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

What Dockless Bikes and Scooters Are Exposing

haveago.city

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 198 posts

Re: What Dockless Bikes and Scooters Are Exposing

#91

Post by joejerryronnie »

phd514 wrote: post #53
gamblor956 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cracking down on the scooters is relatively easy: there are a handful of major actors, and dealing with them solves the problem. Human waste, needles, garbage on the sidewalk is the result of hundreds of bad actors, which correspondingly takes significantly more resources to deal with. (And on that note, the state of Texas is the worst offender. Their official policy for dealing with their homeless during the Perry e…

That's a highly misleading statement. Homeless busing programs are common across the country and while not without their problems, they don't just send all homeless to a single location such as Texas to SF. Also, SF buses considerably more homeless out of its city every year than it receives via bus.

Sounds like there's enough demand to create a "homeless busing as a service" app.

Re: What Dockless Bikes and Scooters Are Exposing

#92

Post by austinl »

I'd much rather have scooters parked on the sidewalk than cars on the road. I previously used Lyft or Uber to get to work, now I primarily use Scoot, Bird, or Jump (depending on the distance/availability).

I've found all of these solutions are much more enjoyable and cost efficient than a car. Generally excited to see less and less people using cars in the city.

Re: What Dockless Bikes and Scooters Are Exposing

#93

Post by kingbirdy »

extra88 wrote: post #75
gkoberger wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Bird is paying (or offering to, at least) $1/scooter/day to SF. That's $365/scooter/year. I've heard Zipcar pays SF $1000-ish/year, so inch-for-inch it's certainly a good deal.

In the greater Boston area, I think I've only seen Zipcar spots on private property (though I'm not sure what the ownership is of the MBTA parking spaces) and I would expect the rate to be somewhat negotiable, based on supply & demand for the neighborhood.

Same in Philadelphia

Re: What Dockless Bikes and Scooters Are Exposing

#94

Post by bunderbunder »

gkoberger wrote: post #5
hapless wrote: post #2

If Hertz or Avis attempted to use public space to park their inventory, local residents and city officials would pitch a fit. Public parking exists for the benefit of the public at large, not as a cost-saving measure for rental firms. The same is true of bicycles. You can store your private bicycle almost anywhere you like in public. But city fathers will naturally take a dim view of a business using that public spac…

You mean... like Getaround and Zipcar already do? The streets are filled with companies using public spaces: Fedex deliveries blocking the road, sidewalk signs for bars, Getaround rentals, food carts, mailboxes, ATMs, parking meters, Scoot scooters, taxi lines, Lyft/Ubers, Redbox DVD rentals, annoying Greenpeace petition people, construction, billboards, etc. I don't think it's a cost-saving measure for scooter/bike…

Fedex deliveries blocking the road for a short time are generally considered preferable to removing a whack of on-street parking from every block in order to have an excess of loading zones, or not being able to have deliveries at all.

sidewalk signs for bars are regulated, at least in my city. They have to leave (IIRC) 6' of clearance on the sidewalk so they don't obstruct pedestrian traffic. Whether those rules are being followed is perhaps another issue, but I haven't generally found them to be a nuisance.

Getaround rentals are private cars that you rent from the owner. If the city requires a fee to be paid for overnight on-street parking, that fee will be paid by the owner. If the street is meter parking, that fee will be paid by whoever is using the car.

food carts typically pay the city a fee in exchange for use of public space.

mailboxes are either owned by the government or installed on private property.

ATMs are installed on private property.

parking meters are government property.

Scoot scooters (don't know what those are)

taxi lines are a government designated thing. Note that most cities that have them also make money from taxi licensing.

Lyft/Ubers are a minor menace, I agree with you on that one.

Redbox DVD rentals are installed on private property.

annoying Greenpeace petition people are required to get permits, at least in my city.

construction also requires permits.

billboards are installed on private property.

Long story short, I think you're being hyperbolic here.

Re: What Dockless Bikes and Scooters Are Exposing

#95

Post by astura »

hapless wrote: post #2

If Hertz or Avis attempted to use public space to park their inventory, local residents and city officials would pitch a fit. Public parking exists for the benefit of the public at large, not as a cost-saving measure for rental firms. The same is true of bicycles. You can store your private bicycle almost anywhere you like in public. But city fathers will naturally take a dim view of a business using that public spac…

Hertz and Avis don't park their fleet in public spaces because it would be bad for business. You want to rent a car? Gotta walk four blocks to pick it up.

Re: What Dockless Bikes and Scooters Are Exposing

#96

Post by justanother »

So cities should subsidize your multi-million-dollar operation by reducing urban on-street parking inventory and donating that space to you? Okay, but here's some free advice about how cities work: You won't get that by writing internet blog posts that contain false equivalencies (ie scooter rental companies and car manufacturers). You'll get it by wining and dining a lot of city councilpersons. Best get started.

Re: What Dockless Bikes and Scooters Are Exposing

#97

Post by mrharrison »

jwilliams wrote: post #80

I'm pro scooters and dockerless bikes in general -- but I also don't really buy into the logic of this article. In the key markets for these things - there is no presumption of parking. I imagine avoiding parking is the #1/#2 reason for most users would use this service (I'd include ride sharing here too). I specifically don't have a car in San Francisco because I have nowhere to park it. When dockerless bikes were l…

As a biker, having to park my bike at Walgreens and seeing the same Jump bikes parked at the bike stand, from the day before, and nowhere to park my bike is definitely a nuisance. Didn't really encounter this issue before, people normally come and go with their bikes. As a walker, when entitled scooter peeps jump on the sidewalk and start whizzing around you, and at almost hit you, it's a nuisance as well. I like the Ford Go Bikes/Citi Bikes, it's organized and it's a proven system in NYC and other cities, that doesn't burden others. Except those who lose parking spots in their neighborhood to docking stations.

Re: What Dockless Bikes and Scooters Are Exposing

#98

Post by Johnny555 »

lovich wrote: post #6
Lionsion wrote: post #3

> Dockless bikes and scooters are not actually the problem. > For decades now, cars have gotten the royal treatment. Users were able to pick up their cars and drop them off anywhere in the city. It was simply expected that anywhere one goes in a city, one could be guaranteed a free, giant space to park one’s private 4000 pound box, no questions asked. Sure, in some dense areas, payment is now required. Yet private ve…

People keep posting about "dockless cars" when these situations come up, some how ignoreing that vehicles are parked in designated areas as you said, and that it's people's personal vehicles and not companies private fleets that they are charging use for. I think that modern cities have way too much space allocated to car parking but it is in no way equivalent to a company pushing off one of their major costs onto so…

it's people's personal vehicles and not companies private fleets that they are charging use for.

Isn't that worse? If they were car share cars, then at least local residents would be able to use them, but instead, all of those cars parked on city streets are usable by only a single person each.

For example, the city street I used to live on had around 250 housing units and about 40 street parking spaces. It would have been nicer if those 40 cars were car-share cars rather than being tied up by the 40 residents that got there first.

Re: What Dockless Bikes and Scooters Are Exposing

#99

Post by woah »

mrharrison wrote: post #97
jwilliams wrote: post #80

I'm pro scooters and dockerless bikes in general -- but I also don't really buy into the logic of this article. In the key markets for these things - there is no presumption of parking. I imagine avoiding parking is the #1/#2 reason for most users would use this service (I'd include ride sharing here too). I specifically don't have a car in San Francisco because I have nowhere to park it. When dockerless bikes were l…

As a biker, having to park my bike at Walgreens and seeing the same Jump bikes parked at the bike stand, from the day before, and nowhere to park my bike is definitely a nuisance. Didn't really encounter this issue before, people normally come and go with their bikes. As a walker, when entitled scooter peeps jump on the sidewalk and start whizzing around you, and at almost hit you, it's a nuisance as well. I like the…

The inconvenience and danger caused by cars is so much more. You have to be on alert to avoid being killed by them. Huge swaths of valuable city real estate are devoted to free or low priced subsidized storage of cars for entitled car owners. It's astounding that this has gone on for so long and it needs to be stopped.

Re: What Dockless Bikes and Scooters Are Exposing

#100

Post by lovich »

Johnny555 wrote: post #98
lovich wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People keep posting about "dockless cars" when these situations come up, some how ignoreing that vehicles are parked in designated areas as you said, and that it's people's personal vehicles and not companies private fleets that they are charging use for. I think that modern cities have way too much space allocated to car parking but it is in no way equivalent to a company pushing off one of their major costs onto so…

it's people's personal vehicles and not companies private fleets that they are charging use for. Isn't that worse? If they were car share cars, then at least local residents would be able to use them, but instead, all of those cars parked on city streets are usable by only a single person each. For example, the city street I used to live on had around 250 housing units and about 40 street parking spaces. It would hav…

No I don't believe that at all. Part of the money you pay for share cars would be going into someone's pockets. It's literally a negative externality that they are pushing onto society. Sometimes those negative externalities are worth the benefits that a business brings around but that's not a garunteed or even common occurrence and it shouldn't just be assumed to be a positive
Post reply on HN