Usefulness, Vandalism and Public Technology
I, like many of us, don't like to admit it, (and many will frown upon it), have the Daily Mail App on my phone. As I was sitting on the bus, plugging aimlessly through the scroll bar of shame, there was an article about OFO Bikes, the latest bike-sharing operator in London, whose bikes are liberally distributed across the capital enabling citizens with the App to simply rock up, unlock and ride away.
It seems that the OFO bikes are increasingly seen as a scourge by many. With stolen or vandalised bikes littering private and public spaces. I know from my own experience that the bikes seem to be left awkwardly, in strange places like the centre of Battersea Park (a pedestrian only zone). It seems that there are many instances of complaints to councils about the bikes taking up valuable pavement space where other commercial operations are disallowed. To a degree, this rejection and discontent is disappointing as we need to encourage people to use alternate forms of transport and to ditch their cars.
This set me to thinking about the relationship between street level technology, usefulness and vandalism.
We're seeing a convergence between the internet and physical spaces, this will fundamentally change how people interact with their towns and cities. From accessing public services to street level navigation, technology is enabling real-time access to a myriad of information and services that previously were the domain of smart phone users. OFO are one example of this change, as are Intersection, whose digital totems, in a joint venture with BT and Clear Channel are springing up across our cities.
What I find interesting about these street-level technology businesses is the public perception of usefulness and its relationship with vandalism. Unlike personal technology, when the reaction tends to be singular (i.e. you shout at your phone), what appears to happen with public technology is vandalism. So, by implication, if you, as the supplier are facing excessive vandalism of your tech, then you must be doing something so wrong that the public are physically rejecting you from their built environment. Of course, the tech company may argue that a certain level of vandalism is to be expected, but what level should this be set at? We don't tend to see streetlights, signs, crossings, or other useful tech vandalised very much, perhaps because they supply an essential, contextual service to the fabric of our towns and cities.
To give a contrary example, my team developed a platform for Transport for London, allowing them to generate hyper-local digital transit screens for their infrastructure across London. By their nature, many of these are in the public domain at bus and tube stations, and TfL have commented that since their introduction not one of the signs has been vandalised. The team at TfL seemed genuinely surprised by this. My belief is that because the signs provide value to the populace, and sit comfortably within the context of the built environment, that they have become accepted by the populace.
I'd be interested to hear others opinions on the relationship between usefulness and vandalism for technology at street level.
