What Can Be Done About Scooter Vandalism?

Widespread vandalism of shared micromobility vehicles may be the most significant barrier preventing operators from attaining profitable unit economics in the dockless bike- and scooter-share space. As such, shared micromobility operators must find ways to prevent and – when that fails – prosecute vandalism of shared vehicle fleets to attain profitability before funding runs dry.

Available evidence suggests that the average lifespan of a shared micromobility vehicle may be shockingly short. Base10, a Silicon-Valley-based venture capital fund, recently estimated that the average shared scooter product currently enjoys a “useful life” equaling approximately 100 days. Other estimates are less favorable, still: Quartz, for instance, estimated that the average lifespan of a Bird scooter during Louisville, Kentucky’s shared micromobility pilot was 28.8 days/92 trips. Quartz also found that only 7 of 129 Bird scooters deployed in the pilot lasted more than 60 days.

Some operators are reacting by deploying more durable vehicle products designed explicitly for shared use. Bird, for instance, initially deployed rebranded scooter devices meant for single-owner/personal use, and only months later redeployed durable scooters intended for shared use. In an industry-first, Lime recently announced its development of a drunk driving detection feature, intended – one can assume – to prevent wear and tear on users as well as vehicle fleets. Other operators are investing in security features, like locks and cameras, meant to deter vandals.

One related and relatively unsettled legal question involves whether cities and/or operators actually have the authority to penalize scooter vandals, and how such crimes can be prosecuted. While guest speakers who visited our class earlier in the quarter to discuss how the City of Santa Monica has regulated shared micromobility operations suggested that cities have limited or no authority to prosecute individuals for scooter vandalism, a quick review of the vandalism laws in the California Penal Code suggest that this assessment may be incorrect. Per California Penal Code section 594: “Every person who maliciously [defaces, damages, and/or destroys] any real or personal property not his or her own, in cases other than those specified by state law, is guilty of vandalism.” Moreover, a later sub-section of this provision prescribes relatively steep penalties for vandalism that causes more than $400 worth of damage to private or public property: “If the amount of defacement, damage, or destruction is four hundred dollars ($400) or more, vandalism is punishable by imprisonment […], or by a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars[.]” (In late 2018, The Information (paywall) reported that Bird was spending $551 to purchase each scooter.)

Critically, to prosecute the crime of scooter vandalism, operators need to capture and submit evidence of the culprit committing the act (or hope a police officer witnesses the act in progress). As such, the addition of cameras to shared bike and scooter products may offer a way forward. By outfitting shared vehicles with cameras, operators and cities may be able to better enforce vandalism laws, as well as verify that shared vehicles are being operated and parked safely. Increasing the overall durability of shared vehicle products (including by outfitting them with locks for when they are not in use) may also help to deter vandalism and increase vehicle lifespan.