據為己有或是刻意毀損，是作者眼裡這種「共享」單車失敗最主要的原因。她說道：「A young man opened it and I asked nicely if I could rent the bike. He looked surprised and said, no, it was his, and anyway, he needed it later ... He rolled his eyes and told me I would be trespassing if I dared try to fetch it.」 ，「There are Mobikes in the canal, Mobikes in bins and I am fed up with following the app to a residential street where there is clearly a Mobike stashed in someone’s garden.」據為己有，將「公共運具（以Mobike公司的觀點）」「私有化」是一大隱憂。英國的Mobike營運商告訴作者，這種單車的設計邏輯是「無堅不摧」，至少可以四年不用維修。作者恐怕不知道的是，這種單車是以不用運維作為設計的出發點，而所謂的單車GPS僅是透過使用者租借時的手機定位上傳。因此APP上看見，不代表單車真正在那裡，是很能夠預見的事情。她憤怒的表示：「On Thursday, none of the eight bikes showing on the app as being near my house were actually there.」
最後，作者也以類似臺灣某些科技新創媒體的論調作結：「Although Pyre insists that Mobike is committed to Manchester and expects the idiocy to calm down once the novelty wears off, the truth is it is just a six-month trial. You could hardly blame the Chinese if, at the end of the pilot, they decided to wheel any remaining bikes to a better behaved city. 」簡單來說，就是人民沒品趕走創新。
