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

191–200 of 321 posts

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

#191

Post by will4274 »

gnicholas wrote: post #160
ohazi wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That. Meets. Zoning. Seriously, wtf.

One issue is that zoning rules don't always cover every potential problem. For example, there's been a huge controversy in Redwood City (and neighboring Atherton) regarding a coffee shop that is going in, which will employ lingerie-clad baristas (and apparently have mirrors on the ground, to make things even skeezier). [1] This coffee shop apparently meets all current zoning rules, though the employees may need to be…

I didn't downvote, but my mental reaction isn't positive. You don't think anybody in Redwood City would want to go to a place like that? If you want to ban strip clubs and casinos, then ban strip clubs and casinos, but from your description it sounds like trying to block a Hooters from opening, after they have already agreed to limit themselves out of regard for what some might call Puritan concerns. You're arguing against something using an example that most of your audience doesn't agree is valid.

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

#192

Post by noobermin »

s0rce wrote: post #116
oh-kumudo wrote: post #36

Seems like the Scooter is not popular and only useful for a niche segment of the population. The bike sharing business has caused a hazard in places like China, because of the unrestricted dumping. So there is definitely a point that government needs to chime in and do some stuff.

If they are not popular why is there a need to regulate them, they will simply go out of business. Also, I see people riding them all the time in the East Bay.

They are popular amongst those who ride, not all people who use the sidewalk and street, which is a larger segment of the population. Might as well ask why we need smoking areas in buildings.

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

#193

Post by jonathankoren »

s0rce wrote: post #116
oh-kumudo wrote: post #36

Seems like the Scooter is not popular and only useful for a niche segment of the population. The bike sharing business has caused a hazard in places like China, because of the unrestricted dumping. So there is definitely a point that government needs to chime in and do some stuff.

If they are not popular why is there a need to regulate them, they will simply go out of business. Also, I see people riding them all the time in the East Bay.

Because it's a problem with oversupply. And sure, eventually they'll go under, but there's no reason why everyone should have to kick their way through VC funded lithium trash, just to walk down the street until they do.

Oh yeah, and when they do go under, you're still going to be left with all this detritus, because when the company ceases to exist, it won't be picking them up. Here, you can force the dumpers to still clean up their mess.

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

#194

Post by lovich »

Meekro wrote: post #32
LeoPanthera wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 the Boston area with Bird right now. Bird just started dumping their scooters on sidewalks, got asked to stop by the towns, got told to stop by the towns, and then finally stopped only because the towns were confiscating all of the litter Bird left around and the number of locals who started destroying the scooters because they were abandoned property and none of them took lightly to companies dumping their shit on public grounds.

There is an argument to be made about how their is corruption in governments and they will push back on startups even though they are better for society, or how regulations strangle change and smaller firms. That argument doesn't apply to companies worth billions like Uber or Bird. They are just trying to break the law and offload costs to society, and then trying to claim it's disruption so they can tap into that feeling of doing good and changing the world that SV used to have 15 years ago

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

#195

Post by dang »

LeoPanthera wrote: post #25
neonate wrote: post #10

http://archive.is/DbXBe

I wish HN disallowed posts to paywalled articles.

If there's a workaround, it's ok. Users usually post workarounds in the thread.

This is in the FAQ at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html and there's more explanation here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989

https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...

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

#197

Post by gnicholas »

will4274 wrote: post #191
gnicholas wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One issue is that zoning rules don't always cover every potential problem. For example, there's been a huge controversy in Redwood City (and neighboring Atherton) regarding a coffee shop that is going in, which will employ lingerie-clad baristas (and apparently have mirrors on the ground, to make things even skeezier). [1] This coffee shop apparently meets all current zoning rules, though the employees may need to be…

I didn't downvote, but my mental reaction isn't positive. You don't think anybody in Redwood City would want to go to a place like that? If you want to ban strip clubs and casinos, then ban strip clubs and casinos, but from your description it sounds like trying to block a Hooters from opening, after they have already agreed to limit themselves out of regard for what some might call Puritan concerns. You're arguing a…

Oh I'm not saying I don't think anyone in RWC would want to go there (though the discussions on NextDoor have been mostly one-sided). I'm just pointing out that there are gaps in zoning laws, since we can't anticipate every possible thing. That's what leads people to want to have zoning rules that err on the side of conservatism, so that they don't end up with something like this. Thanks for explaining your reaction.

I should also note that this is somewhat closer to a strip club than a Hooters, since the attire is lingerie, not tight shirts. Basically, they're falling somewhere between two things that were known to exist (strip clubs and Hooters) when the rules were presumably made. In the future, I'm sure towns around here will make rules that are more restrictive, citing this as an example of what happens when you leave more room.

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

#198

Post by baq »

jzymbaluk wrote: post #47
threeseed wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you are saying you wouldn't complain if a 50 storey apartment complex was built right next to you and bathed your entire house in darkness 24/7. Sure thing. This free for all world sounds downright scary.

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

Because that's what most people want. Total freedom is anarchy.

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

#199

Post by dang »

pgnas wrote: post #123

The mafia was taken down in Chicago because it was providing something that was desired by the people, people who should be in control of their own lives and will ultimately be responsible for the decisions that they make, freedom. Unfortunately, the powers that be did not see it that way, you can argue that Al Capone was taken down for tax evasion, I don't care, this is how he was convicted,one has nothing to do wit…

If you continue to post ideological rants to HN, we are going to ban you. It's not what this site is for, and we've asked you already.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#200

Post by ccvannorman »

JSDave wrote: post #190
tomglynch wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. There is a network effect here, people will use the brand that already is installed on their phone PLUS the one that has the most scooters. This is what can occur here.

If someone wanted to sell a new app, they have to get people to recognize their brand and install their app no matter what. Ride sharing companies then also have to reach a critical mass where drivers and riders can match in a reasonable time. I think overcoming that is the network effect.

"Overcoming entering into a new market" is categorically different from "Overcoming a mandatory 6 month freeze on your ability to compete while your competitor gets first dibs."
Post reply on HN