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

301–310 of 321 posts

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

#301

Post by s0rce »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #259
s0rce wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then I vote to give them a 2nd chance and see how it goes. Its easy to pull their permit in the future if needed.

Why? It's not like they've made a mistake. They intentionally broke the law; they've displayed propensity for unlawful behaviour. The reasonable thing to do is to give their business to parties who did not, so far, show the same propensity.

So did lyft and uber initially, those services are immeasurably better than the previous taxis (although their treatment of employees may be worse but I haven't seen much evidence taxi drivers get better conditions/benefits).

In then end I guess I don't care because I truly believe the rules are backwards and protecting cars above any useful alternatives that may represent a useful future for green sustainable urban transportation.

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

#302

Post by s0rce »

almost_usual wrote: post #207
s0rce wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree that this is an issues, in my opinion it is exceedingly minor, especially in comparison to the amount of cars illegally stopped or parked that I see while biking. In fact I had to merge into traffic a few times to go around tonight. A few bikes haphazardly placed is nothing more than a mild nuisance. Never mind the homeless camps and other litter everywhere in the bay area.

Wonder how many of those illegally stopped cars are Ubers and Lyfts...

Some, I've posted about this before but in many areas of Oakland parking is so inexpensive/free that cars are parked basically indefinitely. If you then want to just run into the bank or pick up take out (and you are driving) your options are drive around for a long time to find a spot, stop in the bike lane or just leave your car in the middle of the road. As someone who drives and cycles routinely I understand the choice. In Berkeley parking is time limited and expensive and you can usual find a spot to run in quickly.

I don't mind ubers quickly stopping to drop someone off on a non-separated bike lane as long as they don't cut people off and signal and merge safely. I'm happy to wait behind them or merge around just like a car would had they stopped in the main traffic lane. We can share the infrastructure, just don't leave your car in the bike lane!

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

#303

Post by ryandrake »

maccam94 wrote: post #188
upzone wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s called by-right and lots of cities (maybe all? Not sure if it’s a local/state/federal thing) have that. That doesn’t stop NIMBYism (all you have to do is downzone), but for areas that are reasonably densely zoned, you don’t need any variances for projects that conform to zoning ordinances. The real issue with NIMBYs is how restrictive zoning is. Sure, you can build anything you want if it conforms, but good lu…

> The real issue with NIMBYs is how restrictive zoning is Yeah, zoning in the US tends to be single use, which prevents most buildings from being built in most places. I recently read a fantastic blog post on how zoning works in Japan, where uses are instead ranked by how much of a "nuisance" they are, and zones have a maximum nuisance level. Anything at or below that level can be constructed in that zone. http://dev…

I guess it makes me a dirty NIMBY but I live on a very suburban street with a row of modest single family homes, and I'd rather my neighbor not start a tire recycling business in his backyard, or replace it with a 3 story apartment building. That said, I have no problem with people who want urban living in already-urban areas, and it's a shame when NIMBYs try to stop that kind of development.

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

#304

Post by djrogers »

draw_down wrote: post #55
djrogers wrote: post #20

This really comes off as spiteful and childish. Bird and Lime didn't come kiss the ring before daring to provide services to the residents of San Francisco, so they get kicked to the curb in favor of a couple of companies who's timing hadn't yet angered the City.

I just don’t understand this attitude that these companies are owed their ability to do business, particularly when it involves just dumping these things on the public sidewalks.

Their customers dumped them on the sidewalks, and it seems to be a San Francisco thing - if you go to other cities with active scooter sharing, you don't see this behavior. Of course you also don't see peopel dfecating on the street in most other cities either, so San Francisco is a special kind of special.

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

#305

Post by NegativeLatency »

baddox wrote: post #108
NegativeLatency wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure if you want DSL. Choices in my market are: dialup, dsl, and Comcast.

Does your state or local government have a deal with Comcast effectively awarding it a monopoly? There’s a fairly good chance the answer is yes.

I live in Portland, OR. I don't think there's a granted monopoly to Comcast here.

There is actually a small independent WISP here I would love to use, but they don't serve my particular location currently.

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

#306

Post by Alex3917 »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #156
Alex3917 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The equitable solution would be to compensate surrounding owners for their property losing value They already get compensated in the form of lower taxes. Just like how if the neighbors build something that increases their property value, they need to pay more in taxes.

You’re free to make that argument to property owners and see if it sticks. If I was a gambling man, I doubt you’d get any traction. And if you attempt to use legislation, you’re going to get shot right down, because property owners have more to lose than transient renters. Big fan of FWD:Everyone by the way, great product.

Fair enough.

And thanks! I've been writing regex ten hours a day for the last six weeks to fix thread parsing issues in weird corner cases, we'll have some improvements to the site that will be more visible in the next couple months though.

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

#307

Post by devhead »

throwaway66666 wrote: post #180

I recently went south to LA and SD, and the scooters are awesome there. I saw them mostly near the beach, and 0 thrown in the middle of the pavement, none blocking exits or riding them obnoxiously. They even have scooter police that will give you a ticket if you go too fast (I am not saying that as necessarily a good thing, just that they seem to have their stuff together as cities). For the first time I actually mad…

This is what I've seen in CA as well. SD has not had nearly the reported issues other cities appear to be having. Nothing all that different about SD or the people (transplants) so what gives? why can't people not make a mess of the service?

I think there's opportunity for the scooter companies can mitigate the abandonment or carelessness of their products by using some thoughtful software. If someone leaves a scooter tipped over, they get banned for a day. Do it again, they get banned for a month. etc... Maybe have a clearing house to monitor cross service users are bad actors?

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

#308

Post by eropple »

olalonde wrote: post #97
eropple wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no need for one and I don't need to throw somebody else's brightly colored garbage onto the property of or into the streets I share with my neighbors.

Have you heard of the expression "live and let live"? The level of entitlement displayed in your comments is astounding. You feel it's reasonable to prevent everyone else from using a very cheap and convenient transportation service just because the vehicles aren't esthetically pleasing to you?

Who is doing the "let live" when a bunch of rental bicycles or a bunch of rental scooters are getting thrown across sidewalks or into a community pond, exactly?

In your world, it's incumbent upon me to let them shit up my town, but not incument upon them--either the users or the companies that supply them--to not shit up our town.

That's a pretty nasty world.

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

#309

Post by olalonde »

eropple wrote: post #308
olalonde wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you heard of the expression "live and let live"? The level of entitlement displayed in your comments is astounding. You feel it's reasonable to prevent everyone else from using a very cheap and convenient transportation service just because the vehicles aren't esthetically pleasing to you?

Who is doing the "let live" when a bunch of rental bicycles or a bunch of rental scooters are getting thrown across sidewalks or into a community pond, exactly? In your world, it's incumbent upon me to let them shit up my town, but not incument upon them--either the users or the companies that supply them--to not shit up our town. That's a pretty nasty world.

If that really happens I agree they should be fined like any other vehicle parking illegally.

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

#310

Post by i386 »

wellyeah wrote: post #275
andr wrote: post #88

SFMTA has published the detailed feedback[1] and summary ratings[2] for each petition. Although the actual applications are not published, it really looks like Bird did a poor job on paper. For example, most of the companies relied on swipe-through screens in apps to remind people to use helmets, which the SFMTA deems insufficient. I have to agree, as I have rarely seen someone on a scooter with a helmet. [1] https:/…

I ride them daily, and I don't want to use a helmet. I feel that I and I alone am responsible for my own safety. It's not like other people are going to get hurt because I'm not wearing a helmet.

You’re not going to wear a helmet because the government asks you to wear one? Wow, that is an incredibly stupid attitude to have.
Post reply on HN