Bird Is Laying Off 23% of Its Staff(dot.la)
dot.la
Bird Is Laying Off 23% of Its Staff
https://dot.la/bird-scooters-layoffs-2657472600.html
93 comments
Demand of what? This is an electric scooter company, it is supposed to do well when folks are not locked at home.
The issue is low interest rates + helicopter money -> high interest rates + fed sell off.
Bird did not overestimate consumer demand, they overestimated how easily they could finance a cash flow negative company.
The issue is low interest rates + helicopter money -> high interest rates + fed sell off.
Bird did not overestimate consumer demand, they overestimated how easily they could finance a cash flow negative company.
> Demand of what? This is an electric scooter company, it is supposed to do well when folks are not locked at home.
Many people stopped taking public transportation in favour of these alternatives
Many people stopped taking public transportation in favour of these alternatives
The LTV of an electric scooter is negative, so more people using the service is actually bad for Bird.
Could you please elaborate more on this?
They show good metrics "we are profitable for each ride sharing from a hardware perspective", but if you look at financial statements you see things huge lines like "General and administrative expenses".
As a result, 2021 income: 205M, expenses: 425M
Essentially, this is the business of selling for 0.50 USD something that costs 1 USD to produce.
As a result, 2021 income: 205M, expenses: 425M
Essentially, this is the business of selling for 0.50 USD something that costs 1 USD to produce.
It does seem odd, but I think there is a different root cause.
VCs often tell companies to hire like mad. The idea is that revenue growth is more important and will catch up. Additional runway is found with more and more funding rounds. So you can happily grow at ridiculous rates and lose money for years and years all the way to IPO.
This strategy stops working in a dramatic way if you cannot keep raising VC money. Suddenly, the funding round isn't coming to save you and your bank balance is draining fast. The only solution is to slash costs.
VCs often tell companies to hire like mad. The idea is that revenue growth is more important and will catch up. Additional runway is found with more and more funding rounds. So you can happily grow at ridiculous rates and lose money for years and years all the way to IPO.
This strategy stops working in a dramatic way if you cannot keep raising VC money. Suddenly, the funding round isn't coming to save you and your bank balance is draining fast. The only solution is to slash costs.
I've noticed that many startup-like companies are on the margins, living from month to month. Hiring is for inflating value and showing numbers to VCs. If the company is susceptible to even small inflation moves or cannot sustain 6-7 months without income, I'd reconsider its business model. Sadly, a considerable number of companies out there belong to this circle.
I'm also seeing very bloated headcounts for startups. Startups that haven't even hit product-market fit now have 500+ people.
I've been out of touch with the startup world the last few years, but something seems to have changed where otherwise mature companies with low-mid four-digit employee counts still work as "startups" (complete with the lack of profitability).
I've been out of touch with the startup world the last few years, but something seems to have changed where otherwise mature companies with low-mid four-digit employee counts still work as "startups" (complete with the lack of profitability).
>including from companies that were hiring as recently as two weeks ago.
hiring new people is often decided at the department level. hiring freeze and big layoffs come from the very top. two weeks ago the department heads had probably no idea
hiring new people is often decided at the department level. hiring freeze and big layoffs come from the very top. two weeks ago the department heads had probably no idea
A lot of companies had their true purpose of riding the VC wave and living off their money by dazzling them with ever-increasing numbers. They would never have been profitable in a good day, let alone in the current storm.
The VC wave is over, and so is "growth & engagement". Now the only way to survive is to actually make money from selling your product/service and saving that money instead of burning it on expanding the engineering playground where complexity was considered a feature.
The VC wave is over, and so is "growth & engagement". Now the only way to survive is to actually make money from selling your product/service and saving that money instead of burning it on expanding the engineering playground where complexity was considered a feature.
Negative interest rates = you get paid to borrow and spend money.
This means that these companies expected they would get a constant inflow of fresh cash.
You have 1000. You borrow 1000, you pay back 990, now you have 1010 and your capacity to borrow has increased.
You borrow again.
Infinite money glitch.
However, 1 month ago, the glitch was fixed. So, the "crisis" comes.
This means that these companies expected they would get a constant inflow of fresh cash.
You have 1000. You borrow 1000, you pay back 990, now you have 1010 and your capacity to borrow has increased.
You borrow again.
Infinite money glitch.
However, 1 month ago, the glitch was fixed. So, the "crisis" comes.
Real interest rates are still negative. A mere half-point rate hike doesn't "fix" that. Two rate hikes are likewise insufficient. The Fed's target is at 0.75-1.00% and inflation's still over 8%.
I agree, the rate hikes are still very shy, and the supply-chain issues are not going to improve prices.
Estonia (where I live in Europe) has 20.3% inflation, it's insanely bad and the ECB is a snail to react to the situation and still claiming "this is transient, don't worry".
Most institutions are very slow to react by and large since there is a big lag between on-ground reality and financial data. This is why you'll often see experienced investors and fund managers often defer to their "gut instincts" and talk a lot about subjective experiences ("I feel") vs just hard data.
It's very refreshing to hear such :)
Who was actually able to borrow at negative nominal rates? As far as I can see even the US government only briefly hit negative nominal rates.
I can see an argument for taking advantage of near zero real rates to hedge inflation: borrow 1000, buy assets, sell assets for 1080, repay 1001.
I can see an argument for taking advantage of near zero real rates to hedge inflation: borrow 1000, buy assets, sell assets for 1080, repay 1001.
Banks did, and they can issue loans at 1:9 leverage (at least in Europe).
So what to do then with this money ?
And did Bird actually borrow any of this money and at what rate?
Yes but indirectly, and the nominal rate of borrow doesn't matter as long as the rate is less than the expect potential growth of the long-term value of Bird stock.
At its core, Bird creates hype by creating a product or a service, this hype has some value.
Investors believes they can increase and benefit from this hype so they decide to bring new cash.
This new cash is supposed to be used generate new revenue, which in turn is increasing the hype, and this hype helps to bring new cash.
At the end of the cycle, the point of fast growing private equity fund is to carry and grow hype until a potential IPO which is the time the retail investors or the general public are going to be left holding the bag (Airbnb, Uber, Coinbase) or to the point where the company becomes profitable and distributes future earnings (e.g. Microsoft).
Which means, as long as there is hype, there is new money coming in.
The reason money comes so much is because investors are nudged to spend their cash (e.g. negative interest rates also means that people who have cash and not equities are punished, as they have to pay interests!). Also, the retail investors have had this incentive but don't anymore.
Remember, during the corona, a lot of people didn't know what to do with their money because no restaurants, no travel, etc. So playing with cryptos and stock market on Robinhood.
-> The expected inflows of cash are going to decrease because retail investors that will hold the bag eventually won't be so keen to invest as they need their money (higher inflation).
-> The cash is more expensive, so there is a mechanical reason for the decrease.
-> There is uncertainty
Overall:
-> We need the company to survive so the pyramid doesn't collapse.
-> Rationalizing by reducing our cost base is the most reasonable solution to protect all the investors and the employees who invested their time and sweat.
I hope it makes sense.
At its core, Bird creates hype by creating a product or a service, this hype has some value.
Investors believes they can increase and benefit from this hype so they decide to bring new cash.
This new cash is supposed to be used generate new revenue, which in turn is increasing the hype, and this hype helps to bring new cash.
At the end of the cycle, the point of fast growing private equity fund is to carry and grow hype until a potential IPO which is the time the retail investors or the general public are going to be left holding the bag (Airbnb, Uber, Coinbase) or to the point where the company becomes profitable and distributes future earnings (e.g. Microsoft).
Which means, as long as there is hype, there is new money coming in.
The reason money comes so much is because investors are nudged to spend their cash (e.g. negative interest rates also means that people who have cash and not equities are punished, as they have to pay interests!). Also, the retail investors have had this incentive but don't anymore.
Remember, during the corona, a lot of people didn't know what to do with their money because no restaurants, no travel, etc. So playing with cryptos and stock market on Robinhood.
-> The expected inflows of cash are going to decrease because retail investors that will hold the bag eventually won't be so keen to invest as they need their money (higher inflation).
-> The cash is more expensive, so there is a mechanical reason for the decrease.
-> There is uncertainty
Overall:
-> We need the company to survive so the pyramid doesn't collapse.
-> Rationalizing by reducing our cost base is the most reasonable solution to protect all the investors and the employees who invested their time and sweat.
I hope it makes sense.
sounds like a pyramid scheme, doesn't it? or MLM rather
People like to overestimate their abilities and usually are out of touch with reality.
I never understood the model behind these mobility sharing startups…
Nearly every metropolitan mobility sharing system we’ve had so far operates at a loss and is heavily subsidized by the city or local government.
The pricing is also out of whack compared to the cost of a scooter as after about one month of daily commute use you get to the price of a scooter and in some places even faster than that.
Nearly every metropolitan mobility sharing system we’ve had so far operates at a loss and is heavily subsidized by the city or local government.
The pricing is also out of whack compared to the cost of a scooter as after about one month of daily commute use you get to the price of a scooter and in some places even faster than that.
Scooters are a blight on some cities. London, UK in particular is a disastrous place for them to the detriment of pedestrians in particular and cyclists and any other road user.
This company aggressively shmoozed local politicians over here to change laws and their demise would be welcome.
This company aggressively shmoozed local politicians over here to change laws and their demise would be welcome.
Wait until you find out about cars. Also pretty tough on other road users.
Really? Don't remember last time i saw a car doing 20-25mph on a 4ft wide pavement. I saw it twice this morning with scooters
I don’t get the point you are trying to make here.
Drivers operating cars 100% legally are a bigger threat to pedestrians than reckless scooter users.
Drivers operating cars 100% legally are a bigger threat to pedestrians than reckless scooter users.
Are we replacing drivers though, or just adding a new threat to our streets on top of existing ones.
Here in London at least, scooter journeys are mostly impractical by private car due to lack of parking. Logically they are replacing bus journeys, walking, taxis and cycling.
Here in London at least, scooter journeys are mostly impractical by private car due to lack of parking. Logically they are replacing bus journeys, walking, taxis and cycling.
the point is that there is an emerging new threat.
aside : i'd like to see this world of yours where cars are operated 100% legally -- even very responsible drivers tend to violate some road laws on a fairly common basis.
aside : i'd like to see this world of yours where cars are operated 100% legally -- even very responsible drivers tend to violate some road laws on a fairly common basis.
They meant a fictional %100 legal operation of cars is still more dangerous than scooters
Consider why the pavement is only 4ft wide.
Some of the roads where i live are over 2000 years old. Was it because society used vehicles to build their civilisation and to move goods and provide services at lower latency?
If scooter users stayed on roads i wouldn't have a problem. But the technology lends itself to abuse by people with no knowledge of safe road use.
If scooter users stayed on roads i wouldn't have a problem. But the technology lends itself to abuse by people with no knowledge of safe road use.
Because London is a 2000 year old city?
It’s been rebuilt many times since then, even discounting the bombing of World War Two which destroyed roughly 2 million homes (of approx 5 million at the time in London).
The great fire of London literally reduced the city by so much that practically the entire city was rebuilt; that was only 350y ago (not making the case that you’re wrong about it being old, but 2,000 years is unfortunately wrong)
Anyway, urban design is not set in stone.
It’s interesting to look at the evolution of Los Angeles as an example of a city that already exists being radically changed, entire blocks of buildings were demolished to make downtown roads so wide.
The great fire of London literally reduced the city by so much that practically the entire city was rebuilt; that was only 350y ago (not making the case that you’re wrong about it being old, but 2,000 years is unfortunately wrong)
Anyway, urban design is not set in stone.
It’s interesting to look at the evolution of Los Angeles as an example of a city that already exists being radically changed, entire blocks of buildings were demolished to make downtown roads so wide.
> It’s interesting to look at the evolution of Los Angeles as an example of a city that already exists being radically changed, entire blocks of buildings were demolished to make downtown roads so wide
I'm not sure giving LA, one of the poster cities for how not to do urban design, as an example, is a great idea.
Paris did the same thing, only in a much more measured fashion, in the 1760s under Haussmann and Napoléon III.
However destroying parts of a city which is thousands of years old just to increase the size of sidewalks would be to destroy historical monuments for minimal gains. If anything, making most small streets pedestrian and bike only sounds smarter.
I'm not sure giving LA, one of the poster cities for how not to do urban design, as an example, is a great idea.
Paris did the same thing, only in a much more measured fashion, in the 1760s under Haussmann and Napoléon III.
However destroying parts of a city which is thousands of years old just to increase the size of sidewalks would be to destroy historical monuments for minimal gains. If anything, making most small streets pedestrian and bike only sounds smarter.
Wasn’t making the point that it was good but saying that urban design is locked in to “history” is the most common argument against good cycling infrastructure.
(and i was trying to correct the notion that the city of london has not had radical changes in its urban design for 2000 years)
(and i was trying to correct the notion that the city of london has not had radical changes in its urban design for 2000 years)
And funnily Paris is re-configuring the city for active travel right now!
Walking on a roads was a thing (and still is in some places). Tokyo, for example.
The place I'm in right now is supposedly a modern development but the sidewalks are in such disrepair / built over / covered in debris that everyone just walks in the road with the traffic.
It’s the huge amount of space given to cars. Or did those exists 2000 years ago also?
20-25mph is an exaggeration at best. Otherwise, check out r/IdiotsInCars.
People operating electric scooters recklessly do not get a pass because some people drive their cars like idiots.
In my experience it is the majority of users here in London. They feel like quasi pedestrians so they run lights, use pavements and operate without a driving license (as required by law). Given at the moment there are so few of them relatively speaking the coming epidemic of scooters will be a disaster for pedestrians
I'm not saying they get a pass, I'm saying that if you're also not outraged at the way cars are operated you've got a double standard. It's very trendy to hate on scooters.
> 20-25mph is an exaggeration at best.
No. It is not. I even had work colleagues modifying their scooters firmware to do up to or over 30mph
No. It is not. I even had work colleagues modifying their scooters firmware to do up to or over 30mph
This is illegal in the UK. You cannot legally drive a privately owned scooter in public. They are classed as vehicles and you need to be insured to drive them, you cannot insure a private scooter. When you rent a scooter from one of the apps they come with insurance built in.
Your colleague, and others, breaking the law and driving dangerously does not mean we should get rid of a means of transportation that is legally and safely used by others.
Your colleague, and others, breaking the law and driving dangerously does not mean we should get rid of a means of transportation that is legally and safely used by others.
That looks like a recipe for broken bones.
You’d think that would stop them but you’ve only got to see Barcelona’s motorcycle injury rates or Bangkok’s vehicle death rates to see that isn’t the case.
In Berlin, this morning: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/08/car-driven-int...
What does this have to do with the topic of discussion?
They should be banned from city centres. I'm so glad I at least live somewhere that limits them to fairly low speeds and bans people from dumping them on the public street taking up space.
Agree. Cars are a menace to society
>this thing is bad, so here's another bad thing.
about as useful as "Taxes? Wait until you hear about death."
there can be many bad things at one time, this doesn't mean we can't discuss the smaller problems, too.
about as useful as "Taxes? Wait until you hear about death."
there can be many bad things at one time, this doesn't mean we can't discuss the smaller problems, too.
I do not think the message is "here's another bad thing".
It is underlining that lots of people are focusing on conflicts between scooters, bikes and pedestrian have to use walkable areas and fringe of streets/roads for moving and parking.
But overlooking that probably 90% of the space is dedicated to cars (driving and parking) and that is not up for debate.
It is underlining that lots of people are focusing on conflicts between scooters, bikes and pedestrian have to use walkable areas and fringe of streets/roads for moving and parking.
But overlooking that probably 90% of the space is dedicated to cars (driving and parking) and that is not up for debate.
Cars rarely park in the middle of the sidewalk, in front of your entrance door, in the middle of the bicycle lane. Cars are also rarely driven by 10-15 years old who have no respect for others.
Both are a pain but cars are much more regulated. Parking a car on the sidewalk or in front of a door of any major city -> you're towed in the next 30 min. Park 5+ escooters in the middle of a busy sidewalk and you'll have to wait until someone decides to throw them away, nobody will get fines, nobody will lose his vehicle for XX hours, &c.
People who use vehicles they don't own are extra reckless and less careful about what they do and where they park, it reveals how many people actually don't give a single fuck about living in organised communities and have absolutely no regards for their neighbours
E scooters would be a dream if every Nth car parking spot was reserved for them and people were forced to park on these spots. You could even have them part of the city transportation subscription that way you wouldn't give money to tax dodging US companies.
Both are a pain but cars are much more regulated. Parking a car on the sidewalk or in front of a door of any major city -> you're towed in the next 30 min. Park 5+ escooters in the middle of a busy sidewalk and you'll have to wait until someone decides to throw them away, nobody will get fines, nobody will lose his vehicle for XX hours, &c.
People who use vehicles they don't own are extra reckless and less careful about what they do and where they park, it reveals how many people actually don't give a single fuck about living in organised communities and have absolutely no regards for their neighbours
E scooters would be a dream if every Nth car parking spot was reserved for them and people were forced to park on these spots. You could even have them part of the city transportation subscription that way you wouldn't give money to tax dodging US companies.
"Road Users" is an interesting euphemism here.
This is completely wrong. Scooters are a fantastic method of getting around a city, particularly in hotter months, and somehow I find even riding in winter a much warmer experience compared to biking. Personally I prefer using my own scooter, but often take the scooter-share anyway because I am worried about mine being stolen and it's very convenient to be able to grab one anywhere and go directly to where you're going, especially when combined with a metro trip.
This is completely wrong. Scooters are a fantastic method of getting around a city, particularly in hotter months, and somehow I find even riding in winter a much warmer experience compared to biking. Personally I prefer using my own scooter, but often take the scooter-share anyway because I am worried about mine being stolen and it's very convenient to be able to grab one anywhere and go directly to where you're going, especially when combined with a metro trip.
> I am worried about mine being stolen
I am curious where you live. It seems surprising that a city that's well-off enough to have scooter ride shares has a legitimate risk of theft of said scooters from public parkings.
I am curious where you live. It seems surprising that a city that's well-off enough to have scooter ride shares has a legitimate risk of theft of said scooters from public parkings.
Really? I don't think there's a single major European city that I'd leave a bike ( or scooter, if I had one) unsupervised.
I live in Bangalore and I don't think twice before leaving my scooter in any parking space in the city. I am sure there are such areas where I would be reluctant to do so, but certainly the majority of markets and commercial areas are absolutely fine.
Really? Amsterdam has literally millions of bikes left unsupervised. Paris is fine in the most parts. I'm fairly certain some German cities should be fine too.
A quick google search says that in Amsterdam there are 850k bikes and an (estimated) 50-80k bike thefts. Seems like a lot to me.
I could just be biased though, I've had my bike stolen while in Amsterdam.
I could just be biased though, I've had my bike stolen while in Amsterdam.
They're great when people are on them, not so great when they are strewn across pavements or knocked over at cycle stands.
Why apply that standard to scooters and not to cars? Parked cars are strewn all across the road, taking up much more space. Some sit in the same place for weeks.
The road outside my house is about 3x car widths across, there are private cars parked on either side (2/3rds of the total road space) for the full length of the road. Only one car can fit down the road at once, and pedestrians have limited pavement.
Why get so upset about a few scooters on the pavement, when there are cars literally everywhere in the way
The road outside my house is about 3x car widths across, there are private cars parked on either side (2/3rds of the total road space) for the full length of the road. Only one car can fit down the road at once, and pedestrians have limited pavement.
Why get so upset about a few scooters on the pavement, when there are cars literally everywhere in the way
I do not get how people can be totally chill with cars and blow a gasket over scooters. In my experience (mostly in Santa Monica, but also plenty of European cities) you will pass block after block of scooters parked correctly. Perhaps in a week you see one in a bad spot but hardly impassible nor a big deal but oh man people flip out over this. In my experience it's been 100% people who's central frame of reference and primary means of locomotion is driving their car around in the city who then start looking for reasons they dislike them. The arguments they come up with sound ridiculous compared to the damage they do with their cars.
I'm a cyclist in Stockholm and I hate electric scooters. They are commonly dumped in the bike lanes, sometimes standing up across them and, worse, on the ground right on the bike path.
I have to constantly get off my bike during summer months to move them away from the bike lanes, not only for myself but due to the danger to others less agile than I am. I even had a close encounter to one strewn across the ground right after a blind turn (due to summer vegetation) on a bridge crossing, if I didn't react quickly I'd have simply blasted over it going 20+ km/h... It'd be dangerous to any old person going downhill from the bridge.
It's a fucking disgrace that people feel they can just dump them on bike lanes, I can't educate everyone to set them in a proper place and I never had issues with bikes strewn across the pavement before, so electric scooters are a new danger on the road for me.
And I hate cars.
I have to constantly get off my bike during summer months to move them away from the bike lanes, not only for myself but due to the danger to others less agile than I am. I even had a close encounter to one strewn across the ground right after a blind turn (due to summer vegetation) on a bridge crossing, if I didn't react quickly I'd have simply blasted over it going 20+ km/h... It'd be dangerous to any old person going downhill from the bridge.
It's a fucking disgrace that people feel they can just dump them on bike lanes, I can't educate everyone to set them in a proper place and I never had issues with bikes strewn across the pavement before, so electric scooters are a new danger on the road for me.
And I hate cars.
I might depend on where you are. In Milwaukee scooters being parked improperly (really, ditched on the sidewalk) was a huge problem (they’re not back yet this year). Even the scooter companies would set them out blocking walkways, bus stop exits, etc.
It got better when the city finally started designating scooter parking areas on the streets last year, but they were too spineless to remove parking spaces in business districts so it was still a problem in those areas.
IMO the scooters would be great if we could designate parking areas on every busy block and have a system to strongly encourage parking there, but until then (as someone who doesn’t drive in the city) I don’t miss them that much.
It got better when the city finally started designating scooter parking areas on the streets last year, but they were too spineless to remove parking spaces in business districts so it was still a problem in those areas.
IMO the scooters would be great if we could designate parking areas on every busy block and have a system to strongly encourage parking there, but until then (as someone who doesn’t drive in the city) I don’t miss them that much.
In Berlin I literally trip over them as soon as I leave the house. I think the companies are intentionally blocking sidewalks as a sales tactic. They are also useless for me, because I have my own bicycle, I don't like their pricing model (incentivizes reckless driving and parking) and I haven't found an option yet that is privacy-friendly.
That they can use (block) the sidewalks as free ad space for their business seems to be a loophole that is just not patched yet.
That they can use (block) the sidewalks as free ad space for their business seems to be a loophole that is just not patched yet.
If I find one which is parked wrong (almost all) I move them over next to a garbage bin or put them onto the street since then they will be fined but not when parked on the sidewalk.
They use public space for private gain and block sidewalks, I have no incentive not to screw with them.
They use public space for private gain and block sidewalks, I have no incentive not to screw with them.
Yeah, when I find a car parked wrong (almost all) I key the paint. I have no incentive not to screw with them.
There is this guy who gets wrongfully parked cars towed by the police.
https://taz.de/Berliner-Aktivist-ueber-Falschparker/!5760190...
The recovery is probably more expensive than a small paint job though...
https://taz.de/Berliner-Aktivist-ueber-Falschparker/!5760190...
The recovery is probably more expensive than a small paint job though...
> The recovery is probably more expensive than a small paint job though...
So just to be clear, I'd never do this! But people who feel quite entitled to destroy property (OP's example of moving is mild, many people brag about throwing them in rivers/trash, etc.) tend to also get extremely upset about some random person keying their car.
So just to be clear, I'd never do this! But people who feel quite entitled to destroy property (OP's example of moving is mild, many people brag about throwing them in rivers/trash, etc.) tend to also get extremely upset about some random person keying their car.
> OP's example of moving is mild
Moving a scooter that is parked in the middle of the sidewalk is more constructive than destructive, because it unblocks other taxpayers without destroying anything. The scooter is still functional and shiny, just not parked prominently anymore.
I've seen a scooter that was thrown on a car's windshield, but that's something else and definitely not mild.
Moving a scooter that is parked in the middle of the sidewalk is more constructive than destructive, because it unblocks other taxpayers without destroying anything. The scooter is still functional and shiny, just not parked prominently anymore.
I've seen a scooter that was thrown on a car's windshield, but that's something else and definitely not mild.
> I move them over next to a garbage bin or put them onto the street since then they will be fined
Well it sounded to me the like the OP is not only attempting to harm the company but also unrelated third parties. A scooter in the street sounds much more dangerous besides.
Well it sounded to me the like the OP is not only attempting to harm the company but also unrelated third parties. A scooter in the street sounds much more dangerous besides.
It's always nice to spot a bad argument when someone is comparing a harmless action to a harmful one, since in my example only the end result was changed from not fining them when they should have been to actually fining them. These things are not allowed on sidewalks and the fine is the same for all vehicles regardless of type.
I feel your downvotes. I think people downvoting you have never truly lived in a city where cars can travel just fine (because, y'know, we built a lot of infrastructure around having cars), but these scooters are an actual threat and nuissance to people.
Where I live, in a city in Portugal, every single one of these companies (who somehow managed to get deals to place their scooters around) has turned the experience of walking or driving around much more miserable.
While walking, you constantly find these scooters thrown to the side, fallen and just overall misplaced. It is not uncommon to have to go around a bunch of scooters, thus stepping into the actual road and risking being run over. Back where I used to live, some idiots used to leave 3 or 4 of them just on the floor at my apartment's doorstep. No one cares, it's just more of a tool for loitering. And don't get me started on kids riding them down slopes while they have that annoying "you're not paying BEEEEEEEEP". Horrible noise pollution in parks where cars don't create such problems (because they don't GO in these parks). You are also sometimes unexpectedly just scared or intimidated by people using these scooters on the sidewalk at scary speeds. Our sidewalks are not built to handle scooters and people. I mean we can barely handle bikes in this city, how would we handle unregulated speedy scooters?
As a driver, these things are the bane of my existence. They are driven mostly by kids or irresponsible people. They should not use the road, but they do. They don't really follow the rules appropriately. Traffic either goes too slow behind them, which frustrates drivers and creates more traffic, or it goes too fast and risks everyone's lives.
Ever since I saw the first "Lime" scooters in my city, I have despised these things with all my soul. They have brought nothing but problems to me and those around me.
Maybe it's a cultural thing and we are just horrible people with no respect for others. But, as it stands, with lacking infrastructure and obviously lacking morals, I also sincerely hope these things disappear off the face of the earth (or, rather, _my_ earth -- my city).
Where I live, in a city in Portugal, every single one of these companies (who somehow managed to get deals to place their scooters around) has turned the experience of walking or driving around much more miserable.
While walking, you constantly find these scooters thrown to the side, fallen and just overall misplaced. It is not uncommon to have to go around a bunch of scooters, thus stepping into the actual road and risking being run over. Back where I used to live, some idiots used to leave 3 or 4 of them just on the floor at my apartment's doorstep. No one cares, it's just more of a tool for loitering. And don't get me started on kids riding them down slopes while they have that annoying "you're not paying BEEEEEEEEP". Horrible noise pollution in parks where cars don't create such problems (because they don't GO in these parks). You are also sometimes unexpectedly just scared or intimidated by people using these scooters on the sidewalk at scary speeds. Our sidewalks are not built to handle scooters and people. I mean we can barely handle bikes in this city, how would we handle unregulated speedy scooters?
As a driver, these things are the bane of my existence. They are driven mostly by kids or irresponsible people. They should not use the road, but they do. They don't really follow the rules appropriately. Traffic either goes too slow behind them, which frustrates drivers and creates more traffic, or it goes too fast and risks everyone's lives.
Ever since I saw the first "Lime" scooters in my city, I have despised these things with all my soul. They have brought nothing but problems to me and those around me.
Maybe it's a cultural thing and we are just horrible people with no respect for others. But, as it stands, with lacking infrastructure and obviously lacking morals, I also sincerely hope these things disappear off the face of the earth (or, rather, _my_ earth -- my city).
This pretty well reflects my scooter experience as a user for about a one mile ride one time. Trying to ride on the sidewalk of a downtown was painfully slow at walking speeds but seemed dangerous to pedestrians so I went into the street instead, and then I'm basically a pedestrian myself amongst the vehicles. I came away wondering how it's legal and why we don't hear about accidents constantly.
In Tel Aviv scooters have basically taken over sidewalks, but the local government is definitely partly to blame due to lack of enforcement.
I think scooters can be a great addition, but definitely not on the expense of pedestrian safety.
I think scooters can be a great addition, but definitely not on the expense of pedestrian safety.
There’s some in Tokyo as a trial and they are so much more pleasant. Can only be parked on private property (you can sign up to host them at your business), and they are lightweight since they apparently don’t need to be designed to withstand vandalism. They are supposed to only be used on the road, and you need a drivers license to operate them. The only downside is they can only go 15km/h and feel a bit dangerously slow in traffic at times.
You probably shouldn't be in traffic with them. At 15kmph bike lanes and even sidewalks look like good options.
Well for the most part, roads in Tokyo are narrow and shared by bikes, and on residential streets there are are also no separated sidewalks (pedestrians walk on the shoulder). Some larger roads have a road-based bike lane plus a separated sidewalk and some have a separated sidewalk with a sidewalk-based bike lane. You are allowed to ride the scooters on the road and road-based bike lanes. This is consistent with rules for other types of vehicles such as e-bikes and it mostly works well. I just wish the speed limiter was 25km/h (same as e-bikes) instead of 15km/h, because it's being passed by all other vehicles constantly that feels a bit sketchy.
Downvoters: how is a scooter going max 15kmph a danger to pedestrians? For sure it is a danger to its rider if put next to cars.
For the metrically challenged, that's a top speed of less than 9mph. It's not even the top running speed of the average person...
Note, are we talking about Vespa style scooters or kick-style scooters? For the second, yeah, if capped at low speeds, should be fine on sidewalks.
For the metrically challenged, that's a top speed of less than 9mph. It's not even the top running speed of the average person...
Note, are we talking about Vespa style scooters or kick-style scooters? For the second, yeah, if capped at low speeds, should be fine on sidewalks.
Kick-style but no, scooters on sidewalks in Tokyo would be terrible (for both pedestrians and scooterers).
Scooters would be a great solution for the last mile in the suburbs where you have to walk 1.5km from the subway to home.
This is where they are not.
Instead, scooters are in the ultra dense city center where you anyway have the choice between: bus, metro, light-rail, bikes and other modes of transport.
This is where everyone hates them.
This is the situation in Germany at least.
This is where they are not.
Instead, scooters are in the ultra dense city center where you anyway have the choice between: bus, metro, light-rail, bikes and other modes of transport.
This is where everyone hates them.
This is the situation in Germany at least.
> Scooters would be a great solution for the last mile in the suburbs where you have to walk 1.5km from the subway to home
Absolutely, but that is contradictory to those companies' business model. They try to maximize use, a single commuter taking the scooter from their home to the train/subway station 2 times a day is very little use. Owning or long term renting makes more sense for that use case, and there's little a startup could bring there.
Absolutely, but that is contradictory to those companies' business model. They try to maximize use, a single commuter taking the scooter from their home to the train/subway station 2 times a day is very little use. Owning or long term renting makes more sense for that use case, and there's little a startup could bring there.
I worked at a micro-mobility company and spent a lot of time working with local officials via the company's government relations team. I assure you in London specifically the local officials did anything but bend over to enable micro-mobility.
[deleted]
Good.
Poison on streets
Talk about flipping the Bird to your staff.
How did these companies overestimate demand so much? Surely they could have seen that the demand from the pandemic years was an anomaly and not a sustainable "new normal"?