Live blog: Hop it, bike share – POGO STICK start-up enters urban mobility market; Third time lucky? Ian To in new LEJOG record attempt; Amsterdam moped riders protest against cycle lane ban; Another new MacAskill video; + more

Dr_Lex wrote:

Pogo sticks? As a long-time reader of 2000AD, I’m holding out for BOING (R)

The people in the pogo sticks picture appear to be wearing cycling helmets.  Given that (AIUI) you're supposed to replace such a helmet if you fall off/hit it, you're going to buying an awful lot of cycling helmets if you decide to commute by pogo stick... 

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

So did they park right next to the cycle and not consider the outcome if it toppled over (in the wind) or was accidentally knocked by a psser by, or was the cycle parked up after the owner left their motor?

Seems to me that if the former then it's down to the car owner, who would park right next to such, but it's difficult for them to prove either way so that could be a sticking point. And with all due respect £900 for that dent is laughable nonsense, a silver wing are ten a penny, you could get a decent s/h one and get it fitted for half that, getting it sorted by a decent local body company would be less still.

That's all taking the incident on face value that the bike 'fell over' in the first instance, looks like the wing is made of fag papers to make such a dent!

A Paintless Dent Repairer will probably have that fixed for 25-30% of the quoted price.

robthehungrymonkey wrote:

I don't really see why Lime should pay? 

I wouldn't expect a baseball bat manufacturer to pay for damage caused. Or anything else. I've never had a car that hasn't been damaged in some way when i've left it parked somewhere.

I can kind of see why people are annoyed about the bikes being left on the street, but that's another subject and it doesn't reallly bother me much (there are far more ugly things already littering our streets).

I wouldn't expect a baseball bat manufacturer to not sell their bats, but to hire them out to anyone and then complain when bad-uns use them to beat people up.

If Lime are happy for their bikes to be left anywhere, then why shouldn't they be held responsible for any damages caused by their business model? Lime remain the legal owner of their bikes and thus should be the first port of call for anyone seeking redress.

The dockless bike case is confusing to me.  I can't actually decide what I think about it.

(What is meant by 'falling'?  Toppling over?  Falling usually implies dropping from a height.  Did someone drop it out of a window!)

For one thing, if something (i.e. the car) can suffer such expensive damage so easily, just from something toppling over next to it, surely you shouldn't be leaving that thing unattended in a public area?

But one could say the bike-hire company are creating a problem by leaving potential weapons/hazards lying around improperly-secured in public areas, I guess.  If someone left glass bottles in the street, maybe they could be held liable if someone hits someone with one?

But if I shove someone's parked car against someone else's parked car (or a locked-up bike!), causing damage, is the owner of the first car legally liable?  What if I set fire to it and it explodes, damaging everything else in the vicinity, eh?

I can't work out the general principle involved.

(And can we sue manufacturers or sellers of drawing pins?)

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

The dockless bike case is confusing to me.  I can't actually decide what I think about it.

 

(What is meant by 'falling'?  Toppling over?  Falling usually implies dropping from a height.  Did someone drop it out of a window!)

 

For one thing, if something (i.e. the car) can suffer such expensive damage so easily, just from something toppling over next to it, surely you shouldn't be leaving that thing unattended in a public area?

 

But one could say the bike-hire company are creating a problem by leaving potential weapons/hazards lying around improperly-secured in public areas, I guess.  If someone left glass bottles in the street, maybe they could be held liable if someone hits someone with one?

 

But if I shove someone's parked car against someone else's parked car (or a locked-up bike!), causing damage, is the owner of the first car legally liable?  What if I set fire to it and it explodes, damaging everything else in the vicinity, eh?

 

I can't work out the general principle involved.

 

(And can we sue manufacturers or sellers of drawing pins?)

As I see it, there's two issues:

The person who "causes" the damage through an action (e.g. shoving a parked car against another) should be the person held responsible if it looks like an intentional action.

The owner of the vehicle that is "causing" the damage can be held responsible if they were negligent (e.g. not applying the hand-brake or fitting sub-standard bike stands).

As Lime are not disclosing the identity of the previous hirer (which I think is correct as they have not been issued any sub-peona to do so and they need to respect their customers' privacy), then they should be held responsible for the damage. If they have no wish to be held responsible, then they should stop putting their company's name all over the vehicles.

hawkinspeter wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

The dockless bike case is confusing to me.  I can't actually decide what I think about it.

 

(What is meant by 'falling'?  Toppling over?  Falling usually implies dropping from a height.  Did someone drop it out of a window!)

 

For one thing, if something (i.e. the car) can suffer such expensive damage so easily, just from something toppling over next to it, surely you shouldn't be leaving that thing unattended in a public area?

 

But one could say the bike-hire company are creating a problem by leaving potential weapons/hazards lying around improperly-secured in public areas, I guess.  If someone left glass bottles in the street, maybe they could be held liable if someone hits someone with one?

 

But if I shove someone's parked car against someone else's parked car (or a locked-up bike!), causing damage, is the owner of the first car legally liable?  What if I set fire to it and it explodes, damaging everything else in the vicinity, eh?

 

I can't work out the general principle involved.

 

(And can we sue manufacturers or sellers of drawing pins?)

As I see it, there's two issues:

The person who "causes" the damage through an action (e.g. shoving a parked car against another) should be the person held responsible if it looks like an intentional action.

The owner of the vehicle that is "causing" the damage can be held responsible if they were negligent (e.g. not applying the hand-brake or fitting sub-standard bike stands).

As Lime are not disclosing the identity of the previous hirer (which I think is correct as they have not been issued any sub-peona to do so and they need to respect their customers' privacy), then they should be held responsible for the damage. If they have no wish to be held responsible, then they should stop putting their company's name all over the vehicles.

I guess,and I do think there is a parallel with, say, pubs leaving beer glasses around that someone might misuse as a weapon.

  But the second issue does seem quite subjective.  What is considered 'negligent' is going to depend on the general 'norms' and what every body else does.  I think the source of my confusion is that there seem to be different rules applied to leaving cars in the street than other objects.

I dimly remember an episode of Judge Judy a long, long, time ago, where the owner of an expensive car sued a low-income single-parent becuase her child scratched the car's paintwork while skateboarding past it.  Judy ruled in favour of the expensive car-owner.  It irked me because I just thought "why did you leave such a delicate expensive item there in the first place?'  Why does a child owe you such a degree of care as to avoid ever stumbling into your stupidly-expensive-yet-fragile thing that you've left in a public place?

Kendalred wrote:

......................... Plus - £900 for damaged caused by a falling bike? Yeah, right!

That isn't unsuprising to me.  A car scraped and put a small hole in the front bumber of my Insignia last year. The bill to the insurance company was about £850, plus two weeks car hire. However my Insignia is relatively new and as been pointed out the damaged car isn't in its first flush of youth. BUT the driver is still entiled to have the damaged repaired.

Going back to the articlenews the Guardian report seeing several Lime bikes knocked over:-

"Two weeks ago, no fewer than five Lime bikes left outside the Guardian HQ were lying on their sides. They reportedly have a sensor that relays this information back to the company."

And furthermore offer opion from a law firm: -

"    Consumer expert Jonathan Silverman, a senior consultant with the London law firm Laytons, says it is an interesting case.

“The company appears to be relying on the fact that it has launched an education programme to persuade users how to park these bikes, but I’m not sure how much evidence there is for that – particularly here in London,” he says. “If it were to go to court, the reader could argue that the company had failed in its duty of care to the wider public. For a claim to succeed, I think you’d have to show that these bikes are defective. I can say, from personal experience, they are somewhat top-heavy and prone to falling. There is plenty of evidence online of them falling over, and it is worth trying a claim,” he adds.    "

A heavy battery on a rack sounds just the recipe for a top heavy bike, particularly when parked. Maybe Lime do have a case to answer for if it can be shown that the bike are too easy to knock over.