9 ms·

San Jose unveils proposed scooter regulations

36 points by DrScump 8y ago

Hello71 8y ago
> requiring the companies to pay a deposit to cover potential scooter-involved damage to city property so I guess if they damage non-city property, tough shit?
- thelastidiot 8y ago
  It doesn't make any sense at all. It's not like we are living in Vienna or Paris. It's freaking California with Stucco walls and cheaply made buildings.
  - tomjakubowski 8y ago
    "City property" encompasses much more than "some of the city's buildings".
- megablast 8y ago
  I guess it is the same for when cars damage non-city property, and that happens 1000s of times every day. I bet you are ok with that?
googlemike 8y ago
> In addition to paying operating fees, Smith said the city wants the companies to provide multilingual customer service at all times, and to commit to addressing problems quickly. And like Ford GoBike — which currently has an exclusive contract with San Jose to operate a docked bike sharing program in the city — the city says scooter companies should be required to offer discounts to low-income residents and operate in what it calls “communities of concern.” What a world we live in, where a company cannot operate as it would like to. As long as no one is getting hurt, why can't a company choose its target demographic? Where does it end? Do all movie theaters have to show films in all languages? Are Whole Foods and starbucks required to open discount price stores for the same goods in "communities of concern"? I lived in San Jose for 5 years. I was flat broke, and living in a rundown 12-people-in-a-5-bedroom apartment, in the most violent and dangerous part of town. San Jose still has an immense amount of issues with drugs, violence, gangs, and a lack of pedestrian friendly streets. The city's priorities, much like San Francisco's, are laughably backwards.
- closeparen 8y ago
  This is what it means to oppose inequality. If we cannot all have something, no one can.
- rayiner 8y ago
  > And like Ford GoBike — which currently has an exclusive contract with San Jose to operate a docked bike sharing program in the city — the city says scooter companies should be required to offer discounts to low-income residents and operate in what it calls “communities of concern.” Ironically, this is exactly what caused the current de facto local monopolies for broadband. Until Congress made the practice illegal in 1992, cities would grant legal monopolies in exchange for funding various community access channels, serving all neighborhoods, and offering a basic tier of service at very low, regulated prices. The legal monopolies are gone, but the effects of that municial-government idiocy persist to this day. Cities love granting monopolies in exchange for various concessions, because it’s free money to them. The citizens are taxed indirectly through suppression of competition. It’s a practice that is well-intentioned but misguided. Cities do it because it hides the cost from residents. But it also hides the cost from the government—they have no idea how much extra their residents will pay to secure these social benefits.
  - gruez 8y ago
    How else do you handle natural monopolies? Obviously the best solution would be if the city does it, the only thing that kills it is the political opposition (inefficiency, corruptions, "communism", budget, etc.). The other possibility is a free-for-all, in which companies overbuild (house is serviced by multiple cables from multiple companies) in the densest areas, and the sparse areas get no service at all. When you consider the other options, government granted monopolies is the least bad option. Of course, you need to keep the monopoly in check, eg. regulating the price and/or forcing unbundling.
    - rayiner 8y ago
      The fact that cities are doing the same thing with bike sharing belies the idea that they're thinking in economic terms (i.e. that they are actually designing and tailoring the policies based on the economics). In reality, they just want to get a bunch of concessions in a way where the cost residents are paying for those things is not readily apparent. > The other possibility is a free-for-all, in which companies overbuild (house is serviced by multiple cables from multiple companies) in the densest areas, and the sparse areas get no service at all. Which is fine. It takes very little competition to outperform a government built or regulated monopoly service in the U.S. Mobile devices are a dynamic market with really just two choices of operating systems, so is ride sharing, search engines, etc. If cities instead made it cheap and easy to hang wire on poles, most urban/suburban areas could probably have at least two choices. If building service to sparse areas is a concern, the government could step in to do it. What we do now is force providers to build in economically unviable areas in order to get the right to build in economically viable areas. That destroys competition in the economically viable areas by dramatically raising the cost of entering the market. It would be better to just let competition happen where it can, and let the government step in where it needs to.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
pascalxus 8y ago
This doesn't surprise me, from the same stupid state that shut down a startup just for putting more buses on the road
- gruez 8y ago
  the story isn't as simple as "shut down a startup just for putting more buses on the road". it's that the local transit authority has a monopoly on public transport, so no other companies can compete. the logic for that is that otherwise, for-profit entities would only operate profitable routes, leaving distant/poor/low density areas unserved. by operating as a monopoly, the transit authority can subsidize the less profitable routes with the more profitable routes, ensuring everybody has service, not just the people who live near the profitable routes. a similar logic exists applies to the USPS, which has a monopoly on letter mail (except for express services).
  - pascalxus 8y ago
    Government transportation does have a monopoly but not necessarily private companies. If private companies set up new transportation lines, it doesn't prevent government from adding more. Furthermore, if you regulate everything before it has time to flourish, you deny society all the benefits of any tech that would have developed. Also, it's short sited to shut down bus routes that don't go directly to your house. Just because it doesn't go to your specific neighborhood (yet) doesn't mean you can't benefit. Increasing bus service, decreases pollution for everyone (c02) and may even reduce the amount of traffic on your commute.
    - gruez 8y ago
      >Government transportation does have a monopoly but not necessarily private companies. If private companies set up new transportation lines, it doesn't prevent government from adding more. Are we talking about the same thing (monopolies on public transport) here? The whole point of granting the transit authority an monopoly is so they can exercise that monopoly to transfer funds from the more profitable routes to the less/not profitable routes. If private companies are allowed to run their own buses, they can undercut the transit authority's fares, because their fares don't include the "subsidy" to the other routes. >Also, it's short sited to shut down bus routes that don't go directly to your house. Just because it doesn't go to your specific neighborhood (yet) doesn't mean you can't benefit. Increasing bus service, decreases pollution for everyone (c02) and may even reduce the amount of traffic on your commute. Obviously having some buses is better than no buses, but what the monopoly is trying to ensure is that everybody can ride the bus, regardless if they live in the outskirts or downtown. You can disagree with whether or not it's the government's job to guarantee public transit for everybody, but that's the logic for why the laws were enacted.
ibejoeb 8y ago
Which other businesses will be forced to operate multilingually? Will mine?
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  If you provide what amounts to a utility, possibly.
  - ibejoeb 8y ago
    Is a scooter rental a utility? Is a jet-ski rental a utility? Is a luxury car rental a utility? Is a cheap car rental a utility? I'm just having trouble codifying it.
Proven 8y ago
California is a socialist hellhole
megablast 8y ago
Can they crack down on rampant use of cars? Are car companies paying operating fees? (Not quite the same, I know, but still).
- wpietri 8y ago
  It has happened in some cities. Look at London's congestion charge, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_congestion_charge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_congestion_charge And in NYC, taxis and psuedo-taxis like Uber and Lyft are indeed paying fees: https://www.engadget.com/2018/04/02/new-york-surcharge-uber-lyft-manhattan/ https://www.engadget.com/2018/04/02/new-york-surcharge-uber-... It's politically much harder to impose fees like that when people are used to something being free. But there's no reason for them to repeat that mistake with novel things like scooters.
- almost_usual 8y ago
  If cars start driving on sidewalks I’m sure they’ll crack down on it.
  - dionidium 8y ago
    The irony of this statement is that cars created the modern, rigid distinction between street and sidewalk. The term "jaywalking" was around before cars, but its modern meaning was heavily promoted by pro-automobile interests in the 1920s: http://www.slate.com/articles/life/transport/2009/11/in_defense_of_jaywalking.html http://www.slate.com/articles/life/transport/2009/11/in_defe... Cars don't need to drive on the sidewalks, in other words, because they already took over everything else (and in doing so relegated all other transportation modes to what was left).
    - almost_usual 8y ago
      Kind of what I was getting at. Car culture isn’t going away any time soon. It’s a lot easier to regulate something new than something that’s been a part of American society for nearly a hundred years.
- 8y ago
heliophobicdude 8y ago
Austin, TX has forced all dockless scooter companies to have up to 500 scooters total in the city.
mathattack 8y ago
I was in San Jose today and noticed they hadn’t gotten rid of scooters. I guess this is why we can’t have nice things.
- MakerWorld 8y ago
  You can, there are many free scooters and Ebikes on the streets of San Jose.
MakerWorld 8y ago
Things are are left on the street should be re-cycled into other things
dogruck 8y ago
This shows the benefits of local government. I think this is a bad policy. Fortunately, I also don’t live in San Jose. If I did, I’d try to elect new local politicians.
Xcelerate 8y ago
I would prefer that dense cities allow the scooters and instead prohibit cars. Granted, we would need to solve some issues with accommodating those with disabilities in a way that is more effective than using a car, but I think it could be done. In the meantime, levy huge fines on anyone who uses the scooters irresponsibly so we can quickly set the precedent of socially acceptable scooter usage.

36 points by DrScump 8y ago

> requiring the companies to pay a deposit to cover potential scooter-involved damage to city property so I guess if they damage non-city property, tough shit?

thelastidiot 8y ago
It doesn't make any sense at all. It's not like we are living in Vienna or Paris. It's freaking California with Stucco walls and cheaply made buildings.
- tomjakubowski 8y ago
  "City property" encompasses much more than "some of the city's buildings".
megablast 8y ago
I guess it is the same for when cars damage non-city property, and that happens 1000s of times every day. I bet you are ok with that?

googlemike 8y ago

> In addition to paying operating fees, Smith said the city wants the companies to provide multilingual customer service at all times, and to commit to addressing problems quickly. And like Ford GoBike — which currently has an exclusive contract with San Jose to operate a docked bike sharing program in the city — the city says scooter companies should be required to offer discounts to low-income residents and operate in what it calls “communities of concern.” What a world we live in, where a company cannot operate as it would like to. As long as no one is getting hurt, why can't a company choose its target demographic? Where does it end? Do all movie theaters have to show films in all languages? Are Whole Foods and starbucks required to open discount price stores for the same goods in "communities of concern"? I lived in San Jose for 5 years. I was flat broke, and living in a rundown 12-people-in-a-5-bedroom apartment, in the most violent and dangerous part of town. San Jose still has an immense amount of issues with drugs, violence, gangs, and a lack of pedestrian friendly streets. The city's priorities, much like San Francisco's, are laughably backwards.

closeparen 8y ago
This is what it means to oppose inequality. If we cannot all have something, no one can.
rayiner 8y ago
> And like Ford GoBike — which currently has an exclusive contract with San Jose to operate a docked bike sharing program in the city — the city says scooter companies should be required to offer discounts to low-income residents and operate in what it calls “communities of concern.” Ironically, this is exactly what caused the current de facto local monopolies for broadband. Until Congress made the practice illegal in 1992, cities would grant legal monopolies in exchange for funding various community access channels, serving all neighborhoods, and offering a basic tier of service at very low, regulated prices. The legal monopolies are gone, but the effects of that municial-government idiocy persist to this day. Cities love granting monopolies in exchange for various concessions, because it’s free money to them. The citizens are taxed indirectly through suppression of competition. It’s a practice that is well-intentioned but misguided. Cities do it because it hides the cost from residents. But it also hides the cost from the government—they have no idea how much extra their residents will pay to secure these social benefits.
- gruez 8y ago
  How else do you handle natural monopolies? Obviously the best solution would be if the city does it, the only thing that kills it is the political opposition (inefficiency, corruptions, "communism", budget, etc.). The other possibility is a free-for-all, in which companies overbuild (house is serviced by multiple cables from multiple companies) in the densest areas, and the sparse areas get no service at all. When you consider the other options, government granted monopolies is the least bad option. Of course, you need to keep the monopoly in check, eg. regulating the price and/or forcing unbundling.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    The fact that cities are doing the same thing with bike sharing belies the idea that they're thinking in economic terms (i.e. that they are actually designing and tailoring the policies based on the economics). In reality, they just want to get a bunch of concessions in a way where the cost residents are paying for those things is not readily apparent. > The other possibility is a free-for-all, in which companies overbuild (house is serviced by multiple cables from multiple companies) in the densest areas, and the sparse areas get no service at all. Which is fine. It takes very little competition to outperform a government built or regulated monopoly service in the U.S. Mobile devices are a dynamic market with really just two choices of operating systems, so is ride sharing, search engines, etc. If cities instead made it cheap and easy to hang wire on poles, most urban/suburban areas could probably have at least two choices. If building service to sparse areas is a concern, the government could step in to do it. What we do now is force providers to build in economically unviable areas in order to get the right to build in economically viable areas. That destroys competition in the economically viable areas by dramatically raising the cost of entering the market. It would be better to just let competition happen where it can, and let the government step in where it needs to.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

pascalxus 8y ago

This doesn't surprise me, from the same stupid state that shut down a startup just for putting more buses on the road

gruez 8y ago
the story isn't as simple as "shut down a startup just for putting more buses on the road". it's that the local transit authority has a monopoly on public transport, so no other companies can compete. the logic for that is that otherwise, for-profit entities would only operate profitable routes, leaving distant/poor/low density areas unserved. by operating as a monopoly, the transit authority can subsidize the less profitable routes with the more profitable routes, ensuring everybody has service, not just the people who live near the profitable routes. a similar logic exists applies to the USPS, which has a monopoly on letter mail (except for express services).
- pascalxus 8y ago
  Government transportation does have a monopoly but not necessarily private companies. If private companies set up new transportation lines, it doesn't prevent government from adding more. Furthermore, if you regulate everything before it has time to flourish, you deny society all the benefits of any tech that would have developed. Also, it's short sited to shut down bus routes that don't go directly to your house. Just because it doesn't go to your specific neighborhood (yet) doesn't mean you can't benefit. Increasing bus service, decreases pollution for everyone (c02) and may even reduce the amount of traffic on your commute.
  - gruez 8y ago
    >Government transportation does have a monopoly but not necessarily private companies. If private companies set up new transportation lines, it doesn't prevent government from adding more. Are we talking about the same thing (monopolies on public transport) here? The whole point of granting the transit authority an monopoly is so they can exercise that monopoly to transfer funds from the more profitable routes to the less/not profitable routes. If private companies are allowed to run their own buses, they can undercut the transit authority's fares, because their fares don't include the "subsidy" to the other routes. >Also, it's short sited to shut down bus routes that don't go directly to your house. Just because it doesn't go to your specific neighborhood (yet) doesn't mean you can't benefit. Increasing bus service, decreases pollution for everyone (c02) and may even reduce the amount of traffic on your commute. Obviously having some buses is better than no buses, but what the monopoly is trying to ensure is that everybody can ride the bus, regardless if they live in the outskirts or downtown. You can disagree with whether or not it's the government's job to guarantee public transit for everybody, but that's the logic for why the laws were enacted.

ibejoeb 8y ago

Which other businesses will be forced to operate multilingually? Will mine?

toomuchtodo 8y ago
If you provide what amounts to a utility, possibly.
- ibejoeb 8y ago
  Is a scooter rental a utility? Is a jet-ski rental a utility? Is a luxury car rental a utility? Is a cheap car rental a utility? I'm just having trouble codifying it.

Proven 8y ago

California is a socialist hellhole

megablast 8y ago

Can they crack down on rampant use of cars? Are car companies paying operating fees? (Not quite the same, I know, but still).

wpietri 8y ago
It has happened in some cities. Look at London's congestion charge, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_congestion_charge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_congestion_charge And in NYC, taxis and psuedo-taxis like Uber and Lyft are indeed paying fees: https://www.engadget.com/2018/04/02/new-york-surcharge-uber-lyft-manhattan/ https://www.engadget.com/2018/04/02/new-york-surcharge-uber-... It's politically much harder to impose fees like that when people are used to something being free. But there's no reason for them to repeat that mistake with novel things like scooters.
almost_usual 8y ago
If cars start driving on sidewalks I’m sure they’ll crack down on it.
- dionidium 8y ago
  The irony of this statement is that cars created the modern, rigid distinction between street and sidewalk. The term "jaywalking" was around before cars, but its modern meaning was heavily promoted by pro-automobile interests in the 1920s: http://www.slate.com/articles/life/transport/2009/11/in_defense_of_jaywalking.html http://www.slate.com/articles/life/transport/2009/11/in_defe... Cars don't need to drive on the sidewalks, in other words, because they already took over everything else (and in doing so relegated all other transportation modes to what was left).
  - almost_usual 8y ago
    Kind of what I was getting at. Car culture isn’t going away any time soon. It’s a lot easier to regulate something new than something that’s been a part of American society for nearly a hundred years.
8y ago

heliophobicdude 8y ago

Austin, TX has forced all dockless scooter companies to have up to 500 scooters total in the city.

mathattack 8y ago

I was in San Jose today and noticed they hadn’t gotten rid of scooters. I guess this is why we can’t have nice things.

MakerWorld 8y ago
You can, there are many free scooters and Ebikes on the streets of San Jose.

MakerWorld 8y ago

Things are are left on the street should be re-cycled into other things

dogruck 8y ago

This shows the benefits of local government. I think this is a bad policy. Fortunately, I also don’t live in San Jose. If I did, I’d try to elect new local politicians.

Xcelerate 8y ago

I would prefer that dense cities allow the scooters and instead prohibit cars. Granted, we would need to solve some issues with accommodating those with disabilities in a way that is more effective than using a car, but I think it could be done. In the meantime, levy huge fines on anyone who uses the scooters irresponsibly so we can quickly set the precedent of socially acceptable scooter usage.