Forum Topic

Dumb DOTT (cycles)

I regularly send these sort of images to John Todd and Katherine Dunne. No answers. But I think I've solved a riddle as to why these vehicles continue to litter streets in W4. This morning I forgot my keys. Mind you I walked to Hammersmith to find this out. Not really in the mood to walk back and then back again, I thought I'd avail myself of the e-bikes cluttering the pavement on King Street. Easy enough, I thought. It was. Fun fact: you DO NOT have to prove your of age (16) unless you count ticking a box as evidence. You also DO NOT have to submit your drivers license there and then. This is why we see kids clearly not of age using these vehicles. As I "pedaled" along CS9, I learned just how clunky and heavy these things are due to the uneven pavement on a brand new cycleway. The area around manholes is particularly thrilling to one's ass. Once I crossed Goldhawk headed west, the bike died. So it was all down to me with no assist. Fine. A heavy bike for that, but fine. Once I got home and dismounted, I learned I incurred a penalty for having gone out of bounds. At least now I know why the bike died. (sidenote — the technology exists to kill the battery when crossing a line, and it also exists to identify contravention...and we can't do this for regular cyclists???). Mind you there is nothing on the app that tells you what and where those bounds are, just that I was out of them and I must pay for my ignorance. There was no available information to educate the user. A bit like giving a ticket to a driver for failing to stop absent a stop sign. Sorry, but reading the forum doesn't count. Would a tourist know? Your uncle? Folks from W6? Nah. In and out of the house now with keys, I tried to hop back on the bike. No can do. Once its out of bounds, its off limits. Now we know why there is no uptake on bikes left in W4. So I dragged it to the corner to get it out of the way. No small feat. But it begs the question who pays for the LBH admin costs in correcting the situation? Picking up the litter as it were. DOTT has its ill-gotten gains. LBH gets the litter. I also wonder about liabilities for such a loose system. Under-age kid uses loop hole to hop on and gets injured in W4. Who pays? 

David Lesniak ● 1521d22 Comments

A Lime bike has just been dumped outside my house lying across the pavement by twenty something guy. I caught him in the act and told him that he needed to shift it and put it in a safe place.He couldn't be asked and just wandered off so muggings here had to move it. When I did it started to make weird noises!Also both tyres were flat. Very odd.I live just beyond the permitted zone for these things and we get a fair number dumped on the pavement. David's photo is not untypical.BTW. I saw one riding two people up. One on the saddle and one on the front luggage carrier. Talk about getting your monies worth!

Adrian Irving ● 1520d

As a wheelchair user I have no idea how these things work. How do you pay for them?  If on a card can they not charge you 200% for abandoning the thing over the line and put your picture on a poster banning you from using them again. Friends who are also disabled have had them abandoned in their driveway in front of disabled cars and all sorts.  One person who gets regular dial a ride journeys said the bus could not park where it is safe for her to get on due to one abandoned in her disabled space

Caroline Carney ● 1520d

That sounds like a good idea, charging people a premium if they aren't left in appropriate locations - if people knew they would get charged a £10-£20 fee if they didn't leave the thing where it was allowed, we might see a lot less of these things left in the 'wrong' place.Does anyone know how easy it is to 'hack' the e-bikes/scooters though? Are there any statistics for how many of these things get left in the 'wrong' place?

Andrew Jones ● 1520d

If these bikes have been left in the way, it can't be that difficult to move them - into the middle of the road, for example, so the powers that be might start taking more interest in them.

Peter Evans ● 1520d

Yes, let’s start fining these cyclists . At least these people can be tracked through their bookings, unlike other antisocial cyclists. I like your thinking Andrew.

Maggie Dodge ● 1519d

I would imagine that something like this is already possible due to the T&Cs that are agreed to before you are allowed to hire a bike.The problem with moving dumped bikes into the road (other than obstructing road traffic instead of pedestrian traffic) is that the person moving the bike into the road is then themselves possibly liable. I can understand the frustration though if there are loads of bikes regularly dumped in the vicinity.

Andrew Jones ● 1519d

Fining people for contravening something unwritten speaks of usury.

David Lesniak ● 1519d

'Fining people for contravening something unwritten speaks of usury.'Unwritten or unread? I am sure there are guidelines of use etc,  whether those guidelines are readily available is another matter.

Matthew Swain ● 1519d

I can't imagine that there aren't T&Cs that you agree to when engaging in the hire of one of these bikes.If a penalty charge is specified, and if it isn't outrageously inflated compared to the cost of recovering a bike then there is no question of usury surely?

Andrew Jones ● 1519d

Given these are on the roadways as a trial, it should be readily apparent their use is confined  It is not. And then you get a penalty for contravening something that was not specified. You tick a box saying you will comply with parking them correctly (that made me laugh) but if you park correctly outside the zone that is not defined you get a penalty. Again, a loose system has been unleashed with no clear regulations which would determine liabilities for all councils concerned. Per the pictures shown, if a visually impaired person trips on that DOTT straddling the raised surface crossing, who's held accountable? The kid who said they were sixteen when they aren't or DOTT that requires zero proof of age other than a box tick? If DOTT had been transparent from the get go, maybe someone would opt to walk or cab or tube. Or leave the cycle at the boundary. The penalty is levied after the fact with no facts presented. Usury.

David Lesniak ● 1519d

The penalty is levied after the fact with no facts presented. Well it's not exactly practical to levy the penalty at the time. If there are no facts presented then I wouldn't feel obliged to pay any penalty. If I get a PCN through the post or even find one attached to my car, I don't pay it automatically as a matter of course. I verify whether it has been issued correctly.If it's someone under 16, well that's tough on DOTT, they should have more robust age verification in place.If DOTT haven't been clear and transparent about the restrrictions on the trial then fine DOTT, or ensure some compliance.

Andrew Jones ● 1519d

To set up the app, Andrew, you must register a payment method. I opted for ApplePay. Could've used a debit card but either way the monies are automatically deducted.Given the use of these vehicles is limited to Hammersmith, one would think the moment you log on it would say something like "Welcome to DOTT Hammersmith" and then clearly indicated the terms of service, in this case use is limited to a specific area. It did not. And then it negated my ability to return it to its rightful place since it rendered itself useless. Again, that to me, is usury. They are neglecting to provide information and then capitalizing on your "ignorance."

David Lesniak ● 1517d

Most people ignore T&Cs in many walks of life Maybe that is the case here "DURING THE REGISTRATION PROCESS FOR OUR APP AND WHEN UNLOCKING A VEHICLE FOR USE VIA THE APP OR VIA A THIRD PARTY PLATFORM YOU MUST AGREE TO THESE TERMS. DOTT ONLY ALLOWS YOU TO USE THE SERVICES IF YOU ACCEPT THESE TERMS SO DO NOT MAKE USE OF THE SERVICES IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THESE TERMS. FEES, INSURANCE, MAIN TERMS AND SPECIAL TERMS ARE AN INTEGRAL AND SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THESE TERMS." Restrictions on use of Services: You will comply with the following use restrictions in relation to our Services at all times:"You will not operate the Vehicle outside of the area indicated in the App or Third Party Platform (as applicable) (“Operational Areas”). The Operational Area is indicated during the unlocking process and will always be visible to you within the map on the App. Should you leave the Operational Areas at any time we may disable the Vehicle and charge you a fine should you fail to return the Vehicle to an Operational Area. The map within the App or Third Party Platform (as applicable) will indicate whether the Vehicle is outside or inside the Operational Area.You will not operate the Vehicles in areas which any competent local authority has prohibited the use of the Vehicles (“No Ride Zones”).In cities where a competent local authority has designated specific parking areas for the Vehicles (“Designated Parking Areas”), you will only park the Vehicles in such Designated Parking Areas. Your city’s Designated Parking Areas will be indicated on the map in the App or Third Party Platform (as applicable).""Fines: You will be solely liable for and will pay any fines, fees, penalties, impounding cost and/or other charges imposed by a governmental authority resulting from parking or using a Vehicle improperly, or by you violating any law, rule or regulation while using our Vehicles or by you failing to comply with any of these Terms (“Fines”). In some instances, we may pay such Fines on your behalf (in which case you will reimburse us for the payment of such Fines together with an administration fee of £50 and any additional costs reasonably incurred by us for handling the payment of the Fine on your behalf unless you can prove that the costs for such efforts made by us for handling such Fines were lower). Dott has the right to deduct such Fines and charges from your chosen payment method and should you have insufficient funds available for us to deduct such Fines and charges, you agree that we can contact you in order for you to make payment to us (such payment to be made immediately upon request). Dott may charge you a Fine of GBP50 for any breach of the Terms, regardless of whether another Fine, administration fee or penalty is imposed because of or in relation to a breach of the Terms"

Julian Pavey ● 1517d

Thanks Julian.£50 charge doesn't smack of 'usury'.If it was £500 then I would say it did.

Andrew Jones ● 1516d

All these bikes and scooters are run for the purposes of data mining. Once you sign up they have your data and can sell it on for marketing purposes. Once they make enough money from selling the data, they close down and another lot turn up. It's why every year we get a new companies with bikes and scooters. They don't actually care what you do with the bikes as long as they get enough people signing up. It's why they're just left as litter. Every now and then a dirty old van drives along tidying them up, but it's not often they bother.

Tania Bapuji ● 1516d

So given the data provided and what data is legal to share  how do they target you in way of advertising and selling products. Advertise paying car parks based on your cycling locations ? They certainly dont target you on the app or at your address. Its not like online activity. Think yu need to explain what information on hiring a bike on a app is worth money to third parties

Julian Pavey ● 1516d

I am in favour of action in this case.  So I will be writing to the following people pointing out the bleedin obvious. Leaders and CEO's of LBH and H&F both MPs, Sadiq Khan,Disability groups, London Ambulance Service LFB,Met Police Commissioner the companies involved in this scheme and any other person or group people think is applicable.  If anyone else has the time and inclination to help let me know here and I will contact you and give you my details.  Let me be clear though this is not an anti cycling campaign these scooters and bikes are nothing to do with any LTN schemes or campaigns so if anyone disagrees this is not what I want to do and you are free to do your own thing. I am not sectarian so political affiliation or not is is irrelevant to me.  If you have anyone you think should be on the contact list let me know also any pictures of these things left in W4 or any area surrounding H&F would be gratefully received.  My email is available via this forum if you want to sign up for this

Caroline Carney ● 1516d

"the operational area is indicated during the unlocking proces" - WHICH MEANS YOU'VE BEEN CHARGED AND THEN THE TERMS APPEAR. ONE COULD CALL IT BAIT AND SWITCH."Should you leave the Operational Area at any time we may disable the vehicle and charge you a fine should you fail to return the vehicle to an operational area" - EXCEPT THE APP KEPT THE VEHICLE DISABLED PROHIBITING THE ABILITY TO RETURN IT AND AVOID A FINE"You will not operate the Vehicles in areas which any competent local aouthority has prohibited the use of the Vehicles" - THAT EXPLAINS ALOT. GOES TO HOUNSLOW BEING INEPT IN PROHIBITING USE OF UNAUTHORIZED VEHICLES. WELL DONE, LBH."where a competent local authority has designated specific parking areas for the Vehicles" - AGAIN, GOES TO LBH BEING WHOLLY INCOMPETENT HENCE AS INITIALLY SHOWN WE SEE THESE NUISANCES CONSTANTLY SCATTERED HERE, THERE AND EVERYWHERE.If DOTT is collecting fees on all those scattered bikes then, indeed, it is ill-gotten gains. They show the terms after the contract has been made, they disable the vehicle making returning it impossible and then they may/may not impose an additional fine to right the "wrong." Not really sure how else to define usury except with these examples. Let's not miss one other salient point. They refer to vehicles exclusively. At that, they are Vehicles with a capital "V" and as we all know vehicles are not permitted to be operated on the pavement.

David Lesniak ● 1516d

" Should you leave the Operational Areas at any time we may disable the Vehicle and charge you a fine should you fail to return the Vehicle to an Operational Area." Er... But surely wouldn't disabling the vehicle — certainly if this happened at any distance from the boundary, actively prevent the user from returning the vehicle ? Which I believe was one of David's original points. Are you seriously suggesting that such a stipulation could possibly survive a challenge in the High Court ? Which might then cast doubt on the validity of the entire T&C's and thus any "fines" already levied. Class action anyone ?
michael adams

Michael Adams ● 1516d

Caroline I'm happy to send you the photos I've sent John Todd. As mentioned, to date he has been silent despite the numerous examples in his own back yard. E-cycles left in the cross walk leading to the bus island is one example.I agree with Michael. No court of law would rule in their favor. If you eliminate the ability to return a bike, how could you possibly be fined for not returning it?

David Lesniak ● 1515d

Good point maybe a large deposit not returned if bike not returned could be an idea. My laptop died yesterday due to the screws around the screen expanding in the heat with 3fans,an air cooler and a laptop fan with 5fans in it!!! So I am limited to my phone until I find something in my budget or someone tells me how I can link my laptop to a separate screen or I can get a spare one from someone. I will let you know when I have done the letter and need the evidence and happy to forward you a copy and put a link on here

Caroline Carney ● 1513d

Some of the people who use these bikes are a pain in the backside.There are at least two dumped near the centre of Brentford.Bloody stupid the way it's been made so easy for a user to leave them this way.

Keith Iddon ● 1513d