I fail to see the problem with this. It is their property you are renting, and they are telling you to not fuck with it too much. Looks very reasonable to me. And all of those can be detected without any violation of privacy too.
this post was submitted on 13 May 2026
5 points (85.7% liked)
A Boring Dystopia
16752 readers
20 users here now
Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.
Rules (Subject to Change)
--Be a Decent Human Being
--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title
--If a picture is just a screenshot of an article, link the article
--If a video's content isn't clear from title, write a short summary so people know what it's about.
--Posts must have something to do with the topic
--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.
--No NSFW content
--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
IMO it kind of depends on whether their 'riding violation' detection system is overly sensitive, this could be a reasonable response or absolute bullshit depending on what the scooter pilot actually did.
Yeah this. It's reasonable if the companies are and the system is.
But for instance Ryde scooters in my city had most of their brakes set pretty friggin tight, so that pretty much any application of the rear bake lead to skidding.
I know kids do it on purpose, and I did enjoy skidding a corner or two, but tried doing it minimally. Couldn't help myself though, especially because 50% at least were just useful accidents.
But my point is that if the rear brake wasn't as tight, I wouldn't have skidded at all.
Agreed, but
without any violation of privacy
just seems wrong. They know your payment info, your habits, the places you visit, the routes you take, and exactly how you're using the scooter. Not to mention whatever the app might be doing in background. Their only way to violate privacy even more would be by filming the driver and the surroundings and selling all the data
I don't understand how jumping curbs is supposed to be a problem, that's just something you have to do to get around sometimes. It also seems like something that hitting potholes would easily get confused for.
Scooters are supposed to be on the street. There is no need to jump any curbs.
Where I'm from there's still a plenty of combined pedestrian/bike paths that have an annoyingly high curb after every crosswalk.
I'll say again. Scooters are supposed to be on the street. Not on bike paths or sidewalks.
Well you'd be wrong. The law says they belong on bike paths here, and a lot of the time sidewalks are combined paths where bikes are supposed to go.
No no no, you missed the part where it says “lemmy.world” after their name, so their perspective is always correct. Read the Fediverse manual.
And where is that?
Finland, but it's the same in all of the EU. Scooters are legally the same as bikes.
Did everyone in the comments suffer brain damage and forget about Hertz and its bullshit AI “scratch and dent” scanners? Or the hotels charging non-smokers $500 “smoking” fees because an AI smoke detector said so? Do people defending this shitty company not see the obvious and unavoidable conflict of interest companies have to make a system like this overly sensitive in order to rack up fines? It would be one thing if the threat was a ban from the service, but it’s just so clearly an excuse to generate more profits I’m shocked this needs to be pointed out.
I mean, get your own scooter and you can do all the burnouts and hit all the curbs you want.
It's illegal to use your own here, only allowed to rent one from which ever company has the monopoly to rent them out in your area. Or can't use them at all as there isn't anyone renting them out in your area.
Of course because there is no legal option to use your own many just do it illegally.
That's like an entirely different set of dystopian problems than a company protecting their assets from abuse. Sorry your laws are fucked up.
I don't think it's corporate dick-sucking to say that if you use an e-scooter share, it's not dystopian that the company administering them tries to track if you're using them in a negligent way that causes unnecessary wear. It's not yours.
The fact these corporations are running this kind of thing is itself problematic, but I also wouldn't object if a government-administrated e-scooter share tried to detect poor behavior on a piece of equipment you don't own.
How is it dystopian to not damage things that don't belong to you? Ride the scooter like a normal person, or buy your own for stunting...
And when you get warned anyway after not treating the scooter poorly?
Take all the copper, duh
How is everyone acting like the poster is at fault here? How do you know their AI detection system isn't bullshit and they didn't drive entirely reasonably, and the detection system is actually the problem?
Use some common sense, people... Both things are possible here, a reckless driver or an overzealous detection system.
I've worked service and repair jobs for decades. I will always default to the user was a jackass unless provided direct proof to the contrary.
What they don't want is either you or somebody else to sue them because they know they're enabling you to use an alt method of transport that offers no real guardrails.
This is random, but thank you for the uno reverse card.
Now I'm just going to grind harder. Tell me again and I'm hitting the half-pipe.