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

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

sfchronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 83 posts

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

#61

Post by Zak »

roughly wrote: post #59
notatoad wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 p…

Bird's big mistake is they chose a particularly stupid variety of a business plan here - if they'd done something like selling the scooters for cost but making people pay a subscription to use it or something, they'd be free & clear, because what people did with their scooters wouldn't be Bird's problem. Bird's mistake is that every Bird scooter is owned by Bird Inc., which means Bird Inc. is held accountable for eve…

Why would anyone buy a scooter that they have to pay a subscription to use? Scooters without subscription fees are available for purchase.

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

#62

Post by roughly »

Zak wrote: post #61
roughly wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bird's big mistake is they chose a particularly stupid variety of a business plan here - if they'd done something like selling the scooters for cost but making people pay a subscription to use it or something, they'd be free & clear, because what people did with their scooters wouldn't be Bird's problem. Bird's mistake is that every Bird scooter is owned by Bird Inc., which means Bird Inc. is held accountable for eve…

Why would anyone buy a scooter that they have to pay a subscription to use? Scooters without subscription fees are available for purchase.

I don’t care, that’s not the point. The point is Bird retained ownership of all its scooters, and so it retained liability for its scooters, which is why it’s having to pay fines. If they’d managed a business model that doesn’t maintain a giant scooter fleet and all the liability on their books, this’d be a different story.

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

#63

Post by xkcd-sucks »

badrequest wrote: post #24

Anecdotally, nobody likes these scooters and I can't imagine any normal person who isn't financially invested in their success would care when they leave. They are a very dangerous and gimmicky mode of transportation in a nation where we could all use to walk much more than we do.

Anecdotally, some people really loved them as a source of raw materials

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

#64

Post by [deleted] »

fallingknife wrote: post #51
skeeter2020 wrote: post #32

>> another innovative company, this one focused on the crucial task of getting people out of their cars and onto other modes of transportation as climate changes worsens and our streets feel like one huge traffic jam. Oh please; scooters don't get people out of their cars and they're essentially treated like short-life disposable goods. They're a convenient alternative for short-distance trips, like zipping through a…

> Oh please; scooters don't get people out of their cars > They're a convenient alternative for short-distance trips

[deleted]

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

#65

Post by jaclaz »

mrighele wrote: post #58
jaclaz wrote: post #13

Once said that the "too high fines" sounds like an excuse, I am not sure to understand the logic of the fines (i.e. the attributing them at least partially to the company). When you rent a car, the driver/renter pays all fines during the rent period, except maybe those related to the car itself not being fit for street use. Why is this different for these scooters?

When you rent a car any fine is notified to the rental company which then forwards it to you.They can do this because there is paper that you signed that says that at that time you were driving. In the case of a scooter there is just a row on a db, I don’t know if that is enough to shift responsibilities, thought if they wanted they could address it (for example I remember that in one place users are required to take…

Yes, but - see below -

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34848478

I was thinking not so much of the parking fines, but rather of the driving ones that reportedly are "split".

The scooters don't have a registration plate, so the Police (or whomever issues the fine) has to stop the rider (or not?) then:

1) if the rider is stopped and fined, how/why is the fine split with the company?

2) if the rider is not stopped and the fine goes generically to the company, same question, if the rider can be identified in order to split the fine, why can he/she not be made to pay the whole fine?

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

#66

Post by hulitu »

fallingknife wrote: post #45
pyb wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Falling from an electric scooter is often fatal.

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

#67

Post by 8ytecoder »

boc wrote: post #56
badrequest wrote: post #24

Anecdotally, nobody likes these scooters and I can't imagine any normal person who isn't financially invested in their success would care when they leave. They are a very dangerous and gimmicky mode of transportation in a nation where we could all use to walk much more than we do.

I loved them when they first arrived- cut my walking commute into downtown from 20 minutes to about 4 minutes, plus they are super fun to rip down hills and fast since you can lane split through traffic. I think of it like skiing- sure there’s a lot of potential risk but it’s a super enjoyable of getting around. Bird was the first scooter I ever rented when they launched in SF and I loved it. It was so much fun waiti…

It still exists for you- just buy one. People have been using “hoverboards” before bird and they’ll continue to do so. Bird wanted to profit but not take responsibility. They were completely reckless in 2018 and were very easy on their customers riding on sidewalk at full speed and not even providing a way to securely lock it. Then when the regulations came down, after the city saw how reckless they were being used, it’s going to be harsh, duh. If they were thoughtful or even took responsibility to correct some behavior they could have even sold this as transit for the poor and made the city pay them for the privilege of providing them with an option that public transit can’t match. They’d have come up with stations for them to store and retrieve. They’d have strictly banned users taking it to the sidewalk or unsafe use.

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

#68

Post by Zak »

badrequest wrote: post #24

Anecdotally, nobody likes these scooters and I can't imagine any normal person who isn't financially invested in their success would care when they leave. They are a very dangerous and gimmicky mode of transportation in a nation where we could all use to walk much more than we do.

I like them. I am not (to my knowledge) financially invested in them.

I live in a major European city. Cars don't make sense for most trips because parking is limited both naturally by population density and artificially by policy. Public transit is crowded, and there are several airborne viruses of concern going around. I got a quote to insure my bike against theft when locked up in public and concluded it is very likely to be stolen. Bike rentals with parking stations are inconvenient because the stations often aren't where I want to go, and the bikes are very heavy/slow with airless tires.

So I use scooters somewhat often. I used them more when there were subscription plans that were effectively unlimited use for a month for a flat fee.

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

#69

Post by uberman »

Zak wrote: post #61
roughly wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bird's big mistake is they chose a particularly stupid variety of a business plan here - if they'd done something like selling the scooters for cost but making people pay a subscription to use it or something, they'd be free & clear, because what people did with their scooters wouldn't be Bird's problem. Bird's mistake is that every Bird scooter is owned by Bird Inc., which means Bird Inc. is held accountable for eve…

Why would anyone buy a scooter that they have to pay a subscription to use? Scooters without subscription fees are available for purchase.

People lease cars all the time. Is that not essentially the same thing?

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

#70

Post by uberman »

boc wrote: post #56
badrequest wrote: post #24

Anecdotally, nobody likes these scooters and I can't imagine any normal person who isn't financially invested in their success would care when they leave. They are a very dangerous and gimmicky mode of transportation in a nation where we could all use to walk much more than we do.

I loved them when they first arrived- cut my walking commute into downtown from 20 minutes to about 4 minutes, plus they are super fun to rip down hills and fast since you can lane split through traffic. I think of it like skiing- sure there’s a lot of potential risk but it’s a super enjoyable of getting around. Bird was the first scooter I ever rented when they launched in SF and I loved it. It was so much fun waiti…

No one says it's not fun to ride one, but you dont throw the sky lift in the bay when you are done for the day.

The issue is no one not even Bird or apparently their investors care about the hard ware at all. In a rush for market dominance the scooters are disposable and riders treat them a such.

Post reply on HN