I'll take your word
that your motivation isn't financial.

~~~
terenig
No problem :) Here's the mission statement that I wrote out a year ago,
hopefully clarifying my motivations: [http://haveago.city/our-
vision/](http://haveago.city/our-vision/)

But to be 100% honest, if I was offered payment, I would consider it. Reason
being: I truly believe in lightweight electric mobility and have dedicated
full-time hours to help expand their use. In exploring ways of making this
financially sustainable, if it's consult fees, so be it! If that happens, I'll
disclose.

As for sounding PR-y, I hope you'll judge the post again on its merits. I've
been very influenced by the wealth of urban planning literature indicating how
walking/biking make for great, rich, and pleasant cities and how cars make for
dangerous streets and negatively affect communities. I also live in LA and
find it very frustrating that we have so much poverty/homeless here and that
access to affordable mobility like bikes without risking ones life isn't an
option since cars are so dominant.

So I'm genuinely excited and hopeful for any prospect of shifting our mobility
away from them.

------
Lionsion
> Dockless bikes and scooters are not actually the problem.

> For decades now, cars have gotten the royal treatment. Users were able to
> pick up their cars and drop them off anywhere in the city. It was simply
> expected that anywhere one goes in a city, one could be guaranteed a free,
> giant space to park one’s private 4000 pound box, no questions asked. Sure,
> in some dense areas, payment is now required. Yet private vehicle parking is
> basically considered a right. We know this because when we can’t find
> parking for more than two minutes, we get upset. 5 minutes? We get very
> upset.

Isn't this a false comparison? You're not allowed to park your car in any
random place you like, you're required to park in specially marked and
designated areas. For instance, I can't park my car in the middle of a street
or in a park without getting it ticketed and towed. Isn't the big nuisance of
dockless bikes that they are literally littered on sidewalks and other public
spaces?

I don't recall there being _any_ uproar about docked bike rentals, which are
much more comparable to the current situation with cars.

~~~
btrettel
> You're not allowed to park your car in any random place you like

You can probably get away with parking illegally more often than you imagine.
(Note that I'm not saying that you should, or excusing bad behavior from
dockless bike users.)

Take an example from the article: cars illegally parked in the bike lane. In
my experience* most drivers who park in the bike lane do so out of
convenience, not a lack of options. I imagine the same is true for dockless
bikes/scooters. Many people are either oblivious or aware but don't care that
others are irritated or harmed.

* Which may differ from yours. See here for details: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16603294](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16603294)

~~~
gamblor956
It is not illegal to park a car in the bike lane in California.
[https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/pubs/hdbk/traffic_l...](https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/pubs/hdbk/traffic_lanes)

~~~
fakename
I'm having a hard time imagining how you could park in a bike lane without
blocking bicyclists. "You may park in a bicycle lane _if_ your vehicle does
not block a bicyclist and/or there is not a “No Parking” sign posted."

~~~
Spivak
We have the same law in my city. The answer is that, and I'm honestly not
trying to be snarky here, the bike lanes are very often deserted. The seem to
be placed in areas and roads that are woefully inappropriate so that some city
planner can go to a conference a talk about how green and progressive the city
is.

~~~
btrettel
I'm a cyclist, and I largely agree. I think it might come more down to meeting
some sort of quota, but the goal of "looking progressive/green" is still the
main motivation.

Many bike lanes Austin has added or "enhanced" in the past 5 years I've lived
here were wastes of time and money, or even worse than what was present
before.

The cycle track on Guadalupe is a good example of an "improvement" that was
actually worse. It's not deserted, but I almost never use it because it makes
cyclists much less visible. Far too often a driver will turn without checking
for oncoming cyclists. No thanks, I take the lane. Not that I'm that much
slower than traffic there anyway. The speed limit is 35 mph and it's downhill,
so going 30 mph isn't that hard. It would have made a lot more sense to add
the cycle track on the uphill side of the road, though that wouldn't solve the
visibility problem.

(The installation of the cycle track also greatly increased the number of
wrong-way cyclists. I've found that these cyclists firmly believe that going
the wrong way is safer. The statistics show quite clearly otherwise.)

I think a better solution is for drivers to get used to cyclists being on the
road. Driving slower for a couple minutes at most before you can safely pass a
cyclist is nowhere near as bad as most drivers seem to think it is. Some
drivers become livid...

------
jimjimjim
basically, humans are selfish and unthinking, and won't notice anything unless
it annoys them.

the market stabilizes at the benefit-annoyance intersection.

this means bikes, ride sharing, internet, tv, autonomous cars will all
annoying be as hell but not quite annoying enough to quit doing it. this of
course sucks and is why there should be regulations.

------
justanother
So cities should subsidize your multi-million-dollar operation by reducing
urban on-street parking inventory and donating that space to you? Okay, but
here's some free advice about how cities work: You won't get that by writing
internet blog posts that contain false equivalencies (ie scooter rental
companies and car manufacturers). You'll get it by wining and dining a lot of
city councilpersons. Best get started.

