What’s not to like? In general, scooters are a low cost and low environmental impact mobility solution ideally suited for urban environments. Not only do they enable people to get from one place to the other above ground, but they can also provide a needed cheap rush of adrenalin when operators dodge vehicles, parked cars, and temporary structures that restaurants have erected.
Scooters have had a long history, but sales of this item started increasing shortly after 2000 when Micro Mobility systems developed and started selling their collapsible metal razor to the public.
Soon consumers, from toddlers to senior citizens, started using this relatively cheap and convenient recreational toy, as a viable means of transportation.
In 2003, Micro Mobility introduced their electric kick scooter, also known as e-scooters or motorized scooters. Soon cheap imitations were manufactured and sold throughout the world. In addition to individuals purchasers, some enterprising corporations like Bird and Lime bought large numbers of these scooters to rent to users provided they downloaded an app on their smart phone and had a valid credit card.
Shortly thereafter rentable and dockless motorized scooters, just like bikes, started appearing and being used in big cities throughout the world.
In order to operate in the cities of most advanced industrialized countries, the motorized scooter companies that rented out their units needed official-government permission. Thus the businesses negotiated with city councils (or departments of transportation) about regulations considering how many scooters could be on the streets, places where the scooters could be used, and where they could be parked (e.g., docking stations). Today there is considerable variation among the municipal or state level ordinances regulating motorized scooters.
Over a period of time, due to a multiplicity of factors, licenses were extended, or terminated (e.g., New York City), new rental companies entered the market, others folded, or withdrew from certain markets, and the public reacted.
Although the scooters provide alternatives to private and mass transit solutions, despite instructions from the companies to their users, they were parked in lots of inconvenient places (e.g., in the middle of sidewalks, etc.), and frequently driven in a reckless manner (i.e., on sidewalks, in bike lanes, and in vehicular traffic), proving dangerous to users, other vehicle operators, and pedestrians.
In short, the introduction of the motorized scooters created numerous negative externalities, the brunt of which landed primarily on city residents. More importantly these drawbacks were probably predicable.
What kind of lessons can we learn from the rolling out of motorized scooters?
There are probably two main ones:
• First, each new mobility option requires accommodations by the companies who want to enter a new market.
• Second, each municipality needs to do a better job protecting its citizens from the externalities.
As we move towards the adoption of autonomous driving vehicles, cities can’t simply rely on the private sector to know what’s best for the public.
Municipalities must be proactive if they are going to minimize the negative effects of new mobility solutions on the people who not only work in the cities but live there too.
Mobility solutions may look like fun, be relatively easy to access, and have lower impact on the environment, but they can also not be what they are cracked up to be.
Photo Credit
“The site of a car–scooter collision in New York City”
Andrew Henkelman
Electric scooter Crash in New York City, scooter was driving in a bike lane and the taxi was making a left hand turn
https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Shot-2022-02-10-at-9.15.38-AM.png7041076Jeffrey Ian Rosshttps://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.pngJeffrey Ian Ross2022-02-10 14:35:092022-11-13 19:20:03The Plague of Motorized Scooters in our large Cities?
Although criminal law is an important guiding force, most criminal justice practitioners have a considerable amount of discretion how they do their job. For example, police (i.e., patrol officers) make decisions about whether they will stop, question, search, ticket, warn or arrest suspects. Correctional officers decide if they are going to intervene when they see inmates commit institutional infractions. And Prosecutors, typically with the assistance of a grand jury, make decisions regarding if it is worth their while to charge an individual or organization with a crime, and what types of crimes they suspect an entity to be guilty of.
This brings us to the recent case where the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) charged eleven people, members of the far-right Oath Keepers, with seditious conspiracy in connection with the January 6, 2021 insurrection.
Among the numerous questions that public has regarding the January 6th insurrection, we don’t specifically know why the DOJ prosecutors decided to charge these Oath Keepers with seditious conspiracy. In order to answer this question, we would need to directly ask the lead prosecutor and the team. And predictably they are not going to tell us why before a possible trial, and even if they were willing to talk to us, there is no guarantee that they will be honest.
That being said, historically prosecutors have been reluctant to use political crime kinds of charges because they open up lots of complications. Judges and juries are not familiar with these types of criminal offences; they are complicated to explain to a judge or jury, and thus in any charging document more weight is given to more typical kinds of crime (i.e., murder, attempt murder, etc.). More specifically, there is not a lot of precedent in recent years for these kinds of charges, nor convictions connected to them. And there are some pretty common defenses that are percolating in legal circles surrounding this case.
But a skillful prosecution should be able to convince a judge and jury that it’s not a matter of simply exercising free speech.
In short, prosecutors had to choose between sedition and treason and in some respects seditious conspiracy is a compromise charge. In short sedition is “Advocating (typically through speech other kinds of communications) the overthrow of a government.” (Ross, 2012, p. 41) And treason is, “Participating in the overthrow of a government (e.g., engaging in war against your own government, giving aid to enemies of your government)” (Ross, 2012, pp. 44-46).
More specifically, there are probably four reasons why seditious conspiracy charges may have been chosen for the Oath Keepers at this stage of the prosecutions against the Capitol rioters.
1. Over the past year, Democrats, or at least people who supported Biden, have been wondering why no explicitly political charges have been used against participants in the insurrection. The current charging may be a way to mollify this criticism.
2. The prosecution has charged the eleven Oath Keepers with a handful of other crimes and are likely to secure convictions on at least some of them, and the length of sentence is respectable (i.e., quite lengthy).
3. The seditious conspiracy charges may be a way for prosecutors to test these criminal cases to see how things work out because they will learn how to best apply them to bigger fish like former President Donald Trump and his inner circle.
4. Prosecutors may not have had sufficient evidence that they believed was necessary to convict the Oath Keepers until now. Prosecutors have laid charges against the so-called low hanging fruit. And they may be methodically building their case (or at least we hope so) against more important players in the January 6th insurrection.
Other than that we will need to wait and see how these charges play out and what kinds of behind the scenes deals the accused and their lawyers make with federal prosecutors. This will give us a taste of what is to come.
Photo Credit
By Myotus – Own work, CC0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=104620894
https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/Oath_Keepers-Billboard_Pine_River_MN_July_2015-scaled.jpg19202560Jeffrey Ian Rosshttps://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.pngJeffrey Ian Ross2022-02-03 16:57:322022-02-03 16:57:32Making Progress? Why were seditious conspiracy charges used against the Oath Keepers?
One of the numerous benefits of living in the US is that it’s a big country, and if you don’t like where you are currently living, or the location doesn’t provide you with the things you need, want, or desire, then all things being equal, you have the freedom to move.
This is especially true with respect to economic challenges and opportunities you encounter. If you lose your job and can’t find appropriate work in your city, county or state, or your dream job or business lies elsewhere, unless you want or need to be close to family members or friends, in general you have the liberty to pack up and go somewhere else.
Relocating (which is easier for some people than others) has been highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic. During this time some individuals (particularly knowledge workers) have jobs that are portable, and many of them can move to a different state or country and continue their work with a minimum of headaches.
Unless the local sheriff drove you to the outskirts of your town, and told you to never come back, people have the power to make a rational approach about where they want to relocate. Although “bounded rationality” is real, potential movers can rank order their priorities, develop a list of possible locations, maybe even develop a matrix, collect relevant information about these places, possibly take a vacation there, and even temporally live in the new community before making the final decision.
Here’s the rub. In the desire to move somewhere else many people are attracted to parts of the country that have low costs of living, including property costs and tax rates.
In this scenario some people consider moving from a blue (i.e., Democratic and liberal leaning) state, to a red (i.e., Republican and conservative) or even purple (i.e., half Democratic and half Republican) state.
Some, but not all, traditional red states (e.g., Kansas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Wyoming) have very attractive lower costs of living, including lower real estate prices. Also state and sales taxes are less, if not close to nonexistent, in many red states (i.e., Alabama, Alaska, Montana, South Carolina, Utah and Wyoming).
Keep in mind, however, that just because a red state doesn’t have a personal income tax, doesn’t necessarily mean that other types of taxes (e.g., sales) are also absent, nor have the other benefits previously mentioned. But these criteria should not be the only ones that force your hand.
What many red states do have, on the other hand, is a different culture. In general, the majority of people living in these states, have red state attitudes towards politics, race, gender, sexual preference, equality, religion, etc.
If you live in a big metropolis, a university town, or are sedentary (i.e., don’t go out of your house much), home school your children, and really don’t interact with your neighbors or the locals, then this kind of situation may be ideal for you.
On the other hand, if you live in the suburbs of the bigger cities, or in the smaller towns of red states, and do interact with people in your community, you may be tad shocked or disappointed when you talk about things more consequential than the weather. You may end up biting your tongue more often than you care to avoid interpersonal conflicts.
Over time, these kinds of interactions can have very nonpecuniary costs to you, your mental and emotional health, and the people you live with.
In short, you don’t want to be back where you started, looking to move once again.
https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Shot-2022-01-28-at-1.10.43-PM.png238798Jeffrey Ian Rosshttps://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.pngJeffrey Ian Ross2022-01-28 18:42:372022-01-28 18:42:37Choose wisely my friend. Just because a state’s tax rate and cost of living is low doesn’t mean it’s great place to live or move to
The Plague of Motorized Scooters in our large Cities?
/by Jeffrey Ian RossWhat’s not to like? In general, scooters are a low cost and low environmental impact mobility solution ideally suited for urban environments. Not only do they enable people to get from one place to the other above ground, but they can also provide a needed cheap rush of adrenalin when operators dodge vehicles, parked cars, and temporary structures that restaurants have erected.
Scooters have had a long history, but sales of this item started increasing shortly after 2000 when Micro Mobility systems developed and started selling their collapsible metal razor to the public.
Soon consumers, from toddlers to senior citizens, started using this relatively cheap and convenient recreational toy, as a viable means of transportation.
In 2003, Micro Mobility introduced their electric kick scooter, also known as e-scooters or motorized scooters. Soon cheap imitations were manufactured and sold throughout the world. In addition to individuals purchasers, some enterprising corporations like Bird and Lime bought large numbers of these scooters to rent to users provided they downloaded an app on their smart phone and had a valid credit card.
Shortly thereafter rentable and dockless motorized scooters, just like bikes, started appearing and being used in big cities throughout the world.
In order to operate in the cities of most advanced industrialized countries, the motorized scooter companies that rented out their units needed official-government permission. Thus the businesses negotiated with city councils (or departments of transportation) about regulations considering how many scooters could be on the streets, places where the scooters could be used, and where they could be parked (e.g., docking stations). Today there is considerable variation among the municipal or state level ordinances regulating motorized scooters.
Over a period of time, due to a multiplicity of factors, licenses were extended, or terminated (e.g., New York City), new rental companies entered the market, others folded, or withdrew from certain markets, and the public reacted.
Although the scooters provide alternatives to private and mass transit solutions, despite instructions from the companies to their users, they were parked in lots of inconvenient places (e.g., in the middle of sidewalks, etc.), and frequently driven in a reckless manner (i.e., on sidewalks, in bike lanes, and in vehicular traffic), proving dangerous to users, other vehicle operators, and pedestrians.
In short, the introduction of the motorized scooters created numerous negative externalities, the brunt of which landed primarily on city residents. More importantly these drawbacks were probably predicable.
What kind of lessons can we learn from the rolling out of motorized scooters?
There are probably two main ones:
• First, each new mobility option requires accommodations by the companies who want to enter a new market.
• Second, each municipality needs to do a better job protecting its citizens from the externalities.
As we move towards the adoption of autonomous driving vehicles, cities can’t simply rely on the private sector to know what’s best for the public.
Municipalities must be proactive if they are going to minimize the negative effects of new mobility solutions on the people who not only work in the cities but live there too.
Mobility solutions may look like fun, be relatively easy to access, and have lower impact on the environment, but they can also not be what they are cracked up to be.
Photo Credit
“The site of a car–scooter collision in New York City”
Andrew Henkelman
Electric scooter Crash in New York City, scooter was driving in a bike lane and the taxi was making a left hand turn
Making Progress? Why were seditious conspiracy charges used against the Oath Keepers?
/by Jeffrey Ian RossAlthough criminal law is an important guiding force, most criminal justice practitioners have a considerable amount of discretion how they do their job. For example, police (i.e., patrol officers) make decisions about whether they will stop, question, search, ticket, warn or arrest suspects. Correctional officers decide if they are going to intervene when they see inmates commit institutional infractions. And Prosecutors, typically with the assistance of a grand jury, make decisions regarding if it is worth their while to charge an individual or organization with a crime, and what types of crimes they suspect an entity to be guilty of.
This brings us to the recent case where the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) charged eleven people, members of the far-right Oath Keepers, with seditious conspiracy in connection with the January 6, 2021 insurrection.
Among the numerous questions that public has regarding the January 6th insurrection, we don’t specifically know why the DOJ prosecutors decided to charge these Oath Keepers with seditious conspiracy. In order to answer this question, we would need to directly ask the lead prosecutor and the team. And predictably they are not going to tell us why before a possible trial, and even if they were willing to talk to us, there is no guarantee that they will be honest.
That being said, historically prosecutors have been reluctant to use political crime kinds of charges because they open up lots of complications. Judges and juries are not familiar with these types of criminal offences; they are complicated to explain to a judge or jury, and thus in any charging document more weight is given to more typical kinds of crime (i.e., murder, attempt murder, etc.). More specifically, there is not a lot of precedent in recent years for these kinds of charges, nor convictions connected to them. And there are some pretty common defenses that are percolating in legal circles surrounding this case.
But a skillful prosecution should be able to convince a judge and jury that it’s not a matter of simply exercising free speech.
In short, prosecutors had to choose between sedition and treason and in some respects seditious conspiracy is a compromise charge. In short sedition is “Advocating (typically through speech other kinds of communications) the overthrow of a government.” (Ross, 2012, p. 41) And treason is, “Participating in the overthrow of a government (e.g., engaging in war against your own government, giving aid to enemies of your government)” (Ross, 2012, pp. 44-46).
More specifically, there are probably four reasons why seditious conspiracy charges may have been chosen for the Oath Keepers at this stage of the prosecutions against the Capitol rioters.
1. Over the past year, Democrats, or at least people who supported Biden, have been wondering why no explicitly political charges have been used against participants in the insurrection. The current charging may be a way to mollify this criticism.
2. The prosecution has charged the eleven Oath Keepers with a handful of other crimes and are likely to secure convictions on at least some of them, and the length of sentence is respectable (i.e., quite lengthy).
3. The seditious conspiracy charges may be a way for prosecutors to test these criminal cases to see how things work out because they will learn how to best apply them to bigger fish like former President Donald Trump and his inner circle.
4. Prosecutors may not have had sufficient evidence that they believed was necessary to convict the Oath Keepers until now. Prosecutors have laid charges against the so-called low hanging fruit. And they may be methodically building their case (or at least we hope so) against more important players in the January 6th insurrection.
Other than that we will need to wait and see how these charges play out and what kinds of behind the scenes deals the accused and their lawyers make with federal prosecutors. This will give us a taste of what is to come.
Photo Credit
By Myotus – Own work, CC0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=104620894
Choose wisely my friend. Just because a state’s tax rate and cost of living is low doesn’t mean it’s great place to live or move to
/by Jeffrey Ian RossOne of the numerous benefits of living in the US is that it’s a big country, and if you don’t like where you are currently living, or the location doesn’t provide you with the things you need, want, or desire, then all things being equal, you have the freedom to move.
This is especially true with respect to economic challenges and opportunities you encounter. If you lose your job and can’t find appropriate work in your city, county or state, or your dream job or business lies elsewhere, unless you want or need to be close to family members or friends, in general you have the liberty to pack up and go somewhere else.
Relocating (which is easier for some people than others) has been highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic. During this time some individuals (particularly knowledge workers) have jobs that are portable, and many of them can move to a different state or country and continue their work with a minimum of headaches.
Unless the local sheriff drove you to the outskirts of your town, and told you to never come back, people have the power to make a rational approach about where they want to relocate. Although “bounded rationality” is real, potential movers can rank order their priorities, develop a list of possible locations, maybe even develop a matrix, collect relevant information about these places, possibly take a vacation there, and even temporally live in the new community before making the final decision.
Here’s the rub. In the desire to move somewhere else many people are attracted to parts of the country that have low costs of living, including property costs and tax rates.
In this scenario some people consider moving from a blue (i.e., Democratic and liberal leaning) state, to a red (i.e., Republican and conservative) or even purple (i.e., half Democratic and half Republican) state.
Some, but not all, traditional red states (e.g., Kansas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Wyoming) have very attractive lower costs of living, including lower real estate prices. Also state and sales taxes are less, if not close to nonexistent, in many red states (i.e., Alabama, Alaska, Montana, South Carolina, Utah and Wyoming).
Keep in mind, however, that just because a red state doesn’t have a personal income tax, doesn’t necessarily mean that other types of taxes (e.g., sales) are also absent, nor have the other benefits previously mentioned. But these criteria should not be the only ones that force your hand.
What many red states do have, on the other hand, is a different culture. In general, the majority of people living in these states, have red state attitudes towards politics, race, gender, sexual preference, equality, religion, etc.
If you live in a big metropolis, a university town, or are sedentary (i.e., don’t go out of your house much), home school your children, and really don’t interact with your neighbors or the locals, then this kind of situation may be ideal for you.
On the other hand, if you live in the suburbs of the bigger cities, or in the smaller towns of red states, and do interact with people in your community, you may be tad shocked or disappointed when you talk about things more consequential than the weather. You may end up biting your tongue more often than you care to avoid interpersonal conflicts.
Over time, these kinds of interactions can have very nonpecuniary costs to you, your mental and emotional health, and the people you live with.
In short, you don’t want to be back where you started, looking to move once again.