The E-Scooters Loved by Silicon Valley Roll Into New York | the New Yorker

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

The E-Scooters Loved by Silicon Valley Roll Into New York | the New Yorker 4/26/2021 The E-Scooters Loved by Silicon Valley Roll Into New York | The New Yorker Shared electric scooters offer a solution to what transportation experts call the “last-mile problem.” Illustration by Igor Bastidas Our Local Correspondents April 26 & May 3, 2021 Issue The E-Scooters Loved by Silicon Valley Roll Into New York Fleets of electric scooters have taken over city streets worldwide. With New York nally climbing aboard, do they represent a tech hustle or a transit revolution? By John Seabrook April 19, 2021 https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/04/26/the-e-scooters-loved-by-silicon-valley-roll-into-new-york 1/18 4/26/2021 The E-Scooters Loved by Silicon Valley Roll Into New York | The New Yorker ew York City used to be an early adopter of new transportation modes. In the late eighteen-sixties, New Yorkers took up the velocipede, a primitive version of the bicycle. Half a century later, the city N embraced the automobile, and eventually made free parking available for the fossil-fuel-burning machines—a remarkable giveaway of expensive public space that many carless citizens would like back now. New York also engineered and built a subway system, above ground and below ground, which, before the -19 pandemic hit, carried ve and a half million riders every weekday—a landmark of American people-moving the city may never reach again, if remote work is here to stay. But when it comes to shared electric scooters—the adult, motorized versions of the standing “kick” scooter that you push with one foot—New York has taken the slow lane. As with its bike-share scheme, Citi Bike, which launched in 2013, years after most other big cities, New York has adopted a conservative approach to this ballyhooed new mode of getting around town. Beginning in Southern California, Bird and, later, Lime, both venture-capital-backed tech startups, dropped eets of rentable electric scooters onto the streets of Santa Monica, where Bird’s vehicles appeared in 2017, and San Diego, Lime’s rst city, in 2018. Bypassing municipal regulators, the companies hoped to attract customers as quickly as possible. Under Uber’s former head of international growth, Travis VanderZanden, Bird got its black-and-white scooters into a hundred cities globally during a yearlong blitzkrieg. Blindsided city governments, struggling to respond to this onslaught, temporarily banned scooters in Seattle, West Hollywood, and Winston-Salem, among other places. Although Bird wasn’t close to protable, it soon reached unicorn status—a billion-dollar valuation. Lime then joined Bird in the unicorn paddock. Investors went all in on “micromobility”—the buzzy, catchall term for bicycles and lightweight electric vehicles—hoping to stumble onto the next Uber. Within a year, more than thirty scooter-share startups had popped up around the world. In many cities, scooter-sharing was adopted faster than bike-sharing, and by a broader demographic of ridership. Bird amassed more than ten million rides in its rst twelve months. Users loved the scooters for their convenience. In Austin, Texas, for example, during South by Southwest, scooters proved to be ideal for hopping between venues. On the West Coast, Venice Beach sizzled with the sound of scooter wheels. By 2019, the long-necked, at-bottomed machines had become a xture of the urban landscape in Paris, Vienna, Madrid, and Mexico City, like for-hire mechanical swans clustering on sidewalks. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/04/26/the-e-scooters-loved-by-silicon-valley-roll-into-new-york 2/18 4/26/2021 The E-Scooters Loved by Silicon Valley Roll Into New York | The New Yorker Transportation wonks hailed scooter-sharing as the best solution to their “last-mile problem,” when the trip between the train station and home is a little farther than walking distance—around a quarter of a mile, for most people. Futurists saw it as the rst transportation mode to incorporate mobile- computing and global-positioning technology in its core design, and touted the e-scooter as a harbinger of the battery-powered, software-controlled car of the future. But to detractors e-scooters were a fad, and scooter-share programs were a tech hustle that exploited a limited public resource—city streets—to enrich private investors. Bird and Lime attracted lawsuits from injured riders, and passionate animosity from lots of people who encountered the dockless scooters that were left in the middle of sidewalks. In May, 2018, San Francisco, after receiving almost two thousand complaints, issued cease-and-desist orders to Bird, Lime, and a third operator, Spin, which was bought by Ford in November, 2018. A class-action suit in Los Angeles the same year accused Lime, Bird, and others of “aiding and abetting assault.” Scooter vandalism became a performance art. The Instagram site Bird Graveyard documented busted Birds, trashed Birds, Birds in the Bay, and Birds ambé. Among the big transportation hubs in the West, only New York and London stood fast during what is now seen as the Wild West phase of scooter mania. Then came the pandemic, scrambling transport habits around the globe, and creating rare opportunities for what transportation theorists refer to as “mode change.” To judge from New York’s increasingly crowded bike lanes, the scootering mode has arrived. -scooters aren’t the rst standing electric vehicles to attempt to enter New York’s transportation E system. The Segway, a two-wheeled “human transporter,” was released in December, 2001, and hyped by Jeff Bezos as “one of the most famous and anticipated product launches of all time.” There were photographs of Bezos and the Segway’s inventor, Dean Kamen, riding the machines on sidewalks around Times Square. Today, the human transporter is perhaps best remembered as the electronic steed that Paul Blart mounts in “Mall Cop,” a 2009 lm that leans heavily on the sight gag of a casually standing person who is in motion. But the Segway’s inuence lingered in the broad set of state and city laws that banned most forms of single-person E.V.s from the streets and sidewalks, including e-bikes and e-scooters. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/04/26/the-e-scooters-loved-by-silicon-valley-roll-into-new-york 3/18 4/26/2021 The E-Scooters Loved by Silicon Valley Roll Into New York | The New Yorker In the late two-thousands, the rst wave of e-bikes arrived in the city as food-delivery workers, virtually all immigrants, began using them. For a fteen-hundred-dollar investment in an e-bike, a worker can increase his nightly earnings by two dollars an hour—which could amount to thousands more in yearly earnings. Some Yuppie early adopters had also taken to the outlawed bikes: my sister-in-law’s elbow was shattered in Manhattan, in 2010, by an e-biking lmmaker who was going the wrong way in a bike lane. A crackdown began in 2017, shortly after a sixty-year-old Upper West Side investment banker, Matthew Sheer, who used a speed gun to clock cyclists in the Columbus Avenue bike lane, called in to “Ask the Mayor,” on WNYC’s “The Brian Lehrer Show,” and decried the dangers of the modern-day velocipedes to Bill de Blasio. The following year, the N.Y.P.D. issued delivery workers hundreds of ve-hundred-dollar citations and sometimes took away their e-bikes. Workers who spoke Chinese or Spanish had their bikes conscated at a much higher rate than those who spoke English. The Deliver Justice Coalition fought back with the support of inuential local politicians, including Jessica Ramos, a state senator from Queens, and Carlos Menchaca, a City Council member from Brooklyn, but they lacked the funds to lobby state lawmakers in Albany effectively. The status of pedal-assist e-bikes was eventually claried as exempt from the law—Citi Bike began electrifying its eet in 2018—but the full-throttle e-bikes favored by the city’s forty thousand delivery workers remained illegal. During the same period, micromobility companies began to eye the lucrative New York market, despite being blocked by the Segway laws. Bird and Lime did have the funds to spend on lobbying Albany lawmakers. Bird brought in Bradley Tusk, who had designed Uber’s strategy for disrupting New York City with its gig-working drivers in the early twenty-tens; between January and June of 2019, Tusk was paid a hundred thousand dollars. Lime also spent heavily on lobbying. Phil Jones, Lime’s senior director of government relations, took a leading role in crafting the new law for the scooter companies. “There were a lot of overarching state laws put into place that made two- https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/04/26/the-e-scooters-loved-by-silicon-valley-roll-into-new-york 4/18 4/26/2021 The E-Scooters Loved by Silicon Valley Roll Into New York | The New Yorker wheeled electric vehicles illegal, inspired by the Segway,” he told me. “That’s what we were up against, and that’s what delivery workers were up against.” Jones helped consolidate ve bills aiming to legalize two-wheeled E.V.s into a single piece of legislation, Senate Bill 5294A, sponsored by Jessica Ramos. With the nancial capital of the scooter bros and the political capital of the persecuted deliveristas, the bill was passed by the New York Assembly in 2019, but Governor Andrew Cuomo vetoed it, ostensibly because he wanted all e-scooter and e-bike riders to wear a helmet. According to insiders, the underlying reason was the Governor’s hostility toward Ramos, a rising star in state politics.
Recommended publications
  • City of Del Mar Staff Report
    City of Del Mar Staff Report TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Clem Brown, Environmental Sustainability/Special Projects Manager Via Scott Huth, City Manager DATE: May 6, 2019 SUBJECT: License Agreement with Gotcha Ride LLC to Operate the North County Bike Share Pilot Program in the City of Del Mar REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests that the City Council approve a license agreement with Gotcha Ride LLC (Attachment A) to operate the North County Coastal Bike Share Pilot Program in the City of Del Mar and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement. BACKGROUND: The City of Del Mar is committed to reducing local greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to limit the effects of climate change, while also offering viable transportation alternatives to driving. Del Mar has adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) that establishes a number of strategies to meet GHG emissions reduction targets, including facilitating safe, convenient, and affordable alternative transportation options. Specifically, Goal 14 in the CAP includes a strategy to “explore implementation of a bike share program…to provide another transportation alternative for traveling in town.” Transportation, especially travel via single occupancy vehicles, is a major source of GHG emissions in Del Mar and the other north San Diego County (North County) coastal cities. Offering and promoting programs like bike share, that replace vehicle trips with bike trips, is one way Del Mar can help to reduce emissions while offering more efficient and more affordable transportation modes for residents, employees, and visitors. Bike share is a service by which bicycles are made available for shared use to individuals on a very short-term basis, allowing them to borrow a bicycle at one location and return it either to the same or an alternate location within a defined geographic boundary.
    [Show full text]
  • Emerging Mobility Technologies and Trends
    Emerging Mobility Technologies and Trends And Their Role in Creating “Mobility-As-A-System” For the 21st Century and Beyond OWNERSHIP RIGHTS All reports are owned by Energy Systems Network (ESN) and protected by United States copyright and international copyright/intellectual property laws under applicable treaties and/or conventions. User agrees not to export any report into a country that does not have copyright/ intellectual property laws that will protect ESN’s rights therein. GRANT OF LICENSE RIGHTS ESN hereby grants user a non-exclusive, non-refundable, non- transferable Enterprise License, which allows you to (i) distribute the report within your organization across multiple locations to its representatives, employees or agents who are authorized by the organization to view the report in support of the organization’s internal business purposes; and (ii) display the report within your organization’s privately hosted internal intranet in support of your organization’s internal business purposes. Your right to distribute the report under an Enterprise License allows distribution among multiple locations or facilities to Authorized Users within your organization. ESN retains exclusive and sole ownership of this report. User agrees not to permit any unauthorized use, reproduction, distribution, publication or electronic transmission of any report or the information/forecasts therein without the express written permission of ESN. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY AND LIABILITY ESN has used its best efforts in collecting and preparing each report. ESN, its employees, affi liates, agents, and licensors do not warrant the accuracy, completeness, correctness, non-infringement, merchantability, or fi tness for a particular purpose of any reports covered by this agreement.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines for Regulating Shared Micromobility Section 1
    Guidelines for Regulating Shared Micromobility Section 1 Guidelines for Regulating Shared Micromobility Version 2 September 2019 1 Guidelines for Regulating Shared Micromobility 1. Regulating Shared Micromobility 5 a. What is Shared Micromobility? 5 b. City Authority for Regulation 6 c. Options for Regulation 7 2. General Terms and Conditions 9 a. General Provisions 10 b. Insurance, Bonds, and Fees 11 c. Enforcing Permit Terms 12 3. Scope & Operations Insight 15 a. Fleet Size 16 b. Fleet Removal/Relocation 18 c. Rebalancing & Fleet Distribution 19 d. Equipment and Vehicle Maintenance 20 e. Customer Service 23 f. Staffing and Workforce Development 24 g. Pricing 25 4. Public Engagement 27 a. Staffing & Events 28 b. Outreach Materials & Campaigns 28 c. Pricing & Discount Programs 29 5. Mobility Data & User Privacy 31 6. Infrastructure 35 a. Shared Micromobility Parking 36 b. Providing Safe Place to Ride 40 c. Restricted/Limited Access Areas 41 7. Current State of Practice 43 a. Vehicle Requirements 44 b. Fleet Requirements 45 c. Data Requirements 48 d. Fees 49 e. Employment Requirements 51 f. Adaptive Device Requirements 52 g. Discounted Pricing Programs 53 h. Multi-Language Requirements 54 i. Parking Requirements 55 2 Cover credit: San Jose Guidelines for Regulating Shared Micromobility About Developed for cities, by cities, this guidance outlines best practices for cities and public entities regulating and managing shared micromobility services on their streets. While many of the issues covered are applicable to all forms of shared micromobility, this document is explicitly meant to help cities establish guidelines for formal management of public-use mobility options that are not managed through traditional procurement processes (the management mechanism for most docked bike share programs in North America).
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX B. FLM STRATEGIES TOOLKIT Introduction to the FLM Strategies Toolkit
    APPENDIX B. FLM STRATEGIES TOOLKIT Introduction to the FLM Strategies Toolkit This toolkit provides detailed information on 37 REUSE OF EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE discrete FLM strategies. The toolkit is organized by FLM strategy theme. • Curbside Management • On-Demand Microtransit Each toolkit sheet includes: • Innovative Park-n-Ride Management • Shuttle Service • Support Implementation of Micromobility Service • Description of the strategy • Car Share Parking • Applicability of the strategy to each FLM • Preferential Parking for Car or Vanpool Vehicles • Special Event Transit Service typology • Prioritization of RTD Owned Land and Parking • Autonomous Transit • Applicability of the strategy to any of the six • Point-to-point Car Share FLM overlays • Provide Power • Key implementing agencies • Round-trip Car Share • Potential funding sources • A case study or resource pertaining to the strategy, including a link for more information NEW INFRASTRUCTURE TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT • Bicycle and Micromobility Parking and Storage • Creation of EcoPass District • Multimodal Maps and Wayfinding • Bicycle Education and Encouragement Programs • Bike End-of-Trip Facilities and Amenities • Promotion of RTD Discount Passes • Website or App • Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH) • Variable Message Signs FIRST AND LAST MILE GENERAL GUIDANCE • Dynamic Carpooling to Transit • Transit Access Marketing Plan • Pedestrian-Scale Lighting • Commuter Expert or Commuter Buddy • Improve Bicycle and Micromobility Infrastructure • Parking Cash-Out
    [Show full text]
  • The Basics of Micromobility and Related Motorized Devices for Personal Transport
    INFO BRIEF The basics of micromobility and related motorized devices for personal transport www.pedbikeinfo.org 1 Introduction With a surge of new personal transportation weight categories. Cities or other jurisdictions devices coming to market, some integrated into can define the weight and width limitations for shared ride systems (such as bikeshare programs), different types of roadway facilities. there is a need to establish a common vocabulary for these options, and provide basic information This info brief specifically focuses on micromobility about how these devices are classified and devices used for personal transportation on regulated. This info brief provides an overview of paved roads, sidewalks, and paths, and does not powered forms of micromobility and compares cover devices used for vocational purposes and features of micromobility with a spectrum of other commercial goods/services delivery or for off- traditional and emerging forms of transportation. road or air-based travel. While pedestrians and It references and builds upon micromobility bicyclists—including those using nonmotorized definitions created by the Society of Automotive bikeshare bikes—might share similar Engineers (SAE), a standards-developing characteristics (such as small size and low travel organization and professional association. speed speed) as well as use the same facilities where micromobility devices are operated, they Powered micromobility devices, sometimes called are already well-defined by most regulatory, personal e-mobility devices, share
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Bus Rapid Transit Feasiblity Study
    TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 2 MODES AND TRENDS THAT FACILITATE BRT ........................................................................................................................................................ 2 2.1 Microtransit ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 2 2.2 Shared Mobility .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 2.3 Mobility Hubs ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 2.4 Curbside Management .............................................................................................................................................................................. 3 3 VEHICLES THAT SUPPORT BRT OPERATIONS ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 3.1 Automated Vehicles .................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Matthew Daus Monthly Column
    Matthew W. Daus, Esq. President, International Association of Transportation Regulators http://iatr.global/ Transportation Technology Chair, City University of New York, Transportation Research Center at The City College of New York http://www.utrc2.org/ Partner and Chairman, Windels Marx Transportation Practice Group http://windelsmarx.com Contact: [email protected] 156 West 56th Street | New York, NY 10019 T. 212.237.1106 | F. 212.262.1215 {11878124:1} 1 Taxi & For-Hire Business Opportunities with Government & Public Transit Agencies in 2021 and Beyond Public transit agencies – and state and local governments – are hurting now because of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and they will need new efficiencies and revenue sources. The pandemic has wreaked havoc on the global economy, with a devastating impact on the national and local economies. This has triggered a severe budget crisis for cities and states across the United States.1 New York City projects an $8.33 billion shortfall in its 2021 fiscal year budget,2 and the National League of Cities predicts that cities, towns, and villages can expect to face a cumulative $360 billion budget shortfall from 2020 through 2022. The severe decline in public transit ridership will also have devastating effects on transit agencies. When New York City emerged as an epicenter of COVID-19 in mid-April, subway ridership dropped 92% and commuter train ridership dropped 98%.3 Service has yet to return to anything near pre-pandemic levels, and the 2020 Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“MTA”) November Financial Plan (the “November Plan”) estimates deficits of $2.49 billion in 2020, $6.12 billion in 2021, and multibillion-dollar deficits through 2024.4 Cuts have already begun.5 The MTA has focused on three areas to cut costs including non- personnel expenses.
    [Show full text]
  • Matching the Speed of Technology with the Speed of Local Government: Developing Codes and Policies Related to the Possible Impacts of New Mobility on Cities
    Final Report 1216 June 2020 Photo by Cait McCusker Matching the Speed of Technology with the Speed of Local Government: Developing Codes and Policies Related to the Possible Impacts of New Mobility on Cities Marc Schlossberg, Ph.D. Heather Brinton NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNITIES nitc-utc.net MATCHING THE SPEED OF TECHNOLOGY WITH THE SPEED OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT Developing Codes and Policies Related to the Possible Impacts of New Mobility on Cities Final Report NITC-RR-1216 by Marc Schlossberg, Professor Department of Planning, Public Policy and Management University of Oregon Heather Brinton, Director Environment and Natural Resources Law Center University of Oregon for National Institute for Transportation and Communities (NITC) P.O. Box 751 Portland, OR 97207 June 2020 Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. NITC-RR-1216 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date June 2020 Matching the Speed of Technology with the Speed of Local Government: Developing Codes and Policies Related to the Possible Impacts of New Mobility on Cities 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Marc Schlossberg Report No. Heather Brinton 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) University of Oregon 1209 University of Oregon 11. Contract or Grant No. Eugene, OR 97403 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered National Institute for Transportation and Communities (NITC) P.O. Box 751 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Portland, Oregon 97207 15. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstract Advances in transportation technology such as the advent of scooter and bikeshare systems (micromobility), ridehailing, and autonomous vehicles (AV’s) are beginning to have profound effects not only on how we live, move, and spend our time in cities, but also on urban form and development itself.
    [Show full text]
  • Mirroring and Disruption - a Case Study of Nokia’S Decline Master of Science Thesis in the Management and Economics of Innovation Program
    heh Mirroring and Disruption - A Case Study of Nokia’s Decline Master of Science Thesis in the Management and Economics of Innovation Program CARL-JOHAN BLOMQVIST DAÐI SNÆR SKÚLASON MAGNUS SJÖLANDER Department of Technology Management and Economics Division of Innovation Engineering and Management CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY Göteborg, Sweden, 2014 Report No. E 2014:008 MASTER’S THESIS E 2014:008 Mirroring and Disruption A Case Study of Nokia’s Decline CARL-JOHAN BLOMQVIST DAÐI SNÆR SKÚLASON MAGNUS SJÖLANDER Supervisor: Christian Sandström, Ph.D. Department of Technology Management and Economics Division of Innovation Engineering and Management CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY Göteborg, Sweden 2014 MIRRORING AND DISRUPTION Carl-Johan Blomqvist Daði Snær Skúlason Magnus Sjölander © CARL-JOHAN BLOMQVIST, DAÐI SNÆR SKÚLASON & MAGNUS SJÖLANDER, 2014 Master’s Thesis E 2014: 008 Department of Technology Management and Economics Division of Innovation Engineering and Management Chalmers University of Technology SE-412 96 Göteborg, Sweden Telephone: + 46 (0)31-772 1000 Chalmers Reproservice Göteborg, Sweden 2014 Abstract The mobile industry is an ever changing and fast growing technology based industry that is very interesting to examine at this point in time due to the technological shift the industry has gone through in the recent years. This technological shift has caused a disruption in the industry and led to the demise of many incumbents as new firms entered the industry. We argue that the shift the mobile industry has gone through is not merely a technological one, but rather a paradigm shift from the old feature phone paradigm to the new smartphone paradigm. Further, this paradigm shift brings substantial changes; where the institutions and underlying logic as well as those competences and business models that are important differ between the two paradigms.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 Virtual Conference Sponsorship Deck
    2021 NABSA Virtual Conference Sponsorship Packages and Pricing The Future is Shared ABOUT THE CONFERENCE The NABSA Annual Conference is the only conference of its kind globally. The NABSA conference is an international cross- sector convening of all sectors involved in shared micromobility planning and implementation-- host cities, equipment manufacturers, operators, technology providers, consultants, data analytics companies, and other service providers that all contribute to realizing shared micromobility in communities. Sponsorship provides multiple venues and collateral items to connect you to the people you want to know, and who want to know you. Gain exposure to city officials, operators, and private industry professionals, and make your mark in the shared micromobility industry. The Future is Shared ABOUT THE CONFERENCE The NABSA conference is a global stage. The NABSA Conference is the longest-running and only conference of it’s kind globally. Professionals from all over the world attend this must-go event! The 2020 NABSA virtual conference had 400 attendees. The 2018 & 2019 in-person NABSA conferences had between 300-350 bikeshare and shared mobility professionals in attendance - government officials, private industry and non-profit professionals. NABSA’s annual conference is the best way to connect with the leaders, influencers and decision-makers that are driving shared micromobility forward. Attendees include representatives from many cities across North America engaged in shared micromobility, and looking to implement and
    [Show full text]
  • Electric Mobility = Micromobility (Not Just Electric Cars) (Behrendt 2017; Cairns Et Al 2019)
    Micromobility - Emerging Urban Transport Trends ELEVATE - Our new micromobility project: https://gow.epsrc.ukri.org/NGBOViewGrant.aspx?GrantRef=EP/S030700/1 Frauke Behrendt, Associate Professor Transitions to Sustainable Mobility [email protected] @FraukeBehrendt Technology, Innovation & Society Group Covid Paris 2 Micromobility - Emerging Urban Transport Trends @FraukeBehrendt Micromobility “will continue to transform These “innovative how people travel, goods are technologies will likely have a delivered, streets are disruptive impact” designed, and cities evolve.” (Shaheen & Cohen, 2019) 3 Micromobility - Emerging Urban Transport Trends @FraukeBehrendt What is Micromobility? Micro e-cars E-Skatebaords Cargo e-bikes Monowheels Etc… 4 Micromobility - Emerging Urban Transport Trends @FraukeBehrendt Classifications • Definitions, classifications and regulatory frameworks for micromobility vary across the world (e.g. EU L categories) • A range of micro-vehicles – such as standing e-scooters, e-skateboards and self-balancing vehicles – is often excluded, or classified as toys 5 Micromobility - Emerging Urban Transport Trends @FraukeBehrendt Proposed Definition Type A: Under 35kg, power supply (if any) is gradually reduced and cut off at a given speed limit, no higher than 25 km/h Overall: Devices/vehicles weighing up to 350 kg and whose power supply (if any) is gradually reduced and cut off at a given speed limit, no higher than 45 km/h. Types A-D Includes exclusively human-powered, e.g. bicycles, skateboards, scooters. Note: account for
    [Show full text]
  • Disruption 2020 What It Will Take to Innovate and Compete Over the Next Decade
    SPECIAL COLLECTION INNOVATION SERIES Disruption 2020 What it will take to innovate and compete over the next decade. Spring 2020 Brought to you by: CONTENTS SPECIAL COLLECTION Disruption 2020 1 The Original Disrupter By Karen Dillon 2 Disruption 2020: An Interview With Clayton M. Christensen By Clayton M. Christensen, interviewed by Karen Dillon 8 The New Disrupters By Rita Gunther McGrath 14 From Disruption to Collision: The New Competitive Dynamics By Marco Iansiti and Karim R. Lakhani 20 To Disrupt or Not to Disrupt? By Joshua Gans 26 The Future of Platforms By Michael A. Cusumano, David B. Yoffie, and Annabelle Gawer 35 How Leaders Delude Themselves About Disruption By Scott D. Anthony and Michael Putz 43 The 11 Sources of Disruption Every Company Must Monitor By Amy Webb 49 A Crisis of Ethics in Technology Innovation By Max Wessel and Nicole Helmer 55 The Experience Disrupters By Brian Halligan 60 Sponsor's Viewpoint: Ecosystems and the Future of Innovation By Nishita Henry, chief innovation officer, Deloitte Consulting LLP and Bill Briggs, global chief technology officer, Deloitte Consulting LLP FROM THE EDITOR The Original Disrupter the rapid speed of innovation, and easy access to capital will affect how companies compete in the years ahead — all topics we explore in this issue. I started working with the team at MIT SMR well before Clay’s death in January 2020, so I was able to sit down with him for what would be his last inter- view. Clay had continually refined his own theories over the years, but he was still wrestling with many questions, as you’ll see in our Q&A on page 21.
    [Show full text]