> The .... who are picking these up without paying and dumping them in a creek are the ones littering
Correct, though the term used for enabling this kind of bad behaviour, as the bike company is doing, is "creating an attractive nuisance" and it's not blameless.
> It states that a landowner may be held liable for injuries to children trespassing on the land if the injury is caused by an object on the land that is likely to attract children. The doctrine is designed to protect children who are unable to appreciate the risk posed by the object, by imposing a liability on the landowner.
People stealing and vandalising bikes aren't children wandering into a hazard.
> People stealing and vandalising bikes aren't children wandering into a hazard.
There are differences, and there are similarities. I have heard "attractive nuisance" used (not in a legal context) in a looser sense that covers this case - ie. when you can legitimately ask "well, what else did you think was going to happen?"
> I have heard "attractive nuisance" used (not in a legal context)
Well, you linked to the legal context, so you'll have to excuse me for misunderstanding.
> "well, what else did you think was going to happen?"
People not stealing bikes, vandalising them and throwing them in nature? Do we really have to invent pseudo-legalities to get around the simple fact that people doing this are utter assholes (and criminals), regardless of whether the company providing these bikes have behaved perfectly?
Correct, though the term used for enabling this kind of bad behaviour, as the bike company is doing, is "creating an attractive nuisance" and it's not blameless.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractive_nuisance_doctrine