They Said You Could Leave Scooters Anywhere, Then the Repo Men Struck Back(theverge.com)
theverge.com
They Said You Could Leave Scooters Anywhere, Then the Repo Men Struck Back
https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/24/20696405/dockless-scooters-share-repo-men-repossessor-lawsuit-tow-yard-lime-bird-lyft-uber-razor
43 comments
I live in San Diego, and have followed this with great interest. From my understanding, they are only doing this for scooters that are parked illegally: e.g. on the shop owners property, blocking vehicle access, etc.
It's very interesting, because the riders don't have an incentive to park appropriately (and that is sometimes a guessing game -- street signs don't exist for where you can park scooters legally). However, I'd warrant that it's the sheer carelessness of riders who cause this issue.
Without people like these repo folks, there would be no disincentive for either the riders or the scooter companies. The riders don't care (and making them care would hurt the companies' growth/user retention -- part of the appeal is that "drop anywhere" thing).
In short, I see no problem with this. We allow tow truck companies to do the same, with private citizens as the victims. This only forces the scooter companies to solve the problem they created.
It's very interesting, because the riders don't have an incentive to park appropriately (and that is sometimes a guessing game -- street signs don't exist for where you can park scooters legally). However, I'd warrant that it's the sheer carelessness of riders who cause this issue.
Without people like these repo folks, there would be no disincentive for either the riders or the scooter companies. The riders don't care (and making them care would hurt the companies' growth/user retention -- part of the appeal is that "drop anywhere" thing).
In short, I see no problem with this. We allow tow truck companies to do the same, with private citizens as the victims. This only forces the scooter companies to solve the problem they created.
> because the riders don't have an incentive to park appropriately (and that is sometimes a guessing game -- street signs don't exist for where you can park scooters legally). However, I'd warrant that it's the sheer carelessness of riders who cause this issue.
i think this is not exactly correct. The scooter-riding apps i've tried do make users take a photograph of the correctly-parked scooter after the ride, and even if there wasn't that enforcement in place, if the riders are to use the service more than once, they have an incentive to leave the scooters in positions that will be amenable for further riding.
i'm not denying that the riders can be arseholes, but there's also a significant proportion of people who don't use the scooters but are angry at the presence of those scooters and vandalize them, push them over, and even drop them into bodies of water.
i think this is not exactly correct. The scooter-riding apps i've tried do make users take a photograph of the correctly-parked scooter after the ride, and even if there wasn't that enforcement in place, if the riders are to use the service more than once, they have an incentive to leave the scooters in positions that will be amenable for further riding.
i'm not denying that the riders can be arseholes, but there's also a significant proportion of people who don't use the scooters but are angry at the presence of those scooters and vandalize them, push them over, and even drop them into bodies of water.
make users take a photograph of the correctly-parked scooter
I think the incentive should be to call the police and have them impound it in a legal way, or just move it off of their property, not have a private party come and steal the scooters. Just because something is on your property, does not mean you can legally take it - if you park in my driveway, I can't just steal your car.
Replace "steal" with "call a registered tow company" and you can do exactly that - have someone remove an improperly-placed item from your property. Cities solved the problem of improperly-parked cars by creating the entire "towing" concept.
Police aren't a service for junk removal, they are for holding guns. You hire a moving company to remove junk and you get the police to come hold guns if the junk-leaver threatens to do you harm because of same.
Police aren't a service for junk removal, they are for holding guns. You hire a moving company to remove junk and you get the police to come hold guns if the junk-leaver threatens to do you harm because of same.
Impounding isn't the same thing as throwing them into a dumpster.
Likewise, unless it is registered as a vehicle (and I doubt these scooters are), impounding probably wouldn't happen, and there is no law against tossing abandoned "garbage" that appears on your property.
Interesting. Precedence will eventually be set and then we'll know.
Likewise, unless it is registered as a vehicle (and I doubt these scooters are), impounding probably wouldn't happen, and there is no law against tossing abandoned "garbage" that appears on your property.
Interesting. Precedence will eventually be set and then we'll know.
What if you have a dozen people show up every morning and leave their pickup anywhere leave anywhere car rentals in your driveway?
Call the police, or (in the case of the scooters), move it off of your property. I mean I sympathize with the property owners encountering problems, but I'm pretty sure it is very illegal to just impound other peoples property like this. If it was an individual property owner taking scooters off their property and throwing them in some dumpster after they got fed up with them, I wouldn't really blame them, but making a business centered around stealing property just to shake down scooter companies and reduce competition for your bike shop doesn't seem very legal or ethical.
https://www.sanfranciscopolice.org/sites/default/files/FileC...
Every state/city is a little different with regard to the specifics
Every state/city is a little different with regard to the specifics
That's not how it works for cars why would it be different for scooters? You generally can't call police to impound a car parked on your private property. That's why you call a towing company.
Police contract out this sort of work to companies like the one in the article.
So the Scooter companies business model is built on a gap in local regulations allowing them to leave there products anywhere without recourse and they are now upset with another business model that found a gap in their gap? Get me some popcorn.
Not that I am a Bird defender, but people dump things all of the time.
Go to the store, buy a bike, get a flat eventually, "screw it im chucking it in the field over there"
Now definitely the rate of people dumping rented bird scooters is higher than everything else, but the real issue is the behavior of riders for not at least trying to be tidy in storing the scooter.
Go to the store, buy a bike, get a flat eventually, "screw it im chucking it in the field over there"
Now definitely the rate of people dumping rented bird scooters is higher than everything else, but the real issue is the behavior of riders for not at least trying to be tidy in storing the scooter.
Sure, but that's a person deciding to litter instead of using the trash for a product they no longer want to use. In this case littering is part of the normal use of the product.
> and they are now upset with another business model that found /their gap is actually well-covered by existing towing law/
FTFY
FTFY
Totally. They're making almost criminally high margins while they wait for the law to catch up. The story of several disruptive startups.
Couldn't the scooter companies negotiate with businesses and get permission? Maybe pay businesses to install docking stations. The scooters get advertising when people see the station. The restaurant or hotel gets advertisment on the scooter app as a designated docking station. And the business can tow unwelcome scooters not in the dock. Just like they are allowed to tow cars.
Seems like the scooter startups think they're special and permits and regulations don't apply to them.
Seems like the scooter startups think they're special and permits and regulations don't apply to them.
They can't because their business is fundamentally built on the "leave anywhere" promise to their customers, who are the ones that actually leave the scooters illegally.
There's just no customer-acceptable way of disincentivizing their bad behavior and unlike parked cars, the scooters can be trivially moved from "legal" to "illegal" parking by a single person, which means that the customer may not even be at fault.
There's just no customer-acceptable way of disincentivizing their bad behavior and unlike parked cars, the scooters can be trivially moved from "legal" to "illegal" parking by a single person, which means that the customer may not even be at fault.
Their first client was Borelli’s frustrated landlord. From there, more business followed.
“We did not seek anybody out, those property owners came to us,” Heinkel says.
I looked at one of the pictures and counted 19 scooters. It's hard for me not to think that this is an externality that the scooter company should have thought of and planned for, to preserve goodwill.
“We did not seek anybody out, those property owners came to us,” Heinkel says.
I looked at one of the pictures and counted 19 scooters. It's hard for me not to think that this is an externality that the scooter company should have thought of and planned for, to preserve goodwill.
Based on their (lack of) interactions with local governments, goodwill does not seem to be one of their chief concerns.
It seems like everyone here is in the wrong? A service that moves scooters to proper locations is necessary but these two are clearly in it for the money. It would be easier, cheaper and better for everyone involved if they just moved the scooters to the sidewalk. Holding them ransom behind razorwire is just an attempt to get money while hiding behind a thin veil of public service.
Lime/Bird meanwhile trying to get their property back while minimizing potential PR nightmares that spotlight the harm they cause.
Standard case of humans being humans and trying to get money while maintaining the moral high ground.
Lime/Bird meanwhile trying to get their property back while minimizing potential PR nightmares that spotlight the harm they cause.
Standard case of humans being humans and trying to get money while maintaining the moral high ground.
If the scooter companies were playing ball, they would have a place to return scooters to that a tow team could bring the offending scooters back to instead of their lot. The alternative of 'dump it on a public sidewalk' is a terrible suggestion. If they get 100 scooters on their property are they supposed to stack them like cordwood and block a public way? I wouldn't say it is masquerading as a public service, these are just some people being paid for labour. A business owner would have to expend resources moving all of these scooters, so they outsource this effort to a tow team and ask them to look for compensation from the scooter owners which are the large companies in lieu of direct payment.
Instead the scooter companies try to defer all responsibility to the riders and charging contractors. The scooter companies have an equal opportunity to pay for a different kind of contractor to fix scooters that are parked poorly, or pay the tow team that collects them on behalf of private property owners. If the private property owners are not permitted to destroy/dispose of the scooters as trash, it is only reasonable for them to be removed and the scooter companies pay up for the nuisance.
Instead? They are going to courts, which they will lose. So they may try to get some local ordinances/laws in their favour instead. Once again it's just a gamble to hit it big before the hammer comes down, and I wish this scooter generation of companies learned from Uber/Lyft and work with the communities instead of just taking advantage of their goodwill and make it harder for the next companies to try the next big idea. I can't place these tow guys in the wrong here, it is unreasonable to force a private property owner to manage whatever non-trash things end up being dumped on it on behalf of the thing's owner at the property owner's expense.
Instead the scooter companies try to defer all responsibility to the riders and charging contractors. The scooter companies have an equal opportunity to pay for a different kind of contractor to fix scooters that are parked poorly, or pay the tow team that collects them on behalf of private property owners. If the private property owners are not permitted to destroy/dispose of the scooters as trash, it is only reasonable for them to be removed and the scooter companies pay up for the nuisance.
Instead? They are going to courts, which they will lose. So they may try to get some local ordinances/laws in their favour instead. Once again it's just a gamble to hit it big before the hammer comes down, and I wish this scooter generation of companies learned from Uber/Lyft and work with the communities instead of just taking advantage of their goodwill and make it harder for the next companies to try the next big idea. I can't place these tow guys in the wrong here, it is unreasonable to force a private property owner to manage whatever non-trash things end up being dumped on it on behalf of the thing's owner at the property owner's expense.
Why would they spend 12 hours day 7 days a week doing what the rider should have done in the first place? If the companies gave incentives for riders to put the scooters in those places these two wouldn't have a business model.
Nope, only the scooter companies.
So how is them 'being in it for the money' any different from any other type of repossessor? I'm not aware of any tow truck operators that do the work as a charity or public service. If the scooter companies had any sort of plan to reburse people for moving the scooters to appropriate parking places, then I would feel differently, but AFAIK none of the scooter companies operates such a program.
I side with the scooter companies. I think these guys are exploiting a gray area in the law and shaking down the companies, and should be stopped. GPS should be able to show it a scooter was in a legit place or not. If it was, then their argument goes out the window. It just smells too much like theft.
"If [a scooter was in a legit place], then their argument goes out the window."
What about if it wasn't, if it was square on the private property of whoever called the towers?
What about if it wasn't, if it was square on the private property of whoever called the towers?
Like the scooter companies and riders aren't exploiting a gray area? Most areas the law is perfectly clear, if you park in an unlawful space, you will be towed at owner's expense. The police don't have anything to do with it, unless you're parked in a revenue generating space for the city.
GPS may not be accurate enough, especially in urban areas. And the current geofence isn't detailed enough. For example: it doesn't account for things like a wheelchair ramp from a private property intersecting with a public walkway.
In San Francisco, scooters were picked up by the city and impounded. I don't see why it's unfair for private property owners to do the same.
In San Francisco, scooters were picked up by the city and impounded. I don't see why it's unfair for private property owners to do the same.
Anyone who's parked a car often in dense areas knows the distance between legal and illegal parking is as small as the width of the bumper you stuck into the fire lane.
GPS just can't help with that.
GPS just can't help with that.
The end of the article sums up the repossessors' argument quite nicely:
“If you take all the BS that they’ve thrown out, and you take our BS, and you take it down, it’s a very simple concept,” Heinkel says. “They have taken their stuff and placed it on someone else’s property without permission.”
“Now that’s them, and here’s us. We’re two guys who went to the property owners and got permission with that property owner to remove that stuff off their property. That’s all it is.”
“If you take all the BS that they’ve thrown out, and you take our BS, and you take it down, it’s a very simple concept,” Heinkel says. “They have taken their stuff and placed it on someone else’s property without permission.”
“Now that’s them, and here’s us. We’re two guys who went to the property owners and got permission with that property owner to remove that stuff off their property. That’s all it is.”
So in america, if something is on my private property, it becomes mine?
It sounds like the only reason they can hold the scooters "ransom" is because they were found on private property.
It sounds like the only reason they can hold the scooters "ransom" is because they were found on private property.
> So in america, if something is on my private property, it becomes mine?
No, I think the argument is the same as with a car being impounded:
1. You left shit on my property.
2. It's still yours, but I had to move it off my property.
3. The problem you created has cost me money.
4. You need to reimburse me. I'll hold onto the item for collateral.
No, I think the argument is the same as with a car being impounded:
1. You left shit on my property.
2. It's still yours, but I had to move it off my property.
3. The problem you created has cost me money.
4. You need to reimburse me. I'll hold onto the item for collateral.
Even if it is on private property, that doesn't mean you can take it. If you park on someone else's driveway, they don't get to take your car.
But they do get to have it towed from their property, and you pay the fees for that right?
If the police tow it, I'm sure the owner of the car would have to pay the fees. If the property owner tows it, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't (although it may vary by state). At least in Toronto, you are allowed to tow a car from your property, but not charge the owner for the tow [1].
[1] https://www.toronto.ca/311/knowledgebase/kb/docs/articles/mu...
[1] https://www.toronto.ca/311/knowledgebase/kb/docs/articles/mu...
San Diego typically the owner of the vehicle pays the fees when its towed from private property not the owner of the property. It seems the lawsuit is based around considering the fees are higher than legally allowed.
https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/cityatto...
https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/cityatto...
...unless the property owner has posted signs with the law.
It says if they have posted signs with the law, they can contact the police to issue a ticket (and tow, presumably). The formatting is a bit messed up, but you are required to both have the signs, and contact the police, you can't just tow it without calling the police, and require the owner to pay for the tow.
[deleted]
But to Borelli, it seemed that the scooter industry was really trying to replace bicycles. He threw the offending scooters in the dumpster, but they were quickly replaced by more scooters
So a bike shop owner didn't like the competition, and decided to start stealing scooters and throwing them in dumpsters? I have sympathy for people who don't like the scooters on the sidewalk (I'm one of those people), but don't act like you are taking some kind of honest businessman just trying to help the public. This whole thing is just a way to justify eliminating competition for this guys bike shop. Started out throwing them in dumpsters, and moved to "impounding" them and issuing them tickets (not sure why he thinks he has the authority to do that) to try and justify it.