Hmm? Its not uncommon for there to be freely usable bike racks on most city streets. I see them all over Seattle, predating bikeshares by years in most cases.

Right, so when Bird funds some scooter racks and starts ensuring their scooter are stored there, cities will stop impounding them. In the meantime it's like if I left my bike in the middle of the sidewalk somewhere - if it doesn't get stolen, I can expect it to get cleaned up by some other means.

Edit: While writing another comment it occurred to me that these scooters are exactly like the shopping carts you see abandoned around stores. Either the stores collect them or the city does - but either way they're basically large bits of litter for anyone not in need of a shopping cart at the moment.

I'm sure Bird wouldn't appreciate this analogy, because it's deeply unsexy.

I'm surprised by how brazen they are. Why Bird doesn't get fined for that?

> Its not uncommon for there to be freely usable bike racks on most city streets

Exactly. Specific places to put your bike. Not just a random spot on the sidewalk.

This is one method of getting laws changed.

Donating scooters to the city under the current laws isn't particularly effect give method of getting the laws changed.

Paying the city through impounded scooters would probably be close to the top least cost-effective lobbying method ever.

I think cities have wised up since AinBnB and Uber that saying “we’ll wait and see” while the corporation gets strong is not a winning strategy for regulators.

If getting hundreds of scooters impounded and auctioned off is a good strategy for Bird, their business strategy is too subtle for me to follow.

Civil disobedience is one thing, corporate disobedience is another.