Given the perils of cramming ourselves into public transport at present – and what value a truly integrated transport system when it’s exactly that which might kill you – there has been ,as we might expect, a boom in travelling by bicycle. To the extent that the bike shops are out of new ones and given that all the Chinese factories closed down there are no others to be had.
At which point Uber is destroying thousands of entirely useful bikes. So, why? Are they tired of losing only that much cash and what to piss away more?
So, what’s the answer here?
The answer, well, it’s the joy of this economic system that we’ve screwed ourselves up with. As Uber themselves have said:
“As part of our recent deal, Lime took possession of tens of thousands of new model Jump bikes and scooters,” an Uber spokesperson told Recode. “We explored donating the remaining, older-model bikes, but given many significant issues — including maintenance, liability, safety concerns, and a lack of consumer-grade charging equipment — we decided the best approach was to responsibly recycle them.”
Liability is the thing there. These are specific bikes, made to a specific design. As such it’s Uber – a large corporation with deep pockets – that has to stand behind them. Someone falls off and cracks their head then it’ll be Uber that some ambulance chaser sues. And, given the state of the law, win against.
So, why is Uber pulping perfectly useful bikes? Because out insistence that Big Bad Companies are trying to kill us all makes them do so. Welcome to the bed you made and don’t you dare complain about it, it’s yours, you lie in it.
The language we use matters - it provides clarity to our own thoughts and enables…
It is now generally acknowledged that the structure of the NHS needs to be overhauled…
In the film Apollo 13, a loss of oxygen causes the crew to start inadvertently…
There's an idea out there which seems intuitive but then so many ideas do seem…
When we think about the darkly opaque goals of modern central bankers as they relate…
As the papers recently filled with the distressing images of desperate souls looking to escape…
View Comments
You would think that Uber could sell those bikes "as is." Then again, you would think California consultants could agree to a service contract that would let them be fired at will with no right to apply for unemployment compensation that would drive up costs the state assesses to the company. But the "state of the law" is that the business of the court is not upholding a private contract but deciding which party I would like to walk away with all the goodies.
This is also the reason why drugs cost a billion or so and take so long to produce. Of course, the next thing you'll ask me is 'Will YOU take those untested things yourself.'
Um, er, oh, ah. Let me get back to you on that.
But circumstances alter cases. As I remember it, during the first great ebola panic, some African country, I think it was Senegal, righteously refused to allow the wicked whites to conduct their evil experiments on innocent Africans, and insisted that only properly tested drugs be used.
Then a prominent local doctor caught the disease, and asked to have ZMapp tried on him. But the aid brigade's doctors thought 'What happens if he dies. They'll nail our balls to the brickwork if we wicked whites break their lovely laws to experiment on a beautiful black.' So while they dithered, he died.
I think it was after this that WHO specifically deemed that certain experimental treatments, ZMapp among them, could properly be used during the emergency. But someone had invented a vaccine that seemed to work. So it was used to vaccinate all the doctors, the nursing staff, and the contacts and acquaintances of anyone who caught ebola. Those who got it were left to die-----oops given supportive treatment.
This worked. So poor old ZMapp missed out. It was too expensive and hard to produce, it needed more work, etc.
You'll have noticed that a similar problem means there are very few drugs deemed suitable for pregnant women. The companies are terrified of thalidomiding some poor child, or making mum kick the bucket. This one goes right back to Alexandrian times, when they used to cut 'em up alive and screaming to see how they worked. The info on pregnant women was always inadequate.
Must admit I can't think of a good solution to this one. I value my miserable hide too much.
You have been thalidomided! You correctly state the problem but then offer a false choice between testing under our ruinous government licensing regime, and no testing at all.
Testing has two components: Safety (that babies not be born without limbs, as some were after thalidomide), and efficacy (whether it does what it purports to). This second can be left to doctor and patient. In fact, an alternative for even safety testing is the way we do it for home appliances: certification by a private underwriter. And Pfizer et al value their brand and reputation too highly (and fear lawsuits after-the-fact) to sell anything not properly vetted. Must we have prior restraint by politicians?
Part of the problem is that safety now means perfect safety: a substance that delivers good results cannot just not cause bad results outweighed by the good, but must deliver no bad results of any sort. Trans-fats and Vioxx have been casualties of this. So, as well as making a wonder drug cost a billion dollars, our regulatory system has put posturing and cover-your-ass in front of progress.
US law has tried to poke small holes in this system. The Orphan Drug designation recognizes drugs with such a small niche that no one is ever going to invest a billion dollars; and the FDA has grudgingly softened its prior restraint for tests and treatment for Covid.
Precisely, except drug development(read regulatory approval) is now at 5 to 10 billion dollars. The billion dollar figure dates from 1990-2000 regulatory approval costs.
It is all about liability, and how to avoid it, something which the post patent generic industry as nailed, by lobbying and getting themselves immunity from liability.