[deleted] t1_j7v033n wrote
[removed]
Aristosus t1_j7v2vvc wrote
Do us all a favor and don't leave your apartment. Supporting stealing citibikes is how paying customers end up with bikes that are beat to shit or no bikes available at all.
froggythefish t1_j7v4v73 wrote
Stealing bikes doesn’t cause the bikes to be “beat to shit”… if they’re stolen, they aren’t on the rack. Citibike is an excuse for the city to not have real bicycle renting infrastructure. I support any act to help drive citibike into the ground, they littered the streets with piece of shit bikes they make no attempt to maintain and the government paid them for it.
Aristosus t1_j7v5onb wrote
Guarantee you it isn't the paying customers that I see taking citibikes and jumping stairs with them.
I also have no idea what kind of government-run bicycle renting infrastructure you're imagining that will somehow be better than citibike. Is there even a modern example in the US?
froggythefish t1_j7v65o3 wrote
If citibike was a public service they’d be able to maintain their shit regardless of profits. Other similar companies which let people rent scooters all fail, as they can’t maintain their scooters while maintaining profits. Like the MTA, their trains aren’t profitable but are still maintained, since it’s an actual public service. The private sector cannot be trusted to provide public services, it doesn’t work. If the state is going to shovel tax money into private companies which provide shit service, I support anyone who helped pay those taxes to use that service without paying extra fees. That includes stealing citibikes.
I_Cut_Shoes t1_j7v6u04 wrote
>If citibike was a public service they’d be able to maintain their shit regardless of profits
have you seen the mta
froggythefish t1_j7v7juo wrote
Their trains all work, they work well even. And that’s just their trains, they also have a fairly reliable bus service. All this, and it’s not profitable at all. This is the difference between public and private services, the MTA could let everyone ride for free, make zero revenue, and still run reliably. Private companies can’t compare to the reliability of a public service.
Aristosus t1_j7v6zyq wrote
So because citibike has provided "shit service" in your opinion, you think paying customers should suffer by encouraging freeloaders to steal a service—ergo you want to ensure more people suffer going forward.
Also, what makes you think "if citibike was a public service they’d be able to maintain their shit", rather than the extremely more likely case that they simply remove racks and bikes to reduce the maintenance load?
froggythefish t1_j7v7wnc wrote
Does the MTA remove stations to make maintenance easier? I’ve never heard of that. And yes, I’m saying that if your taxes paid for citibike, and citibike provides shit service, you may as well make the most of it and take the bike to maintain it yourself. Paying customers suffer? They should stop paying.
Aristosus t1_j7v98ov wrote
No, but the MTA certainly cut service during the pandemic when it was collecting significantly less in fares. Removing bike racks is as simple as loading them up on a flatbed and driving off.
I'm also not sure where you got the idea that Citibike is funded by taxes. They've received funding to build in underserved neighborhoods, sure, which definitely benefited those who otherwise wouldn't have access, and I'm sure wouldn't complain about the quality of service versus none at all. Your sense of entitlement for some grand level of bike quality completely ignores those people who just want any access they can get.
froggythefish t1_j7v9ovr wrote
The MTA cutting service when there’s lower demand makes sense, lol.
People can have all the access they want, to as high a quality as they’d like, right outside their building, by stealing one of those tax funded citibikes. And id fully support them in doing so.
Aristosus t1_j7vb8vr wrote
Your whole argument to justify stealing relies on the idea that Citibike is funded by taxes, which is pure fiction.
And the idea that a newly built publicly-run bike rental infrastructure would be a good allocation of funds while also exceeding what Citibike has achieved is both naive and insane.
froggythefish t1_j7vc9z7 wrote
Citibike is routinely given public funding lol.
NYC already has enough funds to reallocate to a bike service. I mean, surely the NYPD can spare some of those ten billion dollars.
Aristosus t1_j7ve4k6 wrote
Can you even find a single resource confirming that Citibike receives funding from taxes? Just one?
froggythefish t1_j7vfzft wrote
Aristosus t1_j7vgjws wrote
Did you even read the article whatsoever? This is a partnership for government employees to receive rideshare service. Try again.
froggythefish t1_j7vgn8v wrote
To shorten your comment: the government provided funding to the company that owns citibike
Aristosus t1_j7vgzfe wrote
Paying for a service =/= funding. You have a serious fundamental misunderstanding about what public funding means.
By your logic, is WB Mason publically funded because government offices buy their paper?
froggythefish t1_j7vh85c wrote
Paying for a service implies giving money to the provider of the service. Giving money to a company is funding them. Jeez.
Yes, any company which receives tax money is publicly funded.
Aristosus t1_j7vif8e wrote
So you think that a government contract allowing federal employees to get a discount on Lyft rides translates to "citibikes are funded by the government," and that you're entitled to steal bikes at your discretion because all things paid for by the government are actually owned by everyone? Is that really it?
froggythefish t1_j7vizu0 wrote
No… I think “giving tax money to the company that owns citibike” translates to “giving tax money to the company that owns citibike”. And I think the government only really exists if owned by the people. Otherwise, it’s just a violent occupying force.
Unrelated, but if citibike wants to keep people from stealing their bikes, maybe don’t store them… in public? Like, on the street? I mean, the least you could do for some dude who can’t park in front of his job or home anymore is let them steal a bike.
Aristosus t1_j7vk6kj wrote
Has it ever occurred to you that publicly traded companies have to disclose where their money goes? It's fairly straightforward to see that the government does not pay for Citibike to exist, but I have a feeling it's a lost cause to mention that.
Now your motivations make sense though. Started complaining how bikes are "litter", and now you're suggesting publicly accessible services not be made available in public. You don't actually give a shit about people using Citibike, you're just a car driver upset that bike racks take up precious parking spaces.
froggythefish t1_j7vkjod wrote
I don’t have a car nor do I want one. I want cars banned from travel within the city. Streets used to be, and should be, an area travelled primarily by pedestrians, bikes, and trams.
I also don’t think a private company should be able to just set up shop and profit from the publicly owned street.
Aristosus t1_j7vmilo wrote
If that's true, I don't know why you'd advocate for doing something that demonstrably causes users of bike sharing services to suffer. Private companies are not inherently bad, municipalities partner with them for practicality and in the best interest of the people. Do you think things would actually be better if the MTA decided to start manufacturing their trains instead of just purchasing them? Do you think the NYPD should manufacture their own cars instead of partnering with Ford? In many cases, using the private sector is the most efficient and cheapest means to an end, especially when it comes to setting up and maintaining a bike sharing network.
I'd rather not be taxed more for a service I periodically use, at a rate that costs the public 3x to create than it would for a private company to do so.
froggythefish t1_j7vnbju wrote
I would like if the MTA made their own trains, but currently they don’t have the infrastructure or funding necessary to set up said infrastructure, necessary to manufacture and test trains. The trains would be better, as safety and quality would be put before profits and cost, since the MTA doesn’t care about profits. The NYPD should not manufacture their own cars, as the NYPD doesn’t give a fuck about safety or quality, and is more focused on just beating and killing poor people. State manufacturing is objectively cheaper than private contractors. Which is logical. The private company needs to sell the service for more than it actually costs in order to make a profit. This means it’s cheaper to make or provide than to buy.
Aristosus t1_j7vova7 wrote
You have quite a fantastical image of the government, as if "use it or lose it" policies spending all the funds in a budget aren't a thing. Or that government projects aren't actually more expensive and take longer to finish. You have to come to terms with reality, the government sucks when it comes to doing things efficiently and effectively, and at no point will building something for the government ever not be done without the help of the private sector.
froggythefish t1_j7vpbhm wrote
Weird, other nations seem to manufacture stuff in government just fine, for an extremely cheap price. If the US can’t match the efficiency of even developing nations, the US government needs to be either heavily reformed or abolished
Aristosus t1_j7vpzck wrote
Heavily reformed, abso-fucking-lutely. Abolished? No bearing in reality.
[deleted] t1_j7v53ub wrote
[deleted]
froggythefish t1_j7v5l1b wrote
The parking racks are litter. They’re expanding when they can’t maintain the litter they’ve already place. We need less rentable scooters, not more. Every other rentable scooter company got their scooters stolen and destroyed and couldn’t maintain it in a profitable manner. Citibike already does that with their bikes.
If citibike was an actual public service, like the mta, they would maintain their shit regardless of profits. Since it’s a private company, this is not the case. The city should not employ private companies to supply public services.
[deleted] t1_j7xr0wo wrote
[deleted]
froggythefish t1_j7xra25 wrote
The MTA is doing amazing, wdym? Are we just going to ignore it’s probably the best public transport in the USA? And North America by extension?
[deleted] t1_j806xt7 wrote
[deleted]
Tatar_Kulchik t1_j7v2upd wrote
If you don't like them, then don't use the.m
froggythefish t1_j7v4dt3 wrote
I don’t, lol
Freddy-Sez t1_j7v5p94 wrote
They charge too much and don’t maintain the bikes. Surely telling people to just steal them will help alleviate both of those issues
froggythefish t1_j7v6gl5 wrote
It won’t. Citibike as an idea is great, but it’s incompatible with profit seeking private sector. The city needs to make an actual public alternative. Driving citibike into bankruptcy will influence the city to do so, and show them private companies cant be trusted to provide public services.
[deleted] t1_j7vb26b wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j7vboma wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j7vc1xo wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j7vcmt4 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j7vd43x wrote
[removed]
froggythefish t1_j7vdxal wrote
People going to jail paying thousands of dollars for using public property is greatly troubling. Clearly, the legal system needs to be greatly reformed, if not abolished.
barcatoronto t1_j7veff2 wrote
Citibike isn’t public property. Stealing a shared resource is not using it. Jesus christ I knew you guys were stupid but do you live in an alternate reality?
Ah yes let’s abolish the legal system. I’m sure you and your crime committing buddies won’t do anything terrible if that happens.
Seek help. Not from me though. I’ve already schooled you enough today.
jm14ed t1_j7vfnl0 wrote
They are either a troll or a dumb 13 yo kid who thinks they are being edgy.
barcatoronto t1_j7vhik9 wrote
As much as I wish you were right there are honestly people this delusional who live in the city. Entitlement is americas greatest problem. These kids got so many participation trophies they can’t fathom the idea that they’re wrong or things aren’t the way they want them to be.
froggythefish t1_j7vg4pv wrote
Citibike is absolutely public property. Why, they even store their bikes on the streets! “Crime” is a silly word made up by governments to let them harm you over arbitrary made up rules.
HashtagDadWatts t1_j7v5skc wrote
I really enjoy citibike and feel like it's a good value for the money.
[deleted] t1_j7v6p47 wrote
[removed]
HashtagDadWatts t1_j7v6slz wrote
That's called being an ashhole, and I'm not an asshole.
froggythefish t1_j7v75qc wrote
How is that being an asshole? You paid the taxes which bought the bike. Surely by this definition, it is public property. Surely you are part of the public.
jm14ed t1_j7vbhvu wrote
Citibike doesn’t get any public funding
Not that you care about facts or anything.
froggythefish t1_j7vcboh wrote
Yes they do?
HashtagDadWatts t1_j7v9dwd wrote
Stealing public property is something assholes do.
froggythefish t1_j7v9uhq wrote
How can you “steal public property”. It’s public. You already own it. It belongs to everyone. It’s equally as silly as saying you can trespass on a public park.
HashtagDadWatts t1_j7vabh0 wrote
If it belongs to everyone, then I don't personally own it. Only assholes don't understand that.
froggythefish t1_j7val4q wrote
If it belongs to everyone, everyone personally owns it, and everyone can do whatever they want with it, because it belongs to them. So anyone can take it wherever they want, like, for example, into their home. Why are people only able to comprehend things in the framework of private ownership?
HashtagDadWatts t1_j7vb737 wrote
That's not how society works. What a stupid line of thinking.
Go try to build a house in Bryant Park and let us know how it turns out.
froggythefish t1_j7vc17k wrote
You’re so close. So so close. Tell me, since public parks belong to everyone, why can’t I build there? It’s almost as if public property isn’t public, and more like private property owned by a company, which calls itself the “government”. The solution is to steal the private property from the government, and declare it public, until there is no government property left for them to operate from.
HashtagDadWatts t1_j7vc80l wrote
It's more like you don't understand the nature of public property or, more generally, organized society. Lol.
froggythefish t1_j7vcqww wrote
If you knew what public means, you would know it makes no sense for it not to belong to the public
HashtagDadWatts t1_j7vczve wrote
You've now repeated yourself, so you can just read back to the top of this thread for my thoughts. Good luck in your crusade to illogically convince people to act like assholes.
froggythefish t1_j7vd3wk wrote
Public property is owned by the public.
How does this not make sense to you?
HashtagDadWatts t1_j7vd8ok wrote
froggythefish t1_j7ve25t wrote
I never said only you personally own it. I said every individual who is part of the public personally owns it. Not everything is private property dude.
HashtagDadWatts t1_j7velky wrote
froggythefish t1_j7vgglm wrote
That’s irrelevant and only shows that the government is stealing from society, by directing public funding to private projects, and then pretending said private projects are public.
HashtagDadWatts t1_j7vh8s0 wrote
froggythefish t1_j7vhdux wrote
Again, public property is public. If it’s not public, it’s not public property. This isn’t complicated really.
HashtagDadWatts t1_j7vj071 wrote
edit: lol dude got triggered and blocked me after this - so fragile
froggythefish t1_j7vj5ly wrote
Irrelevant, do you have an actual response?
snobum t1_j7var46 wrote
It belongs to everyone. Not to you. It's sad that people don't understand this and why we can't have nice things.
froggythefish t1_j7vba08 wrote
It belongs to everyone, correct. So why can’t one person, who is part of “everyone”, do as they please with it? They’re not preventing others from doing the same.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments