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

SF wants startups to behave, so why did it reject the ‘nice guy’ of e-scooters?

sfchronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 174 posts

Re: SF wants startups to behave, so why did it reject the ‘nice guy’ of e-scooters?

#121

Post by eddyionescu »

To add more context, Skip wouldn't have been chosen even if its application were formatted perfectly, you can see the scores here: https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/reports-and-docume...

And the completed rubrics of each of the applications here: https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/reports-and-docume...

With other related documents here: https://www.sfmta.com/reports/2019-scooter-application-evalu...

While the rubric grading might have seemed overly strict and bureaucratic, keep in mind that at the end of the day it's intended to stand up in court because the SFMTA could get sued given how high the stakes are and would have to demonstrate that it was a fair and transparent process.

As well, the priorities are very different now compared to 2018. The initial pilot accepted open-ended proposals and had the goal of determining whether scooters were in the public interest at all - Scoot and Skip won because their applications addressed concerns that none of the other applicants did (https://www.sfmta.com/projects/powered-scooter-share-permit-...).

This process was essentially an RFP where the SFMTA was clear on what they wanted, meaning that the firms with more operating experience, better equipment, and a stronger financial position had an advantage.

Re: SF wants startups to behave, so why did it reject the ‘nice guy’ of e-scooters?

#122

Post by wutbrodo »

zozbot234 wrote: post #94
jakobegger wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that investors buy up cheap apartments and put them on AirBnB to make insane profits. This drives up prices for locals. The other tenants are mad because landlords prefer renting apartments to tourists for 5k a month instead of renting to locals for 1k a month.

> This drives prices up for locals. Yes, so what? Why should a tourist be forced to pay more than a "local" (who might nonetheless move out of town at a moment's notice) for what boils down to the exact same service?

Because there are massive positive externalities to people stably investing their communities (often called "social capital"). Your attitude of putting your head in the sand about things you can't measure precisely is the consistent folly of the High Modernist, "systems are simple so we can tear them down and remake them" line of thought that destroyed the American city.

I actually think cities tend to overregulate Airbnb (and housing construction), but if your model of housing policy can't tell the difference between a tourist and a resident, it's woefully incomplete.

Re: SF wants startups to behave, so why did it reject the ‘nice guy’ of e-scooters?

#123

Post by tempsy »

wutbrodo wrote: post #119
tempsy wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Airbnb is hardly cheaper than a hotel when you factor in the obscene service and cleaning fees in addition to the hotel taxes they collect. And if it still comes out cheaper it’s for a reason e.g. no security, no housekeeping, no amenities, no one to help you.

> if it still comes out cheaper it’s for a reason e.g. no security, no housekeeping, no amenities, no one to help you. Why is this a bad thing? It's just unbundling security and housekeeping and lowering the price correspondingly. If you want the full-service option hotels still exist

It’s like getting sick without health insurance. You don’t think about it until it happens. Most people underestimate the risk.

And like I said in a lot of places an Airbnb is not actually cheaper than a hotel, so in that case you’re getting ripped off because you pay the same price as a hotel without any of the benefits a hotel provides.

Re: SF wants startups to behave, so why did it reject the ‘nice guy’ of e-scooters?

#124

Post by newnewpdro »

reaperducer wrote: post #24
mstade wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But the bigger point is that the SF government apparently places more weight on minor application mistakes than actual, historical "bad" behavior. This has been my experience with pretty much any bureaucracy, regardless of locale. E.g. when I incorporated my company, I had to send in the same application four times, each time paying an additional fee. Reason was I had minor, pointless really, mistakes in the applic…

This has been my experience with pretty much any bureaucracy, regardless of locale. It doesn't have to be this way. I incorporated my first company in Chicago, and was stunned with how helpful the bureaucrats were. Yes, it was a little complex, especially in the years before "startups" were a thing, and you could do stuff online. But each department I had to work with had people who would sit me down at their desk an…

Incorporating a company is a trivial matter as far as bureaucratic exercises go.

It's like the cover charge at the bar of bureaucratic suffering. Generally it's what follows that becomes painful, depending on the business you're in and how large/active/complicated it grows to be if at all.

I incorporated my first company as a teen, following instructions from a book in the local public library. I don't remember it requiring more than filling out and mailing some forms in.

Re: SF wants startups to behave, so why did it reject the ‘nice guy’ of e-scooters?

#125

Post by zozbot234 »

wutbrodo wrote: post #122
zozbot234 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This drives prices up for locals. Yes, so what? Why should a tourist be forced to pay more than a "local" (who might nonetheless move out of town at a moment's notice) for what boils down to the exact same service?

Because there are massive positive externalities to people stably investing their communities (often called "social capital"). Your attitude of putting your head in the sand about things you can't measure precisely is the consistent folly of the High Modernist, "systems are simple so we can tear them down and remake them" line of thought that destroyed the American city. I actually think cities tend to overregulate A…

The thing is that a NIMBY attitude does absolutely nothing to create more social capital. Places where social capital is highest are often precisely those with the strongest traditions of welcoming hospitality towards short-term-visiting ("touristy") outsiders.

Re: SF wants startups to behave, so why did it reject the ‘nice guy’ of e-scooters?

#126

Post by stale2002 »

HeWhoLurksLate wrote: post #92
rolltiide wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People that defer too much respect to the state are at a disadvantage. What I mean by that is that some people will conclude "well that's the law! so don't break it" as opposed to looking at the consequences or seeing the relativity of the law, or the influence you can have on the law. Many laws don't have a consequence. Many laws were written by your rival. Many laws have consequences that have nothing to do with cl…

Yeah, and I got a $200 ticket a few days ago for going over the speed limit while avoiding a nighttime crash recently. Disagreeing with why you got a ticket doesn't matter once it's written. Breaking a law doesn't matter until it does, and then it can hurt quite a bit- that ticket cut into my Christmas present money. Similarly, breaking laws with you company can impact your bottom line, and your credibility. I'm stil…

> Breaking a law doesn't matter until it does, and then it can hurt quite a bit

It might or it might not matter. Many startups have proven that if you just move quickly enough, you can get away with it for long enough to become a successful company. And by the time that happens, you can just get the law changed.

Re: SF wants startups to behave, so why did it reject the ‘nice guy’ of e-scooters?

#127

Post by wutbrodo »

mrighele wrote: post #52
watt wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you expect bureaucracy to be helpful and resist when they are acting as harmful to the spirit of the law. Otherwise you get a nightmare state akin to Soviet Union.

You're right but that doesn't invidate what i said. I am not talking about how a bureaucracy should work, but how you should approach it. Of course a helpful bureacracy will ask feedback in order not to waste your work, but unless you know how it will work expect the worst and act accordingly

This is obviously true and also irrelevant. Everyone knows that it's better to adhere to the minutiae: no one is suggesting you shouldn't put forth your best effort to do so. The complaint here is that the bureaucracy is so sensitive to those minutiae.

Re: SF wants startups to behave, so why did it reject the ‘nice guy’ of e-scooters?

#128

Post by pishpash »

reaperducer wrote: post #24
mstade wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But the bigger point is that the SF government apparently places more weight on minor application mistakes than actual, historical "bad" behavior. This has been my experience with pretty much any bureaucracy, regardless of locale. E.g. when I incorporated my company, I had to send in the same application four times, each time paying an additional fee. Reason was I had minor, pointless really, mistakes in the applic…

This has been my experience with pretty much any bureaucracy, regardless of locale. It doesn't have to be this way. I incorporated my first company in Chicago, and was stunned with how helpful the bureaucrats were. Yes, it was a little complex, especially in the years before "startups" were a thing, and you could do stuff online. But each department I had to work with had people who would sit me down at their desk an…

So they were corrupt but competent? The extra money seemed to have upped the "talent" then.

Re: SF wants startups to behave, so why did it reject the ‘nice guy’ of e-scooters?

#129

Post by on_and_off »

tempsy wrote: post #110
argonaut wrote: post #15

Yes, this is just standard bureaucracy and it's Skip's fault, as people are saying. But the bigger point is that the SF government apparently places more weight on minor application mistakes than actual, historical "bad" behavior. That's why this is so comical. It only feeds fuel to the truth that rules should be bent and there really is no point in "moving slow" for startups. You won't be rewarded for it. Most tech…

The bigger problem with scooters is that they keep raising their prices. It was $.15/min a year ago and checking Lime and Uber it’s now $.32-.33/min or more than $20/hr! I hardly see anyone using them in SF anymore. It’s cheaper to use just a regular Uber. I’m convinced the only people using it now can’t do basic math.

IMO SF streets are not that great for LMV.

I use an eskate so it does not apply 100% to scooter with wheels that are twice as large, but most of my learning curve has been around learning to deal with bad road conditions.

The roads I usually take are riddled with potholes or crossing rail tracks with huge gaps.

Cars (or rather their drivers) are also very dangerous.

I still skate to work almost every time when the weather permits but I can understand people choosing to use a car instead.

I have good hopes for the future. Once Market Street becomes more welcoming to bikes, that will open up more possibilities, adding a couple more bike oriented streets could make the whole city way more bike/skate -able.

Re: SF wants startups to behave, so why did it reject the ‘nice guy’ of e-scooters?

#130

Post by on_and_off »

xvector wrote: post #77
souterrain wrote: post #69

Forget for a moment that a bureaucracy is involved. If your company was bidding on a request for proposal (RFP) for a potential client, wouldn't you want to follow the customer's requirements? Often RFP teams use failure to follow directions or specifics in a proposal submission as an informal measure of the likelihood the respondent will fail to deliver on other requirements. I have worked for a company where I had…

I think this is ridiculous. Formality to the absurdist extreme. Any mildly competent human being would overlook the letters “A3” not being above a certain safety paragraph. If a robot were processing these applications then the error might be forgivable. But if you’re a human on the job, society expects you to use the reasoning skills of a human. I think the sort of person that would reject Skip’s application is some…

The selection process needed to hold up in court, so no, I don't find it ridiculous that not answering a question clearly would disqualify you.

I do find it ridiculous that they were not able to present a correctly field document for what such a crucial RFP.

Post reply on HN