It was one of the cited reasons, yes:

>Uber said it had decided to destroy thousands of its older-model vehicles due to maintenance, liability and safety concerns.

(At risk of sounding mean or bitter, I was originally planning to post that quote as a top-level comment, but I was like, "come on, that's so short and unhelpful and high in the article, that anyone wondering it would just click the link, right?")

Groups who donate have had legal protections for years. They're just being Uber.

Right, because all the people wanting this would do more than just go silent when the first bike explodes on someone it was donated to.

The reality is that it's a PR nightmare. One of them fails and all those advocating donations just instantly fall silent. It's like they were never there. And there'll be a massive furore over how these are being dumped on innocent people who were not properly informed, etc. etc.

Oh, I'm not saying you'll be part of the mob. Just that you'll walk away. That's why no one listens to the advocates who have no skin in the game. They are fair weather friends.

And then there'll be the lawsuits. And you either win those painfully or you settle (and everyone assumes you did because you're guilty).

over 1 million cars, in every condition including unsafe to drive and about to explode, get donated every year. 0 lawsuits. zero.

These stories of overly litigious malcontents ruining the do-gooders of the world, it's just that, a story.

Donating these electric bikes would have be fine. Uber destroyed them for the same reason that textbook manufacturers and high end fashion destroys their product instead of donating them, because the slightest imagined possibility of a risk to their ego, brand, or margins are more important than a clear and tangible benefit to society. Everything we've heard about uber tells us this is exactly what they'd do, they're assholes.

Look at the companies ex-uber people did, they're all asshole companies like Bird or that ex-uber guy that google successfully sued for $179 million for stealing their ip. I've met with uber at work, they strung us along, telling us literally anything, trying to get all the intel they can, but then got pissed off and start yelling at us when we asked for legal paperwork prior to disclosure of business IP. I've seen people played that way before and I always look out for these kind of spy ruses -- last company that I saw do it was GoDaddy.

Of course they'll crush the bikes and no, it has nothing to do with fear of lawsuits, they're just jerks like that.

Scrap metal and batteries have a positive value.

No, I apologize, I got that thought after reading that statement; nuance here is the optics of exploding batteries is way worse than food poisoning.

For the record, absent some kind of serious negligence, there is no risk of any restaurant or grocer being sued for donating food. The US (and elsewhere I'm sure) has Good Samaritan laws to protect the donors.

It amazes me how prevalent this myth is.

(See my comment elsewhere in this thread for citations)

There’s a company that helps companies do this for food: https://www.gocopia.com/

How do they protect the restaurants against getting sued?

From their help page, it looks like a combination of a making recipients sign a waiver, following best practices, and an insurance policy.

https://www.gocopia.com/help#business-4

Destroying the bikes would actually also be an equivalent write-off. Since Uber has no profits, it pays no taxes.

Businesses are taxed on many more than things other than profit.

SF has a gross receipts tax, my dude. There are payroll taxes as well.

I don't think you can write off expenses against payroll taxes.

It's not that simple. Uber as a company definitely pays taxes at the city, state, and federal level.