Source: http://www.westerncity.com/article/dockless-bicycles-and-scooters-responding-new-technology
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 05:11:06+00:00

Document:
Jennifer Gore is a deputy city attorney for the City of Sacramento and can be reached at JVGore@cityofsacramento.org.
Few technologies have overtaken cities as quickly as that of dockless bicycles and scooters. These devices are marketed as an inexpensive, on-demand mobility solution that complements a car-free, environmentally conscious lifestyle1 and allows users to “go farther, get there faster and have more fun.”2 Public reaction, however, is mixed. Some members of the public see dockless bicycles and scooters as a novel, fun and environmentally sensitive transportation alternative — but others see them as a public safety hazard. And for cities, these devices have proved difficult to regulate.
Some cities, wanting to embrace this potential first- and last-mile solution for commuters using public transit, have taken a hands-off approach to these new devices, relying on state-level regulations and market forces to control their use and distribution. Others have crafted pilot programs, allowing a limited number of vendors or devices to operate in their jurisdiction. Some cities have banned the devices altogether.
Though each of these cases could be the subject of a detailed case study, this article focuses instead on outlining some of the policy issues raised by dockless bicycles and scooters and the various approaches jurisdictions have taken in their quest to safely and effectively manage the public right of way without stifling innovation or new technology.
Meet the transportation needs of a variety of vehicles.
Work with your city’s legal counsel to implement that process and document the public safety basis for your decision.
Though these devices are “dockless” and self-locking, many jurisdictions have designated parking areas for them, including bike racks, painted zones on sidewalks, or special on-street parking areas. Some have also adopted “lock-to” requirements, mandating that the devices be locked to a rack or pole.
Disability advocates have championed on-street parking, arguing that allowing the devices to park on sidewalks tempts users to ride on the sidewalk to get to the designated parking area and creates a mistaken belief that they are allowed to ride on the sidewalk. Many cities require operators to accept complaints from the public about improperly parked devices and have mandated maximum response times for the relocation of such devices.
Many cities also use “rebalancing requirements” to manage the concentration of devices. These require operators to move devices to and from high-use destinations, such as transit stations, to ensure that they are available to the public during peak hours.
And because dockless bicycles and scooters are subject to vandalism and sometimes used as instruments of destruction,12 resulting in damage to public property, several cities have required operators to provide a performance bond to ensure that necessary repairs are made.
In addition to public education campaigns, some cities require that devices be equipped with software to limit their speeds to 15 miles per hour to match the state’s speed limit on electric scooters.18 Police departments can enforce laws and regulations, ticketing users who operate scooters on sidewalks, exceed the speed limit or obstruct the right of way.
In addition to enforcing safety laws and requiring companies to provide or fund safety education, many jurisdictions are impounding improperly parked or unpermitted devices to address trip hazards and concerns about accessibility and safety. Cities are also requiring operators to submit maintenance and repair plans for their devices to help ensure that brake lights work, tires are not damaged and other mechanical issues that affect safety are addressed on a regular basis.
Most — if not all — cities also require companies to maintain adequate levels of insurance and to indemnify the city for any liability associated with the operation of permitted devices.
Many cities condition the issuance of permits on the equitable distribution of devices throughout their jurisdiction and are taking other steps to make this new technology available to low-income individuals. Several cities require reduced-cost plans for individuals meeting specified income eligibility requirements.
Some cities also require companies to equitably distribute and operate a certain percentage of their fleet outside the downtown or commercial areas. This helps to achieve the claimed transit benefits and provides opportunities for users in areas that may be economically disadvantaged.
For these efforts to be impactful, it is important to require companies to make their devices accessible to users who do not have a credit card or smartphone. Companies should also provide instructions in various languages.
Infrastructure, such as parking and other necessary improvements.
Cities may consider imposing fees or charges on bicycle- and scooter-sharing companies, including for the use of local government property. To ensure that any fees or costs imposed on companies are properly providing incentives for both users and companies and are consistent with state law, cities should carefully evaluate the proposed fees or costs and consult their city attorney.
Finally, cities may want to require bicycle- and scooter-sharing companies to share certain anonymized data with them to inform future policy decisions, such as the effectiveness of regulations and enforcement and other transportation planning decisions. Because these companies collect financial and location data about users, several jurisdictions require copies of privacy policies with their permit application, and some agencies require companies to obtain cyber liability insurance.
Cities have many options for addressing dockless scooters and bicycles in California, and this article is not intended to present an exhaustive discussion. In choosing the options that make the most sense for your jurisdiction, it is important to talk to your legal counsel. And given how quickly this industry is growing and the issues being litigated, it is certain that the responses to this new technology will continue to evolve.
 Bird Rides, Inc. v. City of Beverly Hills, et al. (Case No. 18STCP02762) (Los Angeles County Superior Court), filed Nov. 1, 2018.
 Neutron Holdings, Inc. d/b/a LIME v. City and County of San Francisco (Case No. CPF-18-516368) (San Francisco County Superior Court), filed Oct. 12, 2018.
 Alex Montoya, et al. v. City of San Diego, et al. (Case No. 3:19-cv-0054-JM-BGS) (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California), filed Jan. 9, 2018.
 Cal. Veh. Code, § 21235, subd. (i).
 Benjamin Haas, Chinese Bike Share Graveyard a Monument to Industry’s “Arrogance,” The Guardian (Nov. 24, 2017) <https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/nov/25/chinas-bike-share-graveyard-a-monument-to-industrys-arrogance>; Sasha Lekach, E-Scooters Aren’t Getting Stolen, the Real Issue is Sidewalk Litter, Mashable (April 17, 2018) <https://mashable.com/2018/04/17/electric-scooters-sidewalk-litter>.
 Cal. Veh. Code, § 21235, subd. (g).
 Borgia v. Bird Rides, Inc. (Case No. 18STCV01416) (Los Angeles County Superior Court), filed Oct. 19, 2018.
 Peter Holley, The Life of an Electric Scooter: Nasty, Brutish, and Often Short, The Washington Post (July 27, 2018) <https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/07/27/life-an-electric-scooter-nasty-brutish-sometimes-short/?utm_term=.8b57b4ab9199>.
 Assem.Bill No. 2989 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.); Cal. Veh. Code, § 21235, subd. (c).
 Peter Holley, Bird Says Safety is its “Top Priority.” So Why is the E-Scooter Company’s Instagram Page Nearly Devoid of Helmets? The Washington Post (Dec. 21, 2018) <https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/12/21/bird-says-safety-is-their-top-priority-so-why-is-e-scooter-companys-instagram-page-nearly-devoid-helmets/?utm_term=.f921b677b962>.
 Ibid.; Katie Pyzyk, Lime Launches $3M Campaign to Promote Rider Responsibility, Smart Cities Dive (Nov. 6, 2018) <https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/lime-launches-3m-campaign-to-promote-rider-responsibility/541444/>.
 See, e.g., Constance Farrell, Santa Monica Launches Public Education Campaign on E-Scooter Safe Rules of the Road, Santa Monica Daily Press (Aug. 23, 2018) <https://www.smdp.com/santa-monica-launches-public-education-campaign-on-e-scooter-safe-rules-of-the-road/168770>.
 Cal. Veh. Code, § 22411.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 21235
 § 21235
 v. 
 § 21235
 § 22411