Bird leaves S.F., blaming ‘the most onerous regulations’ in the world • Hacker News Board

Re: Bird leaves S.F., blaming ‘the most onerous regulations’ in the world

#41

Post by nzoschke » Sat, Feb 18, 2023, 5:03 PM UTC

SF resident here.

The on-demand scooter rentals model needs more thought. The scooters are often broken, not charged, under powered or unsafe (unless you bring your own helmet) to get around. Ppl leave them blocking sidewalks and etc.

Best thing I ever did was buy my own ebike. Battery powered personal vehicles are the answer, and ownership pays off quickly compared to Ubers and parking and rentals.

I hope the city bike rollout keeps going. Keep adding bikes and hubs everywhere and lower the price of rentals. Having stations to park and charge and pick up bikes everywhere is better than the free for all of Bird imho.

Re: Bird leaves S.F., blaming ‘the most onerous regulations’ in the world

#42

Post by skeeter2020 » Sat, Feb 18, 2023, 5:03 PM UTC

Zak wrote: post #5

I've noticed a significant drop in the availability of scooters where I live (a major European city) over the past year or so, including Bird exiting the market. Prices have increased substantially, and high-use subscription plans have disappeared. I wonder how much of that is a change in regulations, and how much is the end of early price competition that was never sustainable.

These companies (and there are several undifferentiated players) are now at a point in their development where the pressure to lose less money or (gasp!) potentially make money must be increasing dramatically. I can't imagine there's much of a lock-in for current or previous users though, so as prices increase I'd bet demand decreases dramatically. There's also no real novelty anymore, unless it's tourists from a smaller center that doesn't have scooters.

Re: Bird leaves S.F., blaming ‘the most onerous regulations’ in the world

#43

Post by taeric » Sat, Feb 18, 2023, 5:03 PM UTC

pyb wrote: post #29

roughly wrote: post #15

There’s no way to profitably run a company like Bird without foisting the externalities on someone else. Their model is literally to dump a bunch of electric scooters on the side of the road with QR codes on them and just hope for the best. Of course they’re going to get fined when their property is left blocking driveways, of course they’re going to be expected to clean up the piles of scooters that get thrown in th…

Not to mention the extra costs to the healthcare system. These things are not safe!

We talking about cars or scooters? :D

Re: Bird leaves S.F., blaming ‘the most onerous regulations’ in the world

#44

Post by jcater » Sat, Feb 18, 2023, 5:04 PM UTC

fallingknife wrote: post #26

WhatsName wrote: post #7

It seems in the US regulations seem to be spun as something negative by all major news outlets. For me this reads like sensible government policy at work. If the fines of cleanup eat into profits and are not just a minuscule cost of doing business, they set it just right instead of plain forbid it outright.

Sensible policy that driving a scooter on the sidewalk gets you 5x the fine that driving a car on the sidewalk would? Holding the companies responsible for users of rental scooters actions but not users of rental cars is sensible policy?

Is driving of rental cars on sidewalks really that big of a problem there to make that comparison?

Re: Bird leaves S.F., blaming ‘the most onerous regulations’ in the world

#45

Post by fallingknife » Sat, Feb 18, 2023, 5:04 PM UTC

pyb wrote: post #29

roughly wrote: post #15

There’s no way to profitably run a company like Bird without foisting the externalities on someone else. Their model is literally to dump a bunch of electric scooters on the side of the road with QR codes on them and just hope for the best. Of course they’re going to get fined when their property is left blocking driveways, of course they’re going to be expected to clean up the piles of scooters that get thrown in th…

Not to mention the extra costs to the healthcare system. These things are not safe!

Yeah, I guess they do add costs to the healthcare system since they only injure their drivers instead of outright kill them like cars do to 46,000 people in the US every year.

Re: Bird leaves S.F., blaming ‘the most onerous regulations’ in the world

#46

Post by jrm4 » Sat, Feb 18, 2023, 5:04 PM UTC

fallingknife wrote: post #26

WhatsName wrote: post #7

It seems in the US regulations seem to be spun as something negative by all major news outlets. For me this reads like sensible government policy at work. If the fines of cleanup eat into profits and are not just a minuscule cost of doing business, they set it just right instead of plain forbid it outright.

Sensible policy that driving a scooter on the sidewalk gets you 5x the fine that driving a car on the sidewalk would? Holding the companies responsible for users of rental scooters actions but not users of rental cars is sensible policy?

Yes. Both of these are sensible because our spaces and regulations are already better set up for cars, and the scooter companies are deliberately introducing technology that they know (or should know) increase unexpected danger. Thus, the costs should fall on them.

The details aren't perfect, but the idea is generally good.

Re: Bird leaves S.F., blaming ‘the most onerous regulations’ in the world

#47

Post by roughly » Sat, Feb 18, 2023, 5:05 PM UTC

jrm4 wrote: post #37

I am 100% in favor of more regulation when it comes to transportation in cities. Solutions like Uber, scooters etc strike me as great ideas; but also somewhat inevitable, and would have benefitted from a growth process other than "all the Silicon Valley VC money fueling everything." (I still maintain that a movement to enshrine the idea that these scooters left around where someone lives fall under the legal category…

> (I still maintain that a movement to enshrine the idea that these scooters left around where someone lives fall under the legal category of "mislaid property" and anyone finding one as such gets to keep it and modify as they wish.)

The positive spin on these companies is they've been pretty solid VC-funded programs for providing transportation to the homeless population and spare parts to hobby hackers.

Re: Bird leaves S.F., blaming ‘the most onerous regulations’ in the world

#48

Post by notatoad » Sat, Feb 18, 2023, 5:05 PM UTC

roughly wrote: post #15

There’s no way to profitably run a company like Bird without foisting the externalities on someone else. Their model is literally to dump a bunch of electric scooters on the side of the road with QR codes on them and just hope for the best. Of course they’re going to get fined when their property is left blocking driveways, of course they’re going to be expected to clean up the piles of scooters that get thrown in th…

"foisting the externalities on someone else" is how all profitable transportation works though. Uber clogs the streets with circling cars waiting for pickups. private cars are scattered all over the streets and are the single most dangerous thing in a city. cars, trains, taxis, buses, everything all create huge amounts of noise pollution. airplanes and gas powered cars create air pollution.

just pushing through and providing enough value to the demographics who make the laws until people accept your negative externalities as "normal" or "acceptable" is totally a viable business strategy, and holding companies accountable for the costs of their business is definitely not the norm. i don't necessarily like it, but you can't say bird has more negative externalities than any other private transport option in the city. they're just new and different.

Re: Bird leaves S.F., blaming ‘the most onerous regulations’ in the world

#49

Post by dagmx » Sat, Feb 18, 2023, 5:05 PM UTC

Sounds like Bird just doesn’t want to deal with the downsides of their business model.

In most cities where I’ve seen them, they’re usually just abandoned by people with reckless abandon. Granted, some of that was probably not the users but other people…

I’d see them in the Bay, thrown into peoples hedges, cluttering up sidewalks.

While I know they serve a use for many people, they also were indistinguishable from garbage.

If their business model depends on other people (not just their customers) taking care of their product and the cities/individuals to clean up after them, then their business model is clearly flawed to begin with.

Re: Bird leaves S.F., blaming ‘the most onerous regulations’ in the world

#50

Post by jmeister » Sat, Feb 18, 2023, 5:06 PM UTC

roughly wrote: post #15

There’s no way to profitably run a company like Bird without foisting the externalities on someone else. Their model is literally to dump a bunch of electric scooters on the side of the road with QR codes on them and just hope for the best. Of course they’re going to get fined when their property is left blocking driveways, of course they’re going to be expected to clean up the piles of scooters that get thrown in th…

Too bad. The state puts its thumb on the scale in every market. Others have commented on cars below. If the city wanted to encourage scooters it would have. In America people actually try to build a Bird. Elsewhere they just don't bother. Thankfully there are other states in America that don't take the existence of business, innovation, or material prosperity for granted.