View Single Post
Old 07-20-18, 11:32 AM
  #25  
tandempower
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,369
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8069 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Doohickie View Post
OH HELL NO. I don't want my tax dollars used to babysit someone's crappy business model.
It's not the fault of the business when vandals attack the bikes. It wouldn't matter whether the bikes are privately owned or share bikes, vandalism is vandalism. Car alarms are from an age before security cameras were cheap and plentiful. Nowadays it shouldn't be too difficult to place security cams in various public areas and then designate at least some of them as video-surveillance areas, while others would not be designated in order to maintain a sense of uncertainty about where such cams are placed and where not. This is actually an issue that goes far beyond share bikes, but there are plenty of property owners who should be more than happy to have security cams put on their property and it should generate some extra income for them because there are a lot more reasons than share bikes to have such cameras around, e.g. securing areas so that businesses can attract more customers, making residential areas safer, etc. If vandalism doesn't disappear on its own, surveillance in public areas is needed to police it.
tandempower is offline