6 ms·

After Lyft/GoBike removed all their electric bikes, SFMTA decided to expand dockless bikeshare so people can continue to commute by bikeshare. But Lyft decided

After Lyft/GoBike removed all their electric bikes, SFMTA decided to expand dockless bikeshare so people can continue to commute by bikeshare. But Lyft decided to sue instead: https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/7/18657312/lyft-bike-share-lawsuit-san-francisco-dockless-docked-transportation https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/7/18657312/lyft-bike-share-l...

kjksf 7y ago
As is their right. The city fucked up hugely by making an exclusive deal with Ford/Motive (acquired by Lyft). If you want to be mad at someone, be mad at SF government. The rule of law means that you don't get to change contracts you've signed. It was a bad contract but SF Government does many bad things, like repressive zoning and banning scooters. Go vote them out of the office.
- vkou 7y ago
  > The rule of law means that you don't get to change contracts you've signed. Actually, contracts get broken all the time, and the only recourse you can get for that sort of thing is a lawsuit. This is by design.
- delfinom 7y ago
  >The rule of law means that you don't get to change contracts you've signed. Technically you can if you wrote a clause allowing it or other conditionals. But we don't know the full contract and it's up to a judge to interpret it seems.
pensketch 7y ago
You're painting Lyft to be the bad guys because they're suing. It seems like SFMTA is trying to weasel out of a contract. Lyft isn't trying to prevent people from continuing to commute by bikeshare; they're trying to secure their ROI on their Motivate acquisition through the exclusivity contract with SF. Have you read the contract terms in the article you're linking to? SFMTA is saying the contract was for 'docked bikes only' while Lyft is saying it was for a Bike Sharing Program, which could include docked or dockless bikes. Lyft does a good job describing what 'Bike sharing' is in that document so it will be up to the courts to decide if they're right. - “Bike sharing” is a public biking system concept that allows customers to rent a bike on a short-term basis from one section of a city and leave it in another section of the city that same day. - The Term Sheet provided, among other terms, that Motivate was to be the exclusive operator of any bike share system in the Participating Cities for at least ten (10) years. The Term Sheet provided (emphasis added): “During the Term of this Agreement, Motivate shall have the exclusive right to operate a bike sharing program that utilizes public property and public right of way anywhere within San Francisco, Berkeley, Oakland, San Jose and Emeryville.”
- Larrikin 7y ago
  What if I don't care whether Lyft gets their ROI and just want the best bike share possible?
  - praneshp 7y ago
    That's the same as "What if I don't care about killing other people and just want the most space for myself". A contract is a contract.
    - jessaustin 7y ago
      Unconscionable contracts, especially when one of the parties is a taxing jurisdiction, have no ethical force. I'm not certain that this was an unconscionable contract, but you have to at least make the argument. What consideration did the people of this municipality receive in exchange for this encumbrance placed on their liberty?
      - maxerickson 7y ago
        I read the contract as being about the use of publicly owned space for the docks. That seems more like a municipal corporation making a stupid agreement than it does an encumbrance on anyone's liberty. Rent private space for your bike racks...
        closeparen 7y ago
        Which might make sense in the city’s view that it is a deal about docks, not about all bikeshare.
    - damnyou 7y ago
      No, a contract is not simply a contract. Contracts are only enforced when a court agrees they are enforceable. A court can declare a contract unenforceable for a variety of reasons, such as if it was ill-formed, one side was overwhelmingly more powerful, or the contract is against public policy (such as non-compete agreements in California). https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/unenforceable-contracts-tips-33079.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/unenforceable-contra...
egh 7y ago
They removed the electric bikes only because of a safety issue. The non-electric bikes are still available. I haven't read anything about a relation to this event with a dockless bikeshare expansion.
baby 7y ago
I wouldn't defend the SFMTA They make SF objectively worse by being pro car (no lime, bad public transports)

kjksf 7y ago

As is their right. The city fucked up hugely by making an exclusive deal with Ford/Motive (acquired by Lyft). If you want to be mad at someone, be mad at SF government. The rule of law means that you don't get to change contracts you've signed. It was a bad contract but SF Government does many bad things, like repressive zoning and banning scooters. Go vote them out of the office.

vkou 7y ago
> The rule of law means that you don't get to change contracts you've signed. Actually, contracts get broken all the time, and the only recourse you can get for that sort of thing is a lawsuit. This is by design.
delfinom 7y ago
>The rule of law means that you don't get to change contracts you've signed. Technically you can if you wrote a clause allowing it or other conditionals. But we don't know the full contract and it's up to a judge to interpret it seems.

pensketch 7y ago

You're painting Lyft to be the bad guys because they're suing. It seems like SFMTA is trying to weasel out of a contract. Lyft isn't trying to prevent people from continuing to commute by bikeshare; they're trying to secure their ROI on their Motivate acquisition through the exclusivity contract with SF. Have you read the contract terms in the article you're linking to? SFMTA is saying the contract was for 'docked bikes only' while Lyft is saying it was for a Bike Sharing Program, which could include docked or dockless bikes. Lyft does a good job describing what 'Bike sharing' is in that document so it will be up to the courts to decide if they're right. - “Bike sharing” is a public biking system concept that allows customers to rent a bike on a short-term basis from one section of a city and leave it in another section of the city that same day. - The Term Sheet provided, among other terms, that Motivate was to be the exclusive operator of any bike share system in the Participating Cities for at least ten (10) years. The Term Sheet provided (emphasis added): “During the Term of this Agreement, Motivate shall have the exclusive right to operate a bike sharing program that utilizes public property and public right of way anywhere within San Francisco, Berkeley, Oakland, San Jose and Emeryville.”

Larrikin 7y ago
What if I don't care whether Lyft gets their ROI and just want the best bike share possible?
- praneshp 7y ago
  That's the same as "What if I don't care about killing other people and just want the most space for myself". A contract is a contract.
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    Unconscionable contracts, especially when one of the parties is a taxing jurisdiction, have no ethical force. I'm not certain that this was an unconscionable contract, but you have to at least make the argument. What consideration did the people of this municipality receive in exchange for this encumbrance placed on their liberty?
    - maxerickson 7y ago
      I read the contract as being about the use of publicly owned space for the docks. That seems more like a municipal corporation making a stupid agreement than it does an encumbrance on anyone's liberty. Rent private space for your bike racks...
      - closeparen 7y ago
        Which might make sense in the city’s view that it is a deal about docks, not about all bikeshare.
  - damnyou 7y ago
    No, a contract is not simply a contract. Contracts are only enforced when a court agrees they are enforceable. A court can declare a contract unenforceable for a variety of reasons, such as if it was ill-formed, one side was overwhelmingly more powerful, or the contract is against public policy (such as non-compete agreements in California). https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/unenforceable-contracts-tips-33079.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/unenforceable-contra...

egh 7y ago

They removed the electric bikes only because of a safety issue. The non-electric bikes are still available. I haven't read anything about a relation to this event with a dockless bikeshare expansion.

baby 7y ago

I wouldn't defend the SFMTA They make SF objectively worse by being pro car (no lime, bad public transports)