> “They don’t really want us to use it, but it’s OK if you do.” Ms. [redacted] said that when a bike is available at the train station she rides it 10 minutes to her house, and then keeps it overnight behind her gate. The next morning, she rides it back to the station, where she catches the train to her job at Google rival Oracle Corp. “You know, I rent it for a day.”
If you ride a bike to the train station everyday and you store it at home overnight doesn't it make sense to get your own bike? I guess if you can just steal one maybe not?
No, because caltrain bike lockers at the station cost money (~$70/yr). I take my bike on the train to get to work at the other end, but if I worked close to the train station in SF I'd walk from my house rather than pay for a bike locker or leave my bike in the open during the day.
You can always lock the bike outside of a locker. Just remember to lock your front wheel and back...and protect your seat :(. The bikes google are using aren’t that high end, a low end bike with bolted everything could probably survive out in the open for a day without much problem.
I don't think redacting her name is necessary. Ms. Veach's full name, place of employment, and picture appear in the article.
Is it theft? Probably by the definition of the law. But it's also a bit nebulous in practice and expected repercussions.
I personally have pirated movies, jay walked, and danced at a bar in NYC, and would be perfectly fine with a news article quoting me admitting as much.
Is it illegal for Uber to skirt taxi laws? Is it illegal for AirBnb to ignore hotel laws? Probably. But no one is going to stop them and no one is going to stop Ms. Veach from borrowing a bike left in public.
Interestingly (in the UK) theft requires that the perpetrator have the intention of "permanently depriving" [1] the owner. So at least in the UK this seems like it wouldn't be counted as theft.
Probably not theft, but I think it would qualify as criminal conversion. Google would likely need to complain though for the authorities to do anything about it, and I can't see them doing that.
I'm glad they're using GPS now, because I've lived in and around Mountain View for the past 10 years and it's becoming a bit crazy lately. There are bikes dumped everywhere. I'm always surprised how far away from Google's campus they end up. Having GPS, they'll eventually get picked up, which is good. If I started seeing stripped down Google bike parts strewn about (like in creeks) because they'd been left to rust, it'd be more than annoying, but as long as Google cleans up its mess, I think it's fine.
In terms of using a Google bike, I never have. But I'd be fine in doing so as a Mountain View resident. They use my street as a Waymo testing ground, literally using myself and any other pedestrian as beta testers for their driving safety algorithms, so I think I'd be quite justified borrowing one of their bikes: Quid pro quo.
When I worked at Google, I lived walking distance from the Mountain View campus & walked to work every day. I used to like finding gbikes on my way to work, as I would just ride them in. The ones I found on the way home, I'd report to Google Security. They seemed happy to come and collect them. There were always a lot more bikes after concerts / events at the Shoreline Amphitheater.
These bikes are a nusicance in Mountain View if you don’t work for Google. They’re left all over the place - in lawns, in landscaping, right in the middle of the sidewalk. The article blames non-Google employees, but they’re often carelessly placed right near Google buildings with nothing else but office buildings around.
If I lived in Mountain View (I used to work there) I’d help myself too.
It doesn’t solve the problem. It’s Google’s problem. If Google is going to do nothing whatsoever to secure their property, it’s not the police’s job to do it for them.
You're like a tagger who believes you have the right to spray paint a wall just because the owner of the wall hasn't installed a security alarm. In my eyes, the bicycle thieves are worse because they are rich adults with money.
If you leave a bunch of unlocked bikes around, expect people to take them. It’s like leaving a plate of cookies out and then getting mad when people eat them.
This I can agree with. What maddens me is how brazen the thieves are in this case. People who have gainful employment are openly stealing bicycles and littering them throughout the city without any shame.
The bikes appear to be strewn about the city to begin with, even when they are on Google property. If you see a bunch of people riding these bikes between buildings and just leaving them there why wouldn’t you do the same?
Google property is in North Bayshore which is an office park wasteland. People are stealing them from parking lots on these office parks and riding them over the freeway into the residential and commercial areas of Mountain View. I wouldn't do the same because I am not a thief.
"Ms. Veach said the Gbikes are “a reward for having to deal with the buses” carrying Google employees that barrel down her street each morning. “I ride a bicycle…to balance it out,” she said."
that is some insane level of justification right there...
Seriously, it's absurd. I cannot believe the mental gymnastics people will go to in order to justify their behavior. At least accept that you're doing something wrong.
She'd rather that Shoreline get completely jammed all the way to El Camino every day? Makes no sense to live in Mountain View and complain about the Google busses.
Honest question - why can't we have bike shares everywhere?
Looks like there are something like 17.4 million new bikes sold in the US a year and around 100 million riders. [0]
That works out to a new bike every five and a half years. What happens to the old bikes? Can't we figure out a way to standardize the components a bit and keep them in working condition as a municipal resource? Can't be that hard to pull off, and it would certainly have health benefits.
For a brief period following the turn of the millennium, many urban centers in the west (Seattle, Washington, Portland) had bicycle clubs who introduced a slew of “green bikes” which were spray painted green and considered public domain. It was more an ideal than a productive measure. The painting and introduction of the bikes was one thing but maintenance was another. I knew a person who would repair them when he found broken ones, and I think it was briefly part of programming at certain bicycle co-ops. As the urban areas started growing again, tht effort came to an end, but I took many trips on green bikes myself. They were usually slow going and somewhat dangerous to ride, and of course one could not plan to find them later when left on the street. I had seen them locked up before but the understanding was breaking that lock wasn’t considered steeling because literally every part on the bike was spray painted green. The bikes were popular with people in their early twenties and homeless people. I never saw anyone using them whose appearance didn’t match these categories.
> he once confronted what he thought was a homeless woman on a Gbike. “I mean if I could describe her, you would agree with me,” he said. “She looked all panicked, and then she showed me her Google badge.”
I tried to ride one of the bikes from one Google building to another once and a black security SUV pulled up and started yelling at me. They aren't very good bikes anyway- they are fixies which are kind of useless for rides longer than a block.
The first thing he yelled was "show me your badge." I didn't know I wasn't allowed to ride them if I didn't work there. I was riding on the sidewalk on Shoreline at about 11 PM.
I ride a fixie (Fuji Feather) daily around a city that is reasonably hilly. It was $600 which fills the gap between beater 6-speed mamacharis ($100-$200) and a serious geared bike ($1000+).
It is much nicer to ride than any cheaper bike I have owned and I was happy with the price.
To be fair the problem with the Gbikes is not that they are fixies, but rather that they are super heavy. They work fine for moving around the campus, but you wouldn't want to ride more than a mile in them. I'm pretty sure that's by design.
The Swiss Army used very heavy single speed bikes, and people rode major distances with them. Of course, they were selected for physical fitness: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_army_bicycle
Not necessarily by design. If they're ordering fleets of bikes, they want them cheap. Steel bikes are the cheapest around, can take a lot of abuse, and also happen to be the heaviest.
Steel bikes don't have to be heavy but cheap bikes usually are. A good steel bike might weigh 19-20lb (compare with a medium- to high-end carbon fiber bike that is 15-17lb) while the frame is only 3.5-4 lb of that total. The rest of the components make up a lot of the weight and to save weight there you have to spend more.
It's hard for a sheltered prince like Larry Page to imagine a $100 piece of property having any value at all but that's food for a month if you're poor. People rightly recognize the arrogance those bikes represent and it makes them feel entitled to take them.
I fully support a needy person that takes what a rich person considers to disposable enough to leave on the street unsecured.
In my judgement, Google has implicitly granted permission for the needy to take their bikes and anyone to borrow them.
Oddly enough I could argue the opposite. The need for those warnings is an acknowledgement by the owner that they do not intend to properly secure their property, and are instead asking people not to take advantage of that fact.
And there's the fact that the owner went through the trouble of creating that sign without bothering to simply secure their property. Another acknowledgement that leaving property unsecured in public is not reasonable.
It's absurd to justify theft, even if it's unsecured. If those people need food, there are organizations and charities that are out there to provide for that.
I'm not sure how you can fully support the idea that you should take from the rich. With that concept, I should introduce someone poorer than you and have them take from your wallet. (It demeans how they, "the rich", got there, it demean's society's valuation on their work)
If Larry Page starts watering his lawn with $100 bills, and they fly all over the city, would you judge a hungry person to be a thief for picking one up and using it to buy food?
In my judgement, he's implicitly granting anyone permission to pick up those loose $100s he can't even be bothered to secure.
The law distinguishes between petty theft and grand theft for very good reasons.
There's an obvious and huge ethical difference between taking one person's very expensive mode of transportation and taking a megacorp's bicycle-shaped trash off a public sidewalk.
I'd call it sub-petty theft, and not even worthy of punishment.
These are taken from the megacorp's private parking lots and left as trash by the thieves on public sidewalks and waterways. It's an eyesore and a nuisance. GEM cars also fall below the amount request to be called grand theft. Would you steal those as well?
We've banned this account for violating the site guidelines.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. (Edit: done and unbanned.)
>There are organizations and charities out there to provide that.
It’s absurd to use the compassion of others to justify the lack of your own.
EDIT:
The one soup kitchen in my neighborhood (with massive homeless problems) just closed because the building was bought by a hotel developer
These places don’t just exist. They sometimes exist, but not reliably, and they depend on people’s willfulness to act and defend them. The problem is further complicated when compounding child custody concerns and substance abuse. I am not taking sides here, but pointing out how important it is that we not take these efforts for ganted. Once we do, they vanish. I think the above comment exemplifies what it looks like to take them for granted.
This seems like theft?
Edit: I removed the lady's name from the comment