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

271–280 of 321 posts

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

#271

Post by wellyeah »

LeoPanthera wrote: post #26
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…

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.

Littering?!

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

#272

Post by stephengillie »

ebikelaw wrote: post #181
stephengillie wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the trip is less than 5 miles, it will be cheaper than $1 to drive my hybrid car there AND back. (Assuming $3.35/gallon at 40 MPG, which is quite realistic for a pair of 5-mile trips.) Why pay $1 for something that should cost $0.05, and would be difficult to integrate into my life? If I wanted to ride a bicycle, I'd spend the equivalent of 150 Lime rides at Target or Wally World and own my own bicycle. Why rent w…

Yes, assuming that the government massively subsidizes your driving by socializing the carbon externality and providing you with a free mandatory parking space at your origin and destination then it’s “cheaper” to drive.

The government doesn't subsidize those parking spaces; I pay for one of them in rent ($75/mo), and the other in higher prices/competition. (My workplace is in a city that mandates companies only have 80% parking, to force some employees to bus etc.)

How much do Lime and their competition pay for their parking spots? They're usually left in a sidewalk or other public walkway, using government-provided locations that were intended for a different purpose.

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

#273

Post by wellyeah »

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…

Does San Francisco miss the powerful impact on traffic and the environment this can have? There are so many cars in SF already, parking is a nightmare, and "rush hour" lasts most of the day. Public transit is limiting, Uber is unpredictable and expensive. With a city the size of SF, you can go almost anywhere on a scooter in a reasonable amount of time. But when I commute up to the city, I'll take my car instead of Lime or Bird (which I use regularly in my home city). The walk from Caltrain to my typical destinations is too long, yet probably faster than waiting for an Uber, and I'm not going to get stuck waiting on public transit. You'd think that what seems to be one of America's more socially-conscious liberal cities, would embrace getting more cars off of the road and use of personal zero-emission vehicles.

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

#274

Post by wellyeah »

pergadad wrote: post #237
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 hav…

Isn't that up to the workers? Uber drivers know they don't get benefits. It's meant to be a side-hustle not a full-time job. No one forces anyone to drive for Uber or Lyft. I don't find it exploitive in the slightest bit.

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

#275

Post by wellyeah »

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:/…

I ride them daily, and I don't want to use a helmet. I feel that I and I alone am responsible for my own safety. It's not like other people are going to get hurt because I'm not wearing a helmet.

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

#276

Post by wellyeah »

noobermin wrote: post #187
throwaway66666 wrote: post #180

I recently went south to LA and SD, and the scooters are awesome there. I saw them mostly near the beach, and 0 thrown in the middle of the pavement, none blocking exits or riding them obnoxiously. They even have scooter police that will give you a ticket if you go too fast (I am not saying that as necessarily a good thing, just that they seem to have their stuff together as cities). For the first time I actually mad…

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

I'm just mad that the city gets to "choose a service" at fucking all.

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

#277

Post by emodendroket »

csallen wrote: post #268
emodendroket wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think if you look a little harder you can find entire neighborhoods of homes becoming worthless because of industrial ventures nearby but I guess your theory sounds nice on paper.

That doesn't contradict my point, as I never claimed that was impossible for housing values to depreciate, only that the alternative happens "often". Specifically: You're treating all real estate as if it's the same, but the world is more complex than that. We're talking about dense metro areas , where development primarily happens to support growing populations and an influx of businesses. How many expensive homes i…

Are we? I was responding to a claim that property owners should have absolute rights to build whatever they please on their property. Nobody builds big smoke stacks in the middle of major cities anymore but you could refer to some 19th-Century writing about London to see how that could be bad as well. Or you could read about the time the Thames stank so bad Parliament all had to leave and was finally compelled to do something about waterway pollution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Stink

In short there are a lot of reasons to want to regulate what people build.

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

#278

Post by [deleted] »

eridius wrote: post #241
Meekro wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SFMTA was busy drafting regulations because Bird first broke the rules in Santa Monica and introduced the world to this kind of scooter rental concept. If they'd asked for permission before anyone had heard of the idea of a scooter company, SFMTA would have ignored the request.

Why would SFMTA have ignored the request?

[deleted]

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

#279

Post by emodendroket »

saagarjha wrote: post #201
mrep wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are we talking through each other because I feel like we are arguing the same point. jzymbaluk said "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" which screams "No zoning" to me. Then "saagarjha" said "As long as they follow the noise and disturbance ordinances, then sure." which screams "the market will naturally balance ho…

Overall the point I was trying to get at “if they follow the rules, then I don’t care if they’re next to my house”. Ideally there would be rules protecting me from annoyance such as noise pollution. Zoning rules would allow those that require more lenient regulations their own place to stay (note: this isn’t a NIMBY argument. It’s a “follow the rules” thing, which ideally should be constructed in a way to make it pos…

I see the rules more as an instrument for guaranteeing a certain quality of life and less as an end unto themselves.

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

#280

Post by [deleted] »

lovich wrote: post #194
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.

That is disingenuous FUD. Cities are totally willing to work with companies if they provide a net benefit. Do you think a politician is going to deny access to a company if it costs them nothing and makes their constituents happy? What they say "wtf, no?" to is companies treating public good and spaces like sidewalks as something they can just offload all of their costs onto, without ever asking permission. Look at t…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN