Dystooppisen Meta-somen puolella näin Otso Kivekkään kirjoituksen kestävästä liikenteestä vihreässä kaupungissa. Vuokralaudat eivät toki ole kirjoituksen pääasia, mutta kun niille ja kaupunkipyörille on oma osionsa, niin kävin sen lukemassa.
Koitin metaversumin keskustelukentässä kysellä, että miksei näiden parkkeerausta saada kuntoon, koska noita merkittyjä parkkipaikkoja on vain kantakaupungissa, ja esim. lähiöissä täys sekoilu, eikä toi Hesarin toimittajia kestitsevä yhteiskuntasuhdevastaava käy keräilemässä noita firmansa lautoja veks, vaikka pyytää. Vastaukseksi sain vain, että siirreltävien ruokakojujen säätely todettiin laittomaksi, ja että niitä saa parkkeerailla minne vaan missä eivät ole vaaraksi tai haitaksi.
Kiinnostaa edelleen se, että eikö kaupunki voi todeta, että nyt kaikki vuokralaudat parkkeerataan telakoihin, koska muuten niitä jätetään vaaraksi & haitaksi.
PS. Eilen just ajellessani poikittain Pohjois-Helsingistä Itä-Hesalaan, iloitsin siitä, että ei ainuttakaan lautaa kevarilla, alikuluissa tai muuten vaarallisesti. Ja eikö sitten sellaisessa erityisen tympeässä mäkisessä kevyen liikenteen väylien risteyksessä, jossa paikoin huono näkyvyys, ollut lautoja seisomassa ja makoilmeassa keskellä väylää. Siirtäminen onnistui, mutta kyrsii silti.
Lakeja voi kuulemma muuttaa, mikä toki varsinkaan liikenne- ja viestintäministeriön hallinnonalalla ei välttämättä tarkoita, että niitä voi muuttaa myös paremmiksi.
Mä jotenkin toivoisin, että tässä saisi muistettua tolkun, jos tiedätte mitä tarkoitan, ilman, että tarvitsee muuttaa lainsäädäntöä.
Mutta kävisi mulle sekin, että lakia säätävä elin sätää lakeja uusien tilanteiden pohjalta
Saas nähä mikä on ollut oikea tilanne, mutta uuttisointi hieman eriä jos ois ollu polkupörä kyseessä.
” HENKILÖAUTO on törmännyt sähköpotkulautailijaan”
” Poliisin tehtävä on edelleen kesken, eivätkä tapauksen tarkemmat yksityiskohdat ole toistaiseksi johtokeskuksen tiedossa.” -tapahtuneesta reipas 3h jutun kirjottamiseen että aika epäselvää on virkavallalla
” Naisen mukaan sähköpotkulauta oli ajautunut auton alle.”
Suhteellisen suurella todennäköisyydellä kääntyvä auto törmännyt skuuttiin. No, tuleekohan koskaan päivitystä ja selvyyttä tähän. Ois kiva tietää case.
Harvemmi pyörä ajautuu auton alle, saati auto olisi törmännyt tahi pöräilijällä ollu/ollut olematta kypärää-maininnat.
Milläs tää helpoiten onnistuu? Ei taida ihan koivutuohi ja tulitikku riittää.
Vai onko ympäristöystävällisempää heittää järveen? Kuinka nopeasti tuolta akustosta alkaa levitä haitallista vesistöön?
Mutta nehän syttyy ihan itsestään, ks. ed.
Interesting point from this article is that there apparently was attempt to control the issues through legislation.
From a Guardian article on the same topic:
"Operators were supposed to give the mayor’s office access to their data and were ordered to implement technology that forced customers to leave the scooters in authorised areas and prevented them from hiring scooters in pedestrian-only streets or near historic parks
The operators failed to meet these conditions, the statement said, adding that they had 20 days to appeal"
It seems the only language these companies understand is their profitability. We know this already, but it is clearly demonstrated when there is presented a reasonable option to continue operating, but this would somehow impact the bottom-line.
Despite the huge investments, most if not all of these companies are losing more money than ever. So, I can’t help but think they are playing a game of economic chicken with each other, at the cost of the public. I suspect in cases like Madrid, the operators will now come crawling back to the table and promise to really follow the rules this time, after hopefully losing some competition.
It pains me to imagine what $1.9B of investment, which was raised by Bolt alone, would do for functional public transportation. The return on this investment would probably even be better than pissing it away in theses venture-funded scooters. Once the companies collapse or are forced out, any genuine usefulness they may have offered to users will vaporize without a trace. In the end nothing was ever created. Another great wealth-extraction scheme.
Capitalism is a helluva drug.
Edit: Fixed the links.
Excellent points, like all of them.
Especially the fact, that these start-ups funded by venture capital are notoriously bad for any long-term projects and planning, which transport and city planning should involve, because the goal often is to create “something” which attracts investment and can be sold later to others, who then aim to sell it for even more.
So the goal is not necessarily even to make a sustainable of functioning service, but something which seems lucrative to some investors. This is a good point of departure for a pyramid scam, but not really for organizing our public spaces or transport—certainly not in the long term.
What I find particularly irritating is that first the companies come in with the attitude of “move fast and break things”, create all sorts of problems (as now with parking and accidents) and then try to present themselves as necessary partners in solving the problems they created in the first place. For example with former politicians hired as lobbyists lobbying for the city to contract the biggest of these companies to organize the e-scoot rental, and thereby get a cemented and publicly funded position.
Of course, such a regulated situation would be be better than no regulation at all, but because the harms of e-scoot rental (and e-scoots in general) still IMO by far outweigh the benefits, I’d rather see a ban along the lines of Paris and Madrid. Also, because I would not want to reward the companies with public contracts for fixing a mess they intentionally created.
Btw. I can’t open the links you posted. Is it just me or can you re-post the articles, as they seem really interesting?
Links should work now, thanks for notifying.
As you point out, I think the main problem with this whole situation is the business approach adopted by the operators. On a surface-level, there is a claim to address very real issues of sustainability and urban mobility. This is fueled by healthy dose of techno-optimism. In my cynical opinion, these are mostly marketing tricks. Much like auto manufacturers’ claims that self-driving is designed to enhance safety, scooter operator claims that they offer anything new or helpful is dubious at best.
If the goal is to increase mobility, there is existing infrastructure to expand on. If the goal is to make money, this can also be a profitable enterprise. However, those projects take years, if not decades, to develop. This option would be very expensive, and requires a high-level of planning and technical oversight. In contrast, it is quite easy to obtain a pocket full of cash from investors, purchase a shipping container of electric scooters from an overseas supplier, and you’re off to the races. This is much more appealing to investors who have no real interest in building or managing a company in the long term. Number just needs to go up.
I would further argue that this approach, as you mentioned, to “move fast and break things” is particularly unforgivable when considering the scooter operators. Usually the justification for this rapid development is to accelerate a new technology. In the case of e-scooters, there is not anything fundamentally new or innovative. That they function at all as vehicles is thanks to the improvements in battery technology bought about by personal electronics.
There is strong case that the mineral resources used for those batteries would be better used electrifying bicycles, as scooters may actually reduce physical activity and are themselves not really very safe. (this is not best evidence, as I do not have direct comparison to cycling, but interesting nonetheless, and anecdotally scooters are quite shit to ride)
The uncomfortable truth for many of the companies is that the only innovative technology they offer is the blatant disregard for social responsibility in their use of public spaces and resources. This is not an ‘unfortunate side effect’ of an otherwise positive technological innovation. This antisocial behavior is the key element that allows them to operate at all.
It is hard to argue they bring any real advantage over an electrified city bike, apart from being able to leave the scooters anywhere and everywhere. Any attempt to regulate is met with squeals that this would “restrict competition , increasing the costs for riders, which discourages the adoption of sustainable modes of transport” An unsurprising conclusion from a Deloitte study commissioned by Bolt
This kind of neoliberal brain fever is dangerous and distracts from actually working together towards better transport, cities, and environment.
tämä antaa voimaa ja toivoa
Tuli mieleen, että mullahan on laatikossa tommosia leveitä, tosi jämyjä nippusiteitäkin iso nippu
Yv porukalla ajo teemalla lautojen niputus?
Olis varmaan ihan hyvä tehdä joku koulutussessio painavien lautojen turvallisesta siirtelystä. Mulla on muutama varma vinkki jolla välttää vammat, mutta en nyt ehdi kirjoittamaan niitä nettiin…
Oliskohan lopettanut toimintaansa, jos olisi vaan nätisti siivottu laudat sivummas kulkuväyliltä? Tuskin.