Physicians Assistant yelling “HELP ME” while stealing a CitiBike ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do they have the 45 min policy? It seems like it would lead to lots of people potential doing this (docking bikes but just for five minutes to reset) and would really confuse users as to which bikes are available vs not in the app screen.

First off, it's not like they limit rides to 45 minutes. It's just you pay a flat fee for the first 45 minutes and after that they start charging by the minute. You can keep the bike as long as you want, but you must pay for it.

The policy exists because the bikes exist primarily as a mode of transportation, and the system works best when bikes are always re-entering the system so others can rent them. If there was no limit on how long you could hold onto a bike on that flat rate, people would literally walk them into their apartments and keep them there until they were ready to use them again. CitiBikes wants the bikes in use. Thus they discourage people from holding onto bikes for more than 45 minutes without actually riding them.

And the ONLY reason this is confusing is because of people trying to game the system. The vast majority of bikeshare users are using the bikes to get from one place to another, docking the bike, and then moving on with their lives. This is what the bikes are for. A small minority of users are using them to ride around town. Which is fine, but you have to pay for the bikes to do that.

Any bike shown in the app is available. It means it's in a dock and not in use. You cannot "claim" a bike that is currently docked, if you want the bike you must rent it. People saying otherwise are twisting themselves into a know to try and argue that the bike "belonged" to this kid. It did not. He wasn't using it, it was in the dock, it was available for rent from whomever needed it next.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I question the sister's account because (1) she wasn't there and is going by what her brother told her, and (2) she says things like the PA "jumped over" her brother to get to the bike. I don't know what she means by that but it doesn't sound possible? Having watched the video, I don't see this PA strong arming the bike away from that guy, and definitely not getting past him if he was actively trying to block the bike.

So I don't trust that she actually knows how this went down. She asserts the woman asked to use the bike and her brother said no. But the sister wasn't there and has no idea. Perhaps that's what her brother told her, perhaps she's making assumptions, perhaps she's embellishing to protect him.

I also don't 100% trust the PA's account -- her lawyer says that there was no one around, but based on the timing of when she rented the bike and when the video starts, those guys were very close by because they had to be there to push her back into the dock within seconds.

What I do know because I have eyes is that she rented the bike 6-7 minutes after he docked it, and then the guys were harassing her. She didn't steal the bike because it wasn't his at the time, and their behavior was not okay even if she'd boldly gone and rented the bike knowing they wanted it. You don't push and shove someone around because they rented a bike you wanted. You don't film them and laugh at them and surround them and yell at them.

The boys were in the wrong, it doesn't matter exactly what happened before she rented the bike.

The PA hasn't given that much in details. The truth is probably somewhere in between. She may have asked, he said no, she decided to rent it anyway for what ever reason. The sister is probably telling the brother's side but wasn't there.

He had to be pretty close by. But, there is no way she pushed him over to get the bike.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do they have the 45 min policy? It seems like it would lead to lots of people potential doing this (docking bikes but just for five minutes to reset) and would really confuse users as to which bikes are available vs not in the app screen.

First off, it's not like they limit rides to 45 minutes. It's just you pay a flat fee for the first 45 minutes and after that they start charging by the minute. You can keep the bike as long as you want, but you must pay for it.

The policy exists because the bikes exist primarily as a mode of transportation, and the system works best when bikes are always re-entering the system so others can rent them. If there was no limit on how long you could hold onto a bike on that flat rate, people would literally walk them into their apartments and keep them there until they were ready to use them again. CitiBikes wants the bikes in use. Thus they discourage people from holding onto bikes for more than 45 minutes without actually riding them.

And the ONLY reason this is confusing is because of people trying to game the system. The vast majority of bikeshare users are using the bikes to get from one place to another, docking the bike, and then moving on with their lives. This is what the bikes are for. A small minority of users are using them to ride around town. Which is fine, but you have to pay for the bikes to do that.

Any bike shown in the app is available. It means it's in a dock and not in use. You cannot "claim" a bike that is currently docked, if you want the bike you must rent it. People saying otherwise are twisting themselves into a know to try and argue that the bike "belonged" to this kid. It did not. He wasn't using it, it was in the dock, it was available for rent from whomever needed it next.

It's clear he wasn't renting it and was at best guarding it for future use. He didn't want to pay so he docked it after his time was up and planned to rent it when he was ready to leave again. Your post makes sense.

The bike didn't belong to anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the attorney released the unredacted receipts. Idk why this matters but it is an update.

Wow. Her story lines up exactly then with the sister’s attempt to exonerate.

7:19: He docks the bike and gets off it. Sister states he does this voluntarily.
7:24: She is on bike and rents it. He pushes her back into dock, ending rental.
7:24: Video starts with her upset due to forgoing. He has hand blocking the QR code
7:25: He rents bike while she is sitting on it

Conclusion: There is zero basis to claim she is a “thief”. That’s a defamatory statement.

Yeah, this looks like it exonerates her. Weird how the sister supported the PA unintentionally.

The sister is young, didn't think it through, probably didn't talk to an attorney and did a video trying to defend her brother. Taking her story as fact, it is clear he wasn't renting the bike at the time (but planned to rent it at some point). It all makes sense as both stories kinda aligned but didn't.

The sister is an idiot who wanted a viral video

surprise

She came across very badly with the side comments but in reality, was very helpful in clearing up the situation. If you 100% believe everything she said and it does seem accurate (or possibly it could be accurate), then she was in the right to take the bike as it was docked and not being rented. However, if she asked to use the bike and he said he was planning to rent it, it was crummy of her to take it. But, as a man, seeing a pregnant woman leaving work, he could have been decent and offered her the bike. So many better ways this situation could have been handled by everyone involved. His friends were jerks to her but that's another discussion/issue.

She realized she doesn't need his permission to rent a bike that isn't his.

No, she doesn't need his permission. But, she was decent and asked.

Why ask if she was just going to ignore his response?

We don't know if this actually happened or not. This is per the sister who wasn't there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the attorney released the unredacted receipts. Idk why this matters but it is an update.

Wow. Her story lines up exactly then with the sister’s attempt to exonerate.

7:19: He docks the bike and gets off it. Sister states he does this voluntarily.
7:24: She is on bike and rents it. He pushes her back into dock, ending rental.
7:24: Video starts with her upset due to forgoing. He has hand blocking the QR code
7:25: He rents bike while she is sitting on it

Conclusion: There is zero basis to claim she is a “thief”. That’s a defamatory statement.

Yeah, this looks like it exonerates her. Weird how the sister supported the PA unintentionally.

The sister is young, didn't think it through, probably didn't talk to an attorney and did a video trying to defend her brother. Taking her story as fact, it is clear he wasn't renting the bike at the time (but planned to rent it at some point). It all makes sense as both stories kinda aligned but didn't.

The sister is an idiot who wanted a viral video

surprise

She came across very badly with the side comments but in reality, was very helpful in clearing up the situation. If you 100% believe everything she said and it does seem accurate (or possibly it could be accurate), then she was in the right to take the bike as it was docked and not being rented. However, if she asked to use the bike and he said he was planning to rent it, it was crummy of her to take it. But, as a man, seeing a pregnant woman leaving work, he could have been decent and offered her the bike. So many better ways this situation could have been handled by everyone involved. His friends were jerks to her but that's another discussion/issue.

She realized she doesn't need his permission to rent a bike that isn't his.

No, she doesn't need his permission. But, she was decent and asked.

Why ask if she was just going to ignore his response?

because people do that all the time... "do you mind if I just scoot past you??" and then you do it.

Anyways, the sister released the receipts for her darling brother and it shows he rented the bike right after her and docked it again 6 minutes later in the same place. He didn't even need it. It was all about just being a gigantic ass to her.

Is this really true that he rented the bike for ONLY 6 mins and docked it in the SAME PLACE??? I do not have access to receipts. If it is true, then it is a 100% setup. WOW

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the attorney released the unredacted receipts. Idk why this matters but it is an update.

Wow. Her story lines up exactly then with the sister’s attempt to exonerate.

7:19: He docks the bike and gets off it. Sister states he does this voluntarily.
7:24: She is on bike and rents it. He pushes her back into dock, ending rental.
7:24: Video starts with her upset due to forgoing. He has hand blocking the QR code
7:25: He rents bike while she is sitting on it

Conclusion: There is zero basis to claim she is a “thief”. That’s a defamatory statement.

Yeah, this looks like it exonerates her. Weird how the sister supported the PA unintentionally.

The sister is young, didn't think it through, probably didn't talk to an attorney and did a video trying to defend her brother. Taking her story as fact, it is clear he wasn't renting the bike at the time (but planned to rent it at some point). It all makes sense as both stories kinda aligned but didn't.

The sister is an idiot who wanted a viral video

surprise

She came across very badly with the side comments but in reality, was very helpful in clearing up the situation. If you 100% believe everything she said and it does seem accurate (or possibly it could be accurate), then she was in the right to take the bike as it was docked and not being rented. However, if she asked to use the bike and he said he was planning to rent it, it was crummy of her to take it. But, as a man, seeing a pregnant woman leaving work, he could have been decent and offered her the bike. So many better ways this situation could have been handled by everyone involved. His friends were jerks to her but that's another discussion/issue.

She realized she doesn't need his permission to rent a bike that isn't his.

No, she doesn't need his permission. But, she was decent and asked.

Why ask if she was just going to ignore his response?

because people do that all the time... "do you mind if I just scoot past you??" and then you do it.

Anyways, the sister released the receipts for her darling brother and it shows he rented the bike right after her and docked it again 6 minutes later in the same place. He didn't even need it. It was all about just being a gigantic ass to her.

Good catch. For whatever reason he was hanging around the bikes but wasn't ready to actually get on one. Somebody above says it only takes 2 minutes for a bike to reset. If he had just wanted a ride, he would have been on his way before the PA showed up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the attorney released the unredacted receipts. Idk why this matters but it is an update.

Wow. Her story lines up exactly then with the sister’s attempt to exonerate.

7:19: He docks the bike and gets off it. Sister states he does this voluntarily.
7:24: She is on bike and rents it. He pushes her back into dock, ending rental.
7:24: Video starts with her upset due to forgoing. He has hand blocking the QR code
7:25: He rents bike while she is sitting on it

Conclusion: There is zero basis to claim she is a “thief”. That’s a defamatory statement.

Yeah, this looks like it exonerates her. Weird how the sister supported the PA unintentionally.

The sister is young, didn't think it through, probably didn't talk to an attorney and did a video trying to defend her brother. Taking her story as fact, it is clear he wasn't renting the bike at the time (but planned to rent it at some point). It all makes sense as both stories kinda aligned but didn't.

The sister is an idiot who wanted a viral video

surprise

She came across very badly with the side comments but in reality, was very helpful in clearing up the situation. If you 100% believe everything she said and it does seem accurate (or possibly it could be accurate), then she was in the right to take the bike as it was docked and not being rented. However, if she asked to use the bike and he said he was planning to rent it, it was crummy of her to take it. But, as a man, seeing a pregnant woman leaving work, he could have been decent and offered her the bike. So many better ways this situation could have been handled by everyone involved. His friends were jerks to her but that's another discussion/issue.

She realized she doesn't need his permission to rent a bike that isn't his.

No, she doesn't need his permission. But, she was decent and asked.

Why ask if she was just going to ignore his response?

because people do that all the time... "do you mind if I just scoot past you??" and then you do it.

Anyways, the sister released the receipts for her darling brother and it shows he rented the bike right after her and docked it again 6 minutes later in the same place. He didn't even need it. It was all about just being a gigantic ass to her.

Is this really true that he rented the bike for ONLY 6 mins and docked it in the SAME PLACE??? I do not have access to receipts. If it is true, then it is a 100% setup. WOW

More likely, he was hanging around with his friends for at least 12 minutes (6 mins before she got there per his first receipt, 6 mins after she got on the bike per his second receipt) but he didn't want anybody else taking that particular bike in the meantime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the attorney released the unredacted receipts. Idk why this matters but it is an update.

Wow. Her story lines up exactly then with the sister’s attempt to exonerate.

7:19: He docks the bike and gets off it. Sister states he does this voluntarily.
7:24: She is on bike and rents it. He pushes her back into dock, ending rental.
7:24: Video starts with her upset due to forgoing. He has hand blocking the QR code
7:25: He rents bike while she is sitting on it

Conclusion: There is zero basis to claim she is a “thief”. That’s a defamatory statement.

Yeah, this looks like it exonerates her. Weird how the sister supported the PA unintentionally.

The sister is young, didn't think it through, probably didn't talk to an attorney and did a video trying to defend her brother. Taking her story as fact, it is clear he wasn't renting the bike at the time (but planned to rent it at some point). It all makes sense as both stories kinda aligned but didn't.

The sister is an idiot who wanted a viral video

surprise

She came across very badly with the side comments but in reality, was very helpful in clearing up the situation. If you 100% believe everything she said and it does seem accurate (or possibly it could be accurate), then she was in the right to take the bike as it was docked and not being rented. However, if she asked to use the bike and he said he was planning to rent it, it was crummy of her to take it. But, as a man, seeing a pregnant woman leaving work, he could have been decent and offered her the bike. So many better ways this situation could have been handled by everyone involved. His friends were jerks to her but that's another discussion/issue.

She realized she doesn't need his permission to rent a bike that isn't his.

No, she doesn't need his permission. But, she was decent and asked.

Why ask if she was just going to ignore his response?

because people do that all the time... "do you mind if I just scoot past you??" and then you do it.

Anyways, the sister released the receipts for her darling brother and it shows he rented the bike right after her and docked it again 6 minutes later in the same place. He didn't even need it. It was all about just being a gigantic ass to her.

Is this really true that he rented the bike for ONLY 6 mins and docked it in the SAME PLACE??? I do not have access to receipts. If it is true, then it is a 100% setup. WOW

More likely, he was hanging around with his friends for at least 12 minutes (6 mins before she got there per his first receipt, 6 mins after she got on the bike per his second receipt) but he didn't want anybody else taking that particular bike in the meantime.

He didn't leave with the bike after he forced the PA off. What was the point?

[Anonymous]

can someone explain… it appears he did not really use the bike after he took it from the nurse?

[Anonymous]

Assuming this receipt is real, the boy rented the bike and redocked it a few mins later. Why would he do that?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Citibike/comments/13qrz3e/the_sister_of_one_of_the_men_in_the_citibike/

[Anonymous]

Why did his sister release the receipts? It looks even worse than I thought. The boy did not even need a bike after all… unbelievable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do they have the 45 min policy? It seems like it would lead to lots of people potential doing this (docking bikes but just for five minutes to reset) and would really confuse users as to which bikes are available vs not in the app screen.

First off, it's not like they limit rides to 45 minutes. It's just you pay a flat fee for the first 45 minutes and after that they start charging by the minute. You can keep the bike as long as you want, but you must pay for it.

The policy exists because the bikes exist primarily as a mode of transportation, and the system works best when bikes are always re-entering the system so others can rent them. If there was no limit on how long you could hold onto a bike on that flat rate, people would literally walk them into their apartments and keep them there until they were ready to use them again. CitiBikes wants the bikes in use. Thus they discourage people from holding onto bikes for more than 45 minutes without actually riding them.

And the ONLY reason this is confusing is because of people trying to game the system. The vast majority of bikeshare users are using the bikes to get from one place to another, docking the bike, and then moving on with their lives. This is what the bikes are for. A small minority of users are using them to ride around town. Which is fine, but you have to pay for the bikes to do that.

Any bike shown in the app is available. It means it's in a dock and not in use. You cannot "claim" a bike that is currently docked, if you want the bike you must rent it. People saying otherwise are twisting themselves into a know to try and argue that the bike "belonged" to this kid. It did not. He wasn't using it, it was in the dock, it was available for rent from whomever needed it next.

Okay then they shouldn’t allow the same user to rent the bike after docking it for just five minutes. It certainly encourages that behavior. If I’m a tourist taking the bikes around for the day then yeah I would do that to save money seems like anyone would. It’s obviously not against the rules. Sounds like it’s common for people to dock it and wait for their bike to ‘reset’. It’s obviously a bad policy because it makes bikes look available that really aren’t and encourages bike guarding. Still I can’t imagine trying to take a bike from someone standing right next to it who said ‘no, its mine, I’m just resetting it.’ I think she was crazy to do that. Maybe exhaustion was her excuse but then take a cab or subway And yes I believe he was standing right next to it if he managed to redock it seconds after she unlocked it. I can’t believe anyone would give either of these people gofundme money for such terrible judgement and rude behavior. Equally bad is doxing them into losing jobs or worse. Looks like thanks to social media we’ve managed to re-create the tyrannical lynch mobs democracy was supposed to prevent.

[Anonymous]

I’m not familiar with the renting of bikes. Do you keep it overnight?

These young men need to be punished with community service at least.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do they have the 45 min policy? It seems like it would lead to lots of people potential doing this (docking bikes but just for five minutes to reset) and would really confuse users as to which bikes are available vs not in the app screen.

First off, it's not like they limit rides to 45 minutes. It's just you pay a flat fee for the first 45 minutes and after that they start charging by the minute. You can keep the bike as long as you want, but you must pay for it.

The policy exists because the bikes exist primarily as a mode of transportation, and the system works best when bikes are always re-entering the system so others can rent them. If there was no limit on how long you could hold onto a bike on that flat rate, people would literally walk them into their apartments and keep them there until they were ready to use them again. CitiBikes wants the bikes in use. Thus they discourage people from holding onto bikes for more than 45 minutes without actually riding them.

And the ONLY reason this is confusing is because of people trying to game the system. The vast majority of bikeshare users are using the bikes to get from one place to another, docking the bike, and then moving on with their lives. This is what the bikes are for. A small minority of users are using them to ride around town. Which is fine, but you have to pay for the bikes to do that.

Any bike shown in the app is available. It means it's in a dock and not in use. You cannot "claim" a bike that is currently docked, if you want the bike you must rent it. People saying otherwise are twisting themselves into a know to try and argue that the bike "belonged" to this kid. It did not. He wasn't using it, it was in the dock, it was available for rent from whomever needed it next.

Okay then they shouldn’t allow the same user to rent the bike after docking it for just five minutes. It certainly encourages that behavior. If I’m a tourist taking the bikes around for the day then yeah I would do that to save money seems like anyone would. It’s obviously not against the rules. Sounds like it’s common for people to dock it and wait for their bike to ‘reset’. It’s obviously a bad policy because it makes bikes look available that really aren’t and encourages bike guarding. Still I can’t imagine trying to take a bike from someone standing right next to it who said ‘no, its mine, I’m just resetting it.’ I think she was crazy to do that. Maybe exhaustion was her excuse but then take a cab or subway And yes I believe he was standing right next to it if he managed to redock it seconds after she unlocked it. I can’t believe anyone would give either of these people gofundme money for such terrible judgement and rude behavior. Equally bad is doxing them into losing jobs or worse. Looks like thanks to social media we’ve managed to re-create the tyrannical lynch mobs democracy was supposed to prevent.

Well said. Bad behavior all around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do they have the 45 min policy? It seems like it would lead to lots of people potential doing this (docking bikes but just for five minutes to reset) and would really confuse users as to which bikes are available vs not in the app screen.

First off, it's not like they limit rides to 45 minutes. It's just you pay a flat fee for the first 45 minutes and after that they start charging by the minute. You can keep the bike as long as you want, but you must pay for it.

The policy exists because the bikes exist primarily as a mode of transportation, and the system works best when bikes are always re-entering the system so others can rent them. If there was no limit on how long you could hold onto a bike on that flat rate, people would literally walk them into their apartments and keep them there until they were ready to use them again. CitiBikes wants the bikes in use. Thus they discourage people from holding onto bikes for more than 45 minutes without actually riding them.

And the ONLY reason this is confusing is because of people trying to game the system. The vast majority of bikeshare users are using the bikes to get from one place to another, docking the bike, and then moving on with their lives. This is what the bikes are for. A small minority of users are using them to ride around town. Which is fine, but you have to pay for the bikes to do that.

Any bike shown in the app is available. It means it's in a dock and not in use. You cannot "claim" a bike that is currently docked, if you want the bike you must rent it. People saying otherwise are twisting themselves into a know to try and argue that the bike "belonged" to this kid. It did not. He wasn't using it, it was in the dock, it was available for rent from whomever needed it next.

Okay then they shouldn’t allow the same user to rent the bike after docking it for just five minutes. It certainly encourages that behavior. If I’m a tourist taking the bikes around for the day then yeah I would do that to save money seems like anyone would. It’s obviously not against the rules. Sounds like it’s common for people to dock it and wait for their bike to ‘reset’. It’s obviously a bad policy because it makes bikes look available that really aren’t and encourages bike guarding. Still I can’t imagine trying to take a bike from someone standing right next to it who said ‘no, its mine, I’m just resetting it.’ I think she was crazy to do that. Maybe exhaustion was her excuse but then take a cab or subway And yes I believe he was standing right next to it if he managed to redock it seconds after she unlocked it. I can’t believe anyone would give either of these people gofundme money for such terrible judgement and rude behavior. Equally bad is doxing them into losing jobs or worse. Looks like thanks to social media we’ve managed to re-create the tyrannical lynch mobs democracy was supposed to prevent.

This kid didn't even want or need the bike and didn't even go anywhere. He just didn't want HER to have it.