5 ms·

Because people derive value from the service. It's faster than walking, more convenient than an Uber, and doesn't require a car. Let's leave the "get off my la

Because people derive value from the service. It's faster than walking, more convenient than an Uber, and doesn't require a car. Let's leave the "get off my lawn" comments off HN.

sdinsn 8y ago
It's not a "get off my lawn" comment. Regulations about these scooters don't exist in the large majority of places- meaning the default local regulations about illegal dumping apply. Whether people derive value from it or not is not important to local laws. These scooter companies are operating in a grey area; that's a fact. Please don't quickly dismiss discussion about this issue, especially in such an ignorant manner.
- gibolt 8y ago
  Scooters occupy ~5% the space as a car. Dedicating 2-10% of the spots on each block/public lot to bikes/scooters should already be built in as a public service. If you've ever biked as a mode of transport, even in most US 'bike-friendly' cities, you'll know how few bike racks are available.
  - nullorundefined 8y ago
    Ebike startups are even making it required that the bike gets docked. So, it's not impossible.
- lnanek2 8y ago
  > These scooter companies are operating in a grey area; that's a fact That's not true at all where I live. Santa Monica often bans them for not following rules, makes deals with other companies, etc.. Every app is forced to implement geofencing for not allowing riding on the beach walkways, for example. On popular roads like Abbot Kinney there are small fenced off corals where the government has replaced a car parking spot with a scooter and bicycle one. So yes, scooter companies do have specific laws they have to follow. It's actually a drawback since the city favors Jump over local companies like Bird, and Jump has a lot less availability.
- the_clarence 8y ago
  San Francisco now has limited the use of these scooters so much that they are effectively useless. You can’t find them anywhere, it’s not practical, and you need a driver license to ride one. They effectively killed an alternative to cars...
timack 8y ago
This is hardly a'get off my lawn' comment. Because 'some' people 'derive value' doesn't mean they should be free of regulation.
hyperbovine 8y ago
As someone who has literally had Bird scooters discarded on my lawn...
cortesoft 8y ago
Just because lots of people derive value from a service does not give them carte blanche to push externalities onto everyone else. I mean, do you say "No no, you can't complain about all those chemicals being dumped into that river... look at all the value people are deriving from thing the factory is producing!"
- iso1337 8y ago
  Yes, there are externalities, but perhaps the question to ask is, are the externalities of scooters less than those of cars when solving the last mile problem in transportation? Cars and drivers, in my view, push MUCH more externalities onto everyone else (and let's not limit ourselves to thinking locally, all that CO2 we emit from driving disproportionately affects those in the third world and those yet unborn).
  - cortesoft 8y ago
    Yes, those are certainly good conversations to have. I agree we need to do a better job of handling the externalities created by cars. I don't think we should be using the argument of 'well, the externalities for cars are worse' when deciding how to deal with the externalities of scooters, though. By that argument, we only have to ever make sure our externalities are better than the very worst offender in order to be beyond reproach.
    - iso1337 8y ago
      Thanks for the reply. I'm not arguing that scooters are beyond reproach. I'm for development of scooter regulation in a way such that we as a society can harness the benefits from it. Being against them just because they don't work in the current regulatory + road system setup in my mind is at risk of forgoing potential massive benefits for us as a society.
anonytrary 8y ago
> Let's leave the "get off my lawn" comments off HN. I like the Bird idea, but why should people who find them a nuisance not be able to voice their opinions here? They are literally being thrown on people's lawns. I think those companies have some responsibility to develop spaced waypoints with the city which act as hubs for birds. Private businesses should be allowed to register their space as a hub for a payment by the Bird company. The different users would be: Hub owners (colleges, cities, private homes, businesses), riders, chargers. Hub owners and chargers would get paid to host hubs and charge birds, respectively. The riders would pay for use between hubs.

Because people derive value from the service. It's faster than walking, more convenient than an Uber, and doesn't require a car. Let's leave the "get off my lawn" comments off HN.

sdinsn 8y ago

It's not a "get off my lawn" comment. Regulations about these scooters don't exist in the large majority of places- meaning the default local regulations about illegal dumping apply. Whether people derive value from it or not is not important to local laws. These scooter companies are operating in a grey area; that's a fact. Please don't quickly dismiss discussion about this issue, especially in such an ignorant manner.

gibolt 8y ago
Scooters occupy ~5% the space as a car. Dedicating 2-10% of the spots on each block/public lot to bikes/scooters should already be built in as a public service. If you've ever biked as a mode of transport, even in most US 'bike-friendly' cities, you'll know how few bike racks are available.
- nullorundefined 8y ago
  Ebike startups are even making it required that the bike gets docked. So, it's not impossible.
lnanek2 8y ago
> These scooter companies are operating in a grey area; that's a fact That's not true at all where I live. Santa Monica often bans them for not following rules, makes deals with other companies, etc.. Every app is forced to implement geofencing for not allowing riding on the beach walkways, for example. On popular roads like Abbot Kinney there are small fenced off corals where the government has replaced a car parking spot with a scooter and bicycle one. So yes, scooter companies do have specific laws they have to follow. It's actually a drawback since the city favors Jump over local companies like Bird, and Jump has a lot less availability.
the_clarence 8y ago
San Francisco now has limited the use of these scooters so much that they are effectively useless. You can’t find them anywhere, it’s not practical, and you need a driver license to ride one. They effectively killed an alternative to cars...

timack 8y ago

This is hardly a'get off my lawn' comment. Because 'some' people 'derive value' doesn't mean they should be free of regulation.

hyperbovine 8y ago

As someone who has literally had Bird scooters discarded on my lawn...

cortesoft 8y ago

Just because lots of people derive value from a service does not give them carte blanche to push externalities onto everyone else. I mean, do you say "No no, you can't complain about all those chemicals being dumped into that river... look at all the value people are deriving from thing the factory is producing!"

iso1337 8y ago
Yes, there are externalities, but perhaps the question to ask is, are the externalities of scooters less than those of cars when solving the last mile problem in transportation? Cars and drivers, in my view, push MUCH more externalities onto everyone else (and let's not limit ourselves to thinking locally, all that CO2 we emit from driving disproportionately affects those in the third world and those yet unborn).
- cortesoft 8y ago
  Yes, those are certainly good conversations to have. I agree we need to do a better job of handling the externalities created by cars. I don't think we should be using the argument of 'well, the externalities for cars are worse' when deciding how to deal with the externalities of scooters, though. By that argument, we only have to ever make sure our externalities are better than the very worst offender in order to be beyond reproach.
  - iso1337 8y ago
    Thanks for the reply. I'm not arguing that scooters are beyond reproach. I'm for development of scooter regulation in a way such that we as a society can harness the benefits from it. Being against them just because they don't work in the current regulatory + road system setup in my mind is at risk of forgoing potential massive benefits for us as a society.

anonytrary 8y ago

> Let's leave the "get off my lawn" comments off HN. I like the Bird idea, but why should people who find them a nuisance not be able to voice their opinions here? They are literally being thrown on people's lawns. I think those companies have some responsibility to develop spaced waypoints with the city which act as hubs for birds. Private businesses should be allowed to register their space as a hub for a payment by the Bird company. The different users would be: Hub owners (colleges, cities, private homes, businesses), riders, chargers. Hub owners and chargers would get paid to host hubs and charge birds, respectively. The riders would pay for use between hubs.