Unintended Consequences?

Last month, Melbourne City Council banned e-scooters for hire. The City’s Lord Mayor argues that the current trial needs to be re-set, as a result of increased traffic violations and personal injuries. So far, similar trials running in other local government areas adjacent to the City will continue, but they will no doubt be seeking to ensure the hire schemes are implemented and managed in a responsible, compliant and sustainable fashion, when the trials expire.

Despite the promised (and welcome) benefits of e-scooter hire schemes, I have yet to see current data that would support their continued operation. E.g., has the introduction of e-scooters reduced either the overall number of cars on the road, or the number of short car journeys under 2km?

I can see that e-scooters are probably popular with shift workers, largely because public transport services do not run at the times these commuters need them or where they need to go.

As well as living close to the City, I live in an adjacent LGA that is running a similar trial, so I have plenty of anecdotal evidence of the downside.

It’s not just users riding on pavements and in pedestrian-only areas with little care for those on foot. Many riders are carrying passengers (unlawfully) and choosing not to wear helmets (also unlawful). There appear to be a large number of joy riders, who often leave vehicles strewn across footpaths, rather than parking them responsibly. Then there are the helmets discarded without care or thought. Many of which probably end up in landfill, especially if they have been cracked or damaged through misuse. (A few months ago, I spoke to a Melbourne City Council street cleaner, and he admitted that if helmets are discarded like litter, they go into the general waste collection.)

I also see e-scooters for hire being lined up by their operators outside pubs and bars. I get that we don’t want people to drink and drive, but riding an e-scooter while drunk is hardly the answer!

I suspect that the obvious problems and misuse could have easily been anticipated, and even mitigated. Here are just a few suggestions:

1. Require all ride-share customers to have appropriate insurance. This could be done via the operator apps, and/or via a subscription model.

2. E-tag all helmets as well as the scooters themselves, so operators can keep track of their property. If I was an investor in these companies, I’d be concerned that they aren’t protecting their assets!

3. Require users to pass some sort of proficiency test – including basic road rules, and traffic regulations.

4. As well as limiting the vehicle speed, disable any e-scooter that is being driven on pedestrian-only footpaths or other “out of bounds” areas. The City of Melbourne and surrounding LGAs now have extensive cycle lanes, so there shouldn’t be any excuse for riding on pavements.

5. Consider attaching breathalysers to each scooter and applying weight limits on vehicles (to counter the problem of passenger over-loading).

Finally, the use of contributory negligence in assessing potential damages should be a default position. Indeed, any rider who causes an accident, injures a pedestrian or damages another vehicle or property, directly or indirectly as a result of the rider’s misuse or negligence should result in strict liability for all damages.

Next week: Ticket scalpers? Blockchain could fix that!

 

Postcript on Tarantino vs Ritchie

One of the most popular entries on this blog is about the film directors Quentin Tarantino and Guy Ritchie. I can’t really explain the amount of traffic this article has generated, but I’m glad readers seem to like it.

I recently watched Guy Ritchie’s latest film, “The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare”. And since Tarantino has signalled his intention to stop making movies, I can’t help feeling that Ritchie is attempting to pick up the baton from where Tarantino has left off. Because “The Ministry…” comes across as Ritchie’s version of “Inglorious Basterds” – but more like “The Italian Job” than “Dirty Dozen” or “Where Eagles Dare”.

This competition between film makers may not quite equal the creative rivalry between The Beach Boys and The Beatles in 1966-7, but it will be interesting to see what each director does next.

Next week: Unintended Consequences?

 

Notes from Hong Kong

My personal relationship with Hong Kong stretches back 30 years – to the time I moved there from London in 1994. I arrived on a 1-2 year contract, and ended up living in the city for 6 years. Since then, I have continued to visit at least once a year, and my latest trip earlier this month was the fifth since hotel quarantine was lifted in October 2022, following the global pandemic.

Despite the significant political, demographic, social and economic upheavals of recent years, in many ways Hong Kong remains the same. It still acts as a fulcrum between East and West, and an important trading entrepôt for mainland China and the rest of the world. There are still the evident paradoxes represented by Hong Kong’s ancient traditions and modern values, combining spiritual beliefs with materialistic tastes, and vertiginous high-rises set against mountainous backdrops and waterfront vistas.

From an economic standpoint, Hong Kong remains in something of a lull. People I spoke to commented that the SAR government needs to find new sources of income, especially as the property market (a cornerstone of the local stock exchange) remains patchy, and visitor numbers are only about 50% of pre-pandemic levels.

As I have mentioned in a previous blog, Hong Kong is usually resilient and adept at reinventing its financial fortunes.

For these reasons, the Hong Kong administration is pursuing a fairly aggressive policy of promoting itself as an attractive global venue for the digital asset industry in part to reinvigorate the local capital markets, in part to outpace its regional neighbour and rival, Singapore. (Plus, the SAR acts as something of a test bed for the rest of the PRC.) According to people I spoke with, there is some difference of opinion as to how many digital asset exchanges are actively pursuing a Virtual Asset Service Provider (VASP) license, given that only two licenses have been granted so far, while a number of applications have been withdrawn, refused or rejected for being incomplete.

During my visit, I was granted a 1:1 interview for Brave New Coin with Yat Siu, co-founder and Chairman of Animoca Brands, a leading player in web3.0, NFTs, the metaverse and, potentially, stablecoin issuance. A major advocate of digital property rights, Siu is a very influential figure within the fintech scene, and I expect to see many more announcements from his company leading up to, and during, major events such as Token2049 and Hong Kong Fintech Week. I also met with clients and contacts across crypto exchanges, hedge funds, VCs, brokers and tech providers. All remain suitably bullish on the digital asset sector, although some considered that there needs to be some industry consolidation, to soak up excess infrastructure and to stabilise the entry of institutional fund managers.

Finaly, I found time for some contemporary art exhibitions, confirming that Hong Kong continues to establish its profile in the arena of global culture. There was Bruce Nauman at the JC Contemporary in Tai Kwun, I.M.Pei and Henry Steiner at M+, and even Banksy and Damien Hirst at Sotheby’s Maison at Chater House. Of course, this being Hong Kong, the displays in Sotheby’s showrooms are not too dissimilar to the luxury goods on sale in the surrounding malls.

Next week: Postcript on Tarantino vs Ritchie

 

Bad Sports

The Paris Olympics have just ended, and overall we can say that sport was the winner – although there were the usual political spats, doping allegations, faux outrage, athlete arrests and typical media hyperbole.

Speaking of the latter, I can’t believe that the following headline appeared in a serious newspaper:

Civil war bubbling in Paris as Ariarne Titmus and Mollie O’Callaghan clash in Olympic 200m

“Civil war”? Really? Quite apart from the implied hysteria, is this a responsible use of language in today’s turbulent and highly charged political environment? And after all, it’s JUST a sporting contest, between a couple of athletes who have chosen to pursue a career in sport – it’s not like a life and death situation! Plus there were a few other swimmers competing in the final – but you might be forgiven for thinking it was a two horse race.

Of course, Australians are fanatical about sport, so perhaps this kind of OTT reporting is what we have become used to. Actually, let me clarify. The Australian public has become addicted to watching professional team sports on TV, and gambling on the outcomes. But there are so many paradoxes about this sporting obsession.

First, the two main sporting codes that dominate domestic media coverage, sponsorship dollars and betting apps are the AFL and NRL. Despite what these big businesses would like to believe, neither of these competitions is national, as defined by geographic team representation. No teams from Northern Territory or Tasmania in either league, and none from Western Australia or South Australia in the NRL (and only one from Victoria – which to many people, is the bastion of Australian sport, being the home of the MCG!). As for the travesty of a national Rugby Union competition, let’s not go there…

Second, despite all the attention that the AFL and NRL command, Association Football (aka soccer) is the largest by player participation. Which should not be too surprising given soccer’s global reach and appeal.

Third, there are more people involved with individual rather than team sports. Recreational walking, fitness/gym, athletics, swimming, yoga and golf have higher participation rates. Again, not surprising, as most people drop out of team sports once they leave school. (This may also explain the recent surge in gyms and fitness centres in Australia.)

Fourth, despite being a sport-obsessed nation, Australia has a high percentage of children who are overweight or obese. So rather than pouring public money into a new Tasmanian sports stadium, or failed bids to host the Commonwealth Games (and who knows how many billions the 2032 Brisbane Olympics will eventually cost?), perhaps our State and Federal governments should look at how they can fund greater participation rates, especially among children and teenagers, and make existing sporting facilities more accessible to the wider population.

Finally, as a long-suffering supporter of England in cricket, rugby union and soccer, I can sometimes admire (albeit grudgingly) the difference between English and Australian fans – the former hope their teams will do well, whereas the latter expect (nay, demand!) nothing short of a win. But this obsession with winning comes with a price – sandpaper, anyone? It can also be unhealthy – I was living in Sydney when Australia last hosted the Olympic Games, in 2000. It was a fantastic time to be in the city, and the locals put on a great show. But as I walked away from watching the closing ceremony fireworks over the harbour, one young Aussie supporter was loudly declaring that “we won the Olympics”. I think he was under the misapprehension that Australia topped the medal table (they were fourth) or that it was “Australia vs the World”, not quite in the Olympic spirit!

Next week: Notes from Hong Kong