I still can't get over this one. I printed it and taped to the wall in my office. I'll ask folks to guess what it is. First guess is almost always some type of plant:
The word "liability" is something they don't want to risk.
Donating 150 bicycles to a school, and due to bad maintenance 10 children have an accident. The bad publicity would be huge. "You donated killer bicycles to our children". Not an easy front page to recover from. Plus the lawsuits etc. The cost of scrapping is worth absorbing much more than risking the above scenario.
Selling: they don't want people to ride their own electric bicycles, they want people to rent for their rides. Selling e.g. 10k bicycles to 10k people, converts potential renters to no-renting-anymore-coz-I-got-my-sweet-ride, whoever bought the business will definitely have 10k less potential customers.
Selling them will also mean that they need to give "some" guarantees about spare parts, maintenance shops, etc.. In Europe when you buy something you automatically have (per EU law) 2 years guarantee. They want to drop that business, not be prisoners of such a deal for the next 2 years. When they sell to a business, the new owner takes up these responsibilities.
Edit: I understand in the USA the guarantee period is 1y. Still a long time, when you want to get rid of something "now" to have to stick with it for one more year. It makes for a bad breakup.
Why selling these is so hard? There is a huge market for second hand bikes. I would think you can always get a better price than scrap metal for a functional bike. Any non zero profit is better than zero.
As much as I would love a cheap e-bike to tinker with and restore (even if it's old), I can't say I'm surprised these are being recycled.
On one hand, how would it benefit their/Lime's business to have loads of people owning electric scooters and bikes? On the other hand, there really are logistical and liability issues involved with distributing old gear in varying states of repair.
It's a shame they don't do something like gov/edu institutions and auction off the stuff as-is. At least then someone could theoretically buy it up to do something with it.
Remember the old mantra of reduce > reuse > recycle? Environmental consumerism is supposed to be primarily focused on reducing when you can. If you cannot reduce consumption, then try to reuse as much as possible. And if you've exhausted reduce or reuse, then you try to recycle.
I was walking in our electronics department's hallway when I stopped and walked a few steps back. My peripheral vision picked up a pile of yummy: a load of lab gear in an office. I went in and asked about it. The person said they were to be discarded. I asked if I could take some. They said they were to be sold by the kilogram to a company. I asked if I could buy a few kilograms of oscilloscopes, multimetres, stabilized power sources, etc. They said no. Regulations, auctions, etc.
Here I was, a broke electronics student, trying to procure electronics equipment, in an electronics department, with lunch money I was willing to part with, but unable to do so because someone needed to melt that thing down and make a horse shoe or some fork.
>On one hand, how would it benefit their/Lime's business to have loads of people owning electric scooters and bikes
I see these as different use cases. I own an eBike which I use for commuting. I also use Lime bikes (before they shut down) to get around the city. The key difference is storage. If I take MY bike, I have to very securely lock it up, carry a heavy lock and chain around, and worry about whether my destination has storage. As such, it only gets me between work, home, and occasionally the store.
On the other hand, I use Lime bikes to get across the city anywhere. If I'm going to a brewery or a concert or whatever, I just get close to my destination, find an out of the way, and get off the bike. It's significantly easier.
If you own an e-bike you can reason that you don't need a car. You still need a car once in a while. That's the time to call an Uber. You may even ride an Uber every day, but you don't buy a car because you want to start riding your bike tomorrow because it is good for your health.
> On one hand, how would it benefit their/Lime's business to have loads of people owning electric scooters and bikes?
It stimulates demand for cycling/scooting infrastructure. A few owners of scooters aren't competing with renters.
> auction off the stuff as-is
That's pretty close to what recycling does, for items that can't be practically used due to design issues. The metals and batteries are resold as scrap.
I've been sad about this sale for a few weeks -- was a pretty heavy Jump bike user in DC and they've just been sitting on the streets disabled -- vanished from the apps overnight. They were/are well built machines and I hope Lime or someone reactivates them. They also feel much more practical and safe than the cheap bird/etc scooters(having eaten shit on a bird before going over a curb) -- bigger tires for bump tolerance, more stable position, etc.
We have another dockless ebike entrant in town called Helbiz and they're pretty nice, plus have an unlimited subscription option -- hoping they get traction and stick around - I have already noticed some of the bikes being seemingly vandalized on purpose(pedals ripped off and strapped in the basket) which is sad.
It feels that the timing could be right with very limited Metro and Bus service(and widespread virus related public transit anxiety).
edit: I could also see this business model as being self cannibalizing -- I'd never ridden an ebike pre JUMP and now would consider buying one myself for 1-2k. How many people who really enjoy the JUMP experience would similarly leave the platform for a nicer model, long run cheaper experience. Introduces other tradeoffs like security, having to take the bike home(so you can't really ride it out if you're going to be drinking), etc.
The JUMP bikes were the best ride for sure. Much smoother than Lime. If Lime downgrade the bikes then I'm getting my own electric bike. Just sucks I have to think about locking it up, riding it home etc.
For me, the biggest value prop was that I could leave them anywhere and didn't have to maintain them. I could buy myself one, but then I'd need to take care of it and make sure it doesn't get stolen. I'm not sure I'm interested in that.
Same here! There was a brief golden time in Mt. Pleasant when it was starting to get nice out and there were Jump bikes everywhere. So convenient, so nice for doing socially-distanced wanderings of neighborhoods. What a waste! I hope something like them returns.
The biggest loss here for me personally is that Uber allowed you to pair AmEx Uber credits to scooters, which meant I could often do 5-10 free rides a month.
I will say - I was a very frequent Jump user in SF, and before you shout "waste!", if you haven't had the experience of riding on one of the older bikes past it's useful life, you should consider this:
Jump switched over to a new model within the last year or two. Their older bikes - while yes, built like tanks - also aged like tanks (after battle). They were BEAT UP. The frames were mangled & scratched, the drivetrains were barely functional, and the brakes barely worked.
My general strategy for riding a Jump was to find the closest bike with the highest serial # (assuming it would be a newer one), because getting an old one was just not fun.
Anyway, this is all to say: While yes, almost everything can technically be repurposed, I wouldn't want to spend much time on an older Jump bike either first or second hand.
For others, they may think it is fun to take three beat-up old bikes and turn them into one good one and a pile of recyclable parts.
One man's trash is another's treasure...
(& Yes, Uber has no excuse for this kind of nonsense. That is exactly what As-Is-Where-Is-Not-Fit-For-Any-Specific-Purpose warranty & law is all about. Repurpose before recycle...)
From the end of the article, Uber explains why they recycled the old bikes not transferred to Jump in the sale,
> But given many significant issues - including maintenance, liability, safety concerns, and a lack of consumer-grade charging equipment - we decided the best approach was to responsibly recycle them.
Unfortunately seems to most responsible way to handle these bikes. I see the charging issue being a major problem. Trek just switched their rentable bikes to electric in my city, I wonder if they face the same fate.
And settle down everyone, they are being recycled, not dumped in a hole.
Exactly like when restaurants would rather throw away food instead of donating it. If they sell bikes to people that would otherwise use their service, they wouldn't have any customers.
But they're wrong, people that own bikes aren't the same people that want to use a bike ad-hoc.
That's not why restaurants throw away food. They do it because of liability laws. There is a super high risk of getting sued if you give away food and someone gets sick.
This is not at all like when restaurants throw away food. The key distinction here is is that the bikes are getting recycled. They will be broken down and sold as scrap materials.
In the UK, Jump bikes were a far superior option over Lime. My experience with both was that Lime bike maintenance was very poor; with two-thirds of all rides requiring a refund due to the bike not functioning or having physical damage.
Getting support and refunds from Lime was exceptionally painful. Uber also supported bike drop off in the East, where as Lime would silently fine you.
Why isn't reuse mandated or incentivised in the same way that recycle is?
This is such a colossal waste of energy. I can't believe that offering these without warranty and a stipulation that they be debranded before use wouldn't have got Uber more cash, and the planet a better outcome.
If they're still running this business in the UK... why not ship them there? It's unbelievable that there isn't a better use of these than recycling them (but I do think that's mostly their mistake to make).
A lot of people are screaming about re-use... but man, these were never designed to be consumer bikes. You likely don't have a one-at-a-time charger, they probably have some sort of rack that charges 100 batteries at once. Similar issues around components... likely hard to get a replacement wheel, or what have you. And no way Americans wouldn't sue if they got a defective one. Totally understand, and impressed these didn't just go into a hole. Glad Uber is trying to recycle.
Multiple US municipalities have convened conferences and created sort of joint task forces to investigate the use of micromobility to supplement public transit.
The scooters and bikes could have been donated to local governments who could then figure out how to support them, and used them for programs to help disadvantaged citizens get around easier. But that wouldn't really help Uber's bottom line I guess, and might involve extra work.
I see a lot of people commenting on how good the Jump bike design is. I almost missed this excerpt, but it looks like that design might be here to stay:
> Lime's chief executive Wayne Ting has said he prefers the design of Uber's bikes and will deploy more of them in the future.
> However, there were also "tens of thousands" of older-model bikes that Lime did not inherit as part of the deal.
[+] [-] 11thEarlOfMar|5 years ago|reply
https://cdn.theatlantic.com/thumbor/Vtmg6k-JNp0wpEtDo_RvOcoT...
[+] [-] supernova87a|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 9nGQluzmnq3M|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] HenryBemis|5 years ago|reply
Donating 150 bicycles to a school, and due to bad maintenance 10 children have an accident. The bad publicity would be huge. "You donated killer bicycles to our children". Not an easy front page to recover from. Plus the lawsuits etc. The cost of scrapping is worth absorbing much more than risking the above scenario.
Selling: they don't want people to ride their own electric bicycles, they want people to rent for their rides. Selling e.g. 10k bicycles to 10k people, converts potential renters to no-renting-anymore-coz-I-got-my-sweet-ride, whoever bought the business will definitely have 10k less potential customers.
Selling them will also mean that they need to give "some" guarantees about spare parts, maintenance shops, etc.. In Europe when you buy something you automatically have (per EU law) 2 years guarantee. They want to drop that business, not be prisoners of such a deal for the next 2 years. When they sell to a business, the new owner takes up these responsibilities.
Edit: I understand in the USA the guarantee period is 1y. Still a long time, when you want to get rid of something "now" to have to stick with it for one more year. It makes for a bad breakup.
Edit2: typos
[+] [-] sytelus|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grwthckrmstr|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _pmf_|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] soylentcola|5 years ago|reply
On one hand, how would it benefit their/Lime's business to have loads of people owning electric scooters and bikes? On the other hand, there really are logistical and liability issues involved with distributing old gear in varying states of repair.
It's a shame they don't do something like gov/edu institutions and auction off the stuff as-is. At least then someone could theoretically buy it up to do something with it.
[+] [-] skwb|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Jugurtha|5 years ago|reply
Here I was, a broke electronics student, trying to procure electronics equipment, in an electronics department, with lunch money I was willing to part with, but unable to do so because someone needed to melt that thing down and make a horse shoe or some fork.
[+] [-] Arainach|5 years ago|reply
I see these as different use cases. I own an eBike which I use for commuting. I also use Lime bikes (before they shut down) to get around the city. The key difference is storage. If I take MY bike, I have to very securely lock it up, carry a heavy lock and chain around, and worry about whether my destination has storage. As such, it only gets me between work, home, and occasionally the store.
On the other hand, I use Lime bikes to get across the city anywhere. If I'm going to a brewery or a concert or whatever, I just get close to my destination, find an out of the way, and get off the bike. It's significantly easier.
[+] [-] hosh|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] toohotatopic|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dundarious|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gowld|5 years ago|reply
It stimulates demand for cycling/scooting infrastructure. A few owners of scooters aren't competing with renters.
> auction off the stuff as-is
That's pretty close to what recycling does, for items that can't be practically used due to design issues. The metals and batteries are resold as scrap.
[+] [-] waterfowl|5 years ago|reply
We have another dockless ebike entrant in town called Helbiz and they're pretty nice, plus have an unlimited subscription option -- hoping they get traction and stick around - I have already noticed some of the bikes being seemingly vandalized on purpose(pedals ripped off and strapped in the basket) which is sad.
It feels that the timing could be right with very limited Metro and Bus service(and widespread virus related public transit anxiety).
edit: I could also see this business model as being self cannibalizing -- I'd never ridden an ebike pre JUMP and now would consider buying one myself for 1-2k. How many people who really enjoy the JUMP experience would similarly leave the platform for a nicer model, long run cheaper experience. Introduces other tradeoffs like security, having to take the bike home(so you can't really ride it out if you're going to be drinking), etc.
[+] [-] partyboat1586|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Xavdidtheshadow|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] heyitsguay|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eganist|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ahelwer|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] akgerber|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yboris|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nlh|5 years ago|reply
Jump switched over to a new model within the last year or two. Their older bikes - while yes, built like tanks - also aged like tanks (after battle). They were BEAT UP. The frames were mangled & scratched, the drivetrains were barely functional, and the brakes barely worked.
My general strategy for riding a Jump was to find the closest bike with the highest serial # (assuming it would be a newer one), because getting an old one was just not fun.
Anyway, this is all to say: While yes, almost everything can technically be repurposed, I wouldn't want to spend much time on an older Jump bike either first or second hand.
[+] [-] toss1|5 years ago|reply
For others, they may think it is fun to take three beat-up old bikes and turn them into one good one and a pile of recyclable parts.
One man's trash is another's treasure...
(& Yes, Uber has no excuse for this kind of nonsense. That is exactly what As-Is-Where-Is-Not-Fit-For-Any-Specific-Purpose warranty & law is all about. Repurpose before recycle...)
[+] [-] brunoTbear|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cbuq|5 years ago|reply
> But given many significant issues - including maintenance, liability, safety concerns, and a lack of consumer-grade charging equipment - we decided the best approach was to responsibly recycle them.
Unfortunately seems to most responsible way to handle these bikes. I see the charging issue being a major problem. Trek just switched their rentable bikes to electric in my city, I wonder if they face the same fate.
And settle down everyone, they are being recycled, not dumped in a hole.
[+] [-] jrace|5 years ago|reply
Recycling is only slightly better than throwing away.
There is no conceivable reason these could not have been re-sued.
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle - is in that order for a good reason.
[+] [-] WalterBright|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] csunbird|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tersers|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kube-system|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] renewiltord|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] travisporter|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tylerchilds|5 years ago|reply
But they're wrong, people that own bikes aren't the same people that want to use a bike ad-hoc.
[+] [-] jedberg|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sky_rw|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nness|5 years ago|reply
Getting support and refunds from Lime was exceptionally painful. Uber also supported bike drop off in the East, where as Lime would silently fine you.
[+] [-] zymhan|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mindslight|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] julianozen|5 years ago|reply
Lebron James gives bikes away as charity to help kids have a sense of freedom and mobility. I dont see how there isnt a better solution here https://www.bicycling.com/news/a22613790/a-bike-saved-lebron...
[+] [-] oliwarner|5 years ago|reply
This is such a colossal waste of energy. I can't believe that offering these without warranty and a stipulation that they be debranded before use wouldn't have got Uber more cash, and the planet a better outcome.
[+] [-] gpm|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] neonate|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dbg31415|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] peterwwillis|5 years ago|reply
The scooters and bikes could have been donated to local governments who could then figure out how to support them, and used them for programs to help disadvantaged citizens get around easier. But that wouldn't really help Uber's bottom line I guess, and might involve extra work.
[+] [-] szhu|5 years ago|reply
> Lime's chief executive Wayne Ting has said he prefers the design of Uber's bikes and will deploy more of them in the future.
> However, there were also "tens of thousands" of older-model bikes that Lime did not inherit as part of the deal.
[+] [-] blendergeek|5 years ago|reply