[pandesmos]

This is the thing that bothers me. They appear to be getting set out in front of my kid’s school (in sets of 4), and it’s the natural inclination for kids to want to run jump and play on them.

So now there’s this sort of quandary I have as a parent: do I tell my kids and or other kids to not play on these scooters? And to take care of them? Where should I draw the line?

I don’t see them in poor areas of town, so it’s like they exist in large part as an almost “parasite” on the good will of nice communities where they won’t be stolen or chopped up for parts. They’re here to make money for a private company.

In a public park or at the public library it’s easy to say: “this is here for our community, by our community, you need to take care of it because we’re all in this together.”

These scooters (despite their benefit) are ultimately taking money out of the community (if they’re profitable) and they’re budgeting for loss and damage, so why not let the kids play on them and damage them?

[scarejunba]

> These scooters (despite their benefit) are ultimately taking money out of the community (if they’re profitable) and they’re budgeting for loss and damage, so why not let the kids play on them and damage them?

This is pretty much the same argument as people who litter at ball games and then say "The cleaning crew will pick it up. That's their job."

[pandesmos]

Maybe, and maybe that's part of why it's bothering me. I don't have a frame in which to easily sit it.

I think that's a good analogy, but it's not quite right imo. The important factor for me is that, in this specific case the distributor (or whoever is putting them out) is placing them directly in front of a school.

Potential consumers of the service are socially expected to do work to maintain something they didn't put there or ask for and it's being purposefully placed in more naturally risky location. Or they're being placed in a way that's not very nice to others (blocking sidewalks or bike racks).

In the ball game scenario the consumer has chosen to get popcorn, made a mess (either purposefully or accidentally) and then chosen to leave it for others to take care of. So the consumer is being personally irresponsible.

My interpretation is that the scooter companies are being personally irresponsible, but then sort of making it look/feel like the potential consumers are being irresponsible?

You put your backpack in the main walkway of the airport. I tripped over it. Things spilled out of the backpack. Should I feel bad and try and pick up those things? Does that answer change if I see you doing the same thing every single Wednesday when I fly out?

[wmeredith]

There is no moral quandary about teaching children to respect property that isn’t theirs. If you want them out of your community there are myriad channels for addressing that.

[jayd16]

I think its about the same as telling your kids not to vandalize vending machines, newspaper boxes and store fronts.

[pandesmos]

Which is legit, but at least where I am, those are (normally) not placed directly in walkways, or in a place that "consumes" an asset created and maintained by another business (i.e., a bike rack).

[mac01021]

If they're damaged too much or too often, then either they'll be taken away, or else the service will become more expensive to offset the cost.

So, ultimately, it will be to the detriment of anyone who wants to use the scooters. If your kids don't know anyone who uses them or even see them getting used ever, it may not be a very compelling argument.

[omegaworks]

>These scooters (despite their benefit) are ultimately taking money out of the community (if they’re profitable) and they’re budgeting for loss and damage, so why not let the kids play on them and damage them?

Any business is predicated on a win-win proposition. Lime / Bird provides the capital, maintenance and network that maintains the scooters, and the people that use them pay the cost of their usage. The money they "take out of the community" is likely outweighed by the positive externalities brought to the community:

1. Traffic is lessened.

2. Jobs are provided to community members to pick them up and charge them.

3. Businesses make more money / pay more sales taxes from higher foot traffic.

4. Community members have a pleasant scooting experience readily available to them on demand.

Of course, scooters also have negative externalities:

1. They are not useful for people with disabilities, and can actively prevent people with disabilities from participating in public spaces when people park the scooters like assholes.

2. People will hurt themselves using the scooters.

3. Piles of dead scooters are aesthetically unappealing.

But these must be weighed against the benefits.

[atomical]

I have to think it's going to be harder and harder for theft to occur. The GPS, cell network, and constant iteration on the design is going to make it very hard for thieves.