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

211–220 of 321 posts

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

#211

Post by isoskeles »

LeoPanthera wrote: post #57
isoskeles wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not littering. You know this.

Honestly I don't know. It feels like littering. If the company suddenly closed - what now? Presumably they're unusable without the backend.

I think you do. I dislike the scooters for my own reasons, mainly the fact that people ride them on sidewalks. But this is not littering.

You tell me if you see a scooter on the sidewalk if that strikes you as the same as people disposing of trash on the sidewalk: loose papers, cigarette butts, plastic bags, etc.

I get what you're saying for the sake of argument, but littering is a disgusting act that makes most people feel like their city is unclean.

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

#212

Post by eitally »

upzone wrote: post #118
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.

That’s called by-right and lots of cities (maybe all? Not sure if it’s a local/state/federal thing) have that. That doesn’t stop NIMBYism (all you have to do is downzone), but for areas that are reasonably densely zoned, you don’t need any variances for projects that conform to zoning ordinances. The real issue with NIMBYs is how restrictive zoning is. Sure, you can build anything you want if it conforms, but good lu…

As a local example that doesn't even apply to multi-family/multi-unit houses, consider the absolutely insane zoning rule in San Mateo county that requires every SFM to have at least 2 covered parking spaces. Seriously, wtf.

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

#213

Post by upzone2 »

enraged_camel wrote: post #176
upzone2 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you not spare a shred of sympathy for people who want to live in the city they work in but can’t because property owners won’t let them? Sorry, I don’t have a lot of sympathy for people who actively block building new housing because “screw you, got mine”. (Also, building housing doesn’t just tank the value of your home, trust me.)

>>Can you not spare a shred of sympathy for people who want to live in the city they work in but can’t because property owners won’t let them? Of course I can. My sympathy goes both ways. >> (Also, building housing doesn’t just tank the value of your home, trust me.) I'm not talking about simply increasing the supply of housing. The specific example we are discussing is a new skyscraper blocking the view from an exis…

In which case the property value should be fine. As far as view goes, I believe I addressed that further up (but to recap: thoughts and prayers for people who are so burdened by others having a place to live).

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

#214

Post by masonic »

noobermin wrote: post #128
s0rce wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're phrasing it as if it's "revenge" rather than the city looking out for its citizen's best interests. If this company has been willing to flaunt the rules, who's to say it won't again? That isn't "revenge," it seems more like using common sense.

s/flaunt/flout

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

#215

Post by emelski »

fipple wrote: post #202
1024core wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

San Francisco has a 14-page rulebook for ... just replacing windows. http://default.sfplanning.org/publications_reports/Standards...

And the federal government issues effectively binding guidelines for the cap design of baby food. The upside? Windows don’t fall out into people and babies don’t choke on the caps.

Nothing in the linked 14-page window replacement guide has anything at all to do with safety in general or windows falling onto people. It is entirely to do with preserving the "historic character" of buildings. I don't think you can reasonably equate that to the regulations governing the design of caps on baby food.

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

#216

Post by csharpminor »

andr wrote: post #88

SFMTA has published the detailed feedback[1] and summary ratings[2] for each petition. Although the actual applications are not published, it really looks like Bird did a poor job on paper. For example, most of the companies relied on swipe-through screens in apps to remind people to use helmets, which the SFMTA deems insufficient. I have to agree, as I have rarely seen someone on a scooter with a helmet. [1] https:/…

Just out of curiosity I read Section C "Plan for Safe Riding and Storage of Scooters" of the applications for Bird and Scoot. There really isn't a comparison. Scoot's is far more detailed and you can tell they have actual experience in operating responsibly at scale.

An example that stuck out to me: when asked where they plan on operating, Scoot had detailed block-by-block outlines of how they would expand and when. Bird literally just has a Google Maps screen capture of San Francisco.

For a start-up as well funded as they are, it really seems like Bird phoned it in on the application.

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

#217

Post by almost_usual »

megaremote wrote: post #163
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.

Wow, you must go crazy every time you see a car, which must take up 100x the space, cause 50x the damage.

cars don’t typically drive down sidewalks

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

#218

Post by noobermin »

sean_lynch wrote: post #173
andr wrote: post #88

SFMTA has published the detailed feedback[1] and summary ratings[2] for each petition. Although the actual applications are not published, it really looks like Bird did a poor job on paper. For example, most of the companies relied on swipe-through screens in apps to remind people to use helmets, which the SFMTA deems insufficient. I have to agree, as I have rarely seen someone on a scooter with a helmet. [1] https:/…

This is incredibly interesting, thanks for sharing. The actual applications are also available here: https://www.sfmta.com/reports/original-2018-scooter-applicat...

Hners should browse the applications by Bird and by Scoot here. It's like night and day. The Bird pages are short and lack significant detail. Scoot on the other hand, actually has what look like questions taken directly from the application, bolded in red, and what look like responses undernearth. That is, they respond directly to the questions being asked with a good amount of detail. This is precisely what you do when applying for things, like say when applying for a grant.

For a community that waxes poetic about presenting themselves and communicating well, Scoot sets a rather good example here.

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

#220

Post by prepend »

ckocagil wrote: post #82
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 you think about it, Uber and Lyft literally built their businesses on breaking taxi laws of every city they operate in.

Those laws harmed consumers and would not be changed.

Lots of just causes broke unjust laws.

Post reply on HN