Litter in SF.
Posted on 09/12/2018 4:24:04 AM PDT by Kaslin
We just got TWO different companies offering them in Indianapolis.
Many pros and cons occurring.
A LOT cheaper than a Segway; but a LOT dumber than a Roombot.
Come on engineers; combine technologies and produce a critter that can dock and recharge ITSELF!
See my post #7
Who is “they”? The local large and obnoxious urban outdoorsman population? Anti-scooter SJWs? Other?
I like how you think!
How do they get Recharged?
“A crap related accident”
I hear ya. Can you belive you even had to write those words? Unbelievable.
Wasn’t that the idea behind the Segway, before they became a punch line?
Litter in SF.
Lots of people in a city can’t even walk with any degree of situational awareness, let alone ride a bicycle or scooter. I don’t know about scooters, but their small wheels, limited range and no brakes don’t inspire confidence. On the other hand, E-bikes (i.e. pedal assist) are wonderful-especially with older riders that can’t do hills very well anymore. They easily pay for themselves in a few years in all the short car trips you avoid. But I don’t get why the need for a communist-style sharing program where no one cares about the equipment because some bureaucracy owns it. Isn’t that why public housing always looks slum-like? If you like the idea of a lithium powered pedalac that gets you all over the city for 10 cents a day, invest in it-buy an e-bike, maintain it and use it.
What happens when that small front wheel hits a pothole? Prang.
What happens when that small front wheel hits a pothole? Prang.
Maybe the same could be done for San Francisco, report every pile of .......
>>I’ve never been a fan of any business model that is built on simply exploiting loopholes in existing laws and regulations.
As a person who values freedom, I’m not a fan of passing new regulations to close “loopholes” in existing laws and regulations. In fact, I am a fan of opening new loopholes.
Uber, for example, is basically a mobile phone app for gypsy cabs.
In NYC, it's funny how the same people who are mounting a big PR campaign to expand Uber's presence in the city on the basis of "free-market capitalism and limited regulation" somehow don't see it that way when it involves a Puerto Rican driving an unregistered, uninsured 15-passenger van to pick up passengers in the Bronx.
A business model exploiting loopholes? How about free market enterprise? How about an overbearing government that regulates and places a law on everything? Here a fun little game I was introduced to years ago. Name one animate object that doesn’t have a law attached to it or isn’t regulated.
The scary thing is you cannot and what’s even scarier is people want more regulations more laws. God forbid an entrepreneur should come up with a revolutionary idea, place it into practice and build a business model “exploiting loopholes” that becomes a public success only for big government to swoop in for their slop at the trough. This has nothing to do with public safety and 100% to do with Governemnt not getting their cut. “Permits” is code for word for “in addition to the taxes your company already pays we are going to gouge you for another 5k per unit you operate. This way we can employ another large beauracracy that does nothing but collect checks”
ANYTHING can be stolen!
>>Then just get rid of the regulations entirely.
Logic dictates that it does not have to be an all or nothing proposition. An uninsured scooter is quite different from an uninsured 15 passenger van. At least, that makes sense to me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.