I don't have time for a long thread on this but needless to say, rumors of the death of California bikeshare have been greatly exaggerated.

Liability waivers are, generally speaking, hostile to consumers and not necessary for viable micromobility services. https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/08/25/the-law-that-could-kill-bike-and-scooter-share-in-california-and-set-a-dangerous-precedent-for-your-state/

For example, NYC bars CitiBike from using liability waivers as a condition of its operations. And they are doing just fine.

I suspect micromobility insurance premiums are inflated and companies are being overcharged. But it strains credulity to suggest they'll be uninsurable.

There seems to be a manufactured concern that, without liability waivers, micromobility co's could be sued for ANYTHING including user negligence.

But that's now how any of this works. Businesses are protected from these claims as a matter of law, regardless of contract waivers.

The irony here is that the liability waivers in micromobility User Agreements are among the most expansive of any vehicle type and are arguably unconscionable.

For e.g., Bird waives liability for basically anything and asks you to inspect their product and assess if it's safe.

There's a lot to unpack here and I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.

But as a general rule of thumb, any law that Uber vehemently opposes is probably good for the public at large. https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/25/21400842/bike-scooter-california-bill-ab1286-liability-waiver