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

231–240 of 321 posts

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

#231

Post by arthurofbabylon »

tylerhou wrote: post #225
ebikelaw wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A car would get a big fat “poor” on every point of that evaluation. And yet, we allow our city to be totally overrun with them! I certainly hope that SFMTA is feverishly working to apply these standards to car companies. No car should be allowed to operate in San Francisco until its maker has demonstrated that they can affirmatively prevent them from blocking sidewalk ramps and until they all have programs to track a…

It's not illegal to buy your own electric bike or scooter and ride it around SF. Not like SF is banning electric bike manufacturers. So your analogy is pretty bad.

I disagree - the analogy seems appropriate. The poster was comparing the features of each vehicle in use, disregarding the source (manufactured or ride-shares). Similarly, shouldn’t regulations not look too far past the actual impact of an entity?

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

#233

Post by almost_usual »

stale2002 wrote: post #227
almost_usual wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So ban Uber and Lyft?

I'd prefer banning personal cars (within city limits), as those take up a massive amount of space, with regards to parking. Taxis on the other hand, have usage rates of ~50 percent. Whereas personal cars, parked on the side of the road, are only being used ~5 % of the time, and the other 95% is wasted.

How about public transit? Don’t understand the argument for banning personal cars but not Uber, Lyft, and Taxi.

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

#234

Post by woolvalley »

throwaway66666 wrote: post #209
noobermin wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't going anywhere. People are just mad their favorite service didn't get chosen.

Who cares though, they are all the same. (I forgot which company's I used, until I checked my phone now to see the app). They really didn't work much on brand recognition, I 'm surprised people have favorites

I'm mostly upset by the # limits. It's not enough for the entire market.

Also I feel like some of the bad behavior was vandalism by haters. Who the hell would put black sharpie on the QR codes or shit on scooters themselves? Probably not someone who uses them.

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

#235

Post by woolvalley »

eridius wrote: post #103
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.

This is a time-limited pilot program that also caps the number of scooters. It's far from a market monopoly. In addition, there's no network effect with scooters. Car sharing has the chicken-and-egg problem where you need enough drivers to meet demand, and you need enough passengers to give drivers a reason to drive for you. But scooters are cheap and easy to dump a whole bunch on a city, so there's no reason why a n…

There is definitely a density effect with scooters although. And seeing the past behaviors of governments, 'temporary' things often become permanent limits.

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

#236

Post by woolvalley »

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.

You forgot about the car eyesores, which outnumber scooter on a 20:1 scale when they were out in full force.

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

#237

Post by pergadad »

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…

Look at the last paragraph. A good city government will not just aim to meet business easy, they'll also have criteria for ensuring good impact on other policy fields, eg here low income residents.

This whole "hands off" approach has proven a failure many times,. Look at how Uber and Lyft are exploiting their drivers, which end up working below minimum wage and 100% on own risk - in the big scheme/long term these have no insurance, no pension benefits, might lose everything through an accident, and will mostly end up dependent on handouts.

In some cities bike rental schemes failed and the city is left to clean up broken bikes, stations, etc once the provider disappears. Sure, it was easy to get in, but the taxpayer foots the bill.

Yes, an application process makes things a bit more intransparent and slow, but (if done well) it also assures that the average citizen is not left holding the sticky end.

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

#238

Post by throwaway66666 »

woolvalley wrote: post #234
throwaway66666 wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who cares though, they are all the same. (I forgot which company's I used, until I checked my phone now to see the app). They really didn't work much on brand recognition, I 'm surprised people have favorites

I'm mostly upset by the # limits. It's not enough for the entire market. Also I feel like some of the bad behavior was vandalism by haters. Who the hell would put black sharpie on the QR codes or shit on scooters themselves? Probably not someone who uses them.

I felt the same to be honest (my comment above was meant to be somewhat humorous). I 'm pretty sure many of the ones thrown around where parked properly and someone just kicked them down. Pretty sad.

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

#239

Post by anonsfnative »

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…

[flagged]

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

#240

Post by anonsfnative »

colordrops wrote: post #141
freyr wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "due to rampant interference in the operation of the free market" But maybe in another sense, San Francisco is a product, and the feature it's selling includes rampant overregulation. If that's not a good business model, another city can step up and offer better incentives. And people can move there. There are many nice cities and towns in the US. If you insist on living on the dirty tip of a tiny overcrowded penin…

And that's how a city should operate. The citizens should regulate how the city regulates.

We do. That's what people here are complaining about. They have no stake in this game, have no intention of becoming part of the community, they're just looking for a cheap buck and don't mind if they ruin everything that makes our home great. There are plenty of other places to go to, and everybody whining about "San Francisco being a zoning failure" might want to remember that we have a larger GDP than many developed nations. If that's failure, what exactly is your idea of success?
Post reply on HN