5 ms·

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 the

by Meekro 8y ago

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.

minikites 8y ago
>ask for forgiveness rather than permission Do you genuinely think it's good for society when businesses do this?
- baddox 8y ago
  I don’t see how anyone could believe that it’s never good for society when businesses do this.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    Just like killing someone might be good for society sometimes. Doesn't mean you want to do this indiscriminately, or have this as standard practice.
- s0rce 8y ago
  In all cases, no. In this case, yes. Improving the sad state of transportation options in the bay area is beneficial to all residents. Two wrongs don't make a right. Fine them for breaking the rules and then allow them to continue. Don't give their business to a competitor in an act of revenge against their breaking the rules.
  - noobermin 8y ago
    You're phrasing it as if it's "revenge" rather than the city looking out for its citizen's best interests. If this company has been willing to flaunt the rules, who's to say it won't again? That isn't "revenge," it seems more like using common sense.
    - s0rce 8y ago
      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.
      - TeMPOraL 8y ago
        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.
        s0rce 8y ago
        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.
    - masonic 8y ago
      s/flaunt/flout
      - noobermin 8y ago
        Thank you, but alas, two hours have passed. I should also say, look below[0]. Bird's application was terrible . Scoot on the other hand set an example for a great application to a government body for a resource of some kind, I can compare it to my experience for writing grants. I can imagine some class on professional writing contrasting these very two applications as examples of what not to do and what to do when applying for something from a government. After scanning both, I'm pretty much convinced the city chose the applications based on the quality and substance behind each application, not based on anything else. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17882982 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17882982
- jamiequint 8y ago
  Yes of course it's good. Look at the history of Uber and Lyft vs. Taxi companies and other vested city interests. The government regulatory complex almost never represents citizens interests better than the free market.
- Meekro 8y ago
  I do. The government originally instituted the taxi medallion system to protect riders from predatory taxis, but it ended up granting a monopoly to the predatory taxis and locking out potential competition. The free market has worked out much better. Uber/Lyft have to provide competitive service at a low price. If they stop doing this, they too will be replaced.
  - noobermin 8y ago
    >The free market has worked out much better. It's like everyone who preaches this line knows so little history or wants people to forget[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_(horse) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_(horse)
    - tracker1 8y ago
      A free market doesn't mean free from consequences, or that it won't be dire. Many govts have performed experiments on their own people, and people died from it, without telling anyone. It also doesn't mean free from any regulation (at least to me). Not everyone pushing for free market solutions is an an-cap fool. In most situations, a process that allows for more freedom is the solution. I do not count corporations as people and as far as I'm concerned, they should be required to be far more open about operations than they are currently. I'm also not a fan of IP laws generally speaking and think they should all be scaled back.
eridius 8y ago
Completely untrue. Before the scooters littered the city, the companies talked to SFMTA, and SFMTA said they were drafting up regulations to govern the scooters prior to giving permission. The companies went ahead and littered the city with them anyway, without permission. Claiming that breaking the rules is what led to the SFMTA coming up with regulations to allow scooters is just plain wrong. They were working on them already. The companies just got greedy and figured it was a first-mover market and that they'd be able to pull an Uber and continue operating despite breaking the rules.
- Meekro 8y ago
  SFMTA was busy drafting regulations because Bird first broke the rules in Santa Monica and introduced the world to this kind of scooter rental concept. If they'd asked for permission before anyone had heard of the idea of a scooter company, SFMTA would have ignored the request.
  - eridius 8y ago
    Why would SFMTA have ignored the request?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
lovich 8y ago
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
- darawk 8y ago
  You honestly believe that had Bird, initially an unheard of company, gone to say, the city of Los Angeles and said "We'd like to put scooters everywhere, is that cool?" They'd have said "sure"? I think that's incredibly naive. The absolute best outcome for Bird would have been the city saying "you can put them in designated scooter areas, and they have to be docked in designated scooter areas". And that would have turned them into just another e-bike: utterly useless and used by no-one. Now, there's absolutely a reasonable conversation to be had about corporate over-reach, responsibility, and externalities here. However, let's not pretend that this could realistically have been accomplished any other way.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    > You honestly believe that had Bird, initially an unheard of company, gone to say, the city of Los Angeles and said "We'd like to put scooters everywhere, is that cool?" They'd have said "sure"? Yes? I'd assume it would take finding someone friendly who works for the city, getting them interested in the concept, and getting their help and support in navigating the process, but yes, I'd absolutely expect the city to say "sure", maybe "sure, with caveats". Hell, maybe the city folks could find a way to finance half your deployment with taxpayer money. It's not like city administration exists only to sit on their collective butt and default-deny every request.

by Meekro 8y ago

minikites 8y ago

>ask for forgiveness rather than permission Do you genuinely think it's good for society when businesses do this?

baddox 8y ago
I don’t see how anyone could believe that it’s never good for society when businesses do this.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  Just like killing someone might be good for society sometimes. Doesn't mean you want to do this indiscriminately, or have this as standard practice.
s0rce 8y ago
In all cases, no. In this case, yes. Improving the sad state of transportation options in the bay area is beneficial to all residents. Two wrongs don't make a right. Fine them for breaking the rules and then allow them to continue. Don't give their business to a competitor in an act of revenge against their breaking the rules.
- noobermin 8y ago
  You're phrasing it as if it's "revenge" rather than the city looking out for its citizen's best interests. If this company has been willing to flaunt the rules, who's to say it won't again? That isn't "revenge," it seems more like using common sense.
  - s0rce 8y ago
    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.
    - TeMPOraL 8y ago
      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.
      - s0rce 8y ago
        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.
  - masonic 8y ago
    s/flaunt/flout
    - noobermin 8y ago
      Thank you, but alas, two hours have passed. I should also say, look below[0]. Bird's application was terrible . Scoot on the other hand set an example for a great application to a government body for a resource of some kind, I can compare it to my experience for writing grants. I can imagine some class on professional writing contrasting these very two applications as examples of what not to do and what to do when applying for something from a government. After scanning both, I'm pretty much convinced the city chose the applications based on the quality and substance behind each application, not based on anything else. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17882982 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17882982
jamiequint 8y ago
Yes of course it's good. Look at the history of Uber and Lyft vs. Taxi companies and other vested city interests. The government regulatory complex almost never represents citizens interests better than the free market.
Meekro 8y ago
I do. The government originally instituted the taxi medallion system to protect riders from predatory taxis, but it ended up granting a monopoly to the predatory taxis and locking out potential competition. The free market has worked out much better. Uber/Lyft have to provide competitive service at a low price. If they stop doing this, they too will be replaced.
- noobermin 8y ago
  >The free market has worked out much better. It's like everyone who preaches this line knows so little history or wants people to forget[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_(horse) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_(horse)
  - tracker1 8y ago
    A free market doesn't mean free from consequences, or that it won't be dire. Many govts have performed experiments on their own people, and people died from it, without telling anyone. It also doesn't mean free from any regulation (at least to me). Not everyone pushing for free market solutions is an an-cap fool. In most situations, a process that allows for more freedom is the solution. I do not count corporations as people and as far as I'm concerned, they should be required to be far more open about operations than they are currently. I'm also not a fan of IP laws generally speaking and think they should all be scaled back.

eridius 8y ago

Completely untrue. Before the scooters littered the city, the companies talked to SFMTA, and SFMTA said they were drafting up regulations to govern the scooters prior to giving permission. The companies went ahead and littered the city with them anyway, without permission. Claiming that breaking the rules is what led to the SFMTA coming up with regulations to allow scooters is just plain wrong. They were working on them already. The companies just got greedy and figured it was a first-mover market and that they'd be able to pull an Uber and continue operating despite breaking the rules.

Meekro 8y ago
SFMTA was busy drafting regulations because Bird first broke the rules in Santa Monica and introduced the world to this kind of scooter rental concept. If they'd asked for permission before anyone had heard of the idea of a scooter company, SFMTA would have ignored the request.
- eridius 8y ago
  Why would SFMTA have ignored the request?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]

lovich 8y ago

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

darawk 8y ago
You honestly believe that had Bird, initially an unheard of company, gone to say, the city of Los Angeles and said "We'd like to put scooters everywhere, is that cool?" They'd have said "sure"? I think that's incredibly naive. The absolute best outcome for Bird would have been the city saying "you can put them in designated scooter areas, and they have to be docked in designated scooter areas". And that would have turned them into just another e-bike: utterly useless and used by no-one. Now, there's absolutely a reasonable conversation to be had about corporate over-reach, responsibility, and externalities here. However, let's not pretend that this could realistically have been accomplished any other way.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  > You honestly believe that had Bird, initially an unheard of company, gone to say, the city of Los Angeles and said "We'd like to put scooters everywhere, is that cool?" They'd have said "sure"? Yes? I'd assume it would take finding someone friendly who works for the city, getting them interested in the concept, and getting their help and support in navigating the process, but yes, I'd absolutely expect the city to say "sure", maybe "sure, with caveats". Hell, maybe the city folks could find a way to finance half your deployment with taxpayer money. It's not like city administration exists only to sit on their collective butt and default-deny every request.