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

71–80 of 83 posts

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

#71

Post by boc »

8ytecoder wrote: post #67
boc wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

Point to point transit is way different from riding to a bar and taking a Lyft home. Having my own scooter means lugging it indoors. It’s a hardware storage issue, really.

I think e-bikes that dock in specific places will eventually be the end state. Everyone can ride a bike and people don’t seem to care about bike racks on the sidewalk.

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

#72

Post by pixl97 »

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?

I have a feeling if you as an individual started driving on the sidewalks multiple times receiving multiple fines that the state would quickly remove your privilege to drive and if you continued, would imprison you.

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

#73

Post by urfullofsht »

roughly wrote: post #62
Zak wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[dead]

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

#74

Post by pksebben »

roughly wrote: post #62
Zak wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

not to mention, there's a method for solving this problem that exists. Bird probably just didn't want to do it because of cost.

I'm nyc, citibikes don't have this problem; because you have to park them in a dock, thus releasing the bike back into the care (and liability) of the citibikes program (which isn't a problem, because now the bike is in a dock and not strewn about like trash).

These scooter companies are a menace, and the model they operate on is "take it as far as we can get away with at lowest possible dollar wherever will allow us to get away with it".

Makes me wonder how much they paid the chronicle for this piece, frankly.

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

#75

Post by pixl97 »

ajhurliman wrote: post #31
voz_ wrote: post #10

[flagged]

The arguments that justify fines for blocking sidewalks are all too happy to ignore the sidewalks being blocked by trash and tents, it’s internally inconsistent.

Why is it inconsistent? Are you going to get thousands of dollars from that homeless person in their tent? No, you'll fine them, they won't be able to pay, then you'll throw them in jail for violating the court order and by the time you're done you've spent 10 or 20 thousand dollars.

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

#76

Post by latchkey »

hulitu wrote: post #66
fallingknife wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The lack of helmets is totally absurd.

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

#77

Post by candiodari »

pksebben wrote: post #74
roughly wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

not to mention, there's a method for solving this problem that exists. Bird probably just didn't want to do it because of cost. I'm nyc, citibikes don't have this problem; because you have to park them in a dock, thus releasing the bike back into the care (and liability) of the citibikes program (which isn't a problem, because now the bike is in a dock and not strewn about like trash). These scooter companies are a m…

Ever notice how bikes parked into docks has been an attempted business model since like the 1960s? Note the absence of such bikes today in pretty much all cities worldwide ...

Docks make the business model unrealistic too.

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

#78

Post by orwin »

candiodari wrote: post #77
pksebben wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

not to mention, there's a method for solving this problem that exists. Bird probably just didn't want to do it because of cost. I'm nyc, citibikes don't have this problem; because you have to park them in a dock, thus releasing the bike back into the care (and liability) of the citibikes program (which isn't a problem, because now the bike is in a dock and not strewn about like trash). These scooter companies are a m…

Ever notice how bikes parked into docks has been an attempted business model since like the 1960s? Note the absence of such bikes today in pretty much all cities worldwide ... Docks make the business model unrealistic too.

I mean, I'm French, I know we're weird. I'm also from La Rochelle (half of me is) and our most beloved mayor decided to dump 350 yellow bike all around the city in 76. Free to use.

I've lived in Paris, La Rochelle, Rennes, Lille, Nantes. I do not remember one city I've lived in without docked bikes. And La Rochelle is quite small, with a population of 80k.

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

#79

Post by ajhurliman »

pixl97 wrote: post #75
ajhurliman wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The arguments that justify fines for blocking sidewalks are all too happy to ignore the sidewalks being blocked by trash and tents, it’s internally inconsistent.

Why is it inconsistent? Are you going to get thousands of dollars from that homeless person in their tent? No, you'll fine them, they won't be able to pay, then you'll throw them in jail for violating the court order and by the time you're done you've spent 10 or 20 thousand dollars.

The law shouldn’t be enforced based on one’s financial status.

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

#80

Post by fidgewidge »

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, where I live they are popular especially in the summer and lots of people ride them. I've used them a lot, always enjoyed it and hope they stick around.

But I live outside the USA and in a city where we have literal cargo trains that roll down the street in places where there are pedestrians, so the idea scooters are dangerous in comparison seems silly.

Post reply on HN