I'd go a step beyond and claim that e-bike sharing services like Lime are extremely detrimental to an urban space while adding nothing to mobility and sustainability. They are mainly gimmicks used to litter urban spaces whose only purpose is to serve as a kind of coin-operated joyrides. These operators come in and dump truckloads of things onto the public space, scatter them around, and pretend that this is ok.
This ban has nothing to do with e-whatever, environment, mobility, or even economy. It's getting rid of an abusive practice that was a net loss for everyone involved.
Cars are indeed a cancer on all urban spaces, and one which has been granted too much privileges for decades.
The Netherlands' Jokinen Plan[1] is widely used as the epitome of idiocy that we get by designing cities around cars.
But the fact is that services provided by multinationals like Lime do nothing to address this issue. People do not drop their cars for ebikes just because a multinational dropped one on the sidewalk.
Also, it's a red herring to portray services provided by multinationals like Lime as synonyms for replacing cars with alternatives. They do nothing of the sort, and it misrepresents the problem. Companies like Lime scatter crap around cities with impunity and expect the public to just suck it up. Any small business owner who did a fraction of the abusive practices of occupying the public space would be fined into bankruptcy.
I own a car. About 2 years ago I bought a an escooter and since then I almost never used the car, even in winter (with snow and below 0°C cold).
I was hoping that car users would at least try a rental ebike/escooter, see how easy it is to ride anywhere, park anywhere, and then buy and start using their own.
It didn't happen. It seems there is some very important reason they prefer cars, despite how much it costs and how difficult it is to find a parking spot. I really don't know what that reason is. Someone please enlighten me!
Are they, though?
It’s not hard to see either: they’re bright orange or purple, and are usually seen on a Saturday or Sunday morning dumped thoughtlessly in disabled ramps, in a gutter, or some other place that a drunk might find convenient.
If you paid 600$ for one I don't expect you'd leave it in a gutter.
I'm almost 50 and I'd love to legally write an electric skateboard. I'd use it in most places. Now I just take the car, because it's the only way I can travel at speed with my dog.
I wish privates were legal and rentals were gone.
What's the rationale behind this nonsense?
Basically, in UK law, the scooters count as motor vehicles, and therefore must have a licence, which they can't for other reasons. So, they're illegal to ride on the pavement because they're motorised, and they're illegal to ride on the road because they're uninsured and unlicensed. There are a few trial areas where companies are providing insured scooters for hire under a recognised scheme, which is what makes them legal.
This is the same reason why electric bicycles in the UK must only apply power to assist you as you pedal - they must detect when you pedal, and act as power-assisted pedalling. It's illegal to have an electric bike that gives power when you're not pedalling, because that would count as an unlicensed uninsured motor vehicle.
It's a quirk of the way that classes of vehicle are defined in UK law, and I'd rather they just sorted it out.
It sounds like these issues are artificial legal constructs caused by the law lagging behind where technology js, and it would be trivial to fix them.
For instance, I'm sure insurance companies would be eager to offer escooter insurance.
The vote was on renewing or not the contracts of free floating solutions like Tier, Lime, etc