It's not easy to solve because people go ballistic if you suggest removing even a single parking space. See for example the 30+ year struggle to develop bus rapid transit on Geary in SF [0], or the effort Bay Area Bikeshare has to go through to get each and every dock approved by the city [1].

Fundamentally the problem is that car-owners currently receive an enormous subsidy in the form of cheap or free street parking and they jealously guard that privilege, even in supposedly progressive cities like San Francisco.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geary_Bus_Rapid_Transit [1] https://www.thebaycitybeacon.com/politics/dude-where-s-my-bi...

I think the other responses summarize the problem quite accurately. In fact, I alluded to it when I mentioned the littering of cars.

People who park cars believe in an inherent first claim to all roadside space above other users and they are extremely aggressive in their resistance to even the slightest loss.

Because people on the whole are incredibly resistant to even a tiny loss in street parking. Swapping out a carpark for a parklet that incorporates scooter parking can generate uproar. And action would need to come from the city/council side.

Whenever there is talk of changes to street parking, businesses are outraged at the removal of convenience for their customers. (In most cases, I think they're actually upset at the loss of convenience for their own parking.)

> Cities should simply impound any scooter not properly parked and charge $200 to get it back. Since solving the parking problem is so easy, this will push Bird/Lime into finally solving it.

That's true, but then said cities would lose the prestige of being a part of Silicon Valley innovation.

This is a very fair response and I completely agree with you.

In fact, I would argue that part of the negotiation that cities ought to do with Bird and Lime and others like it is to make any deploy conditional on the passage of and adherence to scooter parking laws.