> that encourage more walkable cities and greener commutes

People using a bike that lasts 20 year is much greener than a shared scooter that dies after 100 days of use.

Having more walkable communities start with removing cars from the streets, adding density, by planning our cities. There is no magic tech that will fix the status quo.

Early bikes probably had similar reliability problems. Once the scooter design stabilizes, we will see refurbished units and mass recycling of consumables.

There is nothing inherently wasteful or prone to rapid breakdown in scooters; the fact that there is economic reason to dump them after 100 days only points out how inefficient is everything else and how improperly we tax environmental damage.

They are prone to break down as complex machines dumped in random locations out in the weather.

Scooters can last for years if kept inside and well cared for.

Right, but this is about shared scooters without any of that.

The point more about a shared vehicle being more wasteful than a privately owned one:

Bikesharing in China resulted in many times more bikes being produced than ones owned privately. Even insurance and license demanding schemes like LiuBike (they rent electric 50cc equivalents) ran into that, despite their vehicles not being as "disposable" as flopped Mobike.

Time of life isn't important, duration and ridden distance are. If a bike you have for 20 years only moves you 100 miles (probably less for most bike owners due to low utilizatio ) but a shared scooter can make it ~500 miles in 100 days, the scooter is better.

D: I rode my bike 7400 miles the first year owning it, (12 km single way commute and using it for going everywhere else as well).

100 miles is just two weeks of a 5 mile commute =/

I'm considering the average American adult bicycle owner. You would very much be the exception. Biking is generally considered a leisure activity, not for commuting.

Everyone should be like you, but the infrastructure doesn't support it yet in most cities. Safety in a fully A -> B network is required. Driving more micromobility traffic will cause infrastructure changes in the long run

You're correct, but 5 miles/yr is a rather low average, no? That's a single commute.

Bikes are much better in general, especially electric. However, if we are comparing to usage today, a tiny tiny fraction of bike owners commute. Most adults will probably take it out for a ride less than 10 times a year, and for a super short rides. I don't have any stats, just based on observations.

I am all for shared micromobility everywhere. Would love to see a healthy mix of scooters, bikes, and mopeds on nearly every corner (in dedicated converted car parking spaces)

However, somebody who is commuting daily on their bike is replacing it and/or most of its components a lot more often than once every 20 years.

Having to exert yourself so much all day isn't an option for everyone

But it would be an option for more people if they had to do it every day.

I bike to work, so a little sweat, I'm okay with. But, say, I needed to do a round-trip mile down on a warm afternoon in my work-clothes, biking is not really a viable option. But an e-scooter is, one that is competitive in price to a cab or uber, and without the parking hassle of driving your own car.

You have to compare a scooter being used 24/7 as a rental with a bike being used similarly. Pretty sure docked or dockless ride share bikes need a lot of maintenance too.

> There's important findings in here, but it also reminds me of reactions to Prius, Tesla, public buses, etc., where people latch on to any viable excuse to continue their wasteful status quo.

I think the point raised in here is that taking the bus or biking is generally more environmentally friendly. Existing solutions are already better for this particular metric.

The one thing this article hints at is that riders may have taken a more wasteful option had the scooters not been there. But it's only one survey.

I saw a scooter traveling in a bike lane, and it seems like encouraging that combined with more bike lanes could be great. Traveling by car or transit with a bike to go the last few miles in the bay area is common, and I am honked at and cut off and pulled over almost every day on my bike and it could be better, as there is no economical bike path even between big cities on the peninsula just 5-10 miles apart... scooters could be used all along my daily path and bikes would instantly fill the lanes. Maids and landscapers could also switch to utility bikes if we connected wealthy and poor areas.

I mean the european continent (not so much the UK sadly) has shown that if you build a connected thought out cycle network it will get used heavily.

I was out with my stepson for a ride today and the UK is failing poorly on this one.

But there are cities where it's not a good solution due to hills and bad weather.

I think the main problem with these stand on scooters is their semi-disposability. The sit-on scooters (like the ones from Scoot/GenZe) are likely way more durable, people also likely treat them way better and overall have a better impact on environment. Moreover, they fit into traffic patterns a lot better (they fit well into traffic rules, whereas the stand on ones are often in a grey zone like sidewalks, etc).

No, at least from my experience in China.

People like new, shiny bikes more and companies who bet on making "unkillable" bicycles lost out as nobody wanted to ride grimey, dirty, squeaky, and generally worn out bicycles.

Ones who gained a lot were ones who bet on flimsy, but more frequently and cheaply replaceable bikes.

Why not use e-bikes instead, where the user paddles along with the motor?