# Uber destroys thousands of bikes and scooters



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52832791

Uber is destroying thousands of electric bikes and scooters, after selling its Jump business to Lime.

Videos of its red bikes being crushed at a recycling centre were shared on social media, angering cycling advocates.

Uber said it had decided to destroy thousands of its older-model vehicles due to maintenance, liability and safety concerns.

In the UK, Uber continues to operate Jump and has not scrapped any bikes.


----------



## 1.5xorbust (Nov 22, 2017)

Destruction is one of Uber’s strengths.


----------



## sellkatsell44 (Oct 25, 2015)

Not surprised at all.
h&m destroyed tons of clothing rather then letting the homeless or third world be clothed.

worried about pple who brought them seeing it on the homeless? Clearly they need to rearrange their priorities.

also same for Starbucks not wanting to be liable if the homeless dies or gets sick from the food they throw away, which is their excuse for not donating it (my friend tried to get a program started where Starbucks will donate food to homeless shelters vs throwing them away).

it goes on.


----------



## Buck-a-mile (Nov 2, 2019)

1.5xorbust said:


> Destruction is one of Uber's strengths.


Yeah, destruction of our cars.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

sellkatsell44 said:


> h&m destroyed tons of clothing rather then letting the homeless or third world be clothed.
> 
> Starbucks not wanting to be liable if the homeless dies or gets sick from the food they throw away, which is their excuse for not donating it (my friend tried to get a program started where Starbucks will donate food to homeless shelters vs throwing them away).


This is, oddly enough something that Good Samaritan Laws do not cover. When I got back to Washington from Canada, before I left to resume school, I was working in a sandwich shop in a night life area of the city. This particular sandwich shop stayed open until one hour after the bars closed. Across the street, was a Roy Rogers (a fast food joint formerly owned by Marriott; you never had them in California) that closed at Eleven P.M. It used to put the unsold food in paper bags and a guy stood at the back door and passed out bags to homeless people. They gave away everything every night. One night, one of these homeless people supposedly got sick and made a fuss. Of course, its being Washington, where every third person is a lawyer, it attracted the attention of several lawyers. One of these ended up representing this homeless person and suing Marriott. They settled, but, after that, Marriott implemented a policy of not giving away the leftovers.

People do not like getting sued because it costs a pile of money. The winners are always the lawyers. This puts a damper on many potential charitable acts. If the states would fix their Good Samaritan Laws, many of these firms would go back to being charitable.

Some of that clothing does end up going to charitable organisations overseas, as the donors do not get sued there. To be sure, people in distressed areas overseas are just as much in need of clothing as anyone else, but you would see more here if the firms were not afraid of being sued.


----------



## IthurstwhenIP (Jan 12, 2018)

Damn it somebody else needs to do something and I will sit on my fat ass shaming until they do


----------



## AveragePerson (May 18, 2018)

sellkatsell44 said:


> Not surprised at all.
> h&m destroyed tons of clothing rather then letting the homeless or third world be clothed.
> 
> worried about pple who brought them seeing it on the homeless? Clearly they need to rearrange their priorities.
> ...


If you are in charge of H&M, you would do the same. There is no benefit to H&M, only devaluation of their own brand and cost in sales. Only risk, no reward.

If you are in charge of Starbucks, you would do the same. There is no benefit to Starbucks, there is only unnecessary liabilities. Only risk, no reward.

You must act in your own interest first before considering the welfare of others. This isn't fairyland where we hold hands and sing happy songs together, reality is more sobering and harsh.


----------



## sellkatsell44 (Oct 25, 2015)

AveragePerson said:


> If you are in charge of H&M, you would do the same. There is no benefit to H&M, only devaluation of their own brand and cost in sales. Only risk, no reward.
> 
> If you are in charge of Starbucks, you would do the same. There is no benefit to Starbucks, there is only unnecessary liabilities. Only risk, no reward.
> 
> You must act in your own interest first before considering the welfare of others. This isn't fairyland where we hold hands and sing happy songs together, reality is more sobering and harsh.


H&m is not anything special so no, I would have not done the same.

same with Starbucks.

conscious, social investing is on the rise.


----------



## Jihad Me At Hello (Jun 18, 2018)

AveragePerson said:


> If you are in charge of H&M, you would do the same. There is no benefit to H&M, only devaluation of their own brand and cost in sales. Only risk, no reward.
> 
> If you are in charge of Starbucks, you would do the same. There is no benefit to Starbucks, there is only unnecessary liabilities. Only risk, no reward.
> 
> You must act in your own interest first before considering the welfare of others. This isn't fairyland where we hold hands and sing happy songs together, reality is more sobering and harsh.


I absolutely would not. There's no brand devaluation when world gets to see you're socially aware and have a corporate conscience. Goodwill is a real thing


----------



## AveragePerson (May 18, 2018)

Jihad Me At Hello said:


> I absolutely would not. There's no brand devaluation when world gets to see you're socially aware and have a corporate conscience. Goodwill is a real thing


The majority of the public doesn't care about that as long as there are no bad scandals. Being neutral is perfectly fine. But the consumers do care that they see homeless people wearing the types of cloth and styles they buy. They aren't spending money to look or be associated like homeless people, like it or not. Fashion is about looking good and being perceived as homeless goods is the kiss of death for the business.

Nobody cares about Starbucks doing a good thing, that barely attracts any attention, but as soon as one of those thrown out/possibly expired goods caused some poor guy to fell ill or die, then the media would be all over and question whether Starbucks food is safe to consume for consumers, and no regards would be pay to the wonderful charity works. So Starbucks gains nothing but a scandal waiting to happen that will harm their brand and bring their food standards into question, leading to reduced sales and extra unnecessary liabilities. It's just bad business.


----------



## waldowainthrop (Oct 25, 2019)

AveragePerson said:


> If you are in charge of H&M, you would do the same. There is no benefit to H&M, only devaluation of their own brand and cost in sales. Only risk, no reward.
> 
> If you are in charge of Starbucks, you would do the same. There is no benefit to Starbucks, there is only unnecessary liabilities. Only risk, no reward.
> 
> You must act in your own interest first before considering the welfare of others. This isn't fairyland where we hold hands and sing happy songs together, reality is more sobering and harsh.


Are you a socialist? Because this is a really good strawman argument against capitalism.


----------



## AveragePerson (May 18, 2018)

waldowainthrop said:


> Are you a socialist? Because this is a really good strawman argument against capitalism.


No, I'm a capitalist. How is this a good argument against capitalism? The liability risk that exists are from overzealous regulations.


----------



## waldowainthrop (Oct 25, 2019)

AveragePerson said:


> No, I'm a capitalist. How is this a good argument against capitalism? The liability risk that exists are from overzealous regulations.


No, I mean that's why it's a good strawman. You're describing "capitalism as it is" and it sounds pretty harsh and bad to a lot of people. It's an argument against capitalism because you're saying "this is the society we live in" and a lot of people would presume that it's because of the narrow self-interest of a company rather than other, more nuanced reasons. I know you're not making a real anti-capitalist argument, but it could be perceived as one.

For what it's worth, I agree that over-regulation is a big reason why it's against the self-interest of some businesses to act in neutrally altruistic. It hurts them to do good. Litigiousness can be bad for business sometimes, but can also bad for public interests, as well.

I was joking about the socialism. I know a true comrade when I see one. &#129325;


----------



## Uberguyken (May 10, 2020)

And be assured they will write every one of them off at full value come tax time.... Well played UBER... Well played...


----------



## AngelAdams (Jan 21, 2019)

There goes drivers Christmas bonus.


----------



## sellkatsell44 (Oct 25, 2015)

AveragePerson said:


> The majority of the public doesn't care about that as long as there are no bad scandals. Being neutral is perfectly fine. But the consumers do care that they see homeless people wearing the types of cloth and styles they buy. They aren't spending money to look or be associated like homeless people, like it or not. Fashion is about looking good and being perceived as homeless goods is the kiss of death for the business.
> 
> Nobody cares about Starbucks doing a good thing, that barely attracts any attention, but as soon as one of those thrown out/possibly expired goods caused some poor guy to fell ill or die, then the media would be all over and question whether Starbucks food is safe to consume for consumers, and no regards would be pay to the wonderful charity works. So Starbucks gains nothing but a scandal waiting to happen that will harm their brand and bring their food standards into question, leading to reduced sales and extra unnecessary liabilities. It's just bad business.


No. H&m knocks off the runway, recently they've compromised by having designers work with them but the crap that is placed in the stores is still disposable clothing quality.

As in, if you're shopping in h&m you should not be concerned if the homeless is wearing the same piece a few months later because by then you're probably done with it anyways and that might have been the piece you donated if it's not in the back of your closet collecting dust.

and they don't need to donate it local, they can donate it to somewhere in the middle of Africa where there's not an h&m for miles.

And in by doing so they generate good PR.

You're also outdated on people not caring. They are putting their money in, that's why social investing is on the rise. It's why blackrock started a fund that is in the billions and aiming to take it to trillions.

https://www.ft.com/content/57db9dc2-3690-11ea-a6d3-9a26f8c3cba4


AveragePerson said:


> No, I'm a capitalist. How is this a good argument against capitalism? The liability risk that exists are from overzealous regulations.


True/smart capitalism realizes there's an opportunity with everything.

your capitalism is just supposedly just about the "bottom line" but in reality it's short sighted.


----------



## Mash Ghasem (Jan 12, 2020)

What a waste of parts and materials.


----------



## AveragePerson (May 18, 2018)

sellkatsell44 said:


> No. H&m knocks off the runway, recently they've compromised by having designers work with them but the crap that is placed in the stores is still disposable clothing quality.
> 
> As in, if you're shopping in h&m you should not be concerned if the homeless is wearing the same piece a few months later because by then you're probably done with it anyways and that might have been the piece you donated if it's not in the back of your closet collecting dust.
> 
> ...


The vast majority of people only care about these social goods to the extend that it doesn't cost them anything. As soon as its percieved that it will cost them, most will reconsider.

Here's an example in action live with real people. People complain about Walmart workers making too little and support higher wages... until they are asked to contribute to make it possible.





Also, ever notice how when charity approach you for donation for a social good, they always focus on one specific story about some individual and appeal to your emotion rather than use statistical fact to convince you logically? Because study shows that you are much much more likely to donate if you feel like you are helping someone out and making a difference to that one person rather than care about a large group because it releases more dopamine and you get to feel good about yourself. Pat yourself on the back for doing a good deed. In a sense, it's not altruism, just people looking to feel good about themselves and buying dopamine releases. Ofc this happens at a subconscious level for the most part but it's still there.


----------



## sellkatsell44 (Oct 25, 2015)

AveragePerson said:


> The vast majority of people only care about these social goods to the extend that it doesn't cost them anything. As soon as its percieved that it will cost them, most will reconsider.
> 
> Here's an example in action live with real people. People complain about Walmart workers making too little and support higher wages... until they are asked to contribute to make it possible.
> 
> ...


Smh you're not getting it.

people are investing in funds that are composed of companies that are socially positive.

how does that narrative above fit with what we're trying to talk in?

It's about who has the money.

people without money don't have the luxury to care.

that doesn't mean that companies that cater to those folks (like h&m) should not care about their image.

and if they didn't care they wouldn't respond denying they destroy clothing

https://www.just-style.com/news/hm-hits-back-at-new-claims-it-destroys-unsold-clothes_id134735.aspx


----------



## AveragePerson (May 18, 2018)

*ŕ*


sellkatsell44 said:


> Smh you're not getting it.
> 
> people are investing in funds that are composed of companies that are socially positive.
> 
> ...


That's only a strength and positive opportunity cost return for the investors if the cost to maintain this better PR image is worth the conversion in new customers that would result in more sales or profit. If the consumer doesn't care much, it would be a negative opportunity cost because sales might actually reduce or cut significantly into margin because the product or service would cost more because extra funds are used for these social projects or social element to the business.

So far, the fact almost every big company production are made as cheap as possible overseas with minimal regards for environment or workforce and still sell boatloads relative to their more 'social concious' competitors are testament to how much consumers care.

It don't matter if they say they care about this or support that if they aren't willing to pay more for the goods or services that make such thing possible compared to competition who are more efficient and cost less but less socially sustainable.


----------



## sellkatsell44 (Oct 25, 2015)

AveragePerson said:


> *ŕ*
> 
> That's only a strength and positive opportunity cost return for the investors if the cost to maintain this better PR image is worth the conversion in new customers that would result in more sales or profit. If the consumer doesn't care much, it would be a negative opportunity cost because sales might actually reduce or cut significantly into margin because the product or service would cost more because extra funds are used for these social projects or social element to the business.
> 
> So far, the fact almost every big company production are made as cheap as possible overseas with minimal regards for environment or workforce and still sell boatloads relative to their more 'social concious' competitors are testament to how much consumers care.


&#128580;&#128580;

text book yes.

you're not getting it. Times are a changing.

your stats wherever you got them from, highly doubt it's 2019 or 2020.

of course companies want to get something from good PR otherwise they have no incentive to do so, That's basic 101.

the difference is people are more aware now, information is a plenty and people there are people who put their money where their mouth is otherwise why would blackrock be incentivized to create a fund and come out to say it'll be in the trillions, from billions of dollars?

stick with your somewhat large group that don't have $400 in savings and I'll stick with people who are between that and the wealthy along with the wealthy that will invest in companies that are socially responsible.


----------



## AveragePerson (May 18, 2018)

sellkatsell44 said:


> &#128580;&#128580;
> 
> text book yes.
> 
> ...


In what industry is the top dominant company in 2019 or 2020 is perceived as a very socially sustainable business? You'll quickly notice the top dogs are all about efficiency as that's what consumer care about. Highest quality product or service at the cheapest price.

Do you know of any fund, who make their money from managing the funds regardless if it make money or not, come out and advertise their fund as mediocre or bad with low potential?


----------



## sellkatsell44 (Oct 25, 2015)

AveragePerson said:


> In what industry is the top dominant company in 2019 or 2020 is perceived as a very socially sustainable business? You'll quickly notice the top dogs are all about efficiency as that's what consumer care about. Highest quality product or service at the cheapest price.
> 
> Do you know of any fund, who make their money from managing the funds regardless if it make money or not, come out and advertise their fund as mediocre or bad with low potential?


Try not to be stubborn and stupid. :thumbdown: :thumbdown::thumbup:

https://www.morningstar.com/articles/986785/how-vanguard-fidelity-and-others-embrace-esg-investing
































Starbucks did buckle under pressure. Hmm &#129300;&#129300;

they did make changes, just not 100% of the stores there yet.

https://nypost.com/2020/01/18/starbucks-still-throwing-away-boxes-of-food-after-no-waste-pledge/


----------



## Wolfgang Faust (Aug 2, 2018)

Another Uber Driver said:


> This is, oddly enough something that Good Samaritan Laws do not cover. When I got back to Washington from Canada, before I left to resume school, I was working in a sandwich shop in a night life area of the city. This particular sandwich shop stayed open until one hour after the bars closed. Across the street, was a Roy Rogers (a fast food joint formerly owned by Marriott; you never had them in California) that closed at Eleven P.M. It used to put the unsold food in paper bags and a guy stood at the back door and passed out bags to homeless people. They gave away everything every night. One night, one of these homeless people supposedly got sick and made a fuss. Of course, its being Washington, where every third person is a lawyer, it attracted the attention of several lawyers. One of these ended up representing this homeless person and suing Marriott. They settled, but, after that, Marriott implemented a policy of not giving away the leftovers.
> 
> People do not like getting sued because it costs a pile of money. The winners are always the lawyers. This puts a damper on many potential charitable acts. If the states would fix their Good Samaritan Laws, many of these firms would go back to being charitable.
> 
> Some of that clothing does end up going to charitable organisations overseas, as the donors do not get sued there. To be sure, people in distressed areas overseas are just as much in need of clothing as anyone else, but you would see more here if the firms were not afraid of being sued.


All the SF 49ER SUPERBOWL CHAMP hats and shirts are being worn by Nigerian and Somalians.


----------



## Amos69 (May 17, 2019)

Wolfgang Faust said:


> All the SF 49ER SUPERBOWL CHAMP hats and shirts are being worn by Nigerian and Somalians.


LOL When I was in Northern Central Namibia I ran across two guys wearing SB 49 shirts declaring the Seahawks champions instead of patriots. I bought them both and have one framed in the workout room.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Uberguyken said:


> And be assured they will write every one of them off at full value come tax time..


that's not how accounting works. Asset disposal would be the =remaining= value would be expensed. So, nar.


----------



## Amos69 (May 17, 2019)

SHalester said:


> that's not how accounting works. Asset disposal would be the =remaining= value would be expensed. So, nar.


I'm starting to think Uberguyken is exceptionally young. He or she doesn't seem to grasp much of anything like most 16-24 yo. That's who I feel like I am talking to.

Damn zombie kids don't know sh!t


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

uh, oh.


----------



## Uberguyken (May 10, 2020)

Amos69 said:


> I'm starting to think Uberguyken is exceptionally young. He or she doesn't seem to grasp much of anything like most 16-24 yo. That's who I feel like I am talking to.
> 
> Damn zombie kids don't know sh!t


Yeah.... You'd be wrong... I understand writing off depreciated value each year... Just assumed common sense. And didn't expect sleepfest @SHalester to chime in with his normal tired comments... &#128526;


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Uberguyken said:


> to chime in with his normal tired comments...


but but but my comment is correcto, right on the button fact. Yours was fantasy absent of facts. Mine was GAAP and yours was Enron made up. And most likely you actually MEANT what you posted. Common sense? Go back to knitting.


----------



## NotYetADriver (Oct 28, 2014)




----------



## Uberguyken (May 10, 2020)

SHalester said:


> but but but my comment is correcto, right on the button fact. Yours was fantasy absent of facts. Mine was GAAP and yours was Enron made up. And most likely you actually MEANT what you posted. Common sense? Go back to knitting.


Well played sir.... Well played


----------

