29 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
Martin's avatar

I guess it all depends on the details.

Like how long was the boy sitting on that bike to call "dibs" on it? If it's a couple of minutes, maybe that's fair enough. We generally accept that the first person to see a parking-space or take an item off a shelf has fair claim to it even if they haven't paid yet. But if he's obstructing people from using the service, that's not reasonable.

Also, how did she approach the conflict? Was she like "Can I please have that have that e-bike? I'm pregnant." or was she immediately like "Give me that. It's not yours."

It's pretty bizarre how people take sides in arguments like this without knowing the context.

Expand full comment
Kat's avatar

I’m curious, why is it so important to you that she was polite and nice and if she wasn’t, it’s her fault? (Although as your name points out below, she was). Like clearly the kids weren’t being good citizens to start with since they were hogging up the bikes, why is it on what is probably a very tired woman to be polite to get her damn bike?

Expand full comment
Martin's avatar

Because I wouldn't condemn a bunch of kids for exploiting a loophole in a rental scheme to get e-bike rides for free. I'd put that squarely in the category of "mischievous but forgivable teen hijinks".

So if an adult approaches them with immediate judgment and castigation. I can understand why they might stubbornly refuse to cooperate.

Except it appears that wasn't the case. It sounds like they aggressively physically blocked everyone from accessing the e-bikes, including the pregnant nurse who asked politely, so that they could play around on them for free.

If so, that's not mischievous hijinks. That's shitty antisocial behaviour and they're plenty old enough to know better.

Expand full comment
MyrtleT's avatar

Even if the PA wasn't particularly polite, they were in the wrong. Getting yelled at for their antics by annoyed adults is a normal part of the teenage experience. I would understand them not taking it well, but still it would be wrong for them to refuse her the bike.

Expand full comment
Martin's avatar

Idunno. Courtesy costs nothing, and I think you have to forgive teens a bit of mischief.

Maybe I'm a stubborn prick. But as a teenager, and still, if someone orders me to do something reasonable in an unreasonably rude tone, I'll probably refuse to do it on principle.

Though by the sounds of it, she was unduly polite to them at first, and they were selfish and aggressive in response.

Expand full comment
Kat's avatar

There’s a difference between taking advantage of a loophole and physically taking over the bikes blocking people from using them to start with. There’s also a big difference between castigating them right away and being polite. Like she could say if you’re not about to check out that bike I’m taking it, which is both not polite and not chiding them.

Expand full comment
Martin's avatar

Well it's all kind-of a moot discussion now, since by the sounds of it, she was very polite to them, and they were still complete pricks in response.

Expand full comment
Kat's avatar

I think it’s important because a lot of what makes a Karen is often that her crime is simply not being polite and kind enough and simply standing up for herself in a fairly neutral way and not backing down. By judging if she’s in the wrong based simply on how polite she is, is in some ways reinforcing the belief that women owe politeness in order to be considered as worthy actors.

Expand full comment
Martin's avatar

But I would say women *do* owe politeness in order to be considered as worthy actors. As do men.

People should be (proportionately) polite to strangers by default, or expect to get treated impolitely in return.

Expand full comment
Kat's avatar

People definitely don’t expect politeness from men. Maybe not abject rudeness, but definitely not all the weird politeness expected of women.

Expand full comment
Martin's avatar

I do. I expect basic politeness from everyone by default.

Not so much in terms of tone, because that's fairly subjective. I don't mind people who are a bit brusque, as long as they can take what they dish out.

But in particular, I do expect everyone to approach strangers with (cautious) non-judgment unless they have good evidence upon which to do otherwise.

And if there's a common double-standard between men and women, I'd say the reaction should be higher standards for men, not lower standards for women.

Expand full comment
Martin's avatar

I'm pretty sure my judgment of appropriate politeness is much the same for men and women. But if anything, I expect higher standards from men, because they generally have greater capacity to be physically intimidating.

Expand full comment
Em G's avatar

But then they would arguably be on equal terms, except that she paid for the bike and it was hers be definition which then feels like the runoff

"He called dibs and it would be nice, but she couldn't even that day, so rented the bike uncivily.. but tolerably so within the city"

Expand full comment
Zoe Ferguson's avatar

He has to keep anyone else from using it for 45 minutes to get another free 45 minutes.

Expand full comment
Rachel's avatar

He ultimately left about 45 minutes after he first docked. The way Citi bike works under SNAP is that e-bikes are only free (for 45 minutes) if normal bikes aren’t available. Otherwise they’re like 6 cents a minute. if they were stopping at that station to dock before reaching the 45 minute mark to avoid 6 cent/minute charges, they likely were also waiting to undock until all the normal bikes were taken, otherwise they’d be subject to the same charge. Which would mean guarding the four to five e-bikes for however long it takes

Expand full comment
Your name's avatar

According to his account, she said "“Can I please have this bike?...I’m pregnant. Can you help a pregnant woman out?”

That's a good point about taking an item off the shelf. Perhaps she dealt with it the wrong way by scanning it. I think ganging up on her and pushing the bike back into the dock with her on it while recording was more of a jerk move, though. As was releasing it on the internet without surrounding context knowing it would likely get her fired and ruin her reputation.

Expand full comment
RC's avatar

I don't see how scanning it was wrong in any way - if it was available for rent, why shouldn't she be able to rent it? And it clearly was available for rent, or else her scanning it would not have produced a receipt?

Expand full comment
Your name's avatar

One could make the argument that the polite thing to do would be to find a push bike once the teen told her that he intended to use the e-bike. I don't think she was obligated to do that, though.

One could also make the argument that the polite thing to do is offer up one of the e-bikes to a pregnant woman.

Ultimately, the teen is the one gaming the system by redocking the bike every 45 minutes. I'm not up in arms about that, but it comes with the risk that once the bike is redocked, anybody else is within their rights to scan it and take it. Especially if you're going to sit around and "guard" the bike for a few minutes until you feel like riding again.

Expand full comment
Martin's avatar

I think "The teenage boy hanging out with his mates should give up the e-bike he's forcefully and illicitly commandeered, to the pregnant nurse on her commute." Is unequivocally the better argument than "The pregnant nurse on her commute should should give up the e-bike to the teenage boy hanging out with his mates, who has forcefully and illicitly commandeered it."

Re-docking one bike and guarding it for a few minutes might be forgivable. But it sounds to me like there were a group of boys blocking all the e-bikes using force and intimidation, for around 40 minutes, so that they could play around on them for free.

Expand full comment
abstract_secret's avatar

From what I gather of the full story, it seems like both the woman and the boy were being kinda asshole-ish. The boys wanted to ride e-bikes around all day and felt they had the right to hang out on them to call dibs. The woman, after asking for an e-bike and being told no, decided to scan the most available one and take it anyway.

Where I lose basically all sympathy for the kids is when they decide to record the incident and put it on the internet. They clearly wanted her to get in trouble for their squabble. She's now on leave because she and a kid were dicks to each other at a bike rack. That's just not a reasonable reaction outcome of the incident. (Also, I like how her calling for help is a threat because the police could have come and shot him, but also her not calling the cops to file a report is proof she's in the wrong. There's just no way she could have had a conflict with the kid and not been a villain.)

Expand full comment
Your name's avatar

I think filming and putting it on the internet was inexcusable. They were fine with the woman running into trouble with her job, having her identity exposed, and called a bitch, racist, etc. because they felt "supported." But when more information came out and the mob turned against them now it's a problem. (Although, unlike the woman, their identities have not been exposed.)

They don't seem to have learned anything, though, and are now trying to get the mob back on their side with more TikToks and interviews.

Agree with you about the cops angle and no-win situation.

Expand full comment
Em G's avatar

The sister made a video as apparently saying that everyone who donated to her she should take the money back, and the hospital should fire her permanently.

Expand full comment
Some Guy's avatar

Maybe they were both just not having a great day and couldn’t meet each other on the best terms?

Expand full comment
Martin's avatar

Yeah, I do try to apply "Hanlon's Razor" and give people the benefit of doubt.

Although now the emerging picture seems to be that a group of older teenage boys decided to physically and aggressively block access to all the available e-bikes at that station, for over 40 minutes, so that they could play around on them without paying. And refused a pregnant nurse who asked politely if she could use one for her commute because the unpowered bikes are probably not suitable for her.

If that is accurate, I think that's really nasty, yobbish behaviour. And can't be excused by "maybe they were having a bad day" or "boys will be boys".

Expand full comment
Some Guy's avatar

Oh yeah I’m sure the boys were a little bit getting off on people being intimidated by them but that calls for a chewing out not a national news story.

Expand full comment
Martin's avatar

Oh, totally. But it escalated into a national news story because people turned in into a race issue and jumped to pick a side without evidence.

Either "These kids' behaviour is a damning indictment of urban decay" or "This woman's behaviour is a damning indictment of our white supremacist culture."

I don't know if either of those came first.

Expand full comment
Some Guy's avatar

Not saying you’re wrong at all. I blame the people who turn it into the race narrative. But that’s so distributed across everyone it’s important to remember the kids also are just kids who acted kinda shitty .

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
May 27, 2023
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Some Guy's avatar

No one chooses to have something become national otherwise pr firms wouldn’t exist and when you’re seventeen you’re an idiot. Them needing some level of discipline doesn’t mean the nation should give it to them. We should aspire to be a better country than this.

Expand full comment