Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

San Francisco Denies Scooter Permits for Bird, Lime, Uber and Lyft

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 321 posts

Re: San Francisco Denies Scooter Permits for Bird, Lime, Uber and Lyft

#41

Post by repsilat »

WisNorCan wrote: post #13
austenallred wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

San Francisco just granted two companies a monopoly when previously there were multiple companies fighting for the same business. That’s the exact opposite of what you’re advocating.

VCs would not be giving billion $ valuations if they thought this will be a highly competitive market with many players. Everyone is betting on a winner takes most market.

Scooters are cheap enough and slow enough that the benefits to scale

- aren't hard to reach for anyone with funding, and

- can be maintained over relatively small geographic areas (neighbourhoods/cities, not states/countries/globally).

If some new company invents a scooter with better tires or a better battery or a disco ball and a stereo it's not hard for them to enter the market. And, in fact, this regulation is happening because the city thinks it's too easy for upstarts to get a toe-hold and cause negative externalities like sidewalk crowding.

(Besides these points: Has anyone made the argument that "overwhelming, unapproachable network-effect leads" are kinda great outcomes for consumers? Like, assume there were 10 facebooks instead of one -- kinda terrible. Or if there were a hundred Ubers and Lyfts, and you didn't know which one had cars close to you... awful.)

Re: San Francisco Denies Scooter Permits for Bird, Lime, Uber and Lyft

#42

Post by LeoPanthera »

jonny_eh wrote: post #27
LeoPanthera wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The companies in question already had a history of operating illegally in San Francisco. I don't think it's fair to dismiss that as "picking and choosing". Dumping those scooters over the city is effectively littering. Business should be able to operate freely, but they should not be able to break the law until someone catches them.

What law did they break?

Use of powered vehicles on sidewalks is illegal, as is blocking entrances with vehicles. The city accused Bird and Lime of doing both.

Re: San Francisco Denies Scooter Permits for Bird, Lime, Uber and Lyft

#43

Post by dmix »

threeseed wrote: post #15
quotemstr wrote: post #4

Business permits should be shall-issue: if an applicant adheres to a set of rules known in advance, the city ought to have no power to deny its permit application. Want to limit the number of something? Fine. Auction off medallions or something in a transparent, open way. Don't pick and choose businesses the way SF busybodies do. San Francisco has severe and worsening problems primarily due to rampant interference in…

So if the city doesn't specifically say "do not test chemical weapons in the downtown area" then a business should be free to do so ? Is that the type of system you are proposing here ?

I can imagine about 100 other layers of law and regulation that would be better suited at dealing with this scenario than some municipal licensing issue. So, yes?

Can we at a minimum focus on practical participants and outcomes when debating policy?

Re: San Francisco Denies Scooter Permits for Bird, Lime, Uber and Lyft

#44

Post by NegativeLatency »

ams6110 wrote: post #29
WisNorCan wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are attacking a position that I am not advocating. I am not suggesting government run transportation. I am suggesting that government ensure that the private market remains competitive with multiple players by allocating capacity. In any case, the only thing worse than government running services is a company with a monopoly running services. The first tends to be inefficient. The second tends to be inefficient w…

No, government services are worse. I can opt out of Comcast.

Sure if you want DSL.

Choices in my market are: dialup, dsl, and Comcast.

Re: San Francisco Denies Scooter Permits for Bird, Lime, Uber and Lyft

#45

Post by oh-kumudo »

oh-kumudo wrote: post #36

Seems like the Scooter is not popular and only useful for a niche segment of the population. The bike sharing business has caused a hazard in places like China, because of the unrestricted dumping. So there is definitely a point that government needs to chime in and do some stuff.

Same. They really needs to work on their public images as out-of-touch entitled manchild.

Re: San Francisco Denies Scooter Permits for Bird, Lime, Uber and Lyft

#47

Post by jzymbaluk »

threeseed wrote: post #18
ohazi wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same with home renovation / remodeling / addition / construction permits. If your design meets code and zoning, it should automatically get approved. None of this nimby-neighbor-going-to-the-planning-meeting-and-getting-your-project-cancelled-because-your-chimney-will-cast-a-shadow-on-their-backyard bullshit.

So you are saying you wouldn't complain if a 50 storey apartment complex was built right next to you and bathed your entire house in darkness 24/7. Sure thing. This free for all world sounds downright scary.

Why shouldn't land owners be able to build whatever they want on their own property? It's not your backyard, it's your neighbors property

Re: San Francisco Denies Scooter Permits for Bird, Lime, Uber and Lyft

#48

Post by xtqctz »

eropple wrote: post #30
xtqctz wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you consider the short term rental of inexpensive scooters an important market needing laws to regulate their capacity (..by the wise and benevolent leaders of this sparkling city..), it's hard to imagine any market that would fall short of your importance threshold. The notion that the only way to ensure competition is to forbid it is convoluted.

When corporate entities happily take money in exchange for their clients littering the streets with eyesores, it is a rather important problem. Boston hasn't been overrun yet, and I am hopeful that we stay that way.

The argument was that the market is important, not that the resulting behaviors of users are an important nuisance to you.

Re: San Francisco Denies Scooter Permits for Bird, Lime, Uber and Lyft

#49

Post by eropple »

NegativeLatency wrote: post #39
eropple wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When corporate entities happily take money in exchange for their clients littering the streets with eyesores, it is a rather important problem. Boston hasn't been overrun yet, and I am hopeful that we stay that way.

Have you tried one? They’re actually quite handy.

I have no need for one and I don't need to throw somebody else's brightly colored garbage onto the property of or into the streets I share with my neighbors.

Re: San Francisco Denies Scooter Permits for Bird, Lime, Uber and Lyft

#50

Post by twblalock »

WisNorCan wrote: post #13
austenallred wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

San Francisco just granted two companies a monopoly when previously there were multiple companies fighting for the same business. That’s the exact opposite of what you’re advocating.

VCs would not be giving billion $ valuations if they thought this will be a highly competitive market with many players. Everyone is betting on a winner takes most market.

I’ve noticed that a lot of “natural” monopolies are regulated under the assumption they will become monopolies but before they actually do.

I suspect a lot of that regulation has been wrong, monopolies would not have emerged, and we would be better off regulating only the monopolies that actually exist.

I’d rather see the scooter companies fight it out than have the city government pick winners and losers when the industry is only a few months old and multiple viable competitors already exist.

Post reply on HN