San Francisco Denies Scooter Permits for Bird, Lime, Uber and Lyft • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by s0rce » Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 3:22 AM UTC

minikites wrote: post #80

Meekro wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I'd started a scooter company before scooter companies were a thing, went to any city and asked for permission, they would have said "wtf? no." (assuming they answered my petition at all) and that would have been the end of it. The only reason we're here arguing about this is companies like Bird chose to ask for forgiveness rather than permission in the past.

>ask for forgiveness rather than permission Do you genuinely think it's good for society when businesses do this?

In all cases, no. In this case, yes. Improving the sad state of transportation options in the bay area is beneficial to all residents. Two wrongs don't make a right. Fine them for breaking the rules and then allow them to continue. Don't give their business to a competitor in an act of revenge against their breaking the rules.

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

#92

Post by mrep » Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 3:22 AM UTC

saagarjha wrote: post #69

emodendroket wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine you owned a home and somebody wanted to put a nightclub on one side of you and an abattoir on the other. Do you think that might affect your quality of life at all? I mean hey, it's their property!

As long as they follow the noise and disturbance ordinances, then sure.

Are you suggesting that nightclubs should be banned altogether? If not, then where do you suggest to put them since they are inherently noisy?

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

#93

Post by baddox » Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 3:22 AM UTC

LeoPanthera wrote: post #42

jonny_eh wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In that case, Toyota is currently breaking that law on my street.

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

#94

Post by eridius » Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 3:22 AM UTC

Meekro wrote: post #32

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.

If I'd started a scooter company before scooter companies were a thing, went to any city and asked for permission, they would have said "wtf? no." (assuming they answered my petition at all) and that would have been the end of it. The only reason we're here arguing about this is companies like Bird chose to ask for forgiveness rather than permission in the past.

Completely untrue.

Before the scooters littered the city, the companies talked to SFMTA, and SFMTA said they were drafting up regulations to govern the scooters prior to giving permission.

The companies went ahead and littered the city with them anyway, without permission.

Claiming that breaking the rules is what led to the SFMTA coming up with regulations to allow scooters is just plain wrong. They were working on them already. The companies just got greedy and figured it was a first-mover market and that they'd be able to pull an Uber and continue operating despite breaking the rules.

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

#95

Post by upzone » Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 3:23 AM UTC

enraged_camel wrote: post #59

jzymbaluk wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Playing devil's advocate here (which is my way of saying "bring on the downvotes"): because what they build can still generate negative externalities that affect their neighbors. So even though a 50-story building might be in compliance with zoning laws, it still blocks neighbor's access to a valuable, albeit non-essential resource (sunlight, cool ocean breeze, etc.) that probably factored into the price the original…

So first of all, you don’t have a right not to live in a shadow. Millions of people in cities all over the world deal with it every day. It’s not that bad (tbh it probably helps AC bills too). You have certain rights when you buy property, but “a view” isn’t one of them. If you want scenery, move to the country. It’s gorgeous!

Second, it’s frustrating that people only think of themselves. “What about my view?” What about the hundreds or thousands of people who can’t live near their jobs or their kids’ schools because of your precious view? What about the people who will be forced to drive in and get stuck in traffic, people who probably can’t bike because they’re forced to live in another town only reachable by a long highway trip? What about the people who are forced to pay higher and higher rents because everyone blocks development everywhere in the city?

Screw your view, honestly.

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

#96

Post by jamiequint » Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 3:23 AM UTC

minikites wrote: post #80

Meekro wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I'd started a scooter company before scooter companies were a thing, went to any city and asked for permission, they would have said "wtf? no." (assuming they answered my petition at all) and that would have been the end of it. The only reason we're here arguing about this is companies like Bird chose to ask for forgiveness rather than permission in the past.

>ask for forgiveness rather than permission Do you genuinely think it's good for society when businesses do this?

Yes of course it's good. Look at the history of Uber and Lyft vs. Taxi companies and other vested city interests. The government regulatory complex almost never represents citizens interests better than the free market.

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

#97

Post by olalonde » Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 3:23 AM UTC

eropple wrote: post #49

NegativeLatency wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Have you heard of the expression "live and let live"? The level of entitlement displayed in your comments is astounding.

You feel it's reasonable to prevent everyone else from using a very cheap and convenient transportation service just because the vehicles aren't esthetically pleasing to you?

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

#98

Post by yumraj » Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 3:23 AM UTC

kojeovo wrote: post #76

yumraj wrote: post #35

I'd love to be proven wrong, only future will tell, but this seems to be yet another fad being funded by free money from VCs. In fact the only winner in all of this are the manufacturers who are making these scooters. According to https://qz.com/1257198/xiaomi-makes-the-bird-and-spin-scoote... at least Bird and Spin are using Xiomi scooters. Lime is also made overseas, read China. So, this is nothing but Silicon Vall…

Very little moving to China according to that aticle > Bird could buy a fleet of 500 scooters for $137,500, or 0.1% of its total funding

According to the same article, Lime has deployed over 35,000 bikes and scooters across the US since last June.

They are available at $250 - $299 a piece (https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/hot-sale-best-origina...) Plus there is shipping, which I don't know the cost.

So, that itself, before shipping and customs is is $8.75M - $10.465M. Not exactly chump change.

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

#99

Post by s0rce » Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 3:23 AM UTC

jsemrau wrote: post #66

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.

You are absolutely right. Dockless mobility uses public space for the benefit of a private corporation. I cycle to work and there is not a single day where I see an OfO bike or Grab bike parked in the most annoying places. Maybe "society" is not ready for dockless and we need to create norms and rules of behavior (i.e., enforce that with fines)

While I agree that this is an issues, in my opinion it is exceedingly minor, especially in comparison to the amount of cars illegally stopped or parked that I see while biking. In fact I had to merge into traffic a few times to go around tonight. A few bikes haphazardly placed is nothing more than a mild nuisance. Never mind the homeless camps and other litter everywhere in the bay area.

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

#100

Post by greglindahl » Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 3:24 AM UTC

bradleybuda wrote: post #78

WisNorCan wrote: post #3

I generally away from regulation, but let me articulate the pro-regulation argument. Markets that are important (like transportation) and have network effects need to be regulated. A monopoly with Uber and/or Lyft dominating local transportation is not good for consumers or cities in the long-term. Cities should take control of their transportation and ensure competition by managing allocation of capacity. I think th…

How do "transportation" companies (dockless scooters in this case) have network effects? The automobile industry, which is about as mature as markets get, has seven companies in the US with at least 5% market share and the leader (GM) has merely 17%, and is largely bereft of command-and-control economic policies.

For a scooter, I have to walk until I find a scooter for a company that I'm enrolled with. Do I even have company X's app on my phone to show their scooter nearby? If I run across company Y's scooter, how much effort is it for me to enroll to use it? And is company Z offering me a bulk discount?

All of these are totally different from buying a car.